College Football Playoff 2014

I think they will go to eight teams in a few years because I won't know what to do if FSU is still in the final four when you have three teams that could beat them easily by 10+ points (TCU, Ohio State, and Baylor)

Personally, I have been watching the D3 playoffs, and I like the way they do it.
All conferences that have 7 members or more get an auto bid into the play offs. Then there is an poolb bid for all independents and conferences less than 7. The remaining open spots are filled with at large teams chosen nationally. If you are in an auto bid conference, win your conference and you are in.

 

I will agree with you on that since Barrett is hurt, I think the playoffs should go to eight.

I'd like to see eight playoff teams. The five major conference winners plus three wild cards. But if/when there are eight teams the teams that finished nine, ten, etc. will complain they got shortchanged. It's the nature of things. Whomever doesn't make March Madness (#69) complains. Moving from four to eight teams depends on how it affects the major bowls. They have a lot of power aka $$$.

 

This is exactly right.

 

... oh, and pay the players. That's a lot of games to play without getting paid.

Mississippi State being out creates a spot for TCU and Ohio State.  I hear lots of commentary saying OSU will leap-frog TCU but that does not make any sense to me.  TCU destroyed Texas and they should logically move up into contention with OSU on the outside looking in.  OSU's quarterback situation should not affect decisions but it probably will.  All that said, I'd like to see D1 go to at least an 8 team playoff but as human nature goes, then we'll be having these same conversations about which two-loss teams are worthy.  I have friends who are college football fanatics and they love having less teams in it.  They love the excitement of arguing who is best for weeks at a time.  I guess there is something to that if that is what you enjoy.

I agree with RJM make it 8 teams with 5 power conference teams and 3 non power conference teams.

But that is not what he said.  A wild card team could be the runner up in a power conference.

Yeah but at least one of the non power 5 conference teams will have to get in if they go to 8

I don't understand that.   Why wouldn't a wild card be the second best team in the SEC or the PAC12? Or be an unaffiliated team?  Why would all 3 wild cards come from other conferences?  You'd still have a selection committee, and their job would be to pick the 3 remaining best teams in the country, regardless of conference.

Yes ONE of the wild card spots should go to an at large team such as Marshall before they lost to WKU The wild cards won't have to be ranked 5,6,&7 the selection committee could chose whoever they want in the top 25 I'm just saying one of those spots should go to a non power 5 conference team.

Here's my thoughts and no way in the world would it ever happen due to the bowls getting minimized even if they used a rotating system or bowls as playoff sites.

 

All football teams go into 8 conferences with one or two conferences being the mid major schools.  Play 11 game season with 8 games being in conference.  Each conference has a conference championship game from two divisions inside each conference.  Once all that is done and over with on the same weekend take a week off (or maybe no) then use the ranking playoff committee being used now to rank the teams 1-16 and go with a playoff from that.  

 

Things to consider -

 

1.  Can two conference champs meet up in the first round?

2.  Can two schools from same conference meet in the first round?

 

At the end of the day no system is perfect and there will always be someone on the outside looking in saying they got screwed.  At least in this scenario you create more opportunities to earn your way into a chance which is what the mid majors want and deserve.  I still think Marshall should not be punished for having a bad day especially at the end of the season.  Yes there is the argument that the number three teams in the SEC are better than anybody in the mid major conferences but oh well.  Can't make everyone happy.

Eight could mean an extra week of football, and I'd really like to know what the players (students) really think about it before deciding to implement.   So, you'd have the regular season + conference champ + national playoff.   That is a lot of games, travel, and focus on things other than the classroom.  This is akin to the NFL wanting to add two extra games because they can. First, I'd want to know if the number of concussions is declining because of the action taken by the schools, conferences and NCAA.  Let's make sure our college students are better protected before putting them at more risk.  JMO.

 

 

Just guessing but I would guess that a large number of the players would be OK with this but I could be wrong.

 

I think the issue of physical wear / tear along with concussions could be a legitimate issue and only thing to hold it back but the flip side is that the other levels of football already have playoffs.  I would like to see the numbers of injuries / concussions between the two styles if there would be an increase.

 

As for the academic issue IMO this is the most blown out of the water arguement against playoff I've seen.  First they have been on this schedule for 11 weeks of missing class to travel.  Another couple of weeks won't hurt anything because it's what they are used to already.  Second we live in the 21st century and their phones have the world's knowledge in their hands.  Technology has never provided a better opportunity to learn outside of the classroom.  I know when I was finishing my masters degree colleges were starting to use Blackboard for online class, assignments, staying up to date, etc...  At the high school level I use Edmodo to be able to extend the classroom outside of normal school setting.  Third most of this playoff system will take place over Christmas break.  They won't miss class.  Fourth they chose this life to be a student and an athlete.  With that comes the responsibility of staying on top of their studies regardless of what type of schedule they have.  Plus football probably misses the least amount of class than all the other sports.  I would bet that if they needed extra help the coaches / school would make sure they get it.

Miss what school?  This has always been the craziest argument for not having football playoffs.  It takes about two weeks to play three rounds of playoffs.  Games could start on Dec. 17 and be over on Jan.4.  Will not interfere with finals and if they miss any classes for spring it will be the first few days at most.  At Alabama for example finals conclude on Dec.12 and classes begin January 7. 

