(07-27-2018 07:36 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(07-26-2018 10:55 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-26-2018 07:54 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(07-26-2018 10:46 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  ...this is about making the conference championship games actually MEAN something (for the last 2 years, you could argue that the Big Ten championship has been utterly meaningless - which isn't fair to the teams that played in it!).

Also, there's a distinction between saying auto-bid and champs-only. With more than 4 power conferences (and the possibility of a G5 team deserving a spot someday) I can understand no autobids for now... but requiring a team win their own conference in order to play for the national championship is reasonable and fair - and makes every conference game truly important again!

(07-26-2018 06:15 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Disagree. Winning your conference just means you were the best team among those 10-14 teams in your conference. That's a local thing. In contrast, the playoffs are a national thing, and being a conference champ doesn't mean you proved you belong in the playoffs.

So you're telling me you see no problem with being called the champion of the FBS while failing to win your own conference? "They weren't good enough to win the SEC (or even the SEC West) but boy were they the best team in the country!" That just sounds like double-talk to me!

How many times have we seen teams in other sports not win their division or conference and yet win the championship? Only about a bazillion times. Wild card teams have won the Super Bowl. Same in college hoops. Heck I recall in 2011, UConn finished tied for 9th in the Big East, but won the national title. Nobody complained.

(07-26-2018 06:15 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Heck, if anything, OOC games are more relevant in determining playoff worthiness than conference games, but if the conferences have auto-bids, that means OOC games become essentially meaningless - you can lose them all but so long as you win your conference games, you're good to go!

We totally agree here. OOC games tell you about the relative strength of teams in difference conferences - something conference games can never do. Autobids make OOC games meaningless (well, except for seeding). Hence I advocate champs-only with no autobids - just select the 4 best conference champions for all 10 FBS conferences.

That helps with the problem, but IMO doesn't resolve it. It's very possible for a non-conference winner to have a better resume than a conference winner - Alabama last year was a case in point, Ohio State was the year before. I think the CFP does it right - give weight to being a conference champ, but don't make it determinative.

(07-26-2018 06:15 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Plus, because of the nature of the college season, winning a conference in football isn't the same as doing so in say basketball. In hoops, all the teams play home and away, and then there's a tournament. Whoever wins the conference has definitely proved they were best. But in football, teams only play one time, and in all conferences except the Big 12, you don't even play all the other teams in your conference.

So there is a lot less confidence that whoever wins a football conference really was the best team in that conference.

TRUE, but not my problem. If conferences can't find a way to balance their internal schedules - or for some reason are unwilling to do so - they get what they deserve.

But, it should be everyone's problem. If I understand you, the reason you want to limit the playoffs to teams that won their conference is that there's something special about doing so, that you proved you were better than the other 12 teams or whatever in your conference. But if the method used to pick a conference champ doesn't really prove that, then that rationale is undermined.

Why should fans of the SEC, B1G, or whatever need the CFP Selection Committee to pick their best team? Complain to the right people! At least in the case of the SEC no one said Georgia wasn't a legitimate playoff team... but 2 Big Ten champs in a row have now been passed over. Who is to say that Ohio State or Penn State wouldn't have won the national championship given the chance?

Nobody at the CFP determines who a conference crowns as their champion. Penn State is the 2016 B1G champ even though Ohio State went to the playoffs.

It's just that the CFP, quite properly, has no obligation to allow the conference to determine who it can select. The CFP has its own criteria for comparing teams across conferences, which is something no conference-championship process has.

We can think of a lot of examples. What if USF goes 8-4, with losses in all four OOC games, including a loss to an FCS team. Houston goes 12-0, with wins over two top 15 OOC P5 teams. USF beats Houston 35-31 in the AAC title game. USF has won the AAC title, and they deserve it. But nobody in their right mind could say that USF is more deserving of a higher national ranking than Houston. That would be nuts. In fact, everyone would think it crazy if USF were suddenly ranked ahead of Houston.

I think I hit the nail here: In the scenario above, would you think that the AP poll was wrong if say after the AAC title game, USF was unranked or maybe #25 while Houston was #12? I don't think anybody would, and so it would be dumb to force the CFP to rank USF over Houston.

