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

[mdleast 8521]

Why?  There would be less risk for scheduling tougher schedules.
There should also be a 9 conference game requirement, with a loss being given for teams who only play 8.  
 
There are some very realways to standardize the schedules.  That is most obviously and emphatically not the goal.

That is a point I’ve heard mentioned often in the discussion of playoff expansion and I agree - make it equal across all conferences. While we are at that though and trying to equalize things, it still annoys me that we do the rematch conference title format. While it can make for exciting games, it’s a tougher road than those like the SEC, ACC, etc who are rematching in their title game.

[TexArcher 39074]

3 hours ago, Spankytoes said:

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

Exactly. 

What if Utah, Georgia, and Wisconsin had all won?

Then you've got Clemson, Georgia, and LSU in.  Who gets the last spot?  OU and Utah each have one loss and won their conference, but Ohio State also has only one loss and would be favored over either of those teams on a neutral field.  A good argument could be made for any of the three.

With an 8-team field, that stuff goes away.  And yeah, one or two teams squeeze in who aren't on par with everyone else.  And that's fine, because the 1 and 2 seeds have earned an easier first round matchup.  This is understood and accepted in pretty much every other major sport.  College football needs to quit trying to be too cute for its own good and make sure the NY6 Bowls still matter, because guess what, they already don't.

[RollLeft 5092]

7 team playoff.  #1 gets bye, 2 vs 7, 3 vs 6, 4 vs5 and then 1vs 3 or 6, 2/7 vs 4/5.

[NowThis 931]

49 minutes ago, Homercles said:

Quarterbacks aren’t whole teams unless you’re Jon Bois.    Alabama lost both big games. OU beat Baylor (which otherwise swept the conference unlike Auburn) twice. Clemson went undefeated and unless you’re UCF that matters.  
 

If we had 8 teams then Alabama could’ve competed for an at large spot and maybe proved they’re better than OU on the field.  Their backup quarterback is probably a 4-5* player that could start for dozens of other teams.  Luck/gifts are part of the game, I’m still convinced that the FG towards the end of 2011 osu/ISU was good and we’d have beaten LSU for a natty but alas they called it wide...we beat a Luck-led Stanford that year and were obviously better than that ISU team but we lost, so alas I can’t bitch.  
 

Regarding OU it looks like we will see if they’re better than LSU here soon enough, depending on seeding.  This whole ‘x is better than y’ and ‘eye test’ crap should be useless but alas it’s all we’ve got with such a small ‘playoff’ set by committee with ratings at stake.  We all expected tOSU to boat race Wisconsin last night due to that eye test but they damn near blew it for 3 quarters.  

so in your world, OU is better than Alabama?

[Vic Mackey 47985]

3 hours 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.

Keep thinking some dipshit 4 team playoff works while every other fucking sport has a real playoff. They don't have bullshit shows every week picking a top 4. You going to tell me Alabama could not beat OU on a given day? Absolutely they could. Oregon could also beat OU.

The fact that people still hold onto this idea that the college football regular season is something magical shows how brainwashed they have became by the fat cats who run D1. It's actually pointless as fuck when you think about it. Unless you honestly believe only 4 teams out of over 100 are worth going to the playoffs. Yet the lower levels have a perfectly fine playoff that does not need some bullshit fashion show to decide the top 4 teams.

You going to tell me Texas in 2008 did not deserve a shot to show they were the best team? Had there been a fucking real playoff system like any other level of football, we could have proved it on the field instead of being at the mercy of some fucking BCS voters who picked OU.

The fact that winning your conference does not even guarantee you anything is a crock of shit. Tell me one other sport where this happens? But keep enjoying the "magical" college football season where only a handful of games actually mean anything at all and the fates of teams are decided by suits in a conference room. Cool season.

[satyanash 15638]

 

[Landomatic 3813]

6 minutes ago, Vic Mackey said:

Keep thinking some dipshit 4 team playoff works while every other fucking sport has a real playoff. They don't have bullshit shows every week picking a top 4. You going to tell me Alabama could not beat OU on a given day? Absolutely they could. Oregon could also beat OU.

The fact that people still hold onto this idea that the college football regular season is something magical shows how brainwashed they have became by the fat cats who run D1. It's actually pointless as fuck when you think about it. Unless you honestly believe only 4 teams out of over 100 are worth going to the playoffs. Yet the lower levels have a perfectly fine playoff that does not need some bullshit fashion show to decide the top 4 teams.

