• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

College Football Final Four

Deacfreak07 said:
Expanding the autobids makes more regular season games matter. Not less.
Click to expand...

This.

For every one game like this year's Michigan/Ohio State where the game might have mattered less because both were going to end up in the playoff anyway, there's probably a dozen games over the last couple weeks that matter more because playoff appearances are on the line. Off the top of my head, games in the last 2 weeks where at least 1 team would've been playing for more if conference champ got an auto bid...

ACCCG - Clemson/VT
SECCG - Alabama/Florida
Alabama/Auburn
B1GCG - Wisconsin/Penn State
Oklahoma/Oklahoma State
Pac12CG - Washington/Colorado
Washington/Washington St
Colorado/Utah

And that's just at the end of the year when it's clear who is in the running for a conference title. Think of all the early and mid season games that annually determine who wins a division and how much important those become when winning your division is essentially winning a national tournament Round of 32 game.
 
Late season and obviously championship weekend would be fine, but I think you'd lose a lot in non-conference and early in the year before the conference races heat up.

It's hard for me to see people tuning in like crazy to non-conf games in September when essentially conference play is all or almost all that matters
 
wsc8521s said:
It's hard for me to see people tuning in like crazy to non-conf games in September when essentially conference play is all or almost all that matters
Click to expand...

Teams would still have to consider that there are two ways to get into the playoff - win their conference or impress the committee enough to get one of the three wild cards. Those early non-con games would matter just as much.
 
wsc8521s said:
Late season and obviously championship weekend would be fine, but I think you'd lose a lot in non-conference and early in the year before the conference races heat up.

It's hard for me to see people tuning in like crazy to non-conf games in September when essentially conference play is all or almost all that matters
Click to expand...

I disagree. I think you'd see teams wouldn't be scared to play top tier noncon opponents since it wouldn't hurt their playoff chances. That may be good for non-P5 programs who would need noncon wins to get in under a 6 or 8 team format.

Top P5 programs may be more willing to play top MAC and AAC programs instead of Sun Belt or FCS.

That would actually free up more low tier opponents for P5 schools likely not to win their conference which would make it easier to get to 6 wins.
 
Last edited:
Deacfreak07 said:
Expanding the autobids makes more regular season games matter. Not less.
Click to expand...

But not having a playoff makes it easier for ESPN to pick who they want to sell in the national title game. See Ohio State, 2016.

The NBA has this problem, you end up with a fair process and you get a finals with (for example) San Antonio and New Jersey. Nobody cares nothing 'bout no New Jersey Nets.
 
jhmd2000 said:
But not having a playoff makes it easier for ESPN to pick who they want to sell in the national title game. See Ohio State, 2016.

The NBA has this problem, you end up with a fair process and you get a finals with (for example) San Antonio and New Jersey. Nobody cares nothing 'bout no New Jersey Nets.
Click to expand...

Brooklyn Nets
 
PhDeac said:
I disagree. I think you'd see teams wouldn't be scared to play top tier noncon opponents since it wouldn't hurt their playoff chances. That may be good for non-P5 programs who would need noncon wins to get in under a 6 or 8 team format.

Top P5 programs may be more willing to play top MAC and AAC programs instead of Sun Belt or FCS.

That would actually free up more low tier opponents for P5 schools likely not to win their conference which would make it easier to get to 6 wins.
Click to expand...

This. Plus those top tier nonconference games are 1/12 of these teams' schedules. A more meaningful conference slate would mean many more meaningful games.
 
PaddyWF said:
It will never happen though. The committee wants the best TV matchups, period. They probably are upset enough that Washington had a good season.

