2024 College Football Playoffs

I

irishrb

Active member
Messages
805
Reaction score
199
Bishop2b5 said:
I don't have a problem with any particular system they've tried - BCS, top 2, 4-team playoff, 12-team playoff. My issue has and will be the same: put the best 2, 4, 12 or whatever in, not the "most deserving" or prettiest resume. If you're a coach or a full-time CFB journalist, or on the playoff committee and you can't watch teams play over the course of a season and have a very good idea who would beat who, then you're in the wrong business. Stop this silly "most deserving" or prettiest resume stuff. It should be about who are the best teams, period. I don't say that because I think my team undeservedly got left out this year. I don't even have a strong opinion on whether they should or shouldn't have been in, am not particularly disappointed they aren't in, and didn't expect them to be in. I just want the best teams in every year, not the so-called most deserving.
Click to expand...
Problem is that will ALWAYS be debatable...
 
GATTACA!

GATTACA!

It's about to get gross
Messages
15,114
Reaction score
12,949
T Town Tommy said:
But the 60th ranked schedule and zero top 25 wins outranks it? And then have the committee state SOS was a determining factor? The future of CFB took a huge hit today and if I were an Irish fan I would be highly concerned. Phones will be ringing wanting to cancel marquee games are probably taking place right now. And with the Irish not being in a conference the ability to schedule marquee games that they will need goes down. A one loss ND will probably make the playoffs most years but a two loss Irish team without marquee matchups to help their resume… forget it. If anything, this will push the Irish closer to joining a conference just to be competitive schedule wise.
Click to expand...
Yes. Stop losing to shit teams.
 
greyhammer90

greyhammer90

the drunk piano player
Messages
16,840
Reaction score
16,123
Bishop2b5 said:
I don't have a problem with any particular system they've tried - BCS, top 2, 4-team playoff, 12-team playoff. My issue has and will be the same: put the best 2, 4, 12 or whatever in, not the "most deserving" or prettiest resume. If you're a coach or a full-time CFB journalist, or on the playoff committee and you can't watch teams play over the course of a season and have a very good idea who would beat who, then you're in the wrong business. Stop this silly "most deserving" or prettiest resume stuff. It should be about who are the best teams, period. I don't say that because I think my team undeservedly got left out this year. I don't even have a strong opinion on whether they should or shouldn't have been in, am not particularly disappointed they aren't in, and didn't expect them to be in. I just want the best teams in every year, not the so-called most deserving.
Click to expand...

Ok then let's just skip the regular season and take the top ranked recruiting class teams. That's basically what you're arguing for. Would you have "a very good idea" that Bama would get beat by Oklahoma or Vanderbilt before watching those games? No? Then why would you presume to have "a very good idea" of how the playoffs are going to go? Most deserving is absolutely the way to go, and the "best" crap is ESPN brainrot.
 
Last edited:
NDRock

NDRock

Well-known member
Messages
7,489
Reaction score
5,448
Bishop2b5 said:
I don't have a problem with any particular system they've tried - BCS, top 2, 4-team playoff, 12-team playoff. My issue has and will be the same: put the best 2, 4, 12 or whatever in, not the "most deserving" or prettiest resume. If you're a coach or a full-time CFB journalist, or on the playoff committee and you can't watch teams play over the course of a season and have a very good idea who would beat who, then you're in the wrong business. Stop this silly "most deserving" or prettiest resume stuff. It should be about who are the best teams, period. I don't say that because I think my team undeservedly got left out this year. I don't even have a strong opinion on whether they should or shouldn't have been in, am not particularly disappointed they aren't in, and didn't expect them to be in. I just want the best teams in every year, not the so-called most deserving.
Click to expand...
Do you feel that way about pro sports? The same issues (unbalanced scheduling, automatic qualifiers for weaker division winners. “better” teams left out) happen in pro football but nobody is clamoring for changes there.

I’m personally for there not being any committee and everything decided on the field. Will probably never happen in college as it’s a clusterfuck with so many competing interests.
 
P

Pointman02

Active member
Messages
99
Reaction score
116
Yeah, Bishop, I’ve always wanted exactly the opposite. I want the teams that have played the best season, not who “have the best team” but didn’t win consistently. I get that in college football, schedules aren’t equal (so as much as I’d like to, I won’t argue for Army to get in the playoffs this year), but 11-1 (SMU before the CCG) in the ACC is a better season than 9-3, even in the vaunted SEC. And Alabama doesn’t get to count SMU’s CCG loss against them, because nobody is convinced this Bama team that couldn’t beat Vandy would beat Clemson.
 
