Cougs hold steady
- Thread starter kougkurt
- Start date
It’s tough when you win your last 2 games, one of which is vs a top passing defense nationally when you’re a passing team, and another by 3+ scores on the road. Especially when LSU has had 2 statement games over that span in which they were shut out at home and squeaked by a floundering Arkansas.
I seriously read about our Cal game that we “were 30 seconds from losing” to Cal. Shows that Cougar football is still 5+ years of Top 10 seasons away from being appointment viewing for national sports journalists, as clearly NOBODY outside the NW watched it if that’s the writeup. But it’s funny how that’s more of a ding than being humiliated at home like LSU.
I think this team could take LSU. It'd be a battle, but hardly impossible. The only two teams with a talent gap we wouldn't be able contend with are Bama and Clemson, maybe Georgia because of their running game, maybe
30 seconds from losing is an exaggeration, but if we don’t come up with the INT in the end zone late, that game was looking dark.
Are we better than LSU, Oklahoma, etc.? I don’t know. The stupidity surrounding the playoff is that AT THE LEAST, it needs to be expanded to include all of the P5 conference champions, and 3 at large teams. The current system is embarrassing.
What’s really ironic is that they had the system mostly figured out with the old BCS alignment. Let the 4 major, traditional bowls serve as the first round of the 8-team playoff. The NCAA blew it, again.
Heck, I would even be happy with 5 conference champions with one wild card. I would never want it to go beyond 8.
8 is a perfect number. Gives the undefeated non power 5 a chance to dance and I think if you are 9th and on the outside looking in you are most likely a 2 loss team that had your chances and probably would not have much of a chance against the #1 team.
The BCS was great when there were two teams but it failed when there were three (2003 USC, 2004 Auburn). The 4 team playoff was created to account for the third (or in the odd year fourth) team. Every Game Matters, that's what CFB has always been about. Watering the playoff down to 8 or even 6 teams would jeopardize that. Right now a close loss in LA back in September matters, as it should.
If the Cougs TCB, they will easily leap over a two loss LSU or Georgia. The 4 team makes qualifying harder than just winning your conference. The 4 team is as close to perfect as it can get IMHO.
If the Cougs TCB, they will easily leap over a two loss LSU or Georgia. The 4 team makes qualifying harder than just winning your conference. The 4 team is as close to perfect as it can get IMHO.
This is my problem with eight. It waters down the playoffs and regular season in my opinion. Since I believe that the system is rigged for the SEC, we would constantly see 2-3 SEC teams in the playoffs each year.
While I like the four playoff system, it seems to be weighted against the west coast teams. That is why I am liking the five plus one scenario.
Well I agree with all of this. Except, I hate the playoff system period, and think that the pageantry of the old way was perfect. Rose Bowl, Pac-whatever against Big-whatever. And so on. Who gives a shit about "who's number 1". It made College FB unique. But this is today's America, where there has to be an ultimate winner in everything, and everyone else is just the first loser. Or second or 3rd and so on.
That said: The 5 conference champions, in. The highest ranked Group of 5, in. 2 wild cards, in. 4 big bowls, traditional matchups as best you can (RB of course is traditional). Then 3 more games. Nobody can bitch. You didn't win your conference? You have no bitch. Group of 5? No bitch. 2 wildcards? A chance for the bitchers to get included. Done.
I hate it when teams get credit for being annihilated by good teams. I mean, WSU could have lost to Bama by 30. Would our resume be better just cause we could say we played Bama?
This, of course, is the the correct solution. Which means it will never happen.
It preserves the tradition and history of the major bowl games (I would love the return of the B1G-PAC Rose Bowl as a true annual reward for winning the conference) does nothing to weaken the bowl system as a whole, and makes the traditional pre-season mass-ranking of SEC teams less of an issue (LSU is still being rewarded for early-season wins over ranked [at the time] teams that, in hindsight, weren't actually all that good [the win over UGA was legit, however]).
Re-seed the winners, and there's your 4-team playoff. Sure, there will be years when the clear top-2 teams would meet in the bowl round, and you could make the case that often times it would be an easier path to the round of 4 by being an at-large because you potentially could face the other at-large or possibly the G5 rep in the Bowl Round due to traditional bowl affiliations. But at that point there will still ultimately only be one champion, and all 8 teams get their shot to win 3 games.
