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

selmaborntidefan

TideFans Legend
Mar 31, 2000
26,155
9,026
287
51
Wishing I was somewhere close to Duluth with a sli
I just find it funny how Alabama winning a title in 2011 caused the CFP to be created soon after and Alabama winning the title in 2020 seems to be speeding up the process on Playoff expansion. What's gonna happen when Alabama wins the title under an 8 team playoff?
Respectfully - this is incorrect.

The CFP came about because Congress got involved and they had to fear being sued for violating anti-trust laws and then taking some sort of externally imposed way of doing it. This came about because a bunch of pantywaists with no problems to solve otherwise (Joe Barton of TX and Orrin Hatch of Utah) began rattling the cage.

Hatch was from Utah and angry over their alleged "snub" in 2008; same with Barton over the alleged snub of Texas the same year. This and the Fiesta Bowl scandal caused it - not "two SEC teams in the championship."

Btw...just to show they could say "well, they had their say".....the playoff committee was actually proposed by the commissioner of the Mountain West Conference.
 

B1GTide

TideFans Legend
Apr 13, 2012
37,776
24,420
187
It's comical that the Committee's thinking really hasn't been that much different from the computers...
I think that it verifies that the computer models were actually spot on when blended, and with enough games worth of data. But a season like 2020 would have required the computer models be discarded. The lack of inter-conference play and the short seasons really messed up the computer polls.
 

81usaf92

Hall of Fame
Apr 26, 2008
22,642
13,055
187
South Alabama
This was discussed on radio today. My feeling is when we go to eight teams we will double the number of blowout games for people to whine and carp about. Never-the-less we ARE GOING to have eight teams soon.

It's time to consider contracting the College Football Playoff back to just two teams - CBSSports.com
Okay here is the dumb argument about this

“That's because, like the BCS, when you get to the title game, you usually have the two best teams in the country. That's the other dirty secret that most of us either didn't realize or didn't want to mention while we called (and continue to call for) playoff expansion.”

14: #4 vs #2
15: #1 vs #2
16: #1 vs #2
17: #3 vs #4
18: #1 vs #2
19: #1 vs #3
20: #1 vs #3

out of 7 games we have had 1 vs 2 3 times and all three times it was Bama vs Clemson. It’s just as likely to get a 1 vs 3 game or a 2 vs 4 on normal years depending on where Bama and Clemson are ranked.

Another thing is that blowouts in national championship games is nothing new. USC vs Oklahoma, Oklahoma vs FSU, Miami vs Nebraska, Bama vs LSU, and Bama vs ND weren’t really competitive games.

I would say also the playoffs effectively fixes the 2001, 2003, and 2004 BCS bull crap in which the two best teams didn’t get an opportunity to play.
 

PA Tide Fan

All-American
Dec 11, 2014
2,944
535
137
Lancaster, PA
2 times out of 7 is not rare - that is actually just as frequent as the #1 team winning it - 2 times out of 7.
If we look at records of seeds in playoff semifinals though we see the record consistent with the seeding. For example:
#1 seed 5-2
#2 seed 4-3
#3 seed 3-4
#4 seed 2-5

If we start going to more teams these playoff semifinal records indicate that the chances of a #6 team or #8 team winning it all would probably be something worse than 1 in 6 seasons or 1 in 8 seasons. I don't think they should expand the playoff just to give a lower seeded team a once in a blue moon chance of winning. If the NCAA wants to use the logic that it's still possible no matter how remote they could go to 32 teams because maybe once every 100 years the #32 team could win it all.
 

81usaf92

Hall of Fame
Apr 26, 2008
22,642
13,055
187
South Alabama
If we look at records of seeds in playoff semifinals though we see the record consistent with the seeding. For example:
#1 seed 5-2
#2 seed 4-3
#3 seed 3-4
#4 seed 2-5

If we start going to more teams these playoff semifinal records indicate that the chances of a #6 team or #8 team winning it all would probably be something worse than 1 in 6 seasons or 1 in 8 seasons. I don't think they should expand the playoff just to give a lower seeded team a once in a blue moon chance of winning. If the NCAA wants to use the logic that it's still possible no matter how remote they could go to 32 teams because maybe once every 100 years the #32 team could win it all.
yes but #1 is 2-3 in the NC whereas #2 is 3-1. There has been clearly an advantage in most years to being the #2 team over the #1 team. The #1 team is drawing the hottest team in college football while the #2 team is usually drawing a team that shouldn’t be there. The argument for expansion isn’t that there is 3-4 teams that should have a chance it’s where the system doesn’t clearly benefit 1 team over another.

