Cotton, Camping, Peach, Fiesta - "So long, losers!" Edition

[Flywheel]

And if 5 teams go undefeated from the P5 conferences? We’ll just hope that doesn’t happen?

You’d be cool with Tech going 13-0 in 2022, barely finishing 5th in the standings because the Coastal sucked, and watching the playoffs from home? With the justification being LSU beat OU by a lot that one year?

That's why computers should sort out who are the top 4 conference champs.

• Getting left out because 4 teams had better resumes is very different than getting left out because 2 teams had better resumes.
• Conf championship games would be extremely important. There would be no blabber about LSU resting starters for the SEC championship because they're in regardless.
• Out of conference games would still matter a lot, as they would help determine which P5 champ is out.
• Non P5 teams have an equal chance as P5 teams, assuming their strength of schedule is good enough and they win out.
  
• There'd be a lot less of this "who would be in right now" nonsense before the biggest games of the year. Which is why it won't happen. That's their buzz and marketing angle right now. But I think it would make after-Thanksgiving football more interesting by offering no guarantees to LSU and a puncher's chance to Utah.

 

[Ish]

has there ever been a year w/ 5 undefeated teams from the P5 conferences?

 

[Akıncı]

All of you turds could just follow NFL football and leave college alone. They already have everything yall require.

LOL yeah, I didn’t even think about it.

 

[gtrower]

has there ever been a year w/ 5 undefeated teams from the P5 conferences?

Not recently, but idk about historically. But something being statistically unlikely isn’t reason to not plan for it. That was an argument back in the BCSC days until Auburn got left out after going undefeated.

I still maintain any system that could leave out an undefeated team is un-American. Any system that values people judging teams over them proving it on the field might as well be gymnastics.

 

[coit]

I do, too. That's why I'm tired of seeing overrated SEC teams who didn't even win their DIVISION getting a chance to win the title. Alabama has won TWO championships recently in years where they didn't even belong there. I'd much rather at least give a G5 team a chance than see something like that again.

This makes it sound like you don’t think that the best team in CFB should have a shot at winning the playoff if they don’t win their conference.

 

[daBuzz]

All of you arguing against expanding the playoffs because football is a violent sport and these guys would play too many games...can you explain to me how the Division 2 and Division 3 teams don't play "real football" then? Because they've been doing actual playoffs for decades.
Oh...and these same D1 players who are too fragile to handle an extended playoff...do they get an exemption from state playoffs in high school or from the NFL playoffs if they make it to playing on Sundays? Hell, the NFL has their players play a Sunday game and then they're following it up with a Thursday game sometimes. Ooops, my bad...college does that, too...but we're worried about player safety as the primary reason for not expanding the playoff system, right?

LOL, at least @18in32 is honest when he said he doesn't like change and that's the reason. But let's not kid ourselves with the 'that would just put more SEC teams in it" argument. Because as @johncu pointed out, that has happened multiple times already.

Currently, ESPN analysts control the argument of who gets in and who doesn't and they tend to favor SEC teams. Anybody remember when the first playoff poll came out that Clemson wasn't even considered good enough to be in the top 4...coming in at #5 because of their weak schedule? Yet, Alabama was ranked there and..pay attention here...ALABAMA DID NOT HAVE A WIN OVER A RANKED TEAM THE ENTIRE YEAR and they were ranked in the top 4...if I'm not mistaken they were #1 or #2?.

*gasp* Are you saying the ESPN analysts were affecting the playoff committee's perceptions with their bias? Well, you're Tech men...you do the math.

 

[coit]

All of you arguing against expanding the playoffs because football is a violent sport and these guys would play too many games...can you explain to me how the Division 2 and Division 3 teams don't play "real football" then? Because they've been doing actual playoffs for decades.

I think the big argument for those who will be in charge of make decisions on changes like this is that a 16 team playoff would devalue the conference championships and to some extent regular season performance.

If 4 SEC teams could conceivably make it into a 16 team playoff, then there’s no need to even win the conference. And this year, only the conference champion made it.

 

[daBuzz]

I think the big argument for those who will be in charge of make decisions on changes like this is that a 16 team playoff would devalue the conference championships and to some extent regular season performance.

If 4 SEC teams could conceivably make it into a 16 team playoff, then there’s no need to even win the conference. And this year, only the conference champion made it.

