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

[81usaf92]

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.

It wouldn’t be fun at all, and I seriously doubt the committee lets it happen.

 

[crimsonaudio]

It wouldn’t be fun at all, and I seriously doubt the committee lets it happen.

Yah, there's about a zero percent chance any G5 team gets in over a blue-blood. And let's be honest - not just P5 teams, but blue bloods are about the only teams that have been to the playoffs.

 

[81usaf92]

Yah, there's about a zero percent chance any G5 team gets in over a blue-blood. And let's be honest - not just P5 teams, but blue bloods are about the only teams that have been to the playoffs.

I mean they buried Cincy last year and they probably had more reason to be there than most. If they move to 6-8 teams then I still see them burying these teams. If they wanted these teams to have a chance then they wouldn’t have a committee.

Also we are going to redefine what a blue blood is because Nebraska and Texas stink worse than Troy.

 

[crimsonaudio]

Also we are going to redefine what a blue blood is because Nebraska and Texas stink worse than Troy.

I don't follow - neither Nebraska or Texas have been to the CFP.

I get that Washington, Oregon, and Michigan State aren't 'blue bloods' but that's why I said "are about the only teams"...

 

[81usaf92]

I don't follow - neither Nebraska or Texas have been to the CFP.

I get that Washington, Oregon, and Michigan State aren't 'blue bloods' but that's why I said "are about the only teams"...

It really wasn’t about the playoffs. It was the term in general


I continuously hear “blue blood” like it is supposed to mean something. A lot of people say Nebraska and Texas are blue bloods but they might as well be an automatic win on a decent team’s schedule

 

[BamaInBham]

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.

IMO, the problem is more with integrity than blindness. Many care little for the truth. If it happens to fall in line with their agenda, it's fine, but they have other agendas to fill which for the mouthpieces is primarily what will enable them to continue or enhance their career. Also, their editors or producers, who usually have full control over them, often have other totally unrelated agendas to which the writer or on-air personality must adhere. Truth again has little relevance and is rarely a serious motivator, whatever the pretense.

People like Cowherd and Finebaum essentially admit to these things. Not that they always lie, that is not true, but telling the truth is secondary or incidental at best, rarely job one. Sports is as bad as the real world pundits who play even more for keeps, meaning that the truth is less relevant or even seen as an enemy to their overall goals. The truth is often suppressed.

 

[BamaInBham]

Until we come up with a system where it's decided on the field rather than by committee, the complaint will always remain.

It is decided on the field. The Committee has done a terrific job of selecting the top 4 teams each year. If we started out with a 64 team field, it would not improve the chance of finding the best team. It would simply make greater the possibility of a fluke loss by a great team, though in football, it is less likely than basketball. No, the regular season should remain vitally important, then based off of that a small group should then be chosen. IMO, they've done a great job with their 2 most controversial picks winning the NC: OSU in 2014, and Bama in 2017. I thought those choices were right when made and was proven correct.

There is no perfect system. The current whiners usually have a dog that they want to be in the hunt but has justifiably been shut out. Another large segment would never be satisfied, they just want to gripe. I.e., there will always be a complaint no matter what. Many fans of programs who have not won, often don't like anything or the only thing they like is what will include their program more frequently.

IMO, the playoff system for football has yielded the best team more often that basketball, who often simply get hot or fortunate (lucky bounces, good matchups, etc.) champions.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

IMO, the playoff system for football has yielded the best team more often that basketball, who often simply get hot or fortunate (lucky bounces, good matchups, etc.) champions.

I don't even agree with this part as I demonstrated above.

Once upon a time we STARTED with the Final Four, and this thing called the NIT meant something.

Then b-ball expanded and - like most folks as they get older - continued to expand.

We've had THREE....THREE teams that people call Cinderella teams win the title:
1983 NC State
1985 Villanova
1988 Kansas

And let's again dismantle this "any team can win" idea.
Not true in football, not true in basketball, either.
The fact we have analysts not worth a damn doesn't change that reality.

1) There were 17 weekly polls in 1982-83.
a) an ACC team (UVA or UNC) was #1 in seven of those 17 polls
b) at the end of the season, THREE ACC teams were ranked - UNC, UVA, and NC State
c) UVA was a #1 seed in the bracket of 52 teams
d) UNC was a #2 seed
e) UVA was considered the best team in the country by most. They had four pre-tournament losses. THREE of those four losses were to UNC and NC State.

