Who's In?

Who's In?

  • Total voters
    122
  • Poll closed .
ronricks said:
You are essentially saying head to head games don't matter which we have examples of this year. Why even play the season then? Let's just give all 4 playoff teams to the B1G. To say the Championship weekend isn't a playoff is delusional. Win and you are in. Clemson had to win to get in. How is that not a playoff type scenario? No, VT wasn't getting in with a win but they could have kept Clemson out.

The reason we have this system is because Alabama didn't win their division got to sit at home on championship weekend and still got in the NC game. Everyone cried and moaned. Now Ohio State does the same exact thing and we have people saying they MUST be in the playoff. It is a ööööing joke. And on top of that we have people wanting a second B1G team in the top 4 which is even more of a joke and again it is why we have this system because of LSU-Alabama in 2011. So essentially nothing was fixed. Tell me why this is any better than the system we had?
Click to expand...

It's a deeply flawed system, but I still like it more than the BCS. A power 5 team that goes undefeated will essentially never get left out under this system (like Auburn did several years back). There's still bickering about who belongs and who doesn't, but that bickering is over teams with 1 or 2 losses. Maybe Penn State or Washington doesn't get in and people think they should have, but neither would have been playing for the BCS championship.

Yes, you can still end up with non-conference champs getting in over conference champs, and you can still end up with 2 teams from the same conference getting in, but they actually have to each win a playoff game to create an All-[insert conference] championship game.
 
PSU should go and it's really not even up for discussion... the whole stink about Baylor/TCU not getting in is that conference championships should matter. The playoffs have already started, and PSU won its first playoff game.

As someone mentioned, the 4-team playoff only exists to make sure teams that are absolutely deserving don't get left out and that a team that shouldn't be there (Alabama 2011) has to play into the big show. The only team with an absolute claim to a playoff spot in 2016 is Alabama. The rest are up for grabs, but at this point there is no overwhelming reason the spots shouldn't be filled with conference champions.
 
Also an 8 team playoff would be extremely lame. If you go to 8, you might as well go to 64.
 
DressCheeseSideSeaboard said:
That would be hilarious. Delaney has already picked tOSU.
Click to expand...
The Michigan folks are already furious over the officiating of the tOSU/Michigan game. It would just be a cherry on the top for the Big 10 brass to just own up to Ohio State being their favorite team.
 
EffinDane said:
PSU should go and it's really not even up for discussion... the whole stink about Baylor/TCU not getting in is that conference championships should matter. The playoffs have already started, and PSU won its first playoff game.

As someone mentioned, the 4-team playoff only exists to make sure teams that are absolutely deserving don't get left out and that a team that shouldn't be there (Alabama 2011) has to play into the big show. The only team with an absolute claim to a playoff spot in 2016 is Alabama. The rest are up for grabs, but at this point there is no overwhelming reason the spots shouldn't be filled with conference champions.
Click to expand...
no matter how many teams are allowed in, there's always teams that say they should be in. remember when they went from 64 to a play-in game for bb?
 
I agree more and more with PSU. Looking back to last year with Baylor/TCU....you can't change your stance year to year
 
gtzulu said:
Funny to me that OSU and Michigan thought their game was a play-in game for the playoffs, and now it looks like it was totally irrelevant. Ha ha
Click to expand...

It was pretty relevant. If Michigan had beaten Ohio State they would have gone to the Big 10 championship game instead of Penn State. Michigan would have been in if they won the conference.

The reason it turned out to be irrelevant was because OSU won.
 
MtownJacket said:
It was pretty relevant. If Michigan had beaten Ohio State they would have gone to the Big 10 championship game instead of Penn State. Michigan would have been in if they won the conference.

The reason it turned out to be irrelevant was because OSU won.
Click to expand...

And it's still not really irrelevant, since that win for OSU has them in the discussion for the playoff.
 
ThisIsAtlanta said:
It would blow my mind if one loss OSU who only lost to a top ten conference champion gets jumped by a 2 loss team. They did this to Baylor and TCU once.
Click to expand...

