The Athletic - College football leaders ready to discuss eight-team Playoff

[Beau Vine 54230]

On ‎12‎/‎12‎/‎2018 at 2:16 PM, Huckleberry said:

That's not how it works. Playoffs don't determine best teams, they determine champions.

"Best team" is some sort of fictional beauty contest bullshit.  If the result of games don't determine the "best team," then why don't we award a 
Best team" trophy in August every year?

[BluTechsan 393]

5 hours ago, Beau Vine said:

"Best team" is some sort of fictional beauty contest bullshit.  If the result of games don't determine the "best team," then why don't we award a 
Best team" trophy in August every year?

We do.

Have you ever heard of Alabama?

[BluTechsan 393]

The Red Sox can never play the Yankees in the World Series even if they are the two best teams in MLB.

The Bears can never play the Packers in the Super Bowl even if they are the two best teams in the NFL

The Warriors and Lakers can never play in the NBA finals even if they are the two best teams.

 

Is this a good thing or bad? Should the AFC vs NFC, the AL vs NL, and the East vs West be done away with? 

 

So to expand on the strong division vs weak division CCG argument I'd be in favor of taking it a step further - If this playoff expansion goes forward, I'd like to see provisions where multiple teams from the same conference are all on the same side of the bracket.

No more Georgia vs Bama for the title. 😎

[S11 16]

12 hours ago, TXSooner518 said:

 

If you are talking future seasons and not 08, the team with 4 losses is likely to have had tougher competition than the one with 1, all else being equal. For example imagine if Clemson this year was actually the 20th best team instead of the 2nd. They would still be 13-0 or 12-1. If they couldn’t win this year’s junk ACC they wouldn’t be more worthy than a hypothetical 10-3 B12 champ Texas.

Again, conferences should figure out better ways to name champions than horrendously unbalanced divisions.

 

The gap between any of the P5’s isn’t big enough to justify letting team that lost 25-33% of its regular season in.  Even in a trash year 13-0 or 12-1 P5 team is better than the team going 10-3, 9-4, or 8-5 in all but the most rare circumstances.

[Guest]

4 hours ago, BluTechsan said:

The Red Sox can never play the Yankees in the World Series even if they are the two best teams in MLB.

The Bears can never play the Packers in the Super Bowl even if they are the two best teams in the NFL

The Warriors and Lakers can never play in the NBA finals even if they are the two best teams.

 

Is this a good thing or bad? Should the AFC vs NFC, the AL vs NL, and the East vs West be done away with? 

 

So to expand on the strong division vs weak division CCG argument I'd be in favor of taking it a step further - If this playoff expansion goes forward, I'd like to see provisions where multiple teams from the same conference are all on the same side of the bracket.

No more Georgia vs Bama for the title. 😎

Great point.  Win your side of the bracket/ conference and that's your chance.

Niners vs Dallas in the early/ mid 90's.  Everyone knew it was for the championship.  The SB was practically an afterthought.

I never have like the idea of seeding devoid of conference ties in the Pros.  never have really thought about it for college...

[TXSooner518 2438]

The gap between any of the P5’s isn’t big enough to justify letting team that lost 25-33% of its regular season in.  Even in a trash year 13-0 or 12-1 P5 team is better than the team going 10-3, 9-4, or 8-5 in all but the most rare circumstances.

Disagree. Maybe if you made it a gap between conference records. But if you take the exact same team and have them play an FCS and 3 bottom feeder G5 teams then a weak conference schedule for 8 games vs playing 2 P5 OOC and 9 conf games in a competitive conference that could easily be the difference in 12-1 and 9-4.

Over reliance on overall record will just result in more of the body bag games that nobody wants. Conferences can and should fix the problem by using better ways to determine a champion.

[S11 16]

Just now, TXSooner518 said:

 

Disagree. Maybe if you made it a gap between conference records. But if you take the exact same team and have them play an FCS and 3 bottom feeder G5 teams then a weak conference schedule for 8 games vs playing 2 P5 OOC and 9 conf games in a competitive conference that could easily be the difference in 12-1 and 9-4.

Over reliance on overall record will just result in more of the body bag games that nobody wants. Conferences can and should fix the problem by using better ways to determine a champion.

 

You’ve selected the rarest circumstance.  Basically you are asking for a severe minority of the two leagues playing 8 conference games who aren’t playing anyone in noncon.  Virtually all of those leagues plays at least one P5 so at most it’s a two P5 gap in 90% of outcomes.

 

Rather than working in theoreticals, find a real world example of a 3-5 loss “champion” with 9+ P5 foes that would clearly be getting screwed by a team that played 4 non-p5’s (only 8 P5 games or ND or BYU) and lost twice or less that didn’t win their league and most observers would agree the 3-5 loss team is clearly superior.

[wood 11225]

20 hours ago, Valmy77 said:

Yeah ok how many elite G5 vs. P5 games were there? There were none. So it is not really a fair comparison.

