NCAA Football Conf. Championship Week

[twibnotes]

Well, then I guess we would all have to settle for annoying the shit out of their fanbases. Sounds like a fair compromise to me.

Edit: Sound arguments can be made for any one of PSU, OSU or Michigan to make the final four. I am just of the mind that winning your conference championship should count most. Only one person’s opinion in a sea of opinions.

I would agree 100 pct if the conf championship weren't so flawed. The major conferences have gotten so big that the teams don't all play each other. Wisconsin, a two loss team, was in the championship while OSU, a one loss team that beat Ohio, was at home.

By all means, make the conf championship matter...but then you need to make the conf championship fair.

Dan wetzel said it well

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.yahoo.com/amphtml/sports/news/why-the-big-ten-title-game-is-another-example-of-college-footballs-disorganization-185310435.html?client=safari

 

[dhappy42]

It'd be a lot simpler if they'd just give playoff spots to the Power 5 conference champions, dropping the one with the worst record. Then seed them according record, schedule strength, head-to head etc.

Would that be fair? It'd be just as fair as how they do it now. Would the best four teams be in the playoffs? Maybe not, but so what? Do the best two NFL teams always play in the Super Bowl? Do the best two MLB teams play in the World Series? Nope.

This year, Alabama is unequivocally#1. After them, it's a jumble. You can make a reasonable argument for about six teams for 2-4. If OSU's win over Michigan "proves" it's superior, then PSU's win over OSU "proves" it's a better team than Ohio. Does anyone (who's not a Clemson fan) really believe Clemson is the 2nd best team in the country?

 

[bankshot1]

The protocol doesn't work when you have these divisions defined solely by geography in the big ten. The big ten champ should have been Ohio st vs penn state. Instead the 3rd and 4th best teams in the conf got together for a "championship" game.

It is what it is.

Penn St.won the B1G East and played and beat the leader of the B1G West.

But speaking of geography, I couldn't help but wonder if having a West Coast team was preferable for ratings etc, than having a heavy east/midwest tilt to the final four.

Not losing much sleep over this in any case.

 

[twibnotes]

It'd be a lot simpler if they'd just give playoff spots to the Power 5 conference champions, dropping the one with the worst record. Then seed them according record, schedule strength, head-to head etc.

Would that be fair? It'd be just as fair as how they do it now. Would the best four teams be in the playoffs? Maybe not, but so what? Do the best two NFL teams always play in the Super Bowl? Do the best two MLB teams play in the World Series? Nope.

This year, Alabama is unequivocally#1. After them, it's a jumble. You can make a reasonable argument for about six teams for 2-4. If OSU's win over Michigan "proves" it's superior, then PSU's win over OSU "proves" it's a better team than Ohio. Does anyone (who's not a Clemson fan) really believe Clemson is the 2nd best team in the country?

Problem is, you can just ignore out of conference. What if two teams have the same record, but one has the better in conf record...but the former team beat Alabama week one...how do you cast that aside? They play so few games, you need to factor the whole body of work, not just conf.

 

[snowmanny]

Then we read and interpret the first two paragraphs of their protocol in a different manner.

The first sentence of the first paragraph initially dicusses the emphasis on winning the conferecne championship.

The second paragraph, enables the committee to overide selection of a conference champion and to quote,

to select a non-champion or independent under circumstances where that particular non-champion or independent is unequivocally one of the four best teams in the country..

Now if you can unequivocally make the case that Mich is one of the 4 best teams in the country, (while sporting two losses) have at it.

IMO the 4 conference championship model, although flawed, is consistent and fair.

The first sentence of the first paragraph says that winning the conference championship, head-to-head, and
strength of schedule are important "when comparing teams of similar record and pedigree." The problem is that they did not determine that OSU and PSU were of similar record or pedigree. Reportedly the committee didn't have it that close last week between Michigan and PSU but obviously they did give some weight to PSU beating Wisconsin and winning the Big10 because the Lions finished fifth.

