Fryowa
Administrator
I disagree. 8 teams would hit a sweet spot with conference winners and still fit reasonably well in a standard length season. Like I mentioned before you'd only have to add one week.
8 Team Playoff Will Happen
- Thread starter ChosenChildren
- Start date
GrandpaHawk
Well-Known Member
Good discussion, right now one of the big conferences is left out each year,is that fair? I can see in the near future taking each champion from the 5 and next 3 at large teams ranked the highest.
HomerChampless
Well-Known Member
I think we'll be looking at an, at least, 8 team playoff in the near future.
Why include each big5 conference champion automatically in an 8 team playoff? Will each of the 8 playoff teams be from different conferences or independent? Are we talking about that dynamic? How many will be conference champions and how many will be independents?
Shouldn't this playoff be wholly concerned with competition among the best teams and not politics?
Why include each big5 conference champion automatically in an 8 team playoff? Will each of the 8 playoff teams be from different conferences or independent? Are we talking about that dynamic? How many will be conference champions and how many will be independents?
Shouldn't this playoff be wholly concerned with competition among the best teams and not politics?
Last edited:
deanvogs
Well-Known Member
Giving each conference champ is getting rid of the politics. Every teams has a clear and unpolitical path to the playoffs, and no Playoff committee bullshit can keep them out. If you don't win your conference the you get lumped in with the rest of the teams and then you have to deal with the political bullshit at that point.
HomerChampless
Well-Known Member
Giving one spot to each (power5) conference champ is politics. Decide on a set of metrics. Have every playoff 'decider' follow those metrics. No deviations. You'll get the best teams. Complaining will arise from disagreements with the metrics. Those metrics can be discussed and enhanced for future playoff competitions.
deanvogs
Well-Known Member
Why would they set metrics? They want the freedom to select OSU every year. One year they say conference championships matter and OSU jumps TCU/Baylor, 2 years later OOC matters not conference champions, so they select OSU again.....but wait, If conference championship don't matter and OOC does, how does Washington go when their OOC is 127 out of 128 teams.
It is beyond dumb to keep out a conference champion.....
HawkeyeWalker
Well-Known Member
Then why even have conferences? if being champion means nothing, concerning making the cfp. imo, 8 is about right, P5 champs auto bid, 3 for those "great" teams that the committee can banter about. Most years you probably end up with 1-2 teams that maybe shouldn't be there, but that's better than possibly having 1-2 that don't get a shot due to "politics", but should.
Last year, 4 teams was fine (although I still believe Stanford prolly should have been in), as it was pretty clear AL and Clemson were the best 2.
This year? 8 would have been great. You still get the drama that everyone loves so much with who gets 6,7,8 spot. committee can chew on that brain teaser and be all "torn"
deanvogs
Well-Known Member
Great points. Nobody cries when each year a NFL team makes the playoffs at .500 or a game over .500. Top 4 seeds win the NCAA tournament 85% of the time, should we trim that down to a 16 team tournament?
Let teams in, let them prove it on the field, instead of having ESPN lecture us and tell us who the best teams are.
ssckelley
Well-Known Member
So you like my idea of having the first round being played at the site of the lower seed (as in #1 seed gets home game) and letting the loser still qualify for a bowl?
HomerChampless
Well-Known Member
Ah jeeze. I'm not saying conference championships account for nothing. I'm alluding to a *Straw man argument alert* other HN members are attempting with their posts. Let the conference champion, either through the record at the end of conference play or championship game, be a positive part of the metric...just not the end all or be all of the metric. That's politics and doesn't determine the best teams for the football playoff. Do you really think Washington's conference championship game win makes them automatically one of the 4 best teams in this playoff? I don't. For that matter, Oklahoma not a playoff contender because they didn't win their conference championship game?
I understand the committee who currently decides the playoff teams thinks a conference championship winner decided in a conference championship game is greatly necessary to make the playoffs. I don't say absolutely necessary because tOSU got in not being the winner of a conference championship game and playing one less game in the process.
More and better metrics that are used throughout the season might, IMO, ELIMINATE the need for conference championship games.
There should be some metric that all playoff teams play the same number of games.
Taking this to the extreme, having Iowa play a, for example, FCS school would account for 1/2 game played and might disqualify them from playoff competition. Think what the metric might be if Iowa lost to an FCS school. Or, at least, someone can haggle about this part of the metric.
Someone should examine the politics of the decision by the playoff committee to include tOSU. Quite possibly the committee wanted to avoid the backlash from the politics that demand at least (usually not more) one team from the B1G makes the playoffs? Why not more than one from one conference team in the playoffs ? Hum?
Quite possibly the committee examines the performances of the later stages of the season by a team like tOSU? Of course, the committee would also have to examine the quality of the competition teams like tOSU were facing in this stretch of games.
Just seeing what might stick...Sounding more and more like BCS formulas, huh?
Conferences will maintain some semblance of integrity..even the Big XII because fans will be able to attend traditional rivals games and the Big XII might actually get a team in the playoffs without having a conference championship game..
I understand the committee who currently decides the playoff teams thinks a conference championship winner decided in a conference championship game is greatly necessary to make the playoffs. I don't say absolutely necessary because tOSU got in not being the winner of a conference championship game and playing one less game in the process.
More and better metrics that are used throughout the season might, IMO, ELIMINATE the need for conference championship games.
There should be some metric that all playoff teams play the same number of games.
Taking this to the extreme, having Iowa play a, for example, FCS school would account for 1/2 game played and might disqualify them from playoff competition. Think what the metric might be if Iowa lost to an FCS school. Or, at least, someone can haggle about this part of the metric.
Someone should examine the politics of the decision by the playoff committee to include tOSU. Quite possibly the committee wanted to avoid the backlash from the politics that demand at least (usually not more) one team from the B1G makes the playoffs? Why not more than one from one conference team in the playoffs ? Hum?
Quite possibly the committee examines the performances of the later stages of the season by a team like tOSU? Of course, the committee would also have to examine the quality of the competition teams like tOSU were facing in this stretch of games.
Just seeing what might stick...Sounding more and more like BCS formulas, huh?
Conferences will maintain some semblance of integrity..even the Big XII because fans will be able to attend traditional rivals games and the Big XII might actually get a team in the playoffs without having a conference championship game..
Last edited:
D
DDThompson
Guest
so what are your metrics: schedule 1 other P5 team and no I-AA?
since schedules are contracted years in advance then how do you know the metric of scheduling stiff competition in 2016 will still be stiff competition in 2024? Luck is worse than politics.
A metric of 9 conference games?
To what end? Conference championships don't matter unless the committee says it does or SOS doesn't matter unless they say it does.
An 8 team playoff that has the P5 champions means 5 teams will be in the playoff based solely what they did on the field.
Not in an office and not by the luck of scheduling.
HomerChampless
Well-Known Member
You make good points. I want to disagree with one in particular. A team that wins their conference championship game (or doesn't participate in said champ. game) IS/ISN'T a determinant of the quality of that team? Washington, Oklahoma or tOSU this season? I think when one decides P5 championship game winners are automatically in the playoffs, teams like tOSU are out..and if teams like tOSU are in, what is this metric? Actually, I think having a B1G representative in the playoffs is that metric. Do you want a B1G automatically in the playoffs or the Big XII automatically out until they come up with a championship game? I don't actually care what it is <this isn't entirely true>, I just want to see uniformity for every team in every, at least, P5 conference throughout the season.
Last edited:
deanvogs
Well-Known Member
The only fair way to allow access to all teams is to let conference champions in, this will keep politics out of the process as much as can be hoped. The NFL lets in 8-8 division winners who would never make it in if they played in a tougher division. They all play different schedules, and they don't let some "committee" pick who the next playoff teams are, they allow in enough teams so that you don't leave out someone even ever so slightly or mildly deserving. Big deal with #1 blows out #8, that is what happens all the time in the NCAA tournament as well. Plus if Bama can't beat say a Penn. St. in the first round, how in the hell can you say they deserve to be National Champions?
It is that way in ALL OTHER SPORTS. WTF is college football acting like this is the 1950's? Let them decide it on the field, instead of in some freaking committee conference room.
deanvogs
Well-Known Member
You can't and never will have "uniformity". The NFL can't do it with 1/2 the teams that college football has. So make it regional, battle it out in your conference and last man standing (conference champ) gets an automatic spot.
I also keep saying that this will get us better OOC games as well. A loss won't kill you like it did Penn St. Right now the committee is saying it is better to play Washington's OOC which was ranked #127 out of #128 teams, instead of going on the road and playing a competent P5 rival like Pitt.
That is the only difference between Washington and Penn St. Washington took the patsy schedule route and was rewarded big time.
Fryowa
Administrator
Yep. You still have to let the loser qualify for a bowl, otherwise you'd have teams that won their conferences but didn't make a bowl game (even though they made the playoffs).