I am of two minds about the 'every champ gets in' deal:

First I am not crazy about a 16 team playoff. That is where we can have three loss non-Champs win it all and nobody wants that. And the Sunbelt Champ seems underwhelming.

But if we go with a 8 team playoff where an undefeated G5 can make it at the exlusion of any other sort of G5 that would discourage the G5 from playing elite P5 opponents and I am not crazy about that either.

But I guess no system is perfect.

I'm sure there are flaws in this too, but how about 12, with the top 4 getting a first-round bye?

[TXSooner518 2438]

I admittedly don’t have one at the ready, and you are right most teams will play 9 P5s. Of course sometimes that bonus P5 is someone like a 2-10 Louisville but I can’t use that as an example for 8 P5s.

2008 was a very rare year. I’d rather see TX Tech than Va Tech that year too. But making arbitrary rules that will make the sport demonstrably worse (focusing exclusively on W-L in a scenario without comparable schedules) just to reverse engineer for one specific season will just result in bad outcomes in future seasons with unanticipated fact patterns.

I would rather build a system that encourages meaningful games throughout the season. That’s what’s awesome about college football. Not teams scheduling dreck to make sure they aren’t worse than 10-2 and thus qualify.

Same with making the G5 be undefeated to get their spot. If they are guaranteed in if they don’t lose and out if they do, who will they schedule. I’d rather say the highest ranked G5 gets in or the champion of the strongest G5 conference, which encourages teams and conferences to get a strong SOS to earn the spot.

[Guest]

If somebody scheduled Louisville 5-6 years ago, for this season; it would have then most likely been with the notion that it was a quality opponent, with it being during the Strong era.

I don't fault a school for doing that.  i did enjoy aggy's November cupcake of UAB developing into something of a decent opponent this season.  That most definitely was not their intent.

[TXSooner518 2438]

If somebody scheduled Louisville 5-6 years ago, for this season; it would have then most likely been with the notion that it was a quality opponent, with it being during the Strong era.
I don't fault a school for doing that.  i did enjoy aggy's November cupcake of UAB developing into something of a decent opponent this season.  That most definitely was not their intent.

Right. And there are two components to consider - what a team was trying to do and who they actually beat.

Notre Dame this year is a good example. They tried to have a great schedule but almost everyone they scheduled had a down season. They shouldn’t be bashed for it but they also shouldn’t get a SOS bonus for trying.

[S11 16]

25 minutes ago, TXSooner518 said:

I admittedly don’t have one at the ready, and you are right most teams will play 9 P5s. Of course sometimes that bonus P5 is someone like a 2-10 Louisville but I can’t use that as an example for 8 P5s.

2008 was a very rare year. I’d rather see TX Tech than Va Tech that year too. But making arbitrary rules that will make the sport demonstrably worse (focusing exclusively on W-L in a scenario without comparable schedules) just to reverse engineer for one specific season will just result in bad outcomes in future seasons with unanticipated fact patterns.

I would rather build a system that encourages meaningful games throughout the season. That’s what’s awesome about college football. Not teams scheduling dreck to make sure they aren’t worse than 10-2 and thus qualify.

Same with making the G5 be undefeated to get their spot. If they are guaranteed in if they don’t lose and out if they do, who will they schedule. I’d rather say the highest ranked G5 gets in or the champion of the strongest G5 conference, which encourages teams and conferences to get a strong SOS to earn the spot.

Take the teams that earn a spot without taking 3+ losses

 

if you want to mold the rules to encourage scheduling up then find a way to do it that doesn’t screw over the most deserving teams.   Such as P5’s must play kat least 9 or something

Edited December 15, 2018 by S11

[ChickenSandwich 9836]

Conference champion auto bids should lead to better non confernce matchups (for better money) because the outcome doesn’t have the possibility to hurt your playoff chances (maybe as an at large or for seeding) by ending them in the first month. 

With so many players opting out of the bowls, they are meaningless in determining confernce strength after the fact. The SEC was not penalized for going under .500 last season even with two Bama wins. The big 10 most definitely did not get a boost from their strong bowl record last season. 

[VaLonghorn99 341]

Some P5 playing 8 conf games vs others playing 9 is the biggest issue that needs to be addressed. I think 8 conf games is good. Big 12 needs to add 2 more to allow for that. There are non-conf rivalries such as UF-FSU, Utah-BYU, Iowa-ISU, UT-agroid etc. which could benefit from an 8 conf game schedule. But us playing 9 brutal conf games while SEC playing FCS is just bull. 

[Guest]

Negged for suggesting UT-aggy game...

[ztejas 43448]

1 hour ago, TXSooner518 said:

But making arbitrary rules that will make the sport demonstrably worse (focusing exclusively on W-L in a scenario without comparable schedules) just to reverse engineer for one specific season will just result in bad outcomes in future seasons with unanticipated fact patterns.

