CFP Discussion

[CEB]

So the question becomes is a G5 team getting an auto bid? If so OU would miss out as they are #12. If no auto bid G5 bid OU is in.

You could make the case in any order you want for the teams I listed as9-12. One would be mad. So what, you were not a Conference Champ and if you were not than you are at the mercy of some system to select the rest of the field. There is no perfect system be it computers, humans or a combination of both.

Do you think there would be a National controversy over team #12 as there was over FSU this year? I sure don’t see pick #12 stirring up much except for the fan bases of teams 13-15 or so.

The point is… you shouldn’t HAVE to “make a case” beyond what happened on the field. The selection shouldn’t be subjective. So you either take the subjectivity out of it by taking all conference champs or by outlining very specific selection criteria that is applied EQUALLY.
If you apply the same logic that got Bama and Texas into the top 4, there is NO WAY that Oklahoma is behind Mizzou, Ole Miss and PSU. That’s the problem. Bama and UT got in on their “best win” but Oklahoma sits behind teams with the same record that have nowhere close to the “best win” the Sooners have.
The problem is that right now there are about a half dozen criteria being applied at random and all are weighted differently in each case.
I get it… You think that’s better than a true playoff and I don’t.

 

[leatherneckjacket]

How about this...

12 team playoff

Four P4 champs get 1st round bye

All G5 champs in top 25 with minimum of two highest G5 champs in playoff

Remaining 3 to 6 at large from the top 20 with no conference getting more than three total.

 

[stinger78]

The point is… you shouldn’t HAVE to “make a case” beyond what happened on the field. The selection shouldn’t be subjective. So you either take the subjectivity out of it by taking all conference champs or by outlining very specific selection criteria that is applied EQUALLY.
If you apply the same logic that got Bama and Texas into the top 4, there is NO WAY that Oklahoma is behind Mizzou, Ole Miss and PSU. That’s the problem. Bama and UT got in on their “best win” but Oklahoma sits behind teams with the same record that have nowhere close to the “best win” the Sooners have.
The problem is that right now there are about a half dozen criteria being applied at random and all are weighted differently in each case.
I get it… You think that’s better than a true playoff and I don’t.

This. But our resident sEcSPN Koolaid drinkers approve.

 

[stinger78]

How about this...

12 team playoff

Four P4 champs get 1st round bye

All G5 champs in top 25 with minimum of two highest G5 champs in playoff

Remaining 3 to 6 at large from the top 20 with no conference getting more than three total.

This could work, but you’d see ranking manipulation like we saw this season with F$U deliberately being moved to 5th.

 

[leatherneckjacket]

This could work, but you’d see ranking manipulation like we saw this season with F$U deliberately being moved to 5th.

Use average of Massey composite ranking and ap poll. Also, ap vote must be made public and writers with significant variance to norms lose their vote the subsequent season.

 

[cpf2001]

I’d throw out something like top two by standings from each P4 and then four highest G5 champs. P4 Conf champions get a bye, so those games still mean something for the playoffs.

In practice I can’t see the non-Big/SEC leagues being able to pull it off. But those leagues have been deliberately hostile poaching teams so the rest of FBS should start punching back.

 

[CEB]

How about this...

12 team playoff

Four P4 champs get 1st round bye

All G5 champs in top 25 with minimum of two highest G5 champs in playoff

Remaining 3 to 6 at large from the top 20 with no conference getting more than three total.

I like this and was thinking something similar. The difference I had was to say that each conference gets their second place team as long as that team is top 15 (or 20 or whatever). That would protect a conference runner up and while it wouldn’t limit any conference to 3 teams, it would work that way in most years.

 

[RonJohn]

Use average of Massey composite ranking and ap poll. Also, ap vote must be made public and writers with significant variance to norms lose their vote the subsequent season.

AP specifically requested to be left out of the BCS rankings. They wanted no part of selecting the "championship" teams. The writer's knew that their selections were subjective and didn't want it to be used for real-world effects. In other words, they knew that subjective ranking is for entertainment only.

 

[cpf2001]

AP specifically requested to be left out of the BCS rankings. They wanted no part of selecting the "championship" teams. The writer's knew that their selections were subjective and didn't want it to be used for real-world effects. In other words, they knew that subjective ranking is for entertainment only.

I remember that differently, and less of any sort of principled move by the AP and more of a “take our ball and go home” “reserve the right to disagree with the BCS” after the split title in 2003 and an undefeated Auburn being left out in 2004.

They awarded their title to USC instead of the BCS winner in 2003 so I don’t think you can say they thought it wasn’t “real world” worthy.

 

[Richard7125]

How about this...

12 team playoff

Four P4 champs get 1st round bye

All G5 champs in top 25 with minimum of two highest G5 champs in playoff

Remaining 3 to 6 at large from the top 20 with no conference getting more than three total.

Why limit the conference total? Michigan, Washington, Oregon and OSU will all be in the Big10 next year. Do you really think we should not include one of those teams so we can include a second G5 school?

 

[leatherneckjacket]

Why limit the conference total? Michigan, Washington, Oregon and OSU will all be in the Big10 next year. Do you really think we should not include one of those teams so we can include a second G5 school?

Yes.

Why? Because a 4th place team in any conference does not deserve it more than a G5 conference champ in the top 25.

 

[Root4GT]

The point is… you shouldn’t HAVE to “make a case” beyond what happened on the field. The selection shouldn’t be subjective. So you either take the subjectivity out of it by taking all conference champs or by outlining very specific selection criteria that is applied EQUALLY.
If you apply the same logic that got Bama and Texas into the top 4, there is NO WAY that Oklahoma is behind Mizzou, Ole Miss and PSU. That’s the problem. Bama and UT got in on their “best win” but Oklahoma sits behind teams with the same record that have nowhere close to the “best win” the Sooners have.
The problem is that right now there are about a half dozen criteria being applied at random and all are weighted differently in each case.
I get it… You think that’s better than a true playoff and I don’t.

You need to define who gets in your true playoff. Do you have a proposal?

If you include all G5 Conference Champions it’s a joke. If you are selecting non conference Champions there always will be subjectivity as teams do not play similar schedules.

Going forward the P4 conferences will likely at some point apply subjectivity to who plays in the Conference Championship game. These huge conference could easily have 3 or more teams with 10-2 records that played very different conference schedules.

 

[SOWEGA Jacket]

You guys do realize that you should be discussing the next iteration of 24 teams. The 12 is here so nothing about 2, 4, 6, or 8 means a thing. You might as well discuss why the sports editor of the Dothan Eagle or the Clarion-Ledger didn’t get a vote in 1974.

We all know the 12 team playoff will be packed with SEC and BIG teams. They just did it with the 4 with zero push back so they’ve been given permission to pack the 12. The only way any ACC team will get in the 12 team version is to win the conference. The fanbases of Louisville, GT, and any other ACC team who has a very good year will be stuck with pre-Christmas bowl games until it expands again. I give it 6 years until the TV money forces another weekend of 8 games. It will be glorious to watch the upsets when these big boy coaches only have 5 days to prepare.

 

[cpf2001]

I think huge conferences are bad for the sport for exactly that “needs more subjectivity” reason.

They’re only good for the pocketbooks of a minority of programs, so either completely separate a couple of divisions or the “have-lesses” should start pushing back on the “P2” having their cake and eating it too.

Root4GT, you’re saying it would be a joke to have all conference champs. But the true joke is that the league is that lopsided in the first place. Let’s stop being so happy about the sport’s WWE-style preening for TV matchups to try to hide that it’s a joke.

 

[stinger78]

I like this and was thinking something similar. The difference I had was to say that each conference gets their second place team as long as that team is top 15 (or 20 or whatever). That would protect a conference runner up and while it wouldn’t limit any conference to 3 teams, it would work that way in most years.

