CSNbbs

This is how to do a 16-team playoff AND preserve the integrity of the regular season. It is more of a fantasy playoff; here is last year's thread. It is a 10+6 without CCGs and with teams assigned to 4 regions (West, South, North, East) and seeded 1-4 in each region. The first two rounds are played on campus in December while the semifinals are played NYD.

The rule that maintains the integrity of the regular season and enhances football traditions is the Rivalry Game rule. A team's last regular season game is labeled their "Rivalry Game" and performance in this game affects playoff entrance. A loss in a Rivalry Game:

1) Eliminates a team from conference tie-breakers, even before head-to-head.
2) Precludes a team from getting a #1 or #2 seed and hosting a first-round game.
3) Prohibits a team from getting an at-large spot, unless the loss was to a Top 10 team

Here is what things might look like using this week's CFP Rankings to assign seeds:
NORTH (winner to Rose)
4 Northern Illinois @ 1 Ohio State
3 Michigan St @ 2 Cincinnati

WEST (winner to Rose)
4 SDSU @ 1 Oregon
3 Notre Dame @ 2 Michigan

EAST (winner to Sugar)
4 Louisiana @ 1 Georgia
3 Ole Miss @ 2 Wake Forest

SOUTH (winner to Sugar)
4 UTSA @ 1 Alabama
3 Baylor @ 2 OK State

Max 3 teams per conference. The top 6 champions will be seeded #1 or #2, unless they lost their Rivalry Game.

Obviously at this juncture teams have not played their Rivalry Game yet. What the rules around this game do is turn some games into defacto Round-of-32 games. Oklahoma-OK State, for example will send the winner to the playoff proper and the loser will be eliminated. If Alabama loses the Iron Bowl, the Tide will be eliminated, just as if it were a Round-of-32 game; no resting starters late in the season.

Ohio State-Michigan, because it is a matchup of Top 10 teams, will be less of an elimination game. But the winner will get to host 1, likely 2, home playoff games while the loser will go on the road, making The Game still quite meaningful.

The 3 max per conference also enhances conference play down the stretch for the top teams. Ohio State may not be eliminated by a loss to Michigan, but combined with a loss to Michigan State and the Buckeyes could find themselves ranked behind Iowa or Wisconsin and out of the playoff.

FINAL UPDATE:
SOUTH (Sugar A)
4 Louisiana @ 1 Georgia
3 Baylor @ 2 Utah

EAST (Sugar B)
4 Western Kentucky @ 1 Cincinnati
3 Ohio State @ 2 Pittsburgh

NORTH (Rose A)
4 Central Michigan @ 1 Michigan
3 Ole Miss @ 2 Notre Dame

WEST (Rose B)
4 San Diego St @ 1 Alabama
3 Oregon @ 2 OK State

Well it’s much better that what’s out there now
just look at all the additional fan bases that would be Energized

Interesting, but I prefer the working group proposal. Not sure why "rivalry games" should be weighted so heavily? For starters, not every school has a real rival.

(11-19-2021 10:04 AM)JHS55 Wrote: [ -> ]Well it’s much better that what’s out there now
just look at all the additional fan bases that would be Energized

Everyone gets a ribbon and participation trophy!

(11-19-2021 12:49 PM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ]Interesting, but I prefer the working group proposal. Not sure why "rivalry games" should be weighted so heavily? For starters, not every school has a real rival.

The amplified weight is to make those games somewhere between a regular season game and an elimination game. The stakes are raised slowly instead of the final regular season game being a "bye" for top teams.

Not all teams pair into rivals easily, so it'd essentially be the last conference or annual opponent on the schedule.

For a 16-team playoff -- what it should be is All 10 Conference Champs + 6 at-larges By Rank, BUT...

