They ain’t never satisfied.

Sound the alarm bells.

Here’s the only proof needed to know college football’s postseason is broken, and that major changes are needed to fix it.

In the first five years of the College Football Playoff, no team from Texas or California has earned a berth in the four-team playoff, and the best team in Florida, Central Florida, hasn’t lost a regular-season game in two years and has been stonewalled by the selection committee.

It’s circumstantial evidence of a fraudulent postseason, but also a smoking gun of a broken system.

Texas, California and Florida are the three recruiting hotbeds of the country for college football players, and represent the largest population centers of football-loving fans, yet those three states have only produced one participant in the College Football Playoff.

So much for the search for the best.  I bet you didn’t know the selection committee was supposed to factor recruiting into its rankings.  Or geography.

The thing is, I can’t even get worked up about nonsense like this.  It’s the kind of inevitable argument you expect as a sport gives up its regional appeal in search of a bigger, more generic, national market.

If you honestly believe that every region of the country deserves a participation trophy, then, yeah, talk like this matters.  And it will likely be reflected in the makeup of the quarterfinal field that will come with the next round of expansion.

Give that a few years, and somebody will find a reason to proclaim the new system is broken.  Lather, rinse, repeat.

23 Comments

Filed under BCS/Playoffs

23 responses to “They ain’t never satisfied.

  1. OneBuckheadDawg

    Socialism for college football…. Did AOC write this article?

    Liked by 3 people

  2. The guy writes for al.com … he can’t be that bright.

    I have a solution. Don’t allow teams from Alabama into the playoff unless they win their conference.

    Notice how he conveniently left Georgia off the list of recruiting hotbeds when per capita, it’s the hottest.

    Like

    • Greg

      agree, if you don’t win your conference…you should not be in it nationally. Cause, you’ve been eliminated. I have no problem making it more national. How are we to ever know if a USC team is not as good as a Georgia or Alabama if they never play??

      It’s a national deal, let’s make it that way

      Like

      • I’m not an advocate of 8 for a number of reasons. I don’t like wild cards (as Bama was in 2011 & 2017 and Ohio State in 2016) because they cheapen the best regular season in sports. I don’t like the fact that the first round of playoffs would either be in the middle of final exams or take away a kid’s ability to go home for the holidays (or both). Finally, if you think the NY6 bowl games that aren’t playoff games are meaningless now, just imagine what it will be for those teams that lose a quarterfinal game.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Greg

          I think 4 is fine, it is a helluva lot better than the old system. Some will still have complaints even with 8 in there, no perfect system. But to me, if you are going to pick 2 from one conference, do not play a conference championship game…it is useless.

          The conference championship game should be an elimination game. Why give, say a Bama 2 chances?? To me, whoever won the SEC (for example)should be selected. I want to see how the SEC champ matches up with the rest of the country….I’m guessing most do, or maybe it is just me.

          Like

          • FlyingPeakDawg

            2 undefeated SEC teams face off in the SECCG that goes OT and you want the loser to go home while UCF or a 2 loss PAC12 team gets in? Then why have a selection committee if they are forced by rule to ignore a team with a better resume and record? If conference championships should “mean something” then shouldn’t a one loss MAC champion get in over a 2 loss B10 Champ…SOS shouldn’t count, right? The charge to the playoff committee is find the 4 best teams, so technically yes, conference championships don’t count exclusively but are just another data point. If championships are the sole determination, then you need a structure to handle the P5 and arguably the Group of 5 plus, of course, “Rudy”.

            There is is no good system under BCS current structure. It’s only about money, not determine a National Champion…keep the M in MNC.

            Like

            • Greg

              “2 undefeated SEC teams face off in the SECCG that goes OT and you want the loser to go home while UCF or a 2 loss PAC12 team gets in?

              Yes, why not??….We already know that the winner of the SECCG is the better team (that day)….or that region. It should be a national playoff. Why not give the PAC 12 champ or BIG 10 champ a crack at the SEC champ. To me, the loser of that game has been eliminated (SECCG). There should be no second chances in a playoff if you are only inviting 4 teams. Too subjective, more about the eye test & guess work then.

