Jump to content

I've come up with a new playoff system for college football


bullets13

Recommended Posts

no they are not, heck one doesn't even play a conference champioship 

so they are not equal 

 

What does that have to do with ANYTHING? Oklahoma won the Conference Championship. They played EVERY team in the conference and had the best record. Why is that hard to understand?

If you're the BEST team in the SEC win your conferences Championship. Don't lose 1 game and lose YOUR championship and expect to play anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What does that have to do with ANYTHING? Oklahoma won the Conference Championship. They played EVERY team in the conference and had the best record. Why is that hard to understand?

If you're the BEST team in the SEC win your conferences Championship. Don't lose 1 game and lose YOUR championship and expect to play anymore.

It mattered last year when the both of the "One True Champion's" got left at home.  The Big 12 got lucky that starting Qb's starting dropping like flies so OU could win out and get in the playoff.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It mattered last year when the both of the "One True Champion's" got left at home.  The Big 12 got lucky that starting Qb's starting dropping like flies so OU could win out and get in the playoff.  

They got left at home because some guys around a table decided that there was not a Big XII Champion. In my system they would have not been able to exclude one of those teams (it may also have forced the Big XII to reconsider their current format.)

Luck is part of football and athletics in general.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What does that have to do with ANYTHING? Oklahoma won the Conference Championship. They played EVERY team in the conference and had the best record. Why is that hard to understand?

If you're the BEST team in the SEC win your conferences Championship. Don't lose 1 game and lose YOUR championship and expect to play anymore.u

You are saying it yourselve , smh 

one conference plays all teams and another doesn't and has a tourney. You explain to me how that is egual 

once agian all conference are not egual. Why is that HARD for U to understAnd 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neither did and they both handily beat teams that you would have put in the playoff.  Until they expand the college football playoff to 64 teams, your playoff is asinine 

No, it's not asinine. It does force the big money schools to actually win their conference and not back in like Bama and LSU a few years back. Or maybe make the Big XII expand and have a Championship game. 

5 Power 5 Conference CHAMPIONS and 3 Non-Power 5 Conference Champions. No more "pay to play".

If the AAC Champ is such an easy win or the PAC 12 is no contest, then follow what Nike says and "Just Do It".

Beat them on the field. Stop throwing around money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are saying it yourselve , smh 

one conference plays all teams and another doesn't and has a tourney. You explain to me how that is egual 

once agian all conference are not egual. Why is that HARD for U to understAnd 

hey man, you back? Had not seen you in awhile. One more loss to Arkansas and we might own land in Baton Rouge, that way we'll just fire everybody. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes provide me one and use with with your example. One plays all and another does not 

They all play 11 games.

That's equal.

Every conference determines a "Champion" by playing football games against teams in their conference.

That's equal.

How you choose to determine your "Champion" is up to you. 

That's equal.

 

Now, please provide your definition.

Edited by GCMPats2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm saying there would be no point to schedule good teams if the whole goal is to have less than 2 losses.

 

Stanford played 12 Power 5 schools this season with their 2 losses being on the road at #16 Northwestern and #17 Oregon by 2 points.  Take out the non conference loss to NW and Stanford is a lock for the playoff even above OU.  There would be no benifit to playing a good shedule. 

sounds like there was no point in playing that tough schedule. They're being punished for it anyway.  That being said, if there was an 8-team playoff they'd be a shoo-in as the first 2-loss team to fill out the field, which might be enough to encourage schools to continue to schedule competitive OOC opponents.

Edited by bullets13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All of this crazy talk about letting three mid-majors in is insane.  That's why I said that they had to go undefeated to get in.  As for the talk about OOC scheduling, if you use strength of schedule to determine both seeding and which 2-loss teams will complete the field then you would still get a lot of good OOC matchups

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a plan- 8 Teams

Power 5 Conference Champs (ACC, Big XII, SEC, Pac 12, Big 10)

3 Highest rated Mid-Major Conference Champs plus Highest Rated Independent 

Win your conference!

