CFP Playoff Committee shoehorns in Alabama at the last minute for the second year in a row ... this year with 3 losses...

It finally isn’t that big of a deal
Back in the 2 team era putting two teams in made SEC win a national title automatically.
Then the next year they needed to be rated high because they won X of the last X national titles

In the 4 team era putting two in really gamed the system into its own confirmation bias


At least in a 12 team system if bama doesn’t deserve to be there they’ll simply lose
Yeah, I really don't care that much about who gets in and who gets left out. It is a made for TV event anyway. And honestly as a fan I would rather watch Alabama over pretty much any of the garbage teams in the Big 12 or ACC this year.

No matter how many teams you put in there is always going to be controversy and somebody will feel like they got screwed.
 




Why should a conference having a down season get any teams? I would rather see teams play a tough schedule and get rewarded than a mediocre schedule and get gifted a spot.
Because, even after the Georgia/TCU beatdown, some people still think glass Joe has a chance against the Mike Tyson's of college football simply because they won their conference.
 


Just for conversation sake, if Alabama played Boise State on a neutral field, what would the betting line be?
Who cares.

Win most of your games (10+), beat some good teams, don't lose to bad teams, and don't have 3 losses. It really shouldn't be that complicated.

What would the point spreads on a neutral field be for Alabama-Vandy, Alabama-Oklahoma, Ole Miss-Kentucky, Ole Miss-Florida, and Notre Dame-Northern Illinois?
 

I hate Alabama but they are most likely a top 12 team.
And this is the problem with having 12 teams when there are really only 2 major conferences.
There is going to be a time where the legitimately 12th best team is 8-4. And if they are a brand, they’ll get in. If they aren’t a brand, they won’t.
 

It’s a joke. The regular season needs to matter. Game performance needs to matter. Otherwise just pick the teams off of recruiting rankings & draft prospects.

They are turning CFB in to the NFL. We already have the NFL. Don’t need another one.
Worse. The NFL has objective criteria for who gets a shot.
 




It’s a joke. The regular season needs to matter. Game performance needs to matter. Otherwise just pick the teams off of recruiting rankings & draft prospects.

They are turning CFB in to the NFL. We already have the NFL. Don’t need another one.
Disagree they are turning college football into the NFL.....I'm not sure what they are turning college football into but the NFL has structure and rules. Players have contracts and the playoffs are determined by what the teams do on the field not some committee.
 


Because, even after the Georgia/TCU beatdown, some people still think glass Joe has a chance against the Mike Tyson's of college football simply because they won their conference.
Michigan, in my opinion, was better than Georgia and TCU beat that Michigan team.
 

No, it's the most deserving teams based off of their wins and losses.
It should be, but the committee is told “best” in their directive

The problem is in the directive, not necessarily the committee
 




Worse. The NFL has objective criteria for who gets a shot.
And I would expect some non qualified teams in the nfl could get favorable odds in a hypothetical game vs a team qualified for the playoffs….. but nobody cares about that.
 


then Boise is out?
If they lose to UNLV, yes.

That's why we now have automatic bids (which I'm in favor of), which means we'll have 5 teams that earned their way into the field & at least 1 outside of the big-name conferences. There will be at least 1 "little guy" that has a chance, though we all know it never will be any more than that with the current format.

With all the flaws, this is a heck of a lot better than a 4-team invitational. ... at least now it's not 100% an invitational.
 


Yeah, I really don't care that much about who gets in and who gets left out. It is a made for TV event anyway. And honestly as a fan I would rather watch Alabama over pretty much any of the garbage teams in the Big 12 or ACC this year.

No matter how many teams you put in there is always going to be controversy and somebody will feel like they got screwed.
Totally agree. 4, 8, 12, 16 whatever there will always be the first couple out that everyone talks about. The NCAA BB tournament has 68 teams (I think?) and everyone talks about who got screwed...
 

Be careful what you ask for. What if a team that wasn't challenged goes to the CC game and gets pummeled 56-0. Who's gonna wanna watch them get beat down again in the CFP?
I agree that it doesn’t make any sense both ways.

They want to protect the championship game by saying you can’t be punished for loss, but that also means teams could easily decide not to really try in those games in order to save themselves for the playoffs … and now that game is compromised nonetheless.
 

It finally isn’t that big of a deal
Back in the 2 team era putting two teams in made SEC win a national title automatically.
Then the next year they needed to be rated high because they won X of the last X national titles

In the 4 team era putting two in really gamed the system into its own confirmation bias


At least in a 12 team system if bama doesn’t deserve to be there they’ll simply lose
About the most clever comment I've read on the subject. (y)
 


Be careful what you ask for. What if a team that wasn't challenged goes to the CC game and gets pummeled 56-0. Who's gonna wanna watch them get beat down again in the CFP?
Did you decide they were on merit or based on winning their conference? For example, your MAC team that goes 12-0 is in because they “won the conference”. They lose the title they haven’t done that. A 12-0 P4 team who beats the number 2, 3, and 4 but loses to some other team by 55 shouldn’t get bounced. It’s the whole of you should release one ranking and they should be based on merit, however you objectively have decided.

If you’re saying SMU is out because based on merit they shouldn’t have been in the first place and are only in as the conference representative and not one of the top 12 teams, fine. But that’s not what you’ve (the committee) said or at the very least you shouldn’t now be bounced for losing to a team that will now be in the field.
 