- No more than 2 At-Larges coming from same conf, unless all 3 at-larges ranked in the Top 6
- No more than 3 At-Larges coming from same conf, unless all 4 at-larges ranked in the Top 4
- No two teams from Same Conference can play each other 1st round
- No two teams who played Reg Season can play each other 1st round
- Avoid two teams from Same Conference or from Reg Season Potentially playing each other in 2nd round by 1-spot seed shifting
o 2ND ROUND AVOIDANCES: Two teams from Same Conference Overrides two teams who played Reg Season
o 2ND ROUND AVOIDANCES: Is not done if the one who shifts lower results going from what was Home Team to then Visiting Team
- 1-spot seed shifting for regional closeness of visiting team

**=Conference Champ

1. Georgia (13-0)**
2. Ohio State (12-1)**
3. OK-State (12-1)**
4. Alabama (11-2)
5. Cincinnati (13-0)**
6. Notre Dame (11-1)
7. Michigan (10-2)
8. Oregon (11-2)**
9. Ole Miss (10-2)
10. Baylor (10-3)
11. Michigan State (11-2)
13. Pittsburgh (11-2)**
17. San Diego St (12-1)**
20. UTSA (13-0)**
21. Louisiana (12-1)**
35. Northern Illinois (10-3)**

---------------------------------------------------------
1st Round: Dec 17th & 18th [Fri, Sat - 8 Games]
2nd Round: Jan 1st [Sat - 4 Games]
Final Four: Jan 8th, Sat [NFL has 17 games now; Sat is still kosher for big college games the weekend after New Year]
Nat Champ: Jan 21st, Fri
---------------------------------------------------------

1 Georgia
16 Louisiana [Swapped with Northern Illinois for Region]

8 Michigan [Swapped with Oregon for Conf-Conflict Potential]
9 Ole Miss
--- Georgia vs Michigan --- (NY BOWL #1)

3 OK-State
14 UTSA

6 Notre Dame
11 Michigan State
--- OK-State vs Notre Dame [Could Be MSU] --- (NY BOWL #2)

4 Alabama
13 San Diego State

5 Cincinnati
12 Pittsburgh
--- Alabama vs Cincinnati [Likely Pitt tho] --- (NY BOWL #3)

7 Oregon [Swapped with Michigan for Conf-Conflict Potential which Overrides Diff-Conf Reg Season Conflict Potential]
10 Baylor

2 Ohio State
15 Northern Illinois [Swapped with Louisiana for Region]
--- Ohio State vs Oregon [Likely Baylor tho] --- (NY BOWL #4)

FINAL 4:
Georgia vs OK-State (NY BOWL #5)
Alabama vs Ohio State (NY BOWL #6)
NAT CHAMP GAME: Georgia vs Ohio State

8 LOSERS OF 1ST ROUND PLAY IN 4 BOWLS AFTER FINAL 4, BEFORE NAT CHAMPIONSHIP [Jan 14th, 15th; least desired to watch on Sat the 15th due to NFL Playoffs on Sat]
- Closest Seeds Against Each Other; No Same-Conf nor Reg Season History

(12) Pitt vs (11) Michigan State [FRI]
(10) Baylor vs (9) Ole Miss [FRI]
(15) Northern Illinois vs (16) Louisiana [SAT]
(14) UTSA vs (13) San Diego State [SAT]

(11-22-2021 06:24 AM)toddjnsn Wrote: [ -> ]For a 16-team playoff -- what it should be is All 10 Conference Champs + 6 at-larges By Rank, BUT...

- No more than 2 At-Larges coming from same conf, unless all 3 at-larges ranked in the Top 6
- No more than 3 At-Larges coming from same conf, unless all 4 at-larges ranked in the Top 4
- No two teams from Same Conference can play each other 1st round
- No two teams who played Reg Season can play each other 1st round
- Avoid two teams from Same Conference or from Reg Season Potentially playing each other in 2nd round by 1-spot seed shifting
o 2ND ROUND AVOIDANCES: Two teams from Same Conference Overrides two teams who played Reg Season
o 2ND ROUND AVOIDANCES: Is not done if the one who shifts lower results going from what was Home Team to then Visiting Team
- 1-spot seed shifting for regional closeness of visiting team

**=Conference Champ

1. Georgia (13-0)**
2. Ohio State (12-1)**
3. OK-State (12-1)**
4. Alabama (11-2)
5. Cincinnati (13-0)**
6. Notre Dame (11-1)
7. Michigan (10-2)
8. Oregon (11-2)**
9. Ole Miss (10-2)
10. Baylor (10-3)
11. Michigan State (11-2)
13. Pittsburgh (11-2)**
17. San Diego St (12-1)**
20. UTSA (13-0)**
21. Louisiana (12-1)**
35. Northern Illinois (10-3)**

