Conferences in CFP?

#2
#2
All conferences have been represented in the playoffs over time.

My take is that the committee is tasked to pick the 4 best teams regardless of conference. They are not tasked with "picking the four best teams" among the conference champs.

The conference championship games give those teams a chance to improve their resume, as typically they would be playing other highly regarded teams. And they may have had a weaker schedule. Case in point - UGA who does not have to play Bama or LSU this year.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Smokey19rt, GetYouSomeofThat and bpalmer28
#3
#3
  • Clemson carries the ACC's water. When they're good.
  • Oklahoma does the same for the B12, as you pointed out.
  • Washington and Oregon have tried to represent the PAC, but it rarely seems to work out. Never-ending hope among that community that "USC(west) is back!"
So if your point is, the SEC and (a bit less) B10 dominate the 4-team CFP, then I agree completely.

But the ACC and B12 still matter (until OK and TX leave the latter, heh). Just not as often, nor as regularly.

And the PAC is trying. Poor fellas.

Go Vols!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Smokey19rt
#5
#5
Daniel_Lincolns_Foot said:
This will all be taken care of when the playoff expands to 12 teams and even moreso when they inevitably expands from there to 16 teams.
Click to expand...
WHich is the only reason there's so much grumbling and hand-wringing as there is now. If we had just gone to an 8 or 12 game playoff in the beginning, this wouldn't be an issue. But the powers that be decided that "it could never work," (code for: we don't want to lose $$$), save for the fact that expanded playoffs work just fine for every organized football league out there from Pop Warner to NFL (except FBS, of course). It's just been silly for decades.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Smokey19rt, bpalmer28 and Sudden Impact
#6
#6
supersmo18 said:
WHich is the only reason there's so much grumbling and hand-wringing as there is now. If we had just gone to an 8 or 12 game playoff in the beginning, this wouldn't be an issue. But the powers that be decided that "it could never work," (code for: we don't want to lose $$$), save for the fact that expanded playoffs work just fine for every organized football league out there from Pop Warner to NFL (except FBS, of course). It's just been silly for decades.
Click to expand...


I think the expanded playoff tournamenr will hurt bowl games even more. Thus the reluctance on their part to cause issues for big time spomsors.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Smokey19rt and Behr
#7
#7
Daniel_Lincolns_Foot said:
This will all be taken care of when the playoff expands to 12 teams and even moreso when they inevitably expands from there to 16 teams.
Click to expand...

Not so sure - it just shifts the debate to positioning within the 12 or 16 format. You still have the "who is 1, who is 2, who is 3 .... who is 16" debate.

Yes - more teams get in so that is cleaner - but assuming 1 will play 16 .... will lead to who gets a better path to the final
 
  • Like
Reactions: Smokey19rt
#8
#8
Daniel_Lincolns_Foot said:
This will all be taken care of when the playoff expands to 12 teams and even moreso when they inevitably expands from there to 16 teams.
Click to expand...
10 FCS conferences.........

Take 10 Conference Champions and 6 at-large teams................So simple it's stupid!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Smokey19rt
#10
#10
GetYouSomeofThat said:
I think the expanded playoff tournamenr will hurt bowl games even more. Thus the reluctance on their part to cause issues for big time spomsors.
Click to expand...
Possibly, but bowl games began to become "hurt" when anyone and everyone with several million in disposable income and a stupid business name they want to promote began to create more bowls. 85% of the bowls out there have zero relevance as a post-season reward for strong play in the regular season, which is why we now see so many guys sitting out. Too many bowls equates to too many teams not having enough spots (in the "meaningful bowls", that is) to accomodate them all. I mean if I was an elite college athlete, I'd consider sitting out a bowl game too when I know I have a chance to be drafted with a strong contract, even though my collegiate team is just "okay" and is now going to a late December bowl game.

I feel there needs to be no more than 14-16 bowls, period. If you're not playing well enough to be ranked in the top 30-32 teams, you have no business in post-season rewarded play. It just doesn't mean anything to kids anymore, esp. when you have these Bama and UGA and OSU and (sometimes) Clemson dynasties clogging up all the bowls we all grew up with that mean somethng. This is where the expanded playoffs will matter-- players that have a legit chance to win a natty will also be less likely to forego a bowl game because if you win, you're still in. Other teams outside the playoffs need to be in bowls limited to those remaining ranked up to the low 30s or so.

Bowls as they are today have turned too much into an "everyone gets a trophy" mentality.
 
#11
#11
supersmo18 said:
Possibly, but bowl games began to become "hurt" when anyone and everyone with several million in disposable income and a stupid business name they want to promote began to create more bowls. 85% of the bowls out there have zero relevance as a post-season reward for strong play in the regular season, which is why we now see so many guys sitting out. Too many bowls equates to too many teams not having enough spots (in the "meaningful bowls", that is) to accomodate them all. I mean if I was an elite college athlete, I'd consider sitting out a bowl game too when I know I have a chance to be drafted with a strong contract, even though my collegiate team is just "okay" and is now going to a late December bowl game.

I feel there needs to be no more than 14-16 bowls, period. If you're not playing well enough to be ranked in the top 30-32 teams, you have no business in post-season rewarded play. It just doesn't mean anything to kids anymore, esp. when you have these Bama and UGA and OSU and (sometimes) Clemson dynasties clogging up all the bowls we all grew up with that mean somethng. This is where the expanded playoffs will matter-- players that have a legit chance to win a natty will also be less likely to forego a bowl game because if you win, you're still in. Other teams outside the playoffs need to be in bowls limited to those remaining ranked up to the low 30s or so.

Bowls as they are today have turned too much into an "everyone gets a trophy" mentality.
Click to expand...

I wish they'd bring back the BCS. The four team playoff has already cheapened the season. Twelve will make games matter less than ever. I'll be cheering UT on if they make the playoff, but, like basketball, I can see a time I don't watch games at all unless UT is in the tournament. Sadly, if it's like basketball, I may not watch at all. I only watch UT in the NCAA if the game is at a convenient time. College football is the only game I watch because I don't care for single elimination tournaments.
 
#13
#13
peaygolf said:
10 FCS conferences.........

Take 10 Conference Champions and 6 at-large teams................So simple it's stupid!
Click to expand...

Yes but guaranteed to have blowouts in the first round and high chances the second round has the 6 at large still in play.
 
#14
#14
volfan102455 said:
Yes but guaranteed to have blowouts in the first round and high chances the second round has the 6 at large still in play.
Click to expand...
Yea......But it does everyone a "fair" chance.......and it works in basketball. I know it's not the same, but still.
 
#15
#15
supersmo18 said:
WHich is the only reason there's so much grumbling and hand-wringing as there is now. If we had just gone to an 8 or 12 game playoff in the beginning, this wouldn't be an issue. But the powers that be decided that "it could never work," (code for: we don't want to lose $$$), save for the fact that expanded playoffs work just fine for every organized football league out there from Pop Warner to NFL (except FBS, of course). It's just been silly for decades.
Click to expand...

Expand the playoffs. It’s going to happen, but get ready for regular season games to have less importance and less viewership to a smaller degree. Now, every game regardless of opponent, probably means making the playoffs or not making it. More like basketball when the playoffs expand. Does an LSU vs Ok State interest you, as an example.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DuckinVol
#16
#16
Huge night tonight fellas. If we are #5 or higher tonight, and win out, we are IN!!

Can’t wait to be in Neyland this Saturday for the mizzou game!
 
  • Like
Reactions: bpalmer28
#17
#17
So long as they don’t take football as seriously as the SEC and to a lesser extent the B10 do then no.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top