^But what if all of the title game winners are shitty teams with 2, or 3 OOC losses plus a loss in conference and they beat undefeated teams in their title games on last second field goals?

11/27/2016 5:17:54 PM

Obviously there are exceptions. Like if Alabama somehow loses.

11/27/2016 5:22:48 PM

^And that is why I think Ohio State gets in over Wisconsin and Penn State. They have wins over Oklahoma, Wisconsin, and Michigan. That's a pretty strong resume. Penn State otoh has a loss to Pitt. With so few spots, at some point losses have to start counting. You can't let in conference champions when they have worse records than non-conference champions with tougher schedules.

11/27/2016 5:27:34 PM

Why even have a conference championship game if it doesn't have a reward/consequence?

11/27/2016 5:44:00 PM

Ohio State lost to Penn State. Sorry.

If we're just debating between these two, Ohio State loses every time. BECAUSE PENN STATE ALREADY PROVED THEY WERE BETTER.

11/27/2016 5:45:00 PM

I think a lot of people are trying to have their cake and eat it, too.

They want the old undefeated route to a championship game in the new playoff format.

It doesn't have to work that way. Every sport outside of college football uses a playoff, and guess what? Sometimes teams with multiple losses win those tournaments. And that's okay. That's what the playoff is for. Underdog stories, upsets, and cinderella's are all apart of the playoff format. I don't know why people are so opposed to this.

11/27/2016 5:51:22 PM

turns out bc was not as bad as we thought

11/27/2016 6:01:36 PM

YEAH BOWL ELIGIBLE BC WOOO

11/27/2016 6:15:49 PM

Quote :

"I think a lot of people are trying to have their cake and eat it, too. They want the old undefeated route to a championship game in the new playoff format. It doesn't have to work that way. Every sport outside of college football uses a playoff, and guess what? Sometimes teams with multiple losses win those tournaments. And that's okay. That's what the playoff is for. Underdog stories, upsets, and cinderella's are all apart of the playoff format. I don't know why people are so opposed to this."

And they got some of those controversial seasons correct too. A lot of people were upset about Nebraska getting upset by Colorado and finishing second in the division to the 2 loss conference champion and going to the BCS title game, but they only had 1 loss. The year LSU beat Alabama and then lost to them in the national title game was handled correctly too. There was no doubt those were the 2 best teams in the nation. Teams shouldn't be punished for finishing second in a tough division when they are one of the top teams in the nation. Wisconsin is in the title game after losing to both Michigan and Ohio State. That's just as screwed up as Ohio State being in the playoff is (not that I think either situation is). Why even bother playing OOC games if they count for almost nothing?

Quote :

"Why even have a conference championship game if it doesn't have a reward/consequence?"

They actually do. All P5 conference champions get a spot in a New Years 6 bowl even if they don't make the playoff bracket.



[Edited on November 27, 2016 at 7:15 PM. Reason : .]

11/27/2016 7:07:52 PM

Plus the $$$ to the conference.

It'll be interesting to see how this all shakes out. I still think 4 is a dumb place to start for a playoff when you have 5 power conferences plus ND and some other decent teams in non power 5 conferences. Just go with 8, auto bids for conf. champs and 3 "wild cards."

11/27/2016 9:35:35 PM

should be 6 so the top 2 teams get byes. No point in making bama play western michigan.

11/27/2016 9:54:49 PM

^^Agreed, but I'm guessing they will keep it like it is and award an automatic bid to the #1 G5 team too which I would be cool with.

11/28/2016 2:12:52 PM

holy fuck, Liberty

11/28/2016 3:22:06 PM

These retards on ESPN are acting like 2, or potentially 3, Big Ten teams could make the Playoff. I guess they know the dumb midwesterners will eat that shit up.

11/29/2016 11:13:11 PM

Committee got it right. I mean the top 4 is the same as last week and they all won. How could it change???

12/4/2016 12:58:10 PM

only thing i saw maybe changing was penn state jumping UW, but then it would have been clear the committee thought the pac-12 was overrated.

im not surprised it didnt change. however living in Michigan im not looking forward to new years day when UM and Penn State fans start stroking out after bama takes washington to the woodshed and both start talking about how theyre "built to play a team like babam" and they were "snubbed"

12/4/2016 1:25:06 PM

Serves them right Pedo state

12/4/2016 1:38:16 PM

I think there's something inherently screwy when a team can theoretically be the best team in the country while simultaneously not being the best team in their own conference.

