The Road to the Playoff

[Rhode Irish]

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.

I think the biggest reason to limit it is that if the goal of the playoff is to identify the best team, I think we can say that a team that is the third best team in its conference isn't the best team in the country. You had a chance and you're third, so sorry.

 

[kmoose]

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.

The NCAA is set up to share revenues. They are not going to give an "extra" share of playoff revenue to any one conference, by putting more than one team from that conference in the playoffs.

 

[T Town Tommy]

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.

Can respect those two points of views. But I don't really think the committee will really care much about what ESPn thinks at the end of the day. Or at least I would hope not.

As far as who is better, there will always be an argument for and against I guess. But I still believe most years most objective people can look at two teams and know pretty reasonably who is actually the better team. Understand that's why the games are played, but when you get down to the elite teams, it is a little easier to figure out... at least to me anyway.

 

[T Town Tommy]

I think the biggest reason to limit it is that if the goal of the playoff is to identify the best team, I think we can say that a team that is the third best team in its conference isn't the best team in the country. You had a chance and you're third, so sorry.

That would probably be true most years but I look back at Bama in 2011. They essentially was third in the SEC due to finishing second in their division. And nobody will convince me that there was a better team in the country than them that year. It worked out for us then, but the same scenerio could play out with another team, in another conference, in another year.

 

[koonja]

.

 

[T Town Tommy]

.

 

[T Town Tommy]

.

I did all that for nothing????

 

[koonja]

I did all that for nothing????

Lol, I decided to make the thread, cause I didnt want to get charged with derailing this one.

http://www.irishenvy.com/forums/other-college-football/206469-non-nd-week-4-games-watch.html

 

[T Town Tommy]

Lol, I decided to make the thread, cause I didnt want to get charged with derailing this one.

http://www.irishenvy.com/forums/other-college-football/206469-non-nd-week-4-games-watch.html

Good call... it isn't like you have derailed threads in the past.

jmwy

 

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

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

I mean, the top 2 teams had the advantage for decades by being the only teams who played in the championship. People had a problem with it, but at least 3 through 6 would have a shot. Play the "quarterfinals" before Christmas and have the semifinals and championship the same time as now.

 

[greyhammer90]

That would probably be true most years but I look back at Bama in 2011. They essentially was third in the SEC due to finishing second in their division. And nobody will convince me that there was a better team in the country than them that year. It worked out for us then, but the same scenerio could play out with another team, in another conference, in another year.

I don't think the at large bid would be based on "divisions" so I don't think Alabama would be considered third in the SEC.

You can say it is unquestionable that Alabama was the best team in the country that year, but they didn't have the resume that Oklahoma State or LSU did and should have never had the incredibly unfair second chance at the same opponent. That will forever be one of the worst championship decisions I've ever seen. You can say that Oklahoma State would have gotten rolled by LSU, but if thats true then LSU deserved to roll and take their victory lap. The BCS was never about "putting the two best teams in the championship" before that year, it was always the "season-long playoff".

 

[koonja]

Can Notre Dame Fighting Irish make the College Football Playoff?; more #DearAndy mailbag - College Football - SI.com

 

[T Town Tommy]

I don't think the at large bid would be based on "divisions" so I don't think Alabama would be considered third in the SEC.

You can say it is unquestionable that Alabama was the best team in the country that year, but they didn't have the resume that Oklahoma State or LSU did and should have never had the incredibly unfair second chance at the same opponent. That will forever be one of the worst championship decisions I've ever seen. You can say that Oklahoma State would have gotten rolled by LSU, but if thats true then LSU deserved to roll and take their victory lap. The BCS was never about "putting the two best teams in the championship" before that year, it was always the "season-long playoff".

Alabama loses to LSU 9-6 and Okla State loses to Iowa State so I disagree about resumes.
That Bama defense was probably the best defense in CFB in most recent memory. They beat the living hell out of LSU in the first matchup but didn't convert when they needed to on offense. Considering the LSU defense was almost as good, there was no shame in that. In the NCG, Bama did convert while holding LSU to practically nothing. Okla State loses against an horrendous Iowa State team. Really no comparison to me.

It gets back to wanting to see the two best teams play for the title, and that year the two best teams was clearly LSU and Bama. If people didn't see that, then they are pretty biased IMO. Entitled to their opinion just the same but at some point it really gets down to either wanting the two best teams to play... or wanting a paper champion. I prefer to see the two best teams play.

 

[greyhammer90]

Alabama loses to LSU 9-6 and Okla State loses to Iowa State so I disagree about resumes.
That Bama defense was probably the best defense in CFB in most recent memory. They beat the living hell out of LSU in the first matchup but didn't convert when they needed to on offense. Considering the LSU defense was almost as good, there was no shame in that. In the NCG, Bama did convert while holding LSU to practically nothing. Okla State loses against an horrendous Iowa State team. Really no comparison to me.

It gets back to wanting to see the two best teams play for the title, and that year the two best teams was clearly LSU and Bama. If people didn't see that, then they are pretty biased IMO. Entitled to their opinion just the same but at some point it really gets down to either wanting the two best teams to play... or wanting a paper champion. I prefer to see the two best teams play.

