OT: Go Dawgs!

[Uppercut]

I watched the Penn State comeback last night. They look great and I can sure see their claim to a spot over Ohio State. If not it will be a good Rose Bowl game. I am afraid howvere after a night of sleep the so-called committee is about to list em as;

1. Bama
2. Penn St
3. Ohio St
4. Michigan/Clemson

Hope I am wrong

[curmudgeon]

I think you are right but Penn State or Michigan will be 4. PAC 12 & UW left at the altar......Even if UW goes undefeated in 2017, the same questions will remain:

Rutgers
Montana
Fresno St.
Cal
Oregon
UCLA
Utah
WSU
ASU
Colorado
OSU
Stanford

[c_hawkbob]

I watched the Penn State comeback last night. They look great and I can sure see their claim to a spot over Ohio State. If not it will be a good Rose Bowl game. I am afraid howvere after a night of sleep the so-called committee is about to list em as;

1. Bama
2. Penn St
3. Ohio St
4. Michigan/Clemson

Hope I am wrong

Three teams from one conference is not even a remote possibility, Especially expecting two of them, with 2 losses, to displace a 1 loss major conference champ.

[Hawkstar]

Alabama
Clemson
Washington
Penn State.

[RiverDog]

Cbob is right. This isn't about ranking the best 4 teams, it's about creating a fair playoff system.

Alabama
Ohio State
Clemson
Washington

4 teams, no more than one per conference, spread across the country. It's not perfect, but far better than the old BCS.

Being that Clemson was in a close contest last night (VaTech hung 35 on them) and that the Huskies won their conference championship in a convincing fashion, they could leap frog the Tigers for the #3 seed, but I doubt it.

I hear that the Big 10 is doing away with their divisions. Their first and second place teams will play for the conference championship. Kinda cheapens the regular season championship, doesn't it? They could quite easily have to beat the same team twice on successive weekends (Ohio State-Michigan, for example). What's the sense in trying to win your last regular season game if you're going to be playing the same team the following week in the championship game? The 2nd of the two games is the one that counts.

[burrrton]

Aaaaaand... it is:

1. Bama
2. Clemson
3. Ohio State
4. UW

[Uppercut]

Good News: My nightmare did not come true

Bad news: Alabama 14 point favorite

Nice challenge

[Hawkstar]

Good News: My nightmare did not come true

Bad news: Alabama 14 point favorite

Nice challenge

It will be fun to see what Peterson can come up with having 30 days to game plan. Go Dawgs!

[jshawaii22]

Well, that's just Peachy... Wish I could go, but it's a little out of my driving lane.

[RiverDog]

Penn State has a legitimate beef, but it's hard to elevate them above a one loss major conference champ, especially when their conference already has a representative in the playoffs. It doesn't say a lot for their conference championship game if the winner stays at home and a team that didn't even get into that game got to advance.

It's hard to tell who'll have the advantage in these intersectional games, so I wouldn't want to bet on it, but if you go by conventional wisdom, Washington is going to get crushed. If you just take a look at the players out of the SEC that get drafted by the NFL, it's pretty easy to see that there's a wide disparity of talent between them and any team out of the Pac-12.

I guess I'll need to find a good sports bar near Levi Stadium. I'll be in Santa Clara for the Hawks-Niners the following day.

[MackStrongIsMyHero]

I still argue Ohio State shouldn't be there. Penn State is legit, and they beat Ohio St. Strength of schedule be damned; if Ohio St. was so much better than Penn St, they wouldn't have lost to them.

[RiverDog]

I still argue Ohio State shouldn't be there. Penn State is legit, and they beat Ohio St. Strength of schedule be damned; if Ohio St. was so much better than Penn St, they wouldn't have lost to them.

I tend to agree. Not only did PSU beat Ohio State and won their conference championship, they've won their last 9 straight.

I continue to emphasize that this is a playoff system, not a poll or a ranking. It's not about who the best team is as much as it's about who deserves to be there. Overall record and strength of schedule should only be used as a tiebreaker and not be used to override a conference championship. That was what was so hideous about the BCS. More than once they advanced teams that did not win their conference.

[c_hawkbob]

8 team field; problem solved.

[burrrton]

8 team field; problem solved.

Until the 9th and 10th ranked teams start whining...

(I agree with you, though- 4 teams has always felt too small)

[RiverDog]

8 team field; problem solved.

Not only would it solve the problem at hand, but they could re-invent the old New Year's Day bowl games by using them to host the quarterfinals of a playoff. All New Year's Day is anymore is a conglomeration of also rans.

It doesn't matter whether it's 4, 8, 16, or 32 teams. Someone's going to get butt hurt. 8 is much fairer, as they could give 5 automatic seeds to the major conference champs and 3 at large spots to cover the Notre Dames and Boise States of the world.

