Path to the CFP?

[Some Irish Bloke]

At this point I think the 4 team playoff is absolutely comical. You can't tell me that the AAC isn't a tougher conference than the PAC12, maybe even the Big12 at this point, top to bottom. Yet we don't even give these schools a shot. Why do they even take the field on Saturdays? They'd be better off joining FCS and playing in their playoff system. More to play for. You could even argue the Sun Belt is gaining on the PAC 12.

The FCS has playoffs with 24 teams.....I would rather see that than this subjective rat race with four teams. I think 8 would be the perfect number personally, but that's just me.

 

[ThePiombino]

Bama wins the SEC CG they are in no matter where they are ranked right now. Yeah they should be 5-8, but what difference does it make since we all know they control their own destiny?

But that's the thing - they don't. If they're ranked 5-8 then they control their destiny. They HAVE TO win the rest of their games including the SECCG to get in to the CFP. Now, at #2, they can still lose the CCG and somehow backdoor in as a 2-loss team. The committee gave them a major lifeline here. Meanwhile, undefeated Cincinnati with a win over #10 ND gets shafted at #6 even though Bama lost to an unranked A&M. Explain that without defaulting to bias.

 

[GowerND11]

At this point I think the 4 team playoff is absolutely comical. You can't tell me that the AAC isn't a tougher conference than the PAC12, maybe even the Big12 at this point, top to bottom. Yet we don't even give these schools a shot. Why do they even take the field on Saturdays? They'd be better off joining FCS and playing in their playoff system. More to play for. You could even argue the Sun Belt is gaining on the PAC 12.

The FCS has playoffs with 24 teams.....I would rather see that than this subjective rat race with four teams. I think 8 would be the perfect number personally, but that's just me.

Expanding the playoffs doesn't solve the core issue, it just hides it through expansion. Honestly, the BCS did it right, but people got butthurt like 2 times. Then, ESPN, CFB, ADs, etc. saw dollar signs and went with a playoff. It was never about the fans, being fair, etc. It was about money and power.

 

[NDohio]

Expanding the playoffs doesn't solve the core issue, it just hides it through expansion. Honestly, the BCS did it right, but people got butthurt like 2 times. Then, ESPN, CFB, ADs, etc. saw dollar signs and went with a playoff. It was never about the fans, being fair, etc. It was about money and power.

I really wish they would have the playoff teams chosen through the BCS formula...

 

[Irish4life]

I really wish they would have the playoff teams chosen through the BCS formula...

Expand to 12, bring back the BCS rankings. Simple. Easy to implement. Would be better for college football. So we know there's 0 chance it'll ever happen.

 

[Huntr]

I really wish they would have the playoff teams chosen through the BCS formula...

The BCS needed a lot of improvement. The "computer rankings" they used were a joke. Some were ok, but a couple were terrible and they had them in there just to shut people up about objectivity. One of them was made by a guy that had no statistical analysis training or experience - he was a farmer that just made some shit up and they called it good.

 

[Some Irish Bloke]

Expanding the playoffs doesn't solve the core issue, it just hides it through expansion. Honestly, the BCS did it right, but people got butthurt like 2 times. Then, ESPN, CFB, ADs, etc. saw dollar signs and went with a playoff. It was never about the fans, being fair, etc. It was about money and power.

I agree with your underlying point, but I also think it would solve more issues with the current format that it would create more issues.

There's always going to be pissed off fanbases at the cutoff point. If we expanded to 8, ND still wouldn't be in based on last night's rankings, and that would rub a lot of us the wrong way. (personally, with our lack of quality Ws, we deserve to be 10. It will sort itself out, anyways, and those who are holding out hope for a playoff spot are bonkers IMO).

However, It gives us way more leeway to give the UCFs and UCs of the sport a chance. Not only that, whether or not they get their asses beat or actually pull off the miracle will either quiet the G5 noise or solidify their seat at the table.

