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

[TXSooner518 2,455]

11 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:

So figure skating right? 
 

Your opinion and “eye test” knows best. Why play the games?   Why not use the recruiting rankings and the NFL draft results to say Bama is the best team? This type of shit thinking is why we hold teams to different standards and tailor the narrative to confirm our bias (best win, best loss, worst loss, championship game etc). 

OK you keep ignoring the point. So let's go. Straight up no spread. Every game I win you pay me $100, every game you win I pay you $110. Free money for you since after all, these teams haven't played. No POSSIBLE WAY to know who is better except for figure skating horse shit right? They are all exactly 50/50, so you getting 110/100 is a GREAT deal for you!! Oh wait, you won't do it, because even you don't believe this bullshit, you just don't like it because a lot of top teams are in a conference that hurts your feelies.

I get Bama, you get Michigan.

I get LSU, you get OU.

I get UCF, you get Marshall.

I get Florida, you get Virginia.

I get App State, you get UAB.

I get Cincy, you get BC.

I get Louisiana, you get Miami (OH). 

 

 

[SwanderedTalent 5,761]

1 hour ago, DanTheHorn said:

I said 4 is the right number even if a deserving teams are left out. So why the hell would you respond with this bullshit?

because I don't agree with the premise

[ChickenSandwich 9,961]

52 minutes ago, TXSooner518 said:

OK you keep ignoring the point. So let's go. Straight up no spread. Every game I win you pay me $100, every game you win I pay you $110. Free money for you since after all, these teams haven't played. No POSSIBLE WAY to know who is better except for figure skating horse shit right? They are all exactly 50/50, so you getting 110/100 is a GREAT deal for you!! Oh wait, you won't do it, because even you don't believe this bullshit, you just don't like it because a lot of top teams are in a conference that hurts your feelies.

I get Bama, you get Michigan.

I get LSU, you get OU.

I get UCF, you get Marshall.

I get Florida, you get Virginia.

I get App State, you get UAB.

I get Cincy, you get BC.

I get Louisiana, you get Miami (OH). 

Double post

Edited December 9, 2019 by ChickenSandwich

[ChickenSandwich 9,961]

45 minutes ago, TXSooner518 said:

OK you keep ignoring the point. So let's go. Straight up no spread. Every game I win you pay me $100, every game you win I pay you $110. Free money for you since after all, these teams haven't played. No POSSIBLE WAY to know who is better except for figure skating horse shit right? They are all exactly 50/50, so you getting 110/100 is a GREAT deal for you!! Oh wait, you won't do it, because even you don't believe this bullshit, you just don't like it because a lot of top teams are in a conference that hurts your feelies.

I get Bama, you get Michigan.

I get LSU, you get OU.

I get UCF, you get Marshall.

I get Florida, you get Virginia.

I get App State, you get UAB.

I get Cincy, you get BC.

I get Louisiana, you get Miami (OH). 

 

 

Again, if this is the model, why play the games?  You apparently already know the outcome. In 2014 you would have Bama and FSU. I’d have Ohio State. In your world Ohio State doesn’t get a chance because your eyes tell you Bama was better because they beat completely different teams and lost to another Ohio State didn’t play. 
 

all of your hypotheticals prove the point. You prefer a system that values opinion over results. Let’s say Tus is hurt week one and Bama loses 4 straight (1 conf game to LSU in OT). They then go on to run the table and win the conference championship game beating everyone by 4TDs or more.   I would bet my house they would beat a 1 loss PAC 12 team in a one game playoff but that doesn’t change the fact that Bama would have no business being given the chance based on RESULTS. 

[00and01 0]

What about a 6-team playoff:

5 from the P5 Champions

1 from highest ranked

All six would be seeded with the top 2 teams getting a bye first round. The last four would play:

3 vs 6

4 vs 5

3-seed winner plays 2 seed

4-seed winner plays 1 seed.

 

This year, that would have removed the need for debate between OSU and LSU for the top seed, and allowed Oregon and  one other team a chance...

One reason four works well is that even OU (yes I'm a fan) gets recruiting cred and pub along with the other three (even though I really don't think we belong). This makes those teams that are fortunate enough to be repeat participants selfish with sharing this advantage with other schools...

 

It's similar to schools like OU and Alabama wanting extra recruiting time/days for having to play in the conference championship game. Why would schools like Iowa State or Texas Tech want to give even more recruiting advantages to schools already enjoying the top spots in the conference...

