1 and 2 seeds now 5-1 in semifinal games.

and not only with the 5-1 but look at the MOV...
Alabama/Washington 24-7
Clemson/Ohio St 31-0
Clemson/Oklahoma 37-17
Alabama/Mich St 38-0
Oregon/Florida St 59-20
so in the 5 wins- a total avg MOV of 29 points. The 1 loss was a 7 point game.

and what's most amazing- the 2/3 games have been absolute blowouts. 128-20 in the 3 games combined. And only 1 even somewhat close by halftime. And the 2 seeds are a 103-0 run right now.

(12-31-2016 10:52 PM)stever20 Wrote:  1 and 2 seeds now 5-1 in semifinal games.

I guess that means the old BCS had it about right huh? This is precisely why we don't need to go to 8.

(12-31-2016 11:07 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-31-2016 10:52 PM)stever20 Wrote:  1 and 2 seeds now 5-1 in semifinal games.

I guess that means the old BCS had it about right huh? This is precisely why we don't need to go to 8.

Well, Ohio St would have been in the BCS title game instead of Clemson this year.

(12-31-2016 11:09 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(12-31-2016 11:07 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-31-2016 10:52 PM)stever20 Wrote:  1 and 2 seeds now 5-1 in semifinal games.

I guess that means the old BCS had it about right huh? This is precisely why we don't need to go to 8.

Well, Ohio St would have been in the BCS title game instead of Clemson this year.

I don't know, but it is possible. They were only seeded #2 because the networks were content with Alabama vs either Ohio State or Clemson. It was a win for them either way. Plus the Big 10 had been over-hyped all year and yet none of their top teams had played many ranked ones. Ohio State did play and beat OU. Other than that it was weeks before most of them played a school with a winning record.

At least this system has put the best two in the finals. But then the BCS did that far more often than not. I personally still believe Penn State should have represented the Big 10. It would be like Auburn beating Alabama and giving them their only conference loss and being snubbed. There would be civil war in Alabama and the SEC commissioner would be run out on a rail after being tarred and feathered. Apparently not in the Big 10.

(12-31-2016 10:52 PM)stever20 Wrote:  1 and 2 seeds now 5-1 in semifinal games.

That's not "seeding" mattering. Seeding mattering is like in the NFL, where you play a playoff game at home, because playing at home is typically worth a few points. There is no such advantage in the CFP.

Do you think if Alabama was labeled #4 and Washington #1 that the outcome would have been different?

All that 5-1 record means is that they CFP has done a good job distinguishing the better two teams from the worst two teams in terms of labeling them. It's not a surprise when the better team wins a game.

(12-31-2016 10:52 PM)stever20 Wrote:  1 and 2 seeds now 5-1 in semifinal games.

Which means a 2 team playoff for National title was just fine.

(12-31-2016 11:09 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(12-31-2016 11:07 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-31-2016 10:52 PM)stever20 Wrote:  1 and 2 seeds now 5-1 in semifinal games.

I guess that means the old BCS had it about right huh? This is precisely why we don't need to go to 8.

Well, Ohio St would have been in the BCS title game instead of Clemson this year.

And they wouldn't have participated in 2014, instead of winning it all.

(01-01-2017 10:12 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  

(12-31-2016 10:52 PM)stever20 Wrote:  1 and 2 seeds now 5-1 in semifinal games.

Which means a 2 team playoff for National title was just fine.

Of course ignoring that in addition to Ohio St. in 2014 (and TCU who didn't get in the 4 team playoff), Oklahoma St. in 2011, TCU in 2010, Texas in 2008 and Auburn in 2004 didn't get a shot, just to name a few off the top of my head.

(01-01-2017 10:12 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  

(12-31-2016 10:52 PM)stever20 Wrote:  1 and 2 seeds now 5-1 in semifinal games.

Which means a 2 team playoff for National title was just fine.

The so called playoff was never needed. What was needed was more access to BCS bowls. If they would have added the Cotton and Peach bowl to the rotation everyone would have been happy.

