Path to the CFP?

[NDBoiler]

The media got what they wanted. They wanted to make sure the Alabamas win every year.

Can you imagine how many titles Miami would have won if the playoffs ensured their inclusion every year? 9?

Just curious, what benefit does the media get for Alabama winning every year? If it’s ratings, I’d argue that would be just the opposite of what they want. With all of their success in the past 10+ years, the average fan not in the state is probably tired of seeing them there. There are also much larger fan bases for other good teams (OSU and ND for example) that would likely boost ratings more if they were involved.

 

[GowerND11]

Just curious, what benefit does the media get for Alabama winning every year? If it’s ratings, I’d argue that would be just the opposite of what they want. With all of their success in the past 10+ years, the average fan not in the state is probably tired of seeing them there. There are also much larger fan bases for other good teams (OSU and ND for example) that would likely boost ratings more if they were involved.

Honestly, I didn't even tune in this past year for the championship game. Granted, it doesn't help they play the game on a Tuesday at 9PM...

 

[Sea Turtle]

Which team has won that won the natty in the playoff era that is undeserving? At the end of the day the team that wins is still going to be more than likely the best team, obviously not perfect.

2020	Alabama	CFP
2019	LSU	CFP
2018	Clemson	CFP
2017	Alabama	CFP
2016	Clemson	CFP
2015	Alabama	CFP
2014	Ohio State	CFP

Teams that weren't ridiculously talented used to have a chance. They could go undefeated, win their bowl game and win at least a share. BYU, Michigan with Brian Griese, etc. Kansas State almost played in a one bowl title game

That can't happen now. Those teams now face Alabama AND Ohio State if they even make the playoff at all.

If deserving, you mean the absolute most talented team winning every single year, then yes. I suppose they are deserving. Now it's not a football game. It's a recruiting, arms race, smart scheduling game.

What fun.

 

[Sea Turtle]

Just curious, what benefit does the media get for Alabama winning every year? If it’s ratings, I’d argue that would be just the opposite of what they want. With all of their success in the past 10+ years, the average fan not in the state is probably tired of seeing them there. There are also much larger fan bases for other good teams (OSU and ND for example) that would likely boost ratings more if they were involved.

The media were the ones pounding the table for a playoff for years and years. It doesn't really matter if it benefits them. I know this, it sure benefits the goliaths

 

[TorontoGold]

Teams that weren't ridiculously talented used to have a chance. They could go undefeated, win their bowl game and win at least a share. BYU, Michigan with Brian Griese, etc. Kansas State almost played in a one bowl title game

That can't happen now. Those teams now face Alabama AND Ohio State if they even make the playoff at all.

If deserving, you mean the absolute most talented team winning every single year, then yes. I suppose they are deserving. Now it's not a football game. It's a recruiting, arms race, smart scheduling game.

What fun.

As a fan, you should want to watch the best on best compete for the top prize. If you beat two of the top powerhouse programs you deserve the top trophy. Having two games feels like a good barometer to keep unnecessary champions from winning it. At 12 teams, there's a larger possibility of chaos happening where a couple first round upsets would ruin the strength of the eventual champion.

The good part of college football is that, yes it's more than just a football game. Having recruiting/geography/religion/fan bases etc. makes it so great. There can't be participation trophies handed out because another coach is better at building a program. Would ruin the competitive drive that coaches have. A level playing field is important, but it's about equal opportunity not taking away from teams that have a good program.

 

[IrishLax]

Teams that weren't ridiculously talented used to have a chance. They could go undefeated, win their bowl game and win at least a share. BYU, Michigan with Brian Griese, etc. Kansas State almost played in a one bowl title game

That can't happen now. Those teams now face Alabama AND Ohio State if they even make the playoff at all.

If deserving, you mean the absolute most talented team winning every single year, then yes. I suppose they are deserving. Now it's not a football game. It's a recruiting, arms race, smart scheduling game.

What fun.

Well, Notre Dame had two undefeated regular season teams in the past three seasons. Each would've been entirely excluded from even competing for the championship. This "share" of a title thing is fake and never how ND has operated... otherwise, they would claim many more titles.