If Tua had not been injured, Bama most likely defeats Auburn since they almost won anyway. Had they won that game with Tua still as QB, I can assure you that you would have seen a 4 team playoff made up of LSU, Clemson, Ohio State and Alabama. And if they could have figured out how to do it, they would have snuck UGA in there and kicked Clemson out.

Bah...screw all that. Line em up and let the players decide who is the champion. And squash all of this "best team" versus "hottest team" bullshit. Playoffs don't decide the best team...they decide the champion. I doubt anybody alive at the time would argue that the Houston "Phi Slamma Jamma" team wasn't the best team in the country that year. But they weren't champions because NC State got that tip in at the buzzer and the only champion recognized for that year is the Wolfpack...as it should be.

Let the players play. Screw ESPN and their power chokehold.

 

[coit]

If Tua had not been injured, Bama most likely defeats Auburn since they almost won anyway. Had they won that game with Tua still as QB, I can assure you that you would have seen a 4 team playoff made up of LSU, Clemson, Ohio State and Alabama. And if they could have figured out how to do it, they would have snuck UGA in there and kicked Clemson out.

Can you honestly say that Alabama shouldn’t have been in the Top 4 over OU? Bama played LSU much closer. The Dwags got blown out as well, so I don’t think they have a case.

Playoffs don't decide the best team...they decide the champion.

So if you don’t care who the best team is, then why do you want 16 teams? Isn’t 4 enough to crown a champion? I think the point is that whatever system is used, teams have to EARN their way in. A 16 team playoff doesn’t require as much “players playing” during the regular season.

 

[johncu]

This makes it sound like you don’t think that the best team in CFB should have a shot at winning the playoff if they don’t win their conference.

Yes, this is exactly what I think. Alabama is probably the 4th best team in the country this season and would have had a shot to win it even without Tua. But they lost their chance.

What's the point of playing the games if we're just going to subjectively decide that Alabama (or whoever else) is the best team, regardless of actual wins and losses? As long as we're only allowing 4 teams in, I think it's absurd to even consider teams who didn't win their conference.

 

[daBuzz]

Can you honestly say that Alabama shouldn’t have been in the Top 4 over OU?

Based on what? Their heritage? Because if strength of schedule is considered, OU played a tougher schedule. Again, Bama did not beat a single ranked team this year. And IIRC, the only reason an undefeated UCF team was kept out (twice) from the playoffs was strength of schedule. But yet that wasn't important if Bear Bryant once coached there?

So if you don’t care who the best team is, then why do you want 16 teams? Isn’t 4 enough to crown a champion? I think the point is that whatever system is used, teams have to EARN their way in. A 16 team playoff doesn’t require as much “players playing” during the regular season.

Where did I say I don't care who the best team is. I said playoffs determine champions. And no, we have already seen instances where there was much debate about the best 4, 5 or 6 teams and that gets decided based upon a group of people...all of whom are watching ESPN religiously and listen to Kirk Herbstreit make silly arguments like explaining why a 1 loss OU team was picked in the BCS over a 1 loss Texas team....when Texas had beaten them head-to-head (or was it vice-versa? I don't honestly care enough to look it up....but you will never convince me that head-to-head should not count more than some mythical 'quality wins' BS argument).

At the very least, it should be expanded to 8. I wouldn't object to 16 but I would be perfectly fine with 8 myself as the number. You'll still get some bias but if you go to 16 and take a weighted conglomeration of the polls like they used to do for the BCS, you could make it select the 16 without a committee and you'd probably come damn close to picking the true top 16 who get to play it off for the championship.

 

[coit]

Yes, this is exactly what I think. Alabama is probably the 4th best team in the country this season and would have had a shot to win it even without Tua. But they lost their chance.

What's the point of playing the games if we're just going to subjectively decide that Alabama (or whoever else) is the best team, regardless of actual wins and losses? As long as we're only allowing 4 teams in, I think it's absurd to even consider teams who didn't win their conference.

Sure, and I like the idea of conference champions only myself. 10 conferences, 10 winners make the playoff. How do you seed them?

 

[KrazieJacket]

Sure, and I like the idea of conference champions only myself. 10 conferences, 10 winners make the playoff. How do you seed them?

First you have to create new rules to qualify for being in FBS. Then, after half of the current teams are removed this all becomes easier.