Every other major sport has a much larger scale playoff system than FBS football, yet FBS football has a much larger pool than most other sports. It doesn't make much sense to me, but I realize this is an opinion based argument and I understand the other side of the coin. I really do. I much prefer the BCS to the current format, honestly. It was far less subjective and gave more meaning to the BCS/NY6 bowls.

 

[GowerND11]

I agree with your underlying point, but I also think it would solve more issues with the current format that it would create more issues.

There's always going to be pissed off fanbases at the cutoff point. If we expanded to 8, ND still wouldn't be in based on last night's rankings, and that would rub a lot of us the wrong way. (personally, with our lack of quality Ws, we deserve to be 10. It will sort itself out, anyways, and those who are holding out hope for a playoff spot are bonkers IMO).

However, It gives us way more leeway to give the UCFs and UCs of the sport a chance. Not only that, whether or not they get their asses beat or actually pull off the miracle will either quiet the G5 noise or solidify their seat at the table.

Every other major sport has a much larger scale playoff system than FBS football, yet FBS football has a much larger pool than most other sports. It doesn't make much sense to me, but I realize this is an opinion based argument and I understand the other side of the coin. I really do. I much prefer the BCS to the current format, honestly. It was far less subjective and gave more meaning to the BCS/NY6 bowls.

I agree with your premise about expansion based on the first half of the bolded. Why is the FBS so different? Larger playoff makes it less subjective, and I agree.

But I think your last sentence is the answer about the FBS. Bowl games. I was only born in 1989, so I only know really the BCS and playoff system. The expansion of bowl games has happened, and made it all so watered down as well. I yearn for the days of 25-30 bowl games. People argue that expanded bowl games help the smaller conferences. That's "true," but yet we still have 6-6 Kansas St playing 7-5 Mississippi St. every year. Reduce to 25 and make sure you get those G5 teams in bowl games. It can be done.

 

[GATTACA!]

But that's the thing - they don't. If they're ranked 5-8 then they control their destiny. They HAVE TO win the rest of their games including the SECCG to get in to the CFP. Now, at #2, they can still lose the CCG and somehow backdoor in as a 2-loss team. The committee gave them a major lifeline here. Meanwhile, undefeated Cincinnati with a win over #10 ND gets shafted at #6 even though Bama lost to an unranked A&M. Explain that without defaulting to bias.

2 loss Alabama isn't making it in unless there is major carnage behind them. 1 loss Oregon, OSU, MSU, Michigan, ND, Oklahoma, all go ahead of them. As does undefeated Wake and maaaaybe Cincy.

 

[Pops Freshenmeyer]

I agree with your premise about expansion based on the first half of the bolded. Why is the FBS so different? Larger playoff makes it less subjective, and I agree.

But I think your last sentence is the answer about the FBS. Bowl games. I was only born in 1989, so I only know really the BCS and playoff system. The expansion of bowl games has happened, and made it all so watered down as well. I yearn for the days of 25-30 bowl games. People argue that expanded bowl games help the smaller conferences. That's "true," but yet we still have 6-6 Kansas St playing 7-5 Mississippi St. every year. Reduce to 25 and make sure you get those G5 teams in bowl games. It can be done.

I don't understand what is gained by reducing access to bowl games. Can you explain?

 

[ThePiombino]

2 loss Alabama isn't making it in unless there is major carnage behind them. 1 loss Oregon, OSU, MSU, Michigan, ND, Oklahoma, all go ahead of them. As does undefeated Wake and maaaaybe Cincy.

The fact that there's even an "unless" in your reply makes my point. Committee gave them a back door.

 

[BeatSC]

Ok well I am not pleased with the #10 ranking but I think our weak ass D performance against UNC had a little to do with it. Style points matter and we are wearing an outdated leisure suit! With that said many in front of us will lose another game as they play each other and then someone like Bama can lose a second.

- Michigan will lose
- Michigan State will lose
​​​​​​- Ok will lose
- Oregon will lose
- Bama will lose
- Ohio St could lose
​​​​​​- Wake could lose
- Cincy could lose

If all or most of these happen we are in!!!

