that was a great game

SMU might still get in, Clemson was dominant for 3 quarters and gave it away but then took it at the end, fun stuff

Probably pushes out Miami. Still wish both coach and qb did lay out their religious believes so thick.

If SMU is out, no seed 8-12 would play the CCG for fear of missing the playoffs if they lose.

Expand to 16 teams and CCG teams for the power 4 get automatic bids (but not seeds) and next 8 highest ranked teams.

Bear_Territory said:

---

Expand to 16 teams and CCG teams for the power 4 get automatic bids (but not seeds) and next 8 highest ranked teams.

---

But then, if Clemson were the 16th seed, why would they play the game? If they lost, they would be knocked out.

Just get rid of the playoff and go back to the old bowl system. I don't need the 'true number one'.

Bear_Territory said:

---

If SMU is out, no seed 8-12 would play the CCG for fear of missing the playoffs if they lose.

---

Yep. I mean if the Committee basically is saying Alabama can't drop out (or enter your favorite SEC also-ran), then why risk it?

Given SMU rallied, tied, and lost in crazy fashion, should they really be penalized for having 11 wins (2 more than Bama) but dropped for playing (and losing) a 13th game?

If 'eye test' was a thing, SMU rallying back to tie certainly looks better than any of Alabama's losses.

By the Committee's own standings, 2 of Bama's losses were to top 25 teams plus a 3rd loss to Vandy.

SMU's 2 losses were also to top 25 teams.

But it would (pleasantly) shock me if SMU stayed in the CFP, as the Committee is certainly working overtime tonight to figure out how to say "don't look at anything we've said in the past that we're about to contradict - just know that the SEC is awesome and they always should get the benefit of the doubt"

golden sloth said:

---

Bear_Territory said:

---

Expand to 16 teams and CCG teams for the power 4 get automatic bids (but not seeds) and next 8 highest ranked teams.

---

But then, if Clemson were the 16th seed, why would they play the game? If they lost, they would be knocked out.

Just get rid of the playoff and go back to the old bowl system. I don't need the 'true number one'.

---

I don't care about the old bowl system if there is not a PAC-12 with a chance Cal is going to the Rose Bowl.

The BCS should have just been the +1, the old bowl system with the two highest ranked bowl winners playing in a Championship Game.

The new system is better, you have 11 games in the playoffs with the do-or-die level of excitement of late-stage NCAA basketball tournament. The other bowls are the cherry on top.

Think about how we would have benefitted from a system like this being in place in 2004 or 2006, we would have been in it and possibly won it all or been in a championship game.

Grrrrah76 said:

---

Probably pushes out Miami.

---

Miami was already out. The billion-dollar question is if this pushes out Alabama.

Cal88 said:

---

The new system is better, you have 11 games in the playoffs with the do-or-die level of excitement of late-stage NCAA basketball tournament. The other bowls are the cherry on top.

Think about how we would have benefitted from a system like this being in place in 2004 or 2006, we would have been in it and possibly won it all or been in a championship game.

---

There would have been a playoff game at home in Memorial Stadium in the first round too, think about that.

IMHO, it should.

Cal88 said:

---

The new system is better, you have 11 games in the playoffs with the do-or-die level of excitement of late-stage NCAA basketball tournament. The other bowls are the cherry on top.

Think about how we would have benefitted from a system like this being in place in 2004 or 2006, we would have been in it and possibly won it all or been in a championship game.

---

This is FAR better than the BCS which screwed us in 2004, no doubt, but if there were no BCS, I'd have been fine with USC going to the Rose Bowl in 2004 and 2006. They did beat us after all.

The current system is still too much a beauty contest for my taste, but expanding the field is better when you have a beauty contest for invites to a tournament as we have seen with basketball. And now that we are in the ACC, there is no tradition left to cling to. I don't want the ACC's traditional bowl, so yes, given the demise of the PAC-12 and the demise of the traditional bowls, I am happy we are in the ACC and happy with the new playoff system. I just want us to not squander the opportunity we have been given before it is too late.

calumnus said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

The new system is better, you have 11 games in the playoffs with the do-or-die level of excitement of late-stage NCAA basketball tournament. The other bowls are the cherry on top.

Think about how we would have benefitted from a system like this being in place in 2004 or 2006, we would have been in it and possibly won it all or been in a championship game.

---

This is FAR better than the BCS which screwed us in 2004, no doubt, but if there were no BCS, I'd have been fine with USC going to the Rose Bowl in 2004 and 2006. They did beat us after all.

