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: 30,664
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 749
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #41
RE: This is what I think the CFB Playoff format should look like
(08-10-2019 01:42 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  For me it comes down to the fact that if you’re going to have a division of football, common sense dictates that everyone within that division needs to have a realistic path to winning the championship of that division.

To me, FBS isn't a single "division for football" in a competitive sense, and never has been. It was created in 1978 just as a catch-all for schools and conferences that *did not want* to replace the traditional bowl system with formal, NCAA sanctioned playoffs.

So the whole basis of FBS is the opposite of the principle you propose. And it rings true, as in 40 years of FBS nobody has ever regarded Troy and Alabama or UL-Monroe and LSU or FIU and Florida as competing against each other in the same league for the same championship. They obviously have always been on different competitive levels. Nor do I think there is much desire - outside of fans of G5 schools - to create such a single competitive level. IMO, the general view is skewed on this forum, because we do have a disproportionate number of G5 posters.

The SEC and Sun Belt are not and never have been the AFC East and NFC West.
(This post was last modified: 08-12-2019 10:34 AM by quo vadis.)
08-12-2019 08:05 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 30,664
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 749
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #42
RE: This is what I think the CFB Playoff format should look like
(08-10-2019 01:46 PM)Carolina_Low_Country Wrote:  Picking the "Top 8" schools uses the eye test instead on the field results. Conference Champs won their games on the field. If Penn State is 9-4 and wins the Big Ten by beating 12-0 Wisconsin good for them. Wisconsin had a chance to win their conference but lost, however they would most likely still get the at-large spot.

Only if we decide to ignore the results of OOC games played on the field. Which to me makes very little sense - playoffs are predominantly a national competition between members of difference conferences, so if anything OOC games tell us more about who deserves a playoff spot than a conference game does.

And no pro sports league does it this way. E.g., in the NFC South, if New Orleans is 7-1 in divisional games and Carolina is 5-3, but Carolina is 12-4 overall and New Orleans is 11-5, Carolina not New Orleans is the division champ and gets the automatic bid to the playoffs. All the games count, not just divisional/conference games.

College conferences are too ramshackle to use winning a conference as the standard for *automatic* entry into a playoff. We need a human judgment, or computer, element to adjust for these flaws.
(This post was last modified: 08-12-2019 10:42 AM by quo vadis.)
08-12-2019 10:40 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
esayem Offline
Hark The Sound!
*

Posts: 5,394
Joined: Feb 2007
Reputation: 164
I Root For: The Heels
Location: Tobacco Road
Post: #43
RE: This is what I think the CFB Playoff format should look like
(08-12-2019 10:40 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(08-10-2019 01:46 PM)Carolina_Low_Country Wrote:  Picking the "Top 8" schools uses the eye test instead on the field results. Conference Champs won their games on the field. If Penn State is 9-4 and wins the Big Ten by beating 12-0 Wisconsin good for them. Wisconsin had a chance to win their conference but lost, however they would most likely still get the at-large spot.

Only if we decide to ignore the results of OOC games played on the field. Which to me makes very little sense - playoffs are predominantly a national competition between members of difference conferences, so if anything OOC games tell us more about who deserves a playoff spot than a conference game does.

And no pro sports league does it this way. E.g., in the NFC South, if New Orleans is 7-1 in divisional games and Carolina is 5-3, but Carolina is 12-4 overall and New Orleans is 11-5, Carolina not New Orleans is the division champ and gets the automatic bid to the playoffs. All the games count, not just divisional/conference games.

College conferences are too ramshackle to use winning a conference as the standard for *automatic* entry into a playoff. We need a human judgment, or computer, element to adjust for these flaws.

The conference championship game pits the winner of each division against one another. Their divisional body of work got them there and the CCG victory seals them as the hotter of the two teams.

If you want to complain about unbalanced divisions, well that's up to the conference, now isn't it?

In my plan, if a team loses the CCG, then they are disqualified for the playoff, effectively making P5 CCG's the opening round. This skyrockets the importance of winning the CCG's, helps the conference sell tix, AND is huge for the network broadcasting it.

