|
|
Post by ag87 on Dec 10, 2016 11:17:38 GMT -8
If there are eight, Western Michigan has to be in.
|
|
|
|
Post by RenoBeaver on Dec 10, 2016 13:20:32 GMT -8
If there are eight, Western Michigan has to be in. I'm fairly certain if it goes to 8 there would be similar rules that exist now and they would reserve at minimum one spot for Indy's and non power 5 conferences, so long as they met a certain threshold, like finishing ranked in the top 12. In the case of Western Michigan they only beat 3 FCS teams with winning records this year. Their best win is 6-6 NW. So quite frankly, I wouldn't have a problem with them not getting in. Now if Houston had taken care of business with the rest of their schedule as the did with their two wins over teams ranked in the top 5, they probably would have made the current 4 team playoff. |
|
|
|
Post by ag87 on Dec 10, 2016 14:20:44 GMT -8
If there are eight, Western Michigan has to be in. I'm fairly certain if it goes to 8 there would be similar rules that exist now and they would reserve at minimum one spot for Indy's and non power 5 conferences, so long as they met a certain threshold, like finishing ranked in the top 12. In the case of Western Michigan they only beat 3 FCS teams with winning records this year. Their best win is 6-6 NW. So quite frankly, I wouldn't have a problem with them not getting in. Now if Houston had taken care of business with the rest of their schedule as the did with their two wins over teams ranked in the top 5, they probably would have made the current 4 team playoff. I semi-agree with you. With and 8-team playoff, I think the nexus for a group of five team to make the playoff should be undefeated and at least 11 wins over BCS teams. It's both a low and high threshold. I do think you need to reward an undefeated season. Now I'm curious and I'll look at how many undefeated group of five teams there have been the last few years. Edit: Not many. Since 2006, Hawaii 2007, Boise 2009, TCU 2010, Notre Dame 2012 |
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Dec 10, 2016 14:32:57 GMT -8
Oklahoma? Since the election, they have been great, but they only beat 3-9 Iowa State by 10 at the beginning of November. Beat eighth-place Baylor, third-place West Virginia, and runner-up Oklahoma State over the last four weeks by 3+ scores each. USC has been one of the best teams in the country since the beginning of October. Penn State beat seventh place Minnesota by three to start October but has looked good since. My real problem with eight this year is who is seventh, and who is eighth, and who is ninth? Off the cuff, I think that Oklahoma should get left off, but that puts USC eighth, setting up a rematch of a 52-6 game. Hard pass. Maybe drop Wisconsin and elevate USC and Oklahoma? That would probably be ideal: #8 Oklahoma @ #1 Alabama #7 USC @ #2 Ohio State #6 Penn State @ #3 Clemson #5 Michigan @ #4 Washington Or you could tweak it to limit the number of teams a conference can put in to two (conference champion plus one at large): #8 Florida State @ #1 Alabama #7 Oklahoma @ #2 Clemson #6 USC @ #3 Ohio State #5 Penn State @ #4 Washington Those would be fun, but you would totally upend the current bowl system. The bowls were in full-on meltdown, when it looked like Navy had a chance to make a Big Six Bowl. I think that you would have to start the season at least a week earlier to make that all work. Plus, until there is a team that can really win the championship finish fifth, I just do not see the need to tweak the system. Oklahoma went undefeated in a Power 5 conference. West Virginia was ranked 14th when they played in Morgantown, OSU was 10th. USC beat exactly one team with a winning record since October 8, which was indeed their signature win. Like USC, OKs losses came early in the season, against ranked teams, except there were only 2 of them. But then, that's why they are ranked ahead of USC. Now, would I bet on OK if they were playing USC? I wouldn't bet against USC against any team in this tourney except Bama, still thinks Bama whoops them bad. But I think OK would give Clemson, Penn State, and Washington a run for their money right now. And no it wouldn't totally upend the bowl system. That was media hype. They had it all worked out well before the Army Navy game but the media was still reporting how the bowl system was "paralyzed". Notice they announced the bowls literally minutes after Army/Navy. Besides, the losers would likely all be playing in the New Year's Six bowls, it's an easy reshuffling. Anyway, IMO it's going to happen at some point, not sure when but they will go to 8 minimum. If for no other reason, money. If the President of the NCAA is publicly voicing his opinion to expand to 8, that will at least start the discussion. But it may not happen 'til the current contract runs out. I have a feeling they will just move it to the end of the year, but I'd rather see them start it earlier so the losers can play in the big bowl games. But these are such huge corporate events now that they will probably just pick the 6 top bowl games and rotate them through. Oklahoma is an inferior team to Clemson, Penn State, and Washington. Oregon State beat USC in 2008, so it is possible that Oklahoma could beat one of the three, but I would bet against Oklahoma They had it worked out before the Army-Navy game, because Navy lost to Temple. If Navy had won, there could have been some serious problems. Once the Big Six filled their slots, the other bowls filled quickly. If you allow losers of quarterfinal games to goto bowls, you hold up everything a week, which is very problematic, because the bowls would start the week after. Now, if you guarantee the losers spots in the Big Six, I think that there a lot fewer problems. However, would Big Six bowls really want that? The big bowls do not work, if fan bases are not excited to attend. The Big Six would be filled by four losers and four teams that missed the quarterfinals. Yay? |
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Dec 10, 2016 14:34:18 GMT -8
If there are eight, Western Michigan has to be in. No. No, that would be awful. No. |
|
|
|
Post by RenoBeaver on Dec 10, 2016 15:01:05 GMT -8
Oklahoma went undefeated in a Power 5 conference. West Virginia was ranked 14th when they played in Morgantown, OSU was 10th. USC beat exactly one team with a winning record since October 8, which was indeed their signature win. Like USC, OKs losses came early in the season, against ranked teams, except there were only 2 of them. But then, that's why they are ranked ahead of USC. Now, would I bet on OK if they were playing USC? I wouldn't bet against USC against any team in this tourney except Bama, still thinks Bama whoops them bad. But I think OK would give Clemson, Penn State, and Washington a run for their money right now. And no it wouldn't totally upend the bowl system. That was media hype. They had it all worked out well before the Army Navy game but the media was still reporting how the bowl system was "paralyzed". Notice they announced the bowls literally minutes after Army/Navy. Besides, the losers would likely all be playing in the New Year's Six bowls, it's an easy reshuffling. Anyway, IMO it's going to happen at some point, not sure when but they will go to 8 minimum. If for no other reason, money. If the President of the NCAA is publicly voicing his opinion to expand to 8, that will at least start the discussion. But it may not happen 'til the current contract runs out. I have a feeling they will just move it to the end of the year, but I'd rather see them start it earlier so the losers can play in the big bowl games. But these are such huge corporate events now that they will probably just pick the 6 top bowl games and rotate them through. Oklahoma is an inferior team to Clemson, Penn State, and Washington. Oregon State beat USC in 2008, so it is possible that Oklahoma could beat one of the three, but I would bet against Oklahoma They had it worked out before the Army-Navy game, because Navy lost to Temple. If Navy had won, there could have been some serious problems. Once the Big Six filled their slots, the other bowls filled quickly. If you allow losers of quarterfinal games to goto bowls, you hold up everything a week, which is very problematic, because the bowls would start the week after. Now, if you guarantee the losers spots in the Big Six, I think that there a lot fewer problems. However, would Big Six bowls really want that? The big bowls do not work, if fan bases are not excited to attend. The Big Six would be filled by four losers and four teams that missed the quarterfinals. Yay? Yeah i meant v Temple. They already had it worked out either way. So no there would have been no chaos |
|
