College football playoff selection.

[Redux]

If we move to 8 and don't grant Power 5 champs access, what was the point? Winning a conference championship is supposed to mean something. With 8 spots, that allows 3 at large teams in, the team that "should have" won that conference but didn't will probably still get in as an at large spot.

 

Winning your conference with only 9 wins may look like sh#t, but you still did it for whatever reason. That should be rewarded if there are 8 spots to hand out. If we say "Yeah you won it, but we like this team and maybe this other team more than you, so you don't get in", that makes an expanded playoff nothing more than a popularity contest. Not only that, but it encourages teams so have sh#t schedules so their record looks better.

[Mavric]

If we move to 8 and don't grant Power 5 champs access, what was the point? Winning a conference championship is supposed to mean something. With 8 spots, that allows 3 at large teams in, the team that "should have" won that conference but didn't will probably still get in as an at large spot.

 

Winning your conference with only 9 wins may look like sh#t, but you still did it for whatever reason. That should be rewarded if there are 8 spots to hand out. If we say "Yeah you won it, but we like this team and maybe this other team more than you, so you don't get in", that makes an expanded playoff nothing more than a popularity contest. Not only that, but it encourages teams so have sh#t schedules so their record looks better.

 

Eh, not necessarily. I don't think it would happen that often but Wisconsin in 2012 is a good example. They only finished third in their division but got to go to the CCG because tOSU and PSU were ineligible. So just have something to keep the crazy outlier situation out.

 

And I don't think it would encourage soft schedules. I would think it would make teams beef up their schedule so they have a better resume to be selected if they don't win their conference. Only taking conference champions would be what would make teams dilute their non-conference schedule because those games would be totally meaningless.

[junior4949]

If we move to 8 and don't grant Power 5 champs access, what was the point? Winning a conference championship is supposed to mean something. With 8 spots, that allows 3 at large teams in, the team that "should have" won that conference but didn't will probably still get in as an at large spot.

 

Winning your conference with only 9 wins may look like sh#t, but you still did it for whatever reason. That should be rewarded if there are 8 spots to hand out. If we say "Yeah you won it, but we like this team and maybe this other team more than you, so you don't get in", that makes an expanded playoff nothing more than a popularity contest. Not only that, but it encourages teams so have sh#t schedules so their record looks better.

 

Every conference goes through ups and downs. On a down year, I see no reason to include a power 5 champ if they aren't ranked in the top 10. By allowing low to non ranked conference champs into the playoff, we are essentially saying games played during the season meant little to nothing. We've more or less been involved in this a couple of times in the past couple decades. If we had an eight team playoff with auto qualifiers back in 96', barely ranked 8-5 Texas would have made the playoff. We were the only team they beat that was ranked. In 2012, non ranked Wisconsin would have made the playoff. If memory serves me right, we were the only ranked team Wisconsin beat in 2012. By allowing conference champions like this into the playoff, we are essentially saying the regular season didn't matter. Who cares if you can't beat a ranked opponent? We'll just put you in the playoffs anyway?

[Redux]

I feel the opposite. Scheduling cream puffs only works if you win your league and get the automatic bid. If you schedule a tough OOC and don't quote win your league you still have a good shot at getting in as an AQ.

[hskrfan4life]

Phil Steele has a great write up about why 4 is perfect. Brief: Regular season matters, no two loss team in 'final four' yet. All games matter. He then says: "When you are arguing over the #4 spot next year, keep this question in mind: if this were a two team playoff would this team have a legitimate claim to a #1 or #2 spot.?"

 

Can't say I argue with him. I think 4 is best.

[Mavric]

A couple things on that:

 

The regular season would definitely still matter. That's pretty much the same red herring argument that was used when they went from two to four. Still matters. At 16 it wouldn't matter as much. To me, it's not so much about not having a two loss team as it is about letting the one-loss teams have an equal chance. I think the committee has done a good job. But they're still trying to split hairs between similar teams and argue about which parts of their resume should be given more or less weight. At 8 teams, you would get all the one-loss teams in and settle it on the field. Yes, you'd also get a two-loss team here and there that doesn't really deserve it but I'd rather give the best teams a chance to settle it on the field than one of them not even get a chance.

 

And I think it's a bit of a stretch to try to pigeon hole it to "do they deserve a #1 or a #2 seed." In three years the #1 seed has not won it all. Does that mean they haven't been deserving? Ohio State almost got left out the first year but was dominant from the #4 seed. I don't think anyone thought they deserved a #1 or a #2 seed but they showed they deserved it.

[Kiyoat Husker]

Back to the original question: (Do CCG's matter in selecting for the playoff?) Of course, the answer is: It depends.

 

The value of CCG's has gone back and forth depending on the system of crowning a champ. Back in the BCS days many top teams whined about having to play that game, because they had more risk than reward. In 2003 KSU beat Oklahoma, but the Sooners still ended up being selected for (and losing) the BCS championship. More recently the B12 has been punished for NOT having one.

 

An expanded playoff without auto-bids would end many CCG's IMO. Maybe all of them. An expanded playoff WITH those bids would make them a prerequisite (obviously).

 

My question is: would the Group-of-Five conferences have a legal case for inclusion? Remember Utah's antitrust suit against the BCS? Maybe the autonomy of the Power-5 would preclude that arguement....