The committee gets three choices to select teams worthy of an at-large, but they must be G5 champions, a powerful Independent (12-0/11-1 Notre Dame), or a P5 that didn't win their division but went undefeated OOC (11-1 Alabama).
08-12-2019 11:03 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
zoocrew Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 669
Joined: Mar 2019
Reputation: 17
I Root For: PITT, NAVY, MBB
Location:
Post: #44
RE: This is what I think the CFB Playoff format should look like
If the PAC picks up Texahoma 4 in 2025 I’m fine with an 8 team playoff starting that season.

4 spots to the P4 champs
1 spot to the highest ranked G6 champ (Likely always coming from the tweener B12)
3 at large

Otherwise no way in hell can you justify giving the PAC a spot...they suck.

You’re better off just doing Top 8.

And Notre Dame has to go 12-0 to be eligible. Embarrassing showing.
(This post was last modified: 08-12-2019 12:39 PM by zoocrew.)
08-12-2019 12:35 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
esayem Offline
Hark The Sound!
*

Posts: 5,394
Joined: Feb 2007
Reputation: 164
I Root For: The Heels
Location: Tobacco Road
Post: #45
RE: This is what I think the CFB Playoff format should look like
(08-12-2019 12:35 PM)zoocrew Wrote:  If the PAC picks up Texahoma 4 in 2025 I’m fine with an 8 team playoff starting that season.

4 spots to the P4 champs
1 spot to the highest ranked G6 champ (Likely always coming from the tweener B12)
3 at large

Otherwise no way in hell can you justify giving the PAC a spot...they suck.

You’re better off just doing Top 8.

And Notre Dame has to go 12-0 to be eligible. Embarrassing showing.

The Pac 12 is down, but history (within the last 20 years) has shown USC, Oregon, Washington, Arizona State, UCLA, Stanford, Cal, and even Oregon State to field "playoff worthy" teams.
08-12-2019 12:59 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Crayton Offline
Water Engineer
*

Posts: 78
Joined: Feb 2019
Reputation: 7
I Root For: Florida
Location:
Post: #46
RE: This is what I think the CFB Playoff format should look like
Would the P5 allow their top ranked team to replace their champion if the top ranked team is top 8 while the champion is not. Each P5 still gets a spot but doesn’t get a 2nd if there is an upset in their CCG.
08-12-2019 01:25 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Fighting Muskie Online
1st String
*

Posts: 2,424
Joined: Sep 2016
Reputation: 83
I Root For: Ohio St, MAC
Location:
Post: #47
RE: This is what I think the CFB Playoff format should look like
(08-12-2019 10:40 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(08-10-2019 01:46 PM)Carolina_Low_Country Wrote:  Picking the "Top 8" schools uses the eye test instead on the field results. Conference Champs won their games on the field. If Penn State is 9-4 and wins the Big Ten by beating 12-0 Wisconsin good for them. Wisconsin had a chance to win their conference but lost, however they would most likely still get the at-large spot.

Only if we decide to ignore the results of OOC games played on the field. Which to me makes very little sense - playoffs are predominantly a national competition between members of difference conferences, so if anything OOC games tell us more about who deserves a playoff spot than a conference game does.

And no pro sports league does it this way. E.g., in the NFC South, if New Orleans is 7-1 in divisional games and Carolina is 5-3, but Carolina is 12-4 overall and New Orleans is 11-5, Carolina not New Orleans is the division champ and gets the automatic bid to the playoffs. All the games count, not just divisional/conference games.

College conferences are too ramshackle to use winning a conference as the standard for *automatic* entry into a playoff. We need a human judgment, or computer, element to adjust for these flaws.

There is a flaw to this logic. In college football comparing OOC schedules is an apples to oranges comparison because there is no standard for scheduling. Let’s say in your example that Penn St played Alabama, USC, and a Temple team that went 11-2 while Wisconsin played Indiana St, Kent St, and a 1-11 Kansas team. Overall record is not a fair comparison. For a 4 team NFL division that plays 6 intradivision games the other 10 games are coming from a pool of 28 teams that are much closer in skill level and resources from top to bottom than the 130 FBS teams plus FCS opponents. In fact, 8 of those 10 out-of-Division opponents are the same teams
(This post was last modified: 08-12-2019 01:59 PM by Fighting Muskie.)
08-12-2019 01:57 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Schadenfreude Offline
Professional Tractor Puller
*

Posts: 7,602
Joined: Jun 2003
Reputation: 44
I Root For: Bowling Green
Location: Chicagoland

CrappiesCrappiesCrappies
Post: #48
RE: This is what I think the CFB Playoff format should look like
(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.

