GSG
Assistant Coach
Last edited by a moderator:
Mock CFB Playoff Selection Committee
- Thread starter GSG
- Start date
HuskerShark
Banned
Eventually it looks like we will have 4 super conferences, and the champions will receive a bid into the 4-team playoff. So essentially, you would have an 8-team playoff if you consider the CCG's the first round.
HuskerFanChuck
Special Teams Player
I don't think anyone in that group was saying that. But even Livengood basically said it became apparent fairly quickly the sample size was too small. Even if you went to sixteen (and 8 will be a stop before 16, and I don't know enough consensus will be reached to hit sixteen within the next 25 years), it's still a smaller percentage of the teams that participate in the sport at the FBS level than practically any other tournament out there. Basketball, with over 325 in numbers now, still has a much larger percentage than even 16 would give college football. So to say that 8 or 16 is going to water down the regular season THAT much defies logic. It just won't. You still have to win all or nearly all your games to participate (4 or 8 will likely require all or one loss, with maybe, MAYBE, a two-loss team sneaking in at 8). I just don't see the 'sky is falling' conundrum that people want to panic about.
HuskerFanChuck
Special Teams Player
Meant to note it earlier, but the other thing I noticed in reading that article was that after seeing the results they came up with, I now know why I really think we need some type of conference champion or at least having played in your conference championship in order to make the playoff. Little ridiculous to me that their final four ended up with two teams that didn't make their championship games for their conferences because of regular season losses, yet they should be given the opportunity to play in an extremely limited playoff setup? Sorry, that doesn't wash with me. Ah well... interesting analysis nonetheless.
Count 'Bility
Banned
Didnt want to go larger than four, but the apparent challenges of selecting just four changed his mind? Seriously, how do these idiots get these jobs? Is that what's hold me back?-That I have common sense? This is ridiculous. Anyone with any sort of common knowledge about anything knew that yes, selecting 4 teams out of a pool of 8-12 to play in a four team playoff-WITHOUT SETTLING IT ON THE FIELD-knows it's going to be very challenging. Yes, more teams equals a little less pressure. It's a no win situation obviously, so hopefully they find the best system possible.
ZRod
Heisman Trophy Winner
I think if you honestly want to keep the integrity of every game counting in the regular season you need to limit the field to conference champions and take into account head to head match ups, if any, between selected teams. But the pool should never expand beyond 16 teams. Really it shouldn't expand past the number of conferences but then you have the independents and some scheduling problems due to the numbers.
No one would ever go for it because of logistics and how bizarre it would seem, but some kind of fluid hybrid post season that can adjust to the year would really be best to keep integrity intact and find a true champion.
No one would ever go for it because of logistics and how bizarre it would seem, but some kind of fluid hybrid post season that can adjust to the year would really be best to keep integrity intact and find a true champion.
That's about the first thing I noticed as well. Remember when it was a travesty that Nebraska got in the championship game even though they didn't win the conference? Now two out of four teams didn't even win their DIVISION and it's not a big deal. Interesting how perspective changes.
If you want a meaningless regular season game, check out the LSU-Alabama game last year. Other than it made it "easier" for Alabama to get into the championship game because they didn't have to play a conference championship game.
I think 8 is the number and not limited to conference champions. I would take any conference champion ranked in the top 10 or 12 and fill in the rest with the highest-ranked teams with a limit of two per conference.
I don't think four is quite right because there are too many variables - such as taking Florida over Georgia (assuming GA loses to Alabama) - which penalizes Georgia for beating Florida in the regular season. Also, some teams get a break for having one bad game - or being in the same conference as a great team - but others don't.
This is a perfect scenario for why four isn't enough. When you don't play many teams outside your conference, comparing teams is too subjective. A one-loss conference champion doesn't make the top eight because they had one bad game. The near-consensus #1 team could easily have lost at home to a sub-.500 team.
If Pitt had made that FG, would that make ND any worse of a team? No, only the perception of them would have changed.
HuskerFanChuck
Special Teams Player
And then the team that they basically referred to as a .500 team goes on to beat another top 25 team this last week. Wonder if that would have factored into their thinking at all, if that's the level they're going to go to for making the decision. Yeah, I'm beginning to think either 8 or 16, 8 with either top 4 conference champions and other 4 at large with no more than 2 per conference, or 16 with each DI FBS conference champion and 6 wild cards, with no more than 2 for any one conference. I think we'll likely head to an 8 team model before the current contract is done, after they see the monies in the first few years. I'd be surprised if they don't revisit it after the first 2 rounds of the six bowl games having the semis. (Would factor it at 6 years to do two rounds worth.) Will be interesting to see how it plays out.
VA Husker Fan
All-Conference
That game became meaningless because of Oklahoma State's loss. I don't think there's a team that would be willing to lose control of their own destiny like that.
VA Husker Fan
All-Conference
Wouldn't that make the non-conference games mean a whole lot less? Conference champions are based on a subset of the entire season. I don't think you should use that as an absolute criteria for the national championship. A factor, yes, but not an elimination point. At least not until you really do have super conferences that are at least more balanced in size. Ideally they'd be more balanced by strength too, but pro sports do this with a draft and a salary cap, and recruiting isn't like a draft. Scholarship limits are more or less like a salary cap, until you let the SEC oversign.
Head-to-head results make even less sense. I had a discussion over turkey with someone who thinks Stanford should be ranked over Oregon because they beat them. You have to do the rankings based on how all the teams fit within all of the games. You can't then adjust two teams because of one game. Why would Stanford's win over Oregon have so much more meaning than Stanford's losses to Notre Dame and unranked Washington. That just defies logic. Shouldn't Washington then be ranked over Stanford? Where does it stop?
ZRod
Heisman Trophy Winner
No conference games hardly mean anything as it is, because hardly anyone schedules real opponents. When I said head to heads I was talking about non conference play. So you wouldn't have teams playing each other a second time. Non conference will never have any significant meaning unless you keep the human element of the eyeball test in the selection process.