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

I don’t get why the BCS or CFP isn’t a good example of settling it on the field.  It is settled on the field. You might not agree with the process of how the teams get there but it is settled on the field.

Because I also said that this was the goal of "settling it on the field":

A system where it gets settled "on the field" and there's one, true, undisputed champion.

If we have this much disagreement over the process of how the teams get there, then it's hard to justify it being one, true, undisputed champion. 

Clearly the BCS was flawed because it could leave out a potential "best team" when you have 130 FBS teams and only two slots. In 2004 Auburn was undefeated but as there were two other undefeated teams deemed "better", they didn't get a shot. In 2009 you had five undefeated teams (2 G5, one Cincinnati who IIRC was P6 at that time) and only two slots. Sure, I don't think Boise State or TCU would have gotten by Alabama, but Boise State did beat 'Bama in a Suger Bowl a few years prior so it's not out of the realm of possibility. 

In the CFP, we're supposed to expand the field to make sure worthy teams are included. Yet the #1 team has only won the entire thing 1 try out of 6. The #4 team has won it 33% of the time. And in both cases, that #4 team had reasons for potential exclusion (2014 OSU because there were two other 1-loss P5 co-champs that they leapfrogged, and 2018 Alabama because they weren't their own conference champion, although less so because there wasn't another 1-loss P5 conference champion available). If the team we all let skate in at the #4 slot wins the whole thing, it kinda makes our ability to determine which are the most "worthy" teams moot. If the #4 team can win it, are we really sure that the #5-6 teams aren't good enough?

You want to settle it on the field? Every P5 conference now has a very clear methodology to determine its own champion. Win your conference, you're in the field. Fill it out with 3 other teams (I favor either formally splitting P5/G5 and going 3 at large, or if you refuse to formally break the G5 away then you give the top-ranked G5 champion 1 berth with 2 at-large selections). So, eight teams.

Yes, sometimes it might mean that the "best team" is beaten by a lesser team. But that already happens with the CFP. If we're right and the #4 team going into the CFP is actually the #4 team in the country, than the best team didn't win. If we're not sure in our ability to rank the top 4 teams in the country going into the CFP, then it blows the whole system out of the water.

Settle it on the field. Win your conference and you have a shot. Everyone else who gets an at large as a beauty pageant should consider themselves lucky, not entitled to be there. 

Or go back to a mythical champion decided by polls. That's fine with me, but apparently not most football fans. If you want a playoff and to "settle it on the field", do it right. 

There are flaws in every system but we readily accept them.  Take the NFL for instance. Division champions get guaranteed spots in the playoffs, right?  Yet it is possible to go undefeated within your own division and still not win the division. Some would say that is a flaw.  It is also possible for a team to go 8-8, win its division, and make the playoffs while another team may go 11-5 and miss the playoffs, or have to go on the road to play the 8-8 team.  That could be considered a flaw.  All those flaws exist in the MLB format as well.

In the NBA it could be considered a flaw that a 37 win team in the East makes the playoffs while a 44 win team in the West doesn’t.

It could be considered a flaw that tournament champions get auto bids to the NCAA tournament instead of regular season champions.  There is also subjectivity in selecting participants but I never hear clamoring for a conference champions only model.

There is no perfect system that exists out there.  CFB has a playoff system and the championship is being decided on the field. The difference is there is a belief that worthy title contenders may not be making CFB’s playoff and we assume everyone with a reasonable shot is making the postseason in the other sports. I’m actually ok with that but I know I’m in the minority.

Which programs would you include today as a "near helmet"?  

My own definition of helmetosity is a program that gets uprated in the preseason AP poll simply because of its name.  This doesn't work if a team is really good and ranked 1,2,3 though.  Is Tennessee a near helmet"  Miami?  FSU?  Oregon?  Iowa?  

Because I also said that this was the goal of "settling it on the field":

If we have this much disagreement over the process of how the teams get there, then it's hard to justify it being one, true, undisputed champion.

