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

smokey_wasp said:
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!
Click to expand...

tenor.gif
 
I am fine with 4 teams, but if it did expand, I think 6 teams max.

#1 and #2 get a bye
Every P5 champ gets a spot
6th spot goes to the best G5 champ
 
daBuzz said:
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.
Click to expand...
Read the thread, man. I got no problems with various modifications to the current system. I was specifically responding to the poster who argued for an expanded playoff that would have only FBS conference champs.
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).
Click to expand...
If you can't see that UGA's loss to LSU in the SECCG is what kept them out of the CFP this year, but would not keep them out if we expanded to 8- or 16-team playoff, I don't what else I can say to argue that the regular season would matter less. Oregon's loss to Arizona St was undoubtedly a huge reason why they weren't in the mix this year; in a 16-team playoff, they would've been in the mix. Heck, this year the four playoff teams had a total of one loss among them. If we had a 16-team playoff, there would've been four 3-loss teams in the playoff. That definitely reduces the significance of regular season losses. If you don't agree, let's just agree to disagree and move on.
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.
Click to expand...
A lot of complaints about the CFP are really complaints about what we hypothetically can imagine going wrong, if only certain teams won, certain teams lost, and the panel did certain things. But there's not a system that can be devised that doesn't have hypothetical weaknesses.
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?
Click to expand...
I would have no problem at all only admitting conference champs to March Madness. Would probably turn it into March Sadness, but that's fine by me.
 
cyptomcat said:
I am fine with 4 teams, but if it did expand, I think 6 teams max.

#1 and #2 get a bye
Every P5 champ gets a spot
6th spot goes to the best G5 champ
Click to expand...
I could live with this. Would be the only expansion I could justify at the moment – and doesn't address "the problem" of ND.
 
smokey_wasp said:
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!
Click to expand...
No, that scenario (GT beating FSU in 2012) is only a problem if conferences keep selecting their champ the same way. There's lots of other ways to do it that avoids that problem.
 
18in32 said:
No, that scenario (GT beating FSU in 2012) is only a problem if conferences keep selecting their champ the same way. There's lots of other ways to do it that avoids that problem.
Click to expand...

The big 12 way being one, but folks love the symmetry of divisions.
 
18in32 said:
I could live with this. Would be the only expansion I could justify at the moment – and doesn't address "the problem" of ND.
Click to expand...
They can compete with the G5 for the 6th spot since that spot will depend on the rankings anyway.
 
I would be ok with a six team playoff with 5 P5 conference champs, if, as 18in32 alluded to, you do away with divisions and let the top 2 teams in each conference play for the title (or scrap title games altogether and use some kind of tiebreaker). I would not guarantee a spot for G5 because there is not a UCF every year. Go by a computer formula to pick the 6th team.
 
smokey_wasp said:
I don't think that works. You'll see 9-3 or even 8-4 Notre Dame teams ranked higher than the best G5 some years.
Click to expand...
Using the BCS+CFB rankings of last 10 years (below), that doesn't seem to happen often, but it could of course now and then.

They can just do the #6 spot by the best record among independents and G5, and just use the rankings as the tiebreaker. Either way, the #6 spot is going to have a weak team more often than not, but that's probably a nice break for the #3 team who has just missed out on the first round bye. #4 and #5 should just be happy to be included :P

2019: 10-2 ND #15, 12-1 Memphis #17
2018: 12-0 ND #3, 13-0 UCF #8
2017: 9-3 ND #14, 12-0 UCF #12
2016: 4-8 ND unranked, 13-0 Western Michigan #15
2015: 10-2 ND #8, 12-1 Houston #18
2014: 7-5 ND unranked, 11-2 Boise State #20
2013: 8-4 ND unranked, 11-1 Fresno State #20
2012: 12-0 ND #1, 12-1 Northern Illinois #15
2011: 8-4 ND unranked, 11-1 Boise State #7
2010: 7-5 ND unranked, 11-1 Boise State #10

For what's it's worth, I would have tuned in to watch most of those G5 games especially Boise State and UCF. If G5 actually does well in that #6 spot, they probably start getting ranked even better...
 
