2024 College Football Playoffs

[Bishop2b5]

No way in hell should Alabama, Ole Miss or South Carolina have gotten in over SMU. All three have 3 losses, Alabama and Ole Miss had bad losses and SCar lost to both. SMU had one regular season lost and it was by 3 to a current top 20 team.

Every year since the playoffs started, it's the same argument: BEST team or MOST DESERVING team with the prettiest resume. The committee has always said they're trying to get the best teams, but people complain about how that involves the eye test, which I think is a goofy, silly argument. The eye test is probably more accurate than prettiest resume by a mile. Prettiest resume is for people who can't accurately judge the actual playing strength of a team by watching them on the field, while the eye test is how knowledgeable fans determine who would likely actually beat whom. The committee is supposed to choose the four or eight or twelve strongest/best teams, but too often they toss in an SMU or other weak team with a pretty resume because they're "deserving" of the spot. Again, I honestly don't know who should've gotten the 12th spot this year, but SMU got it for the wrong reasons and clearly didn't belong.

 

[mrmcgrail]

This nonsense that Alabama or Ole Miss would have been better games makes no sense. Like how Alabama was a good game with 6-6 Oklahoma or how they lost to Tennessee who got destroyed by Ohio State. What about Ole Miss with that loss to Kentucky who had 4 wins. They are getting all this love for beating Georgia who was all over the place this year with how they played

 

[ColoradoIrish]

Every year since the playoffs started, it's the same argument: BEST team or MOST DESERVING team with the prettiest resume. The committee has always said they're trying to get the best teams, but people complain about how that involves the eye test, which I think is a goofy, silly argument. The eye test is probably more accurate than prettiest resume by a mile. Prettiest resume is for people who can't accurately judge the actual playing strength of a team by watching them on the field, while the eye test is how knowledgeable fans determine who would likely actually beat whom. The committee is supposed to choose the four or eight or twelve strongest/best teams, but too often they toss in an SMU or other weak team with a pretty resume because they're "deserving" of the spot. Again, I honestly don't know who should've gotten the 12th spot this year, but SMU got it for the wrong reasons and clearly didn't belong.

The best teams don't lose 25% of their games, it's that simple. Doesn't matter how much talent you have. If you lost a quarter of your games you don't deserve to be in when there's teams that only lost one game

 

[irish4ever]

This didn't take long...

Alabama And South Carolina Deserved To Be In The Playoff Over SMU And Indiana

When the final College Football Playoff (CFP) rankings were revealed, two names stood out—and not necessarily for the…

fanrumor.com

As says the Monday morning quarterback! On January 2nd I'm sure there will be more post like this about who didn't deserve to make to the cfb playoffs. Geesh!

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

It's such a stupid argument and they're all guilty of it. Finebaum, Herbstreit, even McDonough.

In EVERY SINGLE model, Indiana was a top 12 football team. SP+, Sagarin, BCS, Anderson & Hester, Colley Matrix, AP, Coaches, all of them. It wasn't the committee. It was unanimous that Indiana was a top 12 team this year.

If there was an issue with Indiana in the playoff, it's not the committee's fault. It's that we shouldn't have a 12-team playoff in the first place.

I’m now seeing the argument being made that they aren’t 12 teams capable of winning the title any given year so maybe the four team playoff is what it should be and BCS had it right all along. 😂

I believe there are more than five teams capable of winning the title and with the NIL, portal and depth of squads we will see a lot more parity developing. 16 may be as many as I’m willing to go but with the extra games depth is key. And all teams will be struggling with depth in the playoffs.

 

[LifelongFan]

How about we have teams play at home instead of sending them to NFL stadiums so some bowl chairman can afford a new house for his mistress? The bowl system is the dumbest sporting event in the world.

 

[Fbolt]

SEC sycophants

 

[Fbolt]

With this format, the Cinderella idea is very appealing. Although I dislike Clemson, how great would it have been to see them make it to the final 4? Or SMU squeak a W against Penn State (we'd all have loved that!). Anything can happen in these games and although the top seeds won big in R1, there will be underdog W's somewhere in this playoff.

 

[wizards8507]

With this format, the Cinderella idea is very appealing. Although I dislike Clemson, how great would it have been to see them make it to the final 4? Or SMU squeak a W against Penn State (we'd all have loved that!). Anything can happen in these games and although the top seeds won big in R1, there will be underdog W's somewhere in this playoff.

I'd like the best team to be the champion, actually. Not some "any given Saturday" luck-of-the-bounce-or-blown-holding-penalty fluke Cinderella.

 

[Fbolt]

Any given Saturday would demonstrate that the underdog is playing their best ball at the end of the season. To me-appealing.

Luck of the ball/bounce is how teams W every year. Even the best teams. GA v GT anyone?

If a 9-3 ND barely made the playoffs and Won it all doesn't give you a chub, then I can't help ya.

 

[Fbolt]

I'd like the best team to be the champion, actually. Not some "any given Saturday" luck-of-the-bounce-or-blown-holding-penalty fluke Cinderella.