(07-27-2018 10:52 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-27-2018 07:36 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(07-26-2018 10:55 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-26-2018 07:54 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(07-26-2018 10:46 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  ...this is about making the conference championship games actually MEAN something (for the last 2 years, you could argue that the Big Ten championship has been utterly meaningless - which isn't fair to the teams that played in it!).

Also, there's a distinction between saying auto-bid and champs-only. With more than 4 power conferences (and the possibility of a G5 team deserving a spot someday) I can understand no autobids for now... but requiring a team win their own conference in order to play for the national championship is reasonable and fair - and makes every conference game truly important again!

(07-26-2018 06:15 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Disagree. Winning your conference just means you were the best team among those 10-14 teams in your conference. That's a local thing. In contrast, the playoffs are a national thing, and being a conference champ doesn't mean you proved you belong in the playoffs.

So you're telling me you see no problem with being called the champion of the FBS while failing to win your own conference? "They weren't good enough to win the SEC (or even the SEC West) but boy were they the best team in the country!" That just sounds like double-talk to me!

How many times have we seen teams in other sports not win their division or conference and yet win the championship? Only about a bazillion times. Wild card teams have won the Super Bowl. Same in college hoops. Heck I recall in 2011, UConn finished tied for 9th in the Big East, but won the national title. Nobody complained.

(07-26-2018 06:15 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Heck, if anything, OOC games are more relevant in determining playoff worthiness than conference games, but if the conferences have auto-bids, that means OOC games become essentially meaningless - you can lose them all but so long as you win your conference games, you're good to go!

We totally agree here. OOC games tell you about the relative strength of teams in difference conferences - something conference games can never do. Autobids make OOC games meaningless (well, except for seeding). Hence I advocate champs-only with no autobids - just select the 4 best conference champions for all 10 FBS conferences.

That helps with the problem, but IMO doesn't resolve it. It's very possible for a non-conference winner to have a better resume than a conference winner - Alabama last year was a case in point, Ohio State was the year before. I think the CFP does it right - give weight to being a conference champ, but don't make it determinative.

(07-26-2018 06:15 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Plus, because of the nature of the college season, winning a conference in football isn't the same as doing so in say basketball. In hoops, all the teams play home and away, and then there's a tournament. Whoever wins the conference has definitely proved they were best. But in football, teams only play one time, and in all conferences except the Big 12, you don't even play all the other teams in your conference.

So there is a lot less confidence that whoever wins a football conference really was the best team in that conference.

TRUE, but not my problem. If conferences can't find a way to balance their internal schedules - or for some reason are unwilling to do so - they get what they deserve.

But, it should be everyone's problem. If I understand you, the reason you want to limit the playoffs to teams that won their conference is that there's something special about doing so, that you proved you were better than the other 12 teams or whatever in your conference. But if the method used to pick a conference champ doesn't really prove that, then that rationale is undermined.

Why should fans of the SEC, B1G, or whatever need the CFP Selection Committee to pick their best team? Complain to the right people! At least in the case of the SEC no one said Georgia wasn't a legitimate playoff team... but 2 Big Ten champs in a row have now been passed over. Who is to say that Ohio State or Penn State wouldn't have won the national championship given the chance?

Nobody at the CFP determines who a conference crowns as their champion. Penn State is the 2016 B1G champ even though Ohio State went to the playoffs.

It's just that the CFP, quite properly, has no obligation to allow the conference to determine who it can select. The CFP has its own criteria for comparing teams across conferences, which is something no conference-championship process has.

We can think of a lot of examples. What if USF goes 8-4, with losses in all four OOC games, including a loss to an FCS team. Houston goes 12-0, with wins over two top 15 OOC P5 teams. USF beats Houston 35-31 in the AAC title game. USF has won the AAC title, and they deserve it. But nobody in their right mind could say that USF is more deserving of a higher national ranking than Houston. That would be nuts. In fact, everyone would think it crazy if USF were suddenly ranked ahead of Houston.