My question is why should a conference runner-up get into a playoff for NC? They already lost their conference.

 

[RonJohn]

I remember that differently, and less of any sort of principled move by the AP and more of a “take our ball and go home” “reserve the right to disagree with the BCS” after the split title in 2003 and an undefeated Auburn being left out in 2004.

They awarded their title to USC instead of the BCS winner in 2003 so I don’t think you can say they thought it wasn’t “real world” worthy.

It is a poll of sports writers. They were getting lobbied and getting threats. They wanted that to stop. It also tested journalistic integrity. Were the people voting on the polls "reporting" about the sport, or were they participating in the sport. From SI: https://www.si.com/college/2018/07/12/ap-poll-bcs-system-rankings-national-champion

On Dec. 21, the AP sent a cease-and-desist letter to BCS headquarters, stating that the BCS had “damaged and continues to damage AP’s reputation for honesty and integrity in its news accounts through the forced association of the AP poll with the BCS rankings.”

Some believe the AP should have never been involved. “Media shouldn’t be creating the news,” says Yahoo Sports columnist Dan Wetzel, a vocal adversary to the BCS whose 2010 book, Death to the BCS, outlined the case for switching to a playoff. “If you want to have an AP basketball poll for the fun of it, knock yourself out. It’s just fun coverage, but you’re determining the champion. The AP poll was a lark and fun to do, and now they legitimized it.”

The AP wasn't the BCS and it isn't Bill Hancock's committee. They can chose whoever they want to be the top team in their "fun to do" poll. It has no actual real-world meaning and was never intended to have. That, in my opinion, is one of the biggest issues with sports fans when it comes to sports "reporting". Many can't tell the difference between what is real and what is "professional wrestling".

 

[Richard7125]

Yes.

Why? Because a 4th place team in any conference does not deserve it more than a G5 conference champ in the top 25.

I agree with you in principle, but I think there is a problem with that. I used Washington, Oregon, Michigan and OSU because two are in the Pac12 and two are in the Big10. All four of them would have been in a 12 team playoff this year - and no one would have complained. Just because they will all be in the Big10 next year shouldn't make a difference. Granted, their records will be different because at some point they will play each other during the season or in the Big10 championship game, but that doesn't make any of those four teams less good.

I understand the desire not to have 4 teams from any one conference, but I also think you need to recognize the Big10 (and SEC) will be absolutely stacked beginning in 2024.

 

[Richard7125]

My question is why should a conference runner-up get into a playoff for NC? They already lost their conference.

same reason why the loser of the ACC basketball tournament typically gets into the NCAA tourney.

 

[RonJohn]

same reason why the loser of the ACC basketball tournament typically gets into the NCAA tourney.

When you have 68 teams, it is hard to exclude someone who is second in a major conference. It is hard to exclude any team with 28 wins no matter what conference they are in. You can't have a 68 team playoff in football. There are teams with zero chance going into the season of even sniffing a shot at the playoffs, even if they win every game by 30 points including two OOC against P4 teams.

 

[leatherneckjacket]

I agree with you in principle, but I think there is a problem with that. I used Washington, Oregon, Michigan and OSU because two are in the Pac12 and two are in the Big10. All four of them would have been in a 12 team playoff this year - and no one would have complained. Just because they will all be in the Big10 next year shouldn't make a difference. Granted, their records will be different because at some point they will play each other during the season or in the Big10 championship game, but that doesn't make any of those four teams less good.

I understand the desire not to have 4 teams from any one conference, but I also think you need to recognize the Big10 (and SEC) will be absolutely stacked beginning in 2024.

It is a false choice since their records would have been different if they were all in the same conference. You are asking to select teams whose schedules, records and resumes would not be the same. In the future where they are all in one conference, only the top three should get in a 12 team playoff.