The CFP sucks!

[HuskerWeatherman]

No, the old, old system.

SEC champ locked into Sugar Bowl. I don't recall where the ACC champ was locked into--Gator? Peach?

The ACC didn't have an official major/New Year's Day bowl tie-in under the old bowl system. But remember, that wasn't much of a football conference prior to 2000. The Big East split apart and the ACC brought a bunch of those schools aboard (Miami, Boston College, Virginia Tech, Syracuse, Louisville, Pittsburgh). Even Florida State wasn't a member of the ACC until 1991 (prior to that, they were an independent).

Now, they may have had some contract with a lesser bowl, but the old system wouldn't have automatically put the ACC champ into any particular New Year's Day major bowl game. Yes, sometimes they did play in one -- as all of the non-Rose Bowl major bowl had one conference tie-in matched up against an at-large team.

 

[HuskerWeatherman]

I don't think the CFP sucks ... rather, Alabama's (followed closely by Clemson's) dominance sucks.

What would have been different under any other system prior to the CFP?

We already know Alabama and Clemson finished the regular season #1 and #2 in every major poll. So, they'd be locked in for the BCS Championship game -- or -- under the old system, you'd have Alabama in the Sugar Bowl and Clemson would be an at-large, without an official tie-in (ACC had none). So, maybe you'd have Alabama-Clemson in the Sugar Bowl -- or maybe those teams wouldn't even play each other, then you'd have the very strong possibility of a split national championship.

How again are any of those past systems better than what we have now?

The problem isn't the post-season format. The problem is Alabama and Clemson are too damn good compared to every other team in the nation.

I should note, however, if we expanded the playoff to 8 teams, then Georgia would have been in the playoff. And that's the one team that is capable of disrupting the Bama-Clemson stronghold.

 

[LingonVin]

I think we start a GoFundMe campaign to buy out Saban's contract and get him to agree to not coach college football any longer. It should take about $300 million. If we fall short we just let out a contract for hit.

Great idea, but by the time the full $300 million is raised Sabin will be retired. He's getting on to be Snider old.

 

[LingonVin]

I should note, however, if we expanded the playoff to 8 teams, then Georgia would have been in the playoff. And that's the one team that is capable of disrupting the Bama-Clemson stronghold.

I think your on to something here.

 

[HuskerTea]

I posted this in the Orange bowl thread but I wanted it to stand on it's own.

The CFP is a joke. 40 damn bowls and 38 of them don't mean squat. Alabama has the #1 recruiting class nearly every year because they are penciled in to go to the playoff every year because of past performance, SEC bias, weak schedule, but also good coaching. The fat get fatter because the best players are mainly going to go to the teams on top right now because there is only one goal - the CFP. Everything else is meaningless. The 85 schollie rule eventually brought parity to Division 1; the playoff has eliminated it, IMO.

I miss the drama of the bowls.


Comments?

Good post. I agree.GBR.

 

[cthusker]

I'd love to see a report/analysis on exactly why all those 5* players chose Alabama over so many other great schools. How does Alabama manage to continually grab 1 to 3 ranked classes year after year? I've been to Tuscaloosa and it's not exactly a garden spot location for college football. There are many many locations with much nicer everything imo. So what's this huge attraction? We have 5* QB's piled on top of 5* QB's. Jalen Hurts was 24-2 and won a NC yet was replaced this year by another 5* yet decided NOT to transfer? So what's the big attraction for him to sit on the bench while he could probably start for most college teams?

Interesting questions which I believe will eventually get answered much to the chagrin of Alabama....

 

[Big Burruss]

It’s worth noting that Oklahoma outscored Alabama 34-17 after going down 28-0. If the Sooners had shown up for the first quarter, it would have been a better game.

 

[Bigger Ed]

It’s worth noting that Oklahoma outscored Alabama 34-17 after going down 28-0. If the Sooners had shown up for the first quarter, it would have been a better game.

Did the Sooners not show up in the 1st quarter or did Alabama let up after scoring 28 unanswered points?

