CFP Discussion

[YoungSting]

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."

Because you can objectively say that sometimes say conference champions are not one of the top teams in the country?

Scenario: team A is ranked 3 and team B is not ranked, and squeaked into the conference championship by winning a bad pod. If team B wins, how do justify team B jumping all the way to the top 4?

 

[BurdellJacket]

Because you can objectively say that sometimes say conference champions are not one of the top teams in the country?

Scenario: team A is ranked 3 and team B is not ranked, and squeaked into the conference championship by winning a bad pod. If team B wins, how do justify team B jumping all the way to the top 4?

I'm wondering if you understand the difference between "objective" and "subjective. How can you possibly say "objectively say that sometimes ...conference champions are not one of the top teams in the country"?

 

[GTpdm]

Because you can objectively say that sometimes say conference champions are not one of the top teams in the country?

Scenario: team A is ranked 3 and team B is not ranked, and squeaked into the conference championship by winning a bad pod. If team B wins, how do justify team B jumping all the way to the top 4?

The ranking of team A is subjective, and prone to biases by the people doing the ranking.

The victory of team B over team A objective, and everyone regardless of bias can agree that the victory is factually true.

If A was so good that they deserved the playoff spot, then they should have beaten B, shouldn’t they? But they didn’t, so they don’t.

 

[TampaBuzz]

Because you can objectively say that sometimes say conference champions are not one of the top teams in the country?

Scenario: team A is ranked 3 and team B is not ranked, and squeaked into the conference championship by winning a bad pod. If team B wins, how do justify team B jumping all the way to the top 4?

"Ranked" is by definition subjective and biased. I am an idealist and am saying no rankings, no touchy feely evaluation at all. The only thing that matters is results on the field within a league. Then the league champions play for the national title. If by some miracle GT were to win the ACC this year, I want to see them have the opportunity to play for the national title as a reward for with the league championship.

Look, I know this will never happen simply because there is way too much money to be made in the business of amateur football. ESPN would simply not stand for it because you would have some terrible match ups each and every year and they want the Crimson Tide, Bulldogs, Buckeyes, Longhorns, Tigers, etc. in the playoff every year. They sure as hell don't want the Bearcats, or the Beavers, or the Yellow Jackets to slow down the money train.

 

[YoungSting]

"Ranked" is by definition subjective and biased. I am an idealist and am saying no rankings, no touchy feely evaluation at all. The only thing that matters is results on the field within a league. Then the league champions play for the national title. If by some miracle GT were to win the ACC this year, I want to see them have the opportunity to play for the national title as a reward for with the league championship.

Look, I know this will never happen simply because there is way too much money to be made in the business of amateur football. ESPN would simply not stand for it because you would have some terrible match ups each and every year and they want the Crimson Tide, Bulldogs, Buckeyes, Longhorns, Tigers, etc. in the playoff every year. They sure as hell don't want the Bearcats, or the Beavers, or the Yellow Jackets to slow down the money train.

I get your side, but in a scenario where only 4 teams get in, I want to see the best. And conference champions are objectively not always the best. Sure human rankings might be subjective, but there’s also objective stats that would say if tech won the ACC, we are not one of the top teams.
So I will one hundred percent agree that rankings can be/are subjective and skewed, and we should get as much of that out as possible. But right now the playoffs aren’t about champions facing each other, it’s about the best 4 teams. If you want to have a discussion about changing playoffs, we can, but that’s a different discussion.

 

[orientalnc]

I know those 30+ bowl games must be making money for someone, but what if they all went away (as bowl games) and were replaced by the first, second, and third rounds of a playoff system like what already exists with FCS teams. There are 130 Division 1 teams in ten conferences. My proposal is that the ten conference champions plus the 22 top ranked non-champion teams in the CFP ranking make up a 32 team bracket. It would take three weekends to reach the four teams we have now. That would be 28 "bowl games" to be played in December. It might be wise to eliminate a non-conference game from the season, but that would not be a terrible thing to endure.

 

[slugboy]

I know those 30+ bowl games must be making money for someone, but what if they all went away (as bowl games) and were replaced by the first, second, and third rounds of a playoff system like what already exists with FCS teams. There are 130 Division 1 teams in ten conferences. My proposal is that the ten conference champions plus the 22 top ranked non-champion teams in the CFP ranking make up a 32 team bracket. It would take three weekends to reach the four teams we have now. That would be 28 "bowl games" to be played in December. It might be wise to eliminate a non-conference game from the season, but that would not be a terrible thing to endure.

You could get a sponsor for those games, and have events.

 

[MWBATL]

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

Ah, well then, might as well not have any BCS Playoffs at all. Because, ya know, upsets happen and the best team might not win the national championship.

Effectively, the conference championship games are (or should be) the first round of the BCS playoffs. Then whatever happens, happens.

 

[slugboy]

I agree that it will be interesting to see where the CFP has Cincy ranked. They beat Indiana in Bloomington and ND in South Bend. Remember, ND is ranked in the top 15 in spite of all those close games. If Cincy wins out and are left out of the CFP there will be a huge uproar. I don't see any chance for Coastal Carolina.

Not after the App State upset. Coastal is fully out of the lottery now

 

[WrongShadeOfGold]

Not after the App State upset. Coastal is fully out of the lottery now

They were out of it long before that loss for no other reason than the conference they play in. They could have gone 12-0 and won every game by 50+ and they still weren't getting in over any 0 or 1 loss P5 team. It's a screwed up system we have for sure

 

[TampaBuzz]

I get your side, but in a scenario where only 4 teams get in, I want to see the best. And conference champions are objectively not always the best. Sure human rankings might be subjective, but there’s also objective stats that would say if tech won the ACC, we are not one of the top teams.
So I will one hundred percent agree that rankings can be/are subjective and skewed, and we should get as much of that out as possible. But right now the playoffs aren’t about champions facing each other, it’s about the best 4 teams. If you want to have a discussion about changing playoffs, we can, but that’s a different discussion.

This is fun. I am not talking about a scenario with only 4 teams. I am talking a scenario with only league/conference champions, so 8 (10?, 12?) division 1 conferences = that number of teams in the national title tournament. Let's call it the Tournament of Champions. You could argue that the number 2 team in one league is better than the conference champ from another league, and based on an eyeball test/stats, that may be true. But, we don't know for sure, because those teams haven't actually played against each other. In my idealistic world, if you don't win your league (which is earned via head to head competition on the field of play), you have no business competing in the Tournament of Champions for a national title over a team that did win their league championship.

 

[Jacket05]

This is fun. I am not talking about a scenario with only 4 teams. I am talking a scenario with only league/conference champions, so 8 (10?, 12?) division 1 conferences = that number of teams in the national title tournament. Let's call it the Tournament of Champions. You could argue that the number 2 team in one league is better than the conference champ from another league, and based on an eyeball test/stats, that may be true. But, we don't know for sure, because those teams haven't actually played against each other. In my idealistic world, if you don't win your league (which is earned via head to head competition on the field of play), you have no business competing in the Tournament of Champions for a national title over a team that did win their league championship.

This

 

[SOWEGA Jacket]

Tampabuzz hit it right when he said none of this matters because of the money to be made. All the scenarios we could come up with mean nothing without money being the number 1 factor. For me, I’ve always wanted an expanded playoff because I want the cinderella teams to have a shot and I don’t want back door deals to select the few participants (what did happen to us regarding the Orange Bowl and media vote and what could have happened to us with 1 less coach vote in 1990 completely changed my thought process). The good thing for me is that in my view the greed for money will actually allow the Cinderella’s and fairness to get invited. The bowls are dying and most are basically dead at this point. With the money being left on the table by only having 4 the powers to be (TV) will force expansion well into the 20’s at some point. These same games being played in empty stadiums now under a bowl name will be played on campus with packed stadiums and a huge TV audience if they are part of a playoff. It is inevitable.

 

[UgaBlows]

Just put in every team with a winning record

 

[Jacket05]

Tampabuzz hit it right when he said none of this matters because of the money to be made. All the scenarios we could come up with mean nothing without money being the number 1 factor. For me, I’ve always wanted an expanded playoff because I want the cinderella teams to have a shot and I don’t want back door deals to select the few participants (what did happen to us regarding the Orange Bowl and media vote and what could have happened to us with 1 less coach vote in 1990 completely changed my thought process). The good thing for me is that in my view the greed for money will actually allow the Cinderella’s and fairness to get invited. The bowls are dying and most are basically dead at this point. With the money being left on the table by only having 4 the powers to be (TV) will force expansion well into the 20’s at some point. These same games being played in empty stadiums now under a bowl name will be played on campus with packed stadiums and a huge TV audience if they are part of a playoff. It is inevitable.

