There is some poop in the middle of your sandwich. I honestly don't understand what you are talking about here. Could you explain your thoughts in detail and how it applies to what you are saying?
Last edited:
Football 2021 CFP National Championship Game Thread
- Thread starter Dylan Callaghan-Croley
- Start date
There is some poop in the middle of your sandwich. I honestly don't understand what you are talking about here. Could you explain your thoughts in detail and how it applies to what you are saying?
Strongly disagree. Having eight teams you will have teams with different styles. Maybe get a pass crazy team. A power running team that controls the ball. Pro style vs RPO. Force defenses to adapt....see who can adapt.
Plus playing three playoff caliber games is much harder than just two. Like us playing Mich, Sparty, and the Colombians all in a row.
Would hate to see twelve if the top four get a bye. That just gives them a huge advantage....which is one reason why the big powers want twelve.
One thing that stood out to me was how effective both teams were blitzing. Some of that was surely due to the ability of the players, but the coaches were calling the right plays. I hope that our defensive coaches were taking notes.
The game was always slanted to the football factories. But now, it's been made even worse. RIP, CFB.
It remains to be seen if the Jackson State situation is an outlier, but the schools with connections to big money will benefit from NIL and that will most likely continue to be the blue blood programs
Agreed...it was like a pro game with creative blitzez and the offense calling plays to counter those blitzes. But, as you say, the skill level was just beyond what we've seen in the B1G. Sadly. The last three champions all came from the SEC: LSU, AL, GA. If you add Clemson, the list goes like this:
- GA
- AL
- LSU
- AL
- Clemson
- AL
- tOSU
- FSU
- AL
- AL
- Auburn
- AL
Last edited:
Is Deion Sanders’ hustle down at JSU actually your argument for parity? Because Deion and the administration paid kids to go there? That’s the stupidest thing I’ve read today, and I actually made the mistake of browsing CNN this morning.
College Football is basically MLB, the haves and have nots. The only difference being you can swap the owners with university boards and boosters. Bama and Georgia are the Dodgers and Yankees. Most other teams are the Pirates. So the pro league with the least parity is the closest comparison to current college football - genius.
Off-topic here but assuming your username is in reference to Parkland in Allentown. I am a Parkland alumnus!
Yes it is. We live in Dorneyville. My three kids graduated from Parkland. The twins in 1998 and Rob in 2003. I am a Central Catholic grad 1966. I did go to grade school and high school with a few Callaghan boys - all good athletes.
I use to live over in Breinigsville. Love the Lehigh Valley, such a great place in my opinion to grow up. Plenty of stuff to do and a lot of great people.
I didn't watch the game, but what I learned once again, is that the SEC championship game is meaningless.
But why can't 2 SEC teams play for the title if they're the best two teams. If Penn State and Ohio State were the best two I'd definitely want a rematch if Penn State lost the title game. What sport doesn't allow a rematch? Happens in the NFL all the time.
Last night's game was absolutely great. I understand people are bitter Bama and Georgia are far superior to pretty much everyone else right now but they've earned it on the field.
I would disagree with your nfl analogy.
The only way for a team to reach the Superbowl is to win their conference - emphasis on winning. GA won exactly nothing to qualify itself for the championship. In fact, they lost the SEC championship. They should have been done. The question of GA and ALA had already been answered. Why do we need to do it again?
I'll ask the same question I've asked before. If the SEC championship game doesn't matter, why play it?
CFB is disparate conferences with different methods of establishing a champion and different SOS. It's hard to compare teams. IMHO, the playoff should be to determine the champion of champions.
In the end, this is probably all academic anyway. I think CFB will begin to decline in a few years and there is going to be a major upheaval
You don't have to win your division to make the playoffs or play for the title?
It wasn't answered. A different team won the second time. That can always happen.
It does matter--that's how Bama got in.
What collegiate sport only has conference champs in the playoffs?
You think playoff expansion and eliminating the bowls is worse apparently. I don't. That should have happened decades ago.
Honestly--what conference champion not in the playoffs is even close to being as good as Georgia? The answer is none. In fact, the two in the playoff weren't close to being as good as them. Only Bama was in the same league.
I honestly think this mentality is simply due to us being left out for Ohio State in 2016. When it was Washington getting in not Ohio State that was the problem.
No. In the NFL you have to win your conference to reach the Superbowl.
I'd be fine with an expanded playoff. I've said many time on this board that I think the right number is 6 teams, comprised of the top 5 ranked conference champs and the 6th team coming from one of the following who must be ranked in the top ~15
-ND
-6th conference champ
-if neither of the above, begrudgingly, the top ranked conference runner-up
#1-2 get a bye
5/6 play @ 4/3 home fields
Then play in current format.
