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

[Landomatic 3813]

2 minutes ago, C-Man said:

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.

We all bitch that the Big 12 championship game is pointless because it forces 2 teams to play each other twice unnecessarily.  But you want a CFP system that could result in 2 of the same such pointless games?

If Georgia and LSU end up in the Championship and Georgia wins, they’re the champs?  Despite having one more loss than LSU and having Gotten throttled by them just a month earlier?

Or if Baylor and Oklahoma end up there and Baylor wins, Baylor is the champ.  Despite Oklahoma winning 2 out of 3?

Seems this could add to the controversy, not take away from it.

[Auto Driller 2504]

3 minutes ago, Landomatic said:

We all bitch that the Big 12 championship game is pointless because it forces 2 teams to play each other twice unnecessarily.  But you want a CFP system that could result in 2 of the same such pointless games?

If Georgia and LSU end up in the Championship and Georgia wins, they’re the champs?  Despite having one more loss than LSU and having Gotten throttled by them just a month earlier?

Or if Baylor and Oklahoma end up there and Baylor wins, Baylor is the champ.  Despite Oklahoma winning 2 out of 3?

Seems this could add to the controversy, not take away from it.

Yes. The regular season doesn’t matter when you get to the post season. It’s the entire point of the playoff system.

[Huckleberry 32705]

1 hour ago, Landomatic said:

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.

This is not true. What they're saying is that there might be more than 4 teams in a given year who have earned the right to play for the championship, and that every team who has earned the right to play for a championship should be given that opportunity.

So, if we're stuck with a system due to lack of creativity among TV and league executives where the playoff has to have a preset number of teams, then 4 isn't enough. If there are seasons where more than 4 should be in then we need to have more than 4 all the time. And we frequently have seasons where more than 4 belong. 2008 is an obvious one but there are plenty more where more than 4 teams have reasonable arguments to be in at the end of the regular season. Hell, there were a run of them at one point. After 2008 there was an argument in 2009, 2010, 2012 (especially if Ohio State wasn't on probation), 2014, 2015, 2018. Probably more in between if I really looked at them.

Note that this is a separate argument from mine, but you're still not stating it correctly.

Edited December 10, 2019 by Huckleberry

[Gene Parmesan 3993]

That's how playoffs work.  Teams are seeded based on the regular season and then thunderdome it to get the winner.

[DanTheHorn 4902]

13 minutes ago, Auto Driller said:

Yes. The regular season doesn’t matter when you get to the post season. It’s the entire point of the playoff system.

That is the problem with the NFL. In college football the regular season matters because one loss can derail your season. So small schools get screwed and a loss weighs more for them than for name brands. Well I root for a named brand so who cares.

Edited December 10, 2019 by DanTheHorn

[C-Man 27068]

12 minutes ago, Landomatic said:

We all bitch that the Big 12 championship game is pointless because it forces 2 teams to play each other twice unnecessarily.  But you want a CFP system that could result in 2 of the same such pointless games?

If Georgia and LSU end up in the Championship and Georgia wins, they’re the champs?  Despite having one more loss than LSU and having Gotten throttled by them just a month earlier?

Or if Baylor and Oklahoma end up there and Baylor wins, Baylor is the champ.  Despite Oklahoma winning 2 out of 3?

Seems this could add to the controversy, not take away from it.

The main problem with the Big 12 Championship is that there is no need in a 10-team conference that has a round robin. The title is decided. If you have a 14-team conference and you only play two teams from the other division, that's pretty hard to crown a champ without a cross-divisional championship game.

When you have 120 teams playing 12-game schedules how in the world do you compare each team's schedule and results to another with any real degree of accuracy? You have to drill down and try and single out teams in smaller groups -- conferences and even divisions playing similar schedules. Pick a division champ, then a conference champ and then put them up against the similar qualifiers from the other top conferences. It just makes too much sense to me. Frankly, I can't believe there are so many vehemently opposed to it.