I think I hit the nail here: In the scenario above, would you think that the AP poll was wrong if say after the AAC title game, USF was unranked or maybe #25 while Houston was #12? I don't think anybody would, and so it would be dumb to force the CFP to rank USF over Houston.

I think you're starting to split hairs here...

(1) I didn't say the CFP was picking the conference champ, I said they were deciding - off the field, btw - which team was "best".

(2) If Houston lost to USF, they cannot prove that they are the better team - if they really are the better team, they should win.

(3) Each and every game is a probabilistic outcome - not just the CCGs. In your example, Houston went 12-0, but would that happen if they replayed the season? Would USF have lost those OOC games if they played them over? Yet you seem to be asserting that the regular season wins and losses are etched in stone, while the one head-to-head matchup in the title game is unimportant. How does that make sense?

The only thing with any actual evidence backing it up are results on the field. Polls and committee selections are nothing more than opinions.

(07-27-2018 11:36 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(07-27-2018 10:52 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-27-2018 07:36 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(07-26-2018 10:55 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-26-2018 07:54 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  So you're telling me you see no problem with being called the champion of the FBS while failing to win your own conference? "They weren't good enough to win the SEC (or even the SEC West) but boy were they the best team in the country!" That just sounds like double-talk to me!

How many times have we seen teams in other sports not win their division or conference and yet win the championship? Only about a bazillion times. Wild card teams have won the Super Bowl. Same in college hoops. Heck I recall in 2011, UConn finished tied for 9th in the Big East, but won the national title. Nobody complained.


We totally agree here. OOC games tell you about the relative strength of teams in difference conferences - something conference games can never do. Autobids make OOC games meaningless (well, except for seeding). Hence I advocate champs-only with no autobids - just select the 4 best conference champions for all 10 FBS conferences.

That helps with the problem, but IMO doesn't resolve it. It's very possible for a non-conference winner to have a better resume than a conference winner - Alabama last year was a case in point, Ohio State was the year before. I think the CFP does it right - give weight to being a conference champ, but don't make it determinative.


TRUE, but not my problem. If conferences can't find a way to balance their internal schedules - or for some reason are unwilling to do so - they get what they deserve.

But, it should be everyone's problem. If I understand you, the reason you want to limit the playoffs to teams that won their conference is that there's something special about doing so, that you proved you were better than the other 12 teams or whatever in your conference. But if the method used to pick a conference champ doesn't really prove that, then that rationale is undermined.

Why should fans of the SEC, B1G, or whatever need the CFP Selection Committee to pick their best team? Complain to the right people! At least in the case of the SEC no one said Georgia wasn't a legitimate playoff team... but 2 Big Ten champs in a row have now been passed over. Who is to say that Ohio State or Penn State wouldn't have won the national championship given the chance?

Nobody at the CFP determines who a conference crowns as their champion. Penn State is the 2016 B1G champ even though Ohio State went to the playoffs.

It's just that the CFP, quite properly, has no obligation to allow the conference to determine who it can select. The CFP has its own criteria for comparing teams across conferences, which is something no conference-championship process has.

We can think of a lot of examples. What if USF goes 8-4, with losses in all four OOC games, including a loss to an FCS team. Houston goes 12-0, with wins over two top 15 OOC P5 teams. USF beats Houston 35-31 in the AAC title game. USF has won the AAC title, and they deserve it. But nobody in their right mind could say that USF is more deserving of a higher national ranking than Houston. That would be nuts. In fact, everyone would think it crazy if USF were suddenly ranked ahead of Houston.

I think I hit the nail here: In the scenario above, would you think that the AP poll was wrong if say after the AAC title game, USF was unranked or maybe #25 while Houston was #12? I don't think anybody would, and so it would be dumb to force the CFP to rank USF over Houston.

I think you're starting to split hairs here...

(1) I didn't say the CFP was picking the conference champ, I said they were deciding - off the field, btw - which team was "best".

(2) If Houston lost to USF, they cannot prove that they are the better team - if they really are the better team, they should win.

(3) Each and every game is a probabilistic outcome - not just the CCGs. In your example, Houston went 12-0, but would that happen if they replayed the season? Would USF have lost those OOC games if they played them over? Yet you seem to be asserting that the regular season wins and losses are etched in stone, while the one head-to-head matchup in the title game is unimportant. How does that make sense?

