Playoff expansion

pgjackson

@levander said:

@pgjackson said:
I just hope it doesn't turn into an NFL system where teams can clinch a playoff spot with several games remaining and then coast the rest of the season without worry of beating the remaining teams. Right now, every game still matters.

Expanding the playoff system is all about making college football like the NFL. How could that possibly not happen?

Because the NFL doesn't have rankings. They have straight-up records and division leaders. There is no way the NCAA could do a playoff simply based on a team's record. If they did it could not include the Group of 5 conferences. Going 10-2 in the SEC is much different than going 10-2 in the WAC or MWC.

With that in mind, what about a 10-team bracket where every P5 division winner gets in regardless of what team actually wins the conference? So, each P5 conference gets to send 2 teams. Of course the B12 would have to create two divisions and all the "Independents" would have to join a conference.

JayDog

@Teddy said:

@pgjackson said:

@Teddy said:

@pgjackson said:

@Teddy said:

@RxDawg said:

@Teddy said:

@RxDawg said:

@Teddy said:

@JayDog said:

@Teddy said:

@PTDawg said:

@Teddy said:

@PTDawg said:

@Bankwalker said:
Name the 6,7,8 seeds since 2012 who would have had a LEGITIMATE chance to win the 3 games necessary. Expanded playoffs at this level is pointless.

You'd never know for sure unless you played the games.

I wasn't advocating a random matchup for the national title. I was talking about creating opportunity for access to a playoff across the entire sport rather than just the power 5. Your GA Southern vs Bama example is a red herring and not relevant to the discussion.

My point with the example is the “we’ll never knows” don’t work well in this debate. Again, your resume’ is what matters. No deserving team has been left out yet.

No deserving team has been left out--that is a subjective statement. Tell it to the fans and media who have been in vocal disagreement. The selection process itself is subjective. The "eye test" is one of the criteria the committee uses to determine who is "worthy". Strength of schedule also has an element of subjectivity. Alabama had a very weak SOS last year. A lot of opinion goes into all of it.

Name a team that should've been in, and we can then start this debate.

Penn State last year. Perhaps even UCF... last year. And that's just last year.

My biggest argument though is that we have 5 major conferences in college football, and 4 spots. How can you objectively fill that?

Please reference UCF's SOS. End of story. But if you want to dive deeper, winning by 7 over SMU and 10 over Navy (2 of their "tougher" games) really screams best team? Penn State: Lost to OSU and Michigan St. Pretty sure Bama only lost to Auburn... Any others?

You act like you completely rebuked my statement, you didn't. Plus I said "perhaps" UCF. They won a bunch of games. They did beat, albeit an unmotivated team, Auburn. Besides that wasn't my greatest point. My greatest point is 5 major football conferences, 4 playoff spots. It needs to expand. Put the onus on winning the conference again, and sprinkle in a few exciting teams for flavor. I honestly think it sounds great.

The best 4 or 8 teams might not come from a conference champion. So the whole, let all the conference champions in is not good, to put it nicely.

Maybe we need to get rid of the subjective "Best" team and just go with Conference Champions. That will eliminate all whining and complaining. Of course there is a chance some low ranked team happens to win their conference, like if in 2016 the #19 VT had beaten Clemson in the ACCCG. Well, Clemson is out and VT is in. Sorry, that's how it goes.

Then you run the risk of eliminating the best teams getting in. Who wants to watch the #19 VT play the best teams?

They are conference champs. The conference champion is the top team in that conference. "Best" is subjective. It really means nothing. In advertising, "best" is a word you can use to describe literally anything because it can't be proven. How do you know that an 11-1 team is actually "better" than a 10-2 team without settling it on the field? Maybe those two losses came against highly ranked teams while the 11-1 team played a bunch of nobodies. Conference championships are supposed to help identify the "best" teams.

Conference champions determine the best in one conference, not the entire country. And how to determine between two similar teams, yes, look at who each team beat and lost to. That generally settles it pretty easily.

And on a separate note, all this love for UCF on this thread. They were ranked #12 heading into the bowl games. It wasn’t even close.

Alabama is arguably the "best" team in the country on paper based on recruiting over the years. They were not best when losing to Auburn. They didn't look it when almost losing to us. Our busted coverage and the poor referee performance made them champions. They earned the "best" title with a win. We can whine about things that happened in the game but in the end they won and we didn't. Very objective.