---------------------------------------------------------
1st Round: Dec 17th & 18th [Fri, Sat - 8 Games]
2nd Round: Jan 1st [Sat - 4 Games]
Final Four: Jan 8th, Sat [NFL has 17 games now; Sat is still kosher for big college games the weekend after New Year]
Nat Champ: Jan 21st, Fri
---------------------------------------------------------

1 Georgia
16 Louisiana [Swapped with Northern Illinois for Region]

8 Michigan [Swapped with Oregon for Conf-Conflict Potential]
9 Ole Miss
--- Georgia vs Michigan --- (NY BOWL #1)

3 OK-State
14 UTSA

6 Notre Dame
11 Michigan State
--- OK-State vs Notre Dame [Could Be MSU] --- (NY BOWL #2)

4 Alabama
13 San Diego State

5 Cincinnati
12 Pittsburgh
--- Alabama vs Cincinnati [Likely Pitt tho] --- (NY BOWL #3)

7 Oregon [Swapped with Michigan for Conf-Conflict Potential which Overrides Diff-Conf Reg Season Conflict Potential]
10 Baylor

2 Ohio State
15 Northern Illinois [Swapped with Louisiana for Region]
--- Ohio State vs Oregon [Likely Baylor tho] --- (NY BOWL #4)

FINAL 4:
Georgia vs OK-State (NY BOWL #5)
Alabama vs Ohio State (NY BOWL #6)
NAT CHAMP GAME: Georgia vs Ohio State

8 LOSERS OF 1ST ROUND PLAY IN 4 BOWLS AFTER FINAL 4, BEFORE NAT CHAMPIONSHIP [Jan 14th, 15th; least desired to watch on Sat the 15th due to NFL Playoffs on Sat]
- Closest Seeds Against Each Other; No Same-Conf nor Reg Season History

(12) Pitt vs (11) Michigan State [FRI]
(10) Baylor vs (9) Ole Miss [FRI]
(15) Northern Illinois vs (16) Louisiana [SAT]
(14) UTSA vs (13) San Diego State [SAT]

Assuming the higher seeds do win and the scenario plays out like this…

Quarterfinals: schools get matched up with bowls as historically and/or geographically friendly to higher seeds as possible.

Peach Bowl: #1 Georgia vs #8 Michigan
Fiesta Bowl: #3 Oklahoma St vs #6 Notre Dame
Sugar Bowl: #4 Alabama vs #5 Cincinnati
Rose Bowl: #2 Ohio St vs #7 Oregon

Semifinals: the SEC schools would face each other so it’d be like the following; #1 seed chooses the bowl game.

Orange Bowl: #1 Georgia vs #4 Alabama
Cotton Bowl: #2 Ohio St vs #3 Oklahoma St

(11-22-2021 06:24 AM)toddjnsn Wrote: [ -> ]For a 16-team playoff -- what it should be is All 10 Conference Champs + 6 at-larges By Rank, BUT...

- No more than 2 At-Larges coming from same conf, unless all 3 at-larges ranked in the Top 6
- No more than 3 At-Larges coming from same conf, unless all 4 at-larges ranked in the Top 4

You can drop the 4 in Top 4 rule (it'll never happen) and maybe re-write the 3/6 rule to say that all teams ranked in the Top 6 go to the playoff, regardless of quota. I'd set that rank at Top 8, so that only visiting teams are affected.

Rivalry Week! What is at stake? Top 24 teams all have a path.
May not be eliminated with a loss:
Georgia vs. Georgia Tech // Georgia has already clinched the SEC title and a spot in the playoff. With a win the Bulldogs will get a 1-seed. With a loss, however, they must be slotted as a 3-seed (equivalent to the 9-seed in a 16-team bracket), and will likely travel to the 6th rated Champ (who can finish no lower than the equivalent 8-seed).
Ohio State vs. Michigan // The Game is for the Big Ten title and a 1-seed. Loser is not eliminated and will likely get a 3-seed.
Oklahoma vs. OK State // Winner takes a 2-seed. While the loser is still playoff eligible, it'd take a few upsets to put them back in.

