Started By
Message
There is nothing wrong with the CFP.
Posted on 12/8/25 at 8:21 am
Posted on 12/8/25 at 8:21 am
The teams who deserve to play for it all are in. Some that don’t are in. Some that feel like they deserve to be aren’t, but they know why..they lost too many times. Whomever wins, even if it’s JMU, will have earned it.
What’s everyone’s fricking problem?
What’s everyone’s fricking problem?
10
Posted on 12/8/25 at 8:23 am to Dawgfanman
quote:
What’s everyone’s fricking problem?
We have to have something to bitch and complain about!
Posted on 12/8/25 at 8:25 am to Dawgfanman
The NCAA basketball tournament lets in 68 teams and you still have bubble teams complaining because they got "unfairly" left out. It is the nature of sports.
Posted on 12/8/25 at 8:27 am to Dawgfanman
quote:
they lost too many times
Well, some of what you said is true, and you're probably about to get stoned. But I will say that the above quote is correct. If you WIN games during the season, you don't have rely on some committee to scramble around and have to consider all of the head-to-head, and SOS, and was it an 'ugly' loss or a 'pretty' loss and who won what and when and how, blah, blah, blah.
Just WIN YOUR FREAKUN GAMES and you get in, no controversy. UGA had some shaky games this season early on, but the one consistent was....WE WON. End of story.
This post was edited on 12/8/25 at 8:29 am
Posted on 12/8/25 at 8:32 am to Dawgfanman
The problem is we are in limbo of the old system and the new. The old system had no playoff or only a couple of teams in the playoff so there was still prestige and excitement about bowl games. Thus you could have lots of teams excited about having achieved something at the end of the year and thus feeling successful. The terms were pretty clear and fair generally and if you didn't get exactly what you were expecting the consequences weren't as severe. For instance you team may not play in the Sugar Bowl but you still got to go to the Citrus or the Peach or the Alamo or whatever and it was fun an hyped up.
Now we have a mid sized playoff that is transitioning to a larger playoff eventually (maybe very soon). Tons of politics and confusion on who makes it in and where they are seeded. If you don't make it in the Playoff then your season feels like a failure and bowl games don't feel nearly the same. Everyone knows that things are going to continue to evolve and change as well. It's clear that the committee is influenced by pressure as well. For instance if you don't think the ACC members of the committee felt incredible pressure to make sure Miami was included over ND and may have even been willing to cut deals with other members of the committee to make that happen you are naive (and I couldn't give a shite which one got in).
Thus it isn't surprising that a team that got a bye and everything they hoped for in the playoff isn't happy but most teams aren't.
Now we have a mid sized playoff that is transitioning to a larger playoff eventually (maybe very soon). Tons of politics and confusion on who makes it in and where they are seeded. If you don't make it in the Playoff then your season feels like a failure and bowl games don't feel nearly the same. Everyone knows that things are going to continue to evolve and change as well. It's clear that the committee is influenced by pressure as well. For instance if you don't think the ACC members of the committee felt incredible pressure to make sure Miami was included over ND and may have even been willing to cut deals with other members of the committee to make that happen you are naive (and I couldn't give a shite which one got in).
Thus it isn't surprising that a team that got a bye and everything they hoped for in the playoff isn't happy but most teams aren't.
Posted on 12/8/25 at 8:35 am to Dawgfanman
I said the same thing about the BCS in 2004, and they changed the formula to re-introduce bias because media sweetheart USC was left out.
Now they’ll meddle in the selection criteria because media sweetheart Notre Dame was left out.
Posted on 12/8/25 at 8:38 am to TheHarahanian
I couldn’t believe they left ND out, but I was thrilled. That could be a big sign that reason is finally creeping into the Committee.
Posted on 12/8/25 at 8:39 am to TheHarahanian
quote:
I said the same thing about the BCS in 2004, and they changed the formula to re-introduce bias because media sweetheart USC was left out. Now they’ll meddle in the selection criteria because media sweetheart Notre Dame was left out.
The old system, 2 teams, was simply too small given the differences in scheduling and lack of common opponents. 4 was ok. 12 is damn near perfect if not 2-4 too many.
AU 2004 had a legit gripe. An undefeated team, especially from a major conference, has a legit gripe. We don’t have that this year and will never have it again.
Posted on 12/8/25 at 8:55 am to Dawgfanman
quote:
AU 2004 had a legit gripe.
And that’s a great example of bias.
The year before, the uproar over one-loss USC was great enough to force change to a formula that was good as it was.
But for undefeated Auburn in late 2004 and early 2005 there was little more than crickets from the same sports writers.
This post was edited on 12/8/25 at 8:58 am
Posted on 12/8/25 at 8:59 am to Dawgfanman
...that going to 16 teams won't fix
Posted on 12/8/25 at 11:34 am to Dawgfanman
quote:
The teams who deserve to play for it all are in
You know, as well as I, that if you expanded it to 128 teams, number 129 and 130 would be whining about it. The playoff was just fine with only four teams.
Posted on 12/8/25 at 11:46 am to Dawgfanman
16 is perfect IF the committee isn’t going to reward SOS, SOR, or OOC games.
If they stayed doing that 12 is fine
If they stayed doing that 12 is fine
Posted on 12/8/25 at 11:56 am to Dawgfanman
I disagree. I think Vanderbilt, Notre Dame, and even Texas have a much better shot at winning it all than Tulane or James Madison.
I get there are bylaws, but there is something wrong when the committee says JMU and Tulane are 24 and 25 in the country when ranking the teams straight up, but they both get thrusted ahead because of the weak conference they play in. That will never sit well with me.
Make it 16 teams, rank them 1-16 and spot the ball. No byes, no automatic qualifiers.
I get there are bylaws, but there is something wrong when the committee says JMU and Tulane are 24 and 25 in the country when ranking the teams straight up, but they both get thrusted ahead because of the weak conference they play in. That will never sit well with me.
Make it 16 teams, rank them 1-16 and spot the ball. No byes, no automatic qualifiers.
This post was edited on 12/8/25 at 11:59 am
Posted on 12/8/25 at 11:59 am to Dawgfanman
quote:
The teams who deserve to play for it all are in. Some that don’t are in. Some that feel like they deserve to be aren’t, but they know why..they lost too many times. Whomever wins, even if it’s JMU, will have earned it. What’s everyone’s fricking problem?
It's an invitational, not a playoff.
Posted on 12/8/25 at 11:59 am to Dawgfanman
The OP isn't wrong and the CFP isn't perfect.... and it never will be.
You can't have the College Football Playoffs and not give every conference an opportunity. If you do then it's no longer a CFP, it's the Power 4 Championship.
Some teams are in and don't really have a snowballs chance in hell of winning. But making it, that's important to that school and their "new fans".
Maybe at some point they'll fix it but I doubt it. It's a flawed 12 team system that needs an overhaul.
You can't have the College Football Playoffs and not give every conference an opportunity. If you do then it's no longer a CFP, it's the Power 4 Championship.
Some teams are in and don't really have a snowballs chance in hell of winning. But making it, that's important to that school and their "new fans".
Maybe at some point they'll fix it but I doubt it. It's a flawed 12 team system that needs an overhaul.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News