It was 1 step forward, 1 steps back with the new structure. A playoff is good, a 13

The playoff is definitely good at 4 teams and that makes the regular season with 12 games really matter. But the committee, just like the basketball committee is trying to find the best 4 teams and they seemed to have found them. Just doesn't matter how many you put in, the next 1 or 2 left out will always be unhappy. Michigan, if they had not lost at Iowa would have had a great resume to make it 2 Big Ten teams and definitely replace Washington, BUT they did not--so they are left out and in 6th seed. Simple as that. We won't see more than 4 teams for a few years because the TV format is in place and the committee likes what they have--plus people are talking about it and that is also making them happy. Maybe basketball will do this and come out with their initial seeding process in early Feb, then provide an update in Mid-Feb on a made for TV Tuesday--would be good. Add some oomph.
Click to expand...
 
Really don't understand the PSU over OSU debate. Sure they beat them in one marquee night game, at home, in their White Out, in the wind/rain, for which they had two weeks to prepare (Wisconsin also a prime time game for which the Badgers had 2 weeks to prepare), in a game they were statistically dominated.

However, their overall body of work doesn't hold a candle to OSU's, losing to a team that finished 8-4, and losing by 39 to a team OSU beat. If you equate PSU's win over OSU with OSU's win over Michigan, PSU has no win that comes close to comparing to OSU's thrashing of Oklahoma on the road.

The committee has said multiple times that head-to-head results and conference championships will only come into play as tiebreakers when teams have comparable resumes. OSU and PSU just don't.
 
The argument for an eight team playoff, at least my argument for one, has absolutely nothing to do with the teams number nine and ten being unhappy as opposed to teams number five and six. I could care less about the first team or two on the outside. I just sent think conference championships should be rewarded with a shot at the natty. With an eight team playoff, five of the eight spots will have been earned objectively. The other three would be picked on a subjective basis the same way they are today.

No team would be able to consider a regular season game any less meaningful. Teams would have no control over what other teams in the mix are doing and could not afford to take a Saturday off. The argument that MI/OSU would have meant less is ridiculous. MI could't have counted on the fact that the commitee would put them in with another loss.
 
tigerswood said:
Really don't understand the PSU over OSU debate. Sure they beat them in one marquee night game, at home, in their White Out, in the wind/rain, for which they had two weeks to prepare (Wisconsin also a prime time game for which the Badgers had 2 weeks to prepare), in a game they were statistically dominated.

However, their overall body of work doesn't hold a candle to OSU's, losing to a team that finished 8-4, and losing by 39 to a team OSU beat. If you equate PSU's win over OSU with OSU's win over Michigan, PSU has no win that comes close to comparing to OSU's thrashing of Oklahoma on the road.

The committee has said multiple times that head-to-head results and conference championships will only come into play as tiebreakers when teams have comparable resumes. OSU and PSU just don't.
Click to expand...

This ^^^^^ - the best 4 teams over the course of the whole season. That said, Penn St vs USC should be a fantastic Rose Bowl!
 
I don't understand the argument of the next teams out being upset if you go to 8. You want in, win your conference, and you're in. The teams outside of the P5 will rarely have a legitimate gripe.
 
tigerswood said:
Really don't understand the PSU over OSU debate. Sure they beat them in one marquee night game, at home, in their White Out, in the wind/rain, for which they had two weeks to prepare (Wisconsin also a prime time game for which the Badgers had 2 weeks to prepare), in a game they were statistically dominated.

However, their overall body of work doesn't hold a candle to OSU's, losing to a team that finished 8-4, and losing by 39 to a team OSU beat. If you equate PSU's win over OSU with OSU's win over Michigan, PSU has no win that comes close to comparing to OSU's thrashing of Oklahoma on the road.

The committee has said multiple times that head-to-head results and conference championships will only come into play as tiebreakers when teams have comparable resumes. OSU and PSU just don't.
Click to expand...

You didn't mention the Pitt loss. Would you still put 11-1 OSU over a 12-1 PSU?
 
Missed that before. Thanks. Still interested in the answer.
 
I hate the Heisman anyway, but the media really is amazing. Peppers has been sold all year that he should be in the Heisman, led by his look-at-me coach. So here he is. Wtf has he done Heisman worthy? Joke. How about a little Donnel Pumphrey?
 
