They need to expand the CFP, they said. It'll be better, they said.

[Landomatic 3,813]

Bullshit.  This season was a perfect example of why it works just fine as is.  The right 4 teams get in with no controversy and it takes the whole regular season and some conference championship games to get there.  Which is the case just about every year.  Would adding some fringe 2 loss outliers and a no-name Memphis and/or FAU team really make it better?  Fuck no.  This model just makes the regular season so much better than having more teams would.  It's one of the most magical aspects of college football and expanding it would fuck that up.  And yes, I realize I'm in the minority on this.

[SwanderedTalent 5,761]

1 minute ago, Landomatic said:

The right 4 teams get in

does OU belong with Ohio State, Clemson, and LSU?

[Landomatic 3,813]

2 minutes ago, SwanderedTalent said:

does OU belong with Ohio State, Clemson, and LSU?

With only one loss and a P5 conference championship?  You serious, Clark?

[Bevo&Pevo 5,525]

Doesn't matter how far you expand it.  If let 8 teams in, then the 9th ranked team will bitch and moan.  If it goes 16, then the 17th team cries.  Leave it at 4, build some years with it then reevaluate.  But what the furk do I know. 

[El Squared 1,854]

So if GA beat LSU and the “committee” pullled 2 sec teams into the 4, that would be ok?

Committees determining champions are for diving and ice dancing.

I would prefer conference champions advancing without the all the beauty contest preseason/ in-season spin machinery that ESecPN, CBS, and others push for their own  money agenda. It’s less drama and less soap opera using only conference champions, but it’s real. 

Maybe with realignment there can be enough conferences to produce an 8 team playoff without “committee input”, and yes there will always be weak conferences or down years for certain conferences, but it’s better to settle this on the field rather than the hypothetical/ virtual way people think a certain team will perform against another.

See: sec , for the reason this is not working optimally.

[ChickenSandwich 9,961]

16 minutes ago, Landomatic said:

Bullshit.  This season was a perfect example of why it works just fine as is.  The right 4 teams get in with no controversy and it takes the whole regular season and some conference championship games to get there.  Which is the case just about every year.  Would adding some fringe 2 loss outliers and a no-name Memphis and/or FAU team really make it better?  Fuck no.  This model just makes the regular season so much better than having more teams would.  It's one of the most magical aspects of college football and expanding it would fuck that up.  And yes, I realize I'm in the minority on this.

Uuuhhhhhh no. 
 

The system rewards scheduling for an undefeated season.  It clearly discourages out of conference matchups for fear of that one loss, and discourages the ACC and SEC from actually playing their conference opponents (and to keep playing D2 schools). We are sacrificing the first 3rd of the season to make the artificial “push” at the end of the season to only have 1 or zero losses. The rest of the schedule doesn’t mean shit. Just don’t lose. 
 

8 is great.  A conference championship is the only real metric college football has that is played on the field. Polls and committees should be saved for politics, not sports. 120+ teams and 12 games. Zero like schedules. And a playoff system based on confirmation bias. 

Edited December 8, 2019 by ChickenSandwich

[Spankytoes 1,748]

What if Georgia had upset LSU in the SEC championship? You’re telling me that ou would deserve a spot over a team that beat Bama, Auburn and Florida? Who did ou beat? Baylor twice, who didn’t beat a currently ranked team all year?

It worked because there were no upsets in the end. Same could be said for Wisconsin upsetting Ohio St.

Edited December 8, 2019 by Spankytoes

[Pam Cummings 9,883]

Really convenient post to make after everything shook out perfect so there's no controversy. I would still rather see an actual playoff, you know, like a real sport.

Edited December 8, 2019 by Pam Cummings

[BurntOrange&White 41,942]

This year is the worst example for expanding to 8.

[52-80 19,377]

9 minutes ago, Bevo&Pevo said:

Doesn't matter how far you expand it.  If let 8 teams in, then the 9th ranked team will bitch and moan.  If it goes 16, then the 17th team cries.  Leave it at 4, build some years with it then reevaluate.  But what the furk do I know. 

the 9th and 17th team has a lot less legitimacy than the 5th.  thats why theres no controversy over the 69th team making it into the bb tourney, because they werent gonna win anything

[ChickenSandwich 9,961]

2 minutes ago, Spankytoes said:

What if Georgia has upset LSU in the SEC championship? You’re telling me that ou would deserve a spot over a team that beat Bama, Auburn and Florida? Who did ou beat? Baylor twice, who didn’t beat a currently ranked team all year?

it worked because there were no upsets in the end. Same could be said for Wisconsin upsetting Ohio St.

