2023 NCAA Football Thread

[Bamspeedy]

If FSU didnt lose their QB, they would have been a lock for top 4. With backup QB, they looked awful-Still won, but clearly not one of the best teams.

Next year getting 12 team playoff? Who got in, who didnt will be moot by then. There will still be debates, but #13 unlikely to have had legit shot at title. Remember the purists who argued they should stick to '2 team playoff?' LOL

i bet if georgia and alabamas situations were reversed, alabama wouldnt have been dropped out (texas would have been dropped). Committee loves alabama (yes, this year they got it because sec champ, but they get in even when theyre not sec champs).

 

[ummmm........]

If FSU didn't lose their QB the committee wouldn't have had an excuse to leave them out, but they still deserve to be in . . .

The committee's decisions this year coupled with the playoff expansion next year has put us in danger of regular season games losing any meaning, like in professional sports. Alabama and Georgia play again in September next year, presumably with the same coaches and same qbs. Should be a fantastic game. But with both of those teams virtually guaranteed playoff spots regardless of the outcome, I'm not sure I'll even bother to watch. I'll probably pick it up again in late October next year, around the Tennessee game, just so I can get familiar with the teams before the real season begins in December . . .

The committee actually left Alabama out last year, but you make a good point that we've certainly given the committee a lot to love ; )

 

[Bamspeedy]

Left out last year because they had 2 losses and didnt play in sec championship game.

Any other year, if alabama was ranked #1 all year until a loss in sec championship game, they still get in playoffs. That was what georgia did this year, but left out (and they werent blown out in that loss).

From four team playoffs, weve seen #3 and #4 win it all, so 2 team playoffs would have given it to the wrong team (#1 and #2 werent actually the best is how i look at it). We will see teams out of top 4 win at some point (maybe not 9-12th).

Sure, teams like alabama will lose some importance of regular season games (so no need to do 70-0 blowout of some small college in a non conference game) , but for many others it will make those games more important. Making it to the playoffs bigger than participating in a 'toilet bowl', which most of the bowl games were.

 

[ummmm........]

Correct, two loss Alabama left out in favor of one loss TCU who lost their conference championship game, despite the fact that Alabama was one of the best four teams. Which is my point, the committee has never actually done the 'best four teams' thing until this year when they used it as an excuse to leave out FSU . . .

I completely agree that Georgia has as strong argument that they are one of the best four teams, as does Michigan, Washington, FSU, Texas, Alabama and Ohio State. The thing is only three of those teams earned a spot through their play on the field, with the other four being left to argue over who is the least undeserving of the last spot . . .

I completely disagree that winning the playoffs means you deserved to be there. There are frequent examples of how allowing undeserving teams in has left us with unsatisfying champions. Just last year including TCU eliminated one of the best four teams in the semifinal and so we were left with a garbage final with a team that didn't deserve to be there. This year, if Alabama beats Michigan and Texas beats Washington so you're left with an Alabama/Texas final and Alabama wins, does that make Alabama your national champion? Why? Because beating Texas at a neutral site is somehow more impressive than beating Alabama in Tuscaloosa? No, it's because the regular season games don't matter anymore . . .

And again I agree that the playoffs themselves are going to be great, I would just rather have three months of a great regular season followed by a couple of great playoff games over three months of a meaningless regular season followed by a month of great playoff games. You can do this with any professional sport but I always use hockey because it's my favorite. I love the NHL but I'm never going to watch the regular season because anyone who's not trash is going to make the playoffs anyway . . .

 

[Bamspeedy]

Correct, two loss Alabama left out in favor of one loss TCU who lost their conference championship game, despite the fact that Alabama was one of the best four teams.

Playing in conference championship and losing better than not being good enough to play in conference championship at all, imo. You want regular season games to count, then 2 regular season losses should lose out to a team with 0 regular season losses (conference championships I consider post-season, not regular season). Yes, I understand strength of schedule arguments in that the SEC schedule more difficult, but if you want the benefits of committee looking more favorably on you for being in a tough conference, you got to take the lumps, too. 2 losses should exclude you from a four team playoff.

I completely disagree that winning the playoffs means you deserved to be there. There are frequent examples of how allowing undeserving teams in has left us with unsatisfying champions. Just last year including TCU eliminated one of the best four teams in the semifinal and so we were left with a garbage final with a team that didn't deserve to be there.

