Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

sluggermatt15 wrote:Alabama is inside their heads.

That's certainly possible. I hope it's not the case, though. Go Dawgs!

racepug wrote:One reason I don't like the CFP involving only 4 teams is that it ensures that at least one "Power 5" champion will be excluded. With the way things have been going with the S.E.C.'s success and in any year that Notre Dame is included then you're likely down to only TWO conference champions involved in a national playoff. To me, that just isn't right. On the other hand I know somebody who is of the opinion that NO teams that aren't conference champions should be allowed in a national tournament, a viewpoint that I disagree with wholeheartedly. I think that in order to include ALL FBS conference champions and at-large teams that deserve a shot the field should be expanded to 16 teams at the very least. Personally, I would expand it to 20 teams with seeds 1 through 12 getting a first round bye (and with all first round games being held on college campuses with the Round of 16 and beyond being held at neutral sites).

Way back in the BCS days, there were allegedly 6 power conferences, with the Big East being easily the most questionable of the conferences. When conference realignment took place, the Big East was absorbed mainly into the ACC which helped the overall competitiveness of CFB. In my ideal world, the next step would have been the complete breakup of the Big12, with the teams going to the PAC10, Big10 and SEC. You could then have 4 power conferences with two divisions...the division winners would play for the conference championship, the 4 conference champions would then comprise the 4 team playoff.

The problem was/is that the Big12 insisted on continuing to exist in a weakened state, and along with Notre Dame's insistence to remain independent, you have a large disparity between the existing power conferences. I don't think a team that doesn't win its conference should be given one of the few playoff spots; to me, that is the height of arrogance of the playoff committee. Ignore what actually took place on the field and insert your own judgement as to which team is 'the best'. That is one of the big problems with the current system...too much subjectivity and retroactive justification.

racepug wrote:

sluggermatt15 wrote:Alabama is inside their heads.

That's certainly possible. I hope it's not the case, though. Go Dawgs!

It is tough to beat a good team twice in one season -- even if you are Alabama. So I think Georgia has a solid chance. If Alabama beats them twice in the same season, especially in such a short period of time, that would be very impressive.

GameBeforeTheMoney wrote:

racepug wrote:

sluggermatt15 wrote:Alabama is inside their heads.

That's certainly possible. I hope it's not the case, though. Go Dawgs!

It is tough to beat a good team twice in one season -- even if you are Alabama. So I think Georgia has a solid chance. If Alabama beats them twice in the same season, especially in such a short period of time, that would be very impressive.

Very good point. This might be the best team in UGA school history. If they can't win tonight, they never will.

it's also difficult to beat Nick Saban in a title game.

sluggermatt15 wrote:it's also difficult to beat Nick Saban in a title game.

It is. But it has been done. And I sure hope it happens tonight. Go Dawgs!

sluggermatt15 wrote:Very good point. This might be the best team in UGA school history. If they can't win tonight, they never will.

Thank you UGa Bulldogs!!!

racepug wrote:

sluggermatt15 wrote:Very good point. This might be the best team in UGA school history. If they can't win tonight, they never will.

Thank you UGa Bulldogs!!!

Well I am happy for you. Congrats on the win.

Bryan wrote:you have a large disparity between the existing power conferences.

Bingo!

Bryan wrote:That is one of the big problems with the current system...too much subjectivity and retroactive justification.

That's always been the problem with the way we've crowned the college football national champion. The difference now is that we have a half-baked "playoff" which adds an element of "let the players decide the outcome" while at the same time not really offering a fair solution, either.

sluggermatt15 wrote:Well I am happy for you. Congrats on the win.

Thanks. But to me it's not so much about the UGa Bulldogs winning as it is about 'bama losing. And only "'bama losing" because they've been so dominant of late. I like to see other teams get "a bite of the pie" once in a while.

Bryan wrote:you have a large disparity between the existing power conferences.

https://sports.yahoo.com/secs-gap-rest- ... 07428.html