---

With no BCS (under the old bowl system), Cal probably gets another New Year's bowl invite, like to the Fiesta or something. The BCS also guaranteed spots like that to a bunch of teams that wouldn't have gotten them under the old system.

Cal88 said:

---

The new system is better, you have 11 games in the playoffs with the do-or-die level of excitement of late-stage NCAA basketball tournament. The other bowls are the cherry on top.

Think about how we would have benefitted from a system like this being in place in 2004 or 2006, we would have been in it and possibly won it all or been in a championship game.

---

As I've said before, it depends on what you want. If you want a national champion, go with a playoff system. If you want to identify the best team, go with a bowl system. They are different.

If you go with a playoff system, it should be an 8 team field. Only those teams that have a realistic chance of winning it all should be included. 9th through 16th cannot realistically be expected to win 4 games against the admittedly top teams. #8 could win 3.

The 8 team field should be 5 conference winners plus the 3 highest ranked teams left over after you take out the conference winners.

A bowl system is subjective - eye candy plus politics. But, it was one more game after the regular season. For all but a few, adding 4 games to an already long season is too much - for the viewers and the players.

golden sloth said:

---

Bear_Territory said:

---

Expand to 16 teams and CCG teams for the power 4 get automatic bids (but not seeds) and next 8 highest ranked teams.

---

But then, if Clemson were the 16th seed, why would they play the game? If they lost, they would be knocked out.

Just get rid of the playoff and go back to the old bowl system. I don't need the 'true number one'.

---

You've got my vote.
The drive to find a ''True' Number One and TV money in that Quest are destroying (have destroyed?) college football

Rushinbear said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

The new system is better, you have 11 games in the playoffs with the do-or-die level of excitement of late-stage NCAA basketball tournament. The other bowls are the cherry on top.

Think about how we would have benefitted from a system like this being in place in 2004 or 2006, we would have been in it and possibly won it all or been in a championship game.

---

As I've said before, it depends on what you want. If you want a national champion, go with a playoff system. If you want to identify the best team, go with a bowl system. They are different.

If you go with a playoff system, it should be an 8 team field. Only those teams that have a realistic chance of winning it all should be included. 9th through 16th cannot realistically be expected to win 4 games against the admittedly top teams. #8 could win 3.

The 8 team field should be 5 conference winners plus the 3 highest ranked teams left over after you take out the conference winners.

A bowl system is subjective - eye candy plus politics. But, it was one more game after the regular season. For all but a few, adding 4 games to an already long season is too much - for the viewers and the players.

---

Players?! Who cares about the players. The canard about caring for the players was proven false with the various league expansions
Show me the money!!!

Rushinbear said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

The new system is better, you have 11 games in the playoffs with the do-or-die level of excitement of late-stage NCAA basketball tournament. The other bowls are the cherry on top.

Think about how we would have benefitted from a system like this being in place in 2004 or 2006, we would have been in it and possibly won it all or been in a championship game.

---

As I've said before, it depends on what you want. If you want a national champion, go with a playoff system. If you want to identify the best team, go with a bowl system. They are different.

If you go with a playoff system, it should be an 8 team field. Only those teams that have a realistic chance of winning it all should be included. 9th through 16th cannot realistically be expected to win 4 games against the admittedly top teams. #8 could win 3.

The 8 team field should be 5 conference winners plus the 3 highest ranked teams left over after you take out the conference winners.

A bowl system is subjective - eye candy plus politics. But, it was one more game after the regular season. For all but a few, adding 4 games to an already long season is too much - for the viewers and the players.

---

I remain skeptical of the "it's too long" criticism of the playoff system. It's the same length as the FCS season + playoff.

I agree that there's a difference between "national champion" and "best team," but it's not like the old bowl system was really doing that either. Especially in seasons where 3+ teams had a legit claim at it.

sycasey said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

The new system is better, you have 11 games in the playoffs with the do-or-die level of excitement of late-stage NCAA basketball tournament. The other bowls are the cherry on top.

Think about how we would have benefitted from a system like this being in place in 2004 or 2006, we would have been in it and possibly won it all or been in a championship game.

---

As I've said before, it depends on what you want. If you want a national champion, go with a playoff system. If you want to identify the best team, go with a bowl system. They are different.

If you go with a playoff system, it should be an 8 team field. Only those teams that have a realistic chance of winning it all should be included. 9th through 16th cannot realistically be expected to win 4 games against the admittedly top teams. #8 could win 3.

The 8 team field should be 5 conference winners plus the 3 highest ranked teams left over after you take out the conference winners.

