I feel that the committee this year is going to lose credibility if they take a non-conference champion. In particular, Ohio St. If they take them over the PAC 12, Big 10, or Big 12 champion, then their whole excuse for not letting TCU or Baylor in the inaugural year is void. Here is my take on who goes in: Bama Clemson Washington Ohio St
Ohio St looks like a better team then TCU or Baylor did 2 years ago, and as all had one loss, I have no issues with the committee looking at the total body of work and taking what they think is the best team. There is no team worth a crap in the Big 12 this year. How do you take OU over OSU when OSU kicked the crap out of them? A one loss OSU deserves to go over anyone in the Big 12. Pac would have a better argument, but let's see how it all plays out. Several games left.
I think TCU looked better than Ohio St from start and all the way till the last game. Only Ohio St winning big against Wisconsin at the end was more impressive. Then they peaked after that in the playoffs. Of course TCU put on one of the most dominating displays of defense against highly ranked Ole Miss in their bowl game I've ever seen. The after math showed Ohio St deserved it, but if it was done correctly they wouldn't had a chance to prove that. This is the flaw of having only 2 or 4 teams. I have always thought there should be an 8 team playoff format.
If they take tOSU, it solidifies our new conference championship rematch only hurts our playoff chances and is a mindless cash grab.
Ohio State this year is TCU 2 years ago. Barely lost on the road to a top 10 conference team Crushed everyone else Didn't win the conference. The only difference is OSU played Oklahoma non-conference and TCU played an FCS team. If TCU had a good opponent on their schedule instead of an FCS team, they likely would have made the top 4 two years ago. We have seen in the past the committee generally gives credit for wins, but doesn't generally deduct credit for losses. Remember OSU got crushed at home by a middling VT team 2 years ago.
BTW I do think TCU got jobbed 2 years ago. They were really good and probably would have won it all if given a shot IMO. They went from 3 to 6 after winning by 50 or something.
Not what I said. I said Ohio St looks better then TCU did from 2 years ago. That's present tense as in this Ohio St. team looks from the eye test better then the TCU team from 2 years ago. And why if they are chosen for the playoffs, I have no issues with it. Not only has OSU only lost 1 game, but they hammered OU in non-conf. If they win out, they deserve it over OU for sure. I'd give a 1 loss conference champion Washington a spot over OSU, but not a 2 loss champion from any conference. You lose 2 games, in most years, you are out. There will be someone still sitting there with 1 loss whether they win their conference or not and I don't believe you should be DQ'd just because you didn't win your conference.
Sometimes the best team should be left out. The spoils belong to the conference victor. Conference winners only in the playoffs. Everyone else can take another shot next season. Want to get in the playoffs? Win all your games and or your conference championship. Very simple. And get rid of that damn committee!
When TV contracts are up I see 4 super conferences coming and the winner of each will be the final 4 and until then it will be screwed. I wanted 10 teams the best pay the best and it would be a lot harder to say somebody got left out
I think the four super conferences and a four team playoff is good. Makes winning your conference mean something and keeps regular season games meaningful.
Just go to 8, let us see a bunch of good match-ups, and end the nitpicking... 5 conf champs plus 3 at-large Or even 6 teams...5 conf champs, 1 at-large, and top 2 seeds get bye Sooner or later the 4 team model needs to expand. Right now the teams ranked 2-7 are a toss-up who'd beat who on any given Sat.
Except that's your rules and not the rules being decided by the committee. I too like 4 power conferences with a 4 team playoff based on winners. But until or if we get there, right now the committee is supposed to pick the 4 best teams. So right now the 4 best teams should go.
One of the biggest gripes I have with the committee, and why I think the computers should pick the playoff teams, is there seems to be very much a pedigree bias by the committee.