 

Imagine a prime time game on Wed, Thurs, Friday and Sat in the first week. Then come back the 2nd week on Fri and Sat again and the final on Sat.  Pretty much stays out of the NFL's way and 7 primetime playoff games.  The money will be through the roof.   

 

And yes - pay them. 

Oh and be careful what you wish for.  The College Football Regular season is the best regular season in sports because almost every game is a playoff game. 

 

That will be lost for good with 8 teams and you open it up to 3 loss teams if you got to 16 which is currently UCLA.  My prediction is that is where they go.  And the Football Regular season becomes much more like the basketball regular season - almost a worthless watch since no matter what happens you get the same 10 teams most years and a rotation of 25 others to round out the field. 

 

On the plus side it will finally kill the bowls.

 

 

Missing class for potential playoff games is a problem?  Let's remember the tweet of now-starting QB for The Ohio State University, Cardale Jones:

 

"Why should we have to go to class if we came here to play FOOTBALL, we ain't come to play SCHOOL, classes are POINTLESS."

 

Something tells me none of the athlete-students that play at a "Power 5" school care if they miss a few more classes...

I love the bowl games.

There you go.  If you went to Mizzou a bowl game is probably a pretty fun way to spend some time with the old Alma Mater.  Me I am  DIII guy from a directional school, so a different angle on it for me.  Not right or wrong ...just different.

You would be very wrong. The graduation rate of D1 football players is higher than non athletes who attend college to play school. I don't understand how you could indict and insult thousands of D1 football players due to the bonehead comment made by one player.

 

An acquaintance I played high school football against went to med school after his All American and NFL career.  John Frank left the NFL for med school. Myron Rolle was a Rhodes Scholar. After attending Oxford he played in the NFL until he left to attend med school. 

 

Most college football players fall somewhere in the middle. But you gave me one moron. I gave you three brilliant college football players who were good enough to play in the NFL.

What does everyone think of the final selections?

First, there are six teams who could be named for the playoffs without anyone outside the two left out complaining. Second, I get the TCU over Baylor argument. TCU has a better body of work and a more challenging schedule over the season. Baylor played all mid major cream puffs in their non conference schedule. Baylor only beat TCU by three in overtime at home. 

 

TCU got screwed by the Big 12 not having a conference championship game. Conference championship games add a difficult game to a team's end of season schedule. It's not their fault their last game was against a weak team. How much more can they do than win by 52 points. 

 

Florida State isn't going any further. If they struggle against Oregon in the first half the way they've played this year, they will get blown out. Oregon will beat Alabama in the championship game.

 

Imagine the argument with four ticked off program if the BCS was still the procedure for a championship. I still say expand to eight with the five major conference champions and three wild cards. Then the argument against teams getting left out is, "you should have won your conference."

In college baseball, it is generally acknowledged that RPI doesn't mean much until teams have played 20-25 games. Just not enough games involving common opponents until that many games have been played. For the same reason, who-played-who analysis that tries to discern differences between fairly comparable football teams after a 12 or 13 game season is destined to remain unpersuasive to the teams left out. 

 

I think the committee made a very defensible choice even though I hoped to see how a Big 12 offense would fare in the playoff. 

The teams I thought would be selected were selected exactly in the order they were selected.  There was some grumbling with my oldest son who thought the committee sold out for money with the Ohio State selection but I see it differently.  TCU & Baylor have to do a better job of non-conference scheduling and they should add a conference championship, as all selections were conference champions.  TCU and Baylor are excellent teams but they didn't separate themselves as the others did with their scheduling.

 

Could the selection committee have done a better job of telling eveyone what exactly the guidelines would be and why?  Most certainly.  But, I like this better than a computer ranking, and I think the committee did a very good job.

 

I thought Kirk Herbstreit had it right in his discussion about the selections before they were announced.  His rationale was exactly how the committee was thinking.  The lesson learned through all of this is to play your 8 conference games, 2 non-confernce games and 1 FCS game.....win them and play in the conference championship to get a shot at the Final Four.

I thought Herbstreit was shamelessly promoting Ohio State like a homer. He was an Oho State QB.

In the end - the NCAA will follow the dollar trail...  It's really become disgusting...

 

When there were just two teams, people complained about #3 and perhaps #4 being screwed and they complained about polls, computers, and secret formulas.

 

Now there are 4 teams, we're seeing complains about #5 and #6 (although 5 did beat 6 head to head in a basketball like score of 61-58). There's also complains that the "select(ion) committee" could be biased or didn't have representation (Big12, Baylor coach comments).  We also see the media hyping up certain schools - the media from stations that pay the NCAA a lot of $$$'s - think about it.

 

If we go to 6 or 8 or 16, there will always be complaints about some team being screwed. Think about basketball - there were 64 teams... Complaints trickled in and they created a 64 v 65 "play in" game.... Seeing how much money they made off of that there's now I think 4 play in games (like any of them have a snowballs chance in hell of winning).