18in32 said:
Read the thread, man. I got no problems with various modifications to the current system. I was specifically responding to the poster who argued for an expanded playoff that would have only FBS conference champs.

If you can't see that UGA's loss to LSU in the SECCG is what kept them out of the CFP this year, but would not keep them out if we expanded to 8- or 16-team playoff, I don't what else I can say to argue that the regular season would matter less. Oregon's loss to Arizona St was undoubtedly a huge reason why they weren't in the mix this year; in a 16-team playoff, they would've been in the mix. Heck, this year the four playoff teams had a total of one loss among them. If we had a 16-team playoff, there would've been four 3-loss teams in the playoff. That definitely reduces the significance of regular season losses. If you don't agree, let's just agree to disagree and move on.

A lot of complaints about the CFP are really complaints about what we hypothetically can imagine going wrong, if only certain teams won, certain teams lost, and the panel did certain things. But there's not a system that can be devised that doesn't have hypothetical weaknesses.
Click to expand...
You make some interesting and thought provoking points. I could make similar arguments that in recent years, there were multiple 1-loss teams and the playoff committee decided which were more deserving than others, which to my way of thinking is horse crap. I would much rather see 8 teams play it off than 4 teams. I would likewise prefer 6 over four but with 2 teams getting byes into the final four, those are garnering a huge advantage and I have my suspicions that they would end up being at least 1 SEC team every year. I'd rather have them seed 8 versus 1 and make them play it off.

Five conference champs and 3 at large bids and let it go from there.
 
I'd rather just go back to the old ways of Mythical National Championships determined by computers or arrogant writers.

The only 8-team format I'd want to see is just allowing the AAC and MWC to the big boys table, saying that only conference champs are allowed in those 7 power spots and leaving the last spot open as an at-large. Even better would be to make all 11 D1-A conferences compete to see who can stay in the BCS, and relegate the three worst conferences back to who-gives-a-öööö every season, like that weirdo soccer öööö does in the UK.
 
I'd be down to add the AAC and MWC to the P5 and have 1 at large bid, just to force Notre Dame into a conference. When teams that realistically have no shot at winning the national championship have an easier path than Notre Dame, they'll give up their independent status.
 
daBuzz said:
I could make similar arguments that in recent years, there were multiple 1-loss teams and the playoff committee decided which were more deserving than others, which to my way of thinking is horse crap.
Click to expand...
Yes, this is the real problem with the current situation, not all the crazy hypotheticals people like to come up with.

I agree that there's a disturbing amount of discretion when the committee is choosing between one-loss teams. We would probably solve this problem by introducing some additional limits on the committee's discretion – create some data-driven limits, require conference championship, etc. But of course as long as there are 5 conferences and 4 spots, there's always a possible problem.

Yet that doesn't bother me that much, because in my mind, it's only undefeated's who are really 'morally entitled' to a claim of being the champ. Everybody else gets a chance based on resume, game control, talent, etc. You gotta beat all the guys on the schedule to really have a claim to being 'unfairly' left out, if you're left out. The rest of the whiners shoulda just won their games if they wanted to insist on being in the playoff.
 
Last edited:
cyptomcat said:
I am fine with 4 teams, but if it did expand, I think 6 teams max.

#1 and #2 get a bye
Every P5 champ gets a spot
6th spot goes to the best G5 champ
Click to expand...
I agree except the 6th spot will unfortunately go to another SEC team.
 
18in32 said:
Yet that doesn't bother me that much, because in my mind, it's only undefeated's who are really 'morally entitled' to a claim of being the champ. /QUOTE]
Click to expand...

Unless you're UCF. I just don't understand why there are teams in the same division as the "Power 5" who no matter how much they win, they will never get their shot at a National Championship. Something isn't right.
 
samsgt02 said:
Unless you're UCF. I just don't understand why there are teams in the same division as the "Power 5" who no matter how much they win, they will never get their shot at a National Championship. Something isn't right.
Click to expand...
I agree that UCF's two-year stint of success has been the biggest challenge to the system so far. But expanding the playoff isn't necessarily the only solution to that problem. In both years we could've just changed the rules so that an undefeated G5 team gets the nod over any P5 teams with losses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top