Lose and Go Home
Alabama vs. Auburn // Alabama gets a 1-seed
Cincinnati vs. ECU // Cincinnati gets a 1-seed
Notre Dame vs. Stanford // Notre Dame gets a 2-seed with a win
Utah vs. Colorado // Utah gets a 2-seed with a win. They can back-door their way to a 4-seed if Oregon also loses.
UTSA vs. UNT // UTSA can be the 6th highest champ and grab a 2-seed. They can also back-door their way to a 4-seed if Western Kentucky also loses.
Ole Miss vs. Miss State // Ole Miss gets a 3-seed with a win
Baylor vs. Texas Tech // Baylor gets a 3-seed with a win
Michigan St vs. Penn State // Michigan St gets a 3-seed with a win
Oregon vs. Oregon St // Oregon gets a 3-seed with a win, though they could snag a 2-seed if Utah loses to Colorado. This is the 5th "3-seed" we're projecting because we anticipate at least 1 upset.

Need a bit of help:
BYU vs. USC // If BYU wins they would need 3 of the above teams to be upset (including jumping the OSU/OU loser).
Texas A&M vs. LSU // Texas A&M would need 4 of the above to be upset, and particularly either Alabama or Ole Miss to fall so as to open a 3rd SEC spot.
Iowa vs. Nebraska and Wisconsin vs. Minnesota // Iowa and Wisconsin would need 5 upsets above, including a Michigan State loss to Penn State, and would need to beat out each other for the 3rd and last Big Ten spot.

The ACC spot:
Pitt (vs. rival Syracuse) and Wake (vs. rival Boston College) are both 6-1. If both win the champion will be selected based upon ranking and receive a 4-seed (a 2-seed if UTSA is upset). If both lose NC State will go to the playoff with a victory over rival UNC. If NC State loses, Clemson will go to the playoff with a victory over rival South Carolina. If ALL 4 teams lose, the highest ranked of Pitt, Clemson, and Wake will be selected.

The American spot:
Houston played their rivalry game last week, a 31-13 win over Memphis and looks unlikely to take an at-large spot. If Cincinnati wins, the Bearcats likely get a 1-seed. If Cincinnati loses (regardless of the Houston-UConn outcome), Houston will take their playoff spot, likely a 2-seed with a UConn victory, otherwise a 4-seed.

The MW spot:
The Boise State-San Diego State winner likely wins the MW and takes their 4-seed. If Boise State and Utah State (vs. rival new Mexico) both win, Utah State will take the conference, unless Air Force (rival UNLV) or Fresno State (rival San Jose St) also win, in which case the highest ranked of those 3 or 4 teams is chosen.

The Sun Belt spot:
Louisiana should take this 4-seed, unless they lose to rival UL-Monroe and App State defeats rival Georgia Southern.

The CUSA spot:
As mentioned before UTSA gets the 2-seed with a win. With a loss they may take the 4-seed, but Western Kentucky would be able to take it away from them with a victory over rival Marshall.

The MAC spot:
Northern Illinois takes the 4-seed with a victory over rival Western Michigan. If the Huskies lose, the Miami(OH)-Kent State winner should take the MAC's playoff spot unless both Kent State and Central Michigan (rival Eastern Michigan) win, giving the Chippewas the spot.

Quote:You can drop the 4 in Top 4 rule (it'll never happen)

It's for technicality. :) In everything, actual official rules need to cover those "will-never-really-happen-tho" chances.

Quote:and maybe re-write the 3/6 rule to say that all teams ranked in the Top 6 go to the playoff, regardless of quota. I'd set that rank at Top 8, so that only visiting teams are affected.

I wouldn't. What could happen (realistically but Rare) -- 4 teams from the same conference (like SEC with OK & TX going there) -- being in the Top 6. Still rare. But the point is, not too many from the same Conference. Why?

Well, with the 16-team playoff, you have 6 at-larges, with 1 team from each of the 10 conferences. 6 at-larges, you don't want half being from the same conference of it's champ already in.

Conference contention is a "playoff" in a sense. Championship game IS a playoff, as well. You want conference disparity, since this isn't basketball playing a zillion games. Add to that, it's not basketball where you have 64+ teams, even when 16 is pretty high. If there were 24 teams like D1AA/FCS -- OK, then no conference limit, except among adding Un-Ranked from a conference already with too much. But obviously that's a fantasy to have 24-team playoff, as a 16 team one already is a fantasy - lol.