You going to tell me Texas in 2008 did not deserve a shot to show they were the best team? Had there been a fucking real playoff system like any other level of football, we could have proved it on the field instead of being at the mercy of some fucking BCS voters who picked OU.

The fact that winning your conference does not even guarantee you anything is a crock of shit. Tell me one other sport where this happens? But keep enjoying the "magical" college football season where only a handful of games actually mean anything at all and the fates of teams are decided by suits in a conference room. Cool season.

Can the Cowboys still technically win the Super Bowl?  Are we still leading our division?  At 6 and fucking 7.  A losing record.

Tell me again how important “real sports” regular seasons are.

[Landomatic 3813]

16 minutes ago, TexArcher said:

Exactly. 

What if Utah, Georgia, and Wisconsin had all won?

Then you've got Clemson, Georgia, and LSU in.  Who gets the last spot?  OU and Utah each have one loss and won their conference, but Ohio State also has only one loss and would be favored over either of those teams on a neutral field.  A good argument could be made for any of the three.

With an 8-team field, that stuff goes away.  And yeah, one or two teams squeeze in who aren't on par with everyone else.  And that's fine, because the 1 and 2 seeds have earned an easier first round matchup.  This is understood and accepted in pretty much every other major sport.  College football needs to quit trying to be too cute for its own good and make sure the NY6 Bowls still matter, because guess what, they already don't.

But these are all hypotheticals that never really seem to happen.  And didn’t happen again this year.  That’s kind of the point of this whole thread.  Everyone loves to talk about all the what ifs heading toward the playoffs, which is part of the fun.  Then, everything shakes out about how it should every fucking time which validates all of it.

[Iceman 2978]

19 minutes ago, NowThis said:

so in your world, OU is better than Alabama?

In my world they play each other  or a corresponding qualifier to see. 
 

IDGAF what Herbie and Company thunk it should be or who ‘looks’ the best. 

Edited December 8, 2019 by Iceman

[Pam Cummings 9883]

6 minutes ago, Landomatic said:

Can the Cowboys still technically win the Super Bowl?  Are we still leading our division?  At 6 and fucking 7.  A losing record.

Tell me again how important “real sports” regular seasons are.

What point are you trying to make here? Technically, yes, the Cowboys could still win their division and make a run at the Super Bowl. The play on the field will decide whether that happens. Not some dumbfuck committee.

[NowThis 931]

Just now, Iceman said:

In my world they play each other  or a corresponding qualifier to see. 
 

IDGAF what Herbie and Company thunk it should be. 

it's an opinion contest to pick the top 4; so teams don't play each other to get into the playoffs. None of the current 4 teams have played each other.

[Landomatic 3813]

53 minutes ago, Pam Cummings said:

Fucking this right here. The "the regular season wont matter anymore!" argument is horse shit. It would become far more interesting to know that conference winners get in and to watch those races unfold.

As it is, we have Oregon, who i have a sneaking suspicion might be better than OU, sitting this one out.

If Oregon would have taken care of business during the REGULAR SEASON we wouldn’t have to guess now would we?

[SimonBolivar 11065]

I don't get any reason a CFB fan would have at wanting it to stay at 4 instead of 8. I've heard the argument that it weakens the regular season, but CFB has always been more than the team that finishes on top at the end of the year. No UT fan is skipping UT/OU during fair season because it doesn't matter as much if the loser has a loss. Iowa and Iowa State fans won't suddenly stop caring if their game that has never had national title implications still doesn't. 

 

8 teams wouldn't even make a dent towards making the CFB regular season like the CBB regular season anyway. The only difference between 4 and 8 is two games featuring champions or top 10 teams playing each other. 

 

 

Edited December 8, 2019 by SimonBolivar

[Eastwood 4394]

1 minute ago, Landomatic said:

If Oregon would have taken care of business during the REGULAR SEASON we wouldn’t have to guess now would we?

They did. They have the hardware to prove it now.

[Landomatic 3813]

2 minutes ago, Pam Cummings said:

What point are you trying to make here? Technically, yes, the Cowboys could still win their division and make a run at the Super Bowl. The play on the field will decide whether that happens. Not some dumbfuck committee.

That the regular season means jack dick in the NFL compared to college.  Just look at the Cowboys if you think otherwise.

The argument here isn’t committee/no committee.  That’s a different conversation.

Try and catch up.  As usual, you’re behind, Pam.

[Landomatic 3813]

5 minutes ago, Iceman said:

In my world they play each other  or a corresponding qualifier to see. 

