Mike Leach on the CFP

[Sebastian S]

So what? When everybody knows going into the season that a conference championship gets you in the playoff there are no excuses. The conference champion deserves in no matter their record.

I disagree but it's the correct procedure.

One of the at large spots can go to the 2nd team in this case. Last year, Penn state should be in then OSU at large.

Where this sucks is if a team in the big 12 enters the champ game unbeaten. Losses a rematch.

 

[dawg]

Yeh, but would reward top two teams with byes. Would be identical to NFL.

Problem with this is the inherent bias the committee will use in selecting the top 2 teams. Does the secsecsec champ deserve a bye every single season? No, but they'll get it, and with it an easier path to the title.

Eight teams would mean every team played the same number games. I totally agree with the NFL awarding byes to the top two teams in each conference, because it is done based on on-field performance. Having the committee "award" what it thinks are the top two teams leaves far too much to bias.

 

[zfrawg]

OOC games would be meaningless.

disagree. I think it would encourage better OOC scheduling. beat a top team and maybe you can lose your conference but still get in.

I can get behind the no auto bid if you champ has more than X number of losses that someone mentioned.

 

[dawg]

OOC games would be meaningless.

Not necessarily. OOC could be a factor in seeding 1-8. You want your semi-final on campus (by finishing top 4)? Schedule a decent OOC, and eliminate the FCS games.

A strong OOC could also get you an at-large, if you don't win the conference (although we know the at larges will be bluebloods with large fanbases).

 

[Jefffrog1993]

Every week in December is too valuable, weeks can't be wasted on non-competitive games just to give a bunch of G5's "a shot" every year just to say they had a shot (when in reality they don't). This isn't basketball where you have 15 member squads and 2 hour games that can be played in back-to-back days. It's cute that the 16th seed plays the #1 seed in March Madness but they've never actually won a game so they are essentially a waste of time. Time can't be wasted like that in football.

Agree with you on that point. A one has never lost to a 16 seed. However many 15 and 14 seeds have fallen. Proven when David gets a chance golliath falls. I did start the season sooner and cut out two weeks of cup cakes no love for that idea?

 

[Dogfrog]

I disagree but it's the correct procedure.

One of the at large spots can go to the 2nd team in this case. Last year, Penn state should be in then OSU at large.

Where this sucks is if a team in the big 12 enters the champ game unbeaten. Losses a rematch.

If you want in the playoff don’t lose the rematch. Everybody knows this and agrees up front. Makes for very exciting games and very exciting regular seasons. Edit: I’m ok with a couple of at larges as long as no conference championship participants are assured one in advance.

 

[The Frog to be Named Later]

All this just illustrates that you could lock 6 monkeys and a football in a room and come up with a better system than the current arbitrary CFP 4 team blue blood invitational

 

[DelFrog]

Finals at Stanford, Rice, Navy, Texas Tech, etc. are a lot more important than the same at Youngstown state, I’m sorry.

I hope you don't really believe quality education resides only in the FBS programs, as the lower divisions also have schools with very strong academics as well. Just off the top of my head here are a few from the FCS with quality football programs.

Lafayette
Lehigh
Richmond
William&Mary
Villanova
Delaware

and unlike the schools you listed (other than Stanford) all the above have had playoff caliber programs and actually participated in the playoffs in recent years. No doubt there are more great academic schools in both DII and DIII with quality football programs and unlike some of the prima donas in the FBS football factories, they actually have to do their work to stay eligible.

ps.. how did Texas Tech get included with that group you listed?

 

[Mean Purple]

I can just hear the popping sound of heads exploding up in Bristol. Those whose heads didn't pop will be shrieking "Heretic! Heretic! Burn the unbeliever!!!"

Yep. To translate their response: "How dare you. We make money off of this system. We need money more than Jim and Tammi Fay"

 

[InstaFrog]

Can't watch... what did he say?

"Go Frogs!"

 

[cdsfrog]

If the below happens, who gets in?

Bama -- undefeated
Clemson -- undefeated
Penn St/Wisconsin/Ohio St/Michigan -- one loss for one of them
Washington -- one loss
TCU -- one loss

Obviously in all situations the one loss is not in the CCG.

Almost guaranteed Its Bama, Clemson, Big 10, Pac 12

Washington is ahead of us now, will be on initial ranking. We would be 5th or 6th just like 2014

 

[Wexahu]

Agree with you on that point. A one has never lost to a 16 seed. However many 15 and 14 seeds have fallen. Proven when David gets a chance goliath falls. I did start the season sooner and cut out two weeks of cup cakes no love for that idea?

