Would Not Need Playoff Committee If Conference Champions Mattered

[Iowa Hog]

The blowhards on the Playoff Committee know if Conference Champions were a requirement, they know they were not needed. Jim Delaney campaigned against Penn State and Wisconsin, and Penn
State fans are ready to lynch him. I remember when Iowa won a Conference Champion in 1991
and he stuck us in the Holiday Bowl. Jim Delaney needs to go.

 

[QChawks]

Agreed. It should have been conf champ of each power 5 plus 1 wildcard (independent or lower tier conf)

Top two teams get byes. This is where most of the debate would be.

 

[NorthernHawkeye]

The blowhards on the Playoff Committee know if Conference Champions were a requirement, they know they were not needed. Jim Delaney campaigned against Penn State and Wisconsin, and Penn
State fans are ready to lynch him. I remember when Iowa won a Conference Champion in 1991
and he stuck us in the Holiday Bowl. Jim Delaney needs to go.

Iowa did NOT win a conference championship in 1991. We lost to Michigan at home and finished 10-1.

The Big Ten made a contract midway through the season that the second place team would go to the Holiday Bowl. Talk about settling for a mid tier bowl.

10-1 and highly ranked. Dumb move by the Big Ten.

But to your point. It would be great to see the conference championship matter. That way schools could schedule great games against tough opponents in the non-conference and not be afraid of losing and having it ruin their season.

 

[BondHawk]

It was said in another thread, but if things go slightly sideways this weekend, you would have wanted to see Florida, Colorado, Virginia Tech, and Wisconsin in the playoff? I'll pass. Give me the four best teams instead.

 

[BioHawk]

This is why there either needs to be 16 teams with every conference winner getting an automatic bid plus 6 at large bids or 8 teams and an acknowledgement that Group of 5 teams aren't actually Division 1 teams. Teams in the same division should all get a chance to win a national championship, even if the reality of the situation is that Troy would get slaughtered by Alabama by 60 points. Since those group of 5 teams do not have any chance of actually ever even playing for a national championship, they need to be called something else.

I'd much rather be debating what seed every team should be and who should get an at large bid than debating which teams who won their conference shouldn't get to play for a national championship.

 

[Chuck C]

It was said in another thread, but if things go slightly sideways this weekend, you would have wanted to see Florida, Colorado, Virginia Tech, and Wisconsin in the playoff? I'll pass. Give me the four best teams instead.

I would have been more excited to see that playoff myself.

If the favorites lose, things are just going slightly sideways? Alabama, Clemson, and Washington should have just forfeited their championship game then. Obviously they're the best teams and should get in even if they lost according to your logic. Maybe next year, If Alabama is undefeated going into their last conference game, they should just rest all their starters and throw the game. That way they can get out of the SEC championship game and get an extra week of rest. I mean everybody knows they're one of the best and will get into the playoffs anyway.

 

[EZ2BJZ]

It was said in another thread, but if things go slightly sideways this weekend, you would have wanted to see Florida, Colorado, Virginia Tech, and Wisconsin in the playoff? I'll pass. Give me the four best teams instead.

Bingo! There are either a lot of millennials on this board or people with memory issues. Remember in 1994 when Penn State was obligated to go to the Rose Bowl to play Oregon and missed out on a shot at the National Championship? Many, myself included, believe Penn State would have beaten Nebraska that year.

And that's the whole point of the playoff system, to get the best teams in college football competing for the national championship. If Penn State doesn't like it, tough titty. You would think they of all teams would understand this given they got screwed in 1994. Penn State wants to compete for a national title? Don't lose to Pitt then. They have two losses. Just like Michigan, and Michigan kicked their ass earlier in the year. Frankly, had either Clemson or Washington lost Michigan should have gone ahead of Penn State.

Alabama, Ohio State, Clemson, and Washington are the 4 best teams in college football. There should be little to no debate about that.

 

[DavenportHawk8]

The thing that bugs me is that PSU beat OSU in the regular season. OSU didn't even win their OWN DIVISION, yet they are in the playoff? OSU played 12 games PSU played 13. Sorry but PSU deserved to go and this playoff is not a "true" playoff. Name me one sport where you win your conf championship and don't get to play for a National Title??

College Football has to make a change. Go with Top 6 (top 2 get byes) or have 8 teams with every conf champ getting in and 3 at large teams.

I feel bad for WMU, played a normal schedule and are getting shafted. Hell if little old WSU can go 30 something and 0, they got to play for the right at National Title. Why can't WMU?

 

[BondHawk]

The thing that bugs me is that PSU beat OSU in the regular season. OSU didn't even win their OWN DIVISION, yet they are in the playoff? OSU played 12 games PSU played 13. Sorry but PSU deserved to go and this playoff is not a "true" playoff. Name me one sport where you win your conf championship and don't get to play for a National Title??

