Poll: Should the CFP expand?

I still do not understand why people believe there should be any automatic qualifiers whatsoever...?? Regardless of criteria...conference champions....11 wins... Why oh why can it not simply be the best 4 teams? Surely, we could all agree that all conferences are never equal in strength, and that winning a conference title does not mean that a given team is a great team? Automatic bids should never enter into a serious playoff format discussion.

I truly think that simply using the BCS formula to determine the top 4 is the answer. I'll wager that no playoff national title winner would be ranked below #4 in the BCS formula....if the BCS formula was applied.

I'm sure a study on what the playoff teams would have been if we were using the BCS formula has been done, and I thought I saw it here (maybe a couple of years back)...? I'm sure I've seen one that said "what the playoff would have been like during the BCS era"....& it may have gone back even further and applied the BCS formula to years past (as far back as you would want to go), and see who the 4 playoff teams would have been.

Just to be clear...you're cool with a 2 loss Clemson over a 1 loss conference champion OU? No you're not...

owenfieldreams said:

Yes I'm cool with that scenario assuming OU would be considered for an at-large birth. I'd feel the same way about an SEC or Big 10 or any other non-conf. winner as long as their resume was strong enough for at-large consideration. Obviously, there would need to be specific metrics for at-large consideration...SOS, etc.

Click to expand...

That's participation trophy! They're not to good enough, but let's let them in to get get destroyed because we feel better that they were included...NOPE!!!

owenfieldreams said:

I am concerned about the across the board viability of college football. The dominance of the SEC, while laudable, is not a healthy situation overall. I'm particularly concerned for the PAC 12, a storied conf. with an incredible across the board athletic resume. An 8 team playoff balances the platform. Then, if the SEC representative(s) prevail, there is no second guessing about who is best. I'm speaking herein as a college football fan, not as a SOONER.

Click to expand...

Ldlane said:

So I'm waiting for this to happen with "the committee"!

They say "common opponents" matter, but if we beat Auburn by 10 + points and then Oregon smokes Utah we will see how much they matter. I say they will move on from "common opponents matter" and move Oregon into the picture.

The committee has a habit of saying, " Yes we said that "X" matters, but "Y" also matters and in this situation that is why this happened"!

Watch!

They will say something like, "Alabama's offense simply doesn't look as good as Oregon's explosiveness at this point in the season"!

Mullen said on audio last night, "Alabama had a convincing win at the end of the day ..... I understand that Tua went out at the end of the 2nd quarter so that didn't affect them "THIS WEEK""! That is a clear and loaded statement!

Click to expand...

B1G brought this up last year: the criteria for selection of anything resembling this has NEVER been fixed, and it has always been basically the best combination of factors that leads to a conclusion. (Those aren't his words, but it's basically what he was saying, and I agree with this sentiment.

We can discredit ANY champion or ANY team selected for the playoff based upon an arbitrary choice. Likewise, the committee can place an emphasis upon criterion A OR criterion B. And this is what drives fans crazy - but the TRUTH is that fans are every bit as two-faced in their assessment as the committee - but the fans have the luxury of not having their opinions scrutinized because we have no actual power of determination.

I think the committee plays silly little games with the rankings, and I think most folks think that as well.

However, we can all play the "let's emphasize this point and try to ignore the other point."


Case sample: simply look at this board with the Alabama vs Georgia comparisons.

Some folks think the argument is, "Well, Alabama would beat Georgia head-to-head." I lean towards that view, but I'll admit I'm biased in our favor on that.

Some folks think the argument is, "Well their LOSS is worse than our loss because it was to a team we blew out." That is a fair point.

The question THEREFORE comes down to - should the weight of assessment be placed on ONE GAME or can OTHER GAMES overcome one bad one?

In 2014, the committee decided that Ohio State blowing out #11 Wisconsin by 59 points (and also beating then #7 and final #5 Michigan State on the road) was
sufficient to offset a bad loss to Va Tech. Although I had (and still have) my skepticism regarding their logic, I can't say the decision was "wrong." Remember that
several of these committee members were once coaches themselves - and they will always have a different (and usually more correct) view on which team would
beat which team than the fans do.

The reality is that we've played one good team and lost at home. The rest of our schedule other than Auburn is dump truck material save for possibly A/M on a good day.
Clemson hasn't played anyone with a pulse themselves - but they haven't lost, either.

