Current CFP Done?

[SuperHornet]

So says this columnist, who claims that while the present format is better than its BCS predecessor, it's gone stale, as it only serves to give us a SEC rematch in lieu of more interesting matchups. He correctly notes that the last Pac-12 participant is three coaches along since jumping in, the Big XII is losing its only participant to the SEC (Oklahoma), the only ACC participant has been Clemson since Florida State in 2014, and the last Big Ten school to win it (Ohio State in 2014) failed to get in this year, and their successors made a complete hash of it in the semis. As it stands now, we're going to get this same nonsense until the current contract ends and a 12-team playoff succeeds it (if the SEC doesn't squash it) in 2026.

One major issue the article fails to cover: an expanded playoff will mean either dumping some lower-tier bowls (which should really be done anyway) or allow end-of-season FCS schools to jump in. I think a lot of people would rather see a nine- or ten-win FCS school than a five-win FBS school. Rutgers wasn't ready to compete when they were called in, were they? Also, by preventing an upset by defining it out (Cincinnati's woeful showing notwithstanding) isn't the way to go. A full 16- or 24-team playoff with auto-bids for every FBS conference choosing to participate ought to do the job.

SH's Proposed Playoff:

16 N. Illinois at 1 Georgia
15 UTSA at 2 Michigan
14 Louisiana at 3 Alabama
13. San Diego State at 4 Cincinnati
12 BYU at 5 Notre Dame
11 Utah at 6 Baylor
10 Pitt at 7 Ohio State
9 Houston at 8 Wake Forest

9 Houston at 1 Georgia
7 Ohio State at 2 Michigan
11 Utah at 3 Alabama
12 BYU at 4 Cincinnati

12 BYU at 9 Houston
11 Utah at 2 Michigan

11 Utah vs. 12 BYU

11 Utah wins National Championship

An exciting tournament simply because upsets weren't defined out. And we could still fill most of the major bowls with traditional conference matchups, which could be augmented by end-of-season FCS schools if need be. We'd probably have to revert to the traditional I-A and I-AA designations as the bowls will lose much of their luster, but that's probably for the better, IMO. Sure, many of you would take issue with some of my picks here, but that's the attraction of it for me: much better discussion than we currently get with the knee-jerk "SEC Champion is the National Champion." Yuck....

https://sports.yahoo.com/sec-domination ... 53213.html

[BDKJMU]

Lol Utah wins the Natty. You must still be drunk from last night.

[SuperHornet]

Lol Utah wins the Natty. You must still be drunk from last night.

1. SH doesn't drink.

2. SH slept through his 2355 alarm and missed the ball drop.

3. Utah winning the Natty would be better than the knee-jerk "SEC Champ is National Champ" insanity....

[GannonFan]

Lol Utah wins the Natty. You must still be drunk from last night.

1. SH doesn't drink.

2. SH slept through his 2355 alarm and missed the ball drop.

3. Utah winning the Natty would be better than the knee-jerk "SEC Champ is National Champ" insanity....

The SEC isn't cheating or isn't doing this without doing it on the field. I think you can make an argument that the lower part of the SEC, after you get past the top rung, is overrated, but the very top teams in the SEC have routinely been among the best in college football. Alabama versus Georgia is just simply a matchup of the two best teams in college football. Nothing insane about that.

[BDKJMU]

Lol Utah wins the Natty. You must still be drunk from last night.

1. SH doesn't drink.

2. SH slept through his 2355 alarm and missed the ball drop.

3. Utah winning the Natty would be better than the knee-jerk "SEC Champ is National Champ" insanity....

I know another chick like you.

[89Hen]

FWIW, I think the fact that we have #2 vs #8 in our NC game says a lot of why the CFP needs to change.

[GannonFan]

FWIW, I think the fact that we have #2 vs #8 in our NC game says a lot of why the CFP needs to change.

I think it's an apples to oranges comparison. The way that the top level of FBS does recruiting is just vastly different than what you have in FCS - there's no national stage for recruiting at the FCS level, everything is very local. There are outliers, but generally 75% or more of an FCS roster is just a few hours radius. In FBS, everyone is known everywhere, there are little to no surprises.

