Could ACC be snubbed and SBC get in CFP?

[bcoach]

Lets just be real. This format is not made for the best 12 teams. There will always be arguments as to who should be in. This method is just the farthest you can get from the best 12. It is what it is.

[Saint3333]

We went from 4 "deserving" teams to crown a champion to 10 deserving teams + two conference champs that don't belong (same last year as well, this isn't G6 specific).

10 is enough to crown a champion, and it shows no matter how far we expand there will be complainers. If we go to 24 this will cheapen the bowl system even further and it's on life support already given the player opt outs due to TP/NIL and the draft.

[AppStFan1]

We went from 4 "deserving" teams to crown a champion to 10 deserving teams + two conference champs that don't belong (same last year as well, this isn't G6 specific).

10 is enough to crown a champion, and it shows no matter how far we expand there will be complainers. If we go to 24 this will cheapen the bowl system even further and it's on life support already given the player opt outs due to TP/NIL and the draft.

Yup. If we expand to 24 teams then the argument will be over 23-24. No matter how many teams we are going to hear argument and the more teams we have the worse the teams are that the argument is over.

[AtlAppMan]

We went from 4 "deserving" teams to crown a champion to 10 deserving teams + two conference champs that don't belong (same last year as well, this isn't G6 specific).

10 is enough to crown a champion, and it shows no matter how far we expand there will be complainers. If we go to 24 this will cheapen the bowl system even further and it's on life support already given the player opt outs due to TP/NIL and the draft.

Yup. If we expand to 24 teams then the argument will be over 23-24. No matter how many teams we are going to hear argument and the more teams we have the worse the teams are that the argument is over.

You are right about where arguments will always be about last few in or out. That can’t be prevented. Also understand the rule for number of conference champ auto bids was to force inclusion of some schools beyond SEC and B1G. Setting the number to include some G conferences was the only way and they knew it might mean “top 12” teams likely what would be in playoffs.

[moonshine]

The committee should have had Miami ahead to begin with to avoid some of this mess. Making the switch shows they did it to throw a bone to the ACC. Maybe that isn't right, but ND gets more special treatment than anyone in CFB. It's hard to feel sorry for them when they don't.

I've never had an issue with ND but after hearing their fans cry about not being selected over the past few days and everyone blaming the G5, I hope they lose every damn game! I say F the Notre Dame Fighting Opt Outs!!!

[Yosef84]

They should be mad that Alabama got in...not Miami. Alabama had three losses. By the way...i agree with the CFP......i thought they nailed the selections.

Alabama's third loss is to a top 5 team in an extra game that Miami didn't have to play. I can't stand Bama, but they had multiple wins over ranked teams. Notre Dame lost the only tough games on their schedule. Pitt was the best win they had. Sorry, but Bama's resume was way stronger than either Miami or ND. Additionally, Bama was #2 team in a conference that got 5 teams in the playoffs. Does it make sense to have 3-5 but not #2 just because of a CCG loss? The ACC benefited from the practice of not penalizing teams for CCG performance last year allowing SMU in the game.

The problem was more with the ACC's ridiculous tie breaker allowing Duke in the game that should have been Virginia vs Miami. If they had done this, none of this is an issue because the ACC would have taken JMU's spot and there would have been an opening for ND.

You can hate on the SEC all you want. It's your prerogative, but the SEC didn't create the mess this year. It was the ACC

[AppWyo]

They should be mad that Alabama got in...not Miami. Alabama had three losses. By the way...i agree with the CFP......i thought they nailed the selections.

Alabama's third loss is to a top 5 team in an extra game that Miami didn't have to play. I can't stand Bama, but they had multiple wins over ranked teams. Notre Dame lost the only tough games on their schedule. Pitt was the best win they had. Sorry, but Bama's resume was way stronger than either Miami or ND. Additionally, Bama was #2 team in a conference that got 5 teams in the playoffs. Does it make sense to have 3-5 but not #2 just because of a CCG loss? The ACC benefited from the practice of not penalizing teams for CCG performance last year allowing SMU in the game.