Would Georgia have even been in the conversation if they had to actually play their conference mates like everyone else and had games against Bama and LSU?

Geroriga has built the hype off avoiding Bama/LSU in the regular season until the conference championship game. 

[Spankytoes 1,748]

1 minute ago, ChickenSandwich said:

Would Georgia have even been in the conversation if they had to actually play their conference mates like everyone else and had games against Bama and LSU?

Geroriga has built the hype off avoiding Bama/LSU in the regular season until the conference championship game. 

Georgia beat Florida, Auburn and ND, an ooc opponent. Those are pretty solid wins and better than anybody ou beat.

[Pancho 46,346]

This is the 1st year since the CFP started where it was a clear top 3 and you can just throw in the 4th because they are gonna lose regardless. 

If this exact scenario had happened consistently, then you'd have a point.  It hasn't, so you don't. 

[Homercles 10,206]

I’ll never understand people arguing against more playoff football.  If LSU or tOSU has lost, they’d have likely gotten in as an at-large team and lost some seeding advantages...they’d still be in the playoff.  
 

ESPN likes 4 teams because of the drama they can manufacture with the totally arbitrary committee and how it drives exclusively blue blood teams.  Why do they get to help shape the narrative and forever doom teams like UCF from ever winning a national title?

You’re entitled to your opinion but I want 5 P5 champs, 2 at large and best G5

[Landomatic 3,813]

5 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:

Uuuhhhhhh no. 

The system rewards scheduling for an undefeated season.  It clearly discourages out of conference matchups for fear of that one loss, and discourages the ACC and SEC from actually playing their conference opponents. We are sacrificing the first 3rd of the season to make the artificial “push” at the end of the season to only have 1 or zero losses. The rest of the schedule doesn’t mean shit. Just don’t lose. 

8 is great. 

Wrong.

For starters, Oklahoma played UCLA (not great this year, but a P5 team), Ohio State played Cincinnati (ranked for a lot of the year), Clemson played aggy (yeah I know, but still) and LSU played Texas.  And you really think expanding to 8 teams would encourage tougher out of conference or conference schedules?  That's not happening under any format.  Why would any team do that?  Sorry, we're stuck with that as a reality no matter what.

[Landomatic 3,813]

9 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

the 9th and 17th team has a lot less legitimacy than the 5th.  thats why theres no controversy over the 69th team making it into the bb tourney, because they werent gonna win anything

Yeah, and most people could give a fuck about college basketball until the tourney because of it.

[Spankytoes 1,748]

1 minute ago, Homercles said:

I’ll never understand people arguing against more playoff football.  If LSU or tOSU has lost, they’d have likely gotten in as an at-large team and lost some seeding advantages...they’d still be in the playoff.  
 

ESPN likes 4 teams because of the drama they can manufacture with the totally arbitrary committee and how it drives exclusively blue blood teams.  Why do they get to help shape the narrative and forever doom teams like UCF from ever winning a national title?

You’re entitled to your opinion but I want 5 P5 champs, 2 at large and best G5

I’m not sure how you can’t see the contradiction of your statement. Yes, LSU should have gotten in if they lost. But, not at the expense of 1-loss Georgia being left out as the SEC champ. So you’d have Georgia, LSU, Clemson and Ohio State. Where does that leave ou/Baylor and (hypothetically) Utah as conference champs? 

Hell, what does that tell Texas? We know we’re in if we run the table. What advantage does playing LSU over Texas State give us besides bragging rights for fans? There is only an upside to scheduling that game if you get tripped up down the line and need a talking point against another school.

[BurntOrange&White 41,942]

Being an undefeated p5 champion is more important than scheduling hard.

[Landomatic 3,813]

9 minutes ago, Pancho said:

This is the 1st year since the CFP started where it was a clear top 3 and you can just throw in the 4th because they are gonna lose regardless. 

If this exact scenario had happened consistently, then you'd have a point.  It hasn't, so you don't. 

Really?  Who were all these other teams every year that had a legitimate bitch about not being let in?  I'll hang up and listen.

[Butch Had Not 3,062]

4 is fine but the bullshit 8 conference games in the sec and acc needs to be halted or the bigs and pac need to go to 8 as well and we can all schedule moorehead state and cal state Blythe for auto wins.  This is discussed enough but the impact is still greatly understated in how it effects the final records in the sec. 

