ACC in playoff?

[jeffgt14]

I'm with Boomer, you should be a champion to compete for the Natty.

A good while back in pro baseball, before the wild card, it was just division champions in the playoffs. Then you had to be a League Champion to get in the world series, which is still true today. Sometimes you had better teams left out and weaker teams in. That's just bad luck, some teams had a harder row to hoe some years than others, but that was cyclical. However, each team had an opportunity to make the playoffs from day 1 and that's how it should be.

Anything else is a beauty contest or figure skating.

Another example of overall record used instead of conference record.

 

[tech_wreck47]

Why have any playoff at all if we're just going to go off what folk reckon based on looking at film?

I agree that tOSU and UMich are two of the best teams, and I also think that tOSU could put PSU into the B1G championship game by beating UMich. It's quite possible that PSU will be the B1G champ and that CU will be the ACC champ. Pitt beat them both.

My thing is no matter how you set it up there is always going to be controversy on who the top teams really are because of sos and other things.

 

[Oldgoldandwhite]

My thing is no matter how you set it up there is always going to be controversy on who the top teams really are because of sos and other things.

Exactly!

 

[RonJohn]

Exactly!

If a conference championship gets you into the playoff, then the only controversy will be seeding. If a team gets in but doesn't like their seeding -- tough luck, just win the games.

 

[tech_wreck47]

If a conference championship gets you into the playoff, then the only controversy will be seeding. If a team gets in but doesn't like their seeding -- tough luck, just win the games.

Not true, because you could still argue there are two teams from one conference that are in the top 4. Let's say Louisville didn't lose last night and won out, you could argue that they are the third or fourth best team in the country because their only loss would have been to Clemson. That's what I mean by controversy. Same thing with Ohio state and Michigan.

 

[RonJohn]

Not true, because you could still argue there are two teams from one conference that are in the top 4. Let's say Louisville didn't lose last night and won out, you could argue that they are the third or fourth best team in the country because their only loss would have been to Clemson. That's what I mean by controversy. Same thing with Ohio state and Michigan.

There would have to be at least 5 spots to include all of the P5 champions. There would have to be at least 10 teams to include all of the conference champions.

The "controversy" at that point would be absolutely nothing but whining. EVERY team would have known BEFORE the season what they had to do to get to the playoff. EVERY team would have known every week what they still have to do, or what other conditions need to happen to get them in. Right now, it is "controversial" solely for ratings. ESPN makes tons of money off of people watching and arguing over who should be in. Money is the only reason that the "controversy" is perpetuated by the 10 FBS conferences of "academic" institutions.

 

[tech_wreck47]

There would have to be at least 5 spots to include all of the P5 champions. There would have to be at least 10 teams to include all of the conference champions.

The "controversy" at that point would be absolutely nothing but whining. EVERY team would have known BEFORE the season what they had to do to get to the playoff. EVERY team would have known every week what they still have to do, or what other conditions need to happen to get them in. Right now, it is "controversial" solely for ratings. ESPN makes tons of money off of people watching and arguing over who should be in. Money is the only reason that the "controversy" is perpetuated by the 10 FBS conferences of "academic" institutions.

So your telling me there's no controversy between saying a second place team in one conference with 1 loss isn't any better than a conference championship team with two losses in a different conference that is known not to be as strong of a conference? My point is that you could very possible have two top 4 teams is one conference and if one doesn't make it then that's becomes controversy, no? The point of having a top 4, not top team from different confrences it to take the BEST teams no matter what confrences or how many teams from one conference play to create the best games, and if a conference championship with a crap schedule makes it over a 1 loss team that lost their confrences but had a way harder schedule, there will be controversy. But even beyond that what if a VT were to somehow beat Clemson? And you had something like that happen in two other confrences, would you really put those teams over others that are clearly better because they had a good game and won a conference championship? Once again it's top 4 teams, it says nothing about confrences, and if two teams don't play each other how do you tell who is better besides turn the film on and look at sos?

 

[zhavenor]

It's not bad, but honestly what everyone will argue is that non-conference champs are still some of the top 6 teams in the country. i.e. what if Alabama drops a squeaker to Tennessee in the SECCG...they're just out? They wouldn't stand for it...they'd instantly want it to be 8 so they get the at-large berth.

8 is perfect. 5 champs, 3 at large...leaves it open for G5 champ if they look really good.

Tell me if a team is not the best team in its conference how can it be the best team in the nation? Please someone tell me this.

 

[RonJohn]

In 2014, Ohio State got in and won the whole thing. Can you tell me with 100% certainty that Ohio State was better than TCU and Baylor? It isn't possible to do so. Every year, there will be argument over who the 4 "best" teams are. The commentators will use contradicting arguments, and I believe at some point the committee will make statements that refute statements they have already made about what is important. No matter what stats, film, etc the committee looks at, they will end up with four teams that will get the most support and ratings. If the teams are "picked" there will always be controversy. If you have a clear path and fail to reach the playoff, then you have no one to blame but yourself. If a team does not like how their conference decides who the champion is, then they can work inside their conference to change the method. If a one-loss team is left out and another conference champion has three losses, my response would be that the one loss team knew before the season what it took to be in the playoff, and they FAILED. No one to blame but themselves.

 

[tech_wreck47]

Tell me if a team is not the best team in its conference how can it be the best team in the nation? Please someone tell me this.

Well teams do get Better as the season goes and teams do get worse, so Louisville could be better than Clemson now although imo they are even. But that's not the point it's all about making the best games and by doing that you take the best 4 teams no matter what conference or if two of those teams are in the same conference, and the way you do that is by turning on the film and also looking at their sos if you have two teams you are considering but have not played each other. That's why imo there is so much controversy, and why it's almost impossible to know who the top 4 teams really are. Have you ever heard any given Saturday when it comes to football? If you catch a team on a bad day that's better than you, then you can beat them and that imo is how a team can not win their confrences yet be one of the top teams.

 

[jeffgt14]

For a bunch of GT engineers the critical thinking of some of y'all is a little strange. I'd take the current committee a thousand times over these suggestions.

 

[tech_wreck47]

In 2014, Ohio State got in and won the whole thing. Can you tell me with 100% certainty that Ohio State was better than TCU and Baylor? It isn't possible to do so. Every year, there will be argument over who the 4 "best" teams are. The commentators will use contradicting arguments, and I believe at some point the committee will make statements that refute statements they have already made about what is important. No matter what stats, film, etc the committee looks at, they will end up with four teams that will get the most support and ratings. If the teams are "picked" there will always be controversy. If you have a clear path and fail to reach the playoff, then you have no one to blame but yourself. If a team does not like how their conference decides who the champion is, then they can work inside their conference to change the method. If a one-loss team is left out and another conference champion has three losses, my response would be that the one loss team knew before the season what it took to be in the playoff, and they FAILED. No one to blame but themselves.

I get what you are saying I really do, but this imo is not fair for a couple reasons, no fan really wants to watch Alabama play a two loss conference championship team that has played a crap schedule, I would rather see a two loss team that looks to be better with more talent that didn't win their confrence because it was a hard conference and had a harder schedule play Alabama. The other reason is what I just mentioned, sos or strength of confrence. How is it right to make a 1 loss team in one of the best confrences not compete for it all, over a 2 loss confrence championship team that had a crap schedule? It's punishing a team for trying to play a tough schedule over a team playing a junk schedule. Like I said none of it is really fair imo and there will be controversy no matter what and the only way to make it more even would be to make it like the NFL.

 

[Boomergump]

I get what you are saying I really do, but this imo is not fair for a couple reasons, no fan really wants to watch Alabama play a two loss conference championship team that has played a crap schedule, I would rather see a two loss team that looks to be better with more talent that didn't win their confrence because it was a hard conference and had a harder schedule play Alabama. The other reason is what I just mentioned, sos or strength of confrence. How is it right to make a 1 loss team in one of the best confrences not compete for it all, over a 2 loss confrence championship team that had a crap schedule? It's punishing a team for trying to play a tough schedule over a team playing a junk schedule. Like I said none of it is really fair imo and there will be controversy no matter what and the only way to make it more even would be to make it like the NFL.

I understand a desire to have the best teams playing. I really do. The only problem is NOBODY really knows who the best teams or conferences actually are. You could probably count on two hands the people who watched enough CFB to even say they have seen every team in every conference play a game and even then, against who, somemone from within their own conference or a cupcake? Think back to 2014 and the debacle that was the SEC West. For the ENTIRE season everybody was convinced that was the best division in CFB, as the top of the poll was a rotating door of SEC West teams from August to December. The superiority of the SEC was trumpeted to the highest hills at every opportunity and there could be NO DEBATE possible. Well, the SEC West got crushed in the bowl games, many of them historically one sided affairs, rendering them hardly even competitive, let alone dominant. If some of you on this board had your way, the SEC West in 2014 would have represented half the field, if not more, in an 8 team playoff. This is real sports. Real sports get settled on the field, for this very reason. Every year, I have my opinions about who the best teams are and who the best conferences are. However, despite believing myself to have a decent knowledge of the game, I am under no illusion that I am capable of determining, without fail, who deserves to go. The most basic fundamental principle in sports is that you have to win to advance. If you can't win your conference, that means somebody finished ahead of you. Therefore you have no claim to being considered for a national title. I don't care if it was your only loss to a 4 loss team from the other division. You still lost to a 4 loss team when you had a chance to advance and you didn't get it done. The 4 loss team who was victorious earned the right in that they defeated a zero loss national contender, defining them as competitive and worthy of a shot.