So I don't see how it would be an improvement over the current system to revert to something where ND teams that are perfect on the field have no opportunity to be national champion.

 

[Sea Turtle]

Well, Notre Dame had two undefeated regular season teams in the past three seasons. Each would've been entirely excluded from even competing for the championship. This "share" of a title thing is fake and never how ND has operated... otherwise, they would claim many more titles.

So I don't see how it would be an improvement over the current system to revert to something where ND teams that are perfect on the field have no opportunity to be national champion.

They would have had a chance via an AP or other poll. The same way they did in 1988. Now, they get to be seal clubbed by Alabama while the country laughs.

Hey, if that your thing, enjoy it it's not going to change. Enjoy watching Alabama win it every year and then the next SEC dynasty.

​​​​​​

 

[IrishLax]

They would have had a chance via an AP or other poll. The same way they did in 1988. Now, they get to be seal clubbed by Alabama while the country laughs.

Hey, if that your thing, enjoy it it's not going to change. Enjoy watching Alabama win it every year and then the next SEC dynasty.

​​​​​​

This whole line of argument is just strange. So your path to ND winning a championship is to be worse than other teams AND rated worse than other entering bowl season... and then magically jump them in the eyes of voters? Or have other teams beat the tough team that ND can't beat, but then jump that team?

 

[Sea Turtle]

This whole line of argument is just strange. So your path to ND winning a championship is to be worse than other teams AND rated worse than other entering bowl season... and then magically jump them in the eyes of voters? Or have other teams beat the tough team that ND can't beat, but then jump that team?

The entire pointi Lax is that much of the magic is now gone. It's NFL light now.

The magic of 1988 was that we beat Miami by one point at home. We don't beat them in a rematch on a neutral field. The regular season has been cheapened.

 

[IrishLax]

The entire point Lax ithat much of the magic is now gone. It's NFL light now.

That makes sense to me, if you want to say the era of no playoffs but big bowl games was better for the regular season then I get it.

Whether it's easier or harder to win a championship though I think is difficult to say. The main reason they went away from BCS and to playoffs was undefeated teams getting excluded from the ability to "compete" for a National Championship and we saw ND get robbed of championships repeatedly under old systems. I think everything has its pros and cons... I think what we have right now is probably the worst possible system for crowning a champion.

 

[GATTACA!]

The entire pointi Lax is that much of the magic is now gone. It's NFL light now.

The magic of 1988 was that we beat Miami by one point at home. We don't beat them in a rematch on a neutral field. The regular season has been cheapened.

If ND was in Alabama’s shoes right now I highly doubt you’d be posting about how the sport has been ruined.

 

[Sea Turtle]

If ND was in Alabama’s shoes right now I highly doubt you’d be posting about how the sport has been ruined.

That's literally what an Alabama fan would say. Might as well say 'Youre just mad because you aren't a pure football factory like we are. Take you're ass whooping like a man.'

Fine, you like this format. Enjoy Alabama for ten more years I've never seen a place with so many ND fans who cheerlead and champion for Alabama and a couple other football factories to dominate and win the title every single year. ND is never winning in this format.

 

[NDPhilly]

4 is a fine amount. There hasn't been a year where I looked at the #5 team and thought they deserved a chance at the National Title. Usually, there are less than 4 that actually deserve a shot.

 

[dankgesang]

4 is a fine amount. There hasn't been a year where I looked at the #5 team and thought they deserved a chance at the National Title. Usually, there are less than 4 that actually deserve a shot.

Yep. There are two ways you can run a postseason: keep the most fans interested the longest, or keep it between the teams that have a reasonable claim on calling themselves the best. I don't think you can do both in the short term. I also think that while the former is undoubtedly more lucrative in the short term it strangles the golden goose over time.

 

[TorontoGold]

That's literally what an Alabama fan would say. Might as well say 'Youre just mad because you aren't a pure football factory like we are. Take you're ass whooping like a man.'

