CFB51 College Football Fan Community

The Power Five => Big Ten => Topic started by: Hawkinole on December 12, 2018, 12:05:22 PM

Title: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: Hawkinole on December 12, 2018, 12:05:22 PM
I saw this article today stating that the CFP expansion has received a "groundswell of support."

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2810445-college-footballs-influential-voices-ready-to-discuss-8-team-playoff-format?utm_source=cnn.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=editorial (https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2810445-college-footballs-influential-voices-ready-to-discuss-8-team-playoff-format?utm_source=cnn.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=editorial)
 (https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2810445-college-footballs-influential-voices-ready-to-discuss-8-team-playoff-format?utm_source=cnn.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=editorial)
I would argue a two team playoff would have sufficed this year. There are two teams that appear better than all others, Clemson and Alabama. I take just the opposite conclusion from the arguments over the teams left out of the playoff. Ultimately this is driven by money, and no longer driven by academics.

If playoffs are to be expanded, the regular season should be shortened.
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: SFBadger96 on December 12, 2018, 01:41:10 PM
Honest question: why Clemson?
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on December 12, 2018, 01:56:23 PM
Will the OP willing to eat crow if one of the other two teams wins the NC? 
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on December 12, 2018, 02:01:40 PM
Honest question: why Clemson?
IMHO, this is a very fair question.  Clemson *MIGHT* be as good as most of us think they are, but I don't think that is proven yet.  There are two ways to prove it, one is to play a really strong schedule.  Neither Bama nor Clemson did that.  The other is to thoroughly dominate your opposition.  Bama did that but Clemson really didn't.  Clemson had two one score wins:

Those two were Clemson's only games against teams that were ranked in the final CFP Poll.  By comparison, here were Bama's:
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: Entropy on December 12, 2018, 02:02:40 PM
and to be fair.. Missouri wouldn't be ranked if they were in the BIG.   
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on December 12, 2018, 02:04:01 PM
Will the OP willing to eat crow if one of the other two teams wins the NC?
IMHO, he shouldn't have to.  If Oklahoma or Notre Dame wins that doesn't mean that they were better over the course of the whole season, it just means that they were better when it counted.  IMHO, that would not prove that they should have been #1 all along or even that they should have been in the CFP.  Conversely, if Bama and/or Clemson gets run off the field in the semi-final that will not "prove" that they shouldn't have been in the CFP.  
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: ELA on December 12, 2018, 02:08:52 PM
IMHO, he shouldn't have to.  If Oklahoma or Notre Dame wins that doesn't mean that they were better over the course of the whole season, it just means that they were better when it counted.  IMHO, that would not prove that they should have been #1 all along or even that they should have been in the CFP.  Conversely, if Bama and/or Clemson gets run off the field in the semi-final that will not "prove" that they shouldn't have been in the CFP.  
100%
It's why that VCU run when they had no business making the tourney was so infuriating.  People used that as a counter, when it wasn't.  Nobody was ever saying they weren't good enough, simply that their resume didn't warrant it.  I always use the example that I think by the end of the year USC would have steamrolled either Miami or Ohio State in 2002.  But does that mean they should have been in the title game?  Nope.
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on December 12, 2018, 02:16:38 PM
First, my perspective:

I am a fan and an alum of a school that has been right in the thick of the #4 argument every year that the CFP has existed.  If there had been an 8-team playoff (with or without auto-bids) my team would have been clearly in every year:

I wish my team was heading to their fifth consecutive playoff but I hope we do not expand.  The current playoff has four slots and there are five major conferences so we all know before the season even starts that at least one of them (two this year, in 2017, and in 2016) are going to get left out.  A lot of people hate that, but I actually like it.  I like it because it inherently means that there is nothing automatic about it.  Every game matters because you not only have to win enough games, you also have to do it in such a way that you look good doing it.  Blowout losses to 6-6 teams can be fatal.  I'm ok with that because it makes games against 6-6 teams relevant.  
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on December 12, 2018, 02:36:39 PM
Assuming that we had adopted an 8-team playoff with auto-bids for the five P5 Champions and the highest ranked G5 Champion, here are the quarter-final match-ups that would have occurred from 2014-2018:
2014:
2015:
2016:
2017:
2018:
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on December 12, 2018, 02:44:53 PM
IMHO, he shouldn't have to.  If Oklahoma or Notre Dame wins that doesn't mean that they were better over the course of the whole season, it just means that they were better when it counted.  IMHO, that would not prove that they should have been #1 all along or even that they should have been in the CFP.  Conversely, if Bama and/or Clemson gets run off the field in the semi-final that will not "prove" that they shouldn't have been in the CFP.  
I get what you are saying. They wouldn't deserve to go under the previous 2-team format. The DO deserve to go under a four team format, however. If one of them wins it they will most likely have to get through Clemson AND Bama. If they can do that, then they certainly prove that they are as good as those two. 

Notre Dame would be an undefeated team with a win over both of this year's "more deserving" teams. I mean c'mon.
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on December 12, 2018, 04:29:02 PM
I get what you are saying. They wouldn't deserve to go under the previous 2-team format. The DO deserve to go under a four team format, however. If one of them wins it they will most likely have to get through Clemson AND Bama. If they can do that, then they certainly prove that they are as good as those two.

Notre Dame would be an undefeated team with a win over both of this year's "more deserving" teams. I mean c'mon.
In this regard the playoff has changed things a LOT.  Pre-playoff even the BCSNCG teams only played ONE highly ranked opponent in the post-season.  Thus, there was still the possibility of a split title (see LSU/USC in 2003).  Now there really isn't.  Whoever wins the CFP will do so by winning TWO games against teams ranked higher than any team that any of the teams outside of the CFP will play.  
Example, this year:
Even if you think that #5 UGA and/or #6 tOSU should be ranked ahead of #4 Oklahoma and/or #3 Notre Dame, the Bulldogs and Buckeyes are not going to be in a position to prove it unless ND/OU get massacred in the semi-final.  Suppose that #5 Georgia humiliates #15 Texas in the Sugar Bowl while #6 Ohio State does the same thing to Washington in the Rose Bowl.  They *MIGHT* pass OU/ND if the Sooners and Irish lose in the first round but there wouldn't even be an argument to put either the Bulldogs or Buckeyes at #1 no matter what happens in the playoff because no matter what, the winner will pick up two top-4 wins.  
FWIW:
I view Notre Dame somewhat differently than I view Oklahoma.  I'm saying this as someone who absolutely despises Notre Dame but they went undefeated on a reasonable schedule.  Based on final rankings, they:
They did have some alarming close calls against the likes of Ball State, Vandy, Pitt, and USC but I'm willing to overlook that for an undefeated team with at least some quality wins.  Notre Dame has those and if they manage to win the CFP they'll have more and better quality wins than anyone else.  

Oklahoma is a different case in part because they have a loss and in part because their defense is just awful.  We all had our doubts about Ohio State's defense this year but when I looked at advanced stats, Oklahoma's defense made Ohio State's look like the Steel Curtain.  They are THAT bad.  Even there, if the Sooners manage to win the CFP they'll have more and better quality wins than Georgia and Ohio State combined so there isn't much you could say to argue with them as #1.  
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: Cincydawg on December 12, 2018, 05:33:18 PM
I like uncertainty and mayhem, but then I'm retired.

Go back to the Olden Times and stop this forward pass silliness and play real man football.
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on December 12, 2018, 05:46:47 PM
I like uncertainty and mayhem, but then I'm retired.

Go back to the Olden Times and stop this forward pass silliness and play real man football.
Like Georgia Tech under Paul Johnson? 
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: Cincydawg on December 12, 2018, 05:48:23 PM
Good point, leave the forward pass alone.

Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: Cincydawg on December 12, 2018, 05:50:19 PM
Here's something to ponder.  An expanded playoff would:

1.  Generate more money.
2.  Likely generate more fan interest.
3.  Is desired by most CFB fans who think it's obvious.

And yet we don't have it, nor are the prospects for having it in say 5 years looking good at all.

It might contemplating the reasons it does not exist as they are barriers one has to traverse.
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: bayareabadger on December 12, 2018, 10:58:13 PM
Assuming that we had adopted an 8-team playoff with auto-bids for the five P5 Champions and the highest ranked G5 Champion, here are the quarter-final match-ups that would have occurred from 2014-2018:
2014:
  • #1 SEC Champion Alabama vs #20 MWC Champion Boise State
  • #2 PAC Champion Oregon vs #7 MissSt
  • #3 ACC Champion Florida State vs #6 TCU
  • #4 B1G Champion Ohio State vs B12 Champion Baylor
  • Best teams left out is #8 Michigan State (10-2)
2015:
  • #1 ACC Champion Clemson vs #18 AAC Champion Houston
  • #2 SEC Champion Alabama vs #7 Ohio State
  • #3 B1G Champion Michigan State vs #6 PAC Champion Stanford
  • #4 B12 Champion Oklahoma vs #5 Iowa
  • Best team left out is #8 Notre Dame (10-2)
2016:
  • #1 SEC Champion Alabama vs #15 MAC Champion Western Michigan
  • #2 ACC Champion Clemson vs #7 B12 Champion Oklahoma
  • #3 Ohio State vs #6 Michigan
  • #4 PAC Champion Washington vs #5 B1G Champion PSU
  • Best team left out is #8 Wisconsin (10-3)
2017:
  • #1 ACC Champion Clemson vs #12 AAC Champion UCF
  • #2 B12 Champion Oklahoma vs #8 PAC Champion USC
  • #3 SEC Champion Georgia vs #6 Wisconsin
  • #4 Alabama vs #5 B1G Champion Ohio State
  • Best team left out is #7 Auburn (10-3)
2018:
  • #1 SEC Champion Alabama vs #9 PAC Champion Washington
  • #2 ACC Champion Clemson vs #8 AAC Champion UCF
  • #3 Notre Dame vs #6 B1G Champion Ohio State
  • #4 B12 Champion Oklahoma vs #5 Georgia
  • Best teams left out is #7 Michigan (10-2)

This honestly seems fine. I like that most of the No. 9 teams were playing for a spot in the CCG or the last week of the regular season. 
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: FearlessF on December 12, 2018, 11:10:37 PM
I voted, NO
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: ELA on December 13, 2018, 11:02:02 AM
Here's something to ponder.  An expanded playoff would:

1.  Generate more money.
2.  Likely generate more fan interest.
3.  Is desired by most CFB fans who think it's obvious.

And yet we don't have it, nor are the prospects for having it in say 5 years looking good at all.

It might contemplating the reasons it does not exist as they are barriers one has to traverse.
It's rare anymore you see a decision that leaves money on the table.  We all know which way this is going.
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: ELA on December 13, 2018, 11:04:02 AM
Apparently UCF's AD said Florida offered them a 2 for 1 and they turned it down, because no other school in their position, coming off consecutive top 10 finishes would agree to anything less than a home and home, and that given recent success, they should get the 2 home games.

I'm sorry, but if that's your mentality, you don't deserve a shot at the playoff.  Just getting a P5 team to play you at this point is tough, and one willing to do a 3 game series that includes one true home game for you?  You take that deal every time.  My guess is the 13-0 National Champions* is worth more to them than a home game, and winding up 12-1.
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: mcwterps1 on December 13, 2018, 11:15:37 AM
Of course. 

Every power 5 and UCF's of the world should be allowed to play for the title.
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: Cincydawg on December 13, 2018, 11:24:54 AM
I submit that an expanded playoff is a decade or more in the future, even with money being left on the table.  There are significant interests against this expansion.
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on December 13, 2018, 11:29:52 AM
Of course it will take a long time. What has that got to do with whether or not we personally believe that it should be done?
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: GopherRock on December 13, 2018, 11:57:42 AM
I'll trade an 8 team playoff for the elimination of conference championship games and ending the regular season no later than Thanksgiving. 
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: Cincydawg on December 13, 2018, 12:01:12 PM
Of course it will take a long time. What has that got to do with whether or not we personally believe that it should be done?
Not a thing about anyone's personal beliefs, nor did I suggest such a thing.
I am pointing out that interested powerful parties apparently are against this move, obviously.
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on December 13, 2018, 12:07:45 PM
They probably are. It took them forever to get to this point
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on December 13, 2018, 12:33:38 PM
No, for the sanctity of the regular season.  I don’t want it to turn into college basketball.

Important for 4 months > Important for 3 weeks.
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on December 13, 2018, 03:03:16 PM
Apparently UCF's AD said Florida offered them a 2 for 1 and they turned it down, because no other school in their position, coming off consecutive top 10 finishes would agree to anything less than a home and home, and that given recent success, they should get the 2 home games.

I'm sorry, but if that's your mentality, you don't deserve a shot at the playoff.  Just getting a P5 team to play you at this point is tough, and one willing to do a 3 game series that includes one true home game for you?  You take that deal every time.  My guess is the 13-0 National Champions* is worth more to them than a home game, and winding up 12-1.
That and the fact that the chose to schedule an FCS team make their *NC a complete joke.  I didn't like it when B1G teams played FCS opponents and I am not a fan of SEC teams doing it now but for them/us it balances off the schedule.  For UCF it is a complete joke.  They are 13-0 with ZERO wins over ranked teams.  You can't schedule that complete crap and then cry that you didn't get into the playoff.  
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: FearlessF on December 13, 2018, 03:10:36 PM
Amen

If the Gators offered them a 2-1 they should have been thrilled with the opportunity and grabbed it with both hands

if they want in the top 4, UCF should be looking for deals like this.
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on December 13, 2018, 05:55:00 PM
They might be hesitant to do a 2-for-1 with us because crowd-wise, it would wind up being 3 home games for the Gators.



Looking back historically, Florida would routinely play teams in Tampa and Orlando.  
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on December 13, 2018, 06:01:41 PM
It's still chicken shit. 

The Bearcats once agreed to four games in Columbus in exchange for one game in Cincinnati. 