 

The bowls won't go away - too much money to lose.  I do wish they'd stop messing with New Year's Day bowls - now they're spread out over two days with virtually no overlap other than Outback, Cotton, and Citrus. The Fiesta and Orange on New Year's Eve... Really? I'd prefer the clicker in one hand and changing stations to avoid the commercials or poor matchups resulting in blowouts... Oh and by the way - other than one bowl (Sun Bowl) all games are on Disney owned stations - hmm... where's that money trail again?  

I'm with your son in that Baylor and / or TCU got screwed.  I do agree that the guidelines for selection were not communicated very well.  Did you hear the commissioner of the Big 12 speak yesterday?  He said that the question was posed to the committee if not having a conference championship game would hurt them and they were told no.  Now that's all everyone is saying is what hurt them and he said if they knew going it that it would have hurt them then they would have created one.  But when all this started going down it was too late to create one.  If all that is true then yes the Big 12 got screwed.

 

I hate the non-conference schedule was too weak argument.  DI football does not get to have scrimmages against other teams so until you strap it up and play some other team you are just guessing how good you are going to be.  So you have to play some weak teams to treat them as a scrimmage.  But let's also look at everything else.  It's not like Ohio State played a murderer's row of a non-conference games plus you factor in the played in the Big 10 who is just barely above a mid-major conference.  The Big 12 is either the second toughest or third toughest conference in the nation.  So you factor in quality of conference opponents that makes TCU / Baylor stand out more.  Was the non-conference schedules weak for TCU / Baylor?  Yes and yes they probably should play tougher teams but these schedules are set years ahead and probably before the whole playoff idea came out.  The Big 12 conference actually plays everyone in their conference so that's 9 conference games which means they play one less conference game than everyone else.

 

I agree that everyone will always have debates / complaints about the last ones in but (to me) this is obvious they got it wrong and played favorites to a name school and conference.  So let's think about this - Alabama beats Ohio State by 20 plus points and Baylor beats Michigan State by 20 plus points and TCU beats Ole Miss by 20 plus points - is that proof that the committee got it wrong?  

Coach 2709,

 

One thing the playoff system has not changed: every team that is not an undefeated champion of a power five conference is engaged in a beauty contest whose subjective rulings will never satisfy the fans of the excluded teams.

 

Once you lose a single game, you are at the mercy of the opinions of others. If you don't like it, run the table.

 

The scenario you describe would not shed meaningful light on what decision the committee should have made.  What a fired up, chip-on-the-shoulder Big 12 co-champ does in a bowl game against a Big 10 or SEC team that didn't make its conference championship game will not say anything about what would have happened in a TCU/Baylor vs. Alabama match up--but that won't prevent partisans from trying.

 

It could be worse.  Imagine if we still had the BCS structure and someone had to justify leaving Florida State, Oregon, or Alabama out.

If it were Oklahoma and Texas co champions of Big 12 does anyone believe the Big 12 would have been shut out? 

College football championships at the D1 level is a farce. Any time teams are selected for playoffs makes it illegitimate. Unless there's a playoffs involving all conference champions, there can be no real national champion.

I think a 5 plus 3 is the best scenario. Take the 5 power conference champions plus 3 at large teams and make it an 8 team play off. Its a shame Baylor and TCU are not in it. With this scenario both would be in.

I saw an article before this weekend's games stating if TCU is in and Ohio State isn't, one of the bowl games cities will lose significant money especially if it's the Sugar Bowl. It talked about Ohio State's large alumni base and it's willingness to travel anywhere to a game versus TCU people would travel to New Orleans for an overnight. Always follow the money trail.

Nope.  Writers love controversy, it's easier than having your own insights.  You think a national semi-final played in the Sugar Bowl or Rose Bowl would struggle to sell out? Ohio State is in b/c the selection committee thought they were the fourth best team. And I'm from Texas and grew up SW conference / Big 12.  Big 12 got the message.  Expect two more teams to get to 12, and a conference championship very soon.

 

 

I didn't question a thing about the game selling out. The point is Ohio state has an enormous alumni base with a reputation for traveling and making a vacation out of bowl trips. TCU is a much smaller school with a much smaller alumni base. To play in the Sugar Bowl would be an overnight trip for TCU fans. The city of New Orleans gains significantly by Ohio State being the selection.

 

LA and San Diego used to hope they wouldn't get Iowa in the Rose or Holiday Bowl. The joke was Iowans bring a $20 bill and don't change it or their underwear. However the dead giveaway who they were was the shorts with black socks and shoes on the boardwalk.

Sock color aside, Ohio State is in b/c they beat Wisconsin 59-0 in a championship game. If TCU played Baylor in a B12 championship game last Saturday the winner would be in instead of Ohio State.

 

Big 12 petitioned the NCAA for a waiver of the "no championship game unless you have at least 12 teams" rule in the past.  I'm sure they will "re-submit" their petition.  B12 has been mismanaged for a long time.  The UT dominance (of the behind the scenes power and money structure)  has pushed  Texas A&M, Nebraska and Missouri to other conferences.  UT's "Longhorn Network" agreement with ESPN instead of a model like the SEC Network supporting the entire conference is pushing the B12 to the back of the pack of the Power 5.

In a few weeks, it won't matter who is 3 & 4 and what conspiracy theories are being thrown around.  Because 1 & 2 will be playing for the National Championship, and duck will stop quacking right there.