Last edited:

Who cares.

Win most of your games (10+), beat some good teams, don't lose to bad teams, and don't have 3 losses. It really shouldn't be that complicated.

What would the point spreads on a neutral field be for Alabama-Vandy, Alabama-Oklahoma, Ole Miss-Kentucky, Ole Miss-Florida, and Notre Dame-Northern Illinois?
I agree that there are upsets in the regular season, why are they upsets, because of the point spread set by Vegas.

In a tournament setting, shouldn’t #1 be seen as the best and 12 as the worst of that 12? Then 13 and on down should not be as good as the top 12 regardless of record.

Don’t care about Alabama or anyone else, just want the best teams in the tournament, because that’s what they are shooting for correct? Probably getting what they want, with all the attention.

No two people are probably going to agree on which 12 and what seeding, just keeps attention on the sport.
 

Did you decide they were on merit or based on winning their conference? For example, your MAC team that goes 12-0 is in because they “won the conference”. They lose the title they haven’t done that. A 12-0 P4 team who beats the number 2, 3, and 4 but loses to some other team by 55 shouldn’t get bounced. It’s the whole of you should release one ranking and they should be based on merit, however you objectively have decided.

If you’re saying SMU is out because based on merit they shouldn’t have been in the first place and are only in as the conference representative and not one of the top 12 teams, fine. But that’s not what you’ve (the committee) said or at the very least you shouldn’t now be bounced for losing to a team that will now be in the field.
I'm coming back to this after lunch, having flushed these thoughts from my head I'm not totally following what you're getting at.

I was just saying that a blanket rule about not being punished for losing the CC could have negative consequences too. So I don't follow your first question, but it looks like a preposition like "in" might be missing - did you mean to write "they were IN on merit or based..."? I'm saying there should be freedom to bounce them out, I'm not stating anything about them being in, unless you mean if they were "in" before CC weekend?

PS. I wouldn't be surprised if you can't follow my paragraph above either lol. Sometimes things get debated to the point of so much detail....
 

I'm coming back to this after lunch, having flushed these thoughts from my head I'm not totally following what you're getting at.

I was just saying that a blanket rule about not being punished for losing the CC could have negative consequences too. So I don't follow your first question, but it looks like a preposition like "in" might be missing - did you mean to write "they were IN on merit or based..."? I'm saying there should be freedom to bounce them out, I'm not stating anything about them being in, unless you mean if they were "in" before CC weekend?

PS. I wouldn't be surprised if you can't follow my paragraph above either lol. Sometimes things get debated to the point of so much detail....
In on. Thanks for catching my typo. My point is that if you felt they were in your top 12 prior to this, you’ve deemed their quality thus far is one of the 12 best teams (you don’t get to “assume” they’ll win and include them). Punishing a team for losing an extra game another didn’t have to play is silly as they’re playing an extra, challenging opponent while others move up sitting at home. If you’re going to boot teams on that, make the others play as well then so we all have 13 games.

If they’re not in on merit, they shouldn’t be in the top 12 at this point (ie ASU). The same as if you think Boise is out if they lose, they shouldn’t be listed as in the field now either. It’s why I’d rather they don’t release rankings prior to completion as now if SMU loses and you move them out, you’re bouncing them behind numerous teams who didn’t play and have a chance to pick up a loss when SMU would’ve been in at the time of the completion of these other teams’ seasons. They’d be better off forfeiting the game (obviously could argue risking it for the bye is worth it).

Tl;dr: not saying blanket no punishment, but rank them as they are and if you want pre cc rankings, lock them. Those outside looking in can move up and bounce those at the bottom, but a team you thought was 8th best shouldn’t be threatened with being bounced for losing to a team that will be in the CFP
 


I really want Clemson to beat SMU in a close game to see what the committee does. If they somehow drop SMU below Alabama then you know it's a sham.
I called Alabama getting in a few days ago and that we all need Clemson to beat SMU in a close game to keep them out. Multiple outlets have said it will hard to drop an 11-2 SMU out because you are penalizing them for playing and extra game in their league's championship. That's harder than leaving Miami out.

You'd think the idiots at ESPN that run college football would want SMU, Clemson and/or Miami in vs. Alabama. The more variety you get into the 12 team playoff the more national interest there is. Why are they working so hard to maximize the viewership in our 24th most populous state vs. the whole nation in general? The SEC may whine if Alabama doesn't get in, but they'll still all watch if they "just" have three teams in the playoff. Adding Alabama does nothing for national viewership and growing the college games popularity.

I agree with other posters that suggested we go back to a computer model. Wasn't the old system an average of the computer model and the AP or something? Why not keep the stupid committee, but add a computer model and AP rankings? The computer model will make it harder for the humans to screw it up because it will shine a light on things when they are being biased. Don't you think? We all noticed how the first CFP rankings came out this year and pretty much matched the AP rankings. Most of these people will want cover from scrutiny and won't stray too far from the pack.

By the way, I've enjoyed branching out from ESPN for college football. I now read and listen to pods from a lot of other college football outlets like Fox, CBS and Yahoo Sports, etc. The best way to get ESPN's attention is to leave.
 




Top Bottom