CFP Discussion

[MidtownJacket]

So is Notre Dame a conference of ONE?

 

[YoungSting]

Let me push back on the idea of automatic qualifiers for conference champions just a little here. The idea for this playoff system is the best four teams, correct? So let’s say in this past run of Clemson being dominant that somehow one of the upshot’s from our division found a way to upset them. You’re telling me that a Pittsburg team could upset them and get in? (2018)

 

[senoiajacket]

That quote is the perfect reason why I'm skeptical about CGC. Brands do not win championships. Championship caliber play establishes your brand.

Well, for those didn't listen to the piece, "Brands win championships" was not a quote. It is the title of a book that was discussed. Although I dont disagree with the primise stated above by CrackerJacket.

 

[billga99]

Let me push back on the idea of automatic qualifiers for conference champions just a little here. The idea for this playoff system is the best four teams, correct? So let’s say in this past run of Clemson being dominant that somehow one of the upshot’s from our division found a way to upset them. You’re telling me that a Pittsburg team could upset them and get in? (2018)

If they eventually get to a 12 team playoff, I would take the Power 5 Champions (yes I would include the Big 12 with their pending expansion), best Group of 5 champion, and 6 wildcards. I would limit 3 to any one conference to take away the temptation to overload the SEC and Big 10. Yes it might not be the best 12 teams but would capture the majority of them. Yes the champions in some year may not be in the top 12. But it would provide supreme interest in winning conference championships.

 

[rfjeff9]

If uga loses to Bama and then gets shut of of the playoffs that would be amazing, you could hear their wailing and gnashing of teeth in outer space

 

[YoungSting]

If they eventually get to a 12 team playoff, I would take the Power 5 Champions (yes I would include the Big 12 with their pending expansion), best Group of 5 champion, and 6 wildcards. I would limit 3 to any one conference to take away the temptation to overload the SEC and Big 10. Yes it might not be the best 12 teams but would capture the majority of them. Yes the champions in some year may not be in the top 12. But it would provide supreme interest in winning conference championships.

Are we going to shorten the number of regular season games? Because now you’re asking college teams to play possibly 2-3 extra games? In a time where guys are already sitting out so they don’t get hurt for the draft. Yeah, we don’t see it in playoffs right now, but if a game is starting to get one sided, why would a high draft pick even risk an injury?
I just don’t believe there 12 good enough teams in most years that are deserving of going to the playoffs. And then all you are doing is kicking the arguement from who got snubbed at 5 to who got snubbed at 13. Then we will have the “let’s expand it to x”. Where does it stop?

 

[wesgt123]

IMO, it should be based solely on winning Conference Championship. If you aren't good enough to win your conference, you have no business playing for a national title.

That doesn’t play well into the preseason rankings given out. I see teams that are 2 and 3 loss teams ranked ahead of teams that are 6-1.

I agree though. Conference champs should be automatic ins

 

[YoungSting]

That doesn’t play well into the preseason rankings given out. I see teams that are 2 and 3 loss teams ranked ahead of teams that are 6-1.

I agree though. Conference champs should be automatic ins

But why? Let’s look at the past few years in the pac 12. They didn’t have one team that was deserving to make playoffs. But now if an upset occurs, an even less deserving team makes it?
And for this year, you’re telling me anybody in the ACC is one of the top teams? The idea is to get the best teams in the playoffs, and while a conference championship should have a heavier weight than other factors, but there should not be an automatic qualifiers. That’s why we have nice fancy historic bowl games for champions who aren’t good enough for playoffs (Orange, rose, peach, etc.)

 

[stinger 1957]

This is just me, but I would like to see the 4 team playoff/NC game format kept in place, but expand the conferences and they expand their conference playoffs to 4 teams each, I believe that creates more TV viewing therefore more TV revenue for payouts and more fan interest all over the country. The "pod" system interest me in getting to the 4 teams in each conference playoff. I also believe the "pod" system creates more fan interest because of having more rivalry games inside each pod, therefore more TV and attendance $.

 

[ibeattetris]

The idea for this playoff system is the best four teams, correct?

No. The idea is that picking just a top 2 out of 130 plus teams for a championship is stupid. 4 is also stupid, but it’s at least better than 2. No playoff system that exists is meant to determine “the best”. A playoff is only meant to determine a champion.

 

[ibeattetris]

But why? Let’s look at the past few years in the pac 12. They didn’t have one team that was deserving to make playoffs. But now if an upset occurs, an even less deserving team makes it?
And for this year, you’re telling me anybody in the ACC is one of the top teams? The idea is to get the best teams in the playoffs, and while a conference championship should have a heavier weight than other factors, but there should not be an automatic qualifiers. That’s why we have nice fancy historic bowl games for champions who aren’t good enough for playoffs (Orange, rose, peach, etc.)

I’ve never seen anyone complain about conference champions playing in baseball, basketball, volleyball, golf… Football is the only sport where people come up with contrived excuses for why teams shouldn’t be allowed to compete for a national championship.

 

[JacketOff]

No. The idea is that picking just a top 2 out of 130 plus teams for a championship is stupid. 4 is also stupid, but it’s at least better than 2. No playoff system that exists is meant to determine “the best”. A playoff is only meant to determine a champion.

Agree. European soccer, ie: the Premier League, is about the only sports league/system that’s schedule truly determines who the “best” team is, and that team is crowned the champion. Thinking any sort of playoff, championship game, tournament, whatever will truly determine who the “best” team is in a 130 team league who barely have any common opponents is an exercise in futility. And the more games you play in the postseason, the less interesting and meaningful every other game becomes. The BCS had its flaws, but it held true to college football, and the bow games still mattered. The CFP is even more flawed IMO because it’s determined solely by human panels. 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, 24, 32, 64, it will never be enough. At some point you might as well play a 130 team double elimination tournament and whoever wins is the national champion.

 

[forensicbuzz]

If this scenerio happens and it is very possible then it gives more argument for expansion of the playoff system.

What it does (to me) is further highligh the corruption of the system. To me, if you don’t win your conference, you shouldn’t have a chance to win the National Championship. But what would have to be in place to make that happen will never be.

 

[TampaBuzz]

Let me push back on the idea of automatic qualifiers for conference champions just a little here. The idea for this playoff system is the best four teams, correct? So let’s say in this past run of Clemson being dominant that somehow one of the upshot’s from our division found a way to upset them. You’re telling me that a Pittsburg team could upset them and get in? (2018)

Guess that depends on how you define the "best four teams." Right now, it seems to me that the definition is a popularity contest driven mostly by ESPN and writers in the southeast. Naturally it funded by ESPN to generate optimal viewing dollars. I prefer to take the subjectivity out of it. Every league in the country thinks their champion is the best - so put all the league champions together and let them fight it out. If a team gets upset in a league championship game - too bad, so sad.

 

[YoungSting]

I’ve never seen anyone complain about conference champions playing in baseball, basketball, volleyball, golf… Football is the only sport where people come up with contrived excuses for why teams shouldn’t be allowed to compete for a national championship.

Well I’m sure if any of those sports had only a 4 team playoff, then there would be an argument. But right now you honestly cant compare D1 football playoffs to any other sport where there are 64+ teams that make it. If you want to talk about what it should and could be, that’s a different discussion. I’m talking about right now, there should be no automatic qualifier.

 

[YoungSting]

Guess that depends on how you define the "best four teams." Right now, it seems to me that the definition is a popularity contest driven mostly by ESPN and writers in the southeast. Naturally it funded by ESPN to generate optimal viewing dollars. I prefer to take the subjectivity out of it. Every league in the country thinks their champion is the best - so put all the league champions together and let them fight it out. If a team gets upset in a league championship game - too bad, so sad.

I will agree that there is some favoritism that can come into play, but when isn’t there going to be when it comes to selection? Hell we could say that for basketball and they have way more teams to pick from

Im sorry, but if somebody from the coastal beats wake or whoever from the Atlantic, you’re really going to be able to look somebody in the face and say they deserve a spot in the playoffs?

 

[BurdellJacket]

Well I’m sure if any of those sports had only a 4 team playoff, then there would be an argument. But right now you honestly cant compare D1 football playoffs to any other sport where there are 64+ teams that make it. If you want to talk about what it should and could be, that’s a different discussion. I’m talking about right now, there should be no automatic qualifier.

What??? If conference champions are not "automatic qualifiers" the ONLY way to pick playoff contenders is TOTALLY SUBJECTIVE.

 

[YoungSting]

What??? If conference champions are not "automatic qualifiers" the ONLY way to pick playoff contenders is TOTALLY SUBJECTIVE.

I said earlier that it should be a heavy factor. But upsets happen, so if we want the top teams, then you can’t use championships as an automatic qualifier in a 4 team playoff

 

[orientalnc]

Even with a 64 team playoff there are subjective biases.

 

[TampaBuzz]

I will agree that there is some favoritism that can come into play, but when isn’t there going to be when it comes to selection? Hell we could say that for basketball and they have way more teams to pick from

Im sorry, but if somebody from the coastal beats wake or whoever from the Atlantic, you’re really going to be able to look somebody in the face and say they deserve a spot in the playoffs?

You keep using the term "selection" which infers somebody, somewhere has to decide who is "better." I say nonsense. Why don't we just let the results on the field decide? If you win your league championship, you have earned the right to play for a national title. Here is the scenario: Team A has a better win-loss record than Team B, but Team B beats them in the league championship game. In your method, somebody could select Team A to play for the national title while Team B stays home - although Team B defeated them on the field when it counts. When somebody "selects," by definition a league champion may be left out because somebody, somewhere arbitrarily thinks a 2nd (3rd?, 4th?, SEC!, SEC!, TV ratings! etc.) place finisher in another league is "better."