The only thing with any actual evidence backing it up are results on the field. Polls and committee selections are nothing more than opinions.

Right - and in my example, in the "results on the field", Houston was 12-1 while USF was 9-4. Your way is actually the way that ignores results on the field. USF has 4 losses, Houston 1, but somehow that 1 loss outweighs USF's 4? That's an opinion that makes little sense.

USF earned the conference title, so they can issue themselves rings and hang a banner. But from a national POV, it's pretty clear that Houston was the better team and so it would make sense for the committee to choose them for the playoffs.

call me old school if you wish... I think one head-to-head win > 12 wins against lesser competition.

(07-28-2018 04:52 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  call me old school if you wish... I think one head-to-head win > 12 wins against lesser competition.

Didn't you see in my example Houston beat two top-15 OOC P5 teams, both clearly better than anyone USF beat, heck better than USF?

In no sport is H2H elevated to a be-all. At best, it's a tie-breaker when records are equal. That's when it makes sense.

Anyway, this exchange feels silly - a VT fan and USF fan arguing on a Big 10 board over something that isn't of much interest to Big 10 fans, LOL.

(07-26-2018 10:55 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-26-2018 07:54 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  [quote='Hokie Mark' pid='15400437' dateline='1532620019']
...this is about making the conference championship games actually MEAN something (for the last 2 years, you could argue that the Big Ten championship has been utterly meaningless - which isn't fair to the teams that played in it!).

Also, there's a distinction between saying auto-bid and champs-only. With more than 4 power conferences (and the possibility of a G5 team deserving a spot someday) I can understand no autobids for now... but requiring a team win their own conference in order to play for the national championship is reasonable and fair - and makes every conference game truly important again!

(07-26-2018 06:15 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Disagree. Winning your conference just means you were the best team among those 10-14 teams in your conference. That's a local thing. In contrast, the playoffs are a national thing, and being a conference champ doesn't mean you proved you belong in the playoffs.

So you're telling me you see no problem with being called the champion of the FBS while failing to win your own conference? "They weren't good enough to win the SEC (or even the SEC West) but boy were they the best team in the country!" That just sounds like double-talk to me!

How many times have we seen teams in other sports not win their division or conference and yet win the championship? Only about a bazillion times. Wild card teams have won the Super Bowl. Same in college hoops. Heck I recall in 2011, UConn finished tied for 9th in the Big East, but won the national title. Nobody complained.

Thing is, those wild cards only get into the playoffs after all of the division champions get their auto-bids in and have to go through a tournament where all of those divisional champions get eliminated in the process. In the current format, there were two power conference champions that were excluded from the playoff, while a wild card that didn't even win its own division was included. On top of that, the wild card that didn't win its own division got in over an undefeated non-power conference champion. The whole thing is a mess.

The playoffs need to be expanded out to at least 8, so that you have all P5 conference champs + the top G5 conference champ + 2 wild cards (which could be ND, another G5 champ, etc whomever is ranked highest outside of the automatic bids).

(08-01-2018 02:31 PM)AntiG Wrote:  

(07-26-2018 10:55 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-26-2018 07:54 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  [quote='Hokie Mark' pid='15400437' dateline='1532620019']
...this is about making the conference championship games actually MEAN something (for the last 2 years, you could argue that the Big Ten championship has been utterly meaningless - which isn't fair to the teams that played in it!).

Also, there's a distinction between saying auto-bid and champs-only. With more than 4 power conferences (and the possibility of a G5 team deserving a spot someday) I can understand no autobids for now... but requiring a team win their own conference in order to play for the national championship is reasonable and fair - and makes every conference game truly important again!

(07-26-2018 06:15 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Disagree. Winning your conference just means you were the best team among those 10-14 teams in your conference. That's a local thing. In contrast, the playoffs are a national thing, and being a conference champ doesn't mean you proved you belong in the playoffs.

So you're telling me you see no problem with being called the champion of the FBS while failing to win your own conference? "They weren't good enough to win the SEC (or even the SEC West) but boy were they the best team in the country!" That just sounds like double-talk to me!

