Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
This is what I think the CFB Playoff format should look like
Author Message
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 50,007
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2370
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #81
RE: This is what I think the CFB Playoff format should look like
(08-15-2019 11:25 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(08-15-2019 10:50 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(08-15-2019 08:57 AM)1845 Bear Wrote:  
(08-15-2019 06:46 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(08-14-2019 06:31 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  Is it a tougher SOS? Yes. But one team did everything hey could and the other lost more than 20% of their games. Only one earned a right to be there and only subjective criteria could elevate the other one.

First, the problem of 2014 isn't a problem with the method used to select the teams - a committee - it was a problem of the number of teams in the playoffs, four. Even a totally objective "must be a conference champ to make the playoffs" method with no human committee involvement would have left out two of the six teams you think were worthy of playing for the title, because you can't put six teams in a four team playoff. So 2014 is an argument for expanding to 8 teams, but it isn't an argument for using conference champ criteria over a committee.

Second, I don't think your thinking on criteria is very clear. My Alabama/Citadel example was extreme, but it made the point - SOS isn't just a little thing, its *everything*. A record is meaningless unless we look at who was played.

Going 12-0 vs a soft schedule is not necessarily deserving of a playoff berth in a system where there is just 8 spots for 130 teams. Doing "everything you can" doesn't cut it, when "everything you can" was just not very much because the games were soft. It's like me solving 12 straight easy addition problems and thinking I deserve to advance in a math tournament over someone who solved 10 out of 12 far tougher calculus problems. That's just dumb, IMO.
Sigh... there you go again throwing out the only objective criteria we have here.

At the end of the day the way the playoff is settled isn’t “who could win more if they played 10 times?”- it’s who ACTUALLY WON.

You are arguing strength of record.
I am arguing who played their way in.

Quote:IMO, the problem with advocating "objective" criteria for college football playoffs is that there is no objective criteria that are any good. Winning your conference isn't, because conferences vary in strength, and also conference champs are chosen based just on conference games, throwing out OOC games.

Better to have a human element that can adjust for those obvious factors, and so far, based on comparisons with independent sources like the AP poll and computers, the CFP has done a great job.


Completely disagree. If you play your way in by winning every time out you should be in if your schedule is even close to mediocre.

Losing three times against the #1 SOS is an impressive season but it’s obvious you didn’t earn the right to be national champs since 20% of your year was spent losing. You had your shot and blew it three times. Most years a national champ can’t lose once and rarely can lose twice.

At the end of the day you are arguing that actually winning should only selectively matter to qualify for a playoff where you have to win or go home. All that means is if enough people subjectively like you or your league/brand you get a get out of jail free card and the team that took care of business gets the shaft and arbitrarily denied.

IMO, it is just silly to argue that someone "played their way in" by winning all their games without looking at who they played. As I've explained, a record means nothing, literally nothing, absent an evaluation of who was played.

The only time you can reasonably say that say a 12-0 record is better than a 9-3 record is if the schedules are reasonably similar. Not exactly so, but reasonably. In the NFL, straight record decides the division title and advancement to the playoffs, because even though teams do not play identical schedules, the schedules are pretty darn close, there isn't much of a gap between the #1 schedule and the #32 schedule.

But college football isn't like that. Schedules vary tremendously, so 12-0 just cannot be reasonably regarded as a basis for automatic playoff inclusion.

Bottom line is: P5 and G5 often play *categorically* different schedules, so comparing 12-0 G5 to a 9-3 P5 is an apples/oranges comparison. It's like saying an FCS team that goes 12-0 deserves to be in a playoff over a G5 team that goes 10-2, when the FCS team played a categorically weaker schedule.

Heck, according to Sagarin, last year, UCF's schedule was *closer* in strength to FCS champ North Dakota State's than it was to Stanford's. So NDS had as much right to claim to be in a playoff vs UCF as UCF did vs a Stanford.

IMO, makes no sense.

The problem you simply refuse to acknowledge is that the division of FBS has 5 conferences with no access to the playoff regardless of what they do.

Actually, I've addressed that head-on numerous times: I note that FBS was never, ever, not from day one, intended to be a unified competitive league, such that all FBS members have some kind of inherent claim on being able to compete for a title versus all other FBS teams.

FBS is and since 1978 has been just a catch-all category for the schools and conferences that *did not want* to participate in .... formal NCAA sponsored football playoffs! So not only was FBS never intended to be a single competitive league, if it does have any unifying basis, it's the idea that we do *not want playoffs*.

So insisting that there is something wrong with FBS if we don't have a playoff that guarantees everyone a path to a FBS title is just wrong on two counts, not just one.

That said, I'm not against more playoffs. I favor an 8-team playoff, but with straight 8. I'm not against a G5 team competing, they just have to earn it by being compared to P5 teams. UCF did just that last year and under my system they would have played Alabama in the first round of the playoffs.

But the G5 can't have a guilded path that allows them to do nothing but beat G5 teams, shielded from competition with and comparison to P5 teams, then claim *automatically* a coveted one-in-eight spot versus the very best P5 teams. That makes no sense to me, just as it makes no sense to me that P5 teams should be able to do the same by winning their conferences.
(This post was last modified: 08-15-2019 03:29 PM by quo vadis.)
08-15-2019 03:28 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
goofus Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,285
Joined: May 2013
Reputation: 148
I Root For: Iowa
Location: chicago suburbs
Post: #82
RE: This is what I think the CFB Playoff format should look like
I like it except I believe the automatic spots should have some conditions attached to it.

For instance, there should be a rule that all automatic qualifiers need to be ranked in the top 25 to make the playoffs. If a P5 conference champ is not in the top 25, then it forfeits its automatic spot and its playoff spot goes to the next highest ranked team instead. If there are no G5 champions in the top 25, then the G5 forfeits its automatic spot and its playoff spot goes to the next highest ranked team instead.
(This post was last modified: 08-15-2019 08:12 PM by goofus.)
08-15-2019 08:09 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ChrisLords Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,639
Joined: Jun 2007
Reputation: 336
I Root For: Virginia Tech
Location: Earth
Post: #83
RE: This is what I think the CFB Playoff format should look like
6 bowl rotation - 4 semifinal games, 2 championship games - Rose, Sugar, Orange, Fiesta, Cotton, Peach

The Power 4 playoffs. - Champs of the ACC, SEC, B1G and Big 16 (after 6 Pac 12 schools join the Big 12)

The National Championship - 3 highest rated teams not in the P4 championships and the Highest rated G5 champion.