So who is the real number two? - CBSSports.com

It's weird how this blind poll shows I'm super biased. Oklahoma State had twice the resume that year than Alabama. Alabama should have never had a chance.

 

[wizards8507]

Can Notre Dame Fighting Irish make the College Football Playoff?; more #DearAndy mailbag - College Football - SI.com

That article is crap and it speaks to the argument that you and I had last weekend. This dude argues that the "best case scenario" for Notre Dame is if both FSU and Stanford/USC make the playoff. That's just not true. Yes, it would help Notre Dame's strength of schedule, but the more damaging effect is that two of the four playoff spots would be full. It's better to have a "B+" resume when competing for one of FOUR open positions than it is to have an "A" resume competing for only TWO open positions.

 

[T Town Tommy]

I mean, the top 2 teams had the advantage for decades by being the only teams who played in the championship. People had a problem with it, but at least 3 through 6 would have a shot. Play the "quarterfinals" before Christmas and have the semifinals and championship the same time as now.

Any team having a bye week in a playoff format comes away with such a huge competitive advantage. We could debate that they earned it, but do we really want to give them that much of an advantage? An extra week off would certainly be that.

I would like to see the eight team format. The five conference champs, three at large, and seed the teams accordingly. That would reward the two teams that finished at the top of the polls while preserving the equal footing of having to win the same number of games to win the title.

 

[T Town Tommy]

So who is the real number two? - CBSSports.com

It's weird how this blind poll shows I'm super biased. Oklahoma State had twice the resume that year than Alabama. Alabama should have never had a chance.

We can agree to disagree. No way you will ever convince me that Okla State was better than Bama that year. That ain't happening. We may not see as dominating a defense as that for a while. Rewind and watch the NCG. That can speak for itself.

 

[Domina Nostra]

Any team having a bye week in a playoff format comes away with such a huge competitive advantage. We could debate that they earned it, but do we really want to give them that much of an advantage? An extra week off would certainly be that.

I would like to see the eight team format. The five conference champs, three at large, and seed the teams accordingly. That would reward the two teams that finished at the top of the polls while preserving the equal footing of having to win the same number of games to win the title.

This is what I like too, but we would have to elminate FCS games before we start arguing the fairness of playing the same amount of games!

We can agree to disagree. No way you will ever convince me that Okla State was better than Bama that year. That ain't happening. We may not see as dominating a defense as that for a while. Rewind and watch the NCG. That can speak for itself.

I think the idea is that the system doesn't really match-up the two "best" teams. The idea is that they had their shot to get to the Championship the week before, and they blew it. Giving them a second bite at the same team led directly to the play-off system.

And was LSU really the second best team in retrospect? Supposedly they were the best team ever before that game, and then they absolutely STUNK on offense and got blanked in the NC. The best team ever doesn't score 6 and then 0 games in championships.

And its not like Alabama's defense was shutting everyone else out that year. They were great, but LSU's offense was not good.

 

[greyhammer90]

We can agree to disagree. No way you will ever convince me that Okla State was better than Bama that year. That ain't happening. We may not see as dominating a defense as that for a while. Rewind and watch the NCG. That can speak for itself.

Oh and lets not forget the other little quibbles. Like how statistically difficult it is to beat the same team twice in football throughout history. How LSU essentially got penalized by beating Alabama because they had to play another game against quality competition. And the fact that LSU had already played a MUCH more difficult schedule than Alabama that year.

"Oh our defense played amazing the first time we played, but our offense couldn't convert. The second time we were better so that's what counts." Are you kidding me? Is this f*cking paper-rock-scissors? Do we do two out of three?

LSU got completely robbed that year because ESPN immediately started blowing their collective loads over the potential of an all-SEC championship game not thirty minutes after the first """""Game of the Century"""" (Can't put that in quotations enough since the outcome of that game mattered exactly zero f*cking percent.)

****Edit: I'm not arguing that Oklahoma State is better than Alabama. I'm telling you that they had a better resume than Alabama and that Alabama had already lost to LSU. Forcing those teams to play again was (1) Unfair to LSU (the most egregious wrong), (2) Unfair to Oklahoma State, (3) A HUGE advantage for Alabama.

 

[T Town Tommy]

This is what I like too, but we would have to elminate FCS games before we start arguing the fairness of playing the same amount of games!

Would you swap Bama's schedule this year for the Irish's schedule?

Which one do you think is tougher?

But I do agree. Each conference plays eight games, then two games against Power Five opponents, and a conference championship game. Eleven games, then three playoff games to win the title.

In the interest of fairness, maybe the only teams eligible for the three bye's are the teams that lose in their conference championship game. That way, only two teams from any one conference would be eligible for the playoffs. That would mean that Notre Dame would have to go ahead and join the ACC however. That's fair. No?

 

[T Town Tommy]

Oh and lets not forget the other little quibbles. Like how statistically difficult it is to beat the same team twice in football throughout history. How LSU essentially got penalized by beating Alabama because they had to play another game against quality competition. And the fact that LSU had already played a MUCH more difficult schedule than Alabama that year.

