Additional Game for Non-Championship Game Participants

TideFanAtBarn · Dec 6, 2016

Hey Guys,

I've been a non-member reader of the forums for a while and finally decided to join up. I really enjoy the insightfulness and civility of most posters here and hope I can add to the discussions.

I'm a die hard Alabama fan, but I attend graduate school at Auburn. That's the reason for my username. It's tough sometimes having to put up with all of the "All In, Auburn Family" nonsense, but I didn't want to base my school decision on football.

Anyways, after this weekend and seeing the Shaun Dion Hamilton injury I was thinking about how it doesn't seem right that a team like Ohio State gets to sit at home and rest during championship weekend. I think that Ohio State is one of the four best teams, but they didn't do anything to deserve an unfair advantage over the other three playoff teams.

My solution is to have two games on championship weekend played between the four highest ranked non-championship game participants. This year it could have been Ohio State vs. Florida State and Michigan vs. USC. The games could be played at neutral sites that are determined at the beginning of the season. If Ohio State beat Florida State on championship weekend I don't think there's an argument anyone could make for Ohio State not being a top four team, and it would probably push them up to the two seed. The Michigan vs. USC game would not have been as impactful, but if both Washington and Clemson would have lost I think it legitimizes the argument for Michigan to be the third team in from the Big Ten.

There would obviously be many issues such as where to play the game, travel arrangements, and how do you pair the teams for the two games, but if all of that could be worked out I believe it would give us a more definitive top four. There is also an argument to be made for diminishing the value of the non-playoff bowl games, but I think they've already diminished the value of those games. I had no issue with the BSC system, but if we're going to have a playoff I think this could help. I know they'd never do it though.

cbi1972 · Dec 6, 2016

I don't like this idea at all.

I don't even care who the top four are unless they have a legitimate claim at being #1. Eight is ridiculous, as I feared would be pushed toward when the playoff was first suggested.

I sure don't need to see more OOC games for teams not in conference championship games, even if scheduling and logistics weren't a nightmare, which it would be.

Right now, it's undefeated Alabama and then everybody else.

The current four-team playoff is more than enough.

Please, no more.

RTR91 · Dec 6, 2016

What purpose does this serve?

BamaMoon · Dec 6, 2016

TideFanAtBarn said:
Hey Guys,

I've been a non-member reader of the forums for a while and finally decided to join up. I really enjoy the insightfulness and civility of most posters here and hope I can add to the discussions.

I'm a die hard Alabama fan, but I attend graduate school at Auburn. That's the reason for my username. It's tough sometimes having to put up with all of the "All In, Auburn Family" nonsense, but I didn't want to base my school decision on football.

Anyways, after this weekend and seeing the Shaun Dion Hamilton injury I was thinking about how it doesn't seem right that a team like Ohio State gets to sit at home and rest during championship weekend. I think that Ohio State is one of the four best teams, but they didn't do anything to deserve an unfair advantage over the other three playoff teams.

My solution is to have two games on championship weekend played between the four highest ranked non-championship game participants. This year it could have been Ohio State vs. Florida State and Michigan vs. USC. The games could be played at neutral sites that are determined at the beginning of the season. If Ohio State beat Florida State on championship weekend I don't think there's an argument anyone could make for Ohio State not being a top four team, and it would probably push them up to the two seed. The Michigan vs. USC game would not have been as impactful, but if both Washington and Clemson would have lost I think it legitimizes the argument for Michigan to be the third team in from the Big Ten.

There would obviously be many issues such as where to play the game, travel arrangements, and how do you pair the teams for the two games, but if all of that could be worked out I believe it would give us a more definitive top four. There is also an argument to be made for diminishing the value of the non-playoff bowl games, but I think they've already diminished the value of those games. I had no issue with the BSC system, but if we're going to have a playoff I think this could help. I know they'd never do it though.