Some years the National championship playoff will have the highest rated team. Crown 2 champions. The P4 champ and the National Champ.
(This post was last modified: 08-15-2019 10:23 PM by ChrisLords.)
08-15-2019 09:19 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bill dazzle Offline
Craft beer and urban living enthusiast
*

Posts: 10,379
Joined: Aug 2016
Reputation: 946
I Root For: Vandy/Memphis/DePaul/UNC
Location: Nashville
Post: #84
RE: This is what I think the CFB Playoff format should look like
(08-15-2019 03:28 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(08-15-2019 11:25 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(08-15-2019 10:50 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(08-15-2019 08:57 AM)1845 Bear Wrote:  
(08-15-2019 06:46 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  First, the problem of 2014 isn't a problem with the method used to select the teams - a committee - it was a problem of the number of teams in the playoffs, four. Even a totally objective "must be a conference champ to make the playoffs" method with no human committee involvement would have left out two of the six teams you think were worthy of playing for the title, because you can't put six teams in a four team playoff. So 2014 is an argument for expanding to 8 teams, but it isn't an argument for using conference champ criteria over a committee.

Second, I don't think your thinking on criteria is very clear. My Alabama/Citadel example was extreme, but it made the point - SOS isn't just a little thing, its *everything*. A record is meaningless unless we look at who was played.

Going 12-0 vs a soft schedule is not necessarily deserving of a playoff berth in a system where there is just 8 spots for 130 teams. Doing "everything you can" doesn't cut it, when "everything you can" was just not very much because the games were soft. It's like me solving 12 straight easy addition problems and thinking I deserve to advance in a math tournament over someone who solved 10 out of 12 far tougher calculus problems. That's just dumb, IMO.
Sigh... there you go again throwing out the only objective criteria we have here.

At the end of the day the way the playoff is settled isn’t “who could win more if they played 10 times?”- it’s who ACTUALLY WON.

You are arguing strength of record.
I am arguing who played their way in.

Quote:IMO, the problem with advocating "objective" criteria for college football playoffs is that there is no objective criteria that are any good. Winning your conference isn't, because conferences vary in strength, and also conference champs are chosen based just on conference games, throwing out OOC games.

Better to have a human element that can adjust for those obvious factors, and so far, based on comparisons with independent sources like the AP poll and computers, the CFP has done a great job.


Completely disagree. If you play your way in by winning every time out you should be in if your schedule is even close to mediocre.

Losing three times against the #1 SOS is an impressive season but it’s obvious you didn’t earn the right to be national champs since 20% of your year was spent losing. You had your shot and blew it three times. Most years a national champ can’t lose once and rarely can lose twice.

At the end of the day you are arguing that actually winning should only selectively matter to qualify for a playoff where you have to win or go home. All that means is if enough people subjectively like you or your league/brand you get a get out of jail free card and the team that took care of business gets the shaft and arbitrarily denied.

IMO, it is just silly to argue that someone "played their way in" by winning all their games without looking at who they played. As I've explained, a record means nothing, literally nothing, absent an evaluation of who was played.

The only time you can reasonably say that say a 12-0 record is better than a 9-3 record is if the schedules are reasonably similar. Not exactly so, but reasonably. In the NFL, straight record decides the division title and advancement to the playoffs, because even though teams do not play identical schedules, the schedules are pretty darn close, there isn't much of a gap between the #1 schedule and the #32 schedule.

But college football isn't like that. Schedules vary tremendously, so 12-0 just cannot be reasonably regarded as a basis for automatic playoff inclusion.

Bottom line is: P5 and G5 often play *categorically* different schedules, so comparing 12-0 G5 to a 9-3 P5 is an apples/oranges comparison. It's like saying an FCS team that goes 12-0 deserves to be in a playoff over a G5 team that goes 10-2, when the FCS team played a categorically weaker schedule.

Heck, according to Sagarin, last year, UCF's schedule was *closer* in strength to FCS champ North Dakota State's than it was to Stanford's. So NDS had as much right to claim to be in a playoff vs UCF as UCF did vs a Stanford.

IMO, makes no sense.

The problem you simply refuse to acknowledge is that the division of FBS has 5 conferences with no access to the playoff regardless of what they do.

Actually, I've addressed that head-on numerous times: I note that FBS was never, ever, not from day one, intended to be a unified competitive league, such that all FBS members have some kind of inherent claim on being able to compete for a title versus all other FBS teams.

FBS is and since 1978 has been just a catch-all category for the schools and conferences that *did not want* to participate in .... formal NCAA sponsored football playoffs! So not only was FBS never intended to be a single competitive league, if it does have any unifying basis, it's the idea that we do *not want playoffs*.

So insisting that there is something wrong with FBS if we don't have a playoff that guarantees everyone a path to a FBS title is just wrong on two counts, not just one.

That said, I'm not against more playoffs. I favor an 8-team playoff, but with straight 8. I'm not against a G5 team competing, they just have to earn it by being compared to P5 teams. UCF did just that last year and under my system they would have played Alabama in the first round of the playoffs.

But the G5 can't have a guilded path that allows them to do nothing but beat G5 teams, shielded from competition with and comparison to P5 teams, then claim *automatically* a coveted one-in-eight spot versus the very best P5 teams. That makes no sense to me, just as it makes no sense to me that P5 teams should be able to do the same by winning their conferences.

The last two graphs of Quo's post are spot-on. Now I might differ a bit with him regarding how teams qualify for the eight-team playoff, but the general point of his last two paragraphs ... perfectly put.
08-15-2019 09:21 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
micahandme Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 301
Joined: May 2017
Reputation: 20
I Root For: PSU
Location:
Post: #85
RE: This is what I think the CFB Playoff format should look like
(08-09-2019 05:46 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  
(08-09-2019 04:14 PM)TTT Wrote:  8-team playoff.

Each Power 5 Champion is an AQ.

The highest ranked G5 Champion is an AQ.

The remaining two at-large seeds go to the highest ranked teams not already in as an AQ.

After the 8 team field is set, they are seeded by the CFB Playoff Committee for match-ups

If this was implemented last year, the 8-team playoff would've consisted of these teams (in no particular order):

Alabama (SEC Champs)
Clemson (ACC Champs)
Oklahoma (B12 Champs)
Ohio State (B10 Champs)
Washington (PAC12 Champs)
UCF (Highest ranked G5 Champion)
Notre Dame (highest ranked team not already in as an AQ)
Georgia (2nd highest ranked team not already in as an AQ - the last team in)

And under this scenario, you would've probably have seen these pods/match-ups:

1. Alabama vs. 8. Washington
4. Ohio State vs. 5. Notre Dame

2. Clemson vs. 7. UCF
3. Oklahoma vs. 6. Georgia

What do you think?