[burrrton]

8 is much fairer, as they could give 5 automatic seeds and 3 at large.

Agree- the 5th-ranked team can make a reasonable argument to be considered a contender for Nation Champ that a 9th-ranked team cannot.

Although we both know eventually there will be some quirk of circumstances that will lead to the 9th-ranked team being able to make a rational argument for inclusion and we'll start this argument over.

[RiverDog]

Agree- the 5th-ranked team can make a reasonable argument to be considered a contender for Nation Champ that a 9th-ranked team cannot.

Although we both know eventually there will be some quirk of circumstances that will lead to the 9th-ranked team being able to make a rational argument for inclusion and we'll start this argument over.

The further away you get from the #1 ranking, the less credible any argument for inclusion in a playoff becomes. This year, for example, #9 would be one of a number of 3 loss teams. IMO the only real snub in a potential 8 team playoff this season would be Western Michigan, which finished 13-0 but was ranked just 15th.

8 teams seems to me to be perfect. 16 is too many, and they'd probably have to sacrifice the conference championships, which I really like, if they were to expand them that far. Besides, if you're giving automatic seeds to the Big 5, the conference championships then becomes part of the playoffs anyway and in many cases would include that 9th ranked team.

[jshawaii22]

I think you'll find a lot of opposition from the conferences with New Year's Day game affiliations for an 8 team playoff as it pretty much kills the NY's day games as having any relevance to the conferences and all the tradition that goes with it. I can just see the Rose Bowl and the Pac12's vision of a matchup that doesn't include any of the Pac12 or Big12 teams.
Looking over this year, for example, it may be the best game of the postseason... Penn State vs USC.

Four is enough for College Football.

[MackStrongIsMyHero]

What do you guys say about a conference champ that has 3 losses? It has happened before. That should not get you an automatic bid if another team in a power 5 conference has fewer losses.

[RiverDog]

I think you'll find a lot of opposition from the conferences with New Year's Day game affiliations for an 8 team playoff as it pretty much kills the NY's day games as having any relevance to the conferences and all the tradition that goes with it. I can just see the Rose Bowl and the Pac12's vision of a matchup that doesn't include any of the Pac12 or Big12 teams.
Looking over this year, for example, it may be the best game of the postseason... Penn State vs USC.

Four is enough for College Football.

I disagree, to the contrary, it would enhance it.

There's no reason why the Rose Bowl couldn't return to hosting the Big 10 and Pac 12 champs like they used to, no reason why the Sugar Bowl shouldn't get the SEC champ like they used to, or why the Orange Bowl couldn't get the ACC champ. I would bet that the major bowls would jump at the chance to host the quarterfinals on NYD. They're pretty meaningless as they are now.

[jshawaii22]

RD,

The teams are seeded # 1 - 8. and If they rotate the bowls, like they do for today, their is no guarantee that any bowl would get a certain team or teams. On the contrary, it could mean any two teams would play, depending on how they seed.

It would also change the Rose Bowl to a "Quarter Final Football Championship Game"... Not the same to me.

[c_hawkbob]

An 8 team field is inevitable. Always was. (at least as soon as there was a playoff)

[RiverDog]

RD,

The teams are seeded # 1 - 8. and If they rotate the bowls, like they do for today, their is no guarantee that any bowl would get a certain team or teams. On the contrary, it could mean any two teams would play, depending on how they seed.

It would also change the Rose Bowl to a "Quarter Final Football Championship Game"... Not the same to me.

They don't 'have' to seed the 8 teams. They could go back to the old format with the only difference being that the winners advance to play some other bowl winner.

As a player, you really don't care who you draw. If you're the best, then you should be able to beat anybody.

[jshawaii22]

They could do something in the first round that insures that the 4 affiliated bowls (Rose, Sugar, Orange and Fiesta) get their respective conference champions and blow off seeding until the first 4 games on NYEve are done. Seed based on those 4 winners. I could live that that.
Two game a week later and 1 more to close it out.

The current format has many years left before expanding to 8 will even be discussed. Took 20 years to get this far!

[NorthHawk]

It will be a home game for Alabama and they don't need any help.
I think all playoff games should be in clearly neutral sites for playoff games.

[RiverDog]

They could do something in the first round that insures that the 4 affiliated bowls (Rose, Sugar, Orange and Fiesta) get their respective conference champions and blow off seeding until the first 4 games on NYEve are done. Seed based on those 4 winners. I could live that that.
Two game a week later and 1 more to close it out.

The current format has many years left before expanding to 8 will even be discussed. Took 20 years to get this far!