Ironically going back to the old tie-ins now might make it harder to settle a champ than the old days. 30 years ago there was a whole clique of high level independent programs doing what ND does now but without the fawning TV coverage. Florida State, Penn State, Miami, Pitt, West Virginia, Syracuse, all semi permanent fixtures in the rankings and all 'at large' options to pair with conference winners in the Cotton, Sugar, or Orange Bowls with SWC, SEC, and Big 8, or against each other in the Fiesta, which happened several times in the '80s. They often played each other in the regular season too. Split national titles happened in 1997, 1994, 1991, and 1989, but were actually less frequent before that I think (admittedly without checking) and amusingly tended to come at the expense of Penn State. A single game after the bowls would have resolved almost all of them
Anything past a 4 team playoff has to feature first round games played at home stadiums. Asking fans to go to 3 different games around the country in short order will eventually ensure that second round games don't sell out and may even impact championship game ticket sales. My wife and I are looking at taking the kids to LA for the Rose Bowl and it's mindblowingly expensive:
Airfare: $2400
Rental Car: $380
Hotel: $720
Game Tickets: $1020
Disneyland tickets, 1 day: $440
Without buying food and other things, a trip to the LA area is going to run us $5,000. Now, we could skip part of the trip if we were planning to go to the next week's game, but it's still $4000 just to do the game. Not many fans are going to be making trips two weeks in a row, let alone three, and no matter what school it is, there is a finite number of fans that are going to be willing to do even one game. If it were me, it would be the 5 champs from the Power 5, the highest rated Group of 5 team, and the next two at large teams but no more than two total from any conference. No SEC....you don't get three teams. Play the first round at home of the higher seed and then go to bowls like now. This year, we'd be looking at the following as things sit now....
#1 Alabama vs #8 UCF
#2 Clemson vs #7 WSU
#3 Notre Dame vs #6 Oklahoma
#4 Michigan vs #5 Georgia
Tell me that wouldn't be incredible to watch. Honestly though, I agree with the sentiment above that there was something special about the old bowl system and just letting a dick measuring contest settle it. It would be great to see the Cougs play in Death Valley, but I also see the appeal of getting a shot at getting our 2 seconds back. Expanding the playoff will not kill the bowls, but Georgia fans are not going to be as excited about the Peach Bowl when they wished that they were in a different game. The Rose Bowl becomes that much less relevant. And that is not a good thing either.
I would be fine with the second round games being at home stadiums. Play the bowl games. Re-seed the 4 winners with the top 2 as hosts in the second round, then "neutral" site for championship. It would space out the travel weeks as well.
You're right. Asking fans of both teams to travel three weeks in a row on short notice is a bit much. Even two weeks in a row is tough for most people.
I like your idea. If that were the case, I'd shoot for old school matchups where it makes sense.
Rose: Michigan vs WSU
Orange: Clemson vs Georgia
Peach: Alabama vs UCF
Sugar: ND vs Oklahoma
Other years would have been:
2017
Rose: Ohio State vs USC
Orange: Clemson vs UCF (#1 team gets the G5 champ)
Peach: Georgia vs Wisconsin
Cotton: Oklahoma vs Alabama
2016
Rose: UW vs Ohio State
Orange: Clemson vs USC
Peach: Alabama vs Western Michigan
Fiesta: Oklahoma vs Penn State
2015
Rose: Michigan State vs Stanford
Orange: Clemson vs Houston
Peach: Alabama vs ND
Sugar: Oklahoma vs Iowa
2014
Rose: Oregon vs Ohio State
Orange: Florida State vs TCU
Peach: Alabama vs Boise State
Cotton: Baylor vs Mississippi State
One thing of note is that the best G5 has typically not been all that impressive during the playoff era. The Pac-12 is the only conference that has not had a repeat champ in the playoff era and if things hold to form right now, it will be five straight years with different champions. The Conference of Parity instead of champions apparently. I rotated the 4th game between the Cotton, Sugar and Fiesta Bowls for simplicity.
2017
Rose: Ohio State vs USC
Orange: Clemson vs UCF (#1 team gets the G5 champ)
Peach: Georgia vs Wisconsin
Cotton: Oklahoma vs Alabama
2016
Rose: UW vs Ohio State
Orange: Clemson vs USC
Peach: Alabama vs Western Michigan
Fiesta: Oklahoma vs Penn State
2015
Rose: Michigan State vs Stanford
Orange: Clemson vs Houston
Peach: Alabama vs ND
Sugar: Oklahoma vs Iowa
2014
Rose: Oregon vs Ohio State
Orange: Florida State vs TCU
Peach: Alabama vs Boise State
Cotton: Baylor vs Mississippi State
One thing of note is that the best G5 has typically not been all that impressive during the playoff era. The Pac-12 is the only conference that has not had a repeat champ in the playoff era and if things hold to form right now, it will be five straight years with different champions. The Conference of Parity instead of champions apparently. I rotated the 4th game between the Cotton, Sugar and Fiesta Bowls for simplicity.
Last edited:
This feels so weird to say, since the Cougs have an outside shot of making, but I'm just finding I really don't care about the playoff.
