The case for an 8 Team Playoff

[IrishLax]

Here’s the system I think would be best (and is also likely to get adopted) —

P5 champs ranked within the top 12 of the major polls get an auto-bid.
3 at large spots, non-P5 teams ranked in the top 8 of the major polls get first claim to these spots.

 

[Irishize]

The PAC12 should start playing better football if they want in, not hope the playoffs get expanded so they can get a participation trophy entrant. Their best team lost to Auburn, who isn't even one of the SEC's best 6 teams. I'm 100% against expanding just to make sure we have someone from every conference. I don't care if all four teams are from the same conference. Put the 4 best teams or the 8 best in. Just don't give participation trophies to shitty teams from shitty conferences who play shitty football.

The confusion is whether the committee is charged to choose the best 4 teams playing the best football at the end of the season or the best 4 teams over the entire season? If it’s going to be the former, then a 4 or 8 team playoff will never objectively get it right. They would need to go to a full blown playoff like the FCS.

The PAC 12 needs better coaches and we’ll see better football. Just like when Pete Carroll was at SC or when Chip Kelly had Oregon rolling. Just like the SEC needs Bama to be a national power, the PAC 12 will always need SC to be a power especially with the handicap of being in a timezone 3 hours away from the east coast.

 

[Irishize]

Here’s the system I think would be best (and is also likely to get adopted) —

P5 champs ranked within the top 12 of the major polls get an auto-bid.
3 at large spots, non-P5 teams ranked in the top 8 of the major polls get first claim to these spots.

You’re probably right but that does nothing for objectivity IMO. It just widens the field to be more inclusive but if they’re going to base bids on polls consisting of biased media members & biased coaches/SIDs, then you’re still going to have teams value over inflated b/c of which conference they are in b/c they don’t play anyone OOC to prove otherwise. Adopt the FCS model or keep it like it is. If they think going to 8 will “fix” it, they’re delusional. It’s all or nothing. The rest is mental masturbation.

 

[Irishize]

Yeah, they did. That's why the East started bringing in better coaches like Mullen, Pruitt, and Smart. No, they couldn't leave the East out of the CCG, but they sure didn't say, "Aww, it's OK. We'll spot your team 14 points or give you some sort of advantage so you can be competitive." They had to start playing better football.

I agree Mullen is a better coach than what the East has had lately, but he’s still got to prove it on the field and he hasn’t at UF yet. Do I think he’s the guy to do it? Yes. But this year they finished 7-3 and got their asses beat by UK at home yet somehow remained ranked above UK. Florida & Mississippi St were two prime examples of overinflated rankings b/c of the conference they are in. Luckily for UF, they can improve to 8-3 after they beat scUM (minus Shea Patterson, Rashan Gary & Chase Winovich).

 

[Ndaccountant]

You’re probably right but that does nothing for objectivity IMO. It just widens the field to be more inclusive but if they’re going to base bids on polls consisting of biased media members & biased coaches/SIDs, then you’re still going to have teams value over inflated b/c of which conference they are in b/c they don’t play anyone OOC to prove otherwise. Adopt the FCS model or keep it like it is. If they think going to 8 will “fix” it, they’re delusional. It’s all or nothing. The rest is mental masturbation.

I mean, that is pretty much the FCS model, no? The FCS gets 11 (or whatever it is) automatic births and the at larges are decided by AD's.

 

[Irishize]

I think the FCS problem is easy to solve. Go back to the way it was before some teams complained that it wasn't fair (FSU was a big one). You can schedule one FCS game every 4 years. This still allows FCS teams to make money, while forcing, especially P5, FBS teams to make actual schedules. With ~130 FBS schools, it isn't that hard to make a 12 game schedule.

I don’t see the point of scheduling an FCS squad at all. You’re telling me, out of 130 FBS teams; there aren’t enough cupcake teams w/ 85 scholarships out there to schedule? Hell, most of them are worse than some FCS teams if they played early in the season.

Sorry, I can’t buy the line...”those poor little FCS schools need those games for their program to survive?”. Since when does a major, multi-million dollar FBS juggernaut give three shits about a tiny directional 63-scholarship program that they can’t locate on a map? My heart pumps piss for those programs b/c guess what...not EVERY institiution in America is entitled to have a football program. If they can’t survive w/o being subsidized by FBS programs, than they should fold.