By your metric, if the playoff is populated with one loss teams and Alabama, the "best" team in the nation, doesn't get in--then head to head play is meaningless. No champ can claim the title of best because Bama didn't get the chance to prove it.

RPMdawg

Did the BEST team win the national championship last year, or did the team that won the NC game win the title?

pgjackson

@RPMdawg said:
Did the BEST team win the national championship last year, or did the team that won the NC game win the title?

I believe that the "best" teams made the playoffs, but I think OSU and USC have legit arguments.

RPMdawg

@pgjackson said:

@RPMdawg said:
Did the BEST team win the national championship last year, or did the team that won the NC game win the title?

I believe that the "best" teams made the playoffs, but I think OSU and USC have legit arguments.

Probably. It just seems that some's beliefs just disregard the outcome of games. If a team wins, they may or may not be the better team but they are the winners. The way things are now is probably the the best of both worlds for appeasing bowl and playoff folks.

levander

@pgjackson said:

@levander said:

@pgjackson said:
I just hope it doesn't turn into an NFL system where teams can clinch a playoff spot with several games remaining and then coast the rest of the season without worry of beating the remaining teams. Right now, every game still matters.

Expanding the playoff system is all about making college football like the NFL. How could that possibly not happen?

Because the NFL doesn't have rankings. They have straight-up records and division leaders. There is no way the NCAA could do a playoff simply based on a team's record. If they did it could not include the Group of 5 conferences. Going 10-2 in the SEC is much different than going 10-2 in the WAC or MWC.

With that in mind, what about a 10-team bracket where every P5 division winner gets in regardless of what team actually wins the conference? So, each P5 conference gets to send 2 teams. Of course the B12 would have to create two divisions and all the "Independents" would have to join a conference.

If you let every P5 division winner in, then Georgia’s last two SEC games wouldn’t have mattered last year. Georgia was 7-1 and 2nd place South Carolina was 5-3 with Georgia beating South Carolina head to head. South Carolina had already lost 3 SEC games before Georgia’s last two SEC games. So those last two games wouldn’t have mattered.

The NFL doesn’t have rankings because they’ve got no use for them. They’ve got a much more thorough playoff system where games at the end of the season often don’t matter nearly as much. Much like you want to happen in college football.

DawginSC

My view:

1. Conference championships should never automatically qualify you. There have been years where due to the divisional setup and suspensions a team was in their conference championship who really ****.

2. Anything over 8 is insane. I don't LIKE college basketball. I don't want to follow their lead. The more post season championships let in, the less anyone cares about losses in the regular season. A loss should HURT.

3. I kind of like the Idea of 6 teams. Finishing in the top 2 matters a lot because you get a bye. But if there ARE 5 P-5 conference champs worthy of selection... they can all get in.

ftn49

@levander said:

@ftn49 said:

@levander said:
Here’s a video I watched awhile back that should help you guys who want playoff expansion understand what you are pushing for.

One thing Saban doesn’t say is it not only affects players sitting out bowl games. But it also affects which schools recruits are willing to consider.

https://youtu.be/nTubMhVKDvI

The single most thing I dislike about college football rather than the pros is the bowl system. I'm am absolutely at peace with kids who want to skip meaningless bowl games to protect themselves from injury. And I would love a 16 team tournament. Because you never know.

Just for equal measure, the best part about the college game in my opinion at least as it relates to the field is the overtime system. Absolutely love it.

It sounds like you’re trading something incidental that only rarely happens (overtime) for something that’s integral to the system (the bowl system).

Do you consider yourself more of a college fan or a pro fan?

You sound like a pro fan to me. Because your opinion makes more sense to me if you’re more of a pro fan.

I definitely was a pro fan first. I grew up in the Midwest and watching div 2 football if I wanted to watch college football for the most part. They had a playoff too. It wasn't until I moved to Athens after military service that I became a bulldog (and college football) fan. And at first it was more of a way to watch the pro stars before the became pro stars. I love the college game, I truly do, there is more energy in general with the games that **** you in. But the whole bowl system thing baffles me and I don't get why anyone who is a fan of any team with even a mediocre shot at a title would not want a playoff system. I can understand the Alabama's of the world not wanting it because they have less competition to be crowned champs but for everyone else? no

pgjackson

@levander said:

@pgjackson said:

@levander said:

@pgjackson said:
I just hope it doesn't turn into an NFL system where teams can clinch a playoff spot with several games remaining and then coast the rest of the season without worry of beating the remaining teams. Right now, every game still matters.