Thank you. I was too lazy to type something out but this is my take. The goal isn't to get it right 100% of the time.  There will always be issues with taking just 8 teams. TTech doesn't make it in 2008? Tough shit. You got unlucky. That Tech team wasn't winning anything anyway. Let's be real. They lost to OU by 42 points, and OU wasn't even the best team in the country. 

[Huckleberry 32861]

Another thought for the guys who are so against 3 and 4 loss conference champions getting in (other than the fact that's the conference's fault for having a shitty championship system if those are conference losses).

Let's go to an alternate universe where in 2005 Vince Young is injured before the season starts. He misses the first 5 games and Texas is 2-3. They then go on to win the last 7 games, including the Big 12 title game, by an average score of 60-7. They are clearly one of the best teams in the country with Young on the field. And for once in this universe the college football gods smile on them as Oklahoma loses two other Big 12 games other than Tech and Texas sneaks into the championship.

So which is it? Do you want the 8 best teams in the country or only teams with fewer than 3 losses?

[BluTechsan 393]

So since '08 keeps coming up let's not just talk about who's in the top 8 and who isn't but let's also talk about deciding conf champs absent CCGs.

Tech's blowout loss made it easy to eliminate them but it was still mucked up because OU went over Texas - or was it?

If Tech got dinged for the loss, makes sense for OU to get credit for the 42 point victory, right?

Yet everyone hated that outcome because Horns won head-to-head.

If margin of victory doesn't matter, what should be the criteria for breaking ties? Which data point is most important?

Let's fast forward...

It's the fall of 2019 and CCGs are extinct.  How shall we decide the conf champs?

 

 

 

[VaLonghorn99 341]

08 Tech was a bad ass team

[S11 16]

23 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Another thought for the guys who are so against 3 and 4 loss conference champions getting in (other than the fact that's the conference's fault for having a shitty championship system if those are conference losses).

Let's go to an alternate universe where in 2005 Vince Young is injured before the season starts. He misses the first 5 games and Texas is 2-3. They then go on to win the last 7 games, including the Big 12 title game, by an average score of 60-7. They are clearly one of the best teams in the country with Young on the field. And for once in this universe the college football gods smile on them as Oklahoma loses two other Big 12 games other than Tech and Texas sneaks into the championship.

So which is it? Do you want the 8 best teams in the country or only teams with fewer than 3 losses?

All that my recommendation does is simply removes the automatic part of automatic bid if the loss criteria is met.  A selection committee can still consider key injuries and give that slot to the same team as an at-large should there be a compelling argument.

It simply gives them an out when it’s clearly not a top challenger regardless of injury.

Edited December 15, 2018 by S11

[TXSooner518 2438]

I like a BCS-type formula, with computer component and human component. The top 6 conference champions are included and the top 2 teams not included in that group.

 

I’d be willing to say the champion must be at least a certain level in the rankings (top 16?) otherwise they will be excluded and another at-large admitted. This would have the benefit of only putting a G5 team in when there is a legit option, and would encourage conferences to have ways of determining a champ that don’t involve a 7-5 Pitt team freerolling at it because then their whole conference might be left out.

 

Making it by ranking instead of arbitrary W-L encourages rather than discouraged good OOC scheduling because you have something to gain not just something to lose.

[Richard Kimball 1495]

3 hours ago, S11 said:

All that my recommendation does is simply removes the automatic part of automatic bid if the loss criteria is met.  A selection committee can still consider key injuries and give that slot to the same team as an at-large should there be a compelling argument.

It simply gives them an out when it’s clearly not a top challenger regardless of injury.

Have to disagree with this one for two reasons. First, it discourages tough OOC games. Second, it puts a "selection committee" back in play. I don't trust them not to put their thumb on the scale. 

3 hours ago, TXSooner518 said:

I like a BCS-type formula, with computer component and human component. The top 6 conference champions are included and the top 2 teams not included in that group.

 

I’d be willing to say the champion must be at least a certain level in the rankings (top 16?) otherwise they will be excluded and another at-large admitted. This would have the benefit of only putting a G5 team in when there is a legit option, and would encourage conferences to have ways of determining a champ that don’t involve a 7-5 Pitt team freerolling at it because then their whole conference might be left out.

 

Making it by ranking instead of arbitrary W-L encourages rather than discouraged good OOC scheduling because you have something to gain not just something to lose.

Disagree for one of the same reasons: thumb on the scale. 

As long as some committee has a say in who gets in, we'll keep hearing about the "thirteenth data point," "quality of loss," etc. There are ~120 schools competing for the playoffs. If you make the conference championship game, at most, you have to be better than the six other teams in your division. If you don't make the game or lose there, then as far as I'm concerned, it's all there, black and white, clear as crystal. You stole fizzy lifting drinks, you bumped into the ceiling which now has to be washed and sterilized, so you get nothing! You LOSE! Good day, sir!

[Monster 219]

Notre Dame comes out in favor of 8 teams.  (ESPN article if you want to go read it)   The more voices the better.  

