1-4 this bowl season with UGA the only winner. Utah, k-state, Michigan and Clemson all lost.
P5 conference champs
- Thread starter fastlax16
- Start date
So, I guess we should disallow the conference champions to play in the sea of the next year before we go to a playoff. Tic
Actually I think this season should finally silence the anti playoff expansion crowd for good!
Actually I think this season should finally silence the anti playoff expansion crowd for good!
3 meaningless bowl games and Michigan choked.
It doesn't mean much if anything
It will be interesting once the playoff expands to see how often non-conf champs beat conf champs--guessing it will happen very often
Think these results provide a good example of a reason why conference champs shouldn’t be automatically get seeds 1-4.
Not sure what is meant by silence the anti playoff expansion crowd. It’s going to occur irregardless of that crowds’ thoughts. But, the appropriateness of it is still debatable.
Not sure what is meant by silence the anti playoff expansion crowd. It’s going to occur irregardless of that crowds’ thoughts. But, the appropriateness of it is still debatable.
That depends. A championship is a factual measure of earning. The rest is eye test and maybe some crossover criteria. If you don’t make them automatic #1-4 seeds and have home field advantage you will get subjected to the bias toward the SEC and they will occupy the spots.
A lot of the "anti-playoff" crowd believes winning your conference should be a requirement to participate in even a 4 team playoff which is insane.
Board posters: the look test is awful
Also Board posters: winning a conference shouldn't matter. Let's use the look test
😳😳😳😳😳😳
A championship that is based on 67-75% of games (plus bonus CCG) would have produced:
UGA - good
UM - good
Clemson - record of 0-2 vs OOC P5 teams
Utah - 3-losses including to 8+ place SEC team. Last OOC P5 win in 2017.
Is the above quota method really better than a method (which has pretty much been factual best records) based on 100% of a team’s games?
Basing things on a single criterion can produce an illogical outcome. Maybe include a maximum difference in losses on a record or something else that can be “defined” to appease the “facts I only care about” crowd.
Should the NFL seed based on win percentage then? Vs winning Divisions?
I think what these results showed is that the long layoff benefits certain teams and hurts others.
For the playoff bowls, the seeds are irrelevant anyhow. If their is no home field advantage, what does it matter?
I'd like the division winners in the NFL to make the playoff but not be guaranteed a home game. There's no justification for Philly or Dallas to have to go to Tampa. Or Baltimore to Tennessee/Jacksonville.
Who should get it? Bama because they buy the best players yet didn't even qualify for the ccg?
Honestly--the 4 byes this year probably should have been Georgia, Michigan, Ohio State and Alabama.
In college, yes. Almost everyone is going to get a bye so to speak. It's not like the NFL where they roll right into the playoffs a week later. The first round in 2024 is going to take place on 12/21. No one is going to play for multiple weeks. The teams with byes could be at a disadvantage where they're knocking off a month of rust going up against a team that has their sea legs back.
Purely off the eye test. While I get it, I don't support it.
Create a set criteria for getting in, who gets byes, etc. You may not like Dallas going to Tampa, but they know from week 1 that if they don't win their division then it's possible. Nobody complains about it because it's known up front.
If Bama "deserves" a bye in a year they lose twice and don't even win their division, why are they even playing the regular season? Just let them show up in the title game like a final boss in Mortal Kombat.
Respectfully disagree. I don’t think you can’t just blindly give conference champions the highest seeds. Does anyone think Kansas St truly was the #5 seed (or higher) this year? I think Alabama put that to rest pretty firmly in the Sugar Bowl.
Tennessee did the same to Clemson and Penn State did to Utah, (two 3rd best teams in their conferences taking out another conference’s champion).
I’m sure there’s a way to make sure conference champs get a home game to open with the seeding as a prize.
I think the conference championship games will eventually be on the way out. It may take a decade, (the college football committee only moves slowly with half measures), but I think it will happen especially as the playoff expands.
Last edited:
I think the problem is that "losses" are overvalued in college football. Alabama losing two games they way they did had no impact on how great they were. They're still clearly one of the best teams.
I also do understand your point about then just always have Bama, Georgia and Ohio State without them even having to play but that's basically what college football is today. Those 3 and everyone else. Maybe Michigan or USC get to that level and stay there but probably not.
In '24, 2-loss non-division winning Bama will have the opportunity to win a 12 team playoff.
And if they do, kudos to them.
In a playoff game do you believe the outcome of those games are the same?
I don't
I asked a question about your description, instead of answering it, you ask two questions?
My use of bye is about getting to advance to the next round, not getting a week off. It likely matches the definition of the word .
So you are saying it could be relevant.
Another point is that Utah would automatically been set to play likely TCU in the second round as opposed to having to win a first round game and then get a matchup with UGA. Don’t think that is irrelevant.
Yes. Eye testing who gets a bye is a stupid criteria. It's much worse than having some set criteria for getting a bye. Of course, 4 byes with 10+ conferences of which only 4 or 5 have a legit shot of winning is just a bad setup.
Apologies.
Similar threads
