*** The CFB Playoff Misc bullsh#t Thread ***

[RedDenver]

23 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

So you honestly think there were better teams than Alabama, Clemson, and LSU the past few seasons?

 

I get tired of dynasties and I hate the SEC's arrogance, but I like football and based on what I've seen on the field, I can see no reason not to give these teams credit for playing the game extremely well. 

It doesn't really matter what anyone subjectively thinks about how good those teams were. The fact that the system admission criteria is based on those subjective opinions is the issue.

 

(And no, I don't think Alabama was the best team the year they didn't win their conference or division. They got gifted a spot in the tourney and made the most of their opportunity.)

[BigRedBuster]

2 hours ago, Cobra Kai said:

Did I?  Well s#!t.  I guess I've been wrong the whole time!  NO MORE ALABAMA OR CLEMSON IN THE CFP!  ITS NOT FAIR!

 

Better?  Now I am on your side!

Way to be over dramatic.  Great job.   Nobody is saying Alabama and Clemson shouldn't be in the CFP.  

[Guy Chamberlin]

22 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

It doesn't really matter what anyone subjectively thinks about how good those teams were.

 

That's literally the only thing we're talking about. 

 

 

 

[RedDenver]

4 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

That's literally the only thing we're talking about. 

No, it isn't. That might be all you're talking about, but I'm talking about the subjective vs objective tourney admission criteria. It's fine if you want a more subjective way to select the teams, but I don't. I'd prefer the selection criteria be as objective as possible.

[Saunders]

1 hour ago, RedDenver said:

No, it isn't. That might be all you're talking about, but I'm talking about the subjective vs objective tourney admission criteria. It's fine if you want a more subjective way to select the teams, but I don't. I'd prefer the selection criteria be as objective as possible.

This is the crux of the argument right here. It needs to be equal footing across the board. But it's not. We're in a weird space of super teams and a hyper focus on the playoff (thanks ESPN). The narrative is being pushed before the season even starts (the "who's in" segments) that's setting these teams up for the playoff, and diminishing the regular season. And the ratings for the playoff reflect this.

[Cobra Kai]

2 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

Way to be over dramatic.  Great job.   Nobody is saying Alabama and Clemson shouldn't be in the CFP.  

 

They should always be in...until proven otherwise.  Subjectivity is the only way to go.  Schedule strength is different, strength of conference is different, just to list a couple.  

 

To not use to eye test as one of the criteria is very short sided.  I honestly hope someone knocks those two teams off of their perch this season!  I'm getting tired of the same two teams.  But I am not going to hate on the two best programs because they get in.  However they get in.  It's never been undeserving.  

 

Some years other teams may have deserved it too...but for the last 6 or 7 years, they have deserved everything they have been given.  And they have earned their championships once they've gotten there.  

 

I may be in the minority with husker fans...and that's ok.  We've all been butthurt for the last 20 years because we used to be Alabama.  Now we're not.  And we may never be there again.  You can disagree, and we'll all be fine.

[Guy Chamberlin]

We can talk about what the best and most equitable playoff format could be. 

 

I'm just talking about the playoff system we have. 

 

Four teams. Three games. Almost always a debate about the last team to squeeze in. Almost no debate about the top two or three. 

 

Subjectively and objectively, Alabama and Clemson have been on a roll. The SEC is pretty loaded, too.

 

I don't think this would have changed much if lower ranked teams had been given a shot, but it will be fun and of course more profitable to the NCAA and ESPN when this happens. 

[BigRedBuster]

16 hours ago, Cobra Kai said:

But I am not going to hate on the two best programs because they get in. 

You keep saying things like this.  Nobody is "hating on" these two teams.

[Guy Chamberlin]

I'm pretty sure I'd like a 16 game playoff format, but it is worth considering how it will change the regular season. College football is one of those rare sports where every game has urgency, because there are only 12 or 13 a season. If teams know they only have to make the top 16, it can actually devalue late season games for the top contenders, as it sometimes does in pro sports where the stars sit out loseable games to avoid pre-playoff injuries.

