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

Cobra Kai said:
They should always be in...until proven otherwise.  Subjectivity is the only way to go.  Schedule strength is different, strength of conference is different, just to list a couple.  

To not use to eye test as one of the criteria is very short sided.  I honestly hope someone knocks those two teams off of their perch this season!  I'm getting tired of the same two teams.  But I am not going to hate on the two best programs because they get in.  However they get in.  It's never been undeserving.  

Some years other teams may have deserved it too...but for the last 6 or 7 years, they have deserved everything they have been given.  And they have earned their championships once they've gotten there.  

I may be in the minority with husker fans...and that's ok.  We've all been butthurt for the last 20 years because we used to be Alabama.  Now we're not.  And we may never be there again.  You can disagree, and we'll all be fine.
Click to expand...


If they eye test is all that matters, go back to the bowl system. Worked for years before the BCS and playoff. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Born N Bled Red said:
If they eye test is all that matters, go back to the bowl system. Worked for years before the BCS and playoff. 
Click to expand...
Except in 1998 leaving out undefeated Tulane

and 1999 leaving out undefeated Marshall

and 2000 letting in Florida State to the national title game to play Oklahoma over Miami

and 2001 letting Nebraska to the national title game over Colorado

and 2003 leaving out USC from the national title game in a three way contest

and 2004 leaving out Auburn, Utah, and Boise State out of the national title game when 5 teams were undefeated

and 2006 leaving out undefeated Boise State in favor of a one-loss school to play Ohio State

and 2007 leaving out undefeated Hawaii for two loss LSU

and 2008 leaving out undefeated Utah for any of the one-loss teams

and 2009 leaving out undefeated Cincinnati, TCU, and Boise State when 5 teams were undefeated

and 2010 leaving out undefeated TCU when 3 teams were undefeated

and 2011 leaving out Oklahoma State in favor of a rematch of a divisional game in the national title.

"Worked" is a loose term.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
deedsker said:
Except in 1998 leaving out undefeated Tulane

and 1999 leaving out undefeated Marshall

and 2000 letting in Florida State to the national title game to play Oklahoma over Miami

and 2001 letting Nebraska to the national title game over Colorado

and 2003 leaving out USC from the national title game in a three way contest

and 2004 leaving out Auburn, Utah, and Boise State out of the national title game when 5 teams were undefeated

and 2006 leaving out undefeated Boise State in favor of a one-loss school to play Ohio State

and 2007 leaving out undefeated Hawaii for two loss LSU

and 2008 leaving out undefeated Utah for any of the one-loss teams

and 2009 leaving out undefeated Cincinnati, TCU, and Boise State when 5 teams were undefeated

and 2010 leaving out undefeated TCU when 3 teams were undefeated

and 2011 leaving out Oklahoma State in favor of a rematch of a divisional game in the national title.

"Worked" is a loose term.
Click to expand...
For what it's worth that was written tongue in cheek. That said, the suggestion was to go back to the bowl system, not bcs

 
The eye test is important.  It should never not be part of the equation if the system grants at-large teams.

I am all for expansion.  I am all for the little guy getting a shot...but right now we have what we have.  The eye test is way more prevalent in basketball than it is in football.

 
Saunders said:
This is the crux of the argument right here. It needs to be equal footing across the board. But it's not. We're in a weird space of super teams and a hyper focus on the playoff (thanks ESPN). The narrative is being pushed before the season even starts (the "who's in" segments) that's setting these teams up for the playoff, and diminishing the regular season. And the ratings for the playoff reflect this.
Click to expand...
To your point, I wish there was zero polling until Mid October - none of the pre-season bias polling either.  It works both way.  How many times in years past was Nebraska ranked in preseason polls based on name recognition alone. Or how many times have we seen the preseason poll full of just about every SEC team just because it is the SEC.    Let the first poll be based on 6 weeks of work for that season alone.  Let a school earn its ranking.  Think of OU back in 2000.  They started way down in the polls but proved themselves by beating highly ranked  Tx, KSU and then #1 Nebraska to claim the # 1 spot.   Teams shouldn't be given the benefit of the doubt just because of their conference or what they did last year. 

