The inaugural College Football Playoff seedings were announced on Sunday afternoon, and as expected, there are lots of arguments going on around the country.
#1 Alabama (12-1) vs. #4 Ohio State (12-1) in the Sugar Bowl
I realize that Florida State has had several close victories this season against a pretty weak schedule, but the Seminoles have won 29 consecutive games. I don't really see why an undefeated Power 5 conference team shouldn't be ranked higher than two one-loss teams in Alabama and Oregon. I do think Alabama and Oregon have been more impressive this year, but Herm Edwards said, "You play to win the game." Florida State has won the game every time for over two years. (Full disclosure: I strongly dislike Jameis Winston and have a distaste for the nonsense that has gone on in Tallahassee since forever ago.) So I think FSU should be #1 and playing Ohio State in this game. It will be very interesting to watch the Crimson Tide play Ohio State, though. I think the Buckeyes are going to really struggle to slow down Alabama's running game with T.J. Yeldon and Derrick Henry, although OSU's pass rush might cause some trouble for Alabama.
#2 Oregon (12-1) vs. #3 Florida State (13-0) in the Rose Bowl
This game should be Alabama vs. Oregon, in my opinion. But since it's Oregon and Florida State, I'll have to pick the Ducks in this one. I know I said above that FSU should be the top-ranked team, but Oregon will put more pressure on FSU than the other teams they've beaten. The Seminoles have won their last four games - against Miami, Boston College, Florida, and Georgia Tech - by an average of 3.5 points.
Teams left out: TCU and Baylor
I feel bad for TCU and Baylor for being left out of the playoff, but not bad enough to want a six- or eight-team playoff. The bottom line is that if you're not one of the top few teams in the country, you don't deserve to win the national championship. This is one year where the #5 and #6 teams have an argument to be #4 with a chance to be champs, but there are some years where #5 and #6 are clearly a notch below the top few teams. Those teams shouldn't be rewarded for getting hot or catching a couple breaks come playoff time. I always refer back to the New York Giants beating the New England Patriots in the Super Bowl following the 2007 season. The Giants were 10-6 during the regular season, but they got hot and beat the Patriots, who were 16-0 in the regular season. Does that win mean the Giants were the best team in the NFL that year? Absolutely not, but they get to claim to be champs forever and ever. The differences aren't as stark in college (since there are more teams, you're going to have more undefeated or one-loss teams), but I don't think college players should be asked to beat up their bodies and play football almost year-round just because the #6 or #8 team in the country wants a shot to play with the big boys.
My guess is that we'll see Alabama and Oregon in the national championship game.
Thoughts on the selection of OSU over TCU or Baylor?
ReplyDeletePersonally, I think TCU should have gotten the #4 spot. Their one loss is much better than OSU's, and I think they have more impressive wins than OSU (not to mention OSU's tendency to let mediocre teams hang around in the back half of the season, including that 2OT game against PSU).
This may not be a very popular idea, but I think Ohio State's and Urban Meyer's history sort of play into that a little bit. TCU and Baylor have not ever been national powerhouses, and Ohio State (under Tressel, most recently) and Urban Meyer (at Florida) have been great at times.
DeleteThat picture (cuties aside) is a reminder that there's no UMich equivalent in Oregon in the public school space. Oregon seems very Sparty to me and OSU is a couple of notches below that. High-achieving kids have to leave the state (or cough up tuition for Reed).
ReplyDeleteCalifornia, Texas, Colorado, Illinois, Florida, Washington, Ohio....the list of states with public schools that can even argue to be in the same realm as UofM academically is pretty short.
DeleteCal Berkley, UCLA, and UT Austin would like to sit you down for a talk
DeleteNot sure if that anon comment was to me or the OP, but I those schools are in the states I listed. Not sure there's a lot of public schools in Michigan's class outside of those 7.
DeleteI still want an 8-team playoff. Having four teams automatically means you're going to screw over one of the Power 5 conferences. We're trending much closer to parity anyway, and while you have a bit of a point with your NFL analogy...that's kind of why the playoffs exist. It's what makes them exciting.
ReplyDeleteExcellent summary, Thunder. I would've preferred to get OSU/Oregon in Rose Bowl and FSU/Bama in Sugar Bowl (but then the team rankings wouldn't make sense). I also agree that the playoff should be 4 teams. I'm not sure how much a B12 conference championship would've helped the committee decide if TCU won against Baylor.
ReplyDeleteOSU is going to get crushed by Alabama, unfortunately. Saban is 2-1 against Meyer. His only loss was in 2008 against a Florida team led by Tim Tebow. OSU's 3rd string QB is not Tebow.
I hope Oregon demolishes FSU. Both have Top 10 Offenses and Top 20 defenses though. This game will be decided in the last minute. I think Oregon will win because Mariota played better than Winston in November and shows no signs of stopping.
PS: All of these schools are excellent educational institutions.
It's like they went for strength of schedule all year long and then in the final playoff rankings went with "what have you done for me lately"
ReplyDeleteYeah...I don't really see the point of releasing the CFP rankings anytime before the end of the year, but I guess it's like the regular polls - it's something for fans to pay attention to and generates interest, cooler talk, etc.
DeleteIt's fun to talk about. What's wrong with fun?
DeleteSome people take things too seriously.
It's amazing to me all the unhappiness people seem to have with the system. Can you imagine the wailing if we only had a top 2 as in previous seasons? It'd be quite a debate between Oregon, Alabama, and FSU.
