The playoff committee is about to get tested

UntouchableCrew

All-SEC
Nov 30, 2015
1,259
23
57
But how do we rank the teams? Earlier you said yourself we don't know who the #1 and #2 teams are. How can we correctly rank them?

I mean what if we rank a team 6, but they win it all? Doesn't that mean they should have been ranked 1?
If they beat #3 on the road, #2 neutral site, and #1 neutral site? Yeah, they probably should have been. It all depends on context of course, but if Wisconsin beat Clemson on the road, beat Ohio State in the Fiesta Bowl and beat Alabama in the NCC (yes, yes, this won't happen) you wouldn't say they'd be deserving champs?
 

CrimsonForce

Hall of Fame
Dec 20, 2012
12,757
94
67
I don't disagree, these are 100% valid points. There are inherent flaws in any system to crown a champion, and the possibility of an undeserving conference champ sneaking in is legit. They'd be seeded as such, however, and would likely get killed in the first round. Who's really hurt there? And while Alabama would kill Western Michigan, don't you think it's fair to allow a 13-0 team into the field?

I guess my point is in favor of inclusion because then nobody has an argument, nobody has a gripe. Every team who can make an argument will be given their shot. Clemson can't whine about being left out of a four team playoff because guess what, the ACC Champ is in and you weren't ACC Champ. That's on you. It's fair to everyone.
There's not a single team in consideration now who should have a gripe if they get left out. OSU shouldn't have lost to PSU. PSU shouldn't have lost to Pitt. Michigan shouldn't have lost to Iowa etc etc.

You say that expanding to 8 means that nobody will have an argument or a gripe. O% chance of that happening. I guarantee you the #9 and #10 team would be belly aching. They have a 2 hour show after selection Sunday in college basketball about the teams who got "snubbed" from a 68 team tournament. Give me a break about an 8 team playoff pleasing everyone..
 

UntouchableCrew

All-SEC
Nov 30, 2015
1,259
23
57
We don't have home field advantage in NCAA. So we will keep it to the bowl games until we do. But you are also yourself assuming that a non power 5 team will always be in the top 8 team. Most of the time it is a non champion that is a Johnny come lately that gets an extra week of rest because they don't have to play a championship game. So let's say Bama has to play a 12 round bout against the east champ, but some team... Idk Michigan is ranked 8th sitting at home getting healthy. How is that fair competition?
Well the scenario I've been discussing is hypothetical. My proposal:

-ACC, Big XII, B1G, Pac-12 and SEC Champs get automatic spot
-The top ranked group of 5 champion gets an automatic spot
-Two "at large" teams make it

These teams are seeded 1-8 based on the CFP Committee Rankings.

The first round is played at the home stadium of the top four seeds, the week before X-mas eve (everyone gets extra rest.)

The second round is played in the bowl games (as it is currently.)

The championship game is played as it currently is.

So in the scenario you laid out Alabama would have two weeks to prepare for the 8 seed, who would almost always be the group of five champ (or a crappy power five champ who upset a better power five opponent in their conference game.)
 

RTR91

Super Moderator
Nov 23, 2007
39,407
3
0
Prattville
If they beat #3 on the road, #2 neutral site, and #1 neutral site? Yeah, they probably should have been. It all depends on context of course, but if Wisconsin beat Clemson on the road, beat Ohio State in the Fiesta Bowl and beat Alabama in the NCC (yes, yes, this won't happen) you wouldn't say they'd be deserving champs?
First, I never said a team that did wouldn't be deserving of the championship. Deserving of the title "best team in the nation?" Depends.

You didn't answer my question, though. You talk about how we presently can't know who the #1 and #2 teams are, yet your own method has humans ranking 8 teams. Do you not see the irony in that?
 

UntouchableCrew

All-SEC
Nov 30, 2015
1,259
23
57
There's not a single team in consideration now who should have a gripe if they get left out. OSU shouldn't have lost to PSU. PSU shouldn't have lost to Pitt. Michigan shouldn't have lost to Iowa etc etc.

You say that expanding to 8 means that nobody will have an argument or a gripe. O% chance of that happening. I guarantee you the #9 and #10 team would be belly aching. They have a 2 hour show after selection Sunday in college basketball about the teams who got "snubbed" from a 68 team tournament. Give me a break about an 8 team playoff pleasing everyone..
By your logic any team that loses a game has no gripe? Alabama has lost a game in three of Saban's four title years and failed to win the SEC in one, I assure you griping would have gone on here if they'd been left out.

If Penn State is a conference champ but gets left out for a team they beat from their own division? They have a gripe, regardless of whether they were truly deserving. There's a fundamental logic flaw.

