Running CFB playoff thread

Christ almighty. What a bunch of joyless folks on this topic.

Call me crazy, but I like the games. I like games that matter, not made-for-TV, mediocre-beyond-belief bowl games that don't mean shit and haven't meant shit in several decades. Talk about ESPN and their cynical approach to the CFP, how about the fact that these bowls games that some seem mysteriously attached to are absolutely made-for-TV creations that reward the "merit" of reaching 6-6? Oh joy! Sign me up for the equivalent of a Broncos-Buccaneers bowl game.

I hope the CFP, but more so, the changes in college sports generally, kill these worthless ass bowls off. My life is not enhanced in any way, shape or form by the fucking Care Bowl. At least the Pop Tarts and Duke's Mayo Bowls camp it up for fun. That I can get behind. Jacksonville State and Ohio playing in a bowl game is not.

For every BTExpress experience with the bowls (not meaning to pick on you, BT, but you provided the example), there was mine, where I absolutely checked out and didn't care if my favorite team was playing in a random southern stadia on a random afternoon against a random opponent, and in recent years, with random players on the field thanks to many players I did know checking out of their bowl games. I can't think of a single bowl game, outside the New Year's Six, where I was chuffed by a win or depressed by a loss.

I also like the idea of the best going against the best. Sometimes, when the best go against the best, one team isn't at their best and the other "best" team can dominate as a result. Also, where is this entitled-ass notion that we are owed a classic every time there's a game played in any sport? Every single sport produces duds on the big stage sometimes. The idea that four games represents some failure of a system is laughably impatient.

I also like the idea of deciding something important, like a season champion, on the field. Novel, I know. It's only because college football was asinine for 100 years and didn't have a logical season-ending system that it seems weird to some that a playoff concept even exists. Basically, you were gaslighted for 100 years if you feel this way. In every logical way, and in every way in every other division that has zero revenue to support it, there is a playoff to decide the champion. This is not a controversial subject.

It's also not controversial to point out that playoffs don't always sort out the best team. So what? I don't see anyone bitching when the Giants beat the Patriots in the Super Bowl. Or when the third seed in a conference wins the NBA Finals. Why should college football be viewed any differently? Oregon may very well win it, but if they don't and get the equivalent of the President's Trophy, then so be it.

I definitely refuse to wring my hands about a bunch of assholes in a geographic area I don't live in that think the system is broken because their cherished three-loss team didn't make the cut. I would similarly refuse to wring my hands if said assholes were in my geographic area. The 12-team playoff is just about right to separate have's and have not's. You get to three losses, you are in among the have not's.

As for the Networkian notion that it's all TV programming, that's a cynical endgame that may have truth to it, but not to the point where it's absolute truth. The CFP game I attended over the weekend had four-figure ticket price demand on the secondary market. It was a happening. The game itself wasn't that great, but the occasion was greeted with enthusiasm that had zero to do with whether ESPN GameDay was hyping it up or not.

So Merry Christmas and long live the CFP. It may need some tweaks to make it better (I've come around to straight seeding), but having it is way better than the idiotic alternatives that we had for the rest of my days to this point.

 

Not sports tournaments, see the likely 14-win Vikings going on the road to play the 10-win Buccaneers. Seeding is a funny thing. We see it in the basketball tournament, so it's not a surprise that it's in the football tournament. They said up front that the four highest-rated conferrence champions get the byes. In the NFL the four division champions get the home games. As Clemson saw, the fifth conference champion gets placed wherever.

 

Personally I loved the BCS formula. It included nearly every ranking metric available and the final number was what it was. Sure it led to the 2001 Nebraska team coming off of a 62-36 loss getting squashed by Miami and USC being wrongly left out of the BCS title game in 2003 after Oklahoma got in despite being curb stomped by Kansas State in the Big XII title game. But again, the number was what it was and based on that the right team got in.

 

Even the seeding thing wouldn’t suck as much if you stayed with home field advantage this round. Penn State-Boise State Fiesta Bowl? I guess. Broncos hosting on the blue turf? Oh hell yes I’m in.

 

I think the opening round should be neutral sites and the quarterfinals should be home-field advantage. Reward the teams with the byes.

 

“Finebaum: Not Sure if Winner of Ohio State-Oregon Should Breathe Oxygen”

 

Really all I wanted from the CFP were more unique matchups. In round one I got Texas-Clemson meeting for the first time ever, Two teams from the south/southeast region playing in the cold northern elements and an SEC program playing at the Horseshoe for the first time since 1988. In terms of providing unique matchups the first round delivered.

 

I’ve said before that the championship game should be the only neutral site. But if you kept the semifinals at bowl games it would create some nice symmetry. The top eight seeds all host one playoff game each.

 

Because they’re not in the SEC.

 

But that was never the format of this playoff, the four champions of the highest-seeded leagues were always going to be placed in the 1-4 slots.

As the top seed, Oregon got the most favorable bracket possible under the rules, which were (for the most part), written by the SEC and the Big Ten.

Neither Tennessee nor Ohio State even played in their conference's championship game, much less won it. Ohio State might be the "most talented" team in the field, but it didn't play like it in the regular season. Tennessee was a good team that loaded up on a weak OOC schedule and, other than three-loss Alabama, the dregs of the SEC.

Not sure there's a way to "fairly" arrange the pairings when you give teams that are not top four seeds byes.

 

Given the parameters I don't see a problem with the seeds. Clemson had to be included, they were arguably the weakest team and were rightfully seeded 12th. Ohio State beat Penn State, but Penn State had a better regular season record. SMU was the last at-large team in so 11th was fine. I think they could have flopped Indiana and Tennessee, but they probably wanted to avoid a first-round rematch.

Re-seeding after Round 1 makes sense, but everything was chalk this year, so it wouldn't matter.

 

This can be all accurate and simultaneously, it's a little strange that the lead voice of the network shit all over the weekend's events, and not in a funny way.

I don't think Saban's presence helps. He's a miser, always has been, still think he's a gas station jockey or whatever back in West Virginia, and it probably helps to make him a great coach but he also seems to have an ounce of pleasure about the sport. Kirby Smart isn't any different.