It's worth remembering also that the Big 12's strategy almost worked. 

 

They needed only one of four games to go their way last weekend:  a lackluster performance by Ohio State, even if they won, or an upset in even one of the other conference championship games would have put a Big 12 team in the playoff.  Unfortunately for the Big 12, every game went against them.  Every one-loss team under consideration posted a dominant win and the undefeated team remained undefeated.

I think there is a bit of truth to the thinking of money talks in the case of these bowl games.  I distinctly remember a 10-2 Missouri team beating a 6-6 Iowa State team one year and getting passed over a bowl game for the same Iowa State.  The bowl representative even said they picked Iowa State because they thought more Iowa State fans would travel to Arizona because they havent been to a bowl game in a few years so they would be more excited than Missouri fans, who go to a bowl game practically every year.  Why is Notre Dame always placed in a bowl game that is too good for their team?  Because of the national brand, and how many tickets they will sell.  I have even heard concerns about it this year, about how many fans will be able to travel to two games in a matter of two weeks.

 

But I think they got the four best teams.  The Big 12 has nothing to complain about.  There are 5 power conferences and only 4 slots in the playoff.  Someone pretty much had to be left out.  The other 4 teams all did something Baylor or TCU did not do.  Won a conference championship game.

Agree with both Mizzou and Swampboy on their points.  But I think the "that team travels well to bowl games, so more money" certainly applied to the bowl structure (and still does), but not to the top four CFP structure.

My take. The committee needs to get out of the business of providing a top 25 every week. In fact, having a top 25 at all. It only confused the issue. I have no problem with the four that got in. I do, however, have a problem with the fact that the committe seemed to start from scratch in the last poll. They somehow thought that TCU's resume was good enough to jump them to #3 in the last week before the decision. Then, they decided that FSU, Baylor, and OSU all had more impressive wins than TCU. Impressive enough to leap frog all three over them. Somehow, though, it seemed preconceived that FSU, with a win, was immune from this logic. I believe FSU was in simply because the committee didn't want to go that far out on a limb. If this decision had been made by the committee absent weekly rankings, I don't think there would be any controversy whatsoever. Withour the weekly rankings, the picks make plenty of sense.

 

Here's the question, though. Under last year's system, would FSU be playing for the NC? I can't see how they wouldn't.

Under the old system Florida State would be playing Alabama for the title. The only thing less flawed about the new system is four teams get in instead of two. How many years can six teams say they are deserving of competing for #1. Typically it's the third and sometimes fourth place teams who feel screwed.

 

In most years four teams would be enough. However, I'm still for eight teams with the five major conference winners and three wild cards. Yes #9 and 10 will howl they were screwed. The response: win your conference or play a tougher schedule. But with eight teams those mostly likely to deserve to play for #1 are in. 

Eight would be great!

 

Meanwhile, back on the farm, this has been the most exciting college football season I have ever experienced.  (and neither my two "alma maters" have football teams)

Which old system?  The one with just voters or the BCS?  Too bad no one had that BCS formula to try out and compare.

 

Everyone keeps talking about Ohio State vs Baylor/TCU - I think the conversation should have been about FSU - compare their results against common opponent OKST

 

While FSU is undefeated and that is very hard to do, it's not like the ACC is that strong... Even their crossover with Florida - I would have expected a bit wider margin even in a rivalry game.  Their other out of conference OKST, Citadel, & Notre Dame weren't exactly top level teams - only ND was ranked when FSU played them, but the wheels fell off that cart.

 

I think 8 is too many... for comparison - this year #7 was MissSt, #8 MichSt, #9 Ole Miss and #10 Arizona (side bar - MissSt *lost* to Ole Miss and that seems to be discounted, but surely would have been an issue with 8 teams)... Perhaps they should "change" things slight to indicate a possible top 4-6 teams especially in years where things are "so close". Gives some leeway to have have teams that are that close just play each other.  Just think we could have have #3 FSU vs. #6 TCU and #4 OSU v. #5 Baylor - let them decide it on the field. Army v. Navy, followed by play-in games!  Won't happen because of finals, but think of the possibilities.

 

 

 

I never accept the "can't do it due to finals" excuse. The other divisions of football have layers of playoffs in December. Other fall sports are also currently in the middle of playoffs. Basketball players miss three days of class for up to three weeks following missing multiple days of school for their conference tournament. Baseball season goes right through finals. So, I'm not buying finals get in the way of D1 football.

Once again, I must remind myself to keep my day job....thank the Lord for my day job.

 

I did not see Alabama losing at all, but they did.  Hats off to Ohio State and their 3rd string QB.  I'm very impressed with how their team played last night.  It is going to take a similar effort for Ohio State to beat Oregon.  

TCU and Michigan State made eloquent arguments for an 8-team playoff.

 

I'm sticking with my original strategy of saying I don't know who the best team is.  (But if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck . . . )

I couldn't help bu think last night that without the new playoff structure, neither Oregon or OSU would have had a chance to play for the NC. Yes, I know Oregon was #2, but, in reality, no way would the voters have allowed FSU to slip past #2 in the polls if it meant keeping a defending national champion who is the only undefeated team in the nation out of the NC game. It would have been Alabama and FSU. This works better, especially in a season when there is no notable difference between any of the top 6 or so teams. Now it's time to got o 6 or 8.

