*** The CFB Playoff Misc bullsh#t Thread ***

Saunders said:
Exactly. When you finish 3rd in your conference, you shouldn't get in over teams that have the same number of wins/losses AND won their conference.
Click to expand...
What is hilarious about this is the team you're referring to won the national championship.  But they didn't deserve to get in, right?  Weren't good enough.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Saunders said:
I ain't wrong.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Click to expand...


actually you are. 

Subjectively, the four best teams have been invited to the playoffs, where they've generally proven themselves on the field. 

We could always speculate what would have happened if an undervalued UCF, Utah, or TCU had gotten in, or if a two-loss Big 10 or Pac 10 team was better than a two-loss SEC team, but after watching the actual games, it's really, really hard to say any of the recent National Champions didn't deserve it. Meaning the invite wasn't "automatic" but as close to a subjective ranking of the best teams as we're likely to get. 

Does anyone have a glaring example of a team with the talent and scheme to knock off an Alabama, Clemson, or LSU that didn't make the cut? A team you would put your own money on? 

 
Cobra Kai said:
What is hilarious about this is the team you're referring to won the national championship.  But they didn't deserve to get in, right?  Weren't good enough.
Click to expand...
It's not about being good enough in one game.  On any given day, teams win games they weren't supposed to win.  The problem with the current system is the directive to put in 4 teams who, based on the subjective opinions of a group of people, are the best in the country.  Nothing in their selection process discusses who deserves it more.  I am a fan of an 6 team playoff where conference champions get in and the highest ranking non-power 5 gets in.        

 
Hilltop said:
It's not about being good enough in one game.  On any given day, teams win games they weren't supposed to win.        
Click to expand...
Alabama has been good enough in one game a lot.  Alabama was favored to win the national championship game.  They weren't the underdog....the conference champ was.

I am all for expansion...gets more programs in the field.  

 
Cobra Kai said:
What is hilarious about this is the team you're referring to won the national championship.  But they didn't deserve to get in, right?  Weren't good enough.
Click to expand...
New England was better than the Giants in 2007 because they had won all their previous games. We should give them the trophy and crown them the GOATS.

 
Saunders said:
New England was better than the Giants in 2007 because they had won all their previous games. We should give them the trophy and crown them the GOATS.
Click to expand...


So in your analogy, Alabama is the giants?  Because they shouldn't have gotten in and still won?  And new england is Georgia, who won the conference championship so, therefore...was better?

 
Cobra Kai said:
So in your analogy, Alabama is the giants?  Because they shouldn't have gotten in and still won?  And new england is Georgia, who won the conference championship so, therefore...was better?
Click to expand...
No, you're saying they were favored on paper and the games dont matter.

 
Cobra Kai said:
It's Alabama and Clemson or vice versa...then everybody else. They get in because they are better than everyone else.  It's clear and obvious.  I am for an expanded playoff too, but to say it isn't fair or flawed because Alabama and/or Clemson get in with blemishes is kind of foolish. 

The playoff system as it is now is about putting the best teams on the field against one another.  There is currently no other team in FBS at their level.  If people don't like it, they need to beat them...and keep beating them until the tide turns.

It will happen eventually, but for now, we're stuck with two great programs and then everyone else.  I'm sure this is how people thought of Nebraska and Oklahoma or Nebraska and Miami in their hay day.
Click to expand...
Not arguing they're not the 2 top programs, pretty clear they're a step ahead.  That being said, anything can happen in one game and if they're truly the best and a cut above then they should have no issue getting through an 8 or 12 or 16 team playoff to end it.  

If anything it adds credibility to their resume and helps some of the bs scheduling differences (SEC never really plays a true tough road game, seemingly always neutral site somewhere in the south, for instance)

I think what's flawed, to me, is saying there are 5 equal major conferences yet the system in place will always leave the champ of that conf looking on the outside, possibly 2 when notre dame has a solid year.  That equation is broken from day 1- might as well just consolidate to 4 major conferences if were keeping it at 4

 
Back
Top