Expanding the playoff system is all about making college football like the NFL. How could that possibly not happen?

Because the NFL doesn't have rankings. They have straight-up records and division leaders. There is no way the NCAA could do a playoff simply based on a team's record. If they did it could not include the Group of 5 conferences. Going 10-2 in the SEC is much different than going 10-2 in the WAC or MWC.

With that in mind, what about a 10-team bracket where every P5 division winner gets in regardless of what team actually wins the conference? So, each P5 conference gets to send 2 teams. Of course the B12 would have to create two divisions and all the "Independents" would have to join a conference.

If you let every P5 division winner in, then Georgia’s last two SEC games wouldn’t have mattered last year. Georgia was 7-1 and 2nd place South Carolina was 5-3 with Georgia beating South Carolina head to head. South Carolina had already lost 3 SEC games before Georgia’s last two SEC games. So those last two games wouldn’t have mattered.

The NFL doesn’t have rankings because they’ve got no use for them. They’ve got a much more thorough playoff system where games at the end of the season often don’t matter nearly as much. Much like you want to happen in college football.

I don't like my idea above, I just threw that out to show what an NFL-style playoff system would look like in college. I like the current system.

pgjackson

@DawginSC said:
My view:

1. Conference championships should never automatically qualify you. There have been years where due to the divisional setup and suspensions a team was in their conference championship who really ****.

2. Anything over 8 is insane. I don't LIKE college basketball. I don't want to follow their lead. The more post season championships let in, the less anyone cares about losses in the regular season. A loss should HURT.

3. I kind of like the Idea of 6 teams. Finishing in the top 2 matters a lot because you get a bye. But if there ARE 5 P-5 conference champs worthy of selection... they can all get in.

I've posted this several times as well. I think this is the best option. 6 teams. 5 from the P5 and one Go5 (or other top P5). #1 and #2 get a bye week in the first round.

donm

Maybe we need to get rid of the subjective "Best" team and just go with Conference Champions. That will eliminate all whining and complaining. Of course there is a chance some low ranked team happens to win their conference, like if in 2016 the #19 VT had beaten Clemson in the ACCCG. Well, Clemson is out and VT is in. Sorry, that's how it goes.

I don’t think that eliminates whining. What if Bama’s loses in OT to a 2 loss SEC East ream. There will be lots of whining about the east rep being not as good as Bama. The PAC 12 champ is thought by many to be not as deserving as non-champs from other conferences. No selection method will elliminate whining and complaining.ask UCF. What if UCF ha d gone to the playoffs. Imagine the whining from one of the final 4 whose place they took. Whining is around to stay.

pgjackson

@donm said:

Maybe we need to get rid of the subjective "Best" team and just go with Conference Champions. That will eliminate all whining and complaining. Of course there is a chance some low ranked team happens to win their conference, like if in 2016 the #19 VT had beaten Clemson in the ACCCG. Well, Clemson is out and VT is in. Sorry, that's how it goes.

I don’t think that eliminates whining. **What if Bama’s loses in OT to a 2 loss SEC East ream. **There will be lots of whining about the east rep being not as good as Bama. The PAC 12 champ is thought by many to be not as deserving as non-champs from other conferences. No selection method will elliminate whining and complaining.ask UCF. What if UCF ha d gone to the playoffs. Imagine the whining from one of the final 4 whose place they took. Whining is around to stay.

I'd say the head-to-head game proved otherwise. I mean, that's why they play the game, right? If a 9-3 SECE team beats a 12-0 SECW team in the SECCG...well, they settled it on the field. Tough-t!tties for the team that lost.

donm

I’m with you but my point was there would still be whining from the one loss team.

RPMdawg

@pgjackson said:

@donm said:

Maybe we need to get rid of the subjective "Best" team and just go with Conference Champions. That will eliminate all whining and complaining. Of course there is a chance some low ranked team happens to win their conference, like if in 2016 the #19 VT had beaten Clemson in the ACCCG. Well, Clemson is out and VT is in. Sorry, that's how it goes.

I don’t think that eliminates whining. **What if Bama’s loses in OT to a 2 loss SEC East ream. **There will be lots of whining about the east rep being not as good as Bama. The PAC 12 champ is thought by many to be not as deserving as non-champs from other conferences. No selection method will elliminate whining and complaining.ask UCF. What if UCF ha d gone to the playoffs. Imagine the whining from one of the final 4 whose place they took. Whining is around to stay.

