16 of the last 17 college football national champions have come from inside this red oval.

Donate To GopherHole
MNSpaniel said:
Huge advantage to the top teams having a bye. They should have eight or sixteen but not twelve. That would level the playing field a bit.
Click to expand...
Top 4 conference champs get the byes. Utah, Clemson, Georgia, and Michigan would have had byes this year.
 

MaxyJR1 said:
Top 4 conference champs get the byes. Utah, Clemson, Georgia, and Michigan would have had byes this year.
Click to expand...

Utah finished 10-4 and Clemson finished 11-3 this season, but now they deserve byes in the CFP?
 



MNSpaniel said:
Huge advantage to the top teams having a bye. They should have eight or sixteen but not twelve. That would level the playing field a bit.
Click to expand...
If you're going to expand the field (which I don't agree with, not that that counts for anything), I think 12 is the perfect number. You can give automatic entries to all of the Power 5 conference champions, the top 1-2 Group of 5 teams, and fill the rest with at-large bids. You achieve multiple objectives, including giving the small guys a foot in the door, rewarding conference championships, and, in most cases, teams aren't going to play more than 3 postseason games, alleviating concerns of those who actually still think academics are important and want to minimize disruptions to the academic calendar.

If you limit it to 8, in most years you won't be able to accommodate all 3 sectors (P5 conference champs, G5 top 2 teams, and at-large bids), unless the P5 conference champs all happen to be in the top half-dozen or so teams, which is very unlikely. If you expand it to 16, the teams who make it to the championship game will have had to play 4 postseason games, which is too many; plus, the #1 seed has no advantage in the bracket over the #16 team. As you stated, getting a top 4 seed and a bye is a huge advantage, which they deserve and should get as a reward for an outstanding regular season.
 


GopherTheJugular said:
Every other team in the country would never win more than 1-2 SEC games, not michigan, not USC, etc.
Click to expand...
To make sure I understand your point, you're saying that no team in the country (except Ohio St.) could ever win more than 2 games in the SEC? I'm giving you a chance to amend your statement to be something less than completely idiotic.
 

MNSpaniel said:
Huge advantage to the top teams having a bye.
Click to expand...
No it isn't. The talent gap is FAR to great to think extra rest makes a difference. You could spend all night waterboarding the top teams and they'd still dominate the next day over any team 5-12.
 


dpodoll68 said:
To make sure I understand your point, you're saying that no team in the country (except Ohio St.) could ever win more than 2 games in the SEC? I'm giving you a chance to amend your statement to be something less than completely idiotic.
Click to expand...
Do you know anything else besides hurling insults? Could you ever just say something like, "I don't agree with your statement" or something? You're childish namecalling gets old, especially when many posters prove you wrong.
 



GopherTheJugular said:
Do you know anything else besides hurling insults? Could you ever just say something like, "I don't agree with your statement" or something?
Click to expand...
Calling your statement idiotic isn't an insult, it's saying that something you said was idiotic. Saying idiotic things doesn't mean you're an idiot.
GopherTheJugular said:
You're childish namecalling gets old
Click to expand...
I almost never name call, especially not as of late. I'm sure I did in the past, but I try not to anymore. I didn't call you or anyone else a name in this thread or any recent thread.

GopherTheJugular said:
especially when many posters prove you wrong.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that doesn't happen.

Are you going to actually try to defend your idiotic statement from before, or just whine about how I hurt your fee fees?
 

dpodoll68 said:
If you're going to expand the field (which I don't agree with, not that that counts for anything), I think 12 is the perfect number. You can give automatic entries to all of the Power 5 conference champions, the top 1-2 Group of 5 teams, and fill the rest with at-large bids. You achieve multiple objectives, including giving the small guys a foot in the door, rewarding conference championships, and, in most cases, teams aren't going to play more than 3 postseason games, alleviating concerns of those who actually still think academics are important and want to minimize disruptions to the academic calendar.

If you limit it to 8, in most years you won't be able to accommodate all 3 sectors (P5 conference champs, G5 top 2 teams, and at-large bids), unless the P5 conference champs all happen to be in the top half-dozen or so teams, which is very unlikely. If you expand it to 16, the teams who make it to the championship game will have had to play 4 postseason games, which is too many; plus, the #1 seed has no advantage in the bracket over the #16 team. As you stated, getting a top 4 seed and a bye is a huge advantage, which they deserve and should get as a reward for an outstanding regular season.
Click to expand...
Wow, you mean you and I agree on something? Thumbs up.