PhDeac said:
I disagree. I think you'd see teams wouldn't be scared to play top tier noncon opponents since it wouldn't hurt their playoff chances. That may be good for non-P5 programs who would need noncon wins to get in under a 6 or 8 team format.

Top P5 programs may be more willing to play top MAC and AAC programs instead of Sun Belt or FCS.

That would actually free up more low tier opponents for P5 schools likely not to win their conference which would make it easier to get to 6 wins.
Click to expand...

I agree there would be more of them, but they would matter infinitely less.

Does that mean more interest? I'm not so sure.

Also in 2014-15 SEC revenue (all sports):
TV/radio rights - $311.8M
Postseason revenue - $162.8M
 
Last edited:
Deacfreak07 said:
Expanding the autobids makes more regular season games matter. Not less.
Click to expand...

I apologize if I am making the wrong assumption, but you are proposing an 8 team playoff with the winner of each of the Power 5 conferences receiving an automatic bid along with 3 "At Large" bids. The problem with giving the winner of the conference championship an automatic bid is what happens if a team that would never have had a chance to make the playoffs before the CCG wins that game. I would define a team that doesn't deserve to go to the Playoffs, even an 8 Team Playoff, as one with at least 4 losses. Personally, I feel that in most situations a 3 loss team wouldn't deserve to belong in an 8 Team Playoff (An example of one that would deserve to be in an 8 Team Playoff is this season's Southern Cal). Below are some examples from this season and a few from the past few seasons that had teams in a CCG, but had they won would have had no business belonging in an 8 Team Playoff

ACC
2009 GTech vs Clemson - Clemson was 8-4
2012 FSU vs GTech - GTech was 6-6

Big Ten
2016 Wisconsin vs Penn St - If Wisconsin won, then I don't believe they deserved to be in The Top 4 this season because they lost to both OSU and Michigan. Their best wins would have been Penn ST and against an LSU team that was not the same team after Miles was fired (LSU was a completely different team on offense). I think there is a strong case to not include them in an 8 Team Playoff as well.

2012 Nebraska vs Wisconsin- Wisconsin was 7-5 that season, need I say more.

Pac 12
2015 Stanford vs USC - USC was 8-4
2011 Oregon vs UCLA - UCLA was 6-6

SEC didn't have any recent teams with at least 4 losses, the most comparable would have been 2010 when Auburn played USC who entered the game 9-3.

Other than 2014 and 2010 there has been at least 1 CCG with a team that had they won would have had no business making the Playoffs. Granted there were no upsets in the games listed above, but imagine if a 6-6 UCLA won the Pac 12 in 2011 or a 6-6 GTech won in 2012. One might counter with that is what the 3 open slots are for, but the problem with this logic is that one of those slots would be taken by the team that lost the CCG, thus taking away a slot from a more deserving team than a 6-6 conference championship. Another argument is that it hasn't happened yet, the 6-6 teams have lost. I would counter by saying this is football, and anything can happen in a game, aka injury to starting QB, weather (Remember the rain this season when NCSU beat ND. Sorry, but that wasn't a game based on skill, but luck in who could snap the ball and who could hold on to it).

My point is that for those proposing an 8 Team Playoff where each of the conference champions from the Power 5 receive an automatic bid, then it has the potential to open up a can of worms much worse than what the CFPC did this season by putting OSU in over Penn St.
 
Last edited:
Skydog Deac said:
I hate the Heisman anyway, but the media really is amazing. Peppers has been sold all year that he should be in the Heisman, led by his look-at-me coach. So here he is. Wtf has he done Heisman worthy? Joke. How about a little Donnel Pumphrey?
Click to expand...

What about Tim Williams, Jonathan Allen and Reuben Foster of Alabama? One of the best defenses in memory. Surely one of them deserved to be in the discussion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top