College football playoff selection.

[Redux]

That concern makes some sense, but wouldn't maintaining the conferences (particularly as a power five school) still be beneficial to the power five teams in this hypothetical? Notre Dame has kind of pigeon-holed themselves into making their schedule work, but since conference schedules are pretty engrained nationwide, it seems laborious for a school to go independent and try to make that work. Power five schools play the toughest schedules nationally.

I think, fundamentally, I'm OK with the CCGs being as they are now. Not a guarantee, but certainly a boost to your résumé.

Notre Dame is quietly becoming a full ACC member.

Consider this.  Conference championships are announced as second tier important as far as qualifiers go towards playoff selecrion.  Texas would be a prime candidate to go indpenedent and fabricate a cushy yearly schedule.  Alabama, thr backbone of the SEC, could essentially do the same if the SEC takes a hit since ther is no GOR.  Conference realignment would turn into conference dissolution.

 

[Notre Dame Joe]

That's an interesting idea. It would be close. But all it would do would move the argument back to who should be #2 vs. #3, just with one more set of results to argue about.

You mean like in 2011? When Alabama didn't even win their division and got to play for the national championship? Before there was any playoff. That was a completely meaningless game. Unless you want to argue that losing that game was actually a BENEFIT for Alabama because they played one less game (no CCG) so they had one less chance to lose.

It happens. It happened under the old system. It could happen under any system.

2011's meaningful game was cOSU @ISU.  The BCS at least retained the every game matters facet of the classic title race.  Under my system, 5 bowls and a 1 vs 2 game on Jan 8th, you'd get the best of both worlds.

And I want to add the concept of a conference championship being tied to a national title is a byproduct of conference championship games of the 90s.  Before then it was simply logical that the conference champ was the highest rated teams going into the bowls.  But there were plenty of shared titles and obvious mismatches just as there are now.  2016 PSU belonged in the Rose Bowl sure, but I don't anyone outside their fans who thought the playoff required their presence.

 

[Redux]

Shocker the Notre Dame guy downplays the prestige of winning a conference title....

 

[Enhance]

Notre Dame is quietly becoming a full ACC member.

Consider this.  Conference championships are announced as second tier important as far as qualifiers go towards playoff selecrion.  Texas would be a prime candidate to go indpenedent and fabricate a cushy yearly schedule.  Alabama, thr backbone of the SEC, could essentially do the same if the SEC takes a hit since ther is no GOR.  Conference realignment would turn into conference dissolution.

But wouldn't a committee designed to weigh the strengths/flaws of a team see through this deceptive scheduling? That's kind of my point, I guess. Teams with unimpressive wins and a weak schedule would be (and currently are) penalized for it. The Big 12 is probably the weakest of the power five conferences right now anyway, so winning that conference and getting an automatic bid might be more in Texas' favor.

As for conference dissolution, though, I still think a significant portion of teams would all have to depart at the same time for this to be impactful. Otherwise, how would Alabama produce a tough schedule in October and November? The SEC is one of the single biggest reasons Alabama is practically a lock for the CFP ever year - many still consider it the best (or one of the best) conferences. I think it'd be difficult for an independent Alabama to generate a respectable schedule and impress the committee.

 

[chamrocck]

I like 4.  If it went to 8 I'd be OK.  Beyond 8 does water down the regular season.  The great thing about college football is nearly every Saturday there is an upset that has major playoff implications and so every Saturday you have to win.  I like that and it has proven very difficult to do but it mostly makes every Saturday huge with critical match-ups.  Every Saturday is playoff atmosphere in college football and I notice I watch the games more intensely.  I turn on mid-tier games to see if teams that playoff teams have played against are helping or hurting the strength of schedule (admit that you watched Oregon games last year because we played them early in the season...probably do the same this season).  I don't really watch the NFL intensely until playoff implications are involved.  I could care less about week 9 in the NFL.    

 

[Redux]

But wouldn't a committee designed to weigh the strengths/flaws of a team see through this deceptive scheduling? That's kind of my point, I guess. Teams with unimpressive wins and a weak schedule would be (and currently are) penalized for it. The Big 12 is probably the weakest of the power five conferences right now anyway, so winning that conference and getting an automatic bid might be more in Texas' favor.

As for conference dissolution, though, I still think a significant portion of teams would all have to depart at the same time for this to be impactful. Otherwise, how would Alabama produce a tough schedule in October and November? The SEC is one of the single biggest reasons Alabama is practically a lock for the CFP ever year - many still consider it the best (or one of the best) conferences. I think it'd be difficult for an independent Alabama to generate a respectable schedule and impress the committee.