Beat Navy this week and MSU loses to pursue and we jump both MSU and UM.

 

[ab2cmiller]

Given Alabama and ND's current rankings and there remaining opponents, there is no way that a one loss ND team makes it in front of Bama if there second loss is to Georgia in the SEC championship game unless they get blown out.

 

[GATTACA!]

The fact that there's even an "unless" in your reply makes my point. Committee gave them a back door.

No it doesn't. The unless it's a bunch of other teams all having two loses too. If 3/5 P5 champs have two losses what are they supposed to do?

 

[ThePiombino]

No it doesn't. The unless it's a bunch of other teams all having two loses too. If 3/5 P5 champs have two losses what are they supposed to do?

If a loss to unranked A&M only has Bama at 2, you don't see a situation where a super close loss to the best team in the country would only drop them to 3/4?

 

[Rogue219]

The ACC being "weak" just means that Clemson, FSU and Miami aren't any good.

This is all bullshit, guys. Come on. If Wake Forest were in Clemson uniforms, they're top four. Zero question. The ACC has always been a basketball conference.

Even if you're a second tier P5 school, you're going to get hosed unless you're in the SEC. Auburn took a trip to PA and lost in September. Let's see Mississippi State visit Ann Arbor or East Lansing in November and see how it goes.

This all seems like it was done for shock value. I really can't believe a group of people came up with this list as it is. It's just way too out there for me to consider it legit.

 

[GATTACA!]

If a loss to unranked A&M only has Bama at 2, you don't see a situation where a super close loss to the best team in the country would only drop them to 3/4?

No chance, unless like I said there's total chaos.

I think Bama at 2 is mostly protecting the committee in case they win the SEC CG. They need to be able to justify not scheduling a rematch. Bama goes to 1 Georgia goes to 3.

 

[Free Manera]

The CFP committee rankings are pretty close to entirely predictable. There are a couple guys I follow on social media that have figured it out. Their model is not 100%, but pretty close for all 25 spots, every time. There is no eye test. The committee does not watch film and debate. There is a model they use and they apply it every time. IMO, no G5 will ever make the playoff without a lot of weird losses across the P5 board.


[TWEET]https://twitter.com/cfb_professor/status/1455856411913621515[/TWEET]

Pretty cool. They use the term "game control" which I think is their objective version of a combined eye test/margin of victory. It makes a lot of sense that the committee uses something like that. They clearly don't like close wins against inferior opponents. They think that is why Bama is so high, and why Ohio State is in very good shape going forward it they win out. Makes it seem like you can have one bad game, if you otherwise dominate every minute of every game.

 

[phork]

https://www.actionnetwork.com/ncaaf...utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=brettmcmurphy

Interesting stats.

 

[Wild Bill]

The CFP committee rankings are pretty close to entirely predictable. There are a couple guys I follow on social media that have figured it out. Their model is not 100%, but pretty close for all 25 spots, every time. There is no eye test. The committee does not watch film and debate. There is a model they use and they apply it every time. IMO, no G5 will ever make the playoff without a lot of weird losses across the P5 board.


[TWEET]https://twitter.com/cfb_professor/status/1455856411913621515[/TWEET]

Interesting stuff here. Does he get into how he evaluates (or how he believes the committee evaluates) game control as it relates to strength of schedule? For example, Baylor, Okie State, ND are all 1 loss teams with with 2 quality wins and the following SOS and GC stat lines:

12 #Baylor SOS: 64, QW: 2, T25W: 1, GC: 18.0
11 #OkState SOS: 42, QW: 2, T25W: 1, GC: 11.4
10 #NotreDame SOS: 32, QW: 2, T25W:0, GC: 8.1

He has Baylor at 12 despite having far better game control and a lower SOS but has Okie State at 10 over ND with a slightly better game control and slightly worse SOS.

It seems obvious that one doesn't control over the other so I'm curious if the gives any explanation as to how he evaluates them as a whole or how he believes the committee evaluates them as a whole.