What you’re describing is what a lot of us here refer to as a 5-1-2 playoff and there is a fairly strong contingent that think it would produce the most controversy free, fairest playoff scenario.

I for one am a big fan of this model. NY6 bowls serve as quarter final sites, play the semis 7-10 days later, and the national title the Saturday of Pro Bowl Weekend.

No. One of the worst things for CFB right now is the weird 4 week delay between CCGs and CFP bowls. It just kills all momentum...and in a prime TV spot where the NFL regular season is winding down (but before the playoffs start). Put the quarterfinals midway between Dec 5 and New Year's...right around Dec. 18...and that gives two weeks to hype the Quarters...and then two more weeks to hype the semis. Perfect scenario.

And the 5-1-2 format would keep the controversy going...because those final two spots would become the discussion points. Does a 10-3 SEC team deserve the spot over a 11-2 Big 12 championship game loser? Does a 11-1 Big Ten team (that lost its division tie-breaker) get the last spot or an 11-2 Pac-12 title game loser?

But the "objective" data point ("CCG winners are IN no matter what") would legitimize the sport in a lot of casual fans' eyes.
08-20-2019 12:46 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
esayem Offline
Hark The Sound!
*

Posts: 16,247
Joined: Feb 2007
Reputation: 1202
I Root For: Olde Ironclad
Location: Tobacco Road
Post: #86
RE: This is what I think the CFB Playoff format should look like
The football regular season is so short it should be looked at as an extension of the playoffs. Having CCG winners ensures those are the best teams at the end of the gauntlet.

They protect from scenarios like this:

Ohio State finishes 11-1 with a loss to Penn State (8-4) in a fluke game on the road.

Michigan finished 11-1, but was blown out by Ohio State.

Ohio State loses the Big Ten CCG to 9-3 Nebraska.

Nebraska finishes the regular season at #9, behind Michigan, a team they did not see on the field.

In a straight 8, Michigan by none other than their name, gets in over the Big Ten champ that beat Ohio State, a team that destroyed Michigan two weeks prior.


I’m sorry, but that is fundamentally WRONG. The importance of records, as in how many losses a team has, is archaic! If a team wins a P5 CCG, by virtue of the stage they’re on, with all the marbles on the line, should get in.

Our own merit philosophies aside, I only see the P5 voting for expanded playoffs if they get auto-bids for their CCG winners.
(This post was last modified: 08-20-2019 06:04 AM by esayem.)
08-20-2019 06:02 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 50,007
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2370
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #87
RE: This is what I think the CFB Playoff format should look like
(08-20-2019 06:02 AM)esayem Wrote:  The football regular season is so short it should be looked at as an extension of the playoffs. Having CCG winners ensures those are the best teams at the end of the gauntlet.

They protect from scenarios like this:

Ohio State finishes 11-1 with a loss to Penn State (8-4) in a fluke game on the road.

Michigan finished 11-1, but was blown out by Ohio State.

Ohio State loses the Big Ten CCG to 9-3 Nebraska.

Nebraska finishes the regular season at #9, behind Michigan, a team they did not see on the field.

In a straight 8, Michigan by none other than their name, gets in over the Big Ten champ that beat Ohio State, a team that destroyed Michigan two weeks prior.


I’m sorry, but that is fundamentally WRONG. The importance of records, as in how many losses a team has, is archaic! If a team wins a P5 CCG, by virtue of the stage they’re on, with all the marbles on the line, should get in.

Our own merit philosophies aside, I only see the P5 voting for expanded playoffs if they get auto-bids for their CCG winners.

To me, it is far more 'fundamentally wrong' for an 8-4 team that played the same SOS as an 11-1 team to get in over the 11-1 team. That strikes me as absurd, you are putting H2H over 3 losses, which no league does. Winning a conference just doesn't tell us much about how a team stacks up to others nationally, not enough to merit an *automatic* playoff spot, IMO. And in any event, any team such as those in your scenarios that gets blown out late in the season is going to fall in the rankings, quite possibly out of the top 8.

I think the P5 would be more than willing to do straight 8, but all of us will just have to wait and see.
08-20-2019 08:13 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 50,007
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2370
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #88
RE: This is what I think the CFB Playoff format should look like
(08-20-2019 12:46 AM)micahandme Wrote:  But the "objective" data point ("CCG winners are IN no matter what") would legitimize the sport in a lot of casual fans' eyes.

IMO, this would de-legitimize the sport in many fan's eyes, because you could have situations where a 8-4 CCG upset winner is now in the playoffs over teams that won more games not just in their conference but others as well. IOW's, they obviously aren't a top-8 team, but are in the playoffs.

Also, giving an auto-bid to a G5 team would do the same, because in many years its also a consensus belief that the top G5 team isn't top-8 either.

IMO, straight 8 does the best job of addressing the various issues that arise. Not perfectly, and there will surely be lots of arguments, but better than 5-1-2, 5-3, or anything else.
08-20-2019 08:16 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Kit-Cat Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,000
Joined: Jun 2002
Reputation: 125
I Root For: Championships
Location:

CrappiesCrappiesCrappiesCrappiesCrappies
Post: #89
RE: This is what I think the CFB Playoff format should look like
We've heard so much about autobids for the P5 and 3 at large spots. A quarterfinal round taking place within the existing P5 lineup.

What if the G5 could do the same thing? Autobids and 3 large spots? That way they get a fair amount of representation in the post season.

P5 (Rose, Cotton, Sugar, Orange)
G5 (Holiday, Sun, Liberty, Gator)-Gator goes here (small market)

Then have semifinals for each grouping played at one site as a double header to ensure good attendance. The finals then could be the week after.

Then the week after that would be a P5-G5 super bowl game...

05-stirthepot
08-20-2019 10:04 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
YNot Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,671
Joined: May 2014
Reputation: 298
I Root For: BYU
Location:
Post: #90
RE: This is what I think the CFB Playoff format should look like
I see a rule change that will deregulate the CCG so that the P5 conferences will pair their top two teams in the CCG...such that you would rarely, if ever, see an 8-4 team playing for a P5 championship.

That move maintains or even enhances the importance of the regular season and conference championships. And, it make the CCG a lucrative, must-see win-or-go-home game and has most of the top-10 teams playing over CCG weekend.
08-20-2019 10:08 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 44,735
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 2860
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #91
RE: This is what I think the CFB Playoff format should look like
(08-20-2019 08:16 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(08-20-2019 12:46 AM)micahandme Wrote:  But the "objective" data point ("CCG winners are IN no matter what") would legitimize the sport in a lot of casual fans' eyes.