Welcome! You raise a good point about OSU being able to sit and rest and watch while everybody else played last weekend. I thought about it too and consider it to be an unfair advantage, to some extent now that they have been included in the CFP.

Now, your solution? It's interesting, but it sounds like a "playoff" or "exhibition" to be used to see who might get in the playoff. I just don't know, but it's a clever idea.

lowend · Dec 6, 2016

A loser's bracket for college football. No thanks.

RammaJamma10 · Dec 6, 2016

Some of these answers would probably be different if say, Bama was in the position of Michigan, etc.

cbi1972 · Dec 6, 2016

RammaJamma10 said:
Some of these answers would probably be different if say, Bama was in the position of Michigan, etc.

And they would be wrong if they were.

BamaMoon · Dec 6, 2016

cbi1972 said:
And they would be wrong if they were.

He brings up a good point about the possibility for injuries and avoiding such when you sit like OSU did. We all know what happened to SDH even though we won easily.

Now, I don't know the validity of his way to fix that, but I do consider it a fact that Ohio State was at an advantage to not play last weekend.

RTR91 · Dec 6, 2016

BamaMoon said:
He brings up a good point about the possibility for injuries and avoiding such when you sit like OSU did. We all know what happened to SDH even though we won easily.

Now, I don't know the validity of his way to fix that, but I do consider it a fact that Ohio State was at an advantage to not play last weekend.

Reminds me a little of the argument when the B1G didn't have a championship game and Ohio State was sitting in Columbus while LSU and Florida each played in the SECCG the following week. Ohio State had the extra week to rest and still lost in 2006 and 2007.

cbi1972 · Dec 6, 2016

BamaMoon said:
He brings up a good point about the possibility for injuries and avoiding such when you sit like OSU did. We all know what happened to SDH even though we won easily.

Now, I don't know the validity of his way to fix that, but I do consider it a fact that Ohio State was at an advantage to not play last weekend.

The possibility of that piece of luck is preferable to any of the proposed solutions.

BamaMoon · Dec 6, 2016

RTR91 said:
Reminds me a little of the argument when the B1G didn't have a championship game and Ohio State was sitting in Columbus while LSU and Florida each played in the SECCG the following week. Ohio State had the extra week to rest and still lost in 2006 and 2007.

It all depends and there are advantages and disadvantages. In this case Ohio State didn't play (therefore didn't risk losing either), didn't get anyone hurt and still got in the playoff.

Bama played, got a starting LB hurt, but still got in.

B1GTide · Dec 6, 2016

First, I don't think that there is an advantage. There are pros and cons to sitting the extra game, just as there are pros and cons to playing it. Neither over-rides the other, IMO. At Ohio State we lose more players to injury during practice than during games. Way more reps means way more injuries. And the Hamilton injury was a non-contact injury. That could have happened at any time.

But if the commissioners want to do something like this, you won't see OSU fans complain. With an extra game last year, we make the playoffs. And this year the extra game would have cemented our spot. Just like Alabama, we aren't afraid of competition.

BamaMoon · Dec 6, 2016

cbi1972 said:
The possibility of that piece of luck is preferable to any of the proposed solutions.

Agreed. I'm not a big advocate of expanding to a larger playoff, but I always feel a little hypocritical when I argue that because I love the idea of more college football games being played.

BamaMoon · Dec 6, 2016

B1GTide said:
First, I don't think that there is an advantage. There are pros and cons to sitting the extra game, just as there are pros and cons to playing it. Neither over-rides the other, IMO. At Ohio State we lose more players to injury during practice than during games. Way more reps means way more injuries. And the Hamilton injury was a non-contact injury. That could have happened at any time.

But if the commissioners want to do something like this, you won't see OSU fans complain. With an extra game last year, we make the playoffs. And this year the extra game would have cemented our spot. Just like Alabama, we aren't afraid of competition.

How would you have felt if OSU would have been #4 in the next to last CFP rather than #2 and then by virtue of sitting you got passed up by a team that played?