[TXSooner518 2432]

1 hour ago, C-Man said:

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

The more teams you have, the more seeding matters, you start adding in dramatically weaker teams, byes, home games, etc. Yes, neutral site games between only 4 top teams doesn't make seeding matter as much. For example, in the model you listed, Memphis is a considerably easier game for LSU than Baylor and Oregon for tOSU and Clemson, despite it being razor-close on who deserves the 1 at least. Most observers think the 3 teams are pretty close power-wise, with Clemson's resume obviously considerably weaker. 

56 minutes ago, C-Man said:

Yeah, this would suck. 

 

I said with all champs and only champs. That model doesn't have all champs and doesn't have 'only' champs. It has Baylor and UGA, who aren't champs. It is missing 4 teams who won their conference. 

Edited December 10, 2019 by TXSooner518

[Jimbob 417]

3 hours ago, Huckleberry said:

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. 

Plus, to your point there’s not enough cross conference play to really establish conference/team strength.  

Does the SEC have 2 of the best 4 teams in the country any given year?  Who knows.  Invite all P5 conference champs and let them figure it out on the field.  The CCGs become a play-in game or 1st round, a few at large also allows for the UCF and/or 2017 Bama outliers. 

[C-Man 27068]

8 minutes ago, TXSooner518 said:

The more teams you have, the more seeding matters, you start adding in dramatically weaker teams, byes, home games, etc. Yes, neutral site games between only 4 top teams doesn't make seeding matter as much. For example, in the model you listed, Memphis is a considerably easier game for LSU than Baylor and Oregon for tOSU and Clemson, despite it being razor-close on who deserves the 1 at least. Most observers think the 3 teams are pretty close power-wise, with Clemson's resume obviously considerably weaker. 

I said with all champs and only champs. That model doesn't have all champs and doesn't have 'only' champs. It has Baylor and UGA, who aren't champs. It is missing 4 teams who won their conference. 

Sorry, didn't read that closely enough. This year is an interesting one in that you have three teams that can all probably make a case for #1 and are also a level better than everybody else. I also think it's an outlier. My eight-team system doesn't have to include an auto-bid for the best G5 team. Put some parameters there if you must -- Top 12 or 10 or whatever. I don't really care. Replace them with Wisconsin and I think you have an interesting first-round matchup for LSU.

[Mole 4320]

We’ve established that a single game doesn’t do a very good job of determining the “best” team due to all sorts of flukes that can happen in a single game. This is why the NBA, MLB, and NHL use playoff series. 
 

Perhaps the NCAA should adopt the same model. Use preseason rankings to pick the top 4 SEC teams and then have a four team, best of 7 playoff series.

[Huckleberry 32705]

Here's another issue with the eyeball test and even power rankings based on season results.

Since the 2013 season, betting favorites in BCS/CFP/NY6 games are 22-18. Not against the spread, but in actually winning the game. Even more relevantly for this thread, since that same season double digit favorites in those games are 4-4. Again, winning the game not beating the spread.

So all those clearly better teams are at .500 against the clearly inferior teams who don't belong.

[C-Man 27068]

6 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Even more relevantly for this thread, since that same season double digit favorites in those games are 4-4. Again, winning the game not beating the spread.

So all those clearly better teams are at .500 against the clearly inferior teams who don't belong.

Clearly, they didn't want to be there.

[S11 16]

Here's another issue with the eyeball test and even power rankings based on season results.
Since the 2013 season, betting favorites in BCS/CFP/NY6 games are 22-18. Not against the spread, but in actually winning the game. Even more relevantly for this thread, since that same season double digit favorites in those games are 4-4. Again, winning the game not beating the spread.
So all those clearly better teams are at .500 against the clearly inferior teams who don't belong.

The eye test has led to some foolish results. Remember 2006 when all the talking heads were convinced Michigan and Ohio State were totally the best teams and both got destroyed by UF and USC?

[Iceman 2641]

20 hours 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. 

#1 team has never won it. Not a one game sample.

But we know who is better by looking.

[TXSooner518 2432]

Lol it’s a 5 unit sample size. Again, people are completely clueless as to probability and statistics. It’s not some amazing thing that a 30% event has failed to happen 5 times in a row.