I understand people who wish they employed the old discarded NCAA basketball tournament method of only picking (in this case, the four best) conference champions but that disincentives scheduling strong opponents, and it really disincentives OSU, Michigan and PSU to agree to stay in the same division. Also, it's not the rule right now: I get arguing that the rules should be changed, but I don't get arguing that the committee should ignore their rules and put in a team that has a worse record and that they don't feel is nearly as good because you wish the rules were different.

You all sound like Raider fans.

 

[dhappy42]

Very true that penn state was banged up. So was Michigan vs Ohio state (at qb), a game with an insane amount of homecooking that mich lost by half an inch.

More importantly, 39 points is a lot.

Yes, being "banged up" is no excuse. If you want a selection system that's as objective as possible, then it's either a) win-loss adjusted by strength of schedule or b) conference champs (minus one).

 

[grsharky7]

What is frustrating to me is there is no defined process for how you get in. In the basketball tourney you know you have to have a decent RPI and some quality wins. In the CFP it seams like it changes each year depending on the committee (Danny Kanell said as much on ESPN). Two years ago TCU/Baylor got dinged for not playing in a conference title game, this year that doesn't matter. OSU gets rewarded for the tough OOC schedule, Washington doesn't get penalized for a weak one.

College football has to be careful to not make this to confusing and alienate a big segment of their fanbase. There is already a perception out there that they want "name" programs in the final four. If fans start to believe that their team is going to get screwed over so a bigger brand can get in, people will start tuning out.

 

[jon abbey]

I think Washington can give Alabama a hell of a game, though it might be wishful thinking

It was the first week of the year and USC is a lot better now, but Alabama absolutely demolished USC 52-6 in September. Washington has looked good when I've seen them, but their best win all year was against an over-their-head Colorado team this week. I'd be pretty surprised if this one is competitive by the fourth quarter.

 

[mauf]

It was the first week of the year and USC is a lot better now, but Alabama absolutely demolished USC 52-6 in September. Washington has looked good when I've seen them, but their best win all year was against an over-their-head Colorado team this week. I'd be pretty surprised if this one is competitive by the fourth quarter.

UW jumped all over WSU in the first quarter of the Apple Cup. The UW offense is impressive when firing on all cylinders, and they're doing that a lot lately. As a Bama fan, that's the team I least want to see at #4.

 

[dhappy42]

What is frustrating to me is there is no defined process for how you get in.
...College football has to be careful to not make this to confusing and alienate a big segment of their fanbase. There is already a perception out there that they want "name" programs in the final four. If fans start to believe that their team is going to get screwed over so a bigger brand can get in, people will start tuning out.

I'm repeating myself, but that's why I think the #1-4 spots should go to the Power Five conference winners, seeded by record and strength of schedule, dropping #5. It may not be "fair," but it's completely objective.

The answer to the complaint that a team that doesn't win its conference might be better than the conference winner or other conference winners is: "So what? If you want to make the playoffs, win your conference." Before wildcards and 22-team playoff tournaments, that's how most sports championships worked.

Would making conference titles the determine factor incentivize teams to play weak out of conference games? No. Overall record and strength of schedule would still be important in the seeding and which Power Five team loses out.

Would this system be "unfair" to a team that's arguably the 2nd or 3rd best team in the country, but loses its conference to the #1 team? Yes. But again, that's how it worked for ages in most sports.

 

[mauf]

Would this system be "unfair" to a team that's arguably the 2nd or 3rd best team in the country, but loses its conference to the #1 team? Yes. But again, that's how it worked for ages in most sports.

Nonsense. CCGs are a relatively recent invention.

In the old days, tOSU and PSU would be crowned co-champions, tOSU would either play Alabama for the national title (BCS era), or play UW in the Rose Bowl and hope Clemson beat Bama in the Sugar Bowl (pre-BCS era)..PSU would go to the Orange Bowl and play someone like Oklahoma. In no era prior to the past few years would anyone expect that PSU might have a chance to play for a national championship.