Clearly the BCS was flawed because it could leave out a potential "best team" when you have 130 FBS teams and only two slots. In 2004 Auburn was undefeated but as there were two other undefeated teams deemed "better", they didn't get a shot. In 2009 you had five undefeated teams (2 G5, one Cincinnati who IIRC was P6 at that time) and only two slots. Sure, I don't think Boise State or TCU would have gotten by Alabama, but Boise State did beat 'Bama in a Suger Bowl a few years prior so it's not out of the realm of possibility.

In the CFP, we're supposed to expand the field to make sure worthy teams are included. Yet the #1 team has only won the entire thing 1 try out of 6. The #4 team has won it 33% of the time. And in both cases, that #4 team had reasons for potential exclusion (2014 OSU because there were two other 1-loss P5 co-champs that they leapfrogged, and 2018 Alabama because they weren't their own conference champion, although less so because there wasn't another 1-loss P5 conference champion available). If the team we all let skate in at the #4 slot wins the whole thing, it kinda makes our ability to determine which are the most "worthy" teams moot. If the #4 team can win it, are we really sure that the #5-6 teams aren't good enough?

You want to settle it on the field? Every P5 conference now has a very clear methodology to determine its own champion. Win your conference, you're in the field. Fill it out with 3 other teams (I favor either formally splitting P5/G5 and going 3 at large, or if you refuse to formally break the G5 away then you give the top-ranked G5 champion 1 berth with 2 at-large selections). So, eight teams.

Yes, sometimes it might mean that the "best team" is beaten by a lesser team. But that already happens with the CFP. If we're right and the #4 team going into the CFP is actually the #4 team in the country, than the best team didn't win. If we're not sure in our ability to rank the top 4 teams in the country going into the CFP, then it blows the whole system out of the water.

Settle it on the field. Win your conference and you have a shot. Everyone else who gets an at large as a beauty pageant should consider themselves lucky, not entitled to be there.

Or go back to a mythical champion decided by polls. That's fine with me, but apparently not most football fans. If you want a playoff and to "settle it on the field", do it right.

So, a coupe thoughts on this:
First, as an Ohio State fan there are a few years when it would have been REALLY nice to have two or four more teams in the CFP because the Buckeyes have been right on the bubble a LOT:

• 2014, Ohio State got in at #4 and that was hotly disputed by Baylor and TCU fans.  
• 2015, Ohio State was left out at #7 despite dominating most opposition and a single loss to a pretty good opponent.  
• 2016, Ohio State got in at #3 despite missing their CCG altogether.  This was hotly disputed by PSU fans.  
• 2017, Ohio State was left out at #5 despite having a Conference Title while #4 Bama missed their CCG altogether but finished with only one loss.  
• 2018, Ohio State was left out at #6 despite being a 1-loss Conference Champion.  

A six or eight team playoff would have gotten the Buckeyes in at least two more times (17 and 18 when they were conference champs).  

Here is the thing:  From my perspective I like that teams that might be good enough to win the whole thing sometimes don't get invited.  That keeps the regular season meaningful.  Looking at the three years that Ohio State was left out:

• 2015:  The Buckeyes lost a single game to a team that was good but not THAT good.  In retrospect the Buckeyes shouldn't have lost to the Spartans and that single loss clearly cost Ohio State a CFP berth.  
• 2017:  Ohio State  had two losses (at home to OU early and at Iowa mid-season).  They clearly would have made the playoff if they had won either of those games.  A win over Oklahoma would have knocked the Sooners (final #2) out while a win over Iowa would have left the Buckeyes 12-1 and conference Champions with a better loss than non-Champion Bama so it would have knocked the Tide out.  
• 2018:  Ohio state's only loss was at Purdue in a game that it just inexplicable.  It happens.  Obviously if the Buckeyes had won that and finished 13-0 with a Conference Title that would have cost Oklahoma their #4 spot and the field would have been three undefeated P5 Champions and undefeated Notre Dame.  

In a way it sucks, but I like that the regular season games still matter.  Ohio State's 2015, 2017, and 2018 teams were all good enough to potentially win the whole thing.  

