The Road to the Playoff

[Rhode Irish]

For what its worth, if I was on the committee I would not support any B1G team making the playoff, even an undefeated one, absent at least one (and possibly more) marquee non-conference win. As in, beat a top-5 team. All of the games played within the conference are meaningless to me, as it is not one of the major football conferences in any respect but revenues.

 

[irishfan]

None of this will be an issue, with a 12-0 Notre Dame.

Oh, I agree. But 11-1 and things will be dicey for us every year. And things are going to be chaotic when ranking teams from #3-7 every year for the committee.

Just looking at the end of year BCS standings the last couple years shows that the committee is going to have some very tough decisions.

In 2013 there was the Power 5 conference champs and Bama in the final 6. Who do you leave out? FSU and Auburn were locks. Bama was 2-time defending champ, they have to be in as well. Who's to say who should be in between the PAC-12, Big 10, and Big 12 champs?

1) 13-0 Florida State
2) 12-1 Auburn
3) 11-1 Alabama
4) 12-1 Michigan State
5) 11-2 Stanford
6) 11-1 Baylor

In 2012, it was stupid. ND and Bama are again locks. After that, its so tough. How do you pick Florida over Georgia when Georgia won the SEC East and beat Fla head-to-head? How do you pick Oregon over Stanford when Stanford won the Pac-12 and beat Oregon head-to-head? And then what about 11-1 Big 12 KSU? This doesn't even include 12-0 Ohio State.

1) 12-0 ND
2) 12-1 Alabama
3) 11-1 Florida
4) 11-1 Oregon
5) 11-1 Kansas State
6) 11-2 Stanford
7) 11-2 Georgia

I just see chaos and a lot of pissed off fan bases every year when the final 4 teams are picked.

 

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

Yeah it's a problem in the 68 team NCAA Tournament. It will always be a problem with chaos and pissed off fan bases. Oh well. Now at least big schools can't say they won every game and still missed the championship.

 

[stlnd01]

Oh, I agree. But 11-1 and things will be dicey for us every year. And things are going to be chaotic when ranking teams from #3-7 every year for the committee.

Just looking at the end of year BCS standings the last couple years shows that the committee is going to have some very tough decisions.

In 2013 there was the Power 5 conference champs and Bama in the final 6. Who do you leave out? FSU and Auburn were locks. Bama was 2-time defending champ, they have to be in as well. Who's to say who should be in between the PAC-12, Big 10, and Big 12 champs?

1) 13-0 Florida State
2) 12-1 Auburn
3) 11-1 Alabama
4) 12-1 Michigan State
5) 11-2 Stanford
6) 11-1 Baylor

In 2012, it was stupid. ND and Bama are again locks. After that, its so tough. How do you pick Florida over Georgia when Georgia won the SEC East and beat Fla head-to-head? How do you pick Oregon over Stanford when Stanford won the Pac-12 and beat Oregon head-to-head? And then what about 11-1 Big 12 KSU? This doesn't even include 12-0 Ohio State.

1) 12-0 ND
2) 12-1 Alabama
3) 11-1 Florida
4) 11-1 Oregon
5) 11-1 Kansas State
6) 11-2 Stanford
7) 11-2 Georgia

I just see chaos and a lot of pissed off fan bases every year when the final 4 teams are picked.

Which is exactly why I still can't figure what "problem" this playoff was supposed to "solve."
For all the ginned-up outrage over college football not having a true championship game, I'd argue the BCS got the right top two just about every year (maybe not 2004). And it's way easier, in my mind, to differentiate between #2 and #3, one of whom may be undefeated or have an early close loss, than between 4 and 5, who are both going to have losses for sure.
I get that the playoff is mostly about TV revenue. I just wish they'd say so.

 

[phork]

Oh, I agree. But 11-1 and things will be dicey for us every year. And things are going to be chaotic when ranking teams from #3-7 every year for the committee.

Just looking at the end of year BCS standings the last couple years shows that the committee is going to have some very tough decisions.

In 2013 there was the Power 5 conference champs and Bama in the final 6. Who do you leave out? FSU and Auburn were locks. Bama was 2-time defending champ, they have to be in as well. Who's to say who should be in between the PAC-12, Big 10, and Big 12 champs?

