In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Options
Looks Like 'Bama...
pwillie
Member Posts: 20,253 ✭✭✭
...is out!. Bill Hancock, President of the CFP,has no love for'Bama's performance this year...I predict if OSU wins big over Wisconsin, they will be in! ...and if Wisconsin wins its a no brainer! Doesn't matter about TCU-Oklahoma...
Comments
Add: On TCU and Oklahoma. Kirk Herbstreit said that if TCU did upset Oklahoma that TCU should get in.
so a two loss team should get in? Neither TCU are Oklahoma have been ranked No 1....all year long only Georgia, Clemson and Alabama!...so why are they right now, and wasn't right before?....Lets face it, everyone is tired of 'Bama winning national championships...or playing in the final 4...
I think Auburn will get in if Kerryon Johnson is healthy. Ohio State with a victory might get in due to their political clout, but not without another year of rants against the CFP.
quote:Originally posted by pwillie
so a two loss team should get in? Neither TCU are Oklahoma have been ranked No 1....all year long only Georgia, Clemson and Alabama!...so why are they right now, and wasn't right before?....Lets face it, everyone is tired of 'Bama winning national championships...or playing in the final 4...
I think Auburn will get in if Kerryon Johnson is healthy. Ohio State with a victory might get in due to their political clout, but not without another year of rants against the CFP.
...if Auburn gets in because of Johnson,you just as well let OSU in ,because of them beating Wisconsin..
I hope Miami beats Clemson and confuses things even more!
that just might happen
"Never do wrong to make a friend----or to keep one".....Robert E. Lee
Clemson already beat Auburn
Auburn has beat Clemson 34 times out of the 51 times they have met. Don
quote:Originally posted by kimi
quote:Originally posted by pwillie
so a two loss team should get in? Neither TCU are Oklahoma have been ranked No 1....all year long only Georgia, Clemson and Alabama!...so why are they right now, and wasn't right before?....Lets face it, everyone is tired of 'Bama winning national championships...or playing in the final 4...
I think Auburn will get in if Kerryon Johnson is healthy. Ohio State with a victory might get in due to their political clout, but not without another year of rants against the CFP.
...if Auburn gets in because of Johnson,you just as well let OSU in ,because of them beating Wisconsin..
Johnson injured both shoulders. He probably needs to be healthy come game time, but who knows for sure.
Alabama will not be a conference champion.
Of course they won't, but being a conference champion does not mean a team will get in, especially Ohio State this year for a couple of reasons. One being that the CFP has drawn strafing fire and napalm the past two years for sneak attacks, and getting in under like circumstances, when the idea behind the whole system is to pick the best four teams...read not necessarily all conference champions, might bring on another Little Boy-Hiroshima episode for the CFP Committee, if not one like Fat Boy and Nagasaki. With this in mind, a leap frog raid every now and then might be a smart move considering the amount of dough involved, which is certainly better than blowing a good thing altogether. Remembering the BIG-10's Rose Bowl history at times like this would be the thing to do...Whew!!!!! No, no one wants to remember that! Do they?! BTW, where has the PAC-12 been the last three years? You know, the other half of the Rose Bowl equation.
I'm still picking Wisconsin as a better team than the Ohio State.
If the best team in the conference isn't winning the conference championship that is the conference's fault. That is one of the things I keep bringing up. Conference champions that haven't played every team in the conference really aren't champions at all. The current Bowl and playoff system reward this and IMO that's BS.
The winner of the Georgia/Auburn game will be named the SEC champ and the winner of Ohio State/Wisconsin game will be named the Big 10 champ. Are those conferences good enough to place in the top 4? If they are they are and if they're not, they're not.
The conferences should be naming their chosen team to be placed in the list of consideration for a playoff spot. That team should be their conference champion. If that team is good enough it gets a spot and if it isn't it shouldn't. Make the conferences responsible for what team they choose to put forward. The committee chooses from that list, the committee shouldn't create the list on their own. They certainly shouldn't be choosing it from teams that failed to win their conference.