It seems you would prefer the AP and no playoffs then.

 

[Jimmy3Putt]

The problem with the playoffs isn’t the teams in, it’s the seeding.
Boise, Clemson, ASU, SMU, and IU should’ve been playing themselves for the chance to make the final eight. Those would’ve been GREAT games and weeded out pretenders in competitive battles.
Instead they had 4 of the top seven teams playing at home against overmatched lower ranked teams.

 

[Bishop2b5]

The best teams don't lose 25% of their games, it's that simple. Doesn't matter how much talent you have. If you lost a quarter of your games you don't deserve to be in when there's teams that only lost one game

What are you arguing about? You do realize I've said multiple times that I don't think Bama should've been in, right?

 

[wizards8507]

It seems you would prefer the AP and no playoffs then.

Yes. My favorite system was the old Big 12 round-robin where every team plays every team in the conference once, European soccer style, and the team at the top of the table at the end of it all is the conference champion.

Honestly, crowning a national champion in a field of 130+ playing 12 games each is a fool's errand anyways.

 

[IrishLax]

“Fan Rumor Dot Com” … who gives a shit lol?

The issue with it coming from ESPN is that they *control the playoffs* so their words have a tangible effect on the direction of the sport. They are saying what they’re saying because they’ve invested hundreds of millions of dollars in the SEC and if their brand gets devalued then that becomes a poor investment.

 

[ColoradoIrish]

What are you arguing about? You do realize I've said multiple times that I don't think Bama should've been in, right?

I'm arguing that SMU belongs when you said they didn't.

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

How about we have teams play at home instead of sending them to NFL stadiums so some bowl chairman can afford a new house for his mistress? The bowl system is the dumbest sporting event in the world.

I actually hate the commercialized version of the bowls on neutral sites.

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

I'd like the best team to be the champion, actually. Not some "any given Saturday" luck-of-the-bounce-or-blown-holding-penalty fluke Cinderella.

What is a “best team” ? What is the criteria that determines objectively who the best team is?

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

The problem with the playoffs isn’t the teams in, it’s the seeding.
Boise, Clemson, ASU, SMU, and IU should’ve been playing themselves for the chance to make the final eight. Those would’ve been GREAT games and weeded out pretenders in competitive battles.
Instead they had 4 of the top seven teams playing at home against overmatched lower ranked teams.

Yep the seeding being different from the rankings and coupled with automatic first round byes is a huge problem.

That being said though ND not being in a conference is a large driver of that reasoning. The fact they were ranked 4th and got seeded 7th is terrible. It happened just like I said it would. ND will have to be ranked 1-3 just to get seeded 5th. That is terrible for everyone n

 

[ColoradoIrish]

I actually hate the commercialized version of the bowls on neutral sites.

Back in the day they made sense, but not with them all on tv now.

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

Yes. My favorite system was the old Big 12 round-robin where every team plays every team in the conference once, European soccer style, and the team at the top of the table at the end of it all is the conference champion.

Honestly, crowning a national champion in a field of 130+ playing 12 games each is a fool's errand anyways.

Not if you have a 16 team playoff formed by 16 divisions playing round robin style with a divisional winner and promotion/relegation. That’s about as clear cut as it gets. No ambiguity what-so ever.

 

[GATTACA!]

Not if you have a 16 team playoff formed by 16 divisions playing round robin style with a divisional winner and promotion/relegation. That’s about as clear cut as it gets. No ambiguity what-so ever.

Ambiguity is half the fun.

 

[Bishop2b5]

I'm arguing that SMU belongs when you said they didn't.

They're a bad team who got in on pretty resume alone, not actually one of the top 12 (or probably not even a top 20) team. This is the problem with "most deserving" and "pretty resume" over who would likely beat whom "best" teams. If you can't watch teams play and understand which ones are actually good and who they would beat most of the time, you have to rely on stats and most deserving. This is how you end up with gross mismatches in the playoffs or bowls instead of competitive games.

 

[ab2cmiller]

I’m now seeing the argument being made that they aren’t 12 teams capable of winning the title any given year so maybe the four team playoff is what it should be and BCS had it right all along. 😂

I believe there are more than five teams capable of winning the title and with the NIL, portal and depth of squads we will see a lot more parity developing. 16 may be as many as I’m willing to go but with the extra games depth is key. And all teams will be struggling with depth in the playoffs.

It was reasonable to argue that more than 4 teams each year would have some reasonable chance of winning the championship.
It's not reasonable to argue that there are 12 teams each year that have some reasonable chance.
The most it should be is 8 with no teams getting a bye.

If someone wants to counter that the basketball tournament has way more teams than what is necessary or which have even a remote chance of winning. You are right. The difference is that football is a violent game and significant injuries will take place that could have a significant impact on who wins the championship. I'm not sure if the NCAA or most teams even care about though. It's all about the money. Let's expand it to 32 teams and everyone gets more money.