[The Hot Dog Buffet 1,314]

1 hour ago, Landomatic said:

Fifm

Baylor alone should tell ya.  In there with a team they’ve already lost to TWICE.  Georgia in there with a team they’ve already lost to.  Memphis in there despite losing to Temple and beating almost no one.  Give me a fuckin break.  If anything, that tweet just illustrates that 4 is clearly the right number.

OU vs Georgia and Clemson vs Oregon would be great games. Baylor and Memphis would both probably get stomped, but I would still watch.

[TXSooner518 2,455]

21 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:

Again, if this is the model, why play the games?  You apparently already know the outcome. In 2014 you would have Bama and FSU. I’d have Ohio State. In your world Ohio State doesn’t get a chance because your eyes tell you Bama was better because they beat completely different teams and lost to another Ohio State didn’t play. 
 

all of your hypotheticals prove the point. You prefer a system that values opinion over results. Let’s say Tus is hurt week one and Bama loses 4 straight (1 conf game to LSU in OT). They then go on to run the table and win the conference championship game beating everyone by 4TDs or more.   I would bet my house they would beat a 1 loss PAC 12 team in a one game playoff but that doesn’t change the fact that Bama would have no business being given the chance based on RESULTS. 

No, that's not what I'm arguing. You aren't arguing (or at least weren't previously) that you wanted game results (and not team strength) to be the determining factor. You were arguing that there is no way to actually know which team is better if they haven't played each other, which is an idiotic stance. I disagree with solely results-based, and prefer a blend of analytics and win-losses, basically the most deserving of the best teams. But at least solely results-based is a defensible position, as opposed to the previous nonsense. What you were previously saying is in your hypo, who knows if Bama would win that game. Now you are saying, they would win, but their results don't justify inclusion, which I can't argue against, because that part is just difference of opinion.

[C-Man 27,793]

2 hours ago, Landomatic said:

Fifm

Baylor alone should tell ya.  In there with a team they’ve already lost to TWICE.  Georgia in there with a team they’ve already lost to.  Memphis in there despite losing to Temple and beating almost no one.  Give me a fuckin break.  If anything, that tweet just illustrates that 4 is clearly the right number.

Missed this earlier. But if there are auto-berths for conference champs the Big 12 Championship Game SHOULD go away as it's completely extraneous other than to make additional money. It was instituted to give the conference another "data point" for the committee to ensure one of the final four was a team from the B12. Hopefully (shrug), common sense would prevail and the game would go away if the champ automatically got in. If that were the case this year, Baylor wouldn't have played OU twice and would just have the one loss in Waco.

[JBJ 3,828]

My (model's) perspective on Alabama:

They are number 3 in my power ratings.*

*They are also 120 in overall volatility - last in P5 (haven't played enough good opponents).

*Dead last in offensive volatility (haven't played enough good defenses).

So who actually knows?  I'd say they certainly haven't played enough of a schedule to clearly say they are even a top 4 team.

[927 E. 41st 1,124]

Is there a system with no downsides? 

Since the answer is no, I'd just a soon stay with the four team playoff.

It's just my personal preference, but we already have teams with one loss that could win the NC. Go to 8 and you will start having teams with 2 or more losses making it there. That just doesn't do anything for me.

I guess I just enjoyed ruining OU's or Arkey's or Aggy's chance at an NC in any given year, it was always great walking out of those stadiums KNOWING that OU's shot at a title that year was OVER!

Again, just my personal preference YMMV

[Spankytoes 1,748]

2 hours ago, C-Man said:

Missed this earlier. But if there are auto-berths for conference champs the Big 12 Championship Game SHOULD go away as it's completely extraneous other than to make additional money. It was instituted to give the conference another "data point" for the committee to ensure one of the final four was a team from the B12. Hopefully (shrug), common sense would prevail and the game would go away if the champ automatically got in. If that were the case this year, Baylor wouldn't have played OU twice and would just have the one loss in Waco.

I don’t disagree that the Big 12 CCG is pointless, but last year it benefited Texas greatly. If we had won, we’d play in the Sugar Bowl as the Big 12 champ. We lost...and still played in the Sugar Bowl. Had ou lost, they would have played in a lower tier Bowl instead of the CFP. If the Big 12 CCG didn’t exist, ND may have edged ou out of the playoffs even though they were the Champ. They had more to lose despite having the better record. Baylor is getting the same benefit this year, so we can’t chalk it up to “Big $ fanbase”/viewership. If we didn’t have a CCG, the Big 12 runner up wouldn’t be playing in NY6 Bowls while the champ gets in the CFP.

[The Hot Dog Buffet 1,314]

15 hours ago, 927 E. 41st said:

Is there a system with no downsides? 

Since the answer is no, I'd just a soon stay with the four team playoff.

It's just my personal preference, but we already have teams with one loss that could win the NC. Go to 8 and you will start having teams with 2 or more losses making it there. That just doesn't do anything for me.

I guess I just enjoyed ruining OU's or Arkey's or Aggy's chance at an NC in any given year, it was always great walking out of those stadiums KNOWING that OU's shot at a title that year was OVER!

Again, just my personal preference YMMV

LSU won a national championship with 2 losses before we even had a playoff. A 2 loss team can and will make a 4 team playoff at some point.

[Iceman 2,978]

The eye test and committees are so good that NO #1 seed has won the College Football playoff.

Turns out, playing games on the field is far different from the beauty pageant some of you fuckers espouse.

[TXSooner518 2,455]

Being the best team doesn't mean you always win the games.  A 60-40 edge would be a HUGE edge to have in a game between top 4 teams, and yet if the 1 seed is a 60/40 fave against every other team in the playoff, they only win the playoff 36% of the time. If you have a 53-47 edge on the other teams, you win the playoff 28% of the time. 

Probability is a bitch, and virtually no one in sports understands them. 

[JBJ 3,828]

Which is why I post them weekly 🙂

If you are a TD favorite over the other 3 teams (clearly the best team), you only have about a 50% chance to win the playoff.

Vegas systematically gives worse ML bets for favorites because they understand the intuition at play makes us think favorites win more often than they actually do.

Edited December 10, 2019 by JBJ

[RomaVicta 30,606]

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.

Forgive me for not reading the entire thread, but I agree with the op. 

The main reason for expanding to 4 was to ensure that the top two teams got in. Every year, the top two teams have got in whether they were ranked 1, 2, 3, or 4. To me, arguing over who should be number four is irrelevant to the goal of having the top two teams in the playoff. The third and fourth teams from the top are already getting the benefit of the doubt.

The only injustice of being left out of the playoff would be if a team had a legitimate claim to be one of the top two. As long as the top two teams make it in, we have what we want: a legitimate contest where the best can win the championship.

I'd hate to be left out if I thought the Longhorns were better than the fourth cede, but that's the way it goes. Subjectivity is unavoidable and makes the whole thing kind of fun in the big picture.

Edited December 10, 2019 by RomaVicta

[Iceman 2,978]

36 minutes ago, TXSooner518 said:

Being the best team doesn't mean you always win the games.  A 60-40 edge would be a HUGE edge to have in a game between top 4 teams, and yet if the 1 seed is a 60/40 fave against every other team in the playoff, they only win the playoff 36% of the time. If you have a 53-47 edge on the other teams, you win the playoff 28% of the time. 

Probability is a bitch, and virtually no one in sports understands them. 

That’s not the point and you are willfully ignoring the truth.  People in this thread are talking about how teams look and who who deserves what and how others don’t deserve it at all.

Then when playing it on the field is suggested, well hell, why is that even a consideration? We know who would in by looking at the teams.

Only they don’t. If we wanted judging contests,  we’d watch fucking gymnastics or figure skating.

Edited December 10, 2019 by Iceman

[TXSooner518 2,455]

But that is the point. You're giving "the #1 team lost" as proof they weren't the #1 team. 

Also "playing it on the field" will by definition again include some subjective judgments about who the better teams are, for inclusion in the bracket. There is no way to do it otherwise, unless you want a 130 team playoff. Same thing happens in basketball, which settles its champ on the court, but still relies on a committee to decide who the best teams are for both inclusion and seeding. 

[Huckleberry 34,701]

32 minutes ago, TXSooner518 said:

But that is the point. You're giving "the #1 team lost" as proof they weren't the #1 team. 

Also "playing it on the field" will by definition again include some subjective judgments about who the better teams are, for inclusion in the bracket. There is no way to do it otherwise, unless you want a 130 team playoff. Same thing happens in basketball, which settles its champ on the court, but still relies on a committee to decide who the best teams are for both inclusion and seeding. 

Not really, you can have a playoff with no subjective judgment required. Only conference champions get in. Subjective opinion would only be required for seeding, not inclusion.

I don't want that system, but it's certainly possible and would require no subjective analysis or opinions. I agree with you that a blend of both makes sense, that's why I think that a playoff with all conference champions plus at-large teams is the right thing to do.

And another thing is that subjective analysis and opinion could even be further removed if you used rating sets with published inputs for the at-large positions.

Edited December 10, 2019 by Huckleberry

[Auto Driller 2,567]

On 12/9/2019 at 10:00 AM, SwanderedTalent said:

do we really not have any idea if Wisconsin the 9-7 New York Giants are better than LSU the 16-0 New England Patriots? because I feel like I have a pretty solid idea of whether or not they are

See how that works? You are wrong when you assume that you can project the outcome of every game based on regular season performance.

Any "playoff" that doesn't include some objective criteria for entry like winning your conference / division is complete horseshit. College football is the only sport in the entire world that uses the eye test.

[SwanderedTalent 5,761]

Just now, Auto Driller said:

See how that works? You are wrong when you assume that you can project the outcome of every game based on regular season performance.

Any "playoff" that doesn't include some objective criteria for entry like winning your conference / division is complete horseshit. 

OK. LSU won their conference, Wisconsin didn't. 

[Auto Driller 2,567]

Just now, SwanderedTalent said:

OK. LSU won their conference, Wisconsin didn't. 

So did Oregon. Who are they matched up against in the playoff?

[SwanderedTalent 5,761]

1 minute ago, Auto Driller said:

So did Oregon. Who are they matched up against in the playoff?

much as I'd like to see Oregon in instead of LSU, I think the committee made the right call there

you sound like you don't understand that four is the immutably perfect number of post-season participants in college football

[Huckleberry 34,701]

Well it's not, so...

[DanTheHorn 5,092]

8 minutes ago, Auto Driller said:

So did Oregon. Who are they matched up against in the playoff?

So did Florida Atlantic . Who are they matched up against in the playoff? and on and on and on and on....................................................................... These teams know where they stand going into the last few weeks. Oregon knew if they won out they were in since Georgia was probably going to lose. Yet they laid an egg versus Arizona State. Utah knew what was going to happen and they laid an egg versus Oregon. Baylor knew what position they were in before their game and they got caught at the 15 from behind but they played their asses off. So screw Oregon.

Edited December 10, 2019 by DanTheHorn

[C-Man 27,793]

1 hour ago, TXSooner518 said:

Being the best team doesn't mean you always win the games.  A 60-40 edge would be a HUGE edge to have in a game between top 4 teams, and yet if the 1 seed is a 60/40 fave against every other team in the playoff, they only win the playoff 36% of the time. If you have a 53-47 edge on the other teams, you win the playoff 28% of the time. 

Probability is a bitch, and virtually no one in sports understands them. 

And yet we've done this five times and not a single #1 seed has won? Hmm.

The #2 seed has won three times and the #4 seed has won twice.

[Auto Driller 2,567]

3 minutes ago, DanTheHorn said:

So did Florida Atlantic . Who are they matched up against in the playoff? and on and on and on and on.......................................................................

Nice straw man.

Look, we all know that the lowest levels of college football will realistically never compete for a national title.

Cut Division I down from the current ~130 teams to 80 or 96. Eight conferences with 10 or 12 teams. Conference title winners make the playoff. Everyone else plays bowl games like usual.

Or if we absolutely can’t stomach the idea of demoting the Rice’s and UAB’s of the world, give auto bids to the P5 winners + highest ranked G5 + 2 at-large.

[Huckleberry 34,701]

Nah, splitting divisions is the way to go. If your championship system leaves open the possibility that a team could go undefeated and not win the championship then it's not a valid championship playoff system. 

Either give a bid to every conference championship or end the charade that they're in the same division. 

[DanTheHorn 5,092]

6 minutes ago, Auto Driller said:

Nice straw man.

Look, we all know that the lowest levels of college football will realistically never compete for a national title.

Cut Division I down from the current ~130 teams to 80 or 96. Eight conferences with 10 or 12 teams. Conference title winners make the playoff. Everyone else plays bowl games like usual.

Or if we absolutely can’t stomach the idea of demoting the Rice’s and UAB’s of the world, give auto bids to the P5 winners + highest ranked G5 + 2 at-large.

I would say auto bids should only be given to teams considered to be in the top 12. Screw the Cowboys and Eagles situation.

Edited December 10, 2019 by DanTheHorn

[WBT 20,989]

23 minutes ago, Auto Driller said:

See how that works? You are wrong when you assume that you can project the outcome of every game based on regular season performance.

Any "playoff" that doesn't include some objective criteria for entry like winning your conference / division is complete horseshit. College football is the only sport in the entire world that uses the eye test.

The Giants weren't better than the Patriots that year.

[Auto Driller 2,567]

1 minute ago, WBT said:

The Giants weren't better than the Patriots that year.

Lol. Why even play the regular season? Let’s just watch some 7 on 7 tape from fall camp and award a title.

[TeddyBearStallion 73]

Option 1: take top 8 teams based on the original BCS formula taking into consideration (with emphasis), SOS and MOV

Option 2: All P5 conf champs, top G5 and 2 wildcards.  Require a 2 loss maximum.  If a conference champ has more than 2 losses, they are replaced with a 2 loss or better wild-card.  

In both scenarios, use SOS and MOV to help determine seeding, so that teams are incentivized to schedule tougher OOC opponents.  

 

If we did this with 12 teams.  the top 4 teams would start out with a bye.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[TXSooner518 2,455]

9 minutes ago, Auto Driller said:

Lol. Why even play the regular season? Let’s just watch some 7 on 7 tape from fall camp and award a title.

The Giants were very obviously not better than the Patriots. They didn't even go 1-0 vs the Pats, they were 1-1. Again, you seem to have a hard time grasping that the best team doesn't always win. The Giants were the 2007 NFL Champions, but not the best team in the NFL in 2007. It's really not at all a hard concept.

If you ran this year's CFP 1000 times, you would probably get a breakdown of roughly 300 LSU titles, 300 tOSU titles, 300 Clemson titles, and 100 OU titles. Whichever team wins this year won't prove to be the year's best team, but they will be the 2020 CFP Champion, which isn't exactly the same thing.

Side not - giant LOL at you saying "why even play the regular season" while arguing that a 9-7 team was better than a 16-0 team, which beat that 9-7 team in the regular season. You're arguing AGAINST the validity of the regular season there.

 

To Teddy Bear - NO LOSS MAXIMUMS AT ALL. They encourage pussy scheduling. Use the formula you advocate above, which considers SOS, MOV, etc., and if you're below a certain level, you're out.

Edited December 10, 2019 by TXSooner518

[TXSooner518 2,455]

45 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Not really, you can have a playoff with no subjective judgment required. Only conference champions get in. Subjective opinion would only be required for seeding, not inclusion.

I don't want that system, but it's certainly possible and would require no subjective analysis or opinions. I agree with you that a blend of both makes sense, that's why I think that a playoff with all conference champions plus at-large teams is the right thing to do.

And another thing is that subjective analysis and opinion could even be further removed if you used rating sets with published inputs for the at-large positions.

You would still have to seed it, which dramatically impacts likelihood of winning, so I still say I'm right!

 

[TXSooner518 2,455]

20 minutes ago, Auto Driller said:

Nice straw man.

Look, we all know that the lowest levels of college football will realistically never compete for a national title.

Cut Division I down from the current ~130 teams to 80 or 96. Eight conferences with 10 or 12 teams. Conference title winners make the playoff. Everyone else plays bowl games like usual.

Or if we absolutely can’t stomach the idea of demoting the Rice’s and UAB’s of the world, give auto bids to the P5 winners + highest ranked G5 + 2 at-large.

A playoff with all conference champs and only conference champs will suck suck suck. Every OOC game is now an NFL preseason game. Fuck that nine ways from Sunday. 

[WBT 20,989]

15 minutes ago, Auto Driller said:

Lol. Why even play the regular season? 

That's surely what the Patriots asked themselves.

[Auto Driller 2,567]

58 minutes ago, TXSooner518 said:

The Giants were very obviously not better than the Patriots. They didn't even go 1-0 vs the Pats, they were 1-1. Again, you seem to have a hard time grasping that the best team doesn't always win. The Giants were the 2007 NFL Champions, but not the best team in the NFL in 2007. It's really not at all a hard concept.

If you ran this year's CFP 1000 times, you would probably get a breakdown of roughly 300 LSU titles, 300 tOSU titles, 300 Clemson titles, and 100 OU titles. Whichever team wins this year won't prove to be the year's best team, but they will be the 2020 CFP Champion, which isn't exactly the same thing.

Side not - giant LOL at you saying "why even play the regular season" while arguing that a 9-7 team was better than a 16-0 team, which beat that 9-7 team in the regular season. You're arguing AGAINST the validity of the regular season there.

 

To Teddy Bear - NO LOSS MAXIMUMS AT ALL. They encourage pussy scheduling. Use the formula you advocate above, which considers SOS, MOV, etc., and if you're below a certain level, you're out.

I'm not disagreeing that the "best" team doesn't always win the championship. My point - and the point of playoffs in general, I think - is to give teams that have earned it the right to play for the championship. An no one cares who the best team is if you didn't win a championship.

[JBJ 3,828]

1 hour ago, WBT said:

The Giants weren't better than the Patriots that year.

That season illustrates exactly the shortcoming of the NFL model.   One of the greatest teams of all-time pitted against a team that didn't win their division in a rematch where the undeserving team had already lost.

1 hour ago, Auto Driller said:

Lol. Why even play the regular season? Let’s just watch some 7 on 7 tape from fall camp and award a title.

See above.  The regular season is diminished under this scenario.

Edited December 10, 2019 by JBJ

[Starscreacher 179]

2 minutes ago, JBJ said:

That season illustrates exactly the shortcoming of the NFL model.   One of the greatest teams of all-time pitted against a team that didn't win their division.

See above.  The regular season is diminished under this scenario.

Yeah its not like a team not winning their division winning the National Championship has ever happened in College Football.

[Mole 4,344]

My surely unpopular opinion: establish some published objective criteria for playoff worthiness (a scoring system that accounts for conference success and other metrics). Every team that meets the standard gets in. Any team that doesn’t meet the standard doesn’t.  The standard could be set to incentivize big out of conference games And make for a fun early season.

Each year could have a different number of playoff teams and each scenario is laid out ahead of time. Some years would have two teams, some up to 8. This would completely eliminate the last team out argument, since it would be clear they didn’t meet the published standard..

It obviously wouldn’t work due to TV scheduling nightmares and it’s backwards to our way of thinking, but I think it’s the most fair method that also ensures that championship teams are suitably great.

[Landomatic 3,813]

44 minutes ago, Auto Driller said:

My point - and the point of playoffs in general, I think - is to give teams that have earned it the right to play for the championship.

And the whole argument here boils down to how you define a team that has “earned” the right to play for that championship.

Anyone advocating an 8+ playoff, regardless of how it’s structured, is essentially saying there are 8+ teams every year that have “earned” the right to play for the championship, which is complete and total crap.

[Landomatic 3,813]

7 minutes ago, Mole said:

My surely unpopular opinion: establish some published objective criteria for playoff worthiness (a scoring system that accounts for conference success and other metrics). Every team that meets the standard gets in. Any team that doesn’t meet the standard doesn’t.  The standard could be set to incentivize big out of conference games And make for a fun early season.

Each year could have a different number of playoff teams and each scenario is laid out ahead of time. Some years would have two teams, some up to 8. This would completely eliminate the last team out argument, since it would be clear they didn’t meet the published standard..

It obviously wouldn’t work due to TV scheduling nightmares and it’s backwards to our way of thinking, but I think it’s the most fair method that also ensures that championship teams are suitably great.

I’ve been arguing this for years.  It’s the only system that would eliminate every possible flaw and subjectivity.  Would be amazing!

And I do think it could be pulled off with TV.  All you’d have to do is use the existing bowl slots for the games.  Just designate them as playoff bowls based on the number of games needed and backfill like usual after that.

[Eastwood 4,394]

24 minutes ago, JBJ said:

That season illustrates exactly the shortcoming of the NFL model.   One of the greatest teams of all-time pitted against a team that didn't win their division in a rematch where the undeserving team had already lost.

See above.  The regular season is diminished under this scenario.

The regular season wasn't diminished for the Giants. In fact, it made their last couple of games worth way more than the Patriot's last couple of games. 32 teams play for the right to participate in a single elimination 16 team tournament. There are at least 8 teams every year where the final games of the regular season are absolutely crucial to their chances at the playoffs. If the Patriots deserved the Super Bowl after the regular season ended, then why even have the playoffs? And in college, the regular season is absolutely meaningless for most of the teams after about week 4. Nothing to contend for on the national level since conference championships don't guarantee anything.

[C-Man 27,793]

2 hours ago, TXSooner518 said:

The Giants were very obviously not better than the Patriots. They didn't even go 1-0 vs the Pats, they were 1-1. Again, you seem to have a hard time grasping that the best team doesn't always win. The Giants were the 2007 NFL Champions, but not the best team in the NFL in 2007. It's really not at all a hard concept.

If you ran this year's CFP 1000 times, you would probably get a breakdown of roughly 300 LSU titles, 300 tOSU titles, 300 Clemson titles, and 100 OU titles. Whichever team wins this year won't prove to be the year's best team, but they will be the 2020 CFP Champion, which isn't exactly the same thing.

Side not - giant LOL at you saying "why even play the regular season" while arguing that a 9-7 team was better than a 16-0 team, which beat that 9-7 team in the regular season. You're arguing AGAINST the validity of the regular season there.

 

To Teddy Bear - NO LOSS MAXIMUMS AT ALL. They encourage pussy scheduling. Use the formula you advocate above, which considers SOS, MOV, etc., and if you're below a certain level, you're out.

All four teams in the NFC East finished .500 or better in 2007. Only the Patriots accomplished that in the AFC East. Divisional games account for 37.5% of their respective schedules. The Giants were 3-3 against divisional opponents that season and 3-1 (38-35 H2H loss to Pats in Week 16) against the AFC East. New England was 6-0 against AFC East and 4-0 against NFC East.

What conclusions can you draw? They played 10 of 16 games against common opponents. The Patriots had the much easier divisional games. Flip-flop the two teams in their division and the Giants very likely wind up 13-3 overall rather than 10-6. (The Pats are probably still 16-0 regardless of which schedule they play.) The main takeaway here is that NFL teams play a monumentally more uniform schedule and it's still not perfect, which is why you have a post-season tournament. Seed the teams and let's go! College FB can take a huge step by at least making different conferences playing by different scheduling formats/rules (with nearly four times as many teams as the NFL mind you) have a common qualifier -- win the conference you're in and you're in. Add however many at-larges that you must. Don't put any bullshit caveats on overall number of losses is an auto disqualifier and, boom, you've got a reasonable method for crowning a true national champion.

[C-Man 27,793]

2 hours ago, TXSooner518 said:

You would still have to seed it, which dramatically impacts likelihood of winning, so I still say I'm right!

 

Does it? Top seed has still yet to win the CFP! 😎

[C-Man 27,793]

2 hours ago, TXSooner518 said:

A playoff with all conference champs and only conference champs will suck suck suck. Every OOC game is now an NFL preseason game. Fuck that nine ways from Sunday. 

Yeah, this would suck. 

Quote

17 Memphis at 1 LSU
5 Georgia at 4 Oklahoma
6 Oregon at 3 Clemson
7 Baylor at 2 Ohio State

 

[C-Man 27,793]

21 minutes ago, Eastwood said:

The regular season wasn't diminished for the Giants. In fact, it made their last couple of games worth way more than the Patriot's last couple of games. 32 teams play for the right to participate in a single elimination 16 team tournament. There are at least 8 teams every year where the final games of the regular season are absolutely crucial to their chances at the playoffs. If the Patriots deserved the Super Bowl after the regular season ended, then why even have the playoffs? And in college, the regular season is absolutely meaningless for most of the teams after about week 4. Nothing to contend for on the national level since conference championships don't guarantee anything.

12 qualify for NFL Playoffs but that doesn't change your point, which I agree with.

Edited December 10, 2019 by C-Man

[Eastwood 4,394]

Just now, C-Man said:

12 qualify for NFL Playoffs but that changes your point, which I agree with.

You're right, I had the NBA playoffs in my head for some reason.

[Landomatic 3,813]

1 minute ago, C-Man said:

Yeah, this would suck. 

 

I don’t know about suck, but it would be pointless.

[C-Man 27,793]

2 minutes ago, Landomatic said:

I don’t know about suck, but it would be pointless.

Not sure I agree that additional high-level college football games that further legitimizes a team's claim to the title as being pointless. The conference champ/G5 participant/wild-card hybrid is the most inclusionary/democratic way of crowning a champ IMO. At least that levels the playing field somewhat and mitigates the SEC/ACC gaming the system in their favor.