IMO, this would de-legitimize the sport in many fan's eyes, because you could have situations where a 8-4 CCG upset winner is now in the playoffs over teams that won more games not just in their conference but others as well. IOW's, they obviously aren't a top-8 team, but are in the playoffs.

Also, giving an auto-bid to a G5 team would do the same, because in many years its also a consensus belief that the top G5 team isn't top-8 either.

IMO, straight 8 does the best job of addressing the various issues that arise. Not perfectly, and there will surely be lots of arguments, but better than 5-1-2, 5-3, or anything else.

It doesnt "de-legitimize" anything. "The people" are fine with it because they watch the game play out right in front of their faces on live nationwide TV. I think its odd that you seem determined to set up a system that "corrects" what actually happens on the field to fit with the outcome your opinion based system predicts. If they dont win their division or conference---maybe the rankings are just wrong. The fact is---the #1-#8 ranked teams in week one are often not the #1-#8 at the end of the season. Why is that? Well, its because real life games didnt turn out like the way rankings predicted---thus, they recognize their error and change. The general public will be just fine with a system that relies on actual game results.

The idea that a system relying on action playing out on the field in key games in front of millions of nationwide viewers would be seen as "illegitimate" is absolutely preposterous.
(This post was last modified: 08-20-2019 01:26 PM by Attackcoog.)
08-20-2019 11:52 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
esayem Offline
Hark The Sound!
*

Posts: 16,247
Joined: Feb 2007
Reputation: 1202
I Root For: Olde Ironclad
Location: Tobacco Road
Post: #92
RE: This is what I think the CFB Playoff format should look like
(08-20-2019 10:08 AM)YNot Wrote:  I see a rule change that will deregulate the CCG so that the P5 conferences will pair their top two teams in the CCG...such that you would rarely, if ever, see an 8-4 team playing for a P5 championship.

That move maintains or even enhances the importance of the regular season and conference championships. And, it make the CCG a lucrative, must-see win-or-go-home game and has most of the top-10 teams playing over CCG weekend.

That absolutely makes the most sense, but until then...

If a Boston College hoops team goes 18-13 then beats Duke in the tourney championship, nobody is going to argue about their ticket to the Dance.

If Pitt beats undefeated Clemson in the ACC, I think college football nation would be rooting for the Panthers in the playoffs.

Who gives a **** what happens in the other conferences, Pitt won the ACC bid! It’s written in stone: WIN YOUR CONFERENCE
08-20-2019 11:57 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 50,007
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2370
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #93
RE: This is what I think the CFB Playoff format should look like
(08-20-2019 11:52 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(08-20-2019 08:16 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(08-20-2019 12:46 AM)micahandme Wrote:  But the "objective" data point ("CCG winners are IN no matter what") would legitimize the sport in a lot of casual fans' eyes.

IMO, this would de-legitimize the sport in many fan's eyes, because you could have situations where a 8-4 CCG upset winner is now in the playoffs over teams that won more games not just in their conference but others as well. IOW's, they obviously aren't a top-8 team, but are in the playoffs.

Also, giving an auto-bid to a G5 team would do the same, because in many years its also a consensus belief that the top G5 team isn't top-8 either.

IMO, straight 8 does the best job of addressing the various issues that arise. Not perfectly, and there will surely be lots of arguments, but better than 5-1-2, 5-3, or anything else.

It doesnt "de-legitimize" anything. "The people" are fine with it because they watch the game play out right in front of their faces on live nationwide TV. I think its odd that you seem determined to set up a system that "corrects" what actually happens on the field to fit with the outcome your opinion based system predicts. If they dont win their division or conference---maybe the ranking are just wrong. The fact is---the #1-#8 ranked teams in week one are often not the #1-#8 at the end of the season. Why is that? Well, its because real life games didnt turn out like the way rankings predicted---thus, they recognize their error and change. The general public will be just fine with a system that relies on actual game results.

The idea that a system relying on action playing out on the field in key games in front of millions of nationwide viewers would be seen as "illegitimate" is absolutely preposterous.

Not really. E.g., "VT" just posted numbers showing a very high correlation between initial AP poll ranking - which comes out way before the first CFP rankings, and making the CFP. And that's in part because yes, the rankings do change, as they ought to, when more data comes in. Nobody is suggesting using an AP poll in August to pick playoff teams in December.

You don't often see huge differences in rankings - whether it be CFP, AP, Coaches, computers, etc. because this isn't rocket science. You don't need a PhD in Advanced Calculus to know that Clemson was more deserving of a playoff spot last year than was Washington State.

And as I've explained, your method actually does much more violence to "what happens on the field" than mine, because yours throws out OOC games. Mine doesn't throw out anything, everything is considered, it's just that no one thing is allowed to automatically override everything else.

Which, in a sport with as many vagaries as college football has, IMO easily makes the most sense.

And heck, in terms of practical realities, a S8 system would have been very kind to champs of major conferences - the only ones with an actual path to the title under your proposed system. S8 would have put 24/25 P5 champs in the playoffs the past 5 seasons. That's a very high percentage, not much being 'disregarded' there. And let's face it, the one team that would not have made it, Washington this past year, had no claim to a playoff spot. Their missing the top 8 was utterly uncontroversial.

07-coffee3
(This post was last modified: 08-20-2019 12:18 PM by quo vadis.)
08-20-2019 12:17 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ODUODUODU Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,724
Joined: May 2017
Reputation: 122
I Root For: ODU
Location:
Post: #94
RE: This is what I think the CFB Playoff format should look like
(08-09-2019 04:26 PM)PicksUp Wrote:  No and no.

None of the Power 5 Conference champs deserve an automatic spot.
Top G5 champ doesn’t deserve a spot either.

Just pick the top 8, regardless of conference affiliation or conference title.

What’s so hard to understand?

The Poll's are very subjective. The suggested idea makes the CFP more like the MBB Tourney.
08-20-2019 12:29 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
YNot Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,671
Joined: May 2014
Reputation: 298
I Root For: BYU
Location:
Post: #95
RE: This is what I think the CFB Playoff format should look like
(08-20-2019 12:17 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(08-20-2019 11:52 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(08-20-2019 08:16 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(08-20-2019 12:46 AM)micahandme Wrote:  But the "objective" data point ("CCG winners are IN no matter what") would legitimize the sport in a lot of casual fans' eyes.