I really just want to win the Apple Cup, win the conference and win the Rose Bowl, and to heck with the playoff.
I mean, don't get me wrong, if we make the playoff, I'm not going to be on here complaining about it. I just find myself not caring that much about it.
I really just want to win the Apple Cup, win the conference and win the Rose Bowl, and to heck with the playoff.
I mean, don't get me wrong, if we make the playoff, I'm not going to be on here complaining about it. I just find myself not caring that much about it.
In an 8-team scenario, I wouldn't automatically let in the highest-ranked G of 5 team. In some years, that might be a 22nd-ranked 9-3 Boise State team or something similar. Not even close to playoff-worthy. I'd go for the 5 Power 5 champs and three wild cards, with some kind of explicit preference for a G of 5 team that is worthy (e.g., if it's ranked 15th or better or has 1 loss or fewer). Not sure how that would work in all cases, but I think while it's "fun" to include a G of 5 team and there have been some pretty good ones recently, that may not always be the case and this might actually burn WSU in a way I never expected a few years ago.
Exactly, what if Cinci beats UCF this weekend. Who's the highest ranked G5 team? Maybe still UCF at like 20? Utah St at around 20? Maybe Cinci jumps into the Top 20? Regardless, it would be someone woefully undeserving.
Well the Big-10 champ this year could be 7-6 Northwestern. They are in the Championship game already at 6-4, so they could lose their next 2 and go in to that game at 6-6.
So then just take the top 8 regardless. Or leave it the way it is. Or go back to traditional bowls. I honestly don't even really give a shit.
I don't see the problem with taking a Group of 5 team, regardless of their ranking. Here is the list of teams that would have been left out:
2017: 10-3 Auburn
2016: 10-3 Wisconsin, 10-2 Michigan (my rule was no more than 2 from any league)
2015: 11-1 Ohio State (again, no more than 2 teams from one conference)
2014: 10-2 Michigan State
Ohio State in 2015 is the only one that has a legit beef, but it's their own fault that their league is too big and that their competition got to skip each other and stayed above them. The other teams typically lost late or didn't even win their division. "Every Game Matters" is still relevant in an 8 team playoff. What's interesting is that for all of our grousing about the SEC stuffing schedules, the B1G is just as bad about high level teams not playing each other.
It's good to have a Group of Five team in the mix because it avoids the perception that the big boys are illegally holding the smaller teams back and frankly, the #1 team deserves an easy game anyway. Any of those teams above needs to be better if they want to be in.
2017: 10-3 Auburn
2016: 10-3 Wisconsin, 10-2 Michigan (my rule was no more than 2 from any league)
2015: 11-1 Ohio State (again, no more than 2 teams from one conference)
2014: 10-2 Michigan State
Ohio State in 2015 is the only one that has a legit beef, but it's their own fault that their league is too big and that their competition got to skip each other and stayed above them. The other teams typically lost late or didn't even win their division. "Every Game Matters" is still relevant in an 8 team playoff. What's interesting is that for all of our grousing about the SEC stuffing schedules, the B1G is just as bad about high level teams not playing each other.
It's good to have a Group of Five team in the mix because it avoids the perception that the big boys are illegally holding the smaller teams back and frankly, the #1 team deserves an easy game anyway. Any of those teams above needs to be better if they want to be in.
That one right there. I don't get the obsession with having to have a playoff to prove the #1 team--half the fun of college football 20 years ago was the year-end argument about who was better...not to mention, the bowls meant a lot more. With the current system, even the bigger bowls are kind of an afterthought to the playoff bowl games.
One other thing that folks haven't brought up: with an 8-team playoff, that means 4 more games, or an additional 33% season length. That's a hell of a lot of extra games for a little guy like WSU to try to expect to keep starters healthy all the way to the final game, whereas bluebloods like Bammy or Notre Dame have 4-5 star recruits all the way through their 3-deeps that they can replace their starters with. To me, that doesn't really stack up as a fair game to prove who "had" the best team before injuries take their toll.
And now you guys are just making the argument for a 16 team. It's always the "What-if's" that kill a good idea. It's always the "that's not FAAAAIIIIR" that kills a good idea. 32 teams, here we come.
I would like to see your math on this. Compared to the current system, it would be one more week. 2 more games total. 1 extra game for the ultimate winner.
Top 8 - utilize existing Bowl games - same as now.
4 winners - extra level from current format 2 games (1 per team)
2 winners - same as now.
That said, I agree completely that the old system was better. I am sick of hearing about nothing but the "final 4" since about week 6. Like winning the conference and going to the Rose Bowl is a consolation prize. And once your team has 2 losses, the season is over so why bother even watching, going, or caring.