Will be interesting to see what scripted things ESPN will say during blowout games.  They're married to the SEC and I can only assume there's language in their contract about pushing the SEC agenda.   But a bigger playoff would add 8 massive ratings games that would benefit ESPN in a very direct way.   

It hurts to do it, but I'll listen to Herbie read from his script during the end of a few bowl games, and I guess I'll know where ESPN Corporate stands on the deal.

 

Edited December 16, 2018 by Monster

[Hagbard Celine 10864]

8 teams = 4 more games (quarters)

[Monster 219]

4 minutes ago, Hagbard Celine said:

8 teams = 4 more games (quarters)

I picked the wrong day to stop smoking bath salts.

[Thermos H. Christ 478]

Keep CCGs AND go to 8, with autobids for the champions, autobid for the highest-ranked G5 team, and 2 at-large.

That’s really a full season long playoff for P5 teams at that point. Each division or conference round robin is a tournament, with winners advancing to the CCG stage. CCG winners advance to the Tournament of Champions along with some wild cards. Regular season conference games matter because they’re all part of the grand tournament. Noncons matter because good non con wins give you a chance to stay alive even if you don’t win your tournament.

Imagine how much less shitty the sports chatter-verse would instantly become as everything becomes about predicting/discussing the outcome of games instead of debating idiotic and arbitrary/contradictory eye test metrics. 

Or a total fantasy that will never happen - break up the P5 into 8 conferences that all play round robins with autobids for winners. Promote a few G5 teams to make the numbers work. Then bring in relegation and promotion. A team like UCF doesn’t get screwed after going undefeated twice because after the first time they take over a P8 spot occupied by a Kansas or a Rutgers or somebody and then control their own destiny the next season. And every season after that until they finish last in their conference. And Kansas or Rutgers can go play in the MWC or wherever and maybe have a chance to win some games. If they ever get good enough to finish first in their lesser tournament, they get to move back up and take a slot from last place finisher at the next level.

Edited December 16, 2018 by Thermos H. Christ

[Thermos H. Christ 478]

E: double post

Edited December 16, 2018 by Thermos H. Christ

[ChickenSandwich 9836]

8 minutes ago, Thermos H. Christ said:

Keep CCGs AND go to 8, with autobids for the champions, autobid for the highest-ranked G5 team, and 2 at-large.

That’s really a full season long playoff for P5 teams at that point. Each division or conference round robin is a tournament, with winners advancing to the CCG stage. CCG winners advance to the Tournament of Champions along with some wild cards. Regular season conference games matter because they’re all part of the grand tournament. Noncons matter because good non con wins give you a chance to stay alive even if you don’t win your tournament.

Imagine how much less shitty the sports chatter-verse would instantly become as everything becomes about predicting/discussing the outcome of games instead of debating idiotic and arbitrary/contradictory eye test metrics. 

Or a total fantasy that will never happen - break up the P5 into 8 conferences that all play round robins with autobids for winners. Promote a few G5 teams to make the numbers work. Then bring in relegation and promotion. A team like UCF doesn’t get screwed after going undefeated twice because after the first time they take over a P8 spot occupied by a Kansas or a Rutgers or somebody and then control their own destiny the next season. And every season after that until they finish last in their conference. And Kansas or Rutgers can go play in the MWC or wherever and maybe have a chance to win some games. If they ever get good enough to finish first in their lesser tournament, they get to move back up and take a slot from last place finisher at the next level.

All good until the soccer fantasy wet dream. 

8 conferences of 10 teams for Division 1 college football only. The rest play D2 with own tournament. 

[BurntOrange&White 39932]

Because I don’t want a 4 loss “champion” like 2008 Va Tech getting in over a 2008 Texas, 2008 Bama, or 2008 Tech style runner up that won all but one game.  One would be left out in favor of a team that at best won 67% of its regular season.  Those other games matter too.

2008 Texas would have received an at large bid.

[S11 16]

2 hours ago, Bevo VIII said:

2008 Texas would have received an at large bid.

At least one of those teams and an unbeaten Boise team would be forced out by a 4 loss pretender.   That’s a flaw

[SurlyORama 164]

In a playoff, what you are doing is crowning a champion of that playoff "tournament". You are not saying that the winner of that is necessarily the "best" team overall, only that they did what it takes to WIN THE PLAYOFF. That criteria is objective and fixed. There's no "eye test", it doesn't matter how bad you beat teams in the games, whether or not you have key injuries, or anything else that's subjective. That's the beauty of such a system.

However, when you take that and corrupt it by having some SMALL committee of humans just decide who "deserves" to even have a chance to participate, when the criteria are unclear, not communicated, evaluated in secret, and seemingly change year to year, you've moved us into a system that, in my opinion, is worse than ANY of the prior systems. I'd take the BCS, or even the pre-BCS bowl system and national championships that were KNOWN to be opinion-based, over this bastardized disaster we've got now.

Don't worry about a system that sometimes lets teams in that "don't deserve it", because "deserving it" is a garbage criteria for determining a champion. 