I think all of our perspectives are a little subjective based on how it might hurt or help our team.

Overall tough, I agree about the fact there are pros and cons to sitting or playing. Sometimes it helps and sometimes it hurts.

TideFanAtBarn · Dec 6, 2016

I don't like the four team playoff either. I wish we could go back to the two team BCS, but if we're going to have a four team playoff I'd like it to be the best it can be. I'm sure there are better ways to accomplish this, but it's the best way that I could think of.

cbi1972 said:
I don't like this idea at all.

I don't even care who the top four are unless they have a legitimate claim at being #1. Eight is ridiculous, as I feared would be pushed toward when the playoff was first suggested.

I sure don't need to see more OOC games for teams not in conference championship games, even if scheduling and logistics weren't a nightmare, which it would be.

Right now, it's undefeated Alabama and then everybody else.

The current four-team playoff is more than enough.

Please, no more.

B1GTide · Dec 6, 2016

BamaMoon said:
How would you have felt if OSU would have been #4 in the next to last CFP rather than #2 and then by virtue of sitting you got passed up by a team that played?

I think all of our perspectives are a little subjective based on how it might hurt or help our team.

Overall tough, I agree about the fact there are pros and cons to sitting or playing. Sometimes it helps and sometimes it hurts.

We got left out last year. I was fine with it. It is the system that we have. You take the bad with the good.

TideFanAtBarn · Dec 6, 2016

B1GTide said:
First, I don't think that there is an advantage. There are pros and cons to sitting the extra game, just as there are pros and cons to playing it. Neither over-rides the other, IMO. At Ohio State we lose more players to injury during practice than during games. Way more reps means way more injuries. And the Hamilton injury was a non-contact injury. That could have happened at any time.

But if the commissioners want to do something like this, you won't see OSU fans complain. With an extra game last year, we make the playoffs. And this year the extra game would have cemented our spot. Just like Alabama, we aren't afraid of competition.

I have read about Alabama players saying that practices are harder than the games, so that would make sense for more injuries to occur during practice than games, but there's still the fact that Alabama had to play a game and Ohio State did not. Even if there's a decreased chance of injury, the chance of injury still exists for Alabama on gameday, unless Ohio State practiced on Saturday.

Another advantage to not playing is you don't have to worry about losing. If Clemson lost to Va Tech they would be out of the playoff, if they could've skipped that game there would be no worry of them not making it.

I agree that fans of teams like Ohio State and Alabama wouldn't complain. This would just give them another opportunity to prove themselves if they had a slip up in the regular season.

TideFanAtBarn · Dec 6, 2016

Another reason I would like to see this is just from a fan perspective. Michigan vs. USC would be great to watch, and I think it would be much better in this format than in a bowl game. Michigan would still have an outside shot of getting in the playoff and USC might be able to convince themselves they still do. Both teams would show up to play. Ohio State vs. Florida State would be ok as well, but I don't think Ohio State would have too tough of a time.

PA Tide Fan · Dec 6, 2016

I think the committee got it right, so I don't think more games are needed. Their top four agree with the BCS top four albeit in a different order. Scheduling extra games at the last minute would create travel problems for fans to the games. Also, under your scenario suppose Clemson and Washington both win, Ohio State loses, and Michigan wins. Then who gets the #4 spot? 11-2 Ohio State, 11-2 Michigan, or 11-2 Penn State?

Tidewater · Dec 6, 2016

lowend said:
A loser's bracket for college football. No thanks.

Univ. of Louisville women's basketball coach shares his thoughts about loser's brackets.

Additional Game for Non-Championship Game Participants

New Member

Hall of Fame

Super Moderator

Hall of Fame

All-SEC

1st Team

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Super Moderator

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

TideFans Legend

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

New Member

TideFans Legend

New Member

New Member

All-American

Hall of Fame

TideFans.shop - NEW Stuff!