2018 Wisconsin Badgers football

[owbc]

The bowl matchups are uninspiring to say the least. How could any neutral fan be excited about the top-4? At least the NY6 slate looks intriguing but that's because some of those teams are probably as good or better than the top-4 but happened to play a harder schedule or lost a close game.

[MrTPlush]

More importantly another year passes and I still wonder why we still don't have an 8 team playoff. There needs to be some kind of chance for non powerhouses to have a shot. Looking at the last 3 years these are some of the teams that would have seen the playoff had it been 8 teams:

 

2018 - UCF/Michigan

2017 - Wisconsin/USC

2016 - Wisconsin/Penn State

2015 - Michigan State/Oregon/USC

 

I mean sure these aren't a bunch of mid majors, but they are teams that have very little chance to make it under the current system. An 8 team playoff would give many more teams a chance, wouldn't make conference championship games a do or die, and would leave teams some sliver of error. You would also add a lot of drama to the selection of the 7/8 seed as they would be quite similar to 9-12 seeds.

 

They have to do something eventually. While I am not a die hard college football guy I would expect 3/4 of the teams being the same every year plus a few other that revolve in to get boring.

[LouisEly]

They'd make conference championship games meaningless. And they'd just shift the argument about who the #4 team should be to who the #7/#8 teams should be.

 

As we see with the NCAA basketball tournament, you can have 64 or 68 teams in and they will still argue about who should get in and who shouldn't. End the circus - Michigan and Georgia lost twice and Ohio State lost 49-20 to Purdue, they shouldn't be in. UCF maybe has a beef, but without their QB they kind of don't.

[paul253]

An 8 game playoff would make conference championships more meaningful then they are now. Tell me, what has the Big 10 championship meant the past three years? Not a chance to compete in the playoffs. What about the Pac 12 championship? A meaningless, albeit spectacular Rose Bowl appearance. How about a conference championship for a non “Power 5” league. Doesn’t mean squat. Just a trip to a good bowl but never an actual chance. Think about it. A team goes undefeated two years in a row and doesn’t even get a chance to play for a national championship. How is that a good system?

 

As far as the whole “then the 9th and 10th best teams will complain” argument. I don’t buy it. Well they will complain but I don’t buy their complaints. First off they had every chance in the world to make it by winning their conference. And even if they can’t do that they can still be given one of two at large bids. What it would do is encourage tougher non conference games because beating good out of conference teams can really set you apart from other contenders. Plus, the further away from #1 you get the less people actually believe you can win it all. Do you seriously think anyone cares about the 69th best basketball team not making the tournament other than that teams fans? Of course not because the likelihood of them winning it all is next to nothing.

 

An 8 team playoff is such an obvious solution with an obvious setup that I have to think it will eventually happen. The winners of the five “power 5 conferences” get automatic bids, making those conference championships extremely meaningful. The highest ranked group of 5 champion gets an automatic bid IF they are ranked in the committees top 15. So for instance had Memphis beaten UCF this year there would be no group of 5 team worthy. Then two at larges. It also makes the committees job easier as all they need to do make the rankings and pick two at large teams, or three if there are no worthy group of five teams. The first round is played at the higher ranked teams campus and then the semis are played as they are now in those bowls. The other bowls would have to be filled in with non playoff teams.

 

In this setup a conference championship means an automatic bid, which it currently does not, so it is EXTREMELY important. Plus a team that literally has zero opportunity now gets a guaranteed opportunity every year. Much better system in my opinion.

[MrTPlush]

They'd make conference championship games meaningless. And they'd just shift the argument about who the #4 team should be to who the #7/#8 teams should be.

 

So? That isn't the problem I was even referring to. It is about there only being 4 teams and it being, mostly, a giant revolving door. 'Any team' ending up in the Top 4 is almost an impossible feat. It will take UCF 3+ undefeated season in a row to make it...which we could argue whether that is right or not, but point is for the majority of teams they could end up undefeated and still find a way to miss.

 

There needs to be more opportunity for the greater pool. Will it still end up Power 5 teams all the way through? Sure, but at least it allows a dominating UCF to make it eventually and at least great but not elite Power 5 teams can make it occasionally.

[coolhandluke121]

They'd make conference championship games meaningless. And they'd just shift the argument about who the #4 team should be to who the #7/#8 teams should be.

 

As we see with the NCAA basketball tournament, you can have 64 or 68 teams in and they will still argue about who should get in and who shouldn't. End the circus - Michigan and Georgia lost twice and Ohio State lost 49-20 to Purdue, they shouldn't be in. UCF maybe has a beef, but without their QB they kind of don't.

