Article on 12 team college playoff....Delaney could be a problem...
- Thread starter psuro
- Start date
If you start expanding it to 12 or 16, you'll get teams resting their starters in the last games of the year. That brings in a whole lot of other problems. The idea of 2 or 4 teams getting a bye is grossly unfair, too. Do you want Herbie, Desmond, Pollack, and the other worthless talking heads to essentially pre-determine which 2 or 4 teams get a bye to begin the playoff? If the "top 4" teams get a bye, that just continues to increase the odds that one of them will win it all. It's hard to lose a game if you don't have to play a game. You just continue to perpetuate the problem.
8 is the right number - automatic bids to all P5 conference champions, 1 G5, and 2 at large. That system will continue to put the pressure on everyone to make every game count.
No, that statement is only based on your attempt at assigning a thought to me.
When decisions were made, PSU won no more than tOSU and lost twice as much. That outweighs a single head to head result and nice label.
If winning matters, then PSU should have been in because they won the conference and they beat OSU.
OSU got locked into the 3rd spot. PSU's problem was not with OSU, it was getting beat out of the 4th playoff spot by a 1-loss Washington who went through a cream puff schedule that year. The B1G assumed that 1-loss OSU had a better shot at getting in than a 2-loss PSU.
Your argument is definitely valid.
In the 4-team construct, the committee has a choice to make as to what they value more: (1) a conference title, or (2) losing less than 2 games.
It's clear that they have consistently gone with #2. 2016 PSU and 2017 OSU were both evidence of that -- each won the Big Ten, but each got beat out by 1-loss non-champions because they had multiple losses. On top of that, each had lopsided losses. PSU blown out by Michigan, OSU blown out by Iowa.
I tend to agree with the committee's value of total losses over whether or not a team was a conference champ. Just one man's opinion. But having multiple losses is a killer to a team's claim in a 4-team construct. Particularly if one of those losses was a blowout. In 2016 PSU's case, the other loss was to a mediocre Pitt team. If the blowout loss was the only loss OR if the Pitt loss was the only loss.......fine. But both?
So in Mufasa's defense, yes.......winning DOES matter as evidenced by the committee's decision to punish teams that lost more than once.
It absolutely does and PSU would have been the easy pick over OSU with just one loss. But that 2nd loss killed PSU's chances in the eyes of the committee - especially that blowout loss to Michigan which the committee noted. I truly believe that PSU had a better team than Washington that year but a 1-loss Washington was picked for the 4th and final playoff spot. No matter how anyone tries to spin it, a 2nd loss is a killer in today's 4-team playoff scenario
Last edited:
You are only accounting for 10 of the 13 games that PSU played up to that point. Why don’t you consider all 13?
Let me also ask you this: If PSU were an independent and played that exact same schedule with the exact same results, do you still think PSU should have been invited over tOSU?
I’m not arguing what they did do, I’m arguing what they should have done. And if winning is truly the key, then winning your conference should be a requirement.
No because “winning” isn’t just about the number of games you’ve won, it’s about winning your conference. Two main questions for OSU that year and if the answer to either is “no”, then they shouldn’t have gone to the CFP...1. Did you win win your conference? 2. If not, did you at least beat the team that did? Both answers were no, so they shouldn’t have made it. That’s just my opinion.
Too much BS behind the scenes in the old days, nothing is ever going to be perfect, but this much better than the old days of giving Uncle Tom a title in 94 because he had never won one..
Even with an expanded number of teams in the playoffs, will the elite players continue to "skip or sit out" the games because they don't want to risk injury for their NFL career? The past few years have seen a dramatic increase in the number of elite players, (or not so elite), sitting out because of not wanting to get hurt. If that trend continues, would it matter how many teams are allowed a spot in the play-offs, knowing that you are probably not getting the "best" team at that time.
I think they would play if they’re in the playoffs. They will skip the bowl games.
ummm...yes. Find me another sport where winning your conference/division/etc doesn't matter in determining playoff eligibility and seeding. Find me another sport where conference/divisions games don't have more meaning than non-conference games.
If PSU beating OSU and winning the B1G doesn't matter for the CFP, then why even have a playoff? If winning doesn't matter, then why couldn't the CFP committee decide the losing team in the championship game is actually better and award them the Championship? If winning doesn't matter, then nothing else does.
Further, most sports leagues operate under consistent guidelines for competition. College Football conferences are all run independently with their own structures. It's nearly impossible to subjectively determine who is best inter-conference.
The goal of a playoff should be to determine THE best team in the nation, not the 2nd best. If Alabama and Auburn are thought to be the best 2 teams in the country, we already know that Auburn is NOT the best if they lose to Alabama.
The only potential fair and objective structure is for the CFP to be a playoff of conference champs. Leave it to the conference to determine their best team and send that team to the playoff. Winning should matter.
Sorry, but no. PSU beat OSU and won the B1G. Full stop. end of story. Winning [SHOULD] matters
As evidenced by Penn State's head to head win, and Ohio State's 31-0 loss to Clemson in the 2016 playoff game.
They would absolutely play if they're in the playoffs as they'll be getting the exposure playing against the best and knowing NFL teams are glued into the playoffs. To my knowledge, no kid has skipped out of the college playoffs yet
Top 4 will get byes and teams 5 -8 will host a playoff game. I don't think you would see many teams resting players with byes and home playoff games on the line. One of the top 4 teams will normally win it all even without have byes. This format will just give an additional 8 teams a chance.
I think you gotta give the top ranked Group of 5 team an auto berth, because that team will likely be ranked outside the Top 8 in many years, simply because of the strength of schedule issue and inherent bias to rank such teams lower. Seems like two at large berths should be enough. I won't be shedding any tears for Bama, Clemson or Ohio State if they fail to get in under that kind of playoff system.
Teams like Wisconsin and PSU should love this new playoff format. They're always decent but just a step behind OSU. And once they're in the playoffs, anything can happen
Last edited:
No. The controversies now are who gets the last spot usually - and they usually end up getting drilled by the 1st seed. The old system gave way too much power to jowly sportswriters who went to grade school with Fielding Yost.
The current system, as riddled with faults as it is, would never result in a 1984 type joke.
There are two ways to look at it. The reality way which follows the committee’s criteria which had no requirement of being a conference champion, thus tOSU was a logical selection.
Or, the theoretical way which uses your conference champion requirement. I’ll just say any criteria that says ‘16 tOSU or ‘17 Bama is ineligible while ‘03 KSU or ‘04 Pitt are is not based on winning games, which I thought was what was supposed to be rewarded.
The reality, as explained by the playoff idea when it was introduced, was that this new playoff system was going to look at all kinds of things and was going to reward teams for getting hot at the end of the season or teams that came back from some key injuries. It was supposed to be a big change and look at a vast array of criteria. But in the end, the “reality way” ended up being the same as it always was....name of the school and number of losses. If you can’t win your conference, then you’re not one of the four best teams in the country, period. Eye test doesn’t cut it.
Actually, all the pro sports count games the same, they only use conference/divisions for tiebreakers. Being tOSU had a better record, they would have finished higher than PSU. Otherwise, I don't want another sports format for cfb, if you do, then I will gladly find you another sport.
For all your mentioning of winning, I find it interesting you think the team that was less successful at it deserved more credit.
Exactly. So name one good reason why all the games a team plays in the nation shouldn't count.
That would depend. While likely true, I wouldn't use a single game result to definitively say one team was better than another. Are you suggesting Pitt was better than PSU in '16?
The only fair way is to selectively choose what games you deem important and what games you deem inconsequential? What an interesting fair and objective way to think.
Do you think this was a clever one liner? So tOSU got whooped by the champs by 31. That is so bad in comparison to PSU losing a nailbiter to Michigan by 39, or just losing to Pitt that year.
Or, would you prefer to thump you chest about a game our boys lost when scoring 49 points against a 3-loss team that had earlier lost by 46 to the season's #2 team.
What was the extra game equivalent, maybe Purdue or Pitt? if so, PSU deserved what they got by losing it.
PSU completely blew their real opportunity in '17 at MSU.
The 4 team playoff has more or less had the best team win the championship every year. PSU not making it as Big Ten champ would probably be where the people looking for controversy would point but that was a 2 loss team. It is what it is which is hyper ESPN SEC networkization of College Football instead of just having 19 y/os play pro ball.
Show one statement released from the committee where they stated it was supposed to be "hot at the end of the season".
It was put in place to eliminate things like '04 with the unbeatens that couldn't be accounted for with just 2 teams, or the many years where which team was #2 and which was #3 was up for huge debate.
They talked about it all over the place on sports radio. They said multiple times that they put a committee together to look at all kinds of criteria and how it was going to be so much more in depth. I listened to it frequently. They should have just said it was a committee that was going to pick teams the same way the BCS system did, it would have been a lot more honest at least.
I want a set criteria for gaining entrance to the playoff. Period. Stop with the Gof5, the independents. No more committees. No more computers. No more polls saying who's in.
Win something, you are in. Cut teams, add teams, whatever. Coastal Carolina would have to go undefeated 2 years in a row to even be CONSIDERED under this system. I'm not saying they are worthy based on their schedule, but if they aren't, cut em loose to a division they can be worthy in.
Win something, you are in. Cut teams, add teams, whatever. Coastal Carolina would have to go undefeated 2 years in a row to even be CONSIDERED under this system. I'm not saying they are worthy based on their schedule, but if they aren't, cut em loose to a division they can be worthy in.
Osu benefitted from skipping the ccg specifically so let’s say a rematch with Wisconsin a week after the emotional win against michigan.
Delany could be a problem? Where have I heard that?
With College Football Playoff change looming, a 12-team model leads the way
While popular sentiment has the College Football Playoff expanding to an eight-team tournament, that isn't the focus of the sport's power brokers.www.yahoo.com
A few sources brought up former Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany’s consulting role with the Rose Bowl — half jokingly — as a potential road block to playoff expansion.
Delany was a longtime playoff obstructionist and famously helped orchestrate a Rose Bowl deal with ESPN before the CFP was put together that blocked the sport’s best windows from the highest-profile games.
Strongly disagree. Pitt somehow beat two of the top 5 best teams in the country and still lost 5 games.
Guessing a true playoff would restore some balance. Also change ways teams schedule and change a lot of the structure of the unknown.
Nobody is incapable of being upset unless you think coaching really does win more than the guys on the field that one bad shift can change an entire game instantly. And upsets are good for sports.
Further to the point: the committee also rewarded OSU for NOT playing in a conf championship game and Not risking losing. In that scenario. OSU had one loss, sure, but they also had one less game in which to lose. It was clearly far better to sit home and not play for a championship as a way to get into the playoff.
and funny that we focus on OSU didnt win their conference. They didn’t even win their division. Sheesh. Hard to imagine how that’s a good criteria for inclusion over actual champions.
A thread on a new playoff format and pitt is mentioned in it, I need to go back to bed.....
