ADVERTISEMENT

Article on 12 team college playoff....Delaney could be a problem...

Art said:
What I like about the NFL "system" is that the criteria for making the playoffs is established in advance and you don't wind uo with a bunch of dickheads sitting around the table deciding which teams are worthy. Wouldn't work in college football.
Click to expand...
I don't agree that it won't work for CFB. I do agree that it would take a massive change in the landscape, and that some (most) programs would not be in favor of it.

Not sure what would have to happen for college football to develop a playoff system like pro sports has. Something cataclysmic by one of the top 5 teams I suppose. And there would have to be guaranteed monies also. The revenue stream would have to be protected.
 
Mufasa94 said:
Your use of the NCAA basketball tournament refutes this statement. For example, 1985: 3 of final 4 teams from same conference.
Click to expand...
This statement is not an accurate picture. 64 teams were invited, and through a series of attrition, 3 of the 4 remaining teams were from the same conference.

It's about who gets invited to play. That is the key.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AWS1022
psuro said:
I don't agree that it won't work for CFB. I do agree that it would take a massive change in the landscape, and that some (most) programs would not be in favor of it.

Not sure what would have to happen for college football to develop a playoff system like pro sports has. Something cataclysmic by one of the top 5 teams I suppose. And there would have to be guaranteed monies also. The revenue stream would have to be protected.
Click to expand...

You're right, a massive change would be needed. You'd have to organize and schedule along the lines of the NFL. That means that conferences and ADs surrender a lot of power. Can that happen? these folks like money, but they like power much more.
 
NittanyIllinois said:
Alabama in 2017 didn't win their division, either. But they were selected for the CFP and won the whole thing.

For those on here arguing for why a conference championship SHOULD be required.......that's a valid argument. I don't personally agree with it, because sometimes a conference is so loaded that two teams from the same conference (or even division) are truly worthy. But it's a valid argument.

I do offer this hypothetical, though, to test the board's attitude toward the championship requirement.

What if we beat Michigan State in 2017?

Who would get preference among fans on this board? 11-1 non-champion PSU, or 11-2 champion OSU? OSU won the head-to-head, but (1) they got blown out by Iowa, and (2) they had two losses.

I personally would have made the argument for why PSU deserved it. Lost a nailbiter on the road against OSU, but took care of business everywhere else. You cannot expect to go to the CFP if you get blown out by 40 points and drop an additional game.

I truly believe PSU was the better team that year, regardless of the 1-point loss in Columbus.
Click to expand...
Also true regarding Bama. But like the “OSU lost by 30 proves they shouldn’t be there” argument, it’s irrelevant what happened once they are in. That has no bearing on if they earned the right to be there. Alabama did not win their division in 2017 and like OSU, did not have to risk losing in the conf championship game. In a four team playoff that is utter BS. No championship high risk game game to play, watch others from you couch beciase you aren’t good enough to win your division but go to playoffs anyway.

once they were in the playoffs, whatever happens doesn’t validate either position. They won. OSU lost.
 
I've read most of this thread and agree with some and disagree with others. But overall good discussion. My own thoughts:

As it currently stands, most years four teams is enough to determine the best team. BUT, the missing point is that because it's usually the same 4 out of about 6 or 7 schools, most of the best players go to those schools. If the playoff got expanded, that talent would dilute itself over time across more schools.

I believe head to head and conference champion should weigh more heavily than it did in 2016 when PSU had both boxes checked and OSU had none. It's fine to argue that OSU had one less loss. But it's also fine to argue that PSU's losses were early when its roster had a ton of injuries on defense (linebackers in particular). I like getting the teams playing the best at the end of the season and ignoring an early season loss or two (especially if injuries were a factor) if the other boxes are also checked (head to head and conference champs).

I think expanding to 8 might be the better way to go -- as long as the power 5 champs are automatically included. I don't care about G5 so much. I think there should be an automatic bid for one of them if they meet certain criteria. But I don't think a G5 needs included every year -- especially if the best has more than one loss. Expanding to 12 might be too many and once you go to 12, you'll never see that number reduced. Going to 8 allows for expanding later if necessary.

I would love to see the bowls included and go back to the four New Year's Day bowl lineup. This would be the quarterfinals in my preferred scenario.

Christmas Eve/Day bowls could be included if they go to 12 or more teams. I love my holiday bowl games. And even more if they have meaning.

Notre Dame and other independents shouldn't be given anything monetarily unless they make the field. Force them to join a conference if they want an annual payday.
 
Art said:
You're right, a massive change would be needed. You'd have to organize and schedule along the lines of the NFL. That means that conferences and ADs surrender a lot of power. Can that happen? these folks like money, but they like power much more.
Click to expand...
Yeah. And as I mentioned earlier in the thread it requires a different kind of governance for CFB. ADs surrendering that power would be part of that change.
 
PSUFBFAN said:
2017 is the one year that will truly haunt Penn State fans "forever". That team was better than the 2016 team and definitely had the talent to be a legit playoff team. They would have been a playoff team if they had only "blown" one game. Instead, they blew two games they never should have lost.

Barkley, McSorley, and Gesicki were arguably the best players at their positions in Penn State football history. Daesean Hamilton played at a level comparable to any of the greats at his position. It is unlikely in my lifetime that I will ever see a team where 3 or 4 of the greatest players to ever play at their positions are on the same team and side of the ball at the same time.

I recognized it in 2017, I recognize it today, and I will recognize it in 10 years - that 2017 team blew a great opportunity to put PSU into the "elite" category.
Click to expand...

McSorely, as great as he was at PSU, was not the best QB to play at PSU.

Not sure Gesicki was the best tight end either when you have guys like Kyle Brady, Ted Kwalick, Mickey Shuler and others in the conversation. Definitely top 5 though.
 
Mufasa94 said:
What are you talking about? Follow those replies back. It goes back to my questioning the absoluteness of this statement:

Your use of the NCAA basketball tournament refutes this statement. For example, 1985: 3 of final 4 teams from same conference.
Click to expand...
But more than four teams make the basketball tournament. They’re separate situations. I said in my response that we should hold off giving the trophy to the winner of the tournament until we decided which team was the best using the eye test. If basketball only took four teams, then we would be talking apples to apples. That’s why I said if you win your conference in football, you’re the best team in that conference and if you win the tournament in basketball, you’re the best team in college basketball. Those teams did what they had to do to prove they were the best. Outside of the eye test, that’s the only way to prove who’s the best.
 
AWS1022 said:
But more than four teams make the basketball tournament. They’re separate situations. I said in my response that we should hold off giving the trophy to the winner of the tournament until we decided which team was the best using the eye test. If basketball only took four teams, then we would be talking apples to apples. That’s why I said if you win your conference in football, you’re the best team in that conference and if you win the tournament in basketball, you’re the best team in college basketball. Those teams did what they had to do to prove they were the best. Outside of the eye test, that’s the only way to prove who’s the best.
Click to expand...
And eye test proves nothing.
 
I don't see any legit argument against going to 12 or 16 teams. It can't be safety because all of the lower divisions do it. It can't be academics because basketball has a longer season and more travel.
The fact that some combination of undefeated FBS teams and P5 champs get left out every year is all the reason I need to hear that we need a new system. The 12 team system will allow 4 conference champs to have a bye and 8 more teams with decent arguments to get a real shot. Will someone feel left out? "Of course!" But it sure as heck will make the complaints a lot hollower. And it will make the end of the season a lot more interesting.
 
AWS1022 said:
But more than four teams make the basketball tournament. They’re separate situations.
Click to expand...
So you use it to try and support your view but when it gets turned around against you, you say they are separate situations.

Sounds like when you selectively choose what cfb games you deem important and what games you deem inconsequential.
 
psuro said:
I did.
Click to expand...
You tried making excuses for him. If the final result proves the best team then the results up to the semi finals prove the 4 best teams.

Or are you one of those who pick and choose which results count and which are inconsequential?
 
Mufasa94 said:
So you use it to try and support your view but when it gets turned around against you, you say they are separate situations.

Sounds like when you selectively choose what cfb games you deem important and what games you deem inconsequential.
Click to expand...
Man, you are slow. I used two examples (I could have used more) to show that if you do what it takes to win, you’re considered the best. You only turned it around on me because you are too slow to follow what I’m saying. I didn’t selectively choose games, in fact I did the opposite. I said (and I’ll type slow so you can follow) if…you…do…what…it…takes…to…win…your…conference…then…you’re…the…best…team….in…the…conference. How is that selectively choosing games? I also said if you do what it takes to win the NCAA tournament in basketball, then you’re the best team in college basketball. Your eye test may not agree with that, but that’s too bad. In 2016, PSU won the Big 10, therefore they were the best team in the conference…any other argument is just using the eye test.
 
Mufasa94 said:
You tried making excuses for him. If the final result proves the best team then the results up to the semi finals prove the 4 best teams.

Or are you one of those who pick and choose which results count and which are inconsequential?
Click to expand...
Huh?
 
AWS1022 said:
Man, you are slow.
Click to expand...
If you have to continue stooping to insults, you know how your point in a discussion is going. You stated:
AWS1022 said:
If you can’t win your conference, then you’re not one of the four best teams in the country, period.
Click to expand...
You then use NCAAB tournament to support your view stating:
AWS1022 said:
They did what they had to to win the tournament or playoffs and earn the right to be called the best team in the country.
Click to expand...
I'm not debating the merits of NCAAB at all, but if you are going to make this statement about the winner of the tournament, then you must make the same statement about the final four teams, Thus, if multiple teams are in the final four from the same conference, you have provided evidence that disproves your middle quoted comment above.
 
Mufasa94 said:
If you have to continue stooping to insults, you know how your point in a discussion is going. You stated:

You then use NCAAB tournament to support your view stating:

I'm not debating the merits of NCAAB at all, but if you are going to make this statement about the winner of the tournament, then you must make the same statement about the final four teams, Thus, if multiple teams are in the final four from the same conference, you have provided evidence that disproves your middle quoted comment above.
Click to expand...
You obviously don’t get it. You’re trying to argue apples and oranges, so it’s not going to work. If the NCAA basketball tournament started with the final four, then your argument would have merit. How did those teams from the same conference get to the final four? Were they just put there? No, they earned their way there by winning. Just like the conference winners in college football. I’ll tell you what, you stick with the eye test and I’ll stick with teams should actually have to earn a spot by winning something…how’s that?
 
AWS1022 said:
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.
Click to expand...
I’ve posted this video here before, but I think it succinctly and thoroughly backs your point about OSU

 
Being that the playoff hasn’t officially been expanded yet as far as I know, I would think this potential Big 12/SEC conference shuffling around would delay any plans/voting that was to take place.

I know I wasn’t a fan of expanding to 12 to begin with, but recent notifications make it even worse.

Haven’t been following things too closely, has this topic been discussed in the media since the Texas-OU topic came to light?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back