1) 13-0 Florida State
2) 12-1 Auburn
3) 11-1 Alabama
4) 12-1 Michigan State
5) 11-2 Stanford
6) 11-1 Baylor

In 2012, it was stupid. ND and Bama are again locks. After that, its so tough. How do you pick Florida over Georgia when Georgia won the SEC East and beat Fla head-to-head? How do you pick Oregon over Stanford when Stanford won the Pac-12 and beat Oregon head-to-head? And then what about 11-1 Big 12 KSU? This doesn't even include 12-0 Ohio State.

1) 12-0 ND
2) 12-1 Alabama
3) 11-1 Florida
4) 11-1 Oregon
5) 11-1 Kansas State
6) 11-2 Stanford
7) 11-2 Georgia

I just see chaos and a lot of pissed off fan bases every year when the final 4 teams are picked.

Strength of schedule. Oh you played a 1AA team? Points lost.

 

[stlnd01]

Yeah it's a problem in the 68 team NCAA Tournament. It will always be a problem with chaos and pissed off fan bases. Oh well. Now at least big schools can't say they won every game and still missed the championship.

Thing is, no one really cares if the seventh place team in the Big Ten misses being an 11 seed the NCAA Tournament. When a major conference champ gets shut out of this tourney, people will care.
And how many major conference schools ever went undefeated and didn't make the BCS title game? (Auburn in '04. Is that it?)

 

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

Thing is, no one really cares if the seventh place team in the Big Ten misses being an 11 seed the NCAA Tournament. When a major conference champ gets shut out of this tourney, people will care.
And how many major conference schools ever went undefeated and didn't make the BCS title game? (Auburn in '04. Is that it?)

Auburn, Cincinnati in '09 if you still consider the Big East major back then. There are also cases like Oklahoma State in '11, Miami in '00, Oregon in '01, USC in '03, Michigan in '07, and all of the undefeated mid-majors who would have been in under this system are not left out because of voters or computers.

 

[stlnd01]

Auburn, Cincinnati in '09 if you still consider the Big East major back then. There are also cases like Oklahoma State in '11, Miami in '00, Oregon in '01, USC in '03, Michigan in '07, and all of the undefeated mid-majors who would have been in under this system are not left out because of voters or computers.

So, Auburn in 2004. Legitimate beef, yes. Brian Kelly's Cincy team that got routed by Florida in the Sugar Bowl? No, I don't consider them to have been better than Texas or Alabama that year. Mid-majors might make a nice Cinderella story but they're never actually better than the elites (just like in the basketball tourney, where in the end some major power always wins the thing.)

The rest all lost a game, and weren't the only one-loss team. So you're back to weighing the relative merit of wins and losses, which is what you're doing between 4s and 5s.
I'm not sure how the current system will really be so different from the old one.

 

[GATTACA!]

So, Auburn in 2004. Legitimate beef, yes. Brian Kelly's Cincy team that got routed by Florida in the Sugar Bowl? No, I don't consider them to have been better than Texas or Alabama that year. Mid-majors might make a nice Cinderella story but they're never actually better than the elites (just like in the basketball tourney, where in the end some major power always wins the thing.)

The rest all lost a game, and weren't the only one-loss team. So you're back to weighing the relative merit of wins and losses, which is what you're doing between 4s and 5s.
I'm not sure how the current system will really be so different from the old one.

Because if you are the 5th best team there really is no one to blame except yourself in 99% of the cases. If you are undefeated and 3rd then you have a legitimate excuse. I don't understand what is so hard to comprehend about this. Every time you move the cut line back from 2 to 4 to 8 16 32 you are putting a worse team on the cusp.

And i seem to recall Boise beating Oklahoma, so it's unfair to say the cinderella never would/will win. There is a reason you play the games. If you are a D1 school you should have a shot at the title or what is the point of being D1?

 

[T Town Tommy]

Wish this playoff had 8 teams already.

Any conference champ who has only has 1 loss has a good argument (yes, even a 12-1 MSU), and they wouldn't even be close to a lock for the 4-team playoff.

The more I think of possible scenarios, I really don't see any way that any conference can get 2 teams into the playoff. Might be blasphemy to our Bama friends, but I just can't get any scenario in my head where 2 SEC teams will be chosen. There will be those stupid years where there will be two 11-1 SEC West teams at the end of the regular season, but I don't think those will be happening too much in the future with how stacked that division is.

It would take something like a 10-2 Georgia team beating a 12-0 Bama team in the conference championship.