Fine, you like this format. Enjoy Alabama for ten more years I've never seen a place with so many ND fans who cheerlead and champion for Alabama and a couple other football factories to dominate and win the title every single year. ND is never winning in this format.

Yeah it was a much better system in the BCS era when regional powers like Florida, USC, and Texas were able to win. Or back in the 90's, Nebraska was able to establish it's self as a football factory, which is guaranteed success because they went on to win NC's in the 2000's with ease.

4 spots seems perfect, maybe 6 and give bye's to the top 2.

Changing the rules based on a perceived injustice is the same as getting your dad to coach the team and make you the starting QB because the more talented kids are taking your reps.

 

[NDPhilly]

Yep. There are two ways you can run a postseason: keep the most fans interested the longest, or keep it between the teams that have a reasonable claim on calling themselves the best. I don't think you can do both in the short term. I also think that while the former is undoubtedly more lucrative in the short term it strangles the golden goose over time.

Totally agree. 8-12 teams would be very bad for the sport & fans in the long term but great for ABC / Disney in the short term. Look what going from 2 to 4 did - Basically rendered historic, major bowl games worthless.

 

[GATTACA!]

That's literally what an Alabama fan would say. Might as well say 'Youre just mad because you aren't a pure football factory like we are. Take you're ass whooping like a man.'

Fine, you like this format. Enjoy Alabama for ten more years I've never seen a place with so many ND fans who cheerlead and champion for Alabama and a couple other football factories to dominate and win the title every single year. ND is never winning in this format.

I hate Alabama and root against them against everyone minus Michigan, OSU, and USC.

I'm just not in favor of a system that would reward us for being a worse team and somehow backing into a championship.

Just be better. That's all.

 

[greyhammer90]

I think the main problem I have with the current format is that it rewards teams like Alabama for being "better" on paper often by discounting what happens on the field. Used to be, the team with the most talent didn't get any additional breaks from the pollsters. Now? They not only have the most talent, but they get multiple losses before getting eliminated. Like, no shit the team with the most talent is going to win if they get multiple bites at the apple because they have the most talent.

There's a feedback loop here that gives the teams with all the built-in advantages even more of an advantage. See: the recent fuckery with Michigan jumping Michigan State in the playoff poll. "At the end of the day, we thought Michigan was a better team and deserved to be ranked ahead of Michigan State.” Wow, if only there was a way to have the teams sort that out on the field...

 

[Bishop2b5]

I think the main problem I have with the current format is that it rewards teams like Alabama for being "better" on paper often by discounting what happens on the field. Used to be, the team with the most talent didn't get any additional breaks from the pollsters. Now? They not only have the most talent, but they get multiple losses before getting eliminated. Like, no shit the team with the most talent is going to win if they get multiple bites at the apple because they have the most talent.

There's a feedback loop here that gives the teams with all the built-in advantages even more of an advantage. See: the recent fuckery with Michigan jumping Michigan State in the playoff poll. "At the end of the day, we thought Michigan was a better team and deserved to be ranked ahead of Michigan State.” Wow, if only there was a way to have the teams sort that out on the field...

WHAT??? When in the current format did Bama (or any other team) have multiple losses and not be eliminated? There've been several 1-loss teams who went to the playoffs, but so what? There've been years when there weren't 4 undefeated teams, and having a single loss doesn't mean a team isn't still one of the best 4 teams in the country.

 

[NorthDakota]

WHAT??? When in the current format did Bama (or any other team) have multiple losses and not be eliminated? There've been several 1-loss teams who went to the playoffs, but so what? There've been years when there weren't 4 undefeated teams, and having a single loss doesn't mean a team isn't still one of the best 4 teams in the country.

There was an issue a couple years ago when Alabama lost to Auburn..missed the CCG...Auburn lost to Georgia. And Alabama got in.

To me, that smells bad. But Alabama is among the best teams of course.

 

[Dizzyphil]

WHAT??? When in the current format did Bama (or any other team) have multiple losses and not be eliminated? There've been several 1-loss teams who went to the playoffs, but so what? There've been years when there weren't 4 undefeated teams, and having a single loss doesn't mean a team isn't still one of the best 4 teams in the country.