But like we've said, it's all about money and politics, it isn't about winning real championships.
Sure a conference champion, even from a power 5 conference, may not get in. There are only 4 slots. However the SEC, by their own rules, has determined that Alabama is not the conference's best team. It's as simple as that. So the question is, is the best team in the SEC good enough to be in the top 4, and that team will either be Georgia or Auburn. Same thing in the Big 10, is the best team in the Big 10 good enough to be in the top 4.
If the best team in the conference isn't winning the conference championship that is the conference's fault. That is one of the things I keep bringing up. Conference champions that haven't played every team in the conference really aren't champions at all. The current Bowl and playoff system reward this and IMO that's BS.
The winner of the Georgia/Auburn game will be named the SEC champ and the winner of Ohio State/Wisconsin game will be named the Big 10 champ. Are those conferences good enough to place in the top 4? If they are they are and if they're not, they're not.
The conferences should be naming their chosen team to be placed in the list of consideration for a playoff spot. That team should be their conference champion. If that team is good enough it gets a spot and if it isn't it shouldn't. Make the conferences responsible for what team they choose to put forward. The committee chooses from that list, the committee shouldn't create the list on their own. They certainly shouldn't be choosing it from teams that failed to win their conference.
But like we've said, it's all about money and politics, it isn't about winning real championships.
The CFP is a very inadequate system. Keep it simple here. Ohio State had a recent Face Plant handed to the by Iowa. Additionally, they have a second loss! Alabama has one loss to, perhaps, the best team in the nation...a very tough team. It's a no brainer in the final analysis in that they do not deserve to move ahead of Alabama under any circumstance, even with a blowout over Wisconsin. The Buckeye's two losses, one of total destruction, does not merit such a leap frog move on behalf of the committee. But being such a decision is totally political, they might well sneak in again since the lines are drawn for such a move.
quote:Originally posted by kimi
quote:Originally posted by pwillie
so a two loss team should get in? Neither TCU are Oklahoma have been ranked No 1....all year long only Georgia, Clemson and Alabama!...so why are they right now, and wasn't right before?....Lets face it, everyone is tired of 'Bama winning national championships...or playing in the final 4...
I think Auburn will get in if Kerryon Johnson is healthy. Ohio State with a victory might get in due to their political clout, but not without another year of rants against the CFP.
...if Auburn gets in because of Johnson,you just as well let OSU in ,because of them beating Wisconsin..
Common sense has to figure in somewhere now or in what appears to be a very fast approach to expansion of the playoffs, especially to a playoff system that went to the ropes in the first year and has stayed there ever since, right up to this moment due to so called priorities that are easily manipulated by committee members. The job of the CFP members is to put the best four teams in the nation in the playoffs. That literally means that they can all be from one conference in anyone's book. Criteria like the conference championship, and the crock that how teams play in the final games as opposed to the beginning of the season, which downplays all of the signature wins like the Sooners over the Buckeyes in Columbus, become BS politics, period. But, like you keep saying, Paul, it's all about money, so we can throw common sense out the window.
quote:Originally posted by select-fire
Clemson already beat Auburn
Auburn has beat Clemson 34 times out of the 51 times they have met. Don
Not the last two years..!!
No, leaping Bama is not an option to anyone that is capable of thinking clearly about this issue.
I don't have anything against any of these teams, all of them seem to be fairly even. No matter who goes or who wins it will make no difference in my life. I guess the games will be broadcast on cable, I don't have cable, I won't even be able to watch the games. I'm just making a few points on how little sense some of this makes. It's like the polls saying Clinton was a shoo in to be elected when the data didn't even come close to supporting that.