And here's the thing -- there's no gripe at 8 because you can say to ANYONE left out "you didn't win your conference." We can't do that now. The only concern would be two undefeated group of five champs, but that's extremely unlikely and they might both get in anyway.
 

81usaf92

Hall of Fame
Apr 26, 2008
22,642
13,055
187
South Alabama
Well the scenario I've been discussing is hypothetical. My proposal:

-ACC, Big XII, B1G, Pac-12 and SEC Champs get automatic spot
-The top ranked group of 5 champion gets an automatic spot
-Two "at large" teams make it

These teams are seeded 1-8 based on the CFP Committee Rankings.

The first round is played at the home stadium of the top four seeds, the week before X-mas eve (everyone gets extra rest.)

The second round is played in the bowl games (as it is currently.)

The championship game is played as it currently is.

So in the scenario you laid out Alabama would have two weeks to prepare for the 8 seed, who would almost always be the group of five champ (or a crappy power five champ who upset a better power five opponent in their conference game.)
So basically you are taking my 6 team scenario but expanding to 8. The problem with that is that 1-3 are getting the 3 best non champs while 4 is getting the weakest champ. So it really favors the 4th seeded team winning it all. In a 6 seed bye playoff it makes 3-6 to earn their place, and only allows 1 chaos candidate. It favor 1 and 2 like seedings should.
 

UntouchableCrew

All-SEC
Nov 30, 2015
1,259
23
57
First, I never said a team that did wouldn't be deserving of the championship. Deserving of the title "best team in the nation?" Depends.

You didn't answer my question, though. You talk about how we presently can't know who the #1 and #2 teams are, yet your own method has humans ranking 8 teams. Do you not see the irony in that?
I understand your point -- that since we're relying on rankings either way, there's some level of human interpretation. My counter to that (which has been the crux of my argument all along) is that when you're only ranking two you're automatically excluding the best teams from three power five conferences. In ranking eight, you're including the best everyone has to offer -- now let them prove it.

In ranking two you're saying "we think the SEC champ and B1G champ are better than the ACC champ, so they don't get a shot" without having seen them play each other. In ranking 8 you're just ranking the conference champs and best teams who narrowly missed and letting them have at it.
 

UntouchableCrew

All-SEC
Nov 30, 2015
1,259
23
57
So basically you are taking my 6 team scenario but expanding to 8. The problem with that is that 1-3 are getting the 3 best non champs while 4 is getting the weakest champ. So it really favors the 4th seeded team winning it all. In a 6 seed bye playoff it makes 3-6 to earn their place, and only allows 1 chaos candidate. It favor 1 and 2 like seedings should.
No, you're assuming the conference champs are ranked ahead of non-conference champs.

In this years example the group of five champ and Big XII Champ are the bottom two seeds.

I'm not familiar with your idea for six, but I'd probably be fine with it (I'm actually fine with the current system.)
 

81usaf92

Hall of Fame
Apr 26, 2008
22,642
13,055
187
South Alabama
No, you're assuming the conference champs are ranked ahead of non-conference champs.

In this years example the group of five champ and Big XII Champ are the bottom two seeds.

I'm not familiar with your idea for six, but I'd probably be fine with it (I'm actually fine with the current system.)
You can't have it both ways if you are rewarding conference champs. It's either 1-5 or not at all.
 

RTR91

Super Moderator
Nov 23, 2007
39,407
3
0
Prattville
I understand your point -- that since we're relying on rankings either way, there's some level of human interpretation. My counter to that (which has been the crux of my argument all along) is that when you're only ranking two you're automatically excluding the best teams from three power five conferences. In ranking eight, you're including the best everyone has to offer -- now let them prove it.

In ranking two you're saying "we think the SEC champ and B1G champ are better than the ACC champ, so they don't get a shot" without having seen them play each other. In ranking 8 you're just ranking the conference champs and best teams who narrowly missed and letting them have at it.
Guess we might as well have a round robin tournament starting in August then. No other way to get the best idea of who is the best team.

Then again, one team might be better than another team, but they didn't face each other. How will we ever know if Team C was better than Team P then?
 

B1GTide

TideFans Legend
Apr 13, 2012
37,776
24,420
187
Guess we might as well have a round robin tournament starting in August then. No other way to get the best idea of who is the best team.

Then again, one team might be better than another team, but they didn't face each other. How will we ever know if Team C was better than Team P then?
LOL - I love college football, but the last few pages of this thread have me laughing right now.

We know who the best teams are. We may not be able to prove it in a way that would satisfy the scientific community, but we still know.
 

81usaf92

Hall of Fame
Apr 26, 2008
22,642
13,055
187
South Alabama
Says who?
If you are rewarding conference champs out of power 5 you are automatically making the "who deserves to be here" argument. The other 3 are "who should be here" argument. Yes you are answering both, but you are also stacking the deck against the top 3. Also keep in mind in 2012 Wisconsin wasn't a top 8 team but won the big 10.
 

