College Football Playoffs

The matchups are set. #1 Clemson vs. #4 Alabama and #2 Oklahoma vs. #3 Georgia. The rankings are below (updated as they're announced).

1: Clemson
2: Oklahoma
3: Georgia
4: Alabama
5: Ohio State
6: Wisconsin
7: Auburn
8: USC
9: Penn State
10: Miami
11: Washington
12: UCF
13: Stanford
14: Notre Dame
15: TCU
16: Michigan State
17: LSU
18: Washington State
19: Oklahoma State
20: Memphis
21: Northwestern
22: Virginia Tech
23: Mississippi State
24: North Carolina State
25: Boise State

Horrible decision by the ivory tower. It shows total disrespect for the conferences' historic ability to declare their own champions. Big 10 Champion Ohio State should be ranked ahead of non-champion Alabama, and Pac-12 Champion USC should be ranked ahead of non-champion Wisconsin.

But the committee insists they know better than the conferences' competitive formula for declaring their champions. Alabama did not beat one team ranked in the Top 25. They did not win their division or conference. They played Mercer, which does not even have football scholarships, instead of Georgia. Putting them in the Top 4 is purely a deranged beauty pageant.

We need to go to an 8-team playoff, because it is better to be overinclusive than underinclusive when you dealing with a small group of fallible decision makers.

The past two years the playoff committee has made it clear that not having 2 losses is more important than winning a conference championship. Now watch the Pac 12 and Big Ten respond by switching to an 8-game conference schedule so their teams can schedule another non-conference cupcake.

SeatownJay":1evnkvej said:

The past two years the playoff committee has made it clear that not having 2 losses is more important than winning a conference championship. Now watch the Pac 12 and Big Ten respond by switching to an 8-game conference schedule so their teams can schedule another non-conference cupcake.

Click to expand...

By giving more credit to not losing, by scheduling a team like Mercer, than to beating the best, that is what the almighty committee is encouraging. They have devalued big victories and winning conference championships in favor of playing cupcakes. Conference championships are rendered meaningless in their beauty pagent. Alabama lost their final game, didn't win their division, stayed home for the conference title game, and they still got in. Unbelievable.

So if Bama can upset Clemson in the Sugar Bowl and Georgia can upset Choklahoma in the Rose Bowl, then the committee will get the All-SEC title game they have been craving. :roll:

Washington's ranked #11, ahead of both TCU and Notre Dame.

LOL, they have three-loss Auburn ranked AHEAD of the Pac-12 champion. So losses matter . . . unless you play in the SEC.

Good news for Washington, maybe.

[tweet]https://twitter.com/Brett_McMurphy/status/937407929967349761[/tweet]

Official NY6 matchups.

Cotton Bowl: #8 USC vs. #5 Ohio State
Fiesta Bowl: #11 Washington vs. #9 Penn State
Orange Bowl: #6 Wisconsin vs. #10 Miami
Peach Bowl: #7 Auburn vs. #12 UCF

I like those matchup. Fiesta Bowl is a big deal for the Huskies. I think they can beat Penn St.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Bama getting in is bogus, I would have no problem but they haven't beaten anyone and they didn't win there conference.

I don't understand the point in having a conference championship if it has no bearing on the CFP. Why risk it?

The bright side of this is it will directly lead to an 8 team playoff. The only issue now is the SEC believing its their birth right to occupy 4 of those spots.

Told you guys there is an SEC/Big 10 bias in that order and then anyone else.
Above said an 8 team playoff is needed..I agree
Alabama getting in is BS ..Look at their schedule and I mean every year is loaded with cupcakes.
The system is not much better than the BCS when I see a 3 loss team @7

IndyHawk":33w4aows said:

Told you guys there is an SEC/Big 10 bias in that order and then anyone else.
Above said an 8 team playoff is needed..I agree
Alabama getting in is BS ..Look at their schedule and I mean every year is loaded with cupcakes.
The system is not much better than the BCS when I see a 3 loss team @7

Click to expand...

Actually, outside of UCF, I can't say anyone can have too much issue with being behind Auburn. It's a little disingenuous to complain about Alabama's standing considering their resume and also about Auburn's further down the list. Their 3rd loss was in an extra game to a high quality opponent and they have recent wins that weren't exactly either-or games over 2 playoff teams. It does still make sense to point out that both sides of the argument are used by the committee and happen to both benefit SEC teams. And there's this point about the committee's opinions changing in nonsensical ways:
"And so, there will backlash. Last week, Hocutt claimed that there was “very little separation” between the teams ranked nos. 5-8 in the poll, a group that included both Ohio State and Alabama. In between then and now, Alabama played zero times, and Ohio State won against a top-5 team. And yet Saturday, Hocutt claimed the committee considered Alabama “unequivocally better” than Ohio State. "
https://www.theringer.com/2017/12/3/16730950/ohio-state-alabama-playoff-selection
As far as potential changes, I think growing to 8 teams should happen, but let's leave automatic bids as unofficial unless we go to 16. With the conferences as big as they are and structured as they are, it's not completely unrealistic to see a truly undeserving team luck into a title just by the effect of an injury or something.