12/4/2016 1:45:36 PM

Quote :

"built to play a team like"

12/4/2016 1:48:24 PM

Quote :

"I think there's something inherently screwy when a team can theoretically be the best team in the country while simultaneously not being the best team in their own conference."

It seems the committee is committing to the statement that winning the conference championships doesn't make you the best team in the conference? And that head-to-head only matters when all else is equal.

Penn State got the doors beat off by UM and lost to Pitt. It seems the committee decided that was worse than a head to head win over Ohio State was good.

No one think's Pitt is a better team than Clemson or Penn State but Pitt beat both.

The really interesting thing the ESPN people brought up was ..... if Penn state schedules #129 in the country and beats them by 70 instead of losing to Pitt they're in the play-off and Ohio State is out, or if Oklahoma (which started the season ranked 3rd) scheduled the philadelphia school for the blind and deaf twice instead of Houston and Ohio State they're in which just seems silly to me.

12/4/2016 2:19:51 PM

Yup, there's much bullshitting about the importance of SOS and the league title. The committee has been pretty inconsistent. TCU got dropped when the Big 12 didn't have a title game, and now it's quite evident that record matters much more than who you play despite what they've said in the past.

I think they've got the 4 best teams in, but there needs to be more clear criteria so teams can focus on what matters for scheduling purposes.

12/4/2016 3:21:16 PM

Another crappy thing about this, is that Ohio State didn't make the championship game, and therefore had less exposure to a potential loss. By playing less games, it ends up working in their favor, which is bogus.

12/4/2016 3:38:29 PM

Quote :

" TCU got dropped when the Big 12 didn't have a title game"

Lol, I remember that. Such a cute narrative. The Playoff 'committee' is a fucking di$$grace. Sure that reason wouldn't have come up if that was Oklahoma instead of TCU

[Edited on December 4, 2016 at 3:53 PM. Reason : ]

12/4/2016 3:53:07 PM

Quote :

"Lol, I remember that. Such a cute narrative. The Playoff 'committee' is a fucking di$$grace. Sure that reason wouldn't have come up if that was Oklahoma instead of TCU"

Yeah, they were trying so hard that year to create Selection Sunday drama by somehow keeping TCU in 4th because "they were playing better" for multiple weeks even though they had the same record as Baylor who beat them head to head. Then TCU magically dropped to 6th behind Baylor on Selection Sunday and Ohio State got in. At least now they just tell the truth with their silly rankings that don't even need to be revealed every week anyway.

Anyway, they got it correct for the 3rd season in a row. Picking 4 teams isn't rocket science.

Quote :

"I think they've got the 4 best teams in, but there needs to be more clear criteria so teams can focus on what matters for scheduling purposes."

It's pretty clear right now. They look at strength of schedule, overall record, head to head, records vs common opponents, and give special consideration to conference champions. That's what they've said from the start. The teams already know that if they play a weak schedule they better go undefeated, that if they play a really tough schedule they will have room for one loss maybe, and that 2 losses overall probably knocks you out of the national title hunt just like it always has since the beginning of college football.



[Edited on December 4, 2016 at 4:21 PM. Reason : .]

12/4/2016 4:11:40 PM

The conference championship game should have no greater meaning than another quality game to show how good you are. With the size of some conferences and the unbalanced schedules I don't see why being a conference champion should be bonus points. Often the conference championship game isn't even played between the best two teams in the conference.

12/4/2016 8:25:23 PM

I completely agree. For the purposes of determining the best team in the country conference titles are utterly meaningless, which is why it makes no sense to put any emphasis on them.

The BCS was better, but there's an easy fix. Expand to 8 with 5 autobids for conference champs (to keep the traditionalists and conference honks happy) and 3 wildcard spots.

12/4/2016 10:02:34 PM

They should make it the best teams regardless. Imo it would be bama, osu, clemson, mich. Washington played a dogshit schedule and penn state got its shit pushed in by mich

Washington is a 17pt dog to bama. They were projecting psu to be a 14 pt dog and mich to be a 7.5pt dog

[Edited on December 5, 2016 at 1:31 AM. Reason : M]

12/5/2016 1:30:48 AM

Quote :

"Often the conference championship game isn't even played between the best two teams in the conference."