Putting the Top 8 auto-bids in the Top 16 -- you can't have a guarantee that all 10 Conf Champs are in, right? If there's 16 teams, it'd pretty much require all Conf Champs to get an auto-bid (10), with 6 at-larges. The only exception I could see would be if a Conf Champ was below .500 (virtually will never happen).

Quote:Northern Illinois takes the 4-seed with a victory over rival Western Michigan. If the Huskies lose, the Miami(OH)-Kent State winner should take the MAC's playoff spot unless both Kent State and Central Michigan (rival Eastern Michigan) win, giving the Chippewas the spot.

I don't know why you go by Rivalry Week. First, it's not necessarily THE rivalry. :) In the MAC -- WMU vs CMU + Toledo vs BGSU are THE rivalries. MTSU vs WKU is THE rivalry, not on rivalry week. Why not on rivalry week? Ratings & viewing purposes, apparently. Can't go by that for the all G5s if you're truly looking for a Rivalry week.

But even if it were, just like Top 4 teams will "never" be from the same conference -- chances are even playing Rivalry Week into mix of officiality (like a conf championship result) -- would be like the Top 6 in rankings all being from the same conference. Yah, that kinda "never". :)

I think everyone is overthinking this...

The point of a playoff -- as stated at the time of the Bowl Alliance/BCS creation, which begat the CFP -- was to determine a true champion.

The reason the CFP has failed to do that is because they have a committee deciding "who's worthy to be in the CFP" which is really no different than the poll system determining "who's the champion" aside from the extra steps of playing games. But often the CFP winner creates more doubt as to who was the best team in college football -- i.e., uninvited UCF finishing undefeated.

You really don't need ONE playoff system of 4 teams every year, or 8 teams or 16 teams every year. You need a different sized tournament every season, so that at the end of the playoff, the team who wins is guaranteed to have the best record in college football, or a tied record with a head-to-head victory.

(11-22-2021 03:35 PM)toddjnsn Wrote: [ -> ]

Quote:You can drop the 4 in Top 4 rule (it'll never happen)

It's for technicality. :) In everything, actual official rules need to cover those "will-never-really-happen-tho" chances.

Quote:and maybe re-write the 3/6 rule to say that all teams ranked in the Top 6 go to the playoff, regardless of quota. I'd set that rank at Top 8, so that only visiting teams are affected.

I wouldn't. What could happen (realistically but Rare) -- 4 teams from the same conference (like SEC with OK & TX going there) -- being in the Top 6. Still rare. But the point is, not too many from the same Conference. Why?

My point was more so that you could achieve the same aim with 1 rule, not 2. In the OP because the Top 6 Champs are given Top 8 seeds, the no-more-than-3 rule would never buck a first-round host from the playoff. The 4th best team from a conference would at best take the 3rd at large spot, and only the top 2 at larges host playoff games.

(11-22-2021 03:35 PM)toddjnsn Wrote: [ -> ]

Quote:Northern Illinois takes the 4-seed with a victory over rival Western Michigan. If the Huskies lose, the Miami(OH)-Kent State winner should take the MAC's playoff spot unless both Kent State and Central Michigan (rival Eastern Michigan) win, giving the Chippewas the spot.

I don't know why you go by Rivalry Week. First, it's not necessarily THE rivalry. :) In the MAC -- WMU vs CMU + Toledo vs BGSU are THE rivalries. MTSU vs WKU is THE rivalry, not on rivalry week. Why not on rivalry week? Ratings & viewing purposes, apparently. Can't go by that for the all G5s if you're truly looking for a Rivalry week.

Using the term "Rivalry" was mostly for marketing purposes. If the stakes were heightened on this weekend, you might see more G5 rivalries migrating to this time. But because most eyeballs will be on the Top 25 teams, they are the teams more likely to be playing rivals (as you said, TV reasons) that weekend.

(11-22-2021 04:08 PM)JSchmack Wrote: [ -> ]I think everyone is overthinking this...

The point of a playoff -- as stated at the time of the Bowl Alliance/BCS creation, which begat the CFP -- was to determine a true champion.

The reason the CFP has failed to do that is because they have a committee deciding "who's worthy to be in the CFP" which is really no different than the poll system determining "who's the champion" aside from the extra steps of playing games. But often the CFP winner creates more doubt as to who was the best team in college football -- i.e., uninvited UCF finishing undefeated.