Correct. This is the obvious next step. It would be even better to get to 16 teams with automatic bids for all conferences, which is what they do at every other level of college football. But this is the obvious next step.
08-12-2019 02:03 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TTT Offline
#SMTTT
*

Posts: 3,747
Joined: Mar 2010
Reputation: 138
I Root For: USM & G5
Location: The Burg
Post: #49
RE: This is what I think the CFB Playoff format should look like
(08-12-2019 02:03 PM)Schadenfreude 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.

Correct. This is the obvious next step. It would be even better to get to 16 teams with automatic bids for all conferences, which is what they do at every other level of college football. But this is the obvious next step.

Another issue this brings up is it would FORCE indy's to join a conference in order to have more security in terms of playing for a national championship. Because if Notre Dame/Army/BYU etc. have really good seasons, it's possible they could end the season ranked in the T8 and miss out on the playoffs because of CCG winners taking the AQ spots.
(This post was last modified: 08-12-2019 02:49 PM by TTT.)
08-12-2019 02:46 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 30,664
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 749
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #50
RE: This is what I think the CFB Playoff format should look like
(08-12-2019 01:57 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  
(08-12-2019 10:40 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(08-10-2019 01:46 PM)Carolina_Low_Country Wrote:  Picking the "Top 8" schools uses the eye test instead on the field results. Conference Champs won their games on the field. If Penn State is 9-4 and wins the Big Ten by beating 12-0 Wisconsin good for them. Wisconsin had a chance to win their conference but lost, however they would most likely still get the at-large spot.

Only if we decide to ignore the results of OOC games played on the field. Which to me makes very little sense - playoffs are predominantly a national competition between members of difference conferences, so if anything OOC games tell us more about who deserves a playoff spot than a conference game does.

And no pro sports league does it this way. E.g., in the NFC South, if New Orleans is 7-1 in divisional games and Carolina is 5-3, but Carolina is 12-4 overall and New Orleans is 11-5, Carolina not New Orleans is the division champ and gets the automatic bid to the playoffs. All the games count, not just divisional/conference games.

College conferences are too ramshackle to use winning a conference as the standard for *automatic* entry into a playoff. We need a human judgment, or computer, element to adjust for these flaws.

There is a flaw to this logic. In college football comparing OOC schedules is an apples to oranges comparison because there is no standard for scheduling. Let’s say in your example that Penn St played Alabama, USC, and a Temple team that went 11-2 while Wisconsin played Indiana St, Kent St, and a 1-11 Kansas team. Overall record is not a fair comparison. For a 4 team NFL division that plays 6 intradivision games the other 10 games are coming from a pool of 28 teams that are much closer in skill level and resources from top to bottom than the 130 FBS teams plus FCS opponents. In fact, 8 of those 10 out-of-Division opponents are the same teams

To be clear, I wasn't suggesting that the solution to the conference champ problem is for conferences to count all games, including OOC games, in determining their champs. To the contrary, in other posts I've talked about what you discuss here. I agree, it is NOT possible to include OOC game results in the determination of a conference champ, because as you note here, OOC schedules can vary dramatically in quality across teams. And, in any event, it is wrong to count games that the teams themselves scheduled. In the NFL and other leagues, no NFC East or AFC West team controls any of the opponents on its schedule, those are determined by a neutral league office, but in college football, only conference games are.

Nevertheless, for the reasons I mentioned in the last post, it is also completely nonsensical to exclude those OOC games from a consideration of entry into a national playoff system. OOC games are real games, just as real as conference games, and in fact often provide more information about how good a team is in a inter-conference sense than conference games do.

