Hypothetical Nightmare for CFP

Submitted by A2MIKE on October 28th, 2017 at 9:10 PM
Notre Dame wins out, finishes 11-1. Ohio State wins out finishes 12-1. Clemson wins out finishes 12-1. Georgia/Bama go undefeated into SEC champ. Washington wins out, finishes 12-1. Oklahoma wins out, finishes 12-1. Who gets left out? I would think ND, Georgia and Bama might be locks in that scenario.

Comments

DHughes5218

October 29th, 2017 at 12:44 AM ^

I get you have a hatred for OSU, most of us do, but they've carried this conference in a national sense for the last 15 years. I believe USC and OSU tied with the most BCS wins during that era. Yes they got run over by Clemson last year but saying they can't compete against non Big 10 teams is inaccurate. They are a huge name with a huge fan base that travels well. If they win out, they will be in.

randyfloyd

October 29th, 2017 at 10:08 AM ^

They just beat the #2 team in the country, the team that just wiped out asses. They (OSU) committed a lot of stupid penalties, turned the ball over 3 times and gave up a kickoff return for a TD and still beat the team that cleaned our clock last week. Statements like those above are what makes us look pathetic as a fan base. OSU is absolutely one of the top 4 teams.

Heywood_Jablome

October 28th, 2017 at 11:21 PM ^

Seems like we have this conversation every year about this time.  The chances of all those teams winning out is slim and none.  

Oklahoma....lol, they're not winning out. They can barely get by a bunch of scrub teams and already lost to one.  They blew their load at OSU.

ND...they'll likely fall to Miami or Stanford, both away games

Clemson....could potentially win out, but the ACC is ass this year.  ACC is probably 3rd in the pecking order behind the B10, SEC, and B12

Bama/Georgia...only one of these guys is getting in, not both. 

Washington...they'll drop one more

OSU...they've got a trap game next week at Iowa, and MSU always plays them tough. UM could give them a run too, but we need them to make mistakes.  Wisky in the Championsip is no gimme either.  A 0 or 1 loss B10 winner is getting in, period.  

 

Michigan4Life

October 29th, 2017 at 1:23 AM ^

lose to Miami. Maybe they lose to Stanford if Bryce Love is healthy but ND is legit. They blew out every single team except a 1 pt loss to UGA. ND is for real. They have the best OL in the country and one of the best RB in Josh Adams.

ND has a tough schedule with a surprisingly tough Wake Forest, Miami, Navy and Stanford. If they win out, they will earn the right to be in the playoff. As of now, ND is a top 4 team to me.

M-Dog

October 28th, 2017 at 10:00 PM ^

8 teams is the sweet spot.  

It lets the 5 P5 champions get in, 2 worthy at larges, and the top G5 team for political correctness / antitrust reasons.

You could put in a "fuse" that says that a conference champion has to have no less than N losses to get in, but IMO if you can win a P5 conference championship you have something on the ball going on by the end of the season and you should get in regardless.

The at larges will still give everybody something to bitch and argue about, so eveybody is happy.  The regular season will still have meaning.

 

 

 

Maynard

October 28th, 2017 at 10:07 PM ^

Yup. My favorite as well. Makes the most sense from a fairness perspective as well as keeping more teams/fans mentally in it through the entire season. There are no major conferences left out (theoretically) so it gets decided on the field.

MGlobules

October 28th, 2017 at 10:21 PM ^

the reason the change comes--and I think it will--in time. I worry about players' health with an added game, but think that first weekend could be something like the beginning of the NCAA tourney--tremendous excitement across the country. 

All such plans end up being a little bit arbitrary, and you have to accept that; in fact, that's what keeps people arguing, and is part of the fun. 

snarling wolverine

October 28th, 2017 at 11:24 PM ^

It's more than two teams playing more games.  

As it is now, you have two playoff teams playing 14 games, and two playing 15.

With another round (and keeping the regular season/conference titles the same), you'd have four playoff teams playing 14 games, two others playing 15, and two more playing 16.

IMO, you need to get rid of the conference title games to make it reasonable, not only from a health standpoint but travel, too.

Carcajou

October 29th, 2017 at 12:40 AM ^

I mostly worry about the player's health (physical, mental, and acadmic) if they try to mimic the NFL play the playoff games too close together. Space them out a couple of weeks apart- to give time to recover, teams to prepare, players to catch up on school work, fans to work out logistics of getting to games, etc.

 

Carcajou

October 29th, 2017 at 12:29 AM ^

I agree, that's the sweet spot (as things stand now) for exactly the reason you mentioned- because of the number of conferences, because of the G5 for legal reasons, and the few independents. One of the best things about an AQ system is that it would put the conversation and emphasis back on conference races and actual games, instead of the process-of-elimination celebrity horserace we have now.

bostonsix

October 28th, 2017 at 9:28 PM ^

Have been a 1 loss team so far. A 4 team playoff doesn't allow for all power 5 conference champions to compete. There are going to be 2 loss teams this year that could be good competition for the playoff, it's going to happen at some point, and this year as crazy as it has been is a good example of why it should happen sooner rather than later. But, it's just my opinion, man.

Maynard

October 28th, 2017 at 10:12 PM ^

8 is better. 9-16 won't have a complaint for the most part because 5 of the 8 are automatic berths and 1 of the other 3 may be as well if there is a clear G5 team. And even if they do complain, so what? Teams complain right now so that won't change no matter what. Never understood that argument. It won't have changed with teams complaining. It will remain the same, only with actual conference champions from each power conference.

Mack Tandonio

October 29th, 2017 at 11:29 AM ^

Really? You think 2 and 3 loss teams deserve consideration when choosing the single best team in college football? FSU and USC weren't even in the running if it would have been an 8 team playoff. Furthermore, if it had been an 8 team playoff, it would have just featured a bunch of rematches that nobody wanted to see. Go back and read the links Jabberwocky posted. They really do make a good case for 6 even if it isn't my preference.

TrueBlue2003

October 29th, 2017 at 12:08 AM ^

if you're confused by giving byes to the top two seeds, you're not very bright.  And it does buy you something over 8 teams.  Makes the regular season matter more in two ways:

- it's a smaller field so the conference titles still matter (they wouldn't matter in two conferences if 8 teams made it because two non-champs would make it).

- it rewards the top 2 teams by giving them byes.

If you don't think 6 buys you anything over 8, then why not 16 like FCS?

M-Dog

October 28th, 2017 at 10:50 PM ^

We have the "69th" team complaining now in the NCAA basketball tournament.  So what?

It's not who complains, it's how justified their complaint is.

The 9th team in college football has no legit complaint (though they will still complain).  They had a chance via their conference championship and yet another chance via 2 at larges.  At that point, they've used up all their arguments.

 

FLwolvfan22

October 28th, 2017 at 9:26 PM ^

at the end of last season? Why has it not happened yet? Guess it takes a system implosion  before the NCAA can meet in their grabbastic sub-comittees and vote on expanding the playoff. Or they can just get their Bama, Clemson, Ohio state and whoever else they throw a bone to match ups they want. BTW, Bama plays nobody this year, softest Freedie P soft schedule I have ever seen.