One loss, yes, but they were less than overwhelming. A one point win over Michigan State, barely beat Northwestern, straight up loss to the Big 10 Champion, etc.
 
i liked it best before the BCS to begin with

you have 120-something teams and there is no way with football to have enough conference cross-over games to be able to establish any meaningful metric in terms of Strength of Schedule or relative conference strength

i liked the way you had "regional" champions. everyone down here knows that Georgia Tech was the National Champion in 1990. we were by far the better team. we didnt need a 5th down or an imaginary clip to win our games...

... meanwhile in Colorado and in the PAC12 they can all cite the reasons why Colorado is the Champ...

imo, thats good for college football, not bad. the only reason for a playoff or a BCS is for TV ratings which only long-term ruins the game and allows for corruption and big$ to creep in even more

it doesnt ever barely "work" anyway, i say get rid of the stupid "playoff"
its just a ratings & money scheme by the establishment
time to make College Football Great Again!
 
BuzzCzar said:
i liked it best before the BCS to begin with

you have 120-something teams and there is no way with football to have enough conference cross-over games to be able to establish any meaningful metric in terms of Strength of Schedule or relative conference strength

i liked the way you had "regional" champions. everyone down here knows that Georgia Tech was the National Champion in 1990. we were by far the better team. we didnt need a 5th down or an imaginary clip to win our games...

... meanwhile in Colorado and in the PAC12 they can all cite the reasons why Colorado is the Champ...

imo, thats good for college football, not bad. the only reason for a playoff or a BCS is for TV ratings which only long-term ruins the game and allows for corruption and big$ to creep in even more

it doesnt ever barely "work" anyway, i say get rid of the stupid "playoff"
its just a ratings & money scheme by the establishment
time to make College Football Great Again!
Click to expand...

Might be dating myself here but to me it worked out just as well during the old Bowl Coalition days when depending on what happened in the other New Year's Day bowl games there were often 3 or 4 teams that had a shot at a NC. The BCS and now even more so the playoffs have made all the other bowls pointless. The Rose, Sugar, Cotton,and Orange bowls this year don't mean a damn thing. They are irrelevant and that to me is stupid.
 
BuzzCzar said:
i liked it best before the BCS to begin with

you have 120-something teams and there is no way with football to have enough conference cross-over games to be able to establish any meaningful metric in terms of Strength of Schedule or relative conference strength

i liked the way you had "regional" champions. everyone down here knows that Georgia Tech was the National Champion in 1990. we were by far the better team. we didnt need a 5th down or an imaginary clip to win our games...

... meanwhile in Colorado and in the PAC12 they can all cite the reasons why Colorado is the Champ...

imo, thats good for college football, not bad. the only reason for a playoff or a BCS is for TV ratings which only long-term ruins the game and allows for corruption and big$ to creep in even more

it doesnt ever barely "work" anyway, i say get rid of the stupid "playoff"
its just a ratings & money scheme by the establishment
time to make College Football Great Again!
Click to expand...

I think if that were still the case today you would get

Rose - Washington v Penn St
Orange - Clemson v Oklahoma
Sugar - Alabama v Ohio St

Some pretty good matchups, but the Alabama/Ohio St game would have been a defacto championship game, dont think you would see any co-championships.

The Orange and Sugar were at large invitations for the second team, so it could have also been the following, depending on who accepted which invite:

Orange - Ohio St v Oklahoma
Sugar - Clemson v Alabama
 
Last edited:
Just go NFL style with 6 teams, top 2 gets a bye quarterfinal played at the home of higher ranked seed.

Bama, Clemson bye
Washington vs Oklahoma
Rematch Ohio St vs. Penn St

My issue with Ohio St./PennSt argument is would this even be an argument if the name was Maryland or Rutgers instead Ohio St.? More than likely not. You just take the conference champ and be done with it, but as stated this is about maximizing dollars and TV ratings. Hell, even CUM(lol) has been stated as saying if you don't when your conference then you are not deserving to be in the playoff
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top