 

UCF has no beef. Can't reward being the big fish in the small pond. They haven't been especially impressive when they played other good teams.

 

I agree completely about expanding the playoffs. The regular season is the playoffs. You want in? Play a strong schedule and don't lose more than once. Don't lose to bad teams. That's it. Otherwise you're playing for a bowl game, like nearly everyone else. If you think the season is over because you're eliminated from title contention in week 6, that's your problem. The Badgers were eliminated from title contention when they lost to Minnesota in 1993 and that Rose Bowl year was still the most unforgettable sports experience of my life.

 

Football is not a tournament-style sport - especially not when most players are students first and will never play football again after they graduate. I think it's kind of asinine to act like you can just keep expanding the playoffs. It would be a crime if some 3-loss team snuck in as the 8th seed and won it in a fluke way, beating a much better undefeated team in the final. I would not recognize them as the champion. That may be how it works in basketball, but the regular season actually counts for something in football and I want to keep it that way.

 

The point of all the national championship formats they've tried in the last 25 years is just to make sure the 2 best deserving teams get to play for a title. It's to avoid Nebraska-Michigan situations with split national titles, to take the title out of the hands of stupid voters, and move on from the foolish BCS title game that often left one team out in the cold when 3 or 4 teams could make a case for being in the title game. Bottom line - you don't have a 4-team playoffs to ensure that the 4 best teams get to play for the title; you have it to ensure that the 2 best teams get to play for it a title. You have it to ensure that Clemson, Alabama, and Notre Dame get to play for the title this year. You have it so Clemson, Oklahoma, and Georgia get to play for the title last year. It's working exactly how it's supposed to.

 

The real issue is not that Ohio State, Georgia, and Oklahoma all deserved a chance this year, or that Ohio State and Alabama both deserved a chance last year. The real issue is that none of them did, because none of them could make a case for being one of the 2 most deserving teams. But you will often have at least 3 teams that can make a case, and you have to have an even number of teams, so you let one of them in and tell the others to stop complaining and do better next year. And if that team wins the playoff, they probably end up with a better resume than the 3 teams that were seeded ahead of them, so they deserve the title even though they snuck in as the 4 seed.

[coolhandluke121]

An 8 game playoff would make conference championships more meaningful then they are now. Tell me, what has the Big 10 championship meant the past three years? Not a chance to compete in the playoffs. What about the Pac 12 championship? A meaningless, albeit spectacular Rose Bowl appearance.

 

Yeah, that Rose Bowl in '94 was totally meaningless since the Badgers lost to Minnesota in week 7 or whatever. I enjoyed it so much, but in hindsight I should have just pouted all year because I knew they had no chance of winning the title.

[stoutdude04]

If nothing else, paul's idea would create more buzz and keep fans interested longer. I tuned out once I knew the Badgers weren't that good and had no shot. If they would have still had a shot at the Big 10 title and a shot at the playoff I would have watched the games until they were out of it. I prefer an 8 team playoff. Otherwise it feels like its the same 4 teams every year(I realize it's slightly different). That's boring.

[coolhandluke121]

If nothing else, paul's idea would create more buzz and keep fans interested longer. I tuned out once I knew the Badgers weren't that good and had no shot. If they would have still had a shot at the Big 10 title and a shot at the playoff I would have watched the games until they were out of it. I prefer an 8 team playoff. Otherwise it feels like its the same 4 teams every year(I realize it's slightly different). That's boring.

 

What kept fans interested before there was any national title game at all? They're going to continue to preserve the bowl system while trying to crown a true, deserving national champion based on regular season results, as they should. Letting 8 teams in the playoffs gives undeserving teams a shot.

[pacopete4]

There are 8 teams each year that deserve a shot at it. Those that don't want a playoff expansion in college football but love the NFL, NBA, NCAA bball etc... I just don't understand.

[stoutdude04]

If nothing else, paul's idea would create more buzz and keep fans interested longer. I tuned out once I knew the Badgers weren't that good and had no shot. If they would have still had a shot at the Big 10 title and a shot at the playoff I would have watched the games until they were out of it. I prefer an 8 team playoff. Otherwise it feels like its the same 4 teams every year(I realize it's slightly different). That's boring.

 

What kept fans interested before there was any national title game at all? They're going to continue to preserve the bowl system while trying to crown a true, deserving national champion based on regular season results, as they should. Letting 8 teams in the playoffs gives undeserving teams a shot.