              Like

            • Why should the SEC team who wins the OT game have to face the loser again in January? Assuming the 2 teams are 1 & 2 entering MBS in December, the winner is the #1 seed and the loser drops to #4. Why did they play in December? The SEC CG is a de facto quarterfinal. I like it that way myself. Of course, YMMV.

              Like

              • FlyingPeakDawg

                So because the game is the conference championship game, it’s a different kind of loss than 2 games earlier in the season? You don’t want the 4 “best” teams in the playoff? And you equate a MAC champion’s SOS with that of the SEC if the playoffs are only for conference champions? You’re both right…my mileage varies. UGA v Bama Part Deux is infinitely more interesting than UGA v 2 loss whomever in my scenario. Excellence should be rewarded, not luck of the draw.

                Like

                • The only way you get your scenario is if there are only 4 1 or fewer loss teams out of the Power 5. The committee isn’t going to put a 1-loss championship game loser in over 1-loss championship game winner. Last year, 1-loss Bama wasn’t getting in over 1-loss B1G champion Ohio State.

                  Like

                • FlyingPeakDawg

                  I always respect your opinions ee…but, let’s assume playoffs don’t go to 8 soon (hahahah…I know, I know). With improved P5 scheduling, the lack of zero or 1 loss only winners becomes more likely, and I just don’t get why a 2 loss Pac12 conference champion Wazzu would be more appealing than an SEC Battle of the Unbeatens rematch if the scenario I proposed played out. Shorter version…conference championships are not yet equal to serve as a quarterfinal playoff round, especially with 5 conferences AND the Group of 5. IMHO, SOS needs to be evened-up, number of P5 teams reduced, and then you’ve got a round of 8 for a defacto playoff system…and NFL lite.

                  P.S. The Munson in me says UGA would always be the SECCG unbeaten match-up loser and left out of the playoffs!

                  Like

  3. Gaskilldawg

    If ESPN and its partners wanted to change the characteristics of the 4 team field it need not change the rules. All it would need to do is change the committee.

    Like

  4. 81Dog

    Why don’t we just let all the smart people in New York and California tell us ignorant flyover folks what to do? They seem to prefer that for everything else. The idea of ignorant southern folks dominating the CFP must be pretty galling. OMG IF CALIFORNIA IS SHUT OUT THE SYSTEM IS BROKEN! Maybe we need a system of automatic proportional representation to make them feel better about sucking at football.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Gaskilldawg

      A writer in a fly over state wrote the article. There were no quotes from anyone in New York or California supporting the premise.

      Like

  5. dawgfan1995

    This story is proof that there truly is nothing for college football writers to write about in May, and yet they are still required to write something.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. moe pritchett

    I just came for the comments on this car; he’s a fuken maroon.

    Like

  7. Just Chuck (The Other One)

    Let me see if I’ve got this. The reason teams in the Southeast are usually in the title picture is because they rarely play anyone from Florida, California, or Texas? Right!

    Like

  8. Got Cowdog

    Well, to one of his points, UCF hasn’t lost a regular season game in 2 years. So we should expand the playoffs to include them based on merit, and of course Notre Dame should always be allowed in ’cause, well, “Rudy”. Then we get to watch them both get sodomized by a real football team which we will all see coming. Once that crowd has been STFU we get on to the real 4 championship level teams without somebody in the playoffs getting a patsy. Mickey gets some more add money, we get another weekend of football, everybody’s happy. Amirite?

    Like

  9. Doug

    I’m kind of amazed this column got published. I thought it was illegal in the state of Alabama to advocate for anyone other than Bama being in the playoff.

    Like

  10. 81Dog

    There are stupid people all over this great nation. 😀 Regardless of where he lives, or or from, his premise is just dumb.

    Like

  11. I support Bama going to USC. Especially right before we play them.

    Like

  12. loren

    I think that may be the poorest argument to change the playoff system I have ever heard

    Like