Damn near knocked off the 02 National Championship team in the Bengals stadium too. 
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on December 13, 2018, 06:10:31 PM
btw, USF had no trouble scheduling a 2-for-1 with Florida 
2021 - Tampa
2022 - Gainesville
2025 - Gainesville

Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: LittlePig on December 13, 2018, 06:14:13 PM
Assuming that we had adopted an 8-team playoff with auto-bids for the five P5 Champions and the highest ranked G5 Champion, here are the quarter-final match-ups that would have occurred from 2014-2018:
2014:
  • #1 SEC Champion Alabama vs #20 MWC Champion Boise State
  • #2 PAC Champion Oregon vs #7 MissSt
  • #3 ACC Champion Florida State vs #6 TCU
  • #4 B1G Champion Ohio State vs B12 Champion Baylor
  • Best teams left out is #8 Michigan State (10-2)
2015:
  • #1 ACC Champion Clemson vs #18 AAC Champion Houston
  • #2 SEC Champion Alabama vs #7 Ohio State
  • #3 B1G Champion Michigan State vs #6 PAC Champion Stanford
  • #4 B12 Champion Oklahoma vs #5 Iowa
  • Best team left out is #8 Notre Dame (10-2)
2016:
  • #1 SEC Champion Alabama vs #15 MAC Champion Western Michigan
  • #2 ACC Champion Clemson vs #7 B12 Champion Oklahoma
  • #3 Ohio State vs #6 Michigan
  • #4 PAC Champion Washington vs #5 B1G Champion PSU
  • Best team left out is #8 Wisconsin (10-3)
2017:
  • #1 ACC Champion Clemson vs #12 AAC Champion UCF
  • #2 B12 Champion Oklahoma vs #8 PAC Champion USC
  • #3 SEC Champion Georgia vs #6 Wisconsin
  • #4 Alabama vs #5 B1G Champion Ohio State
  • Best team left out is #7 Auburn (10-3)
2018:
  • #1 SEC Champion Alabama vs #9 PAC Champion Washington
  • #2 ACC Champion Clemson vs #8 AAC Champion UCF
  • #3 Notre Dame vs #6 B1G Champion Ohio State
  • #4 B12 Champion Oklahoma vs #5 Georgia
  • Best teams left out is #7 Michigan (10-2)

This seems much better to me than the 4 team CFP.  Every team with a potential gripe gets in.  8 seems like the perfect number to me.
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: FearlessF on December 13, 2018, 07:01:20 PM
btw, USF had no trouble scheduling a 2-for-1 with Florida
2021 - Tampa
2022 - Gainesville
2025 - Gainesville


well, let's hope they win 2 of 3
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: FearlessF on December 13, 2018, 07:03:04 PM
It's still chicken shit.

The Bearcats once agreed to four games in Columbus in exchange for one game in Cincinnati.
I wouldn't call it chicken shit, but if you're pleading at the top of your lungs for respect......... that's your opportunity
it would be chicken shit if the Gators turned it down
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on December 13, 2018, 08:28:38 PM
This seems much better to me than the 4 team CFP.  Every team with a potential gripe gets in.  8 seems like the perfect number to me.
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.
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on December 13, 2018, 08:31:20 PM
Or just win the beauty contest.  Pass the eye test.  Have a resume and performance the committee can't deny.




When did that become an unrealistic goal???  College football has always been about urgency.  It's great because EVERY loss is potentially damning.  Whether it's 1973 or 83 or 2023, every loss should make a team feel like it's in peril.  That it lost it's chance.  



Or we could open the floodgates so no one's feelings get hurt.  
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: FearlessF on December 13, 2018, 08:42:10 PM
the last 5 is impressive

too bad it's not 5 in the past 2 seasons

22 USF - W by 7
16 Memphis - W by 7
7 Auburn - W by 7
19 Cincinnati - W by 25
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on December 13, 2018, 08:45:30 PM
I disagree actually - would you call it impressive if Clemson or Georgia's two wins vs. G5 teams were by 7 points each?  I'd call those outcomes embarrassing, even if both teams were ranked.  


A G5 team ranked in the teens or twenties is simply a G5 team that didn't schedule anybody tough, so they have a nice record.
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: FearlessF on December 13, 2018, 08:49:36 PM
hey, I didn't say it was enough to put them in the top 4

just impressive

Georgia hasn't won 5 in a row vs the top 25

has Clemson?
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: TyphonInc on December 13, 2018, 09:41:27 PM
So the current 4 team playoff contract can be opted out in 2022. I think I would prefer that we go to 6 teams, see how that plays out before jumping straight to 8.

Run it for 6 years, at 6 (Kinda like it seems we are going to do with the 4 teams playoff.) And see how hard the push back it to go to 8.
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on December 13, 2018, 09:49:51 PM
So the current 4 team playoff contract can be opted out in 2022. I think I would prefer that we go to 6 teams, see how that plays out before jumping straight to 8.

Run it for 6 years, at 6 (Kinda like it seems we are going to do with the 4 teams playoff.) And see how hard the push back it to go to 8.
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. 
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: FearlessF on December 13, 2018, 09:51:10 PM
the G5 loses with 6
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on December 13, 2018, 09:52:42 PM
Who would have to do the opting out?  Why would the SEC or ACC opt out of it?  
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on December 13, 2018, 09:53:04 PM
the G5 loses with 6
The G5 has already lost.
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: FearlessF on December 13, 2018, 09:54:10 PM
and that losing will continue

especially with 5 or 6
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on December 13, 2018, 10:25:49 PM
A G5 auto-bid under the 8 team format should only be available if they run the table imo. 

Of course then you might have a year where two of them do it. But that could happen anyway. 
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: FearlessF on December 13, 2018, 10:43:37 PM
bids should be earned by play on the field, not auto

Washington didn't earn a big this season

IF pitt or northwestern would have pulled the upset in the CCG, neither would have earned a bid
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on December 13, 2018, 10:49:39 PM
Auto-bids are indeed earned by winning your Conference. 
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: msufan23 on December 13, 2018, 10:50:09 PM
bids should be earned by play on the field, not auto

Washington didn't earn a big this season

IF pitt or northwestern would have pulled the upset in the CCG, neither would have earned a bid
All Conf title games should just be the top two teams regardless of division I think. If you are good enough to make the title game and then win it you have earned your place in the playoff over the course of a season I think.
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: FearlessF on December 13, 2018, 11:11:55 PM
So is Northwestern the 2nd best team on the Big Ten or Michigan?  Both 8-1 in conference

I don't like the idea of an 8-1 Michigan getting a rematch a week later after losing 62-39

Syracuse and Pitt both 6-2 in the ACC

Washington vs Washington St. rematch in the PAC?

I don't think it helps much

I like that it eliminates some fluky upsets, but I'd rather not have non-con games and rankings tell us who's 2nd best in the conference
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: msufan23 on December 13, 2018, 11:26:25 PM
So is Northwestern the 2nd best team on the Big Ten or Michigan?  Both 8-1 in conference

I don't like the idea of an 8-1 Michigan getting a rematch a week later after losing 62-39

Syracuse and Pitt both 6-2 in the ACC

Washington vs Washington St. rematch in the PAC?

I don't think it helps much

I like that it eliminates some fluky upsets, but I'd rather not have non-con games and rankings tell us who's 2nd best in the conference
I dont think you need to use anything other then normal conf rules. Michigan would go by virtue of the win they had over Northwestern. I cant speak to the other conf because I dont know who beat who.  Im fine with rematches since it can happen anyway. This would at least you give better games on the whole. It would also keep the fringe 7-5 type teams out more often. 
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: FearlessF on December 13, 2018, 11:35:31 PM
I like the better games slant, just don't think Michigan deserved another chance after their performance vs the Bucks
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: Hawkinole on December 14, 2018, 01:02:25 AM
well, let's hope they win 2 of 3

btw, USF had no trouble scheduling a 2-for-1 with Florida
2021 - Tampa
2022 - Gainesville
2025 - Gainesville


That's different. USF plays Raymond James Stadium. They might well force Pig Town into playing them home-and-home, as UF fans will help USF fill the place at a premium price. USF is almost on par with UF and FSU in terms of talent and performance. Bearcats are not on par or close to Ohio State. Bearcats may be the 2nd best team in Ohio, or in many years, they may not be the 2nd best team.
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: Cincydawg on December 14, 2018, 07:44:17 AM
I think if an opponent has a 60+K seat stadium they can fill for a game, they merit a home and away agreement.

If they play in a 30 K stadium, not.

And UF fans would fill up the UCF stadium if UCF doesn't anyway.

Of course, if you schedule UCF now for games in '26, they could be mediocre by then.
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on December 14, 2018, 07:58:59 AM
That's different. USF plays Raymond James Stadium. They might well force Pig Town into playing them home-and-home, as UF fans will help USF fill the place at a premium price. USF is almost on par with UF and FSU in terms of talent and performance. Bearcats are not on par or close to Ohio State. Bearcats may be the 2nd best team in Ohio, or in many years, they may not be the 2nd best team.
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.
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: ELA on December 14, 2018, 08:00:43 AM
-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.
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: Cincydawg 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.
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on December 14, 2018, 08:20:40 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.
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: NorthernOhioBuckeye on December 14, 2018, 08:35:20 AM
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. 
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: TyphonInc on December 14, 2018, 09:12:28 AM
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. ✔️
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: utee94 on December 14, 2018, 09:19:59 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.  
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: utee94 on December 14, 2018, 09:21:38 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. 
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: 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?
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on December 14, 2018, 09:54:40 AM
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.  
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on December 14, 2018, 10:02:17 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. 
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: Cincydawg 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.

Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: utee94 on December 14, 2018, 10:08:27 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.
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: ELA on December 14, 2018, 10:38:45 AM
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.
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: utee94 on December 14, 2018, 10:52:38 AM
I agree with the sentiment, but FSU was an independent, while UCF and Boise State both have conference schedules to worry about.  Even without the conference schedule constraint, I also wonder if either one could find 5 major programs to schedule them in each season?  Things are very different now, compared to 4 decades ago.
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on December 14, 2018, 10:59:36 AM
I think one of the things that bothers us is that the goal posts move from year to year.  Compare Ohio State this year to Michigan State in 2015 for a great example:
In 2015 MSU looked shaky in a number of wins (by 3 over 9-4 Oregon, by 3 over 2-10 Purdue, by 7 over 4-8 RU) and they had a REALLY bad loss (to a sub .500 Nebraska team).  OTOH, they had a win over Ohio State and they were B1G Champions and they get into the CFP with almost no debate.  

It is pretty hard to make a case that 2018 Ohio State was substantially worse than 2015 Michigan State.  Ohio State's loss was worse but their signature win was better (MSU's win over tOSU in 2015 was by a FG at the buzzer, tOSU's win over M was much bigger).  Both were B1G Champions with a group of alarming close-calls against mediocre and bad teams.  

Some people, I think, are troubled that two very similar teams (2015 MSU and 2018 tOSU) get very different results.  2015 MSU got the #3 seed and there was almost no argument to leave them out in favor of any of the top teams left out:

2018 Ohio State was a very similar team but they finished ranked three spots lower at #6.  

That bothers some people but frankly I think it is what makes the sport exciting.  This year was unusual with three major undefeated teams.  Since the advent of the BCS in 1998 that has only happened twice in 21 years.  

Consider Ohio State's 2018 season over the five years of the CFP so far:

So over the five years Ohio State's 2018 record would have:
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on December 14, 2018, 11:00:46 AM
I agree with the sentiment, but FSU was an independent, while UCF and Boise State both have conference schedules to worry about.  Even without the conference schedule constraint, I also wonder if either one could find 5 major programs to schedule them in each season?  Things are very different now, compared to 4 decades ago.
FSU's 1981 schedule is obviously extreme but I don't need to see THAT from UCF.  I'd be happy with a two or three games against teams that finished ranked.  Even one would be an improvement.  
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: utee94 on December 14, 2018, 11:29:08 AM
FSU's 1981 schedule is obviously extreme but I don't need to see THAT from UCF.  I'd be happy with a two or three games against teams that finished ranked.  Even one would be an improvement.  
Most of the helmets won't even take their calls.  Their best bet would be looking to schedule solid teams from major conferences that often end up ranked, but of course even that's a crapshoot.  This year if they had scheduled, say, Wisconsin, they'd have been screwed.  And that's not a jab at Wisconsin, the Badgers are a team that has been consistently good and just had an unusually down year.
But, had they scheduled Wisconsin, and the Badgers ended up having a tough season like this one, would they be given any credit in the post-season discussion?  And, should they be given any credit?  Ultimately we're still talking about resume' and not intent.
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: 847badgerfan on December 14, 2018, 11:40:48 AM
The Badgers are going to Tampa next year to play USF - as part of a 2/1 agreement. They would certainly do the same with UCF. But, as you say, that doesn't do much good this year. UW lost to BYU for God's sake (the last of 3 games in a 2/1 agreement). The next one up is Hawaii.
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: Badger1969 on December 14, 2018, 11:40:59 AM
I voted yes, unless you're one of the top tear helmet schools you have little or no chance of getting to play in the NC with a two or four team playoff.  You can't convince me that the committee is making an unbiased decision of pick between two teams with the same record and comparable wins for the season.  They will always take Alabama or another SEC team over a Wisconsin, Washington or Oklahoma St. because of their past winning history.  I remember when Wisconsin went to the Rose Bowl in 1994.  I think they were tied with Ohio St but since they hadn't been their since 1963 they got to go to the Rose Bowl and play UCLA who just got knocked out of consideration for the NC with a last game lost.  The Media was all over this saying that Wisconsin had no chance in hell beating the almighty UCLA.  UCLA should be in the playoffs or matched with Ohio St. ( Badgers won 21 - 16 )  Now did Wisconsin have the better team in 1994?  Probably not, but that day they did and I think they could have given Nebraska a competitive NC game.  
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: 847badgerfan on December 14, 2018, 11:43:42 AM
I voted yes, unless you're one of the top tear helmet schools you have little or no chance of getting to play in the NC with a two or four team playoff.  You can't convince me that the committee is making an unbiased decision of pick between two teams with the same record and comparable wins for the season.  They will always take Alabama or another SEC team over a Wisconsin, Washington or Oklahoma St. because of their past winning history.  I remember when Wisconsin went to the Rose Bowl in 1994.  I think they were tied with Ohio St but since they hadn't been their since 1963 they got to go to the Rose Bowl and play UCLA who just got knocked out of consideration for the NC with a last game lost.  The Media was all over this saying that Wisconsin had no chance in hell beating the almighty UCLA.  UCLA should be in the playoffs or matched with Ohio St. ( Badgers won 21 - 16 )  Now did Wisconsin have the better team in 1994?  Probably not, but that day they did and I think they could have given Nebraska a competitive NC game.  
I hate to quibble, but it was the 1998 team that "had no business being in the Rose Bowl" game. But yes, your point stands. They could have given Lincoln a game.


1993-UCLA (Pac 10)
9/4vs.*California (http://www.jhowell.net/cf/scores/California.htm#1993) (9-4)L2527
9/18vs.Nebraska (http://www.jhowell.net/cf/scores/Nebraska.htm#1993) (11-1)L1314
9/25@*Stanford (http://www.jhowell.net/cf/scores/Stanford.htm#1993) (4-7)W2825
9/30@San Diego State (http://www.jhowell.net/cf/scores/SanDiegoState.htm#1993) (6-6)W5213
10/9vs.Brigham Young (http://www.jhowell.net/cf/scores/BrighamYoung.htm#1993) (6-6)W6814
10/16vs.*Washington (http://www.jhowell.net/cf/scores/Washington.htm#1993) (7-4)W3925
10/23@*Oregon State (http://www.jhowell.net/cf/scores/OregonState.htm#1993) (4-7)W2017
10/30vs.*Arizona (http://www.jhowell.net/cf/scores/Arizona.htm#1993) (10-2)W3717
11/6@*Washington State (http://www.jhowell.net/cf/scores/WashingtonState.htm#1993) (5-6)W4027
11/13vs.*Arizona State (http://www.jhowell.net/cf/scores/ArizonaState.htm#1993) (6-5)L39
11/20@*Southern California (http://www.jhowell.net/cf/scores/SouthernCalifornia.htm#1993) (8-5)W2721
1/1vs.Wisconsin (http://www.jhowell.net/cf/scores/Wisconsin.htm#1993) (10-1-1)L1621@ Pasadena, CARose Bowl
 
8-4-0
 368230
 
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: Badger1969 on December 14, 2018, 11:55:05 AM
Well with old age I guess my memory fades a little.  LOL  I stand corrected.
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: ELA on December 14, 2018, 11:56:52 AM
I think one of the things that bothers us is that the goal posts move from year to year.  Compare Ohio State this year to Michigan State in 2015 for a great example:
In 2015 MSU looked shaky in a number of wins (by 3 over 9-4 Oregon, by 3 over 2-10 Purdue, by 7 over 4-8 RU) and they had a REALLY bad loss (to a sub .500 Nebraska team).  OTOH, they had a win over Ohio State and they were B1G Champions and they get into the CFP with almost no debate.  