 

[kopp0e 1135]

I ported this over from another thread, as to how an expanded CFP could benefit all:

Ok, what do we currently have:
12 games either a 8 (SEC/ ACC) or 9 (B1G/XII/PAC) conference slate, then league championship game; then a CFP "semi-final", the CFP title game: 15 games...
Having standard 9 game slate moves a (hypothetical) 16 team league with 7 division games/ 2 out of division games (all teams played once every 4 years)...
Reducing to 2 out-of-conference games allows flexibility for the teams playing in league title games, to finish the "regular season" with either 11, or 12 games...
16 team playoff: 1st round is on campus at higher seeded team, 2nd round Fiesta/Cotton/Sugar/Peach, 3rd round Rose/ Orange, CFP title to highest bid city...

(*mock/ example):



In total, in a world of 4 power conferences, 64 teams, (plus a group of non power leagues) only the top 25% would "qualify" for the CFP...
4 auto bids for conference champs of the power conferences/ 2 auto bids for the highest ranked non power schools/ 10 "wildcard" bids...
This keeps a higher % of the nation engaged in the week to week product, as to see if the average fans' team still has a shot at a "wildcard" bid with 3 losses...
In total, even in a 16 team playoff, if reducing 1 out-of-conference game, the total amount of games played for a conference title & 4 games in the CFP is only 16...

[Phoenix 65]

This is why I don't like a 16 team playoff. Texas definitely does not deserve to be in any type of playoff this year. We are not a playoff caliber team, and would not stand a chance to actually win the title.

[ChickenSandwich 9836]

8 hours ago, ChickenSandwich said:

All good until the soccer fantasy wet dream. 

8 conferences of 10 teams for Division 1 college football only. The rest play D2 with own tournament. 

.....

9 confernce games in a round robin format. Top two teams rematch at a neutral site in CCG. 

3 OOC games for seeding and let’s be real, big money match ups between conferences. The SEC can still make their charitable contribution to D2 if they do choose. 

(They tell us it’s philanthropy to play the FCS ya know)

the regular season couldn’t be more important. It effectively makes it a 16 game playoff with the CCGs being the first round. 

1 more game for two teams. 

[TXSooner518 2438]

This is why I don't like a 16 team playoff. Texas definitely does not deserve to be in any type of playoff this year. We are not a playoff caliber team, and would not stand a chance to actually win the title.

Yeah, 16 team playoff has to be all 10 conference champs and 6 wild cards, not just piling in mediocre 9-3 and 8-4 P5 also rans.

[kopp0e 1135]

2 hours ago, Phoenix said:

This is why I don't like a 16 team playoff. Texas definitely does not deserve to be in any type of playoff this year. We are not a playoff caliber team, and would not stand a chance to actually win the title.

I mildly disagree, if we are to live in a world where people only attempt to win at what is a probable victory, what is the point in playing..?

The same can be said of expanded CFP system, that gives incentive by the higher ranked teams playing at home in 1st rounds, then nearest bowls, then CFP title game...

Just the same as when Texas Western did the Lone Star thing, #BeUnexpected, beating coach Rupp & the Kentucky Wildcats in a NCAA 22 school bracket back in 1966...

Edited December 16, 2018 by kopp0e

[BadgerHorn 147]

Agree that 16 is too many for two reasons.

1) When you get to #16, you're seeing teams with 3+ losses.  "Deserving" is the key word here others brought up.

2) It seems year in and year out, you can draw a pretty clear line somewhere in the range of #6 - #10 where you see a clear separation between teams that can compete with the #1 - #4 teams if they played a hypothetical 10 game series and those that would really struggle.  Granted, this year is a little murkier, but I'd draw this year's line at 8.5, just to see what UCF could do.

Someone brought up the scenario where a team starts slow with a few losses due to a key injury, youth at key positions, etc, and misses their conf championship as a result; however, they demonstrate undeniable potential to win a playoff down the stretch.  Eight slots gives you enough room where a committee could get that team in, where four is too restrictive.  No such scenario in the recent past comes to mind, so this doesn't concern me a great deal.

I prefer eight, but could get on board with a 12 team concept with first round byes for 1-4.

[J.R. Juniors Junior Jr. 1084]

5 hours ago, kopp0e said:

I ported this over from another thread, as to how an expanded CFP could benefit all:

Ok, what do we currently have:
12 games either a 8 (SEC/ ACC) or 9 (B1G/XII/PAC) conference slate, then league championship game; then a CFP "semi-final", the CFP title game: 15 games...
Having standard 9 game slate moves a (hypothetical) 16 team league with 7 division games/ 2 out of division games (all teams played once every 4 years)...
Reducing to 2 out-of-conference games allows flexibility for the teams playing in league title games, to finish the "regular season" with either 11, or 12 games...
16 team playoff: 1st round is on campus at higher seeded team, 2nd round Fiesta/Cotton/Sugar/Peach, 3rd round Rose/ Orange, CFP title to highest bid city...

