Ducks Attack Message Board Forum

I realize that this is purely subjective, but I had a few thoughts about it and wanted to see where others stand.

First, they seem unfair if a team goes undefeated, beats a team once in the regular season, and then has to beat them again in a "prove it" game. Honestly, if I were a UW player or fan, I'd be upset.

If the roles were reversed and we had won in Seattle this year, I'd be upset, too.

On the other hand, it gives a team who may have lost head to head a chance at redemption. That could be good if a really good team had been upset by a lesser team in the regular season and then they played a rematch.

There are also the chances of upsets. This weekend it would be really tough if Iowa beat Michigan, or Okie State upset Texas.

There's also the scenario where two teams don't play each other in the regular season, but both have similar records and playing would provide a true champion.

Any other thoughts?

I like them. I don't think an undefeated regular season is meaningless because it ensures you get to the championship. But why shouldn't the absolute best be determined on the field? Not in a mid- or early season game when teams are still finding themselves, but at the end of the year when teams have reached their potentials? It seems more legit to have a final battle and a crowned champion based on the field, not on the standings.

It made sense with the CFP at 4 to give another ranked win by having it.

I'm probably in the minority, but I'm a proponent for fewer "playoff" games, including conference championships. In college football, every game matters so much; essentially, the entire season is a playoff. It's not that way in the NFL. With a 12 team playoff, I'm worried we'll lose that. For instance, with 12 teams, what's the point of a Georgia/Alabama Conference Championship? Just a meaningless game when both get in the playoff.

Conference championships are the same idea. They make the regular season less important.

My perfect scenario:
8 team playoff = 4 conference champions + highest ranked group of 5 + 3 at large. Conference title games only in you have 14 or more schools in the conference (some likelihood the two top teams haven't already played each other).

Conference Championships are not inherently good or bad, but it depends on the purpose they serve.

I would say that based on the purpose they have served historically, they give a method to determine the top dog in oversized conferences and create more of a unleveled playing field across the Division as conferences are not built the same or play by the same rules.

Conference Championships could be good and useful if the system was built to advance conference winners in a equitable merit based way, but we are a long way from that and there doesn't seem to be any desire to fix it.

In a conference where not every team plays each other - and ideally, home and away - a championship game is a necessary thing.

When the big and sec have 18 teams each, you need a title game. Can’t have a garbage Iowa team back doing their way to a title because they play no one

Duck07 wrote:It made sense with the CFP at 4 to give another ranked win by having it.

Or even 8 teams it may still make sense. But with 12+ playoff teams, conference championship seems to make less sense. More games on the players too...

UOducksTK1 wrote:

Duck07 wrote:It made sense with the CFP at 4 to give another ranked win by having it.

Or even 8 teams it may still make sense. But with 12+ playoff teams, conference championship seems to make less sense. More games on the players too...

If there's not a championship game this week, they could play that Quarter-Final round on the 15/16 and keep a 2-week gap between games which I think will be necessary for playing the best games.

I like the championship game with the scenario win and you are in the CFP, 8, 12 or 16 it does not matter now with NIL bring college ball closer to pro. Some of these kids will come out of college with the ability to be financially set for life if they are smart. Also mallee divisions have played a 16 game season for years.

Duck07 wrote:

UOducksTK1 wrote:

Duck07 wrote:It made sense with the CFP at 4 to give another ranked win by having it.

Or even 8 teams it may still make sense. But with 12+ playoff teams, conference championship seems to make less sense. More games on the players too...

If there's not a championship game this week, they could play that Quarter-Final round on the 15/16 and keep a 2-week gap between games which I think will be necessary for playing the best games.

I like this idea^^^

DuckMastaFunk wrote:I'm probably in the minority, but I'm a proponent for fewer "playoff" games, including conference championships. In college football, every game matters so much; essentially, the entire season is a playoff. It's not that way in the NFL. With a 12 team playoff, I'm worried we'll lose that. For instance, with 12 teams, what's the point of a Georgia/Alabama Conference Championship? Just a meaningless game when both get in the playoff.

Conference championships are the same idea. They make the regular season less important.

I understand what you're saying, but I don't fully agree.

The way things are set up now an early season loss, like Alabama's loss to Texas, can almost eliminate a team based on the performance of others. The Georgia game vs Oregon last year almost eliminated the Ducks playoff chances, but it's those types of games that fans want to see.

A team shouldn't be punished for playing a tough team in non-conference. If they win it'll boost them in the rankings. If they lose, it shouldn't put them in a position where they'd have to win out in order to be considered for the playoffs either.

With the expanded playoff we'll almost certainly see a few 2 loss teams get in every year, but at least the most deserving teams, the ones that aren't afraid of scheduling a good team non-conference, won't be penalized.

In addition, what if a team were to lose a game without their best player? They shouldn't be penalized for that if they're still a great team.

I think 12 teams is right for now, but I'd like to see it expand to 16 within 5 years, only because of the automatic bids being received by non-Power-5 schools.

Also, regarding NIL money, I think that contracts must be signed to where NIL players are required to play in playoff/Bowl games if the team is eligible for them. You can't go into a championship playoff without your best players.

SuperDuck wrote:Also, regarding NIL money, I think that contracts must be signed to where NIL players are required to play in playoff/Bowl games if the team is eligible for them. You can't go into a championship playoff without your best players.

Pretty sure NIL can’t make players play in any games. A couple guys last year quit on their teams, and still got their deal.

buckmarkduck wrote:

SuperDuck wrote:Also, regarding NIL money, I think that contracts must be signed to where NIL players are required to play in playoff/Bowl games if the team is eligible for them. You can't go into a championship playoff without your best players.

Pretty sure NIL can’t make players play in any games. A couple guys last year quit on their teams, and still font their deal.

No they can't, but Bowls do have the ability now to essentially pay the players to do product sponsorship, advertising, etc like they can with anyone else which could have an effect on keeping more players around the way that its seemingly keeping more players in college through their eligibility (and into "grad" year) unless they're a high pick.