I-A Game of the Week - Week 14

[GannonFan]

Sixteen is way too many. I don't mind them having too few, at least it really limits the chances to have a bad, or multiple bad teams, in there. And once you open Pandora's box and expand, it's hard to keep it from expanding again. The FCS playoffs are overdiluted now as they are with 24 teams - never should've gone from 16. FBS has it right, keep it as small as possible for as long as possible.

8 or 16 works IMO. 24 stinks.

If you used the playoff committee rankings from today for top 16 you get:

Clemson/Oregon
Notre Dame/Florida State

Iowa /Ole Miss
Michigan St/Baylor


Alabama/Michigan
Stanford/UNC

Oklahoma/Northwestern
Ohio St/TCU

Holy **** does that look good to me.

Nah, don't need to see Ole Miss, Baylor, Michigan, Northwestern, TCU, Florida St, the loser of MSU/Iowa, or even Notre Dame (and I love the Irish) - those teams have already shown that they aren't as good as the other 8 teams in there, why do we need to repeat it again? Maybe, maybe we expand it to 8, but that's already close to being too much - I don't think Stanford should be in there, nor the loser of UNC/Clemson, so that's two too many teams in the 8 team format. Like I said, 4 gets it done just fine, and certainly the 4 in there are legitimately good teams. You don't guarantee that when you get to 8 and you certainly don't when you get to 16. Michigan just got pasted by Ohio State - why do I need to watch them lose again in a bloated playoff?

[89Hen]

Maybe, maybe we expand it to 8, but that's already close to being too much

certainly the 4 in there are legitimately good teams. You don't guarantee that when you get to 8

My contention is that I'd rather have one or two teams that don't belong, than one or two teams that get left out that probably do belong. 8 is OK IMO. 16 is fine too.

[GannonFan]

Maybe, maybe we expand it to 8, but that's already close to being too much

certainly the 4 in there are legitimately good teams. You don't guarantee that when you get to 8

My contention is that I'd rather have one or two teams that don't belong, than one or two teams that get left out that probably do belong. 8 is OK IMO. 16 is fine too.

Yeah, we just have opposite contentions then. And in your's you run the risk of over expanding in the pursuit of hopefully never missing a team or two that does belong. You really can never be sure that you haven't missed someone. In my view, you always know that you're probably missing someone but you feel pretty good that no underserving teams got in.

[89Hen]

My contention is that I'd rather have one or two teams that don't belong, than one or two teams that get left out that probably do belong. 8 is OK IMO. 16 is fine too.

Yeah, we just have opposite contentions then. And in your's you run the risk of over expanding in the pursuit of hopefully never missing a team or two that does belong. You really can never be sure that you haven't missed someone. In my view, you always know that you're probably missing someone but you feel pretty good that no underserving teams got in.

No. I agree that no matter the number, you will always have last in, last out and somebody will feel slighted (see UND this year in I-AA). But, I don't think anyone thinks UND was an actual championship contender, just that they had a better case to make a 24 team field than a couple other teams. With 8 or 16 teams, you can rest assured that every team deserving of a shot at the championship is involved.

[AshevilleApp]

Great game!

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ezV3e7uCoY[/youtube]

[GannonFan]

Yeah, we just have opposite contentions then. And in your's you run the risk of over expanding in the pursuit of hopefully never missing a team or two that does belong. You really can never be sure that you haven't missed someone. In my view, you always know that you're probably missing someone but you feel pretty good that no underserving teams got in.

No. I agree that no matter the number, you will always have last in, last out and somebody will feel slighted (see UND this year in I-AA). But, I don't think anyone thinks UND was an actual championship contender, just that they had a better case to make a 24 team field than a couple other teams. With 8 or 16 teams, you can rest assured that every team deserving of a shot at the championship is involved.