You really don't need ONE playoff system of 4 teams every year, or 8 teams or 16 teams every year. You need a different sized tournament every season, so that at the end of the playoff, the team who wins is guaranteed to have the best record in college football, or a tied record with a head-to-head victory.

I don't know how that bold part is defensible. IIRC, every single year since the CFP began, we have had what in the old poll-and-bowl days would be called a true, consensus national champion, that is a champ that was the choice of both traditional polls. Also beyond that, every single CFP champ has been #1 in the old BCS formula, and in the Massey Composite of computers.

So whether talking about polls or computers, there has been a clear-cut #1 every year. The CFP has been perfect with that, despite the alleged imperfect method of a committee deciding on who the teams are.

This doesn't really surprise me, as this isn't rocket science, it's college football.

So IMO, the only real reason to expand the playoffs are money or entertainment. It won't do any better of a job than the CFP has of crowning a champ. Can't, because the CFP is perfect so far.

(11-22-2021 04:08 PM)JSchmack Wrote: [ -> ]I think everyone is overthinking this...

The point of a playoff -- as stated at the time of the Bowl Alliance/BCS creation, which begat the CFP -- was to determine a true champion.

The reason the CFP has failed to do that is because they have a committee deciding "who's worthy to be in the CFP" which is really no different than the poll system determining "who's the champion" aside from the extra steps of playing games. But often the CFP winner creates more doubt as to who was the best team in college football -- i.e., uninvited UCF finishing undefeated.

You really don't need ONE playoff system of 4 teams every year, or 8 teams or 16 teams every year. You need a different sized tournament every season, so that at the end of the playoff, the team who wins is guaranteed to have the best record in college football, or a tied record with a head-to-head victory.

I saw one like that a decade ago. Compare the BCS differentials between the 2nd through 9th ranked team, select the largest gap, and there is your playoff field.

Biggest gap is between 7 and 8: 7 team playoff, Georgia gets a bye.

The only quiffy thing is that if the playoff field fluctuates, the total #of teams filling the NY6 bowls fluctuates too, but in the opposite direction. A "full" 8-team playoff would have 0 access spots, while a 2-team playoff would have 12, to fill the other 6 bowl games. 8 to 14 is not a wide swing, but as we see with bowl eligibility it can monkey with a 5-7 team's ability to make a bowl.

(11-22-2021 05:16 PM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ]IIRC, every single year since the CFP began, we have had what in the old poll-and-bowl days would be called a true, consensus national champion, that is a champ that was the choice of both traditional polls. Also beyond that, every single CFP champ has been #1 in the old BCS formula, and in the Massey Composite of computers.

So whether talking about polls or computers, there has been a clear-cut #1 every year. The CFP has been perfect with that, despite the alleged imperfect method of a committee deciding on who the teams are.

This doesn't really surprise me, as this isn't rocket science, it's college football.

So IMO, the only real reason to expand the playoffs are money or entertainment. It won't do any better of a job than the CFP has of crowning a champ. Can't, because the CFP is perfect so far.

Add to that the chance a team like Georgia stumbles in their first game while a 2-loss team runs through the tournament. We can probably look to basketball for precedence, but in football it is not a guarantee that that 2-loss team would be ranked #1.

(11-22-2021 05:16 PM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-22-2021 04:08 PM)JSchmack Wrote: [ -> ]I think everyone is overthinking this...

The point of a playoff -- as stated at the time of the Bowl Alliance/BCS creation, which begat the CFP -- was to determine a true champion.

The reason the CFP has failed to do that is because they have a committee deciding "who's worthy to be in the CFP" which is really no different than the poll system determining "who's the champion" aside from the extra steps of playing games. But often the CFP winner creates more doubt as to who was the best team in college football -- i.e., uninvited UCF finishing undefeated.

You really don't need ONE playoff system of 4 teams every year, or 8 teams or 16 teams every year. You need a different sized tournament every season, so that at the end of the playoff, the team who wins is guaranteed to have the best record in college football, or a tied record with a head-to-head victory.

I don't know how that bold part is defensible. IIRC, every single year since the CFP began, we have had what in the old poll-and-bowl days would be called a true, consensus national champion, that is a champ that was the choice of both traditional polls. Also beyond that, every single CFP champ has been #1 in the old BCS formula, and in the Massey Composite of computers.

