Against adding to playoff

[NoLongerN]

Just now, JKinney said:

 

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.

 

My guess ... and probably hope ... would be that the P5 conference champs are in.  Next, the champs of the other conferences would go into a pool of teams against the other 2nd best teams from the P5 schools and in that pool of teams their would need to be a committee of some type where rankings and strength of schedule and probably even "eye test" was used to determine the 3 remaining spots (I think I got that number right?)  Anyway, nothing would ever be perfect but I would love to see an 8 team playoff.  I'd also be in favor of reducing the off-season schedule to three games.  Heck, I'd actually like to just play the other B1G teams and do away with out of conference ... but that is probably another issue.  If we have an "out of conference" type schedule I'd be a big fan of rotating games with the Big XII, PAC 12 and ACC.  Again, that's a whole other issue (just not a fan of playing 2-3 puff games at home to pad the wins).

[JKinney]

Just now, BigRedN said:

 

My guess ... and probably hope ... would be that the P5 conference champs are in.  Next, the champs of the other conferences would go into a pool of teams against the other 2nd best teams from the P5 schools and in that pool of teams their would need to be a committee of some type where rankings and strength of schedule and probably even "eye test" was used to determine the 3 remaining spots (I think I got that number right?)  Anyway, nothing would ever be perfect but I would love to see an 8 team playoff.  I'd also be in favor of reducing the off-season schedule to three games.  Heck, I'd actually like to just play the other B1G teams and do away with out of conference ... but that is probably another issue.  If we have an "out of conference" type schedule I'd be a big fan of rotating games with the Big XII, PAC 12 and ACC.  Again, that's a whole other issue (just not a fan of playing 2-3 puff games at home to pad the wins).

I would be perfectly happy using the system  you just outlined.

 

Personally, I would reserve the last 3 spots for non-P5 conference championship winners to be selected by some sort of metric, but that is not really a sticking point with me.

[knapplc]

Just make a rule that you can't have two teams from the same conference in the playoff. 

[Big Red 40]

25 minutes ago, Husker_Bohunk said:

 

How does it matter less? You can't win your conference unless you win enough games. Winning is still important. Playing the toughest opponents every week? How is any team that has a conference schedule supposed to play the toughest opponents every week?

 

You make the playoffs by winning. If you don't win enough you don't go. If we let higher seeded teams play at least the first round (and maybe 2nd also) at home there is still an incentive to win even after you've locked in a playoff spot.

 

For far to long we've accepted a DI champion being crowned in a manner other than determining it on the field. No other sport treats it's championship quite like DI football and maybe its time DI football determined it's champion on the field. No more computer ratings determining who gets in or who doesn't, no more sports writers association telling us who is best. How about if we finally let the players tell us who is best?

1 . I would weigh the conference championship less in my criteria for the simple reason that all conferences arent equal, and difficulty wining them changes year to year . If you play in a tougher conference your s.o.s will go up , and if you play a better out of conference schedule it will too . More meaningful games would be played  all year long that way too . 

2. A true #1 vs #2  in a national championship game IS settling in on the field . A tournament after the season only decides who’s playing well at that particular time . 

3. Even with the 4 team playoff we have now there’s a selection committee who tells us who deserves to be in or out . Not sure what criteria they use but it’s still up to humans to decide . 

[Moiraine]

10 minutes ago, knapplc said:

Just make a rule that you can't have two teams from the same conference in the playoff. 

 

 

Agreed. Have the conference championship be the first round of the playoff. G5 can only get in if they win their conference. Notre Dame/BYU complicates things but as long as Notre Dame keeps playing their tough schedule and they do well they deserve to be considered for one of the final 3 teams.

[Cdog923]

1 hour ago, junior4949 said:

 

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? 

 

You answered your own question: the playoff has left out two teams that have, throughout the season, proven that they can be champions of a Power 5 conference. If you look at the SOS from last year, Alabama was ranked #6. Now, this wouldn't be an issue, if Ohio State (Big Ten Champ) wasn't at #3. 

 

20 minutes ago, knapplc said:

Just make a rule that you can't have two teams from the same conference in the playoff. 

 

I would enjoy the hell out of it, but there would be serious issues of legitimacy if a 12-0 Alabama team loses to that 8-4 Florida team in my previous example. 

[Moiraine]

8 minutes ago, Cdog923 said:

I would enjoy the hell out of it, but there would be serious issues of legitimacy if a 12-0 Alabama team loses to that 8-4 Florida team in my previous example. 