(*mock/ example):



In total, in a world of 4 power conferences, 64 teams, (plus a group of non power leagues) only the top 25% would "qualify" for the CFP...
4 auto bids for conference champs of the power conferences/ 2 auto bids for the highest ranked non power schools/ 10 "wildcard" bids...
This keeps a higher % of the nation engaged in the week to week product, as to see if the average fans' team still has a shot at a "wildcard" bid with 3 losses...
In total, even in a 16 team playoff, if reducing 1 out-of-conference game, the total amount of games played for a conference title & 4 games in the CFP is only 16...

I am only interested in a 16 game format if it means all FBS conferences have an auto-bid.  That would be 10 automatics plus 6 at-larges.  The 7th at large wouldn't really have much to gripe about at that point.  The six at large bids would probably be Michigan, Georgia, WSU, ND, LSU and maybe Florida, but I'd rather the Boise or Utah state get the last slot.

https://slapthesign.com/2018/12/04/college-football-playoff-16-team-playoff-look-like-2018/

Alabama regional

No. 1 Alabama (SEC Champion) vs. No. 16 Northern Illinois (MAC Champion)

No. 8 Central Florida (AAC Champion) vs. No. 9 Washington (Pac-12 Champion)

Oklahoma Regional

No. 4 Oklahoma (Big 12 Champion) vs. No. 13 Fresno State (Mountain West Champion)

No. 5 Georgia (At-large) vs. No. 12 Penn State (At-large)

Notre Dame Regional

No. 3 Notre Dame (At-large) vs. No. 14 Appalachian State (Sun Belt Champion)

No. 6 Ohio State (B1G Champion) vs. No. 11 LSU (At-large)

Clemson Regional

No. 2 Clemson (ACC Champion) vs. No. 15 UAB (Conference USA Champion)

No. 7 Michigan (At-Large) vs. No. 10 Florida (At-large)

Edited December 17, 2018 by J.R. Juniors Junior Jr.

[rickyspub 801]

So a three-loss P5 team is undeserving, but UAB or Fresno State is? I think we would offer fans a much better game than them or Northern Illinois. I am not even convinced that UCF is a better team than we are. 

[TXSooner518 2438]

So a three-loss P5 team is undeserving, but UAB or Fresno State is? I think we would offer fans a much better game than them or Northern Illinois. I am not even convinced that UCF is a better team than we are. 

It’s not that they are more deserving. It’s that the only reason to go to 16 is to give every FBS team a ticket which is win your conference. Nobody rating which conference earns a spot. Go unbeaten and you’re the national champion.

There just isn’t a reason to go to 16 to allow teams that were the 3rd, 4th, or 5th best in their conference to get a playoff spot. That version of 16 murders the regular season too.

[gmr548 16580]

On 12/14/2018 at 4:44 PM, S11 said:

 

1- Nobody is arguing it’s a bad system- just that making one tweak to the rules would get a better slate of teams.

2- The argument is also that in a season with a deep field of teams with zero or one loss it makes little sense to give a golden ticket to a team who lost four or five times simply because they lucked into a weak division and pulled one upset.

Personally I would take all the 2008 one loss P5 champs (4 teams), all three 2008 one loss runner ups, and both 2008 undefeated Utah and Boise from that year before I’d even consider a 4 loss squad champ or not.  

 

That’s nine teams.  You’re already leaving out someone (probably tech due to 40 point loss) so why screw over a second team that has at least a decent argument like one loss UT/Bama who narrowly lost to good teams once or an unbeaten G5 team like Boise that beat Oregon that year?

The poster I was quoting said that winning your conference shouldn't entitle you to anything, implying that a system in which P5 champions get an autobid is a bad system.

To your point, I don't necessarily disagree, someone is always getting left out. It used to be number three, now it's five, in an eight or 16 team scenario, it's nine or 17... Eight is never going to be overwhelmingly more deserving than nine, nor 16 over 17, etc. Two at-large spots allows for two of the most "deserving" teams to get in with clear qualifying criteria for six of the spots (P5 champs plus highest ranked G5 champ).

On 12/14/2018 at 5:10 PM, Phoenix said:

So your argument is that an 11-1 P5 team, with its only loss to a top 5 team, does not deserve to get in versus a different P5 team that has 4 losses against much worse competition. But, because of where the 4 loss team is located on the map, in a region with a bunch of shitty football teams, they deserve to get in.

Just want to make sure we are on the same page here.

Do you think the NFL playoffs are not legit because the Dallas Cowboys, who objectively suck ass, will get a home game while the LA Chargers, a top five team in football, will have to go on the road, and two of three teams that are pretty clearly better than the Cowboys - the Colts, Titans, and Ravens - will miss the playoffs essentially due to geography/arbitrary conference alignment? Of course not, because the Chargers/Ravens/Titans/Colts all had opportunities to improve their lot and couldn't make it happen. Same reasoning applies.