IDGAF what Herbie and Company thunk it should be or who ‘looks’ the best. 

So, should all teams with 2 losses have a shot at it?  How do you determine where to draw the line?

[Pam Cummings 9883]

3 minutes ago, Landomatic said:

If Oregon would have taken care of business during the REGULAR SEASON we wouldn’t have to guess now would we?

They won their conference and are standing out in the cold holding their dicks. What's even funnier is if they had the same record and won the SEC they would be in and people like you would say they proved it by winning the SEC.

[Loco 3754]

I keep hearing people talking about the regular season not mattering  and the effect of playoffs.

That's all bullshit. 

The great thing about college ball is that you have teams you are invested in and your team plays other teams you desperately want to beat.  The record doesn't matter.  If you are one of those weenies that really focuses on wins above all else, you're missing out.

Exhibit A   The Egg bowl...   both teams sucked ass and had no dreams of a playoff birth or conf. championship.   That was a passionate kick ass game.  The students rushed the field and losing kicker slumped like his dog died.   That's what college football is about.

As for playoffs....  4 is better than 2 and 8 would be better than 4.  Arguing for less football is stupid.

Edited December 8, 2019 by Loco

[Pam Cummings 9883]

2 minutes ago, Landomatic said:

That the regular season means jack dick in the NFL compared to college.  Just look at the Cowboys if you think otherwise.

The argument here isn’t committee/no committee.  That’s a different conversation.

Try and catch up.  As usual, you’re behind, Pam.

But clearly the regular season does matter if we are all paying attention to who wins the shitty NFC east.

[Landomatic 3813]

6 minutes ago, Eastwood said:

They did. They have the hardware to prove it now.

 

3 minutes ago, Pam Cummings said:

They won their conference and are standing out in the cold holding their dicks. What's even funnier is if they had the same record and won the SEC they would be in and people like you would say they proved it by winning the SEC.

Two words...

Two.  Losses.

[Homercles 10206]

1 hour ago, mdleast said:

This may have already been covered here but was listening to a CFB podcast this morning making the point that conference champ auto-qualification in the playoffs will discourage scheduling harder out of conference games. That’s a fair point.

Again...that doesn’t make sense to me, at all.  OOC games don’t count at all towards getting to your CCG.  If you schedule tough teams an win, it’ll help your chance at an at-large bid...and if you lose, you put your yourself in an Aggie-like position of being in the conversation when you only have a few losses.  
 

Sounds like BS to me. 

Edited December 8, 2019 by Homercles

[Iceman 2978]

4 minutes ago, Landomatic said:

So, should all teams with 2 losses have a shot at it?  How do you determine where to draw the line?

Conference title, then 3 at large if an 8 team PO.

Conference title and 2nd place team, then 6 at large if 16 teams. I’d be fine with eliminating CCGs and offsetting the revenue with the additional round of POs.

[Eastwood 4394]

2 minutes ago, Landomatic said:

 

Two words...

Two.  Losses.

Cool. So why OU over Ohio State last year? Both conference champions. Both one loss. I guess one of them took care of business and the other didn't?

[JBJ 3828]

45 minutes ago, Iceman said:

There are some very realways to standardize the schedules.  That is most obviously and emphatically not the goal.

Standardization, imo, is far more important than selection method or expansion.

[Beau Vine 55870]

4 hours ago, Landomatic said:

This model just makes the regular season so much better than having more teams would.

This model makes the regular season so much better if you're one of the 10 or so blue-blood teams from a power conference who has a non-zero chance of making the playoffs when the season kicks off in August.

[Beau Vine 55870]

17 minutes ago, Landomatic said:

If Oregon would have scheduled Tulsa instead of Auburn we wouldn’t have to guess now would we?

fify

[Landomatic 3813]

2 minutes ago, Eastwood said:

Cool. So why OU over Ohio State last year? Both conference champions. Both one loss. I guess one of them took care of business and the other didn't?

That argument will take place at every cutoff point regardless of the number of teams damn near every year.

[Landomatic 3813]

4 minutes ago, JBJ said:

Standardization, imo, is far more important than selection method or expansion.

Truth.

[Homercles 10206]

39 minutes ago, NowThis said:

so in your world, OU is better than Alabama?

Maybe yep.  We don’t know because they won’t play.  And the committee sure did their best to give them a leg up but alas they lost twice.  

[Homercles 10206]

11 minutes ago, JBJ said:

Standardization, imo, is far more important than selection method or expansion.