It is pretty hard to make a case that 2018 Ohio State was substantially worse than 2015 Michigan State.  Ohio State's loss was worse but their signature win was better (MSU's win over tOSU in 2015 was by a FG at the buzzer, tOSU's win over M was much bigger).  Both were B1G Champions with a group of alarming close-calls against mediocre and bad teams.  

Some people, I think, are troubled that two very similar teams (2015 MSU and 2018 tOSU) get very different results.  2015 MSU got the #3 seed and there was almost no argument to leave them out in favor of any of the top teams left out:
  • #5 Iowa was not a Champion and lost H2H to MSU
  • #6 Stanford had two losses
  • #7 Ohio State was not a Champion and lost H2H to MSU

2018 Ohio State was a very similar team but they finished ranked three spots lower at #6.  

That bothers some people but frankly I think it is what makes the sport exciting.  This year was unusual with three major undefeated teams.  Since the advent of the BCS in 1998 that has only happened twice in 21 years.  

Consider Ohio State's 2018 season over the five years of the CFP so far:
  • In 2018 it wasn't enough, obviously.  
  • In 2017 it probably would have been enough.  The 4th spot would have been between 11-1 non-Champion Bama and 12-1 B1G Champion Ohio State.  
  • In 2016 it clearly would have been enough
  • In 2015 it clearly would have been enough
  • In 2014 I'm not sure.  The fourth spot would have been between tOSU, Baylor, and TCU just as it was and Ohio State's 2018 record might not have been enough.  

So over the five years Ohio State's 2018 record would have:
  • Gotten the Buckeyes in easily twice (2015, 2016)
  • Probably gotten the Buckeyes in once (2017)
  • Left the Buckeyes just outside twice (2014, 2018)

Yeah, I said all along, even leading into the OSU-UM game that 2015 MSU is who OSU most reminded me of.  They were winning ugly, had one bad road loss (MSU's was a close loss to a bad team, OSU's was a blowout loss to a mediocre team), and ultimately wound up beating the team that probably was the best, and went on to win the conference title.
There were two differences though.  #1, as you pointed out, there was no realistic alternative to MSU.  But #2, is the MSU beat an undefeated #4 Iowa in the Big Ten Championship Game, while OSU beat a 4 loss Northwestern team.  If OSU had played a better CCG opponent, there's a chance they could have leaped Oklahoma.
The other thing is that while MSU was #3, I think that was contrived to get an actual 1-4, 2-3 matchup.  I think everyone thought Alabama was easily the best team, but Clemson was undefeated and Alabama had a loss.  So it was tougher to justify putting Alabama #1 than putting MSU #3.  So they moved MSU past Oklahoma to get what they felt were true 1-4 and 2-3 matchups, although the actual seedings were flipped.
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: 847badgerfan on December 14, 2018, 11:57:36 AM
Well with old age I guess my memory fades a little.  LOL  I stand corrected.
Me too pal, but your point is clear. UW could have hung with anyone that year. Damn Goofers.
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: 847badgerfan on December 14, 2018, 11:59:04 AM
Yeah, I said all along, even leading into the OSU-UM game that 2015 MSU is who OSU most reminded me of.  They were winning ugly, had one bad road loss (MSU's was a close loss to a bad team, OSU's was a blowout loss to a mediocre team), and ultimately wound up beating the team that probably was the best, and went on to win the conference title.
There were two differences though.  #1, as you pointed out, there was no realistic alternative to MSU.  But #2, is the MSU beat an undefeated #4 Iowa in the Big Ten Championship Game, while OSU beat a 4 loss Northwestern team.  If OSU had played a better CCG opponent, there's a chance they could have leaped Oklahoma.
The other thing is that while MSU was #3, I think that was contrived to get an actual 1-4, 2-3 matchup.  I think everyone thought Alabama was easily the best team, but Clemson was undefeated and Alabama had a loss.  So it was tougher to justify putting Alabama #1 than putting MSU #3.  So they moved MSU past Oklahoma to get what they felt were true 1-4 and 2-3 matchups, although the actual seedings were flipped.
If OSU was playing the #4 team in the playoff ranking this year, I believe they do pass OU. But, we'll never know.
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on December 14, 2018, 12:20:49 PM
Most of the helmets won't even take their calls.  Their best bet would be looking to schedule solid teams from major conferences that often end up ranked, but of course even that's a crapshoot.  This year if they had scheduled, say, Wisconsin, they'd have been screwed.  And that's not a jab at Wisconsin, the Badgers are a team that has been consistently good and just had an unusually down year.
But, had they scheduled Wisconsin, and the Badgers ended up having a tough season like this one, would they be given any credit in the post-season discussion?  And, should they be given any credit?  Ultimately we're still talking about resume' and not intent.
Wasn't there a team just within the past few years that essentially did this? 
Tried to schedule hard OOC, but the OOC teams that normally would have been good all sucked that year, and ended up taking a reputational hit for playing weak teams?
(Note: it may not have been G5. It might have been someone like an Iowa or Wisconsin.)
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on December 14, 2018, 12:23:57 PM
I voted yes, unless you're one of the top tear helmet schools you have little or no chance of getting to play in the NC with a two or four team playoff.  You can't convince me that the committee is making an unbiased decision of pick between two teams with the same record and comparable wins for the season.  They will always take Alabama or another SEC team over a Wisconsin, Washington or Oklahoma St. because of their past winning history.
Agreed. And that's what I quibble with as a Purdue fan. Purdue's only sure-fire way to get in is as a 13-0 team.
Even as a 12-1 conference champion, the committee will find ANY way to put just about any helmet team ahead of Purdue. They'll say the B1G West was weak, or the OOC wasn't impressive enough, or too many close wins, etc. 
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on December 14, 2018, 12:55:42 PM
I.vote bwarbiany as the unquestioned ruler of the CFB playoffs.
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on December 14, 2018, 01:22:30 PM
But #2, is the MSU beat an undefeated #4 Iowa in the Big Ten Championship Game, while OSU beat a 4 loss Northwestern team.  If OSU had played a better CCG opponent, there's a chance they could have leaped Oklahoma.

The other thing is that while MSU was #3, I think that was contrived to get an actual 1-4, 2-3 matchup.  I think everyone thought Alabama was easily the best team, but Clemson was undefeated and Alabama had a loss.  So it was tougher to justify putting Alabama #1 than putting MSU #3.  So they moved MSU past Oklahoma to get what they felt were true 1-4 and 2-3 matchups, although the actual seedings were flipped.
The issue of playing a 4-loss B1G-W Champion as opposed to playing an undefeated B1G-W Champion is pretty close to my point.  My point is that whether or not you make the playoffs often depends on things that are completely outside of the control of your team.  How highly your CG opponent is ranked is just one of those things that you don't get to control.  MSU got a highly ranked 12-0 Iowa team and that was a gift two ways.  First, it gave the Spartans a highly ranked opponent and second that highly ranked opponent wasn't nearly as good as their record so the Spartans effectively got credit for playing one of the best teams in the Country without actually having to play one of the best teams in the country.  I don't mean that to knock the 2015 Spartans (or even the 2015 Hawkeyes for that matter) it just is what it is.  Sometimes you get a highly ranked CG opponent (like UW in 2014 or Iowa in 2015) and sometimes you don't (like NU or Pitt this year).  
The only certainty is going 13-0 and even there you could theoretically be the fifth undefeated team behind four other undefeated P5 Champions but that is EXTREMELY unlikely as I don't think anything like it has happened since at least 1979*.  Consequently, playing a mediocre Pitt team in the ACCCG didn't hurt Clemson.  If you lose a game you get yourself into a situation where a record that would get you in most years or at least some years might not get you in THIS year.  
*1979 pre-bowl AP Poll:
Even if wacky 1979 there were only three undefeated major conference champions and one of those had a tie.  
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on December 14, 2018, 02:21:51 PM
Most of the helmets won't even take their calls.  
If they're not taking the call, and a 2-for-1 is on the board, they're idiots.  It's a safe trip to fertile recruiting grounds.  
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: utee94 on December 14, 2018, 05:07:27 PM
If they're not taking the call, and a 2-for-1 is on the board, they're idiots.  It's a safe trip to fertile recruiting grounds.  
It's an unnecessary risk.  Won't get any credit for winning, and you're blasted for losing.  Scheduling another helmet or even a reasonable P5 is a much better bet.  And most of the helmets don't need a trip to Florida for recruiting, it's the next-tier teams that do.
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: rolltidefan on December 14, 2018, 05:31:15 PM
Wasn't there a team just within the past few years that essentially did this?
Tried to schedule hard OOC, but the OOC teams that normally would have been good all sucked that year, and ended up taking a reputational hit for playing weak teams?
(Note: it may not have been G5. It might have been someone like an Iowa or Wisconsin.)
2016 houston was kinda like that. they played and beat oklahoma and louisville (both ranked #3 at time of games). both finished ranked, ou top 5 i think. problem with houston was they lost some other games. had they gone undefeated they'd have been in, no doubt, maybe even with 1-loss (prob not).
and it didn't hurt bama, but in last 2 years our "hard" ooc opp (fsu and louisville) were supposed to be good, but tanked hard. i'm sure someone else had a similar situation that didn't get the benefit of the doubt like bama did/does.
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: Cincydawg on December 14, 2018, 06:02:52 PM
Blowing out teams consistently matters.  Close wins over bad teams matter.  Optics matter.

We talk about '95 Nebraska because they blew everyone out.  

It was a different time, but I've noted that the 1979 UGA edition went 0-4 in OOC play, which is almost impossible to conceive, and was one game from winning the SEC and going to the Sugar Bowl.  They were tied in that one game at the half.

Weird stuff happens sooner or later, usually later, which is why it is weird.
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on December 14, 2018, 06:06:52 PM
Well if this thread has cleared up anything, it's that a lot of people will be unhappy no matter what the post season structure looks like. 
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: utee94 on December 15, 2018, 12:14:55 AM
Of course.  People are different.  They have different goals and objectives, different opinions.  Of course not everyone will be happy with the current system.  Or the next one.  Or the past one.
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on December 15, 2018, 02:15:47 AM
I wonder if the voting breakdown has anything to do with being a fan of a helmet vs non-helmet.  
I understand my viewing lifetime has coincided with by far the best run Florida has ever had, but that being said, I do not want an environment in which Florida loses and I shrug my shoulders, knowing we're still in it for the NC.  If you're a fan of a helmet (or elite team in your lifetime), you know that feeling of dread and angst on the rare occasion your team loses.  If your team peaks at 7-5, you don't know this feeling.  It's what made the college football regular season mean something.  You knew that once you lost, you'd need some conspiracy theory stuff to happen bam-bam-bam for you to have any way back to the NC...and sometimes it happened!!  
But ever since OU got lambasted by KSU in the XIICG that one year and still made it into the BCSNCG, it's all felt wrong.  Or I don't know, Nebraska getting pantsed and still playing Miami for the NC, whichever happened first.  That was the beginning of this new college football regular season, in which no one loss is particularly damning.  Now, you team loses, you shrug.  Still in it, still able to achieve all our goals without angels parting the Red Sea.  
When/if the playoff expands, we'll enter a third phase of the regular season - the irrelevant games.  So many irrelevant games.  And maybe that isn't scary to you, but it is to me.  90,000 seat stadiums aren't getting packed now, and with more meaningless games, or games in which the outcome isn't high-stakes, even against legit competition, those stadiums will have more and more empty seats.  Fewer eyeballs on TVs.  
Every game needs to matter.  Every loss should be damning and feel like a stake through the heart.  Not because I say so, but because that's how college football became great.
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on December 15, 2018, 07:59:24 AM
I wonder if the voting breakdown has anything to do with being a fan of a helmet vs non-helmet.  
I understand my viewing lifetime has coincided with by far the best run Florida has ever had, but that being said, I do not want an environment in which Florida loses and I shrug my shoulders, knowing we're still in it for the NC.  If you're a fan of a helmet (or elite team in your lifetime), you know that feeling of dread and angst on the rare occasion your team loses.  If your team peaks at 7-5, you don't know this feeling.  It's what made the college football regular season mean something.  You knew that once you lost, you'd need some conspiracy theory stuff to happen bam-bam-bam for you to have any way back to the NC...and sometimes it happened!!  
But ever since OU got lambasted by KSU in the XIICG that one year and still made it into the BCSNCG, it's all felt wrong.  Or I don't know, Nebraska getting pantsed and still playing Miami for the NC, whichever happened first.  That was the beginning of this new college football regular season, in which no one loss is particularly damning.  Now, you team loses, you shrug.  Still in it, still able to achieve all our goals without angels parting the Red Sea.  
When/if the playoff expands, we'll enter a third phase of the regular season - the irrelevant games.  So many irrelevant games.  And maybe that isn't scary to you, but it is to me.  90,000 seat stadiums aren't getting packed now, and with more meaningless games, or games in which the outcome isn't high-stakes, even against legit competition, those stadiums will have more and more empty seats.  Fewer eyeballs on TVs.  
Every game needs to matter.  Every loss should be damning and feel like a stake through the heart.  Not because I say so, but because that's how college football became great.
So if I understand you correctly, you are advocating for a 68 team playoff that emulates what we have in College Basketball, including the 4 play in games which you'd like to have held in Dayton? 
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: ELA on December 15, 2018, 10:51:24 AM
I wonder if the voting breakdown has anything to do with being a fan of a helmet vs non-helmet.  

There has been more of this than I thought.
That's not my reasoning, and if the move to 8 was with the same guidelines we currently have, I would also hate that.
I'm simply not a national championship or bust guy.  I want as many games to matter as possible, but that doesn't necessarily mean re: the national championship.  That's why I either want to go back to 2, so that every single loss feels season destroying, as far as national title aspirations go, but with only 2, you can't be singularly focused on the national title as a fan, so the big bowls and conference championships matter too.
Or go to 8 and allow all 5 conference champions in, that way all of those conference races matter all the way to the end, and creates a ton of meaningful games, even if losses aren't as bad.
Instead we've settled at some awkward place in the middle, where a single loss doesn't feel as monumental, but we still end the season with these awkward conference championship games where one team is just a spoiler.
We ain't going back to 2, and if they simply expand and still take the "8 best" I'd hate that, but assuming it's 5-1-2, I'd prefer that over the current model, which has IMO created a scenario with the least possible number of meaningful games.  I'll sacrifice a little significance in losses to create more significant games.
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on December 15, 2018, 11:05:51 AM
So if I understand you correctly, you are advocating for a 68 team playoff that emulates what we have in College Basketball, including the 4 play in games which you'd like to have held in Dayton?
Sure...<br />(https://i.ibb.co/VS5z48C/2010-02-10-wendywright.jpg) (https://ibb.co/VS5z48C)<br /><br />le pont mirabeau analyse (https://poetandpoem.com/analysis-le-pont-mirabeau-guillaume-apollinaire)<br />
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on December 15, 2018, 11:51:39 AM
And you'd also like to hold the remainder of the games in Alaska because you think blizzard games are cool, and don't want the southern teams to enjoy any type of regional advantage?