You can do that with 4. As long as there aren't more than 4 undefeated teams, every team that has a loss has lost their "deserving" tag. Of course we can have one loss teams, even two loss teams in the playoffs, but they aren't owed that because they are "deserving" - take care of your own business and you get in no matter what. Lose a game, and it comes down to a committee making a subjective decision. It'll go to 8 just because that will allow every P5 conference every year to get their champ in, and then have 3 wild cards. But there's certainly no reason to go beyond that.

[89Hen]

You can do that with 4. As long as there aren't more than 4 undefeated teams

You had to put a qualifier on it, so that shows it could be an issue. What if you have NO undefeated teams in a particular year? We almost had that this year.

[GannonFan]

You can do that with 4. As long as there aren't more than 4 undefeated teams

You had to put a qualifier on it, so that shows it could be an issue. What if you have NO undefeated teams in a particular year? We almost had that this year.

Then none are "truly" deserving and you can pick whomever you like because everyone has flaws. I was only referring to your concern that every team that is "deserving" of playing for the national title is included. If you win all of your games and play in a power conference with the strength of schedule that implies, then you are only "deserving" of playing for the national title if you're undefeated. If you lose a game, sure you can still be a national title contender and legitimately so, it's just that you now need someone else to put you in the playoff because you shouldn't automatically be there.

[89Hen]

You had to put a qualifier on it, so that shows it could be an issue. What if you have NO undefeated teams in a particular year? We almost had that this year.

Then none are "truly" deserving and you can pick whomever you like because everyone has flaws. I was only referring to your concern that every team that is "deserving" of playing for the national title is included. If you win all of your games and play in a power conference with the strength of schedule that implies, then you are only "deserving" of playing for the national title if you're undefeated. If you lose a game, sure you can still be a national title contender and legitimately so, it's just that you now need someone else to put you in the playoff because you shouldn't automatically be there.

So Clemson is the only truly deserving team this year and anyone besides Clemson winning this year should have an asterisk next to their name.

[GannonFan]

Then none are "truly" deserving and you can pick whomever you like because everyone has flaws. I was only referring to your concern that every team that is "deserving" of playing for the national title is included. If you win all of your games and play in a power conference with the strength of schedule that implies, then you are only "deserving" of playing for the national title if you're undefeated. If you lose a game, sure you can still be a national title contender and legitimately so, it's just that you now need someone else to put you in the playoff because you shouldn't automatically be there.

So Clemson is the only truly deserving team this year and anyone besides Clemson winning this year should have an asterisk next to their name.

Now you're just playing semantics - Clemson is the only one who "deserved" or was "entitled" to be in the playoffs, i.e. they didn't and shouldn't have had to have anyone say they belonged in the playoffs. In no way does that mean, and I said as much, that other playoffs teams shouldn't be there. Again, only referencing your comment that you want the playoffs to be big enough to ensure that all the teams that "deserve" to be there are in the playoffs. I took that to mean that it was clear cut that someone should be in the playoffs. I think the current setup does that, barring the possibility of five undefeated teams from the five power 5 conferences.

[89Hen]

So Clemson is the only truly deserving team this year and anyone besides Clemson winning this year should have an asterisk next to their name.

Now you're just playing semantics - Clemson is the only one who "deserved" or was "entitled" to be in the playoffs, i.e. they didn't and shouldn't have had to have anyone say they belonged in the playoffs. In no way does that mean, and I said as much, that other playoffs teams shouldn't be there. Again, only referencing your comment that you want the playoffs to be big enough to ensure that all the teams that "deserve" to be there are in the playoffs. I took that to mean that it was clear cut that someone should be in the playoffs. I think the current setup does that, barring the possibility of five undefeated teams from the five power 5 conferences.

I don't think this is semantics. Do you agree that a 1 loss SEC team is probably stronger than an undefeated MAC team? IMO a loss doesn't automatically disqualify somebody from being "deserving". What if Houston managed to get by UConn and was undefeated? They're deserving in your estimation?