Honest question if you can answer without using insulting words: regarding the second bolded, what's the point in giving the small guys a foot in the door when you know they are going to get beat silly anyways? Similar with a conf champ. K-State would have gotten just as slaughtered by Georgia as TCU did. How many of those games do people want to watch? I've asked before and all I get a crickets.

People who scream for expanded playoffs run and hide when you ask them about the inevitable blowouts that there would be.
 

dpodoll68 said:
Calling your statement idiotic isn't an insult, it's saying that something you said was idiotic. Saying idiotic things doesn't mean you're an idiot.
Click to expand...
Semantics here, but isn't it still an insult? I mean, if you tell me I have a piece of crap car, you're technically not calling me a piece of crap, but you're still insulting me though, no?

dpodoll68 said:
I almost never name call, especially not as of late. I'm sure I did in the past, but I try not to anymore. I didn't call you or anyone else a name in this thread or any recent thread.
Click to expand...
I'll applaud you for that growth. Not trying to sound sarcastic either. I wish more posters would try to do things better.

dpodoll68 said:
Are you going to actually try to defend your idiotic statement from before, or just whine about how I hurt your fee fees?
Click to expand...
It wasn't meant to be whining. I just was getting tired of seeing your posts with things like "idiotic" etc directed at others. Just gets old and who wants to talk with someone who uses those words? I've disagreed with others on here and I don't think any of them have used words towards me like "idiotic" or anything similar, which is why I happily reply to them.

Sorry for the rant. You didn't think it was insulting, I took it differently, no big deal.

And if I have to amend my statement, I suppose Michigan and maybe PSU could get some more wins if they get Vandy and Mizzou in the same year and they have a team full of players taller than Mike Morris!!!! (Ha! Got ya with that one.)
 

GopherTheJugular said:
Wow, you mean you and I agree on something? Thumbs up.

Honest question if you can answer without using insulting words: regarding the second bolded, what's the point in giving the small guys a foot in the door when you know they are going to get beat silly anyways? Similar with a conf champ. K-State would have gotten just as slaughtered by Georgia as TCU did. How many of those games do people want to watch? I've asked before and all I get a crickets.

People who scream for expanded playoffs run and hide when you ask them about the inevitable blowouts that there would be.
Click to expand...
No one would have gotten slaughtered as much as TCU and not even TCU if they played again. TCU just didn't have it that night and it got out of control. It happens in Championship games at times. Heck the last 5 championship games have all been won by more than 3 TD's.

MI and tOSU nearly changed the whole narrative in the semi-finals.
 



MaxyJR1 said:
No one would have gotten slaughtered as much as TCU
Click to expand...
Seriously? I mean, sure, the Gophs wouldn't have because of the offense we run, but there are plenty of teams that would get slaughtered. Oregon almost won the PAC12 and Georgia slaughtered them 49-3. Ok, technically not as bad as giving up 65 points, but if you mean no one else would lose EXACTLY 65-7 then you are probably correct.

MaxyJR1 said:
and not even TCU if they played again.
Click to expand...
I disagree. They could play 10 times and Georgia blows them out of the water each time, but at least 40-45 points. The teams are on completely different levels, even Sonny Dykes had to admit that.

MaxyJR1 said:
Heck the last 5 championship games have all been won by more than 3 TD's.
Click to expand...
2021: 33-18, so no, 15 points is not 3 TDs
2020: yes
2019: yes, but that's what happens when the Big 12 gets invited
2018: yes
2017: only 3 points

So 3/5, not 5/5. 2013, 2015, 2016, 2017 were all one score games.
 

GopherWeatherGuy said:
I don't necessarily disagree with that, but they're going to easily make it in an expanded playoff anyways. I think people are fooling themselves if they think the little guy is going to beat a 3rd place SEC or even a B1G team in the first round of a 12 team playoff.

If there was a 12 team playoff the last two seasons, I'd bet a lot of money that Cincinnati or TCU wouldn't even make the final four, let alone the championship game. Yet under the current system, they did.
Click to expand...
I don't know. I think it depends how much the committee alters the rankings to get the matchups they want and get the teams they want in the final 4 the most favorable routes.

