Playoff question for the board
- Thread starter Nbergbuck
- Start date
I don't think its possible to say that. Take this year...compare the 3 loss SEC teams with Miami and SMU. Last time I looked, Mia will not play a ranked team in the regular season
I predicted before the season that we would have a 3-loss team sneak in.
History showed that team 11 or 12 in the old CFP ranking had 3 losses every other year or so…
And that not even accounting for the fact that a 3 loss Big 12 champ is likely.
We could have TWO!!!!
History showed that team 11 or 12 in the old CFP ranking had 3 losses every other year or so…
And that not even accounting for the fact that a 3 loss Big 12 champ is likely.
We could have TWO!!!!
It is all relative. IMHO, if a team has two or three losses, they can't bitch if they are not in the playoff. I think the system is going to have to evaluate if a team from, say, the Mountain West or ACC deserves a top-four seed. If at all.
I get the argument is you have two really tough losses to top opponents but if one of those is to a lightweight (MAC team, for example) that would be disqualifying. The fact is, it will be nearly impossible to win the Natty with two losses based on number of games and seeding.
Worse, can you image tOSU having to play Oregon, getting in with a 11-2 record and then having to play four more games to win it all? They'd end up being 15-2. That is 17 games! GA/AL could lose the SEC championship game and win the Natty at 14-3 if they get in with 3 losses.
Is this just a shot about 2016 because definitely not an unwritten rule and no 3 losses shouldn't exclude a team
11-1 isn't necessarily better than 9-3. That's the issue with unbalanced schedules. See Indiana who we literally have no clue if they could beat a mid tier Big Ten team.
It would depend IMO. It should be very rare that a 3 loss team gets in but it could be possible depending on how a season plays out and who they lost to, (say USC was really good this year but lost 27-23 type games to #1 Oregon, #2 Ohio St, and #6 ND while killing everyone else on the schedule). Technically it could be possible to still have that team in the top 12 so I’m not big on absolutes like the 3 loss rule.
There are a few issues with the playoff that need to be addressed. The provision of conference champs getting a bye also needs to be looked at. Why is Boise St (as of now) getting a top 4 seed and a bye week while Ohio St gets seeded lower with a first round game? I think the seeding should be based on the committee like March Madness.
There shouldn’t be a reserved spot for the G5. If they have a team good enough and ranked in the top 12 like Boise this year then they should be in. However, we shouldn’t be saving a spot for a #24 ranked team to jump multiple more deserving teams simply because they’re G5 and get special privileges.
If you're going to have subjective criteria and let the playoffs be decided by a bunch of suits in a conference room then there shouldn't be any hard and fast rules like that. Of course I disagree with this subjective approach in it's entirety, but it is what it is.
Here is my rationale. Anyone who loses 3 games is unlikely to be in the running for best team in the country. A worthy team can lose 1 game, especially early in the season. Bad weather, hostile crowd, cross-country trip to play, key injuries etc. Maybe even 2, if they are to top teams. Of course this is not a written rule there could be exceptions, though I would make few if any.
I think you’re right that it shouldn’t really happen that often. It should be very rare and only in extreme circumstances like my fictional USC team just losing to the #1, #2, and #6 teams.
Every time these discussions come up I think back to Villanova in ‘85, NC St in ‘83 type basketball teams that would never have won a title if a committee just deemed them unworthy. (I know- different sport dynamics but same general principle).
If you’re talking about a 3 loss Bama who has lost to a 5 win Oklahoma team and Vandy then no way- I’m with you on that.
I still think people are going to be surprised this year. Almost every year a 3 loss team would have made the playoffs using the final rankings in the past. Why should that now change?
The problem is how do you identify those special scenarios that you deem worthy? How do you consistently apply the same subjective selection criteria year after year when the performance of the teams of the field varies, the strength of schedule varies, and the playoff committee members change? It's impossible. I've always been in favor of anything that eliminates or reduces the subjectivity. I can't stand the dog and pony show. Championships should be decided on the field, not in a conference room.
But all the committee does is determine who gets to continue to play for it--it will be played out on the field
Way better than when it was determined by voters (who were obviously biased and could do anything they wanted) or a 4 team playoff
The more teams the less room for true complaints
I'm clearly way off base because I'm shocked how many people hate a system that would have greatly benefitted Penn State for the past 6 decades.
I agree that now with 12 teams odds are the best teams will pretty much always be included. But there will now be arguments about the seeding, which can be important. Under the 4 team model it was possible for very good teams to be left out. Prior to that it was even worse. But it's always committees, human rankings or computer rankings. I've always been in favor of a field of mostly automatic bids for conference winners, then let them duke it out on the field and may the best team win. Throw in a couple of additional at large spots for those inevitable years where there appears to be a worthy candidate that doesn't win their conference, which will only get more common with 18 team conferences and unbalanced schedules.
The committee has an impossible task to stack rank teams across all these conferences when the teams play such different schedules. It simply can't be done accurately. The answer is to stop trying, put the best of each conference on the field and settle it there.
Yes, three losses should eliminate a team. With no strict criteria for a team to get in the playoffs, there needs to be some kind of rules. If you allow three loss teams, all you’re doing is allowing as many SEC teams in as you possibly can. What about four loss teams? Are they okay? And if not, why not? How about five loss teams? Hey, if they have a tougher schedule, why shouldn’t they get in? Bottom line there needs to be some kind of base criteria to get in.
Let's talk after the ccgs. We'll have all the pertinent information then.
Today, I can't say no.
At the end of the day, the committee is going to decide "best 12" with the 5 conference champion caveats. Boise isn't going to have the 12th best resume, but if they win out they are in and it's not even a discussion.
The Big 12 winner could have 3 losses and unless Tulane gets pushed ahead, the Big 12 winner is going to make the playoff.
Heck, not that it matters, but we had an entire conference calling out our schedule in a P4, one of the consensus best 2. What the heck, ya know?
All the while, you have Missouri and Vanderbilt getting ranked (one all year, the other in and out) and they are no different than Illinois or Minnesota. Yet we never hear that those are good wins.
Today, I can't say no.
At the end of the day, the committee is going to decide "best 12" with the 5 conference champion caveats. Boise isn't going to have the 12th best resume, but if they win out they are in and it's not even a discussion.
The Big 12 winner could have 3 losses and unless Tulane gets pushed ahead, the Big 12 winner is going to make the playoff.
Heck, not that it matters, but we had an entire conference calling out our schedule in a P4, one of the consensus best 2. What the heck, ya know?
All the while, you have Missouri and Vanderbilt getting ranked (one all year, the other in and out) and they are no different than Illinois or Minnesota. Yet we never hear that those are good wins.
And I would love it to be conference winners if FBS wasn't primarily two strong conferences that have aligned due to money.
I would be absolutely fine with a 12 teams playoff in which the Big Ten and SEC had four auto bids...ACC, Big XII and the top G5 get one plus an at large. Ideally a 14 team playoff with 3 large
But in this world--if we're going to keep providing charity to about 100 programs not in the 2 main conferences then it's really tough to figure out a better way.
So you have four conference winners then throw in a couple additional spots for worthy candidates. Then we have 12 teams, but what about the additional spots for worthy candidates after 12? Maybe we go 16…then what about the worthy candidates at 17 or 18….so then we go 24….hey, can’t forget the worthy candidates at 25 or 26….and so on and so on. The only worthy candidates are the ones who win their way in on the field.
I still don't understand where people are getting at-large teams to say a 3-loss team should be out
Personally, I think Bama, USCe and Ole Miss have a better resume than Indiana
Hell, I'm not sure Illinois doesn't have a better resume than Indiana
That's without getting into Miami, SMU, Boise State and all the Big XII schools having done nothing
Even ND really hasn't done much and lost to NIU. Losing 1 game to NIU at home is as bad, if not worse, than losing to Vandy, Tennessee and OU all on the road.
Honestly, if ND falls to USC does anyone truly believe they should be in over, let's say, 9-3 USCe if they beat Clemson?
Personally, I think Bama, USCe and Ole Miss have a better resume than Indiana
Hell, I'm not sure Illinois doesn't have a better resume than Indiana
That's without getting into Miami, SMU, Boise State and all the Big XII schools having done nothing
Even ND really hasn't done much and lost to NIU. Losing 1 game to NIU at home is as bad, if not worse, than losing to Vandy, Tennessee and OU all on the road.
Honestly, if ND falls to USC does anyone truly believe they should be in over, let's say, 9-3 USCe if they beat Clemson?
If I were in charge I'd make the very unpopular decision to include ALL conference winners. That's 11 conference champs and maybe 3-5 additional at large spots to get to an even number. I'm not a huge fan of playoff byes so probably 5 at larges, 16 team team playoff. And in no world would I ever exclude an undefeated conference champ because of an injured player like what happened to FSU last year. Higher seeds host the first 2 rounds.
I know the powers that be would never agree to this though, so to compromise I'd probably take the champs from the P4, the top 2 ranked G5 champs, and 2 at large spots. 8 is a big enough field IMO. Top 4 teams host the first round.
This is how you get the SEC/Big Ten to form their own league so I'm on board.
You realize the powers that be would never agree to an 8 team playoff now either, right?
Higher seeds should host until the title game IMO
I wish we'd stop pretending there's a P4--there's a P2 and 7 other conferences (soon to be 8 with the Pac returning)
No, but does the same work for Clemson if they beat USCe? (It should)
Additionally, USCe has losses to the other 3 loss darlings. The push for their credibility seems to insinuate getting Bama and Ole Miss both in as well. Just my thoughts on the current agenda (it was on XM radio this morning re: USCe).
Myself, ND is out with a loss to USC no matter what. Backfill with 4 loss teams if need be.
This x100. That's a playoff. Traveling before a title game to some worn out bowl site is just a playoff with unnecessary steps. Sponsors afraid to give up 500k committee gigs for 8 weeks work is all it is at this point.
Oh I'm aware there's only 2 conferences that matter anymore. I wouldn't care if I had my way. Obviously it's a pipe dream that will never happen but they all play under the same NCAA football division so they all should get a shot. They also all need to share the same scheduling principles... same number of conference games, no more neutral site regular season games, structure on which weeks you can play your nonconference games (no more Wofford in late Nov only for the SEC), all P4 teams should have a minimum of one P4 non conference opponent per year, just to name a few.
The money conferences (we should call them the M2 instead of P2) can take their ball and go home and form their own league if they don't like it. If your priority is money rather than the game you are going to make decisions that don't have the best interests of the sport, the players or the fans in mind. And if your priority is money, you probably shouldn't be affiliated with public institutions of higher education either.
Clemson got destroyed by Louisville--just crushed. USCe would be a solid win but currently their best win is....Pitt
I don't think USCe/Clemson are that comparable at 9-3
Agreed on ND
I get what you're saying but I think the Big Ten/SEC merger outside of FBS is what's best for everyone
Fans get two amazing playoffs if that happens.
I'd love to see an 8 teams of
Indiana at Texas
Penn State at Georgia
Tennessee at Ohio State
Ole Miss/Bama/USCe at Oregon
Ultimately college football has been about $ for decades
Rule #1 we gonna run thru u worse than that shanty irish bul ran thru sgt Tom Brian
Clemson would be 10-2 if they win. I don't think Carolina has good enough of a resume to get in at 9-3 with a win over Clemson if Clemson doesn't have a good enough resume at 10-2 beating Carolina.
I think both are SOL unless Miami loses to Syracuse and gives Clemson the ccg berth. Carolina got smacked by Ole Miss, 2 close losses (that went from great losses to a good and bad loss), and their ranked wins are iffy (Missou is severely overranked) and waning (A&M, who might not be ranked if they lose to Texas, but probably hang out at 23ish).
I think USCe's "they've won 5 in a row, if they beat Clemson they are a playoff team" is just the current SEC agenda push to get more teams in the playoff. It bolsters the Bama and Ole Miss resumes after both fell on their face.
The SEC got greedy in taking OU and TX out of the Big 12. That entirely threw off the conference 'balance'. Had they not done that, TX would be taking the Big 12 auto bid this year and the SEC would have an extra bid for themselves.
Only because there were usually enough 1-loss teams to take 4 spots.
The unwritten rule that continues to this day is that the SEC gets an extra loss as a 'mulligan' out of respect for being the toughest conference. The old rules were: SEC team = no more than 2 losses; Other 'power' conferences (B1G, B12, PAC, ACC) = no more than 1 loss; 'Group of five' teams = win all your games and maybe we'll think about it.
Don't get me started on 2016
All fair. I just fully expect a 3 loss SEC team to get in. I think that's Bama but if USCe wins...those 5 straight wins mean, in theory, they're peeking at the right time.
I think it's really tough this year to get to 12 as I just don't see the ACC or Big XII getting two. Big XII basically can't.
Though maybe A&M wins out and that's the answer.
Using your example, why should a USC team that has demonstrated that it's not as good as the numbers 1, 2 and 6 teams even get an opportunity to play for a so called national championship? Why should those number 1, 2 and 6 teams potentially have to beat that USC team again?
So how are you picking the at large teams? And if the garbage conferences get into the tournament, why don’t some of the P4 teams just join a garbage conference so they can pretty much have an auto bid in every year?
Losing to a team doesn't "demonstrate" that you aren't as good. The better team doesn't always win.
One game doesn't prove anything which is why they would have to
Stop living in the 70s
Because it’s a year end playoff and teams change as the year progresses plus injuries, off days, etc. It’s similar to March Madness where teams may have played earlier in the year.
Using the same reasoning, then Ohio St shouldn’t be in the playoff this year. They lost to Oregon. Why should Oregon have to beat them again? Do we just hand the title to undefeated Oregon and cancel the playoff as everyone else has lost a game or 2?
The conference winners and conference division winners should advance to the playoff. No ccg. Make conferences with 14 or more teams split into divisions. That gives you 15 conference/division winners. 16 when the pac reconstituted itself. That would be a real playoff. A championship should be based on the full body of work which should include winning something. Putting a 3rd or 4th place team in reduces the playoff to a nice entertaining invitational tournament. That's especially true when there are no rules to advance. Just a bunch of men making selections.
I've seen it argued that a OSU or PSU would move to a "lower" conference because that makes it easier to get to the playoff. That's just plain silly. There is no way they would give up Big 18 money to do that so it's a specious argument.
Now I agree the invitational will generate more interest. Keep more fan bases thinking there's a chance. Keep more internet boards arguing. Keep more eyes on TVs and probably generate more money which is what it's all about anyway.
All sports have gone to allowing lucky losers into there "playoff" because of what I just listed. Money. However, at least those sports have predefined rules for advancing. They don't get to the end of the season and vote.
Only way to fix this is make a mega group of with 48 or 64 teams. Have 8 divisions of 6 or 8. Play all your division teams plus cross over. 6 team divisions work better as you can play 11 games that way then add one game against lower level teams that aren’t in this but need the cash of those games. Each division winner gets into 8 team playoff. No rankings will be needed.
