2 teams from 1 conference in the CFP

The rules need to be written down in great detail about all the possible scenarios that may come up when you create the playoff arrangement. These rules should cover most of these possible cases and predetermine which team is in or not. This is so all know what the rules of the game are before the game is played. The whole point of having a playoff with or without conference championship games and etc. You are trying to decide a champion by playing on the field and NOT by a 'beauty contest' and somebody's opinion of which team, players conference, school, etc is 'best'.

As I have said, we have too many teams in division one and need to eliminate a bunch by creating a new super division one of the 4 top conferences (Big 12, Big Ten, SEC and Pac 12). The ACC is NOT a power 4 conference and far too many seem to want to include them

If we go to 5 sixteen member conferences (then the argument follows we need to add a sixth, seventh, etc until we are back to far too many teams again. Football does not lend itself to deciding champs with a 14 game season with hundreds of teams. With 5 conferences, then we would have to go to a ten team playoff with the top two teams from each member conference getting in. The conference champions would be decided strictly by regular season final records. The brackets need to be filled by use of a lottery method and again nobody gets a 'home field edge so the games must be played at a remote site. This way we don't string out the season so long. Bowls are then filled by the non playoff teams being selected in the usual way.

 
unlfan said:
MichiganDad3 said:
I still find it ridiculous that a team can be MNC, but can't even win their own division. Alabama should be stripped of the title in 2012
Click to expand...
it is possible in NBA, NFL, MLB, NCAA BB..... why shouldn't it be possible in NCAA Football?
Click to expand...
because in all of those sports a good portion of the field makes the playoff. NBA over half the teams make the playoffs, NFL sits at 37% of teams, MLB 33% of teams make the playoffs and NCAA BB we all know has the most teams of any playoff. In college football only 3% of teams make the playoff as it is now. That's a drastic difference than the rest of the sports and therefore the criteria to make it in is drastically tougher
Not saying college football has the right formula but the small number of teams making it in changes the dynamics of what qualify you to get in

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Can two teams from the same conference get in the playoffs? Sure. If these guys* say so: LINK

It all boils down to how they vote. And they have considerable leeway in what they base their decisions on.

What criteria does the selection committee use to rank the teams?
The committee selects the teams using a process that distinguishes among otherwise comparable teams by considering conference championships won, strength of schedule, head-to-head competition, comparative outcomes of common opponents (without incenting margin of victory) and other relevant factors that may have affected a team’s performance during the season or likely will affect its postseason performance.

Selection committee members have flexibility to examine whatever data they believe is relevant to inform their decisions. They also review a significant amount of game video. Among the many factors the committee members consider are strength of schedule, head-to-head results, comparison of results against common opponents and conference championships won. The playoff group has retained SportSource Analytics to provide the data platform for the committee’s use. This platform allows the committee members to compare and contrast teams on every level possible. Each member evaluates the data at hand, and then the individuals will vote to produce a group decision. LINK
Click to expand...










* And gal.

 
MichiganDad3 said:
I still find it ridiculous that a team can be MNC, but can't even win their own division. Alabama should be stripped of the title in 2012
Click to expand...
Can we just admit that there is never going to be a perfect system to determine "the best"? Every system has flaws. Let's put Alabama, Ohio State, Michigan, Clemson, and Louisville all in the same conference, and then try and tell them that only one of them has a spot of contention for the MNC this year. Good luck with that.

 
junior4949 said:
Nebfanatic said:
junior4949 said:
What if we have a season like 99' where we lose to Ohio State in the regular season but beat them in the B1G championship? Is there any way both of us make the playoff? This is one of the reasons I've always advocated for an eight team playoff with the teams being ranked similar to a BCS format. I don't think teams should be penalized when one conference has the best two teams in the nation. I'm not saying any conference has that this year, but it's bound to happen.
Click to expand...
This would actually make the strongest case for a CCG loser, beating the team they lost to in the regular season. That would cause a huge dilemma for the committee because you could have 3 1-loss teams in the same conference that all have strong resumes. Expansion of the playoff would solve this conundrum most likely depending on how it's set up. If you do 8 teams with 5 auto qualifiers, you are really setting up a 17 team playoff because CCGs would then truly become an extension playoff game since the winner is guaranteed a spot. So still with an 8 team playoff I think you have a better shot losing in the regular season and not playing a CCG than if you were to go undefeated and lose in the CCG.
Click to expand...
Why 5 auto qualifiers? What's the purpose? The playoffs shouldn't be a reward for winning your conference. Use a BCS type format to rank the teams. The top 8 get in regardless of what conference they belong to. I would rather go with this scenario and get rid of the conference championship games. It will never happen, but this is what I've always thought would be best.
Click to expand...
There is not enough outside conference play to decide who has the tougher schedule or better teams. Talking the 5 Major Conference Champions puts that debate to rest. It guarantees that every conference is represented by their best team. Then you fill in with the remaining 3 spots. The BCS was terrible & had some major flaws.