 

[The Nth Degree]

While I’m a bit tired of seeing the same two teams playing for the NC, it is what it is.

Until other programs are able to defeat Alabama and Clemson on a regular basis, these two teams have good chances of being in the top four (let alone the top 8) at the end of each season.

I’ll be happy when our Huskers finally make it back to that Top 4... or whatever it ends up being.

 

[The Nth Degree]

Did the Sooners not show up in the 1st quarter or did Alabama let up after scoring 28 unanswered points?

Both.

I thought it was funny how Saban said in his post game interview that, “...Oklahoma is a great offensive team...” and “...the only time they stopped us; we stopped ourselves.”

Truth stings.

 

[Hville]

The CFP will suck until Nebraska, ranked fourth, has a shot at playing in the National Championship game. Then, the CFP will be great.

I'm not that old, but, I don't recall a time when all of the bowls "had meaning". The bowls mean something to the teams playing in them and to the fans of those teams. The bowls increase parity. Yes, the playoff decreases that parity a bit, but, not by much. The top ranked team has yet to win a National Championship since the CFP started, and the fourth ranked team has won twice. Aside from the OSU-Oregon game, the NC games have been fun to watch. The CFP is/was a good idea.

You are correct. Even during the hayday of the bowls there was never 4 teams that had a chance. By the time the bowl games were decided it was more often or not down to a single team or two. And they were usually playing lower match-ups. There were rare occasions such as 97 when a team ranked lower than number one advanced above a winning 1 winning team. And it took a pretty significant scenario for that to happen. Nebraska at #2 totally destroyed #3 Tennessee and #1 Michigan outlasted #8 Washington State.

 

[Hville]

I should note, however, if we expanded the playoff to 8 teams, then Georgia would have been in the playoff. And that's the one team that is capable of disrupting the Bama-Clemson stronghold.

Here is the thing. While I get your point...….most of the fans wanting the 8 team playoff don't want the best teams in anyway as they want to put automatic qualifiers in there. Their assertation is that Georgia already had their chance and if they can't win their conference why should they be playing for a National Championship.

 

[Brew City Husker]

It would be cheaper, but it is technically illegal. Given it's Saban though I figure the most all the contributors would be looking at is probation.

It would be cheaper and more fun to infiltrate the university and the football program with prescription painkillers and prostitutes and watch the football program collapse under it’s own weight. There might be something illegal about that, though.......

 

[YUENGLING]

Bama and Clemson are the 2 best teams this year. I am fine with that match up.

Bama and Clemson are the 2 best teams this year. I am fine with that match up.

Bama Beat 4 ranked teams including Georgia ( probably the 3rd best team in the country) and Clemson destroyed an unbeaten Notre Dame they both belong in the championship game.I miss the drama of the bowls but ESPN put an end to that.

 

[BGRed]

Here is the thing. While I get your point...….most of the fans wanting the 8 team playoff don't want the best teams in anyway as they want to put automatic qualifiers in there. Their assertion is that Georgia already had their chance and if they can't win their conference why should they be playing for a National Championship.

I am perfectly fine with the 4 team concept and also with the four teams that were in this season. Even if Georgia may be 'better' than Oklahoma or Ohio State, why should they get a second chance at Alabama when other very, very good teams would not? This season, the argument came down to Ohio State and Oklahoma, which makes complete sense to me...and OU avenged an earlier close loss, while OSU had a really bad loss, struggled to beat a so-so Maryland team, and didn't look great against Nebraska.

I'd rather have the playoff concept be implemented in a way that seemed to address the problem when first put in place...how to avoid having a 3rd unbeaten team (or otherwise 'deserving' one loss team) be left out due to subjectivity of voters. I don't like the 4 'best' teams edict as this puts more subjectivity back into the assessment.

Did we think OU would beat Alabama? Probably not. Were we wondering how OU's offense would match up with a supposedly great Alabama defense? Absolutely...and, that is why seeing a rematch of Alabama/Georgia had zero interest for me.