Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'NCAA' started by Yisman, Dec 3, 2017.
Clemson vs. Alabama
Georgia vs. Oklahoma
Clemson vs Oklahoma for the Natty.
I don't think Bama should be in the CFP. They are a good team, yes. But there are only 4 spots. How can you justify giving one of them to a team that didn't even win their conference's division when there are worthy conference champions out there.
It should be a simple rule- the CFP only takes conference champions
I agree. Especially as bad as they looked in November. One of the main criteria per the selection committee is division championships. The problem is, the committee has 13 members, 3 had to recuse themselves leaving 10 members, 4 of them having ties to the SEC. The playoff teams bring tens of millions of dollars to the conference so it's just about the money. The only way to crown a true champion is to expand the playoffs.
There is a reason the NCAA doesn't recognize the national title....
Last year Ohio State got in without playing in the conference championship.
Ohio State got absolutely thrashed by Iowa. They certainly were not deserving.
Wisconsin would've been in had they beaten Ohio State.
They screwed it up last year too. Maybe I'm old school or something but I think conference titles should matter. Heck, not playing in the SEC Championship, one less physical game, might even help Bama in the CFP. That's not right
I'm sure it will - looks like they will have 3 of their linebackers back for the Clemson game.
who else you putting in besides Bama? The OSU issue last year is probably why Bama is in this year.
a conference champion like Ohio State, USC or UCF
to do that you have to go to 8 team playoff with the power 5 automatic berths and committee decides the 3 at large.
i believe it is coming in the next 5 years
That Iowa game made OSU look really bad, same with USC and ND ... not many impressive wins by Bama, but no blowouts ...
I hate Ohio State more than most people. I think Urb Meyer is a scumbag. But I don't like this argument because you are essentially saying a random midseason loss in Iowa is more important than a conference championship. I don't like that.
Plus the "looked bad" argument is very flawed. They both looked bad in those games but they looked great down the stretch. why should they be punished for how they looked in one game when everyone has losses. If Ohio State or USC lost by a field goal in double overtime in those games you mention are they in the playoff?
I mean is it a random loss or a big conference loss? Iowa bent them over. That was a bad loss. It's the same reason USC isn't in. ND made them look really bad and I am sure that left a sour taste in the voters' mouths. The 4 things in common with the 4 teams in is that they were never blown out of games.
However, I do understand, and I agree conference championships should hold more value. I asked that question BTW earlier because I didn't know who to take out instead of Alabama. I thought USC deserved more love but then again they got abused by ND. If it were a 3 point loss, I still don't think USC gets in. I don't think the committee will let a 2 loss team in until they increase the # of teams, that's why Penn State didn't get in last year. OSU was so bad last year, and I think the voters panicked
Those are fair points for sure. I think its even simpler than that though- the committee just wanted Bama/Clemson round 3. The way they pick the bowls and things is so corrupt. I bet it wasn't even a debate. Bama/Clemson III was going to happen.
I think even if Wisconsin won they may have slid Bama in the 4 spot. they were probably rooting really hard for Bama so that it erased some of the controversy that decision would've brought
You know, I completely forgot about the potential $$$ and advertisement in terms of a Clemson / Bama III ... you already see them promoting it as some big time boxing event.
Ah Wisconsin, that's a team I definitely agree with you on! I wish they won ... hopefully Bama gets blown out, that will really get the voters to scratch their heads.
Had Wisconsin won, they would've been in.
They could not have left out an undefeated school from a power conference.
Big difference between Wisconsin and Ohio State.
I disagree. I think they just have easily could've said "we're supposed to pick the 4 best teams, not the 4 best records" as their justification for Bama over Wisconsin
Well, you're wrong.
There is no chance in hell Wisconsin would've been left out.
Again, Wisconsin would've been an undefeated power conference champ.
It was a close call between Ohio State and Alabama, and Ohio State had two losses, including getting blown out by IOWA!