Indeed.  Like the basketball tourney, you know what it’ll take to guarantee a selection...win your conference (tournament).  If you can’t do that, have a great season and chew your nails on a Sunday.  

Edited December 8, 2019 by Homercles

[StruggleBus 3922]

14 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

This model makes the regular season so much better if you're one of the 10 or so blue-blood teams from a power conference who has a non-zero chance of making the playoffs when the season kicks off in August.

Exactly. The college football season is over for the vast majority of teams after their non conference schedule. That actually makes regular season games mean quite a bit less.

[JBJ 3828]

3 minutes ago, Homercles said:

Indeed.  Like the basketball tourney, you know what it’ll take to guarantee a selection...win your conference (tournament).  If you can’t do that, have a great season and chew your nails on a Sunday.  

I mean season standardization.  Abolish divisions, play conference schedules based on finish from the previous year.  Play one or two OOCs based on the same - whatever gets you to 10 games.

[ChickenSandwich 9961]

6 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

This model makes the regular season so much better if you're one of the 10 or so blue-blood teams from a power conference who has a non-zero chance of making the playoffs when the season kicks off in August.

Yeah, PAC 12 title really means something this year. 
 

An 8 team playoff enhances the regular season not Damages it. Good for Oregon and Auburn for their FIRST week game matchup. Imagine Oregon plays Bama’s OOC schedule and is now in the playoffs. 
 

If the conference title equals a playoff berth you magnify the importance of conference games, not diminish it. 
 

Ex.  Currently teams entering conference play with an out of conference loss are all but eliminated from the playoffs before conference play even starts  (with the exception of a handful of teams).  
 

By having a clearly defined goal of a conference championship, they allow all P5 teams a clear path to the playoffs with at least similar schedules to their conference mates regardless of their choice of OOC opponent.  This immediately makes more PAC 12 and ACC games important as they aren’t assumed to be Clemson or an undefeated only before we even play a game .  It may degrade the OOC importance somewhat but compared to the current situation where “0” losses is all that matters, it could be an improvement  

It will also force conferences to take a hard look how they determine their champion in order to get their best representative in the playoffs. 

[BurntOrange&White 41941]

Conference title, then 3 at large if an 8 team PO.
Conference title and 2nd place team, then 6 at large if 16 teams. I’d be fine with eliminating CCGs and offsetting the revenue with the additional round of POs.

P5 conference champions, highest ranked g5 team, and 2 at larges is most fair for everyone.

[Eastwood 4394]

1 minute ago, Landomatic said:

That argument will take place at every cutoff point regardless of the number of teams damn near every year.

5 P5 champs, 1 G5 champ, two based on highest AP ranking at-large. Win your conference by taking care of business during the regular season, and you have a shot. It has been proven that on-the-field results can be wiped out by media opinion. The history of the playoff, so far: 3 undefeated teams left out of the playoff. 7 conference champions (not including the 2014 Big 12 co-champion bullshit) left out of the playoff. 4 one-loss non-champion teams left out of the playoff. The system tells us that the regular season does not matter, already.

[Landomatic 3813]

1 minute ago, Bevo VIII said:

P5 conference champions, highest ranked g5 team, and 2 at larges is most fair for everyone.

Unless you’re number 9 through whatever with the same record as 6 through 8.  It never ends.

[SimonBolivar 11065]

1 minute ago, Landomatic said:

Unless you’re number 9 through whatever with the same record as 6 through 8.  It never ends.

Sure there will always be debate, but that's no excuse to keep it at 4 instead of 8. I'm not terribly fond of the Cowboys/NFC East analogy that you keep using against conference champs.

 

1.) NFL and CFB may be the same sport but they have different ideas of success

2.) No P5 conference has 4 teams

3.) No P5 champion will have a losing record

4.) If a P5 champion is 9-4 or whatever one year out of ten it doesn't diminish the playoffs 1% when they lose in the quarters.

[Tom 2960]

3 hours ago, Landomatic said:

Still waiting for someone to name all these "examples".

 

 

2014 TCU/Baylor both 1-loss conference champions left out for another 1-loss conference champion.

2016 Penn State Big 10 champions left out for their own conference's runner up

2017 Big 10 champion left out for SEC team that didn't even play in their conference championship.

2018 One-loss Big 10 champion left out over one-loss Big 12 champion.  

 

The CFB playoff selection is a beauty contest whose rules change every year on the whims of the selection committee in the name of ratings.  It worked out this year and 2015 without controversy.  In every other season since the playoffs began in 2014 there's been some type of controversy. 

