CFB Power Brokers Discussing Expansion Of CFP To 8

[runningblind]

 

[dvdcrr]

On 12/18/2018 at 6:54 PM, 4skers89 said:

I think expanding the playoffs is a knee jerk reaction to fixing certain situations whenever it benefits the person holding that view.. B1G is left out 2 years in a  row so Delaney now wants it expanded.  UCF is left out so they want it expanded.  I believe the committee does a good job selecting the top 4 teams and expanding the playoff isn't necessary.  There could be some upsets in the playoffs but it's more likely that the top 4 teams will be battling it out to get into the championship game with an expansion.  It won't be a surprise when Alabama and Clemson play this year for the championship and I don't see OSU, UCF, Michigan or Georgia advancing too far in an expanded playoff.  An expansion will also create unanticipated situations that people will get upset about.  Rematches such as Georgia-Alabama or OSU-Michigan aren't compelling nor are games such as Alabama and some outmatched G5 team that might sneak in.  Nobody will be happy when 3 or 4 SEC teams get into the playoffs and two SEC teams play in the championship game.  What if OSU or Michigan tank their game to avoid playing in the CCG knowing that their resume is good enough to still make an expanded playoff?  I like the 4 team playoff because 1 loss can keep a team out.  Most OSU fans are probably OK with being left out and had Oklahoma been left out most of their fans would be OK with it realizing their team has a major deficiency.  An 8 team playoff would probably just shift the squabbling over who should get in from 1 loss teams to which 2 loss teams are most deserving.  Of course the solution to that is expand to 16 teams.  Let's at least stick with the 4 team playoff for a while to see how well it's working.  If the top 1 or 2 ranked teams consistently win the championship then a 4 team playoff is probably sufficient.

So you say that you think a conference advocating to expand the playoffs is a knee jerk reaction.  So let me ask you, if a tire blows on your car, is it a knee jerk reaction to put on a spare tire?  

What I am saying is if there is a problem (and there certainly is right now)  then is not it wise to fix the problem?

There is no validity to a four team playoff.  8 teams, in fact is barely good enough.  I would feel comfortable in saying that there have been or will be team(s) ranked below #8 having most likely 2 losses, who would very well win the tournament if you let them in. 

 

[dvdcrr]

Sometimes it seems as if the powers that be do not care about a champion on the field, unless that champion is a prestigious legacy program.  For example lets say a # 8 seed , 2 loss team from a non-power conference wins the tournament.  What large university or NCAA director would want that! There's no money in it!

[jager]

5 hours ago, dvdcrr said:

So you say that you think a conference advocating to expand the playoffs is a knee jerk reaction.  So let me ask you, if a tire blows on your car, is it a knee jerk reaction to put on a spare tire?  

What I am saying is if there is a problem (and there certainly is right now)  then is not it wise to fix the problem?

There is no validity to a four team playoff.  8 teams, in fact is barely good enough.  I would feel comfortable in saying that there have been or will be team(s) ranked below #8 having most likely 2 losses, who would very well win the tournament if you let them in. 

 

The more losses a team has lessens the importance of the regular season. Keep it at four. If you can’t win the games you play, then you don’t deserve the playoffs. Everyone always say prove it on the field. Let that mean something.

[Moiraine]

1 hour ago, jager said:

The more losses a team has lessens the importance of the regular season. Keep it at four. If you can’t win the games you play, then you don’t deserve the playoffs. Everyone always say prove it on the field. Let that mean something.

 

 

So the playoff should have been cancelled last year? There was only 1 undefeated team.

[jager]

That’s not what I meant. 2 loses should eliminate you though. Make it hard to get in. 

[Moiraine]

18 minutes ago, jager said:

That’s not what I meant. 2 loses should eliminate you though. Make it hard to get in. 

 

 

A high % of the teams that have gotten in had 1 loss, and many 1 loss teams have been left out. The biggest problem is there are 5 conferences and 4 spots, and those conferences don't have many OOC games against power 5 teams, so it's pretty much impossible to judge which teams really are deserving of getting the 4 spots unless there are exactly 4 undefeated P5 teams. How are we to know that the SEC really is the best conference, when their teams played hardly anyone from the other 4? The best info we have is from a tiny handful of bowl and early games, and they went 5-6 in bowl season last year yet people still consider them the best and sometimes they get 2 teams in because of it. It's not nearly as simple as you're making it out to be. You could hypothetically have a situation where one of the conferences is absolute trash and their winner is undefeated so they get in over a team that's actually better because they only had 1 loss against a much better group of teams. This could happen with Clemson in the future based off of their name recognition. An 8 team playoff would clear this up because each P5 conference would be represented.