I get the argument here but in sports who is better is decided on the field. If you are the best team in your conference then you shouldn't lose any games. Are we fine with thinking our '83 championship is not legit because Houston was far and away the better team.

The committee even had a chance to hedge and they fucked it up. If they put Ohio State at 4 they could have said look we honored conference championships that is why Clemson and Washington jumped them but Ohio States resume was just so far ahead of Penn State that we couldn't jump them over.

Also the committee, whether knowingly or not, just told everyone not to schedule anyone out of conference. If Penn State doesn't lose to Pitt and instead plays Eastern Vermont School of the Blind then we arent having this conversation despite what the committee has said in the past.

12/5/2016 8:15:11 AM

Quote :

"The conference championship game should have no greater meaning than another quality game to show how good you are"

i don't necessarily think that that one game is more important than any other...but the fact that you got to the conference championship in the first place kinda does mean something. i mean...yes, we need to consider every other factor as well, but if you can't even win your own division to make an appearance in the conference championship then i'm cool with that being a mark against your resume. it shouldn't be the only factor but it should count for something imo.

i think washington is a top 5 team. they may or may not be top 4, that is certainly up for debate...but i don't think it's unreasonable to say they get the benefit of the doubt because they only lost 1 game (to USC, a really good team) and won their conference. compared to michigan who lost 2 games (one to Iowa who is solid but not at all as good as USC) and didn't even win their division.


[Edited on December 5, 2016 at 9:28 AM. Reason : f]

12/5/2016 9:22:42 AM

i like 8... but for fun, if they did 8 this year.

1. bama (SEC)
2. clemson (ACC)
3. ohio (Wildcard)
4. washington (PAC 12)
5. penn state (B1G)
6. michigan (Wildcard)
7. oklahoma (Big12)
8. wiscy? USC? louisville? WESTERN MICH?!? (last wildcard)

people always say there would be debates and complaints about 8 vs. 9, 10 and 11... But when you load up that 8 spot it's ugly and really doesn't deserve any criticism of who got in.

but what would get nasty is lets pretend in a dream world florida beat bama, va tech beat clemson etc etc...

12/5/2016 9:42:08 AM

Then winning your conference becomes your number one goal because thats the only way you ensure you get in. If Florida beat Alabama then a wildcard that should have gotten in gets pushed out but they didnt win their conference so hard to complain.

12/5/2016 9:54:33 AM

^^^ My issue with the conference championship is that it is simply setup to make money, not actually determine the "best in the conference." I'm not saying there is an ideal system. But in basketball for example you have the ability to play far more games, and then most or everyone plays in a tournament.

I think if the conference championship was the top 4 teams(2 from each division lets say) and played out it would have more value for example. Or if you actually played everyone in the conference so the schedules weren't so unbalanced. I get time and logistics make this almost impossible but that is why we should acknowledge it is a fun game to play and a nice banner for that school to hang, and even a resume boost. But I think it should be devalued for those reasons, since it can be gimmicky who gets to play in it and who doesn't. No issue with conference champions not getting in for those reasons if another team is clearly better. The head to head loss is what raises more questions for me then not having the conference champ.

[Edited on December 5, 2016 at 9:59 AM. Reason : ^]

12/5/2016 9:58:43 AM

Quote :

"My issue with the conference championship is that it is simply setup to make money, not actually determine the "best in the conference.""

yeah i don't disagree. i'd be in favor of doing away with division altogether and going to a more rotating schedule. with the size of conferences there is no way you can ever make schedules perfectly balanced because you'll never play every team in the conference. but if you do away with divisions, you can at least take away some of the built-in imbalances of divisions.

this works for me
http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2016/6/16/11935718/ncaa-conferences-divisions-scheduling

Quote :

"people always say there would be debates and complaints about 8 vs. 9, 10 and 11... But when you load up that 8 spot it's ugly and really doesn't deserve any criticism of who got in. "

just like in basketball where there's 68 teams...people still bitch about the 69th team that got left out, but we all know that #69 team isn't gonna win the whole thing. it's just because the committee's will never be perfect or 100% consistent. but i agree...for the most part we can all nit pick who got left out at #5, but usually it seems like there's a much bigger drop off in football after about #5. the #8 team is still really good but in the general gap between #8 and #1 is bigger than in basketball, for example. maybe 6 is the magic number...but then you'd have a situation where i guess the top 2 teams get byes.

