Potential issues with the 12-team CFP

#101
#101
IndianaVol said:
13 is the new 5...just sayin'

It's why the Basketball people went to 68 teams and then they stiill grumble who should be in and out of that last spot.
Click to expand...

The dirty little secret is that they absolutely love the 'controversy', the more the better. Anything that will keep CFB in the sports headlines is good. As the cliche goes - all publicity is good publicity.
 
  • Like
Reactions: IndianaVol
#102
#102
sami said:
It's obviously way past moot at this point, but I 100% agree. I always felt the BCS was just fine - the two best teams via a computer program (not by some guys with biases in a room) were determined, and it was always two of the only teams that would have won it anyway.

Even in the 4-team CFP, most years everyone knew it would be one of two teams that would win it. This idea that it will be like March Madness with crazy upsets and Cinderella teams are kidding themselves. If we ever get a single 12-seed that wins a game, or even a #4 seed with a bye winning more than maybe one game, it will be a shock. Even with the relative parity that is entering the sport.

But this is what it is, so might as well have some fun with it.
Click to expand...
Well at least Bear & Satan can't sit all SEC Online talent on the bench anymore.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sami
#103
#103
sami said:
I'm not concerned so much about the ACC and Big 12, even though Miami might be a pretender given all the close games against a cupcake schedule, but if they're 11-1 they are in. Same with Clemson. It's teams like Indiana, Illinois, and even Penn State that annoy me, because aside from Ohio State they literally play no one and will get special treatment for being in the 'vaunted' Big 10.
Click to expand...
You realize Oregon and USC are in the big 10 now right?
 
#105
#105
sami said:
We are obviously not going to be able to pass judgment on this new playoff format and the selection process until we see how it plays out, but I'd like to raise a couple of potential issues. I'm clearly coming from a Tennessee and SEC perspective, but I'd like to hear some other opinions on this new format.

1. It annoys the hell out of me to hear the SEC and Big 10 linked together and described as equals. The only elite teams in the Big 10 are OSU and maybe Oregon. Penn State is good but far from elite, Indiana and Illinois are pretenders, and the rest are middling to dreck. The SEC has maybe 3-4 teams that aren't really competitive right now, and that's including underachieving Kentucky and Oklahoma teams. Hell, Vandy is a handful now.

But we're possibly going to see Big 10 teams that play 1-2 tough games winning 10-11 games and getting at large spots over 2-3 loss SEC teams that go through a week-to-week meat grinder because the leagues are seen as equals. Anyone who watches average Big 10 games and SEC games knows there is a huge difference in the level of play and the intensity of the leagues, and yet I believe we're going to see better SEC teams that played brutal schedules left out for a team like Indiana or Illinois.

2. The conferences will never get rid of the conference championship games because of revenue, but they are potentially going to cost a deserving team a playoff spot. If a 2-loss SEC team loses the title game, which is entirely possible, chances are they will be bounced from the playoff field, which would be grossly unfair for a team that finished second in the conference. It would be simple to decide the conference champ through tiebreakers if needed and avoid this, but they will never give up the payday, a potentially big problem.
Click to expand...

my only comment is the schools and conferences agreed to this format and plan for the CFP. Now many, many fans are going to have views of it that disagree with how it works. But every championship format has a lot of fans that don't like it.

Bigger issue for the SEC are all the one loss or less teams. Currently there are 30. Those teams continue to win games they will inch up those CFP rankings and a two loss at large SEC team that gets the second loss late in November could fall out of ranking that gets them in the CFP.
 
#106
#106
sami said:
My point is that the SEC championship game shouldn't disqualify a team who would have been in the field with 2 losses but loses it for their 3rd loss.
Click to expand...
Exactly especially now that the 2 losses is not smoke and mirrors from being a weaker division champion. Many years LSU, Bama and Auburn finished second in west but was 2nd best in conference and early years same with us and Florida in the east and occasionally Georgia.

Being all lumped together the loser of the sec championship game should be placed in unless in a weird year they might have 2 or 3 losses out of conference. Then those out of conference losses should get them penalized.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sami
#107
#107
sami said:
It's obviously way past moot at this point, but I 100% agree. I always felt the BCS was just fine - the two best teams via a computer program (not by some guys with biases in a room) were determined, and it was always two of the only teams that would have won it anyway.