1990 is exactly why polls should never be used to select "the best teams"!

EDIT: 2004 poll also left an undefeated Auburn out of the championship game

 

[WreckinGT]

This is fun. I am not talking about a scenario with only 4 teams. I am talking a scenario with only league/conference champions, so 8 (10?, 12?) division 1 conferences = that number of teams in the national title tournament. Let's call it the Tournament of Champions. You could argue that the number 2 team in one league is better than the conference champ from another league, and based on an eyeball test/stats, that may be true. But, we don't know for sure, because those teams haven't actually played against each other. In my idealistic world, if you don't win your league (which is earned via head to head competition on the field of play), you have no business competing in the Tournament of Champions for a national title over a team that did win their league championship.

Yeah, im in for this. You may have to make some concessions for the independents, but let every conference send one team. This evens things out media wise, money wise, and in general fairness. If the playoff expansion is just going to be 7-8 SEC/Big 10 teams along with a few others then I doubt I would bother watching.

 

[bobongo]

If Cincy wins out and are left out of the CFP there will be a huge uproar.

I would like to see Cincinnati get another shot at Ugag, if they're in the playoffs, after they very nearly beat them last year.

 

[TampaBuzz]

Yeah, im in for this. You may have to make some concessions for the independents, but let every conference send one team. This evens things out media wise, money wise, and in general fairness. If the playoff expansion is just going to be 7-8 SEC/Big 10 teams along with a few others then I doubt I would bother watching.

I hadn't really gotten that far down the rabbit hole...but what the heck? Would TA&M, Texas and OU have joined the SEC if they knew that the opportunity to play for a national championship would be greatly reduced? Would they consider exiting the SEC to get that opportunity back? Would ND and other independents feel compelled to join a conference to increase the opportunity to play in the Tournament of Champions (sorry Rose Bowl). Would teams actually leave the Power 5 and join smaller conferences to increase their opportunity to get into the Tourney?

What would happen to recruiting? Currently, the same 5 or 6 teams (for the most part) have been sharing the slots in the playoff from year to year. The result is that most of the really highly rated recruits go to those schools. Recruits often say that they want to play for a national title. But what if teams from every conference are guaranteed an opportunity to play for the national title - would that lead to a broader distribution of the recruiting talent?

 

[YoungSting]

Ah, well then, might as well not have any BCS Playoffs at all. Because, ya know, upsets happen and the best team might not win the national championship.

Effectively, the conference championship games are (or should be) the first round of the BCS playoffs. Then whatever happens, happens.

That’s a far stretch from what My point has been.
If you want conference championships to be the quasi first round, then fine. But I would use it more as an elimination than a birth to the next round.

 

[YoungSting]

This is fun. I am not talking about a scenario with only 4 teams. I am talking a scenario with only league/conference champions, so 8 (10?, 12?) division 1 conferences = that number of teams in the national title tournament. Let's call it the Tournament of Champions. You could argue that the number 2 team in one league is better than the conference champ from another league, and based on an eyeball test/stats, that may be true. But, we don't know for sure, because those teams haven't actually played against each other. In my idealistic world, if you don't win your league (which is earned via head to head competition on the field of play), you have no business competing in the Tournament of Champions for a national title over a team that did win their league championship.

I’m completely on board with the idea of including the champions if it increased to around 12. But there’s still issues with this that I raised earlier. and I’m not asking you to solve them, I’m just asking if the headache of the new 12 or whatever team playoff is going to be easier than the four we have now.

1- scheduling: are we going to shorten the regular season? Because that’s going to be a more games, and we already see players skipping postseason games. And while they may start, once they see they are falling behind, are they going to sit out?
2- is the argument for those last at large bids going to be any different than now? It’s still going to be subjective at that point, and that seems to be what is bothering everybody.
2b- is that going to stop the money people from just getting more ESPN/SEC teams in?
3- what’s going to happen to the bowl games? Yes, this is kind of an after thought but I am somebody who loves all the bowl games