 

[18in32]

All of you arguing against expanding the playoffs because football is a violent sport and these guys would play too many games...can you explain to me how the Division 2 and Division 3 teams don't play "real football" then? Because they've been doing actual playoffs for decades.
Oh...and these same D1 players who are too fragile to handle an extended playoff...do they get an exemption from state playoffs in high school or from the NFL playoffs if they make it to playing on Sundays? Hell, the NFL has their players play a Sunday game and then they're following it up with a Thursday game sometimes. Ooops, my bad...college does that, too...but we're worried about player safety as the primary reason for not expanding the playoff system, right?

LOL, at least @18in32 is honest when he said he doesn't like change and that's the reason. But let's not kid ourselves with the 'that would just put more SEC teams in it" argument. Because as @johncu pointed out, that has happened multiple times already.

Player injuries is not the only reason not to expand the playoffs, but it's a damn good reason not to create ludicrous FAU vs. LSU match-up's. The primary reason for me is because it devalues the regular season too much.

Currently, ESPN analysts control the argument of who gets in and who doesn't and they tend to favor SEC teams. Anybody remember when the first playoff poll came out that Clemson wasn't even considered good enough to be in the top 4...coming in at #5 because of their weak schedule? Yet, Alabama was ranked there and..pay attention here...ALABAMA DID NOT HAVE A WIN OVER A RANKED TEAM THE ENTIRE YEAR and they were ranked in the top 4...if I'm not mistaken they were #1 or #2?.

*gasp* Are you saying the ESPN analysts were affecting the playoff committee's perceptions with their bias? Well, you're Tech men...you do the math.

Are you seriously complaining that mid-season rankings weren't accurate enough? That's why they play the games. They did play the games. And it is pretty obvious the right teams made the CFP.

 

[Deleted Stingtalker 69]

I'm going to chime in with there should be a conference champion only provision, along with a way for an undefeated G5 to make it. I like 4, just think those two caveats need to be addressed in the current system.

 

[daBuzz]

Player injuries is not the only reason not to expand the playoffs, but it's a damn good reason not to create ludicrous FAU vs. LSU match-up's. The primary reason for me is because it devalues the regular season too much.

You keep bringing up this nebulous FAU versus LSU matchup like that's something to happen every year, when in fact it wouldn't have even happened this year. And it most certainly doesn't devalue the regular season any more than it is now. How do 4 teams get in the playoff today? Divine right of kings from God? Or do they base it on their regular season rankings? Well, gosh...guess what I'm suggesting for the 8-team or 16-team playoff? Base it on regular season. So that argument is complete and total malarkey (to quote our friend Joe Biden).

Are you seriously complaining that mid-season rankings weren't accurate enough? That's why they play the games. They did play the games. And it is pretty obvious the right teams made the CFP.

I'm arguing that the same idiots who put Clemson 5th in mid-season would have left them there if the teams in front of them hadn't lost. And the right teams may or may not have made the CFP. I think I can fairly easily make the case that Oklahoma wasn't really the 4th best team in the country.

I'm guessing you're a proponent of only the top 4 basketball teams playing it off in March as well? You know...because you don't want to see any of those Cinderella matchups because a huge upset is bad for the sport or something?

 

[GTCrew4b]

How does allowing all conference champions devalue the regular season?

Not allowing all conference champions devalues the entire regular season for 2/3 of college football.

After hearing of gtphd’s idea of a 12-team (I think 10-team eliminates chance of independents) play in tourney that is now the model I favor. With one tweak. I wouldn’t guarantee the non P5 teams be in the play in just the lowest ranked last teams “in” as selected by a committee.

 

[JJacket]

I'm not for expanding further, but, expanding the playoffs would probably spread the talent out a bit more.

 

[smokey_wasp]

How does allowing all conference champions devalue the regular season?

Not allowing all conference champions devalues the entire regular season for 2/3 of college football.

After hearing of gtphd’s idea of a 12-team play in tourney that is now the model I favor.

Because someone is going to win a conference title at 6-6 like we came within a whisker of doing. I mean, if its us, sure lets go to the playoff!

Otherwise, no, I am not in favor of auto bids for conference champs. You win your conference? Congrats, you won your conference!

 

[GTCrew4b]

Because someone is going to win a conference title at 6-6 like we came within a whisker of doing. I mean, if its us, sure lets go to the playoff!

Right so the regular season just got really valuable for us and the team that missed out on the tournament. Thanks for proving my point.

If I were king I would move to 8 10-team conferences with no conference championship game to eliminate the need for a “meaningful regular season.” There would be a lower division of 8 10-team conferences as well and there would be relegation and such.