That premise will always apply to whose fans who will fill the stadium.  More fans more money for payout.  

 

FSU had a great record, but they did struggle this year, and last night exposed their issues.

So glad that they WILL not be playing for a championship this year.

 

JMO

Dad do you still hold this opinion? If you do that is fine. I would just like to know if OSU's performance changed your opinion? 

In general, I think the SEC failed to keep up with dramatic advances made elsewhere in college football offense. 

 

Believing "defense wins championships" is an immutable theological law let them continue thinking a run oriented offense with a QB who avoids turnovers would always be good enough.

 

Advances in offense elsewhere made all defenses less effective and SEC defenses less dominant.

 

As a result SEC teams are more likely to be involved in shootouts and ill-equipped to win them when they find themselves involved in them.

 

I fully expect the SEC to buy the knowledge they need, but it will take several years to create offenses that can keep up with the system Oregon has spent a decade or so perfecting.

 

The evolution of the sport and the rise and fall of conferences, systems, and strategies (with occasional successes for throwbacks like Georgia Tech's option) keeps college football fascinating to me.

---

with occasional successes for throwbacks like Georgia Tech's option

 

Back when a lot of teams ran the option I hating watching it. It was so repetitious, methodical and boring. Now that almost no one runs the option it's fun to watch GT run it so well. 

I think in the majority of years, there is one team that's a gimme and two or three others who have an argument for the second spot. I'm an SEC guy, but one problem you hit on is perception. It often happens with basketball as well. When one conference is perceived as superior, it greatly affects all the numbers - sos, computer ratings, poll position, etc. This year, for example, Ole Miss and Miss St. shot up the polls from nowhere based on early wins over their SEC brethren. Miss St wouldn't have shot up so far except for the perception that Texas A&M was a powerful team. Well, not so much. Unfortunately, whatever perception exists pre-season is too big a factor to overcome. I think, top-to-bottom, the SEC might actually be the best it's been in a long time, but without nearly the power in the top two or three spots. I think the real answer is to have the selection committee stop putting out those week-to-week rankings. It restricts their ability to make solid decisions come selection time.

 

I thought it a little funny that the supposedly weaker SEC East has been quite successful during the bowl season, while the West has sort of fallen on its face.

Agree in general, but there's so much more inter-conference play in basketball and fewer bullcrap games against bullcrap opponents.

 

I was among those that thought TCU got shafted for the almighty TV ratings but OSU sure proved they belonged in the playoff.  Yes, the playoff needs to expand, and the selection process needs to be less biased, but it is so good that the BCS is dead.

 

 

The weaker SEC East are unranked teams playing unranked teams. I've always found those games to be "flip a coin for who wins" games. It's a matter of who's more inspired to play in a "who's ever heard of this bowl" game. 

I personally would like to see an 8-team bracket with the Power 5 champs and three wild cards. No guarantees to Notre Dame! If you don't win your conference championship, there needs to be extenuiating circumstances to get you in. Waivers should be given to allow conference championship games for conferences with less than 12 teams.

 

Also, did anyone else seem to think this did, indeed, devalue the bowl concept a little? Not that I care. I mean, claiming to be the "Rose Bowl Champion" didn't seem to hold much importance compared to the fact that it was a National Semi-final.

Which is why I often find it misleading to put too much stock into the a lot of bowl games. It's why I think Boise often crops up and beats some good teams. They are quite motivated. I used to look (for gambling reasons) for matchups of teams that were extremely giddy to get the bowl bid vs. the team that lost a tough game late and is disappointed to be there. 90% of the time, the disappointed team just phones in their performance. Often, matchups can be misleading as well. Ole Miss was a real up-and-down team (beat Alabama, got blown out by Arkansas, but came back the next weekend to slap Miss. St. around). However, the Peach Bowl was, in reality, an 11-1 team who was at the top of the Big 12 against the SEC's 5th or 6th best team. LSU?NOtre Dame was two teams accustomed to being in a better bowl playing out their season, Auburn/Wisc the same. The only games from which you can really judge much concerning the SEC were Alabama/OSU and Georgia Tech/Miss. St. I think these games showed that the better teams from other conferences have caught the top of the SEC. Questin is: will next year's pre-season top-25 polls reflect this? At the top, probably. I expect OSU to be #1, but I also bet you Alabama will come in a not-quite-deserved #2 and the top 25 will start with no less than 9 SEC teams in the top-25 and very possibly 10. Of those, most will probably be 5-6 spots than they actually should be. Of those will be the normal over-rated Florida and you will see Georgia and Auburn ranked too high. In other words, same ole same ole. Not that I'm complaining.

Alabama will start ranked very high next year. They're supposed to be better next year than this year according to "the experts."

No dog in this fight but.....

 

Big 10 looks a lot better at the top with the Ohio State, Michigan State and Wisconsin wins over the top teams in the Big 12 and SEC in the last couple of days.  It is the first time in a long time I can remember the Big 10 having something to chirp about at this time of the year.

 

If Harbaugh can make Michigan relevant again and he probably will, then College Football will be as geographically balanced as it has been for a very long time.  Having the Midwest with top teams again will bring the game to another level and push the 8 team playoff format up the priority list. 