HomerChampless
Well-Known Member
I understand having a conference championship game is like automatically having a 'high-rated' opponent on one's strength of schedule. Let's face it, on many occasions, official raters of teams' strengths of schedules fall into the 'this team is great 'cause they are the head of their division' mentality. For example, did MSU defeating highly ranked Iowa in last season's B1G championship game prove MSU was one of the 4 that should be playoff bound? No. Did Iowa's possibility of winning the B1G championship (the head of their division and undefeated) have anything to do with Iowa's lofty rating last season? Yes.
FBS schools scheduling FCS schools will have a moratorium of X years to stop scheduling FCS schools. That's easily arranged.
Tie breaker rules are standard and don't change in the NFL. What are the tie breaker rules in the college playoffs? You tell me.
What's the college tie breaker rule if a traditional P5 conference championship winner like the B1G had with Pedo State was prevented from making the playoffs while tOSU from the same conference was accepted?
BTW, if the college playoffs used the same rules (division winners make the playoffs) as the NFL, the college playoffs would use conference championship game winners and Pedo State would be one of the 4 in this season's college football playoffs and, until the playoffs were enlarged to at least 8, tOSU would be out this season.
I'm just looking for uniformity of rules. Get politics out. Don't compare the NFL playoff system to the college playoff system because it's not.
FBS schools scheduling FCS schools will have a moratorium of X years to stop scheduling FCS schools. That's easily arranged.
Tie breaker rules are standard and don't change in the NFL. What are the tie breaker rules in the college playoffs? You tell me.
What's the college tie breaker rule if a traditional P5 conference championship winner like the B1G had with Pedo State was prevented from making the playoffs while tOSU from the same conference was accepted?
BTW, if the college playoffs used the same rules (division winners make the playoffs) as the NFL, the college playoffs would use conference championship game winners and Pedo State would be one of the 4 in this season's college football playoffs and, until the playoffs were enlarged to at least 8, tOSU would be out this season.
I'm just looking for uniformity of rules. Get politics out. Don't compare the NFL playoff system to the college playoff system because it's not.
Last edited:
MelroseHawkins
Well-Known Member
Agree, 8 is perfect for football. All P5 teams get a chance to make it plus 3 at large opportunities for either P5 teams or a rogue West Michigan or Boise St any given year. Bowls can be incorporated and having 8 still makes the regular season games all important and doesn't water it down. Teams still can only afford to lose 1-2 games most years.
The whole goal is to get the two most deserving teams in a c-ship game so no need to invite more than 8 giving all conferences a chance at the title. One will argue what about the 9 or 10 teams that don't get an invite. Well, I think they have to go by a very specific matrix for the 3 at large teams like measuring SOS and results or something like that. It they fall out tough crap for that year.
This also would make all teams make sure they scheduled the best they could and not have sand bag teams/games (See SEC in the end of the season).
drop mic.
MelroseHawkins
Well-Known Member
Yep. Give each p5 conference a chance to represent. Every team will know what they have to do to make it and no one can really bitch. But, the NCAA does seem to like drama as it gets into the media, so who knows.
The regular season games mean everything in college football. The more you expand a playoff, the less the regular season matters. If it does indeed expand to 8 teams (I hope it does not), then you not only give the top 5 "power" conferences an automatic spot, but you also must give the American conference champ an automatic spot and guarantee the best conference champ from the remaining conferences (13-0 Western Mich has no way to get in the playoffs with 3 at large teams).
Conference championships need to be a requirement if you expand the playoffs (thus expanding the playoffs, removing subjectivity), otherwise its just a popularity "eye test". That leaves one at large for a team like OSU, eliminating as much of a "ranking" system as possible. Not to mention the ridiculousness of preseason rankings having such an immense impact on people opinions and so called strength of schedule.
Furthermore, if the playoffs were to expand, then the argument becomes where are games played? Home games should never be allowed in college football playoffs. The advantage is enormous. How are the home teams picked in purposed expanded playoff? The response is always to rely on the subjective rankings, why did we then eliminate the rankings from picking the champion anyways, if we are simply going to award certain teams a home game because they are magically ranked higher?
Conference championships need to be a requirement if you expand the playoffs (thus expanding the playoffs, removing subjectivity), otherwise its just a popularity "eye test". That leaves one at large for a team like OSU, eliminating as much of a "ranking" system as possible. Not to mention the ridiculousness of preseason rankings having such an immense impact on people opinions and so called strength of schedule.
Furthermore, if the playoffs were to expand, then the argument becomes where are games played? Home games should never be allowed in college football playoffs. The advantage is enormous. How are the home teams picked in purposed expanded playoff? The response is always to rely on the subjective rankings, why did we then eliminate the rankings from picking the champion anyways, if we are simply going to award certain teams a home game because they are magically ranked higher?