I believe what he is saying is pretty simple… how is an Alabama team, that is ranked #2 in the playoffs right now, that was beaten by a team that – in week 2 was ranked #5 beats a team (Colorado) that was un-ranked, by only 3 points (10-7), then loses after week 3, by 2 un-ranked teams Arkansas and Miss St. – then, Beats Bama in week 6 (Bama Ranked #1) while they are then un-ranked.. And Bama is still ranked higher than two TOP 10 teams that played each other and lose a very close and exciting game (UM vs MSU), and is still ranked ahead of them??

 

[Dizzyphil]

I believe what he is saying is pretty simple… how is an Alabama team, that is ranked #2 in the playoffs right now, that was beaten by a team that – in week 2 was ranked #5 beats a team (Colorado) that was un-ranked, by only 3 points (10-7), then loses after week 3, by 2 un-ranked teams Arkansas and Miss St. – then, Beats Bama in week 6 (Bama Ranked #1) while they are then un-ranked.. And Bama is still ranked higher than two TOP 10 teams that played each other and lose a very close and exciting game (UM vs MSU), and is still ranked ahead of them??

Then to rebut what I just posted.... if bama loses a close game to GA in the sec championship assuming both go with their current rankings and records, the committee will probably only drop a 2-loss bama to 4... and I would be hard-pressed to believe that wouldn't happen - as to what Greyhammer is leading to on the argument.

 

[Bishop2b5]

I believe what he is saying is pretty simple… how is an Alabama team, that is ranked #2 in the playoffs right now, that was beaten by a team that – in week 2 was ranked #5 beats a team (Colorado) that was un-ranked, by only 3 points (10-7), then loses after week 3, by 2 un-ranked teams Arkansas and Miss St. – then, Beats Bama in week 6 (Bama Ranked #1) while they are then un-ranked.. And Bama is still ranked higher than two TOP 10 teams that played each other and lose a very close and exciting game (UM vs MSU), and is still ranked ahead of them??

That's not at all what he said, but we'll leave that for now and I'll address your point, which is valid. The short answer is that the committee isn't NEARLY as swayed by most deserving (whatever that means), prettiest resume, best win, worst loss, or any algorithm. They are out to determine, by using all those things and several others, who they believe to be the absolute best 4 teams in the country... who they think would most likely win on a neutral field. That's how they create their rankings. I'm not convinced Bama is the 2nd best team in the country and I'm a Bama fan. They've looked lackluster the past few games. I don't know how much of that is that they're just not good this year or that they're good, but something's slightly off and Saban will get it fixed. We've seen this in the past and it usually goes about 50/50 either way with them. OTOH, other than Georgia, I don't see anyone else who is all that sharp either. Everyone else is also inconsistent and flawed. As unconvinced as I am about Bama, I can't find another team ranked below them that I'm confident could beat them 50% of the time or more. Basically, Bama doesn't look like a typical #2 team, but who else do you think clearly is?

 

[GATTACA!]

Then to rebut what I just posted.... if bama loses a close game to GA in the sec championship assuming both go with their current rankings and records, the committee will probably only drop a 2-loss bama to 4... and I would be hard-pressed to believe that wouldn't happen - as to what Greyhammer is leading to on the argument.

This will never happen and there's zero precedent to think that it will. Alabama is at 2 so that the committee can put Alabama at #1 and Georgia at #2/3 so they can avoid the 1v4 rematch if Alabama win the SEC.

 

[Dizzyphil]

This will never happen and there's zero precedent to think that it will. Alabama is at 2 so that the committee can put Alabama at #1 and Georgia at #2/3 so they can avoid the 1v4 rematch if Alabama win the SEC.