ShamrockOnHelmet

ShamrockOnHelmet

Refreshman
Messages
2,745
Reaction score
1,750
Bishop2b5 said:
I don't have a problem with any particular system they've tried - BCS, top 2, 4-team playoff, 12-team playoff. My issue has and will be the same: put the best 2, 4, 12 or whatever in, not the "most deserving" or prettiest resume. If you're a coach or a full-time CFB journalist, or on the playoff committee and you can't watch teams play over the course of a season and have a very good idea who would beat who, then you're in the wrong business. Stop this silly "most deserving" or prettiest resume stuff. It should be about who are the best teams, period. I don't say that because I think my team undeservedly got left out this year. I don't even have a strong opinion on whether they should or shouldn't have been in, am not particularly disappointed they aren't in, and didn't expect them to be in. I just want the best teams in every year, not the so-called most deserving.
Click to expand...
Then why play games at all? There is literally no point in playing football games if this is your criteria.
 
GATTACA!

GATTACA!

It's about to get gross
Messages
15,114
Reaction score
12,949
Pointman02 said:
Yeah, Bishop, I’ve always wanted exactly the opposite. I want the teams that have played the best season, not who “have the best team” but didn’t win consistently. I get that in college football, schedules aren’t equal (so as much as I’d like to, I won’t argue for Army to get in the playoffs this year), but 11-1 (SMU before the CCG) in the ACC is a better season than 9-3, even in the vaunted SEC. And Alabama doesn’t get to count SMU’s CCG loss against them, because nobody is convinced this Bama team that couldn’t beat Vandy would beat Clemson.
Click to expand...
Yeah that’s a good point. Why should SMU be penalized for a game Alabama couldn’t even reach? And if they had and lost again would Alabama fans be arguing for a 9-4 Bama team over 11-2 SMU?
 
P

Pointman02

Active member
Messages
99
Reaction score
116
I do think CCGs should have potential to drop a team in boundary cases. So I think PSU should have dropped below some 1 loss teams after losing to Oregon, but if Oregon lost, they would’ve clearly deserved the 5 seed. But after 12 games, SMU at 11-1 absolutely deserved to be above 3 loss Alabama. An extra game against an opponent better than 2 of Alabama’s losses can’t change that.
 
B

bumpdaddy

Well-known member
Messages
431
Reaction score
1,020
Bishop2b5 said:
I don't have a problem with any particular system they've tried - BCS, top 2, 4-team playoff, 12-team playoff. My issue has and will be the same: put the best 2, 4, 12 or whatever in, not the "most deserving" or prettiest resume. If you're a coach or a full-time CFB journalist, or on the playoff committee and you can't watch teams play over the course of a season and have a very good idea who would beat who, then you're in the wrong business. Stop this silly "most deserving" or prettiest resume stuff. It should be about who are the best teams, period. I don't say that because I think my team undeservedly got left out this year. I don't even have a strong opinion on whether they should or shouldn't have been in, am not particularly disappointed they aren't in, and didn't expect them to be in. I just want the best teams in every year, not the so-called most deserving.
Click to expand...
I agree with your first point - the goal of any system should be to put the best 2, 4, 12, etc. teams in - but I disagree with your 2nd point.

"Who would beat who" is another way of saying "the eye test." If you think the eye test should always outweigh most deserving/resume I think you are wrong. The "experts" who think they know who will beat who get it wrong all the time. I think both should be considered BUT, if there are 2 more teams with similar records, resume/most deserving should always outweigh "the eye test."

The 1st several iterations of the committee generally agreed and generally got things right. They 1st considered resume - who you beat, SOS, SOR, record against common opponents, etc. - and then they considered "the eye test" but they used metrics like offensive/defensive efficiency, game control, point differential, etc. to keep the "eye test" as objective as possible. They used both but they valued resume over eye test and I think that's the right way to do it.

The problem with the committee over the last 3 or 4 seasons is their criteria seem to change from week to week and from one team to the next. They are far more inconsistent with their rationale than the earlier committees. One reason for that is the committee seems to already be doing what you are asking. After the 2nd CFP ranking this season (I believe it was the 2nd but it could have been the 3rd), Warde Manuel was asked why the committee ranked certain teams over others. Was it SOS? Was it who they beat? Was it according to win-loss records? He said something like, "The teams are ranked where they are because we (the committee) watch the games," meaning he seemed to be saying the committee valued "the eye test" above all else. Previous committee chairs had never said anything like that. Yes, they also "watched the games", but committee chairs like Jeff Long, the first CFP Chair, always stressed that they valued who you beat and SOS above anything else. Criteria associated with the eye test were used but were secondary.

This current committee has members who seem to be using inconsistent criteria that are more similar to the varying criteria used by AP voters or "hot-take" criteria used by talking heads on ESPN. It shouldn't be that way. The committee should have a more cohesive and objective rationale just like earlier iterations of the committee.
 