Here's a plan- 8 Teams

Power 5 Conference Champs (ACC, Big XII, SEC, Pac 12, Big 10)

3 Highest rated Mid-Major Conference Champs plus Highest Rated Independent 

Win your conference!

I'm usually in agreement with you, but this is ludicrous.  We're going to make an 8-team playoff and include 3 teams that wouldn't finish better than top-4 in any of the power conferences?  I don't think so.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I'm usually in agreement with you, but this is ludicrous.  We're going to make an 8-team playoff and include 3 teams that wouldn't finish better than top-4 in any of the power conferences?  I don't think so.  

That's just it. You assume they would not finish higher than top 4. Let them prove it on the field, not by public opinion. 

I do allow some opinion into the mix. They have to be in the Top 25. Why not give the AAC Champ a shot at OU or Bama? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's just it. You assume they would not finish higher than top 4. Let them prove it on the field, not by public opinion. 

I do allow some opinion into the mix. They have to be in the Top 25. Why not give the AAC Champ a shot at OU or Bama? 

I'll give you one, but not three.  One of the reasons I'm for an 8-team playoff is that it would allow for the occasional mid-major to get in.  But let's be honest, if you take the best season a mid-major team has each year, there's at least 25-30 teams (likely more) from power conferences that would've equaled or bettered their season if they played the same schedule in the same conference.  Houston is the highest ranked mid-major team right now. They're 11-1, and ranked 17th. I honestly believe Texas, who's had a dumpster fire of a season at 4-7, would be at worst 9-3 (and likely 10-2 or 11-1) if they'd played Houston's schedule.  Likewise, had Houston played UT's schedule, they'd at best be 6-5 (likely 5-6 or 4-7).  I see no realistic argument in placing Houston AND two other slightly lesser mid-major teams into an 8-team playoff.  This year that would mean putting 2-loss temple and 2-loss navy, both of whom have played the same mediocre type schedule that Houston has played, ahead of 7 or 8 one and two loss teams from power conferences who have played infinitely harder schedules.  Your playoff scenario this year would have 5 of the top 6 or 7 teams, then #17, #20, and #22.  Those three teams would make the playoffs ahead of 10-12 teams with equal or better records who'd played infinitely more difficult schedules in infinitely more difficult conferences. I don't like to see mid-majors completely overlooked because they're mid-majors, but they shouldn't be rewarded for it.

Edited by bullets13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll give you one, but not three.  One of the reasons I'm for an 8-team playoff is that it would allow for the occasional mid-major to get in.  But let's be honest, if you take the best season a mid-major team has each year, there's at least 25-30 teams (likely more) from power conferences that would've equaled or bettered their season if they played the same schedule in the same conference.  Houston is the highest ranked mid-major team right now. They're 11-1, and ranked 17th. I honestly believe Texas, who's had a dumpster fire of a season at 4-7, would be at worst 9-3 (and likely 10-2 or 11-1) if they'd played Houston's schedule.  Likewise, had Houston played UT's schedule, they'd at best be 6-5 (likely 5-6 or 4-7).  I see no realistic argument in placing Houston AND two other slightly lesser mid-major teams into an 8-team playoff.  This year that would mean putting 2-loss temple and 2-loss navy, both of whom have played the same mediocre type schedule that Houston has played, ahead of 7 or 8 one and two loss teams from power conferences who have played infinitely harder schedules.  Your playoff scenario this year would have 5 of the top 6 or 7 teams, then #17, #20, and #22.  Those three teams would make the playoffs ahead of 10-12 teams with equal or better records who'd played infinitely more difficult schedules in infinitely more difficult conferences. I don't like to see mid-majors completely overlooked because they're mid-majors, but they shouldn't be rewarded for it.

But everyone has the same opportunity to win the games on the field.

You take into account that a P5 school that loses 2 games should still have an opportunity to play for a NC. Why? Because they are P5? Because they might get a higher TV rating? P5 schools will still get paid. Gluttony is a sin.

Trust me. I'm not about participation ribbons. I just think EVERY BCS conference should have at least an opportunity to play for a NC. As it stands now, that's not happning.