TCU beat Michigan, I'd say Michigan didn't deserve to be there. Sure, maybe with different player matchups and schemes, Michigan might have gave Georgia a better game than TCU did, but maybe not, we'll never know.

This year, if Alabama beats Michigan and Texas beats Washington so you're left with an Alabama/Texas final and Alabama wins, does that make Alabama your national champion? Why? Because beating Texas at a neutral site is somehow more impressive than beating Alabama in Tuscaloosa? No, it's because the regular season games don't matter anymore .

Alabama wins the championship game, yes, that makes them the national champions. Why play the championship game if it's already decided Texas should get it for upsetting Alabama during the regular season?

I would just rather have three months of a great regular season followed by a couple of great playoff games over three months of a meaningless regular season followed by a month of great playoff games.

So, at the start of this season, you had like maybe 10 teams that realistically* had their eyes on a chance at a national championship. Great, if you are one of those 10 teams, everybody else is just playing for a bowl game. 12 team playoffs, you're going to start the season with 30+ teams realistically* eyeing for a chance to make the 12 team playoffs.

*=I say realistically, because in theory every team dreams of it, but most realize it's not going to happen for them before they get their first L.

You can do this with any professional sport but I always use hockey because it's my favorite. I love the NHL but I'm never going to watch the regular season because anyone who's not trash is going to make the playoffs anyway . . .

Half the teams (more or less) making the playoffs kind of the standard nowadays in professional sports. Half the college teams (64 out of 119?) making a tournament won't work....it does in basketball, but that's because they can play games on back to back days if needed, or 1-2 days off in between, which as you know doesn't work for football. NHL in your example also plays 82 games, so yeah, so many games, each individual game loses it's importance, though not as much as MLB (162). NHL sit players (not activated for the game) as much as NBA does? (I don't know, don't follow hockey at all)

You are better off comparing college football to NFL, do people care about regular season NFL games?

Half the college teams are 'bowl eligible' by the end of the season (win half their games)

 

[ummmm........]

Playing in conference championship and losing better than not being good enough to play in conference championship at all, imo. You want regular season games to count, then 2 regular season losses should lose out to a team with 0 regular season losses (conference championships I consider post-season, not regular season). Yes, I understand strength of schedule arguments in that the SEC schedule more difficult, but if you want the benefits of committee looking more favorably on you for being in a tough conference, you got to take the lumps, too. 2 losses should exclude you from a four team playoff.

Correct, so FSU should have been included as an undefeated conference champion, regardless of whether they were one of the 'best four teams' . . .

TCU beat Michigan, I'd say Michigan didn't deserve to be there. Sure, maybe with different player matchups and schemes, Michigan might have gave Georgia a better game than TCU did, but maybe not, we'll never know.

By which logic KState beat TCU, so TCU didn't deserve to be there . . .

Alabama wins the championship game, yes, that makes them the national champions. Why play the championship game if it's already decided Texas should get it for upsetting Alabama during the regular season?

Rendering the regular season game meaningless, proving my point . . .

So, at the start of this season, you had like maybe 10 teams that realistically* had their eyes on a chance at a national championship. Great, if you are one of those 10 teams, everybody else is just playing for a bowl game. 12 team playoffs, you're going to start the season with 30+ teams realistically* eyeing for a chance to make the 12 team playoffs.

*=I say realistically, because in theory every team dreams of it, but most realize it's not going to happen for them before they get their first L.



Half the teams (more or less) making the playoffs kind of the standard nowadays in professional sports. Half the college teams (64 out of 119?) making a tournament won't work....it does in basketball, but that's because they can play games on back to back days if needed, or 1-2 days off in between, which as you know doesn't work for football. NHL in your example also plays 82 games, so yeah, so many games, each individual game loses it's importance, though not as much as MLB (162). NHL sit players (not activated for the game) as much as NBA does? (I don't know, don't follow hockey at all)

You are better off comparing college football to NFL, do people care about regular season NFL games?

Half the college teams are 'bowl eligible' by the end of the season (win half their games)

Increasing the number of teams in the playoffs does not increase the number of teams with a realistic chance of winning a national title at the beginning of the season, it just keeps the hopes of that same small number of teams alive late in the season even after they've lost a game or two, since the regular season games are rendered meaningless . . .