 

And get ready for the legitimate argument that the NCAA, TV networks, conferences and the gambling community will be making billions off the month long playoff, while student athletes playing more games, facing more injuries and abandoning the pretext of semester finals will remain uncompensated. 

 

Again, not sure how I feel about it. But a 16 game playoff does come with unintended consequences. And Alabama, Clemson, or Ohio State would still be likely to win. 

 

 

 

[RedDenver]

47 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

I'm pretty sure I'd like a 16 game playoff format, but it is worth considering how it will change the regular season. College football is one of those rare sports where every game has urgency, because there are only 12 or 13 a season. If teams know they only have to make the top 16, it can actually devalue late season games for the top contenders, as it sometimes does in pro sports where the stars sit out loseable games out to avoid pre-playoff injuries.

 

And get ready for the legitimate argument that the NCAA, TV networks, conferences and the gambling community will be making billions off the month long playoff, while student athletes playing more games, facing more injuries and abandoning the pretext of semester finals will remain uncompensated. 

 

Again, not sure how I feel about it. But a 16 game playoff does come with unintended consequences. And Alabama, Clemson, or Ohio State would still be likely to win. 

What about an 8 team playoff? I don't think a team can take a game off when there's only 8 teams and the majority need to win their conference. I think the NCAA issues exist with any tourney but are amplified with more teams/games.

[Guy Chamberlin]

51 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

What about an 8 team playoff? I don't think a team can take a game off when there's only 8 teams and the majority need to win their conference. I think the NCAA issues exist with any tourney but are amplified with more teams/games.

 

I think an 8 team playoff would answer a lot of the issues, but my understanding is that the push will be for 16 games, which some consider inevitable. 

[deedsker]

7 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

I think an 8 team playoff would answer a lot of the issues, but my understanding is that the push will be for 16 games, which some consider inevitable. 

Use 8 and have a caveat that you must win your division to be in the playoff. If you didn't win your division, you must have won the conference championship or crowned regular season champion to participate. One non-power five team must be included from the eligible list.

 

Problem pretty well solved of regular season importance and objectively best teams getting in.

[MyBloodIsRed16]

I've argued for years.   Just do what the other divisions do.  Win your conference and you are in the playoffs.  I don't care if there is some team who lost to whoever and "deserves" to be in.  You know the rules.  Win you conference and you are in.  Take out all the debate.  It doesnt matter if you think your conference is tough because if thats the case you are losing to a team you have already beena beat by.  5 power 5 teams get in and then the "best of the g5".  That way you have the Cinderella appeal 

[runningblind]

27 minutes ago, MyBloodIsRed16 said:

I've argued for years.   Just do what the other divisions do.  Win your conference and you are in the playoffs.  I don't care if there is some team who lost to whoever and "deserves" to be in.  You know the rules.  Win you conference and you are in.  Take out all the debate.  It doesnt matter if you think your conference is tough because if thats the case you are losing to a team you have already beena beat by.  5 power 5 teams get in and then the "best of the g5".  That way you have the Cinderella appeal 

Exactly.  Take the subjectivity out of it that is exactly the problem.  Have rules so everyone knows what they have to do and no one can argue at all if they don't meet the rules.  Every single other sport on the planet does this pretty much except for college football. 

[Born N Bled Red]

On 5/25/2021 at 3:47 PM, Cobra Kai said:

 

They should always be in...until proven otherwise.  Subjectivity is the only way to go.  Schedule strength is different, strength of conference is different, just to list a couple.  

 

To not use to eye test as one of the criteria is very short sided.  I honestly hope someone knocks those two teams off of their perch this season!  I'm getting tired of the same two teams.  But I am not going to hate on the two best programs because they get in.  However they get in.  It's never been undeserving.  

 

Some years other teams may have deserved it too...but for the last 6 or 7 years, they have deserved everything they have been given.  And they have earned their championships once they've gotten there.  

 

I may be in the minority with husker fans...and that's ok.  We've all been butthurt for the last 20 years because we used to be Alabama.  Now we're not.  And we may never be there again.  You can disagree, and we'll all be fine.

 

If they eye test is all that matters, go back to the bowl system. Worked for years before the BCS and playoff.