They will not do this because the motive for expansion was never to yield a “true” champion but to gain and retain interest in the season and playoffs for the rest of the country outside of the southeast/SEC and midwest/Big 10.
BREAKING CFP moving to straight seeding this year.
- Thread starter CrimsonNagus
- Start date
They looked at last year and realized “Maybe something isn’t right when Arizona St and Boise St get first round byes in year 1 of this new system.” They never should have gone with this retarded format in the first place. College football is dead.
The US chess federation pairs half way down.
1 vs 8, 2 vs 9, 3 vs 10, 4 vs 11, 5 vs 12, 6 vs 13, 7 vs 14.
This way there is no 1 vs 14 playing.
1 vs 8, 2 vs 9, 3 vs 10, 4 vs 11, 5 vs 12, 6 vs 13, 7 vs 14.
This way there is no 1 vs 14 playing.
List em 1-12
If they are outside the top 12, let em play in a bowl game.
If they are outside the top 12, let em play in a bowl game.
OSU was a very erratic team last year. When they were good, they were really good.
When they were bad, they were surprisingly bed.
Reminds me of another team…
I've since found out that it's not exactly straight seeding for all teams in the CFP.
Apparently, the top 5 highest ranked conference champions get slots in the playoff (though not guaranteed seeding), regardless of where they are otherwise ranked. Then they do straight seeding among all qualifying teams.
Not exactly what I'd like, but it's better than last year's fiasco where Boise State and Arizona State got byes, and SMU was in at all.
I've said before that the committee's biggest mistake was vastly overrating SMU's wins over a then-undefeated Pitt team, and a decent but far from great Louisville team.
Trouble is, the Pitt win didn't age well. Pitt never won another game. But the committee never marked down the value of that win, was bedazzled by SMU's 11-2 record. By the time they realized the Pitt win wasn't that big a deal (assuming they realized it at all), they had painted themselves into a corner by not devaluing it gradually over time.
IOW, even if you realize at the end of the year that the Pitt win was fool's gold, how do you suddenly admit that when you've maintained a far-too-high seeding for so long -- while watching Pitt spiral from 7-0 to 7-6?
More trouble is, SMU had the 104th ranked strength of record and 33rd ranked strength of record. Louisville had the 20th ranked strength of record and 37th ranked strength of record.
SMU had absolutely no business being in the playoff, and I'm glad Penn State curb-stomped them. That they were in at all was a massive blunder by the committee.
For contrast, Alabama had the 13th ranked strength of schedule and 10th ranked strength of record.
Still, I'm not all that torqued that we didn't get in. By the end of the season, decent defenses had figured out our offensive limitations and we wouldn't have won more than one game. A good chance of being bounced in the first game.
I just didn't like the process, and the new approach is an improvement.
Apparently, the top 5 highest ranked conference champions get slots in the playoff (though not guaranteed seeding), regardless of where they are otherwise ranked. Then they do straight seeding among all qualifying teams.
Not exactly what I'd like, but it's better than last year's fiasco where Boise State and Arizona State got byes, and SMU was in at all.
I've said before that the committee's biggest mistake was vastly overrating SMU's wins over a then-undefeated Pitt team, and a decent but far from great Louisville team.
Trouble is, the Pitt win didn't age well. Pitt never won another game. But the committee never marked down the value of that win, was bedazzled by SMU's 11-2 record. By the time they realized the Pitt win wasn't that big a deal (assuming they realized it at all), they had painted themselves into a corner by not devaluing it gradually over time.
IOW, even if you realize at the end of the year that the Pitt win was fool's gold, how do you suddenly admit that when you've maintained a far-too-high seeding for so long -- while watching Pitt spiral from 7-0 to 7-6?
More trouble is, SMU had the 104th ranked strength of record and 33rd ranked strength of record. Louisville had the 20th ranked strength of record and 37th ranked strength of record.
SMU had absolutely no business being in the playoff, and I'm glad Penn State curb-stomped them. That they were in at all was a massive blunder by the committee.
For contrast, Alabama had the 13th ranked strength of schedule and 10th ranked strength of record.