I'd say the head-to-head game proved otherwise. I mean, that's why they play the game, right? If a 9-3 SECE team beats a 12-0 SECW team in the SECCG...well, they settled it on the field. Tough-t!tties for the team that lost.

Amen. "THAT'S WHY THEY PLAY THE GAMES"

Teddy

@JayDog said:

@Teddy said:

@pgjackson said:

@Teddy said:

@pgjackson said:

@Teddy said:

@RxDawg said:

@Teddy said:

@RxDawg said:

@Teddy said:

@JayDog said:

@Teddy said:

@PTDawg said:

@Teddy said:

@PTDawg said:

@Bankwalker said:
Name the 6,7,8 seeds since 2012 who would have had a LEGITIMATE chance to win the 3 games necessary. Expanded playoffs at this level is pointless.

You'd never know for sure unless you played the games.

I wasn't advocating a random matchup for the national title. I was talking about creating opportunity for access to a playoff across the entire sport rather than just the power 5. Your GA Southern vs Bama example is a red herring and not relevant to the discussion.

My point with the example is the “we’ll never knows” don’t work well in this debate. Again, your resume’ is what matters. No deserving team has been left out yet.

No deserving team has been left out--that is a subjective statement. Tell it to the fans and media who have been in vocal disagreement. The selection process itself is subjective. The "eye test" is one of the criteria the committee uses to determine who is "worthy". Strength of schedule also has an element of subjectivity. Alabama had a very weak SOS last year. A lot of opinion goes into all of it.

Name a team that should've been in, and we can then start this debate.

Penn State last year. Perhaps even UCF... last year. And that's just last year.

My biggest argument though is that we have 5 major conferences in college football, and 4 spots. How can you objectively fill that?

Please reference UCF's SOS. End of story. But if you want to dive deeper, winning by 7 over SMU and 10 over Navy (2 of their "tougher" games) really screams best team? Penn State: Lost to OSU and Michigan St. Pretty sure Bama only lost to Auburn... Any others?

You act like you completely rebuked my statement, you didn't. Plus I said "perhaps" UCF. They won a bunch of games. They did beat, albeit an unmotivated team, Auburn. Besides that wasn't my greatest point. My greatest point is 5 major football conferences, 4 playoff spots. It needs to expand. Put the onus on winning the conference again, and sprinkle in a few exciting teams for flavor. I honestly think it sounds great.

The best 4 or 8 teams might not come from a conference champion. So the whole, let all the conference champions in is not good, to put it nicely.

Maybe we need to get rid of the subjective "Best" team and just go with Conference Champions. That will eliminate all whining and complaining. Of course there is a chance some low ranked team happens to win their conference, like if in 2016 the #19 VT had beaten Clemson in the ACCCG. Well, Clemson is out and VT is in. Sorry, that's how it goes.

Then you run the risk of eliminating the best teams getting in. Who wants to watch the #19 VT play the best teams?

They are conference champs. The conference champion is the top team in that conference. "Best" is subjective. It really means nothing. In advertising, "best" is a word you can use to describe literally anything because it can't be proven. How do you know that an 11-1 team is actually "better" than a 10-2 team without settling it on the field? Maybe those two losses came against highly ranked teams while the 11-1 team played a bunch of nobodies. Conference championships are supposed to help identify the "best" teams.

Conference champions determine the best in one conference, not the entire country. And how to determine between two similar teams, yes, look at who each team beat and lost to. That generally settles it pretty easily.

And on a separate note, all this love for UCF on this thread. They were ranked #12 heading into the bowl games. It wasn’t even close.

Alabama is arguably the "best" team in the country on paper based on recruiting over the years. They were not best when losing to Auburn. They didn't look it when almost losing to us. Our busted coverage and the poor referee performance made them champions. They earned the "best" title with a win. We can whine about things that happened in the game but in the end they won and we didn't. Very objective.

By your metric, if the playoff is populated with one loss teams and Alabama, the "best" team in the nation, doesn't get in--then head to head play is meaningless. No champ can claim the title of best because Bama didn't get the chance to prove it.

I haven’t argued about anything once the playoffs start or about recruiting. So, not sure where you’re going with this... regarding head to head, that definitely matters, but you still have to take their whole body of work over the season into account. Them losing to Auburn on the road sure looks a lot better than OSU getting killed by Iowa and USC’s losses. Again, they got it right.

And trust me, I don’t want Bama in the playoffs ever. But they deserved it over the couple of teams that were close to them.