Think about 2018. Clemson knew they could get away with preparing for Alabama while having to play ND in game 1. Everyone knew ND didn’t belong there. Had we had a 6 game playoff it would’ve been like this

#3 ND vs #6 UGA
#4 Oklahoma vs # #5 Ohio St

Granted we are probably stuck playing Georgia but Clemson won’t be able to look ahead while playing Ohio St or Oklahoma either.
 

selmaborntidefan

TideFans Legend
Mar 31, 2000
26,155
9,026
287
51
Wishing I was somewhere close to Duluth with a sli
BAMA would be the 8 seed to win it all.
Alabama had the talent with a lucky break or two to have gotten in as an 8 seed in 2019 (if there was such a thing) and win the whole thing. We had almost everything go wrong that can against LSU, and we still only lost by five points.

And who would we have played in the opener with the most prep time? LSU.
 

selmaborntidefan

TideFans Legend
Mar 31, 2000
26,155
9,026
287
51
Wishing I was somewhere close to Duluth with a sli
It's comical that the Committee's thinking really hasn't been that much different from the computers...
Well, or it can validate the computers, too.

Here are two things I basically concur with:

1) The BCS - for all the hatred thrown its way - did a good job in the limited area it was given. The 2003 firing up of Oklahoma at number one only happened because it was a year where they reached the final week unbeaten and there were only two one-loss teams instead of five or six. The human polls were never going to drop OU below #3 even after that embarrassing blowout, and the BCS just kicked out the name.

2) The CFP - for all the hatred thrown their way - has done about as close to perfect a job as can be done. If one team has seemingly benefited from the committee, it's been Ohio State as they were selected on a controversial choice in 2014, the first non-conf champion in 2016, and with the 1/2 a season last year. But on the flip side, Ohio St was NOT selected in 2015 despite being better or 2017 despite winning the conference, so I can't accuse the committee of bias, either. Ohio St has benefited from the fact the committee as a bunch of coaches and focuses on football ("if these two teams played") rather than analytics ("these teams played these common foes and therefore").

The one problem I have with the CFP is their propagandic nonsense. They are the wrestling promoters of CFB now, cutting promos on how important this weekend's card, er, slate of games is even if it isn't.

The selection of teams we have now isn't 100% perfect, but it IS substantially better than anything prior to 2014, too.
 

TideEngineer08

Hall of Fame
Jun 9, 2009
23,834
7,407
187
Beautiful Cullman, AL
If we go to 8 teams, that’ll mean doing away with conference championship games, or having some teams play 14-16 games...with all the negatives on the players that implies.

Alternatives include:
— No Non-conference games. Whining about inability to evaluate teams in different conferences.
— No cupcake games, however that might be defined. Voluminous whining about small-college teams being financially unsustainable...precisely because they no longer have the big payday from a game against a P5 team. Also no easy games to ameliorate the grind for players on the P5 team.

Of course, the very people whining about a CFP that’s too small will also whine about the unintended consequences of their advocacy.

The press, both broadcast and print/internet, cannot see more than one step beyond what they advocate. They are bat-blind as to second-level implications and beyond.

Same song, 937,593rd verse.

Did I say I have less than no respect for the analytical capabilities of the talking heads / ink-stained wretches?

With egos that can fit in BDS, they equate the ability to eloquently express a flawed position, with the logical validity of said position.
Sounds like society as a whole nowadays
 

selmaborntidefan

TideFans Legend
Mar 31, 2000
26,155
9,026
287
51
Wishing I was somewhere close to Duluth with a sli
I like the 6 team idea, but I'm happy with the 4 team playoff.

And the Group of 5 teams need to be willing to go on the road and play one of the big boys and beat them. Then they can't have a letdown and lose their next game to San Jose State.
Correct, this is what makes the "fake tough guy" stance of Boise and UCF all the more revolting, and it's the job of the CFB media to explain why "(Team's) refusal to play in Boise or Orlando has nothing to do with fear and everything to do with economics."

Demand a home and home knowing you'll get turned down and then say they're afraid to play you on the road.

The reason Alabama hasn't played Oregon State (ever) has nothing to do with Alabama trembling in fear of losing a game in Corvallis, it has everything to do with money.

