I don't know what anyone expected. The bigger you make the playoff, the more blowouts you're going to get. If you want a more competitive first round, contract the playoffs to 8.
this post was submitted on 23 Dec 2024
-4 points (33.3% liked)
College Football
860 readers
13 users here now
A community to discuss college football.
| /c/CFB Poll Top 25 |  |
|---|---|
| 1. Oregon |  |
| 2. Texas |  |
| 3. Notre Dame |  |
| 4. Penn State |  |
| 5. ~~SMU~~ |  |
| 6. Ohio State |  |
| 7. ~~Indiana~~ |  |
| 8. Georgia |  |
| 9. ~~Tennessee~~ |  |
| 10. South Carolina |  |
| 11. Arizona State |  |
| 12. Boise State |  |
| 13. Alabama |  |
| 14. Ole Miss |  |
| T-15. Iowa State |  |
| T-15. Miami |  |
| 17. BYU |  |
| 18. ~~Clemson~~ |  |
| 19. ~~Army~~ |  |
| 20. Colorado |  |
| T-21. Syracuse |  |
| T-21. UNLV |  |
| 23. Louisville |  |
| 24. Illinois |  |
| 25. Baylor |  |
Check out our other sports communities!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I expected them to use better judgement in including at large teams. Swapping Indiana or SMU for Alabama/Ole Miss/South Carolina would have been better games. Putting Boise State and Arizona State in the first round and giving Texas and Ohio State byes would have better first and second rounds.
6/8 teams playing this week likely had no shot at winning the whole thing anyway, but we could have at least had some more competitive games.
Sec teams? Like Tennessee that got absolutely rocked by OSU?
It's a super weak argument. Only Sec homers think their conference is the end all, be all. We need less sec favoritism, not more.
Indiana did well- ND was just better. You could put any of those teams you mentioned and they get the same result, if not worse for having to play in the cold.
I'm not even an SEC fan, I just recognize there's a very real difference in depth there vs the Big10. OSU is the second best Big10 team, it's not surprising they can beat an SEC team (especially after that embarrassing loss to Michigan). I doubt Penn State or Indiana could have. Maybe the cold really is a major factor, but I think the bigger issue is teams being inflated by soft schedules.
Yeah, I think people like to pretend it's an "any given Sunday" type of deal but not really in ncaa atm. I hesitate to say each conference must have x places because I think the conferences have gotten a little more even with NIL and Nick Saban's retirement.
I agree with you on strength of schedule should matter more. That would fix most problems except the problems of weak conferences being in big media markets.
I like the playoff system and don't mind it having been expanded. I think things will start to settle out with good players moving for more playing time that the major conferences will even out in terms of talent and pur Golden Age of SEC supremacy will come to a deserved end. The middle has gotten better, but the low end is much worse. The high end is still the high end though, most places can't compete. What is happening is that schedules are wildly imbalanced which makes it look like more parity, Indiana was 0/1 top 25 wins, Georgia was 4/2.
Until proven otherwise the ACC and Big12 are irrelevant l, Clemson isn't the powerhouse it was anymore and is trending down.
I would argue they've both been irrelevant for almost 20 years. I think the ACC will spend it's basketball money to pay for some good football programs. Miami is often believed by their fans to be a good program if not a good team.
When was Clemson a powerhouse? When they could pretend that being undefeated in a poverty conference meant something. I feel the same way about the pac-10 except they have been showing more parity since the money could legally flow. I think it's easy to go into the post season well rested when a team doesn't play anybody.
Clemson won a championship in 18, and was at least competitive in the years around that. Dabo refusing to use the transfer portal has led to steady decline of the program though.
Clemson had an incredibly rare situation, 2 nfl starting caliber QBs, nc state missing easy field goals (poverty conference) and without a doubt paying players under the table. Dabo refusing to use the portal is because Clemson will never have the NIL funding needed to compete. They are an agriculture tech college that used “faith” to recruit. Oh and I forgot to mention Venables turning down HC jobs every year. Dabo has some coaching turnover and now they’re a mid level team, easy to identify, losing to SC at home.
I forgot about that 2018 win over Bama. If it was the rule rather than the exception I'd probably change my mind. My argument is largely that they were only competitive in those other years because of how weak their schedule was.
I think a leveling of the playing field due to nil and transfer portals will lead to a better product but a very different one as the coaches lose a bit of control especially in recruiting.