Didn't we get a rematch with FSU after the 1996 season?
Let's not be hypocritical phegs like Noles.
Let's not be hypocritical phegs like Noles.
YAHOOOOO! We just got our 8 team Playoff!!!!!!!!!!
- Thread starter sadgator
- Start date
I don’t have issues with a rematch here and there but your just asking for a bunch of those type of games to happen. By going to 8 teams you also put a little bit of less importance on the regular season and on the conference championship games.
Why is everyone obsessed with 8 and garaunteed buds for conference champs?
You can get 3 loss conference champs more often than you would like.
For instance. In an alternate universe, Florida could have lost to Michigan and FSU out of conference then dropped a conference game, won the division and potentially have won the conference.
Or, believe it or not, that scenario could happen and there could be TWO conference losses.
So you’d have a 3-4 loss team in the conference title.
The PAC-12 seems to be close to that more often than not.
I don’t care for that model. At all.
Why does no one except me talk about 6?
BYE week for the top 2 teams. First round scheduled around Christmas, second round scheduled at New Years, and then the championship game.
If you’re a deserving conference champ, you should find your way into the top 6, so that shouldn’t really matter.
And I’d be fine with getting rid of the committee. Ridiculous that we spent decades trying to get rid of the human element and now we’re right back to it with ZERO accountability.
You can get 3 loss conference champs more often than you would like.
For instance. In an alternate universe, Florida could have lost to Michigan and FSU out of conference then dropped a conference game, won the division and potentially have won the conference.
Or, believe it or not, that scenario could happen and there could be TWO conference losses.
So you’d have a 3-4 loss team in the conference title.
The PAC-12 seems to be close to that more often than not.
I don’t care for that model. At all.
Why does no one except me talk about 6?
BYE week for the top 2 teams. First round scheduled around Christmas, second round scheduled at New Years, and then the championship game.
If you’re a deserving conference champ, you should find your way into the top 6, so that shouldn’t really matter.
And I’d be fine with getting rid of the committee. Ridiculous that we spent decades trying to get rid of the human element and now we’re right back to it with ZERO accountability.
To get to the conference championship game you have to win your division, or in the case of the Big 12, finish 1st or 2nd. Regular season games obviously matter. The conference championship game evens out the disparity that exists between divisions. And to me, conference champions from the P5 deserve a chance to play for the title. The old power brokers who run college football are hung up on having 50 bowl games and are trying to keep that antiquated system intact. Every other college sport has some type of playoff system except football. And sometimes you have upsets and sometimes you have rematches. NC State with 10 losses beat #1 Houston for the NCAA basketball title in 1983 - major upset. Gator baseball played LSU for the national title last year - rematch. South Carolina just played UF in a women's soccer Elite 8 game - rematch. Those kinds of games make it exciting. Playoffs are the best way to determine a true champion and keep things out of the hands of subjective committees. It works so well in ALL other sports. Why not football??
We aren’t getting rid of the bowl games.
That’s absurd to even make that a part of the argument.
That’s absurd to even make that a part of the argument.
5 power conference champs ACC, SEC, Big 12, Big 10, Pac-12 (Clemson, Georgia, OU, OSU, USC)
3 at large (for example, for 2017: UCF, BAMA, PSU)
One can argue the at large teams, but I like an 8 team playoff.
3 at large (for example, for 2017: UCF, BAMA, PSU)
One can argue the at large teams, but I like an 8 team playoff.
I KNOW that we're not getting rid of the bowl games and it is ABSURD for you to assume that is what I said or implied. The powers that be kept even the 4 team playoff from happening for years to "protect" their precious bowls. And that is why they will resist expanding the playoffs - because when they expand (and eventually they will - probably using another batch of bowls for the games), it diminishes the relevancy of the lesser bowls even more. The vast majority of them are irrelevant and uninteresting now except for the diehard fans of the 2 participants. The TV ratings for most of them are pathetic. I understand bowls are money makers for the cities that sponsor them and are supposed to be rewards for teams having a successful year. But it's utterly ridiculous to have 6-6 teams, or even a few teams with losing records, going to bowls. I would much rather watch inter-conference match-ups that have national championship implications, with a loser going home and a winner moving on - just like they do in the FCS, in basketball, baseball, volleyball, soccer, tennis, gymnastics, track & field - every sport EXCEPT FBS football. To me, THAT'S absurd.
Once the old corrupt fvcks who were personally benefiting from the BOWL structure died or retired, we were able to move along.
Bowl charities are scams.
Yeah my point was that people like to claim that the reason we don’t have an 8 team playoff is because there’s powerful people trying to hold on to the bowl games.
We can have 8 teams in the playoff and we’re still going to have bowl games.
So acting like that’s some big hinderance is a bit much.
The bowl games in and of themselves aren't the hindrance. It's the antiquated thinking, combined with the big time money brokers who sponsor the bowl games and the insiders who make money off the games that are the problem. It's ALL about $$$$ and when the money to expand the playoffs to 8, 12 or 16 teams becomes so great, which it eventually will, the power brokers will make it happen.
