Home Article commenting
Hey folks - as a member of the DawgNation community, please remember to abide by simple rules of civil engagement with other members:

- Please no inappropriate usernames (remember that there may be youngsters in the room)

- Personal attacks on other community members are unacceptable, practice the good manners your mama taught you when engaging with fellow Dawg fans

- Use common sense and respect personal differences in the community: sexual and other inappropriate language or imagery, political rants and belittling the opinions of others will get your posts deleted and result in warnings and/ or banning from the forum

- 3/17/19 UPDATE -- We've updated the permissions for our "Football" and "Commit to the G" recruiting message boards. We aim to be the best free board out there and that has not changed. We do now ask that all of you good people register as a member of our forum in order to see the sugar that is falling from our skies, so to speak.

CFP field game times, networks; USC-UCLA and TCU-Baylor highlight action

SystemSystem Posts: 7,416 admin
edited November 2022 in Article commenting
imageCFP field game times, networks; USC-UCLA and TCU-Baylor highlight action

ATHENS — Georgia has taken the drama out of the College Football Playoff’s top spot for now, but there’s plenty of controversy about the remaining three positions.

Read the full story here


  • BigDawg61BigDawg61 Posts: 2,355 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    That's a pretty good playoff, but...

    Here's what I think is going to happen; UGA, TENN, MICH, TCU, win out. USC, OSU and Clemson suffer losses.





    There will be a big push by ESPN (etal.) to give TCU the 4th spot. However, TCU will finish the season weak, winning in close games, with their final 2 opponents. The Committee will hold true their comments after the 1st Poll. They will value OSU and TENN's "explosive offense" over TCU's defense and power. Too boring for TV.

  • EastmandawgEastmandawg Posts: 143 ✭✭✭ Junior
    edited November 2022

    interesting.....but if UT can't even win the eastern side of the SEC, they have NO business being in the playoffs. Its why they call it a "national championship game”, or playoffs.

    UT was outclassed and dominated on both sides of the LOS by one of the predicted 4 teams, no reason they should get a crack at it, let someone else in.

  • MontanaDawgMontanaDawg Posts: 1,821 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    Whatever the outcome is this just goes to show why the playoffs need expanding. You could make a legitimate argument for at least 5-7 teams at this point being in a playoff.

  • thadecthadec Posts: 611 ✭✭✭✭ Senior
    edited November 2022


    Disagree. The purpose of the playoff is to pick the #1 team. While that requires a strong effort to identify the #2 team - and maybe a lesser one for #3 - everyone after that is merely for the purposes of filling out the field. The respective fanbases can have fascinating arguments on ranking #4 to #144 if they want, but it shouldn't be the purpose of a major college football playoff.

    Maybe in an earlier era this would have not been the case. That is because, say, in the late 1970s through maybe the mid 90s you had actual diversity in college football. The west coast teams emphasized scoring with pro-style offenses. The SEC was a mostly ball control and defensive league. The Big 8 and SWC were offense-inclined, but with option football. The Big 10 was similar to the SEC, but with power instead of speed. You also had big time independent programs like West Virginia, Syracuse, Miami, FSU, Penn State and Notre Dame. I guess the ACC should be acknowledged for the sake of the Danny Ford run that Clemson had (Georgia Tech's flash in the pan not so much, even if it did mean that - if you include former independent FSU in 1992 - the ACC won more national titles than the SEC from 1980-1995).

    But now, pretty much everyone in college football is running the same thing: the spread. Either it is the true air raid like Mississippi State or modified air raid like Ohio State. Or the pro style with spread principles like Alabama. Or spread/RPO with pro-style principles like Clemson. Or spread option like UCLA and (this year) LSU. Now in the earlier era, you had USC, Michigan, Nebraska and Alabama all recruiting radically different types of players. Even when they were recruiting the same types of players if they were in different parts of the country - like FSU and UCLA and to a lesser degree Penn State and Michigan - it didn't matter that much: FSU could get their fast WRs from Miami, UCLA could get theirs from Oakland, Penn State could get their big LBs from New Jersey, Michigan from Ohio.

    So yeah, in 1992 an 8 team playoff would have made sense. It would have been Washington from the Pac-10, Michigan from the Big 10, Nebraska from the Big 8, Alabama from the SEC plus FSU, Miami, Notre Dame and Penn State. But now? All those schools and everybody else are recruiting the same types of players, and there are only so many to go around. Which means that - unlike back then - there are only going to be 2, at most 3, teams actually capable of winning a national title in any given year. An 8 team playoff in 2018, for example would have been Alabama, Clemson and 6 teams whose players would have been backups at Alabama and Clemson. Including, yes, UGA, who at the time was basically doing the same thing that Alabama was but with lesser players. Today? The same. Alabama is basically trying to do what UGA does on defense but without front 7 players like Jalen Carter and Smael Mondon. Result? While the "crowd noise" held Tennessee to 6 points (who cares about the meaningless 4th quarter TD), Alabama gave up 52.