Alasippi

Suspended
Aug 31, 2007
12,876
0
55
Ocean Springs, MS
Greg McElroy made some good points this week on Sirius sports.
He said an 8 team playoff would make what are normally huge regular season match ups between teams like Ohio State and Michigan, Bama-LSU, Clemson-FSU, etc. almost irrelevant and without importance.
His reasoning? If you have a matchup between say the fifth and sixth ranked teams the outcome doesn't make any difference whatsoever because they're both going to make the playoffs anyway. Therefore, the only game that would matter between these two teams would be if they met again, in the playoffs, in a rematch. That would indeed take away from the importance of the regular season game, at least to a degree.
Greg said that if the playoffs were expanded at all it should be limited to six teams with 1 and 2 getting a bye in round one.
His reasoning was simple. "There's no way the 8th ranked team in America should have the opportunity to beat the number one seed in the first round of the playoffs. Neither should number seven have the opportunity beat the two seed". "At least with just six teams three would play six and four would play five. That would leave you with what probably is indeed the best four teams in America remaining in the playoff".
 

B1GTide

TideFans Legend
Apr 13, 2012
37,776
24,420
187
Greg McElroy made some good points this week on Sirius sports.
He said an 8 team playoff would make what are normally huge regular season match ups between teams like Ohio State and Michigan, Bama-LSU, Clemson-FSU, etc. almost irrelevant and without importance.
His reasoning? If you have a matchup between say the fifth and sixth ranked teams the outcome doesn't make any difference whatsoever because they're both going to make the playoffs anyway. Therefore, the only game that would matter between these two teams would be if they met again, in the playoffs, in a rematch. That would indeed take away from the importance of the regular season game, at least to a degree.
Greg said that if the playoffs were expanded at all it should be limited to six teams with 1 and 2 getting a bye in round one.
His reasoning was simple. "There's no way the 8th ranked team in America should have the opportunity to beat the number one seed in the first round of the playoffs. Neither should number seven have the opportunity beat the two seed". "At least with just six teams three would play six and four would play five. That would leave you with what probably is indeed the best four teams in America remaining in the playoff".
It also makes every game important, as getting the #1 & #2 seeds comes with a bye in the playoffs.
 

selmaborntidefan

TideFans Legend
Mar 31, 2000
26,155
9,026
287
51
Wishing I was somewhere close to Duluth with a sli
That's a patently ludicrous line of thinking. In college football WE DON'T KNOW who the #1 and #2 teams are. You're basically complaining that it's unfair Alabama or Ohio State should have to actually prove they are in fact actually better than Washington and Clemson.
I don't know that that's the argument in a four-team playoff.


We're just supposed to assume? What if Washington beats Alabama and the Pac-12 goes 5-1 in their bowl games?
Then the Pac 12 is probably the best conference out there.

College football needs a playoff more than any sport, because unlike the pros most of these teams are fairly isolated by conference and never play each other. It's part of what makes the Playoff so awesome. We're getting dream match-ups we never would have gotten otherwise.
You're getting Ohio State beating the Big 12 champion BECAUSE of the four-team playoff.

Not really -- to this day we don't know what would have happened if LSU played Oklahoma State.
Actually, we do - LSU would have absolutely mauled them, and Les Miles would probably still have a job.

The fact that most people agree Alabama and LSU were the two best teams doesn't change the fact that the national title was decided in a rematch between two teams that had already played.
You mean like:

Super Bowl XVIII - Raiders beat Redskins after losing in regular season and beat Seattle in AFC Championship after losing to Seahawks TWICE in regular season

1985 NCAA basketball championship - Villanova wins title after losing TWICE to Georgetown in regular season

1988 NCAA basketball championship - Kansas wins title after losing TWICE to Oklahoma in regular season

Super Bowl XXV - NY Giants win NFC title AND Super Bowl against teams that beat them in the regular season

Super Bowl XXVIII - Cowboys beat Bills after losing during regular season (yeah, I know Emmitt didn't play)

Super Bowl XXXVI - Patriots beat Rams for title after losing in the regular season



The irony is that your position here is anti-rematch but any expansion of playoffs will DRASTICALLY increase the number of rematches.

So here's the thing -- in the World Series they used to just play the best record in the NL vs the best record in the AL.
Back when there were 16 teams and they were all clustered in the East except St Louis. Furthermore, the 1954 Yankees won 103 games and had won five straight World Series. But the Giants, who won fewer games, wiped the floor with the Indians. Or the 1990 Cincinnati Reds shocking the A's.