[GannonFan]

Now you're just playing semantics - Clemson is the only one who "deserved" or was "entitled" to be in the playoffs, i.e. they didn't and shouldn't have had to have anyone say they belonged in the playoffs. In no way does that mean, and I said as much, that other playoffs teams shouldn't be there. Again, only referencing your comment that you want the playoffs to be big enough to ensure that all the teams that "deserve" to be there are in the playoffs. I took that to mean that it was clear cut that someone should be in the playoffs. I think the current setup does that, barring the possibility of five undefeated teams from the five power 5 conferences.

I don't think this is semantics. Do you agree that a 1 loss SEC team is probably stronger than an undefeated MAC team? IMO a loss doesn't automatically disqualify somebody from being "deserving". What if Houston managed to get by UConn and was undefeated? They're deserving in your estimation?

I already said an undefeated P5 team. In fact I've said it in two different posts. MAC and AAC don't fit that definition.

[89Hen]

I don't think this is semantics. Do you agree that a 1 loss SEC team is probably stronger than an undefeated MAC team? IMO a loss doesn't automatically disqualify somebody from being "deserving". What if Houston managed to get by UConn and was undefeated? They're deserving in your estimation?

I already said an undefeated P5 team. In fact I've said it in two different posts. MAC and AAC don't fit that definition.

And like I said, you have a lot of qualifiers to justify your position. I don't need any qualifiers to justify 8.

[Pwns]

Two was enough to crown a national champion. This four-team thing is a bunch of crap.

Michigan State doesn't deserve a shot with a loss to Nebraska and Oklahoma lost to freaking Texas. Should be Alabama and Clemson.

While we're at it, why was anyone other than NDSU, Illniois State, and Jax State even allowed in the FCS playoffs?

*sarcasm*

[CAA Flagship]

I'm in the "8" camp. I'm OK with giving a team a mulligan. Michigan St beat Michigan on a fluke play to end the game. If that was Michigan's only loss, I would like to see them have a better chance of being a playoff team.

[AshevilleApp]

Two was enough to crown a national champion. This four-team thing is a bunch of crap.

Michigan State doesn't deserve a shot with a loss to Nebraska and Oklahoma lost to freaking Texas. Should be Alabama and Clemson.

While we're at it, why was anyone other than NDSU, Illniois State, and Jax State even allowed in the FCS playoffs?

*sarcasm*

And Alabama lost to 9-3 Mississippi, who lost to Memphis. Why the tide and not the others?

And I also disagree about FCS. The MVFC should have had the eight seeds with eight other teams thrown in for warm ups before the MVFC tournament started. Enough of this 24 team crap.

[89Hen]

http://espn.go.com/blog/ncfnation/post/ ... if-you-try

No. 1 Clemson (13-0) vs. No. 8 Notre Dame (10-2)
No. 2 Alabama (12-1) vs. No. 7 Ohio State (11-1)
No. 3 Michigan State (12-1) vs. No. 6 Stanford (11-2)
No. 4 Oklahoma (11-1) vs. No. 5 Iowa (12-1)

[GannonFan]

http://espn.go.com/blog/ncfnation/post/ ... if-you-try

No. 1 Clemson (13-0) vs. No. 8 Notre Dame (10-2)
No. 2 Alabama (12-1) vs. No. 7 Ohio State (11-1)
No. 3 Michigan State (12-1) vs. No. 6 Stanford (11-2)
No. 4 Oklahoma (11-1) vs. No. 5 Iowa (12-1)

As long as I get to be Jason Segel in the picture and you're Jonah Hill.

Hey, the 8 team playoff will happen, with 5 power conferences it just makes sense to have the champs of each get in. As for the one you have shown, I'm kinda "eh" on it, and I'm a Notre Dame fan to boot. I just feel like the 4-8 seeds have already played themselves out of the playoffs by the end of the regular season anyway. Notre Dame's already lost to Clemson, Ohio St got beat at home against Michigan St in a game that was basically a playoff game, same case with Iowa, and Stanford gave themselves little room to work with by losing to Northwestern and then lost at home to Oregon - that doesn't scream "put me in" to me. But it will happen. I just don't think it has to.

