Against adding to playoff

[Cdog923]

Just now, junior4949 said:

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. 

 

The value of one game doesn't overweigh the value of an entire body of work to me. Ohio State won a P5 conference, in the process beating the #3 team in the country, which is, alone, a better win than any Alabama had until the Clemson game. 

[GBRFAN]

14 hours ago, Big Red 40 said:

I agree with pretty much all of the OP's points. I personally don't like 4 teams, and i think 8 would cheapen it even more. No matter how many teams you add there can always be an argument to add more because it left someone out who "deserved" to be in . 

I like the regular season pressure of not being able to lose any games, and i like #1 facing #2 for the Championship. 

 

The argument isn't that someone was left out that deserved to be in the argument is that someone was left out that deserved to be #1.  There is a chance that the best team from the 5th P5 conference was good enough to be #1 or a team that got beat in the CC of the best conference was a fluke and was still the best team, or undefeated G5 team could have been the team to beat.  I Can't ever think of a case where the 9th best team was considered an option to be #1

[junior4949]

It's not the value of one game.  It's the value of the entire season.  Thus far, the committee has said they won't put a two loss team in the playoff.  People arguing about not valuing the season then refer to one game.  The committee isn't doing this.  They have so far committed to the idea that no two loss teams will be in the playoff.  End of story.  The conference champions mean a lot less to the committee than the win/loss record. 

 

I'm not sure why anyone is surprised by what happened last year especially when one considers what happed the year before that.  For the 2016 season, Penn State won the B1G and OU won the Big 12.  Neither of those teams made the playoff despite winning a P5 conference.  Ohio State who did not win a P5 conference got into the playoff because they only had one loss.  The precedent was set leaving the committee with really only two to three teams to choose from last year.  They either put Bama in the playoff, or Wisconsin, or UCF.  UCF really never stood a chance, so it really came down to Bama or Wisconsin.   

[JKinney]

It's a very simple concept: Eliminating (as much as possible) human bias in the playoff selection.  How do we accomplish this?  Use conference championships to determine playoff spots for most teams.  Every other way of determining it including: by committee, 'eye test', SOS, are all subjective tests based on human perception. 

 

I've said it over and over: " 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"

[Redux]

4 hours ago, Cdog923 said:

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

 

I'm talking from a sheer Nebraska only perspective.  9 times out of 10, winning the Big Ten will be enough to warrant a spot among the 4 teams.  Expanding to 8 teams adds another game Nebraska would have to win to end up champion.  Simple math, extra game makes extra harder.

 

As a CFB fan, yeah I would love to see it expand.  However, this is the formula that should be used:

 

ROUND 1

(Independents do not qualify.  All division winners are technically in the tournament at this point because Round 1 is essentially conference championship week.  Seeding and advancement will be decided by a committee after this slate of games.)

 

B1G East

B1G West

 

ACC Coastal

ACC Atlantic

 

Big XII Northernish

Big XII Texas lackeys

 

SEC East

SEC West

 

Pac 12 North

Pac 12 South

 

MtnWest Mountain

MtnWest Western

 

AAC  East

AAC West

 

C-USA East

C-USA West

 

MAC East

MAC West

 

Sun Belt East

Sun Belt West

 

ROUND 2

(Seeding now occurs via vote and computer rankings, the power 5 champions automatically are in with the remaining 3 spots going to 2 of the group of 5 champions and 1 at large team that can be a group of 5 conference champion or a power 5 runner up) Example:

 

#1 SEC Champ (West)

#8 AAC Champ (East)

 

#3 ACC Champ (Coastal)

#6 SEC Runner Up (East)

 

#2 B1G Champ (East)

#7 MtnWest Champ (Mountain)

 

#4 Pac 12 Champ (South)

#5 Big XII Champ (Texas lackeys)

 

ROUND 3

(Tournament continues as normal from here on out.  The Rose Bowl sanctity can be figured out as necessary to accommodate.)