As far as the performance of the seeds:

• #1 seeds are 5-5; 4-2 in semis; 1-3 in CG.  
• #2 seeds are 8-3; 5-1 in semis; 3-2 in CG.  
• #3 seeds are 1-6; 1-5 in semis; 0-1 in CG.  
• #4 seeds are 4-4; 2-4 in semis; 2-0 in CG.  

Yes, the #4's have won it all twice but the other four years they got bounced early and most of those were not close:

• #4 OU lost by 20 in 2015.  
• #4 Washington lost by 17 in 2016.  
• #4 OU lost by 11 in 2018.  
• #4 OU lost by 35 in 2019.  

It is a bit odd that the #1's have been so bad in CG's but the win was a blowout and two of the three losses were w/in a TD.  

Playoff match-ups:

• 4 Clemson vs Bama, 2-2
• 2 Clemson vs tOSU, 2-0 Clemson
• 1 Oregon vs FSU, 1-0 Oregon
• 1 tOSU vs Bama, 1-0 tOSU
• 1 tOSU vs Oregon, 1-0 tOSU
• 1 Clemson vs OU, 1-0 Clemson
• 1 Bama vs MSU, 1-0 Bama
• 1 Bama vs Washington, 1-0 Bama
• 1 UGA vs OU, 1-0 UGA
• 1 UGA vs Bama, 1-0 Bama
• 1 Bama vs OU, 1-0 Bama
• 1 Clemson vs ND, 1-0 Clemson
• 1 LSU vs OU, 1-0 LSU
• 1 LSU vs Clemson, 1-0 LSU

This made me think about 1984, and then 1983.

What happened in 1984 forced a group of 38 people (out of the 60 voters) to knowingly lie.  Everyone knew BYU wasn't the best team in the country, but it won the NC.  A 2-team or 4-team playoff would have fixed this.  Either BYU would have earned their #1 ranking or they would have been exposed.

In 1983, Miami wouldn't have even been in a 4-team playoff.  And while we all would probably agree that Nebraska was better than Miami, Miami won and earned the NC.  Unless you're an Auburn fan - 1 and 2 lost, #3 Auburn won their bowl, and didn't win the NC.  
Auburn would have been able to earn the NC in a 4-team playoff, but would have been excluded by the BCS.  I think the BCS exclusion is less important, as either 1 or 2 would have necessarily won.
Many would argue Auburn did earn the NC by finishing their season with wins over 5,7,4,19, and 8.  Yes, consecutively.  


You could just take my last 2 posts and take it as an opportunity to shit on the voters.  And I would join you.

My point: the entire process is predicated by this desire to see the "best team" win the championship, and we define "best team" based on a bunch of subjective eye tests, polls, popular opinion, etc. 

If that's what we want, ditch it all and give the championship based on the beauty pageant. And maybe that'll mean we won't have one unified champion. Maybe the AP and the coaches will vote different from each other. Maybe we'll have two champions, who never stepped foot on the field against each other. So what? I see no issue there.

BUT, if you want an objective champion, you have to give up the "best team" nonsense. Because the best team doesn't always win. The BCS didn't ensure that the best team was the champion. The CFP doesn't ensure the best team is the champion. 

ALL that the BCS or CFP are designed to do is legitimize the winner as the "true" champion. NOT the best team in the league. Just the one who gets the honor of calling themselves champion, at the exclusion of all others.

What I'm saying is that a system designed to legitimize the champion above all scrutiny but which has a capricious and arbitrary selection process to even gain a seat at the table cuts their legitimacy claim off at the knees. 

But even that "objective" assigning of a champion isn't possible today in college football.  The inequities among conferences and schedules are too vast. 
You'd need the P5 to split off from the rest.
You'd need the P5 to become the P4 (basically an ACC/Big12 merger)
You'd need the remaining 4 conferences to have the same number of teams and scheduling guidelines (yes/no vs FCS, if so how many, yes/no vs G5, if so how many, etc).

Even then, you SHOULD go a step further and include:
every team has 6 home/6 away games
every team plays every other team in its conference/if not that, then division/if not that, then pod
and then you'd still have co-champions, which would be determined by h2h, but statistically that's erroneous...

So in lieu of all that happening, I don't see the point of pretending it exists or will exist.