The case for an 8 Team Playoff

[wizards8507]

Disagree. We were solidly in. When we moved to #3, we stayed there. Any talk of ND dropping was external noise from all the experts and fans, but not the committee.

Yes, in a 4 team playoff that's true. But in an 8 team playoff, I think the committee's mindset changes. You already heard everyone blabbing about how Georgia is the real number two and all that crap. Eight playoff spots gives them the green light to actual put Georgia at #2 and justify it by arguing that doing so didn't screw any deserving teams out of the playoff.

 

[gkIrish]

Georgia would be #3 or #4 in an 8 team playoff. We would have slid behind them and possibly Oklahoma and Ohio State and been told to quit crying because we got in so STFU.

Huh? Are they #3 or #4 now? What am I missing? You are making ish up

 

[wizards8507]

Huh? Are they #3 or #4 now? What am I missing? You are making ish up

I'm saying the system of polling plays a part in determining how people vote.

It's like the presidential election. Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by 3 million, but she did that within the electoral college structure. You can't just assume that IF we had a popular vote system that people would have voted the same way. The system itself influences behavior. Neither California Republicans nor California Democrats are particularly motivated to vote because California isn't a competitive state. But maybe loads of those people turn out in a popular vote system that's competitive nationally.

Everyone on that committee thinks Georgia is better than us. But they can't maintain credibility and leave us out of the playoff, so the four team structure forced their hand. In an eight team structure, they can do what they wanted to do in the first place (put Georgia #2 or #3) and get away with it because they can still say that ND, Oklahoma, and Ohio State are still "in." Therefore, they'd argue, we have nothing to complain about and we need to "prove it on the field."

 

[Black Irish]

I don't like the argument that the playoff needs to expand because some teams "deserve" a shot. Those teams that got left out had their shot. Georgia had a shot in the SEC Champ game. They blew it. OSU blew their shot when they got jail sexed by a Purdue team that finished 6-6. And if Notre Dame didn't get it together and put down USC and lost that game, the Irish would have likely blown their shot.

There's always going to be a bubble team you can make a case for. But you got to make the tough choices and leave someone out in a system that means anything. Not everyone gets a trophy.

 

[ozzman]

Junior gets it.

Check out @GolicAndWingo’s Tweet: https://twitter.com/GolicAndWingo/status/1073185382538317824?s=09

OMG the responses to that tweet. The ND hate is strong. We need to beat Clemson

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

[wizards8507]

It's also fantastic irony what's happening in this thread. You all are taking the ESPN company line and I'm the one arguing the counter-position. Make no mistake. Expansion to 8 is not about football, it's about ESPN.

 

[Irish#1]

Yes, in a 4 team playoff that's true. But in an 8 team playoff, I think the committee's mindset changes. You already heard everyone blabbing about how Georgia is the real number two and all that crap. Eight playoff spots gives them the green light to actual put Georgia at #2 and justify it by arguing that doing so didn't screw any deserving teams out of the playoff.

Until OSU spanked them, we also heard that scUM should be #3, but the committee never moved them up. If the committee truly believed they were the #2, then they would have put them there and kept OU out of it. Are they a playoff quality team? Yes in a 8 team format, but they lost two games and are not worthy of a top four position.

 

[Bluto]

Junior gets it.

Check out @GolicAndWingo’s Tweet: https://twitter.com/GolicAndWingo/status/1073185382538317824?s=09

That’s a pretty good take.

 

[Irish#1]

It's also fantastic irony what's happening in this thread. You all are taking the ESPN company line and I'm the one arguing the counter-position. Make no mistake. Expansion to 8 is not about football, it's about ESPN.

It's also about conferences being pissy about not having a team in the playoffs especially when the SEC has had two in the past and just missed having two.

 

[greyhammer90]

If they go with every conference champion getting a spot, it means Notre Dame will only be competing for one of three at-large spots instead of one of four in the current format.

It's not as clear cut as that. It's more like one of the best four spots, but Bama/OSU/Clemson/Oklahoma (or insert other potential conference champions) can take those spots, or being one of the best three spots, but Bama/OSU/Clemson/Oklahoma are not able to take those spots (because they will fall into the autobid). You're trading one spot for also guaranteeing that 5 of the best teams in the country won't be able to take one of your potential spots.

 

[BobbyMac]

Since it sounds most are opposed to the 5 Conf champs + 3 at larges getting in and prefer the best 8 teams not the 8 most deserving teams let me ask a couple of questions:

1. If Tua and Hurts missed two games to injury that happened to be @LSU and Miss St and lost close games but Tua came back, won the rest of the games in Bama fashion but lost to #3 UGA in the SEC Championship... would they be in an 8 team playoff this year at 10-3 assuming the other Top 8 teams had the same record (and LSU finished 8-4 for argument sake)?