Still, I'm not all that torqued that we didn't get in. By the end of the season, decent defenses had figured out our offensive limitations and we wouldn't have won more than one game. A good chance of being bounced in the first game.
I just didn't like the process, and the new approach is an improvement.
Last edited:
espn made me watch that god awful ACC championship game thinking it mattered. it didn't matter at all.
I don't know who has been watching the back and forth between Stewart "Ohio State was the best team 2000-24" Mandel and Josh Pate, but Pate absolutely delivered the DDT on him yesterday.
I obviously don't agree with everything Pate said, but he DID make the point that the stuff Mandel and clan are complaining about is because they were trying to get a playoff based on a fantasy world, not the world in which all the FBS teams inhabit. And instead of guys like Mandel, Wolken, and Brando admitting that the problem is that their solutions aren't reality based, they are complaining about the outcome they don't like and the proposing that the same people involved in delivering that outcome can fix it through the ridiculous approach of.....adding more teams to the playoff.
And btw, that's exactly what every single anti-playoff advocate was saying even before the BCS. "Once they start, they'll come up with a reason why this one isn't enough teams." That part I always knew to be true.
I obviously don't agree with everything Pate said, but he DID make the point that the stuff Mandel and clan are complaining about is because they were trying to get a playoff based on a fantasy world, not the world in which all the FBS teams inhabit. And instead of guys like Mandel, Wolken, and Brando admitting that the problem is that their solutions aren't reality based, they are complaining about the outcome they don't like and the proposing that the same people involved in delivering that outcome can fix it through the ridiculous approach of.....adding more teams to the playoff.
And btw, that's exactly what every single anti-playoff advocate was saying even before the BCS. "Once they start, they'll come up with a reason why this one isn't enough teams." That part I always knew to be true.
Even if they didn't realize the Pitt thing, the committee had everything they needed to not put SMU in the playoffs. They played a horrible schedule overall and only played two decent teams. They lost both games...
Meanwhile, Bama finished the year tied for the most ranked wins. Regardless of how bad we looked against Vandy and Oklahoma, there's not a soul on this planet that thinks Bama would have performed as badly as SMU did in the playoffs.
I do.
We would have gotten murdered.
We got embarrassed by Michigans JV team.
The team that showed up vs Tenn and OU is who that team was at the end.
It is what it is.
Regardless of all that we’ll be better this year and be in the mix at the end.
Never know for sure I guess.
I just think #4 throwing in Cold weather vs either PSU or ND would have ended real bad.
I could post like 20-30 gifs from Tenn and OU that are some of the ugliest pass attempts you’ve ever seen as a CFB fan.
Then with the way he liked to put a live ball on the ground.
We’re talking like a 5-6 turnover night.
Yup. Franklin is a defensive-background coach like Venables. PSU would've been thoroughly prepared and we would've buckled
The logical answer. The playoffs were sold to provide the best matchups, not to protect conference championship games like Greg McElroy whined about last year. The only reason it’s set up like it is now is to add unnecessary drama and create talking points, but it ends up keeping at least one deserving team out every season. Unfortunately the people in control of the sport don’t care if they kill it in a few years as long as they increase short term profits. Polls can be argued as to whether the teams are placed correctly, but there’s less doubt using them over changing the criteria every couple of years.
Maybe it's due to the number of years since the BCS was last used, but I never really had an issue with the BCS rankings. The 4-team playoff could've/should've used the BCS formula for their ranking purposes. This current iteration of the playoffs should use it as well.
I mean, we don't know that. For all we know, the committee will just rank the teams based on where they want the matchups to occur. It's happened before.
The only reason they didn't use the BCS rankings - and went to a committee - was the realization that using BCS Top Four, teams like TCU (2009, 2010) and (potentially) Boise State (2009, esp 2010) or Utah (2004, 2008) might sneak into the playoff ahead of an obviously better team. It's no accident that the moment Utah and TCU joined major conferences, their undefeated seasons stopped.
Latest threads
-
Big Ten Teams Afraid To Play Down South In August (In The Heat)
- Started by selmaborntidefan
- Replies: 3
-
-
-
Alabama Earns No. 2 Seed at NCAA Hattiesburg Regional from May 30-June 2- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 4
-
-