8 of the last 11 NCAA BB champs have been a 1 seed, one was a 2, one a 3. OMG HOW DO THEY KNOW WHO IS GOOD WITH EYEBALLLLLLS

EDIT to add: On top of that, the seeding isn't really a "power" rank, it's a resume rank. LSU isn't the 1 seed because of some overwhelming feeling they are the "best" team, but they have the best resume. I think that most observers think LSU, Clemson, and tOSU are really close as far as who is "best." Any of the 3 would not be a surprise to win the title. But, for example, nearly everyone agreed tOSU should get the 2 seed over Clemson, yet Clemson is a slight favorite. Does Clemson winning mean the "eyeballs" are wrong again? Of course not.

Sagarin Predictor says LSU is the 4th best team in the country. Most computer systems have LSU at 2 or 3. But if they don't win the title, you'll be back here talking about eyeballs being wrong, when the eyeballs don't have LSU #1. 

Edited December 11, 2019 by TXSooner518

[Huckleberry 32705]

30 minutes ago, TXSooner518 said:

Lol it’s a 5 unit sample size. Again, people are completely clueless as to probability and statistics. It’s not some amazing thing that a 30% event has failed to happen 5 times in a row.

8 of the last 11 NCAA BB champs have been a 1 seed, one was a 2, one a 3. OMG HOW DO THEY KNOW WHO IS GOOD WITH EYEBALLLLLLS

EDIT to add: On top of that, the seeding isn't really a "power" rank, it's a resume rank. LSU isn't the 1 seed because of some overwhelming feeling they are the "best" team, but they have the best resume. I think that most observers think LSU, Clemson, and tOSU are really close as far as who is "best." Any of the 3 would not be a surprise to win the title. But, for example, nearly everyone agreed tOSU should get the 2 seed over Clemson, yet Clemson is a slight favorite. Does Clemson winning mean the "eyeballs" are wrong again? Of course not.

Sagarin Predictor says LSU is the 4th best team in the country. Most computer systems have LSU at 2 or 3. But if they don't win the title, you'll be back here talking about eyeballs being wrong, when the eyeballs don't have LSU #1. 

Yeah, but you just bring up another dumb part of the current playoff committee. They claim they're looking for the 4 best teams but then they don't seed based on who are the best teams of those 4. They talk as though power rating gets you in but then you're seeded by résumé.

[Landomatic 3813]

Every single "reason" I've read over the last 7 pages for 4 teams in the CFP not being enough would not get fixed by adding more teams.  Same controversy exist no matter what, you just slide problems down the scale the more teams you add.  So, the whole argument really just boils down to a completely arbitrary number of teams that feel right to people.

I like 4 because that number makes the regular season the most meaningful while still giving enough deserving teams a shot at it.  Others like 8 because they think more teams deserve a shot at it, even if that diminishes the importance of the regular season.  Both completely arbitrary.

[Iceman 2641]

Until teams stop playing FCS schools and having built in byes, you can kiss my ass on any ‘Regular Season matters’ discussion.

See also: 8 conference games and rewarding built in advantages.

Edited December 11, 2019 by Iceman

[DanRydell 799]

14 minutes ago, Landomatic said:

Every single "reason" I've read over the last 7 pages for 4 teams in the CFP not being enough would not get fixed by adding more teams.  Same controversy exist no matter what, you just slide problems down the scale the more teams you add.  So, the whole argument really just boils down to a completely arbitrary number of teams that feel right to people.

I like 4 because that number makes the regular season the most meaningful while still giving enough deserving teams a shot at it.  Others like 8 because they think more teams deserve a shot at it, even if that diminishes the importance of the regular season.  Both completely arbitrary.

How would it being possible to win every single game you play and still not win the championship not be fixed by adding more teams? 

[Landomatic 3813]

10 minutes ago, Iceman said:

Until teams stop playing FCS schools and having built in byes, you can kiss my ass on any ‘Regular Season matters’ discussion.

Until someone can show me a model that wouldn't allow the possibility of multiple 2-3 loss teams into an 8+ team playoff, you can kiss my ass on it not impacting the importance of the regular season.  And on top of that, until someone can show me any other sport that has a "real" playoff that doesn't allow champions to have multiple losses throughout the season, you can kiss my ass on it again.