[BurntOrange&White 41,942]

How about you do your own research before starting a dumbass thread in a year where everything worked out perfectly for the system?

[Pancho 46,346]

2 minutes ago, Landomatic said:

Really?  Who were all these other teams every year that had a legitimate bitch about not being let in?  I'll hang up and listen.

Nigga you got google.  Look it up. 

[ChiTownDoc 21,346]

14 minutes ago, Spankytoes said:

Georgia beat Florida, Auburn and ND, an ooc opponent. Those are pretty solid wins and better than anybody ou beat.

STFU.  Baylor would rape ND.  

[theaveragejon 1,104]

5 minutes ago, ChiTownDoc said:

STFU.  Baylor would rape ND.  

I see what you did there. 

[WhatTheBuck 28,934]

31 minutes ago, Bevo&Pevo said:

Doesn't matter how far you expand it.  If let 8 teams in, then the 9th ranked team will bitch and moan.  If it goes 16, then the 17th team cries.  Leave it at 4, build some years with it then reevaluate.  But what the furk do I know. 

It's worse than that. The more teams in the playoff, the more that will bitch about being left out. We've already seen a lot of posters on this board bitching about #6 TCU getting left out in 2014. Expand to 8 teams and fans of the teams ranked 9-12 will complain. And then it will eventually expand again. 

[Landomatic 3,813]

3 minutes ago, Pancho said:

Nigga you got google.  Look it up. 

The burden of proving your point isn't my responsibility.

[Rockethorn1978 6,206]

I actually would love to see it go to a true playoff format like you know every other level of football that does besides Division 1. 

Who doesn't love Texas High School football playoffs? Division 2 or 3? I would love to see a 7-3 team catch fire and win the National Championship. We love March Madness because of the Cinderella story and i'm not sure why we can't at the least go to 8. I could care less if a team makes it with 2 losses because if they caught fire at the right time then they are the best. It's like bitching that Butler made the final 4 two years in a row and saying they shouldn't been in it because they are "butler" from a shit conference.

[Landomatic 3,813]

1 minute ago, WhatTheBuck said:

It's worse than that. The more teams in the playoff, the more that will bitch about being left out. We've already seen a lot of posters on this board bitching about #6 TCU getting left out in 2014. Expand to 8 teams and fans of the teams ranked 9-12 will complain. And then it will eventually expand again. 

Yep.  And none of it will change anyone's scheduling strategies.

[WhatTheBuck 28,934]

28 minutes ago, Bevo VIII said:

This year is the worst example for expanding to 8.

Last year was a good argument for sticking with the BCS. 

[Mitch Cumsteen 18,963]

This is a terrible, horrible, stupid take and you should feel bad about it. It's like when Texas played USC and everybody said, "Oh see, the BCS really does work!"

5 auto bids from the conference champions and then the committee can pick the next three best teams however they want. It gets rid of all the cross-conference beauty contest comparison bullshit and gives every P5 team an objective, legitimate path to make the playoffs. Decide this shit on the field. 

[Jhawk 1,075]

15 minutes ago, ChiTownDoc said:

STFU.  Baylor would rape ND.  

Those Catholics have a pretty molesting defense.

[Jhawk 1,075]

11 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

It's worse than that. The more teams in the playoff, the more that will bitch about being left out. We've already seen a lot of posters on this board bitching about #6 TCU getting left out in 2014. Expand to 8 teams and fans of the teams ranked 9-12 will complain. And then it will eventually expand again. 

You have to take it out of the hands of people. Like it or not, the pollsters still have a huge influence on the selections. That’s unacceptable when you have one southern pollster who did the math back in the bcs era and ranked Oklahoma state at 8 in his final poll to keep them out of the conversation. I can’t remember who it was but he admitted it. 

[ChickenSandwich 9,961]

9 minutes ago, Landomatic said:

Yep.  And none of it will change anyone's scheduling strategies.

Why?  Right now if you lose one of those 3/4 games your chances of making the playoffs reduce substantially. Take that out, and why wouldn’t they?  They can make massive amounts of money by playing big out of conference opponents and still have a level playing field to make the playoffs. 
 

 

[Loco 3,754]

20 minutes ago, ChiTownDoc said:

STFU.  Baylor would rape ND.  