And you're right -- that method was better at producing the best team as champion because you didn't have some 83 win wild card team knocking of a team that won 100 games in a short series because of a hot pitcher.
Even this is a rarity. And at least in something like baseball, you have to win MANY games to prove superiority. Football is played with a weird shaped ball and far more conducive to injury.

But in MLB they play 162 games -- and they ALL PLAY EACH OTHER. That logic doesn't apply in college football because two thirds to three quarters of the games are played against their own conference, with typically only one against another power conference.
What you're saying is not 'literally' true even with inter-league play, but I'll grant your basic point here.

Let's say hypothetically Alabama, Ohio State, USC, Texas, and Florida State all go undefeated in the same year.
Care to tell me how many times FIVE teams were unbeaten in the final regular season poll?

It's happened ONCE in the modern time frame, 1979. It happened twice if you want to count Florida making it to the 2009 SECCG. I could point out this means you're proposing a potential solution to a nonexistent problem. But....let's concede it's POSSIBLE for that to happen. Very simply, you go by SOS. Not a difficult thing to do.

How can you arbitrarily select two of those teams to play for the "title" while the rest play for nothing? We never really know who's better. When teams don't play each other.
What you're saying here is why I favor the four-team playoff with no conference championship requirement. You're reasoning here is excellent and the point I've made against the BCS. I'd rather have one questionable team per year make the tournament (they'll get exposed if they're not the real deal) than have a team run the table but fall victim to "well, we didn't rate you high enough").


I was just using the most obvious example (the actual playoff) since you were talking 1 and 2.

USC wouldn't make an 8 team playoff. They're ranked 11 and didn't win their conference.
And yet you put Ohio State in here, who didn't win their conference......

If all the favored teams won this weekend and the setup was 5 conference champs, group of 5, and two at larges seeded by the committee the match-ups would be:

#1 Alabama vs. #8 Western Michigan
#2 Ohio State vs. #7 Oklahoma
#3 Clemson vs. #6 Wisconsin
#4 Washington vs. #5 Michigan
Just a little while ago you were complaining that the LSU-Alabama rematch was problematic. Yet you're proposing right here that Ohio State has to beat Oklahoma again. And year after year you'll wind up with this same problem.

But if you move the field to 8 it's virtually impossible for someone deserving a shot to be left out.

Can you please provide me with a list of all the teams ranked five through eight in the entire history of college football that anybody thought deserved a national championship shot?

Two teams - 1983 Miami and 1977 Notre Dame - jumped from five to one. That only happened because of bowl tie-ins that were set aside 25 years ago (save the Rose Bowl, who monkeyed with theirs a bit).

In fact, can you even name five teams ranked FOURTH that anyone argues was a number one team? We're talking 80 years here since 1936. That actually was more of a problem when college football was entirely regional. Now that teams schedule big games early that is not a problem.
 

Jessica4Bama

Hall of Fame
Nov 7, 2009
7,307
12
57
Alabama
I'm too lazy to look this up, but I'm watching the championship drive show on ESPN right now, and they are talking about us as number one. They are saying we don't have any wins against top ten teams. I'm pretty sure we played teams in the top ten this year. Am I wrong? Or are they going based on teams in the top ten this week?

FYI these guys are tools. I'd argue that Alabama should drop out of the playoffs if they lose to FL. :rolleyes:
 

Padreruf

Hall of Fame
Feb 12, 2001
5,169
4,134
287
70
Charleston, South Carolina
I'm too lazy to look this up, but I'm watching the championship drive show on ESPN right now, and they are talking about us as number one. They are saying we don't have any wins against top ten teams. I'm pretty sure we played teams in the top ten this year. Am I wrong? Or are they going based on teams in the top ten this week?

FYI these guys are tools. I'd argue that Alabama should drop out of the playoffs if they lose to FL. :rolleyes:
Teams were ranked in the top ten at the time we played them...but they all fell off the cliff after we beat them. It's all way too subjective...
 

Alasippi

Suspended
Aug 31, 2007
12,876
0
55
Ocean Springs, MS
Teams were ranked in the top ten at the time we played them...but they all fell off the cliff after we beat them. It's all way too subjective...
I believe we played six teams that were in the top twenty at the time of our game.
We must truly beat people up because most of them fell apart after playing us.
 

Padreruf

Hall of Fame
Feb 12, 2001
5,169
4,134
287
70
Charleston, South Carolina
People are wanting an 8 team playoff...etc...I thought we already had that, i.e., CONFERENCE PLAY and CONFERENCE CHAMPIONSHIPS! Make it simple...take the top 4 ranked CHAMPIONS of the Power 5 conferences and play the games. Does that leave out a deserving team from a stronger conference -- probably...but no solution is perfect. Anything else demeans the conference games in some way or another.

WIN YOUR CONFERENCE OR GO HOME! That includes OSU and UM...:cool: