Ok well this is a good argument. I also agree that Its a little tougher to justify 2 teams from the same conference in a 4 team play off. And yet they did it last year and the questionable team (alabama) won it all.
-
You do not need to register if you are not going to pay the yearly fee to post. If you register please click here or log in go to "settings" then "my account" then "User Upgrades" and you can renew.
HuskerMax readers can save 50% on Omaha Steaks .
Conference Champions as automatic qualifiers.
- Thread starter Hville
- Start date
That one game doesn't override losing to Duke and Akron. Not to mention that same scenario could also have them beating a 9-4 team in that play off game.
WHat about Bama getting smoked in their last regular season game and not winning their division?
I wasn't happy with that darn matchup... it was a WHO cares except the participants? The only solution to this is to expand the playoffs to 8 teams. Would love to see teams like UCF get in to settle all those nagging questions how good are they?
Good discussion. I'm really kind of surprised at the kick back of this scenario. I suspect some of it from the SEC anti-bias and Alabama situation. I'm more about putting us in this position in the next 4 years. I ask myself say.....2020 we throttle Oklahoma and go on to beat Penn State, Ohio State, Wisconsin and Iowa to go undefeated. We have a rematch with Ohio State and they win in OT. So we are 12-1 and Oklahoma wins their conference play off game having lost to us and 2 other B1G teams to be 10-3. They go and we don't.
I think this scenario and many others are more aligned to winning it on the field than an automatic qualification in a poor conference.
I think this scenario and many others are more aligned to winning it on the field than an automatic qualification in a poor conference.
I think in this scenario the metrics and the committee recognized that they were still one of the top teams in the nation and they went on to prove the committee correct.
Let's say bama was passed over last year for UCF. Who would bama blame...legitimately? They could only blame themselves because they had every opportunity to win their division/conference.
On the other hand let's say that Washington won what appeared to be a weak Pac 12 and did it going 13-0? They eye test and SOS and all that tells the committee "Bama deserves to be in at 11-1 despite not winning their conference and division". Who does washington blame? Not themselves. They did everything they could they just were unfortunate to have played in a down year in the Pac 12.
Demanding a conference title puts the blame on the team themselves for not making it. There obviously is still a selection process though, right? So we'd have 5 conference champs and maybe one or two others...like ND and UCF. So the committee is picking 4 out of 7ish teams. I think that is where you are able to DQ that 8-5 Northwestern team in a 4 team situation. So you're still getting a high quality field.
In the 8 team field where all 5 champs get in PLUS 3 "wild cards"...11-1 bama gets in. So what if NW gets in at 8-5? You've still got a high quality field. AND your team that EARNED the 1 seed gets to trash NW at home. AND you make the regular season pretty damn fun IMO. What is the downside of NW fans dreaming of the playoffs right now? How many programs would still be "in it", if at least only in theory, right now? that hardly makes the season "meaningless" as some have worried.
I wasn't complaining in 2001 when NU had ZERO business in the title game. In fact I had very elaborate explanations as to exactly WHY NU belonged in it and how they were going to kick Miami's azz to prove it.
The last opinion that should be sought is the opinion of the odd man out in these scenarios. Fans don't look at it rationally. As fans of a program that has no dog in the hunt at the current time I think we can more rationally discuss this than a bama fan last year or an NU fan in your hypothetical. If you KNOW the rules going in then there isn't much to complain about.
I'll also say that playing on the road and losing by 8 is hardly getting smoked anymore than saying Nebraska was smoked on the road against Ohio State last week.
There aren't enough non-conference games to accurately gauge conference strength, so all the conference champions should be in. This means an 8 team playoff makes the most sense. That provides more wildcards than I would prefer, but I'd rather a conference champion not be excluded.
If the SEC starts the year with 12 teams in the top 25, they will probably end the year with 12 teams in the top 25 because people will say all their losses were to ranked teams. If the few unranked teams beat a ranked SEC team, they will become ranked and the cycle will continue.
My ideal requires conference realignment. There would be 6 power conferences based regionally like the good old days, 12 teams in each conference. Conference champs are in. Top ranked group of 5 team is in. 1 wildcard.
If the SEC starts the year with 12 teams in the top 25, they will probably end the year with 12 teams in the top 25 because people will say all their losses were to ranked teams. If the few unranked teams beat a ranked SEC team, they will become ranked and the cycle will continue.
My ideal requires conference realignment. There would be 6 power conferences based regionally like the good old days, 12 teams in each conference. Conference champs are in. Top ranked group of 5 team is in. 1 wildcard.
On the surface I like that idea. I hate 14 team conferences...and talk of adding more is just insane IMO.
But Washington didn't go 13-0 and if they did they would have been in. The argument was always about which teams with one loss should have went and Alabama got the nod. All the teams had one loss. The question is should have USC or Ohio State have gotten in as conference champions with 2 losses. I just don't understand how you could put a 2 loss Ohio State into the playoffs after getting boat raced by Iowa to the tune of 55-24 while Ohio State's only loss was on the road to the 6th ranked team by 8 points.
I would be fine with this if conference's were re-arranged to reflect fairness. Such as they do in the NFL. Top to Bottom the SEC and B1G are much stronger than many other conferences and puts us at a disadvantage. I hate the thought of teams from those other conferences getting a free be in just because they play a weaker schedule.
Nobody is claiming they are saying they are the best college football team. They are saying they are one of the best 4 at that time to qualify for the playoff. There are all kinds of winners in the NCAA basketball tournament and even more so in the final 4 that didn't win their conference. That is like saying Nebraska can't claim their 2015 woman's volleyball championship because they weren't the best team in their conference.
I don't disagree with you or with their assessment. But did they "deserve" it? They didn't even play in their conference title game and the SEC was down overall last year. That's why the subjective nature of a committee and metrics become dicey.
