Guess the CFP Top 25

Cave_Johnson said:
1. You just said that there is a way for teams to play their way in. Win your conference. That simple. You might have to balance schedules or get rid of divisions but it can be done. And that's waaaaay better than voting on it. Although at a certain point at-larges are necessary and then you have no choice but to have a selection committee.

2. That's the problem. These tards are choosing the best four using past years performance and program reputation. That's idiotic. Remove subjectivity as much as possible.

8 is probably all that's needed. 12? eh...whatever I don't care. I dislike the idea of the College Football Post Season Invitational Tournament with a bad committee more than I dislike the number of teams they let in.
Click to expand...
My conference championship comment is the 12 CFP, not the current 4 CFP. With 4, subjectivity is literally built into the CFP. When there are 12 you have a mix ... 6 conf champs which is objective, then 6 at large which will be subjective. It's the best of both worlds.

8 isn't happening - SEC's Sankey four days ago: "I think four has worked, is working and can continue to work," Sankey said. "So it’s four or 12. Eight with a whole bunch of automatic opportunities for conference champions does not work."
 
WhosYourDawggy said:
My conference championship comment is the 12 CFP, not the current 4 CFP. With 4, subjectivity is literally built into the CFP. When there are 12 you have a mix ... 6 conf champs which is objective, then 6 at large which will be subjective. It's the best of both worlds.

8 isn't happening - SEC's Sankey four days ago: "I think four has worked, is working and can continue to work," Sankey said. "So it’s four or 12. Eight with a whole bunch of automatic opportunities for conference champions does not work."
Click to expand...
I would rather see 8 with all conference champs only. The CCGS would be defacto playoff games with 16 potential participants. Only way into the playoffs is to win your CCG
 
252872962_1036465940444834_8351185940007375591_n.jpg




Yeah.... and who gives a shit?
 
Kburjr said:
I would rather see 8 with all conference champs only. The CCGS would be defacto playoff games with 16 potential participants. Only way into the playoffs is to win your CCG
Click to expand...
Never happen. SEC, B12, G5 and ND doesn't want it. B1G shouldn't want it. 4 or 12, that's your option. Why would the better conferences agree to have multiple teams eliminated. Let's say Bama and UGA are truly nos. 1 and 2. Why eliminate one of those teams so the winner of Wake and Pitt move on? Makes no sense to consider CCs some magical status when in many years a single conference might have 2 or 3 teams better than some conferences champs. That's why 12 is great with 6 conference champs, 6 at large.
 
WhosYourDawggy said:
Never happen. SEC, B12, G5 and ND doesn't want it. B1G shouldn't want it. 4 or 12, that's your option. Why would the better conferences agree to have multiple teams eliminated. Let's say Bama and UGA are truly nos. 1 and 2. Why eliminate one of those teams so the winner of Wake and Pitt move on? Makes no sense to consider CCs some magical status when in many years a single conference might have 2 or 3 teams better than some conferences champs. That's why 12 is great with 6 conference champs, 6 at large.
Click to expand...

I want the National Champ to at least have won their conference, or at least in a couple instances, to have won their division. I don't like the wildcard entries at any level.
 
Kburjr said:
I want the National Champ to at least have won their conference, or at least in a couple instances, to have won their division. I don't like the wildcard entries at any level.
Click to expand...
Neither will be required, but in most instances it will be true. 2017 Bama did neither. A good division like the SEC West, that can happen. Too early to tell, but B1G East this year has that potential.
 
Kburjr said:
I want the National Champ to at least have won their conference, or at least in a couple instances, to have won their division. I don't like the wildcard entries at any level.
Click to expand...

I take it you don't like the NCAA Tournament in basketball, either?
 
Blackshirts BLVD said:
252872962_1036465940444834_8351185940007375591_n.jpg




Yeah.... and who gives a shit?
Click to expand...
While you are right, no one probably gives a shit. But to me it points out a flaw in the system.

"Play a good schedule" they say. Okay, all the opponents we've played are good but we haven't beaten any of them. Do we get a cookie?

It also reminds me of a discussion I had with a parent. The counselor called me in to mitigate a disagreement when he was making a schedule for a newly enrolled student. Her records/transcript indicated she wasn't a real good math student. So he was enrolling her in a remedial algebra class designed to get her the background to take Algebra I the next year. Mom wanted her to go straight to Algebra 1. Counselor said "We're setting up up to fail. She won't be able to handle the rigor of Algebra." The mom replied, "So what. At least she'll be taking a class worth failing."
 
Kburjr said:
I would rather see 8 with all conference champs only. The CCGS would be defacto playoff games with 16 potential participants. Only way into the playoffs is to win your CCG
Click to expand...
The blowouts would be ridiculous.

We would be better off creating a G5 playoff and a P4 playoff. Mixing the two would be stupid.
 
Wild Turkey said:
The blowouts would be ridiculous.

We would be better off creating a G5 playoff and a P4 playoff. Mixing the two would be stupid.
Click to expand...
Because we don’t have a ton of blowouts now with only P5 teams
 
7samurai13 said:
Because we don’t have a ton of blowouts now with only P5 teams
Click to expand...
Exactly why expanding beyond 4 teams doesn't make much sense. The committee hasn't gotten it wrong and no one that had a legit shot has been left on the sidelines.
 
Wild Turkey said:
They weren't running the table in the playoff. There have been much better OU teams that got thumped.
Click to expand...
Doesn’t mean they shouldn’t have had a shot. Ohio State just lost their 2nd string quarterback and we’re down the the 3rd string. You could easily say they weren’t going to run the table with a 3rd stringer under center.
 
Kburjr said:
Every conference champ is included.
Click to expand...

But often the national champ didn't win their conference.

"I want the National Champ to at least have won their conference, or at least in a couple instances, to have won their division. I don't like the wildcard entries at any level."
 
michaeljordan_fan said:
But often the national champ didn't win their conference.

"I want the National Champ to at least have won their conference, or at least in a couple instances, to have won their division. I don't like the wildcard entries at any level."
Click to expand...
I will stick with that. All in all, I don't care for the selection process in college basketball, either. Win something first or play in the NIT
 
Kburjr said:
I will stick with that. All in all, I don't care for the selection process in college basketball, either. Win something first or play in the NIT
Click to expand...
What you keep missing is that multiple conferences have multiple teams better than the champs of lesser conferences. Eliminating them reduces the quality of the tournament. That's the problem with your champs only argument.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top