Quote

See also: 8 conference games and rewarding built in advantages.

Now you're talking about conference realignment, which is a separate argument.

[Landomatic 3813]

3 minutes ago, DanRydell said:

How would it being possible to win every single game you play and still not win the championship not be fixed by adding more teams? 

Wut?

[Pimphand 5601]

The gripe between 2 & 3 was deafening. The gripe between 4 & 5 is annoying. By the time you get to 8 & 9 it will be manageable.

They need to bring back the BCS and let it pick the top 8 so that this corrupt ass piece of shit biased committee can't rig the shit and life will be as good as possible without adding too many games.

[bullet 1596]

On 12/8/2019 at 8:59 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. 

Nobody cares if the 9th team complains.

 

TCU was the best team in 2014 and they dropped them from 3rd to 6th after beating KU by 50 points.

[bullet 1596]

On 12/8/2019 at 10:44 AM, Bevo VIII said:

I challenge you to go back as far as you like and find a cfb season with 5 undefeated teams.

Simple.  2009.

[S11 16]

7 minutes ago, bullet said:

Simple.  2009.

2004 as well.

[S11 16]

12 minutes ago, bullet said:

Nobody cares if the 9th team complains.

 

TCU was the best team in 2014 and they dropped them from 3rd to 6th after beating KU by 50 points.

Baylor and TCU both got screwed that year. 

[Auto Driller 2504]

The idea that an expanded playoff will reduce the importance of regular season games is asinine. The NFL, with its 12-team playoff, has tons of matchups that matter every week throughout the season. Basically the current power brokers of CFB don't want to lose their ability to determine who is "best" based on opinion. Is there really something so unique about college football that the system used by every other sport across the world will ruin it?

[TeddyBearStallion 73]

37 minutes ago, Landomatic said:

Every single "reason" I've read over the last 7 pages for 4 teams in the CFP not being enough would not get fixed by adding more teams.  Same controversy exist no matter what, you just slide problems down the scale the more teams you add.  So, the whole argument really just boils down to a completely arbitrary number of teams that feel right to people.

I like 4 because that number makes the regular season the most meaningful while still giving enough deserving teams a shot at it.  Others like 8 because they think more teams deserve a shot at it, even if that diminishes the importance of the regular season.  Both completely arbitrary.

2014 TCU was deserving.  8 would atleast allow for a more objective champion by allowing more of the top teams to separate themselves from each other on the field of play.  

22 minutes ago, DanRydell said:

How would it being possible to win every single game you play and still not win the championship not be fixed by adding more teams? 

It's entirely possible in this rigged system, and impossible in a legitimate system.  Those against adding more teams to it are generally fans of bluebloods who the system is rigged in favor of.  

[TeddyBearStallion 73]

2 minutes ago, Auto Driller said:

The idea that an expanded playoff will reduce the importance of regular season games is asinine. The NFL, with its 12-team playoff, has tons of matchups that matter every week throughout the season. Basically the current power brokers of CFB don't want to lose their ability to determine who is "best" based on opinion. Is there really something so unique about college football that the system used by every other sport across the world will ruin it?

Especially if you use the regular season for seeding.  

[bullet 1596]

On 12/8/2019 at 2:08 PM, 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.  

The #1 team has yet to win the playoff.

Byes are stupid because the committees really don't have a clue who the top team is.

[DanRydell 799]

Wut?

What exactly were you unable to comprehend?

[C-Man 27068]

4 minutes ago, Auto Driller said:

The idea that an expanded playoff will reduce the importance of regular season games is asinine. The NFL, with its 12-team playoff, has tons of matchups that matter every week throughout the season. Basically the current power brokers of CFB don't want to lose their ability to determine who is "best" based on opinion. Is there really something so unique about college football that the system used by every other sport across the world will ruin it?