Based on the rankings this year and with a 12 team playoff, Utah, TCU or Tulane would have been one of 4 in the final 4. But the committee could have just switched Ohio St and TCU to spread around the helmet schools more. It'll be interesting to see what happens. We know in basketball they tweak the rankings sometimes.

1674598723380.png
 
Last edited:

GopherTheJugular said:
Seriously? I mean, sure, the Gophs wouldn't have because of the offense we run, but there are plenty of teams that would get slaughtered. Oregon almost won the PAC12 and Georgia slaughtered them 49-3. Ok, technically not as bad as giving up 65 points, but if you mean no one else would lose EXACTLY 65-7 then you are probably correct.


I disagree. They could play 10 times and Georgia blows them out of the water each time, but at least 40-45 points. The teams are on completely different levels, even Sonny Dykes had to admit that.


2021: 33-18, so no, 15 points is not 3 TDs
2020: yes
2019: yes, but that's what happens when the Big 12 gets invited
2018: yes
2017: only 3 points

So 3/5, not 5/5. 2013, 2015, 2016, 2017 were all one score games.
Click to expand...
Sorry, meant average of the last 4 before this year.
 

GopherTheJugular said:
If you think a group of 5 champion has any path to the national championship as long as the SEC is around, you're fooling yourself.

All those "Rudy" teams are going to get plastered senseless. I mean, did anyone enjoy watching TCU get the sh*t beat out of them for 4 quarters????? Yet you guys want MORE of those kinda games???

Shake my head. This isn't basketball where some small school can light it up from beyond the arc and pull off an upset. The top 2 or 3 teams in college football will destroy the rest of the competition, whether it's a 6, 8, 12, 16, 64 team playoff, it doesn't matter.
Click to expand...
You understand by legit I mean they have a way to make it there if they win? Until this expansion, even winning wasn't enough. Saying everyone had a chance is a farce.
 

MaxyJR1 said:
No one would have gotten slaughtered as much as TCU and not even TCU if they played again. TCU just didn't have it that night and it got out of control. It happens in Championship games at times. Heck the last 5 championship games have all been won by more than 3 TD's.

MI and tOSU nearly changed the whole narrative in the semi-finals.
Click to expand...

The bolded is an excellent point. Ohio State lost by one point to Georgia in the semis. There was certainly no "SEC domination" in evidence in that game.

As far as the other semifinal is concerned, what would be the outcome if Michigan and TCU played ten times at a neutral site? I'd pick Michigan to win 7 of 10.
 

GopherTheJugular said:
Close, as I feel only tOSU could join the SEC and win half of their conference games. Every other team in the country would never win more than 1-2 SEC games, not michigan, not USC, etc. The grind of the SEC regular season would wear those teams' athletes down to the nubs come November.

I'll give you a point for the upsets that you bring up. But my counter would be, are we wanting to watch the best teams compete against one another for the title, or are we looking for NFL and NBA-level chaos? If you have a 12 team playoff and some upsets sprinkled in, do you real end up with the 2 best teams competing for the title? I doubt it.
Click to expand...
After seeing the SEC's record in bowl games not CFP related, I think you're way off on how other teams would perform against that competition.
 


dpodoll68 said:
If you're going to expand the field (which I don't agree with, not that that counts for anything), I think 12 is the perfect number. You can give automatic entries to all of the Power 5 conference champions, the top 1-2 Group of 5 teams, and fill the rest with at-large bids. You achieve multiple objectives, including giving the small guys a foot in the door, rewarding conference championships, and, in most cases, teams aren't going to play more than 3 postseason games, alleviating concerns of those who actually still think academics are important and want to minimize disruptions to the academic calendar.

If you limit it to 8, in most years you won't be able to accommodate all 3 sectors (P5 conference champs, G5 top 2 teams, and at-large bids), unless the P5 conference champs all happen to be in the top half-dozen or so teams, which is very unlikely. If you expand it to 16, the teams who make it to the championship game will have had to play 4 postseason games, which is too many; plus, the #1 seed has no advantage in the bracket over the #16 team. As you stated, getting a top 4 seed and a bye is a huge advantage, which they deserve and should get as a reward for an outstanding regular season.
Click to expand...
I agree with this. I do wish that the number of locked bids was more flexible.