I don't believe we will see many years where one conference can get two teams in. As far as the Dantonio argument, I think that is pretty senseless. The same could be said about a one loss FSU team winning the ACC title. As weak as the ACC is this year, would they be any more deserving of a bid as a one loss conference champ Michigan State? I would argue they wouldn't. The ACC is no better than the B1G this year.

With all that said, I want to see the four best teams in the country in the playoffs. Doesn't really matter in the end where they come from. Yes, I want to see my team in of course, but if they aren't one of the four best then good luck next year. And I firmly believe that when all the "noise" is taken out of the equation, the four best teams most years are fairly easy to identify.

Expanding the playoffs to eight teams may be the better option but then the ninth and tenth ranked teams will have a better argument for belonging in my opinion than the fifth or sixth place teams would have in the current setup. I just think as bad as the BCS was hated, it did get it right almost every year. The four team setup will cause more controversy in the end.

 

[ulukinatme]

The 4 team playoff is really just a placeholder. It's only a matter of time before it will get expanded to 8 teams. There will be too much pressure and the possibility of more revenue will drive it.

That said, in the current 4 team format I don't think two teams from the same conference should be under consideration in most cases. If Auburn goes 11-1 and loses the SEC championship to another 11-1 SEC team, I don't think they should be included in the playoff discussion typically. Now, if the other conferences can't field a decent champion, say...PAC-12 champ is 9-3 during the regular season, and B1G champ is 10-2 (circumstance where weak schedule could make 10-2 look worse), then maybe you put another 1 loss team in from the same conference if their schedule was tough.

 

[T Town Tommy]

The 4 team playoff is really just a placeholder. It's only a matter of time before it will get expanded to 8 teams. There will be too much pressure and the possibility of more revenue will drive it.

That said, in the current 4 team format I don't think two teams from the same conference should be under consideration in most cases. If Auburn goes 11-1 and loses the SEC championship to another 11-1 SEC team, I don't think they should be included in the playoff discussion typically. Now, if the other conferences can't field a decent champion, say...PAC-12 champ is 9-3 during the regular season, and B1G champ is 10-2 (circumstance where weak schedule could make 10-2 look worse), then maybe you put another 1 loss team in from the same conference if their schedule was tough.

I agree on going to eight teams in the short future. I don't agree with dismissing a team from consideration because they lost their CCG. If they are a better team than another team, then they should get the nod. A 10-2 Auburn team coming out of arguably the toughest division in the toughest conference would have a better argument than a 9-3 Pac 12 team or a 10-2 B1G or ACC team.

Too many fans want their teams to backdoor their way in to the playoffs. I want to see the four best teams. And most years, it is pretty easy to determine who they are when people evaluate teams objectively and not based on fandom or feelings. Las Vegas does it all the time... and they are typically pretty close.

 

[Irish YJ]

I agree on going to eight teams in the short future. I don't agree with dismissing a team from consideration because they lost their CCG. If they are a better team than another team, then they should get the nod. A 10-2 Auburn team coming out of arguably the toughest division in the toughest conference would have a better argument than a 9-3 Pac 12 team or a 10-2 B1G or ACC team.

Too many fans want their teams to backdoor their way in to the playoffs. I want to see the four best teams. And most years, it is pretty easy to determine who they are when people evaluate teams objectively and not based on fandom or feelings. Las Vegas does it all the time... and they are typically pretty close.

Agree for the most part. IMO, depends on the losses (to who, where, and how bad). I'd also point out that Vegas is pretty close most of the time, but they also take into account fandom and move the lines all the time.

In a perfect world, I think the 8 team playoff satisfies 99% of the issues. If they go 8, I hope they go 5 automatic bids for the power conference champions, and 3 at large. Leaves room for the second team in the SEC (LOL), plus potentially an undefeated team from a lesser conference, plus??

 

[IrishLion]

For those interested, here's an article from ESPN about Cincinnati, "the Group of 5," the college football playoff, and the idea of crashing the party.

Tommy Tuberville, Cincinnati Bearcats trying to scale College Football Playoff wall - ESPN

There are a few interesting passages about Gunner Kiel and Jake Golic, as well as Tuberville's 2004 Auburn squad bringing about the end of the BCS (though it took 10 years to actually happen).

Jake Golic had this to say, which was interesting:

I was with Michael Floyd and Golden Tate and Kyle Rudolph and all those guys at Notre Dame," Golic said, "and this is the best receiving corps I've ever been around. We could very easily run the table, with the depth and overall talent we have."