[jager]

I agree. I just don’t want to water down the playoffs. 

[MichiganDad3]

On 12/12/2018 at 2:19 PM, gossamorharpy said:

Haven't heard one honest explanation as to why we started with a 4 team playoff system when we have 5 power conferences considered equal to one another... that system will inherently be unfair and guaranteed to leave out at least one conference champ each year, 2 when notre dame has a solid year.

 

All conference champs and then next 3 highest ranked teams.  Makes conference champ weekend and late november football way more compelling when teams 6-12 are fighting for the last spots.

 

I'm 100% against a 6 team because it gives the top 2 team an inherent advantage with a week off and since its impossible to have equal schedules, do not want a scenario where a biased committee dictates who gets a bye.

 

Start the 3rd round this weekend, 2nd round around new years and title game where it is now.

 

Who the F says no to that?

If team loses one game and doesn’t win there division, they also get a bye. No team should get an at large bid without winning their division.

[MichiganDad3]

On 12/21/2018 at 3:27 AM, DrinkinwitTerrellFarley said:

You are giving Notre Dame too much credit here IMO.  I see them probably only qualifying twice in a decade at most, three times would be high water mark.  They aren't at the level of Alabama, Ohio State, closer to a team like Washington.  Plus they usually play a difficult schedule.  I also expect there to be a qualifier for a G5 and some years there may not be a team that meets the metric.

Norte Dame always plays a cupcake schedule. Michigan, northwestern and Syracuse were their toughest games this year. And ND has decided to quit playing Michigan every year, although they are happy to play state annually.

[Landlord]

1 hour ago, MichiganDad3 said:

Norte Dame always plays a cupcake schedule.

 

No, they don't?

 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, MichiganDad3 said:

Michigan, northwestern and Syracuse were their toughest games this year.

 

 

So the #7, #17, and #22 ranked teams in the nation. That doesn't seem all that cupcake to me. Michigan only played one more ranked team than ND did this year, for example, and Nebraska faced the same amount of ranked teams (while our schedule was considered one of the toughest in the country).

 

Last year Notre Dame played #2 Georgia, #10 USC, #13 Miami, #15 Michigan State, #19 Stanford and #23 North Carolina State.

 

2016 Notre Dame played #5 USC, #12 Stanford, #16 Virginia Tech, #20 Miami, and had Texas/Michigan State even though both schools were bad that year.

 

2015 Notre Dame played #2 Clemson, #3 Stanford, #14 Florida State.

[BigRedBuster]

22 minutes ago, Landlord said:

 

No, they don't?

 

 

 

 

 

 

So the #7, #17, and #22 ranked teams in the nation. That doesn't seem all that cupcake to me. Michigan only played one more ranked team than ND did this year, for example, and Nebraska faced the same amount of ranked teams (while our schedule was considered one of the toughest in the country).

 

Last year Notre Dame played #2 Georgia, #10 USC, #13 Miami, #15 Michigan State, #19 Stanford and #23 North Carolina State.

 

2016 Notre Dame played #5 USC, #12 Stanford, #16 Virginia Tech, #20 Miami, and had Texas/Michigan State even though both schools were bad that year.

 

2015 Notre Dame played #2 Clemson, #3 Stanford, #14 Florida State.

[Notre Dame Joe]

18 hours ago, MichiganDad3 said:

Norte Dame always plays a cupcake schedule. Michigan, northwestern and Syracuse were their toughest games this year. And ND has decided to quit playing Michigan every year, although they are happy to play state annually.

Merry Christmas Anyway

[MichiganDad3]

5 hours ago, Notre Dame Joe said:

Merry Christmas Anyway

Join the BIG, and lets have ND vs Nebraska every year!

 

Merry Christmas to you too. Enjoy the holidays.

[Landlord]

16 hours ago, MichiganDad3 said:

Join the BIG, and lets have ND vs Nebraska every year!

 

Merry Christmas to you too. Enjoy the holidays.

 

 

Why would they want to do that when they've got it made playing such a cupcake schedule every year