A bowl system is subjective - eye candy plus politics. But, it was one more game after the regular season. For all but a few, adding 4 games to an already long season is too much - for the viewers and the players.

---

I remain skeptical of the "it's too long" criticism of the playoff system. It's the same length as the FCS season + playoff.

I agree that there's a difference between "national champion" and "best team," but it's not like the old bowl system was really doing that either. Especially in seasons where 3+ teams had a legit claim at it.

---

that's what I loved about the bowl system. each region had a claim and the hot stove league flourished all over the country. with a playoff system, you have one winner and the rest losers.

Rushinbear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

The new system is better, you have 11 games in the playoffs with the do-or-die level of excitement of late-stage NCAA basketball tournament. The other bowls are the cherry on top.

Think about how we would have benefitted from a system like this being in place in 2004 or 2006, we would have been in it and possibly won it all or been in a championship game.

---

As I've said before, it depends on what you want. If you want a national champion, go with a playoff system. If you want to identify the best team, go with a bowl system. They are different.

If you go with a playoff system, it should be an 8 team field. Only those teams that have a realistic chance of winning it all should be included. 9th through 16th cannot realistically be expected to win 4 games against the admittedly top teams. #8 could win 3.

The 8 team field should be 5 conference winners plus the 3 highest ranked teams left over after you take out the conference winners.

A bowl system is subjective - eye candy plus politics. But, it was one more game after the regular season. For all but a few, adding 4 games to an already long season is too much - for the viewers and the players.

---

I remain skeptical of the "it's too long" criticism of the playoff system. It's the same length as the FCS season + playoff.

I agree that there's a difference between "national champion" and "best team," but it's not like the old bowl system was really doing that either. Especially in seasons where 3+ teams had a legit claim at it.

---

that's what I loved about the bowl system. each region had a claim and the hot stove league flourished all over the country. with a playoff system, you have one winner and the rest losers.

---

Being in the CFP bracket is an achievement in itself, like how the Sweet 16 or Final 4 are achievement milestones for BB programs.

They do need to tweak the seeding system IMO. I think it's good and fair that some auto-bids go to conference champions, but it should be like in basketball where you get a spot but not a guaranteed high seed. No one believes that Clemson* or Boise State are really top-four teams. It hurts the legitimacy of the tournament to have it laid out like this.

*correction: ASU

SMU is in and it was an excellent game

With all the changes in football, it seems like we get more great games to watch. I appreciate that ultimately may leave some programs behind, academics are taking more of a back seat, and if Cal doesn't get its act together...But as a college football fan, it seems the product is getting better.

Yes, doesn't make sense
Oregon at 1 gets tosu vs tenn winner
meanwhile SMU vs PaState winner plays ASU
Maybe they should reseed after first round

If you went with just straight rankings plus five auto-bids it would be:

5 Notre Dame or 12 Clemson
vs
4 Penn State

8 Indiana or 9 Boise State
vs
1 Oregon

6 Ohio State or 11 Arizona State
vs
3 Texas

7 Tennessee or 10 SMU
vs
2 Georgia

Anarchistbear said:

---

Yes, doesn't make sense
Oregon at 1 gets tosu vs tenn winner
meanwhile SMU vs PaState winner plays ASU
Maybe they should reseed after first round

---

Penn State looked really good against Oregon.

IMO, Penn State, Texas, and Ohio State are roughly even. Georgia gets the lucky break in the bracket, being matched against the Indiana-Notre Dame winner.

Somebody at UGAg must have carnal knowledge of somebody very high up in college football.

BearSD said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

Yes, doesn't make sense
Oregon at 1 gets tosu vs tenn winner
meanwhile SMU vs PaState winner plays ASU
Maybe they should reseed after first round

---

Penn State looked really good against Oregon.

IMO, Penn State, Texas, and Ohio State are roughly even. Georgia gets the lucky break in the bracket, being matched against the Indiana-Notre Dame winner.

---

Penn State never really threatened Oregon. Every time they got close, Oregon would score again

After watching this sport for over a half century, I have to say I like the system exactly where it is now. 12 teams is just the right amount. The bowl tie in was done as well as can be expected. And honestly, a controversy over the 11th and/or 12th spots can be accepted as opposed to the 4 team system when an undefeated team doesn't even get it. It's fine now, really hope they don't expand to 16, just leave it.

