Civil War: CFB Title Landscape

[Huskers93-97]

6 hours ago, Big Red 40 said:

As far as north vs south goes I think it’s a talent issue . I don’t have stats to back it up but I’d bet the south produces more 5 star talent than the north and proximity to home weighs on those players college choice . 

As far as a playoff I think this year proved the system works as is . The 2 teams in the championship game were the 2 best teams all year and proved it. 

You can’t use 1 year as a sample and say it proves the current system works. How would you explain the year Ohio state was the 4 seed and won the national championship. I don’t think Ohio state was even a gimme to get the 4 seed. So they could have almost been left out of the playoff as the 5th rated team but they turned out to be the best. 

 

This year was a rare year where you had 2 super teams. The last time that happened was 05 Texas and usc. Before that 95 huskers and Florida. 

 

So I would not be surprised if you had an 8 seed or 6 seed win the thing one day. There will be a year in the future there will not be a juggernaut team and numerous teams will have a fair shot. 

[Moiraine]

27 minutes ago, Huskers93-97 said:

How would you explain the year Ohio state was the 4 seed and won the national championship. I don’t think Ohio state was even a gimme to get the 4 seed.

 

They weren't. There was a lot of debate that year on whether they should be the 4th team, and a lot of whining after they got in. It's kinda funny how bad people's memories are. Last year the 3rd and 4th seeds played in the finals. 40% of the time, the finals hasn't been the #1 and #2 seeds, so who's to say the #5 team could never have gotten there? And the argument that there will be arguments about the #8 team is kind of silly. Ya, there will be, but it's not nearly as big of a deal to get the #8 team wrong as it is to get the #4 team wrong, and 8 teams gets rid of the problem of not having a representative from every P5 conference.

[Big Red 40]

I still want the national champions to prove they are the best all year long, to win their conference championship game, and to win a head to head match up with number 2. Bringing in the 8th best team and giving them another chance to compete for a championship in a postseason tournament, when they didn't do any of those things,  cheapens the regular season, and cheapens the accomplishments of those who did. Can number 7 get hot in the tournament and beat number 1? Yes. Does that really prove they were the best team in football that given year? Not to me. Tournament Champs maybe, but not a true National Champ.

[Toe]

@Big Red 40 That's why I'm OK with keeping it at 4 teams. The question shouldn't be 'are they in the top four teams', it should be 'are they maybe the #1 best team in the country this year'. Alabama, Clemson, and Notre Dame were all undefeated and could make a reasonable case that they should be considered #1. That's three teams, and I don't think we've had a year where there's been more than four teams that could claim with a straight face to be the #1 team in the country heading into bowl season.

[Huskers93-97]

10 hours ago, Big Red 40 said:

I still want the national champions to prove they are the best all year long, to win their conference championship game, and to win a head to head match up with number 2. Bringing in the 8th best team and giving them another chance to compete for a championship in a postseason tournament, when they didn't do any of those things,  cheapens the regular season, and cheapens the accomplishments of those who did. Can number 7 get hot in the tournament and beat number 1? Yes. Does that really prove they were the best team in football that given year? Not to me. Tournament Champs maybe, but not a true National Champ.

College football is the only thing that does it this way. That should tell you something. I dont care who is the best team in september or october. The point of the season is to progress and get better all year so you peak at the right time. The best team is the team that hits their peak come early december and carries through early january. The regular season doesnt lose its meaning. If a team performs well all year they get the number #1 seed and get the easiest game to start with the #8 seed. But ya know what maybe the #8 team is actually better. Maybe #8 lost 2 games because they played 2 great teams or had an injury early in the season so they were not at full strength. Then the #1 team destroys every team on their schedule because they play in a weak pac12 or something, or clemson this year in a weak ACC. The regular season is to develop and get better as a team all year and put yourself in position to compete for a championship. 