 

[tech_wreck47]

I understand a desire to have the best teams playing. I really do. The only problem is NOBODY really knows who the best teams or conferences actually are. You could probably count on two hands the people who watched enough CFB to even say they have seen every team in every conference play a game and even then, against who, somemone from within their own conference or a cupcake? Think back to 2014 and the debacle that was the SEC West. For the ENTIRE season everybody was convinced that was the best division in CFB, as the top of the poll was a rotating door of SEC West teams from August to December. The superiority of the SEC was trumpeted to the highest hills at every opportunity and there could be NO DEBATE possible. Well, the SEC West got crushed in the bowl games, many of them historically one sided affairs, rendering them hardly even competitive, let alone dominant. If some of you on this board had your way, the SEC West in 2014 would have represented half the field, if not more, in an 8 team playoff. This is real sports. Real sports get settled on the field, for this very reason. Every year, I have my opinions about who the best teams are and who the best conferences are. However, despite believing myself to have a decent knowledge of the game, I am under no illusion that I am capable of determining, without fail, who deserves to go. The most basic fundamental principle in sports is that you have to win to advance. If you can't win your conference, that means somebody finished ahead of you. Therefore you have no claim to being considered for a national title. I don't care if it was your only loss to a 4 loss team from the other division. You still lost to a 4 loss team when you had a chance to advance and you didn't get it done. The 4 loss team who was victorious earned the right in that they defeated a zero loss national contender, defining them as competitive and worthy of a shot.

I agree, that's why I say no matter what it's going to be unfair and that controversy will follow because there's really no way to tell who the best 4 teams are. An NFL structure would be the best way to fix this imo, but it would be hard because of the number of teams.

 

[TechPreacher]

The problem with this whole debate (not just this thread) is the term "best team". FBS football is the only non-Olympic team sport that holds to this philosophy. Every other sport, including all other levels of NCAA football, thinks in terms of "champion". Thus, the controversy arises when FBS football tries to combine "best team" with "champion". All other sports understand and accept (and I dare say, embrace) the fact that "champion" does not always equal "best team". In the old days of college football, "best team" worked because polls decided "champion" and there could be multiples. Today, FBS wants a hybrid "best team champion" every year, which is impossible due to the nature of sports. Until FBS football fans, media, and participants agree to either drop the concept of "champion" and return to the old days of bowl games and polls, or drop the idea of "best team" with a true tournament-based championship, this debate will never cease.

 

[Jmonty71]

Here is the main issue I see with the current playoffs. OSU will not be in their championship, however; more than likely, they will be in. Where is the fairness, in that? I think a 8 team playoff is needed. 5 automatic bids, from the winner of the P5 conference games. That allows for 3 at large bids. So, in theory..

Bama
Clemson
Wisconsin
Washington
Oklahoma
OSU
Then...just for fun. Michigan and Colorado.

 

[jeffgt14]

Penn St is about to get screwed over royally. The committee is about to make the decision that an extra loss hurts more than an extra win and that's not even including the fact they beat OSU head to head. I really hope the committee does the right thing instead of selecting who's offense LOOKS better. All the hype on OSU and Michigan in that division and all Penn State did was win the division straight up.

It's also interesting the Big 12 once again lucks into having their two best teams playing on championship weekend. I don't think Oklahoma has the resume to get in (another team the committee just thinks "looks" better) but Oklahoma State sure gets screwed over if they win next week from that Central Michigan officiating debacle.

 

[Animal02]

I understand a desire to have the best teams playing. I really do. The only problem is NOBODY really knows who the best teams or conferences actually are. You could probably count on two hands the people who watched enough CFB to even say they have seen every team in every conference play a game and even then, against who, somemone from within their own conference or a cupcake? Think back to 2014 and the debacle that was the SEC West. For the ENTIRE season everybody was convinced that was the best division in CFB, as the top of the poll was a rotating door of SEC West teams from August to December. The superiority of the SEC was trumpeted to the highest hills at every opportunity and there could be NO DEBATE possible. Well, the SEC West got crushed in the bowl games, many of them historically one sided affairs, rendering them hardly even competitive, let alone dominant. If some of you on this board had your way, the SEC West in 2014 would have represented half the field, if not more, in an 8 team playoff. This is real sports. Real sports get settled on the field, for this very reason. Every year, I have my opinions about who the best teams are and who the best conferences are. However, despite believing myself to have a decent knowledge of the game, I am under no illusion that I am capable of determining, without fail, who deserves to go. The most basic fundamental principle in sports is that you have to win to advance. If you can't win your conference, that means somebody finished ahead of you. Therefore you have no claim to being considered for a national title. I don't care if it was your only loss to a 4 loss team from the other division. You still lost to a 4 loss team when you had a chance to advance and you didn't get it done. The 4 loss team who was victorious earned the right in that they defeated a zero loss national contender, defining them as competitive and worthy of a shot.

I have said for a while.....Ten League champions....bottom four by ranking play week 1 to get to 8.... That is the only way to make it fair......concerned about the number of games...then drop one out of the regular season.