College Football has to make a change. Go with Top 6 (top 2 get byes) or have 8 teams with every conf champ getting in and 3 at large teams.

I feel bad for WMU, played a normal schedule and are getting shafted. Hell if little old WSU can go 30 something and 0, they got to play for the right at National Title. Why can't WMU?

If Keith Duncan's kick goes a few feet further to the right, PSU doesn't go to the Big 10 championship and the point is moot. Does that make them not as worthy?

As for WMU getting the shaft, you're an idiot.

 

[EZ2BJZ]

If Keith Duncan's kick goes a few feet further to the right, PSU doesn't go to the Big 10 championship and the point is moot. Does that make them not as worthy?

As for WMU getting the shaft, you're an idiot.

Yeah, I'm not sure why this is such a hard concept for people to grasp. The whole point of having a selection committee is to ensure the 4 best teams in college football are in the playoffs.

That has happened.

 

[ANYCHawk]

notthisagain.jpg

 

[ANYCHawk]

This is why there either needs to be 16 teams with every conference winner getting an automatic bid

No! The sun-belt is not the same as the Big 10 or the SEC and should not be treated as such. Nobody thinks the International League winner should play the winner of the NL West.

 

[DavenportHawk8]

If Keith Duncan's kick goes a few feet further to the right, PSU doesn't go to the Big 10 championship and the point is moot. Does that make them not as worthy?

As for WMU getting the shaft, you're an idiot.

So if the hawks went 11-1 (loss to NDSU) and won the Big Ten Championship (over PSU) and didn't play anyone and there was a let just say 12-0 Clemson, 11-1 Alabama, and 11-1 Ohio State and 11-1 Washington. And the hawks were on the outside looking in, what would you think about? Would you be pumped that we get to go to the ROSE BOWL, instead of playing for a NC.

I am sure you were the same person ragging on Boise State when they were good to. They beat several Power 5 schools, but yet everyone thought they didn't deserve to be there. WMU went 13-0 and I personally think if they get to 14-0 deserve a piece of the national title.

 

[DavenportHawk8]

Yeah, I'm not sure why this is such a hard concept for people to grasp. The whole point of having a selection committee is to ensure the 4 best teams in college football are in the playoffs.

That has happened.

Umm to be best, shouldn't you at least win your own conference??

 

[Omahawkeyeguy]

The biggest flaw with the conference champion argument is every team plays 3 (or 4) games that do not factor into a conference championship. And Ohio State/Penn state argument is a perfect example where OSU soundly beat a very good Oklahoma team while PSU got it handed to them by a good but not great Pitt squad. All things being equal the conference champion should definitely be the deciding factor, but here things were far from equal OUTSIDE of conference play (WHICH MATTERS TOO!), and that is why OSU deserves the nod over PSU.

 

[HawkeyeSmitty4]

So if the hawks went 11-1 (loss to NDSU) and won the Big Ten Championship (over PSU) and didn't play anyone and there was a let just say 12-0 Clemson, 11-1 Alabama, and 11-1 Ohio State and 11-1 Washington. And the hawks were on the outside looking in, what would you think about? Would you be pumped that we get to go to the ROSE BOWL, instead of playing for a NC.

well, in your scenario, Iowa and OSU would have the same record. We'd have the same record and a championship. In real life PSU and OSU do not have the same records. PSU's 2 losses (both embarrassing) seem to be making a bigger impression than winning the conference title based upon tie-breaking procedures. Let's stop acting like PSU kicked everyone's ass and is getting screwed. they lost twice. none of the other teams in the playoff did. losses matter, period.

 

[ferentzin04]

Umm to be best, shouldn't you at least win your own conference??

I feel like people need to tap the breaks with the whole "they didn't even win the conference!" Not that long ago they WOULD have won the conference with the same record as PSU. Ask the 2004 Iowa team. Thankfully deciding who is national champs comes down to more than just how you did in conference, because about 1/4 of your season is ooc.

PSU had an extra loss, OSU didn't. I'm fine with what happened. If they were both 11-1, that would be a different story.

 

[Hwk-I-St8]

My personal opinion is that trying to crown a NC in football is a losing game. The only way to figure out who's truly the best team is to have a playoff system that features a series of matchups between each pairing of teams. Otherwise the "any given saturday" issue crops up and a lessor team gets hot on a given day and upsets a much better team. Unfortunately, a series just isn't feasible with football.

Everyone wanted a playoff...now we have one and the system is still flawed. Throw in more teams people say. Well, the more teams you put in the playoff, the less the regular season matters and the more it becomes a tournament championship, not a season championship (think how people view the B10 tourney championship in BB vs the "regular season championship").

People are chasing the ultimate answer for a game that doesn't really support it.