I don't disagree that the CFP needs to change - I think going to 8 teams at least would be a needed change. And I'm always adverse to all these neutral site games that are always played in warm climates or controlled climates. FCS does a heckuva lot of travelling and there's tough weather at times. But I wouldn't agree that we need a champion from every single conference in FBS to make it legit. There is a reason why an Alabama is in the title game so often, and it has nothing to do with a rigged playoff system. They just have the best players, year in and year out.

[SuperHornet]

FWIW, I think the fact that we have #2 vs #8 in our NC game says a lot of why the CFP needs to change.

I think it's an apples to oranges comparison. The way that the top level of FBS does recruiting is just vastly different than what you have in FCS - there's no national stage for recruiting at the FCS level, everything is very local. There are outliers, but generally 75% or more of an FCS roster is just a few hours radius. In FBS, everyone is known everywhere, there are little to no surprises.

I don't disagree that the CFP needs to change - I think going to 8 teams at least would be a needed change. And I'm always adverse to all these neutral site games that are always played in warm climates or controlled climates. FCS does a heckuva lot of travelling and there's tough weather at times. But I wouldn't agree that we need a champion from every single conference in FBS to make it legit. There is a reason why an Alabama is in the title game so often, and it has nothing to do with a rigged playoff system. They just have the best players, year in and year out.

While I realize that you're probably making a generalization here, particularly for recent memory, this isn't always the case. There have been a few years when Alabama has failed to win the SEC West, even when they were ranked #1. In 2010, 'Bama actually finished FOURTH in the SEC West (10-3, 5-3 SEC), and finished #10, failing to make the BC$, and going to the Capital One Bowl/Citrus Bowl instead (yes, they blew out Michigan State). In 2007, the Tide was even worse (7-6, 4-4 SEC), with NO ranking, though they DID win the Independence Bowl. That was Saban's first season, and it took him a year or two to gain traction. The Tide had a losing record in 2006, losing to Oklahoma in the Independence Bowl. Between Bear Bryant and Saban, the Tide was generally decent within the SEC and nationally, but certainly not the national power they were under these two fine coaches. There were even losing years sprinkled throughout, particularly during the mid-to-late '90s. Saban's the key factor right now, and when he decides that he's done with 'Bama, watch out for at least a short-term tailspin....

[UNI88]

I think it's an apples to oranges comparison. The way that the top level of FBS does recruiting is just vastly different than what you have in FCS - there's no national stage for recruiting at the FCS level, everything is very local. There are outliers, but generally 75% or more of an FCS roster is just a few hours radius. In FBS, everyone is known everywhere, there are little to no surprises.

I don't disagree that the CFP needs to change - I think going to 8 teams at least would be a needed change. And I'm always adverse to all these neutral site games that are always played in warm climates or controlled climates. FCS does a heckuva lot of travelling and there's tough weather at times. But I wouldn't agree that we need a champion from every single conference in FBS to make it legit. There is a reason why an Alabama is in the title game so often, and it has nothing to do with a rigged playoff system. They just have the best players, year in and year out.

While I realize that you're probably making a generalization here, particularly for recent memory, this isn't always the case. There have been a few years when Alabama has failed to win the SEC West, even when they were ranked #1. In 2010, 'Bama actually finished FOURTH in the SEC West (10-3, 5-3 SEC), and finished #10, failing to make the BC$, and going to the Capital One Bowl/Citrus Bowl instead (yes, they blew out Michigan State). In 2007, the Tide was even worse (7-6, 4-4 SEC), with NO ranking, though they DID win the Independence Bowl. That was Saban's first season, and it took him a year or two to gain traction. The Tide had a losing record in 2006, losing to Oklahoma in the Independence Bowl. Between Bear Bryant and Saban, the Tide was generally decent within the SEC and nationally, but certainly not the national power they were under these two fine coaches. There were even losing years sprinkled throughout, particularly during the mid-to-late '90s. Saban's the key factor right now, and when he decides that he's done with 'Bama, watch out for at least a short-term tailspin....