 

 

Why? They lost what would be the first round of the playoff, the conference championship game. It's no less fair than any other playoff. The conference championships would be round 1. Then they pick the final 3 teams from the G5 champs. Or 2 + ND/BYU. 2-3 G5 would get left out.

[Cdog923]

2 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

Why? They lost what would be the first round of the playoff, the conference championship game. It's no less fair than any other playoff.

 

Because CCGs aren't considered part of either one of the scenarios presented, the current model or the Frost model. 

[junior4949]

6 minutes ago, Cdog923 said:

 

You answered your own question: the playoff has left out two teams that have, throughout the season, proven that they can be champions of a Power 5 conference. If you look at the SOS from last year, Alabama was ranked #6. Now, this wouldn't be an issue, if Ohio State (Big Ten Champ) wasn't at #3. 

 

 

I would enjoy the hell out of it, but there would be serious issues of legitimacy if a 12-0 Alabama team loses to that 8-4 Florida team in my previous example. 

 

There's not a huge difference between #6 and #3 SOS.  The difference then becomes that one team managed to lose twice with their SOS while the other team only lost once with their SOS.  The regular season then had a huge impact on who made the playoff.   It was no different putting Bama into the playoff last year than it was the year before putting Ohio State in it.  The committee thus far has shown they care a lot more about the regular season and winning those games.  Losing one game in the season doesn't kill playoff hopes, but so far losing two games in the season has killed any chance.

[Cdog923]

5 minutes ago, junior4949 said:

 

There's not a huge difference between #6 and #3 SOS.  The difference then becomes that one team managed to lose twice with their SOS while the other team only lost once with their SOS.  The regular season then had a huge impact on who made the playoff.   It was no different putting Bama into the playoff last year than it was the year before putting Ohio State in it.  The committee thus far has shown they care a lot more about the regular season and winning those games.  Losing one game in the season doesn't kill playoff hopes, but so far losing two games in the season has killed any chance.

 

You're right: there isn't much of a difference. The difference is that Ohio State won it's conference. Regardless of what happens at Kinnick at night, they checked off one more box than Alabama. By leaving Ohio State out, they devalued the accomplishments of Ohio State's regular season to elevate Alabama, a team that, for the second time, played for a national title without winning its division, let alone its conference. That's not a lot of value on the regular season. 

[HS_Coach_C]

11 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

Why? They lost what would be the first round of the playoff, the conference championship game. It's no less fair than any other playoff. The conference championships would be round 1. Then they pick the final 3 teams from the G5 champs. Or 2 + ND/BYU. 2-3 G5 would get left out.

Not necessarily disagreeing, but say Nebraska went 11-1 with only a September loss at Wisconsin at night, and Wisconsin ends up winning the Big Ten at 13-0.

 

By your criteria they can't be in the playoff, but they didn't get eliminated in their CCG. It's just an early season road loss.

[Moiraine]

6 minutes ago, junior4949 said:

 

There's not a huge difference between #6 and #3 SOS.  The difference then becomes that one team managed to lose twice with their SOS while the other team only lost once with their SOS.  The regular season then had a huge impact on who made the playoff.   It was no different putting Bama into the playoff last year than it was the year before putting Ohio State in it.  The committee thus far has shown they care a lot more about the regular season and winning those games.  Losing one game in the season doesn't kill playoff hopes, but so far losing two games in the season has killed any chance.

 

 

When OSU was put in the playoff they didn't put a non conference champion ahead of a conference champion, so it's not the same. 

[Moiraine]

1 minute ago, HS_Coach_C said:

Not necessarily disagreeing, but say Nebraska went 11-1 with only a September loss at Wisconsin at night, and Wisconsin ends up winning the Big Ten at 13-0.

 

By your criteria they can't be in the playoff, but they didn't get eliminated in their CCG. It's just an early season road loss.

 

 

I still think that's fine. I think it should be the 5 conference champions + 3 at large. In that scenario Nebraska shouldn't have lost the game.

[Cdog923]

1 minute ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

I still think that's fine. I think it should be the 5 conference champions + 3 at large. In that scenario Nebraska shouldn't have lost the game.

 

In that scenario, Nebraska doesn't even win the West; I'm ok with leaving them out. 

[junior4949]

Alabama checked a box that Ohio State didn't.  They only lost one game.  It's no different than the previous year when Penn State won the conference but Ohio State went to the playoff.  From past results, one can conclude that losing two games kills any chance at a playoff spot.  There has been a tremendous value placed on the regular season.  Given what the committee has done thus far into the playoff era, I just don't understand how anyone can argue that there's not a lot of value on the regular season.