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

[WhatTheBuck 28934]

7 hours 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?

Because OSU got blown out in spectacular fashion by a bad team. OU lost a close game to a ranked opponent and then won the rematch to win the conference. How is that even a question? Are you daft?

Also, wtf does it have to do with two losses keeping a team out of the playoff? 

[Eastwood 4394]

5 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Because OSU got blown out in spectacular fashion by a bad team. OU lost a close game to a ranked opponent and then won the rematch to win the conference. How is that even a question? Are you daft?

Also, wtf does it have to do with two losses keeping a team out of the playoff? 

Ah, so we're back to smell tests, eyeball tests, and statement games. Let's maximize the effect of transitive properties and opinions. Or we could just have both in a playoff because they won something indisputable: a conference championship. Why worry about conference championships if they aren't prerequisites to national title contention? 

[WhatTheBuck 28934]

7 hours ago, JBJ said:

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

That's easy to say. Like it could actually be possible. But it can't. There are too many teams and too few games, and like I pointed out earlier you can't know how good an opponent is going to be when you're scheduling them some years in advance. 

It will always be subjective and you'll never be happy. 

[WhatTheBuck 28934]

23 minutes ago, Eastwood said:

Ah, so we're back to smell tests, eyeball tests, and statement games. Let's maximize the effect of transitive properties and opinions. Or we could just have both in a playoff because they won something indisputable: a conference championship. Why worry about conference championships if they aren't prerequisites to national title contention? 

Why don't we just give everyone a trophy? Would that make you happy?

[tx 3 putt 78717]

A four team playoff is plenty 

[Eastwood 4394]

Just now, WhatTheBuck said:

Why don't we just give everyone a trophy? Would that make you happy?

I'm advocating for people who have already won a trophy during the regular season to have a shot at winning another trophy through their play on the field  and you immediately knee-jerk to "giving everyone a trophy." And you call me daft? You must have been a huge fan of the BCS model, or better yet, back when the AP just declared a champion at the end of the year. Fuck everyone else. Should have played better. Fucking losers...

[Iceman 2978]

12 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

That's easy to say. Like it could actually be possible. But it can't. There are too many teams and too few games, and like I pointed out earlier you can't know how good an opponent is going to be when you're scheduling them some years in advance. 

It will always be subjective and you'll never be happy. 

I could standardize it in one post.

1.All teams will be evaluated on a 12 game season and  9 game Conference slate.  If you don't play 9 games, a loss will be added to get you to a record totaling 9 contests.  Fuck you Notre Dame and SEC.

2. All teams will schedule at least one true road game, not neutral site; with a non-con P5 opponent. If not, it is a loss on the record.

3. All teams will schedule at least one home game with a non-con P5 opponent.

4. As long as points 2& 3 are in compliance, the 3rd non-con game can be at the level and location of the participating team's choice. This third game must be played before Oct 10th.

 

See how fucking easy that is?

 

Edited December 9, 2019 by Iceman

[Ignatius 4147]

12 hours ago, stork642 said:

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. 

Fuckin 100% this....

[runthebone 8379]

'05 Texas beats all of these fuckers

[WhatTheBuck 28934]

15 minutes ago, runthebone said:

'05 Texas beats all of these fuckers

Not if Ryan Hamby holds on to that ball. 

[TeddyBearStallion 73]

2 hours ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Why don't we just give everyone a trophy? Would that make you happy?

You say that because its rigged in favor of blueblood programs like yours. 

[Caver60 443]

1 hour ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Not if Ryan Hamby holds on to that ball. 

True! If your players had just been a LITTLE BETTER you wouldn’t be asking these questions. We are down and all, but it’s nice knowing we still live in your head. Gracias

[SurlyORama 165]

21 hours ago, Scooter Monzingo said:

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. 

Here’s the reason I don’t like the “at large” part. It is STILL subject to the “eye test”. The SEC might end up with 4 team out of 8 (with 3 being likely many years). 
 

5 P5 champions (conference decides that however they want), plus 1 team from “the rest”. Not sure how to pick that team, maybe the highest rated team from some committee, poll, computer model, or something. 
 

Top 2 get byes, then 5 total games. 
 

I am NOT trying to get the most “deserving” teams in based on some subjective evaluation by a committee, a poll, or the public at large. I don’t care if the “best” team wins. I’m trying to have an objective (as much as possible) system to fill a playoff and determine a winner of that playoff. The “best team” doesn’t always win the Super Bowl, the World Series, or the NBA Championship either. But the CHAMPION always wins. 
 

6 teams is odd, I’ll admit. The non-P5 selection isn’t perfect. Notre Dame might have too easy a path in. But it makes EVERY P5 championship (game) a huge deal, and prevents schedule gaming from allowing over representing a conference to continue to feed a narrative about how awesome it is.

[gecko 1104]

If we had played Baylor’s schedule we would have been 11-1 also....wait, what?

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

I wish we used the BCS system to determine the playoff teams. 

I have spoken.

[Landomatic 3813]

12 hours ago, Eastwood said:

Ah, so we're back to smell tests, eyeball tests, and statement games. Let's maximize the effect of transitive properties and opinions. Or we could just have both in a playoff because they won something indisputable: a conference championship. Why worry about conference championships if they aren't prerequisites to national title contention? 

So if it were 8 teams, the playoffs this year would be...

1. LSU
2. Ohio St
3. Clemson
4. ouSux
5. Georgia
6. Oregon
7. Baylor
8. Wisconsin

How is that better than just the first 4?  Why do 5 through 8 with their 2 losses (3 in Wisconsin's case) deserve to be there over...Florida, Penn State, Utah, Auburn, Alabama, Michigan, Notre Dame, etc?  Seems you'd need a "smell test" or "eyeball test" to come up with that, no?

I've seen lots of proposed 8 team structures and I can find this same hole in all of them.  Let's go with 5 P5 conference champs, highest rated G5 plus 2 at large which seems to be the most common.  Here's how that would look this year...

1. LSU
2. Ohio St
3. Clemson
4. ouSux
5. Oregon
6. Georgia
7. Baylor
8. Memphis

Again, huge list of 2 loss teams who are outside looking in that have a legit bitch for those last 3 slots, not to mention when teams like Memphis beat nobody and lost to fucking Temple get in.  What about Boise St?  Same record as Memphis, also conference champs.  And can you imagine how that plays out when the G5 team gets bounced in the first game damn near every year?  I jut can't see any scenario where those 5-8 teams deserve to be there in any way shape or form.

There will always be some subjectivity with smell tests, eyeball tests, and statement games.  Changing the number of teams will never change that.  And my argument is that most years, number 5-8 have no business being in there as they've already shown in the regular season.

Edited December 9, 2019 by Landomatic

[ChickenSandwich 9961]

51 minutes ago, Landomatic said:

So if it were 8 teams, the playoffs this year would be...

1. LSU
2. Ohio St
3. Clemson
4. ouSux
5. Georgia
6. Oregon
7. Baylor
8. Wisconsin

How is that better than just the first 4?  Why do 5 through 8 with their 2 losses (3 in Wisconsin's case) deserve to be there over...Florida, Penn State, Utah, Auburn, Alabama, Michigan, Notre Dame, etc?  Seems you'd need a "smell test" or "eyeball test" to come up with that, no?

I've seen lots of proposed 8 team structures and I can find this same hole in all of them.  Let's go with 5 P5 conference champs, highest rated G5 plus 2 at large which seems to be the most common.  Here's how that would look this year...

1. LSU
2. Ohio St
3. Clemson
4. ouSux
5. Oregon
6. Georgia
7. Baylor
8. Memphis

Again, huge list of 2 loss teams who are outside looking in that have a legit bitch for those last 3 slots, not to mention when teams like Memphis beat nobody and lost to fucking Temple get in.  What about Boise St?  Same record as Memphis, also conference champs.  And can you imagine how that plays out when the G5 team gets bounced in the first game damn near every year?  I jut can't see any scenario where those 5-8 teams deserve to be there in any way shape or form.

There will always be some subjectivity with smell tests, eyeball tests, and statement games.  Changing the number of teams will never change that.  And my argument is that most years, number 5-8 have no business being in there as they've already shown in the regular season.

But that is the point. We have no idea if Wisky is better than LSU or Memphis better than Ohio State. That’s is all based on opinion. The have zero like opponents and don’t play head to head. 
 

[SwanderedTalent 5761]

On 12/8/2019 at 7:55 AM, Landomatic said:

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

your point was that an 8-team playoff would make for unnecessary first-round games, right? as in, why should LSU have to go through Wisconsin, why should Ohio State have to play Baylor, at this point?

[TXSooner518 2455]

On 12/8/2019 at 8:56 AM, DanRydell said:

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

People keep saying this. Oregon wasn't penalized for scheduling Auburn. They were penalized for LOSING to Auburn. If they had beaten Auburn, they still would have been in great playoff shape even after losing to Arizona State. If they played South Idaho State, and then lose to Arizona State, now they are gonna be behind OU, etc., in the 1-loss debate. Instead, since they played (and really outplayed despite the final score) Auburn, they were ahead of OU in the pecking order, and if they had won out, I'm quite sure they go over OU if both finished 12-1.

And that's ONLY because of playing Auburn. OU got a similar boost in 2017 for winning in Columbus that they might not have gotten if they had played Tulsa instead. 

[Loco 3754]

19 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:

But that is the point. We have no idea if Wisky is better than LSU or Memphis better than Ohio State. That’s is all based on opinion. The have zero like opponents and don’t play head to head. 
 

Would you like to see more top10 vs top10 football games?

[Pam Cummings 9883]

Yeah more football and more meaningful games would be a bad thing. Keep telling yourself that.

[Jive Turkey 13013]

the biggest indictment of the CFP system is that nobody else uses it.  wake me up when MLB or the NFL or NBA or NHL says, "hey, we should do what college football does.  let's pick who we think are the 4 best teams and let them have a playoff.  forget winning your division as some sort of automatic entry.  let's subjectively pick the 2 best from the AFC and the 2 best from the NFC and have a playoff with them.  they can do it with over 100 schools.  we can do it with 32 teams."

[High Plains Drifter 11192]

The entire system is fucked, top to bottom.

We have this hybrid system with a "playoff" and also a bunch of bowls and a ranking system. Everybody from ESPN to the conferences to the bowls trying to maximize money. Its ridiculous. No matter how you select the playoffs or how many make it, there will always be bitching and moaning.

 

One or the other. Either go back old school and have nothing but bowls (each bowl invites whoever the fuck they want), and whatever association of whoever can rank everybody however they want.

or

8 conferences (of 12 teams- get in a conference or forfeit any chance of a playoff berth fuck you notre dame), 96 teams is more than enough for Div 1 football) who select their champions however the conference sees fit. Random seed those eight by conference and select the location before the season starts.

 

Since I'm an old I prefer the former, old school way. But whatever, I'm about done with football anyway.

[JBJ 3828]

11 hours ago, WhatTheBuck said:

That's easy to say. Like it could actually be possible. But it can't. There are too many teams and too few games, and like I pointed out earlier you can't know how good an opponent is going to be when you're scheduling them some years in advance. 

It will always be subjective and you'll never be happy. 

I think the committee has done a pretty good job so far with an impossible task.

It can be better and the best way for that is standardized competitive scheduling.  Every other league has this figured out.

15 minutes ago, TXSooner518 said:

People keep saying this. Oregon wasn't penalized for scheduling Auburn. They were penalized for LOSING to Auburn. If they had beaten Auburn, they still would have been in great playoff shape even after losing to Arizona State. If they played South Idaho State, and then lose to Arizona State, now they are gonna be behind OU, etc., in the 1-loss debate. Instead, since they played (and really outplayed despite the final score) Auburn, they were ahead of OU in the pecking order, and if they had won out, I'm quite sure they go over OU if both finished 12-1.

And that's ONLY because of playing Auburn. OU got a similar boost in 2017 for winning in Columbus that they might not have gotten if they had played Tulsa instead. 

I agree with what you are saying, but it's pretty undeniable that the meta-strategy is to play as few losable games as possible.  Not just for playoff hopefuls, but for teams that want to make or improve bowl standing.  Tennessee made a bowl this year even while losing to GSU and BYU.

[WhatTheBuck 28934]

37 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:

But that is the point. We have no idea if Wisky is better than LSU or Memphis better than Ohio State. That’s is all based on opinion. The have zero like opponents and don’t play head to head. 

This is the mentality that will lead to the 16 team playoff, which WILL happen. Count on it. And people will still complain. 

[TXSooner518 2455]

39 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:

But that is the point. We have no idea if Wisky is better than LSU or Memphis better than Ohio State. That’s is all based on opinion. The have zero like opponents and don’t play head to head. 
 

LOLOLOL. This argument is absolutely ridiculous. Again, if you really think this, you should just blindly mash bets on  every underdog. I mean, OU hasn't played LSU, and they each beat their common opponent by 7, so OU +11 is free money since it's absolutely a coinflip!  If Memphis played tOSU in an 8 team playoff, you think it is 50-50 as to which team wins, since after all, we have no way to know that tOSU is better than Memphis?  No one is dumb enough to believe that.

6 minutes ago, JBJ said:

I think the committee has done a pretty good job so far with an impossible task.

It can be better and the best way for that is standardized competitive scheduling.  Every other league has this figured out.

I agree with what you are saying, but it's pretty undeniable that the meta-strategy is to play as few losable games as possible.  Not just for playoff hopefuls, but for teams that want to make or improve bowl standing.  Tennessee made a bowl this year even while losing to GSU and BYU.

Then teams with that meta-strategy can't bitch when it blows up in their face. If Baylor had beaten a P5 team in 2014 instead of 3 total bottom-feeders, they very well might have gone over tOSU. If OU had played Tulsa instead of tOSU in 2017, they might just have been watching tOSU in the playoffs instead. Georgia scheduling and beating ND in 2017 and this year kept them in the playoff convo. Auburn beating Oregon would have gotten them in for sure at 11-2. 

Sure, if you're a West Virginia or Tennessee trying to rebuild to get back into the upper levels, scheduling some wins to build confidence, get bowls, etc., makes sense. But it's not gonna get you into the playoffs if there is a debate. 

[SwanderedTalent 5761]

do we really not have any idea if Wisconsin is better than LSU? because I feel like I have a pretty solid idea of whether or not they are

[WhatTheBuck 28934]

20 minutes ago, Pam Cummings said:

Yeah more football and more meaningful games would be a bad thing. Keep telling yourself that.

Get your fat ass off the couch and start traveling to attend games in person and you might change your tune.

'Duh, more football good!' I get it. That's not a good reason to expand the playoff to include teams who have no business competing for a championship. 

[WBT 20989]

24 minutes ago, Jive Turkey said:

the biggest indictment of the CFP system is that nobody else uses it.  wake me up when MLB or the NFL or NBA or NHL says, "hey, we should do what college football does.  let's pick who we think are the 4 best teams and let them have a playoff.  forget winning your division as some sort of automatic entry.  let's subjectively pick the 2 best from the AFC and the 2 best from the NFC and have a playoff with them.  they can do it with over 100 schools.  we can do it with 32 teams."

None of those organizations have a goal of making sure the best team is deemed to be the champion.  They have a goal of creating artificially high stakes at the end of the season to make more money.

[Pam Cummings 9883]

3 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Get your fat ass off the couch and start traveling to attend games in person and you might change your tune.

'Duh, more football good!' I get it. That's not a good reason to expand the playoff to include teams who have no business competing for a championship. 

Who the fuck are you to say a conference winner doesn't "deserve" a chance to compete for a championship? FOH

[SwanderedTalent 5761]

3 minutes ago, Pam Cummings said:

Who the fuck are you to say a conference winner doesn't "deserve" a chance to compete for a championship? FOH

I'll do it. A two- or three-loss conference champion is not automatically qualified to compete for a championship today. A four-loss conference champion shouldn't under any circumstances. 

[Pam Cummings 9883]

3 minutes ago, SwanderedTalent said:

I'll do it. A two- or three-loss conference champion is not automatically qualified to compete for a championship today. A four-loss conference champion shouldn't under any circumstances. 

Only at this level of football. Any other level of football, they would absolutely be allowed into the post season. Because you see, in other levels of football, winning your conference matters.

 

I wonder if a 2 loss Bama would get in as SEC champ?

Edited December 9, 2019 by Pam Cummings

[SwanderedTalent 5761]

9 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Get your fat ass off the couch and start traveling to attend games in person and you might change your tune.

'Duh, more football good!' I get it. That's not a good reason to expand the playoff to include teams who have no business competing for a championship. 

I think it can be expanded to 8 or 16, as long as the expansion is mostly regional and favors the top teams in any given year. I don't particularly like the idea of the top seed flying to a neutral site to play a three-loss conference runner-up, then playing two more neutral site games. If we want to let them host that game, fine. If we want to give them a first-round bye, better.

[JBJ 3828]

18 minutes ago, TXSooner518 said:

Then teams with that meta-strategy can't bitch when it blows up in their face. If Baylor had beaten a P5 team in 2014 instead of 3 total bottom-feeders, they very well might have gone over tOSU. If OU had played Tulsa instead of tOSU in 2017, they might just have been watching tOSU in the playoffs instead. Georgia scheduling and beating ND in 2017 and this year kept them in the playoff convo. Auburn beating Oregon would have gotten them in for sure at 11-2. 

Sure, if you're a West Virginia or Tennessee trying to rebuild to get back into the upper levels, scheduling some wins to build confidence, get bowls, etc., makes sense. But it's not gonna get you into the playoffs if there is a debate. 

I'm not disagreeing.  It's a gamble in one sense, but it's still the safer play.

I just want to drill the fact that some form of standardized scheduling gives us both better football during the season, and more useful data points on how good a team actually is.

[SwanderedTalent 5761]

1 minute ago, Pam Cummings said:

Only at this level of football. Any other level of football, they would absolutely be allowed into the post season. Because you see, in other levels of football, winning your conference matters.

But at all other levels of football, there's a central authority that defines the conferences and the schedules are basically uniform for the games that determine post-season eligibility. 

At the other levels, the lack of autonomy also means that the conferences (or divisions, or districts, or whatever) are presumed and treated equally. Winning the AFC East is the same as winning the NFC East, even this year. Winning District 4-6A or 22-6A is the same. No one involved in CFB thinks or treats winning the SEC and the AAC as equivalent.

[Mitch Cumsteen 18963]

43 minutes ago, TXSooner518 said:

People keep saying this. Oregon wasn't penalized for scheduling Auburn. They were penalized for LOSING to Auburn. If they had beaten Auburn, they still would have been in great playoff shape even after losing to Arizona State. If they played South Idaho State, and then lose to Arizona State, now they are gonna be behind OU, etc., in the 1-loss debate. Instead, since they played (and really outplayed despite the final score) Auburn, they were ahead of OU in the pecking order, and if they had won out, I'm quite sure they go over OU if both finished 12-1.

And that's ONLY because of playing Auburn. OU got a similar boost in 2017 for winning in Columbus that they might not have gotten if they had played Tulsa instead. 

I don't know about that. OU hasn't been overly impressive the last half of the season and letting Baylor with its third string QB take you to OT in the CCG probably wouldn't have helped their cause. Oregon's win over Utah and the manner in which they beat them is probably more impressive than anything OU has done the last half of the season.

And this kinda proves the point -- we are arguing about style points and strength of schedule and all sorts of other variables that wouldn't fucking matter if you just let all the P5 conference winners in. I can't believe there are real college football fans even debating this. We have god knows how many meaningless bowl games and you would rather keep that system in place instead of adding 4 more games that actually count for something. 

[Iceman 2978]

2 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I wish we used the BCS system to determine the playoff teams. 

I have spoken.

After Conference champions, I’d be fine with it with schedule standards being upgraded as I described earlier in the thread.

[TXSooner518 2455]

7 minutes ago, Mitch Cumsteen said:

I don't know about that. OU hasn't been overly impressive the last half of the season and letting Baylor with its third string QB take you to OT in the CCG probably wouldn't have helped their cause. Oregon's win over Utah and the manner in which they beat them is probably more impressive than anything OU has done the last half of the season.

And this kinda proves the point -- we are arguing about style points and strength of schedule and all sorts of other variables that wouldn't fucking matter if you just let all the P5 conference winners in. I can't believe there are real college football fans even debating this. We have god knows how many meaningless bowl games and you would rather keep that system in place instead of adding 4 more games that actually count for something. 

I feel pretty sure about it. Oregon started outside the Top 10 in the polls. The Pac 12 cannibalized itself, and the narrative would be that Oregon and Utah were 11-1, but neither had even played a ranked team between the two of them. Oregon got credibility by controlling the game with Auburn, especially when Auburn proved to be a very good team. 

Similarly, I think OU jumps Utah if Utah beats Oregon (not positive, but think so, unless Utah smoked them), but if Utah had a really good OOC win, that changes things.

And also with Clemson, if they lost they were toast, but if they had beaten a top 15 team OOC, that would have helped insulate against a loss. 

Last, we will always be arguing about style points/etc. Why should Memphis go to the 8 team playoff over Boise or App State? Or let's say we are discussing wild cards. Should UGA's SEC title game loss put them back behind Bama? I mean, if not, we are punishing UGA for making the game and rewarding Bama for not. But should we ignore a pretty conclusive data point on whether UGA is elite/better than Bama?  What % of people would take UGA over Bama on a neutral field right now? I definitely would not.

Edited December 9, 2019 by TXSooner518

[C-Man 27793]

On 12/8/2019 at 7:50 AM, 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.

It appears to have worked this year but this is an outlier. Georgia had no business in the CFP and up until kickoff this past Saturday, analysts were still twisting themselves in knots trying to figure out how to get that second SEC team in there.

[ChickenSandwich 9961]

19 minutes ago, SwanderedTalent said:

I'll do it. A two- or three-loss conference champion is not automatically qualified to compete for a championship today. A four-loss conference champion shouldn't under any circumstances. 

If the SEC was as tough as ESPN tries to sell each year, you wouldn't constantly have an undefeated champion.  Theoretically if they were as good as pre-season advertised, the best team in the county could win the SEC with 3 losses and be left out due to a different schedule as long as other teams were undefeated or had only one loss.  You would be purposely leaving out the best teams because of an arbitrary measurement when compared to other contenders. The system puts the most value on the loss column. 

[ChickenSandwich 9961]

9 minutes ago, TXSooner518 said:

I feel pretty sure about it. Oregon started outside the Top 10 in the polls. The Pac 12 cannibalized itself, and the narrative would be that Oregon and Utah were 11-1, but neither had even played a ranked team between the two of them. Oregon got credibility by controlling the game with Auburn, especially when Auburn proved to be a very good team. 

Similarly, I think OU jumps Utah if Utah beats Oregon (not positive, but think so, unless Utah smoked them), but if Utah had a really good OOC win, that changes things.

And also with Clemson, if they lost they were toast, but if they had beaten a top 15 team OOC, that would have helped insulate against a loss. 

Last, we will always be arguing about style points/etc. Why should Memphis go to the 8 team playoff over Boise or App State? Or let's say we are discussing wild cards. Should UGA's SEC title game loss put them back behind Bama? I mean, if not, we are punishing UGA for making the game and rewarding Bama for not. But should we ignore a pretty conclusive data point on whether UGA is elite/better than Bama?  What % of people would take UGA over Bama on a neutral field right now? I definitely would not.

you say this like adding a top OOC opponent is easy and guaranteed when scheduling 4 years ahead of time.  See Aggy and Clemson.  Clemson was a bottom feeder when scheduled.  I'm sure Texas and ND both thought they were getting a better opponent when they signed the contract to play a home and home.  Shit changes

Edited December 9, 2019 by ChickenSandwich

[The Hot Dog Buffet 1314]

On 12/8/2019 at 7:59 AM, 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. 

Expanding to 8 would allow conference champs to get auto-bids. I would like that.

[Mitch Cumsteen 18963]

4 minutes ago, TXSooner518 said:

I feel pretty sure about it. Oregon started outside the Top 10 in the polls. The Pac 12 cannibalized itself, and the narrative would be that Oregon and Utah were 11-1, but neither had even played a ranked team between the two of them. Oregon got credibility by controlling the game with Auburn, especially when Auburn proved to be a very good team. 

Similarly, I think OU jumps Utah if Utah beats Oregon (not positive, but think so, unless Utah smoked them), but if Utah had a really good OOC win, that changes things.

And also with Clemson, if they lost they were toast, but if they had beaten a top 15 team OOC, that would have helped insulate against a loss. 

Last, we will always be arguing about style points/etc. Why should Memphis go to the 8 team playoff over Boise or App State? Or let's say we are discussing wild cards. Should UGA's SEC title game loss put them back behind Bama? I mean, if not, we are punishing UGA for making the game and rewarding Bama for not. But should we ignore a pretty conclusive data point on whether UGA is elite/better than Bama?  What % of people would take UGA over Bama on a neutral field right now? I definitely would not.

And Oklahoma beat exactly who OOC? 4-8 UCLA and 4-8 Houston? Their biggest achievement this year was digging out of the hole they dug for themselves against Baylor. And then unimpressively hanging on against Baylor in OT with their 3rd string QB who had something like 3 passes all season in the championship game. How did the Pac cannibalize itself any worse than the Big 12 did this season?

With regard to the other notion that we will always be arguing about style points, I think it makes more sense to argue about them with the 3 teams after 5 other teams have automatic bids. 

And what exact data point do we have regarding UGA/Bama? For sure Georgia would get into the playoff. They finished 5 in the final poll. You think Bama with no Tua, who lost to the only two decent teams they played this year would be an overwhelming favorite against Georgia? Or that they would make an 8 team playoff field in a final poll that they finished 13 in? What sport are you watching? 

[WhatTheBuck 28934]

33 minutes ago, Pam Cummings said:

Who the fuck are you to say a conference winner doesn't "deserve" a chance to compete for a championship? FOH

Someone with eyes and a memory and more than a few years experience watching college football. You're fucking clueless if you think Memphis has any business competing with LSU, tOSU, and Clemson for a title. And who the fuck are you to dictate how many postseason games a senior should play, strictly for your entertainment watching at home on tv, before they head off to their professional careers whether in the pros or elsewhere?

Put Memphis in an 8 team playoff and a star player with draft potential might just say, "Fuck it, I'm sitting out."

[WhatTheBuck 28934]

20 minutes ago, The Hot Dog Buffet said:

Expanding to 8 would allow conference champs to get auto-bids. I would like that.

How would you deal with the independents? Would the same rules apply to all of them or would Notre Dame get special treatment?

[S11 16]

50 minutes ago, SwanderedTalent said:

I'll do it. A two- or three-loss conference champion is not automatically qualified to compete for a championship today. A four-loss conference champion shouldn't under any circumstances. 

If we are expanding to eight I would have the following setup:

p5 conference champs are in with fewer than three losses or autobid shifts to an at-large.

top G5 champ is in with similar don’t have three losses or you lose the autobid criteria

Unbeaten G5 champs not already in get non-binding preference for remaining at-Large spots.   That way a good G5 like 2009 TCU and 2009 Boise who tried to schedule well get in when they deserve it but teams can’t just gerrymander their way to it by scheduling only cupcakes.

 

why three losses?  It’s 25% of a regular season and two losses is the most Any national champ over 20 years has had.

Edited December 9, 2019 by S11

[Landomatic 3813]

36 minutes ago, SwanderedTalent said:

But at all other levels of football, there's a central authority that defines the conferences and the schedules are basically uniform for the games that determine post-season eligibility. 

At the other levels, the lack of autonomy also means that the conferences (or divisions, or districts, or whatever) are presumed and treated equally. Winning the AFC East is the same as winning the NFC East, even this year. Winning District 4-6A or 22-6A is the same. No one involved in CFB thinks or treats winning the SEC and the AAC as equivalent.

This cannot be emphasized enough.  College football will always (and should) have some element subjectivity when selecting teams regardless of how many teams are in.  Unless a major overhaul of standardization happens, which I don’t see happening, this whole “every real sport does it that way” argument is apples and oranges and pointless.

The only valid argument with regard to every other sport doing it that way is that it does, in fact, devalue the regular season.  Nobody can argue that losing games in the NFL, NBA, MLB, etc doesn’t have far less of an impact on your chances of winning a title than it does in NCAA football.

[C-Man 27793]

32 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Someone with eyes and a memory and more than a few years experience watching college football. You're fucking clueless if you think Memphis has any business competing with LSU, tOSU, and Clemson for a title. And who the fuck are you to dictate how many postseason games a senior should play, strictly for your entertainment watching at home on tv, before they head off to their professional careers whether in the pros or elsewhere?

Put Memphis in an 8 team playoff and a star player with draft potential might just say, "Fuck it, I'm sitting out."

The occasional G5 team is going to be competitive, though probably not win three straight games for a title in an 8-team playoff. I'm thinking Boise back in the mid-2000's or even UCF under Scott Frost perhaps. But you're throwing them a bone. What if they have a transcendent QB? Somewhere down the road, they'd snag one and it would be an awesome story.

30 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

How would you deal with the independents? Would the same rules apply to all of them or would Notre Dame get special treatment?

There are three spots after you let in the P5 champs. If ND -- or another independent is deserving, they will get in.

21 minutes ago, Landomatic said:

This cannot be emphasized enough.  College football will always (and should) have some element subjectivity when selecting teams regardless of how many teams are in.  Unless a major overhaul of standardization happens, which I don’t see happening, this whole “every real sport does it that way” argument is apples and oranges and pointless.

The only valid argument with regard to every other sport doing it that way is that it does, in fact, devalue the regular season.  Nobody can argue that losing games in the NFL, NBA, MLB, etc doesn’t have far less of an impact on your chances of winning a title than it does in NCAA football.

But it's so simple. Let in the five P5 champs. At the beginning of the year you know exactly the requirement to get in. There's no BS, not poll shenanigans, no "hidden" computer algorithms, no committee bias/subjectivity. Win your conference and you're in! How fucking democratic is that? Leave the beauty contest to the other three spots.

[C-Man 27793]

33 minutes ago, S11 said:

If we are expanding to eight I would have the following setup:

p5 conference champs are in with fewer than three losses or autobid shifts to an at-large.

top G5 champ is in with similar don’t have three losses or you lose the autobid criteria

Unbeaten G5 champs not already in get non-binding preference for remaining at-Large spots.   That way a good G5 like 2009 TCU and 2009 Boise who tried to schedule well get in when they deserve it but teams can’t just gerrymander their way to it by scheduling only cupcakes.

 

why three losses?  It’s 25% of a regular season and two losses is the most Any national champ over 20 years has had.

Yeah, I don't like any of these extra add-on wrinkles. Win your conference and you're in. I want to encourage more robust scheduling and that's curtailed if you start putting maximum number of losses for auto-bids for conference champs. Totally defeats the purpose IMO, which is to mitigate the horseshit scheduling garbage employed by the SEC (and ACC).

[Eastwood 4394]

11 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Someone with eyes and a memory and more than a few years experience watching college football. You're fucking clueless if you think Memphis has any business competing with LSU, tOSU, and Clemson for a title. And who the fuck are you to dictate how many postseason games a senior should play, strictly for your entertainment watching at home on tv, before they head off to their professional careers whether in the pros or elsewhere?

Put Memphis in an 8 team playoff and a star player with draft potential might just say, "Fuck it, I'm sitting out."

All the eyeballs and smells and statements in the world couldn't have predicted Boise State over OU. But it happened on the field. We didn't have to pull out the slide rule and our thinking caps to wonder IF it was possible. We got to see that it was. And Boise State walked away undefeated, having beat a top 10 OU team, and walked away with the Tostitos Fiesta Bowl participation trophy.