 

#1 SEC Champ (West)

#3 ACC Champ (Coastal)

 

#2 B1G Champ (East)

#4 Pac 12 Champ (South)

 

FINAL/NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP GAME

#1 SEC Champ (West)

#2 B1G Champ (East)

 

NOTE: The big thing missing from this equation?  Alabama or whoever DIDN'T win the SEC West getting a spot and hobbling along into a gimme championship after failing to not win their conference or division.  Why?  Because it's stupid.  I don't care if they are one of the best teams.  Win the games that matter and put yourself into a position to win.  Scheduling The Citadel before losing to Auburn is basically a week off before a loss, so color me unimpressed.  No we don't lose quality of games because in the above scenario these teams all EARNED their spots and even a runner up to a power 5 has a 2nd chance.  It also gives the little guys a legitimate chance and something to truly play for.

[Enhance]

53 minutes ago, junior4949 said:

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. 

I think it's more about relativity to the field rather than the sole values of one or two losses. tOSU would've made the playoff last year over a hypothetical two loss Alabama.

 

Regardless, I tend to agree with what you're saying. The CFP has ignored conference champions in favor of teams that had better regular seasons. In 2017, I think we can easily argue that tOSU was punished for playing a tougher non-con schedule (and losing a game) versus Alabama playing a weaker non-con and winning them all.

[Cdog923]

13 minutes ago, Redux said:

 

I'm talking from a sheer Nebraska only perspective.  9 times out of 10, winning the Big Ten will be enough to warrant a spot among the 4 teams.  Expanding to 8 teams adds another game Nebraska would have to win to end up champion.  Simple math, extra game makes extra harder.

 

 

The only problem with that is that the probability of the Big Ten champion making the CFP right now is at 50%, not 90%. 

[Saunders]

18 minutes ago, Redux said:

 

I'm talking from a sheer Nebraska only perspective.  9 times out of 10, winning the Big Ten will be enough to warrant a spot among the 4 teams.  Expanding to 8 teams adds another game Nebraska would have to win to end up champion.  Simple math, extra game makes extra harder.

The Big Ten champion has been left out the last 2 seasons.

[Cdog923]

1 minute ago, Saunders said:

The Big Ten champion has been left out the last 2 seasons.

 

[Big Red 40]

1 hour ago, Husker_Bohunk said:

If you need to win your conference in order to make the playoffs then every game is meaningful.

 

That is true in every sport and every other level of collegiate football. 

 

How do you determine who is #1` and #2 unless you play it out on the field? The answer is more of the same thing we've always seen in DI football, opinions determining our champions. There are 130 FBS schools right now, you will not make an 8 team playoff by playing poorly.

You choose #1 and #2 based on the criteria I laid out . Strength of schedule, win loss record , and margin of victory would be the heaviest factors then conference champs etc . Those things are factual  data not opinions . 

I don’t believe the winner of a weak conference should be rewarded equally with a strong one especially if the other criteria is not met .

If sos was a more important factor teams would be wise to schedule the toughest out of conference schedule possible to beef up that number . That would make better more meaningful games all year long instead of scheduling cupcakes just to rack up wins . 

I’ve followed  college football for 30+ years and the majority of those years the previous  system got it right . A handful of times a team or two had a legitimate beef that they were left out, but never 6 or 8 +. 

[Redux]

1 hour ago, Cdog923 said:

 

The only problem with that is that the probability of the Big Ten champion making the CFP right now is at 50%, not 90%. 

 

1 hour ago, Saunders said:

The Big Ten champion has been left out the last 2 seasons.

 

And how much do you wanna bet two SEC teams don't make it in this year but the Big Ten champion does?  If the champion of the conference has two or more losses, it's a fight to get them in.  But you win the title game unscahted or with one loss, you're basically in.  Is that not true?

[Cdog923]

1 minute ago, Redux said:

 

 

And how much do you wanna bet two SEC teams don't make it in this year but the Big Ten champion does?  If the champion of the conference has two or more losses, it's a fight to get them in.  But you win the title game unscahted or with one loss, you're basically in.  Is that not true?

 

Even then, the Big Ten is only at a 60% clip for getting teams into the CFP. 