[TWEET]https://twitter.com/PeteThamel/status/1455676461826838530[/TWEET]

 

[Dizzyphil]

That's not at all what he said, but we'll leave that for now and I'll address your point, which is valid. The short answer is that the committee isn't NEARLY as swayed by most deserving (whatever that means), prettiest resume, best win, worst loss, or any algorithm. They are out to determine, by using all those things and several others, who they believe to be the absolute best 4 teams in the country... who they think would most likely win on a neutral field. That's how they create their rankings. I'm not convinced Bama is the 2nd best team in the country and I'm a Bama fan. They've looked lackluster the past few games. I don't know how much of that is that they're just not good this year or that they're good, but something's slightly off and Saban will get it fixed. We've seen this in the past and it usually goes about 50/50 either way with them. OTOH, other than Georgia, I don't see anyone else who is all that sharp either. Everyone else is also inconsistent and flawed. As unconvinced as I am about Bama, I can't find another team ranked below them that I'm confident could beat them 50% of the time or more. Basically, Bama doesn't look like a typical #2 team, but who else do you think clearly is?

Based on what has happened so far this year.... the rankings are flawed as hell then. What I think/believe or anyone else's is irrelevant. But, if you want my 'opinion', it would be the unbeaten teams which has been proven on the field - not played on paper.

 

[GATTACA!]

[TWEET]https://twitter.com/PeteThamel/status/1455676461826838530[/TWEET]

Based on what? Just more conjecture.

 

[Dizzyphil]

Based on what? Just more conjecture.

Don't know brother - you would have to ask Pete Thamel.. not to be an ass but, I don't know why. My honest answer would be, 'Follow the Money' - no italics....

 

[Dizzyphil]

So, for sake of argument here is the four main components of ranking the top 4 teams for the playoffs by the committee and the Top 4 right now.

When circumstances at the margins indicate that teams are comparable, then the following criteria must be considered:

• Championships won
• Strength of schedule
• Head‐to‐head competition (if it occurred)
• Comparative outcomes of common opponents (without incentivizing margin of victory)

Teams in top 4 in random order
16h SOS ,1 top 25 win ,one loss to top 25
42nd SOS, No top 25 wins, 1 loss top 5
62nd SOS, one top 25, win, one loss unranked
96th SOS 1 top 25 win, no losses

Will let everyone do the rest of the research... I think this is pretty plain to see though who is who.

 

[Bishop2b5]

Based on what has happened so far this year.... the rankings are flawed as hell then. What I think/believe or anyone else's is irrelevant. But, if you want my 'opinion', it would be the unbeaten teams which has been proven on the field - not played on paper.

Here's the problem I have with this particular position (and it's one a few others here hold). If you want to go strictly on record or on record plus some 2nd criteria such as won/loss of opponents played, that's nothing but a number crunching algorithm. You don't need a committee or a poll, just a formula and a pocket calculator. We saw how flawed that was with the BCS system. It doesn't take into account all the countless other things that knowledgeable watchers such as coaches, sports journalists, and the committee members see with their own eyes and understand. If you want to say on the field results should be the only thing, then what are you talking about? Just the W or L from the game, or ALL the things that happened in the game. Just the W or L is awfully bare bones. Knowledgeable observers see so much more in how each team played, and understand whether they see a good team, a lucky team, a bad team, etc.

We all know (or should know) that Team A beating Team B doesn't necessarily mean Team A is the better team. It usually does, but it can also mean that Team A played their best game of the season and Team B their worst. Let 'em play 10 times and Team A would be lucky to win twice. How is every team undeniably better than every team it beat when A beats B, B beats C, and C beats A? Tell me how you rank each ahead of the other two or how that logic holds up. Bama beat Miss. St this year, who beat A&M, who beat Bama. Just going on results doesn't tell the whole story. Teams have off days. Teams get lucky. Teams get worse as the season goes on and others get better. If all you see are the W's & L's, you're missing a HUGE part of how teams are ranked. It's not that the W's & L's aren't important. Of course they are. It's just that they're only part of the equation of trying to decide who's better than whom.

Just about everybody in this forum thinks ND would beat Cincy if they played again (and I agree). This whole "what happened on the field is all that should count" is correct, but you're only seeing a small part of what happened on the field if all you're taking into consideration is the outcome. Again, should a poll or the playoff committee's rankings be about "most deserving", prettiest resume, best record, or should it be "Who do we believe is actually the best team at this point in the season and who would beat whom?"