Question: What a 16 team playoff would look like - Hypothetical
- Thread starter BamaHoosier
- Start date
I don't think it's fair for teams #5-8 to have a shot, much less #9-16.
But IF we are going to let #5-6 have a crack then it should be HARDER on them to prove they belong.
Seeds 1-2 are most likely going to be Undefeated or at worse have 1 loss that's a better loss than any team below them.
They proved they were 1 and 2 and they should be rewarded with the bye.
As for last season....same thing. If UGA, Alabama, tOSU, and Wisconsin don't want to have to slug it out when Clemson and Oklahoma get to rest then they shouldn't have lost the games they lost. Tough Cookie.
But what if Tua gets hurt while we're giving one of those small teams a shot at us? Or even what if Tua gets hurt while we're forced to beat LSU for a second time? That doesn't give us the best chance to win the title IMO.
Schedules are way too different in the college game to allow a committee to decide which teams "deserve" a bye. In the NFL, the schedules are all against professional teams. I am also very much against any byes being given in the college playoff. Leave it at four or go to eight in my opinion. Personally, I think four is plenty. Just like in the example above, the two teams that "deserved" a bye last year both lost in the first round. Playing in an easy conference shouldn't garner a bye, which is what I think would happen at times.
IMO, the CFP Committee has done a great job picking the 4 top teams. This has been better than the BCS, not sure what selection process is better. There has to be a subjective element in college football selection because there are so many teams that they do not play each other enough to use w-l record only. The relative conference strengths can be quite different. You have some of that in the NFL with only 32 teams, how much more with 65 P5 teams, 130 D1 and even a few FCS teams who make up schedules. Also, because of youth and changing rosters, teams can change dramatically over the course of a season. I certainly don't want to leave it to a rigid statistical model which may provide some input but in no way should be the final arbiter. I certainly do no want automatic qualifiers because of the aforementioned wide variation in conference strength. Thus, a selection committee is required. To this point they have exceeded all expectations and while not infallible, have demonstrated competence and integrity in their judgment. It's conceivable that they have made a mistake or two but no system has ever been perfect nor ever will be. I love what we have.
A first round bye is not fair, but a gauntlet of 4 teams is? In the current format being the #1 team is almost a death sentence because you have to play the hottest and most motivated team going into the playoffs.
The NFL and FCS make the regular season matter a lot more than what most people on here refuse to believe by giving first round byes to the best teams.
It's interesting that the #1 Seed hasn't survived a single playoff yet.
The #4 Seed has won twice (2014 tOSU and 2017 Bama) and the #2 Seed has won twice (2015 Bama and 2016 Clemson).
If a 4 team playoff has been this unkind to the #1 team then a 8 or 16 team field is just going to make it even harder.
I can't believe any Alabama fan wants to see a playoff expansion???
Every year we have to navigate the SEC gauntlet, Auburn, The SECCG (except last year) and then 2 Top 4 teams back-to back. Isn't that difficult enough??
The only thing accomplished by expanding the field is that it makes it exponentially harder to win a NC for the teams that deserve to be playing for it....... while giving undeserving teams a chance to sneak in like a thief in the night and steal a title if luck favors them.
If you want to see the real impact an 8-team playoff would have on Bama, go back the past 50 years and see how many times a Bama team was shut out of a national title shot but ranked in top 8. With 8 teams the odds of winning if making the cfp are less, but the number of times Bama would make it are more. It’s one reason why the 4-team cfp has been better for Bama than the 2-team BCS. Under BSC Last year’s team doesn’t even get a shot at a title, much less win one.
It is interesting that as the system has been expanded and made more competitive (bowls system to BCS to playoff) Alabama has done better, not worse. Maybe 4-teams is the sweet spot and expanding reverses that trend, who knows, but it’s not clear cut that a more competitive system with more teams will be bad for Bama since so far the move in that direction has been really good for Bama.
The 6-team cfp thing is just my opinion, but with the seeding such an objective thing (the best 2 teams last year were seeded 3 & 4), it seems unfair to give the 1 & 2 seeds such a huge advantage. I look at it this way, The odds of last year’s Bama team winning it all would actually have been less in a 6-team playoff than in an 8-team playoff, to me that’s unfair given Clemson was given a 1 seed despite few really thinking they were best team.
On the 1st point......good....If we were ranked less than #3-4 going into a bowl game back then we didn't deserve a shot at the NC. I don't care if we are talking 1918 all the way through 2018...... teams ranked #5-8 almost 100% of time are where they should be and haven't earned the right to be in the NC discussion.
On the 2nd point that cuts both ways and evens out. If not for the playoff in 2014 we don't lose to tOSU and clobber Oregon for a NC. We've been on both sides of the #1-#4 upset. The other two years made a case for the Playoff being unnecessary with Alabama and Clemson being #1 and #2 both times with the lower seed getting dispatched easily.