Exactly. The regular season games that will matter -- the conference games -- will still be massive because if you go the conference champs-earn-auto-bids route that's the easiest and most sure-fire way to get in the final eight. Fall out of that and you're taking your chances on not getting in as one of precious few wild card spots. Teams won't be punished by scheduling -- and potentially losing -- big-time, cross conference matchups before league play starts. Win a game against, say, Alabama or Ohio State or Clemson and holy shit that looks good on the ledger and will help tremendously with seeding. There is a sweet spot -- and I think it's eight. I could perhaps handle 16. Any more is too much -- and 16 is probably too much.

[bullet 1596]

On 12/9/2019 at 1:19 PM, Huckleberry said:

Also, people always talk about the best 4 teams or the best 8 or whatever. And the other side of the argument has conceded that for some reason. I say fuck that. 

This is about a championship. What you've actually accomplished on the field in terms of wins and losses should be way more important than power rankings. Life isn't fair. The Washington Nationals would be huge underdogs again if they replayed the World Series. Who gives a shit? If there were a next level in baseball, would that mean the Astros deserve to go more than the Nationals? 

Winning your conference championship means you're the champs. You belong in the next level of the national championship decision. 

And who really knows who the best 4 or 8 are until they play the games?

[TeddyBearStallion 73]

8 minutes ago, C-Man said:

Exactly. The regular season games that will matter -- the conference games -- will still be massive because if you go the conference champs-earn-auto-bids route that's the easiest and most sure-fire way to get in the final eight. Fall out of that and you're taking your chances on not getting in as one of precious few wild card spots. Teams won't be punished by scheduling -- and potentially losing -- big-time, cross conference matchups before league play starts. Win a game against, say, Alabama or Ohio State or Clemson and holy shit that looks good on the ledger and will help tremendously with seeding. There is a sweet spot -- and I think it's eight. I could perhaps handle 16. Any more is too much -- and 16 is probably too much.

Use SOS for seeding.  The tougher you schedule, the higher you are seeded.  

[bullet 1596]

On 12/9/2019 at 3:53 PM, C-Man said:

They don't play remotely close to the same schedules so I'd be reluctant to say one conference's 3-loss team isn't on par with another's 1-loss team. If the 1-loss SEC team blew team's doors off in the regular season (like LSU) they're still likely to snag a spot in the top eight but simply have a lower seeding probably. If that 3-loss ACC team beat another 3-loss team in the conference champ game it's like Thunderdome -- two teams enter, one team leaves.

LSU would boat-race Baylor. Bama narrowly lost to Auburn with their backup QB. Bama will have a dozen or more kids drafted in April. They've been in the playoffs every year and recruited Top 5 classes for a decade. Baylor has a great coach but was 1-11 three years ago. I'm not taking Baylor to beat Bama this year but, fuck, let's play it off. I'd take Bama in the playoffs over Georgia so they're in my top eight probably.

Did you watch the LSU-Texas and Baylor-Texas games?

I agree LSU is better, but Baylor can definitely win.

[Huckleberry 32705]

13 minutes ago, C-Man said:

Exactly. The regular season games that will matter -- the conference games -- will still be massive because if you go the conference champs-earn-auto-bids route that's the easiest and most sure-fire way to get in the final eight. Fall out of that and you're taking your chances on not getting in as one of precious few wild card spots. Teams won't be punished by scheduling -- and potentially losing -- big-time, cross conference matchups before league play starts. Win a game against, say, Alabama or Ohio State or Clemson and holy shit that looks good on the ledger and will help tremendously with seeding. There is a sweet spot -- and I think it's eight. I could perhaps handle 16. Any more is too much -- and 16 is probably too much.

I agree that 16 is a bit too much but to me that means that they need to break off into a separate division. It's wrong to be able to go undefeated for a season and not be the champs. With the current structure it should be all 10 conference champs with 6 at-large teams. First round on higher seed's campus. Second round too possibly but definitely neutral site semis and final.

What I really want is for the 5 P5 to be in their own division so it can be those 5 champs plus 3 at-large teams.