IMO, this would de-legitimize the sport in many fan's eyes, because you could have situations where a 8-4 CCG upset winner is now in the playoffs over teams that won more games not just in their conference but others as well. IOW's, they obviously aren't a top-8 team, but are in the playoffs.

Also, giving an auto-bid to a G5 team would do the same, because in many years its also a consensus belief that the top G5 team isn't top-8 either.

IMO, straight 8 does the best job of addressing the various issues that arise. Not perfectly, and there will surely be lots of arguments, but better than 5-1-2, 5-3, or anything else.

It doesnt "de-legitimize" anything. "The people" are fine with it because they watch the game play out right in front of their faces on live nationwide TV. I think its odd that you seem determined to set up a system that "corrects" what actually happens on the field to fit with the outcome your opinion based system predicts. If they dont win their division or conference---maybe the ranking are just wrong. The fact is---the #1-#8 ranked teams in week one are often not the #1-#8 at the end of the season. Why is that? Well, its because real life games didnt turn out like the way rankings predicted---thus, they recognize their error and change. The general public will be just fine with a system that relies on actual game results.

The idea that a system relying on action playing out on the field in key games in front of millions of nationwide viewers would be seen as "illegitimate" is absolutely preposterous.

Not really. E.g., "VT" just posted numbers showing a very high correlation between initial AP poll ranking - which comes out way before the first CFP rankings, and making the CFP. And that's in part because yes, the rankings do change, as they ought to, when more data comes in. Nobody is suggesting using an AP poll in August to pick playoff teams in December.

You don't often see huge differences in rankings - whether it be CFP, AP, Coaches, computers, etc. because this isn't rocket science. You don't need a PhD in Advanced Calculus to know that Clemson was more deserving of a playoff spot last year than was Washington State.

And as I've explained, your method actually does much more violence to "what happens on the field" than mine, because yours throws out OOC games. Mine doesn't throw out anything, everything is considered, it's just that no one thing is allowed to automatically override everything else.

Which, in a sport with as many vagaries as college football has, IMO easily makes the most sense.

And heck, in terms of practical realities, a S8 system would have been very kind to champs of major conferences - the only ones with an actual path to the title under your proposed system. S8 would have put 24/25 P5 champs in the playoffs the past 5 seasons. That's a very high percentage, not much being 'disregarded' there. And let's face it, the one team that would not have made it, Washington this past year, had no claim to a playoff spot. Their missing the top 8 was utterly uncontroversial.

07-coffee3

Doesn't throw out OOC games. OOC games are still important in seeding and selecting the two wild card participants. The automatic bids for conference champs gets rid of the stink that comes from the beauty-contest structure. Win and you're in.
08-20-2019 12:53 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 44,735
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 2860
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #96
RE: This is what I think the CFB Playoff format should look like
(08-20-2019 12:53 PM)YNot Wrote:  
(08-20-2019 12:17 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(08-20-2019 11:52 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(08-20-2019 08:16 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(08-20-2019 12:46 AM)micahandme Wrote:  But the "objective" data point ("CCG winners are IN no matter what") would legitimize the sport in a lot of casual fans' eyes.

IMO, this would de-legitimize the sport in many fan's eyes, because you could have situations where a 8-4 CCG upset winner is now in the playoffs over teams that won more games not just in their conference but others as well. IOW's, they obviously aren't a top-8 team, but are in the playoffs.

Also, giving an auto-bid to a G5 team would do the same, because in many years its also a consensus belief that the top G5 team isn't top-8 either.

IMO, straight 8 does the best job of addressing the various issues that arise. Not perfectly, and there will surely be lots of arguments, but better than 5-1-2, 5-3, or anything else.

It doesnt "de-legitimize" anything. "The people" are fine with it because they watch the game play out right in front of their faces on live nationwide TV. I think its odd that you seem determined to set up a system that "corrects" what actually happens on the field to fit with the outcome your opinion based system predicts. If they dont win their division or conference---maybe the ranking are just wrong. The fact is---the #1-#8 ranked teams in week one are often not the #1-#8 at the end of the season. Why is that? Well, its because real life games didnt turn out like the way rankings predicted---thus, they recognize their error and change. The general public will be just fine with a system that relies on actual game results.

The idea that a system relying on action playing out on the field in key games in front of millions of nationwide viewers would be seen as "illegitimate" is absolutely preposterous.

Not really. E.g., "VT" just posted numbers showing a very high correlation between initial AP poll ranking - which comes out way before the first CFP rankings, and making the CFP. And that's in part because yes, the rankings do change, as they ought to, when more data comes in. Nobody is suggesting using an AP poll in August to pick playoff teams in December.

You don't often see huge differences in rankings - whether it be CFP, AP, Coaches, computers, etc. because this isn't rocket science. You don't need a PhD in Advanced Calculus to know that Clemson was more deserving of a playoff spot last year than was Washington State.

And as I've explained, your method actually does much more violence to "what happens on the field" than mine, because yours throws out OOC games. Mine doesn't throw out anything, everything is considered, it's just that no one thing is allowed to automatically override everything else.

Which, in a sport with as many vagaries as college football has, IMO easily makes the most sense.

And heck, in terms of practical realities, a S8 system would have been very kind to champs of major conferences - the only ones with an actual path to the title under your proposed system. S8 would have put 24/25 P5 champs in the playoffs the past 5 seasons. That's a very high percentage, not much being 'disregarded' there. And let's face it, the one team that would not have made it, Washington this past year, had no claim to a playoff spot. Their missing the top 8 was utterly uncontroversial.

07-coffee3

Doesn't throw out OOC games. OOC games are still important in seeding and selecting the two wild card participants. The automatic bids for conference champs gets rid of the stink that comes from the beauty-contest structure. Win and you're in.

Exactly. There are multiple paths into the playoff in the 5-1-2. The Committe gets complete freedom to choose 2 wildcards from the entire field of 125 teams and is also allowed to determine the "best" G5 from a defined pool of 5 G5 conference champs. Thats plenty. If you have 5 P5 champs, the best G5 champ--then even by Quo's own criteria---how often will there really be more than 2 other teams that have any reasonable claim to a playoff slot? Frankly, simply by virtue of having failed to win their own conference---any remaining team will have at least one loss and have a somewhat flawed resume. The exception to that statement would be Notre Dame type indy team. Does anyone really believe an undefeated (or even one loss) Notre Dame would be left out if there are 2 wild cards? Frankly---the top 2 selections is ALL we had participating in the "playoff" during the BCS era. So, if the 5-1-2 is "illegitimate"---so is every BCS championship ever held. Again--the claim that a 5-1-2 system would be viewed by the public as "illegitimate" is preposterous.
(This post was last modified: 08-20-2019 01:40 PM by Attackcoog.)
08-20-2019 01:31 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
YNot Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,671
Joined: May 2014
Reputation: 298
I Root For: BYU
Location:
Post: #97
RE: This is what I think the CFB Playoff format should look like
(08-20-2019 01:31 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(08-20-2019 12:53 PM)YNot Wrote:  
(08-20-2019 12:17 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(08-20-2019 11:52 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(08-20-2019 08:16 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  IMO, this would de-legitimize the sport in many fan's eyes, because you could have situations where a 8-4 CCG upset winner is now in the playoffs over teams that won more games not just in their conference but others as well. IOW's, they obviously aren't a top-8 team, but are in the playoffs.