My suspicion as of today is that unless OU, Oregon, Georgia, and Utah all lose, we are likely to fall short this year.
If UGA beats LSU then their track record as a whole commends them before us.

It would really help us if SCAR could muster one more great game and beat the Tiggahs of Clemson State.

Ldlane said:

So I'm waiting for this to happen with "the committee"!

They say "common opponents" matter, but if we beat Auburn by 10 + points and then Oregon smokes Utah we will see how much they matter. I say they will move on from "common opponents matter" and move Oregon into the picture.

The committee has a habit of saying, " Yes we said that "X" matters, but "Y" also matters and in this situation that is why this happened"!

Watch!

They will say something like, "Alabama's offense simply doesn't look as good as Oregon's explosiveness at this point in the season"!

Mullen said on audio last night, "Alabama had a convincing win at the end of the day ..... I understand that Tua went out at the end of the 2nd quarter so that didn't affect them "THIS WEEK""! That is a clear and loaded statement!

Click to expand...

This is why I would be in favor of expansion. I just don't trust people in general who sit on the committee or they seem to change what they say "matters". I also understand that win and you're in, but not many teams go undefeated. The strength of conferences aren't the same so you really can't tell how good someone truly is. We beat the drum about how tough our conference is and so do the other conferences.

Bama Czar said:

I still do not understand why people believe there should be any automatic qualifiers whatsoever...?? Regardless of criteria...conference champions....11 wins... Why oh why can it not simply be the best 4 teams?

Click to expand...

I'm still waiting for when it will ever dawn on Tide fans that "the four best teams" is nothing but an OPINION.

Literally ANY use of the term "best" is an opinion. CHAMPIONS can be an objective term based on meeting the set criteria;
"best" is a wax nose that in the words of an attorney wannabe can be argued for any cause.

I think what most people would like is what Urban Meyer and - to be blunt, Coach Bryant in 1966 - have mused: "can you just tell us what is necessary so we know?"

Bama Czar said:

Surely, we could all agree that all conferences are never equal in strength, and that winning a conference title does not mean that a given team is a great team?

Click to expand...

Now take that to the NEXT step and no Tide fan again ever needs to boast about our national championships. I mean, after all, winning a bowl game that gets you voted number one
doesn't make you a great team, either, does it??

1985 Villanova was the THIRD BEST team in their own conference, but the banner still waves.

Bama Czar said:

Automatic bids should never enter into a serious playoff format discussion.

Click to expand...

So the NFL doesn't have a serious playoff format then???

Bama Czar said:

I truly think that simply using the BCS formula to determine the top 4 is the answer. I'll wager that no playoff national title winner would be ranked below #4 in the BCS formula....if the BCS formula was applied.

Click to expand...

This is likely true, and I agree with you that it's the best scenario possible.
The committee is there to block the Boise States and UCFs of the world when a bunch of idiots get caught up in what a great story it would be if the Bad News Bears were actually champions.

Bama Czar said:

I'm sure a study on what the playoff teams would have been if we were using the BCS formula has been done, and I thought I saw it here (maybe a couple of years back)...? I'm sure I've seen one that said "what the playoff would have been like during the BCS era"....& it may have gone back even further and applied the BCS formula to years past (as far back as you would want to go), and see who the 4 playoff teams would have been.

Click to expand...

Basically, yes.

Being totally honest - I want a 6 team playoff because it would mean that both of my teams would get into the playoff almost every year. I love college football, but it is more compelling when my teams are in the hunt. If it took an 8 team pool to make that happen, I would probably support an 8 team playoff. So I can totally relate to those who support larger pools. They do so for the sake of their program.

The real debate is around what would be most healthy for the sport, and I am not totally sure that I know the answer to that question. On the one hand, a larger pool means more fans are interested in the entire field much later into the season since their dog is still in the hunt. They wouldn't just watch their team with interest - they would watch other teams that they are competing with for a spot with interest. On the other hand, if the pool is too large, so many teams get in that the regular season games become meaningless. Folks would still watch, but there would no longer be that "edge of your seat" drama. Games like Alabama/LSU would no longer be "Games of the Century" - they would just be games.

How large a pool is so large that the later scenario plays out? Is that 8 teams? 16 teams? Not sure. But I know that 4 or 6 teams would not cause it.