The problem was more with the ACC's ridiculous tie breaker allowing Duke in the game that should have been Virginia vs Miami. If they had done this, none of this is an issue because the ACC would have taken JMU's spot and there would have been an opening for ND.

You can hate on the SEC all you want. It's your prerogative, but the SEC didn't create the mess this year. It was the ACC

The ACC did not create this mess. The rules themselves created this mess. If you always take the best teams, it will always be a beauty contest. You need an automatic qualifier for every conference champion to be fair. There is no way for every team to play every team. An automatic qualifier for Notre Dame as well. Back when you had 10 conferences it would have been simple. All the autonomous conferences would get their two championship game participants and the nonautonomous conferences would get their conference champion game winner in the playoffs along with Notre Dame. That would be a total of 16 teams. This would have kept all the conferences intact and made the championship game and regular season champion that much more important.

[Yosef84]

They should be mad that Alabama got in...not Miami. Alabama had three losses. By the way...i agree with the CFP......i thought they nailed the selections.

Alabama's third loss is to a top 5 team in an extra game that Miami didn't have to play. I can't stand Bama, but they had multiple wins over ranked teams. Notre Dame lost the only tough games on their schedule. Pitt was the best win they had. Sorry, but Bama's resume was way stronger than either Miami or ND. Additionally, Bama was #2 team in a conference that got 5 teams in the playoffs. Does it make sense to have 3-5 but not #2 just because of a CCG loss? The ACC benefited from the practice of not penalizing teams for CCG performance last year allowing SMU in the game.

The problem was more with the ACC's ridiculous tie breaker allowing Duke in the game that should have been Virginia vs Miami. If they had done this, none of this is an issue because the ACC would have taken JMU's spot and there would have been an opening for ND.

You can hate on the SEC all you want. It's your prerogative, but the SEC didn't create the mess this year. It was the ACC

The ACC did not create this mess. The rules themselves created this mess. If you always take the best teams, it will always be a beauty contest. You need an automatic qualifier for every conference champion to be fair. There is no way for every team to play every team. An automatic qualifier for Notre Dame as well. Back when you had 10 conferences it would have been simple. All the autonomous conferences would get their two championship game participants and the nonautonomous conferences would get their conference champion game winner in the playoffs along with Notre Dame. That would be a total of 16 teams. This would have kept all the conferences intact and made the championship game and regular season champion that much more important.

I agree that in a perfect world each conference champion should have a seat. That's not going to happen though. The rules are what they are and the ACC's failure to update their tie-breaker system allowed for a 7-5 Duke to go to the championship game over a 10-2 Miami. The purpose of crowning a champion is, in fact, to recognize the best team! The situation was totally messed up but if the CFP representation is going to be tied to conference championship, then CFP rankings should be a consideration in the tie-breaker system. We've had plenty of theoretical discussions about how the playoffs SHOULD work, but that's not what I'm addressing. I'm talking about how things happened under the current system and yes...the ACC did cause the mess.

[spacemonkey]

They should be mad that Alabama got in...not Miami. Alabama had three losses. By the way...i agree with the CFP......i thought they nailed the selections.

Alabama's third loss is to a top 5 team in an extra game that Miami didn't have to play. I can't stand Bama, but they had multiple wins over ranked teams. Notre Dame lost the only tough games on their schedule. Pitt was the best win they had. Sorry, but Bama's resume was way stronger than either Miami or ND. Additionally, Bama was #2 team in a conference that got 5 teams in the playoffs. Does it make sense to have 3-5 but not #2 just because of a CCG loss? The ACC benefited from the practice of not penalizing teams for CCG performance last year allowing SMU in the game.

The problem was more with the ACC's ridiculous tie breaker allowing Duke in the game that should have been Virginia vs Miami. If they had done this, none of this is an issue because the ACC would have taken JMU's spot and there would have been an opening for ND.

You can hate on the SEC all you want. It's your prerogative, but the SEC didn't create the mess this year. It was the ACC

You missed my last line. I said I thought the CFP nailed the selections.

[Bootsy]

Notre Dame's problem? Their sense of entitlement. Outside of one CFP trip, they've been included in both the BCS and CFP far more than they truly deserved to be.