Edited December 11, 2019 by Huckleberry

[bullet 1596]

24 minutes ago, Auto Driller said:

The idea that an expanded playoff will reduce the importance of regular season games is asinine. The NFL, with its 12-team playoff, has tons of matchups that matter every week throughout the season. Basically the current power brokers of CFB don't want to lose their ability to determine who is "best" based on opinion. Is there really something so unique about college football that the system used by every other sport across the world will ruin it?

People are comparing it to basketball.  Over half the power conference teams make the tourney AND they have a conference tourney.  1/5th of all teams make the tourney.

Football would have to be over 30 teams to have as many of the P5 and 26 to match the 1/5th of all teams.  Nobody is talking about that size playoff.

Few people are even talking about 16 which would be 1/4th to 1/6th of the P5 (depending on how many G5 you included) and 1/8th of all teams.

8 would be 1/8th of P5 and 1/16th of all teams.  Totally different than basketball.

[DanTheHorn 4902]

8 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

What I really want is for the 5 P5 to be in their own division so it can be those 5 champs plus 3 at-large teams.

There should be 6 conferences of 12 teams in their own division. Sorry Notre dame you must create the 6th conference ACC, BIG and SEC would have to kick folks out. Require 9 conference games, 2 non-conference games within the P6 and 1 lower division game for all and a conference championship game. Then at that point 6 conference champions and 2 at large would be fine with me. Otherwise keep it at 4, I am an old timer, blue blood sunshine pumper. Every time those other teams join a real conference they never again go undefeated. So screw that as a metric.

[Huckleberry 32705]

Notre Dame can do whatever they want, to me, they are simply removing a path from themselves by staying independent. The 10+6 system this year would be:

(Note: Utah swapped with Memphis to avoid conference matchup in first round)

They're left out because they're not good enough.

[C-Man 27068]

35 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Notre Dame can do whatever they want, to me, they are simply removing a path from themselves by staying independent. The 10+6 system this year would be:

(Note: Utah swapped with Memphis to avoid conference matchup in first round)

They're left out because they're not good enough.

I don't hate that.

[Huckleberry 32705]

5 minutes ago, C-Man said:

I don't hate that.

That's where I'm at. Don't hate it, don't really love it. Like I said, it would be much better if the power conferences were in their own division, but I simply can't get past the absurdity of allowing dozens of teams to be in the same competitive division but then having a system where the reality is that they can go undefeated and still not be in the playoff.

[C-Man 27068]

1 minute ago, Huckleberry said:

That's where I'm at. Don't hate it, don't really love it. Like I said, it would be much better if the power conferences were in their own division, but I simply can't get past the absurdity of allowing dozens of teams to be in the same competitive division but then having a system where the reality is that they can go undefeated and still not be in the playoff.

Gagree. The matchups you posted for the 16-team tournament might have an upset in the first round but that tournament doesn't really start until the round of 8. I think eight is fair and best. It gets all P5 champs in, allows for that one team that runs roughshod over their schedule for 12 games only to lose a heart-breaker in the conference champ game as well as a UCF-type if one presents itself. But I like 16 better than 4, that's for sure.

[LonghornSean 3942]

 

[Huckleberry 32705]

Now was that so hard?

And fuck the Big 12 if that happens and we still have a stupid conference championship game.

Edited December 11, 2019 by Huckleberry

[JBJ 3649]

4 or 8 are the right number.  Either work for me and both have pluses or minuses.  G5 should  not get consideration above at-large.  Single seat is even worrisome as it will usually will put a team in a virtual bye week. 

The biggest reason G5s don't have their own thing is so they can keep a chunk of the CFP/NY6 money.  I'm all for fair treatment, but I really don't feel sorry for them enough to make them automatic.

Also, NFL comparisons largely do not work: (1) League-wide parity makes straight comparisons of records a good indicator of actual strength.  (2) Their scheduling makes it so that playoff teams generally play harder schedules than those left out.

Outside of 2 divisions, one conference, and a handful of OOC-aggressive teams. CFB is set up the exact opposite from the NFL.  Beat up cupcakes, try to win the 2 big games on your schedule, profit.

[LonghornSean 3942]

Yeah conference championship games would need to change or leagues run the risk of knocking their #2 team out of a potential at-large bid.

Edited December 11, 2019 by LonghornSean

[DanRydell 799]

Notre Dame can do whatever they want, to me, they are simply removing a path from themselves by staying independent. The 10+6 system this year would be:

(Note: Utah swapped with Memphis to avoid conference matchup in first round)
They're left out because they're not good enough.

Agree completely this is easily the best system if P5/G5 insist on remaining in the same division. If they want to split, then 8 is perfect.

[Vic Mackey 46936]

On 12/10/2019 at 2:58 PM, Auto Driller said:

Yes. The regular season doesn’t matter when you get to the post season. It’s the entire point of the playoff system.

Yep. Only college football fans of the FBS level actually want the precious regular season to mean more than the playoffs. Fuck the regular season. It's there to slot the teams for the playoffs and then let it play out. Imagine college basketball not having a legit tournament and having a fucking 4 team "playoff" and a bunch of meaningless bowl games.

It baffles me how people with even half a brain think the regular season is so magical for college football. It isn't. It's fucking stupid and so pointless for 95% of the teams out there. But they hide behind the logic that every game matters (it doesn't and not even by a longshot). 

[TeddyBearStallion 73]

3 hours ago, JBJ said:

4 or 8 are the right number.  Either work for me and both have pluses or minuses.  G5 should  not get consideration above at-large.  Single seat is even worrisome as it will usually will put a team in a virtual bye week. 

The biggest reason G5s don't have their own thing is so they can keep a chunk of the CFP/NY6 money.  I'm all for fair treatment, but I really don't feel sorry for them enough to make them automatic.

Also, NFL comparisons largely do not work: (1) League-wide parity makes straight comparisons of records a good indicator of actual strength.  (2) Their scheduling makes it so that playoff teams generally play harder schedules than those left out.

Outside of 2 divisions, one conference, and a handful of OOC-aggressive teams. CFB is set up the exact opposite from the NFL.  Beat up cupcakes, try to win the 2 big games on your schedule, profit.

Tell that to the 2017 Auburn team (who beat two of the playoff teams that season) who had its hands full with UCF or 2015 Florida State team who had their fill of Houston.  

 

Teams can only play whoever is on their schedule and you can't fault many of those programs if many of the P5s avoid scheduling them, which many do.  

 

Also, keep in mind that the P5/G5 divide is artificial (man made) in that it was a direct result of CFB being hijacked rigged and now controlled by the P5 conferences so they wouldn't have to share the $ with the other conferences, not as a result of merit.  Had that not taken place and had we had a true playoff in place, then there would be alot more parity among programs and conferences and you'd see a much bigger field of contenders each season and less disparity in talent and coaching among programs, making CFB much more interesting then the 10-15 team beauty contest we have now.  

 

 

Edited December 11, 2019 by TeddyBearStallion

[atomheartbevo 89457]

7 hours ago, Landomatic said:

Every single "reason" I've read over the last 7 pages for 4 teams in the CFP not being enough would not get fixed by adding more teams.  Same controversy exist no matter what, you just slide problems down the scale the more teams you add.  So, the whole argument really just boils down to a completely arbitrary number of teams that feel right to people.

I like 4 because that number makes the regular season the most meaningful while still giving enough deserving teams a shot at it.  Others like 8 because they think more teams deserve a shot at it, even if that diminishes the importance of the regular season.  Both completely arbitrary.

As long as people like Condoleeze Rice end up on the College Football Playoff selection committee for three years or so, we should probably move to 8.  And it's nothing against her personally, from what I read, she did quite well, but when you cast a net for a 12-member selection committee across all of the universities involved, etc., you're going to end up with a lot of folks who....you have to wonder what they are bringing with them as far as baggage/biases/etc.

They may have to recuse themselves from certain schools, but for fuck's sake, R.C. Slocum is on the current CFP selection committee. As long as we stick to 4, the potential is going to be there for somebody to really be screwed over.  It gets a lot harder at 8 - #7 and #8 don't have much room to bitch, based on the last 5 years.

Edited December 11, 2019 by atomheartbevo