CFB playoffs - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: CFB playoffs (/thread-10960.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: CFB playoffs (/thread-10960.html)
Pages:
1
2
CFB playoffs - ChicagoCard - 12-06-2015
Orange Bowl: No. 1 Clemson vs. No. 4 Oklahoma
Cotton Bowl: No. 2 Alabama vs. No. 3 Michigan State
Is the Cotton Bowl the Dallas Cowboys' stadium, not the actual Cotton Bowl?
Re: CFB playoffs - ChicagoCard - 12-06-2015
Any admins: Please delete my post. I should have used the existing Week 15 Polls thread.
Re: CFB playoffs - French Rage - 12-06-2015
As someone said in another thread, the lesson is to play Sac St. instead of real OOC opponents.
Re: CFB playoffs - stupac2 - 12-06-2015
(12-06-2015, 10:34 AM)ChicagoVisitor link Wrote:Is the Cotton Bowl the Dallas Cowboys' stadium, not the actual Cotton Bowl?
I believe so.
Re: CFB playoffs - amartinsu13 - 12-06-2015
Jeff Long just said that he "could not characterize Stanford or Ohio State as close to getting into the Top 4."
Re: CFB playoffs - stupac2 - 12-06-2015
(12-06-2015, 10:45 AM)amartinsu13 link Wrote:Jeff Long just said that he "could not characterize Stanford or Ohio State as close to getting into the Top 4."
They have to operate within the current paradigm, and that is that you rank teams by the number of losses. It is what it is.
Re: CFB playoffs - CompSci87 - 12-06-2015
Why dismiss Stanford in the same breath as Ohio State when we are conference champions and they are not?
Re: CFB playoffs - amartinsu13 - 12-06-2015
(12-06-2015, 10:50 AM)CompSci87 link Wrote:Why dismiss Stanford in the same breath as Ohio State when we are conference champions and they are not?
Because they asked him directly how close were Stanford and Ohio State.
Re: CFB playoffs - CowboyIndian - 12-06-2015
Until there's some standardization where all conferences play 9 in-conference games and every conference has a championship game, these playoff rankings will be a bad joke....which is especially poignant for us this year. If the committee can't tell that playing one fewer conference game or, in the case of the Big 12 (or is it 10), one fewer chance to lose at the end of the season to a quality opponent, I wish we'd go back to the old bowl system and argue about it all winter and summer. Was that so wrong?
Re: CFB playoffs - jacketree - 12-06-2015
Expand!!!!!!
And I hope you are using the term "system" loosely, although a bunch of cigar smoking dudes in loud blazers making back room deals is a system of sorts.
Re: CFB playoffs - jacketree - 12-06-2015
I laid out a 16 team playoff and conference realignment that would fix everything, but no one commented on it and it will never happen.
Don't see how we can be too butt hurt over this. Can't lose two games.
Re: CFB playoffs - stupac2 - 12-06-2015
(12-06-2015, 11:13 AM)garvin link Wrote:Yeah. One game wasn't enough. Three games aren't enough. Seven won't be enough. Until we're having playoff games all through December and into mid-January, everybody will complain, and even then there will be screaming about bubble teams who got screwed by the committee, just as there is now with the 66-team basketball tournament.
This is a straw man. People will always whine, just like fans of NFL teams do when they miss a wildcard but a team with a worse record wins a division, but right now the system is fundamentally unfair. It encourages candy-ass scheduling and rewards teams from weak conferences. Unless every conference winner can get in this doesn't change.
It all comes down to what you want. I just want a system where the path to the championship is relatively even for all teams. Right now that is absolutely not the case.
Re: CFB playoffs - winflop - 12-06-2015
(12-06-2015, 11:00 AM)CowboyIndian link Wrote:Until there's some standardization where all conferences play 9 in-conference games and every conference has a championship game, these playoff rankings will be a bad joke....which is especially poignant for us this year. If the committee can't tell that playing one fewer conference game or, in the case of the Big 12 (or is it 10), one fewer chance to lose at the end of the season to a quality opponent, I wish we'd go back to the old bowl system and argue about it all winter and summer. Was that so wrong?
And the CFP hypocrites walk their talk on OOC scheduling. They should just say that playing any FCS opponent will count as a loss toward playoff eligibility, regardless of outcome. If a Power 5 team wants a scrimmage, bring in an FCS team during preseason camp instead of having a controlled scrimmage against yourselves.
I really think the Pac-12 should give consideration to pulling all representation from the committee. Stanford is 12-0 against Oklahoma's garbage schedule
Re: CFB playoffs - Extra Point - 12-06-2015
(12-06-2015, 11:13 AM)garvin link Wrote:Yeah. One game wasn't enough. Three games aren't enough. Seven won't be enough. Until we're having playoff games all through December and into mid-January, everybody will complain, and even then there will be screaming about bubble teams who got screwed by the committee, just as there is now with the 66-team basketball tournament.
The biggest problem with the four team system is that in most years it won't encompass all of the teams that have a realistic chance to win the championship.
Re: CFB playoffs - OutsiderFan - 12-06-2015
Yes, the same argument about gun control. Just as limiting gun access won't stop every killing, expanding playoffs won't end every argument about who should be in. But should that stop us from trying to make things better at least incrementally? Over time, incremental changes add up, but make no changes and nothing ever improves.
Re: CFB playoffs - amartinsu13 - 12-06-2015
CFP Rankings just released.
1 Clemson
2 Alabama
3 Michigan St
4 Oklahoma
5 Iowa
6 Stanford
7 Ohio State
8 Notre Dame
9 Florida State
10 North Carolina
11 TCU
12 Ole Miss
13 Northwestern
14 Michigan
15 Oregon
16 Oklahoma St.
17 Baylor
18 Houston
19 Florida
20 LSU
21 Navy
22 Utah
23 Tennessee
24 Temple
25 USC
Re: CFB playoffs - Cardinal96 - 12-06-2015
I thought we deserved number 5 but we play the number 5 team so it is right there in front of us.
Re: CFB playoffs - stupac2 - 12-06-2015
(12-06-2015, 01:09 PM)NYCCardinalFan link Wrote:I thought we deserved number 5 but we play the number 5 team so it is right there in front of us.
Yeah, I think we clearly have a better resume and are the better team but it'll all work itself out.
Re: CFB playoffs - French Rage - 12-06-2015
(12-06-2015, 01:11 PM)stupac2 link Wrote:[quote author=NYCCardinalFan link=topic=13936.msg146255#msg146255 date=1449432577]
I thought we deserved number 5 but we play the number 5 team so it is right there in front of us.
Yeah, I think we clearly have a better resume and are the better team but it'll all work itself out.
[/quote]
Yeah as long as both teams are 5/6, doesn't really matter going in who is which.
Re: CFB playoffs - amartinsu13 - 12-06-2015
An 8 team playoff:
(1) Clemson vs. (8) Notre Dame
(4) Oklahoma vs. (5) Iowa
(3) Michigan State vs. (6) Stanford
(2) Alabama vs. (7) Ohio State