They tried the 2 teams from the same conference in the championship game when they chose Alabama and LSU. That was the disaster that finally changed things to the 4 team playoff, a big step forward. Well the flaws of having only a 4 team playoff are exposed now. But then the quickest way to get the playoffs expanded is to repeat multiple teams from the same conference.
A lot of prejudice, favoritism and BS involved. The sport needs a playoff. A champ should be a champ, not a political appointee.
I'm lost. If Georgia wins the SEC title they will be a one loss SEC champ with one loss to Auburn and 12 wins. But people think Alabama with one loss to Auburn, no conference title and 11 wins would be more deserving than Georgia. How does that compute? Yet if Auburn wins they should be a shoo in despite having 2 losses. Clemson face plants against a 4 win team yet is still #1.
I don't have anything against any of these teams, all of them seem to be fairly even. No matter who goes or who wins it will make no difference in my life. I guess the games will be broadcast on cable, I don't have cable, I won't even be able to watch the games. I'm just making a few points on how little sense some of this makes. It's like the polls saying Clinton was a shoo in to be elected when the data didn't even come close to supporting that.
They tried the 2 teams from the same conference in the championship game when they chose Alabama and LSU. That was the disaster that finally changed things to the 4 team playoff, a big step forward. Well the flaws of having only a 4 team playoff are exposed now. But then the quickest way to get the playoffs expanded is to repeat multiple teams from the same conference.
A lot of prejudice, favoritism and BS involved. The sport needs a playoff. A champ should be a champ, not a political appointee.
How does the Georgia-Alabama equation compute here. As I see it, it's a built in protection for all conferences that are split up like the SEC, the BIG-10, the PAC-12, and the ACC for example. All of these conferences stand to gain in the situation like the one you brought up.
The only power five conference where teams must wade through every foe in their conference is the BIG-12. It's just another example as to how far the named conferences go in order for some teams to avoid say, playing two or three of the tougher opponents in their conference. This, to include, unregulated bye-weeks, with some of these off weeks backed up to a non-conference patsy near the end of the season, just before, for example, the Iron Bowl, is a prime example of milking what is already a gimme-system for the teams in these conferences. Plus, the good fortune of beating two number one teams almost back to back makes a strong argument in the current system that is wrought with new situations that are all of a sudden important at every turn. Let's face it...out of all of the arguments that the CFP members could be bringing forth, this is the strongest reason of all, when compared with why Ohio State should notbe in, for keeping Auburn in the top four should they beat Georgia.
The Alabama-LSU situation set a precedent in college football. This on the heels of the formulation of the CFP that has required all coaches, players, etc., to rethink this scenario, and to accept it since the goal of the CFP is to put the best four teams in the playoffs, even if they are from the same conference..
I fully agree with the rest of your points.
...its always been "The Mythical College Football Championship"...because there is no playoff, not even now! AP and United Press all voted on who was the Champ...Coachs poll didn't count..
That's very true, Paul. You have to admit though, if we had the top 16 teams in the playoffs...such thinking would not be much of a myth at all.
quote:Originally posted by pwillie
...its always been "The Mythical College Football Championship"...because there is no playoff, not even now! AP and United Press all voted on who was the Champ...Coachs poll didn't count..
That's very true, Paul. You have to admit though, if we had the top 16 teams in the playoffs...such thinking would not be much of a myth at all.
16 teams really should cover all the viable contenders. There is only so much top notch talent available to build teams with. Those teams 3 strings deep are the teams standing tall at the end of the year. A lot of other schools are 1 string deep, which is why so many games are close at half time before the deeper team pulls away in the 2nd half.
College basketball runs 64 teams. But it doesn't take 80 players to make up a 3 string basketball team. Basically both sports have the same number of top athletes available. Just that you can make more basketball teams out of them than football teams. Do the math and 16 teams would cover all the top football contenders.
Ideally you would have a tourney with all conference champions playing, like NCAA-II. But I don't see that happening. Be nice if it did, we would see these mega conferences down sized along with the influence of the money and political power.