Against adding to playoff

[The Dude]

Seems like the more teams you add the more teams can make an argument they belong in.

 

A lot more teams will feel left out.

[JKinney]

I have to respectfully disagree with almost everything in this post.  To respond, first let me copy a previous post of mine in support of an 8 team playoff:

 

The college football 4-team playoff is obviously beyond imperfect, but I believe that the only teams qualified to go to the CFP are CONFERENCE CHAMPIONSHIP WINNERS.  I would want 8 teams ideally...5 Power-5 conference championship winners, 3 non-power five conference championship winners.  It would get rid of some of the SUBJECTIVE measures and propaganda, such as which team is "the best". 

 

There are some who would then say (in a hypothetical situation), "But a 12-1 Alabama team (that didn't play in a conference championship) is clearly 'better' than Auburn 10-3 (let's pretend for a second that Auburn won the conference championship)."  To this I would reply:  In the NCAA basketball tournament last year Arizona No. 2 seed was clearly "better" than Xavier No. 11 seed, so even though Xavier beat Arizona in the tournament, since Arizona was the "better" team they should be the one to advance?  The idea that a team should advance to the playoff because someone thinks they are "better" is crazy.  I think teams would/should be forced to treat their in conference schedule as their toughest test.  Teams know what they have to do to win their conference, the rules are clear and easy to follow.  If you don't win your conference too bad.

 

Now to respond point by point:

I want the season to matter.   Right now, the season matters for some teams and not for others.  What we need is to be consistent.  For example, the season 'mattered' for Ohio State (won conference championship but didn't go to playoff), but didn't "matter" for Alabama (didn't even play in conference championship, advanced to playoff)

p5 champions should not automatically get in:  If only conference championships mattered, every conference would be treated like a tournament, and every team that advanced to the playoff would be picked by the clear rules of the conference, that everyone understands.  This is much preferable to the media and other fans telling me who is better based on an "eye test"

what about the last team left out:  There is not a tournament or championship in the world where this doesn't take place.  Are you arguing to make the college football playoff less fair, because it will always be a little unfair?  I can't support that position.

4 or more post regular season games: They do this in DII all the time.  Fans like it and it doesn't seem to be a problem.

other bowl games mean even less:  I think the NCAA has done this to themselves with the sheer amount of pointless bowl games (see Dollar General Bowl)

less undefeated champions:  This point is well taken.  But I do think that undefeated seasons would mean more than they did in the past, because at some point in the season, other than the National Championship, you would be forced to play tough opponents.

Hype: As I have stated before, this is exactly the reason you WOULD switch to a conference championship 8 team playoff

higher chance of playing teams multiple times same season:  This would not happen as you suggest if you just picked  P5 conference champions and 3 non-power five conference championship winners

Wrong champion:  "Coinciding with the first one. Is the champion the best team or the team that played the best at the end of the season?"  This is your most incoherent argument.  See my example above.  Would you advance Arizona in the NCAA basketball tournament, because Arizona just didn't play the best at the end of the season? 

hard on fans: I agree with you that games should be moved to campus sites

 

We can absolutely agree to disagree, but I truly believe an 8 team playoff similar to the one I outlined above, would be a great thing for college football.

[knapplc]

1 hour ago, The Dude said:

Seems like the more teams you add the more teams can make an argument they belong in.

 

A lot more teams will feel left out.

 

Sure, but the argument for a two- or three-loss #9 team is much worse, and will gain far less traction, than an undefeated or one-loss #5 team.  There's a diminishing point of return on protesting you deserve a shot the lower you go in the rankings.

[huKSer]

Maybe have a caveat that if the conference champion has 3 or more losses that they be replaced with another contender.  At that point they would have a slightly better than 75% win percentage (13-3) 

 

Yes I'm looking at you Wisconsin

[Enhance]

Eight teams obviously increases the chance of making the playoff but a consequence of this is it becomes harder to actually win a national title.

 

Generally speaking, eventual champions in an eight team playoff would need to beat a top 10-15 team in a conference title game, and then win back-to-back-to-back games against top 8 opponents. This requires a lot of depth that I believe is only present in a small portion of teams year over year. Most namely - Alabama. So, while I don't necessarily believe this is a reason to avoid expanding to eight teams, I'm not sure people are weighing this part of the equation very often.

 

Also, @Mavric, interesting point about caps on automatic berths. One of my qualms with p5 champions automatically qualifying was looking back to 2012 when Wisconsin won the B1G at 8-5.

[Cdog923]

2 hours ago, Redux said:

The only reason I'm against it is because it would make it that much harder for Nebraska to win a National Title again.

 

7 minutes ago, Enhance said:

Eight teams obviously increases the chance of making the playoff but a consequence of this is it becomes harder to actually win a national title.

 

Generally speaking, eventual champions in an eight team playoff would need to beat a top 10-15 team in a conference title game, and then win back-to-back-to-back games against top 8 opponents. This requires a lot of depth that I believe is only present in a small portion of teams year over year. Most namely - Alabama. So, while I don't necessarily believe this is a reason to avoid expanding to eight teams, I'm not sure people are weighing this part of the equation very often.

 

Also, @Mavric, interesting point about caps on automatic berths. One of my qualms with p5 champions automatically qualifying was looking back to 2012 when Wisconsin won the B1G at 8-5.

 

You can't win it unless you're in it, and 8 makes it easier to get in. 

[Enhance]

9 minutes ago, Cdog923 said:

You can't win it unless you're in it, and 8 makes it easier to get in. 

Naturally, but so does increasing the field to 12, 16 or 32.

 

As I stated, I don't think increased difficulty is necessarily reason enough to halt expansion, but it's a side effect worth noting.

[Cdog923]

1 minute ago, Enhance said:

Naturally, but so does increasing the field to 12, 16 or 32.