Again, you might be looking at it through the lense of "old system" but you're actually making an argument for a bigger playoff system.
I'm saying both - I wish we could go back to the old system, but that ain't happening so we should go to an 8 team playoff. 5 Power 5 conference winners, highest ranked team of the Group of 5 (gotta throw half of D-1 a bone) and 2 wildcards aka SEC and ND. No one gets left out, no one can complain. Except they will.
And it makes winning your conference a huge deal again. And restores some of the pageantry of the bowl system. Pac-12 vs Big-10 in the Rose Bowl.
I understand. But you guys keep bringing up ways that people are going to bitch and moan. "It's not fair" scenarios. Every time there's some weird outlier way that someone doesn't get into the 8 team playoffs, the argument for 16 will gain support. You guys keep bringing that stuff up. That's the portion of your guys debate that I'm trying to highlight.
5-10 years from now, some weird number thing will happen and a team won't get in and the phrase, "It's not right that 'X' team didn't get in." and it'll be done. THEN everyone will bitch about the practice time, the extra games these teams get and how that isn't fair. The haves will always have and the have-not's will always be left behind with no way to push forward, yada yada. So then they'll move to 32... The evolution of it is so easy to see...
Yeah, my mistake--3 more games for the eventual final 2 of an 8-team playoff. My point still stands though--that kind of grind favors teams like Bammy or OSU that has skilled players stacked up behind their starters.
The old traditional bowl system is fine by me. While we're at it, I would eliminate several of the lesser bowls and reduce the need to fill them with teams that can't win more than half of their games.
Glad Cougar
Glad Cougar
I just don't see the point of going to 16. I mean, 3 loss Iowa St really needs a shot at the Natty?
Your point makes complete sense, but from what I've seen -- there have been dozens of these conversations over the years here, on other boards, on Twitter, etc. -- people seem to agree that if you aren't a top-10 type of team, you don't have a legitimate beef. 8 teams seems like a pretty good sweet spot that balances all of the arguments against expanding the playoffs with the legitimate unfairness of a 5th-ranked team in some cases being as good or better than the teams above it. In half of the playoffs so far, the 4-seed has won the damn thing, in one year pretty convincingly (when Oregon got smoked in the title game). The 4th-seed winning the thing half the time so far suggests that the 5th team is probably in the mix for being competitive, at minimum, and may well be the best team in the country.
The 5th-best team getting hosed out of the playoffs is a big deal, but the 9th or 11th, not so much. Sure, they might be able to win the playoff, and may be one of the best 8 (or 4) teams in the country at that time, but they blew it by doing whatever made them ranked that low in the first place by the committee. At that point, beyond the top 8, you're very likely down to teams with two (or more) losses or Group of Five teams that are plucky but nobody really believes are the best team in the nation in a given year. Sure, there will be bitching and moaning, but either by a clearly flawed Power 5 or by a Group of Five team that, aside from its interested supporters and some bleeding hearts, nobody cares about or really believes is a top team anyway.
Last edited:
You mean 1 more game for the eventual final 2. Or let's see - all 8 would be in a bowl game (round one) anyway. So we have 4 advance instead of 2. So 3 more total games instead of 1. So yeah, 1 more game for all 4 teams? Now I need to do the math.
Exactly. All 5 Power 5 conferences should make the playoff, regardless of how they got there, win-wise. If you are the best team out of your group of 10, 12 or 14, you are in. And make the Big 12 add 2 teams while you are at it. The best Group of 5 team - yeah the next-best will complain, but you can't say that they were left out completely. And 2 wildcards. So what if 10 teams think they should be the wildcard? Did you win your conference? Uh, no. Then shut up.
I don't understand why many are so eager to eliminate bowl games. I agree that we shouldn't really care about the Taxslayer Bowl, or whatever, but who cares if it's played, so long as whoever is responsible for running the thing deems it worthy of continuing to be in place? I'd rather watch that than Golden Girls re-runs when I'm working from home during the week of Christmas, certainly.
Completely agree with what you're saying. But the lynchpin of what I"m saying is, it isn't about who the Top Team is anymore. The debate will be, how is FAU, UCF, Boise State, etc in the Top 15 when they haven't played ANYONE, kind of thing. So FAU, UCF, Boise State will be in 15th place. Oklahoma will be in 16th and want to clear their name that some program like Boise State shouldn't be ahead of them.
Or when they DO get into the TOP 8, "How the hell did they get in?" kind of thing when Oklahoma had 3 loses but they were to... I don't know... 'Bama, Clemson and WSU. And FAU, UCF, Boise State had 1 lose and it was to... I don't know... a crappy UTEP team or something.
You mention "nobody cares about or really believes..." I think you aren't giving the whiners enough volume credit.