So whether talking about polls or computers, there has been a clear-cut #1 every year. The CFP has been perfect with that, despite the alleged imperfect method of a committee deciding on who the teams are.

This doesn't really surprise me, as this isn't rocket science, it's college football.

So IMO, the only real reason to expand the playoffs are money or entertainment. It won't do any better of a job than the CFP has of crowning a champ. Can't, because the CFP is perfect so far.

I'd whole-heartedly disagree. The polls have matched the outcome of the CFP because the pollsters buy in (the coaches are OBLIGATED TO). It's just moving the arbitrary opinion of "bunch of people declaring a champion" from the post-season polls to "bunch of people declaring who COULD be champion" and then letting them play it out.

But that isn't the same as "settling it on the field."

Settling it on the field doesn't result in multiple undefeated teams after bowl season. Settling it on the field means including all the unbeaten teams in the CFP, so only one team is left standing.


College is the only sports leagues on the planet that does this non-sense. If you gambled on the baseball playoffs, you knew that the Chicago White Sox won a vastly inferior AL Central compared to the AL East or AL West. They didn't get left out of the playoffs because of their SOS.

(11-22-2021 05:26 PM)Crayton Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-22-2021 05:16 PM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ]IIRC, every single year since the CFP began, we have had what in the old poll-and-bowl days would be called a true, consensus national champion, that is a champ that was the choice of both traditional polls. Also beyond that, every single CFP champ has been #1 in the old BCS formula, and in the Massey Composite of computers.

So whether talking about polls or computers, there has been a clear-cut #1 every year. The CFP has been perfect with that, despite the alleged imperfect method of a committee deciding on who the teams are.

This doesn't really surprise me, as this isn't rocket science, it's college football.

So IMO, the only real reason to expand the playoffs are money or entertainment. It won't do any better of a job than the CFP has of crowning a champ. Can't, because the CFP is perfect so far.

Add to that the chance a team like Georgia stumbles in their first game while a 2-loss team runs through the tournament. We can probably look to basketball for precedence, but in football it is not a guarantee that that 2-loss team would be ranked #1.

That's a good point. An expanded playoffs could lead to fluke results/upsets that make it less likely that the true-best team is crowned champ.

Some people respond to that by saying "well, whoever wins the game is the best team!" But that's obviously not true. The best team doesn't always win a given game. There's always a luck/variable factor in any game. I always think back to an obscure 1992 game between my beloved Los Angeles Rams and the Dallas Cowboys. The Rams were a bad team that year, 6-10 and never in contention. The Cowboys went 13-3 and won the Super Bowl by 35 points with one of the most talented rosters ever assembled. But in game 10 of the season, my Rams beat the Cowboys, 27-23 in Dallas. We played a great, inspired game, and they didn't, and we won. But that doesn't mean we were the better team, the overall performance obviously disproves that. It was a fluke/lucky result.

That's why sports like the NBA and NHL and MLB play best-of series, to try and mitigate the fluke/luck factor.

Put more teams in, and more fluke results can happen.

(11-22-2021 05:23 PM)Crayton Wrote: [ -> ]I saw one like that a decade ago. Compare the BCS differentials between the 2nd through 9th ranked team, select the largest gap, and there is your playoff field

I wouldn't even want to treat it like that, though.

If the highest rated team in the polls win out the rest of the way, you only need a three-team playoff: Georgia, Cincinnati, UTSA.

Everyone else has a loss, two of those three will lose in the playoff; one team remains as a undisputed national champion.

The argument that UTSA and Cincinnati aren't "good enough" to make the playoff is dumb. No one has beaten them yet, and if they're not good enough to beat Georgia, then they'll lose to Georgia. If they actually beat Georgia, that eliminates the argument that they're not good enough.

That's actually settling it on the field.

(11-22-2021 05:44 PM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ]That's a good point. An expanded playoffs could lead to fluke results/upsets that make it less likely that the true-best team is crowned champ.

Some people respond to that by saying "well, whoever wins the game is the best team!" But that's obviously not true. The best team doesn't always win a given game. There's always a luck/variable factor in any game. I always think back to an obscure 1992 game between my beloved Los Angeles Rams and the Dallas Cowboys. The Rams were a bad team that year, 6-10 and never in contention. The Cowboys went 13-3 and won the Super Bowl by 35 points with one of the most talented rosters ever assembled. But in game 10 of the season, my Rams beat the Cowboys, 27-23 in Dallas. We played a great, inspired game, and they didn't, and we won. But that doesn't mean we were the better team, the overall performance obviously disproves that. It was a fluke/lucky result.