Also, giving an auto-bid to a G5 team would do the same, because in many years its also a consensus belief that the top G5 team isn't top-8 either.

IMO, straight 8 does the best job of addressing the various issues that arise. Not perfectly, and there will surely be lots of arguments, but better than 5-1-2, 5-3, or anything else.

It doesnt "de-legitimize" anything. "The people" are fine with it because they watch the game play out right in front of their faces on live nationwide TV. I think its odd that you seem determined to set up a system that "corrects" what actually happens on the field to fit with the outcome your opinion based system predicts. If they dont win their division or conference---maybe the ranking are just wrong. The fact is---the #1-#8 ranked teams in week one are often not the #1-#8 at the end of the season. Why is that? Well, its because real life games didnt turn out like the way rankings predicted---thus, they recognize their error and change. The general public will be just fine with a system that relies on actual game results.

The idea that a system relying on action playing out on the field in key games in front of millions of nationwide viewers would be seen as "illegitimate" is absolutely preposterous.

Not really. E.g., "VT" just posted numbers showing a very high correlation between initial AP poll ranking - which comes out way before the first CFP rankings, and making the CFP. And that's in part because yes, the rankings do change, as they ought to, when more data comes in. Nobody is suggesting using an AP poll in August to pick playoff teams in December.

You don't often see huge differences in rankings - whether it be CFP, AP, Coaches, computers, etc. because this isn't rocket science. You don't need a PhD in Advanced Calculus to know that Clemson was more deserving of a playoff spot last year than was Washington State.

And as I've explained, your method actually does much more violence to "what happens on the field" than mine, because yours throws out OOC games. Mine doesn't throw out anything, everything is considered, it's just that no one thing is allowed to automatically override everything else.

Which, in a sport with as many vagaries as college football has, IMO easily makes the most sense.

And heck, in terms of practical realities, a S8 system would have been very kind to champs of major conferences - the only ones with an actual path to the title under your proposed system. S8 would have put 24/25 P5 champs in the playoffs the past 5 seasons. That's a very high percentage, not much being 'disregarded' there. And let's face it, the one team that would not have made it, Washington this past year, had no claim to a playoff spot. Their missing the top 8 was utterly uncontroversial.

07-coffee3

Doesn't throw out OOC games. OOC games are still important in seeding and selecting the two wild card participants. The automatic bids for conference champs gets rid of the stink that comes from the beauty-contest structure. Win and you're in.

Exactly. There are multiple paths into the playoff in the 5-1-2. The Committe gets complete freedom to choose 2 wildcards from the entire field of 125 teams and is also allowed to determine the "best" G5 from a defined pool of 5 G5 conference champs. Thats plenty. If you have 5 P5 champs, the best G5 champ--then even by Quo's own criteria---how often will there really be more than 2 other teams that have any reasonable claim to a playoff slot? Frankly, simply by virtue of having failed to win their own conference---any remaining team will have at least one loss and have a somewhat flawed resume. The exception to that statement would be Notre Dame type indy team. Does anyone really believe an undefeated (or even one loss) Notre Dame would be left out if there are 2 wild cards? Frankly---the top 2 selections is ALL we had participating in the "playoff" during the BCS era. So, if the 5-1-2 is "illegitimate"---so is every BCS championship ever held. Again--the claim that a 5-1-2 system would be viewed by the public as "illegitimate" is preposterous.

I also don't mind the 6+2 system that actually includes FOUR wild card teams that have a Play-In round to determine who gets the last 2 remaining at large spots.

It's an excellent system. Conference Championship Weekend would determine 6 of the 8 CFP participants or 75% of the field. But, the CFP Selection Committee still gets to seed the conference champions, selects the 4 wild card Play-In teams, and aligns the bowls.

This ensures that all P5 conference champions and at least one G5 conference champion get to play in a NY6 playoff bowl game...but, it also allows a path to the playoff for non-conference champions, like Notre Dame, and for the highly-ranked runners-up, like Georgia and Michigan.

So, something like this:

Play-In Round (held 1 or 2 weeks after CCG Weekend)
5-seed game: Florida @ Notre Dame
6-seed game: Michigan @ Georgia

NY6 Quarterfinal Round
Sugar Bowl: #1 Alabama (SEC) v. #8 Washington (PAC)
Orange Bowl: #2 Clemson (ACC) v. #7 UCF (AAC)
Cotton Bowl: #3 Oklahoma (B12) v. 6-seed winner
Rose Bowl: #4 Ohio State (B1G) v. 5-seed winner
(This post was last modified: 08-20-2019 03:05 PM by YNot.)
08-20-2019 03:02 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 50,007
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2370
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #98
RE: This is what I think the CFB Playoff format should look like
(08-20-2019 12:53 PM)YNot Wrote:  
(08-20-2019 12:17 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(08-20-2019 11:52 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(08-20-2019 08:16 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(08-20-2019 12:46 AM)micahandme Wrote:  But the "objective" data point ("CCG winners are IN no matter what") would legitimize the sport in a lot of casual fans' eyes.

IMO, this would de-legitimize the sport in many fan's eyes, because you could have situations where a 8-4 CCG upset winner is now in the playoffs over teams that won more games not just in their conference but others as well. IOW's, they obviously aren't a top-8 team, but are in the playoffs.

Also, giving an auto-bid to a G5 team would do the same, because in many years its also a consensus belief that the top G5 team isn't top-8 either.

IMO, straight 8 does the best job of addressing the various issues that arise. Not perfectly, and there will surely be lots of arguments, but better than 5-1-2, 5-3, or anything else.

