Started By
Message
re: Why College Football Playoff Should Always Remain at 4 Teams
Posted on 3/31/14 at 5:16 pm to Projectpat
Posted on 3/31/14 at 5:16 pm to Projectpat
quote:
How many times in the BCS era have more than 4 teams gone into the bowl season undefeated?
0
1
Posted on 3/31/14 at 5:37 pm to heartbreakTiger
quote:
4 is the best, the selection is wrong. It should be from the bcs standings not a assclown filled committee.
This.
Posted on 3/31/14 at 5:39 pm to parkjas2001
quote:
quote:
How many times in the BCS era have more than 4 teams gone into the bowl season undefeated?
0
wrong. 2009 had 5 (Bama, Texas, Cincy, TCU and Boise State)
Posted on 3/31/14 at 5:40 pm to parkjas2001
12 teams would make me happy.
Posted on 3/31/14 at 6:03 pm to elposter
quote:
quote:
4 is the best, the selection is wrong. It should be from the bcs standings not a assclown filled committee.
Exactly how I feel.
4 is great. Selection committee sucks.
Keep the BCS formula. Top 4 would have resulted in the right matchups 90% of the time during the BCS era. Selection committee won't do better than that.
Agree with this.
Posted on 3/31/14 at 6:04 pm to parkjas2001
I want an 8 team playoff. Auto bids for power 5 conference champs. Auto bid for highest ranked conference champ from little 5. 2 at large bids.
Posted on 3/31/14 at 6:04 pm to parkjas2001
I'd be alright with 6 but never any more.
Posted on 3/31/14 at 7:11 pm to parkjas2001
8 seems right to me, but I would be ok with 4 or 6.
Posted on 3/31/14 at 7:17 pm to parkjas2001
quote:
Why College Football Playoff Should Always Remain at 4 Teams
You had me at Hello
4 teams, no more
Posted on 3/31/14 at 7:25 pm to Cheese Grits
4 is best for me.
It's essentially a plus 1.
I wouldn't turn away a larger pool (football fans saying less football? I can't do it).
But if we're trying to decide the best team, 4 is plenty.
It's essentially a plus 1.
I wouldn't turn away a larger pool (football fans saying less football? I can't do it).
But if we're trying to decide the best team, 4 is plenty.
Posted on 3/31/14 at 7:43 pm to Mirthomatic
I am fine with 4. However, I think 6 might be better for the sec if the committee shows any reluctance to put in 2 sec teams on a regular basis. I think the sec will have two of the four best teams in the country a lot, maybe even most years. So I wouldn't mind 6teams at all with #1 and #2 getting a bye. That also keeps the regular season importance at practically the same level as a 4 teamer.
8 is too many as it starts diminishing the regular season. 16 is ridiculous and would totally change the college game and regular season tremendously.
8 is too many as it starts diminishing the regular season. 16 is ridiculous and would totally change the college game and regular season tremendously.
Posted on 3/31/14 at 7:45 pm to meansonny
Four, like the Beatles.
Oh, six is dumb.
Oh, six is dumb.
This post was edited on 3/31/14 at 7:47 pm
Posted on 3/31/14 at 7:45 pm to Tiger n Miami AU83
Also, the committee is stupid. Bcs rankings were fine nd the Sunday night countdown was always fun and full of drama in november and early December.
Posted on 3/31/14 at 8:15 pm to Cockopotamus
quote:
How many times in the BCS era have more than 4 teams gone into the bowl season undefeated?
0
wrong. 2009 had 5 (Bama, Texas, Cincy, TCU and Boise State)
Beat me to it.
It obviously depends on the year. But there are obviously some years where there are a virtual handful of teams who deserve some consideration for a playoff. There are other years (e.g. 1999, 2002, 2005) where the conventional wisdom is that there are two teams who stand apart for their accomplishments and they alone deserve to be given a chance in the postseason for the championship.
Most years are different. In most years there may be a #1 but there may be real controversy about who should be the #2 team. Other years (e.g. 2003, 2004) there's a real debate that should be had over who is the #1 team - whether or not that debate takes place is another matter.
FWIW, here are some teams sorted by year that ended their regular season undefeated
1998 - Tennessee, Tulane
1999 - FSU, Va Tech
2000 - OU
2001 - Miami
2002 - tOSU, Miami
2003 - none
2004 - USC, OU, Auburn, Utah
2005 - USC, Texas,
2006 - tOSU, Boise
2007 - none
2008 - Utah, Texas
2009 - Texas, Bama, Cincinnati, TCU, Boise
2010 - Auburn, TCU, Oregon
2011 - LSU
2012 - Notre Dame, tOSU
2013 - FSU
Posted on 3/31/14 at 8:17 pm to parkjas2001
Having to win 3 games...after playing in a conference championship game...is way too much. Stick with 4. As perfect a number as you can get.
Posted on 3/31/14 at 8:19 pm to molsusports
quote:
wrong. 2009 had 5 (Bama, Texas, Cincy, TCU and Boise State)
Bama, in SEC
Texas and TCU both in B12, so only 1 is possible now
Cincy in the AAC and Boise State in the MWC would not get committee votes in a 4 team system
Problem solved
Posted on 3/31/14 at 8:35 pm to Cheese Grits
I'm still of the school of thought that advocates for more explicit criteria for the playoff.
What we've heard so far is LINK:
I'm glad that they at least made that much clear but there's really no reason they can't embrace a little more transparency and explain how those different criteria will be weighed. In most cases an undefeated conference champion should be in but I imagine there will be some midmajors who will deserve consideration up against at large teams from major conferences. At some level I have no sympathy for either party. The team from the major conference should have won their conference (since that is now a criteria for selection) and the typical midmajor program hasn't played a tough enough schedule to deserve a shot at a national championship.
Best possible outcome? They consider those types of candidates on the basis of their out of conference schedules. That would give every team with aspirations of winning a NC an incentive to play good OOC schedules (reversing the trend)
What we've heard so far is LINK:
quote:
The committee will consider win-loss record, strength of schedule, head-to-head results and whether a team is a conference champion.
I'm glad that they at least made that much clear but there's really no reason they can't embrace a little more transparency and explain how those different criteria will be weighed. In most cases an undefeated conference champion should be in but I imagine there will be some midmajors who will deserve consideration up against at large teams from major conferences. At some level I have no sympathy for either party. The team from the major conference should have won their conference (since that is now a criteria for selection) and the typical midmajor program hasn't played a tough enough schedule to deserve a shot at a national championship.
Best possible outcome? They consider those types of candidates on the basis of their out of conference schedules. That would give every team with aspirations of winning a NC an incentive to play good OOC schedules (reversing the trend)
Posted on 3/31/14 at 8:41 pm to molsusports
it will end up at 6 because 6 means more games and more games means more money
Posted on 3/31/14 at 8:41 pm to parkjas2001
If it becomes 8 or 16 I will be as interested in the football regular season as I am the basketball regular season.
Posted on 3/31/14 at 8:43 pm to Wallacewade04
Not happening. Four is likely one too many in most years.
Page 2 of 3
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News