(Wait a minute.....you mean I'm pointing out that the perceived best team lost to the so-called Cinderella???? Yup, and guess who eliminated UVA in the tournament? The eventual champions did).

1983 NC State winning the title while surprising was about like if 2017 Auburn had won the national championship. They DID manhandle UGA, and they beat Alabama. They narrowly lost to Clemson, and they choked against LSU. Entering the SEC title game, they were #2 despite two losses.

Would it have been a surprise if Auburn won? Yes.
Would it have been an actual Cinderella story? No.

Auburn had an easier time with UGA than Oklahoma did, folks.
Sure they lost the rematch, but they were a decent team and not some upstart.

2) I covered Villanova above. Villanova winning would have been about like 2011 Arkansas winning the national championship. And again, the Hawgs were probably the third-best team in the country.

3) 1988 Kansas comes a little bit closer to proving the case.
a) But basketball is a game where one individual player can take over and transcend the game; no matter which player you're talking about, that is not going to happen in CFB. A guy like Cam Newton or Tim Tebow would the closest, but Tebow had a stellar defense helping him, and Newton DID have Nick Fairley and schedule luck.
b) if you have ONE example to prove your case, you don't have much of an argument in the first place.
c) once again, the team that won the tournament came from a conference where one team was a #1 overall seed in the tournament. When Kansas played OU in the final, it was the third time they'd met that season, so it's not like KU wasn't familiar with OU and their schemes.
d) THREE of the Elite Eight teams were all from the Big Eight Conference, which strengthens the "strong conference" argument.

1988 Kansas would be about like 2012 A/M winning the national championship - the third best team in a powerful conference with one guy who can virtually take the team on his back and win. A surprise, yes? But far above the level of Boise State, Nevada, Tulane, etc.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

(Doesn't watch college baseball......looks at baseball champions.......)

73 College World Series tournaments have been played.

Seven teams have won 54% of them:
USC, Texas, LSU, Arizona, Arizona St, Miami, Cal State Fullerton

15 teams have won 81% of the championships in baseball.

And then remember:
a) minor league baseball reduces the chance of a baseball dynasty because (most) stars are in the minors
b) by contrast, college b-ball and football ARE the minor leagues for their sports
c) baseball has been organized at the lower levels for much longer than other sports

I'll tell you what...go look at ANY sport where national championships are awarded, and you know what you're going to find? About 100 teams that play them and maybe 10-15 with a chance at winning the championship.

I mean, does anyone think that if Alabama had a hockey team that did pretty good that they should get into the tournament because "Cinderella could happen?"

 

[selmaborntidefan]

Since there ARE members of the media who comb these websites looking for juvenile points to score on radio and podcast, here's your mantra:

"Increasing the size of the playoff will INCREASE the number of teams given a perceived chance but decrease the number of actual new champions."

When Ohio State or Alabama with their talent gap can get in as an eight seed, they will win more championships and likely be helped by someone knocking the other team out because of the three games that have to be played.

 

[B1GTide]

Since there ARE members of the media who comb these websites looking for juvenile points to score on radio and podcast, here's your mantra:

"Increasing the size of the playoff will INCREASE the number of teams given a perceived chance but decrease the number of actual new champions."

When Ohio State or Alabama with their talent gap can get in as an eight seed, they will win more championships and likely be helped by someone knocking the other team out because of the three games that have to be played.

This is what I have said for years, and why I am not opposed to opening the field. Let in more teams and Alabama/Ohio State win even more championships because they get in more frequently. When teams with the talent of Alabama and Ohio State make the playoff, they always have a chance.

I really don't care if any other teams win championships. I like to watch them play, but championships are for my teams.

 

[TideEngineer08]

I like what we have now, outside of the committee (because I generally loathe people so don't throw any logic at me), because it gives us a playoff while also maintaining the bowl system and attempts to maintain the New Year's tradition of the big bowls on Dec 31/Jan 1. I am nostalgic to the core, and I love the old days of waking up and watching the Outback, Gator, Citrus, and then Rose Bowl in the afternoon and Sugar that night. Flipping over to the Orange and Fiesta when they were on. I hated how the BCS scattered those across several days.

