Now that the NCAA Football season is over.....................
keets
Posts: 25,351 ✭✭✭✭✭
Isn't it time for everyone to admit that changes need to be made??
1 Alabama (14-1) 1 -- the near consensus No.1 all season, needed to stage a comeback to beat Georgia only to be embarrassed by Clemson.
2 Clemson (15-0) 2 --- who did they play, really, before Alabama(Notre Dame doesn't count)??
3 Notre Dame (12-1) 3 --- they embarrassed the Playoff Committee with their performance.
4 Oklahoma (12-2) 5 --- lost a close game to Texas that they avenged and then lost to Alabama.
5 Georgia (11-3) 4 --- lost to Alabama and then embarrassed by Texas.
6 Ohio State (13-1) 6 --- embarrassed by Purdue in a mid-season Conference game.
7 Michigan (10-3) 7 --- beaten badly in their last two games.
8 UCF (12-1) 8 --- lost their QB and then their Bowl Game, never given a chance by the Committee even though their competition wasn't much different.
9 Washington (10-4) 11 --- PAC12, enough said.
10 Florida (10-3) --- probably not as good or bad than the rest of the Top 10.
Surely we can discuss and argue that some of these Teams shouldn't be in a Playoff, but why should a Team like Alabama be considered the Best all season, almost unanimously, only to be beaten so badly??? From my way of thinking there are only two choices and one will never be done, inter-conference play by the best Teams or an expanded Playoff. Garnett can argue, and have a good point, that Ohio State should have been in the Top Four, but so can many other fans of several Teams. An arbitrary selection made up of the likes of Condoleeza Rice and whoever makes no sense.
What makes less sense is for the accepted favorite and defending Champion to be taken out to the Wood Shed in the biggest game of the season, due to an arbitrary selection that meets resistance when "change" is mentioned.
The current system is broken.
Al H.
Comments
At the end of the day we found out Clemson was the best team in the land. That cant be in doubt. So actually the system worked.
To your point I’d be ok with a 6 team playoff max. Five conference winners and one at large team. Top two seeds get byes like the NFL.
8 teams is too many IMO
m
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Mark, what we found out is what I'm trying to say --- a National Champion decided by using a flawed system. to that point, if Clemson is so much better than Alabama, how is it that they never received more than 1-2 1st Place votes all year long when the weekly Polls came out??
The system aint working when you have a team that has won consecutive conference championships, and be left out of the invitational.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
They were 14- 0. Alabama was 14-0. It really didnt matter who was #1 or #2. They settled it last night. This year a two team BCS game like before would have sufficed.
Again a 6 team playoff with all power 5 conferences might be better. However, this year I think you would have gotten the same result.
m
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
No flaws at all.
Clemson won them all.
Bama, only loss to #1 Clemson
Notre Dame, only loss to #1 Clemson.
It was either OSU or Oklahoma for the 4th spot.
Oklahoma lost to Texas by 3.
OSU lost to Purdue by 29.
Keets, who deserved it, OSU or Oklahoma?
Hindsight at seasons end, sure OSU deserved to be in over Notre Dame. But you can't keep unbeaten Notre Dame out after OSU lost to an unranked Purdue. I think Notre Dame needs to join a conference and play that tough extra game to get in, but that's just me.
I like the 4 team playoff, 8 is too many imo. I wouldn't have a problem with 6 teams except for two things. The #3, #4, # 5 and #6 teams will whine because they have to play an extra game and the #7 team will throw a fit because it was left out.
Next year when the National Championship is over we can sit around and do this hindsight thing again and say who should have been there and who shouldn't have been there. We won't know until the games are played.
Remember a few years ago when OSU was embarrassed by Clemson 31-0? Was the system was flawed then? Should OSU even been there? Sure they should have been there. They just ran into a very hungry Clemson team, just like we did.
I like 8 teams in. Winning a conference Championship should get you in. The committee could pick 3 at large teams. Teams # 7 and 8 may not be pushovers. Perhaps the loser of the SEC Championship game would only have one loss, the SEC Championship. There may be weak conferences and it may not be the same conferences every year. It seems the general consensus is the SEC is the toughest conference and the BIG 10 (12, 14 or however many) is second. Garnett is right on the money when he says having the BIG Champion, the second toughest conference, left out not once but two years in a row is a disgrace.
http://www.unisquare.com/store/brick/
Ralph
Especially when that team has won an officially-recognized national championship one of those two years.
You WERE referring to UCF, right?
It is difficult to determine which is the better team based on a single game. Had you only watched Ohio State-Purdue this season, the Boilermakers looked like playoff bound team. Of course they were not really of that caliber.
Trying to squeeze 100 potentially viable championship teams into a definitive playoff system is impossible. The NCAA basketball playoffs are often cited, but we know that in a one and out playoff system, the "best" team often does not win the tournament.