 

[dhappy42]

Nonsense. CCGs are a relatively recent invention.

My fault for being unclear. I wasn't referring to CFB conference championships. I was referring to NFL, MLB and NBA championships, etc. Point I was trying to make is that #2s in one conference are often better than the #1s in another and before wild cards and four-round playoffs, it didn't matter.

Unless and until CFB goes to an eight-team playoff, having 4/5 conference winners make the playoffs is a more straightforward and objective way to do it. Would the best four teams make the top four? Sometimes yes, sometimes no, but that's true right now too.

 

[SumnerH]

I'm repeating myself, but that's why I think the #1-4 spots should go to the Power Five conference winners, seeded by record and strength of schedule, dropping #5. It may not be "fair," but it's completely objective.

Objectively dumb. What if Notre Dame or BYU is the best team in the country? The last thing you should be encouraging is more expansion of the power conferences and marginalization of the other conferences and independents. Conferences are already over-valued; they really shouldn't matter at all to who plays in the national title game, except inasmuch as they influence your strength of schedule

 

[dhappy42]

Objectively dumb. What if Notre Dame or BYU is the best team in the country? ...

Good point. I don't give a fuck about Notre Dame, but that'd be unfair to BYU.

 

[SoxJox]

Yes, being "banged up" is no excuse. If you want a selection system that's as objective as possible, then it's either a) win-loss adjusted by strength of schedule or b) conference champs (minus one).

Knowing that you were not replying directly to me, I was the one that introduced the subject of being "banged up". But I noted only that Penn State did not field it's healthiest team vs. UM. How many points less would they likely have lost? Would they have still lost (likely, but who knows)? I would also suggest that the "QB injury" issue with UM, while significant, seems pale when compared to 10 of 22 PSU starters being out for the UM game. How many teams can recover from that?

Doesn't matter. PSU is in the Rose Bowl vs. USC...a game they never could have creamed of at the beginning of the season, and certainly not after a 2-2 start. But James Franklin has spoken eloquently about the opportunity to play in this game, despite the disappointment. Kudos and class response from him.

One thing they will not be able to take away: Penn State just won the B1G championship. THAT is an accomplishment for any team, much less Penn State given their starting point.

 

[Grin&MartyBarret]

Objectively dumb. What if Notre Dame or BYU is the best team in the country? The last thing you should be encouraging is more expansion of the power conferences and marginalization of the other conferences and independents. Conferences are already over-valued; they really shouldn't matter at all to who plays in the national title game, except inasmuch as they influence your strength of schedule

I agree with this completely. That said, I also think it's ridiculously hypocritical that the current structure doesn't require playoff participants to be conference champions, but non-power conference teams must win their conference championship to be considered for the Cotton Bowl.

 

[dhappy42]

Knowing that you were not replying directly to me, I was the one that introduced the subject of being "banged up". But I noted only that Penn State did not field it's healthiest team vs. UM. How many points less would they likely have lost? Would they have still lost (likely, but who knows)?...

I agree. Who knows?

But I don't think you can start down this slippery slope "if Team X had been healthy..." in the evaluation and ranking of teams based on "what if?" they'd been healthy criteria any more than you can argue "if the refs had only..." should alter the rankings.

 

[SoxJox]

I think if you go back and look at what I posted, you'll see that I never argued that Penn State should have been in the final four and certainly wasn't jumping on some slippery slope. My point was that the 39 point loss has a major asterisk next to it due to injury. For the record, I still think they would have lost, despite having otherwise given the appearance of hedging in my earlier posts, and would have come no closer to making it in the final 4.. And I don't think they belonged in the final 4.

 

[Ale Xander]

Paging Mbd to the FCS quarters

Insane 20 play drive by ndsu
And now turnover recovery at 1 pending review

 

[Ale Xander]

Epic error in judgment by the NDSU QB


Edit: thanks II

 

[Infield Infidel]

There's an FCS playoff thread, I'll quote your posts to bump it