Yeah, no other sport does bowl games. Yeah bowls are old school and are largely meaningless exhibitions. I don't care. I love them and I'm glad they did what they could to preserve the system while creating a playoff. I think the whole thing was quite ingenious, to be frank.

Whatever frustrations people have with it will only multiply if and when the system is changed again. Because that's how we behave in this country.

 

[TIDE-HSV]

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.

That's just like your opinion, man. It wouldn't be for me and I'd be surprised it is for you. 95% of the people watching out there, and it applies to March Madness, are not pulling for a probable winner, like Alabama. They want to see the Alabamas lose, and they're pulling for the dramatic upset by the underdogs. Of course, the more participant teams, the larger chance of that. If upsets are fun, then...

 

[selmaborntidefan]

That's just like your opinion, man. It wouldn't be for me and I'd be surprised it is for you. 95% of the people watching out there, and it applies to March Madness, are not pulling for a probable winner, like Alabama. They want to see the Alabamas lose, and they're pulling for the dramatic upset by the underdogs. Of course, the more participant teams, the larger chance of that. If upsets are fun, then...

The sports media basically wants us to think that "The Bad News Bears" scenario can happen frequently in real life. Aside from the fact that if it happened "frequently" it would reduce the storyline to nothing, the number of those ACTUAL kinds of stories is very short and consist of real examples:

The 1980 US hockey team gold medal is a legit example.
Buster Douglas vs Mike Tyson (maybe....MAYbe......)

Otherwise, this stuff just doesn't happen in the real world, which is why they make movies about it.

I know a lot of folks might say the Kurt Warner 1999 Rams, and that IS a good story.

But the 4-12 Rams in 1998 lost FIVE games by one score - including a 7-point loss to that 1998 Vikings offensive juggernaut that might have been the best team to never make (or win) the Super Bowl. Just a little bit of offense added to 1998 and the same performance would have made them 9-7, and they added a Hall of Fame running back (Marshall Faulk) and a guy who turned out to be a Hall of Fame QB, Warner.

Bear this in mind, too: the Rams went 0-3 in 1999 in one-score games until they won both the NFC Championship and the Super Bowl by single scores.

Those inspirational stories are only inspirational because they're so rare; we have press organs who want them to create them with these opportunities. And these are the same morons who will - if Alabama played UCF in the opener in 2017 and blew them out would say, "UCF is no good, they should have played FSU" - will flip a 180 and say, "UCF deserves a chance" based solely on the fact they haven't already been routed in the opener by Alabama.

 

[Bama-94-00]

I say 6 is the maximum number it should be if we expand.

Yes! Just give the top 2 seeds a bye week.

 

[81usaf92]

The sports media basically wants us to think that "The Bad News Bears" scenario can happen frequently in real life. Aside from the fact that if it happened "frequently" it would reduce the storyline to nothing, the number of those ACTUAL kinds of stories is very short and consist of real examples:

The 1980 US hockey team gold medal is a legit example.
Buster Douglas vs Mike Tyson (maybe....MAYbe......)

Otherwise, this stuff just doesn't happen in the real world, which is why they make movies about it.

I know a lot of folks might say the Kurt Warner 1999 Rams, and that IS a good story.

But the 4-12 Rams in 1998 lost FIVE games by one score - including a 7-point loss to that 1998 Vikings offensive juggernaut that might have been the best team to never make (or win) the Super Bowl. Just a little bit of offense added to 1998 and the same performance would have made them 9-7, and they added a Hall of Fame running back (Marshall Faulk) and a guy who turned out to be a Hall of Fame QB, Warner.

Bear this in mind, too: the Rams went 0-3 in 1999 in one-score games until they won both the NFC Championship and the Super Bowl by single scores.

Those inspirational stories are only inspirational because they're so rare; we have press organs who want them to create them with these opportunities. And these are the same morons who will - if Alabama played UCF in the opener in 2017 and blew them out would say, "UCF is no good, they should have played FSU" - will flip a 180 and say, "UCF deserves a chance" based solely on the fact they haven't already been routed in the opener by Alabama.

I think the KC Royals in 14 and 15 are the closest I can get to the bad news bears story

 

[selmaborntidefan]

I think the KC Royals in 14 and 15 are the closest I can get to the bad news bears story

Sort of - but they came so close in 14 that 15 wasn't a surprise at all, too.

