12-Team Playoff On the Way; 14-Team to Follow

Hilltop said:
Are they though?  Look at some of the losses that people seem to sweep under the rug by the traditional power teams.  Teams do have a bad day.  Those bad days are forgiven if you have been good for a while but if you are experiencing new success, there is no room for error in the publics perception.

Georgia has their second loss of the season to a team ranked much lower than Ohio State.  Why are they given grace but Indiana suddenly sucks?   

View attachment 21749

How is Notre Dame ranked as high as they are with a loss to a crap team?  Their best win was against Texas A&M in the first game of the year.  Their other ranked Opponent was Army...   

View attachment 21747

Northern Illinois has lost to Buffalo, NC State, Toledo, Ball State, and Miami of Ohio...  woof

View attachment 21748

View attachment 21750

And a loss at Tennessee...  How does that make them a better team than Indiana??  Simply because we expect them to be good.  
Click to expand...


I'll give you Notre Dame, they also probably aren't that good. Bama/Georgia/etc probably get some extra grace based on name value, but come on. Indiana's best win is maybe us in a game where we just didn't show up? A 5-point home win against a mediocre Michigan team? A 14 point win over meh Washington where Washington outgained them? An early season blowout against a UCLA team that hadn't found its stride, and is still going to miss a bowl now that it has? Bama  (LSU, South Carolina, Georgia) and Georgia (Clemson, Texas, Tennessee) each have 3 wins better than any Indiana has.

FWIW, I don't think Georgia and Bama should be in. I think 11-1 Indiana has earned a shot. I also don't think it's a stretch to say that Georgia/Bama would be 11-1 if they played Indiana's schedule, and Indiana would not be if they played Ohio State's schedule.  I would like the playoff to be only teams that have had great seasons and be able to just base that on win/loss record, and secondarily the quality of those wins and losses. But with wildly different SOS, that second piece becomes more important and whether you judge a team based on their good games or their bad games and how you weigh the competition is going to give you different answers.

I'm not pretending I have answers here, there's too much variance in week to week performance and schedules to have a really great solution. Realistically a much smaller division is the answer, but I don't want that - I love the variation in college football. It just makes it really difficult to compare teams.

 
Hilltop said:
Are they though?  Look at some of the losses that people seem to sweep under the rug by the traditional power teams.  Teams do have a bad day.  Those bad days are forgiven if you have been good for a while but if you are experiencing new success, there is no room for error in the publics perception.

Georgia has their second loss of the season to a team ranked much lower than Ohio State.  Why are they given grace but Indiana suddenly sucks?   

View attachment 21749

How is Notre Dame ranked as high as they are with a loss to a crap team?  Their best win was against Texas A&M in the first game of the year.  Their other ranked Opponent was Army...   

View attachment 21747

Northern Illinois has lost to Buffalo, NC State, Toledo, Ball State, and Miami of Ohio...  woof

View attachment 21748

View attachment 21750

And a loss at Tennessee...  How does that make them a better team than Indiana??  Simply because we expect them to be good.  
Click to expand...
Alabama is living off of Nick Saban equity.  Numerous sports media people have commented on how unfocused and undisciplined the Crimson Tide is this year.

 
runningblind said:
I find it the opposite.  More teams getting in makes it much more exciting week to week.  In the old days if your team lost one game you were done, as you pointed out I think.  How is that more exciting?  
Click to expand...
I used to follow the Huskers and the undefeated teams to see who was eliminated as it got narrowed down throughout the season. Now I just follow the Huskers and wait to see who's in the playoffs at the end. Tracking which 2 or 3 loss team gets in isn't as interesting to me. Like when tOSU lost to Oregon - didn't really matter.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
BigRedBuster said:
Totally opposite.
Click to expand...
Agreed. I think this is the most exciting season of college football I’ve ever seen in my life so far. I can only imagine how much I would’ve enjoyed it if the huskers were any good. And now we have a lot of amazing and meaningful playoff matchups coming up instead of a ton of irrelevant bowl games that players will opt out of.

 
RedDenver said:
I used to follow the Huskers and the undefeated teams to see who was eliminated as it got married down throughout the season. Now I just follow the Huskers and wait to see who's in the playoffs at the end. Tracking which 2 or 3 loss team gets in isn't as interesting to me. Like when tOSU lost to Oregon - didn't really matter.
Click to expand...
I actually have gotten more interested in following college football at large over the last decade since Nebraska has been so bad.   I think once Nebraska is in that bubble group a lot of folks will find it much more interesting than in past years when they had no chance at a playoff in the same circumstance. 