That's why sports like the NBA and NHL and MLB play best-of series, to try and mitigate the fluke/luck factor.

Put more teams in, and more fluke results can happen.

Right, the best team doesn't always win and the more teams you include, the more likely it is that someone who's like "8th overall" through the regular season wins in the playoffs.

But at the same time, in the NFL, no one is locking you out of the playoffs because your division is perceived as weak. And that's the problem with college sports.

Through every effort to judge a team's record vs their schedule, we've lost the fact that WINNING is supposed to be more important, and now people care more about SOS than they do about win percentage.

Of course Cincinnati and UTSA had easier schedules than Alabama. No one is saying Cincy and UTSA are BETTER than Alabama, just that Alabama had their shot. Denying someone else a shot because of someone else's SOS is just dumb.

But if Alabama wants to play Cincinnati or UTSA in non-conference, they'd love to host the Tide. The fundamental problem is that the P5 refuses to play road games at the G5 and then turns around and says "You can't be in the CFP/NCAA Tourney because you don't play enough P5s."

(11-22-2021 06:12 PM)JSchmack Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-22-2021 05:44 PM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ]That's a good point. An expanded playoffs could lead to fluke results/upsets that make it less likely that the true-best team is crowned champ.

Some people respond to that by saying "well, whoever wins the game is the best team!" But that's obviously not true. The best team doesn't always win a given game. There's always a luck/variable factor in any game. I always think back to an obscure 1992 game between my beloved Los Angeles Rams and the Dallas Cowboys. The Rams were a bad team that year, 6-10 and never in contention. The Cowboys went 13-3 and won the Super Bowl by 35 points with one of the most talented rosters ever assembled. But in game 10 of the season, my Rams beat the Cowboys, 27-23 in Dallas. We played a great, inspired game, and they didn't, and we won. But that doesn't mean we were the better team, the overall performance obviously disproves that. It was a fluke/lucky result.

That's why sports like the NBA and NHL and MLB play best-of series, to try and mitigate the fluke/luck factor.

Put more teams in, and more fluke results can happen.

Right, the best team doesn't always win and the more teams you include, the more likely it is that someone who's like "8th overall" through the regular season wins in the playoffs.

But at the same time, in the NFL, no one is locking you out of the playoffs because your division is perceived as weak. And that's the problem with college sports.

Through every effort to judge a team's record vs their schedule, we've lost the fact that WINNING is supposed to be more important, and now people care more about SOS than they do about win percentage.

Of course Cincinnati and UTSA had easier schedules than Alabama. No one is saying Cincy and UTSA are BETTER than Alabama, just that Alabama had their shot. Denying someone else a shot because of someone else's SOS is just dumb.

But if Alabama wants to play Cincinnati or UTSA in non-conference, they'd love to host the Tide. The fundamental problem is that the P5 refuses to play road games at the G5 and then turns around and says "You can't be in the CFP/NCAA Tourney because you don't play enough P5s."

About the bolded, we should always care more about SOS than win %. Win % is meaningless by itself. I mean, take this Michigan team. If they played Arkansas Pine-Bluff 12 times, they'd be 12-0. If they played the Tampa Bay Buccaneers 12 times, they'd be 0-12. Exact same team, totally different records, based on who they played.

G5 fans complain about SOS being undervalued compared to wins, but it's the opposite - wins are far more highly valued. An SEC West team that goes 6-6 vs a Murderer's Row schedule will never be ranked ahead of say an AAC team, like this year's Houston, who goes 10-1 versus the softest possible cream-puff schedule.

The bias is always towards win %, when it should be much more heavily-tilted towards SOS.

Cincy? Compare them to Ohio State. Everyone thinks Ohio State is better right now. They are ranked higher than Cincy in the human polls, and the computers.

That's as of right now, with their respective results. But what does Ohio State have to do to make the playoffs? Beat Michigan and probably Wisconsin.

Who does Cincy have to beat? ECU and Houston. ECU and Houston!

Are you kidding me?