Interesting.
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on December 15, 2018, 12:11:15 PM
Why do you think most traditional bowl games are held in the south?  It wasn't the SEC or ESPN or anyone else to blame for that - it was plain old common sense.  Should I apologize for it?


And let's not forget how your beloved Rose Bowl gets a pass for being in the PAC's back yard.  For some reason, just the SEC-tie in bowls have to wear that dirt.  Interesting.



WHY, OH WHY, ARE BOWLS IN THE SOUTH?!?
<br />(https://i.ibb.co/6gQ1mQQ/f4ee8e3ebbae411a81f636426b68891d.jpg) (https://ibb.co/6gQ1mQQ)<br /><br />a red red rose analysis line by line (https://poetandpoem.com/interpretation-of-a-red-red-rose)<br />
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: Cincydawg on December 15, 2018, 12:36:05 PM
People for some reason would rather be in Florida in January than Ohio or Minnesota.

The bowl games are ... well, a reason for some fans to take a vacation, most of them.  Almost none sell out beyond the NY6, and they can be empty seats as well at times.  Folks here talk about going to the Music City Bowl because it's in Nashville, not for great weather.  The old Peach Bowl found success because they paired up teams with good fan bases who liked being in the ATL for NYE.

It's sort of interesting that Dallas is NOT reliably warm in January, at all.  NO and Miami and Pasadena are.  As other bowls were started, they relied on weather as much as football for support.  I guess the Gator Bowl was "next".  Shreveport isn't a very great destination, nor is Memphis.
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: ELA on December 15, 2018, 01:12:59 PM
I don't think people are opposed to playing exhibition games in locations that fans and players want to be in at this time of year.

They are opposed to then ESPN not treating them like exhibitions. 
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on December 15, 2018, 01:29:49 PM
Getting hypertension just reading this with the high levels of sodium chloride in this thread... 
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: 847badgerfan on December 15, 2018, 01:41:17 PM
Why do you think most traditional bowl games are held in the south?  It wasn't the SEC or ESPN or anyone else to blame for that - it was plain old common sense.  Should I apologize for it?


And let's not forget how your beloved Rose Bowl gets a pass for being in the PAC's back yard.  For some reason, just the SEC-tie in bowls have to wear that dirt.  Interesting.



WHY, OH WHY, ARE BOWLS IN THE SOUTH?!?
<br />(https://i.ibb.co/6gQ1mQQ/f4ee8e3ebbae411a81f636426b68891d.jpg) (https://ibb.co/6gQ1mQQ)<br /><br />a red red rose analysis line by line (https://poetandpoem.com/interpretation-of-a-red-red-rose)<br />
The Big Ten has enough alumnus in Cali to pack the Rose Bowl. Some schools, like mine, could do it alone.

As for the SEC and wearing the dirt, well, that also has something to do with their (almost) unilateral unwillingness to leave the South for any game, any time.
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on December 15, 2018, 01:43:55 PM
Sigh.  Again.  What is the incentive?  
This is like absurd click-bait advertising - it wouldn't exist if it wasn't effective.
The SEC would play up north all the time if it benefited them in any way.  But it doesn't.  So they don't.  So why complain about it?
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on December 15, 2018, 01:59:34 PM
Yeah, but don't you think that playing them all in Alaska is a little bit drastic? 

Who wants to go up there in December and January? 
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: Cincydawg on December 15, 2018, 02:04:40 PM

They are opposed to then ESPN not treating them like exhibitions.
How should ESPN treat them?  They have a vested obvious interest in hyping their product.  They are not ever going to claim "Heh, you can watch, knowing this is no more relevant than your Spring Game.".
I think there is some benefit in playing OOC games in other regions, and not that much downside, especially if you fans can take over the opposing stadium.
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on December 15, 2018, 02:08:28 PM
I don't think people are opposed to playing exhibition games in locations that fans and players want to be in at this time of year.

They are opposed to then ESPN not treating them like exhibitions.
Bowl games have always been glorified exhibitions.  
The BCS/Playoff merely shines a spotlight on it. 

Hell, for a long time they didn't even update the polls after the Bowl Games were played. Several past NCs lost their Bowl game. 
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: ELA on December 15, 2018, 02:08:39 PM
How should ESPN treat them?  They have a vested obvious interest in hyping their product.  They are not ever going to claim "Heh, you can watch, knowing this is no more relevant than your Spring Game.
It seems like the only response is, "well what should the SEC do, not take advantage," and "what should ESPN do, not hype their product?"  No.  But that's not a response to why not everyone likes it.

Just because you understand something doesn't mean you have to like it, and to argue otherwise seems silly to me.
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on December 15, 2018, 02:13:33 PM
If bowls are just exhibitions teams shouldn't especially try to win, then all games after being eliminated from the division/conference title are as well.  So I guess once the Spartans lost to OSU this year, they should've cancelled their final 2 games, right?  Deny the bowl invitation and go home.
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: ELA on December 15, 2018, 02:15:31 PM
I think you are arguing against yourself at this point, so I'm just going to let you go to town on that.
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: Cincydawg on December 15, 2018, 02:16:11 PM
I don't blame whoever for what they are doing if it makes sense so I don't get "upset" about it.

I understand why ESPN does what they do, and it doesn't bother me.  I understand why companies present advertising to hype their products.

I guess I'm easy going.  It seems like a waste of energy to dislike something that makes sense and is going to continue regardless.

I expect most of us here are salivating at the opportunity to watch some of these bowl games, hyped or not.
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on December 15, 2018, 02:30:55 PM
Well the bowls have "mattered" for 60+ years now, so I don't know why we're citing the era when the final poll was conducted pre-bowls.  I'm not upset about anything, BB is just asking the same, age-old questions and getting cheeky.  




The SEC is the healthiest conference doing what they're doing in this time and place.  To question why they don't do something differently - a something with no visible payoff - makes little sense to me.  As does endlessly bitching about it.
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on December 15, 2018, 02:32:45 PM
You guys, let's just teach the controversy!  
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: Cincydawg on December 15, 2018, 02:38:39 PM
I'm glad UGA is "stepping out of the South" now with OOC games, some of them anyway.  I see it as an advantage.

Now just stop playing Tech.
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: ELA on December 15, 2018, 02:39:45 PM
Well the bowls have "mattered" for 60+ years now, so I don't know why we're citing the era when the final poll was conducted pre-bowls.  I'm not upset about anything, BB is just asking the same, age-old questions and getting cheeky.  




The SEC is the healthiest conference doing what they're doing in this time and place.  To question why they don't do something differently - a something with no visible payoff - makes little sense to me.  As does endlessly bitching about it.
Considering your politics, that seems like a weird mentality.  If the people in power have no incentive to change things, then they shouldn't, and nobody should complain about it.  That's your take?
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: Cincydawg on December 15, 2018, 02:51:16 PM
People are welcome to complain.  Obviously, if the folks in power have no incentive to change things, well, I don't expect them to do it.

Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: ELA on December 15, 2018, 02:56:15 PM
Not do I.

People seem to be vastly overstating how "upset" people are.  It's posters on a college football message board, stating on the message board that they don't like a certain thing about college football, and then totally forgetting about it.  I highly doubt anyone spends one second of thought on it otherwise.
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on December 15, 2018, 03:01:16 PM
The bowls still "matter" with regards to the polls.
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: Cincydawg on December 15, 2018, 03:14:41 PM
Getting hypertension just reading this with the high levels of sodium chloride in this thread...
This fellow is CLEARLY highly stressed and likely needs medical attention.
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on December 15, 2018, 04:03:46 PM
Geez Fro, why'd you have to bring up playing games in Alaska? 
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on December 15, 2018, 08:01:34 PM
Considering your politics, that seems like a weird mentality.  If the people in power have no incentive to change things, then they shouldn't, and nobody should complain about it.  That's your take?
The SEC isn't in power, merely a beneficiary.  
I'd love you to tell me about my poltiics, or what you think they are.  
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: ELA on December 15, 2018, 08:11:04 PM
The SEC isn't in power, merely a beneficiary.  
I'd love you to tell me about my poltiics, or what you think they are.  
Im just basing it on the politics you've posted on here, your more nuanced beliefs, I can't speak to.  But what you've posted here doesn't seem to be in line with your take here of "everyone should do what benefits them, and those who don't benefit from the system should shut up and never speak of trying to change it."
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on December 15, 2018, 10:19:11 PM
Well to change things (a 9th conference game for everyone, more teams in the playoff, etc), you're going to need buy-in from those in power and those thriving in the current system.  I just think that's a lost cause.
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: Cincydawg on December 16, 2018, 07:39:25 AM
Reality is that the PTBs make changes, or they don't.  If they see a benefit, they will make changes, unless there is an off setting deficit.  Duh.

I think the bowls have some influence still even though they have been marginalized somewhat.  They would be NIT'd by an 8 team playoff.
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: Cincydawg on December 16, 2018, 07:43:55 AM
Who else would be resistant to an 8 team playoff?

University Presidents?  Yes, by and large.
Nick Saban?  Yup.  I don't know how much real influence he has though.
The SEC commissioner?  Probably.

Who would be for it?

ESPN and other networks.
Any bowls that might get included in the venue options, but most would be against.
Some ADs, maybe most.

That power balance at the moment is clearly "against".
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: bayareabadger on December 16, 2018, 09:55:17 AM
I wonder if the voting breakdown has anything to do with being a fan of a helmet vs non-helmet.  
I understand my viewing lifetime has coincided with by far the best run Florida has ever had, but that being said, I do not want an environment in which Florida loses and I shrug my shoulders, knowing we're still in it for the NC.  If you're a fan of a helmet (or elite team in your lifetime), you know that feeling of dread and angst on the rare occasion your team loses.  If your team peaks at 7-5, you don't know this feeling.  It's what made the college football regular season mean something.  You knew that once you lost, you'd need some conspiracy theory stuff to happen bam-bam-bam for you to have any way back to the NC...and sometimes it happened!!  
But ever since OU got lambasted by KSU in the XIICG that one year and still made it into the BCSNCG, it's all felt wrong.  Or I don't know, Nebraska getting pantsed and still playing Miami for the NC, whichever happened first.  That was the beginning of this new college football regular season, in which no one loss is particularly damning.  Now, you team loses, you shrug.  Still in it, still able to achieve all our goals without angels parting the Red Sea.  
When/if the playoff expands, we'll enter a third phase of the regular season - the irrelevant games.  So many irrelevant games.  And maybe that isn't scary to you, but it is to me.  90,000 seat stadiums aren't getting packed now, and with more meaningless games, or games in which the outcome isn't high-stakes, even against legit competition, those stadiums will have more and more empty seats.  Fewer eyeballs on TVs.  
Every game needs to matter.  Every loss should be damning and feel like a stake through the heart.  Not because I say so, but because that's how college football became great.
I disagree with much of this, mostly on the grounds that a game outside the national title race leads to irrelevance. 
If that's the standard, most games played most seasons are irrelevant. If you try to schedule good teams early, you're hastening your own irrelevance. The flip side of that dread you talk about is that once you lose, it's gone. So it means an individual fanbases' level of buy-in to that dread and such usually dissipates before the halfway mark (You also talk about the seeing a team lose and maybe work its way back in, but setting aside the sort of SEC one-loss mulligan that developed, most of the time that dread breaks with a loss, and you instead find out the team you put a lot of hope in and started a soft 5-0 wasn't all THAT good). 
What we're really talking about isn't the in-the-bubble fan experience, but the third-person view of the race, even from within that bubble. We're talking about watching the polls, seeing undefeateds slip up or get picked off. Is that all-or-nothing drama, and the fact we ignore anyone outside the top 10 or so down the stretch, better than more machinations, more sub-races, more moments when a sure seven seed gets dashed by a CCG upset? I dunno.
I'd assume this will not create more irrelevant games. It'll likely create more relevant games, if anything. If winning the B1G West means more, or if UCF games matter beyond being a story many roll their eyes at or if a CCG means a chance to play one's way in, that'll at least balance out things somewhat.

And beyond that, college football makes its own drama because the difference between every kind of record matters. 7-5 feels different than 8-4 which is different than 9-3. When my team was 6-4, I wanted VERY badly for it to knock off a 5-5 Purdue team on the road. This team should be irrelevant, but in my bubble, and probably the Purdue bubble, there was a lot of angst on both sides. 
I don't know if an eight-team playoff dampens that. Maybe getting a spot rises to such a level, that goes away. But at the moment, 7-5 teams usually feel some joy getting win No. 8 in a second-tier bowl (y'know, unless they stop trying or something), and I don't know if that will dissipate in the short term. 
(I suppose the counter would be something like Clemson-Syracuse this year. That game was marvelous and sublime, but would it have been that way without the vague ability to project ahead and say "I don't know, they could put themselves outside the championship hunt here"? I get that might be lost, but something else might be gained)
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on December 16, 2018, 11:30:56 AM

We are about to spend the entire off season sifting through countless Fro-Threads debating who would have won a four team playoff had the system been in place way back when, but spit balling changes we'd like to see to the future post season format is a complete and total waste of time? 

Alrighty then.... 
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: Cincydawg on December 16, 2018, 11:33:47 AM
Worse will be spending the off season decrying yet another NC for that team down south.
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: 847badgerfan on December 16, 2018, 12:11:11 PM
King Barry has come out and publicly supported going to 8. That's a big change for him.
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on December 16, 2018, 12:41:39 PM
We are about to spend the entire off season sifting through countless Fro-Threads debating who would have won a four team playoff had the system been in place way back when, but spit balling changes we'd like to see to the future post season format is a complete and total waste of time?

Alrighty then....
But yet even if something is a waste of time, you might enjoy it.  Both can be true - it's a waste of time AND fun exploring.  Have I suggested people stop posting in this thread?  
All I've said is the decision-making stakeholders aren't likely to want to change, that's all.  Pffft.  I'm such an ass.
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on December 16, 2018, 12:56:44 PM
We all know this college football (and any sport, really) monster exists on a sliding scale of competition vs entertainment.  We need 2 earnest teams trying to win, which interests us enough to sit down and watch it.




Expanding the playoff, to me, seems like the scale is sliding further towards entertainment and away from competition, and my fear is that it's sliding too far that way.  I may be completely wrong.