Yes. Even the best intentions cannot overcome inbred assumptions. The Committee rules are those with direct connections cannot participate "on that team's" status. But there is nothing to keep them from lobbying - which explains the $EC and B1G bias'. Go to 4 conferences and make the CCG's the first round of the playoff's (i.e. more tv money). Independents - get into a conference or recognize you might get a good bowl payoff, but you will never be playing for a NC.
I remember wondering back in the 80s why there wasn't a promotion/relegation system in American sports. If a Premier League team couldn't perform against the big boys, then they could move down a division until they got their **** together and come back to compete later. Since I'm older and somewhat wiser now, I see that the economics of pro sports wouldn't allow for something so arbitrary. If a municipality promises to help build a $1 billion stadium, and then the team sucks and is forced down a level, it could have disastrous consequences from a monetary standpoint. But I think Division I college football might be a good "primer" for something like this if we abandoned the traditional conference system. Name a commissioner of college football, abandon the weird NCAA bylaws, and form a superdivision of the top programs. If you finish in the bottom 5 percent for a couple years or whatever, you're relegated back to the "FCS" division. The top X percent of teams in FCS get to move up and try their hand in the superdivision. Since it's college, I don't think it would be as big an economic mess as it would be for the four major pro American sports.
I think some missed my point. Why is a conference championship game so important to the committee, as they professed two years ago, if they are not even going to take the champion of said game? What purpose does it serve when the committee takes a team not in the conference championship game? I am not arguing that tOSU might be one of the top teams in the nation right now. I am arguing that they lost to a team that is gong to play in a conference championship game. If Penn St wins this weekend, couldn't you argue that they deserve to go to the playoff over tOSU since they beat them in the regular season? If the committee is going to hammer head-to-head and conference championships games as a main reason to take a team, then wouldn't it stand to reason that Penn St should go if they win this weekend, since the committee clearly wants to take tOSU?
Because won/loss records matter too. And 2 loss teams are not going to get picked over 1 loss teams in the same conference. Won/loss matters in all the top sports and non-conference does play a part in seeding in bball, baseball, etc...
The committee itself has said that conference championship games are the end all be all. We are not talking about what is reasonable, we are talking about what the committee has said. If they take tOSU they have proven they will take a 1 loss tOSU no matter what and it does not make a s*** whether tOSU wins their conference or not. The committee can drop their nonsense reasons and just say "the tiebreaker is which school has a bigger name." This is good for UT and OU. It is bad for the rest of the Big 12 and probably more than half the teams in the power 5 conferences. The real takeaway is the rest of the Big 12 needs to drop the "we need a conference title game" (too late on this one i guess) and "we need to add teams" and "we should not have co-champs" to help with the playoff. It does not matter what the Big 12 does, the smaller power 5 teams are getting screwed by higher powers than the Big 12 (the committee). The fix is to keep the 4 team playoff and go back to the BCS for determining which teams get in. The BCS may have had the order wrong but it got the top 4 right. The flaw was limiting the BCS to 2 teams. Anyway, the Baylors and TCUs need to shut up with their dumb suggestions for the Big 12, the Big 12 is not their playoff problem.
I'm all for the team who has the best chance of beating Alabama and that smug Coach Satan! Somebody needs to stop this dynasty!
We live in a world where everybody not only has an opinion but can post it on the internet. Just because every decision you make will be criticized in some corner, does not necessarily mean you lack credibility.
Winning a conference championship should mean this is the best the conference has to offer to the bowl games. Since tOSU will not win the Big 10, they should only get a playoff spot after/if the actual Big 10 champion does. They are already not even the best team in their conference! If tOSU is the best, the Big 10 should present them as Big 10 champions.
i like an 8-team playoff way better than a 4-team. and it allows for the 2nd best team in the nation to not win a conference and still have a shot.
I hate this system, can't stand it, no conference should have two teams in the CFP. (IMO) If you don't win your conference your out, done. It's all espn and who will draw for them, and like posters above have said, build a super conference and be done already. TCU was the test, they didn't want them. If a team gets in that didn't win conference this year we absolutely know the fix is in to keep small programs out.