(I'll keep this simple since it's become clear through the years that at least a few journalists read this site and steal my stuff). This is with OOC games since the conference games are set by league offices:

1) The home team provides a financial guarantee of money to the visitor
a) this means it's better for the home school for App St to come take $400K than to pay Boise a million (note: unless you're the University of Michigan)
b) the small schools (like Mercer) often make a million bucks for that one day that keeps the school going
c) a small school stadium (Smurf Turf seats 36K, UCF Bounce House is 48K) CANNOT offer that guarantee - and that's why big schools offer to play them at nearby neutral venues that will provide both schools with more money.
d) This is why small schools demanding home and home are not only full of a certain substance in a Porta-Jon, they KNOW they are playing a game.

2) Neutral site games ARE expensive, but they are ALL broadcast on television and bring in additional money by the group sponsoring the game.
 

selmaborntidefan

TideFans Legend
Mar 31, 2000
26,155
9,026
287
51
Wishing I was somewhere close to Duluth with a sli
Regardless of other issues I've enjoyed the Playoff more than BCS
The playoff prevents someone getting hosed like 2004 Auburn.
I don't think they beat USC but then again nobody thought we'd beat Miami, either.

I prefer "nobody gets hosed" to "well, these two teams are gonna play and tough luck to the rest of you."
 

selmaborntidefan

TideFans Legend
Mar 31, 2000
26,155
9,026
287
51
Wishing I was somewhere close to Duluth with a sli
FCS/DIVISION I-AA "PARITY"

FCS began in 1978 as Division I-AA. There have been 43 champions win the playoff for FCS.
North Dakota State 8
Georgia Southern 6
Youngstown St 4
App St 3
Montana 2
Marshall 2
James Madison 2
Eastern Kentucky 2

29 of the 43 championships (.674) were won by 8 teams where there are (wait for it) 127 total programs.

FBS/DIVISION I
1961-79 - six teams, 86.9% of the championships
1980-2001 - five teams win 62.5% of the championships
2002-2020 - six teams, 85% of the championships
FCS - eight teams, 67.4% of the championships

Then you have to modify the numbers for FBS.

Why?
1) Divsion I-AA was a startup league in 1978, meaning you're comparing a game that if I count from 1961 was already (conference-wise) nearly 30 years old and older in some places and had established what worked. Most of that so-called "parity" in FCS came in the first 11 years when nine different teams won championships.

2) the reason some teams don't have multiple championships - like Boise St or Marshall - is because they moved up to FBS; this anomaly doesn't move the numbers for FBS. But rest assured, if those two schools had stayed there then they would have probably won more titles, too.

3) FCS has a 24-team playoff, which not even the most insane advocate of a playoff is arguing. Here's the bizarre part unless you're intelligent: they playoffs expanded from FOUR teams in 1978 to 12 teams in 1982 to 16 teams in 1986. The number of repeat champions WENT UP as the number of teams included WENT UP.

But there are people who would have you believe more teams are going to win the championship if we increase the playoff field. The exact opposite is more likely to happen.

DIVISION II FOOTBALL CHAMPIONS
Division II had wire service selections from 1958-1972 and began an eight-team playoff in 1973 that is now a 28-team playoff. There are 169 Division 2 programs. Beginning in 1973, we therefore have 47 champions since the 2020 season was cancelled.

NW Missouri St 6
N Dakota St 5
Grand Valley St 4
Valdosta St 4
N Alabama 3
SW Texas State 2
N Colorado 2
Troy State 2

Eight teams comprised 29 of the 47 champions (61.7%).

Then remember those numbers would be worse except SW Texas St and Troy St (as well as inaugural 1973 champion La Tech) have all moved up to FBS and several other champions (N Alabama, N Colorado, N Dakota St) have moved up to FCS.

No fewer than 23 of those 47 national champions have MOVED UP at least one division.


There. Is. No. Such. Thing. As. Playoff. Parity. In. College. Football.

Get the idea out of your heads, media.
 
  • Thank You
Reactions: DzynKingRTR

selmaborntidefan

TideFans Legend
Mar 31, 2000
26,155
9,026
287
51
Wishing I was somewhere close to Duluth with a sli
REVIEW OF FBS/DIV 1 NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIPS 1936-1960 (26 seasons)

As a reminder, I'm only counting the AP and UPI championships that held such prestige. Anyone saying "but 1941" needs to be strapped into a cannon and fired into Toomer's Corner when the trees are covered with ttp.

Since UPI began (as UP) in 1950, this leaves us a possible sum total of 37 national championships to be awarded.

