OneManGang
Senior Member
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2004
- Messages
- 1,984
- Likes
- 9,394
Because those are the bracketing rules as agreed to by the conferences over a year ago. You don’t arbitrarily change a 94-page manual on the fly.I can’t understand how they could put some of these teams in the top 4 playoff spots just because of a conference championship. If Clemson wins, how and why would they give them a top 4 playoff spot. After being mediocre during the season. Boise State is another team that doesn’t deserve to be a top 4 either. Should these teams get a playoff spot, yes. But something is definitely wrong if this is the way it plays out.
Yep. Hope we get them at home. Rather play them than ANY SEC school that makes the playoffs. The big10 just cant hang with us. AT Eugene Oregon would be scary...but that will never happem because they will win their league and get a 1st round bye. After the 1st round, games are played in neutral site bowlgamesOhio State at home sounds good to me
I see what you are saying. There is a bunch of ways to look at this and none of them are perfect. I think that they are doing a balancing act trying to figure out who is the best teams at the end of the year without giving the front end of the schedule as much weight as the back end. FSU painfully found that out last year. The bottom line is that you have to win 3/4 games regardless of where you start to claim the big prize.This is definitely possible. The problem is punishing teams that make the championship game. Let’s say Georgia and tn both had one less next to last game of the season. They can both afford one loss to keep their current ranking and both barely have a home field game. Georgia loses on purpose to avoid the championship game. Tennessee wins and then loses in the championship game. Tennessee then drops below Georgia who didn’t have to play in the championship game and loses home field advantage because they simply have a loss on the week that no one else played. So in that scenario it may have been better for Tennessee to lose their last game while still keeping a playoff spot and keep their home field advantage. Does this example make sense as to why the committee shouldn’t be in the business of lowering teams who play in their championship game below teams who didn’t play in their championship game? I get why people are saying this but if the committee does this then they will have a logic problem with their own stated goals in the future.
That may be what the manual says but they are going to have some disaster second round playoff games, If this is the way things play out. And, not putting the best teams in the top 4. They should have just left it at a 4 team playoff because someone is going to get screwed. It’s just going to be a mess.Because those are the bracketing rules as agreed to by the conferences over a year ago. You don’t arbitrarily change a 94-page manual on the fly.
The higher ranked teams get to lose their championship game and stay in the playoff. That doesn't mean there won't be any penalty for losing. Before, you lost the CG you likely missed the playoff. To have a set up where Penn State gets to lose a game and have it not matter at all is silly.It’s literally based on the precedent the committee is trying to set. The committee is trying to reward conference champions and make the conference championship games matter. They can punish teams with losing their championship games but if they do that they lessen what they are trying to do which is elevate their importance. If a team knows they could lose their home playoff chances by playing in a championship game, wouldn’t they try to avoid that in the future if the scenario allowed for them to make the playoffs, keep their home field advantage and not have to play in a conference championship?