 

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

Jake Golic is like 30 how is he still around?

 

[Ndaccountant]

Jake Golic is like 30 how is he still around?

Golic granted 6th year, will rejoin UC football team

 

[T Town Tommy]

Agree for the most part. IMO, depends on the losses (to who, where, and how bad). I'd also point out that Vegas is pretty close most of the time, but they also take into account fandom and move the lines all the time.

In a perfect world, I think the 8 team playoff satisfies 99% of the issues. If they go 8, I hope they go 5 automatic bids for the power conference champions, and 3 at large. Leaves room for the second team in the SEC (LOL), plus potentially an undefeated team from a lesser conference, plus??

Agree on the eight team setup. And I think after year one with one conference that gets left out, you will hear the cries from the conference commisioners to expand to eight... looking at you Jim Delaney.

 

[ulukinatme]

I agree on going to eight teams in the short future. I don't agree with dismissing a team from consideration because they lost their CCG. If they are a better team than another team, then they should get the nod. A 10-2 Auburn team coming out of arguably the toughest division in the toughest conference would have a better argument than a 9-3 Pac 12 team or a 10-2 B1G or ACC team.

Too many fans want their teams to backdoor their way in to the playoffs. I want to see the four best teams. And most years, it is pretty easy to determine who they are when people evaluate teams objectively and not based on fandom or feelings. Las Vegas does it all the time... and they are typically pretty close.

If 2 of the 5 conference champions from the "Big 5" are weak and have crummy records, I have no problem with another team gets in from a conference that's already been selected. However, if say...Oregon went 12-0 during regular season and was conference champ, Stanford went 11-1 during the regular season, and Oklahoma went 10-2 and was also conference champion, I would put Oklahoma and Oregon in playoff spots. The only way I'd put Stanford in is if Oklahoma played a crappy schedule and still went 10-2. If you can't win your own conference, I don't see how you should be admitted to the table unless the other teams under consideration had worse records against worse competition.

 

[T Town Tommy]

If 2 of the 5 conference champions from the "Big 5" are weak and have crummy records, I have no problem with another team gets in from a conference that's already been selected. However, if say...Oregon went 12-0 during regular season and was conference champ, Stanford went 11-1 during the regular season, and Oklahoma went 10-2 and was also conference champion, I would put Oklahoma and Oregon in playoff spots. The only way I'd put Stanford in is if Oklahoma played a crappy schedule and still went 10-2. If you can't win your own conference, I don't see how you should be admitted to the table unless the other teams under consideration had worse records against worse competition.

What if FSU went 11-1 in a weaker ACC? Would you put them in over Stanford... who plays in a much better conference? That's the dilemma the committee will face IMO. Some people will get left out but have legitimate complaints. And if, for instance, the B1G gets left out - which is highly likely this year - how long before Jim Delaney starts pushing for eight teams? He was a huge advocate of conference champs getting automatic bids simply due to his conference not being able to play their way in recently. I think YJ's setup of the five auto bids and three at large is where we head... and probably sooner rather than later.

 

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

8 teams is too much for me. Like last year, do you really think South Carolina or Mizzou deserved a claim for a national championship? Nah. 6 teams max for me, give the top 2 a bye.

 

[T Town Tommy]

8 teams is too much for me. Like last year, do you really think South Carolina or Mizzou deserved a claim for a national championship? Nah. 6 teams max for me, give the top 2 a bye.

Why a bye? That's way too much advantage for the two top ranked teams.

 

[ulukinatme]

What if FSU went 11-1 in a weaker ACC? Would you put them in over Stanford... who plays in a much better conference? That's the dilemma the committee will face IMO. Some people will get left out but have legitimate complaints. And if, for instance, the B1G gets left out - which is highly likely this year - how long before Jim Delaney starts pushing for eight teams? He was a huge advocate of conference champs getting automatic bids simply due to his conference not being able to play their way in recently. I think YJ's setup of the five auto bids and three at large is where we head... and probably sooner rather than later.

I probably would put FSU in, but it would really depend on how different the schedules between both schools are. If FSU had two FCS opponents out of conference, and Stanford had ND and say Alabama, I'd put in Stanford. If OOC games are equal and FSU's conference slate is slightly weaker, I would probably give the nod to FSU.

The 4 team playoff considerations will all be moot after a year or two I'm sure. The B1G champ will certainly be crying foul if they're held out this year, even if it's deserving they're held out or not. Money and drama will push this thing to 8 teams quickly I'm betting.