I don't know the catholics are pretty rapey too...  wait, are you talking football?  ...my bad

[utee94 16,091]

1 minute ago, ChickenSandwich said:

Why?  Right now if you lose one of those 3/4 games your chances of making the playoffs reduce substantially. Take that out, and why wouldn’t they?  They can make massive amounts of money by playing big out of conference opponents and still have a level playing field to make the playoffs. 
 

 

And the TV broadcasting partners have a lot of pull here.  They can write the contracts to encourage big OOC matchups because that inventory is more important to them than ANYTHING else.

[Barry 3]

1 hour ago, SwanderedTalent said:

does OU belong with Ohio State, Clemson, and LSU?

Texas played LSU very tough. Wisconsin gave OSU all it could handle, and Clemson hasn't really been tested. I would agree those team have better rosters than OU, but OU belongs in that company, imo.  If Baylor's name was Georgia, some ESPN people would have scenarios for them to make the playoff.  

[DanRydell 799]

Any system where Oregon is penalized for scheduling Auburn rather than South Idaho State is a bad system.

[Liquor and Poker 3,659]

26 minutes ago, Butch Had Not said:

4 is fine but the bullshit 8 conference games in the sec and acc needs to be halted or the bigs and pac need to go to 8 as well and we can all schedule moorehead state and cal state Blythe for auto wins.  This is discussed enough but the impact is still greatly understated in how it effects the final records in the sec. 

I don’t care if the SEC plays 8 conference games or 4.  I just want their horseshit nonconference schedules to reflect in rankings.  You can’t call a bunch of teams “the best of the best” when the only viable candidates they play are each other.  
 

[Ignatius 4,147]

Just now, DanRydell said:

Any system where Oregon is penalized for scheduling Auburn rather than South Idaho State is a bad system.

Any system using a committee/rankings to pick teams for a football playoff is a bad system.  And as long the notion of at-large teams exists, that’s what we’re stuck with...

[Capn81 397]

Yeah, and most people could give a fuck about college basketball until the tourney because of it.

And many people do not give a fuck about the post season in college football now that we have the playoffs if their team doesn’t it make it. I fail to see how anyone would feel any different about the regular season by expanding. IMO, it makes the post season more enjoyable.

[Homercles 10,206]

25 minutes ago, Spankytoes said:

I’m not sure how you can’t see the contradiction of your statement. Yes, LSU should have gotten in if they lost. But, not at the expense of 1-loss Georgia being left out as the SEC champ. So you’d have Georgia, LSU, Clemson and Ohio State. Where does that leave ou/Baylor and (hypothetically) Utah as conference champs? 

Hell, what does that tell Texas? We know we’re in if we run the table. What advantage does playing LSU over Texas State give us besides bragging rights for fans? There is only an upside to scheduling that game if you get tripped up down the line and need a talking point against another school.

Sorry dude I’m a little confused.  In that scenario, if Georgia wins they’re in as a champ with LSU worrying about an at-large birth...don’t like it, well win your conf title game.  

Use the committee to seed and therefore select at-large bids...so yeah if Georgia, Oregon, Virginia, Baylor, and Wisconsin all won last night then someone from the LSU/tOSU/OU/Clemson grouping would get left out.  At least in that case, when their fan bases bitch, you can point to scoreboard and say ‘well you failed to get it done on the field’ and not this mysterious qualitative media-driven narrative that allows endless argument.  
 

Smart teams would still schedule good noncon.  They’re not impactful on your ability to win your conference and they’d help you in the at-large process.

[Scooter Monzingo 821]

I just want away from the fucking eye test. I’m sorry, I don’t give a shit which network or talking head rattles on about quality of loss/win. 

Adding 4 teams may very well be disputed by the 9th team. But it allows the possibility of a Cinderella. Sure the narrative will always be the favorite should win. But like the NCAA’s, upsets will happen. 

The fact that the underdog could win is why the basketball tournament grew in the way that it did from 16. It allowed multiple teams from a conference to enter (when only one ACC team could get in). And it provided excitement.

will it devalue the regular season? Probably to a degree. But with more than one chance of getting in we should see far better match ups in the regular season as we do in basketball. Just this year basketball opened up with a tournament that included Duke, Kentucky, Kansas and Michigan State. Those teams never would never have agreed to that in the old days, under the old metric. The fact they know they can still get in with a loss is why we get to see match ups like this early in the season.