[Mavric]

36 minutes ago, Big Red 40 said:

I’ve followed  college football for 30+ years and the majority of those years the previous  system got it right . A handful of times a team or two had a legitimate beef that they were left out, but never 6 or 8 +. 

 

They only "got it right" in years where there were exactly 2 undefeated teams and they played each other in a bowl game.  Pretty sure that didn't happen too often.  How about 1994?  How about 1997?  I think the Huskers were the better teams those years but you don't really know unless you play it on the field.  How do you know they "get it right" if there are three undefeated teams?  How about if there is one undefeated team and several one-loss teams?

 

The four team playoff has been around all of for years and the #4 seed has won it twice.  The #1 seed has yet to win.  There is no justification for your opinion other than that's what you want to believe.

[JKinney]

28 minutes ago, Big Red 40 said:

You choose #1 and #2 based on the criteria I laid out . Strength of schedule, win loss record , and margin of victory would be the heaviest factors then conference champs etc . Those things are factual  data not opinions . 

I don’t believe the winner of a weak conference should be rewarded equally with a strong one especially if the other criteria is not met .

If sos was a more important factor teams would be wise to schedule the toughest out of conference schedule possible to beef up that number . That would make better more meaningful games all year long instead of scheduling cupcakes just to rack up wins . 

I’ve followed  college football for 30+ years and the majority of those years the previous  system got it right . A handful of times a team or two had a legitimate beef that they were left out, but never 6 or 8 +. 

 

We may just have to agree to disagree, but let me try to convince you:  SOS, win loss record, and margin of victory are (with maybe the exception of SOS) factual data.  The problem is when you interpret and weigh the data subjectively. 

 

For one, you left out a lot of data that other teams or people might consider important, for instance what about defensive ranking or offensive ranking, home or away records, etc.  You subjectively picked out the three pieces of data you wanted to use in your calculations. 

 

Second, who gets to determine how each of your three facts get weighed?  Why should a team who went 11-1 (with a SOS #15) get to go over a team that went 12-0 (with a SOS #25) or vice versa?  Do you see how it can get really dicey depending on how you want to weigh each piece of your data?  Which you must admit is pure human bias.

 

It sounds to me like you want to bring back the BCS, without the coaches or AP poll, just the computer rankings, what you forget is that the BCS formula, was designed by humans with bias from the start.  You might be interested to read about the debate over whether to include margin of victory in the rankings (https://www.si.com/college-football/2018/07/11/bcs-computer-rankings-polls-formula-sagarin-billingsley).  Definitely not my flavor of Gatorade.  8 team playoff, 5 P5 conference championship winners, 3 chosen among the rest allows far more teams to settle it on the field.

[Cdog923]

6 minutes ago, JKinney said:

 

We may just have to agree to disagree, but let me try to convince you:  SOS, win loss record, and margin of victory are (with maybe the exception of SOS) factual data.  The problem is when you interpret and weigh the data subjectively. 

 

For one, you left out a lot of data that other teams or people might consider important, for instance what about defensive ranking or offensive ranking, home or away records, etc.  You subjectively picked out the three pieces of data you wanted to use in your calculations. 

 

Second, who gets to determine how each of your three facts get weighed?  Why should a team who went 11-1 (with a SOS #15) get to go over a team that went 12-0 (with a SOS #25) or vice versa?  Do you see how it can get really dicey depending on how you want to weigh each piece of your data?  Which you must admit is pure human bias.

 

It sounds to me like you want to bring back the BCS, without the coaches or AP poll, just the computer rankings, what you forget is that the BCS formula, was designed by humans with bias from the start.  You might be interested to read about the debate over whether to include margin of victory in the rankings (https://www.si.com/college-football/2018/07/11/bcs-computer-rankings-polls-formula-sagarin-billingsley).  Definitely not my flavor of Gatorade.  8 team playoff, 5 P5 conference championship winners, 3 chosen among the rest allows far more teams to settle it on the field.

 

By going to the 5 + 3 method, you actually make it less subjective than the current format.