I don't disagree. But I DO think that's where this is eventually headed.When we have a 3 or 4 loss team in a playoff just because they won a conference championship game, we have failed.
I don't disagree. But I DO think that's where this is eventually headed.When we have a 3 or 4 loss team in a playoff just because they won a conference championship game, we have failed.
For college football... I agree.When we have a 3 or 4 loss team in a playoff just because they won a conference championship game, we have failed.
Not if they keep it at 4 or expand nomore than 6.I don't disagree. But I DO think that's where this is eventually headed.
But if you base seeding on team rankings, you could almost ensure they would be the lowest seeded team.When we have a 3 or 4 loss team in a playoff just because they won a conference championship game, we have failed.
Here's my problem - it means that the conference championship games are more important than every other game that the teams have to play all season. It means that a 5 loss team can win their side of a conference bracket, get hot in one game (or beat a better team that has many turnovers), and make the playoffs in spite of having failed many, many times over the course of the season.But if you base seeding on team rankings, you could almost ensure they would be the lowest seeded team.
That's where we get into arbitrary metrics that the committee uses. The only clear rankings are #1 and #2. #3 is usually a team that goes through a weak schedule that everyone knows is the worst team in the playoffs (UGA being the lone example). The #4 team is always a team that either is hot during the end of the season or is rejuvenated by a controversial invitation. What needs to happen is that the #1 seed needs more say of who they play.But if you base seeding on team rankings, you could almost ensure they would be the lowest seeded team.
As long as the formulae are open to review by an independent body (not necessarily the public), I agree. The reason that people did not trust the computers was the lack of transparency.My #1 wish is that the human element is completely eliminated. I lean towards an eight team playoff because it puts all power 5 winners in and I think conference viability is important to the game. The 3 at-large would be selected on the metrics similar to the old BCS. The qtr. finals would be played on the home field of the higher seed. The metrics could very well put 3 SEC teams in, or 2 SEC and one more Big 10 or ACC team, etc. Whether this year's semis were mismatches is not as much of an issue as making sure through a playoff system that the final 4 are the 4 best teams. Now, given the current gap between 1,2 & everyone else an expanded playoff went help but it's not always going to be this way. Runs like Alabama is having don't last forever, although until CS retires it would seem an end is not in sight.
I will just never understand this line of thinking. Why does any college football fan believe that a 3 loss team deserves a berth in the playoffs? Why does a 3 loss PAC-12 champ deserve to get in by being the last man standing in a mediocre conference? The real answer is they don’t.I lean towards an eight team playoff because it puts all power 5 winners in and I think conference viability is important to the game.
Oh it is easy to understand. The underdog syndrome (UCF this year), $$$ and political correctness -- the poor team that had some injuries and bad breaks and lost three games. It is just NOT fair.I will just never understand this line of thinking. Why does any college football fan believe that a 3 loss team deserves a berth in the playoffs? Why does a 3 loss PAC-12 champ deserve to get in by being the last man standing in a mediocre conference? The real answer is they don’t.
How does the 6 team leave out Bama last year even with AQ?Having said all that, I think right now we're really facing two things, the 8 team with automatic entrants (allowing for at-large bids), or 6 team playoff with the byes and no automatic bids (under a 6 team with automatic bids in theory you could leave out the #2 team, making it worse than the BCS in so many ways). I mean this 6 team playoff leaves out Alabama last year! I don't see any way the SEC lets that one by them...
TBF, I think the primary thought behind the wishes for expansion is that, somehow, anyhow, it will change the result and finals won't end up with Bama, and probably Clemson, at the top of the heap. Of course, there's some truth in that, in that more games increase the odds of a slipup along the way...All this expansion talk is about to drive me crazy because no expansion is needed. People are just jealous of Bama and Clemson but, instead of wishing their team would get better, they want to change the rules so mediocrity is rewarded.
Expanding will not solve anything, people will still be unhappy and people will still complain. Whether you go to 6, 8 or 16, people will still find something to whine about, it’s just what the world does these days.
Everyone complains about the lopsided nature of the semifinals yet, in the same breath, argue for expansion. That will only create more lopsided match ups causing more to complain.
The only true reason people want to expand right now is to some how find a way to keep Bama, and maybe Clemson, out. The rest of football needs to get better and actually challenge us. Not change the rules to keep good teams out while allowing mediocre teams in.
Of course, as much as I’m against it, expansion is inevitable. I don’t think this 6 team idea will ever happen though. I think they’ll go straight to 8 teams, 5 conf. Champs (which will be dumb), 1 group of 5 and 2 at large. That way they get to keep their committee because college sports loves having committees. Plus, this will make it easier for Bama to get in so, whatever.
I don't know if its that, or more how random the committee has chosen the #4 seed over #5 and #6.TBF, I think the primary thought behind the wishes for expansion is that, somehow, anyhow, it will change the result and finals won't end up with Bama, and probably Clemson, at the top of the heap. Of course, there's some truth in that, in that more games increase the odds of a slipup along the way...
I can't speak for others, but I can give you my opinion on the matter. If we go to eight teams, yes, I believe we should have the five major conference winners get automatic bids. Why? They won their conferences on the field. People didn't just look at how many great athletes they had on their team and proclaim them to be great like so many tried to do with UGA this season. Winning a conference championship on the field still means something to a lot of folks, including me. So, where you wonder why people think conference champions should be included, I wonder why people like to proclaim how good a team is on paper based on the eye test or number of athletes. It is simply a difference in opinion, but I will always take on field results over eye tests or number of four and five star athletes or who Vegas thinks might win.I will just never understand this line of thinking. Why does any college football fan believe that a 3 loss team deserves a berth in the playoffs? Why does a 3 loss PAC-12 champ deserve to get in by being the last man standing in a mediocre conference? The real answer is they don’t.
The 6 team playoff that was proposed earlier in the thread only included the power five champions and the group of five champion. Thus, Bama would not have been included. Now, if they did a six team playoff based on a BCS or playoff committee style ranking, that would be different.How does the 6 team leave out Bama last year even with AQ?
#1 Clemson ACC
#2 Oklahoma Big XII
#3 UGA (SEC) vs #6 Alabama (at large)
#4 Ohio St (BIG 10) vs #5 USC (PAC 12)
Unless you say UCF who was ranked #10 going into the Peach, the only challenger for the #6 slot would be Wisconsin.