Winning should matter and the above prioritizes WINNING with the current ranking system as a component/backstop.
Technically yes, In the NFL a team can make the playoffs with a losing record and that has happened. Once in, it’s possible to win a couple games and become ‘conference champs’ with only one more win than losses.
That can’t happen in college playoffs. In college, it’s rare to get in with even two losses.
FTR, I dislike expanded playoffs in the NFL (My eagles should not be in this year, nor should the Steelers) because it cheapens the regular season.
My ultimate assessment of CFB is that winning is deemphasized for 'look tests" and blue bloods get points for past seasons.
If the goal is to determine the best team (which CFB historically had been through the poll system) then there is no reason to put a conference championship game loser in the playoff because that it has already been determined that the loser is 2nd in their own conference - winning matters.
It should be incumbent on the conference to find the best way to determine their champion and then the playoff would be a champion of champions.
This year, GA and AL are 1-1 against each other over the course of just a few weeks. It's not a very compelling story for who is the best team in CFB.
Right now, the conference championship game is meaningless and maybe it always will be. Conference aren't equal and divisions within individual conferences are no where close to fair. That's different than the NFL. So I'm not opposed to requiring only conference champions but that means that all conferences will completely rethink how they align divisions (if they even have them at all) and pick a champion. It will also change out of conference scheduling substantially.
And if you allow/require only conference champions, there's no reason to expand the playoff because the conference championship game is a defacto playoff game already. Every year, some of the conference champions are going to have multiple losses so no reason to include them in the 4 team playoff.
Obviously, Harvard could field not just a national championship team, but a Super Bowl team, with all their $$$$$$$
It's not near the same with 30 some teams versus over 100. In the nfl the have one league with multiple divisions. Conference isn't the same in college bs the nfl.
How are you comparing winning the conference in the NFL via a playoff to a conference in football. You're not making any sense. You don't have to win your conference in the NFL to make the playoff. You merely have to qualify which doesn't require winning your division let alone the conference.
Six isn't enough and being a conference champ as a requirement will never get approval
I'm sorry but any argument that Georgia shouldn't have been in the playoff is just bias. We all know they were one of the best 4 teams.
Before you reply again, you should make sure you understand the difference between a division and a conference in the NFL. In order to reach the Superbowl, a team has had to win their conference. No team can win the superbowl, without first be named the champion of their conference. Conversely, GA won exactly nothing. They lost the SEC, but are National Champs after going 1-1 against ALA in a span of 3 games. How awful.
RE: your last point, I don't really care if GA is one of the 4 best teams. They lost. Sometimes the better team loses. If the SEC Championship game matters, then the best team in the SEC was determined that day in Atlanta. WINNING should matter, and GA lost.(for the same reason, OSU should not have been in the CFP in 2016 over PSU. OSU wasn't even good enough to win their division and qualify for the B1G championship. They should not have been in the playoff.) It's not bias. I don't have any opinion about GA vs ALA. I just think that, in world of 130 teams and disparate conferences, it's impossible to accurately compare teams via the look test and early season matchups (See 2021 Oregon/tOSU). Let the conferences decide how to determine their best team and then send the top 5/6 to a playoff to determine who THE best. A playoff should be about determine THE best team, not the Top 4.
Frankly, that is why I roll my eyes whenever the NFL world spills digital ink complaining that the 2nd place team in one division is better than the champ of another. Who cares? That 2nd place team lost. They are not the best. Go get better next year. Concern over getting to be the worst team in the playoffs should not be something that anyone loses sleep over. GO WIN and none of it matters.
Last edited:
I don't understand your last sentence, but I agree that 32 NFL teams vs 130 college teams in disparate conferences is different. I also think those differences are why winning a college conference should mean something. Condie Rice watching a small subset of CFB games(presumably) and picking the 4 best teams like they are figure skating judges just doesn't feel like the best available way to determine a champion.
You can't look at this as some kind of black box computer and be so black and white about it with only conf champs. Do you really think it would make sense to have Pitt and Utah in the playoff this year and exclude UGA? If you are going to go by such a rigid system then Alabama needs to be penalized for losing to A&M. Otherwise you are reverting back to the days of when you lost that matters. Since UGA lost at the end of the season against a very good team we will eliminate them but allow Bama to wiggle back because their loss was earlier and they beat UGA.
The NFL has wildcards so that is what GA would have been.
You're absolutely being ridiculous. Winning the AFC or the NFC leave TWO teams--it is not a REQUIREMENT for making the playoffs. All conferences in college football are NOT created equal. If they were even remotely equal you'd have a point but you don't.
