(12-10-2019 12:01 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  However, I'd disagree that #7 and #8 would be body bag games assuming that an 8-team playoff takes 3 at-larges. I don't think that either #7 Baylor or #8 Wisconsin this year could ever be considered body bag games even if they wouldn't necessarily be favored. Most years, we have a pretty clear sense of the top 2 or 3 teams, but the rest of the top 10 are usually interchangeable and would certainly be threats in any given game.

I'd also disagree about discounting the "odd man out." When you have multiple teams with similar records and accomplishments (e.g. a P5 conference championship) and you start excluding them because of a subjective committee, it does put pressure on the system because we're using a subjective exercise to determine what should be an objective process (winning games on the field). I truly believe that having an 8-team playoff with P5 autobids alleviates that pressure: there aren't talking heads obsessed with whether the Big 12 is better than the Pac-12 this year or vice versa, every team in America (at least in the P5) understands that it has an *objective* on-the-field way to get to the playoff (winning a conference championship), and if you don't win your conference championship, then it's at *that* point you're left to being judged on a subjective basis by a bunch of random guys in a conference room in Dallas (because you didn't take care of business on the field).

If there are 8 teams it would be a really rough year if at least 4 if not all P5 champs were not in the top 8. The pressure argument is BS. There is so much data available to legitimize any subjective arguments - as long as an "egregious omission" is avoided it fine.

I am speaking in some hyperbole with the "body bag" comment, but - again - I would rather have a legitimate 8th seed than a fluke CCG winner in that spot - you avoid that with NO GUARANTEES.

As for the odd man out - I am not "discounting" that team - I just don't care. At that point you are really splitting hairs under normal circumstances. The first team out will ALWAYS have a claim..... well, life isn't always fair ..... get over it.

A playoff using CCG’s as a de facto 1st round and a 5-2-1 selection process would have been:

Peach Bowl 1-LSU vs 8-Memphis

Sugar Bowl 4-Oklahoma vs 5-Oregon


Orange Bowl 3-Clemson vs 6-Penn State

Fiesta Bowl 2-Ohio State vs 7-Florida

Non-playoff NY6 games:

Rose Bowl Wisconsin vs Utah

Cotton Bowl Georgia vs Baylor

(12-10-2019 12:24 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(12-10-2019 09:50 AM)TTT Wrote:  

(12-09-2019 08:09 PM)esayem Wrote:  If a team loses a CCG, then they should be disqualified. In the P5, they’re already playing a neutral site game with implications. This would set-up the P5 CCG’s as a de facto first round.

I don’t think there’s any reason why Georgia, Wisconsin, Baylor, etc. deserve a second chance at playing a team they just lost to at a neutral site.

So had undefeated LSU/OSU lose by 1 point in their conference CG...you would bump them from the CFP??

What I’m saying is considering the P5 CCG’s, which are at a neutral site, as an “opening round” you would go from an 8 team playoff to a 13 team playoff.

So to answer your question, yes.

Records are a stupid thing to go by, you want the best teams at the end of the season. If you lose a CCG, you’re not playing your best football at the end of the regular season, when it counts the most.

Wow lol...this is a tough look man.

(12-10-2019 01:08 PM)Eldonabe Wrote:  

(12-10-2019 12:01 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  However, I'd disagree that #7 and #8 would be body bag games assuming that an 8-team playoff takes 3 at-larges. I don't think that either #7 Baylor or #8 Wisconsin this year could ever be considered body bag games even if they wouldn't necessarily be favored. Most years, we have a pretty clear sense of the top 2 or 3 teams, but the rest of the top 10 are usually interchangeable and would certainly be threats in any given game.