 

[81usaf92]

Sort of - but they came so close in 14 that 15 wasn't a surprise at all, too.

My point is that no one thought of them as a contender in either season. They have been a horrible organization for the past twenty years and only have made it to the playoffs 2 times. None of the players on those teams besides maybe Cueto and Zobrist will probably sniff a HOF ballot. Yes in 15 they were the #1 seed but absolutely no one was picking them to win it all let alone get out of the AL vs the Jays.

 

[81usaf92]

The BCS rarely got it 'wrong'. I've said his for years.

There have been some good CFP games, but there have been a lot of blowouts. I've long contended that there's rarely ever a time when the #4 ranked team at the end of the season has a legitimate claim to being the best team in the country.

BCS has gotten it wrong plenty of times while the playoffs only has gotten it wrong once.

2001- Nebraska had no business playing Miami
2003- USC and LSU were clearly the best team and Oklahoma had no business playing in the NCG after getting boatraced the day before the rankings
2004- Oklahoma had no business playing USC

Those are just the most egregious ones. There are plenty of controversial ones. There are even more horrible bowl seedings. The playoff has only dorked up once and that was 2014 Ohio St, but OSU justified their inclusion but it’s hard to understand why the committee put them over TCU when TCU had a far superior SOS and SOR. They also didn’t lose against an unranked VT.

What I came up with, if I recall correctly at least, is that at no point in the history of the BCS did a #4 ranked team at the pre-BCS game ranking ever end up with as many wins as the #1 team. Now that's more or less anecdotal, but it just shows there was pretty much always a noticeable gap. I couldn't find a #4 that had any sort of legitimate claim and the blowouts we've seen in the playoffs are a testament to that. You might be good enough to win it at all#4 though, but that doesn't mean you deserved to be there.

The blowout argument is kinda a weak one. Especially when you consider that you had plenty of games like 2000 OU vs FSU, 01 Miami vs Nebraska, 2004 USC vs OU, 2006 UF vs OSU, 2007 LSU vs OSU, 2012 UA vs ND staring right back at you. Those are #1 vs #2 BCS national championships. Aside from 2014, 2018, and 2020 the NCG has been between competitive to instant classics.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

BCS has gotten it wrong plenty of times while the playoffs only has gotten it wrong once.

2001- Nebraska had no business playing Miami
2003- USC and LSU were clearly the best team and Oklahoma had no business playing in the NCG after getting boatraced the day before the rankings
2004- Oklahoma had no business playing USC

The Nebraska case - as we've covered ad nauseum - only happened because the 9/11 attacks caused the Colorado vs Washington State game to be cancelled. If that game had been played then a Wazzu win puts Oregon in the title game while a CU win puts the Buffs in to lose to Miami.

In 2003, the unique situation where everyone below third had two losses meant that OU could get blown out by 28 points and still be #1. If ever there was proof the BCS had some serious problems that was it. It's hard to say PRIOR to the 2004 game that OU didn't belong there, too. Granted, I was pointing out Auburn was getting hosed, but oh well.

Those are just the most egregious ones. There are plenty of controversial ones. There are even more horrible bowl seedings. The playoff has only dorked up once and that was 2014 Ohio St, but OSU justified their inclusion but it’s hard to understand why the committee put them over TCU when TCU had a far superior SOS and SOR. They also didn’t lose against an unranked VT.

I'm still convinced that only happened because the Big 12 tried to snowball the committee. They bought into that "you have to be a conference champion to win" so they crowned two champions without a title game and snickered. It was a typical Texas move, and they deserved to wake up the next day with dead horse heads in the their beds.

And nobody had a WIN as powerful as that 59-0 massacre the Bucks put on the Badgers, either. When Baylor scored 59, they'd always give up 55 or more.

The blowout argument is kinda a weak one. Especially when you consider that you had plenty of games like 2000 OU vs FSU, 01 Miami vs Nebraska, 2004 USC vs OU, 2006 UF vs OSU, 2007 LSU vs OSU, 2012 UA vs ND staring right back at you. Those are #1 vs #2 BCS national championships. Aside from 2014, 2018, and 2020 the NCG has been between competitive to instant classics.

What's funny is everyone's selective amnesia; we used to get good bowl games when the two "best teams" didn't have to play each other.