But there's corollaries with other sports - baseball is finding out that the best strategy to win games may come at the expense of entertainment - and so they're thinking up ways to "fix" it.  College football, in a vast landscape of sports, was unique in that it lacked an expansive playoff.  In baseball, perhaps more than any other sport, the worst team beats the best team a relatively high percentage of the time.  This wasn't that big of a deal when each league had a champion and the only postseason was the World Series.  But as leagues split first into 2 divisions each, and then 3, with extra rounds of playoffs, the World Series champion has become more or less random from that set of teams.  The wild-card has only the extra task of overcoming home-field advantage to win the championship.
The NFL's playoff has allowed wild-card teams to win the Super Bowl.  We had our first 9-7 team to win a SB.  That team had a negative point differential during the regular season, btw.  Ohhhh, OAM, who cares?!?!  A team that was 9-7 BUT WAS ACTUALLY WORSE THAN THAT won the SB.  A team who was still 8.5 games better than the SB champion had nothing to show for it.  The team that wound up 12-7 wears the crown, but the one that went 17-1 wasn't good enough?  WTF?  Again, too far down the entertainment end, pulling away from the competition side.



I guess my argument is hey, let's NOT have a 3-loss NC.  Let's not have G5 teams get stomped on the highest stage.  This idea of 8 teams or 5+2+1 is akin to giving everyone a trophy.  Everyone makes fun of that, but they're on board with expanding the playoff.  Huh??  
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on December 16, 2018, 01:13:56 PM
We all know this college football (and any sport, really) monster exists on a sliding scale of competition vs entertainment.  We need 2 earnest teams trying to win, which interests us enough to sit down and watch it.




Expanding the playoff, to me, seems like the scale is sliding further towards entertainment and away from competition, and my fear is that it's sliding too far that way.  I may be completely wrong.



But there's corollaries with other sports - baseball is finding out that the best strategy to win games may come at the expense of entertainment - and so they're thinking up ways to "fix" it.  College football, in a vast landscape of sports, was unique in that it lacked an expansive playoff.  In baseball, perhaps more than any other sport, the worst team beats the best team a relatively high percentage of the time.  This wasn't that big of a deal when each league had a champion and the only postseason was the World Series.  But as leagues split first into 2 divisions each, and then 3, with extra rounds of playoffs, the World Series champion has become more or less random from that set of teams.  The wild-card has only the extra task of overcoming home-field advantage to win the championship.
The NFL's playoff has allowed wild-card teams to win the Super Bowl.  We had our first 9-7 team to win a SB.  That team had a negative point differential during the regular season, btw.  Ohhhh, OAM, who cares?!?!  A team that was 9-7 BUT WAS ACTUALLY WORSE THAN THAT won the SB.  A team who was still 8.5 games better than the SB champion had nothing to show for it.  The team that wound up 12-7 wears the crown, but the one that went 17-1 wasn't good enough?  WTF?  Again, too far down the entertainment end, pulling away from the competition side.



I guess my argument is hey, let's NOT have a 3-loss NC.  Let's not have G5 teams get stomped on the highest stage.  This idea of 8 teams or 5+2+1 is akin to giving everyone a trophy.  Everyone makes fun of that, but they're on board with expanding the playoff.  Huh??  
Your idea for a 68 team format is a little over the top, imo. For one thing there are a lot more College Basketball teams and Conferences than what we have in College Football. On top of that, you can't play two Football games in one weekend, so the tourney would just drag on forever. 
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: bayareabadger on December 16, 2018, 01:36:17 PM


I guess my argument is hey, let's NOT have a 3-loss NC.  Let's not have G5 teams get stomped on the highest stage.  This idea of 8 teams or 5+2+1 is akin to giving everyone a trophy.  Everyone makes fun of that, but they're on board with expanding the playoff.  Huh??  
People make fun of that because it’s a dumb metaphor that started with appeasing dumb parents and has literally been stretched to the stupid limit. 
In this case, for a long time, it was just decided. Teams played the games for the reasons they did, and at the end, someone said, you’re prettiest. Then they decided, what if they play for the trophy by means of actual competition? Interesting idea. And it expands outward from there. 
This isn’t “let’s give everyone a trophy.” This is let’s have everyone compete for a trophy by rules with a modicum of logic and structure. And there’s a good argument we don’t want that. 
The old system was akin to coming to the end of a tied game and saying “that team played better, so they win.” That’s what happened to Ohio State. And if our simple answer is, college football is good becuase there will almost always be a level of giving someone a trophy rather than a hard and fast system to compete for one, and that why we like it, that’s OK. 
But with a playoff, you compete for a trophy, with the old system, some teams are handed chances to, or just given one. 
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: Cincydawg on December 16, 2018, 03:36:57 PM
Who are the powers resisting an expanded playoff?

There would be more money, right?  And yet we don't seem to be heading to one.
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: ELA on December 16, 2018, 03:48:42 PM
Who are the powers resisting an expanded playoff?

There would be more money, right?  And yet we don't seem to be heading to one.
I'm guessing the issue would be CCGs in jeopardy if we did, and the SEC at least, would likely lose money by giving up their CCG in favor of a shared additional round?
Otherwise, that was my point all along, when, currently, do you see people make decisions that leave money on the table?
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: Cincydawg on December 16, 2018, 03:50:39 PM
They do so when there are overriding objections, clearly, which is why I think my question is important.

SOMEONE is resisting this, successfully.  Who and why are critical questions.
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: 847badgerfan on December 16, 2018, 03:52:43 PM
They do so when there are overriding objections, clearly, which is why I think my question is important.

SOMEONE is resisting this, successfully.  Who and why are critical questions.
I know the UW chancellor is a foe of expanded playoffs. I also know the UW AD is now in favor of expanded playoffs.

One can fire the other, but I'm not sure that would a good move for the lady.
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on December 16, 2018, 03:58:33 PM
CFB always moves at a snails pace. It took us 20 years just to get to this point, and half the people on this board still want to drag us back to the old poll n bowl system. It is what it is. 
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: ELA on December 16, 2018, 04:20:26 PM
They do so when there are overriding objections, clearly, which is why I think my question is important.

SOMEONE is resisting this, successfully.  Who and why are critical questions.
Aside from the SEC, fear of lawsuits?  Adding an additional game.
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: Cincydawg on December 16, 2018, 04:40:13 PM
I suggested some above:

1.  University presidents.
2.  Bowl committees.
3.  Some/many ADs.
4.  Some conference commissioners.  ( don't know how the SEC comish thinks about this.)
5.  Maybe some PTBs in the NCAA.
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on December 16, 2018, 05:16:09 PM
 
But with a playoff, you compete for a trophy, with the old system, some teams are handed chances to, or just given one.
This is true, but the more teams you allow into a playoff, the less deserving each additional team is.  Socially, as a culture, we should be inclusive.  But when determining a champion of a sport, we should be exclusive.  If you don't win the beauty contest, keep knocking at the door or kick it in and eventually make them see you by winning.  
Take UCF.  We have learned that a UCF team with 13 straight wins isn't allowed in.  We've learned a UCF team with 25 straight wins isn't allowed in.  But at some point (whether it's 38 or 50 or 100), they will be let in.  I guess it's not fair that a Notre Dame can get in after "only" 12 straight wins, but that's life.  If those UCF players could've gotten a scholarship from ND, they'd be playing for ND.  This is competition, dog-eat-dog, from recruiting to facilities to games on the field and to the rankings.  What should UCF do?  Keep winning.  Win until you get in.  
Why is 8 the right number?  Why not 16?  Why not 6?  It's so arbitrary.  It'd be random if cubed numbers didn't exist, which is hilarious, actually.  And if 8/130 teams (6%) is the right number, then why does every single other sport have way more than that in their playoffs (NFL 37.5%, NBA 53%, MLB 31%)???  If the best answer to that is "because it's more than 4", then that's embarrassing.  
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: 847badgerfan on December 16, 2018, 05:38:47 PM
I suggested some above:

1.  University presidents.
2.  Bowl committees.
3.  Some/many ADs.
4.  Some conference commissioners.  ( don't know how the SEC comish thinks about this.)
5.  Maybe some PTBs in the NCAA.

SEC commissioner will never be for expansion until an SEC misses the playoff. So, the SEC commissioner will never be for expansion. At least as long as ESecPN has the contract to broadcast, that is. I'm only partly tongue-in-cheek on this.

There will never be a playoff game in Chicago. It wouldn't be fair to make Nick's kids wear gloves.

To take your #2 a little further, it's not just the committee. It's the City, County and State in which the bowl is located too. There is money to be made there.
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: 847badgerfan on December 16, 2018, 05:39:53 PM
CFB always moves at a snails pace. It took us 20 years just to get to this point, and half the people on this board still want to drag us back to the old poll n bowl system. It is what it is.
Count me in for dragging us back. Thanks.
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on December 16, 2018, 05:43:39 PM
Worry not. I didn't exclude you from that half, chief.
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: bayareabadger on December 16, 2018, 05:46:58 PM
SEC commissioner will never be for expansion until an SEC misses the playoff. So, the SEC commissioner will never be for expansion. At least as long as ESecPN has the contract to broadcast, that is. I'm only partly tongue-in-cheek on this.

There will never be a playoff game in Chicago. It wouldn't be fair to make Nick's kids wear gloves.

To take your #2 a little further, it's not just the committee. It's the City, County and State in which the bowl is located too. There is money to be made there.
Th secret is, as soon as they go to eight, he'll be for eight. 
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on December 16, 2018, 05:52:56 PM
The bowl locations aren't for the kids from the south, but for the butts in the seats.  Please stop pretending otherwise.
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: bayareabadger on December 16, 2018, 05:58:03 PM
This is true, but the more teams you allow into a playoff, the less deserving each additional team is.  Socially, as a culture, we should be inclusive.  But when determining a champion of a sport, we should be exclusive.  If you don't win the beauty contest, keep knocking at the door or kick it in and eventually make them see you by winning.  
Take UCF.  We have learned that a UCF team with 13 straight wins isn't allowed in.  We've learned a UCF team with 25 straight wins isn't allowed in.  But at some point (whether it's 38 or 50 or 100), they will be let in.  I guess it's not fair that a Notre Dame can get in after "only" 12 straight wins, but that's life.  If those UCF players could've gotten a scholarship from ND, they'd be playing for ND.  This is competition, dog-eat-dog, from recruiting to facilities to games on the field and to the rankings.  What should UCF do?  Keep winning.  Win until you get in.  
Why is 8 the right number?  Why not 16?  Why not 6?  It's so arbitrary.  It'd be random if cubed numbers didn't exist, which is hilarious, actually.  And if 8/130 teams (6%) is the right number, then why does every single other sport have way more than that in their playoffs (NFL 37.5%, NBA 53%, MLB 31%)???  If the best answer to that is "because it's more than 4", then that's embarrassing.  
To the first paragraph, that's fine. We want less competition, that's OK. We can just say it. The goal is making the season a pageant when number of losses rules the day, that's AOK. 
To the second. In the current system, USC will never get in. Could win 100 and it won't be let in because each batch of 12 will be found wanting. Maybe the stars align once, but for the most part, they'll be out. And whenever they lose, someone will be here to say, "If they'd only done it once more, maybe it coulda happened."
I dunno if eight is the right number, but it's the next one that allows for a clean bracket. I don't know if it's right or wrong. I know the current system is 3 percent, but that's really 6 percent since half of FBS isn't eligible. At the moment, there are five power conferences, often one G5 team that wins all its games and usually 1-2 teams where we ask the last week of the season about "They have two losses, but are they one of the BEST teams" because of that stupid wording. So at the moment, eight seems pretty clean. 
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: ELA on December 16, 2018, 06:01:49 PM
The bowl locations aren't for the kids from the south, but for the butts in the seats.  Please stop pretending otherwise.
Nobody is.  But then treat them accordingly
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on December 16, 2018, 06:07:09 PM

To the second. In the current system, USC will never get in. Could win 100 and it won't be let in because each batch of 12 will be found wanting. Maybe the stars align once, but for the most part, they'll be out. 
This is absurd.  People would take into account their multiple seasons of being undefeated and let them in.  You're not being realistic here.
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: 847badgerfan on December 16, 2018, 07:02:09 PM
Th secret is, as soon as they go to eight, he'll be for eight.
Perhaps, because then he will get 3/8 of the playoooof.  SEC SEC SEC, as an Arky or A&M or Old Mrs. fan might boast.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cu7aZdtWgAAkhhS.jpg)
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: 847badgerfan on December 16, 2018, 07:07:43 PM
Worry not. I didn't exclude you from that half, chief.
:72:
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on December 16, 2018, 07:15:48 PM
Perhaps, because then he will get 3/8 of the playoooof.  SEC SEC SEC, as an Arky or A&M or Old Mrs. fan might boast.


It'll happen.  And people will bitch.  And if it expands to 16, the SEC will get 5 teams in.  And people will bitch.  
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on December 16, 2018, 07:36:11 PM
Somebody out there somewhere will complain no matter what happens. No doubt about that. 
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: 847badgerfan on December 16, 2018, 07:40:15 PM
It'll happen.  And people will bitch.  And if it expands to 16, the SEC will get 5 teams in.  And people will bitch.  
I just want an SEC team (a good one) to do a home/away with my school. I know. Too much to ask. 

Hell, I would bet a paycheck (it's a good one) that a good SEC team would turn down a 2 for 1 with my school.
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on December 16, 2018, 08:26:25 PM
Not a lot of elite athletes coming out of Wisconsin....LSU came up there, didn't they?  
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: 847badgerfan on December 16, 2018, 08:53:11 PM
Not a lot of elite athletes coming out of Wisconsin....LSU came up there, didn't they?  
LSU came up, yes, in Green Bay. Elite athletes? There's been a few. Some 4* ones this cycles and a couple of 5* for 2020.

LSU (and BAMA and USC and ND and UM and OSU and and and ) tried to steal the current in-state RB commit UW has.
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on December 16, 2018, 09:22:08 PM
idk, I think most programs would rather visit Miami Dade or Broward county recruiting rather than play a game up in Madison.  
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: TyphonInc on December 17, 2018, 07:56:36 AM
We ain't going back to 2, and if they simply expand and still take the "8 best" I'd hate that, but assuming it's 5-1-2, I'd prefer that over the current model, which has IMO created a scenario with the least possible number of meaningful games.  I'll sacrifice a little significance in losses to create more significant games.
...And this is my biggest reason for trying to 6 instead of 8. We CAN'T/WON'T go back. 
Bowls determined the Champion --> 2 played in the BCS for the champion --> 4 play in the College playoff for a champion --> what's next? Money dictates to keep growing.