On the 3rd point we have not done better or worse. We won 3 BCS Titles before the Playoff started. We have won 2 CFP Titles.....maybe a 3rd this year but that's breaking even. It doesn't matter if we were under the BCS still or the Playoff we would be in the hunt regardless because we are THE STANDARD right now regardless of the system used to determine the champion.
On the 4th point that can only be said in hindsight. Clemson as the #1 seed was the only team 'exposed' but there was context to that..... we had been foaming at the mouth to get them back for that Pick-Play the year before that they had no chance. It was a 1-year plotted revenge like 2008-2009 Alabama-Florida.
In the other Semi it went down to the wire in OT. Oklahoma and UGA both played like they belonged and it was the most entertaining Semi-Final game in the entire 4 years.
Then in the NCG again Alabama and UGA played a Classic that went to OT. Super Close tightly contested battle.
It would have only taken 1 lucky play here or bounce there and any one of the three (Alabama, UGA, Oklahoma) could have ended up the Champion. Again only Clemson didn't match up.
Lastly if last year was 6-team field it would have been completely fair to play tOSU in a #4-#5 matchup...... because WE LOST TO AUBURN. We put ourselves in that type of predicament......and so did tOSU. Win your games or don't complain about the path being harder.
The teams that take care of business to reach the #1 and #2 seeds would deserve the bye.
I'm just not going to agree with you about any of this.....and that's fine. No big deal.
Last edited:
In 16 years of the BCS Bama made 3 appearances in BCS game. In just 4 years of the cfp Bama has made 4 appearances in the cfp, twice in the title game. It's certainly reasonable to debate why Bama has done better under cfp, but it's a statistical fact that they have done better.
Clemson lost to an awful (not bad, but awful) Syracuse team. Bama lost to a top 10 Auburn team. The committee put more weight on when those losses occurred as opposed to the opponent. Clemson was not the best team in the nation, but was given the #1 seed based largely on the timing of its lone loss in a very weak schedule. Knowing that this is part of the seeding process (and always will be), I have a real problem giving the top 2 seeds, which we know will not always be the best 2 teams, a major advantage. If all we are wanting to do is rig a system to put who a committee or computer thinks is the #1 & #2 team in the title game then go back to the BCS. If we want to recognize that committees and computers don't always get it right and instead let teams settle it on the field, then a playoff is the best method and the only real debate is how many teams should be let in. In that debate, it is my opinion that a 6-team format puts too much of the power of picking the champion back in the hands of committees and/or computers. I prefer to have the championship settled on the field. I like an 8 teams format, but I'll stay with 4 teams before supporting a 6 team playoff where factors outside of the field become too heavily weighted.
Under crude BCS polls your top 6 last year would be this.
1. Clemson
2. UGA
3. OU
4. Alabama
5. TOSU
6. Wisconsin
Clemson was getting #1 regardless. Plus they DESERVED it. But at the same time it’s hard to argue their reward was more a punishment for being #1 because they were forced into NOLA vs Alabama.
The #1 has had the hardest semifinal matchup in all 4 years. So it is more of a curse than a reward. So what is the point of being #1 when 2-4 have a sizable advantage.
Starting over, given choice between old Bowl system, BCS, 4-team playoff, 6-team playoff, 8 team playoff, or 16-team playoff, what is your preference and how would you rank them? Just asking for conversation's sake, not making any point.
After this thread I've kinda flipped a little on merits of 16 team playoff as there is such a thing as over-watering down things. For me it would be...
1. 8-team playoff
2. 4-team playoff
3. 16-team playoff
4. BCS
5. 6-Team playoff
6. Bowl System
In 16 years of the BCS we only won three times because we were a dumpster fire from 1998 to 2007 and didn't have teams anywhere near the Top 2 until CNS's second year in 2008.
That has NOTHING to do with existence of the BCS vs a Playoff. We were NOT GOOD. Name me a single season from 1998 to 2007 where we entered the postseason around the Top 2....or the Top 4??? I'll wait....
It is not a statistical fact that we have fared better in the Playoff vs the BCS and certainly not because of it.
We won 3 out of 4 National Titles in the BCS where you HAD to be in the Top 2 to play for it. We were 3-0 in BCSCG's. That's a winning % of 1.000 playing for the NC.
We have won 2 out of 4 CFP NC's. That's a 50% success rate. We are 2-1 in the actual Title game (winning % .667) and 3-1 in the Semis (winning % .750) - Total record of 5-2 (.714)
How in the world do you think it's EASIER for us to win a NC now?? or even that the Playoff is more friendly to us??
I will tell you it is not....well I don't have to.... the statistics do.