 

You seem too hung up on the regular season being the determining factor of who the best team is. Just to put it in perspective. 2007 NFL. The patriots went undefeated in the regular season. Should they have just cancelled the playoffs because the patriots earned a championship because they won the regular season? How many super bowls have been won by a team that is not the 1 or 2 seed. If you perform well in the regular season as you state above get advantages by being a higher seed or perhaps a home field advantage in the first round or something. So every game would still matter as much to me because if you get a top 4 seed the first round of the playoff could be at home. I would love to see Florida have to go to Michigan in mid december. It would take away some advantage the south has right now. Especially if a 2nd SEC team gets in as a at large bid. So they get a 6, 7, or 8 seed and maybe have to come to Nebraska or Ohio State or something like that. Plus imagine the benefits the top 4 seeds get in $$$. They get an extra home game with a premier opponent.

 

Whats the fear of a 7 seed beating a 2 seed. Or an 8 seed beating a 1 seed? If they really are deserving of the 1 seed and are the best team deserving of being crowned national champion they shouldnt lose.
Do you dislike march madness when a lower seed beats a higher seed? 

In 2007 were the Giants not the "true" super bowl champion? A division winner maybe but not the actual super bowl champ? 

Did Clemson prove they were the best all year? No. I think they almost lost to syracuse and 1 other game so i dont think they proved they were the best. Alabama won the regular season.

[beorach]

Applying the KISS method, every conference champ should get in.  ND would have to adjust, of course, but they're already halfway there.  If there's griping about who gets in with such a system, I don't think there'll be much sympathy considering it'd be a conference problem.  E.g., remember when the Big Ten's Rose Bowl rep was determined by which candidate hadn't been there in the longest time?  If you can't settle things the right way in your conference, it shouldn't become a national issue.

 

If we can't stomach the idea of the G5 champs participating, I suggest we jettison approximately half the teams in the top division (such that there are only the P5 and ND left).  If they're good enough to make up the vast majority (over 2/3 w/o even doing the math is safe to say) of most every P5 team's out-of-conference schedule but not good enough to play for a national title, let's cut the BS.  If every team had to play a full season against other P5 teams, we'd likely get to see more inter-conference play and really determine a pecking order (in terms of the conferences themselves).  The real dream would involve a relegation/promotion system a la the world's version of football but baby steps...

 

p.s. - Isn't this the same topic Roundball Shaman had before?  I didn't notice when I first posted but it sure seems like it.

[Redux]

I'm a big advocate for all 5 power 5 champs getting in, plus the best group of 5 champ if they are rated in the top 10, plus 2 at large spots.

 

That said, this years playoff was dreadful.  We got a mismatch for Bama and turns out Clemson truly was just head and shoulders better than everyone. (Maybe Syracuse should be ranked?)  We don't need crappy matchups, but we do need a system that makes winning games and winning your conference matter.  Right now they make it painfully clear that playing a tough schedule, being in certain conferences matter more than other things like records.

 

Adam Carriker had a pretty good idea honestly, forgive me if this has already been posted elsewhere as my board frequency has been sporadic as of late.  It's unique and fair, meaning most conference higher ups would never go for it, but I do like the concept.

 

https://www.omaha.com/huskers/carriker/carriker-chronicles-an-eight-team-playoff-isn-t-the-fix/article_83532f56-8326-56d8-b64b-954056cd438b.html

[BigRedBuster]

3 minutes ago, Redux said:

I'm a big advocate for all 5 power 5 champs getting in, plus the best group of 5 champ if they are rated in the top 10, plus 2 at large spots.

 

That said, this years playoff was dreadful.  We got a mismatch for Bama and turns out Clemson truly was just head and shoulders better than everyone. (Maybe Syracuse should be ranked?)  We don't need crappy matchups, but we do need a system that makes winning games and winning your conference matter.  Right now they make it painfully clear that playing a tough schedule, being in certain conferences matter more than other things like records.

 

I guess I don't see how this year was a failure for the playoffs.  Clemson was damn good.  Simple as that.  The playoffs worked because it proved that.  

 

Now, it's up to other teams to match what Clemson is doing and knock them off.  Having  playoff gives teams the chance to do that.

 

PS.....after Clemson played ND, the mantra was that ND didn't belong in the playoffs.  I would say, they did, Clemson just was that good.

[Redux]

3 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

I guess I don't see how this year was a failure for the playoffs.  Clemson was damn good.  Simple as that.  The playoffs worked because it proved that.  