Con said:

This is why I would be in favor of expansion. I just don't trust people in general who sit on the committee or they seem to change what they say "matters". I also understand that win and you're in, but not many teams go undefeated. The strength of conferences aren't the same so you really can't tell how good someone truly is. We beat the drum about how tough our conference is and so do the other conferences.

Click to expand...

I'm still trying to figure out how this is ANY different than the AP poll.........

How does Notre Dame jump to #1 in 1977? "Oh, they beat number one and had the same number of losses." OK

Why then didn't they jump after knocking off #1 Colorado in 1989? "Well, they lost head to head to Miami." OK

Then why did Alabama win the very same poll in 1978?

I mean, we could do this for anything.

selmaborntidefan said:

I'm still trying to figure out how this is ANY different than the AP poll.........

How does Notre Dame jump to #1 in 1977? "Oh, they beat number one and had the same number of losses." OK

Why then didn't they jump after knocking off #1 Colorado in 1989? "Well, they lost head to head to Miami." OK

Then why did Alabama win the very same poll in 1978?

I mean, we could do this for anything.

Click to expand...

Yep, nothing makes sense. The sport needs consistency so the bar doesn’t keep getting moved.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I am for going to 6, but my opinion on how do do so will not be popular here. The six teams should be the P5 conference champs plus the champion from the lesser conference that is the most highly ranked st the end of the season. Only one rep from the SEC, and that is the champ. This way the championship means something - almost everything in fact. So does your regular season performance. And including the most highly ranked minor conference champ will shut the mouth of the UCFs and Boise States,

TRU said:

I am for going to 6, but my opinion on how do do so will not be popular here. The six teams should be the P5 conference champs plus the champion from the lesser conference that is the most highly ranked st the end of the season. Only one rep from the SEC, and that is the champ. This way the championship means something - almost everything in fact. So does your regular season performance. And including the most highly ranked minor conference champ will shut the mouth of the UCFs and Boise States,

Click to expand...

Yeah, that is the worst suggestion that I have read so far. :biggrin:

selmaborntidefan said:

I'm still waiting for when it will ever dawn on Tide fans that "the four best teams" is nothing but an OPINION.

Literally ANY use of the term "best" is an opinion. CHAMPIONS can be an objective term based on meeting the set criteria;
"best" is a wax nose that in the words of an attorney wannabe can be argued for any cause.

I think what most people would like is what Urban Meyer and - to be blunt, Coach Bryant in 1966 - have mused: "can you just tell us what is necessary so we know?"

Click to expand...

Agreed that "best" is an opinion. That is my reasoning in using the BCS formula to determine the 4 playoff teams. At least the BCS did somewhat "water down" opinions.... Trying to reduce the influence of opinions on "best".

Wasnt the BCS system based on a combined number of metrics? That is how I think the at-large teams should be measured but the first 5 in ( or 6 if you include the AAC ) should be the respective conference champions. If you cant win your conf. then your admittance to the playoff should be judged by the measurables available to sort out the remaining 2/3 playoff participants.

selmaborntidefan said:

So the NFL doesn't have a serious playoff format then???

Click to expand...

Not a popular opinion, and I don't really care about the NFL anymore, but I do dislike 8-8 or even 7-9 divisional winners getting into their playoff.

owenfieldreams said:

Wasnt the BCS system based on a combined number of metrics? That is how I think the at-large teams should be measured but the first 5 in ( or 6 if you include the AAC ) should be the respective conference champions. If you cant win your conf. then your admittance to the playoff should be judged by the measurables available to sort out the remaining 2/3 playoff participants.

Click to expand...

What if you happen to win your conference (even at 13-0 or 12-1), but your conference is a complete joke....? Conference champions should not have anything to do with an automatic bid....unless all conferences are equal in strength....and we all know that they are not.

I'd be ok with conference champions getting in IF we got rid of one of them and made 4 super conferences that only played games against teams in one of those 4 conferences.

owenfieldreams said:

Wasnt the BCS system based on a combined number of metrics? That is how I think the at-large teams should be measured but the first 5 in ( or 6 if you include the AAC ) should be the respective conference champions. If you cant win your conf. then your admittance to the playoff should be judged by the measurables available to sort out the remaining 2/3 playoff participants.

Click to expand...

We get it. You want conference champions in because you play in a terrible conference, so it helps you. Clemson fans and PAC fans feel he same way. They just want their team in the pool. I respect that. Disagree with automatic qualifiers, but I understand why you would want them.