I mean you have blown my mind something fierce here. Do you somehow correlate the Playoff in it of itself magically taking us from being a 6-6 7-5 team to one that wins 11+ games every year??
That's ALL CNS. Our success is not a result of the systems in place that decide the National Champion. We are succeeding at the Highest of levels to varying degrees in spite of whatever systems are in place because of 'The Process'.
I know I just typed some word salad but I'm still almost speechless reading that nonsense..... I mean no offense.... but your conclusions are seriously flawed.
Last edited:
The problem with college football is that you can’t satisfy everyone on how to determine a true champion. I think each evolution has been better than the last but at some point you have to stop. I’ve seen where a 5th and 6th team can make an argument but never a #8. So I’m sticking with 6 at the most.
But if any changes are to be done then the group of 5 needs to go back to FCS.
People continuously blast the NFL’s regular season, and playoff structure but really who argues who is champ when It’s over?
So we're really just debating over whether to stop at 6 teams vs 8 teams, otherwise we pretty much agree.
The big problem for the cfp right now is that the Group of 5, the PAC12, and the Big12 are unhappy. Between them they have a total of 4 appearances in cfp, 1 appearance in championship game, and zero titles. This compared to the SEC, ACC, & Big 10 which have 12 cfp appearances, 7 championship game appearances, and 4 titles. Now the truth is the SEC, ACC, & Big 10 are just playing better football, but that's not how the Group of 5, the PAC12, and the Big12 see it, and at some point, unless this trend changes, they are likely to demand an expansion of the cfp, so we may be debating a moot point. Now whether that takes 5 years or 15 years is anyone's guess, but it's probably coming.
As for #7 & #8, last year Auburn was #7 and I think it's fair to say that they were very capable of beating Alabama (who they had already beat) or Clemson (who they lost to by one score on the road without their best player).
Last edited:
Nothing will make them happy short of a representative from their conference winning it all. They don't want to be represented - they want to win. But they don't deserve to win. So, how do you make them happy? Give them a championship every 4 or 5 years in the name of fairness?
I would argue that the Big 10 has been the most unhappy about the playoff these past 3 years. The PAC 12 hasn’t whined because there hasn’t been anything to whine about, the Big XII only whined the 1st year.
If you want an argument for #7 and #8 ever... then it would be 2015, and that was because that committee had a bunch of morons on it. 2014 and 2015 had the worst committee. The 2nd committee ranked fairly, sanely, and correctly. There isn’t a deserving 7 and 8 ranked team in the last 2 years that deserved a shot at a title.
We don't hear much about PAC12/Big12 unhappiness because it's west coast, but it's there. I have family out there and the East Coast bias talk is prevalent in sports media. There are lots of problems with PAC 12 that have fans grumbling.
https://www.cbssports.com/college-f...-12-will-they-be-patched-before-its-too-late/
OTOH, Bama would likely have won the NC in 2014 since they were the number 1 seed but lost to #4. Under the BCS they would have likely been paired with a fraudulent FSU. They would have probably won over them or Oregon. One thing for sure OSU who would not have made it. Bama has been the 1 or 2 seed in the CFP ranking every year but last. The final outcome of 2 NCs in these 4 years would have likely been the same. Anyway, my point is that though on this board I normally indulge myself in a touch :smile: of Bama bias, in this case I'm not necessarily looking for the best system for Bama but what I think is best for college football. Just an opinion or preference.
The BCS got it right almost every time when it selected two teams. It would have been the same teams as the committee selected over the past 4 years.
Simulated BCS for past 4 years:
2014
1. Alabama
2. Florida St
3. Oregon
4. Ohio St
2015
1. Clemson
2. Alabama
3. Oklahoma
4. Michigan St
2016
1. Alabama
2. Ohio St
3. Clemson
4. Washington
2017
1. Clemson
2. Georgia
3. Oklahoma
4. Alabama
BCS formula got the exact same 4 teams as the committee. Twice, the order was different, but the same four teams.
My vote: Use BCS formula (it does include human subjective portion) and select an 8-team playoff.
Simulated BCS for past 4 years:
2014
1. Alabama
2. Florida St
3. Oregon
4. Ohio St
2015
1. Clemson
2. Alabama
3. Oklahoma
4. Michigan St
2016
1. Alabama
2. Ohio St
3. Clemson
4. Washington
2017
1. Clemson
2. Georgia
3. Oklahoma
4. Alabama
BCS formula got the exact same 4 teams as the committee. Twice, the order was different, but the same four teams.
My vote: Use BCS formula (it does include human subjective portion) and select an 8-team playoff.
Latest threads
-
-
-
SIAP there was an article that Joe K interviewed for assistant coach
- Started by mlingerfelt31
- Replies: 11
-
Final Home Midweek for Alabama Brings Samford to The Joe- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 0
-
-