 

More teams with a shot means more fans staying tuned in...which means more $. I obviously haven't researched anything, so I have nothing to back it up except my own personal experience, but many in my circle have tuned out much of the season since the Badgers have had no shot. Over 13 games and not having an opportunity to play other teams is why I think there should be an 8 team playoff.

 

So, we think the SEC is the top conference which means Alabama is probably the best team from the best conference, but why should't the top teams from the other conferences get a shot at Alabama? They don't have that opportunity during the regular season.

 

Why have playoffs at all? In any sport. Why not just crown the team that had the best regular season...I mean, they were the best the longest. I am sure that crappy Cardinals team didn't 'deserve' a shot, but they went on to win it all. I am sure Loyola from last year didn't 'deserve' a shot, but they made a run.

[Surhoff5]

Football is not a tournament-style sport - especially not when most players are students first and will never play football again after they graduate.

 

Football is a tournament style sport in every other level besides Division I college. From high school, D1A, DII, DIII, NFL, Canadian, AFL -- they all have a tournament to decide a winner. Four teams is just not enough. It's way too much about marketing right now. Do you think if West Virginia had the same resume as Oklahoma that they would have gotten in? I would say not a chance and that is simply not fair.

[paul253]

UCF has no beef. Can't reward being the big fish in the small pond.

 

This is precisely the problem. Your argument is essentially that no team outside the power 5 should be allowed in. Why even have them play power five teams then? Why not make their own division where they will actually get a chance if they deserve one?

 

Play a strong schedule and don't lose more than once

 

Oversimplify much?

 

Play a strong schedule. Ok well first off the majority of the teams you play are conference games that the conference schedules. You have literally zero control over whether or not that part of the schedule is strong. You only part you can control is the non conference portion. But two things about that. 1) It takes two to tango. I’m sure UCF would have loved to play Alabama this year in a non conference game. But Alabama would have to agree to it. 2) Non conference games, especially the big ones, are scheduled years in advance. Just because a team is good now deont mean they’ll be good when they play. Just ask Ohio St in regards to TCU. So you can try to schedule tough non conference games but it doesn’t always work out that way.

 

I think it's kind of asinine to act like you can just keep expanding the playoffs

 

You’re hijacking the argument. Nobody has ever suggested you keep expanding the tournament. We’ve argurd for one expansion.

 

I think it's kind of asinine to act like you can just keep expanding the playoffs. It would be a crime if some 3-loss team snuck in as the 8th seed and won it in a fluke way, beating a much better undefeated team in the final. I would not recognize them as the champion. That may be how it works in basketball, but the regular season actually counts for something in football and I want to keep it that way

 

So it’s ascinine for a three loss conference champion (let’s be real the only way they’d get in is if they’d win the conference) to have a chance to win on a fluke (you failed to mention that to even get the chance to win the championship on a fluke they’d have to win two other games against better teams, making their championship a heck of a lot less fluke) but it’s perfectly acceptable for a team to go undefeated two years in a row, one year beating the only team that beat the eventual national champion, and not even get a chance to play for the title? That’s ok?

 

you have it to ensure that the 2 best teams get to play for it a title. You have it to ensure that Clemson, Alabama, and Notre Dame get to play for the title this year. You have it so Clemson, Oklahoma, and Georgia get to play for the title last year. It's working exactly how it's supposed to.

 

I’m trying to understand what this means. You determine the “best team” by having the really good team play each other. Not by having a group of 13 people sit in a room and try to figure out on paper who “the best team” is. How can you possibly prove that Oklahoma and Notre Dame are better than Ohio St and Georgia? The answer is you can’t. Not unless they play each other.

 

And yes I understand that you can take that argument to the extreme by arguing every team would have to play every team in order to figure out who is best. But by taking all five major conference champions and the highest ranked group of five champion you, as best you can, take the teams who have proven over the course of the year to be the best of the conference and therefore most deserving to be given a shot at the playoffs

 

Yeah, that Rose Bowl in '94 was totally meaningless since the Badgers lost to Minnesota in week 7 or whatever. I enjoyed it so much, but in hindsight I should have just pouted all year because I knew they had no chance of winning the title

 

I’m sure you as a Badger fan had a great time watching that game. But if you understand what I actually argued you’d see that in terms of relevance toward the national championship it had none.