 

As I stated, I don't think increased difficulty is necessarily reason enough to halt expansion, but it's a side effect worth noting.

 

You get into issues of dilution when you get past 8, but I agree with the sentiment. 

 

I ultimately think 8 is the way to go, but the argument for 6 is very compelling. 

[Saunders]

The season already doesn't matter. Why? Because Alabama got a spot in the playoff last year.

[Mavric]

4 minutes ago, Cdog923 said:

You get into issues of dilution when you get past 8, but I agree with the sentiment. 

 

I ultimately think 8 is the way to go, but the argument for 6 is very compelling. 

 

I could live with six (as far as number of teams getting in) but I don't like the disparity of two teams getting a bye.  It would create the same argument as a two-team playoff - lots of arguing over who is the #2 team (getting the bye) and who is the #3 team (playing the extra game).

[Mavric]

3 minutes ago, Saunders said:

The season already doesn't matter. Why? Because Alabama got a spot in the playoff last year.

 

Exactly why the "devaluing the regular season" argument is a red herring.  If you want a meaningless regular season game, look no farther than the 2011 Alabama-LSU game (before a four-team playoff).  In fact, you could make an argument that losing that game made Alabama's path to the National Championship EASIER because they didn't have to play in the CCG.

[junior4949]

24 minutes ago, Saunders said:

The season already doesn't matter. Why? Because Alabama got a spot in the playoff last year.

 

This simply isn't true.  There has yet to be a two loss team make it into the playoff.  Thus far, the committee has made it pretty clear that the season significantly matters.  They could care less whether or not a team wins their conference title.  They left B1G Champ Penn State out of the playoff because they lost two games.  They left B1G Champ Ohio State out of the playoff because they lost two games.  How in the heck does one get the impression that the season already doesn't matter? 

[beorach]

15 hours ago, Boy of the Corn said:

All the rage right now seems to be moving to a 8 team playoff. Frost is for it but I am against it. Here's why:

I want the season to matter. Yes you have to have a good season to get into playoff position but lose a couple games and as long as you play good at the end of the season, it will not negatively effect you.

p5 champions should not automatically get in. All the talk is about 5 p5 champions and 3 at large, but what about when your conference champion has an average/poor record? 

what about the last team left out: There will always be a last team left out that is arguably as good as the last team in.

4 or more post regular season games: add up your conference championship and your playoff games and to become a champion you have to play a heck of a lot of games. 

other bowl games mean even less:woohoo you get into the orange,fiesta, rose bowl, etc with a terrible record because all capable teams are in playoff.

less undefeated champions: Tom Osborne went for 2 against Miami because he believed to be a champion you had to beat your opponent. Adding to the playoff will increase the chances of teams having 2, 3, or more losses. 

Hype: Certain teams seem to get overranked because of their name (not their performance) i.e. notre dame

higher chance of playing teams multiple times same season. Imagine a year where Nebraska beats ohio state in the regular season only to lose in the conference championship but gets an at large bid and play again in the playoffs

Wrong champion: Coinciding with the first one. Is the champion the best team or the team that played the best at the end of the season? 

hard on fans: unless they are going to move games to college campuses, how many of you super fans can travel 3 or 4 weeks in a row to watch nebraska play? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BLUF: Don't worry.  They'll **** up the 8-team just like they have the 4-team playoff.  It's not like the playoff is the only problematic element of college football anyway.  Look at how few meaningful games there are between good teams during the regular season and yet we all act as if we know which teams and conferences are the best.

 

Wall of text: Seed the teams per rankings that matter and have home games if you want the regular season to have meaning.  There's not enough interconference play to make a call about which conference champion is bad or great.  Any playoff is going to have teams left out.  Remember how you wanted the regular season to matter?  We've always had meaningless games both during and after the regular season.  Not every champion is going to be undefeated and the playoff is just trying to allow teams to establish themselves as the best on the field.  Rankings are based on human perception of limited data as it is.  More teams in the playoff means the best teams are playing more so there's more data.  It would be nice to have that data from the current season but, again, see BLUF.  I don't think any conference should have more than one team in a playoff and not having the two SEC teams play early in the last one was a mistake in my reckoning.  Would you rather have regular season and "postseason" champs?  This seems to be a matter of a playoff versus just having a vote almost and not a question of 4 or 8 teams in a playoff.  As I've shared many times, I think home games would be great for at least part of the "postseason."

[Big Red 40]

1 hour ago, Mavric said:

 

Exactly why the "devaluing the regular season" argument is a red herring.  If you want a meaningless regular season game, look no farther than the 2011 Alabama-LSU game (before a four-team playoff).  In fact, you could make an argument that losing that game made Alabama's path to the National Championship EASIER because they didn't have to play in the CCG.

It’s not irrelevant,  or a fallacy nope, just a different take  . The idea is to get the best team in the country . 

I think using  a criteria of  schedule strength  , win totals , conference champions , margin of victory  etc , to determine a true #1 vs #2 championship game is better . That system would reward a teams over all body of work better than a playoff . 

The playoff system erases all that for 4 teams or more and starts over . The only thing that matters is making the playoffs , and how well you do in the tournament . Playing the toughest opponents every week and winning all your games matter less . 

[JKinney]

2 minutes ago, Husker_Bohunk said:

No. Who do you replace the conference champion with? An "eye test" team?

 

No other sport kicks a conference champion from the playoffs because their record wasn't good enough. If the team wins their conference they are good enough for the playoffs.

 

Totally AGREE!  I think the worse thing that could happen would be if we expanded the playoffs to 8 teams, and we are still using 'Rankings',  'eye tests', committees, and sportswriters to make all these picks.  We need to use conference championships as a ticket for the playoffs.  All other sports use something similar.