Bishop2b5

Bishop2b5

SEC Exchange Student
Messages
8,940
Reaction score
6,162
greyhammer90 said:
Ok then let's just skip the regular season and take the top ranked recruiting class teams. That's basically what you're arguing for. Would you have "a very good idea" that Bama would get beat by Oklahoma or Vanderbilt before watching those games? No? Then why would you presume to have "a very good idea" of how the playoffs are going to go? Most deserving is absolutely the way to go, and the "best" crap is ESPN brainrot.
Click to expand...
Did Toronto hack your account? I never said any such thing. I'm for watching the entire season play out and then picking the BEST performing teams - the ones that football-knowledgeable people believe would most likely beat all the others. There's no 100% foolproof way to do that, and upsets will always happen in the playoffs, but this "most deserving" BS is for people who can't adequately judge the actual quality of play they see. They need all data points and formulas instead of being able to see and understand. Most deserving is for nitwits and how you get weak teams with pretty resumes embarrassed in the playoffs by 30 or 40 points.
 
Bishop2b5

Bishop2b5

SEC Exchange Student
Messages
8,940
Reaction score
6,162
ShamrockOnHelmet said:
Then why play games at all? There is literally no point in playing football games if this is your criteria.
Click to expand...
What??? Where do you get that from my argument? I'm all for playing the games and judging teams based on how they played and against what sort of opponents. I'm just not in favor of thinking a mediocre team who has a good record against a very weak schedule is deserving of a playoff spot. And I'm not specifically speaking of SMU. I'm for looking at the quality of play and the quality of the opponents a record is achieved against. The current system gives too much credence to pretty resume instead of actual quality of resume; to W/L only instead of who that W/L was achieved against and how well a team plays.
 
L

LifelongFan

Well-known member
Messages
1,606
Reaction score
1,919
Bama is basically BYU this year. They had almost no complete games, lost to bad teams, and caught teams at the right time. Their high SP+ and FPI are the result of preseason rankings and their overrated conference. All the guys who came there to win something can see the writing on the wall and will transfer. They had a good run with the GOAT coach, but it's done now. Goodbye Bama.
 
Bishop2b5

Bishop2b5

SEC Exchange Student
Messages
8,940
Reaction score
6,162
Pointman02 said:
Yeah, Bishop, I’ve always wanted exactly the opposite. I want the teams that have played the best season, not who “have the best team” but didn’t win consistently. I get that in college football, schedules aren’t equal (so as much as I’d like to, I won’t argue for Army to get in the playoffs this year), but 11-1 (SMU before the CCG) in the ACC is a better season than 9-3, even in the vaunted SEC. And Alabama doesn’t get to count SMU’s CCG loss against them, because nobody is convinced this Bama team that couldn’t beat Vandy would beat Clemson.
Click to expand...
I agree. Winning consistently is one of the criteria for being one of the best. I think my guys are good enough to beat anyone on a given day this year, but WAY too inconsistent to be considered one of the best teams.
 
Kingbish01

Kingbish01

Well-known member
Messages
3,414
Reaction score
2,375
Bishop2b5 said:
I agree. Winning consistently is one of the criteria for being one of the best. I think my guys are good enough to beat anyone on a given day this year, but WAY too inconsistent to be considered one of the best teams.
Click to expand...
I actually think your bowl game against Michigan could be tough for Bama. They have the Defensive athletes to stop a one sided Milroe offense.
 
Cackalacky2.0

Cackalacky2.0

Specimen
Messages
9,023
Reaction score
8,018
T Town Tommy said:
I think the argument can be made that Indiana doesn’t belong. How many pushovers are you allowed to play before it matters? I like Indiana. I love watching SMU play their style of football. But neither team belongs in a playoff before any of the three teams you mentioned.
Click to expand...
Essentially the SEC gets a two loss advantage over everyone else because they play so many “hard teams”.
 
Cackalacky2.0

Cackalacky2.0

Specimen
Messages
9,023
Reaction score
8,018
LifelongFan said:
Bama is basically BYU this year. They had almost no complete games, lost to bad teams, and caught teams at the right time. Their high SP+ and FPI are the result of preseason rankings and their overrated conference. All the guys who came there to win something can see the writing on the wall and will transfer. They had a good run with the GOAT coach, but it's done now. Goodbye Bama.
Click to expand...
Yep. It’s a positive feedback loop that reinforces the tough conference mythos. Big 10 and SEC get a handful of teams ranked to start the year then they play each other and obviously beat each other but they get credit for beating a tough team and if they lose they don’t drop that far. Rinse repeat.

I firmly believe Texas is a fraud this year. Their schedule was not good but they managed to stay ranked very high. They still made it to the playoffs even after to losing to Ga twice. They very well could end up playing them again… 😂
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top