    The rest of college football wants to expand the playoff because they have no interest in trying to compete with the SEC in hiring coaches that can recruit the best players. So they want to change the narrative from "winning the national title is what everyone is aiming for" to "merely making the playoff makes you relevant." And yes, they are hoping that forcing the best teams in the SEC to play 4 games instead of 2 - including games against each other - will result in the SEC teams knocking each other off or experiencing injuries that give them a shot. But expanding the playoff IS NOT in the interests of the programs that actually put in the effort to recruit the best players.

  • E_RocE_Roc Posts: 1,212 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    God help me, I agree with thadec.

  • E_RocE_Roc Posts: 1,212 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate
    edited November 2022

    Just ask yourself, is the debate raging because there are 5-7 teams that each look like they could legitimately be the best in the country? Or do we have this debate merely because there are 4 spots that need to be filled and only 2 or 3 teams that actually might be the best, opening up a whole field of filler possibilities? Let's be honest, nobody thinks TCU, USC, LSU or Clemson is probably the best team in the country at this point.

    Expanding to 12 teams is only a solution in that it pushes the cutoff so far beyond the mandate of identifying the best teams to include, that no one cares about the bubble team anymore. By the time you get to #13, it stopped being about selecting the championship caliber teams a long time ago.

  • MontanaDawgMontanaDawg Posts: 1,821 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate
    edited November 2022

    @thadec and @E_Roc....valid points from both of you. Personally, I do think an 8-team playoff is probably sufficient. College football is all about money, and we all know it. So, let's don't try and argue the merits of whether 8 or 12 teams make more sense. With 12 teams there are more games and more money, so 12 teams wins. A 4-team playoff can potentially leave out legitimate contenders, and you can't convince me otherwise. So, in my eyes the playoff must expand. And as a fan, I definitely want to see it expand.

    Look at the FCS and Div-II which have 12 and 16 team playoffs and have for years. Fans love the playoffs. I love watching their playoffs. Do they need all those teams to find out which is the best team? Absolutely not. But it produces more money, provides great and varied matchups that you wouldn't get during the regular season, and again, the fans love it. Don't give me the excuse about wear & tear and injuries with so many games. They've been having these expanded playoffs for decades. No team wants the playoffs to get smaller.

    I just want more games, great and varied matchups, and a true champion who has survived a bigger gauntlet than any other team. The college football money machine makes more denaros, and the fans get more and better games. I don't think expanding the playoffs will just pit SEC teams against each other so they can knock each other out. You'll get more teams from more conferences some exposure to the limelight and a chance to shine. Sure, the SEC will still out-recruit most other conferences but hopefully with the transfer portal more teams will have a legitimate chance to get much better.

    This is a business folks. Nothing more. And money is king. Don't whine about it. Instead, embrace the expansion and grab another beer.

  • BigDawg61BigDawg61 Posts: 2,355 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    I Agree with the 8 team model...and, I'm not crazy about that.

    How would we all feel about a 3 loss Conference Champion winning the Natty, just because they have a few lucky breaks along the way, like injuries on the opposing team or severe weather conditions? I don't know about you, but, I tend to draw my own conclusions WRT which team(s) are elite.

    This year, IMHO, setting biases aside, nobody rises to the level of UGA, in any aspect. Offense or defense, UGA has more talent, depth, experience and wherewithal to to do what they want...when they want.

    Next on the list, is OSU. Defense is the only thing that puts them behind the Dawgs.. UGA vs OSU would be an epic matchup. I've ALWAYS wanted to see that game. This year, both teams are at their peek, in what they do best. It might put-to-bed some of these phantom comparisons, between OSU & UGA by the Northern media...and the SEC (as a whole) & BIG10. .

    I think UGA would make OSU look like Oregon on Sep 3, and the BIG10 look like the PAC12. LOL. That argument is long overdue, to be settled on the field.

    After that, you have several very good teams...but, not great. Everybody else should just be happy, going to a bowl or that, "Santa Claus is coming to town". LOL

    I guess I still like 4 teams...but, if I gotta choose between "8" & "12"...I choose "8".

Sign In or Register to comment.