ReplyDeleteWe can quibble about TCU, Baylor, and OSU but who really cares in the big picture? The 3 legitimate title contenders are in. Alabama LOOKS like the best team, and came through the toughest division with 1 loss. Oregon, same for the second best league but they actually got revenge for their one loss. FSU undefeated through a solid schedule. I can't tell you for sure which of those 3 is the best or most deserving and neither can you. The rest is a fringe argument. The Big12 isn't even functional enough to name it's own champion and it's not the playoffs job to figure that out (nor should it be.)
On a related note... Man do I hate the "they didn't lose so they are better" arguments. Marshall almost went undefeated too. It matters who you beat, how you beat them, and some losses are obviously flukes (as Oregon proved Saturday). FSU is lucky to even be the 3rd seed because they were an inch from being out of the playoff altogether several times this year. This is a bit of hyperbole, but I think it's superior to the current "just look at losses" arguments to ignore losses completely and focus on "scalps". That approach would at least give us better scheduling (and therefore more information).
Oregon didn't prove that the loss to Arizona was a fluke. Oregon has lost to Arizona the last two years, including 42-16 in 2013 and 31-24 in 2014. Rich Rodriguez is 2-2 against Oregon. One win or loss either way isn't flukey.
Delete"They didn't lose so they are better" doesn't apply to everyone. Marshall was almost undefeated against the likes of Rice, Old Dominion, Rhode Island, UAB, Florida Atlantic, etc. An undefeated record wouldn't matter for them unless they were winning every game by a score of 50-3. But a Florida State team that has to play ACC teams that include overall mediocre - but dangerous - teams like Miami, Clemson, Notre Dame, Florida, Georgia Tech, etc. is worth a #1 seed, in my opinion. Ultimately, unless the CFP includes a bye week, there's no huge advantage to being ranked #1 or #4. To win the championship, you have to beat the guys on the other side of the bracket.
Frankly, I don't care if FSU won every game by a score of 2-0. The point is to win the game, and if you've won 29 straight (including 13 this season), I think you deserve to be ranked higher than a one-loss team.
This year they lost a close game by 1 score and then absolutely dominated the rematch. They are better than Arizona and that is pretty definitive.
DeleteThe point is to win the game -- yeah it is -- but if you watched those games and acknowledge that randomness happens, you'd know that FSU was very close to losing a number of those games. They wouldn't be a worse team if they did so, they'd just be a little less lucky.
The Marshall/FSU arguments are just a matter of degree (hypothetically, since Marshall did actually lose a game.)
I do think it affects their rankings and their undefeated status shouldn't be ignored but with the limited information we have Oregon and Alabama are the two best teams. That's according to Las Vegas (who are theoretically neutral) and a panel of CFB experts. I'm glad we're not seeing this through the logic you applied anymore because that was the kind of stuff you heard a lot more of when the AP and coaches polls mattered.
I think the playoff system worked pretty perfectly. In the future I'd like to see them mandate at least 10 games against Power 5 opponents to qualify for the playoff. Preferably 11. I can understand 1 cupcake/exhibition but anything beyond that is a waste of time and detrimental to college football.
ReplyDeleteI'm not a fan of mandating eleven (or even ten) games against Power 5 conferences. For one thing, I think that limits the chances to vary your schedule and see some new teams. Personally, I think it's fun to see new teams rotating into the schedule every few years (Utah, Oregon State, Appalachian State, UMass, Central Michigan, etc.).
DeleteI also think it gives teams from the lower levels a chance to test their abilities against the big boys. You're essentially saying that each team from outside the Power 5 conferences would get just one chance per year to make a name for themselves against Notre Dame, Michigan, Ohio State, etc. One of the fun things for kids at smaller schools is to go into 100,000-seat stadiums and get a chance to upset those teams or get on ESPN.
Additionally, I think mandating 11 games against Power 5 teams would practically set the NCAA back to an even more tiered system, with an FBS-I, an FBS-II, then FCS, etc. I don't think that's good for the popularity of football, and it's not good for the football programs themselves.
How many power 5 teams are there? Something like 60? Remove your own conference and you have a pool of over 40 teams to choose from. You could play 2 games a year against them and not see the same team twice in a 20 year span. Not that repeats are a bad thing - I love the Notre Dame rivalry games.
DeleteI don't think it's more fun to play UMass or CMU or EMU. A cupcake is a cupcake to me.
I do appreciate the argument that you give the lower level teams a chance and their players an experience. However, there are limited games. You can't have it all. In the end it's a lot more fruitful/informative to find out if UCLA is better than Iowa than it is to find out that UCLA is better than Louisiana-Lafayette in the end. So yeah, I think 1 game a year is enough to do that. I don't see much point in continually proving the superiority of the Power 5.
I think a more tiered system would enhance the popularity of college football. Fans tune in to the marquee matchups (Alabama-MIchigan, Oregon-MSU) a lot more than they tune in to the cupcake games. People like those. YOU like those. Getting rid of cupcakes creates more of those matchups, which makes college football not only more fun but also less random.
How would you feel about a 6-8 team playoff where you allow confirm champs an auto bid from the power 5 if they have 3 or fewer losses? In years when they don't, their spot becomes another wild card spot. The first round would be played this week on home fields and the losing teams can play each other in a bowl too.
ReplyDeleteIs that too much for the players? How does it compare to the other divisions that use playoffs?
AC1997