I'd also disagree about discounting the "odd man out." When you have multiple teams with similar records and accomplishments (e.g. a P5 conference championship) and you start excluding them because of a subjective committee, it does put pressure on the system because we're using a subjective exercise to determine what should be an objective process (winning games on the field). I truly believe that having an 8-team playoff with P5 autobids alleviates that pressure: there aren't talking heads obsessed with whether the Big 12 is better than the Pac-12 this year or vice versa, every team in America (at least in the P5) understands that it has an *objective* on-the-field way to get to the playoff (winning a conference championship), and if you don't win your conference championship, then it's at *that* point you're left to being judged on a subjective basis by a bunch of random guys in a conference room in Dallas (because you didn't take care of business on the field).

If there are 8 teams it would be a really rough year if at least 4 if not all P5 champs were not in the top 8. The pressure argument is BS. There is so much data available to legitimize any subjective arguments - as long as an "egregious omission" is avoided it fine.

I am speaking in some hyperbole with the "body bag" comment, but - again - I would rather have a legitimate 8th seed than a fluke CCG winner in that spot - you avoid that with NO GUARANTEES.

As for the odd man out - I am not "discounting" that team - I just don't care. At that point you are really splitting hairs under normal circumstances. The first team out will ALWAYS have a claim..... well, life isn't always fair ..... get over it.

Well, we can go all around in circles all day. I firmly disagree with all of that if we move to an 8-team playoff. To me (and probably to the powers that be), the only purpose of an 8-team playoff is to provide P5 autobids. Otherwise, if we're going to have a purely subjective tournament, then we may as well stay at 4 teams.

The faith that so many people have that a bunch of random old guys sitting in a conference room in Dallas should have more say in the national championship than the actual objective results (such as conference championships) on the field will always and continuously astound me.

Just look at all of the discussions that we see every year about whether the CFP (or BCS or whatever system is in place) "got it right." This is a perfect encapsulation of the Stockholm Syndrome of many college football fans. No one asks if the NFL playoffs "got it right." No one asks if the MLB and NBA postseasons "got it right." Even when there is a dissection of the last at-large bids for the NCAA Tournament, there isn't any consternation that any truly elite teams have been left out.

In all other sports, people know the rules and what they have to do *on-the-field/court* to get into the postseason. It doesn't matter that this year's NFC East champ may be .500 or worse and get into the playoff over my Chicago Bears that could end up with a better record because we knew the rules going into it. It doesn't matter that a mid-major team that gets hot in its conference tournament gets into the NCAA Tournament over the regular season champ of that same conference because we knew the rules going into it. We can argue whether that's good for us as the viewing public or the competitiveness of those playoff systems, but the one thing that you can't argue is that it's not fair. At the end of the day, all of those systems allow for each team to determine its fate 100% on-the-field/court and, if they aren't able to do that, then they put their fate into the hands of others. That's ultimately *fair*.

In contrast, the entire problem with letting a bunch of old guys sitting in a conference room in Dallas is that they continuously apply post-hoc justifications for their desired outcomes. Strength of schedule and non-conference wins might matter... but they may not if the "eye test" says otherwise. A conference championship and head-to-head results might matter... but they may not if in their brains that a different team without such accomplishments would be favored against them. The committee gets the 4 teams that they want and then apply the reasoning to attempt to back it up as opposed to the other way around.

And look - I get that in a *4*-team playoff, that all may be necessary because the field isn't large enough to allow all P5 champs into the system. It's what we have to do in a 4-team playoff world. However, I truly don't understand the consternation about the P5 autobids in an 8-team playoff scenario. There are still at-large spots available to provide access for the independents, G5 and "eye test" teams just as the NCAA Tournament has its own at-large bids. We can still turn 40% of the playoff field over to those old guys sitting in a conference room of Dallas for everyone that still actually *wants* the "eye test" to matter. At least leave the other 60% to purely objective 100% on-the-field results just like every other single freaking professional and college sport out there.