When you intentionally leave out the context of the situation we're debating, then of course it sounds silly. In a vacuum, no I don't think 8-4 Team A should necessarily get a spot over 11-1 Team B. However, when you consider that:

1.) Team A won a P5 conference championship on the field.

2.) Team B got absolutely humiliated by infinity plus one points in its loss.

3.) Team B finished third in its division.

4.) Team B is ranked well below two other one-loss P5 at large teams as well as an undefeated G5 champion.

Then, yeah, I'm okay with 8-4 VT going over 11-1 Tech there. Maybe if Tech doesn't get absolutely smoked by OU they end up ranked ahead of Texas, whom they beat. Also keep in mind that 2008 is basically a unicorn and is a situation that repeats itself very rarely. Three one-loss P5 non-champs happens maybe once a decade. As I mentioned above, no system is perfect. But an eight team playoff with P5 champs, top ranked G5 champ, and two at larges is going to include every single team with a legit argument in most years. It's a lot better than what exists now, gives everyone a legitimate chance at the start of the year, and still gives the "deserving" teams that slip up a chance.

Edited December 17, 2018 by gmr548

[gmr548 16580]

I'd also be cool with 16 and agree that the only reason to expand there is to include all FBS conference champions. Your at large teams in that scenario this year would be ND, UGA, Michigan, Florida, LSU, Penn State (just going by CFP rankings).I think that's overkill but I wouldn't be mad about it when it also gives the G5s a seat at the table. It would be silly to expand to a 16 team playoff to include Wazzu, Kentucky, Texas, WVU, etc. over G5 champions.

[Treefidy 1463]

On 12/15/2018 at 10:21 AM, TXSooner518 said:

I admittedly don’t have one at the ready, and you are right most teams will play 9 P5s. Of course sometimes that bonus P5 is someone like a 2-10 Louisville but I can’t use that as an example for 8 P5s.

2008 was a very rare year. I’d rather see TX Tech than Va Tech that year too. But making arbitrary rules that will make the sport demonstrably worse (focusing exclusively on W-L in a scenario without comparable schedules) just to reverse engineer for one specific season will just result in bad outcomes in future seasons with unanticipated fact patterns.

I would rather build a system that encourages meaningful games throughout the season. That’s what’s awesome about college football. Not teams scheduling dreck to make sure they aren’t worse than 10-2 and thus qualify.

Same with making the G5 be undefeated to get their spot. If they are guaranteed in if they don’t lose and out if they do, who will they schedule. I’d rather say the highest ranked G5 gets in or the champion of the strongest G5 conference, which encourages teams and conferences to get a strong SOS to earn the spot.

I like 8 teams with conference champions getting in so there's a clear path to the playoffs.  However, I also would like OOC games importance greatly diminished so there's better matchups.  The more cross conference games we get, the more real data we have to rank and judge team and conference strength  

Heres a HS case in point.  Lake Travis had a run of 5 state titles in a row at 4A.  In their non-district games they played the very best teams they could schedule and it was usually 2 teams from 5A (1 was always westlake) and typically someone like Aledo or Cibolo.

Those games had no impact on district and thus playoffs, but they allowed the team to see where they stood and what needed work against great teams in the same classification and above.  The benefits of playing good opponents without risking your entire season because of 1 loss make those great matchups possible early on.  

With 8 there's still the problem that there's 2 at-large pageant spots and teams will still schedule for those. There's also the real problem that the 2 best teams might be in the same conference.  I like 8 teams, it just seems like everyone who realistically has a chance is getting in. But more so I want to see OOC cross conference games, and lots of them.  Byes offer too great an advantage, otherwise I would be in favor of 12, taking the top 2 from each conference with an added P6 or the top 2 G5. 

[Treefidy 1463]

9 hours ago, kopp0e said:

I ported this over from another thread, as to how an expanded CFP could benefit all:

Ok, what do we currently have:
12 games either a 8 (SEC/ ACC) or 9 (B1G/XII/PAC) conference slate, then league championship game; then a CFP "semi-final", the CFP title game: 15 games...
Having standard 9 game slate moves a (hypothetical) 16 team league with 7 division games/ 2 out of division games (all teams played once every 4 years)...
Reducing to 2 out-of-conference games allows flexibility for the teams playing in league title games, to finish the "regular season" with either 11, or 12 games...
16 team playoff: 1st round is on campus at higher seeded team, 2nd round Fiesta/Cotton/Sugar/Peach, 3rd round Rose/ Orange, CFP title to highest bid city...

(*mock/ example):



In total, in a world of 4 power conferences, 64 teams, (plus a group of non power leagues) only the top 25% would "qualify" for the CFP...
4 auto bids for conference champs of the power conferences/ 2 auto bids for the highest ranked non power schools/ 10 "wildcard" bids...
This keeps a higher % of the nation engaged in the week to week product, as to see if the average fans' team still has a shot at a "wildcard" bid with 3 losses...
In total, even in a 16 team playoff, if reducing 1 out-of-conference game, the total amount of games played for a conference title & 4 games in the CFP is only 16...