Even in the 4-team CFP, most years everyone knew it would be one of two teams that would win it. This idea that it will be like March Madness with crazy upsets and Cinderella teams are kidding themselves. If we ever get a single 12-seed that wins a game, or even a #4 seed with a bye winning more than maybe one game, it will be a shock. Even with the relative parity that is entering the sport.

But this is what it is, so might as well have some fun with it.
Click to expand...
Not that the BCS was perfect, but you didn't have to win a national championship to have a "successful" season. NY6 bowls were a great finish for any team. It was nice to have a different type of post season compared to the NFL.

Then came too many bowls, then the 4 team play off, then the nightmare 12 team now where if you don't get into the CFP, you get stuck in the Mayo bowl. Who wants the Mayo bowl????
 
#108
#108
sami said:
We are obviously not going to be able to pass judgment on this new playoff format and the selection process until we see how it plays out, but I'd like to raise a couple of potential issues. I'm clearly coming from a Tennessee and SEC perspective, but I'd like to hear some other opinions on this new format.

1. It annoys the hell out of me to hear the SEC and Big 10 linked together and described as equals. The only elite teams in the Big 10 are OSU and maybe Oregon. Penn State is good but far from elite, Indiana and Illinois are pretenders, and the rest are middling to dreck. The SEC has maybe 3-4 teams that aren't really competitive right now, and that's including underachieving Kentucky and Oklahoma teams. Hell, Vandy is a handful now.

But we're possibly going to see Big 10 teams that play 1-2 tough games winning 10-11 games and getting at large spots over 2-3 loss SEC teams that go through a week-to-week meat grinder because the leagues are seen as equals. Anyone who watches average Big 10 games and SEC games knows there is a huge difference in the level of play and the intensity of the leagues, and yet I believe we're going to see better SEC teams that played brutal schedules left out for a team like Indiana or Illinois.

2. The conferences will never get rid of the conference championship games because of revenue, but they are potentially going to cost a deserving team a playoff spot. If a 2-loss SEC team loses the title game, which is entirely possible, chances are they will be bounced from the playoff field, which would be grossly unfair for a team that finished second in the conference. It would be simple to decide the conference champ through tiebreakers if needed and avoid this, but they will never give up the payday, a potentially big problem.
Click to expand...
2. Correct. That's why our playoff chances are better if we go 10-2 and don't play in the SECCG.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sami
#109
#109
sami said:
Something tells me that even if they go to nine games, they'll keep the superfluous conference championship games. The one absolute in sports is that no rule or policy change is ever made that will not somehow or in some way enhance revenue. Ever. I've yet to see an exception to that in pro or big time college sports.
Click to expand...
Then I guess they will do away with one of those throw away games…still play 12 but more of the 12 would generate revenue…still would not help the stupidity that is the conference championship games…
 
#110
#110
Nico ee-ah-MAH-LAY-ah-va said:
Not that the BCS was perfect, but you didn't have to win a national championship to have a "successful" season. NY6 bowls were a great finish for any team. It was nice to have a different type of post season compared to the NFL.

Then came too many bowls, then the 4 team play off, then the nightmare 12 team now where if you don't get into the CFP, you get stuck in the Mayo bowl. Who wants the Mayo bowl????
Click to expand...

Your first sentence says it all, and is one big reason why college football is fast losing its identity. With the CFP and 24-7-365 media and social media, anything short of a "chip" for a big time program is considered a failure, and having to endure an off season of endless trash talk.

Like you said, it used to be a top 10 finish and a bowl game was a season to celebrate. Now, it's an embarrassment if you get an Outback or Mayo bowl bid. Maybe Spurrier started it with his "can't spell Citrus without U and T" line. lol
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nico ee-ah-MAH-LAY-ah-va
#116
#116
Our players just need to concentrate on what it’s going to take to win each week, and let the chips fall where they may. All you can ask for is that you control your own destiny, and thankfully we are in that boat.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top