They didn't see through Washingrons puff schedule last year.  Texas is a sexy name pick, especially now with the sexy name coach.  They could fabricate an easy schedule that simply has better name value and less merit. Honestly it goes both ways.  Both sides of this debate have valid points.

My whole thing is keeping conference championships relevant and making them mean even more important.  Others suggest they are meaningless and shouldn't be factors in detemining worth.  I understand the flaw with them though.

 

[junior4949]

They didn't see through Washingrons puff schedule last year.  Texas is a sexy name pick, especially now with the sexy name coach.  They could fabricate an easy schedule that simply has better name value and less merit. Honestly it goes both ways.  Both sides of this debate have valid points.

My whole thing is keeping conference championships relevant and making them mean even more important.  Others suggest they are meaningless and shouldn't be factors in detemining worth.  I understand the flaw with them though.

So, you think Penn State should have been in the playoff over Washington?  Washington's only regular season loss was to a ranked USC.  Penn State lost to a Pitt team that finished the season with five losses and was unranked.  Plus, Penn State was completely dominated by Michigan.  Even though Ohio State forgot to show up for the playoffs, I think the committee made the right call with regards to Washington and Penn State.

 

[Redux]

Washingtons schedule was crap, thank you for proving my point from earlier that we shouldn't do anything to encourage teams to schedule creampuffs.  Washington proved quickly they weten't playoff caliber yet.  Head to head, Penn State beats Washington.  No doubt in my mind.

For the record, you brought that scenatrio up, not me.

Washington won their conference and was rewarded for doing so with a playoff berth, as it should be if a spot allows for it, the other point I was making earlier.  Honestly I'm not even sure what you are disagreeing with me about?

 

[junior4949]

What are you basing off of that makes you believe Penn State beats Washington head to head?  It wasn't as if Washington played a bunch of deadbeats.  They beat Stanford rather handily.  Stanford ended the year being ranked #12.  They beat CU rather handily.  CU ended the year being ranked #15.  Penn State gets manhandled by Michigan who ended the season ranked #10 or just two points ahead of Stanford who Washington manhandled.  Penn State also loses to unranked five loss Pitt.  The only common denominator is both lost to USC.  My money would be on Washington to win this game.

The disagreement isn't even about Washington.  They easily make it into the playoffs over Penn State.  It really comes down to the B1G.  The committee got it right putting Ohio State into the playoff over Penn State.  How can you put a team like Penn State into the playoff when they got whipped as bad as they did to Michigan?  How do you put a team in the playoff that loses to an unranked opponent?  Ohio State manhandled an OU squad that finished the season in the top 5.  If we're going to disagree here, I'd even go as far as to say OU was more deserving to get into the playoff than Penn State.

The entire idea behind the playoffs was to ensure that regular season games mattered.  By putting conference champ Penn State into the playoffs, it would have been doing just the opposite.  Teams that get spanked by a ranked opponent and lose to unranked opponents shouldn't be in the playoffs.  If they allow them in, then it means that the regular season doesn't mean jack! 

 

[Mavric]

So, you think Penn State should have been in the playoff over Washington?  Washington's only regular season loss was to a ranked USC.  Penn State lost to a Pitt team that finished the season with five losses and was unranked.  Plus, Penn State was completely dominated by Michigan.  Even though Ohio State forgot to show up for the playoffs, I think the committee made the right call with regards to Washington and Penn State.

Penn State got beat badly by a Michigan team that finished the year in the Top 10.  Washington needed OT to beat a 3-9 Arizona team.  They both had a poor game.  Washington was lucky that theirs came against a bad team.

Penn State also beat a team that was in the Playoff head-to-head and won the conference that team was in.  So at best we're still splitting hairs between teams that don't have much of a direct comparison, only what you choose to put more or less weight on.

Which is why eight teams is better - you don't have to split hairs between one loss teams.

 

[Redux]

What are you basing off of that makes you believe Penn State beats Washington head to head?  It wasn't as if Washington played a bunch of deadbeats.  They beat Stanford rather handily.  Stanford ended the year being ranked #12.  They beat CU rather handily.  CU ended the year being ranked #15.  Penn State gets manhandled by Michigan who ended the season ranked #10 or just two points ahead of Stanford who Washington manhandled.  Penn State also loses to unranked five loss Pitt.  The only common denominator is both lost to USC.  My money would be on Washington to win this game.

The disagreement isn't even about Washington.  They easily make it into the playoffs over Penn State.  It really comes down to the B1G.  The committee got it right putting Ohio State into the playoff over Penn State.  How can you put a team like Penn State into the playoff when they got whipped as bad as they did to Michigan?  How do you put a team in the playoff that loses to an unranked opponent?  Ohio State manhandled an OU squad that finished the season in the top 5.  If we're going to disagree here, I'd even go as far as to say OU was more deserving to get into the playoff than Penn State.