8 teams is too much for me. Like last year, do you really think South Carolina or Mizzou deserved a claim for a national championship? Nah. 6 teams max for me, give the top 2 a bye.

Yeah, some years may not have a strong top 8, but 6 is somewhat silly. Let the teams prove themselves on the field, no BYE's for anyone. Football should not be determined on paper, it should be determined in the trenches.

 

[greyhammer90]

8 teams is too much for me. Like last year, do you really think South Carolina or Mizzou deserved a claim for a national championship? Nah. 6 teams max for me, give the top 2 a bye.

I like the idea of 8 but only if you organize it so that 5 power conference champions and 3 at large bids get in. (I would also limit each conference to two teams total.) I think that helps remove regional bias and gives every conference a chance to represent themselves well in the postseason.

 

[ulukinatme]

I like the idea of 8 but only if you organize it so that 5 power conference champions and 3 at large bids get in. (I would also limit each conference to two teams total.) I think that helps remove regional bias and gives every conference a chance to represent themselves well in the postseason.

This sounds ideal to me.

 

[greyhammer90]

My method would also make conference games matter a ton, but since there are only three at large bids out of conference games wouldn't lose any luster or importance.

 

[Booslum31]

I like the idea of 8 but only if you organize it so that 5 power conference champions and 3 at large bids get in. (I would also limit each conference to two teams total.) I think that helps remove regional bias and gives every conference a chance to represent themselves well in the postseason.

Then the only way ND gets in is getting one of the at-large bids...correct?

 

[T Town Tommy]

I like the idea of 8 but only if you organize it so that 5 power conference champions and 3 at large bids get in. (I would also limit each conference to two teams total.) I think that helps remove regional bias and gives every conference a chance to represent themselves well in the postseason.

Why limit it? If the two of the three best teams remaining are from one conference then why should they not get in? The idea of teams getting in that are lesser teams is foreign to me as a fan of CFB. The committee should take any bias out as it is made up of every geographical region. Put the best teams in and let them play. Why is it so hard for some to not want to see the best teams play? I just do not get that thinking.

And I have posted many times before that I don't give a damn if more than one SEC team gets in. If they aren't deserving - based on what they did on the field - then they don't get an invite to the dance. If they are, then they should go. Pretty simple to me.

 

[greyhammer90]

Then the only way ND gets in is getting one of the at-large bids...correct?

Yeah, but if ND isn't better than three teams that can't win their own conference, do you really want to get in?

 

[greyhammer90]

Why limit it? If the two of the three best teams remaining are from one conference then why should they not get in? The idea of teams getting in that are lesser teams is foreign to me as a fan of CFB. The committee should take any bias out as it is made up of every geographical region. Put the best teams in and let them play. Why is it so hard for some to not want to see the best teams play? I just do not get that thinking.

And I have posted many times before that I don't give a damn if more than one SEC team gets in. If they aren't deserving - based on what they did on the field - then they don't get an invite to the dance. If they are, then they should go. Pretty simple to me.

Two answers:

1) One issue is actually your beloved conference. If ESPN didn't have a massive effect on the perception of this sport then it wouldn't be such a big deal, and I agree that ideally it would always be the better team with the better resume that would get in. Unfortunately that's not how it works. I think there is heavy regional bias in CFB, and the best way to help even the playing field is to limit each conference to two.

2) This helps get rid of one of the key problems of CFB, which is the large number of teams that don't play each other enough to objectively know which is better. The basic logic is: If you're not one the best two teams in your own conference, you shouldn't get the opportunity to play for a National Championship.

 

[irishfanjho15]

For those interested, here's an article from ESPN about Cincinnati, "the Group of 5," the college football playoff, and the idea of crashing the party.

Tommy Tuberville, Cincinnati Bearcats trying to scale College Football Playoff wall - ESPN

There are a few interesting passages about Gunner Kiel and Jake Golic, as well as Tuberville's 2004 Auburn squad bringing about the end of the BCS (though it took 10 years to actually happen).

Jake Golic had this to say, which was interesting:

Quote:
I was with Michael Floyd and Golden Tate and Kyle Rudolphand all those guys at Notre Dame," Golic said, "and this is the best receiving corps I've ever been around. We could very easily run the table, with the depth and overall talent we have."

Come on Jake. That is just a lie. Those guys are legit every Sunday starters in the NFL.