I could get behind 16 teams if we had 8 legit conferences and round 1 is the CCGs.  This really makes the most sense, then it's up to the conferences to figure out how to get their best 2 teams into their CCG.  Either that or consolidation and kicking loose a bunch of teams down to 4 P4 conferences.  CCGs are the quarterfinals, all teams have to play a full P4 slate.

I was struggling earlier to figure out both a clear path and simultaneously diminishing the importance of OOC so we can get good matchups and a better idea of where teams really stand for seeding purposes.  At larges almost guarantee nothing changes from a scheduling stand point.  Jumping up 2 more power conferences and having 2 at-large solely for the best G5/Indy could work...

[BurntOrange&White 39932]

I could get behind 16 teams if we had 8 legit conferences and round 1 is the CCGs.  This really makes the most sense, then it's up to the conferences to figure out how to get their best 2 teams into their CCG.  Either that or consolidation and kicking loose a bunch of teams down to 4 P4 conferences.  CCGs are the quarterfinals, all teams have to play a full P4 slate.
I was struggling earlier to figure out both a clear path and simultaneously diminishing the importance of OOC so we can get good matchups and a better idea of where teams really stand for seeding purposes.  At larges almost guarantee nothing changes from a scheduling stand point.  Jumping up 2 more power conferences and having 2 at-large solely for the best G5/Indy could work...

It way over complicated thing.



Just do 5 p5 conference champions
Highest rated g5 team
2 at large bids


Makes regular season count just as much. Y’all way over think things seriously.

[kopp0e 1135]

Wait, so the SEC team that was 8-0 this year (vs the spread) wouldn't be in the CFP bracket..? Well sucks to be in College Station I guess...

 

[rickyspub 801]

11 hours ago, TXSooner518 said:

 

It’s not that they are more deserving. It’s that the only reason to go to 16 is to give every FBS team a ticket which is win your conference. Nobody rating which conference earns a spot. Go unbeaten and you’re the national champion.

There just isn’t a reason to go to 16 to allow teams that were the 3rd, 4th, or 5th best in their conference to get a playoff spot. That version of 16 murders the regular season too.

 

I largely agree with your second statement, though I think that model pairs just fine with how other leagues set up their playoffs in terms of numbers invited to overall membership. (16 is even a low percentage if you just consider the 65+ P5-level teams.) I am never going to get behind a system that decides that Fresno State deserves a limited playoff spot over a Texas team that won 9 games. The basketball tournament is so huge now, taking autobids from all conferences gets lost in the fact that the Top 30-40 teams also get in. Here we are talking about 16 spots for 120+ teams and, in many years, you are giving almost a 3rd of the spots to teams that aren't even in the Top 30 of any metric, human or computer. Anyway, 16 with G5 champs won't ever happen because it would be a money loser compared to 8. 

[Treefidy 1463]

9 hours ago, Bevo VIII said:

It way over complicated thing.



Just do 5 p5 conference champions
Highest rated g5 team
2 at large bids


Makes regular season count just as much. Y’all way over think things seriously.

No I get it, and that's how it's going to work out.  And many years they will try to cram 3 SEC teams in.   I'm trying to solve for the shitty OOC games that comes when teams are trying to fill the pageant spots, and SEC are the major offenders.  

If the OOC games didn't matter then teams would schedule a much better slate of games because that's how you get better as a team, not by beating up the sisters of the poor.   Consequently, we would be able to better qualify if SEC teams are really that good or not and the importance of rankings would decrease greatly.  Basically I would like to see an end to the SECgamed ranking system and have better games to watch along with the expanded playoffs

 

[TXSooner518 2438]

22 minutes ago, rickyspub said:

Anyway, 16 with G5 champs won't ever happen because it would be a money loser compared to 8. 

I personally prefer the 8 team model that is primarily being discussed, but curious why you think this model would lose money over that one?

Rounds 1 & 2 at home basically just gives 8 teams an extra home game as compared to the 8 team playoff, and 8 additional televised playoff games. Granted, many of them will be heavy pointspread games, but more people would watch Fresno take on Bama or Clemson than watched them take on Arizona State.

[TXSooner518 2438]

1 minute ago, Treefidy said:

If the OOC games didn't matter then teams would schedule a much better slate of games because that's how you get better as a team, not by beating up the sisters of the poor.   Consequently, we would be able to better qualify if SEC teams are really that good or not and the importance of rankings would decrease greatly.  Basically I would like to see an end to the SECgamed ranking system and have better games to watch along with the expanded playoffs

 

I just can't reconcile "better slate of games" with "those games don't matter."  Games aren't good if they don't matter.

For example, this year, if OU could only get in the playoffs by winning the B12, and could never get in if they don't win the B12, you really think they are going to schedule, say, Michigan, and play Kyler Murray the entire game?  You're insane if you think that. They will either schedule the powdery puffiest games to be healthy for the "actual season" or teams will start resting starters in the exhibition OOC games.