The entire idea behind the playoffs was to ensure that regular season games mattered.  By putting conference champ Penn State into the playoffs, it would have been doing just the opposite.  Teams that get spanked by a ranked opponent and lose to unranked opponents shouldn't be in the playoffs.  If they allow them in, then it means that the regular season doesn't mean jack! 

When exactly was I lobbying for Penn State to get in over Washington?

 

[Kiyoat Husker]

I think 8 teams is the best of both worlds, and a poll would likely reflect that sentiment, too.  The danger would be that there are forces that would almost invariably push us to an even larger playoff eventually.  Look at the NCAA BB tourney.  I think most would agree that 64 teaMs has been a successful and pOpular numbeR, so why do we keep sEeing MOre aNd morE "plaY-in" games?

 

[Michiganball]

There is to much proper competition in Power 5 conferences already to have any independents in the playoff. I think the selection committee which is made of power 5 affiliates will see this as well, so Joe dispense with the propaganda. get your boys to go all in ACC and then you can start talking about the playoffs.

Eight teams for me as well btw.

 

[Notre Dame Joe]

What are you basing off of that makes you believe Penn State beats Washington head to head?  It wasn't as if Washington played a bunch of deadbeats.  They beat Stanford rather handily.  Stanford ended the year being ranked #12.  They beat CU rather handily.  CU ended the year being ranked #15.  Penn State gets manhandled by Michigan who ended the season ranked #10 or just two points ahead of Stanford who Washington manhandled.  Penn State also loses to unranked five loss Pitt.  The only common denominator is both lost to USC.  My money would be on Washington to win this game.

The disagreement isn't even about Washington.  They easily make it into the playoffs over Penn State.  It really comes down to the B1G.  The committee got it right putting Ohio State into the playoff over Penn State.  How can you put a team like Penn State into the playoff when they got whipped as bad as they did to Michigan?  How do you put a team in the playoff that loses to an unranked opponent?  Ohio State manhandled an OU squad that finished the season in the top 5.  If we're going to disagree here, I'd even go as far as to say OU was more deserving to get into the playoff than Penn State.

The entire idea behind the playoffs was to ensure that regular season games mattered.  By putting conference champ Penn State into the playoffs, it would have been doing just the opposite.  Teams that get spanked by a ranked opponent and lose to unranked opponents shouldn't be in the playoffs.  If they allow them in, then it means that the regular season doesn't mean jack! 

I suspect that the actual rule is that the bigger name gets the benefit of the doubt.  If the East Division love triangle had gone in the counter direction (Ohio 11-2 beats PSU but loses to Michigan who was blown by PSU) we would hear that Ohio WON THE CONFERENCE and shouldn't be punished for their daring OOC game with OU [who had all those losses but beat some other contenders in this hypothetical]. 

How do you put a team in the playoff that loses to an unranked opponent?

Pitt defeated Clemson so the champion shouldn't have been in either.  No one mentioned it because it did not follow the unofficial rule forgiving big schools for a bad game.

So going forward, it's justifiable to put an 11-1 team in over a 11-2 or worse conf champion when the former is clearly better by most metrics.  And if the 11-1 happens to be a powerful blue blood it's damn near a lock.

 

[junior4949]

Penn State got beat badly by a Michigan team that finished the year in the Top 10.  Washington needed OT to beat a 3-9 Arizona team.  They both had a poor game.  Washington was lucky that theirs came against a bad team.

Penn State also beat a team that was in the Playoff head-to-head and won the conference that team was in.  So at best we're still splitting hairs between teams that don't have much of a direct comparison, only what you choose to put more or less weight on.

Which is why eight teams is better - you don't have to split hairs between one loss teams.

I agree that eight teams is better and the way to go.  However, this isn't what we have now and may never have.  I just don't get why some believe that only power 5 champs get into the playoffs.  The argument really never has been about Washington because they did win their conference.  Penn State just didn't deserve to be in the playoff.  Ohio State had a better resume which is why the committee put them into the playoff.  There was no splitting hairs last year on one loss teams as every one loss team ranked in the top 10 made it. 

The way I see it, we have one of two ways to go.  We either admit the regular season doesn't mean jack and put a team like Penn State into the playoff just because they won their conference, or we say the regular season does matter and put a team like Ohio State into the playoffs over the conference champ.  If we're going to say the regular season doesn't matter, then USC probably should have been in the playoff as they were probably the hottest team at the end of the season.