2. Based on who you would bet on head to head on a neutral field (not who deserves to be seeded where or what their record is or who is or isn't hurt, just who is the real best 8 teams right now with your money on the line) How would you rank the Top 8 if you are the Playoff Czar at the Irish Envy Casino?

 

[gkIrish]

I'm saying the system of polling plays a part in determining how people vote.

It's like the presidential election. Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by 3 million, but she did that within the electoral college structure. You can't just assume that IF we had a popular vote system that people would have voted the same way. The system itself influences behavior. Neither California Republicans nor California Democrats are particularly motivated to vote because California isn't a competitive state. But maybe loads of those people turn out in a popular vote system that's competitive nationally.

Everyone on that committee thinks Georgia is better than us. But they can't maintain credibility and leave us out of the playoff, so the four team structure forced their hand. In an eight team structure, they can do what they wanted to do in the first place (put Georgia #2 or #3) and get away with it because they can still say that ND, Oklahoma, and Ohio State are still "in." Therefore, they'd argue, we have nothing to complain about and we need to "prove it on the field."

I don't see why any of that means they would seed Georgia at #3 of #4. Pure conjecture on your part. You are taking Twitter/talking head arguments about Georgia being more deserving and extrapolating that to the committee which proved they don't agree with that notion. There's no actual basis to think they would seed Georgia at #4 because there are 8 total spots.

 

[BobbyMac]

I don't see why any of that means they would seed Georgia at #3 of #4. Pure conjecture on your part. You are taking Twitter/talking head arguments about Georgia being more deserving and extrapolating that to the committee which proved they don't agree with that notion. There's no actual basis to think they would seed Georgia at #4 because there are 8 total spots.

I didn't read it that way. I got if a committee had to put in the best 8 teams based on nothing other than who they thought was best, (not most deserving) UGA would be no lower than 4th.

If I'm ranking with my bookie, they are in the Top 4.

 

[Irish#1]

I'm listening to Clay Travis this morning and he has a radio guy from Alabama on. He's talking about how Bama and their fans are upset about Murray winning the Heisman. They're claiming a strong Bama bias kept Tagovailoa from winning.

Welcome to the club Alabama! People been bias against the Irish for centuries.

 

[Legacy]

It's also fantastic irony what's happening in this thread. You all are taking the ESPN company line and I'm the one arguing the counter-position. Make no mistake. Expansion to 8 is not about football, it's about ESPN.

I always like the Sun Bowl.

 

[Black Irish]

I didn't read it that way. I got if a committee had to put in the best 8 teams based on nothing other than who they thought was best, (not most deserving) UGA would be no lower than 4th.

If I'm ranking with my bookie, they are in the Top 4.

There's no distinction between best and most deserving. If a team is one of the 4 best, or 8 in an expanded playoff situation, they get in. That's why 12-0 Notre Dame got in this year and 12-0 UCF did not. Both teams are undefeated, but Notre Dame is the better team and played a tougher schedule. So the Irish deserve a spot and UCF does not.

 

[BobbyMac]

There's no distinction between best and most deserving. If a team is one of the 4 best, or 8 in an expanded playoff situation, they get in. That's why 12-0 Notre Dame got in this year and 12-0 UCF did not. Both teams are undefeated, but Notre Dame is the better team and played a tougher schedule. So the Irish deserve a spot and UCF does not.

Sorry but this is 100% untrue.

 

[RDU Irish]

Every P5 conference team had their shot - win them all and you are in. Independents and non-power fives do not control their own destiny and outside of Notre Dame have next to zero shot. UCF deserves a shot or else they need to break the 112 teams in to two divisions. Beat everyone the school AD puts in front of you for two years and you are still an afterthought, second class citizen.

Saw some stat that ND/Michigan was the only non-conference match up this year b/w two top 20 teams (don't remember the metric for ranking) - last year there were 7. Expand it to top 30 teams and 7 non-conference games this year versus twice as many last year. I think the playoffs dilute most school schedules - play for an undefeated or one loss conference championship.

The WHOLE season should be a process of elimination to get to a champion. We beat Michigan, which should have been a huge mark against letting them in the playoffs. Just like the UGA/Bama game should have been a clear elimination game. A lot of other folks should be crapping the bed pretty badly to open it back up to those guys sneaking in to a four team playoff. I would put UCF/OSU/OK in over those two any day of the week but it was not treated as such. This "best team" BS is just that - if they already played, you already know who is "best" between those teams.

Why should ND/Bama need to potentially rematch with UM/UGA respectively in the playoff?

 

[Black Irish]

Sorry but this is 100% untrue.

Then give me a clear cut example to back up your assertion. I'm not talking about a hair thin "eye test" debate, like who got the 4th spot this year. That's going to happen every year, whether the playoff is 4 teams or 32. I don't see a team this year that clearly deserves to be in the CFB and isn't. Can you argue that UGA or OSU would make a strong showing if they were in instead of OU? Sure. But that doesn't mean they deserve to be there. They didn't build the resume over the course of the season so they got left out.

 

[calvegas04]

I think UCF should be in over OK

 

[ThePiombino]

Based on what? Their ability to remain undefeated through a Charmin-soft schedule for two years with a couple decent wins sprinkled in?

I think UCF should be in over OK

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

 

[calvegas04]

Based on what? Their ability to remain undefeated through a Charmin-soft schedule for two years with a couple decent wins sprinkled in?

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

They beat who is put in front of them, the bigger schools won't be putting them on the schedule any time soon

 

[BobbyMac]

They beat who is put in front of them, the bigger schools won't be putting them on the schedule any time soon

They play Stanford and @Pitt next year. Then switch over to UNC, GT & Louisville moving forward.

 

[ThePiombino]

Florida offered them a 2-for-1. We're about to see if UCF is ready to back up the talk or not...

They beat who is put in front of them, the bigger schools won't be putting them on the schedule any time soon

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

 

[Irish YJ]

Florida offered them a 2-for-1. We're about to see if UCF is ready to back up the talk or not...

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

2 for 1 is pretty lame. FL is basically saying we're afraid to go to UCF more than once, but we'll try to take advantage of the situation since you're a lowly non-P5 and you need quality opponents. At least make the 3rd game at a neutral field.

I'd tell them to F off.

 

[BobbyMac]

Florida offered them a 2-for-1. We're about to see if UCF is ready to back up the talk or not...

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

If they don't take it, it doesn't mean they are neccessarily ducking UF. You'd have to compare the payouts that UF is offering for the two games in Gainesville to what other teams like Pitt, UNC, GT, etc plus it also forces UCF into two non-conference away games vs P5's which means they have to play 2 bums at home for a manageable schedule... and bum teams don't make you money in ticket sales outside of South Bend and a select few other places.

To be honest, I wouldn't take it if I'm the UCF AD. I'd tell UF, "We aren't you lil brother any longer. We're one of the largest schools (maybe largest) in the country and more importantly, we've been looking down the polls at you for 2 years... which is the last time we lost btw. Like it or not, we're your equal now so we'll do a home and away but if you want 2 for 1's talk to Freshwater U. Otherwise, we'll see you in the Playoffs when it goes to 8... IF you can figure out how to beat UK & Mizzou in the same season."

 

[greyhammer90]

"We aren't you lil brother any longer. We're one of the largest schools (maybe largest) in the country and more importantly, we've been looking down the polls at you for 2 years... which is the last time we lost btw. Like it or not, we're your equal now so we'll do a home and away but if you want 2 for 1's talk to Freshwater U. Otherwise, we'll see you in the Playoffs when it goes to 8... IF you can figure out how to beat UK & Mizzou in the same season."

And the UF AD texts back "lol ok cool man. See ya around."

 

[Irish YJ]

And the UF AD texts back "lol ok cool man. See ya around."

and then rings up Idaho

 

[Irish YJ]

just looked at UCF's future sched

2019, FCS FL A&M, @FAU, @Pitt, and Stanford. Not bad OoC.
2020, UNC, @GT, still need two more games
2021, @Louisville, needs 3 more
2022, Louisville, GT, needs 2 more
2023, need all 4 OoC
2024, GT
2025, UNC


If you look at their past scheds, there's several big and decent names (OSU, PSU, scUM, Stanford, SC, BYU, Louisville, BC, NCst, KSst, Miami, TX)

 

[Circa]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Brian Kelly said he’d vote for College Football Playoff expansion to eight teams. Would give the five Power 5 conferences a bid, plus three at-large bids.</p>— Pete Sampson (@PeteSampson_) <a href="https://twitter.com/PeteSampson_/status/1073991656611987456?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 15, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
I said the same thing earlier...<iframe src="https://giphy.com/embed/1026uGcStaInmM" width="480" height="480" frameBorder="0" class="giphy-embed" allowFullScreen></iframe><p><a href="https://giphy.com/gifs/life-empire-cookie-lyon-1026uGcStaInmM">via GIPHY</a></p>