Why not give David a chance to slay Goliath? If it works out like you say, there's no need for speculation or what ifs.  The games are played on the field. Just win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But everyone has the same opportunity to win the games on the field.

You take into account that a P5 school that loses 2 games should still have an opportunity to play for a NC. Why? Because they are P5? Because they might get a higher TV rating? P5 schools will still get paid. Gluttony is a sin.

Trust me. I'm not about participation ribbons. I just think EVERY BCS conference should have at least an opportunity to play for a NC. As it stands now, that's not happning.

Why not give David a chance to slay Goliath? If it works out like you say, there's no need for speculation or what ifs.  The games are played on the field. Just win.

I'm fine giving one David a chance, but not giving 3 when there are 20-30 teams a year who have an equal/better body of work against tougher opponents.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Member Statistics

    45,977
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    cfbswami
    Newest Member
    cfbswami
    Joined



  • Posts

    • No offense, but both sides do it.  The Rs in Texas want to do away with decades of precedent and demand that Dems are no longer given chair positions on any committees in the Tx House. It sounds reasonable enough, until you arrive at a point when the Ds enjoy a single seat majority in the house, select the most leftist speaker of all times, and the refuse to give Rs any say in the legislative process by refusing to give them any committee chairs.     Experience has shown me that any time a party seeks to consolidate power in a legislative body, it backfires.    What I don’t like is a world where we cheer for Manchin for doing his own thing, but also re-elect guys like Paxton and Patrick when they make threats to R Legislators if they don’t do exactly what the Radical Right demands. Our Rep here in Hardin County lost his spot for voting against private school vouchers-his wife is a teacher. He also voted his conscience on the Paxton impeachment.  It cost him his seat…. Not because of the will of the voters in his district, but because if millions of outside dollars pumped into the race from outside the district and even an endorsement of his unknown challenger by Donald Trump himself.    Why do people like you applaud Manchin for being his own man and then vote against Phelan for doing the same thing?
    • We'll see. I don't trust us. 
    • Starting pitching has been shaky the last few weeks due to some injuries outside of Hagen Smith.  He goes tomorrow, so y’all should be fine 
    • Manchin may get it but any mention of the radical left that wanted to get rid of the filibuster and end almost 220 years of history because the Democrats are mad?  The House and Senate are obviously different legislative bodies with entirely different election processes and rules for a reason. The House can vote on laws with a simple majority vote. The Senate put rules in place that it would make it much tougher to pass laws. Laws should be difficult to pass. The Senate is often the holdup of the right and left. It takes 60 votes to break the filibuster so any law will almost certainly require agreement at least in part, from opposing sides of an issue. Because they can’t get laws passed, the radical left is like a baby having a tantrum and wants to change over 200 years of history and make it potentially ridiculously easy to pass laws. I have seen current poll maps and it is possible for the Republicans to sweep into complete power in November but by the tiniest margin. That would possibly mean that a single vote margin in both houses could enact what you might call the radical right laws. There would be nothing that the Democrats could do to stop any legislation whatsoever if the left (they are all radical, minus Manchin) got their filibuster rule changed.  That is where the current filibuster comes into play as any new law would require several Democrats to agree with the majority Republicans and vice versa.  Do you want the potential for your radical right to have free rein as the radical left wants by killing the filibuster or is the radical left just as (if not more) dangerous? Let’s see if we have a history in this area? Oh yeah, the Democrats changed the rules in the Senate to allow federal judges to not have to overcome the filibuster. Obama was not getting his federal judge nominations passed and being angry, they changed the rules instead of nominating more moderate justices. They were warned that it would come back to bite them. They didn’t care and chose the nuclear option to change the rules. Oops! Any guess how Trump got all of his Supreme Court nominees passed against strong Democrat opposition? The Democrats got rid of the filibuster for federal judges after another tantrum   So when you are so worried about the radical right, are you equally concerned in what the radical left is always doing by changing rules and history which were put into place just for situations like we are in? So while Manchin gets it, what about his other 50 colleagues (49 + Harris)?  What concerns you more, Abbott and Paxton or the Democrats who want to make it to where if the Republicans do take over, they can go wild… at least in your mind? 
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...