 

Now, it's up to other teams to match what Clemson is doing and knock them off.  Having  playoff gives teams the chance to do that.

 

Never said it was a failure at all.  Just dreadful to watch.  None of the games were exciting.  We ended up with the top two in the title game anyways, everything panned out as it should have really.  It just kinda sucked.  That's on the teams that lost though.

 

If we had an 8 team playoff this year though we likely include UCF, Georgia, Washington and Ohio State.  Those 4 plus the 4 that made it could have made some really good games.

[BigRedBuster]

1 minute ago, Redux said:

If we had an 8 team playoff this year though we likely include UCF, Georgia, Washington and Ohio State.  Those 4 plus the 4 that made it could have made some really good games.

 

True.

[Hilltop]

The current 4 team playoff has gotten it right most of the time but I would much rather see 8 teams involved with an auto qualifier from each power 5.  There is too much media bias pressure placed on the committee.  Answer this, if Alabama had lost to someone early in the season and then went on a run and beat Auburn by the score of 62 to 39, do you think they would have remained ranked the same the next week?  Ohio State completely destroyed top 10 ranked Michigan in their rivalry game and didn't even gain a spot.  Heck in 2017, Alabama lost to Auburn in the last game and still made it in.  I agree with the rankings this season but if the tables were turned, we all know that the SEC team would get the benefit simply based on perception.  An 8 team playoff that guarantees a spot for each power 5 goes a long way to eliminating the perception bias imo.  

[beorach]

2 hours ago, Hilltop said:

Answer this, if Alabama had lost to someone early in the season and then went on a run and beat Auburn by the score of 62 to 39, do you think they would have remained ranked the same the next week?

 

It obviously depends on what all the other CFP candidates were doing at the same time.  If Alabama had lost to someone early in the season with their 2018 schedule, I'm not sure they'd have recovered.  Ohio State lost to Purdue and couldn't get back in DESPITE drubbing a highly-ranked team in Michigan so Alabama losing to one of their first five opponents (Florida State, Fresno State, Colorado State, Vanderbilt, or Ole Miss) should have meant beating up an Auburn team wouldn't affect them in terms of getting into the playoff...IF I follow you...

[Moiraine]

1 hour ago, beorach said:

 

It obviously depends on what all the other CFP candidates were doing at the same time.  If Alabama had lost to someone early in the season with their 2018 schedule, I'm not sure they'd have recovered.  Ohio State lost to Purdue and couldn't get back in DESPITE drubbing a highly-ranked team in Michigan so Alabama losing to one of their first five opponents (Florida State, Fresno State, Colorado State, Vanderbilt, or Ole Miss) should have meant beating up an Auburn team wouldn't affect them in terms of getting into the playoff...IF I follow you...

 

 

“should have” is the key phrase. 

 

And it depends more on the conference, imo, than what the other teams were doing.

[Huskers93-97]

I think each P5 conference is full of quality programs. How quality they are from year to year varies. So an auto qualifier from each conference guarantees they all get a fair shake on the field and not judged off the field by people sitting in a room. Win your conference and you earn the right to compete for a national championship and represent your conference. Maybe some conferences are better than people give them credit for. Or maybe some are over rated. If the SEC has a down year overall they still get tons of credit for every team they beat in conference because of past/recent success. So they have a great shot of putting 2 teams in a 4 team playoff as it stands now. So if the SEC is going to get 2 teams in the 4 team playoff most years after losing their last game of the season or not even making their conference championship game. Then at least give 1 team from each conference a chance and give the SEC their token 2nd team. One other at large and a G5 if they earn it.

[Big Red 40]

15 hours ago, Redux said:

 

Never said it was a failure at all.  Just dreadful to watch.  None of the games were exciting.  We ended up with the top two in the title game anyways, everything panned out as it should have really.  It just kinda sucked.  That's on the teams that lost though.

 

If we had an 8 team playoff this year though we likely include UCF, Georgia, Washington and Ohio State.  Those 4 plus the 4 that made it could have made some really good games.

All of those teams except Ohio state lost their bowl games. Why would how would putting them in the playoffs against even better teams make it more exciting?