4, or 6 with top 2 getting byes. That's it. We just had a "final eight" fr god's sakes the conference championship games (except for one) were quarterfinals
CFB is not baseball, is not basketball, is not soccer. How many D1 teams are there in baskeball? I believe it's close to 300. There are only 130 teams in D1 football and only 66 (i think?) in the Power 5 conferences
Doesn't matter. You have 64 teams in the tournaments with 300 teams. That's over 20%. 8 out of 130 teams is only 6% of the teams. Playoffs are the best way to determine a true champion. And it WILL expand at some point due to $$$$$.
Last edited:
Totally agree...EVERY other major sporting system has a real playoff system...Basketball, Baseball, Softball on and on...even Division II teams in football have a playoff system...everyone except for D1 College Football. This change has been coming for the last 25 years. People have been calling for this change for a long time and when it gets to 8 teams then we'll have a REAL playoff system.
Yea well people 'call' for a lot of dumb shit. Initially everyone wanted an unbiased way to rank teams and so we got the computers. What could be more unbiased than a computer formula? Then those same people bitched about the computers and came up with the grand idea to have a committee with all their inherent biases because people didn't like the fact that a computer determined who played for a title. This after complaining for years about human bias. So the solution was to come up with a committee with no set formula who changes their criteria weekly. Lesson? People are dumb and will spin themselves in circles.
The cool thing to do now is call for an 8 team playoff when just three years ago the 4 team playoff was universally praises. We got the top 2 teams and then #3 or #4 who any given year could be deserving. Now everyone wants 8 not realizing that the conference championships already serve as one round of the playoffs. So I guess we'all bitch until it moves to 16, then 32, then 64. Then just like college basketball we'all have half the field be 3 and 4 loss teams and whoever gets hot at the right time wins. Yay! Why are y'all so hellbent on turning college football into college basketball or the NFL? You know the sports with regular seasons nobody watches?
The cool thing to do now is call for an 8 team playoff when just three years ago the 4 team playoff was universally praises. We got the top 2 teams and then #3 or #4 who any given year could be deserving. Now everyone wants 8 not realizing that the conference championships already serve as one round of the playoffs. So I guess we'all bitch until it moves to 16, then 32, then 64. Then just like college basketball we'all have half the field be 3 and 4 loss teams and whoever gets hot at the right time wins. Yay! Why are y'all so hellbent on turning college football into college basketball or the NFL? You know the sports with regular seasons nobody watches?
I've been wanting an 8 team playoff for 30 years. I hated those days when you had multiple national champions because AP voted one way, coaches voted another way, the NY Times had another champ, etc. The national title should have always been settled on the field, not by a bunch of voters with regional bias. Playoffs have been so successful with Division 2 (now FCS) they went from 4 teams in 1978 to 8 in 1981 and now have 20 teams, which I think it too many. It was money that forced the FBS to go to a 4-team playoff and it is $$$ that will make them expand. I said 4 years ago that it was only a matter of time before they went to 8 teams. And I stand by that. High school football has playoffs. EVERY friggin' sport has playoffs or a tournament of some kind to decide a champion. Why should Division 1 (FBS) football be the ONLY exception? It WILL happen because there is too much money to be made to ignore it for long.
Why shouldn’t they? If you can beat the “better” team in tourney play, why shouldn’t you deserve a title regardless of record going in.
Perhaps you would be satisfied if we simply picked the team we perceived as “best” before the season began and just awarded them the title. No need to be bothered with actually playing the games at all.
Not sure what all the fuss is about...OSU got waxed by Iowa...IOWA. Remove that loss and they're in the playoffs. They have no one to blame but themselves.
Who has said anything about Ohio St.? Under the current system Alabama deserved to be the 4th team. My point is that deciding a real champion in a tournament format is the way it's done in ALL sports, including football, except in the FBS.
We basically just had a tournament format. That is what the conference championship games just did and now we are down to 4 teams.
Because you're not rewarding the best team at all. We all know anything can happen in any given game but by giving auto qualifiers for conference champs what you're saying is you're ok with a team being mediocre for an entire year. There's a reason the NFL and NCAAB season barely gets ratings while CFB's regular season sets records every year.
Except 2 of the conference champions weren't "picked" to have a chance to play for the title.
First...that’s not the reason you watch. You watch because you hate Tennessee (and other rivals) and want to see us kick their asses regardless what it means in the global context of the season.
Second...teams that are the “best” because you think they are, aren’t the “best.”
Prior to the Iowa game, did you “think” OSU was a better team?
Do you “think” Bama would beat Iowa? How do you know? You don’t know.
Play it off...figure it out on the field.
sadgator wouldn’t give a crap if it was a 5 loss conference champ team that wins the title...if they win it, they deserve it.
Because they weren’t deserving. You think a team that lost to Iowa by 31 points deserves to have a chance to win the national title?