How many times have we seen teams in other sports not win their division or conference and yet win the championship? Only about a bazillion times. Wild card teams have won the Super Bowl. Same in college hoops. Heck I recall in 2011, UConn finished tied for 9th in the Big East, but won the national title. Nobody complained.

Thing is, those wild cards only get into the playoffs after all of the division champions get their auto-bids in and have to go through a tournament where all of those divisional champions get eliminated in the process. In the current format, there were two power conference champions that were excluded from the playoff, while a wild card that didn't even win its own division was included. On top of that, the wild card that didn't win its own division got in over an undefeated non-power conference champion. The whole thing is a mess.

The playoffs need to be expanded out to at least 8, so that you have all P5 conference champs + the top G5 conference champ + 2 wild cards (which could be ND, another G5 champ, etc whomever is ranked highest outside of the automatic bids).

Nope, either expand to 16 or just to 6. With 6 teams the 5 P5 champs and the highest rated G5( do a play-in game for G5's instead of CCG's, it would be a better game). Picking 2 at large teams in a 8 team playoff will just give us Alabama, OSU, Tex, OU or USC in the two wild cards. The selection committee will make sure it goes to two blue bloods. If we are picking teams it needs to go to 16 and stop the worthless CCG's, that would be the same as going to 8 teams if we do away with CCG's.

I wouldn't mind CCG's or expanding to conference semi-finals if there was a way for teams to play their way in to the playoffs and not have a selection committee but with 5 power leagues and some leagues at 10 and some at 14 that's tough.

(08-04-2018 01:02 AM)Win5002 Wrote:  

(08-01-2018 02:31 PM)AntiG Wrote:  

(07-26-2018 10:55 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-26-2018 07:54 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  [quote='Hokie Mark' pid='15400437' dateline='1532620019']
...this is about making the conference championship games actually MEAN something (for the last 2 years, you could argue that the Big Ten championship has been utterly meaningless - which isn't fair to the teams that played in it!).

Also, there's a distinction between saying auto-bid and champs-only. With more than 4 power conferences (and the possibility of a G5 team deserving a spot someday) I can understand no autobids for now... but requiring a team win their own conference in order to play for the national championship is reasonable and fair - and makes every conference game truly important again!

(07-26-2018 06:15 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Disagree. Winning your conference just means you were the best team among those 10-14 teams in your conference. That's a local thing. In contrast, the playoffs are a national thing, and being a conference champ doesn't mean you proved you belong in the playoffs.

So you're telling me you see no problem with being called the champion of the FBS while failing to win your own conference? "They weren't good enough to win the SEC (or even the SEC West) but boy were they the best team in the country!" That just sounds like double-talk to me!

How many times have we seen teams in other sports not win their division or conference and yet win the championship? Only about a bazillion times. Wild card teams have won the Super Bowl. Same in college hoops. Heck I recall in 2011, UConn finished tied for 9th in the Big East, but won the national title. Nobody complained.

Thing is, those wild cards only get into the playoffs after all of the division champions get their auto-bids in and have to go through a tournament where all of those divisional champions get eliminated in the process. In the current format, there were two power conference champions that were excluded from the playoff, while a wild card that didn't even win its own division was included. On top of that, the wild card that didn't win its own division got in over an undefeated non-power conference champion. The whole thing is a mess.

The playoffs need to be expanded out to at least 8, so that you have all P5 conference champs + the top G5 conference champ + 2 wild cards (which could be ND, another G5 champ, etc whomever is ranked highest outside of the automatic bids).

Nope, either expand to 16 or just to 6. With 6 teams the 5 P5 champs and the highest rated G5( do a play-in game for G5's instead of CCG's, it would be a better game). Picking 2 at large teams in a 8 team playoff will just give us Alabama, OSU, Tex, OU or USC in the two wild cards. The selection committee will make sure it goes to two blue bloods. If we are picking teams it needs to go to 16 and stop the worthless CCG's, that would be the same as going to 8 teams if we do away with CCG's.