Like I said, there’s plenty of moribound FBS programs to go around. Schedule the FCS teams for Spring games & stroke them a $1 million check for that if these P5 schools are as noble & altruistic as some fans claim.

 

[wizards8507]

The confusion is whether the committee is charged to choose the best 4 teams playing the best football at the end of the season or the best 4 teams over the entire season?

Neither one. Every single pundit believes that Georgia is one of the best 4 teams in the season, including the committee themselves. Yet Georgia (rightly) isn't in.

 

[Irishize]

I mean, that is pretty much the FCS model, no? The FCS gets 11 (or whatever it is) automatic births and the at larges are decided by AD's.

Yes. That’s my point. If you make it a full blown playoff, it forces the insulated teams who rarely travel outside their state to play a truly competitive P5 team in a playoff scenario. Soon or later, thru a larger playoff, those teams will get exposed as frauds. With only 8, it’s the same subjectivity we’ve had w/ a 4-team playoff. So, to your point; yes there will still be some subjectivity but w/ 24 teams there’s a lot of room for error vs 8 teams.

 

[Irishize]

Neither one. Every single pundit believes that Georgia is one of the best 4 teams in the season, including the committee themselves. Yet Georgia (rightly) isn't in.

Yes...with the current committee. One thing the CFP has proven is they are inconsistent with every rotation of members and there’s no uniform definition of the above. No can say w/ absolute authority whether the last committee would have included Georgia this year or not.

 

[wizards8507]

The thing about CFB that makes it great (and the reason it doesn't need to expand) is that it already has an 8-team playoff built into the regular season.

Michigan lost their quarterfinal game to Notre Dame
Ohio State won their quarterfinal game against Michigan but got DQ'ed by Purdue
Georgia lost their quarterfinal game to Alabama

 

[IrishLion]

The thing about CFB that makes it great (and the reason it doesn't need to expand) is that it already has an 8-team playoff built into the regular season.

Michigan lost their quarterfinal game to Notre Dame
Ohio State won their quarterfinal game against Michigan but got DQ'ed by Purdue
Georgia lost their quarterfinal game to Alabama

I used to be in this camp, but based on the fact that we've now seen two instances where a 1-loss ND likely gets left out over other 1-loss teams, I don't think the regular season is fair to ND and the way they choose to schedule.

So ND either needs to join a conference, or they need to change the way they schedule... they aren't going to do either of those unless forced.

That's why I like 8 teams. I don't want to see 1-loss ND get screwed in favor of 1-loss Ohio State, who absolutely would NOT have deserved to be in over ND, but would have.

 

[Ndaccountant]

Yes. That’s my point. If you make it a full blown playoff, it forces the insulated teams who rarely travel outside their state to play a truly competitive P5 team in a playoff scenario. Soon or later, thru a larger playoff, those teams will get exposed as frauds. With only 8, it’s the same subjectivity we’ve had w/ a 4-team playoff. So, to your point; yes there will still be some subjectivity but w/ 24 teams there’s a lot of room for error vs 8 teams.

I think that sounds great, but the trick is getting the money work out. I am skeptical it ever would when you proliferate the amount of teams involved.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

The confusion is whether the committee is charged to choose the best 4 teams playing the best football at the end of the season or the best 4 teams over the entire season?

They say they're picking the "best 4 teams", but they're really ranking based on achievement against schedule.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">EWM Ratings (achievement vs schedule, rather than efficiency/ dominance), closely aligned with CFP committee priorities (wrt the P5): <a href="https://t.co/NRDHBHKQnz">https://t.co/NRDHBHKQnz</a><br><br>1. Alabama<br>2. Notre Dame<br>3. Clemson<br>4. UCF<br>5. Georgia<br>6. Michigan<br>7. Ohio St<br>8. LSU<br>9. Oklahoma<br>10. Washington St</p>— Brian Fremeau (@bcfremeau) <a href="https://twitter.com/bcfremeau/status/1064876516952236032?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 20, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[wizards8507]

I used to be in this camp, but based on the fact that we've now seen two instances where a 1-loss ND likely gets left out over other 1-loss teams, I don't think the regular season is fair to ND and the way they choose to schedule.

So ND either needs to join a conference, or they need to change the way they schedule... they aren't going to do either of those unless forced.

That's why I like 8 teams. I don't want to see 1-loss ND get screwed in favor of 1-loss Ohio State, who absolutely would NOT have deserved to be in over ND, but would have.

I don't think we need to change our schedule. We just need USC to nut up and give us a marquee win. We also need to start beating Ball Sate and Pitt by 30+. The committee claims they don't incent margin of victory, but they absolutely do.

 

[Bishop2b5]

I don't think we need to change our schedule. We just need USC to nut up and give us a marquee win. We also need to start beating Ball Sate and Pitt by 30+. The committee claims they don't incent margin of victory, but they absolutely do.

I don't think they put that much stock into margin of victory, but they do put a lot of stock in domination (which is similar, but not quite the same thing). There's something to be said for gutting out close wins, but too many close wins gives the impression that you can't just line up and beat other teams into oblivion.

 

[NDRock]

The thing about CFB that makes it great (and the reason it doesn't need to expand) is that it already has an 8-team playoff built into the regular season.

Michigan lost their quarterfinal game to Notre Dame
Ohio State won their quarterfinal game against Michigan but got DQ'ed by Purdue
Georgia lost their quarterfinal game to Alabama

The problem is those games are only "quarterfinal" games after the season is over and you look back. Alabama lost a potential "quarterfinal" game last year against Auburn but with the way things worked out, it really didn't matter. Ohio State may have been DQ'd this year against a 6-6 Purdue team but their 2014 loss to a 6-6 VTech didn't keep them out of the playoffs.

Then there are the dozens of FBS teams that can go undefeated and none of it matters in regards to the playoff.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Then there are the dozens of FBS teams that can go undefeated and none of it matters in regards to the playoff.

Undefeated seasons are rare in CFB:

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Undefeated teams at the end of the regular season in the College Football Playoff era:<br><br>2014 - FSU<br>2015 - Clemson<br>2016 - Alabama, WMU<br>2017 - UCF<br>2018 - Alabama, Clemson, Notre Dame, UCF</p>— Brian Fremeau (@bcfremeau) <a href="https://twitter.com/bcfremeau/status/1069210248924356608?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 2, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

A team who went undefeated against a competitive schedule getting left out is almost inconceivable.

 

[NDRock]

Undefeated seasons are rare in CFB:

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Undefeated teams at the end of the regular season in the College Football Playoff era:<br><br>2014 - FSU<br>2015 - Clemson<br>2016 - Alabama, WMU<br>2017 - UCF<br>2018 - Alabama, Clemson, Notre Dame, UCF</p>— Brian Fremeau (@bcfremeau) <a href="https://twitter.com/bcfremeau/status/1069210248924356608?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 2, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

A team who went undefeated against a competitive schedule getting left out is almost inconceivable.

What is a "competitive schedule"? This is the problem with college football, way too many variables that are never actually fleshed out. Each year there seems to be some new metric.

Just tell all the teams at the beginning of the season what they have to do. Tell the 50 teams who are at the bottom and don't play a "competitive schedule" that they have zero chance to make the playoffs. Then there is a group that has to win them all, a group that can afford to lose one game, and finally Alabama. Who can lose 3 games but pass the magical "eye test" and still make the playoffs.

 

[wizards8507]

Undefeated seasons are rare in CFB:

A team who went undefeated against a competitive schedule getting left out is almost inconceivable.

2004 being the notable exception. Utah, USC, Auburn, Oklahoma, and Boise State all finished the regular season undefeated. Though your "competitive schedule" caveat covers it. Pretty wild to think that undefeated SEC West Auburn was left out of the national championship game.

Alabama. Who can lose 3 games but pass the magical "eye test" and still make the playoffs.

When did that happen?

Alabama has been in at 12-1, 12-1, 13-0, 11-1, and 13-0. They've never even been in as a two loss team, let alone a three loss team.

But conspiracy theories are more fun.

 

[Irishize]

The thing about CFB that makes it great (and the reason it doesn't need to expand) is that it already has an 8-team playoff built into the regular season.

Michigan lost their quarterfinal game to Notre Dame
Ohio State won their quarterfinal game against Michigan but got DQ'ed by Purdue
Georgia lost their quarterfinal game to Alabama

Last year, Bama lost in late November; eliminating them from the “quarterfinal”. How’d that work out for them?

 

[Whiskeyjack]

What is a "competitive schedule"? This is the problem with college football, way too many variables that are never actually fleshed out. Each year there seems to be some new metric.

SoS is pretty easy to quantify. It's been used to make these decisions for decades.

Just tell all the teams at the beginning of the season what they have to do. Tell the 50 teams who are at the bottom and don't play a "competitive schedule" that they have zero chance to make the playoffs.

Group of Five teams can get in. But they're basically saddled with an imaginary loss given their weak SoS. If there weren't 3 undefeated FBS teams this year (which is super rare), UCF would have had a real shot.

Then there is a group that has to win them all, a group that can afford to lose one game, and finally Alabama. Who can lose 3 games but pass the magical "eye test" and still make the playoffs.

'Bama's never gotten in with more than a single loss, let alone three.

 

[RDU Irish]

Just as there are times a one loss ND is left out you can't ignore there are times a one loss ND would be in. Some years our schedule is better than others and there is little to do about it. We schedule all the names but we can't tell 5 years out if FSU, USC, Stanford etc are going to lay an egg collectively. Really hard to guarantee a couple of teams will be Top 10 that you play - I mean who expected Syracuse to be one of our best wins? Anytime you lose a game you rightfully lose any claim at a playoff spot. Don't like it, don't lose.

I'm with Wiz, treat regular season head to head as elimination games and the math gets a lot easier at year end. If teams didn't get a chance to play elite teams, give them their shot in the playoffs. I find it absurd that UCF can go undefeated two years running, including a win over the only team that beat the national champ, and are not even considered for the playoff. That is not a real member of your division - you are not respecting 2/3rds of the division and there is literally nothing they can do to prove otherwise.

 

[NDRock]

2004 being the notable exception. Utah, USC, Auburn, Oklahoma, and Boise State all finished the regular season undefeated. Though your "competitive schedule" caveat covers it. Pretty wild to think that undefeated SEC West Auburn was left out of the national championship game.


When did that happen?

Alabama has been in at 12-1, 12-1, 13-0, 11-1, and 13-0. They've never even been in as a two loss team, let alone a three loss team.

But conspiracy theories are more fun.

It was obviously a joke. If we can't make fun of Alabama on here, what's the point of it all.

 

[NDRock]

SoS is pretty easy to quantify. It's been used to make these decisions for decades.



Group of Five teams can get in. But they're basically saddled with an imaginary loss given their weak SoS. If there weren't 3 undefeated FBS teams this year (which is super rare), UCF would have had a real shot.



'Bama's never gotten in with more than a single loss, let alone three.

What's the number then? Top 50? Top 40? Seriously, at what point is it a competitive schedule?

 

[NDohio]

The thing about CFB that makes it great (and the reason it doesn't need to expand) is that it already has an 8-team playoff built into the regular season.

Michigan lost their quarterfinal game to Notre Dame
Ohio State won their quarterfinal game against Michigan but got DQ'ed by Purdue
Georgia lost their quarterfinal game to Alabama

The problem here is that Michigan received two opportunities to play in quarterfinal games. They could have lost their first one but still advanced if they had won their second one. Notre Dame would not have had that opportunity. One quarterfinal loss and the Irish would have been eliminated.

 

[GowerND11]

I don’t see the point of scheduling an FCS squad at all. You’re telling me, out of 130 FBS teams; there aren’t enough cupcake teams w/ 85 scholarships out there to schedule? Hell, most of them are worse than some FCS teams if they played early in the season.

Sorry, I can’t buy the line...”those poor little FCS schools need those games for their program to survive?”. Since when does a major, multi-million dollar FBS juggernaut give three shits about a tiny directional 63-scholarship program that they can’t locate on a map? My heart pumps piss for those programs b/c guess what...not EVERY institiution in America is entitled to have a football program. If they can’t survive w/o being subsidized by FBS programs, than they should fold.

Like I said, there’s plenty of moribound FBS programs to go around. Schedule the FCS teams for Spring games & stroke them a $1 million check for that if these P5 schools are as noble & altruistic as some fans claim.

I'm not saying the FBS teams are noble and altruistic. I'm saying the FCS teams need that money and are willing participants in this. Therefore, they are willing to take any games they can get to get that money for their budgets. And yes, when you look at the fact that many of these FCS teams are in desperate need, they will do what they can to schedule FBS opponents.

I merely bring forward enacting the old rule of 1 every 4 years, because I think that is way more realistic than eliminating the FCS/FBS games entirely. We all like to rag on SEC (see Alabama) teams and other powerhouses playing these stupid games. But I do think there is some (slight) value to games played between FCS teams and the likes of the Sun Belt, Mountain West, C-USA, low level P5 (Kansas) etc.

 

[Irishize]

They say they're picking the "best 4 teams", but they're really ranking based on achievement against schedule.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">EWM Ratings (achievement vs schedule, rather than efficiency/ dominance), closely aligned with CFP committee priorities (wrt the P5): <a href="https://t.co/NRDHBHKQnz">https://t.co/NRDHBHKQnz</a><br><br>1. Alabama<br>2. Notre Dame<br>3. Clemson<br>4. UCF<br>5. Georgia<br>6. Michigan<br>7. Ohio St<br>8. LSU<br>9. Oklahoma<br>10. Washington St</p>— Brian Fremeau (@bcfremeau) <a href="https://twitter.com/bcfremeau/status/1064876516952236032?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 20, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Yes, this current iteration of the CFP did just that. But what do they mean by “best four teams”? Four best teams at the conclusion of the regular season & conf champ games? With only 4 spots that is an easy default to the lazy “eye test” which is code for SEC teams>the rest of FBS. If that’s the bar, just give it to the top four consensus recruiting classes averaged over the last five years.

The “eye test” was deemed gospel when scUM was blowing out a bunch of tomato cans. What did the “eye test” tell us when LSU rolled UGA by three TDs? Was that “eye test” trumped by the one that saw them almost beat Bama who saved their yearly letdown for the SEC Championship game? The same Bama that shut out LSU at Baton Rouge.

If the season is going to matter, it needs to be the four teams who turned in the best seasons b/c w/ 129(?) FBS programs & only 4 CFP spots, there’s no other way to objectively award a slot. If they go by recency bias & select teams based on the “eye test” but forgive embarrassing (not close) losses to inferior opponents in the regular season...we may as well go back to the BCS system.

 

[RDU Irish]

SoS is pretty easy to quantify. It's been used to make these decisions for decades.



Group of Five teams can get in. But they're basically saddled with an imaginary loss given their weak SoS. If there weren't 3 undefeated FBS teams this year (which is super rare), UCF would have had a real shot.



'Bama's never gotten in with more than a single loss, let alone three.

BS - There were ample 1 loss teams to jump UCF and plenty of 2 loss teams that would have been taken over them if they won a P5 conference. 1 loss ND would be in over them too. The fact UCF had zero traction as a legitimate contender for that 4th spot is all you need to see. At least as deserving as OK or OSU, more so IMO.

Bama would be strongly considered with two losses just as they are a shoe-in with one loss. Which would be hard for them to do given their cupcake schedule. 3 loss is obviously hyperbole but the larger point is plenty valid.

 

[wizards8507]

Last year, Bama lost in late November; eliminating them from the “quarterfinal”. How’d that work out for them?

You can't just say "Alabama lost and should have been out." You have to also say who would/should have taken their spot.

#5 Ohio State had two losses.
#6 Wisconsin lost to #5 Ohio State and had the easiest schedule conceivable up to that point

Everyone else had 2 or 3 losses except UCF.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

What's the number then? Top 50? Top 40? Seriously, at what point is it a competitive schedule?

SoS rank for each team in the playoff:

'Bama - 11
OU - 17
ND - 51
Clemson - 68

The only undefeated team to get left out is UCF, whose schedule ranked 103rd. That doesn't strike me as unjust at all.

It's going to be very difficult for the Knights to secure a playoff spot as long as they're in the AAC. They ought to be lobbying hard for a move to the Big-12 if they're serious about competing for championships.