So my ultimate logic is: (1) In determining who a conference champ is, we cannot count OOC games. But, (2) because OOC games cannot reasonably be discounted in determining how effective a team has been from a *national* point of view, it stands to reason that (3) winning a conference is an untenable basis for conferring automatic entry to a national playoff system.
(This post was last modified: 08-12-2019 05:26 PM by quo vadis.)
08-12-2019 05:25 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
UTEPDallas Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,467
Joined: Oct 2004
Reputation: 147
I Root For: UTEP/Penn State
Location: Dallas, TX
Post: #51
RE: This is what I think the CFB Playoff format should look like
EDIT:

Wrong thread.
(This post was last modified: 08-12-2019 06:24 PM by UTEPDallas.)
08-12-2019 06:21 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
EvilVodka Offline
stuff
*

Posts: 3,039
Joined: Jan 2014
Reputation: 113
I Root For: FSU LSU
Location: Houston, TX
Post: #52
RE: This is what I think the CFB Playoff format should look like
Get rid of the bowls and have a 64 team playoff

It's totally feasible and would make the most money
08-12-2019 06:34 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 30,664
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 749
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #53
RE: This is what I think the CFB Playoff format should look like
(08-12-2019 11:03 AM)esayem Wrote:  
(08-12-2019 10:40 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(08-10-2019 01:46 PM)Carolina_Low_Country Wrote:  Picking the "Top 8" schools uses the eye test instead on the field results. Conference Champs won their games on the field. If Penn State is 9-4 and wins the Big Ten by beating 12-0 Wisconsin good for them. Wisconsin had a chance to win their conference but lost, however they would most likely still get the at-large spot.

Only if we decide to ignore the results of OOC games played on the field. Which to me makes very little sense - playoffs are predominantly a national competition between members of difference conferences, so if anything OOC games tell us more about who deserves a playoff spot than a conference game does.

And no pro sports league does it this way. E.g., in the NFC South, if New Orleans is 7-1 in divisional games and Carolina is 5-3, but Carolina is 12-4 overall and New Orleans is 11-5, Carolina not New Orleans is the division champ and gets the automatic bid to the playoffs. All the games count, not just divisional/conference games.

College conferences are too ramshackle to use winning a conference as the standard for *automatic* entry into a playoff. We need a human judgment, or computer, element to adjust for these flaws.

The conference championship game pits the winner of each division against one another. Their divisional body of work got them there and the CCG victory seals them as the hotter of the two teams.

If you want to complain about unbalanced divisions, well that's up to the conference, now isn't it?

That's a big aspect of my problem with auto-bids for playoffs: Yes, a conference should be able to decide its champion any way it wants. If it wants to just randomly draw a name out of a hat at the end of the year, that should be its prerogative. That's the conference's business.

But, it should become everyone else's business if that same conference claims that its champ should be automatically included in a national playoff. Because then you are making a claim over teams from other conferences. You're saying "our 8-5 Big 12 champ should have a spot over your runner-up 11-2 PAC team, or your 11-2 runner-up ACC team", etc.

That's why I don't like auto-bids for any conferences, P5 or G5. The way college football is structured, winning a conference just doesn't prove you are one of the 8 best teams worthy of a playoff spot.
(This post was last modified: 08-13-2019 10:31 AM by quo vadis.)
08-13-2019 10:29 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 29,337
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 1281
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #54
RE: This is what I think the CFB Playoff format should look like
(08-13-2019 10:29 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(08-12-2019 11:03 AM)esayem Wrote:  
(08-12-2019 10:40 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(08-10-2019 01:46 PM)Carolina_Low_Country Wrote:  Picking the "Top 8" schools uses the eye test instead on the field results. Conference Champs won their games on the field. If Penn State is 9-4 and wins the Big Ten by beating 12-0 Wisconsin good for them. Wisconsin had a chance to win their conference but lost, however they would most likely still get the at-large spot.

Only if we decide to ignore the results of OOC games played on the field. Which to me makes very little sense - playoffs are predominantly a national competition between members of difference conferences, so if anything OOC games tell us more about who deserves a playoff spot than a conference game does.

And no pro sports league does it this way. E.g., in the NFC South, if New Orleans is 7-1 in divisional games and Carolina is 5-3, but Carolina is 12-4 overall and New Orleans is 11-5, Carolina not New Orleans is the division champ and gets the automatic bid to the playoffs. All the games count, not just divisional/conference games.

College conferences are too ramshackle to use winning a conference as the standard for *automatic* entry into a playoff. We need a human judgment, or computer, element to adjust for these flaws.

The conference championship game pits the winner of each division against one another. Their divisional body of work got them there and the CCG victory seals them as the hotter of the two teams.

If you want to complain about unbalanced divisions, well that's up to the conference, now isn't it?

That's a big aspect of my problem with auto-bids for playoffs: Yes, a conference should be able to decide its champion any way it wants. If it wants to just randomly draw a name out of a hat at the end of the year, that should be its prerogative. That's the conference's business.

