2017 College Football season is here

**NYH1** · 11-21-17, 15:52

HMM, that's why they play a conference championship game. If you're 11-1 and loss your conference championship game to a team that's 10-2/9-3 that's to bad. That's why they play the game.

If they wet with a eight team playoff system where the power five conference champs get the one through five spots. A one loss team that didn't win their conference championship could qualify for one of the "at large" six through eight spots. It would be a lot better then what they have now.

Just my $.02, NYH1.

**HMM** · 11-21-17, 17:10

Not trying to argue but do you think a current 8-3 Stanford that's ranked #20 should be in if they beat USC for the conference championship? It is the Pac 12 after all...lol (That's assuming we had an 8 team playoff) Again not trying to argue but it's hard to make a system that's fair, someone is always going to be left out. I think the old system should have been changed to 2-3 play and the winner of that plays #1. But it's really all about money and what the best matchup for ratings will be.

In reality one could argue over however it turns out, someone will be left out and pissed. My Okie Lite buddies are still claiming they could have won it all... The 2004 Auburn team was left out and they could have won it all that year I think and I hate Auburn...hahahaha

**docsherm** · 11-21-17, 19:48

Originally Posted by HMM

Not trying to argue but do you think a current 8-3 Stanford that's ranked #20 should be in if they beat USC for the conference championship? It is the Pac 12 after all...lol (That's assuming we had an 8 team playoff) Again not trying to argue but it's hard to make a system that's fair, someone is always going to be left out. I think the old system should have been changed to 2-3 play and the winner of that plays #1. But it's really all about money and what the best matchup for ratings will be.

In reality one could argue over however it turns out, someone will be left out and pissed. My Okie Lite buddies are still claiming they could have won it all... The 2004 Auburn team was left out and they could have won it all that year I think and I hate Auburn...hahahaha

It would be the same as in the NFL. Win your division with a loosing record and you are in the playoffs. It is quite simple actually. Having an 8-3 Stanford is no crazier than a NFL wild card team winning the Superbowl.

Much like the 2007 NYG wildcard team beating an undeafeted NE team in the Superbowl

**6933** · 11-21-17, 19:55

Originally Posted by chuckman

Here's the thing, though. Historical, yes. Revolutionary or changed the way football is played, not really. He's not a savant; he is a really, really good coach that recruits the best talent for his system. His schemes are not complex, he has not invented a new offense or defense. He has a system, recruits system players, and executes fundamentals better than anyone in the business.

THAT is why he will go down as one of the greatest (if not the greatest) college football coach.

My brother, have to disagree. Saban has changed the game with the methodology of choosing players, innovative ways to increase staff without breaking NCAA guidelines, player development strategies, and multiple other off field areas that most people are unaware of. He has changed the college football game forever.

That is why the "Sabanization" of other programs has become a term. Even Dabo has openly talked about Saban and how he has changed the game. Changing NCAA football also happens in the off field processes which are just as important as the on field.

**chuckman** · 11-22-17, 07:26

Originally Posted by 6933

My brother, have to disagree. Saban has changed the game with the methodology of choosing players, innovative ways to increase staff without breaking NCAA guidelines, player development strategies, and multiple other off field areas that most people are unaware of. He has changed the college football game forever.

That is why the "Sabanization" of other programs has become a term. Even Dabo has openly talked about Saban and how he has changed the game. Changing NCAA football also happens in the off field processes which are just as important as the on field.

That's fine, my wife disagrees with me all the time. We can declare a modus vivendi and drive on.

**chuckman** · 11-22-17, 07:28

The whole point of playoffs is to give 'lesser' teams a shot of winning a tournament. Do you really think Villanova was better than UNC 2 years ago, needing a buzzer-beater to win the NCAA tourney? 2007 NYG another great example above. That's the point of playoffs. Otherwise, they would just use the end-of-season AP ranking like they used to.

**NYH1** · 11-22-17, 09:24

Originally Posted by HMM

Not trying to argue but do you think a current 8-3 Stanford that's ranked #20 should be in if they beat USC for the conference championship? It is the Pac 12 after all...lol (That's assuming we had an 8 team playoff) Again not trying to argue but it's hard to make a system that's fair, someone is always going to be left out. I think the old system should have been changed to 2-3 play and the winner of that plays #1. But it's really all about money and what the best matchup for ratings will be.

In reality one could argue over however it turns out, someone will be left out and pissed. My Okie Lite buddies are still claiming they could have won it all... The 2004 Auburn team was left out and they could have won it all that year I think and I hate Auburn...hahahaha

Yes, absolutely Stanford should be in if they beat USC in a PAC 12 championship game. Even if USC was ranked #1. That's the whole point of a conference championship game. Then USC would get in with one of the "at large" spots. That is if we had a eight team playoff system.

NYH1.

**chuckman** · 11-22-17, 10:05

In light of last night's committee rankings where numbers 2 and 3 swapped, this is what a committee member said about Miami: "When you get down the way Miami did to Virginia two times, once in each half, and you have the poise and the ability to come back and win in a convincing manner, that is special."

Um, OK, but here's my issue: It was Virginia, not Alabama (or any other top-15 team). They should have won, convincingly. So what irks me is that the decision making is arbitrary and capricious: They could just as easily dropped Miami because it was Virginia and not a good team.