 

I think it will ultimately be 16 teams and absorb the bowl system.  15 Bowls will survive.  8 first round games, 4 second round and 2 semi and the final.  Ultimately I think the Rose becomes the Championship game with the Orange and Sugar as the Semi's.  Fiesta, Cotton, Outback and someone else are the quarters.  Pick 8 other of the rest and you nail it down.  Way more money to be made this way - especially for the power 5 that would grab no less than 12 and probably 14 or 15 in most years of these spots.

 

Timing is not an issue.  This year if you had games on Dec 18 & 19 and Dec 26 & 27 you stay away from finals - most are done by the 10th or 12th and wrap it up before spring semester starts.  BTW - all the teams that would have played on the 18&19 were still practicing for their bowls when the finals happened.  What is the real impact....none.  

 

The real issue I think is the power 5 just haven't figured out how to get the other 200 D1 schools to go along with letting them pull nearly 100% of the money out of College Football. 

13th ranked Georgia played 21st ranked Louisville

16th ranked Missouri played 25th ranked Minnesota

 

Real college football fans have heard of all the bowl games, or at least most of them. 

 

That would be like a college baseball fan not knowing 8 teams go to Omaha for the College World Series.  Or even knowing that the CWS is played in Omaha.

Bowl games should only be for teams that are.at least 8-4 or 9-3. Mediocre teams don't go to the CWS. A lot mediocre teams play in meaningless bowl games. There are 38 bowls. A team only has to go 3-6 in conference play and beat up on three non conference mid major powder puffs to be eligible. If a team plays Hawaii they can be 6-7 and bowl eligible.

It's not really feasible to have a system where you "change things" to accomodate years where more teams may be in the running. When would you make that decision? There are logistics to these things that require a lot more time than that would allow.

Why are they calling it a playoff and other schools continue to play bowl games, even after the playoff game.  Don't get it.

FSU 's schedule? Ga Tech which hammered MSU. Clemson which hammered Oklahoma. Notre Dame who also won their bowl game. It wasn't a brutal schedule but what was brutal about Ohio States schedule? And who did they lose to and where was that game played? The fact is they were undefeated. The reigning champion. And you think people should have left them out? Come on man. There is only one team right now given the games played that has a beef. TCU. 

 

Follow the money...

 

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/bl...bowl-money-goes-file

 

I kind of think TCU would beat Baylor 9 out of 10.  Problem was Baylor won their one game in the only game scheduled.

 

Also, thought the TCU coach showed a lot more class when they got snubbed.  Didn't they drop from #3 to #6 in one week after winning their game by 50 some points. They might end up being #2 in the final poll if the championship game isn't close.

 

 

Ohio state just proved itself by beating "the best team in the country and in the toughest conference" Alabama. I expected FSU to be blow out of the water they weren't playing Boston College. I think the pac 12 or big 12 is the toughest conference the sec records in bowls says it all. 3-5. Go Buckeyes!

I didn't say it'd be easy ;-)... The NCAA has a whole bunch of people that can figure out logistics (they get paid a lot of money to figure that out). The FCS (1-AA) can manage the logistics.

 

With regard to travel, etc. - You've seen the crowds at some of these lesser bowls right?  Friends, family, people from the neighborhood seem to be all that's in attendance. They cannot be making that much money *except* through ESPN and whatever really-long-name-sponsor that is attached to their minor bowl. After the last weekend of play (before Army/Navy game) when all the bowls announced - usurp that opportunity to make the weekend following as a "play-in" of sorts. You don't think the TCU's or Boise State's of the college scene wouldn't jump at the chance to have a 1 game play-in?  Someone would help figure out the logistics. After all I've read this year - I think I agree the Big 5 winners get a bid, followed by 1-3 wildcards.  If the #1 team isn't "unanimous" in the committee's eyes, then go with 8... Ditto for #2.  That way it's guaranteed to have at least 6 teams and up to 8.

 

While I agree that leaving out FSU would not have been "right" this year - their dismantling was not totally unexpected.  Ironically - if this had been under the previous system, I'm guessing Alabama would have been playing FSU in the Sugar Bowl for #1, while the Rose would have been Oregon v. Ohio State and we would be complaining now (or in 2 weeks) that we need a playoff system.

 

After the games I think the team that could have been screwed this year was Georgia Tech. Hindsight has OSU #3, TCU #4, FSU #5, with Baylor, MSU, and GTech in the mix. This may have been a year where 8 teams were appropos... As much as the UMiss and MissSt were great stories, their stock dropped quickly at the end of the year and I think their rankings were based more on their early season success.

For Rob Kremer - like to bet Oregon versus Ohio State? - Loser wears team logo avatar for a week.  I believe I won the bet the last time OSU and Oregon met.  

So, for those proposing an 8 team playoff...who would you have in that mix?   Would Michigan State have been part of your selection?  Their only two losses were to Ohio State and Oregon who will be playing in the national championship next week.  They could wind up to be the best 2 loss team in the county and not have been selected for the 8 team playoff.  My point is someone is always going to get the shaft whether it a 4 game or 8 game playoff. Life is never fair.  If you want to be one of those 4 teams, you have to beat one of the big boys and be somewhat lucky.  Sorry, JMO.

I say do away with the word playoff and keep playing bowl games. As an FSU fan I was highly disappointed anyways.

No doubt the last team left out is always going to feel like a victim and it always seems to be played up in the media that way unfortunately.  Baylor was a "victim" this year but for the second year in row proved they don't know how to play defense.

 

I'll be honest, and even Urban Meyer said this, he felt his team was one year away from playing like they are now - and nobody including the coach himself even "thunk" of it a couple of months ago.  The two best teams (at this time) are playing for the title and who didn't make the final four has no bearing on that.  The NCAA did a good job of getting the final two right.  Perhaps TCU may have faired better against Oregon but I get how nobody was going leave out an undefeated reigning national champion from the playoff. 

It's a bet you've never had a chance to lose based on history .... until this year.

What I like about an eight team playoff is all five major conference winners could be in. Then there's room for three teams who might have come in second but been better than another conference winner.

 

I believe this year will be determined to be unique. In most season fans would likely look at the #4 team and argue they don't fit with the other three. But as you say #5 would be crying they got screwed. Hell, #69 in basketball complains.

 

 

Fenway, 

 

My perspective is that the goal of the playoff is to identify an unambiguous national champion.  If you expand to eight teams, you will certainly leave out some teams that feel they are as good as some of the teams that get in.  However, what you will not have is a team on the outside that can make a plausible case that they might be the best team in the country.

 

I favor the smallest playoff bracket that includes everyone who might be the best team in the country.  I think eight is the right number.  

 

16 is too big--my Missouri Tigers will probably end up somewhere between 12 and 16 in the polls, and they no business being in a playoff after a loss to a bad team and blowout losses to two good teams.  16 would include teams of that caliber that don't belong.

 

4 is too small--TCU can somewhat plausibly claim no one proved themselves better against them on the field.  

 

8 seems just right.

You're insecurities toward the SEC are showing.  I'm not a big fan of conference bowl records determining what is the best conference, even after "my" SEC went 7-3 I believe last year.  Even this year, after all the garbage thrown their way, they finished 7-5.  You bring up the Big 12?  They were a wonderful 2-5 in bowl games.  I think the Big 10 stands at 5-5.

 

With that said, the Pac 12 was the best conference this year.  It's OK if the SEC isnt the top dog every year.

My main reactions to Ohio State's performance last night:

 

1. Wow!  What an assemblage of power, size, speed, and skill everywhere on the field in every phase of the game.  Ohio State is a truly impressive team that earned its championship by dismantling the top two seeds. 

 

2. How close did we come to not seeing this champion even get into the playoff?  How would TCU have fared? Expanding the playoff to eight teams would nearly eliminate the possibility of leaving out the best team.

 

3. The next time someone says an otherwise impressive team is unworthy of playoff consideration because of an early season non-conference loss to an undistinguished team, I will probably mention Ohio State's loss to Virginia Tech.

 

4. Didn't Urban Meyer say earlier in the year that his team was a year away from contending?  Does this mean they'll be better next year?

 

Indeed he did say that but things changed - like a light switch, the team blossomed and nobody saw it coming.  Ohio State appears to have overwhelming talent.  They've got a wide receiver who made one big long catch who is a high jump champion and sprinter and barely saw the ball last night.  Their third string QB reminds of Ben Rothlisberger.  Their stars on offense and defense are sophomores and freshmen.  To answer your question, they should be better next year.  The only thing that will hold them back is what holds most teams back - hubris and complacency.  Hopefully, Urban Meyer will have something to say about that. 

PS - Rob Kremer - if you should happen to read this thread - I am going to hold you to the bet I made with you in absentia.  If you should happen to see this note, please change your avatar to the Ohio State Buckeyes.

1) The OSU was better at every position with the possible exception of QB.

2) How in the world did Urban Meyer put that team together in just 3 years? How does one coach make that big of an impact?

3) Very hard to tell how good Ezekiel Elliott really is. (No one laid a hand on him.)

4) Where will those three OSU QBs be next year?

 

5) There have to be at least a dozen future NFL players on the field.

6) I have no idea whether or not Mariota will be a star in the NFL.

Welcome to the new age of college football where a team not even in the picture at Thanksgiving can win the national championship. Last night made college football more like college basketball in that respect.

As an Ohio guy, so much fun to watch the Buckeye run!  So many great athletes and team speed.  Should be pre-season #1 next year.  Rumors have Braxton heading to the SEC or ACC.  He is not as good as either of the two younger QB's, so he needs to find another place to play.  Urban Meyer is a great recruiter, developer, and motivator. Mariota will be a bust in the NFL.  Too bad the baseball at OSU isn't very good.  Go Bucks!

I don't understand how anyone can make the bold statement Mariotta will be an NFL bust based on one game where his offensive line didn't do the job. He has the arm, brains and presence. How many full games have you seen him play? One, last night? His numbers were still good while he tried to do it all himself.

The biggest problem Mariotta and Winston are going to have at the next level is being drafted by rudderless 2-14 teams in freefall and fans expecting them to be saviors.