 

When the BCS when in play the only game that directly affected the national championship was the National championship game. Now not only the NC game but the semi finals directly affect the championship. If you expand to 8 then the quarterfinals would directly affect it. And under my format every major conference championship game would affect it because the winner gets in. Which makes getting to the conference championship game i.e. the regular season) meaningful. I cannot understand how you argue the regular season wouldn’t mean anything. The regular season would determine who has a chance to play for the championship. Just like it literally every other sport.

 

Letting 8 teams in the playoffs gives undeserving teams a shot

 

So every year exactly four teams are deserving and nobody else is? If that were the case everyone would agree who the four most deserving teams are and there’d be no issue. But how you can sit here and definitely argue that Oklahoma is more deserving this year than Ohio St, or vice versa for that matter, is beyond my comprehension.

[coolhandluke121]

 

So every year exactly four teams are deserving and nobody else is? If that were the case everyone would agree who the four most deserving teams are and there’d be no issue. But how you can sit here and definitely argue that Oklahoma is more deserving this year than Ohio St, or vice versa for that matter, is beyond my comprehension.

 

This is almost the exact opposite of what I'm saying. I'm not saying I can definitively say who deserves it more, Oklahoma or OSU; I'm saying I don't really care because neither team deserves it and they're just lucky you have to have an even number of teams in the playoffs. Tough luck to whoever gets left out after the hair-splitting. I only care about making sure the top 2 teams get to play for a title, and neither of them can make a case. But Clemson, Alabama, and Notre Dame can all make a case for top 2, and that happens a lot, so they got rid of the stupid BCS title game and went to a 4-team playoff. The whole crux of my argument, and the committee's (which thank goodness they aren't going to change on short-sighted whims), is that only the TWO most deserving teams deserve a chance to play for the title. The only reason for a playoff at all is that sometimes there's 3 or 4 who can make a case, but I can't ever remember a season where there were 5 teams who could all make a case for being one of the top 2 teams and deserving to play for the championship, so including 4 teams in the playoffs is sufficient.

 

They already have a good postseason system with a lot of tradition and a lot of meaningful games in great destinations. If you choose to all of a sudden stop caring about bowl games just because there's a national title game now, that's your loss. It's no different than it's ever been. Again, everyone knew UW and UCLA weren't playing for a title in 1994, but it would have been incredibly silly to pout about that. They are keeping nearly all that and adding just enough to crown a true national champion, but no more.

 

And who cares about UCF, seriously. There's no indication whatsoever, based on strength of schedule and average margin, that they could be competitive in the FBS playoffs. We've been through this whole thing with teams like Boise State in the past, and they often get exposed against the best teams. Stop barely beating Memphis - the only good decent team they regularly play every year - and they might have a little more of a case, but I still don't think they'd be competitive, and most people don't want to see the Boise State's and UCF's of the world get beat by 31 every year in a total waste of an important game.

[MrTPlush]

There is absolutely no way under this great sun we all soak under that some team is going to "sneak in" and win 3 games against the best of the best to win it all. If you find a way to win in some fluke way three games in a row...wow, get the movie equipment ready.

 

I bet one of the top 4 seeds would still win it every year (at least almost), the lower seeds would likely get beat up often. The point is to draw more interest to the playoffs, make more games meaningful, and to make dozens more teams feel like they actually have a chance. It would be great for everybody...except maybe Alabama and Clemson who make it yearly anyway.

 

I will say I do not support giving an auto bid to a mid-major type program. They will get destroyed too often...it isn't worth it and most people don't care about those team 20 miles from their stadium.

[coolhandluke121]

Football is not a tournament-style sport - especially not when most players are students first and will never play football again after they graduate.

 

Football is a tournament style sport in every other level besides Division I college. From high school, D1A, DII, DIII, NFL, Canadian, AFL -- they all have a tournament to decide a winner. Four teams is just not enough. It's way too much about marketing right now. Do you think if West Virginia had the same resume as Oklahoma that they would have gotten in? I would say not a chance and that is simply not fair.

 

I don't believe that. The teams with all the marketing are also the team's with the great recruits and tons of money from boosters, and that's why they're always in. That's not an issue with the playoff format, it's just a corollary for obvious reasons.

 

They already have an elaborate postseason system, and the only problem with it is that you can't ensure that the 2 most deserving teams get a chance to play for the title. By having 4 teams in the playoffs, you fix that, and that's all you need. Conferences and bowl traditions are still important. There's no need to revamp them completely. Some teams already play 15 games. That's already kind of stupid IMO. This isn't the NFL and playing football isn't their only job. I hate how they keep adding games. The regular season is like the playoffs because you can't afford to screw up royally if you want to compete for the title, and I'm glad they're keeping it that way. You could easily argue that we already have a 13-game tournament to decide the Final Four, so the talk of adding to the playoffs completely misses the point.