The real answer, for those who cannot live without crowning a "true national champion" (whatever that is) is 4 super conferences with two divisions each. Round robin play limited to the division, followed by a conference championship game between divisions (the quarter final), then the four champions are in a 4 team playoff. This system is still subject to the "any given Saturday" issue, but at least it's determined solely on the field with zero subjectivity.

Me? I'd go back to the 80's with normal sized conferences, bowls that were meaningful and some some fun water cooler debates over who was best. That debate will still occur with any other system. After all, look at this year...of tOSU wins it all, everyone will say "but PSU beat them".

As it is now, why not just give every team a bowl. People argue that the proliferation of bowls to the point of teams with losing seasons getting in a bowl is OK because "it's more football". It is more football, but if quantity over quality is OK, why not send every team to a bowl? At some point you either have standards or you don't.

 

[icantfindausernamethatisntused]

I disagree with those who say Penn State should be in ahead of Ohio State. However, I will agree with those people that keeping Penn State out of the Playoff is not a great answer - I just believe that keeping Ohio State out would be an even worse answer.

College basketball does it right in that every team with a legitimate chance of winning the National Championship is allowed to compete. It is more difficult to do in college football, and we saw again this year that some teams can win all of their games and still not be able to compete for the National Championship. As the rules are set up now, we are left with choosing the least bad answer, and this is actually an improvement over the prior system 5-10 years ago which itself was an improvement over the original system 20+ years ago.

 

[Lone Clone]

The blowhards on the Playoff Committee know if Conference Champions were a requirement, they know they were not needed. Jim Delaney campaigned against Penn State and Wisconsin, and Penn
State fans are ready to lynch him. I remember when Iowa won a Conference Champion in 1991
and he stuck us in the Holiday Bowl. Jim Delaney needs to go.

Bowlsby wants some answers. He asks good questions, and he's in a particularly good position to ask them because -- as he concedes -- the Big XII didn't have a legitimate playoff candidate this year.

http://www.espn.com/college-footbal...tate-buckeyes-washington-huskies-make-playoff

 

[hexumhawk]

What they really need is a bigger playoff. Once they realize the TV ratings start trumping bowl settings it will happen.

16 teams, high seeds at home.

Finally get to see southern schools have to come north in the winter.,

 

[SCKCtb93]

This was really one of the easiest decisions the committee might ever have to make. There were 4 power 5 teams that had one loss or less. The out of conference games matter too for all the people crying that a conference championship should matter. The conference championship is a tie breaker when two teams are equals. Now if you want to say that the out of conference games shouldn't matter that is a different argument altogether which I think might be interesting, but in this current system they do matter.

Also, if you are thinking the precedent is bad with Washington scheduling cupcakes in the out of conference I think that if Penn State would not have lost to Pitt they would have been in above Washington and Ohio State. There is an advantage to scheduling tougher opponents if you beat them. The risk that you take is that there is a higher chance that you might lose which hurts you more than destroying a lesser team.

 

[BondHawk]

So if the hawks went 11-1 (loss to NDSU) and won the Big Ten Championship (over PSU) and didn't play anyone and there was a let just say 12-0 Clemson, 11-1 Alabama, and 11-1 Ohio State and 11-1 Washington. And the hawks were on the outside looking in, what would you think about? Would you be pumped that we get to go to the ROSE BOWL, instead of playing for a NC.

I am sure you were the same person ragging on Boise State when they were good to. They beat several Power 5 schools, but yet everyone thought they didn't deserve to be there. WMU went 13-0 and I personally think if they get to 14-0 deserve a piece of the national title.

I would have been upset last year if Iowa went 13-0 with a Big 10 Championship title and got left out. If they had lost to NDSU and gone 12-1? Too bad, beat (better yet, don't schedule) FCS teams and better luck next year.

Pretty sure you are just trolling with the WMU lines though, good job.

 

[hexumhawk]

IOWA would have been in if they beat Sparty.

This is a reason the playoffs need to be bigger. Too many scenarios where legit teams get left out that should have a shot.

 

[DavenportHawk8]

I would have been upset last year if Iowa went 13-0 with a Big 10 Championship title and got left out. If they had lost to NDSU and gone 12-1? Too bad, beat (better yet, don't schedule) FCS teams and better luck next year.

Pretty sure you are just trolling with the WMU lines though, good job.

All I am saying is give them a shot. If they can't win the first round game then so be it, but give them a shot. They went 13-0 and did their part. With the way Iowa schedules non-conf, the only way they will EVER make the playoff is go undefeated. IF they have 1 loss, they will never make it.

So i guess by your logic no "at-large" small schools should be allowed into the NCAA basketball tournament. UNI should of never been allowed to play Kansas because thy are not a power 5 team. Makes sense.

 

[BioHawk]

No! The sun-belt is not the same as the Big 10 or the SEC and should not be treated as such. Nobody thinks the International League winner should play the winner of the NL West.