But, it should become everyone else's business if that same conference claims that its champ should be automatically included in a national playoff. Because then you are making a claim over teams from other conferences. You're saying "our 8-5 Big 12 champ should have a spot over your runner-up 11-2 PAC team, or your 11-2 runner-up ACC team", etc.

That's why I don't like auto-bids for any conferences, P5 or G5. The way college football is structured, winning a conference just doesn't prove you are one of the 8 best teams worthy of a playoff spot.

Frankly, there are only 12 games played by each team. Only a handful against other conferences. Hell, there are not even enough OOC games for each team to play one game each against the other 4 P5 conferences (much less any G5's). So, stack all the stats and opinions up in a corner that you want to---the reality is they dont mean anything because the sample size is tiny. 9 (or 8) of 12 games are played against ones own conference. We spend about 75% of the season determining the best two teams in a conference---then we play those teams head to head to see which is better in a 13th game for each.

Thats the way the college football season is set up. Any system using stats or committee's is essentially ignoring the vast majority of the season and is devaluing the regular conference season. Anyone pushing a Committee system or a stat based metric is ignoring the realities of how college football is actually organized. With such limited games---it just seems absolutely flat out foolish to ignore what the vast majority of the season is spent to determine----the best teams in each conference. The one data set we know is best determined---is the one set of data we routinely ignore. lol....its ridiculous when you think about it. Once you know the best teams in a conference---all you have to do is let those champs play and you have a legit national champ. Eazy peazy.
(This post was last modified: 08-13-2019 10:46 AM by Attackcoog.)
08-13-2019 10:44 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 30,664
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 749
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #55
RE: This is what I think the CFB Playoff format should look like
(08-13-2019 10:44 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(08-13-2019 10:29 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(08-12-2019 11:03 AM)esayem Wrote:  
(08-12-2019 10:40 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(08-10-2019 01:46 PM)Carolina_Low_Country Wrote:  Picking the "Top 8" schools uses the eye test instead on the field results. Conference Champs won their games on the field. If Penn State is 9-4 and wins the Big Ten by beating 12-0 Wisconsin good for them. Wisconsin had a chance to win their conference but lost, however they would most likely still get the at-large spot.

Only if we decide to ignore the results of OOC games played on the field. Which to me makes very little sense - playoffs are predominantly a national competition between members of difference conferences, so if anything OOC games tell us more about who deserves a playoff spot than a conference game does.

And no pro sports league does it this way. E.g., in the NFC South, if New Orleans is 7-1 in divisional games and Carolina is 5-3, but Carolina is 12-4 overall and New Orleans is 11-5, Carolina not New Orleans is the division champ and gets the automatic bid to the playoffs. All the games count, not just divisional/conference games.

College conferences are too ramshackle to use winning a conference as the standard for *automatic* entry into a playoff. We need a human judgment, or computer, element to adjust for these flaws.

The conference championship game pits the winner of each division against one another. Their divisional body of work got them there and the CCG victory seals them as the hotter of the two teams.

If you want to complain about unbalanced divisions, well that's up to the conference, now isn't it?

That's a big aspect of my problem with auto-bids for playoffs: Yes, a conference should be able to decide its champion any way it wants. If it wants to just randomly draw a name out of a hat at the end of the year, that should be its prerogative. That's the conference's business.

But, it should become everyone else's business if that same conference claims that its champ should be automatically included in a national playoff. Because then you are making a claim over teams from other conferences. You're saying "our 8-5 Big 12 champ should have a spot over your runner-up 11-2 PAC team, or your 11-2 runner-up ACC team", etc.

That's why I don't like auto-bids for any conferences, P5 or G5. The way college football is structured, winning a conference just doesn't prove you are one of the 8 best teams worthy of a playoff spot.

Frankly, there are only 12 games played by each team. Only a handful against other conferences. Hell, there are not even enough OOC games for each team to play one game each against the other 4 P5 conferences (much less any G5's). So, stack all the stats and opinions up in a corner that you want to---the reality is they dont mean anything because the sample size is tiny. 9 (or 8) of 12 games are played against ones own conference. We spend about 75% of the season determining the best two teams in a conference---then we play those teams head to head to see which is better in a 13th game for each.

Thats the way the college football season is set up. Any system using stats or committee's is essentially ignoring the vast majority of the season and is devaluing the regular conference season. Anyone pushing a Committee system or a stat based metric is ignoring the realities of how college football is actually organized. With such limited games---it just seems absolutely flat out foolish to ignore what the vast majority of the season is spent to determine----the best teams in each conference. The one data set we know is best determined---is the one set of data we routinely ignore. lol....its ridiculous when you think about it. Once you know the best teams in a conference---all you have to do is let those champs play and you have a legit national champ. Eazy peazy.

Arguing, as I do, that conference champs should not automatically make the playoffs is in no way shape or form arguing that conference games are to be ignored. To the contrary, since any committee or computer system is going to rely on the results of games, and as you say for all teams conference games are either 66% or 75% of all games, those conference games will count massively.

No, the only people in this discussion who actually favor disregarding games played on the field are those who favor auto-bids for conference champs, because that means a team can literally lose its 3 or 4 OOC games and that not count against them at all, should they win their conference.

Also, the small sample size cuts against your view as well, because beating out the 10 or 12 or 14 teams in your conference doesn't tell us much about how good you stack up to the other 100+ teams out there. It just means you beat out your group of clowns, and because of the screwiness of how conference champs are determined, you may not even have done that.

In contrast, if a committee or computer is deciding, then losing 3 or 4 games of any kind, conference or OOC, will surely count heavily against them.
08-13-2019 04:14 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
1845 Bear Online
Moderator
*

Posts: 4,387
Joined: Aug 2010
Reputation: 124
I Root For: Baylor
Location:
Post: #56
This is what I think the CFB Playoff format should look like
The logical next step is 5-1-2.

We all prefer other options and it needs some work.

5-1-2 is better than the current subjective 4.

Any worthwhile change on this is going to come in baby steps-

Original bowls had a ton of issues

The alliance prevented the Orange, Fiesta, Cotton, and Sugar from needlessly separating #1 and #2. This allowed games like 1995 Nebraska Vs Florida to actually set up 1 vs 2 instead of NU in the Orange Bowl and Florida in the Sugar.

The BCS brought the Rose bowl in which kept the Big Ten and PAC 10 from being off on their own. So in the BCS we wouldn’t have had 1994 Penn State and Nebraska as unbeaten power conference champs playing Oregon and Miami- they actually would have faced off much like Ohio State vs Miami 2002 and Texas-USC 2005.

The current playoff helps with years when you have more than two teams that earned a shot.

The next step is what to do with the number of years where more than four have a realistic gripe.

Almost every year has at most 7 or 8 teams with a realistic argument. The 5-1-2 accommodates a lot of those.
(This post was last modified: 08-13-2019 04:28 PM by 1845 Bear.)
08-13-2019 04:27 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 29,337
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 1281
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #57
RE: This is what I think the CFB Playoff format should look like
(08-13-2019 04:14 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(08-13-2019 10:44 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(08-13-2019 10:29 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(08-12-2019 11:03 AM)esayem Wrote:  
(08-12-2019 10:40 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Only if we decide to ignore the results of OOC games played on the field. Which to me makes very little sense - playoffs are predominantly a national competition between members of difference conferences, so if anything OOC games tell us more about who deserves a playoff spot than a conference game does.

And no pro sports league does it this way. E.g., in the NFC South, if New Orleans is 7-1 in divisional games and Carolina is 5-3, but Carolina is 12-4 overall and New Orleans is 11-5, Carolina not New Orleans is the division champ and gets the automatic bid to the playoffs. All the games count, not just divisional/conference games.

College conferences are too ramshackle to use winning a conference as the standard for *automatic* entry into a playoff. We need a human judgment, or computer, element to adjust for these flaws.

The conference championship game pits the winner of each division against one another. Their divisional body of work got them there and the CCG victory seals them as the hotter of the two teams.

If you want to complain about unbalanced divisions, well that's up to the conference, now isn't it?

That's a big aspect of my problem with auto-bids for playoffs: Yes, a conference should be able to decide its champion any way it wants. If it wants to just randomly draw a name out of a hat at the end of the year, that should be its prerogative. That's the conference's business.

But, it should become everyone else's business if that same conference claims that its champ should be automatically included in a national playoff. Because then you are making a claim over teams from other conferences. You're saying "our 8-5 Big 12 champ should have a spot over your runner-up 11-2 PAC team, or your 11-2 runner-up ACC team", etc.

