Should playoff teams be expanded?

[utee94]

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.

[medinabuckeye1]

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)

[medinabuckeye1]

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.  

[utee94]

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.

[847badgerfan]

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.

[Badger1969]

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.  

[847badgerfan]

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)
9/4	vs.	*California (9-4)	L	25	27
9/18	vs.	Nebraska (11-1)	L	13	14
9/25	@	*Stanford (4-7)	W	28	25
9/30	@	San Diego State (6-6)	W	52	13
10/9	vs.	Brigham Young (6-6)	W	68	14
10/16	vs.	*Washington (7-4)	W	39	25
10/23	@	*Oregon State (4-7)	W	20	17
10/30	vs.	*Arizona (10-2)	W	37	17
11/6	@	*Washington State (5-6)	W	40	27
11/13	vs.	*Arizona State (6-5)	L	3	9
11/20	@	*Southern California (8-5)	W	27	21
1/1	vs.	Wisconsin (10-1-1)	L	16	21	@ Pasadena, CA	Rose Bowl
	8-4-0		368	230

 

[Badger1969]

Well with old age I guess my memory fades a little.  LOL  I stand corrected.

[ELA]

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.

[847badgerfan]

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.

[847badgerfan]

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.

[betarhoalphadelta]

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.)

[betarhoalphadelta]

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. 

[Brutus Buckeye]

I.vote bwarbiany as the unquestioned ruler of the CFB playoffs.