Banning schools who didn't win their conference from the playoffs would be good start.  Until there are enough spots for every P5 champion, there aren't enough spots. 16 is arguably too many.  4 is not enough.  8 is likely the sweet spot.  

Edited December 8, 2019 by Tom

[NowThis 931]

21 minutes ago, Homercles said:

Maybe yep.  We don’t know because they won’t play.  And the committee sure did their best to give them a leg up but alas they lost twice.  

none of the top 4 played each other. It's all speculation but the rule is best 4 teams. No way is OU better than Bama, neither is Baylor. Reality check.

[RollLeft 5092]

53 minutes ago, RollLeft said:

7 team playoff.  #1 gets bye, 2 vs 7, 3 vs 6, 4 vs5 and then 1vs 3 or 6, 2/7 vs 4/5.

Also no more than two teams per conference and a conference champion (that is also a top #15 team) not represented trumps the lowest rated second conference team represented.

So this year it would have looked like this.

1 LSU bye

2 tOSU v 7Memphis (conference champ and top 15 teams so trumps lowest ranked second conference team Wiscy)

3Clemson v 6Baylor

4 ou v 5 Georgia

Florida, Auburn and Alabama and Penn St.don't make it because not in top two of conference

Wisonsin, Utah all  trumped because lowest rated 2nd team in polls

ND not a conference champ, nor a top 7 team

 

 

[BurntOrange&White 41941]

Fuck no on the byes. Should be no byes at all

[NowThis 931]

hate the SEC but reality check... they're the best at the top. Dont' want to go CR, but demographics will keep it that way.

My top 8

1. LSU 2. Clemson 3. Ohio St. 4. Alabama 5. Auburn 6. Oregon 7. Penn State 8. Wisconsin

OU isn't a top 8 team.

[RollLeft 5092]

14 minutes ago, Bevo VIII said:

Fuck no on the byes. Should be no byes at all

If you are the consensus number 1 a bye is a nice prize for going undefeated and or the polls worth something.  Its not like they wont have two game after that anyway.  

[Junior Miller 1502]

The reason to expand to 8 isn't to get more worthy teams in. It's to get more meaningful games in and less worthless bowls while also giving a G5 power a shot if they go undefeated. 

They also need to get rid of the committee. Go back to BCS era algorithms to seed 1-8 and get 7 meaningful games to end the season. 

Edited December 8, 2019 by Junior Miller

[RollLeft 5092]

If you are ranked third in your conference I don't care about you even if your AP top 10, do better.  I'd rather give a shot to a team who is a conference champ and voted as a top 15 team at the playoff like Memphis (this year).  On the flip side an irrelevant conference champ without a top #15 ranking also can get lost.  You don't have enough voters to put you in.  I would rather have a #2 of a power conference who is ranked in top #15.   This system rewards the top two conferences and trumps the third conference #2 for a different/smaller conference #1.

Edited December 8, 2019 by RollLeft

[BurntOrange&White 41941]

If you are the consensus number 1 a bye is a nice prize for going undefeated and or the polls worth something.  Its not like they wont have two game after that anyway.  

The consensus number one is hardly consensus ever. It would just be another subjective ranking that would be criticized. Why not just make it 8 and keep it simple.


5 p5 champions
1 g5 representative(highest ranked - must be conference champion)
2 at large

[LonghornSean 4105]

Eight teams with P5 autobids and three at-larges. Top four seeds host the first round, which I believe would be a big enough incentive to limit some of the marginalization of the regular season in November and December. I would also be fine with the 4-5 game being played at a neutral site.

 

I'd prefer a BCS calculation for seeding and at-large picks but I'll live with a committee if it gets us to 8.  Also with autobids it might behoove conferences to adjust their CCG formats to match up the top 2 teams instead of divisional winners.

 

Regardless of the format I just badly want to see Texas in the discussion, preferably at OU's expense. I can dream can't I?

[hookem48 4857]

51 minutes ago, Bevo VIII said:

Fuck no on the byes. Should be no byes at all

yea fuck that 

[hookem48 4857]

36 minutes ago, RollLeft said:

If you are the consensus number 1 a bye is a nice prize for going undefeated and or the polls worth something.  Its not like they wont have two game after that anyway.  

a bye for one team? fuck that 

[JBJ 3828]

1 hour ago, NowThis said:

none of the top 4 played each other. It's all speculation but the rule is best 4 teams. No way is OU better than Bama, neither is Baylor. Reality check.

Bama played one good team this year and lost twice.