That's why I don't like auto-bids for any conferences, P5 or G5. The way college football is structured, winning a conference just doesn't prove you are one of the 8 best teams worthy of a playoff spot.

Frankly, there are only 12 games played by each team. Only a handful against other conferences. Hell, there are not even enough OOC games for each team to play one game each against the other 4 P5 conferences (much less any G5's). So, stack all the stats and opinions up in a corner that you want to---the reality is they dont mean anything because the sample size is tiny. 9 (or 8) of 12 games are played against ones own conference. We spend about 75% of the season determining the best two teams in a conference---then we play those teams head to head to see which is better in a 13th game for each.

Thats the way the college football season is set up. Any system using stats or committee's is essentially ignoring the vast majority of the season and is devaluing the regular conference season. Anyone pushing a Committee system or a stat based metric is ignoring the realities of how college football is actually organized. With such limited games---it just seems absolutely flat out foolish to ignore what the vast majority of the season is spent to determine----the best teams in each conference. The one data set we know is best determined---is the one set of data we routinely ignore. lol....its ridiculous when you think about it. Once you know the best teams in a conference---all you have to do is let those champs play and you have a legit national champ. Eazy peazy.

Arguing, as I do, that conference champs should not automatically make the playoffs is in no way shape or form arguing that conference games are to be ignored. To the contrary, since any committee or computer system is going to rely on the results of games, and as you say for all teams conference games are either 66% or 75% of all games, those conference games will count massively.

No, the only people in this discussion who actually favor disregarding games played on the field are those who favor auto-bids for conference champs, because that means a team can literally lose its 3 or 4 OOC games and that not count against them at all, should they win their conference.

Also, the small sample size cuts against your view as well, because beating out the 10 or 12 or 14 teams in your conference doesn't tell us much about how good you stack up to the other 100+ teams out there. It just means you beat out your group of clowns, and because of the screwiness of how conference champs are determined, you may not even have done that.

In contrast, if a committee or computer is deciding, then losing 3 or 4 games of any kind, conference or OOC, will surely count heavily against them.

And yet---thats exactly what happens. So yes---its EXACTLY what you are arguing for---the ability to override the one thing 75% of the regular season was designed to determine. Again, the 5-1-2 provides an access point for that team that developed some sort of absolutely "amazing resume" with a exceptional "eye test" result who clearly had the highest quality "body of work" while somehow not being able to win their conference or division. lol...I think I got all the BS committee phrases in there which are all code for "OMG---ESPN told us we cant let that brand name get left out!".
(This post was last modified: 08-13-2019 04:50 PM by Attackcoog.)
08-13-2019 04:41 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
esayem Offline
Hark The Sound!
*

Posts: 5,394
Joined: Feb 2007
Reputation: 164
I Root For: The Heels
Location: Tobacco Road
Post: #58
RE: This is what I think the CFB Playoff format should look like
(08-13-2019 10:29 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(08-12-2019 11:03 AM)esayem Wrote:  
(08-12-2019 10:40 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(08-10-2019 01:46 PM)Carolina_Low_Country Wrote:  Picking the "Top 8" schools uses the eye test instead on the field results. Conference Champs won their games on the field. If Penn State is 9-4 and wins the Big Ten by beating 12-0 Wisconsin good for them. Wisconsin had a chance to win their conference but lost, however they would most likely still get the at-large spot.

Only if we decide to ignore the results of OOC games played on the field. Which to me makes very little sense - playoffs are predominantly a national competition between members of difference conferences, so if anything OOC games tell us more about who deserves a playoff spot than a conference game does.

And no pro sports league does it this way. E.g., in the NFC South, if New Orleans is 7-1 in divisional games and Carolina is 5-3, but Carolina is 12-4 overall and New Orleans is 11-5, Carolina not New Orleans is the division champ and gets the automatic bid to the playoffs. All the games count, not just divisional/conference games.

College conferences are too ramshackle to use winning a conference as the standard for *automatic* entry into a playoff. We need a human judgment, or computer, element to adjust for these flaws.

The conference championship game pits the winner of each division against one another. Their divisional body of work got them there and the CCG victory seals them as the hotter of the two teams.

If you want to complain about unbalanced divisions, well that's up to the conference, now isn't it?