 

[Bamspeedy]

Increasing the number of teams in the playoffs does not increase the number of teams with a realistic chance of winning a national title at the beginning of the season, it just keeps the hopes of that same small number of teams alive late in the season even after they've lost a game or two, since the regular season games are rendered meaningless . . .

Still 10 teams aiming for title yes, but 30 teams aiming for just getting into the playoffs. Just getting into the playoffs will be big for those colleges even if they know they (likely) wont win it all. Bigger than getting invited to some bowl game no one cares about.

Correct, so FSU should have been included as an undefeated conference champion, regardless of whether they were one of the 'best four teams' . . .

Mock 'Best four teams' when there have been times teams have been let in because of 'resumes from previous years'/who their coach is (not that they werent a good team, but it was a little factor in the committee's decision, which may have tipped the scales. cant recall the year or if it was alabama or ohio state, but they faced criticism for it and may have influenced decisions in later years...)

Rendering the regular season game meaningless, proving my point . . .

So you want to declare a national champion based ONLY on regular season? In your example you compared win in neutral field to win on the road. what about thinking who did better when facing elimination.

 

[ummmm........]

What I want isn't really relevant bc my opinion isn't going to impact the direction of the sport but yes, we would have been better off if we had focused on keeping the number of playoff teams restricted to the number necessary to determine a national champion after a limited regular season, which has never been more than three . . .

 

[Quintillus]

We're now most of the way through bowl season, and... wow, what a bad year for bowl games so far. I hear Kansas State/NC State was worth watching, but has anything else been worthwhile?

Oregon State versus Notre Dame was a joke. Half of Oregon State was transferring to other conferences. Watched about half of the second quarter and realized there was no point in watching any more.

Ohio State versus Missouri was a punt-fest. Missouri and Ohio State's defense showed up, but Ohio State's key offensive players transferred (starting QB, WR, top two backup/platoon RBs), opted out (WR), or (backup QB) got injured early, and it was essentially watching Iowa play Iowa, but without any attempts at big punt returns, so even more boring. It took 43 minutes for either team to reach the red zone, which feels like it must be some sort of record, especially considering how both teams had pretty good offenses in the regular season.

Kirby Smart is right that something needs to be done to prevent a repeat of Georgia versus Florida State. I'm not sure whether Florida State or Oregon State had the worse transfer/opt-out situation, but that was not a game. Saw about two minutes of that one today and am glad I didn't see any more of it.

Penn State versus Ole Miss wasn't as badly affected, but Penn State had three starting defensive players opt out (versus Ole Miss missing one), and Ole Miss won by 13, heavily targeting those usual backups, so one has to wonder if it wouldn't have been a much more exciting game at the end if both teams were at full strength. I only saw the last 4-5 minutes, but there wasn't much drama.

Five or ten years ago, I could see the value in paying for a streaming service to watch bowl games, with generally well-matched teams. Now... I would not pay to watch this.

NFL opt-outs are certainly part of it, but I think the even bigger problem is the transfer portal. There are two transfer portal windows, but why does one of them open before the bowl games? The Committee has already notified the world that games played in the ACC don't matter, and the transfer portal opening prior to bowl season essentially broadcasts that bowl games don't matter either. Why even play them if they don't matter, especially if they're played with second-string rosters? We might as well go back to just having half a dozen bowl games that do matter, and not play the other 37 of them.

 

[ummmm........]

The bowls are really just one-off exhibitions, outside the playoffs. They're more about setting up for the next year than they are about the season that just ended. I enjoy watching them, but I wouldn't use them as a meaningful measure of the quality of the teams that played in the regular season. It used to be you could use the bowl games to compare conferences, but not any more. I don't think moving the portal dates would do any good, bc players who plan to enter the portal would opt out regardless of whether they can go ahead and transfer or not . . .

It's only going to get worse moving forward, as next year not only the bowls but also the conference title games and the vast majority of the regular season games are going to be irrelevant as well. Sad times . . .

The highlights of the bowl season for me so far have been watching Clemson score twenty-eight of their thirty-eight points in the fourth quarter to edge Kentucky by three and watching Wyoming come back and beat Toledo on a last second field goal today. Neither of those were games I would have been likely to watch in the regular season . . .