Georgia went 12-1 in the regular season. The conference title game is not a playoff game nor a play in game. Bama needed to win to make the playoff. Georgia did not and we saw that. The won and did enough to EARN a spot in the playoffs.
Honestly, is the most ridiculous I've ever heard regarding how the playoffs should work. Georgia is the national champion and they earned that. The deserved to be in the playoff and should have actually been the 2 seed.
Yep, anyone who has any clue about CFB realizes UGA deserved to be in the playoff and deserved to win the title. Arguing against this is petty sour grapes. I am by no means a UGA fan but looking at this objectively it is clear the right team has been crowned the NC.
Can you imagine how ludicrous it would have been to deny UGA a playoff berth but include these conf champions instead. Bama would have rolled everyone probably beating scUM by 4 TDs in the NC game.
By the way, it is certainly plausible that the reason UGA was off its game in the SEC title game is because they knew it was not do or die for them.
If they decided to do that, sure. Harvard doesn't really value athletics so maybe you could get a donor or two to pull in a couple of high caliber players but the rest of the team would still suck.
Harvard, the Ivy League as a whole, doesn’t even allow spring practice. They used to be the big powers in football then went through major reforms as football had become too big. So they knocked it down to a secondary level.
We can disagree, but how is it ridiculous to suggest that winning should be prioritized and losing should disqualify you from further playoff inclusion against the team that beat you?
I'll simply ask my original question. If the SEC Championship game doesn't matter, why play it? Through the SEC's own competition, they determined that Alabama was better than UGA. By that standard, there would be no reason to include UGA in the CFP b/c we already know that UGA is not the best team in the nation. This is simple logic and I'm a simple man. I think it's ridiculous to suggest that the 2nd place team in a conference is the best team in the country and therefore, there is no reason to have them in a playoff.
You're right - the championship game was meaningless. There's no need to play any of them right now. But the SEC didn't determine that Bama was better than UGA. They both knew they were getting in a 4 team playoff before that game ever kicked off.
I'm not trying to be argumentative, but for the SEC championship to not have determined that ALA was better, then we must assume that UGA did not care about or really try to win the SEC Championship?
You are operating under the false assumption that a game determines ‘which team is better’ . Doesn’t work that way. It only decides which team is better that day......and even more accurately, which team scored more points. The best team doesn’t always win the game. And if Ala and Ge played each other ten times it would likely turn out 6-4 overall.
We need an eight game playoff. The P5 winners plus three selected. And no matter what format is selected there will still be debate as who is better because .....no one game determines which team is better.
There is an argument for this and that is that they lost their playoff game a couple weeks prior, but under the current system, yes you are correct.
Until the NCAA requires conferences to do away with divisions and makes conference championship games the 1st stage of the playoffs they will never get it right. The best team doesn't always win the championship, mainly because conferences don't want it that way. The B1G is one of the main culprits in all of this putting their 4 best franchises in one division. It's downright silly and they are too arrogant to correct their own mistake, which only hurts them and isn't in their own best interest. The big 10 could be in the same position as the SEC now and again but they never let their two best teams play in the conference championship because they have them in the same division. It's ridiculous. Wait till the SEC adds OU & UT. You think things are messed up now, wait till that crap comes to fruition. Say bye bye to any questionable at large berth in a 4 team playoff.
All that said, I have a hard time calling a team a champion that lost to the other team two games ago. Conferences break the playoffs, not vice versa. Until someone makes the conferences act in an orderly and like way, you will get what we got.
I'm sure Georgia did try to win. The SEC championship game determined that Alabama was better on that day given those set of circumstances. Those circumstances included the fact that in the back of their minds, Georgia players knew that even if they lost, it wouldn't stop them from achieving their ultimate goal which was to win a national championship.
It's impossible to know how that game would have shaken out if winning the SEC championship game determined whether or not they made the playoff.
Because it mattered for Bama. It was irrelevant for Georgia as they were already in. If Georgia beats Bama the SEC likely gets one team. One game against one team doesn't make you not worth of a playoff spot. In that doesn't exist in ANY sport.
I think the issue is you're considering the championship game to be a playoff game or post-season game. It's not. It's the same as any other other game.
Again, this is the same as saying a WC team can't win a SB or someone that doesn't win their conference tournament for basketball shouldn't be included in March Madness. A conference championship is simply a resume builder. That's it. Otherwise Penn State should join the MAC. Take an easy path as winning a conference is all that matters.
This isn't about you being a "simple man"--this is about your personal bias likely tied to Ohio State being CORRECTLY selected over Penn State.