Goliath has fallen but David never ends up winning the whole thing, and they really never come close. I don't know what the stats are but in the 30+ year history of the 64-team NCAA hoops tournament I think there may have been one 15-seed even make the Sweet 16. An 11-seed has been the highest seeded team to make the Final 4, and they promptly got blown out in the semifinals.

The point is, weeks are too precious in college football to waste them on non-competitive games, and that's what you'd have almost 100% of the time with a #16 seed G5 team playing an Alabama-type team. Football is just different that way. A team that has no chance of winning the whole thing shouldn't be allowed to play in the tournament, not in college football anyway.

 

[Wexahu]

All this just illustrates that you could lock 6 monkeys and a football in a room and come up with a better system than the current arbitrary CFP 4 team blue blood invitational

I'm not sure Clemson is a blue blood. They sure as heck weren't 5 years ago. And Washington a blue blood? Very borderline.

 

[Sebastian S]

Almost guaranteed Its Bama, Clemson, Big 10, Pac 12

Washington is ahead of us now, will be on initial ranking. We would be 5th or 6th just like 2014

Washington has no ranked opponents left on their schedule.

If we finish with 1 loss, we could possible beat 1-3 ranked teams in the process.
OU and/or Tech + the championship game.

That would be more than good enough to jump a 1 loss Washington.

Edit- Washington state is ranked but that maybe their loss if they had 1.

 

[Limey Frog]

You can think of a conference as just “a patch on your jersey,” or you can view it as a 10- to 14-team season-long playoff for a spot in the championship tournament. It’s totally fair. Everyone (in the P5) starts off the season with a chance.

That's the way to do it in my opinion. I think the major conferences should be expanded to include most of the G5 schools who are actually semi-decent, then eliminate OOC games vs. any schools outside the playoff conferences. Play two good OOC games annually, one home, one away, then a ten-game conference season. If you have eight divisions the CCGs become de facto play-off quarterfinals, then a four-team auto-bid playoff. Polls don't matter; no fluff games that no-one wants to see. Everyone gets a shot on the field.

 

[Wexahu]

That's the way to do it in my opinion. I think the major conferences should be expanded to include most of the G5 schools who are actually semi-decent, then eliminate OOC games vs. any schools outside the playoff conferences. Play two good OOC games annually, one home, one away, then a ten-game conference season. If you have eight divisions the CCGs become de facto play-off quarterfinals, then a four-team auto-bid playoff. Polls don't matter; no fluff games that no-one wants to see. Everyone gets a shot on the field.

Only way this works is if the OOC games count toward conference standings, otherwise those game mean nothing. Then the problem with that is there'd be a huge disincentive to play anyone good in OOC.

I don't know, seems a little too NFL-ish to me.

 

[Frog-in-law1995]

Only way this works is if the OOC games count toward conference standings, otherwise those game mean nothing. Then the problem with that is there'd be a huge disincentive to play anyone good in OOC.

I don't know, seems a little too NFL-ish to me.

Those games still affect playoff seeding, bowl selection among the non-playoff teams, and would be important in determining the two at-large playoff teams.

 

[2314]

The OU loss to ISU hurt the conference and TCU needed OU to remain undefeated.

Which is why I and the group I sit with were alarmed when people at our game cheered when the video board showed the OU/ISU score. WTH?

 

[Wexahu]

Those games still affect playoff seeding, bowl selection among the non-playoff teams, and would be important in determining the two at-large playoff teams.

I thought he meant 4 larger conferences/8 divisions with all the division winners playing a de-facto CCP quarterfinal game in their CCG. Which would mean no at-large. Maybe I misunderstood, but the impact of OOC games and keeping their importance is often left out of the equation. They need to be a huge part of the game.

 

[Frog-in-law1995]

I thought he meant 4 larger conferences/8 divisions with all the division winners playing a de-facto CCP quarterfinal game in their CCG. Which would mean no at-large. Maybe I misunderstood, but the impact of OOC games and keeping their importance is often left out of the equation. They need to be a huge part of the game.

Somebody may have been saying that. I’ve kinda been darting in and out today doing my own thing. I was suggesting the 5 P5 champs, plus a G5 champ and 2 at-larges picked by committee.