 
junior4949 said:
Nebfanatic said:
junior4949 said:
What if we have a season like 99' where we lose to Ohio State in the regular season but beat them in the B1G championship? Is there any way both of us make the playoff? This is one of the reasons I've always advocated for an eight team playoff with the teams being ranked similar to a BCS format. I don't think teams should be penalized when one conference has the best two teams in the nation. I'm not saying any conference has that this year, but it's bound to happen.
Click to expand...
This would actually make the strongest case for a CCG loser, beating the team they lost to in the regular season. That would cause a huge dilemma for the committee because you could have 3 1-loss teams in the same conference that all have strong resumes. Expansion of the playoff would solve this conundrum most likely depending on how it's set up. If you do 8 teams with 5 auto qualifiers, you are really setting up a 17 team playoff because CCGs would then truly become an extension playoff game since the winner is guaranteed a spot. So still with an 8 team playoff I think you have a better shot losing in the regular season and not playing a CCG than if you were to go undefeated and lose in the CCG.
Click to expand...
Why 5 auto qualifiers? What's the purpose? The playoffs shouldn't be a reward for winning your conference. Use a BCS type format to rank the teams. The top 8 get in regardless of what conference they belong to. I would rather go with this scenario and get rid of the conference championship games. It will never happen, but this is what I've always thought would be best.
Click to expand...
Disagree. If you aren't good enough to win your conference in CFB, you shouldn't have an opportunity to win the National Title.

 
I have to agree with only conference champs getting in unless we expand the CFP a lot. With a 4-8 team playoff, the question that is trying to be answered after that last game is played is who is #1. Who is below that really doesn't matter at that point. If you do NOT win your conference, there is at lest 1 team better. A team cannot be the best team if at least 1 team is better than it.

Now, if we expand the CFP to more teams than conferences, the question becomes "which team is the best in the post-season" (ala NFL playoffs). In this situation the conference champion only matters for seeding. In this case, there would have to be some conferences with more than 1 team.

 
I still dont know why it cant be seen from a common sense standopint. If you cant be the best in your division-PLAYED ON THE FIELD-then you cant play for best in your conference. If you cant be the best in your conference-PLAYED ON THE FIELD-you cant play for best in the country.

I know pro sports have wildcards winning it all all the time or whatever. Non divisions winners and such. But still, division winners are given preferential treatment with high seeds and home field/court advantages.

i think the decision of who to put in a playoff, esp a 4 team that we have, would be made much easier by eliminating non conference champs. Conference championships are played out on the field. You want top notch urgency and drama in the reg season to remain with the prospect of a grwoing playoff format? Make the conference title, and only that, mean something. Adn you wont lose anything with teams losing a game or two early cuz that wont be any different than it is now.

I just dont understand the way we have to complicate things when all you have to do is play it on the field.

 
Count 'Bility said:
I still dont know why it cant be seen from a common sense standopint. If you cant be the best in your division-PLAYED ON THE FIELD-then you cant play for best in your conference. If you cant be the best in your conference-PLAYED ON THE FIELD-you cant play for best in the country.

I know pro sports have wildcards winning it all all the time or whatever. Non divisions winners and such. But still, division winners are given preferential treatment with high seeds and home field/court advantages.

i think the decision of who to put in a playoff, esp a 4 team that we have, would be made much easier by eliminating non conference champs. Conference championships are played out on the field. You want top notch urgency and drama in the reg season to remain with the prospect of a grwoing playoff format? Make the conference title, and only that, mean something. Adn you wont lose anything with teams losing a game or two early cuz that wont be any different than it is now.

I just dont understand the way we have to complicate things when all you have to do is play it on the field.
Click to expand...
being that the committees job is to put the four best teams in the thing, I think it makes it difficult sometimes when you have 2 great teams in the same conference that will have to play each other. If Michigan and OSU win out to that game in dominant fashion and play an epic game decided at the end, wouldn't it be fair to consider the loser of that game over 2 2 or 3 loss conference champs who don't look all that impressive and the conference as a whole was down? While OSU and Michigan played it out on the field the loser never got a chance to play it out against the other conference champs, even if they had a better season. I'm in the camp that conference champs should make it in but it's also difficult to justify in some situations
 
If we had an 8-team playoff with 5 auto-qualifying conf champs back in 2012, Bama would have still gotten in, but would have less detractors if they won.

As a wildcard, they would have been seeded #6 IMO, and had to beat 3 Power conference champs on the way to the title.

Sounds like fun. Sign me up

 
Count 'Bility said:
I still dont know why it cant be seen from a common sense standopint. If you cant be the best in your division-PLAYED ON THE FIELD-then you cant play for best in your conference. If you cant be the best in your conference-PLAYED ON THE FIELD-you cant play for best in the country.

I know pro sports have wildcards winning it all all the time or whatever. Non divisions winners and such. But still, division winners are given preferential treatment with high seeds and home field/court advantages.

i think the decision of who to put in a playoff, esp a 4 team that we have, would be made much easier by eliminating non conference champs. Conference championships are played out on the field. You want top notch urgency and drama in the reg season to remain with the prospect of a grwoing playoff format? Make the conference title, and only that, mean something. Adn you wont lose anything with teams losing a game or two early cuz that wont be any different than it is now.

I just dont understand the way we have to complicate things when all you have to do is play it on the field.
Click to expand...
So you're argument is that the unquestioned best team always wins every game every year?

Do you make the same argument for every other sport - and football at other levels? If not, why is college football different?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
jsneb83 said:
IA State Husker said:
As a side note, why are we still using the FBS moniker? Both divisions have playoffs.
Click to expand...
Because the FBS still play in bowl games
Click to expand...
True, but when the FBS/FCS monikers were created, it was essentially a jab at Division 1-A for the lack of a true championship. (Using bowl games instead).

For Division 1-AA to continue distinguishing themselves by their method of crowning a champion is erroneous. We both have a playoff.

The real distinction is the level of investment in the football program, and level of competition. "Major" Division 1 and "minor".

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top