 

[ColoradoIrish]

They're a bad team who got in on pretty resume alone, not actually one of the top 12 (or probably not even a top 20) team. This is the problem with "most deserving" and "pretty resume" over who would likely beat whom "best" teams. If you can't watch teams play and understand which ones are actually good and who they would beat most of the time, you have to rely on stats and most deserving. This is how you end up with gross mismatches in the playoffs or bowls instead of competitive games.

That's going to happen to no matter. If they're a "bad team" then what "good teams" got left out? I can watch and determine who a good team is vs whose a talented team. A good team finds a way to win. Bad talented teams find ways to lose. That describes the 3 sec teams that got left out. They shouldn't lose to the likes of Florida, LSU, Oklahoma, and Vanderbilt, and they damn well shouldn't lose to multiple of those teams.

Since you so vehemently think SMU is a bad team, what good team(s) do you believe should've been in over them?

 

[LifelongFan]

I actually hate the commercialized version of the bowls on neutral sites.

The idea of the Rose Bowl was to get Midwesterners to visit LA and move there. It's been commercial since day one.

 

[IRISHDODGER]

Every year since the playoffs started, it's the same argument: BEST team or MOST DESERVING team with the prettiest resume. The committee has always said they're trying to get the best teams, but people complain about how that involves the eye test, which I think is a goofy, silly argument. The eye test is probably more accurate than prettiest resume by a mile. Prettiest resume is for people who can't accurately judge the actual playing strength of a team by watching them on the field, while the eye test is how knowledgeable fans determine who would likely actually beat whom. The committee is supposed to choose the four or eight or twelve strongest/best teams, but too often they toss in an SMU or other weak team with a pretty resume because they're "deserving" of the spot. Again, I honestly don't know who should've gotten the 12th spot this year, but SMU got it for the wrong reasons and clearly didn't belong.

I think what folks are forgetting is that it’s a TWELVE team playoff. Most fans can’t name who the runner up was in a given season so let’s not pretend the last teams chosen are memorable. Most of us knew the committee landed on 12 teams b/c of additional game/revenue and not b/c it was best way to determine champ. IMO, eight is the sweet spot. And we all know, they will soon move to even more teams not b/c of what happened this year (although that will be one of the excuses) but b/c of money.

There’s over 130 FBS programs. To pick the 12 best is impossible based on the parameters currently in place. There has to be a threshold on how many losses a team is allowed grace before being eliminated regardless of their recent history or 247 Composite roster ratings. And we have to quit propping up teams in pre-season polls based on previous year’s performance (i.e, FSU, UM) &/or conference affiliation. Nick Saban & Urban Meyer are no longer coaching in the SEC. Assigning value to SEC teams like it’s the BCS era is no different than ND fans living in the past despite mediocrity under Davie/Willingham/Weis eras.

 

[Irish4life]

They're a bad team who got in on pretty resume alone, not actually one of the top 12 (or probably not even a top 20) team. This is the problem with "most deserving" and "pretty resume" over who would likely beat whom "best" teams. If you can't watch teams play and understand which ones are actually good and who they would beat most of the time, you have to rely on stats and most deserving. This is how you end up with gross mismatches in the playoffs or bowls instead of competitive games.

By this logic Michigan should be in the CFP over any of the at large CFP teams

 

[Dale]

They're a bad team who got in on pretty resume alone, not actually one of the top 12 (or probably not even a top 20) team. This is the problem with "most deserving" and "pretty resume" over who would likely beat whom "best" teams. If you can't watch teams play and understand which ones are actually good and who they would beat most of the time, you have to rely on stats and most deserving. This is how you end up with gross mismatches in the playoffs or bowls instead of competitive games.

So should Alabama have been left out of the playoffs in 2018?

South Carolina and Syracuse were far more competitive with Clemson than ND or Alabama that year.

Every single sport has blowouts in their playoffs, even championships, for the life of me I don’t get why people make it a narrative thing in CFB.

 

[Bishop2b5]

So should Alabama have been left out of the playoffs in 2018?

South Carolina and Syracuse were far more competitive with Clemson than ND or Alabama that year.

Every single sport has blowouts in their playoffs, even championships, for the life of me I don’t get why people make it a narrative thing in CFB.

Why? They were 13-0, ranked #1, and playing like a dominant team against good competition. My argument is that record alone doesn't tell an accurate story. You have to take into account who that record was achieved against, how well did a team play, how well did the coaches handle difficult situations, and etc. Teams with pretty records achieved against weak schedules and showing glaring weaknesses that would get exposed against good teams don't belong in the playoffs. This is the cause of most blowouts. I understand if a team loses 3 of their starting DB's or their star QB or such and get slaughtered. Not talking about that. I'm talking about mediocre teams who go 12-0 or 11-1 against air and we want to crown them as a legit top team. They're not. This is why SMU got killed this weekend. It's why Cincinnati got embarrassed against UF years ago. It's why the idea of putting the top FCS team into the playoffs is a joke. "But they're undefeated!" ranks right up there with "They're gonna win because they have the prettiest uniforms and a lion would beat a bulldog."