College Football Fan Site Area 51 @CFB51; dead nuts accurate

One community smart about college football

Civil discussion, topics, and reading of both original and aggregated news.


Author Topic: Should playoff teams be expanded?  (Read 1482 times)

Online Cincydawg

  • Global Moderator
  • All Star
  • *****
  • Posts: 4375
  • Liked:
Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
« Reply #60 on: December 14, 2018, 08:45:18 AM »
If you want the however many best teams in any playoff, there would have to be a human judgment involved (or you rely on algorithms).  

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

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

Online TyphonInc

  • Starter
  • *****
  • Posts: 1019
  • Easily Amused
  • Liked:
Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
« Reply #61 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. ✔️

Online utee94

  • Global Moderator
  • Starter
  • *****
  • Posts: 1856
  • Liked:
Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
« Reply #62 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.  

Online utee94

  • Global Moderator
  • Starter
  • *****
  • Posts: 1856
  • Liked:
Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
« Reply #63 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. 

Online Cincydawg

  • Global Moderator
  • All Star
  • *****
  • Posts: 4375
  • Liked:
Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
« Reply #64 on: December 14, 2018, 09:48:35 AM »
I personally prefer human subjectivity.  I know from long experience that algorithms can produce unexpected and unwanted outcomes.  They work fine for a bit and then up comes something really weird, and folks start wanting human interference.

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

Online medinabuckeye1

  • Starter
  • *****
  • Posts: 1708
  • Liked:
Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
« Reply #65 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.  

Online bwarbiany

  • Starter
  • *****
  • Posts: 1651
  • Liked:
Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
« Reply #66 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. 

Online Cincydawg

  • Global Moderator
  • All Star
  • *****
  • Posts: 4375
  • Liked:
Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
« Reply #67 on: December 14, 2018, 10:05:25 AM »
A top FBS team will clobber a lower level FBS team just as badly as an FCS team.

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


Online utee94

  • Global Moderator
  • Starter
  • *****
  • Posts: 1856
  • Liked:
Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
« Reply #68 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.

Online ELA

  • Global Moderator
  • Team Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 6483
  • Liked:
Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
« Reply #69 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.

Online utee94

  • Global Moderator
  • Starter
  • *****
  • Posts: 1856
  • Liked:
Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
« Reply #70 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.

Online medinabuckeye1

  • Starter
  • *****
  • Posts: 1708
  • Liked:
Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
« Reply #71 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:
  • #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)

Online medinabuckeye1

  • Starter
  • *****
  • Posts: 1708
  • Liked:
Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
« Reply #72 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.  

Online utee94

  • Global Moderator
  • Starter
  • *****
  • Posts: 1856
  • Liked:
Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
« Reply #73 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.

Online 847badgerfan

  • Administrator
  • All Star
  • *****
  • Posts: 4286
  • Liked:
Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
« Reply #74 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.
U RAH RAH! WIS CON SIN!

Offline Badger1969

  • Recruit
  • **
  • Posts: 89
  • Liked:
Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
« Reply #75 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.  
Badger1969

Online 847badgerfan

  • Administrator
  • All Star
  • *****
  • Posts: 4286
  • Liked:
Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
« Reply #76 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 (9-4)L2527
9/18vs.Nebraska (11-1)L1314
9/25@*Stanford (4-7)W2825
9/30@San Diego State (6-6)W5213
10/9vs.Brigham Young (6-6)W6814
10/16vs.*Washington (7-4)W3925
10/23@*Oregon State (4-7)W2017
10/30vs.*Arizona (10-2)W3717
11/6@*Washington State (5-6)W4027
11/13vs.*Arizona State (6-5)L39
11/20@*Southern California (8-5)W2721
1/1vs.Wisconsin (10-1-1)L1621@ Pasadena, CARose Bowl
 
8-4-0
 368230
 
« Last Edit: December 14, 2018, 11:46:45 AM by 847badgerfan »
U RAH RAH! WIS CON SIN!

