Surprised to see an Ohio State fan to be against playoff expansion. The 2017 Ohio State team was arguably the team with the biggest beef when it came to getting left out. Who's to say if they had gotten in that they wouldn't have won the national championship? Of course if they had 8 teams in 2014 does OSU win so it goes both ways.

(02-11-2021 01:03 PM)schmolik Wrote:  Surprised to see an Ohio State fan to be against playoff expansion. The 2017 Ohio State team was arguably the team with the biggest beef when it came to getting left out. Who's to say if they had gotten in that they wouldn't have won the national championship? Of course if they had 8 teams in 2014 does OSU win so it goes both ways.

I never said I was against expansion. I threw some historical data out there and said I was torn. Also, I cant imagine forming an opinion on the CFP based on one season, 2017, like you mentioned.

I see the pros/cons of both arguments. I've also grown to believe that the G5 probably deserves better access to the Playoff.

(02-11-2021 01:25 PM)cubucks Wrote:  

(02-11-2021 01:03 PM)schmolik Wrote:  Surprised to see an Ohio State fan to be against playoff expansion. The 2017 Ohio State team was arguably the team with the biggest beef when it came to getting left out. Who's to say if they had gotten in that they wouldn't have won the national championship? Of course if they had 8 teams in 2014 does OSU win so it goes both ways.

I never said I was against expansion. I threw some historical data out there and said I was torn. Also, I cant imagine forming an opinion on the CFP based on one season, 2017, like you mentioned.

I see the pros/cons of both arguments. I've also grown to believe that the G5 probably deserves better access to the Playoff.

When I see a G5 champion convincingly beat the #4 SEC or Big 10 or B12 team in a NY6 bowl I'll agree with you. But squeaking by or losing to those P5 #4's just doesn't justify that slot. Being as good as somebody's #4 when their #3 doesn't justify consideration for a playoff slot isn't compelling evidence to me that they belong in College Football's final 4.

(02-11-2021 10:55 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 01:30 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  As long as you give a committee the ability to subjectively select some over others then you will always get belly aching, moaning, and a general sense of mistrust from casual fans. The latter concern is the most serious because eventually people lose interest in a process they don't believe in.

As much as college sports doesn't want to be like the pros, they have to be smart about what works and what doesn't. People love the NFL playoffs because there is basically no subjectivity to it.

If we're going to go to the trouble of having a playoff then we need to model it after what works. Otherwise, just scrap the playoff and go back to the old bowls and polling system.

I don't think people love the NFL playoffs because there is no subjectivity to it. I think many fans hate that a team with a losing record can get in just because they play in a lousy division. That possibility is created by a system with no subjectivity to it.

With a "league" of 130 members, which is what the FBS is, there has to be either some subjectivity or some arbitrariness. With only 32 teams, the NFL doesn't have that problem. So unless we are going to further subdivide the FBS, we are are never going to have a playoff system everybody likes.

Personally, I hate that an inferior team could get a playoff spot just because they are not in a P5 conference, just like I hate that a lousy NFL team can. If we must go to 8 teams, here is my preference. Every P5 champion, plus any team not in a P5 conference ranked in the Top Ten by some consensus method, plus the highest ranked teams not otherwise qualified.

If an independent, like Notre Dame or BYU, could get in just by being highly ranked, or a P5 runner up, then members of G5 conferences should not have to be a conference champion for entry (though it's highly unlikely any non-champ would crack the Top Ten). This method gives access to all 130 FBS schools.

A lot of people watch the NFL playoffs...more so than the CFP. Most any issue the NFl runs into revolves around the percentage of their entire league they allow in. It's 14 now so you're bound to have some funny results with nearly half your league in the postseason. I'm not advocating anything like that.

While people hate the idea of a team with a losing record making the playoffs, they accept it because it's a byproduct of a structured system. No one is calling for scrapping the whole system because they hate that quirk so much.

With the CFP, it's the opposite problem. They're far more likely to exclude someone who does deserve to be there as opposed to admitting someone who doesn't.

(02-11-2021 10:55 AM)ken d Wrote:  Then, I would completely separate the playoff from the bowl system, and have the four highest ranked teams host the first playoff round on their home field. Let the bowls - all of them - invite whomever they want, and let them negotiate what date and time they are scheduled.

That I totally agree with.

(02-11-2021 12:31 PM)cubucks Wrote:  Oregon 59
Florida State 20
-39

Ohio State 42
Oregon 20
-22

Clemson 37
Oklahoma 17
-20

Alabama 38
Mich State 0
-38

Clemson 31
Ohio State 0
-31

Clemson 30
Notre Dame 3
-27

Clemson 44
Alabama 16
-28

LSU 63
Oklahoma 28
-35

Ohio State 49
Clemson 28
-21

Alabama 52
Ohio State 24
-28

Do these lopsided scores call for more expansion of the playoff or is 4 already too many? Or do these numbers not matter at all?

I'm torn a bit on my thoughts about the CFP.

Here's the issue with the argument that a team doesn't belong in the CFP if they can't necessarily make a great case for the top 4.

I'm not here to argue that every conference champion or every team with 10 wins is capable of winning a national title. I also will not argue that all of these teams deserve a chance to play for it.

What I will argue is that fans from different regions and different conferences have to have confidence that the system will reward on-field play. As it stands, people know that a quality team with an excellent brand is getting in if the committee can somehow manipulate the argument. The committee has full and subjective authority to do what they want.

In the vast majority of years, I would say every team that deserved to be in the top 4 was ranked there. The problem is that you leave doubt in the mind of fans every single time a school is left out that has a reasonable resume when it compares to a team placed in the top 4. You don't get this issue with basketball because fans complain over team 69 rather than team 5. Different sport, but it's a big gap between those numbers.

Now, we could go to 8 team and have more blowouts. Absolutely, it could just as easily happen that way, and I think hardly a soul would be offended by that. More teams would get a chance to have an upset. More regions would be represented. Most importantly, there will be more games with meaning.

The bowl games are just about done. Both fans and players realize they have little value at this point. Why not increase the number of games where people actually care about the outcome?

(02-11-2021 04:34 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(02-11-2021 12:31 PM)cubucks Wrote:  Oregon 59
Florida State 20
-39

Ohio State 42
Oregon 20
-22

Clemson 37
Oklahoma 17
-20

Alabama 38
Mich State 0
-38

Clemson 31
Ohio State 0
-31

Clemson 30
Notre Dame 3
-27

Clemson 44
Alabama 16
-28

LSU 63
Oklahoma 28
-35

Ohio State 49
Clemson 28
-21

Alabama 52
Ohio State 24
-28

Do these lopsided scores call for more expansion of the playoff or is 4 already too many? Or do these numbers not matter at all?

I'm torn a bit on my thoughts about the CFP.

Here's the issue with the argument that a team doesn't belong in the CFP if they can't necessarily make a great case for the top 4.

I'm not here to argue that every conference champion or every team with 10 wins is capable of winning a national title. I also will not argue that all of these teams deserve a chance to play for it.

What I will argue is that fans from different regions and different conferences have to have confidence that the system will reward on-field play. As it stands, people know that a quality team with an excellent brand is getting in if the committee can somehow manipulate the argument. The committee has full and subjective authority to do what they want.

In the vast majority of years, I would say every team that deserved to be in the top 4 was ranked there. The problem is that you leave doubt in the mind of fans every single time a school is left out that has a reasonable resume when it compares to a team placed in the top 4. You don't get this issue with basketball because fans complain over team 69 rather than team 5. Different sport, but it's a big gap between those numbers.

Now, we could go to 8 team and have more blowouts. Absolutely, it could just as easily happen that way, and I think hardly a soul would be offended by that. More teams would get a chance to have an upset. More regions would be represented. Most importantly, there will be more games with meaning.

The bowl games are just about done. Both fans and players realize they have little value at this point. Why not increase the number of games where people actually care about the outcome?

Great points and exactly what I was digging for when I posted. I am torn, basically because of the response that JRsec gave, he has a great argument for the G5 being left out.

My thoughts are similar to yours. We are already seeing blowouts almost every year in the CFP, what does it hurt to give others a shot? If anything, it's a warm up game for a #1 seed. Doesn't mean I'm 100% on board with expansion, just one of the ways I see it.

(02-11-2021 04:50 PM)cubucks Wrote:  

(02-11-2021 04:34 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(02-11-2021 12:31 PM)cubucks Wrote:  Oregon 59
Florida State 20
-39

Ohio State 42
Oregon 20
-22

Clemson 37
Oklahoma 17
-20

Alabama 38
Mich State 0
-38

Clemson 31
Ohio State 0
-31

Clemson 30
Notre Dame 3
-27

Clemson 44
Alabama 16
-28

LSU 63
Oklahoma 28
-35

Ohio State 49
Clemson 28
-21

Alabama 52
Ohio State 24
-28

Do these lopsided scores call for more expansion of the playoff or is 4 already too many? Or do these numbers not matter at all?

I'm torn a bit on my thoughts about the CFP.

Here's the issue with the argument that a team doesn't belong in the CFP if they can't necessarily make a great case for the top 4.

I'm not here to argue that every conference champion or every team with 10 wins is capable of winning a national title. I also will not argue that all of these teams deserve a chance to play for it.

What I will argue is that fans from different regions and different conferences have to have confidence that the system will reward on-field play. As it stands, people know that a quality team with an excellent brand is getting in if the committee can somehow manipulate the argument. The committee has full and subjective authority to do what they want.

In the vast majority of years, I would say every team that deserved to be in the top 4 was ranked there. The problem is that you leave doubt in the mind of fans every single time a school is left out that has a reasonable resume when it compares to a team placed in the top 4. You don't get this issue with basketball because fans complain over team 69 rather than team 5. Different sport, but it's a big gap between those numbers.

Now, we could go to 8 team and have more blowouts. Absolutely, it could just as easily happen that way, and I think hardly a soul would be offended by that. More teams would get a chance to have an upset. More regions would be represented. Most importantly, there will be more games with meaning.

The bowl games are just about done. Both fans and players realize they have little value at this point. Why not increase the number of games where people actually care about the outcome?

Great points and exactly what I was digging for when I posted. I am torn, basically because of the response that JRsec gave, he has a great argument for the G5 being left out.

My thoughts are similar to yours. We are already seeing blowouts almost every year in the CFP, what does it hurt to give others a shot? If anything, it's a warm up game for a #1 seed. Doesn't mean I'm 100% on board with expansion, just one of the ways I see it.

I agree with the idea that the G5 doesn't really have a legitimate argument to be in.

I'm perfectly fine leaving them out, but if the CFP expands then I think they will be included in some fashion.

If the G5 doesn't get an automatic bid, the Pathetic 12 and Big 12 shouldn't get automatic bids either.

(02-11-2021 07:59 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-11-2021 07:44 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I seem to recall a post season system where 6 conference champions got autobids and then the 2 highest ranked teams that didn’t get autobids got to participate—wait, that was the original BCS, and it didn’t work too bad.

The only difference here is instead of pairing 1 vs 2, and then assigning the rest based on historic tie ins, we would be seeding the 8 team field 1-8 and then pairing them 1-8, 2-7, etc to form a bracket.

It doesn’t seem to outlandish to do that again, and with the BE gone, that 6th autobid can be used to solve the access problem for the G5 that got the BCS so much criticism.

The little guys get a shot, albeit they’ll probably face the #1 or #2 seed and it would be a hard road to the National Title.

The G schools need to have their own championship tournament, which will put a lot more money into their pockets that having one team participate with the P schools.
If we are going to allow for champions only, we either need 6 P conferences or only four.

The AAC would add Boise and then monopolize the spot. The AAC would LOVE 5-1-2 more than anyone else in CFB, as it would elevate them pretty quickly and decimate the lesser G5 leagues.

The problem with finding a "new playoff" is that the P5s aren't on the same page here. The SEC wants a straight 8, where they can get 3-4 teams in since they have a VERY deep top-end of the league. ND also wants a straight 8.

The PAC and XII want all champs in.

The ACC and B1G are flexible enough, I think. There are benefits and drawbacks going in both directions.

(02-11-2021 07:05 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  

(02-11-2021 07:59 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-11-2021 07:44 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I seem to recall a post season system where 6 conference champions got autobids and then the 2 highest ranked teams that didn’t get autobids got to participate—wait, that was the original BCS, and it didn’t work too bad.

The only difference here is instead of pairing 1 vs 2, and then assigning the rest based on historic tie ins, we would be seeding the 8 team field 1-8 and then pairing them 1-8, 2-7, etc to form a bracket.

It doesn’t seem to outlandish to do that again, and with the BE gone, that 6th autobid can be used to solve the access problem for the G5 that got the BCS so much criticism.

The little guys get a shot, albeit they’ll probably face the #1 or #2 seed and it would be a hard road to the National Title.

The G schools need to have their own championship tournament, which will put a lot more money into their pockets that having one team participate with the P schools.
If we are going to allow for champions only, we either need 6 P conferences or only four.

The AAC would add Boise and then monopolize the spot. The AAC would LOVE 5-1-2 more than anyone else in CFB, as it would elevate them pretty quickly and decimate the lesser G5 leagues.

The problem with finding a "new playoff" is that the P5s aren't on the same page here. The SEC wants a straight 8, where they can get 3-4 teams in since they have a VERY deep top-end of the league. ND also wants a straight 8.

The PAC and XII want all champs in.

The ACC and B1G are flexible enough, I think. There are benefits and drawbacks going in both directions.

You are probably right that they don't align on the format, but 8 benefits everyone.

Right now, some leagues have a very strong reason to fear being left out on a consistent basis. Even the ACC will struggle if Clemson begins to fall on hard times.

The reason an auto-bid for the P5 champion makes sense to me is twofold.

1. The CCGs become more valuable because the winner is guaranteed a spot.

2. Being that the winner is guaranteed a spot, each conference can be assured they won't be denied a spot due to their reputation.

I do agree that the SEC has a motivation to steer clear of the championship requirement, but the wildcard feature allows the opportunity for at least a 2nd team to make it. I think that's the best any league could hope for even with a straight 8. Even if the committee is subjectively picking, they will likely not take a number of schools from one league especially when the representative from the ACC is probably coming from the same region.

Theoretically, they could take 3 from one league in a straight 8, but they know it will produce a lot of bellyaching which inevitably leads to more pressure to expand the playoff. The number 8 is the sweet spot. It preserves the importance of the regular season and gets everyone involved.