It's time to put the playoff silliness to bed and go back to the BCS.

(12-31-2016 11:07 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-31-2016 10:52 PM)stever20 Wrote:  1 and 2 seeds now 5-1 in semifinal games.

I guess that means the old BCS had it about right huh? This is precisely why we don't need to go to 8.

Well, had the BCS been in place, we never would have known that in 2014 Ohio State was the best team. That's one year out of three where the BCS falls short of the playoffs, a pretty high percentage.

(01-01-2017 09:57 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-31-2016 10:52 PM)stever20 Wrote:  1 and 2 seeds now 5-1 in semifinal games.

That's not "seeding" mattering. Seeding mattering is like in the NFL, where you play a playoff game at home, because playing at home is typically worth a few points. There is no such advantage in the CFP.

Do you think if Alabama was labeled #4 and Washington #1 that the outcome would have been different?

All that 5-1 record means is that they CFP has done a good job distinguishing the better two teams from the worst two teams in terms of labeling them. It's not a surprise when the better team wins a game.

Maybe not, but having Alabama playing in Phoenix vs Atlanta could have changed the dynamic of the game. Alabama has never played far than New Orleans for a big bowl.

No, we do need more teams in the playoff. Two of the hottest teams in the country at the end of the season got left out, USC and Penn State. Even Oklahoma was playing much better at the end of the season.

(01-01-2017 11:42 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  It's time to put the playoff silliness to bed and go back to the BCS.

The BCS was a complete joke

No seeding doesn't matter at all in the college playoff

Another whiff of a post by stever

(01-01-2017 11:44 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-31-2016 11:07 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-31-2016 10:52 PM)stever20 Wrote:  1 and 2 seeds now 5-1 in semifinal games.

I guess that means the old BCS had it about right huh? This is precisely why we don't need to go to 8.

Well, had the BCS been in place, we never would have known that in 2014 Ohio State was the best team. That's one year out of three where the BCS falls short of the playoffs, a pretty high percentage.

Exactly....you had plenty of years where the BCS botched the championship game as well....I guess people have forgotten 2004, 2003, 2001, 2000

The current playoff FORMAT is a major success....just because this year had two dominant teams doesn't mean every year will

Thanks to the Playoff, we know for sure that Alabama and Clemson are the two teams that deserve to play for the title, rather than just having a hunch.

Sure, our hunch turned out to be right in 2016 and 2015, but in 2014 the would-have-been-BCS matchup of Florida State and Alabama was wrong on both counts, and it was probably wrong a few times in the 1998-2013 years too.

(01-01-2017 11:48 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(01-01-2017 09:57 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-31-2016 10:52 PM)stever20 Wrote:  1 and 2 seeds now 5-1 in semifinal games.

That's not "seeding" mattering. Seeding mattering is like in the NFL, where you play a playoff game at home, because playing at home is typically worth a few points. There is no such advantage in the CFP.

Do you think if Alabama was labeled #4 and Washington #1 that the outcome would have been different?

All that 5-1 record means is that they CFP has done a good job distinguishing the better two teams from the worst two teams in terms of labeling them. It's not a surprise when the better team wins a game.

Maybe not, but having Alabama playing in Phoenix vs Atlanta could have changed the dynamic of the game. Alabama has never played far than New Orleans for a big bowl.

Isn't Alabama in the Sugar Bowl the one time a higher-seed lost? Why yes, they are. Guess it didn't mean that much, eh?

And Clemson clobbered Ohio State despite both being 1000 or more miles from their homes.

Wake me up when LSU plays in the Sugar Bowl, or USC in the Rose Bowl, or Miami in the Orange Bowl in the playoffs. Maybe then seeding will matter. Then again, they might be the lower seeds in those games, LOL.

It makes no sense to say seeding matters when there is no tangible advantage to being a higher seed. You don't get a bye, you don't get HFA, or any other advantage that, say, the Patriots now have being the #1 seed in the AFC playoffs.