I wouldn't mind CCG's or expanding to conference semi-finals if there was a way for teams to play their way in to the playoffs and not have a selection committee but with 5 power leagues and some leagues at 10 and some at 14 that's tough.

The problem with not having at-large bids is that you shut out the chance for independents to have a shot at the title. I'm all for "if you want a chance at the title, win your conference" but the fact is that FBS has independents like Notre Dame and Army, so if they happen to be top 8 quality, they deserve a shot. And to make it even, you would need 2 slots for at-large bids.

(08-04-2018 02:04 PM)AntiG Wrote:  

(08-04-2018 01:02 AM)Win5002 Wrote:  

(08-01-2018 02:31 PM)AntiG Wrote:  

(07-26-2018 10:55 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-26-2018 07:54 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  [quote='Hokie Mark' pid='15400437' dateline='1532620019']
...this is about making the conference championship games actually MEAN something (for the last 2 years, you could argue that the Big Ten championship has been utterly meaningless - which isn't fair to the teams that played in it!).

Also, there's a distinction between saying auto-bid and champs-only. With more than 4 power conferences (and the possibility of a G5 team deserving a spot someday) I can understand no autobids for now... but requiring a team win their own conference in order to play for the national championship is reasonable and fair - and makes every conference game truly important again!

(07-26-2018 06:15 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Disagree. Winning your conference just means you were the best team among those 10-14 teams in your conference. That's a local thing. In contrast, the playoffs are a national thing, and being a conference champ doesn't mean you proved you belong in the playoffs.

So you're telling me you see no problem with being called the champion of the FBS while failing to win your own conference? "They weren't good enough to win the SEC (or even the SEC West) but boy were they the best team in the country!" That just sounds like double-talk to me!

How many times have we seen teams in other sports not win their division or conference and yet win the championship? Only about a bazillion times. Wild card teams have won the Super Bowl. Same in college hoops. Heck I recall in 2011, UConn finished tied for 9th in the Big East, but won the national title. Nobody complained.

Thing is, those wild cards only get into the playoffs after all of the division champions get their auto-bids in and have to go through a tournament where all of those divisional champions get eliminated in the process. In the current format, there were two power conference champions that were excluded from the playoff, while a wild card that didn't even win its own division was included. On top of that, the wild card that didn't win its own division got in over an undefeated non-power conference champion. The whole thing is a mess.

The playoffs need to be expanded out to at least 8, so that you have all P5 conference champs + the top G5 conference champ + 2 wild cards (which could be ND, another G5 champ, etc whomever is ranked highest outside of the automatic bids).

Nope, either expand to 16 or just to 6. With 6 teams the 5 P5 champs and the highest rated G5( do a play-in game for G5's instead of CCG's, it would be a better game). Picking 2 at large teams in a 8 team playoff will just give us Alabama, OSU, Tex, OU or USC in the two wild cards. The selection committee will make sure it goes to two blue bloods. If we are picking teams it needs to go to 16 and stop the worthless CCG's, that would be the same as going to 8 teams if we do away with CCG's.

I wouldn't mind CCG's or expanding to conference semi-finals if there was a way for teams to play their way in to the playoffs and not have a selection committee but with 5 power leagues and some leagues at 10 and some at 14 that's tough.

The problem with not having at-large bids is that you shut out the chance for independents to have a shot at the title. I'm all for "if you want a chance at the title, win your conference" but the fact is that FBS has independents like Notre Dame and Army, so if they happen to be top 8 quality, they deserve a shot. And to make it even, you would need 2 slots for at-large bids.

We don't need to create special access for Notre Dame. if they want access they could join a conference tomorrow and probably any conference.

(08-06-2018 01:54 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  

(08-04-2018 02:04 PM)AntiG Wrote:  

(08-04-2018 01:02 AM)Win5002 Wrote:  

(08-01-2018 02:31 PM)AntiG Wrote:  

(07-26-2018 10:55 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  So you're telling me you see no problem with being called the champion of the FBS while failing to win your own conference? "They weren't good enough to win the SEC (or even the SEC West) but boy were they the best team in the country!" That just sounds like double-talk to me!

