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

selmaborntidefan

TideFans Legend
Mar 31, 2000
26,818
10,253
287
51
Wishing I was somewhere close to Duluth with a sli
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.
This is my basic position as well.

Having 4 means you don't screw over an unbeaten number 3.
The end.

2019 would have been a horrible train wreck but for the playoff. And probably another split national championship, too.
 

STONECOLDSABAN

All-SEC
Sep 21, 2007
1,679
513
137
Mobile, AL
This is my basic position as well.

Having 4 means you don't screw over an unbeaten number 3.
The end.

2019 would have been a horrible train wreck but for the playoff. And probably another split national championship, too.
I would be cool with 6. Give #1 and #2 a bye
I would learn to live with 8.
I do miss the bowl games mattering though.
 

selmaborntidefan

TideFans Legend
Mar 31, 2000
26,818
10,253
287
51
Wishing I was somewhere close to Duluth with a sli
I would be cool with 6. Give #1 and #2 a bye
I would learn to live with 8.
I do miss the bowl games mattering though.
Well, yes and no.

The only reason they actually mattered was because of the obligation contracts. When Penn State is 1 and Miami is 2 and OU is 3 and Iowa is 4 (the latter 3 with one loss), THREE BOWL GAMES suddenly matter.

When Miami and Penn State are undefeated 1 and 2 (the very next year, 1986) - NONE of the games except the Fiesta Bowl matter.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Redwood Forrest

STONECOLDSABAN

All-SEC
Sep 21, 2007
1,679
513
137
Mobile, AL
Well, yes and no.

The only reason they actually mattered was because of the obligation contracts. When Penn State is 1 and Miami is 2 and OU is 3 and Iowa is 4 (the latter 3 with one loss), THREE BOWL GAMES suddenly matter.

When Miami and Penn State are undefeated 1 and 2 (the very next year, 1986) - NONE of the games except the Fiesta Bowl matter.
You have a good point. But I do think college football has lost a little something with the playoff/BCS. For all the accolades that the 2020 Alabama team has got. Nobody really talks about how they won their first rose bowl game since 1946. That just seems to be an afterthought. Don’t get me wrong part of that is the game being played in texas. But it kind of makes me sad. It’s why I hate the sugar bowl being considered a “consolation prize” and players not showing up in 08 and 13. When I was growing up, Alabama was not very good and I would see other sec teams make the sugar bowl and to me it just seemed like a big deal. So when Alabama started having their problems in the sugar bowl against Utah and Oklahoma. It was very frustrating. It’s also why I hold the win over clemson in the 2018 sugar bowl in such high regard (that and the revenge factor). But I get what you are saying.
 
Last edited:

Redwood Forrest

Hall of Fame
Sep 19, 2003
10,684
416
107
74
Boaz, AL USA
I think the 8 team format would be fun but not necessarily more accurate. I would love to see a Boise, UCF and such FORCED into playing THREE TOP TEAMS back to back in order to "claim" a title instead of winning one lone top team match and then running their mouth for a year.. If they actually do that I will not complain because they would actually win instead of awarding a championship.
 

81usaf92

Hall of Fame
Apr 26, 2008
23,670
14,202
187
South Alabama
I think the 8 team format would be fun but not necessarily more accurate. I would love to see a Boise, UCF and such FORCED into playing THREE TOP TEAMS back to back in order to "claim" a title instead of winning one lone top team match and then running their mouth for a year.. If they actually do that I will not complain because they would actually win instead of awarding a championship.
Why? I mean this system was specifically designed to keep them out because the BCS was getting increasingly close to putting them in. The truth is that it’s not a true playoff, it’s a plus 1 system.

As for the title... I find it easy to argue that the CFP is in ways is superior than the BCS. Keeping the pipsqueeks out is one major plus.
 
Last edited:

selmaborntidefan

TideFans Legend
Mar 31, 2000
26,818
10,253
287
51
Wishing I was somewhere close to Duluth with a sli
I think the 8 team format would be fun but not necessarily more accurate. I would love to see a Boise, UCF and such FORCED into playing THREE TOP TEAMS back to back in order to "claim" a title instead of winning one lone top team match and then running their mouth for a year.. If they actually do that I will not complain because they would actually win instead of awarding a championship.
I'd have much less problem with the notion of these bozos beating three decent teams in a short time spane.

But the flaw in your argument (which is well-made by the way) is this: why should these teams get ANY consideration in the first place?

UCF claiming a paper national championship in a playoff era is little more than a gridiron version of penis envy.


 

Redwood Forrest

Hall of Fame
Sep 19, 2003
10,684
416
107
74
Boaz, AL USA
Why? I mean this system was specifically designed to keep them out because the BCS was getting increasingly close to putting them in. The truth is that it’s not a true playoff, it’s a plus 1 system.