I would rather have the number 16 (but 7th highest conference champ) than the number 11 team who got 3rd in the SEC or big ten.

I wish it were auto bids to conference champs in the top 20. The rest convert to at large.



I also wish they did away with the committee and went to a formula that was set before the season started.



I’m okay with it, it could be worse.
 

GophersInIowa said:
I don't know. I think it depends how much the committee alters the rankings to get the matchups they want and get the teams they want in the final 4 the most favorable routes.

Based on the rankings this year and with a 12 team playoff, Utah, TCU or Tulane would have been one of 4 in the final 4. But the committee could have just switched Ohio St and TCU to spread around the helmet schools more. It'll be interesting to see what happens.

View attachment 23352
Click to expand...

And this is why I think giving bye's to champions of conferences that have proven to be weak throughout the season doesn't make sense. Also, how does a 3 loss champion in Utah get a 4 seed, but a 3 loss champion in K State gets a 9 seed? This looks like a stretch just to try and make things look more interesting.

In this scenario, what would even be the point of the CFP rankings, since we're now just seeding teams based on matchups on whatever the committee feels like that day?

Even if I play along and give Tulane the 12 seed just so we can have a G5 team, the top 4 should still be Georgia, Michigan, Ohio St, and TCU. They clearly had better resume's than Clemson and Utah and it's not close.

I'm fine giving the nod to conference champions in the next tier depending on losses, Clemson gets the tiebreaker over Alabama, but Alabama gets it over 3 loss K-State and Utah.
5. Clemson
6. Alabama
7. K-State
8. Utah
9. Tennessee
10. USC
11. Penn St.
12. Tulane.

Likely 2nd round matchups would be:
1. Georgia vs 9. Tennessee
2. Michigan vs 7. K-State
3. TCU vs 6. Alabama
4. Ohio St vs 5. Clemson

Then you'd likely get to a final four of Georgia, Michigan, Alabama, and Ohio St.

Especially with the expansion of the B1G and SEC, and degradation of the Pac 12 and the B1G, even in a 12 team CFP, I'd bet the final four will be only B1G and SEC nearly every year.
 

GopherWeatherGuy said:
And this is why I think giving bye's to champions of conferences that have proven to be weak throughout the season doesn't make sense. Also, how does a 3 loss champion in Utah get a 4 seed, but a 3 loss champion in K State gets a 9 seed? This looks like a stretch just to try and make things look more interesting.

In this scenario, what would even be the point of the CFP rankings, since we're now just seeding teams based on matchups on whatever the committee feels like that day?

Even if I play along and give Tulane the 12 seed just so we can have a G5 team, the top 4 should still be Georgia, Michigan, Ohio St, and TCU. They clearly had better resume's than Clemson and Utah and it's not close.

I'm fine giving the nod to conference champions in the next tier depending on losses, Clemson gets the tiebreaker over Alabama, but Alabama gets it over 3 loss K-State and Utah.
5. Clemson
6. Alabama
7. K-State
8. Utah
9. Tennessee
10. USC
11. Penn St.
12. Tulane.

Likely 2nd round matchups would be:
1. Georgia vs 9. Tennessee
2. Michigan vs 7. K-State
3. TCU vs 6. Alabama
4. Ohio St vs 5. Clemson

Then you'd likely get to a final four of Georgia, Michigan, Alabama, and Ohio St.

Especially with the expansion of the B1G and SEC, and degradation of the Pac 12 and the B1G, even in a 12 team CFP, I'd bet the final four will be only B1G and SEC nearly every year.
Click to expand...
I see your point and don't disagree with any of it. I think this year was a little bit of an anomaly in that there were several weaker conference champions. I'm guessing they want to keep the conference championships as important as possible.
 

This shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone who is obsessive about college football enough to be reading this board in late January.

It’s just not good for the game though. College football used to have more broad geographic appeal. Reality is, nowadays, it is probably more geographically concentrated than NASCAR or hockey. And that’s not a good thing for anyone involved.
 

GopherTheJugular said:
Georgia's last 2 regular seasons didn't prove enough to you?

