Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
The playoff selection is inevitably subjective and somewhat biased. It's also crazy when people apply the transitive property to sports: Team A beat Team B and Team B beat Team C, so Team A is better than Team C.

And that’s what makes the committee fun and interesting. Otherwise why even play football? Just simulate it if you want perfection.
[doublepost=1515064576][/doublepost]I’m also starting to kind of feel bad for UCF fans because it’s like cringe-inducing how far they’re taking this nonsense.
 
And that’s what makes the committee fun and interesting. Otherwise why even play football? Just simulate it if you want perfection.
[doublepost=1515064576][/doublepost]I’m also starting to kind of feel bad for UCF fans because it’s like cringe-inducing how far they’re taking this nonsense.

I agree—I'm just saying that you can't make it 100% objective. Even formulas reflect the bias of the people who created them because of the way that they weight various factors. I haven't read much about what UCF fans are saying, but didn't they end up around 10 or so in the rankings? I give them props for an unbeaten season, but that's not the only criterion.
 
I agree—I'm just saying that you can't make it 100% objective. Even formulas reflect the bias of the people who created them because of the way that they weight various factors. I haven't read much about what UCF fans are saying, but didn't they end up around 10 or so in the rankings? I give them props for an unbeaten season, but that's not the only criterion.

Agreed. What I'm saying is that it's inherently not 100% objective and that's what makes it interesting - and people need to come to accept this. Frankly, if you're upset about it "not being objective" then why even have differences between teams? Why not have the star-rated players equally dispersed between teams and the pay of all head coaches made equal? Why not have standard facilities and randomized conferences?

The system now is perfect. Absolutely perfect. You get the excitement of March Madness combined with a regular season where if you lose a game it matters. If you move to an 8-team playoff we now have teams like Auburn or Michigan State or Washington State with 2-3 losses who have a chance to get crushed by Alabama in the playoff. The regular season loses it's meaning.

As for UCF - the school is going all out and pretending that they're the national champions because they beat a 3-loss Auburn team who got lucky and upset Alabama. It's like they forget that in college football anything can happen on a given Saturday and that rivalry games are very unpredictable (kick-6 anyone?). If the coaches and administration really believed that they are the national champions, why would a coach leave a team that just won the national championship? I've never heard of that. ;)
 
I can understand why people who aren't Alabama or Georgia fans are unhappy about an all-SEC championship game. But Oklahoma and Clemson had their chance, and they didn't make it. I think playoff committee did a reasonable job within the confines of a 4-team playoff. Expansion might satisfy teams like Ohio State, but I'd be concerned about adding more games to the college football schedule. As it is, Georgia will have played 15 games, Alabama 14. That takes its toll, especially in injuries. Even the players who are relatively healthy by then are probably more injury prone at the end of the season than at the beginning.

Anyway, Georgia fans are certainly putting their money where their mouth is—apparently the cheapest tickets are going for around $1,800.
They essentially get a month off to heal. Playing one extra game won't kill them. It's not like they are playing 16 games like in the NFL. Nick Sabon was upset that he doesn't get a week to prepare for the championship game. What difference does it make, you play every week all season, and you had a month off.
 
Allegedly Lane Kiffen called some of the players dumb in the headset and he responded.
No question, and its fun to watch, but if you see any other game, Saban is not happy, he seems misrable just to be misrable. Kiffin was on an ESPN a little while ago and he mentioned that saban does that (yells at coaches) to try to keep his players and coaches from backing off when they're ahead.
 
No question, and its fun to watch, but if you see any other game, Saban is not happy, he seems misrable just to be misrable. Kiffin was on an ESPN a little while ago and he mentioned that saban does that (yells at coaches) to try to keep his players and coaches from backing off when they're ahead.

Yea - Kiffin/Saben a fun duo too
 
For the uninitiated, god damn is college football confusing. So many conferences, so many bowls, but at least I know which game matters now :p
 
Just as a friendly reminder, 3 of last 4 years Bama ended their season with a LOSS

2014 Sugar Bowl: Lost to Oklahoma
2015 Sugar Bowl: Lost to Ohio State
2017 CFP Championship: Lost to Clemson
 
Sure, thanks!

Ok here goes:

In the United States there are a ton of universities. These universities have sports programs. The universities have decided over time to form leagues. The main leagues (main primarily because of the popularity of the sports program ie. fans and because of the size and history of the university) are the Pac-12, Big-10, Big-12, SEC, and ACC. The names of these conferences are historical (why does the Big-10 have 14 teams? Well they added 4 teams and didn't change the name, etc).

These 5 conferences are colloquially referred to as the "Power-5". The reason for this is money, prestige, number of fans, history of the individual teams in the conferences, etc. . These 5 conferences are joined by 5 other conferences (MAC, AAC, some others) and they are colloquially referred to as the "Group of 5" because historically they are not great sports programs and because some other things relating to the relative academic and financial strength of the universities.

Each year, these 10 conferences play 1-4 games against each other (A Big-10 team might play a team in the MAC for example) and then the rest of their games are played against other teams in their conference. In the end, there is typically a conference championship game (the two best teams* in the league play each other to decide who the champion is).

Now that's the easy part, the hard part is the rest but here goes:

Every year, there is a poll of the associated press and the university coaches. One is called the AP poll and the other is called the Coaches poll. They are completely irrelevant and are historical, but people pay attention to them because until around the 6th week of the season they are the only quasi-official rankings that matter.

Around week 6 a new poll comes out. This is the college football playoff poll. This poll is the only poll that matters. It's a committee of some number of individuals (I don't recall) who get together, take into account all possible factors, and release a ranking of the top 25 teams in the country.

At the end of the season, the top 4 teams play in the college football playoff. The rest of the teams are invited to "bowl games" which are basically just for fun and for fans, but they do generate revenue for the sports programs and everybody gets to have a fun time. The reason there are a lot is basically because they are for fun and for the fans, and everybody leaves happy. This is also a good chance for programs that might not typically play each other to get a chance to play each other. Although it happened in the playoff, the first time Georgia and Oklahoma played each other just happened.

At the end of the day, from the perspective of an alien, the only 3 games that matter are the college football semi-finals and the championship game. But from the fans perspective, bowl games against highly-ranked teams (USC-Ohio State or Penn State - Washington for example) serve as a benchmark for the performance of the conferences and bragging rights.

Hopefully that helps - and if anybody wants to add on please do. I'm trying to be a bit unbiased here as well. If you believe what I've said is biased please let me know and I'll fix it. Maybe other people could add links to the conferences and teams and what not and turn this into a sticky.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Strelok
College football has basically destroyed the other college sports. Mainly basketball and the Big East. But it also caused a rift in the other power conferences as schools have shifted for football money. Smaller conferences get decimated or eaten up by larger conferences and it has had an effect on other sports.
 
Just as a friendly reminder, 3 of last 4 years Bama ended their season with a LOSS

2014 Sugar Bowl: Lost to Oklahoma
2015 Sugar Bowl: Lost to Ohio State
2017 CFP Championship: Lost to Clemson


Tonight is our night..
 
College football has basically destroyed the other college sports. Mainly basketball and the Big East. But it also caused a rift in the other power conferences as schools have shifted for football money. Smaller conferences get decimated or eaten up by larger conferences and it has had an effect on other sports.

College football hasn’t done anything to other college sports except enable them.
[doublepost=1515455779][/doublepost]Im thinking Alabama wins 31-10 or something along those lines. I don’t care who wins - Georgia winning is probably better for the sport, but I hope it’s a closer game.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.