There is an option to back out of the of the 4 team playoff in 2022 (or let it continue till 2026.) Why not let a six team playoff have a run for 6 - 10 years and just see how good or bad it turns out? 
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on December 17, 2018, 08:05:16 AM
This is absurd.  People would take into account their multiple seasons of being undefeated and let them in.  You're not being realistic here.
OAM, I agree with you for the most part in this thread, but I disagree with you here.  I DO NOT think that UCF needs more consecutive wins, I think that they need better wins.  I've pointed out repeatedly that they managed to go 13-0 this season with exactly ZERO wins over teams ranked in the final CFP rankings.  I think that makes it obvious that their problem is quality not quantity.  
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: TyphonInc on December 17, 2018, 08:07:17 AM
But yet even if something is a waste of time, you might enjoy it.  Both can be true - it's a waste of time AND fun exploring.  Have I suggested people stop posting in this thread?  
All I've said is the decision-making stakeholders aren't likely to want to change, that's all.  Pffft.  I'm such an ass.
Hey, he's starting to get it.
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: bayareabadger on December 17, 2018, 08:14:33 AM
OAM, I agree with you for the most part in this thread, but I disagree with you here.  I DO NOT think that UCF needs more consecutive wins, I think that they need better wins.  I've pointed out repeatedly that they managed to go 13-0 this season with exactly ZERO wins over teams ranked in the final CFP rankings.  I think that makes it obvious that their problem is quality not quantity.  
The issue remains the same. They need better non-conference wins. And they need at least two very good ones. And they need the good programs they play to go on to good seasons. And they need a very weak No. 4 seed. And they need a team that good. And even then, we’ll hear about how they haven’t played anyone in months. 
The system will not allow for this without a particularly odd set of circumstances. 
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: Cincydawg on December 17, 2018, 08:27:51 AM
I just want an SEC team (a good one) to do a home/away with my school. I know. Too much to ask.

Hell, I would bet a paycheck (it's a good one) that a good SEC team would turn down a 2 for 1 with my school.
Do think Georgia would turn down a H&A series with Wisconsin?  Why?  The only reason would be scheduling issues.  UGA agreed to a series with Ohio State (since cancelled) and ND.  I don't know of a reason they would turn down Wisconsin prima facia if the scheduling worked.
They have scheduled teams all over the place.
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: Cincydawg on December 17, 2018, 08:29:12 AM
I recall when Boise State was trying to make noise.  They agreed to a one and done in Athens, and later to a neutral site game (sort of) in Atlanta (which they won).  I rather think FSU did the same back in the day, as did Miami.  If you want to make a splash, you have to tug on Superman's cape a few times and not worry about fair.
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: 847badgerfan on December 17, 2018, 08:54:02 AM
Do think Georgia would turn down a H&A series with Wisconsin?  Why?  The only reason would be scheduling issues.  UGA agreed to a series with Ohio State (since cancelled) and ND.  I don't know of a reason they would turn down Wisconsin prima facia if the scheduling worked.
They have scheduled teams all over the place.

Ohio State
Notre Dame
Wisconsin

One of those is not like the others.
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: Cincydawg on December 17, 2018, 09:40:46 AM
They also have games with Virginia, UCLA, and Oregon, not to mention Texas and Clemson.

If they schedule UCLA H&A, why not Wisconsin?
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: 847badgerfan on December 17, 2018, 10:17:59 AM
They also have games with Virginia, UCLA, and Oregon, not to mention Texas and Clemson.

If they schedule UCLA H&A, why not Wisconsin?
It's been bantered about before. It's viewed as a no-win deal for a lot of schools. UW is not a helmet school, so losing to them is not acceptable and beating them is expected. That, and as has been mentioned here, Wisconsin is not perceived as a fertile recruiting state like California. 

(UW has UCLA on H/A schedule in the future.)

The Virginia and Oregon games are at a "neutral" site in Atlanta, Georgia.

Still, congrats to Georgia for heading to the West Coast for the first time since JFK was walking on Earth.

:96:
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on December 17, 2018, 10:45:52 AM
Why is 8 the right number?  Why not 16?  Why not 6?  It's so arbitrary.  It'd be random if cubed numbers didn't exist, which is hilarious, actually.  And if 8/130 teams (6%) is the right number, then why does every single other sport have way more than that in their playoffs (NFL 37.5%, NBA 53%, MLB 31%)???  If the best answer to that is "because it's more than 4", then that's embarrassing.  
It is always arbitrary but I'll tell you that I prefer a smaller percentage to a larger percentage in general.  
I never watch NBA regular season games or first round playoff, even when Cleveland was good.  There is a simple reason why:  With more than half of the teams going to the playoffs, the regular season is meaningless.  
As a Cavs fan, I look at it this way:  If the Cavs ARE any good, I'll watch them in the second round of the playoffs and thereafter.  If they aren't, then I didn't miss anything by not watching the games before that.  
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on December 17, 2018, 10:53:32 AM
Instead we've settled at some awkward place in the middle, where a single loss doesn't feel as monumental, but we still end the season with these awkward conference championship games where one team is just a spoiler.
We ain't going back to 2, and if they simply expand and still take the "8 best" I'd hate that, but assuming it's 5-1-2, I'd prefer that over the current model, which has IMO created a scenario with the least possible number of meaningful games.  I'll sacrifice a little significance in losses to create more significant games.
As an Ohio State fan, I have plenty of experience to refute this:

That colors my view of the current CFP.  One loss isn't as monumental as it was under the BCS and in the pre-BCS era but it can still be fatal.  If you went to 8 with auto-bids then OOC games and at least one non-divisional game per year would not be a big deal to lose.  
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on December 17, 2018, 10:59:10 AM
But ever since OU got lambasted by KSU in the XIICG that one year and still made it into the BCSNCG, it's all felt wrong.  Or I don't know, Nebraska getting pantsed and still playing Miami for the NC, whichever happened first.  That was the beginning of this new college football regular season, in which no one loss is particularly damning.  Now, you team loses, you shrug.  Still in it, still able to achieve all our goals without angels parting the Red Sea.  
Nebraska was the first BCS-era team to get smoked in their last game and make the CG anyway, Oklahoma was a few years later:
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on December 17, 2018, 11:24:25 AM
I wonder if the voting breakdown has anything to do with being a fan of a helmet vs non-helmet.  
I understand my viewing lifetime has coincided with by far the best run Florida has ever had, but that being said, I do not want an environment in which Florida loses and I shrug my shoulders, knowing we're still in it for the NC.  If you're a fan of a helmet (or elite team in your lifetime), you know that feeling of dread and angst on the rare occasion your team loses.  If your team peaks at 7-5, you don't know this feeling.  It's what made the college football regular season mean something.  You knew that once you lost, you'd need some conspiracy theory stuff to happen bam-bam-bam for you to have any way back to the NC...and sometimes it happened!!
This is an interesting thought.  I think my experience is similar to yours.  I'm an Ohio State fan and alum who started at Ohio State in the fall of 1993.  Prior to that I was a fan, but not anywhere near at this level.  Part of that is because I hadn't gone there yet and part of it is because Ohio State wasn't all that good when I was in HS:

The Buckeyes almost won the NC in 1979 when I was a todler and that was followed by Earle Bruce's seven year run of three loss seasons.  The team went 9-3 each year from 1980-1985 then 10-3 in 1986.  Those were all good seasons but none were great.  Then 1987-1992 was probably the worst six year stretch for the Buckeyes since WWII.  Over those seven years when I was in Jr. High and High School the Buckeyes went 1-5-1 against the Wolverines and only once lost less than four games in a season.  

From 1993-present the Buckeyes have easily the best overall record in the sport and just from recollection they have been in the NC discussion more often than not.  I've always looked at CFB through that lens.  I well know that, as you put it, "feeling of dread and angst on the rare occasion your team loses."  

I also chuckled when I read your comment about knowing that once you lost, "you'd need some conspiracy theory stuff to happen bam-bam-bam for you to have any way back to the NC."  I well remember, for example, after losing to MSU in 1998 looking at the next AP Poll and then looking at the schedules of all the teams ahead of the Buckeyes and figuring out the most plausible NC scenario for Ohio State:
With this newfangled BCS (1998 was the first year of the BCS) the Buckeyes didn't need them ALL to lose.  Ohio State could get to the BCSCG as long as five of the six teams ahead of them lost.  It almost happened:

*Tennessee was the one that was oh-so-close.  In the Arkansas game a week after Ohio State's loss to MSU the Volunteers looked to be absolutely done.  It was time to stick a fork in them and the proverbial fat lady was warming up her voice and checking the mic and then Arkansas managed to find a way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.  
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on December 17, 2018, 11:49:35 AM
What was the last SEC power to be "out of the race" after a singular loss?
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: rolltidefan on December 17, 2018, 12:11:02 PM
What was the last SEC power to be "out of the race" after a singular loss?
2013 alabama (kick 6 game), though it was replaced by the victor in that game, another sec team (au)
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: Cincydawg on December 17, 2018, 12:30:56 PM


Still, congrats to Georgia for heading to the West Coast for the first time since JFK was walking on Earth.

:96:
UGA played this year on the west coast, and played Arizona State fairly recently, which is close.
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: Cincydawg on December 17, 2018, 12:31:13 PM
If UGA will schedule UCLA, they'd schedule Wisconsin.
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on December 17, 2018, 12:46:44 PM
Yes, ADs have to factor in more things than "wouldn't it be cool?".  
A reason to travel to UCLA and not Wisconsin is in-your-neighborhood recruiting exposure.  The AD is supposed to put the HC in a position to be successful, just as the HC is supposed to put each player in a position to be successful.  The AD can tell the coach the trip to southern California is for the long-term success of the program.  The message a HC might get from the AD planning a trip to Madison in late November would be "F-you".  




Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on December 17, 2018, 12:52:35 PM
What was the last SEC power to be "out of the race" after a singular loss?
Probably sometime before the 7 consecutive NCs?  I know in '94, Alabama's only loss was by 1 point to Florida in the SECCG.  Florida's loss @ FSU in '96 was damning at the time.  The Gators needed 3 unlikely things to happen to get the rematch (which they did, and won).  In 2001, two SEC teams headed for a showdown vs Miami lost out (Florida vs Tennessee, then Tennessee vs LSU in Atlanta).  In 2002, Georgia suffered its only loss to Florida in late October, and almost certainly would have been ranked above OSU, with all their unimpressive, close wins.  
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on December 17, 2018, 12:57:20 PM
As I was looking that up, there's an easy reason for the perceived SEC bias, guys.  We all know the SEC won 7 straight NCs...7 in 7 years.  You have to go back 60 years to find the last 7 Big Ten NCs.  Maybe that's why we get a pass.  Maybe it's wrong.  But maybe it's obvious.  Those 7 NCs in 7 years were by 4 different schools.  Now, the last ten years has obviously been all Bama, but what happened, happened.  
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: Cincydawg on December 17, 2018, 01:17:10 PM
Big Ten teams don't play many OOC games late in the year anyway.

UGA obviously is willing to schedule just about anybody, Wisconsin would be no different.  That would be a cool series IMHO.

I doubt playing in South Bend is going to help them with recruiting in the midwest any more than playing in Madison would, maybe a trifle?

What does help IMHO is playing more nationally significant games OOC.  I think a potential recruit would see that as more exciting than playing Tech and three pastries.
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on December 17, 2018, 02:44:39 PM
2013 alabama (kick 6 game), though it was replaced by the victor in that game, another sec team (au)

Probably sometime before the 7 consecutive NCs?  I know in '94, Alabama's only loss was by 1 point to Florida in the SECCG.  Florida's loss @ FSU in '96 was damning at the time.  The Gators needed 3 unlikely things to happen to get the rematch (which they did, and won).  In 2001, two SEC teams headed for a showdown vs Miami lost out (Florida vs Tennessee, then Tennessee vs LSU in Atlanta).  In 2002, Georgia suffered its only loss to Florida in late October, and almost certainly would have been ranked above OSU, with all their unimpressive, close wins.  

FYI, I think the question was in the current CFP era, when a singular loss would have immediately excluded an SEC team. Which isn't the most fair question, because obviously it hasn't kept them out. 
2013 was still BCS era, so it was top 2. Bama dropped to 4 in the AP after the Auburn loss, but then moved up to 3 ahead of MSU, who had just beaten then-#2 OSU to win the B1G. So in the CFP era, the loss to Auburn wouldn't have knocked them out. 
In 1994, Bama dropped from 3rd to 6th after losing in the SECCG. Florida actually only moved up to 5th, as they were 9-1-1. According to the AP, that would have given us a CFP of Nebraska, Penn St, Miami, and Colorado. 
In 1996, Florida only dropped from 2nd to 4th after that FSU loss, and recovered up to 3rd in the final pre-bowl rankings. So in the CFP era, that loss would not have knocked them out of the running. Oh, and of course this was back in the AP beauty pageant days, so despite entering bowl season as the #3 team and there being no BCS, they were put into what basically became the national championship game per the Bowl Alliance, as #2 ASU played in the Rose Bowl instead. So Florida got to rematch FSU and was named national champion after ASU lost in the Rose.
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: rolltidefan on December 17, 2018, 03:08:11 PM
you're right, limiting it to the cfp isn't really a fair question, especially when taking things into context.

one p5 conf (pac) has effectively eliminated themselves 80% of the time by way of producing only 1 presentable team in the 5 years. opening the door for all the other p5 conf to catch a break.

bama is also on one of the most impressive runs in cfb history, which happens to coincide with the introduction of the cfp. almost any team (and certainly any of the blue bloods) on a similar run from any p5 conf would be virtually in the same positions annually as bama is in.

if this were a 15-20+ year sample and sec was getting every benefit of the doubt over other confs, there'd be an argument. but the sample size is way to small and the context in which it happened leaves it at most inconclusive if not outright false.

having said that, bama is probably still the right answer for last 1-loss sec team left out in a probable cfp. just in 2008, not 1994. 2008 bama lone loss is to uf in seccg. uf is in at 1-loss sec champ, you also had 1 loss bigten champ psu, 1 loss pac champs usc, plus the 1-loss trifecta of co-champs from the bigxii (texas, ou and tt). that doesn't even include the undefeated utah (beat mich, ore st, tcu and byu) and undefeated boise (beat top 10 oregon in eugene and the epic 06 bowl win over ou was still pretty fresh).
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on December 17, 2018, 03:32:34 PM
The issue remains the same. They need better non-conference wins. And they need at least two very good ones. And they need the good programs they play to go on to good seasons. And they need a very weak No. 4 seed. And they need a team that good. And even then, we’ll hear about how they haven’t played anyone in months.

The system will not allow for this without a particularly odd set of circumstances.
It does require some help but part of my objection to all the whining from UCF supporters is that they didn't even try.  
They KNEW when they made their OOC schedule that they would be playing eight conference games in a Mickey-Mouse conference such that, at best, no more than one or two would be against a ranked team and likely 16-25 at that.  Then they scheduled an OOC of:

They didn't even try.  The FCS opponent thing is bad when SEC teams do it but at least they play quality games in conference and most of them have at least one quality OOC game.  UCF's OOC, even if the UNC game hadn't been canceled, would have been bad even for a P5 team that actually played quality opposition in conference.  