Just wait until the star QB on the #1 team goes down with an ACL while playing Coastal Carolina in the playoffs all because Coastal Carolina squeaked out a victory in their conference championship game, giving them the right to the 12 team playoff.
Click to expand...
Nothing wrong with that. He could go down in week 11 just as easily.
 

GopherTheJugular said:
Semantics here, but isn't it still an insult? I mean, if you tell me I have a piece of crap car, you're technically not calling me a piece of crap, but you're still insulting me though, no?


I'll applaud you for that growth. Not trying to sound sarcastic either. I wish more posters would try to do things better.


It wasn't meant to be whining. I just was getting tired of seeing your posts with things like "idiotic" etc directed at others. Just gets old and who wants to talk with someone who uses those words? I've disagreed with others on here and I don't think any of them have used words towards me like "idiotic" or anything similar, which is why I happily reply to them.

Sorry for the rant. You didn't think it was insulting, I took it differently, no big deal.

And if I have to amend my statement, I suppose Michigan and maybe PSU could get some more wins if they get Vandy and Mizzou in the same year and they have a team full of players taller than Mike Morris!!!! (Ha! Got ya with that one.)
Click to expand...
You are far afield of the actual question. Do you stand by the assertion that no Big Ten team aside from OSU could routinely win more than two or three SEC games a season? Not Michigan or Penn State? Not Iowa or Wisconsin? Never Minnesota?
 

mngolf said:
You understand by legit I mean they have a way to make it there if they win? Until this expansion, even winning wasn't enough. Saying everyone had a chance is a farce.
Click to expand...
They still won't have a chance. Letting them get whooped by 50+ every season isn't exactly entertaining TV.

The reason they didn't have a chance before is because everyone knows that G5 teams and such just aren't on the same level.

MLB gets it right by calling it a minor league and not allowing any AAA teams to compete for the world series. College football should do the same. If you're not from B1G or SEC, you don't get an invite to the playoffs. Just play in your bowl game and be happy.
 

GopherTheJugular said:
They still won't have a chance. Letting them get whooped by 50+ every season isn't exactly entertaining TV.

The reason they didn't have a chance before is because everyone knows that G5 teams and such just aren't on the same level.

MLB gets it right by calling it a minor league and not allowing any AAA teams to compete for the world series. College football should do the same. If you're not from B1G or SEC, you don't get an invite to the playoffs. Just play in your bowl game and be happy.
Click to expand...
And G5 teams are just going to be happy with that? Cmon. Everyone likes to see upsets happen. They don't happen often, which is the point. But everyone should have the opportunity to play for a championship. Getting whooped isn't part of the equation. Doesn't matter.
 

mngolf said:
After seeing the SEC's record in bowl games not CFP related, I think you're way off on how other teams would perform against that competition.
Click to expand...
It's not the correct comparison. When teams have over a month to rest, that levels the playing field. Take our 2019 Gophers, for example. Everyone was happy that they beat an SEC defense with 4 and 5* players, yatta yatta yatta. Well, we had over a month to rest.

Now, if leading up to the game against Auburn, how would the Gophers had faired if they played 'bama, Florida, and LSU the 3 weeks prior? Outside of Big Dan, I think our o-line would have been pushed around just due to exhaustion from playing a 4th SEC defense in 4 weeks.

That's the kind of grind I don't think B1G teams can handle. Week in, week out against SEC defenses. Fully rested, it's a different story.

Or a similar analogy would be what Chris Peterson was doing at Boise State. He'd schedule a decent P5 opponent, like Oregon, Virginia Tech, etc and beat them and then want to pad the resume with that. Well, the caveat was that he was always scheduling them for the first game of the season, when his players were fully healthy. Had his undersized BSU team tried playing a P5 team in November, they would have lost every time just due to lack of girth.
 

mngolf said:
And G5 teams are just going to be happy with that? Cmon. Everyone likes to see upsets happen. They don't happen often, which is the point. But everyone should have the opportunity to play for a championship. Getting whooped isn't part of the equation. Doesn't matter.
Click to expand...
Ok, ok, I like your post here. Genuine. And upsets are cool. I'd just prefer to see them during the regular season, when they are more likely to happen. When you give the best P5 teams multiple weeks to rest and prepare, the upset is almost nil.

I'd rather see the G5 and such take on P5 teams in competitive non-conf games and get the upsets there, ruining a few P5 teams' seasons before they get started.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom