Author
Topic: Should playoff teams be expanded?
(Read 21539 times)

ELA · « **Reply #56 on:** December 14, 2018, 08:00:43 AM »

Quote from: msufan23 on December 13, 2018, 10:48:03 PM

-Incentivize more big non conference games. This system makes playing out of conference games worth while. You wont have your season end if you lose and these games can be huge factors in getting those top two spots for byes in the playoffs which I think every team would tell you is a huge benefit.

Except how are teams going to treat these? They may be big name games, but they will be de facto exhibition games.

Cincydawg · « **Reply #57 on:** December 14, 2018, 08:19:48 AM »

I think there is a recruiting incentive in playing serious OOC games for obvious reasons, already, and has been.

Take UGA, they had a poor slate this year OOC, fortunately that is unusual. And had they beat say ND, they likely would have made the playoff, instead of UMass (perhaps). If you play a Texas or even UCLA OOC, it's hypes your program, and if they are on the schedule down the road it helps with recruiting.

As for the myriad playoff schemes, I'll get serious about them when the NCAA starts talking about it. Usually, it is fans of teams that got left out most interested for obvious reasons.

Brutus Buckeye · « **Reply #58 on:** December 14, 2018, 08:20:40 AM »

Quote from: Brutus Buckeye on December 14, 2018, 07:58:59 AM

Huh?
Cincinnati and SFU have played 16 times since 2003, and the Bearcats lead the series 9-7.
This year the Bearcats beat the Bulls by 12.

Assuming he might have meant UCF instead of SFU, The Knights have had five 10+ win seasons since 2000. The Bearcats have had six, with five of them during their time in the Big East. UCF also went winless twice over that stretch, once as a MAC team (you read that right) in 2004, and again in 2015.

NorthernOhioBuckeye · « **Reply #59 on:** December 14, 2018, 08:35:20 AM »

Quote from: msufan23 on December 13, 2018, 10:48:03 PM

I like 6 Teams. The 5 P5 champions and the top G5 Champ. Also change all conference title games so that top two teams from each Conf go to the title game regardless of division.

+
-Every Con Title game is now a playoff game and worth more. You can even market these as the "Conference playoffs" maybe.
-Your season cant end in the first week of the season. A team in early Sept is often very different then the one in late Nov. College Football is the only sport were one loss in week one can end a season.
-Incentivize more big non conference games. This system makes playing out of conference games worth while. You wont have your season end if you lose and these games can be huge factors in getting those top two spots for byes in the playoffs which I think every team would tell you is a huge benefit.
-There is a clear path to winning a championship for every team.
-While only 6 teams officially make the playoffs with all your conference title games being playoffs you are really able to grow the field to 11-14 teams(depending on how many group of 5 teams are in contention on the last Saturday) without adding a bunch more games to the college football season.

Not a big fan and letting the rankings decide who plays. You are basically leaving it up to a group of people (voters) decide who is the better team even though about 90% of them never watched a complete game from either team.

While I would prefer we go back to 10 team conferences and allow teams to play a round robin, 9 team conf schedule, it's not going to happen. So the next best is the winner of each division playing a title game. NW was 8-1 in conference and won their division without question. They EARNED their shot at the conference title. I seen nothing wrong with that.

Cincydawg · « **Reply #60 on:** December 14, 2018, 08:45:18 AM »

If you want the however many best teams in any playoff, there would have to be a human judgment involved (or you rely on algorithms).

If you want to eliminate the human element, you have to rely on something like conference champs.

That would mean on occasion seeing a 10-3 kind of team get into the playoff and some 12-1 team not.

TyphonInc · « **Reply #61 on:** December 14, 2018, 09:12:28 AM »

Quote from: bwarbiany on December 13, 2018, 09:49:51 PM

6 is hard If you make it conference champs + at large, the G5 goes nuts.
If you make it conference champs + best G5, the SEC goes nuts because they can't have two teams.
If you make it "best 6 teams", the people who worry about diluting the championship AND the people who want conference championships to matter go nuts.
It's lose-lose-lose.

Not with the system I purposed; P5 Champs + At large, but if the Highest G5 team is ranked higher than the lowest P5 Champ, they replace them. Seems to check off all the bullet points.
G5 has a clear path for inclusion. ✔️
SEC can get 2 teams. ✔️
Lessens the impact of a "non-deserving" Conference Champ making the playoff. ✔️
Fans of Conference Champs get their teams in unless one of them has numerous warts. ✔️

utee94 · « **Reply #62 on:** December 14, 2018, 09:19:59 AM »

Quote from: TyphonInc on December 14, 2018, 09:12:28 AM

Not with the system I purposed; P5 Champs + At large, but if the Highest G5 team is ranked higher than the lowest P5 Champ, they replace them. Seems to check off all the bullet points.
G5 has a clear path for inclusion. ✔️
SEC can get 2 teams. ✔️
Lessens the impact of a "non-deserving" Conference Champ making the playoff. ✔️
Fans of Conference Champs get their teams in unless one of them has numerous warts. ✔️

It reintroduces the subjectivity that the "conference-champs-only" folks desire to eliminate, so it doesn't actually check that box.
6 just doesn't make sense. I don't want the "top 2" teams to have an easier path playing fewer games, because there's no objective way to determine who the "top 2" actually are. I want to eliminate opinion polls and committee rankings as much as possible.
There are all just our opinions of course, but 5+2+1 does a better job of balancing out the multiple wants/desires of the various players.

utee94 · « **Reply #63 on:** December 14, 2018, 09:21:38 AM »

Quote from: Cincydawg on December 14, 2018, 08:45:18 AM

If you want the however many best teams in any playoff, there would have to be a human judgment involved (or you rely on algorithms).

If you want to eliminate the human element, you have to rely on something like conference champs.

That would mean on occasion seeing a 10-3 kind of team get into the playoff and some 12-1 team not.

Yup, get the stupid idiot people out of it, as much as possible.

Cincydawg · « **Reply #64 on:** December 14, 2018, 09:48:35 AM »

I personally prefer human subjectivity. I know from long experience that algorithms can produce unexpected and unwanted outcomes. They work fine for a bit and then up comes something really weird, and folks start wanting human interference.

A way to test your premise if to go back in time and see how it would have done in years past. Did you find fairly often a year when the outcome was less than what you'd want?

medinabuckeye1 · « **Reply #65 on:** December 14, 2018, 09:54:40 AM »

Quote from: OrangeAfroMan on December 13, 2018, 08:28:38 PM

Do what FSU did 40 years ago.
9/19/81 @ 17 Nebraska
10/3/81 @ 7 Ohio State
10/10/81 @ ND
10/17/81 @ 3 Pitt
10/24/81 @ LSU

I'm glad you posted this because I've used this example many times myself. If UCF wants it then go earn it. Take UF's 2-for-1. Offer to go play in Ann Arbor, Columbus, or State College. Offer to go play at Clemson or Alabama. Offer to go play in Norman. Earn it. Don't sit back munching on conference cupcakes and the FCS team that you CHOSE to schedule OOC and then whine that you aren't taken seriously.

betarhoalphadelta · « **Reply #66 on:** December 14, 2018, 10:02:17 AM »

Quote from: medinabuckeye1 on December 14, 2018, 09:54:40 AM

I'm glad you posted this because I've used this example many times myself. If UCF wants it then go earn it. Take UF's 2-for-1. Offer to go play in Ann Arbor, Columbus, or State College. Offer to go play at Clemson or Alabama. Offer to go play in Norman. Earn it. Don't sit back munching on conference cupcakes and the FCS team that you CHOSE to schedule OOC and then whine that you aren't taken seriously.

It would be fun to see the committee start releasing their rankings and omit any wins over FCS teams from the listed record.