When you play in a weak conference you have to make up for it OOC.  Like @Cincydawg (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=870) said, tug on superman's cape a few times and see what happens.  
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on December 17, 2018, 03:33:41 PM
having said that, bama is probably still the right answer for last 1-loss sec team left out in a probable cfp. just in 2008, not 1994. 2008 bama lone loss is to uf in seccg. uf is in at 1-loss sec champ, you also had 1 loss bigten champ psu, 1 loss pac champs usc, plus the 1-loss trifecta of co-champs from the bigxii (texas, ou and tt). that doesn't even include the undefeated utah (beat mich, ore st, tcu and byu) and undefeated boise (beat top 10 oregon in eugene and the epic 06 bowl win over ou was still pretty fresh).
Are you sure, though? 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_NCAA_Division_I_FBS_football_rankings

After the CCGs that year, Texas was still 3rd and Bama was still 4th in the AP, Coaches, and BCS ranks. So fully two of the top 4 teams were 1-loss conference non-champions. By BCS ranks, USC was 5th, Utah 6th, PSU 8th, and Boise 9th. 
Now, I think the committee might have tried to avoid having two SEC and two B12 teams in the CFP, so perhaps you're right that they'd have found ways to make sure that other teams, such as 1-loss conference champions, got in. But I think it's hardly a slam dunk of a case. 
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: rolltidefan on December 17, 2018, 03:49:48 PM
Are you sure, though?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_NCAA_Division_I_FBS_football_rankings

After the CCGs that year, Texas was still 3rd and Bama was still 4th in the AP, Coaches, and BCS ranks. So fully two of the top 4 teams were 1-loss conference non-champions. By BCS ranks, USC was 5th, Utah 6th, PSU 8th, and Boise 9th.
Now, I think the committee might have tried to avoid having two SEC and two B12 teams in the CFP, so perhaps you're right that they'd have found ways to make sure that other teams, such as 1-loss conference champions, got in. But I think it's hardly a slam dunk of a case.
actually, i'd say slam dunk is a great analogy. almost 100%, but there's an off chance they clang it off the back iron and put bama in. it's so low and remote it's hardly worth mentioning, but it's a possibility.
first, texas was co-champ and had as much claim to it as ou (and tt for that matter). hell, they beat ou. i don't see anyway bama is in over usc AND psu AND Texas. remember, this is before bama's run of dominance and reputation was rebuilt.
bama's would be 5th for the same reason uga is 5 and osu 6th this year, because the committee (or polls then) conveniently doesn't have to worry about it. had it been a playoff spot up for grabs, i doubt very seriously uga is above osu. and same for bama.
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on December 17, 2018, 04:01:46 PM

if this were a 15-20+ year sample and sec was getting every benefit of the doubt over other confs, there'd be an argument. but the sample size is way to small and the context in which it happened leaves it at most inconclusive if not outright false.

This was my point about Georgia this year.  The committee wasn't going to include them because they were an SEC team, but because they were a Georgia team with Georgia's resume and Georgia's talent.  
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on December 17, 2018, 04:09:28 PM
2012 always interests me when it comes to what-if playoff talk, for obvious reasons.  It included 2 SEC teams in the top 3, but they hadn't played each other yet.  That would be a big deal, imo, if it ever came about again (for any conference).
It also involved ND.
A PAC-12 team ranked higher than the PAC-12 champ (and with 1 fewer loss)
A conference champ ranked 5th, behind a non-champ
1. 12-0 ND
2. 12-1 Alabama (SEC Champ)
3. 11-1 Florida
4. 11-1 Oregon
5. 11-1 Kansas State (BigXII co-champ)
6. 11-2 Stanford (PAC Champ)
In this example, I think Florida was safely in, as they hadn't had their shot vs Bama yet.  The real debate would be tween Oregon, KSU, and Stanford.  Oregon's only loss was to Stanford, and one of Stanford's losses was to ND already.  
I assume they'd omit the unsexy helmet of KSU, fair or not, and it would be a toss-up between the Ducks and Trees.
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on December 17, 2018, 04:12:45 PM
For those of you wanting to toss out the CCGs, here's what the top 4 was pre-championship weekend:
1. ND
2. Alabama
3. Georgia
4. Florida

Be careful what you wish for.
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on December 17, 2018, 04:25:49 PM
Lowest ranked major conference teams with 0, 1, or 2 losses; BCS and CFP era (using final pre-bowl AP poll):
1998:
1999:
2000:
2001:
2002:
2003:
2004:  
2005:
2006:
2007:
2008:
2009:
2010:
2011:
2012:
2013:
2014:
2015:
2016:
2017:
2018:
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: Hawkinole on December 30, 2018, 11:59:43 AM
Maybe it is just this year, but it seems to me the difference between #2 and #3 was substantial, and the difference between #1 and #4 was that #1 is a complete team with an offense and most importantly, a defense, while #4 was a team with an offense.

Georgia may be the 3rd best team, but they already had their crack at Alabama, and they had a loss to LSU.

Just because the difference between #4 and #5 was close, makes it tempting to bring in more teams. The purpose of the playoff is not to determine the #4 or #5 team. Some year the desire for more teams may make sense, but not in 2018. In 2018 the question of #1 or #2 is between Clemson and Alabama.

We already have too many games for the academic load players carry, and for the wear and tear on their bodies.
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: Cincydawg on December 30, 2018, 12:04:30 PM
I see folks on FB saying they don't like blowouts but want an expanded playoff at the same time.  One wanted the latter at 16 teams but have OU and ND not included.

This year was unusual in several respects, including having 3 P5 teams undefeated.  There was an apparent gap between 1-2 and 3-4-5-6, but expanding the playoff doesn't fix that.  And we might yet find that Bama blows out Clemson (or vice versa) and there really was only one team worth noting.  Clemson's best wins are close over A&M and Syracuse, and now ND (who is not looking great).

Otherwise, Clemson pushed around some pretty bad ACC teams.  Their new QB is really impressive and they can run and play defense, so I think they are a solid team though.
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on December 30, 2018, 01:41:19 PM
A weak SOS doesn't automatically mean a team isn't the best, it simply means we don't know if they are.  For programs that get the benefit of the doubt, whether it be eye test or helmet or whatever, it's fine, it doesn't matter.  But to everyone else, they can't allow for that uncertainty, and obviously need to schedule tougher.




But yes, expanding the playoff guarantees more blowouts, by simple logic.  
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: Cincydawg on December 30, 2018, 04:56:29 PM
Some claimed ND played a weak slate, so I noted that Clemson played a rather similar slate, perhaps not even as tough.

Just about everyone's schedule can be criticized in most years.  And obviously a lot depends on how you hammer the mediocre teams.
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: rook119 on December 30, 2018, 07:20:54 PM
Some claimed ND played a weak slate, so I noted that Clemson played a rather similar slate, perhaps not even as tough.

Just about everyone's schedule can be criticized in most years.  And obviously a lot depends on how you hammer the mediocre teams.
I rarely have any problems w/ NDs schedule. They play road games all over the country which isn't really easy. 
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: bayareabadger on December 30, 2018, 08:08:19 PM
The weak ND schedule seems like bad luck more than anything. If I said you’d play:

USC
Stanford
FSU
VT
Michigan 
NW

That probably is fine. Granted they got 10-win Syracuse, bowl level Vandy. In terms of recent history, the worst teams there are Ball State, which was kinda OK when that was scheduled, Vandy and Syracuse. The fourth worst team from the perspective of what they should be in the recent era is Pitt, ehhh has at least bowled in 10 of 11 years.
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: Cincydawg on December 31, 2018, 09:13:57 AM
Schedules are set years ahead of time, so I view schedules as being of programs rather than teams.

You could schedule Texas and USC in 2010 and played them both in 2015 and it would look a lot different.

Syracuse is usually weak but had a pretty sound team this year, same with NW (NW less often weak of late of course).  Vandy was a mediocre team, which is better than they often have been.
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: Cincydawg on December 31, 2018, 09:49:52 AM
ND will join a conference, perhaps, AFTER they are left out with a 12-0 season. of left out several times with 11-1 seasons.

The Big 12 got a CG because of that.
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: Cincydawg on December 31, 2018, 10:05:44 AM
Those who complain about the committee's selections might note that the AP and Coaches polls had the same top four as well, and nearly the same top ten, with a couple of one place flips.

Everyone of note really reaches the same conclusion.
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on January 01, 2019, 02:47:12 PM
because they're sheep
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: Cincydawg on January 01, 2019, 03:48:23 PM
No, because the ranking is obvious.
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: bayareabadger on January 01, 2019, 04:04:44 PM
because they're sheep
If they’re sheep, you have a better selection?
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on January 01, 2019, 06:32:09 PM
the diversity of the computer rankings are great
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: Hawkinole on January 02, 2019, 10:34:16 AM

Georgia may be the 3rd best team, but they already had their crack at Alabama, and they had a loss to LSU.


I don't know what I was thinking of.
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: Cincydawg on January 02, 2019, 04:00:51 PM
Maybe the better question is whether they should be contracted back to two.
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on January 02, 2019, 04:23:42 PM
Maybe the better question is whether they should be contracted back to two.
If an undefeated Notre Dame was left out, the universe would implode.
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: Cincydawg on January 02, 2019, 06:05:43 PM
The universe is exploding, technically, anyway.

It might start imploding in a few billion years, though the rate of expansion is apparently accelerating, which poses a bit of a conundrum.
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on January 02, 2019, 08:48:32 PM
I learned this year that it's expanding faster than the speed of light......so much of it we'll never be able to see, ever.  I hadn't known that specific part of it.  
So if a super-nova is far enough away from us, its light will never reach us....I think.  
Do we have any idea where the big bang happened? Is it the center of the body the milky way is a dot on an arm of?
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: ohio1317 on January 03, 2019, 01:07:26 AM
Voted no, but been debating how I would like to see this set-up if it came to pass and think I finally would a way that I think would at least somewhat balance tradition. 

1. Have all 5 conferences tie to a major bowl. Big 12 and SEC can continue to be tied to Sugar together if they want, but I suspect for this they would separate out with the SEC keeping the Sugar and the Big 12 going to either the Cotton or back to the Fiesta (let's say the Cotton).
 
 2. The 4 quarterfinals would all be on New Years Day or over 2 days. The conference champs would all be placed in their respective bowls. In the Rose Bowl, you will have both Big Ten and PAC-12 champs unless the two teams both are in either the top 3 or the bottom 3 of the 8 playoff teams. If that ends up the case, the lower ranked team is made an at large team. The same would apply for the SEC/Big 12 if both stuck with the Sugar (although for the rest of this I'm saying they aren't).
 
 3. The 3 or sometimes 4 at large teams (possibly with added protections for Group of 5 of independents) would be placed to balance the seeds as much as possible.
 
 4. I think the compromise with the Group of 5 teams and independents would be this. Any independent guarenteed in if they are in the top 8 (unlike everyone else, they can never get in outside of the top 8, so they also won't be able to be kicked out if they are in it). For the Group of 5, the highest champ will be in if they are in the top 12.
 
 Here's how that would look this year, assuming the Big 12 went with the Cotton Bowl:
 Rose Bowl: #6 Ohio State vs. #3 Notre Dame
 Sugar Bowl: #1 Alabama vs.#9 Washington
 Cotton Bowl: #4 Oklahoma vs. #5 Georgia
 Orange Bowl: #2 Clemson vs. #8 UCF
 
 If Ohio State had been #5 instead of #6, Ohio State and Washington still would have been in the Rose Bowl, but at #6 they and Washington are both the bottom 3 seeds. In this particular year, that would have given the Big Ten an easier opponent than pure rankings, but the opposite can just as easily happen as well.
 
 After the playoff bowls, I would have a single site for the semi-finals and national championship and make it a week long event.
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on January 03, 2019, 01:44:52 AM
I fear no matter where you set the line for G5 teams, it will become a glass ceiling.  Voters, knowing where the line is, would have ranked UCF 9th this year and last year.  But that's just my opinion and I'm probably wrong.  Perhaps that wouldn't happen until they let a G5 team get in the way of a big-boy team and the NC trophy first....
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: bayareabadger on January 03, 2019, 07:52:54 PM
I fear no matter where you set the line for G5 teams, it will become a glass ceiling.  Voters, knowing where the line is, would have ranked UCF 9th this year and last year.  But that's just my opinion and I'm probably wrong.  Perhaps that wouldn't happen until they let a G5 team get in the way of a big-boy team and the NC trophy first....
Possibly. I heard some talk of something like the old G5 rule for BCS. You'd get a spot, unless you were below the worst P5 champ. 
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: bayareabadger on January 03, 2019, 08:12:14 PM
So I was thinking about this, the coming expansion, and what OAM talked about the regular season as a gauntlet, both for those in the mix (the vast minority) and those watching from the outside.

And I think what killed that was this: At some point, our opinions started to harden, and we really stopped caring about the beautiful latticework that was a season. 

By this I mean, if you look back to the early BCS, the main things that popped were the controversies and the near misses. As in, people talk about some UCLA game in ... 1998 I think, that knocked them out. We talk about the K-State team that slipped up. Nebraska losing to Colorado and going over Oregon. Ohio State surviving and surviving as talking heads said "Iowa and USC are probably better." The title game was very much the product of a journey. 

But somewhere along the way it became more ... ordained for lack of a better word. What happened in the title game was just the way it was supposed to be. It was and always will be unfortunately tied in with the SEC vs. the world dynamic that resulted. It wasn't exactly that we knew how it would end, but that when it was ended, it was quickly wrapped up into something that was supposed to happen. Some team would make a run, some SEC team would back in, that SEC team would win, and we'd talk about the fraud that made it to face them and how a team (2008 Oklahoma, 2010 Oregon, 2006 OSU, 2012 Notre Dame) was always a bit of a paper Tiger. 

When we look back at 2006 Florida, what's considered most interesting tends to be that defense that came alive, that group that made a great OSU offense look lost and wanting, the idea their excellence had been obscured by the gauntlet they came through. And when that's the case, it's little wonder we want more big stage games.

What could be interesting about 2006 Florida is Karl Dorrell and Eric McNeal swung a national title. It's Jarvis Moss, it's a secret important USC-ND game the week before the UCLA upset. 

We became a people so focused on point making that we (we being the wider populace) forgot how to appreciate the breadth of a season, or maybe we never did. And when every season gets reduced in such a way to the concentrated part at the end, people want more of that, even if it dilutes what they took for granted. 
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on January 03, 2019, 08:29:32 PM
I know that the sports with commissioners have a vague, but simple charge for that position - do what's best for the health of the game.  Maybe going back to the mythical national championships is what's good for college football.  The maybes and ifs that have been eliminated.  ???
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: utee94 on January 04, 2019, 11:34:46 AM
So I was thinking about this, the coming expansion, and what OAM talked about the regular season as a gauntlet, both for those in the mix (the vast minority) and those watching from the outside.

And I think what killed that was this: At some point, our opinions started to harden, and we really stopped caring about the beautiful latticework that was a season.

By this I mean, if you look back to the early BCS, the main things that popped were the controversies and the near misses. As in, people talk about some UCLA game in ... 1998 I think, that knocked them out. We talk about the K-State team that slipped up. Nebraska losing to Colorado and going over Oregon. Ohio State surviving and surviving as talking heads said "Iowa and USC are probably better." The title game was very much the product of a journey.

But somewhere along the way it became more ... ordained for lack of a better word. What happened in the title game was just the way it was supposed to be. It was and always will be unfortunately tied in with the SEC vs. the world dynamic that resulted. It wasn't exactly that we knew how it would end, but that when it was ended, it was quickly wrapped up into something that was supposed to happen. Some team would make a run, some SEC team would back in, that SEC team would win, and we'd talk about the fraud that made it to face them and how a team (2008 Oklahoma, 2010 Oregon, 2006 OSU, 2012 Notre Dame) was always a bit of a paper Tiger.

