Can we stop including OU in the playoff please?
- Thread starter ce36ei
- Start date
The question should be: Can Clemson stop Burrow and his receiving studs in the championship game?
Actually think it’s a tight game tonight. But Clemson in a close one.
Um ok? Been around a long time. Used to have this handle back when I posted all the time in college in the early 00’s. Not sure how or why it was available again when I decided to post again, but oh well.
By default it will be a better game than this. Think you're right. Maybe 21-17, Clemson.
Looks like LSU's biggest issue will be keeping their guys under control so nobody gets ejected.
I'm betting money on OSU over Clemson. They're the best team I've seen play all season by a good margin. LSU is the second best, but they look better than they have all season today.
2
Chad_36 (was the original back in the peegs days 18 or so years ago it appears)
and now this.
Um, ok?
You might be right, but OSU hasn't faced anybody with the speed and ability of Clemson. Michigan, Wisconsin and Penn State just don't compare.
AHIA had two chances to win it at the end and choked.
Who else do you put in instead of Oklahoma this year?
Georgia had their shot in the play in game (SEC Champ)....lost.
Wisconsin had their chance in the play in game (B10 Champ)....lost.
Potentially Oregon...but they had two losses.
Only other possible option would be an undefeated non-Power 5...and there were none.
Oklahoma ran into a buzzsaw, but they were the correct 4th choice.
Georgia had their shot in the play in game (SEC Champ)....lost.
Wisconsin had their chance in the play in game (B10 Champ)....lost.
Potentially Oregon...but they had two losses.
Only other possible option would be an undefeated non-Power 5...and there were none.
Oklahoma ran into a buzzsaw, but they were the correct 4th choice.
The stated goal is to get the 4 best teams. If Alabama plays Oklahoma on neutral turf with a month to prepare, even without Tua, Alabama wins easily. I’m sure Vegas odds back that up too. It’s not the fault of the teams they play one another before the playoff. If they’re going to punish teams, then change the mission statement to “4 best teams closest to zero losses.” I hate the argument that Alabama “had their shot.” Why should’ve Oklahoma got that shot? Good grief losing to KState should’ve eliminated them on the spot! They barely beat TCU at home. Held on by their skin against Iowa State. Those are 2 teams that might scrape .500 in the SEC. Maybe. Either make it a true playoff where you have to put conference champs in, or truly put the 4 best teams in.
And yet the next step will go to eight teams in the playoffs. Why? Because at the end of the day it’ll be more money for everyone by the players. Not that Indiana ever benefited from it, or at least not since 1967, but I really miss the days when the Big 10 teams all played each other and if you won the conference you got to go to Pasadena and play in the granddaddy of them all - The Rose Bowl.
Until everyone plays 8or 9 conference games and play the equal non -con games it is hard to decide the best 4 teams .How and why Big Ten went to 9 didn’t make any sense but thinking you need a 8 game playoff is silly .Its all about money always has been and looks like it will not change.
The reason it needs to go to 8 is you need to be able to earn your way in. The winners of the P5 conferences should have an auto bid. Them you can have the highest G5 and two at large. The current system has the same 6 or so teams and that will only be self reinforcing going forward. If you are a big time recruit those are the teams you are going to go to since that is the only path. The other thing is the media and committee have too much power. Name any other sport where you cant earn your way into the playoffs. There will be some mismatches at first but I think it will even out over time.
And how will the NCAA’s yet-to-be-revealed-but-undoubtedly-brilliant plan regarding name/image/likeness affect this?
I’ve read plenty of comments - on forums for historically great programs that are presently struggling - salivating over the prospects of having money directly infused into the game (especially, obviously, in recruiting) and being able to buy their way back into the circle of contemporary elites.
Last edited:
Whatever they come up with I still think 8 is the way to go. Just to be clear, I'm not saying it will bring parity across all of cfb but maybe more than there is now.
This probably isn’t the beat year to advocate for 8 teams. There were 3 elite teams and a throw in. I’m sure it’s a anomaly and more times that not you’ll find more quality teams but the Peach Bowl was awful. Who knows though, maybe LSU will do the same to Clemson?
If you go back to the start (2014) there have been only 3 of the 12 semi-final playoff games that have been 10 point of less margin of victories.
I know making the field 8 teams gives us more football to watch but does it really improve the quest to crown the national champ or does it just add more flawed teams?
I know making the field 8 teams gives us more football to watch but does it really improve the quest to crown the national champ or does it just add more flawed teams?
eventually it will go to 32 like all the other NCAA divisions. It will be necessary to keep interest and the money flowing.
If they made me the Football Czar, I'd have eight teams in the four major bowls of my youth -- Rose, Cotton, Sugar, and Orange. B1G and Pac winners always in the Rose, Big 12 to Cotton, SEC to Sugar, and ACC to Orange. That's all P5 conferences; fill the other three slots at large.
Oh, and play them all on New Year's Day like they did back then too.
I don't really care who would host the semis or the final.
Similar threads