[Notre Dame Joe]

I've said for years that eight is the way to go. Leave the regular season how it is. The Power 5 Champions are in with some sort of caveat that you have to be in the Top 10/12 to be included - you wouldn't be automatically in just because you won the Big XII at 9-4. Then the committee selects the remaining field. The top four teams get to host the quarterfinals two weeks after the CCGs. Those eight teams would already have spots in some of the New Year's Six bowls so the rest of the bowl structure could continue as usual. Then the semifinals and finals can continue as they are currently.

 

Play the 5 major bowls using the most traditional teams then do a national title game between #1 and #2 in the poll. That way an 8-5 conference champ still gets the traditional glory of the NYD bowl along with the traditional ineligibility for the championship.

 

And I disagree that post season inflation is not harming the regular season. These big OOC games used to determine who is on the outside looking in from the wire through the BCS era. Now It is uncertain if they mean anything as the loser can still win their conference and be near guaranteed a berth.

[Redux]

Any system that makes the conference championship obsolete is a sh**ty system or at least one that needs tweakin. In this instance the BCS was that sh**ty system, the playoff is the one that needs tweaking. I'm fine with 4, but if it moves to 8 it has to value the CCG. It's not a red herring to say a conference champion that gets left out in favor of a "sexy pick" is devaluing the regular season. It's a legitimate gripe.

 

Win all the games you can, but win the most games that matter.

[Mavric]

Play the 5 major bowls using the most traditional teams then do a national title game between #1 and #2 in the poll. That way an 8-5 conference champ still gets the traditional glory of the NYD bowl along with the traditional ineligibility for the championship.

That's an interesting idea. It would be close. But all it would do would move the argument back to who should be #2 vs. #3, just with one more set of results to argue about.

 

And I disagree that post season inflation is not harming the regular season. These big OOC games used to determine who is on the outside looking in from the wire through the BCS era. Now It is uncertain if they mean anything as the loser can still win their conference and be near guaranteed a berth.

You mean like in 2011? When Alabama didn't even win their division and got to play for the national championship? Before there was any playoff. That was a completely meaningless game. Unless you want to argue that losing that game was actually a BENEFIT for Alabama because they played one less game (no CCG) so they had one less chance to lose.

 

It happens. It happened under the old system. It could happen under any system.

[Enhance]

Any system that makes the conference championship obsolete is a sh**ty system or at least one that needs tweakin. In this instance the BCS was that sh**ty system, the playoff is the one that needs tweaking. I'm fine with 4, but if it moves to 8 it has to value the CCG. It's not a red herring to say a conference champion that gets left out in favor of a "sexy pick" is devaluing the regular season. It's a legitimate gripe.

 

Win all the games you can, but win the most games that matter.

The current system guarantees at least one conference champion won't make the CFP, and I don't think it's a bad system.

 

In an eight team system that guarantees auto-berths, an 11-2 Nebraska team that lost the B1G CCG could get ousted because of an 8-win Pac 12 champ. That feels like bathing in dirty water.

[Redux]

 

Any system that makes the conference championship obsolete is a sh**ty system or at least one that needs tweakin. In this instance the BCS was that sh**ty system, the playoff is the one that needs tweaking. I'm fine with 4, but if it moves to 8 it has to value the CCG. It's not a red herring to say a conference champion that gets left out in favor of a "sexy pick" is devaluing the regular season. It's a legitimate gripe.

Win all the games you can, but win the most games that matter.

 

The current system guarantees at least one conference champion won't make the CFP, and I don't think it's a bad system.

 

In an eight team system that guarantees auto-berths, an 11-2 Nebraska team that lost the B1G CCG could get ousted because of an 8-win Pac 12 champ. That feels like bathing in dirty water.

I don't see how the current system guarantees there is one left out. We have a small sample size to judge that off, I think it's been more of hoe the chips have fallen.

 

And yes, it does. The simple answer, don't lose late. Maybe our schedule was like Washingtons last yea and we got exposed in title game and maybe that PAC champ had a schedule like we do next year and only lost by a point or two 3 or 4 times to top ten teams and still managed to win their leauge. It's all about perspective. Getting left out would suck for us in that scenario, it would suck for the team. But they would know going in what was on the line. Step up, use it as motivation. Reap rewards from hard work, not being the popular sexy pick.

[Enhance]

There are four spots in the current CFP and five Power Five champions, so one champ is guaranteed left out.

 

And you're right, there are a lot of qualifiers, but what if our one reg season loss was in Double OT to tOSU and the P12 champ lost several games by double digits? That's the beauty of the current system and the committee - they could look at that and give Nebraska a nod in this hypothetical, or any similarly positioned team.

[Redux]

There are four spots in the current CFP and five Power Five champions, so one champ is guaranteed left out.

 

And you're right, there are a lot of qualifiers, but what if our one reg season loss was in Double OT to tOSU and the P12 champ lost several games by double digits? That's the beauty of the current system and the committee - they could look at that and give Nebraska a nod in this hypothetical, or any similarly positioned team.

I read what you meant wrong, I get ya now. Yes 4 spots and 5 champs leaves one out. But that's the whole point of the committee.

 

My point is that anything downplaying the title of conference champion will end up completely dilluting the conference schedule. Essentially it would promote the elite teams to go Independent.

[Enhance]

That concern makes some sense, but wouldn't maintaining the conferences (particularly as a power five school) still be beneficial to the power five teams in this hypothetical? Notre Dame has kind of pigeon-holed themselves into making their schedule work, but since conference schedules are pretty engrained nationwide, it seems laborious for a school to go independent and try to make that work. Power five schools play the toughest schedules nationally.

 

I think, fundamentally, I'm OK with the CCGs being as they are now. Not a guarantee, but certainly a boost to your résumé.