When we look back at 2006 Florida, what's considered most interesting tends to be that defense that came alive, that group that made a great OSU offense look lost and wanting, the idea their excellence had been obscured by the gauntlet they came through. And when that's the case, it's little wonder we want more big stage games.

What could be interesting about 2006 Florida is Karl Dorrell and Eric McNeal swung a national title. It's Jarvis Moss, it's a secret important USC-ND game the week before the UCLA upset.

We became a people so focused on point making that we (we being the wider populace) forgot how to appreciate the breadth of a season, or maybe we never did. And when every season gets reduced in such a way to the concentrated part at the end, people want more of that, even if it dilutes what they took for granted.
Very well stated.
And I believe it goes beyond that as well.  The nationalization of the sport, the 24/7 new cycle, the focus on the endgame which has fostered the endless debates about relative conference strength-- they've not only caused us to miss out, or deliberately pass over, that latticework of the regular season.  They've also caused many of us to forget that the game itself is supposed to be the important thing.   The individual struggles of offensive lineman against defensive lineman, of wide receiver against defensive back, of quarterback against the blitzing linebacker, of each coach strategizing against the other-- the things that happen in between the white lines, on the field of play-- those are what is supposed to be important.  It's supposed to be entertainment.  It's supposed to be fun.  It's supposed to be the entire point of the thing.
But many of us have somehow lost that along the way.  We ignore the individual games, and the games within those games.  We focus on the big picture, and on the postseason, instead of enjoying each game by itself.   We've lost our ability to live in the moment and simply enjoy the game, the way many of us enjoyed playing it when we were kids.  
I'm certainly not saying this has happened to everyone on this message board, or every fan of college football.  Personally, I try to stay in the moment and enjoy the individual moments of the games themselves.  But it's sometimes difficult, with all of the noise, all of the chatter, so very focused on the things that I don't believe should matter nearly as much.
It wasn't always this way.  College football used to be a far more regional sport.  Winning football games, beating your rivals, winning the conference, getting to a "good bowl"-- those used to be the goals for teams, and coaches, and fans.  But the sport slowly, and perhaps inevitably, shifted to a far more national focus.  Now, simply winning a game and defeating your opponent isn't enough.  We're forced to worry about whether it was "pretty" enough to impress the voters, or the selection committee.  We have to worry whether Ohio State or OU look more dominant, and compare their common opponents and perform all sorts of other mental gymnastics.
The focus has shifted so far from regional to national, to the point where we're actually talking about whether or not Georgia wanted to play in the SEC's traditional New Year's Day bowl, because they were disappointed about being left out of the CFP.
I'm not against OAM's posed suggestion of going back to the MNCs.  It reminds me of a time when college football was more fun to follow. I just don't see any realistic path back in that direction.  So I have to wonder, is there anything that can be done within the current framework, to get back some of the old "rah rah" feelings from decades ago?  Is it perhaps time to revert to the idea of true student athletes instead of NFL-wannabe athletes that have no interest in school?  Are we as fans willing to accept the sharp decline in the quality of player, and quality of play, that would likely bring about?

Just my $0.02 this morning.
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on January 04, 2019, 11:55:13 AM
Meh.

#firstworldproblems

Spend two decades as a fan of a non-helmet team, and you'll realize all this BCS, all this CFP, all this other stuff is really other people's concern. For a Purdue fan, every goddamn win is precious.
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: utee94 on January 04, 2019, 11:56:52 AM
Meh.

#firstworldproblems

Spend two decades as a fan of a non-helmet team, and you'll realize all this BCS, all this CFP, all this other stuff is really other people's concern. For a Purdue fan, every goddamn win is precious.

Point well taken, indeed.
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: SFBadger96 on January 04, 2019, 12:09:50 PM
I remember way back when when we argued about the impact a playoff would have on the regular season, how it would change the dynamic in bowl games, etc. And it has come to pass that winning the Rose Bowl or the Sugar Bowl, while still a very nice thing, isn't the same as it used to be. And if the Rose Bowl isn't as good, neither is the Capital One, nor the Outback, etc. So when your 7-5 team plays in the Consolation (I mean Pinstripe) Bowl, you wonder if it's even worth watching (I did end up watching a fair portion of it).

And with conference championship games, that loss to Purdue isn't as catastrophic as it used to be for the conference championship--but the conference championship isn't as important as it used to be. So yeah, week to week, the bigger kids--and thus the media--are less focused on that week's challenge, and more focused on the CFP race.

And for all of that, the CFP is a better way to award a championship. Yes, we still talk about the crazy that was the 1998 rankings and what happened to those teams that just missed. Yes, Penn State/Nebraska, Colorado/Georgia Tech, and BYU are still things we remember (and Notre Dame fans--and only Notre Dame fans--remember Seminole-gate). Just like the some of the calls that probably would get overturned in the modern era, that stood in times past.

I liked the old system, but my team wasn't ever blocked from a championship it might otherwise have had. And yes, Purdue fans (and Wisconsin fans) still celebrate week-to-week wins because every one matters.

And for all of that, I think the most appropriate way to run a playoff would be to reward conference championships above all else--which means all major conference champs get in. That would take beauty contest rankings out of it, and give Purdue and Wazzu a better chance at making it in. And, because of the little guy and Notre Dame, I think one additional space, specifically reserved for the little guy or ND (maybe with the best record, to diminish ND's helmet status? So a 12-0 UCF gets in over an 11-1 ND? Would probably need some kind of minimum requirement for major conference opponents to avoid non-P5 programs intentionally watering down their schedules) makes sense. How to run a six-team playoff is an interesting question. Three at-large births doesn't really seem to get it done, and buys are also a challenge, but maybe not that big a one, if the one and two usually seem pretty clear. So instead of what we had this time around, it would be ND vs. Washington and OU vs. OSU for the opportunity to play Clemson and Alabama.

It would further erode the old bowl system, but it's already lost its cache. And we're not going back...
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: utee94 on January 04, 2019, 02:27:12 PM
Going back to the original question, I find it interesting that we're divided 11-11 on whether the playoffs should be expanded.

I voted yes, which is sort of counter to my traditional way of thinking, but I guess I figure we've come this far and there's no going back, so let's get to 8 teams.

I love the idea of giving the P5 conference champs automatic ins, because I want the conference championship to be meaningful.  I'm split on the potential effects on early season bigtime OOC intersectional matchups.  Would teams be more willing to schedule them since an early season loss to Ohio State or Notre Dame wouldn't knock you our of your conference race?  Or would teams be less likely to schedule them since they'd have no need of the SOS boost as long as they win their conference?

I'm unsure on that one.  
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: utee94 on January 04, 2019, 02:29:16 PM
And I also realize this is another example of a helmet team view, aka #1stworldproblems.  I give badgerfan maybe 2 minutes before he shows up and tells me it's irrelevant since helmets won't bother to schedule his badgers under any scenario.  And he'd have a point...
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: rolltidefan on January 04, 2019, 02:51:12 PM
the answer to the ooc matchups within a p5 conf champ guaranteed scenario is... dun dun dunnn... money! surprise

i dont remember which way i voted, but at this time i think i'd vote no. or at least, "lets let this contract play out for more than 4 seasons before making any more drastic changes". didn't see that option in the poll, though.
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: utee94 on January 04, 2019, 02:59:39 PM
the answer to the ooc matchups within a p5 conf champ guaranteed scenario is... dun dun dunnn... money! surprise

i dont remember which way i voted, but at this time i think i'd vote no. or at least, "lets let this contract play out for more than 4 seasons before making any more drastic changes". didn't see that option in the poll, though.

Money for sure.  The TV media partners encourage the schools within the conferences they sponsor, to schedule good OOC opponents, because it's good for their inventory.
And MOST ADs like scheduling marquee opponents, because they know it'll fill up the stadium.  These days, even some blue bloods are facing declining attendance numbers, so the better the home schedule, the more tickets they sell.  And not just single game tickets, but season tickets.
But SOS and brand building are also contributing factors, and I just don't know how the dynamic might change if we went to all-conference-champs-in model.
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on January 04, 2019, 03:08:24 PM
Well, I think we should look at it from the perspective of a non-helmet. Let's use Michigan State so that this thread can be a #safespace and not #trigger Badge with discussions of Wisconsin's scheduling woes.

Going to 8 gives a team like MSU two potential paths to getting into the CFP:


Assume MSU schedules strong OOC, and we'll use Purdue's OOC this year as an example. Purdue played Missouri, Eastern Michigan, and a ranked Boston College. Not scheduling the best of the best, of course, but a pretty solid schedule when you consider they're playing 9 conference games.

Let's say MSU goes 1-2 against that slate, losing to the two P5 teams, but goes 8-1 and wins the CCG: they're in at 10-3 overall. There was ZERO downside to scheduling tough OOC. At worst they'll be badly-seeded in the CFP.

Now let's say MSU goes 3-0 against that slate. They then go 8-1 in conference but due to tiebreakers, don't go to the CCG. Now they're 11-1 with a strong OOC and their only loss was to a team that went to the CCG: they have an EXCELLENT argument for one of the at-large berths. So they are HELPED by scheduling tough OOC.

So in both of those cases the strong OOC either didn't hurt them or actively helped them. 

Assume MSU schedules 2 MAC teams and one FCS OOC. 

Let's say they go 3-0 OOC, and they go 8-1 in conference, plus win the CCG. At 12-1, their weak OOC schedule and non-helmet status will probably impact their seeding negatively. So even though they'll be in, they won't be a top seed.

Now let's say they go 3-0 OOC, but 8-1 in conference, but don't go to the CCG due to tiebreaker, or like Iowa in 2015, go 9-0 and get to the CCG and perhaps lose to a weaker team from the West. They'll be 11-1 or 12-1, but don't have a conference championship, have a weak OOC slate, and they're not a helmet. There will be easy arguments for another team with similar resume and stronger OOC games to take one of those at-large spots. 

I personally think teams will be helped more than they're hurt by scheduling strong OOC. If you win your conference, it doesn't hurt you at all. If you come CLOSE to winning your conference, a strong OOC can put you over the edge for the at-large selection. And having a weak OOC if you don't win your conference could push you under the line and miss out on that at-large selection, even if you win those games. 
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on January 04, 2019, 03:09:57 PM
I saw a thread or comment on here somewhere (I think it was in this thread) about the ridiculously cheap prices for NC tickets.  

I think there are two forms of fanbases being tapped out:

Problem #1 is a temporary issue specific to these two teams.  Problem #2 is structural and permanent.  
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on January 04, 2019, 03:43:46 PM
Exactly. It's why the Super Bowl is rarely attended by the fans of the teams. It's in a neutral site city and you don't know until 2 weeks prior if your team is in it. And suddenly you're on the hook for travel costs, lodging, tickets, etc. For the Super Bowl the tickets are expensive, moreso than the CFPCG, but it's those travel costs that are difficult. 

It's one thing if it's in Dallas, or Florida, or Atlanta, which is driving distance from a lot of the teams likely to be in it. But nobody is driving from Columbus, or Tuscaloosa, or Clemson, or even Norman, to Santa Clara. 
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on January 04, 2019, 07:38:31 PM
Expand that.  I live out here in Phoenix and I wouldn't drive there even if Florida was playing.  Why?  The distance from Phx to Santa Clara is longer than the trip from Atlanta to Cleveland.  It's stupid far, no one there cares about college football, and it's stupid far!!!!  :96:











P.S.  It's stupid far!
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: bayareabadger on January 05, 2019, 12:21:27 PM
Expand that.  I live out here in Phoenix and I wouldn't drive there even if Florida was playing.  Why?  The distance from Phx to Santa Clara is longer than the trip from Atlanta to Cleveland.  It's stupid far, no one there cares about college football, and it's stupid far!!!!  :96:











P.S.  It's stupid far!
The flight might’ve been, maybe not reasonable, but also not four figures.
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: bayareabadger on January 05, 2019, 01:03:27 PM
So, I fell into a historical ditch yesterday. I was interested in the 2008 title game, which in my memory was oddly overshadowed by narrative (either that or I was in the midst of 10 of the heaviest drinking days of my life). In retrospect, I think it was. 

You had a game that was within one score for 57 minutes, tied for 29 or so. Oklahoma managed to. Get crushed in yards per play AND barf up 2-3 great opportunities and have two weird picks and still was right there. With the right mindset, it woulda been dramatic and tense. 

But there was so much on the Oklahoma offense that it not working that well overshadowed a lot. Granted, you also had a stupid good Florida offense kinda slowed by an Oklahoma defense no one had any regard for. It was also early in SECism, which kinda detracted from everything.

In looking through all that, I’d forgotten what a tremendous set of teams there were that year. In some ways it was built for the old system, in some it wasn’t. 

The title race ended up getting dominated by two factors, who was gonna escape the SEC and who would escape the Big 12 mess. Penn State was lingering, but slipped up by a point in Iowa City. But the batch of teams that year was tremendous. 

The Florida and Oklahoma teams 
The Bama team that got to 12-1 with a somehow softer schedule than you’d think
Texas and Texas Tech at 12-1 (Texas was pretty legit)
PSU which didn’t have the best schedule, but did have a 9-4 non-conf P5 win, the only loss was by a point and averaged winning 40.2-12.4.
USC, which beat 10-2 OSU by 32, only lost to a 9-4 team by six on the road and averaged winnin 37.5-7.8
An undefeated Utah team win wins against  11, 16 and one borderline team. 

Your 9 and 10 were 12-0 BSU (with 1 very nice win and an unforgivable schedule) and 10-2 Ohio State that has understandable losses and ... ehh, a couple wins vs 9-4 teams. 
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on January 05, 2019, 06:43:47 PM
Yeah, that Florida defense has gotten a halo effect based on what it did vs OU, but it wasn't special before then.  USC's was special - held 10 opponents to 10 points or less.  That's sick.
-
-
But the Gators' D was more talent than results, probably because the offense kind of went berzerker after the Ole Miss loss and "the promise" by Tebow.  The defense just had to show up, especially against ranked teams:
vs #4 LSU, FLA offense scored 51 points
vs #8 UGA, 49 points
vs #24 USCe, 56 points
@ #23 FSU, 45 points
v #1 Bama, 31 points....I believe that Bama D was #1 at the time, before the Florida and Utah losses.
-
-
-
-
An 8-team playoff in 2008 would have been chock-full of worthy teams, for sure.  But we'd also have undefeated Boise State at 9th, bitching and moaning, despite their high school schedule.  It's a never-ending battle.
Title: Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
Post by: TyphonInc on January 17, 2019, 09:20:56 AM
lingering topics members of the CFP's management committee raised during interviews with ESPN:

The value of winning a conference title. By leaving out conference champions, and choosing teams that didn't win their league, does that unintentionally devalue the importance of the regular season -- the very thing the commissioners desperately didn't want to do?

Strength of schedule. How can it be further defined, or is there already too much emphasis on it? The commissioners intentionally didn't want an RPI-type metric to dominate the discussions.

Notre Dame. How is Notre Dame's 12-game résumé measured against conference champions that have won 13 games?

Group of 5. What, if anything, can the Group of 5 do to get top-four consideration?

Expansion. Is it possible to expand the playoff without unraveling the entire sport to its detriment, and if so, how?

http://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/25768492/college-football-playoff-expand-now-in-future