That's a big aspect of my problem with auto-bids for playoffs: Yes, a conference should be able to decide its champion any way it wants. If it wants to just randomly draw a name out of a hat at the end of the year, that should be its prerogative. That's the conference's business.

But, it should become everyone else's business if that same conference claims that its champ should be automatically included in a national playoff. Because then you are making a claim over teams from other conferences. You're saying "our 8-5 Big 12 champ should have a spot over your runner-up 11-2 PAC team, or your 11-2 runner-up ACC team", etc.

That's why I don't like auto-bids for any conferences, P5 or G5. The way college football is structured, winning a conference just doesn't prove you are one of the 8 best teams worthy of a playoff spot.

It gives teams a concrete path. Win your division and then win your CCG. Don’t do that? Better make sure you won all your OOC games. Otherwise, we’re giving a group of pundits the decision.
08-13-2019 07:46 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 30,664
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 749
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #59
RE: This is what I think the CFB Playoff format should look like
(08-13-2019 04:27 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  The logical next step is 5-1-2.

To me, just based on what the BCS and CFP were/are, the logical next step is obviously "straight 8", the eight highest ranked teams, regardless of conference affiliation.
08-14-2019 07:13 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 30,664
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 749
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #60
RE: This is what I think the CFB Playoff format should look like
(08-13-2019 07:46 PM)esayem Wrote:  
(08-13-2019 10:29 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(08-12-2019 11:03 AM)esayem Wrote:  
(08-12-2019 10:40 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(08-10-2019 01:46 PM)Carolina_Low_Country Wrote:  Picking the "Top 8" schools uses the eye test instead on the field results. Conference Champs won their games on the field. If Penn State is 9-4 and wins the Big Ten by beating 12-0 Wisconsin good for them. Wisconsin had a chance to win their conference but lost, however they would most likely still get the at-large spot.

Only if we decide to ignore the results of OOC games played on the field. Which to me makes very little sense - playoffs are predominantly a national competition between members of difference conferences, so if anything OOC games tell us more about who deserves a playoff spot than a conference game does.

And no pro sports league does it this way. E.g., in the NFC South, if New Orleans is 7-1 in divisional games and Carolina is 5-3, but Carolina is 12-4 overall and New Orleans is 11-5, Carolina not New Orleans is the division champ and gets the automatic bid to the playoffs. All the games count, not just divisional/conference games.

College conferences are too ramshackle to use winning a conference as the standard for *automatic* entry into a playoff. We need a human judgment, or computer, element to adjust for these flaws.

The conference championship game pits the winner of each division against one another. Their divisional body of work got them there and the CCG victory seals them as the hotter of the two teams.

If you want to complain about unbalanced divisions, well that's up to the conference, now isn't it?

That's a big aspect of my problem with auto-bids for playoffs: Yes, a conference should be able to decide its champion any way it wants. If it wants to just randomly draw a name out of a hat at the end of the year, that should be its prerogative. That's the conference's business.

But, it should become everyone else's business if that same conference claims that its champ should be automatically included in a national playoff. Because then you are making a claim over teams from other conferences. You're saying "our 8-5 Big 12 champ should have a spot over your runner-up 11-2 PAC team, or your 11-2 runner-up ACC team", etc.

That's why I don't like auto-bids for any conferences, P5 or G5. The way college football is structured, winning a conference just doesn't prove you are one of the 8 best teams worthy of a playoff spot.

It gives teams a concrete path. Win your division and then win your CCG. Don’t do that? Better make sure you won all your OOC games. Otherwise, we’re giving a group of pundits the decision.

It's a 'concrete' path, but for the reasons I've given, IMO it's a nonsensical path. It's like if the NFL decided that only the even-numbered games count towards a division title and making the playoffs. Everyone would know what their path was - win the even numbered games - but it would be absurd.

I'm not willing to trade-off absurdity for concreteness.

And FWIW, the pundits have done a pretty good job. IIRC, if we looked at who the CFP ranked as the top 8 teams each of the past 5 years, they agreed with the Massey computer composite 38/40 times, and similarly with the AP poll.

07-coffee3
(This post was last modified: 08-14-2019 07:21 AM by quo vadis.)
08-14-2019 07:19 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




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


Copyright © 2002-2019 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, © 2002-2019 MyBB Group.