I don't agree with that. The football playoff is much smaller than the basketball tournament, relative to the number of teams.
You need to ensure you get the teams capable of winning a NC in the field. With college basketball the National championship 90% of the time comes from first 3 seeds (12 teams), and 95% of the time from the top 4 seeds (16 teams). You need to ensure your system gets those top 12-16 teams in. March madness does that. The march madness argument of who gets left out is amongst teams that have 0% chance of winning. Now, there's things march madness can improve on IMO especially with the last 15-20 teams in but that doesn't have much of an impact on who wins it all.
How about puling for our boy War Daddy at Troy against JMU. That way potentially either winner of Duke and Virginia could be ahead of JMU and it might be less likely for the ACC getting shut out. Not sure if it would work out, but can't hurt to pull for them. Imagine if he was resposible for saving our season....
Yeah, I never wanted to move away from the BCS. The problem wasn't the computers, it was the limited access. I mean to be honest, I never wanted the playoffs at all. I was actually totally fine with the BCS system and it still made the traditional NY6 bowl games very valuable.
I think the G5/6 should have their own playoffs to crown their own champion.
They didn't explicitly include the G6 though. The "G6" and "P4" distinction doesn't exist technically. They worded the language as the 5 highest ranked conference champions getting autobids (and last year the top 4 got byes) but the system was designed when the Pac12 still existed. I think autobids in general are a bad idea and for the good conferences they're not needed and for everyone else (the B12, ACC, etc.) it's just a form of welfare.
I don't disagree with either of you. My biggest issue with the playoff is it leads to these discussions over and over.
Historically speaking any team that loses their first two games isn't really a true threat to win the Natty. This year is different because I'd take ND against the top 6 seeds with confidence. Ya, even OSU
Yeah, I completely agree with IrishTusker and Putup here. If we're going to make the playoffs a participation trophy charity case than we need to expand it to 24 and be done with it. As Putup said, March Madness is big enough that in gets every team with a realistic shot at winning in the field, the CFP is absolutely not doing that and is sacrificing teams with a theoretical shot (Miami) or perhaps even a team with an actual shot (us) for teams with ZERO shot (JMU, NT, maybe even Duke or Boise).
Because teams almost never play the two best opponents on their schedule as the first two games of the season. That was an all-time scheduling mistake. Would be helpful to know who is responsible for that. The timing of A&M probably couldn't be fixed (we would have to play them early to play at all) and I don't know how Miami works with the ACC deal. Maybe we don't control when we play them, either. Playing them later in the season would have been better, and playing BC or someone else early instead.
I'm hoping some of that is to save face. We are a big ND family and most are hellbent on them not making it, I have to think it's because they don't wanna look silly or feel stupid if/when they don't.
Great points, but I'd change my argument from "most team that drop their first two aren't a threat" to "most teams that drop their two biggest tests aren't a threat" although I'll be the first to say I don't think they lose either of those games in November.
he did say it; whether he was the first is debatable; but since statistics had only been known recently there is a decent chance he invented it
Well the committee can do whatever it wants, it sets out and thinks about what teams it wants in and then constructs a post-hoc rationalization to fit their narrative. That being said, until I turn on the selection show on Sunday and see otherwise, I'll continue to believe that so long as BYU loses we're in (Bama losing and a few other results going our way wouldn't hurt either).
Can this even happen? I'll be the first to admit I'm not sure how the small schools factor in or what happens if Duke wins I didn't know their was a true path for both Miami and ND to be in....All I'm confident on is if all chalk win saturday the final 10 look something like this:
what was the lowest seed to ever win it all?
I think if Bama wins and BYU loses, we lose our buffer between ND and Miami. That gets dicey to say the least.
Bama and BYU both lose and drop below ND and Miami
there are many more competitive basketball teams then there ever will be football teams because instead of starting 22 you have a starting 5. So comparing the sports is nothing but deflection
AH...You're saying in this scenario Bama doesn't make it?? That's not happening IMO, having a team miss the playoffs all together because of losing a CCG (before the BYU chat comes in....I'm talking mainly SEC or B10) isn't even a question.
Then conference championship games need to be eliminated all together. If a team can’t be punished for losing a conference championship game then they shouldn’t be rewarded for winning it either
If Bama loses and doesn't look good again they absolutely should drop 2 spots. They would have 3 losses (yes one in the conf champ game), and they also would STILL have lost to the worst team of any potential playoff team, and they didn't just lose to FSU they got whipped.