Do we really need to consider Alabama pre-Saban? They're a powerhouse and that is unlikely to change while he's there.

I'm with Ganny that 8 teams is a needed change.

[SuperHornet]

I agree with you about a CFP expansion being necessary, but I think 16 or 24 would be the way to go to make it fair for everyone, including the fans, because the prospect of an upset (however unlikely) would generate more interest.

Re Alabama between Bryant and Saban: my point wasn't so much that the always stunk, far from it. But there WERE "rebuilding" years sprinkled throughout, so being nationally relevant isn't always a given for ANYONE, much less Alabama. A large part of that is the quality of the HC, though not in every case. Shula was horrible, as were Franchione and DuBose (at least while they were at Alabama). Those years with Stallings and Curry were more outlying cases, as they were generally pretty good with 'Bama. Perkins was OK, but he had to deal with the post-Bryant talent drain. They weren't really "Alabama" again until Stallings came in. We're seeing a case in point right now with LSU. Who would have expected that we'd EVER see a 6-7 LSU?!? (At least, since the mid-to-late '90s or so.)

Between Bryant and Saban (7 wins or worse, "not the usual Alabama"):

2006: 6-7, 2-6 SEC (lost Independence bowl, then vacated all 6 wins due to AD-wide athlete benefits violations; HC Mike Shula)
2004: 6-6, 3-5 SEC (lost Music City Bowl; HC Mike Shula)
2003: 4-9, 2-6 SEC (HC Mike Shula)
2001: 7-5, 4-4 SEC (won Independence Bowl; HC Dennis Franchione)
2000: 3-8, 3-5 SEC (LAST PLACE SEC West; HC Mike DuBose)
1998: 7-5, 4-4 SEC (lost Music City Bowl; HC Mike DuBose)
1997: 4-7, 2-6 SEC (HC Mike DuBose)
1990: 7-5, 5-2 SEC (lost Fiesta Bowl; HC Gene Stallings)
1987: 7-5, 4-2 SEC (lost Hall of Fame Bowl; HC Bill Curry)
1984: 5-6, 2-4 SEC (HC Ray Perkins)

[GannonFan]

While I realize that you're probably making a generalization here, particularly for recent memory, this isn't always the case. There have been a few years when Alabama has failed to win the SEC West, even when they were ranked #1. In 2010, 'Bama actually finished FOURTH in the SEC West (10-3, 5-3 SEC), and finished #10, failing to make the BC$, and going to the Capital One Bowl/Citrus Bowl instead (yes, they blew out Michigan State). In 2007, the Tide was even worse (7-6, 4-4 SEC), with NO ranking, though they DID win the Independence Bowl. That was Saban's first season, and it took him a year or two to gain traction. The Tide had a losing record in 2006, losing to Oklahoma in the Independence Bowl. Between Bear Bryant and Saban, the Tide was generally decent within the SEC and nationally, but certainly not the national power they were under these two fine coaches. There were even losing years sprinkled throughout, particularly during the mid-to-late '90s. Saban's the key factor right now, and when he decides that he's done with 'Bama, watch out for at least a short-term tailspin....

Do we really need to consider Alabama pre-Saban? They're a powerhouse and that is unlikely to change while he's there.

I'm with Ganny that 8 teams is a needed change.

I clearly was talking about the last 5-8 years under Saban. No one really cares about Alabama in the 1990's and the 2000's, that's ancient history.

And yes, 8 teams is plenty. The idea that people are looking for upsets in a 16 or 24 team playoff and having that be the top attraction is just silly. I think watching teams get blown out in just the 4 team playoff we have is getting tiresome. I lose interest in the FCS and lower level playoffs because even the 16 team playoff was a little long, especially once they separated the championship game so far away from the playoffs. 24 teams seems like a lifetime. We're like 6 weeks in the the FCS playoffs right now and it's been 3 weeks since anyone played. March Madness is 3 weeks total (with far more games). The NFL playoffs are 5 weeks, but those are great weeks and the Super Bowl is a national holiday. The only thing that seems to drag on longer than the FCS playoffs are the NHL playoffs, which I think are constant and never end.