How many times have we seen teams in other sports not win their division or conference and yet win the championship? Only about a bazillion times. Wild card teams have won the Super Bowl. Same in college hoops. Heck I recall in 2011, UConn finished tied for 9th in the Big East, but won the national title. Nobody complained.

Thing is, those wild cards only get into the playoffs after all of the division champions get their auto-bids in and have to go through a tournament where all of those divisional champions get eliminated in the process. In the current format, there were two power conference champions that were excluded from the playoff, while a wild card that didn't even win its own division was included. On top of that, the wild card that didn't win its own division got in over an undefeated non-power conference champion. The whole thing is a mess.

The playoffs need to be expanded out to at least 8, so that you have all P5 conference champs + the top G5 conference champ + 2 wild cards (which could be ND, another G5 champ, etc whomever is ranked highest outside of the automatic bids).

Nope, either expand to 16 or just to 6. With 6 teams the 5 P5 champs and the highest rated G5( do a play-in game for G5's instead of CCG's, it would be a better game). Picking 2 at large teams in a 8 team playoff will just give us Alabama, OSU, Tex, OU or USC in the two wild cards. The selection committee will make sure it goes to two blue bloods. If we are picking teams it needs to go to 16 and stop the worthless CCG's, that would be the same as going to 8 teams if we do away with CCG's.

I wouldn't mind CCG's or expanding to conference semi-finals if there was a way for teams to play their way in to the playoffs and not have a selection committee but with 5 power leagues and some leagues at 10 and some at 14 that's tough.

The problem with not having at-large bids is that you shut out the chance for independents to have a shot at the title. I'm all for "if you want a chance at the title, win your conference" but the fact is that FBS has independents like Notre Dame and Army, so if they happen to be top 8 quality, they deserve a shot. And to make it even, you would need 2 slots for at-large bids.

We don't need to create special access for Notre Dame. if they want access they could join a conference tomorrow and probably any conference.

It seems Jim Delaney would rather the Irish be in the playoffs every year than to concede that they will never join the Big Ten.

(08-06-2018 02:17 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(08-06-2018 01:54 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  

(08-04-2018 02:04 PM)AntiG Wrote:  

(08-04-2018 01:02 AM)Win5002 Wrote:  

(08-01-2018 02:31 PM)AntiG Wrote:  Thing is, those wild cards only get into the playoffs after all of the division champions get their auto-bids in and have to go through a tournament where all of those divisional champions get eliminated in the process. In the current format, there were two power conference champions that were excluded from the playoff, while a wild card that didn't even win its own division was included. On top of that, the wild card that didn't win its own division got in over an undefeated non-power conference champion. The whole thing is a mess.

The playoffs need to be expanded out to at least 8, so that you have all P5 conference champs + the top G5 conference champ + 2 wild cards (which could be ND, another G5 champ, etc whomever is ranked highest outside of the automatic bids).

Nope, either expand to 16 or just to 6. With 6 teams the 5 P5 champs and the highest rated G5( do a play-in game for G5's instead of CCG's, it would be a better game). Picking 2 at large teams in a 8 team playoff will just give us Alabama, OSU, Tex, OU or USC in the two wild cards. The selection committee will make sure it goes to two blue bloods. If we are picking teams it needs to go to 16 and stop the worthless CCG's, that would be the same as going to 8 teams if we do away with CCG's.

I wouldn't mind CCG's or expanding to conference semi-finals if there was a way for teams to play their way in to the playoffs and not have a selection committee but with 5 power leagues and some leagues at 10 and some at 14 that's tough.

The problem with not having at-large bids is that you shut out the chance for independents to have a shot at the title. I'm all for "if you want a chance at the title, win your conference" but the fact is that FBS has independents like Notre Dame and Army, so if they happen to be top 8 quality, they deserve a shot. And to make it even, you would need 2 slots for at-large bids.

We don't need to create special access for Notre Dame. if they want access they could join a conference tomorrow and probably any conference.

It seems Jim Delaney would rather the Irish be in the playoffs every year than to concede that they will never join the Big Ten.

Then he is pretty much out of his mind.

But, thanks Jim, for helping keep ND football out of a conference.