Offline Badger1969

  • Recruit
  • **
  • Posts: 89
  • Liked:
Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
« Reply #77 on: December 14, 2018, 11:55:05 AM »
Well with old age I guess my memory fades a little.  LOL  I stand corrected.
Badger1969

Online ELA

  • Global Moderator
  • Team Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 6483
  • Liked:
Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
« Reply #78 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.

Online 847badgerfan

  • Administrator
  • All Star
  • *****
  • Posts: 4286
  • Liked:
Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
« Reply #79 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.
U RAH RAH! WIS CON SIN!

Online 847badgerfan

  • Administrator
  • All Star
  • *****
  • Posts: 4286
  • Liked:
Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
« Reply #80 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.
U RAH RAH! WIS CON SIN!

Online bwarbiany

  • Starter
  • *****
  • Posts: 1651
  • Liked:
Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
« Reply #81 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.)

Online bwarbiany

  • Starter
  • *****
  • Posts: 1651
  • Liked:
Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
« Reply #82 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. 

Offline Brutus Buckeye

  • All Star
  • ******
  • Posts: 3274
  • Liked:
Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
« Reply #83 on: December 14, 2018, 12:55:42 PM »
I.vote bwarbiany as the unquestioned ruler of the CFB playoffs.
1919, 20, 21, 28, 29, 31, 34, 35, 36, 37, 42, 44
WWH: 1952, 54, 55, 57, 58, 60, 61, 62, 63, 65, 67, 68, 70, 72, 74, 75
1979, 81, 82, 84, 87, 94, 98
2001, 02, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17

Online medinabuckeye1

  • Starter
  • *****
  • Posts: 1708
  • Liked:
Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
« Reply #84 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:
  • 11-0 BigTen Champion Ohio State
  • 11-0 SEC Champion Alabama
  • 10-0-1 P10 Champion USC (tied Stanford)
  • 11-0 Independent Florida State
  • 10-1 Big8 Champion Oklahoma (lost OOC to Texas)
  • 10-1 SWC Co-Champion Arkansas (lost to Houston)
  • 10-1 Nebraska (lost to Oklahoma)
  • 10-1 SWC Co-Champion Houston (lost to Texas)
  • 11-0 WAC Champion BYU
  • 10-1 Independent Pittsburgh (lost to UNC)
Even if wacky 1979 there were only three undefeated major conference champions and one of those had a tie.  

Online OrangeAfroMan

  • Stats Porn
  • All Star
  • ******
  • Posts: 3104
  • Liked:
Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
« Reply #85 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.  
“The Swamp is where Gators live.  We feel comfortable there, but we hope our opponents feel tentative. A swamp is hot and sticky and can be dangerous."

Online utee94

  • Global Moderator
  • Starter
  • *****
  • Posts: 1856
  • Liked:
Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
« Reply #86 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.

Offline rolltidefan

  • Global Moderator
  • Player
  • *****
  • Posts: 841
  • Liked:
Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
« Reply #87 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.

Online Cincydawg

  • Global Moderator
  • All Star
  • *****
  • Posts: 4375
  • Liked:
Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
« Reply #88 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.

Offline Brutus Buckeye

  • All Star
  • ******
  • Posts: 3274
  • Liked:
Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
« Reply #89 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. 
1919, 20, 21, 28, 29, 31, 34, 35, 36, 37, 42, 44
WWH: 1952, 54, 55, 57, 58, 60, 61, 62, 63, 65, 67, 68, 70, 72, 74, 75
1979, 81, 82, 84, 87, 94, 98
2001, 02, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17

 

Member Center

Welcome, Guest!!! Please login or register.

From Our Publisher:
Title Game Loss of Coherency…
Our Sponsor:
Support the Site:
Please Search Amazon from here! No cost to you yet covers some of our expenses!