[SuckitKevin 979]

50 minutes ago, Spankytoes said:

Georgia beat Florida, Auburn and ND, an ooc opponent. Those are pretty solid wins and better than anybody ou beat.

They also lost to a shitty South Carolina team at home. That loss should disqualify them unless they won the championship.

[stork642 4,511]

1 hour ago, Landomatic said:

Bullshit.  This season was a perfect example of why it works just fine as is.  The right 4 teams get in with no controversy and it takes the whole regular season and some conference championship games to get there.  Which is the case just about every year.  Would adding some fringe 2 loss outliers and a no-name Memphis and/or FAU team really make it better?  Fuck no.  This model just makes the regular season so much better than having more teams would.  It's one of the most magical aspects of college football and expanding it would fuck that up.  And yes, I realize I'm in the minority on this.

You are correct.  So many idiots will insist on making college football more about the playoffs than the regular season.  When we have 5 undefeated teams at the end of the regular season then maybe someone will have a legitimate gripe.  Until then don’t lose a game and you won’t have any issues making a four team playoff.  Keep the focus on the regular season because that’s what make college football better than any other sport. 

[Landomatic 3,813]

14 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:

Why?  Right now if you lose one of those 3/4 games your chances of making the playoffs reduce substantially. Take that out, and why wouldn’t they?  They can make massive amounts of money by playing big out of conference opponents and still have a level playing field to make the playoffs.

How would that change from what we have now?  The number of teams in the playoffs would have zero impact on teams not wanting to schedule possible losses.  So, now you need 0-1 loss to get in generally speaking.  You think adding 4 more teams would move that to 0-2 losses to get in?  Okay, so what team on earth would all the sudden say fuck it, let's roll the dice with our OOC and hope we don't end up with 3 losses.  Or that any number of other factors don't come in to play to make our 2 losses look better than the handful of other teams with 2 losses who will all be clamoring to get a spot in the CFP.  4 teams, 8 teams, whatever.  As long as we have conferences set up the way we do, this wouldn't change without a massive expansion of teams, but that brings a whole other set of problems.

11 minutes ago, utee94 said:

And the TV broadcasting partners have a lot of pull here.  They can write the contracts to encourage big OOC matchups because that inventory is more important to them than ANYTHING else.

They could have all that now.  Why don't they?

[Liquor and Poker 3,659]

21 minutes ago, Mitch Cumsteen said:

This is a terrible, horrible, stupid take and you should feel bad about it. It's like when Texas played USC and everybody said, "Oh see, the BCS really does work!"

5 auto bids from the conference champions and then the committee can pick the next three best teams however they want. It gets rid of all the cross-conference beauty contest comparison bullshit and gives every P5 team an objective, legitimate path to make the playoffs. Decide this shit on the field. 

No conferences.  Everyone plays everyone for however long it takes.  Last team standing.  
 

I think 14 or 15 college football games is already too many.  And I may be the only person who thinks this, but the ridiculous March Madness structure does nothing but water the thing down and ensure that quirky bullshit “drama” reigns rather than having the actual best teams play each other. 

Fuck the bloated, worthless bureaucatic nonsense of conferences.  8 geographical regions.  No out of region games.  Each region has a champion determined by 9 games and a championship.  The 8 winners play in a playoff.  Done. 

[AUS-97HORN 12,051]

1 hour ago, 52-80 said:

thats why theres no controversy over the 69th team making it into the bb tourney, because they werent gonna win anything

well, uh technically last year's 69th team won.... the NIT.   

[ImissWallyPryor 9,046]

58 minutes ago, Pancho said:

This is the 1st year since the CFP started where it was a clear top 3 and you can just throw in the 4th because they are gonna lose regardless. 

If this exact scenario had happened consistently, then you'd have a point.  It hasn't, so you don't. 

I’m out of rep, so I’m giving you a high five. 

[DanRydell 799]

You are correct.  So many idiots will insist on making college football more about the playoffs than the regular season.  When we have 5 undefeated teams at the end of the regular season then maybe someone will have a legitimate gripe.  Until then don’t lose a game and you won’t have any issues making a four team playoff.  Keep the focus on the regular season because that’s what make college football better than any other sport. 

What would make college football even better is for teams to not be severely penalized for losing an OOC game so we can prioritize high quality OOC matchups over “don’t lose a game.”

[mdleast 8,521]

well, uh technically last year's 69th team won.... the NIT.   

Nice