"Oh our defense played amazing the first time we played, but our offense couldn't convert. The second time we were better so that's what counts." Are you kidding me? Is this f*cking paper-rock-scissors? Do we do two out of three?

LSU got completely robbed that year because ESPN immediately started blowing their collective loads over the potential of an all-SEC championship game not thirty minutes after the first """""Game of the Century"""" (Can't put that in quotations enough since the outcome of that game mattered exactly zero f*cking percent.)

****Edit: I'm not arguing that Oklahoma State is better than Alabama. I'm telling you that they had a better resume than Alabama and that Alabama had already lost to LSU. Forcing those teams to play again was (1) Unfair to LSU (the most egregious wrong), (2) Unfair to Oklahoma State, (3) A HUGE advantage for Alabama.

Again, do we want the two best teams to play or do we want perceived fairness? I choose the two best teams.

 

[MNIrishman]

Alabama loses to LSU 9-6 and Okla State loses to Iowa State so I disagree about resumes.
That Bama defense was probably the best defense in CFB in most recent memory. They beat the living hell out of LSU in the first matchup but didn't convert when they needed to on offense. Considering the LSU defense was almost as good, there was no shame in that. In the NCG, Bama did convert while holding LSU to practically nothing. Okla State loses against an horrendous Iowa State team. Really no comparison to me.

It gets back to wanting to see the two best teams play for the title, and that year the two best teams was clearly LSU and Bama. If people didn't see that, then they are pretty biased IMO. Entitled to their opinion just the same but at some point it really gets down to either wanting the two best teams to play... or wanting a paper champion. I prefer to see the two best teams play.

Alabama lost to #6 TAMU and ND lost to #1 Alabama so I disagree about resumes. Clearly ND was the better team

(Sorry 1993 logic)

 

[MNIrishman]

Again, do we want the two best teams to play or do we want perceived fairness? I choose the two best teams.

The two best teams in 2006 were Michigan and Ohio State...until they weren't. You can't use ex post facto information a priori as a valid judging mechanism.

 

[Cali_domer]

Alabama lost to #6 TAMU and ND lost to #1 Alabama so I disagree about resumes. Clearly ND was the better team

(Sorry 1993 logic)

Obviously we can claim that as a National Championship

 

[T Town Tommy]

Alabama lost to #6 TAMU and ND lost to #1 Alabama so I disagree about resumes. Clearly ND was the better team

(Sorry 1993 logic)

Actually Bama was #2 then but why split hairs.

 

[T Town Tommy]

The two best teams in 2006 were Michigan and Ohio State...until they weren't. You can't use ex post facto information a priori as a valid judging mechanism.

It was pretty clear that OSU wasn't one of the two best teams that year. And it was pretty obvious pretty quickly. But I still loathe Urban... if that helps.

 

[Booslum31]

I expect complete chaos when this "Panel" decides which 11-1 teams are in the playoffs and which ones are out. Somebody eluded to the Secret Service in an earlier post...this "committee" is going to need protection.

 

[irishfan]

We can agree to disagree. No way you will ever convince me that Okla State was better than Bama that year. That ain't happening. We may not see as dominating a defense as that for a while. Rewind and watch the NCG. That can speak for itself.

I'll say this much. Bama was probably the best team in the country in 2011. It just seems unfair that they failed to beat LSU at home and then got another crack at them on a neutral site field.

I would've loved to see what would happen with OSU playing against LSU, as this was before the SEC really knew what a spread passing attack was. I think it would have been a great game.

I do think Bama was better than LSU that year though. That 9-6 loss was horribly fluky, but I just thought they didn't deserve the neutral site rematch after losing at home.

 

[MNIrishman]

It was pretty clear that OSU wasn't one of the two best teams that year. And it was pretty obvious pretty quickly. But I still loathe Urban... if that helps.

Again, that's using information that wouldn't be available until after the bowls are played. Ohio State looked unstoppable, having gone undefeated and just beaten #2 Michigan. Clearly, one of the best. And Michigan was a juggernaut, having gone undefeated except for a very narrow loss to #1 OSU on the road. If I didn't know they would later go on to get eviscerated in the bowls, I would have a very tough time picking twice-beaten USC and once-beaten Florida (by two scores, no less) over those resumes. You're selecting teams without knowing how the bowls will play out. Given that, it makes sense to "give Florida a chance," since our opinions of conferences unduly influence how "best teams" are decided. Of course, that's notwithstanding the last time someone gave Florida a chance and they got blown out by a Big East team in the Sugar Bowl...

 

[greyhammer90]

Again, do we want the two best teams to play or do we want perceived fairness? I choose the two best teams.

Nice strawman.

I choose the season long playoff that the entire system was designed around (unless your team was Alabama). The fact that you call making LSU play a team they've already beat again after playing a championship game against good competition that the other team didn't have to play in because they lost "perceived fairness" just shows how far out of whack and how biased you are. It's not perceived. It's fairness.