As for the title... I find it easy to argue that the CFP is in ways is superior than the BCS. Keeping the pipsqueeks out is one major plus.
Why? I thought I made it clear I would like to see 8 because it would shut up Boise and UCF from boasting of People's National Championship.
 

Redwood Forrest

Hall of Fame
Sep 19, 2003
10,684
416
107
74
Boaz, AL USA
I'd have much less problem with the notion of these bozos beating three decent teams in a short time spane.

But the flaw in your argument (which is well-made by the way) is this: why should these teams get ANY consideration in the first place?

UCF claiming a paper national championship in a playoff era is little more than a gridiron version of penis envy.
Not a flaw. I am not advocating it, just saying it would be fun to see.
 
  • Like
Reactions: selmaborntidefan

81usaf92

Hall of Fame
Apr 26, 2008
23,670
14,202
187
South Alabama
Why? I thought I made it clear I would like to see 8 because it would shut up Boise and UCF from boasting of People's National Championship.
But that goes against the whole idea of the playoffs. Yes I know people have this preconception that it’s about the 2011 season but it’s mostly about the BCS buster getting increasingly close to getting into a national championship game from 2008-2010 because the human polling kept making it more and more a reality. If we are going that route then why do we have a committee?
 

selmaborntidefan

TideFans Legend
Mar 31, 2000
26,818
10,253
287
51
Wishing I was somewhere close to Duluth with a sli
Should I be the one to point out that THE ONLY REASON you have a sudden increase in these nobody teams that are able to go undefeated is because:
a) conferences expanded which
b) meant they played MORE games against each other and thus
c) FEWER games against these teams which
d) MADE THEIR SCHEDULES EASY ENOUGH TO GO UNDEFEATED

And make no mistake - there's no an idiot out there who would argue for a ONE-LOSS UCF or Boise or Marshall or whomever. But conference expansion caused all this. If you play in a decent conference it's damn near impossible to go undefeated even for a very good team.

Here's a look at all of the unbeaten "non-major" teams since the first year of the BCS, 1998:

1998 - #7 Tulane (12-0)
1999 - #10 Marshall (13-0)
2004 - #4 Utah (13-0)
2006 - #5 Boise St (13-0)
2008 - #8 Utah (13-0)
2009 - #4 Boise St (14-0)
2010 - #2 TCU (13-0)
2017 - #6 UCF (13-0)

OK, so let's see.

Utah goes undefeated TWICE in five seasons - and then joins one of the weakest Power 5 conferences. And they stop going undefeated.

TCU goes undefeated in the regular season in 2009 and the whole year in 2010 and joins maybe the 2nd or 3rd best conference. And stops going undefeated.

Tulane, Marshall, and UCF were all one-hit wonders who didn't play anyone worth a damn and haven't been back. Hell, UCF couldn't beat an LSU team missing nine defensive starters.

That leaves Boise State, who continues to play a carefully parsed schedule of a pathetic conference, one big-name team in the first game of the year (8 months to get ready), and then hope to go undefeated.

It's almost like there's some evidence the schedule you play has a bearing on whether you're undefeated or not.
 

81usaf92

Hall of Fame
Apr 26, 2008
23,670
14,202
187
South Alabama
Should I be the one to point out that THE ONLY REASON you have a sudden increase in these nobody teams that are able to go undefeated is because:
a) conferences expanded which
b) meant they played MORE games against each other and thus
c) FEWER games against these teams which
d) MADE THEIR SCHEDULES EASY ENOUGH TO GO UNDEFEATED

And make no mistake - there's no an idiot out there who would argue for a ONE-LOSS UCF or Boise or Marshall or whomever. But conference expansion caused all this. If you play in a decent conference it's damn near impossible to go undefeated even for a very good team.

Here's a look at all of the unbeaten "non-major" teams since the first year of the BCS, 1998:

1998 - #7 Tulane (12-0)
1999 - #10 Marshall (13-0)
2004 - #4 Utah (13-0)
2006 - #5 Boise St (13-0)
2008 - #8 Utah (13-0)
2009 - #4 Boise St (14-0)
2010 - #2 TCU (13-0)
2017 - #6 UCF (13-0)

OK, so let's see.

Utah goes undefeated TWICE in five seasons - and then joins one of the weakest Power 5 conferences. And they stop going undefeated.

TCU goes undefeated in the regular season in 2009 and the whole year in 2010 and joins maybe the 2nd or 3rd best conference. And stops going undefeated.

Tulane, Marshall, and UCF were all one-hit wonders who didn't play anyone worth a damn and haven't been back. Hell, UCF couldn't beat an LSU team missing nine defensive starters.

That leaves Boise State, who continues to play a carefully parsed schedule of a pathetic conference, one big-name team in the first game of the year (8 months to get ready), and then hope to go undefeated.

It's almost like there's some evidence the schedule you play has a bearing on whether you're undefeated or not.
Are you going off of Final rankings because 2009 Cincy was #3 in the end of season rankings. Granted at the time the Big East was an AQ in BCS but they are not the big East that they were in 1998 with Miami and VT. My point is that if Colt throws that ball a half a second later then we are getting either Cincy or TCU in Pasadena because those bozos in the BCS have dug themselves a hole that they can’t get out of by ranking both teams in the top 5.
 

selmaborntidefan

TideFans Legend
Mar 31, 2000
26,818
10,253
287
51
Wishing I was somewhere close to Duluth with a sli
Are you going off of Final rankings because 2009 Cincy was #3 in the end of season rankings. Granted at the time the Big East was an AQ in BCS but they are not the big East that they were in 1998 with Miami and VT. My point is that if Colt throws that ball a half a second later then we are getting either Cincy or TCU in Pasadena because those bozos in the BCS have dug themselves a hole that they can’t get out of by ranking both teams in the top 5.
Yes, I'm going off the FINAL rankings.


Don't you love how the "these guys deserve a chance" nutbags always say "but 2006 Boise, 2008 Utah, 2017 UCF," but they ALWAYS conveniently leave out the longer list of "2007 Hawaii, 2009 Cincinnati, 2009 TCU, 2018 UCF" etc?
 
  • Like
Reactions: buckeyeFB_

81usaf92

Hall of Fame
Apr 26, 2008
23,670
14,202
187
South Alabama
Yes, I'm going off the FINAL rankings.


Don't you love how the "these guys deserve a chance" nutbags always say "but 2006 Boise, 2008 Utah, 2017 UCF," but they ALWAYS conveniently leave out the longer list of "2007 Hawaii, 2009 Cincinnati, 2009 TCU, 2018 UCF" etc?
Out of all the BCS busters I think 2010 TCU was probably the only one where you could say “they maybe were deserving of a shot if another upset happened”.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Ols

Redwood Forrest

Hall of Fame
Sep 19, 2003
10,684
416
107
74
Boaz, AL USA
Should I be the one to point out that THE ONLY REASON you have a sudden increase in these nobody teams that are able to go undefeated is because:
a) conferences expanded which
b) meant they played MORE games against each other and thus
c) FEWER games against these teams which
d) MADE THEIR SCHEDULES EASY ENOUGH TO GO UNDEFEATED

And make no mistake - there's no an idiot out there who would argue for a ONE-LOSS UCF or Boise or Marshall or whomever. But conference expansion caused all this. If you play in a decent conference it's damn near impossible to go undefeated even for a very good team.

Here's a look at all of the unbeaten "non-major" teams since the first year of the BCS, 1998:

1998 - #7 Tulane (12-0)
1999 - #10 Marshall (13-0)
2004 - #4 Utah (13-0)
2006 - #5 Boise St (13-0)
2008 - #8 Utah (13-0)
2009 - #4 Boise St (14-0)
2010 - #2 TCU (13-0)
2017 - #6 UCF (13-0)

OK, so let's see.

Utah goes undefeated TWICE in five seasons - and then joins one of the weakest Power 5 conferences. And they stop going undefeated.

TCU goes undefeated in the regular season in 2009 and the whole year in 2010 and joins maybe the 2nd or 3rd best conference. And stops going undefeated.

Tulane, Marshall, and UCF were all one-hit wonders who didn't play anyone worth a damn and haven't been back. Hell, UCF couldn't beat an LSU team missing nine defensive starters.

That leaves Boise State, who continues to play a carefully parsed schedule of a pathetic conference, one big-name team in the first game of the year (8 months to get ready), and then hope to go undefeated.

It's almost like there's some evidence the schedule you play has a bearing on whether you're undefeated or not.
You hit the proverbial nail on the head. That is what would happen with them in an eight team playoff.
 

Redwood Forrest

Hall of Fame
Sep 19, 2003
10,684
416
107
74
Boaz, AL USA
But that goes against the whole idea of the playoffs. Yes I know people have this preconception that it’s about the 2011 season but it’s mostly about the BCS buster getting increasingly close to getting into a national championship game from 2008-2010 because the human polling kept making it more and more a reality. If we are going that route then why do we have a committee?
Well I know it goes against the whole idea of the BCS and the Playoffs. But it STILL WOULD BE FUN and it is coming anyway if the world last a few more years whether it goes against it or not.