[paul253]

And who cares about UCF, seriously. There's no indication whatsoever, based on strength of schedule and average margin, that they could be competitive in the FBS playoffs

 

And yet last year, when you could have made the same argument, UCF goes and beats Auburn, the school that beat both teams who ended up in the NC game. That alone in an indication they could have been competitive in the playoffs. Nobody is suggesting they would have for sure beat Alabama. But you similarly for sure can’t claim they would have lost to them. There’s a reason games should be played on field instead of on paper.

 

We've been through this whole thing with teams like Boise State in the past, and they often get exposed against the best teams

 

What games are you looking at?

 

2007 Fiesta Bowl: #8 Boise State 43 #10 Oklahoma 42

2010 Fiesta Bowl: #6 Boise State 17 #4 TCU 10

2014 Fiesta Bowl: #20 Boise State 38 #10 Arizona 30

 

Every time Boise State made a BCS or New Years Six bowl they won, twice beating higher ranked teams. Now I do remember teams like Hawaii and Cincinnati getting blown out in BCS but it’s hardly fair to claim UCF doesn’t deserve a chance because Cincinnati got blown out by Florida in the Sugar Bowl 8 years ago (Cincinnati’s coach left before the game, nkt that it would have necessarily made a big difference but relevant).

 

I only care about making sure the top 2 teams get to play for a title, and neither of them can make a case

 

Why not? I’m just curious.

[madbad2000]

The argument will never end whether you have 8, 16 or 32 teams. The best scenario that I see is 4 super conferences. It captures the major college teams in terms of inclusion and sets up a natural 4 team championship scenario that does not involve opinions/polls. Win your conference and you're in. Beat what is in front of you and you're the champion. The debate will come from which teams to include in the super conferences, but those conversations are not involving major teams thare realistically have a shot at the title.

[coolhandluke121]

The point is to draw more interest to the playoffs, make more games meaningful,

 

Again, all I can say is that the idea that you can't stay interested in conference titles, bowl games, and the postseason when you're out of the national title hunt is a choice that some fans make. In now way is it a necessary effect of having a national title game. It was never that way before and doesn't have to be now. The Rose Bowl was granddaddy of them all for decades, regardless of whether it had national title implications.

[tmwiese55]

What I find funny about this argument is that the College Football system is at least in the top 2 playoff formats that most accurately has the best team win (that and NBA), yet it's by far the most scrutinized because it's by far the least democratic. Another part of it is the "ringzz" obsession pushed by ESPN that makes people only care about championship and acting like conference titles are irrelevant and people shouldn't care about anything other than the national title. Before this narrative started getting pushed people cared about Rose Bowls, conferences, bragging rights of winning Orange Bowls vs another big program. That said, a way to re-emphasize conference titles would be to give automatic bids.

 

Also, check out what Vegas would have UCF in for point spreads. Granted the whole point is to "give everyone a chance" but they would be considered to have no shot if they played these top teams. ETA: That said, I don't think ND is really all that good and don't doubt UCF could hang with them and win like 35% of the time. Vs the others and OSU, not so much.

[stoutdude04]

 

 

 

And who cares about UCF, seriously. There's no indication whatsoever, based on strength of schedule and average margin, that they could be competitive in the FBS playoffs. We've been through this whole thing with teams like Boise State in the past, and they often get exposed against the best teams. Stop barely beating Memphis - the only good decent team they regularly play every year - and they might have a little more of a case, but I still don't think they'd be competitive, and most people don't want to see the Boise State's and UCF's of the world get beat by 31 every year in a total waste of an important game.

 

Interesting that you bring up Boise when they beat the number 4 team in the BCS back in like...2010? I mean, under this current system that TCU team would have been the 4 seed. Boise beat them that year.

 

Last year UCF beat Auburn...who beat Alabama. You don't think that they should have even had a shot? It really does seem silly that you are so against a system that, to me and so many others, seems much better.

 

EDIT: Paul and I are in the same boat, and he has explained my thoughts clearly as well, so I think I'll just let him keep explaining it.

[MrTPlush]

It was never that way before and doesn't have to be now.

 

Change is a thing and can be okay. Just because it was one in the past doesn't mean it can't change.

