College's playoff system is stupid. There's no way SEC should have 2 teams. It's dumb. The SEC CHampionship should settle who the best SEC team is. It's dumb to carry 2.
IMO the championship should be top 4 teams not from the same conference who are conference champions.
Stockholm, more densely populated than NYC - sturg
Conferences aren’t created equal. It should be the four best teams regardless of thier uniformOriginally Posted by zitothebrave
It's just a dumb system. If Georgia beats Tennessee, Alabama, etc. to win the SEC why face them again in the championship?
Also like FIFA ratings, CFB ratings are self fulfilling. Whatever teams are ranked high in the preseason, unless they lose to a non-BCS team, keep teams in their conference in the top spots.
Odds are you wind up with the same champion no matter what, but how dumb would it be for Georgia to win the SEC, but lose to Tennessee in the playoffs? It's dumb.
Take the top 4 ranked conference winners. This will also lead to teams considering maybe breaking up the conferences again. I don't think it will of course, but it could.
Stockholm, more densely populated than NYC - sturg
I get the arguments on both sides. I get that a playoff rematch with UT has problems but there are times where avoiding the rematch can cause even more problems. Look at last year for instance.
UGA lost to Bama in the SEC championship game with Georgia turning in their worst performance of the year. However, it's hard to dispute that Bama and Georgia were the two best teams in the nation last year. Bama smothered Cincinnati in the first round and Georgia embarrassed Michigan. There wasn't a team anywhere near the level of those two.
The rematch gave us a hard fought title game between two monster teams. If Georgia had been left out of the playoffs, the title game is probably a laugher.
Over Clemson as conference champs? Not so sure. Assuming Ole Miss won out in that scenario. Maybe you get in over Clemson, but that isn't a guarantee. Probably not over the Pac 12 champ. Definitely not over an undefeated TCU.
Yeah Clemson is ass this year
Ivermectin Man
I feel like if you don't only carry conference champs, it diminishes the importance of winning your conference. I would have been OK with Georgia being the number 1 ranked team even without winning the SEC or the Championship.
I mean think of it this way. It would be like if after the LCS the 2 other baseball teams with the best record got to playoff against the teams. Can you imagine how cheated the Astros would feel if they lost to the DOdgers and the Dodgers got to play the Phillies?
Don't get me wrong, I understand what you mean. But if you want to do that format, shorten the season by a few weeks and make it a proper playoff by expanding it to 16 teams with the 10 conference champs and 6 at large teams, or classify the conferences as say a big 4 (SEC, PAC, Big 10, Big 12) then bring the next 4 at large with max 1 from a conference, if you follow that rule then you have (going off top ranked right now) Georgia, Ohio, TCU, and Oregon. And your 4 at large would be Michigan, Tennessee, USC, and North Carolina.
To me I prefer the system of highest rated conference champions and just take 4. I get what you're saying. UGA doesn't win the whole thing, but it's silly to me if you actually care about it being a championship. Not just a vessel to almost guarantee an SEC championship.
Stockholm, more densely populated than NYC - sturg
I'm for expanding the playoffs. I'd be all for your system of conference champs with at large teams. Conference champs getting automatic bids keeps those games important but you still get the flexibility to ensure the best teams in the nation aren't left out.
Until we get to that point, I think you have to go with the best 4 teams. If you don't and end up with one team ranked 1 and another with the title it defeats the purpose of the playoffs.
It should always be the top teams regardless of Conference affiliation. I want to see heavyweights duke it out.
TCU!!!!!
Stockholm, more densely populated than NYC - sturg
Georgia had no business winning that game. They're the more talented team but they played terrible, terrible football for 3 quarters.
Apparently the targeting call getting waived off has Ohio State fans mad. It was a vicious hit on Harrison but it was shoulder to shoulder. It was the kind of hit they teach you to do now days. Overturning it looked to be the right call.
Runnin (01-01-2023)
It was. But throwing the flag and pulling it back on review was also correct.
It looked like it in full speed
Ivermectin Man
Two of the better postseason football games you will see. What a day for football.
Ivermectin Man
It only took what 10 years before there were two watchable semifinals games.
Seemed like clear targeting to me. Forcible contact to head/neck area of a defenseless player. Not sure how they could overturn that. It would be different if they didn't call it on the field like the in the TCU game. Borderline calls should stay the way they were originally called. But to completely overturn it was ridiculous, imo.
I don't think UGA is the more talented team, either. OSU is just as talented as UGA. And if Harrison didn't get hurt, OSU easily wins that game. UGA had no answer for him.
I don't know what deal UGA made with the Devil, but that's 2 straight CFP games where they've been getting owned by the other teams opposing star WR, only to have him get injured and leave the game and the opposing offense start to crumble.
I live in die hard UGA territory, but am not really a fan. It didn't look like targeting to me. Its how you are taught to hit now as well. He didn't launch with his helmet at all and even turned from the collision. Thats all you can do in that situation.
Ivermectin Man
The problem with the call that it's targeting is that the rule requires there be an "indicator" of targeting. They include:
-A player leaving his feet to attack an opponent by an upward and forward thrust of the body to make forcible contact in the head or neck area
-A crouch followed by an upward and forward thrust to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area, even though one or both feet are still on the ground
-A player leading with helmet, shoulder, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area
-A player lowering his head before attacking by initiating forcible contact with the crown of the helmet
What we saw in the game was Bullard going shoulder to shoulder with Harrison. If there was helmet to helmet contact, it was a result of Harrison's head snapping forward from the impact and hitting Bullard's helmet.
Helmet to helmet contact isn't sufficient for targeting. There either needs to be some kind of crouching and launching, a lowering of the head and leading with the crown of the helmet, or else an explicit attack on the head or neck. Initial impact with the shoulder resulting in a secondary impact of helmets isn't targeting.
There actually was a foul on the play but it wasn't targeting. It was illegal touching by Harrison. He stepped out of the back of the endzone and was the first player to touch the ball.
You can call it shoulder to shoulder if you want. Seemed absolutely like the neck area to me. It's precisely why they make that rule, so players can't lay out a defenseless player.
If targeting was called, it wouldn't have mattered. Personal foul penalties supercede it. Would have been 1st and 10 inside the 10.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote