Link: It's hard to argue that the CFP has been better than the BCS

[selmaborntidefan]

I know this is stating the obvious but as a reminder....

They don't give a damn about us fans. If a few crumbs trickle off the table, and we are satisfied, that's just an after-the-fact side effect.

There are a plethora of financial interests involved.

the bowl games
the conferences
the schools individually
the networks

I'm sure there's a bunch more, but for many years the reason we couldn't have the BCS was the Rose Bowl was paying the Big 10 and Pac 10 more than they'd potentially take home from a playoff.

 

[B1GTide]

The perfect system for me would be a 6 team system with the teams decided using the BCS format.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

In all honesty, I think what I amusingly would call "krazy3's predicted consequences" is the problem.

What the 4-team playoff did was make it the BE ALL and END ALL of everything. It drastically reduced the prestige of ALL bowl games; the BCS began by using the rotation system so ALL of the bowls still kept a large measure of prestige intact. But it turned everything else - conference championships with automatic berths, the regular season, and even rivalry games - into something less than they were. If you had 2012 again, Oregon and K State losing wouldn't mean nearly so much, and Alabama fans would complain it was unfair they had to play the SEC title game while Florida got into the playoff without it.

Think about it.

In 1989, when Alabama had to go to Auburn and put on a #2 vs #11 game at JHS, Alabama's loss was devastating. It was ALL or NOTHING, the end. Alabama wins, some anxiety going into New Year's but for sure the Sugar Bowl; Alabama loses, it's all over for anything meaningful for us, just an exhibition game.

In 2017, Alabama loses to Auburn AGAIN needing to win...and then some other games happen including Auburn losing the next week......and Alabama makes the playoff. Tide wins the title and all of a sudden it's, "Well, yeah, we lost to Auburn but we won what counted."

You can take other schools where the national title isn't the Holy Grail it is here and see the same thing.

Oklahoma has made the CFB playoff TWICE after losing regular season games to Texas (2015, 2018).*
Yeah, they undid one of them, but losing your arch rival game was almost always a terrible year. Now, it's just another game on the schedule.



* - yeah, I know they lost in 2008 with the BCS too.

 

[KrAzY3]

The BCS rarely got it 'wrong'. I've said his for years.

There have been some good CFP games, but there have been a lot of blowouts. I've long contended that there's rarely ever a time when the #4 ranked team at the end of the season has a legitimate claim to being the best team in the country.

What I came up with, if I recall correctly at least, is that at no point in the history of the BCS did a #4 ranked team at the pre-BCS game ranking ever end up with as many wins as the #1 team. Now that's more or less anecdotal, but it just shows there was pretty much always a noticeable gap. I couldn't find a #4 that had any sort of legitimate claim and the blowouts we've seen in the playoffs are a testament to that. You might be good enough to win it at all#4 though, but that doesn't mean you deserved to be there.

 

[BigPoppa52]

Call me a pessimist, but the ONLY thing that matters in this decision is MONEY and how much of it the NCAA can make. Anything else they tell us is horsepuckey.

 

[B1GTide]

Call me a pessimist, but the ONLY thing that matters in this decision is MONEY and how much of it the NCAA can make. Anything else they tell us is horsepuckey.

The NCAA does not make any money from the CFP - and they did not make any money from the BCS.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

Call me a pessimist, but the ONLY thing that matters in this decision is MONEY and how much of it the NCAA can make. Anything else they tell us is horsepuckey.

Change "NCAA" to "everyone with a stake involved" and you're correct.

 

[B1GTide]

Change "NCAA" to "everyone with a stake involved" and you're correct.

This really is all about the money, and that is what is keeping the field small.

Since the schools and conferences need to make money on their regular season games and the Bowl committees need to make money on all of the Bowls, those people lobby to ensure that those games matter enough to attract fans, whether that be in viewership on TV or in person. They all know that a larger field harms that.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

What I came up with, if I recall correctly at least, is that at no point in the history of the BCS did a #4 ranked team at the pre-BCS game ranking ever end up with as many wins as the #1 team.

While that's not the fairest or best test (if one team has 13 wins and the other 12 - and the other game is FCS - this hardly merits a higher ranking)...it's at least a point that can be made in your favor.

The singular flaw (that I'm sure you'll admit) in that part though is it ASSUMES that the pollsters have infallibly ranked the top 5 teams. And that generally has always been eye test, fair or foul.

Where you and I agree, though, regarding the rankings is the simple fact that it's VERY EASY to separate out clusters of teams ("I may not know for sure who is number one, but these 3 look the best and these 3 look maybe a cut below but could move up") - and the distance between 1 and 8 is ALWAYS enormous. The distance between 1 and 16 is about the difference between the 2007 Patriots and the 1981 Northwestern Wildcats.

Now that's more or less anecdotal, but it just shows there was pretty much always a noticeable gap. I couldn't find a #4 that had any sort of legitimate claim and the blowouts we've seen in the playoffs are a testament to that. You might be good enough to win it at all#4 though, but that doesn't mean you deserved to be there.

I looked at what you're saying years ago, and it's why I moved into closer agreement with what you were saying. In all sincerity, what we need is impossible - a way to separate the top 3 without a fourth team. NOBODY with a brain thinks Oklahoma belonged there in 2019 - but LSU had to play SOMEBODY.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

This really is all about the money, and that is what is keeping the field small.

Since the schools and conferences need to make money on their regular season games and the Bowl committees need to make money on all of the Bowls, those people lobby to ensure that those games matter enough to attract fans, whether that be in viewership on TV or in person. They all know that a larger field harms that.

Good God, you've brought common sense to a debate.

GET OUT OF HERE!!!!

 

[selmaborntidefan]

This is what reminds me of the old mantra I used to read and hear that nobody would DARE actually come out and say on TV:

"We'll have a playoff as soon as someone figures out how to make more money than the bowl system makes for them."

And that's exactly what happened, too.

 

[tusks_n_raider]

I just wanted to come back and add that IF there were to be any kind of expansion, I agree with others who have said a 6-Team playoff could work.

Well to clarify that I would be fine with it if the Top 2 Seeds get Bye's... as in....

Quarterfinal:

1 Seed Bye
2 Seed Bye

3 Seed vs 5 Seed - Winner Plays 2 Seed in the Semis
4 Seed vs 6 Seed - Winner Plays the 1 Seed in the Semis

Most would say it should be 3 vs 6 and 4 vs 5 but in that draw if the 6 seed beats the 3 seed then the 2 seed gets rewarded with the lowest seed in the Semis instead of the 1 seed and that's not right.

Anyway that's as far as this thing should go. We in no way need EIGHT teams in the CFBP.

Anything weird can happen in any given game and I just can't get on board with either of the Top 2 teams getting knocked off by the 7th or 8th best teams in a fluke.

 

[RollTide_HTTR]

Regardless of other issues I've enjoyed the Playoff more than BCS

 

[selmaborntidefan]

I just wanted to come back and add that IF there were to be any kind of expansion, I agree with others who have said a 6-Team playoff could work.

Well to clarify that I would be fine with it if the Top 2 Seeds get Bye's... as in....

Quarterfinal:

1 Seed Bye
2 Seed Bye

3 Seed vs 5 Seed - Winner Plays 2 Seed in the Semis
4 Seed vs 6 Seed - Winner Plays the 1 Seed in the Semis

Most would say it should be 3 vs 6 and 4 vs 5 but in that draw if the 6 seed beats the 3 seed then the 2 seed gets rewarded with the lowest seed in the Semis instead of the 1 seed and that's not right.

Anyway that's as far as this thing should go. We in no way need EIGHT teams in the CFBP.

Anything weird can happen in any given game and I just can't get on board with either of the Top 2 teams getting knocked off by the 7th or 8th best teams in a fluke.

Get ready for:

"but it's NOT FAIR that MY TEAM got the 6th seed when they played the tougher schedule"
"but my #3 team that's undefeated is better/played a tougher schedule than #1...but #1 gets a bye!"
"but that conference has three teams in the playoff, two that didn't even win their division"


All we're actually doing by adding teams is moving the complaint to a different level that will be just as loud. Right now a number 7 team in the country is pretty much not going to say anything. Just wait until it's six teams and NUMBER NINE teams with better records will be screaming bloody murder.

I repeat....number NINE teams.......

 

[selmaborntidefan]

There's an easy fix as far as determining a champion IF that's the goal, but it conflicts with money.

1) Reduce FBS to 64 teams with four 16-team conferences
2) No divisions, rotating schedule
3) the top two teams in those conferences meet in the conference title game
4) the conference winners play the four-team playoff

You can reduce this SOLELY for football while keeping it for other sports (there are plenty of "non-football" or "b-ball only" memberships in life), the schedule is determined in-conference before the start of the season, teams can schedule OUT OF CONFERENCE and if you win your conference, you don't get punished.

Bear in mind, however, this makes every single ranking a complete myth to the point we won't need them.
And the G5 schools are likely to sue on the basis of "but that's explicit antitrust" or some other nonsense.


It is VERY EASY to come up with an undisputed champion of college football that involves no pollsters or selection committees and that will even enhance the value of conference championships and conference championship games. The TV networks, colleges, conferences, and bowl games all know this.

But it won't make as much money, either.

 

[81usaf92]

Get ready for:

"but it's NOT FAIR that MY TEAM got the 6th seed when they played the tougher schedule"
"but my #3 team that's undefeated is better/played a tougher schedule than #1...but #1 gets a bye!"
"but that conference has three teams in the playoff, two that didn't even win their division"


All we're actually doing by adding teams is moving the complaint to a different level that will be just as loud. Right now a number 7 team in the country is pretty much not going to say anything. Just wait until it's six teams and NUMBER NINE teams with better records will be screaming bloody murder.

I repeat....number NINE teams.......

There is a reason that the NFL system actually works better than any playoff system in sports. It’s because it actually rewards all parties. It rewards the #1 and #2seeds, it rewards conference champions, and rewards teams that were close. My biggest issue with the CFP is that there really is no reward for being the #1 seed. If the 1st round was at home stadiums then Sure, but just getting to pick the neutral site game is pretty much nothing of a reward when you are usually given the hottest team in the nation game 1.

6 doesn’t over populate the system and it really rewards the top 2 for a good season.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

There is a reason that the NFL system actually works better than any playoff system in sports. It’s because it actually rewards all parties. It rewards the #1 and #2seeds, it rewards conference champions, and rewards teams that were close. My biggest issue with the CFP is that there really is no reward for being the #1 seed. If the 1st round was at home stadiums then Sure, but just getting to pick the neutral site game is pretty much nothing of a reward when you are usually given the hottest team in the nation game 1.

6 doesn’t over populate the system and it really rewards the top 2 for a good season.

I don't disagree with your basic point as to it being so good.

However, it cannot apply in CFB for a few reasons:

1) the parity between the WORST team in the NFL and the BEST team in the NFL is closer than the parity between the #1 team in college football and the #12 team in college football. The talent gap and abilities are so much wider that it's not even in the same universe.

2) you'll still have some sort of selection committee for the top six, and woe be unto those who choose one-loss Texas over undefeated Boise/UCF/Utah/TCU.

3) presumably there isn't going to be a home-field advantage at stake as matters so much in the NFL.

4) the NFL doesn't have poll rankings, they have divisions and conferences that count for something...to the point a team with a losing record can get a home playoff game.

I agree with your point, but I'm not sure we can make the application is what I'm saying.

My issue right now is we can't even get two good semi-finals in a year, and the solution being offered is "adding more games between teams that lost more teams."

It's not a hill I'll die on, and I'll still watch CFB. I agree with most of the criticism leveled at the whole thing, but I don't have a solution that keeps the current money flow while reducing the subjectivity of people, either.

 

[tusks_n_raider]

Get ready for:

"but it's NOT FAIR that MY TEAM got the 6th seed when they played the tougher schedule"
"but my #3 team that's undefeated is better/played a tougher schedule than #1...but #1 gets a bye!"
"but that conference has three teams in the playoff, two that didn't even win their division"


All we're actually doing by adding teams is moving the complaint to a different level that will be just as loud. Right now a number 7 team in the country is pretty much not going to say anything. Just wait until it's six teams and NUMBER NINE teams with better records will be screaming bloody murder.