Cincydawg · « **Reply #67 on:** December 14, 2018, 10:05:25 AM »

A top FBS team will clobber a lower level FBS team just as badly as an FCS team.

A pastry is a pastry is a pastry, and some FCS programs use the money to help get to FBS.

utee94 · « **Reply #68 on:** December 14, 2018, 10:08:27 AM »

Quote from: Cincydawg on December 14, 2018, 09:48:35 AM

I personally prefer human subjectivity. I know from long experience that algorithms can produce unexpected and unwanted outcomes. They work fine for a bit and then up comes something really weird, and folks start wanting human interference.

A way to test your premise if to go back in time and see how it would have done in years past. Did you find fairly often a year when the outcome was less than what you'd want?

Taking all 5 conference champs eliminates both human subjectivity plus the chance for a corner case to bork an algorithm.
Beyond that, the other 3 spots in a 5+2+1 take care of the human interests for seeing the "Best" teams involved (even though there is no way to make this determination with so little correlation between data points) and it also allows ESPN to shove in Notre Dame and/or pacify the G5.
I'm well on record for wanting to go back to the days of yore, with old bowl affiliations, old conference alignments, and zero attention focused on the national aspect of the game, other than watching good intersectional/inter-conference matchups in the early season (and rivalry weekend). But since that's not realistic, I'm in for the 5+2+1. JMO, obviously.

ELA · « **Reply #69 on:** December 14, 2018, 10:38:45 AM »

Quote from: OrangeAfroMan on December 13, 2018, 08:28:38 PM

I'm not sure this should be the deciding factor: every team with a potential gripe gets in? Are we married and caving into the wife when she nags us enough? The phrasing is icky to me.
This is cutthroat competition, no? Fair? Are we whining that it's not fair? Do what FSU did 40 years ago.
9/19/81 @ 17 Nebraska
10/3/81 @ 7 Ohio State
10/10/81 @ ND
10/17/81 @ 3 Pitt
10/24/81 @ LSU
Sure, they were an independent, but they didn't whine. They played whoever, wherever, even on the road, and earned their way to the top of the ladder. If UCF has hit a ceiling, then go independent and load up on 2-for-1 deals and get after it.
Here's UCF's record vs ranked teams since they won the Fiesta Bowl in 2013 (ranked at the time of the game):
@ 20 Missouri - L by 28
21 Houston - L by 49
@ 5 Michigan - L by 37
22 USF - W by 7
16 Memphis - W by 7
7 Auburn - W by 7
19 Cincinnati - W by 25
In five years, they've played 7 ranked teams (at the time). Four of those were fellow mid-majors. Three others were blowout losses.
To be honest, looking at everything, the 2017/18 UCF teams should get on their knees and kiss the feet of the 2013 squad. All they did was lose by three @ 12th ranked South Carolina, hand #8 Louisville it's only loss (led by Teddy Bridgewater), and beat #6 Baylor by 10. Oh, and they beat Penn State in Happy Valley. All in the same season. THAT team has a gripe, not last year's or this year's Knights. F- them.

The FSU comparison was my first thought. MSU signed a 2 for 1 with Boise State. UCF should be seeking those out, because I would bet you'd find very few schools with Florida's cache even willing to go that far.

Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

The 'Old' CFN/Scout Crowd- Enjoy Civil discussion, game analytics, in depth player and coaching 'takes' and discussing topics surrounding the game. You can even have your own free board, all you have to do is ask!!!

Anyone is welcomed and encouraged to join our FREE site and to take part in our community- a community with you- the user, the fan, -and the person- will be protected from intrusive actions and with a clean place to interact.

Topic: Should playoff teams be expanded?

ELA

Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?

Cincydawg

Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?

Brutus Buckeye

Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?

NorthernOhioBuckeye

Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?

Cincydawg

Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?

TyphonInc

Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?

utee94

Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?

utee94

Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?

Cincydawg

Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?

medinabuckeye1

Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?

betarhoalphadelta

Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?

Cincydawg

Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?

utee94

Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?

ELA

Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?