Suppose the CFB championship were decided like it was

Football (of the American variety), Roundball, Parrises Squares, Fizzbin, Quidditch, and Calvinball. Sponsored by ESPN8 - the Ocho. If it's almost a sport, we've got it here.
Post Reply
oaktonhokie
Posts: 11324
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 8:48 pm

Suppose the CFB championship were decided like it was

Post by oaktonhokie »

five years ago.

The top two teams play for the title.

Anyone have a big problem with Clemson and Oklahoma in the title game?

The point is, what is the reason for the final four tourney? To ensure that the top two teams have a chance to play for the championship or to give other teams a chance?

The only real debate this year was for the number four team, alabama or ohio state... If the goal is to get the top two teams, did the scenario do anything to make that happen or did it merely add some peripheral dressing to determine the championship?

Personally, after going back and forth for a decade on the value of a tournament, i am all for it. I think upsets are part of the game. And i think there should be six teams. All the conference champions of the Big 5, and one at large team. Make conference championships worth something.
If you bend over backwards long enough,
eventually you'll fall down.
User avatar
UpstateSCHokie
Posts: 11907
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 11:31 pm

Re: Suppose the CFB championship were decided like it was

Post by UpstateSCHokie »

If we had the old system, how would we pick the top 2 between Clemson, Oklahoma, and Georgia? Id say Clemson & Georgia (1-loss SEC champ) are the top 2 teams, but plenty of people believe Oklahoma is #2. That would be quite a controversy.
Image

“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.” ― Voltaire (1694 – 1778)
User avatar
ip_law-hokie
Posts: 19133
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:20 pm
Alma Mater: Manchester
Location: New York, NY

Re: Suppose the CFB championship were decided like it was

Post by ip_law-hokie »

oaktonhokie wrote:five years ago.

The top two teams play for the title.

Anyone have a big problem with Clemson and Oklahoma in the title game?

The point is, what is the reason for the final four tourney? To ensure that the top two teams have a chance to play for the championship or to give other teams a chance?

The only real debate this year was for the number four team, alabama or ohio state... If the goal is to get the top two teams, did the scenario do anything to make that happen or did it merely add some peripheral dressing to determine the championship?

Personally, after going back and forth for a decade on the value of a tournament, i am all for it. I think upsets are part of the game. And i think there should be six teams. All the conference champions of the Big 5, and one at large team. Make conference championships worth something.
I think you should be able to have the two best teams in a 4team playoff. I'm not sure Clemson and OK are the two best teams, but feel confident that they have the best two from the 4 they have chosen.

I like your idea though with 6. UCF should have a shot to play for it all.
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
User avatar
BigDave
Posts: 8012
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 11:20 pm
Alma Mater: Virginia Tech
Party: Republican

Re: Suppose the CFB championship were decided like it was

Post by BigDave »

Colley says that if we had the BCS this year, it would be #1 Clemson vs #2 Georgia: http://www.colleyrankings.com/foot2017/ ... ike14.html
Posted from my Commodore 64 using Tapatalk
User avatar
Bay_area_Hokie
Posts: 6027
Joined: Fri Aug 23, 2013 3:53 am
Alma Mater: VT
Party: Surprise Party

Re: Suppose the CFB championship were decided like it was

Post by Bay_area_Hokie »

We have a 64+ team tournament for hoops and people still argue about who doesn’t get in. It is just the way it is.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
“With God there are only individuals” - Philosopher Nicolas Gomez Davila
Post Reply