 

[GowerND11]

I don't understand what is gained by reducing access to bowl games. Can you explain?

It's watered down today. There really isn't much gained, and it may be my unpopular opinion. I just feel having 43 games (84 teams) making bowl games is too much.

 

[BeatSC]

Given Alabama and ND's current rankings and there remaining opponents, there is no way that a one loss ND team makes it in front of Bama if there second loss is to Georgia in the SEC championship game unless they get blown out.

Wrong and I would hope you would hope I am right.

 

[Rogue219]

It's watered down today. There really isn't much gained, and it may be my unpopular opinion. I just feel having 43 games (84 teams) making bowl games is too much.

Agreed. They have been forced to take 5-7 teams recently.

I don't think being 6-6 is all that much to celebrate. Most of these games, these programs are lucky to break even let alone make any money.

 

[Rogue219]

At this point I think the 4 team playoff is absolutely comical. You can't tell me that the AAC isn't a tougher conference than the PAC12, maybe even the Big12 at this point, top to bottom. Yet we don't even give these schools a shot. Why do they even take the field on Saturdays? They'd be better off joining FCS and playing in their playoff system. More to play for. You could even argue the Sun Belt is gaining on the PAC 12.

The FCS has playoffs with 24 teams.....I would rather see that than this subjective rat race with four teams. I think 8 would be the perfect number personally, but that's just me.

every other division of college football was a sixteen team playoff. FCS was a good model. Generally there were not a lot upsets. It was Youngstown State, Montana or Georgia Southern winning it. Marshall got a couple Then it was Appalachian State. Now it is North Dakota State. I didn't like the expansion to 24 teams. I thought 16, for that level, was pretty good.

I think you are right about 8 though. Sixteen would still produce some blowouts. Even with 8, I doubt any March Madness type of magic happens.

 

[IrishLax]

There at minimum needs to be a 12 team playoff with AQs to curb the ability for SEC bias, and I think you could make a strong case for a 16 team playoff but would probably need to truncate the season by a week.

 

[Rogue219]

There at minimum needs to be a 12 team playoff with AQs to curb the ability for SEC bias, and I think you could make a strong case for a 16 team playoff but would probably need to truncate the season by a week.

16 means half are from the SEC. I'm not that interested in watching that.

 

[RDU Irish]

There at minimum needs to be a 12 team playoff with AQs to curb the ability for SEC bias, and I think you could make a strong case for a 16 team playoff but would probably need to truncate the season by a week.

Top 2-4 teams deserve a bye - not just the rest but extra prep. Very different strategy to hit top 4 like now versus stay in the top 16 and peak late. Brian Kelly would need to adapt A LOT and be more aggressive in multiple avenues to build the talent and health of the team to peak at year end.

 

[Dale]

There at minimum needs to be a 12 team playoff with AQs to curb the ability for SEC bias, and I think you could make a strong case for a 16 team playoff but would probably need to truncate the season by a week.

I recall the 12 was the SEC/ND compromise in the proposal that got furthest. SEC wanted 8 with no automatic qualifiers. Every other conference wanted 8 with qualifiers. ND obviously wants no qualifiers regardless. 12 with minimal qualifiers gave ND the #s they wanted on chance for an at large and SEC the #s for multiple participants they wanted.

 

[phork]

8 or 12 at this point ND would be in almost every year. I do not like AutoQualifiers. For instance a 12-0 Oregon gets punked by an 7-5 USC team in the conference championship. USC does not belong but anything can happen on a Saturday and stranger things have happened. There needs to be a minimum standard for conference champion auto qualifiers, like must be a top10 team.

 

[T-Boone]

8 or 12 at this point ND would be in almost every year. I do not like AutoQualifiers. For instance a 12-0 Oregon gets punked by an 7-5 USC team in the conference championship. USC does not belong but anything can happen on a Saturday and stranger things have happened. There needs to be a minimum standard for conference champion auto qualifiers, like must be a top10 team.

If they go to a 8 or 12 team I would be hoping they get rid of the conference championship games except if they are needed to determine a winner.