I repeat....number NINE teams.......

I agree with you that nothing is going to really prevent the vocal jockeying for position but I feel like that's only going to really be a talking point for fans of the teams that feel slighted in some way.

I feel like everyone else will or should take the position of "If your team isn't ranked in the Top 2 then just be quiet and be thankful you are even being included at all"

The Top 2 Seeds are almost always both undefeated and clearly the Top 2 teams on paper.

Seeds 3-4 and in future cases 3-6 will almost always have a blemish of some sort.... be it a loss...or a shaky schedule or both.

If teams seeded lower than 2 don't like their spot then don't lose to anyone.... AND...be sure to pistol whip almost every opponent you play.

If any team can't 100% take care of business then imo, they best take what they are given and roll with it.

I don't remember any of us complaining about being the 4 seed in 2017. Probably 90% of the fanbase just gave a thankful sigh of relief that we made it.

 

[81usaf92]

I don't disagree with your basic point as to it being so good.

However, it cannot apply in CFB for a few reasons:

1) the parity between the WORST team in the NFL and the BEST team in the NFL is closer than the parity between the #1 team in college football and the #12 team in college football. The talent gap and abilities are so much wider that it's not even in the same universe.

2) you'll still have some sort of selection committee for the top six, and woe be unto those who choose one-loss Texas over undefeated Boise/UCF/Utah/TCU.

3) presumably there isn't going to be a home-field advantage at stake as matters so much in the NFL.

4) the NFL doesn't have poll rankings, they have divisions and conferences that count for something...to the point a team with a losing record can get a home playoff game.

I agree with your point, but I'm not sure we can make the application is what I'm saying.

My issue right now is we can't even get two good semi-finals in a year, and the solution being offered is "adding more games between teams that lost more teams."

It's not a hill I'll die on, and I'll still watch CFB. I agree with most of the criticism leveled at the whole thing, but I don't have a solution that keeps the current money flow while reducing the subjectivity of people, either.

My issue is this, we pretty much get the top 4 every year but the rankings of 3 and 4 are the most subjective aspect of it. With the exception of these last 2 years #3 was actually #4 and #4 was actually #3. It put the #1 team at a disadvantage compared to the #2 team. I mean look at your national champs:

#1- 19, 20
#2- 15,16,18
#3- 0
#4- 14, 17

It’s really hinting at a far easier road for #2 when you also consider that #3 has only advanced to the championship twice. Granted so has #4, but also consider #1 is 0-3 vs #2.

I think the bye system is a reward system for the top 2 and a prove it system for #3 and #4. I mean how many times have we seen Oklahoma and Notre Dame totally not belong there?

 

[selmaborntidefan]

My issue is this, we pretty much get the top 4 every year but the rankings of 3 and 4 are the most subjective aspect of it. With the exception of these last 2 years #3 was actually #4 and #4 was actually #3. It put the #1 team at a disadvantage compared to the #2 team. I mean look at your national champs:

#1- 19, 20
#2- 15,16,18
#3- 0
#4- 14, 17

It’s really hinting at a far easier road for #2 when you also consider that #3 has only advanced to the championship twice. Granted so has #4, but also consider #1 is 0-3 vs #2.

I think the bye system is a reward system for the top 2 and a prove it system for #3 and #4. I mean how many times have we seen Oklahoma and Notre Dame totally not belong there?

I get all that, all I really do.

Let's be honest: in 2019, Oklahoma was about as mulligan as you can get. Looking at the final rankings where they finished fourth, the following teams in my view would undoubtedly have beaten Oklahoma had they met:

Georgia
Florida
Penn St
Auburn
Alabama

And I think Notre Dame as well as Oregon would have beaten the Sooners, too.

That being said, you can't "really" pick a TWO-loss team that didn't win the division over a conference champion with one-loss even though we all looked at that and said, "uh right." OU in 2019 wasn't the same team that scored those eye-popping numbers even though they were the best team in the B12.

That's where it's blah; everyone knows the probable outcome. But we let the games count, too.