 
RedDenver said:
I used to follow the Huskers and the undefeated teams to see who was eliminated as it got married down throughout the season. Now I just follow the Huskers and wait to see who's in the playoffs at the end. Tracking which 2 or 3 loss team gets in isn't as interesting to me. Like when tOSU lost to Oregon - didn't really matter.
Click to expand...
I think there are others with your opinion which is fine.  I personally am a fan of college football as a whole so I have found this season to be way more entertaining with the expanded playoff.  Games like PSU vs MN this week are now huge matchups where they previously really didn't matter.  Plenty more examples if a person chooses to look at all the individual game implications.  

 
BigRedBuster said:
So, you don't like parity?

I disagree.
Click to expand...


Fair to disagree. I didn't figure my stance would necessarily be popular. The playoff has provided excitement and additional topics to discuss/debate, but I like order. I want "my" champion to be the best team throughout the season, not one that happened to outlast the other playoff participants.  And what I find interesting is the amount of people that seemed to be ultra against turning college football into the NFL, now embracing one of the major changes turning college football into an NFL-like product. (Not directed at your response, just providing more commentary.)

Parity to me is not a 3-loss team (and honestly 2-loss teams too) potentially getting a shot at the title. That's March Madness crap. With a regular season schedule of 12 games (plus a potential 13th if the team's results are THAT good), teams have had their chances to walk the runway. There's a reason we don't generally see teams with 2 losses with the national championship. That means no teams were actually outstanding. But that's what I want from "our" champion. To me it doesn't prove that a team is best if they beat the top 3 teams in the country (per the polls/committee), turn around to lose 2 or 3 times to lesser competition, sneak in as an 11 or 12 seed, and THEN decide they're going to consistently play "outstanding" football. In that case, we might as well just let recruiting rankings determine the playoff participants. While the overall interest/excitement may be greater (good things for college football and its fans), give me a '95 Nebraska, '01 Miami, or '04 USC over some 2 or 3 loss team that got hot at the right time.

I'm all for parity from the perspective of all teams having the same chance to raise money, hire the coach they want, and buy/recruit the players they want. And thus, hopefully producing outstanding teams from outside the same group of teams year over year. Yet, I also understand that unlike the NFL, where only bad hires/ownership tip the scales, in college football often location and campus can produce huge disparities that impact the ability for true parity. 

 
Hilltop said:
I think there are others with your opinion which is fine.  I personally am a fan of college football as a whole so I have found this season to be way more entertaining with the expanded playoff.  Games like PSU vs MN this week are now huge matchups where they previously really didn't matter.  Plenty more examples if a person chooses to look at all the individual game implications.  
Click to expand...


The entertainment aspect is what sums it for me in terms of arguing against it. More fans are entertained, which means they'll spend more money, thus the employees of the schools (including the players) the networks, and any other football-related business get richer, and the collective college football community is happier. Doesn't matter if someone like me would prefer a step back. :)

 
SEC went from

"We are the toughest conference!!!"

to

"We are the toughest conference!"  Witrh big freaking tears because the are beating each other up. um...screw you! 

 
Gorillahawk said:
For the most part I disagree with this. A playoff system allows teams to schedule tougher OOC opponents, because a loss doesn't eliminate them from NC contention. Why would an Ohio State, Georgia, or anyone else want to schedule a game against a like opponent early in the season if it means a loss could potentially eliminate you from any chance to play for the NC? Scheduling a top tier team allows you to get better, win or lose. I hate how the SEC teams always schedule a FCS or bottom G5 team at the end of the season. A close loss to an undefeated or 1 loss Ohio State looks a lot better than a win of the little sisters of the poor university. 

I like the playoff, imagine what a playoff would have meant for the 96 huskers, or any other Nebraska team of the pass that was arguably the best team in the country who was screwed because they lost to an equally good OU team in a rivalry game? How many times have we seen a team that was clearly one of the top teams in CFB stumble and a lesser team get in and get blown out? A playoff has a better chance of letting the true best team rise to the top imo.
Click to expand...


You're making the entertainment argument, which I can't argue with. Its logically sound, and the entertainment factor is what drives the debates. I would've like the playoff for the '99 Huskers. The '96 team might have won a playoff, but they weren't consistently the best team that season.

 
Back
Top