[coolhandluke121]

And who cares about UCF, seriously. There's no indication whatsoever, based on strength of schedule and average margin, that they could be competitive in the FBS playoffs

 

And yet last year, when you could have made the same argument, UCF goes and beats Auburn, the school that beat both teams who ended up in the NC game. That alone in an indication they could have been competitive in the playoffs. Nobody is suggesting they would have for sure beat Alabama. But you similarly for sure can’t claim they would have lost to them. There’s a reason games should be played on field instead of on paper.

 

We've been through this whole thing with teams like Boise State in the past, and they often get exposed against the best teams

 

What games are you looking at?

 

2007 Fiesta Bowl: #8 Boise State 43 #10 Oklahoma 42

2010 Fiesta Bowl: #6 Boise State 17 #4 TCU 10

2014 Fiesta Bowl: #20 Boise State 38 #10 Arizona 30

 

Every time Boise State made a BCS or New Years Six bowl they won, twice beating higher ranked teams. Now I do remember teams like Hawaii and Cincinnati getting blown out in BCS but it’s hardly fair to claim UCF doesn’t deserve a chance because Cincinnati got blown out by Florida in the Sugar Bowl 8 years ago (Cincinnati’s coach left before the game, nkt that it would have necessarily made a big difference but relevant).

 

I only care about making sure the top 2 teams get to play for a title, and neither of them can make a case

 

Why not? I’m just curious.

 

Because I still care a lot about the Rose Bowl and other big bowl games, just like I did before there was a national title game at all. I don't see how the existence of a national title game diminishes those bowl games and conference titles any more than when the Rose Bowl had no national title implications for other reasons. Which bowl games had title implications in the past was kind of an accident, whereas now it's scripted, but that doesn't change the fact that only a few teams were playing for the national title every year and everyone else had to find meaning in whatever they did accomplish. Nothing has changed in that regard. Winning the Big Ten title and going to the Rose Bowl, with no national title implications, is no less of an accomplishment now than it was in 1994 IMO.

 

You're right about BSU. I might have had them confused with someone else, or maybe some regular season losses they had in other years where they were making a case for a top-10 ranking. I'm also conflating it with lots of bowl games against mid-majors with predictable results. Anecdotally, I feel like most mid-major bowl results have reinforced the notion that strength of schedule is a huge factor in their success, notwithstanding a few good performances here and there.

[tmwiese55]

An expanded playoff obviously makes sense to line up with all other sports, and lower levels of college football. Just have to remember they're trying to play both sides of keeping the bowl system going along with a tournament. Expand too far and eventually it could lead to just ending all other bowls, that's what they're worried about. And from what I understand the bowl system is a huge financial heist with a lot of hands in the pockets. So they're trying to have their cake and eat it too, cash cow of the CFP and cash cow of bowls. Go too far and you lose one side of that along with the tradition. Basically, I'm just saying these guys aren't idiots and know all of this stuff too, but their hands are tied a bit trying to maintain this old bowl system/tradition.

 

Another thing that needs to start being discussed now and especially if they expand is that all the games are played in the south. if the titles are going to be on the line now, you have to start having Indy, Det, and MN in the rotation for these playoff games so that at least occasionally a northern team can have an advantage.

[coolhandluke121]

What I find funny about this argument is that the College Football system is at least in the top 2 playoff formats that most accurately has the best team win (that and NBA), yet it's by far the most scrutinized because it's by far the least democratic. Another part of it is the "ringzz" obsession pushed by ESPN that makes people only care about championship and acting like conference titles are irrelevant and people shouldn't care about anything other than the national title. Before this narrative started getting pushed people cared about Rose Bowls, conferences, bragging rights of winning Orange Bowls vs another big program. That said, a way to re-emphasize conference titles would be to give automatic bids.

 

Also, check out what Vegas would have UCF in for point spreads. Granted the whole point is to "give everyone a chance" but they would be considered to have no shot if they played these top teams. ETA: That said, I don't think ND is really all that good and don't doubt UCF could hang with them and win like 35% of the time. Vs the others and OSU, not so much.

 

Great post. That's what it comes down to, on both counts: teams like UCF could only be expected to beat legit title contenders about 33% of the time, and that's only when they play weak ones, like Boise State against TCU. The fact that they do occasionally get a win in now way refutes the point that their strength of schedule and average margin of victory do not a deserving playoff team make.

 

And the point about actually having the best team win is a great one. Thanks for adding that. It's not as solid as the NBA, but it's a lot better than almost all other post-seasons. NHL is probably up there though.