Who are you to arbitrarily decide, Paco? How do you know Ohio St. or Southern Cal wouldn't get hot and win an 8 team tournament? ALL other sports, including all levels of football except FBS, decide their champions with playoffs and tournaments. I agree that the 4 best teams selected were probably the most deserving top 4 teams. But that doesn't mean a lower seed couldn't or wouldn't win it on the field, head-to-head. It happens all the time in basketball, baseball, volleyball, soccer, high school football, the NFL, the lower levels of college football.
Huh? You think Ohio State would have won the national title? Not only did they get hammered by Iowa they also lost to Oklahoma on their home field. Ohio State had their chances and didn’t get it done.
But you don't KNOW they couldn't or wouldn't? Oklahoma lost to IOWA ST and Georgia got hammered by Auburn but got a chance at redemption. Yet they're in. Alabama didn't even win their division, but a committee arbitrarily put them in, just like they did Ohio St. last year. And the Buckeyes got hammered in the semis by Clemson. Would Penn St., as conference champions, have gotten beat that bad? I don't think so, but we'll never know. I agree that Alabama deserved to be the #4 team over the Buckeyes, but we'll never know if USC or Ohio St. or even Wisconsin, Auburn or UCF couldn't have gotten hot and won 3 in a row because of this antiquated system that doesn't give them a chance. FBS football, again I say, is the ONLY sport, pro or college, that doesn't decide their champion by a tournament or real playoff that rewards all conference champions.
What you're describing isn't 'best.' Again anything can happen in one game, that's why there are upsets. That doesn't mean the team that won is better than the team that lost, it just means they were better on that day. This is why we take the whole body of work into consideration. What you're advocating is throwing away the body of work for one game, it makes no sense if your goal is to judge which team was best over an extended period of time.
Ole Miss beat UF in 08' in a game where we turned the ball over 5 times. They weren't better than us and the entire season bore that out but they beat us that day.
Nobody disagrees that a team can get hot and win, that's exactly what we're trying to avoid. Why are we wanting to reward teams for being bad or mediocre for an entire year as long as they get hot at the right time? What happened to sustained excellence? That's what being a champion is supposed to be about. Before college football used to only be 9, then 10, then 11 games. Less margin for error, every game meaning something, and thats why the regular season actually meant something. Even commentators talk about the difference in intensity between college and NFL games. Why? Nobody in the NFL gives a damn about the regular season because you can lose 8 games and still make the playoffs as long as you win your division. That's no different than giving teams an auto qualifier for winning their conference. If I know I can get in no matter how many losses I have just by winning my conference why would I not do things like rest players for out of conference games, rest players once I lock up my division, etc? That's exactly what happens in the NFL.
Why people are pinning for 3 and 4 loss teams to make the playoffs is beyond me. In a 12 game schedule that's 25% of your games lost, that's participation trophy garbage. The comparisons to basketball or the NFL don't make any sense because they play way more games, losses are gonna happen. College basketball teams play almost 40 games, the NBA plays 82 and then a playoffs, the NFL plays 16 and then the playoffs, etc. So losses aren't scrutinized. There's no comparison to a 12 game regular season. 2 and 3 loss teams should not get a chance at a championship.
But an 8-team playoff WILL happen and it will be a good thing. $$$$ talks and it's time for the FBS to determine champions the same way every other sport (high school, college and pro) does it, including all of college football except FBS - with a tournament of some type that gives ALL conference champions an opportunity to win.
The main reason I would like to see a slight expansion would be to include the smaller conference winners, like maybe the highest ranked conf champ of non power 5. The reason is, right now, 90+% of teams know that no matter how what they do, they can never win at all. Sure, the winner of the NCAA tourney play in game ain't gonna win it all, but at least they are given the chance to determine that on the court.
sadgator couldn’t care less about who is “best” or whether that “best” team wins the title. The body of work gets you there, and then you’ve got to produce results.
You favor entitlement based in part on performance and in part upon subjective components to arrive at a perception of a team of excellence. sadgator favors opportunity based on a slightly less rigid system of performance-based merit, removing as much of the subjective component as possible to arrive at an earned champion.
Neither of us is wrong, but we both want different things.
The reason we have the playoffs is because it was too common to have a real argument over who should be in the title game. Now that we have too 4, the team or two left out cab easily point to where they themselves blew it, and they had their destiny on their hands up until then.
Again, college football is UNIQUE.
That’s why we love it.
Every other sport gives automatic bids and rewards mediocre teams who get hot at the end of the year.
I never want to see what happened in the NFL in 2007 and 2011 happen in college football.
I just don’t understand how people can love a sport that does have so many different unique points and want to change it into every other sport.
Complete opposite actually. I don't favor entitlement, I favor sustained excellence. Entitlement is rewarding a team a shot at a title just by virtue of winning their conference regardless of how poor that conference is or regardless of how many losses they have. That's THE very definition of entitlement.