It doesnt "de-legitimize" anything. "The people" are fine with it because they watch the game play out right in front of their faces on live nationwide TV. I think its odd that you seem determined to set up a system that "corrects" what actually happens on the field to fit with the outcome your opinion based system predicts. If they dont win their division or conference---maybe the ranking are just wrong. The fact is---the #1-#8 ranked teams in week one are often not the #1-#8 at the end of the season. Why is that? Well, its because real life games didnt turn out like the way rankings predicted---thus, they recognize their error and change. The general public will be just fine with a system that relies on actual game results.

The idea that a system relying on action playing out on the field in key games in front of millions of nationwide viewers would be seen as "illegitimate" is absolutely preposterous.

Not really. E.g., "VT" just posted numbers showing a very high correlation between initial AP poll ranking - which comes out way before the first CFP rankings, and making the CFP. And that's in part because yes, the rankings do change, as they ought to, when more data comes in. Nobody is suggesting using an AP poll in August to pick playoff teams in December.

You don't often see huge differences in rankings - whether it be CFP, AP, Coaches, computers, etc. because this isn't rocket science. You don't need a PhD in Advanced Calculus to know that Clemson was more deserving of a playoff spot last year than was Washington State.

And as I've explained, your method actually does much more violence to "what happens on the field" than mine, because yours throws out OOC games. Mine doesn't throw out anything, everything is considered, it's just that no one thing is allowed to automatically override everything else.

Which, in a sport with as many vagaries as college football has, IMO easily makes the most sense.

And heck, in terms of practical realities, a S8 system would have been very kind to champs of major conferences - the only ones with an actual path to the title under your proposed system. S8 would have put 24/25 P5 champs in the playoffs the past 5 seasons. That's a very high percentage, not much being 'disregarded' there. And let's face it, the one team that would not have made it, Washington this past year, had no claim to a playoff spot. Their missing the top 8 was utterly uncontroversial.

07-coffee3

Doesn't throw out OOC games. OOC games are still important in seeding and selecting the two wild card participants. The automatic bids for conference champs gets rid of the stink that comes from the beauty-contest structure. Win and you're in.

To me, OOC games should obviously matter for all the playoff spots, like they do in the NFL, NBA, MLB, etc. so for them not to matter for 6 out of 8 is really egregious.

And "win and your in" only makes sense if the thing you win is worthy of a playoff spot. If it isn't, then it deligitimizes the system.

Problem with auto-bids for conference champs is that winning a P5 conference doesn't prove that you belong in the playoffs. Had 7-5 Pitt beat Clemson in the ACC title game last year, would that have meant they were more deserving than say 11-2 Georgia? Of course not. Giving P5 champs an auto-bid allows that conference to shield itself from comparison with teams from other conferences. IMO, that is unjustifiable given the nature of college conference championships, which are structured largely for reasons other than competitive validity, and which do throw out OOC games.

And as i said, if you really are worried about P5 champs making the playoffs, that is largely a misplaced fear, as history shows that 24/25 would have made it under straight 8 the past five seasons. Winning a P5 title is a big deal, and should give your playoff chances a strong boost, and history shows it does. Heck, under the four-team CFP, 17 of the 20 playoff teams have been P5 champs even though mathematically, a P5 champ has to miss every year.

Just IMO not an automatic one.
(This post was last modified: 08-21-2019 08:51 AM by quo vadis.)
08-21-2019 08:49 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
YNot Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,671
Joined: May 2014
Reputation: 298
I Root For: BYU
Location:
Post: #99
RE: This is what I think the CFB Playoff format should look like
(08-21-2019 08:49 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(08-20-2019 12:53 PM)YNot Wrote:  
(08-20-2019 12:17 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(08-20-2019 11:52 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(08-20-2019 08:16 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  IMO, this would de-legitimize the sport in many fan's eyes, because you could have situations where a 8-4 CCG upset winner is now in the playoffs over teams that won more games not just in their conference but others as well. IOW's, they obviously aren't a top-8 team, but are in the playoffs.

Also, giving an auto-bid to a G5 team would do the same, because in many years its also a consensus belief that the top G5 team isn't top-8 either.

IMO, straight 8 does the best job of addressing the various issues that arise. Not perfectly, and there will surely be lots of arguments, but better than 5-1-2, 5-3, or anything else.

It doesnt "de-legitimize" anything. "The people" are fine with it because they watch the game play out right in front of their faces on live nationwide TV. I think its odd that you seem determined to set up a system that "corrects" what actually happens on the field to fit with the outcome your opinion based system predicts. If they dont win their division or conference---maybe the ranking are just wrong. The fact is---the #1-#8 ranked teams in week one are often not the #1-#8 at the end of the season. Why is that? Well, its because real life games didnt turn out like the way rankings predicted---thus, they recognize their error and change. The general public will be just fine with a system that relies on actual game results.

The idea that a system relying on action playing out on the field in key games in front of millions of nationwide viewers would be seen as "illegitimate" is absolutely preposterous.

Not really. E.g., "VT" just posted numbers showing a very high correlation between initial AP poll ranking - which comes out way before the first CFP rankings, and making the CFP. And that's in part because yes, the rankings do change, as they ought to, when more data comes in. Nobody is suggesting using an AP poll in August to pick playoff teams in December.

You don't often see huge differences in rankings - whether it be CFP, AP, Coaches, computers, etc. because this isn't rocket science. You don't need a PhD in Advanced Calculus to know that Clemson was more deserving of a playoff spot last year than was Washington State.

And as I've explained, your method actually does much more violence to "what happens on the field" than mine, because yours throws out OOC games. Mine doesn't throw out anything, everything is considered, it's just that no one thing is allowed to automatically override everything else.

Which, in a sport with as many vagaries as college football has, IMO easily makes the most sense.

And heck, in terms of practical realities, a S8 system would have been very kind to champs of major conferences - the only ones with an actual path to the title under your proposed system. S8 would have put 24/25 P5 champs in the playoffs the past 5 seasons. That's a very high percentage, not much being 'disregarded' there. And let's face it, the one team that would not have made it, Washington this past year, had no claim to a playoff spot. Their missing the top 8 was utterly uncontroversial.

07-coffee3

Doesn't throw out OOC games. OOC games are still important in seeding and selecting the two wild card participants. The automatic bids for conference champs gets rid of the stink that comes from the beauty-contest structure. Win and you're in.

To me, OOC games should obviously matter for all the playoff spots, like they do in the NFL, NBA, MLB, etc. so for them not to matter for 6 out of 8 is really egregious.

And "win and your in" only makes sense if the thing you win is worthy of a playoff spot. If it isn't, then it deligitimizes the system.

