College Football Off Topic

[canes21]

If that had happened and the playoff committee selected Bama, Clemson, Georgia, and Oklahoma then my issue would have been with choosing Bama or OU over Notre Dame. I wouldn't clamor for expansion, I'd clamor for the committee to do a better job at selecting teams. I'd imagine had Bama lost that OU would have been the team on the outside looking in. I don't support the idea of a team losing a CCG and still getting in, but Bama would have the resume to somewhat understandably get in. They had a historical season. I'd still like the results on the field to matter most, though, and would probably prefer OU make it over Bama just because they won their conference. I wouldn't really have too big of an issue with whichever team they left out if it was just between Bama/OU, though.

[jeremym480]

Quote: Originally Posted by countryboy

But yet if Georgia would've beaten Alabama and Oklahoma beat Texas as they did, there was a possibility that ND would've been left out of the playoffs. A team that you feel is only one of 3 that actually deserves to play for the National Championship could've been left out of the playoffs at no fault of their own under the current landscape. That is the problem with the current format and the exact point I'm trying to make as to why the playoffs need to be/should be expanded.

No, if Georgia would have won ND would have still be in and Oklahoma would have been out. I'm not sure what the seeding would have been but Georgia taking OU's spot would have been the only real difference.


I can say with 99% certainty that any year ND goes undefeated, then the will make it in. ND consistently plays one of the toughest schedules in CFB and they never schedule any FCS schools (which might as well be an off week for schools that do play them).

The only reason I leave it at 99% instead of 100% is if we ever see 4 Power 5 teams go undefeated and they all win their conference championships (which is extremely unlikely). Even then ND would still be in the debate due to likely have an tougher regular season schedule... but even if they did miss out you can't really feel sorry for them because they've had every opportunity in the world to join a conference and they chose not to. How can them not getting to play in a CCG be unfair to them when that's exactly the way they want it?

Not to mention CCG work both ways. Alabama and Saban may have another championship under their belts if it weren't for losing the CCG to Florida in '08.

[jasontoddwhitt]

Personally, Notre Dame needs to join a conference instead of getting by because they are Notre Dame.

BCS had a Notre Dame provision. I'm sure the committee has their own hidden agenda with Notre Dame.

I've still yet to hear someone explain to me why Florida ranks ahead of Kentucky when we beat them on their home turf? While I'm happy we got a New Years Day bowl....we should've gotten a New Years Six bowl.

[countryboy]

Quote: Originally Posted by jeremym480

No, if Georgia would have won ND would have still be in and Oklahoma would have been out. I'm not sure what the seeding would have been but Georgia taking OU's spot would have been the only real difference.

Ok then OU is left out, a team that lost to Texas then avenged their loss.

Whoever was in or out is irrelevant

Again the point is that a team or teams deserving of playing for a national championship are being left out due to the current format



Sent from my iPhone using Operation Sports

[WaitTilNextYear]

If we take a step back, I think we'd all remember that the real genesis of the current playoff format was that one season (2004?) when there were three 13-0 teams from P5 conferences, with Auburn being left out in favor of USC and Oklahoma. The thought was a 4-team playoff would prevent that. And it has. Unless you are ready to die on the UCF hill (like too many seem to be), there hasn't been a worthy undefeated left out of the playoff since this format was enacted. And there likely won't be.

If we're now arguing [hypothetically] about, aww shucks a 2-loss team not being able to get there or a 1-loss team not making it because there are four P5 undefeateds in front of them, then let's realize how much better things are now.

We're debating #4 now and everyone advocating for an 8-team panacea knows deep down inside that we'll just be debating #8 in that system. So let's realize that all of the options on the table are just different shades of imperfect. I just so happen to favor a more-exclusive (4-team) imperfect than some others here do (8-team).

[canes21]

Another thing to think about is how this season has been an outlier and still doesn't have much controversy.



In year 1 we had FSU as the only undefeated team and the ACC was very weak that year.


In year 2 Clemson goes undefeated.


In year 3 Bama is our loss-less team of the year.


Last year no P5 team goes undefeated, only UCF.


This year we have Bama, Clemson, and Notre Dame, then UCF. We've had as many teams undefeated this year as we've had in all of the years prior in the current system combined.


Even with all of that we've hardy had any real controversy. The most we've had was in year 1 when Ohio State ran away with the B1G championship and that caused TCU to drop out of the top 4 and then there was a little debate about Baylor/TCU vs OSU at the 4 spot.


In 2015 we had basically no controversy. The top 4 was very clear heading into the postseason. Michigan State ruined Iowa's perfect season and Ohio State had 1 loss, but didn't play in their CCG. The rest of the nation had multiple losses.


In 2016 the only controversy we had was Penn State not making it as a conference champion, but they had 2 losses while the other P5 champs all had 1 outside of Bama being undefeated. There really wasn't much controversy or debate. Mostly everyone knew that 4th spot was Washington's.


Last year the controversy was around Bama not even playing in the CCG. What helped them out was that Ohio State won the B1G, but had multiple losses. This was the most controversial year since the first year.


This year the controversy isn't really there that much, Had Georgia won then there would have been some, but they didn't and it all worked out.


Why would we ever expand it to 8 teams when we've never even had a year where it felt like there were 8 playoff teams? To this point the top 2 or 3 have always been clear and it's always been 4 and 5 being debated. I just don't see how 8 teams would be something that someone feels is needed when looking at all of the years under the system so far. Not a single year have we ever really had a debate plus 5 outside of year 1 when Baylor and TCU were co-champions of the Big 12.

[countryboy]

There’s no doubt that 4 teams is better than two teams.

But the same problem that faced the two team system also faces the 4 team system and that is that good teams are being left out who deserve to play. And yes even with 8 you’ll argue about who should be number 8, the team there or the 9th place team. Same if it was 16 and same if it were 64 just like basketball.

I’m not ready to die for UCF but I will say this. Playing in a bad conference doesn’t make you a bad team.

Let’s use a hypothetical here. If Alabama was the team they are, same players coaches and such, and they played in the AAC , are you going to say that despite the fact they could beat any team in the country that because of the conference they play in they don’t deserve to play for the championship?

Conference affiliation shouldn’t determine the qualification of a team to play for the championship. Nor should what teams have done in previous seasons. It should be based on what a team is doing year.

I see people say they want what happens on the field to matter the most. And I agree. But with this format it doesn’t.

Last year Alabama didn’t even play in their conference title game but yet was selected as one of the best 4 teams. A few years ago Ohio State was selected over Penn State who won the Big ten championship.

That is my problem with this 4 team format. The criteria laid out doesn’t hold true year in and year out. The committee doesn’t make the teams match their criteria, they make their criteria match their 4 selections.

8 teams takes less politicking out of the selection and let’s what happens on the field matter more. And I think, and hope, that is what we all want as fans, for the players to settle it on the field and not the committee pick and choose.


Sent from my iPhone using Operation Sports

[WaitTilNextYear]

The Bama being in a weak conference hypothetical is kind of silly, to be honest. If they resided in a G5 conference instead of the SEC, they wouldn't be Bama. They'd be countryboy's magical red herring team. This team wouldn't employ the best collegiate head coach of all time. Wouldn't be pulling in top recruiting classes year after year. Wouldn't be beating P5 teams by multiple TDs every game. They wouldn't be flying their 5-star QB around on private jets to heal. Why not? Because they play in the AAC and not the SEC. A small-time conference with small-time teams and small-time facilities/boosters/aspirations. You can't really draw a comparison that doesn't make any sense at all and then say "see, it's unfair because Bama...so why not UCF?" And this is what I base my entire disagreement on.

Teams are products of the conferences they play in. That's what they're measured against because that's who they play, year in and year out. What each team does each year "on the field" is a direct product of the context in which they play. Such as their opposition, conferences and such.

If you don't like that the committee has absolute power of discretion and certain criteria seem more/less important based on the year, then ok. That's reasonable. But, let's not invent absurd scenarios that distract from the real issue.