Notre Dame 4
Minnesota 4
Ohio St 3
Oklahoma 3
Army 2

16 of the 37 national championships were won by only 5 teams. Sounds better, right? That drops it to 43.7%, so parity?

No.

1) The AP vote prior to around 1962 was very loose and haphazard. You would have voters who wouldn't fill out anything until the final poll.

2) There was no television, so teams were ranked LARGELY on the basis of reputation.

3) Four full seaons - 1942-45 - were wiped out by this little scrimmage called World War Two. Granted, this doesn't affect the big picture numbers save to point out Army's two national titles were largely a joke achieved when all the good players from other schools were at war while the future officers were in school.

4) Bowl games were not included in what was largely a popularity contest conducted at the end of the regular season.

5) The UPI had an explicit denial of ranking to any team serving on probation, a circumstance which also caused an increase in split national championships.

6) There was a pronounced Big Ten/northern bias because:
a) the perception of the conference at the time was the same as the SEC now enjoys
b) most of the NATIONAL radio stations that could be heard across the country were in northern cities (most notably NY and Chicago, which was near Northwestern, Illinois, and Notre Dame)
c) segregation (though it should be noted very few northern teams had very many black players then, either)
d) TV was growing in the northern cities first due to some of the above reasons plus larger cities (in 1950, the largest Deep South city in the USA was New Orleans, which ranked 16th; the 15 cities above them were all Washington DC and north except for San Francisco)
e) note: there was also a certain pro-Texas bias to the final polls as well

The following SEC teams went undefeated without an AP or UPI national title during this time:
1936 - LSU and Alabama (tie while national champ Minnesota had a loss)
1938 - Tennessee (TCU national champion)
1939 - Tennessee (Texas A/M champion; Vols loss was in bowl game after vote)
1940 - Tennessee was 10-0 and Miss St was 10-0-1 (Minnesota champion)
1945 - Alabama (finished #2 behind national champion Army)
1946 - UGA unbeaten, N Dame and Army tied......N Dame wins title, UGA 3rd, unbeaten UCLA 4th
1951 - Ga Tech unbeaten with a tie (Tennessee national champ, though)
1952 - Ga Tech 11-0 (Michigan St at 9-0 is national champion)
1960 - Ole Miss 9-0-1 (Minnesota began year unranked, Ole Miss at 2; Minnesota had a loss and Ole Miss did not. Guess who won the national championship and then for good measure lost the Rose Bowl?)

1942 - UGA was 10-1, Ohio St 9-1(note: Ohio St should have won it, but note the long history all going in the same direction)

Now, I'm not saying this to re-fight the Civil War on the football field. In fact, one could argue that in every single case the Big Ten team WAS better. That MIGHT be true. The point is that when in every single case without exception the lever falls in one direction, you don't have anything resembling a coherent attempt to be objective. And as I always pointed out, Purdue went 4-4-1 in 1960 and finished 19th and in 1961 they went 6-3 and finished 12th. (I don't hate Purdue, I have two relatives going there right now).

The point is the objectivity of such polls can reasonably be called into account. This does NOT make them worthless, it just means we have to evaluate them in the light of their context and time.

Parity - it does not exist and never has. Circumstances created the illusion.
 

buckeyeFB_

Bamanation Citizen
Jun 24, 2019
96
360
77
I think 4 teams is the right amount honestly.

The 4-team format makes it so in situations where there isn't a clear 1 & 2, or there are 3 teams with strong cases to play for the title (e.g., if 3 P5 teams finish 13-0 like in 2019), they all get a chance to compete for the title.

There hasn't ever been 4 teams who were legitimate title contenders in the CFP era, in my opinion, so I don't want to see a playoff expansion. Only 3 of the 14 total CFP semi-final games that have been played were truly competitive (2014 OSU-Bama, 2017 UGA-OU, 2019 OSU-Clemson). Also, I don't think any true title contenders have been left out.

Expanding the playoff would kind of be rewarding teams who didn't earn it by giving them a shot to play for it all. It would also likely lead to more rematches of rivalry games that should really only be played once a year. Of course if two rivals are the country's best teams (Bama & LSU in 2011), I have no problem with a rematch, and the current format allows for that while still having two other spots open so people can't complain.

There are also plenty of programs with a good enough mix of name/brand, history, and resources to compete with Bama, OSU, and Clemson on a more consistent basis that have failed to do so -- some examples include Florida, Florida State, Texas, Oklahoma, USC, Michigan, Georgia, LSU, Notre Dame.