[89Hen]

I just feel like the 2-8 seeds have already played themselves out of the playoffs by the end of the regular season anyway

FIFY

[GannonFan]

I just feel like the 2-8 seeds have already played themselves out of the playoffs by the end of the regular season anyway

FIFY

Nah, 'Bama won the SEC championship game and Michigan State beat Iowa on the field after beating Ohio State on the field. I'll stick with my original statement. Thanks though!

[BDKJMU]

16 would be ok with a 11 game regular season and no league championships. But with 12 regular season games and league championships that eliminates the need, and the time frame, for 16.

Either the current 4 or 8 at most. If 8, then:
-league championships 1st weekend of Dec as currently.
-qtrfinals 2 weeks later, the 3rd weekend of Dec. That Sat would always fall between the 15th-21st (this year would be Dec 19).
-Semis as currently NY Eve/Day (last yr Jan 1, this yr Dec 31).
-NC game as currently (last yr Jan 12, this yr Jan 11).

Last yr the Rose & Sugar had the semis. This yr its the Orange & Cotton. next year its the Fiesta & Peach. So take those 6 Bowls currently rotating the semis and nothing changes with the semis- each year 2 have the semis and the other 4 have the quarterfinal. Simple.

Bottom line is would always have an 8 team playoff, bowls are maintained.
-2 weeks between league championship games and round 1
-at least 10, and no more than 17 days between the qtrfinals & semis.
-current around 11 days between semis and NC game.

8 will easily work. 16 won't, and its completely unnecessary.

[UNI88]

FIFY

Nah, 'Bama won the SEC championship game and Michigan State beat Iowa on the field after beating Ohio State on the field. I'll stick with my original statement. Thanks though!

So the winner of Bama/Michigan St plays Clemson?

[GannonFan]

16 would be ok with a 11 game regular season and no league championships. But with 12 regular season games and league championships that eliminates the need, and the time frame, for 16.

Either the current 4 or 8 at most. If 8, then:
-league championships 1st weekend of Dec as currently.
-qtrfinals 2 weeks later, the 3rd weekend of Dec. That Sat would always fall between the 15th-21st (this year would be Dec 19).
-Semis as currently NY Eve/Day (last yr Jan 1, this yr Dec 31).
-NC game as currently (last yr Jan 12, this yr Jan 11).

Last yr the Rose & Sugar had the semis. This yr its the Orange & Cotton. next year its the Fiesta & Peach. So take those 6 Bowls currently rotating the semis and nothing changes with the semis- each year 2 have the semis and the other 4 have the quarterfinal. Simple.

Bottom line is would always have an 8 team playoff, bowls are maintained.
-2 weeks between league championship games and round 1
-at least 10, and no more than 17 days between the qtrfinals & semis.
-current around 11 days between semis and NC game.

8 will easily work. 16 won't, and its completely unnecessary.

I can live with that setup.

[GannonFan]

Nah, 'Bama won the SEC championship game and Michigan State beat Iowa on the field after beating Ohio State on the field. I'll stick with my original statement. Thanks though!

So the winner of Bama/Michigan St plays Clemson?

Nah, Oklahoma might have a shot to beat Clemson even though I'm not convinced they play defense in the Big 12. And the Big 12, even without a championship game, kinda played the end of the season like they had one. Pairing up all the top teams to play basically a round robin at the end worked for them - it was like a quasi championship game played over three weeks. Well done on their part.

[89Hen]

So the winner of Bama/Michigan St plays Clemson?

Nah, Oklahoma might have a shot to beat Clemson even though I'm not convinced they play defense in the Big 12. And the Big 12, even without a championship game, kinda played the end of the season like they had one. Pairing up all the top teams to play basically a round robin at the end worked for them - it was like a quasi championship game played over three weeks. Well done on their part.

Forget it 88, he's dug his feet in and will keep offering up qualifiers.