RedlessWardrobe said:

---

After watching this sport for over a half century, I have to say I like the system exactly where it is now. 12 teams is just the right amount. The bowl tie in was done as well as can be expected. And honestly, a controversy over the 11th and/or 12th spots can be accepted as opposed to the 4 team system when an undefeated team doesn't even get it. It's fine now, really hope they don't expand to 16, just leave it.

---

Agreed, and it still leaves room for some quality top-20 bowl matchups like Alabama-Michigan, Colorado-BYU etc

RedlessWardrobe said:

---

After watching this sport for over a half century, I have to say I like the system exactly where it is now. 12 teams is just the right amount. The bowl tie in was done as well as can be expected. And honestly, a controversy over the 11th and/or 12th spots can be accepted as opposed to the 4 team system when an undefeated team doesn't even get it. It's fine now, really hope they don't expand to 16, just leave it.

---

I would keep the tournament at this size but as noted above, seed based on the actual rankings and not conference winners (conference winners still get auto-bids though).

sycasey said:

---

RedlessWardrobe said:

---

After watching this sport for over a half century, I have to say I like the system exactly where it is now. 12 teams is just the right amount. The bowl tie in was done as well as can be expected. And honestly, a controversy over the 11th and/or 12th spots can be accepted as opposed to the 4 team system when an undefeated team doesn't even get it. It's fine now, really hope they don't expand to 16, just leave it.

---

I would keep the tournament at this size but as noted above, seed based on the actual rankings and not conference winners (conference winners still get auto-bids though).

---

We don't want to end up with 3 or 4 top seeded SEC/B1G teams, this is better.

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

RedlessWardrobe said:

---

After watching this sport for over a half century, I have to say I like the system exactly where it is now. 12 teams is just the right amount. The bowl tie in was done as well as can be expected. And honestly, a controversy over the 11th and/or 12th spots can be accepted as opposed to the 4 team system when an undefeated team doesn't even get it. It's fine now, really hope they don't expand to 16, just leave it.

---

I would keep the tournament at this size but as noted above, seed based on the actual rankings and not conference winners (conference winners still get auto-bids though).

---

We don't want to end up with 3 or 4 top seeded SEC/B1G teams, this is better.

---

Nah, I don't think it's better to have the 9th and 12th ranked teams jumped up to 3 and 4. It doesn't pass the smell test for most fans.

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

RedlessWardrobe said:

---

After watching this sport for over a half century, I have to say I like the system exactly where it is now. 12 teams is just the right amount. The bowl tie in was done as well as can be expected. And honestly, a controversy over the 11th and/or 12th spots can be accepted as opposed to the 4 team system when an undefeated team doesn't even get it. It's fine now, really hope they don't expand to 16, just leave it.

---

I would keep the tournament at this size but as noted above, seed based on the actual rankings and not conference winners (conference winners still get auto-bids though).

---

We don't want to end up with 3 or 4 top seeded SEC/B1G teams, this is better.

---

Nah, I don't think it's better to have the 9th and 12th ranked teams jumped up to 3 and 4. It doesn't pass the smell test for most fans.

---

Had SMU won last Saturday, the ACC would have been be left with one team seeded near the bottom.

A lot of fans who aren't SEC or B1G fans might prefer to not have these 2 conferences monopolize all the top seeds, they already have too many advantages as it is.

RedlessWardrobe said:

---

After watching this sport for over a half century, I have to say I like the system exactly where it is now. 12 teams is just the right amount. The bowl tie in was done as well as can be expected. And honestly, a controversy over the 11th and/or 12th spots can be accepted as opposed to the 4 team system when an undefeated team doesn't even get it. It's fine now, really hope they don't expand to 16, just leave it.

---

12 teams does seem right. First round byes are extremely important because you HAVE to reward conference champions. Especially with how many repeats there are.

Speaking of, that's my biggest gripe with this field. There are a LOT of rematches. Oregon already beat Penn State and Ohio State. Georgia and Texas have already played....twice, with the same team winning both times. If Texas wins the third in OT in a championship game would we really say Texas was better than Georgia?

3 of the 4 conference championship game losers are in the playoffs. 2 of the 4 were more or less guaranteed to be in regardless of the outcome of that game. Without the first round bye the conference championship games would mean a lot less.

If anything I'd like to put a cap of number of teams from a single conference as well. No more than 3 teams from 1 conference should make the playoffs. That's your conference winner your conference runner up and 1 wild card. If you can't be one of those teams you shouldn't be vying for the championship anyways.

College football is now even more of a meat grinder. FBS already has a 12 (or 13) game schedule. This could add as many as 4 more games, against the highest level competition (e.g., size, skill and speed). Crazy.