 
Ulty said:
and 2001 letting Nebraska to the national title game over Colorado Oregon
Click to expand...
To be fair, before the games were played, Colorado was the team that should have gotten in. Oregon is the answer for #4 in the playoff and were only found to be better after bowl season.

 
deedsker said:
The bowl system was worse than the BCS. See any Rose bowl stopping the #1 vs. #2 teams.
Click to expand...
The bowl system wasn't trying to match the top teams or be any sort of a tourney. It's the ultimate in subjectivity and the "eye test" - no need for the teams to play each other, just look at them and argue over who is "better".

 
deedsker said:
Except in 1998 leaving out undefeated Tulane

and 1999 leaving out undefeated Marshall

and 2000 letting in Florida State to the national title game to play Oklahoma over Miami

and 2001 letting Nebraska to the national title game over Colorado

and 2003 leaving out USC from the national title game in a three way contest

and 2004 leaving out Auburn, Utah, and Boise State out of the national title game when 5 teams were undefeated

and 2006 leaving out undefeated Boise State in favor of a one-loss school to play Ohio State

and 2007 leaving out undefeated Hawaii for two loss LSU

and 2008 leaving out undefeated Utah for any of the one-loss teams

and 2009 leaving out undefeated Cincinnati, TCU, and Boise State when 5 teams were undefeated

and 2010 leaving out undefeated TCU when 3 teams were undefeated

and 2011 leaving out Oklahoma State in favor of a rematch of a divisional game in the national title.

"Worked" is a loose term.
Click to expand...
which of those teams has not only themselves to blame?

Or in the case of 2001 Colorado, blame themselves three times. 

 
deedsker said:
Colorado beat Nebraska by 26 just before having Nebraska get selected over them. Nebraska shouldn't have been there. If you didn't want Colorado, then it should have been Oregon.
Click to expand...
In any system there are going to be crazy years like 2001 and 2007 where the #2 ranking is cursed and no one is going to be completely satisfied.

That being said and to the best of my knowledge, 2001 Colorado is the only 3 loss team in the history of college football who thinks they got jobbed out of a national title.  Or rather an NC shot; I haven't heard a Buff to explain how the team that lost to Fresno State was going to beat an NFL ready Miami. 

 
Notre Dame Joe said:
In any system there are going to be crazy years like 2001 and 2007 where the #2 ranking is cursed and no one is going to be completely satisfied.

That being said and to the best of my knowledge, 2001 Colorado is the only 3 loss team in the history of college football who thinks they got jobbed out of a national title.  Or rather an NC shot; I haven't heard a Buff to explain how the team that lost to Fresno State was going to beat an NFL ready Miami. 
Click to expand...


That's always been my argument.  I'm not saying that Nebraska was particularly "deserving" of being there.  But they were as "deserving" as anyone was because there really wasn't a legitimate #2 that year.  And the argument that we didn't "deserve" to be there because we got blown out by Miami doesn't mean anything because Miami was likely to have their way with whoever was there.

Colorado had two losses and one of those was a worse blowout that what they handed to us (41-7 to Texas).  That's not "deserving" of a national title shot.

You could make a case for Oregon.  But their loss was to a three-loss Stanford team so you're comparing margin of defeat to quality of opponent and relative strength of schedule.  They beat the #11 team in the country.  We beat the #6 team in the country.  

But my personal favorite was Mike Bellotti's whining after the match-ups were announced.  He went on and on about how the "BCS was a cancer" and it had robbed them of a spot in the national title game.  Don't let the inconvenient facts get in the way, Mike.  Before the BCS you absolutely would have been in the Rose Bowl ... playing #7 Illinois.  Miami would have been in the Orange Bowl so you still wouldn't have played them.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
All these examples of the old systems just confirms that the current four team CFP has crowned the least controversial champions in history, with the liveliest debate over who should have been #4. 

 
Guy Chamberlin said:
All these examples of the old systems just confirms that the current four team CFP has crowned the least controversial champions in history, with the liveliest debate over who should have been #4. 
Click to expand...


That's because it puts all the attention on the post season and blinds people to the original question of the national champion; who had the best season?

The best example is 2017 Auburn who had a much better season than Alabama. But this version of college football rewards those who get hot in December.

 
Back
Top