12/5/2016 10:24:05 AM

Quote :

"Then winning your conference becomes your number one goal because thats the only way you ensure you get in."

yes, fully agree. as long as every team knows there is a black and white way to get into the playoff... then you have only yourself to blame. non conference scheduling will HARDLY come into play anymore so... i guess the way teams schedule could go either way

1. schedule cupcakes (why risk potentially losing)
2. schedule hard and not worry about losing but be better prepped for tougher conference play

12/5/2016 10:50:38 AM

Or they could remove all the cupcakes, make each game count. Every team plays against every other team in its conference. No more divisions.

12/5/2016 10:53:39 AM

8 teams, 5 automatic from the conference champ winners, 3 at-large determined by committee, with 1 spot going to a non-P5 team that is ranked in the top 12. Non-P5 team in the top 12 then it just goes top 3 teams that don't win conference. Rewards the conference champ and makes those games matter. Makes the regular season/OOC matter for at-large bids. Gives a non-P5 team a shot to get in. Allows a team that has a great year but drops their conference game or doesn't make it to get in.

Still not perfect but that setup would be better if you are going to play the conference championships. Right now, you are better off making the final week just another conference game for all teams because the game has no real meaning otherwise. And it has helped teams often that simply haven't had to play it and expose themselves to another loss or chance to look bad. tOSU was better off this year not making the game, just another week to get healthier and no chance to lose.

12/5/2016 1:59:10 PM

Quote :

"i like 8... but for fun, if they did 8 this year. 1. bama (SEC) 2. clemson (ACC) 3. ohio (Wildcard) 4. washington (PAC 12) 5. penn state (B1G) 6. michigan (Wildcard) 7. oklahoma (Big12) 8. wiscy? USC? louisville? WESTERN MICH?!? (last wildcard) people always say there would be debates and complaints about 8 vs. 9, 10 and 11... But when you load up that 8 spot it's ugly and really doesn't deserve any criticism of who got in. but what would get nasty is lets pretend in a dream world florida beat bama, va tech beat clemson etc etc..."

That last spot would go to Western Michigan. IIRC the G5 conferences took the P5 conferences to court during the BCS era because they didn't have access to the BCS, so then came the piggy back title game. Now they allow the top ranked G5 school into the New Years 6. Any expansion of the playoff will have some sort of rule like that to keep everyone happy.

This year mirrors the 1987 ACC Basketball season. UNC went undefeated in the ACC regular season then lost to NC State in the ACC Final. Had NC State lost that game they wouldn't have even made the NCAA tournament. That resulted in both NC State and UNC getting in the tournament, but UNC ended up with a better seed which they deserved even though they didn't win the conference. This year Penn State football got the 5th seed that they deserved.

12/5/2016 2:04:50 PM

I wish the committee used more of a 'what have you done for me lately' formula so PSU would get in over OSU, but I am also biased towards OSU. In the same vein, Cinderellas like George Mason and Butler have better odds in NCAA basketball because they get in and are given a chance. I seriously doubt anyone above the top 15 could give the top 4 a run for their money in NCAA football though.

12/5/2016 2:25:42 PM

Maybe they did? OSU beating UM is a more impressive win than beating Wisconsin

12/5/2016 2:53:56 PM

but they beat Ohio State

I'd much rather see Michigan in the playoff than Clemson

[Edited on December 5, 2016 at 3:01 PM. Reason : .]

12/5/2016 2:58:46 PM

Quote :

"I'd much rather see Michigan in the playoff than Clemson"

but how can you possibly exclude clemson? there's no reasonable way to keep clemson out of the playoff.

12/5/2016 3:09:17 PM

I just think they were a much better team last year and just kind of survived this season on muscle memory

if them and Michigan played, I'd totally pick Michigan

this doesn't mean that I think Clemson isn't any good, I just think Michigan is a better team

[Edited on December 5, 2016 at 3:16 PM. Reason : .]

12/5/2016 3:15:41 PM

^i don't think that's unreasonable at all. and some of the computer rankings agree with you and have UM above Clemson. but my opinion is just that, based on resume, you really can't leave them out.

which i guess gets back to the question of...are you taking the 4 best resumes or the 4 best "looking" (for lack of a better word) teams.

[Edited on December 5, 2016 at 3:33 PM. Reason : b]

12/5/2016 3:31:13 PM

I'm totally in favor of the best 4 teams getting in vs. the best 4 résumés

and even if we were to look at their résumés, I think Michigan has a better one


[Edited on December 5, 2016 at 3:38 PM. Reason : but I'm just a dude on the internet ]

12/5/2016 3:37:02 PM

Quote :

"I think there's something inherently screwy when a team can theoretically be the best team in the country while simultaneously not being the best team in their own conference."

while a few posts up i was arguing that it should count as a point against you if you can't even win your own division (although it shouldn't be a disqualifying factor for making the playoff)...i also think it should be pointed out that the committee has no say in how conferences determine their divisions and champions. therefore, the committee chooses to either blindly accept each conference's structure for determining the winner and let that winner get an auto-bid to the playoff just because the conference is aligned a certain way...or the committee can look at resumes and everything else to try to rank teams based on every factor at their disposal. because really you've got 2 different organizations using 2 different methods for determining "best". each conference uses rotating and potentially imbalanced schedules, potentially imbalanced divisions, and teams playing only about half of the conference's members to determine "best" in the conference. the committee then is tasked with judging all of these teams independent of their divisions and conferences and schedules to decide how to rank the teams. so if the committee chooses to take into account all of the potential flaws in conference alignment, schedules, etc then i see nothing wrong with them picking a team that didn't win their conference to be in the playoff.

so yeah...theoretically i can totally see how you can not win your conference and still win the national title. hell, in basketball you have variations of that all the time...a regular season conf champ, a different tournament conf champ, and then of course a team that was neither of those can win the national champ.

12/5/2016 3:50:29 PM

In the end, only 4 teams from the P5 finished with 1, or less losses. All 4 of them are in the playoff. I don't think there can be too much arguing.

12/5/2016 4:00:40 PM

Quote :

"and even if we were to look at their résumés, I think Michigan has a better one"

UM has wins over PSU (blowout win), Wisconsin, Colorado (blowout win)...all very good wins and especially Colorado and PSU being in blowouts...all at home.

Clemson has wins over @Auburn, UL at home, @FSU, and VT. again...all very good wins, including a couple on the road, but generally all of those were pretty close games. both teams blew out bad opponents...UM did so a little more prolifically than Clemson. but both teams had multiple wins of 45+ points over conference opponents. Clemson had a couple scares vs State and Troy (who ended the season 9-3 and is arguably a top 40 ish team, still should've blown them out but that's not as bad as it originally looked).

we can look at their losses. UM lost on the road to Iowa in a very close game. Clemson lost at home to Pitt in an equally close game. both those teams are top 25 level teams (although iowa was not ranked by the committee and pitt was). i'd give UM the edge there only because Clemson's was a home loss. UM's other loss was obviously to a top 4 team in overtime on the road. a completely excusable loss but a loss nonetheless. Clemson didn't have another loss, but they also didn't play a team as a good as Ohio St. it's hard to knock UM much for losing to Ohio St, but all else being fairly equal...quality wins, quality "losses", etc...i give the edge to the team that only lost one game.

but again...kinda a pointless argument.

[Edited on December 5, 2016 at 4:08 PM. Reason : g]

12/5/2016 4:07:20 PM

Remember when Ohio State and Michigan were #1 and #2 in the country going into their rivalry game a few years back, and a bunch of morons thought they should play a rematch for the national title?

12/5/2016 4:23:32 PM

Ted Ginn Jr does.

12/5/2016 7:21:11 PM

The resume discussion is tough because there are so few OOC quality games and they all happen early in the season. Do we really know how good each conference is? Everyone just accepts the Big 10 is the best this year but why? UM/OSU/Wisc/PSU all bolstered their resumes beating each other then padded their wins by having few bad losses in conference. That might just say it is top heavy more than anything.

We judge conferences on these few early out of conference games when some teams have new coaches,a young QB,etc. USC is a good example, that's a team you wanted to play week 1 but I won't be shocked when they beat PSU. I think there should be a rule that all P5 teams should play another OOC P5 school between weeks 8-10. Then we could have some late season comparison between conferences. Really the bowl games are the best time for us to know which conference really is the best and by then that information is too late to be useful. If there was a conference with 12 Alabama level teams that all beat up on each other and had 3-4 losses people wouldn't consider it a great conference. The "best" conference formula is what the Big 10 did this year. Top heavy, beat each other up, then be bad from middle down to rack up wins.

[Edited on December 5, 2016 at 7:29 PM. Reason : .]

12/5/2016 7:28:04 PM