Did you read the rest of my post?

The International League winner also isn't considered to be part of Major League Baseball. If you feel the Sun Belt shouldn't be considered Division 1 football, fine. Let's just stop pretending that they are though and call them something else. However, as it stands now they are considered Division 1, or FBS (that name needs to be changed now), and as a result they deserve a path to winning the national championship. Right now, they don't have one.

 

[BondHawk]

All I am saying is give them a shot. If they can't win the first round game then so be it, but give them a shot. They went 13-0 and did their part. With the way Iowa schedules non-conf, the only way they will EVER make the playoff is go undefeated. IF they have 1 loss, they will never make it.

So i guess by your logic no "at-large" small schools should be allowed into the NCAA basketball tournament. UNI should of never been allowed to play Kansas because thy are not a power 5 team. Makes sense.

Do you understand that basketball and football are slightly different animals? Do you think IUPUI-Fort Wayne could have beaten Indiana in football? Ok I'll grant you a Hoosiers loss, but what about any other Power 5 team outside of the Big 12?

 

[DavenportHawk8]

Do you understand that basketball and football are slightly different animals? Do you think IUPUI-Fort Wayne could have beaten Indiana in football? Ok I'll grant you a Hoosiers loss, but what about any other Power 5 team outside of the Big 12?

I guess my beef is make it available for everyone. If the qualifiers lose their first round, so be it. They can still do a playoff and include 1 non power 5 team (if rated in top 15). I was listening to some College football experts on the radio the other day and they said, "The college football playoff will ruin the bowls" I tend to agree with them. If your a top 8 team and you get left out, what's left to play for? I mean look at Michigan who went 10-2 and lost two close games. Now they get to play the 4th team out of the ACC in the "orange bowl." Whats the point of playing that game? What does it do, its basically an exhibition. Same with Wisky vs Western Michigan. Why would you pay $$ to go to that game? Why would you waste time watching it?

NFL and FCS run "true" playoff formats, but yet the BIGGEST moneymaker in college athletics can't? Doesn't make any sense.

 

[cohawk]

The blowhards on the Playoff Committee know if Conference Champions were a requirement, they know they were not needed. Jim Delaney campaigned against Penn State and Wisconsin, and Penn
State fans are ready to lynch him. I remember when Iowa won a Conference Champion in 1991
and he stuck us in the Holiday Bowl. Jim Delaney needs to go.

We lost to Michigan. So we didn't win the conference. Furthermore there wasn't any rules controls over who was picked so OSU go the nod over us for Citrus Bowl.

 

[timinatoria]

So if the hawks went 11-1 (loss to NDSU) and won the Big Ten Championship (over PSU) and didn't play anyone and there was a let just say 12-0 Clemson, 11-1 Alabama, and 11-1 Ohio State and 11-1 Washington. And the hawks were on the outside looking in, what would you think about? Would you be pumped that we get to go to the ROSE BOWL, instead of playing for a NC.

I am sure you were the same person ragging on Boise State when they were good to. They beat several Power 5 schools, but yet everyone thought they didn't deserve to be there. WMU went 13-0 and I personally think if they get to 14-0 deserve a piece of the national title.

Of WMU's 13 wins, 10 of them were to teams ranked in the bottom half of FBS.

 

[DavenportHawk8]

Of WMU's 13 wins, 10 of them were to teams ranked in the bottom half of FBS.

The same argument Colin Cowherd used on Iowa last year. They have to play the schedule they are given. They went out and won every game. Just like Iowa last year, they played a "weaker" schedule than most teams in the group of 6 New years Bowls and it showed in the Rose Bowl. Maybe in the Cotton Bowl it will show to. But what happens if WMU beats Wisky?

 

[Psyclone]

The biggest flaw with the conference champion argument is every team plays 3 (or 4) games that do not factor into a conference championship. And Ohio State/Penn state argument is a perfect example where OSU soundly beat a very good Oklahoma team while PSU got it handed to them by a good but not great Pitt squad. All things being equal the conference champion should definitely be the deciding factor, but here things were far from equal OUTSIDE of conference play (WHICH MATTERS TOO!), and that is why OSU deserves the nod over PSU.

I say pick from the conference champions. The committee would still be required to figure out which conference champions get left out and what the seeds are. The non-conference games would play a part in that.

 

[timinatoria]

The same argument Colin Cowherd used on Iowa last year. They have to play the schedule they are given. They went out and won every game. Just like Iowa last year, they played a "weaker" schedule than most teams in the group of 6 New years Bowls and it showed in the Rose Bowl. Maybe in the Cotton Bowl it will show to. But what happens if WMU beats Wisky?

So you think WMU's 2016 schedule was just as hard as Iowa's 2015 schedule?