That's what I have been saying. The old format was wildly successful as the conferences, fans, and chambers of commerce all loved it. The only problem was that their were 4 winners, and many times...like the one time UW won the NC and had to share it with Miami...represented the final game of the year. There was still unfinished business.

I see no problem at all with giving the Big 10 and Pac 12 fixed seeds..their two champs will face each other in the Rose Bowl regardless of where their national ranking stands. They still have a full opportunity to prove their case that they're the best in the land. As a player, I'd love it. If you're from someplace like Michigan or Iowa, it's a chance to spend Xmas in sunny SoCal.

[obiken]

It will be a home game for Alabama and they don't need any help.
I think all playoff games should be in clearly neutral sites for playoff games.

This year it doesn't matter, this Bama team is the best CFB of all time. (See Nate Silver, 538.com)

[RiverDog]

It will be a home game for Alabama and they don't need any help.
I think all playoff games should be in clearly neutral sites for playoff games.

The game will be in Atlanta, enemy territory for sure but not quite a home game. The only other option this season would be to hold it in Glendale where the other semi final game is being held. It would be easier for UW but more difficult for 'Bama, and with the Tide being the #1 ranked team, it's only fair that they get to play in the venue closest to home.

Finding legitimate neutral sites for football is really difficult. The weather complicates matters as the only suitable locations above about the Mason-Dixon line is in domed stadiums and they have to commit years in advance. There's also conflicting interests, as you want as many people to attend the game as possible and many times that means locating them within driving distance of at least one of the fan bases as it is in the case of the Alabama-Washington game.

But once again, I have to look at it from a player's perspective: If you're truly the best, then it shouldn't matter where you play them. I'd relish at the prospect: Give me your best shot, Alabama, because I don't want to hear any excuses when I whip your butt!

[Hawktawk]

This is a portable Huskies team with one loss in the last year and a half. They are going to come to play. Chris Peterson is a wizard offensively. Given a month to prepare he knocked off a very good Oklahoma team with Boise flipping state.

The game vs Colorado showed that this is not a one dimensional finesse team but capable of pounding the rock with almost anyone. The line is physical and the backs are disciplined with excellent vision and decisiveness.
The skill people are as good or better than anyone Alabama has seen in quite some time. The caveat is Browning needs to have a good game as opposed to USC or to a degree the Colorado game.
Still there is absolutely no pressure and all kinds of blackboard material for the Dawgs.
I'm not a betting man but if this line opens over 10 Id be on that like a hobo on a ham sandwich.
They can do this......

[Hawk Sista]

RiverDog - I know it is no longer called the BCS. My point was that with as much subjectivity as there is, it still feels like it. They took a step in the right direction to have a playoff scenario at all, but stopped short of creating something fair and meaningful. Is it better than it was? You bet. Does it solve the issues of the bias and subjectivity of the old BCS days? Not remotely, IMHO. That was the point I was trying to make. At the same time, it is football and there cannot be a 64 team tournament and the line has to be drawn somewhere; I like 8.

While I am sure that Penn State feels the burn today, they shouldn't have lost twice and expected to make it. Sorry.

[RiverDog]

RiverDog - I know it is no longer called the BCS. My point was that with as much subjectivity as there is, it still feels like it. They took a step in the right direction to have a playoff scenario at all, but stopped short of creating something fair and meaningful. Is it better than it was? You bet. Does it solve the issues of the bias and subjectivity of the old BCS days? Not remotely, IMHO. That was the point I was trying to make. At the same time, it is football and there cannot be a 64 team tournament and the line has to be drawn somewhere; I like 8.

While I am sure that Penn State feels the burn today, they shouldn't have lost twice and expected to make it. Sorry.

There's still some subjectivity in the CFP but not near as much as there was in the old BCS. IMO they do a pretty good job given their obvious limitation of being able to invite just the 4 teams. If Penn State has an axe to grind, it should be with the fact that Ohio State, not Washington, got invited. Penn State not only won their conference championship, they beat Ohio State. IMO that's the only screw-up the CFP made: It should have been Penn State, not Ohio State that is the Big 10 representative. Like I've said, it's not about ranking teams 1-4, it's about creating a fair playoff system. If you don't win your conference, then you do not deserve to go to the playoffs.

I think we all agree that 8 is the perfect number for a CFP, not that it will eliminate all controversy.

[Hawkstar]

I like the concept of going back to the original bowl assignments - if you win the Pac 12, you earn a spot in the Rose Bowl against the Big 12 champ. Every year I was at the U, the Rose Bowl was the prize.

If their wasn't a clear cut national champ or if teams were tied, then let the winners do the Orange, Rose or the other big bowls play a final playoff game to determine a champ.

Probably to simplistic, but I'd like to see the Rose Bowl as our goal each year.