Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

Georgia has the nation's best defense. I think it's finally their year. They will learn from the shortcomings against Bama in the SEC Champ Game, and from the title game a few years back.

sluggermatt15 wrote:Georgia has the nation's best defense. I think it's finally their year. They will learn from the shortcomings against Bama in the SEC Champ Game, and from the title game a few years back.

I have no idea what happened in the S.E.C. title game except to say that maybe UGa didn't really care about winning it 'cause they figured (at least subconsciously) that they didn't need to win that game to make it to the CFP (which, of course, turned out to be true). Hopefully they'll give a better accounting of themselves next Monday (Go Dawgs!).

I am probably in the minority (with Phil Steele) who believes the four-team playoff is probably the best. We're already seeing a rematch of the SEC title game as the final in a four-team playoff. We would likely have a lot more rematches with an eight- or twelve-team playoff. The committee started to "explore" the twelve-team scenario in meetings this year -- that's from press releases I received this summer.

If you took the Top 8 this year -- Alabama would have played Mississippi in the first round. They already played in Oct. Mich vs Baylor, Ohio St vs Georgia, ND vs Cincinnati. Cincinnati beat Notre Dame already this year. So, you're giving two teams a second chance and that's just in the first round.

The reason why fans wanted at least a national championship game was to give teams a chance to prove themselves against teams they wouldn't play in the regular season and you wouldn't have split "mythical" championships. The BCS was the first step, maybe really it was the Bowl Alliance, but the BCS was the first recognized national championship game. That brought us the great Texas-USC game and the really good Tenn-Fla St game and a couple of others but it also brought some real routes -- Nebraska crushing Florida in the first one is a good example. Now, we have a four-team playoff and it's still a lot like that. Not as much excitement as perhaps we all hoped for at the start.

One problem with adding more teams -- and some people want up to 16 -- is that college football is not like college basketball. The disparity in college football and college basketball is vastly different. The top four or five football teams are almost always going to crush the lower-ranked teams, especially on a neutral field. College basketball games can go in a lot more different directions and don't forget that even some of the Sweet 16 and Elite 8 games aren't always that close.

One reason I don't like the CFP involving only 4 teams is that it ensures that at least one "Power 5" champion will be excluded. With the way things have been going with the S.E.C.'s success and in any year that Notre Dame is included then you're likely down to only TWO conference champions involved in a national playoff. To me, that just isn't right. On the other hand I know somebody who is of the opinion that NO teams that aren't conference champions should be allowed in a national tournament, a viewpoint that I disagree with wholeheartedly. I think that in order to include ALL FBS conference champions and at-large teams that deserve a shot the field should be expanded to 16 teams at the very least. Personally, I would expand it to 20 teams with seeds 1 through 12 getting a first round bye (and with all first round games being held on college campuses with the Round of 16 and beyond being held at neutral sites).

racepug wrote:

sluggermatt15 wrote:Georgia has the nation's best defense. I think it's finally their year. They will learn from the shortcomings against Bama in the SEC Champ Game, and from the title game a few years back.

I have no idea what happened in the S.E.C. title game except to say that maybe UGa didn't really care about winning it 'cause they figured (at least subconsciously) that they didn't need to win that game to make it to the CFP (which, of course, turned out to be true). Hopefully they'll give a better accounting of themselves next Monday (Go Dawgs!).

Alabama is inside their heads.

GameBeforeTheMoney wrote:I am probably in the minority (with Phil Steele) who believes the four-team playoff is probably the best. We're already seeing a rematch of the SEC title game as the final in a four-team playoff. We would likely have a lot more rematches with an eight- or twelve-team playoff. The committee started to "explore" the twelve-team scenario in meetings this year -- that's from press releases I received this summer.

If you took the Top 8 this year -- Alabama would have played Mississippi in the first round. They already played in Oct. Mich vs Baylor, Ohio St vs Georgia, ND vs Cincinnati. Cincinnati beat Notre Dame already this year. So, you're giving two teams a second chance and that's just in the first round.

I am completely against teams from the same conference playing against one another in a national tournament until such a match-up becomes unavoidable (such as in 1985 when three Big East teams made it to the national semifinals of the NCAA men's basketball tournament). If I were in charge of things I would do everything I could to make sure such pairings didn't happen unless/until there was no way to avoid them. There are ways to avoid pairing teams up that already played during the regular season. There simply has to be a will to not do it.

GameBeforeTheMoney wrote:The reason why fans wanted at least a national championship game was to give teams a chance to prove themselves against teams they wouldn't play in the regular season

Or in bowl games (1990: Georgia Tech and Colorado, 1991: Washington and Miami, 1997: Michigan and Nebraska)

GameBeforeTheMoney wrote:and you wouldn't have split "mythical" championships.

Correct

GameBeforeTheMoney wrote:One problem with adding more teams -- and some people want up to 16 -- is that college football is not like college basketball. The disparity in college football and college basketball is vastly different. The top four or five football teams are almost always going to crush the lower-ranked teams, especially on a neutral field. College basketball games can go in a lot more different directions and don't forget that even some of the Sweet 16 and Elite 8 games aren't always that close.

You make a point but I stand by my contention that in order to include ALL teams that "deserve" a shot at the national championship 4 teams simply aren't enough, in my opinion. As a matter of fact if the powers-that-be aren't willing to expand the field then I would almost be willing to argue that we should just go back to the old days when the national champion was voted upon. At least then more bowl games (and not just the ones involved in the CFP) would again have some importance from a national standpoint.

WHy not just make the CFP 6 teams? Each conference champion gets a spot and one at-large team.

sluggermatt15 wrote:WHy not just make the CFP 6 teams? Each conference champion gets a spot and one at-large team.

Well, that's one way to do it but it's certainly not the way I'd do it.

I think you have you reward teams that win their conference, even if it is a weak league. Otherwise, what is the incentive?

sluggermatt15 wrote:I think you have you reward teams that win their conference, even if it is a weak league. Otherwise, what is the incentive?

Why does college basketball have S.o.S. (Strength of Schedule)? While I don't agree that "all conference champions are created equal" I would be happy to include all conference champions in a playoff. . .but only as long as the playoff field had enough slots to also include strong "at-large" teams, as well.