Not making that statement on Mariotta based on one game.  Have watched him multiple times in multiple games, and I just don't see his game translating to the NFL.  Not an expert, but just an opinion. 

Not many NFL teams want to or can run that speed offense that has made Mariotta successful, but I think he'll be more successful than Winston. He makes some fairly difficult throws while on the run - although some of those would be pick 6's in the NFL.

 

Winston is very talented, but I wonder about all the stuff that goes on around him and keep thinking that in the end it'll be his undoing. Especially with the spotlight that the NFL is now placing on 'stuff' that happens 'outside the game'...

 

OSU's Jones seems to have fit into a system perfectly - his size compared to the other two QB's helped the OC cut down the number of times a "stretch play" would be called and just forced the defense to beat the O-Line at the point of attack between the tackles which not many could do. Pick your poison - RB or QB to double with your best LB and the ball went the other way so many times. Couple that with the arm strength and ability of #9 to get open - made for a very difficult game plan...

 

Glad that there *was* a game and in the end it really didn't matter to me who won

All around great game. Jones won't be 3rd string any longer, I'll bet.

Two things impressed me in the National Championship.  Ezekial Elliot and the Ohio State offensive line.  Those guys will be playing on Sundays in a few years.  That game was won in the trenches and Oregon was absolutely man-handled by that OL.

 

Mariotta will be given a shot in the NFL by someone.  I question his arm strength relative to guys like Jones, and Winston.  When you see guys like Rodgers, Kapernick, Stafford, Brady, Newton throw the ball....it makes you go "whoa". Jones has a few years to develop into that "whoa-type" NFL QB if he earns the starting QB at Ohio State next year.   There is alot to be said for young man who has the maturity to not to try to do everything himself under the bright spot light of a national championship.  Jones looks awkward at times but he just started in his 3rd college game.   He did an amazing job in an amazing situation. 

He is not as good as either of the two younger QB's, so he needs to find another place to play.

Just thinking of so many threads on this site over the years where this very genuine reality pops up with our own kids - and how many times we have debated its 'fairness' and merit.

 

The truth is, it IS...the way it is.

I am really baffled and intrigued by the Cardale Jones situation.  There has been much documented about his behavioral and maturity issues.  He was almost kicked off the team on multiple occasions this year alone.  Yet his on-field and off-field composure over the last six weeks has been remarkable.  While key events can transform people, maturation is not a "light switch" process.  I'm very curious to see how things play out.

There has been talk that Jones, is eligible for the draft. He has came out and said he will not look at the draft, because he wants to get his degree first. So maybe he is growing, or he has been taught the right thing to say. 

I am also interested to see how the QB situation plays out. Cardale at one point was the number two QB, until right before Barret took over. I am not sure if Barret just beat him out or it was some of his maturity issues. Cardale came to campus very over weight and pudgy, He was not able to get through the first few practices. He has clearly cleared up his conditioning issues. 

This is the kid who tweeted going to class is a joke. I'll bet he's been taught what to say since. He should turn pro. There's an incredible NFL demand for QBs and short supply. His stock will never be higher. I bet he would at least be a second round pick. He won't go this high if he goes back to school and sits.

I'd love to see the kid go out for the draft.  We have crap for quarterbacks (Johnny Goofball) here in Cleveland and he just might slide far enough in the draft for us to get him.  You can't coach 6-5, 250, good athletic ability, and a cannon for an arm.  He also seems to be a pretty good "on-field" decision-maker given the type of defenses he has faced in his "brief" career.

RJM, the tweet was from a fake account.  Didn't even spell his name right in the twitter handle.  And the tweet was from 2012.

 

Ummmm.....yes, it was a real tweet:

 

"I remember I was in class, and I think I got, like, a B on a [sociology] exam," Jones said. "It was just something so stupid; of course I didn't feel that way about academics, and I don't. Nobody in this program feels that way, we actually take that stuff very serious around here.

"It was just a dumbass thing to do. I definitely didn't think that would happen. It was just a stupid thing to do at that time. It was something where I just got pissed because I studied my ass off."

 

As a HUGE Buckeye fan (back to the days of Bruce), I was glad he owned the comment and didn't try to make any excuses.

ok, I stand corrected.  I saw it posted as @cordale10 and assumed was fake.  Kids say stupid things.  (so do adults)

The Jones situation is interesting.  The guy has played 3 college games and some think he can go in the second round of the NFL draft??!!  I don't.  OTOH, with that body and that arm he could go in the 5th round or so and be a legit prospect/backup for somebody.  Just on arm strength alone; the guy can flick his wrist and send the ball 40 yards.  I think he should stay in school. There's first round bonus money for him for sure if he can win and keep the starting job at OSU next year.  I'm all for kids cashing in when  the opportunity is there but in this case I think staying put is worth the risk.

Unless NFL teams are talking to his "advisors" about 1st a round selection (and the money that comes with it), I would like to see him stay in school.  He needs more time.

 

Next year will be very interesting for OSU.  IMO, if JT Barrett can stay healthy, he projects better as a next-level QB (better at reading defense and seeing third route receiver), but Cardale Jones fits MUCH better into the Urban Meyer offensive style (big body, big arm).  Braxton Miller needs to transfer to Oregon.  Tough break for him, but that's life.