Problem with auto-bids for conference champs is that winning a P5 conference doesn't prove that you belong in the playoffs. Had 7-5 Pitt beat Clemson in the ACC title game last year, would that have meant they were more deserving than say 11-2 Georgia? Of course not. Giving P5 champs an auto-bid allows that conference to shield itself from comparison with teams from other conferences. IMO, that is unjustifiable given the nature of college conference championships, which are structured largely for reasons other than competitive validity, and which do throw out OOC games.

And as i said, if you really are worried about P5 champs making the playoffs, that is largely a misplaced fear, as history shows that 24/25 would have made it under straight 8 the past five seasons. Winning a P5 title is a big deal, and should give your playoff chances a strong boost, and history shows it does. Heck, under the four-team CFP, 17 of the 20 playoff teams have been P5 champs even though mathematically, a P5 champ has to miss every year.

Just IMO not an automatic one.

Ummm, the autobids for conference champions are just like the autobids for division winners in the NFL, NBA, MLB, etc. Baltimore Ravens win the AFC North with a lackluster 10-6 record? They're in. St. Louis Cardinals win the NL Central by a single game, but 20 games behind the Dodgers? They're in. Orlando Magic win the Southeast Division with a 42-40 record? They're in, and with first round home-court advantage.

As it should be.

To be viable, an expanded CFP would absolutely have to have the conference champ autobids, if for no other reason than to actually receive the necessary approval from the various schools and conferences to make it a reality. Also, I would argue that the 5+1 autobids are desirable to keep all regions and fan segments across the country interested.
08-21-2019 10:01 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 50,007
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2370
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #100
RE: This is what I think the CFB Playoff format should look like
(08-21-2019 10:01 AM)YNot Wrote:  
(08-21-2019 08:49 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(08-20-2019 12:53 PM)YNot Wrote:  
(08-20-2019 12:17 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(08-20-2019 11:52 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  It doesnt "de-legitimize" anything. "The people" are fine with it because they watch the game play out right in front of their faces on live nationwide TV. I think its odd that you seem determined to set up a system that "corrects" what actually happens on the field to fit with the outcome your opinion based system predicts. If they dont win their division or conference---maybe the ranking are just wrong. The fact is---the #1-#8 ranked teams in week one are often not the #1-#8 at the end of the season. Why is that? Well, its because real life games didnt turn out like the way rankings predicted---thus, they recognize their error and change. The general public will be just fine with a system that relies on actual game results.

The idea that a system relying on action playing out on the field in key games in front of millions of nationwide viewers would be seen as "illegitimate" is absolutely preposterous.

Not really. E.g., "VT" just posted numbers showing a very high correlation between initial AP poll ranking - which comes out way before the first CFP rankings, and making the CFP. And that's in part because yes, the rankings do change, as they ought to, when more data comes in. Nobody is suggesting using an AP poll in August to pick playoff teams in December.

You don't often see huge differences in rankings - whether it be CFP, AP, Coaches, computers, etc. because this isn't rocket science. You don't need a PhD in Advanced Calculus to know that Clemson was more deserving of a playoff spot last year than was Washington State.

And as I've explained, your method actually does much more violence to "what happens on the field" than mine, because yours throws out OOC games. Mine doesn't throw out anything, everything is considered, it's just that no one thing is allowed to automatically override everything else.

Which, in a sport with as many vagaries as college football has, IMO easily makes the most sense.

And heck, in terms of practical realities, a S8 system would have been very kind to champs of major conferences - the only ones with an actual path to the title under your proposed system. S8 would have put 24/25 P5 champs in the playoffs the past 5 seasons. That's a very high percentage, not much being 'disregarded' there. And let's face it, the one team that would not have made it, Washington this past year, had no claim to a playoff spot. Their missing the top 8 was utterly uncontroversial.

07-coffee3

Doesn't throw out OOC games. OOC games are still important in seeding and selecting the two wild card participants. The automatic bids for conference champs gets rid of the stink that comes from the beauty-contest structure. Win and you're in.

To me, OOC games should obviously matter for all the playoff spots, like they do in the NFL, NBA, MLB, etc. so for them not to matter for 6 out of 8 is really egregious.

And "win and your in" only makes sense if the thing you win is worthy of a playoff spot. If it isn't, then it deligitimizes the system.

Problem with auto-bids for conference champs is that winning a P5 conference doesn't prove that you belong in the playoffs. Had 7-5 Pitt beat Clemson in the ACC title game last year, would that have meant they were more deserving than say 11-2 Georgia? Of course not. Giving P5 champs an auto-bid allows that conference to shield itself from comparison with teams from other conferences. IMO, that is unjustifiable given the nature of college conference championships, which are structured largely for reasons other than competitive validity, and which do throw out OOC games.

And as i said, if you really are worried about P5 champs making the playoffs, that is largely a misplaced fear, as history shows that 24/25 would have made it under straight 8 the past five seasons. Winning a P5 title is a big deal, and should give your playoff chances a strong boost, and history shows it does. Heck, under the four-team CFP, 17 of the 20 playoff teams have been P5 champs even though mathematically, a P5 champ has to miss every year.

Just IMO not an automatic one.

Ummm, the autobids for conference champions are just like the autobids for division winners in the NFL, NBA, MLB, etc. Baltimore Ravens win the AFC North with a lackluster 10-6 record? They're in. St. Louis Cardinals win the NL Central by a single game, but 20 games behind the Dodgers? They're in. Orlando Magic win the Southeast Division with a 42-40 record? They're in, and with first round home-court advantage.

As it should be.

To be viable, an expanded CFP would absolutely have to have the conference champ autobids, if for no other reason than to actually receive the necessary approval from the various schools and conferences to make it a reality. Also, I would argue that the 5+1 autobids are desirable to keep all regions and fan segments across the country interested.

Huh? In the NFL, MLB, NBA, etc. all of the games count towards winning your division, not just the divisional games. If Seattle goes 7-1 in the NFC West but 10-6 overall, while the 49ers go 5-3 in the division but 12-4 overall, the 49ers win the division not Seattle. In college football, only conference games count. That's the difference I was talking about.

As for what will happen, many around here have asserted that the only way that expansion to 8 will occur is if the P5 champs get autobids. IMO, that is a highly questionable assumption. In fact, there's no evidence for it in history, as both the BCS and CFP did not include auto-bids for P5 or AQ champs, nor did they include a rule that says "to be selected for the BCS title game or CFP playoffs, a team must be a conference champ".

And they could have done that all along, which suggests it isn't a huge deal for them. Nor should it be, as it would unduly restrictive, allow for undeserving teams to make the playoffs.

Give winning a P5 title great weight, which it has been given in the CFP, but don't make it automatic.
08-21-2019 10:40 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.