(12-10-2019 11:18 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-10-2019 10:30 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-10-2019 09:56 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-10-2019 08:49 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-10-2019 08:09 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  This year the 4 team system worked very well. In most years, not so much. I am for 8 teams, I think 16 is plain dumb. 5 p5 champs plus 1 from G4, plus 2 at large. Often you will have 1 or 2 that don't belong, but that just make a Cinderella run possible, which is a good thing not bad. (see Ncaa tournie)

I don't care about the Cinderella's. I care about the Sleeping Beauties who don't even get a chance to play. With two, the CFP has proven that the best team often gets left out. With four, there's still a good chance the best team gets left out.

There is? Like when?

2014 TCU to name one.

Oh please. The myth of 2014 TCU will never die. IIRC, their best win was over a 3-loss Ole Miss team that finished 3rd in the SEC West. I mean, come on.

Ohio St. lost badly to 6-6 Virginia Tech.
FSU didn't beat anybody and got destroyed in the playoffs.
Alabama lost to that Ole Miss team.
Oregon lost to a good Arizona team at home and got destroyed by Ohio St.
TCU meanwhile lost by 3 to #5 Baylor after blowing a 21 point lead.

If you won't admit there is an argument for TCU, you are just trolling.

(12-10-2019 11:19 AM)Eldonabe Wrote:  

(12-10-2019 10:39 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-10-2019 10:23 AM)Eldonabe Wrote:  No scenario that guarantees a spot is acceptable. This is not the NCAA tournament where there is plenty of room for everyone. The football tournament must be represented by THE best 4/8/12/16 teams.

Memphis making it this year would be a sham in an 8 team format... they do not deserve a spot this year, but any guarantee deal in an 8 team field would likely include them.


I have no skin in the game - I root for THE worst team in FBS college football. When it comes to this playoff - I want to see the best teams play for the title regardless of how many make up the field - I want the best 4 / 8 / 12 / 16 teams trying to win it - PERIOD.

How do you know they are the best? The CFP #1 seed has not yet won. The CFP #4 has won 2 of 5. It is very obvious that pollsters don't know who is best. In 2014 I don't think anyone really thought Alabama and Oregon weren't the best two. Yet they both got whipped by Ohio St. And TCU and Baylor got left out. TCU destroyed Ole Miss in a bowl who beat #1 Alabama.

I want it decided on the field. Conference championships and AQs do that.

You can't even compare conferences because there are so few games between conferences. How do we know anybody in the Big 10 other than Ohio St. deserves even a top 20 ranking? How do we really know Baylor deserves a top 20 ranking? Or maybe Texas, Oklahoma St., Kansas St. and Iowa St. are really all top 20 teams but have a bunch of losses because they beat up on each other? After all, UGA, the #2 team in the SEC lost 37-10 to LSU. Texas, in a 4 way tie for 3rd in the Big 12 lost 45-38. There is simply not enough data for a bunch of people in a room to accurately evaluate teams. Any statistician will tell you 12 or 13 data points cannot be reliably used to make a projection.

You cannot rely on the transitive theory. Like I said - I don't care who the best 4 are as long as it is [basically] the best 4 and I also don't care who the odd man out ends up being. If it's TCU getting left out in 2014 - too bad. The difference between 4/5 or 8/9 (or whatever the line is) will never be significant enough to really matter (except for the team on the outside looking in and their fans of course).

My point has less to do with who doesn't get in and more so with who does - as long as there are no guaranteed spots have 20 teams for all I care. Because it is football, there will never be enough teams allowed in to have a "basketball system" in place to pick teams.

Beyond 4 teams starts to dilute the playoff, in any given year there may be somewhere between 3 - 6 teams that could win and IMO it is fairly rare if there are more than 4 that can win it. Even of there are 6 legitimate contenders #7 & #8 are the equivalent of a playoff version of a body bag game - No thank you.

That's our fundamental difference. I want the best team to have a chance to prove it on the field. You don't want an inferior team to have a shot while I think that is irrelevant. And you have a lot more faith in the ability of a room of 13 old guys to truly determine who those best teams are.

What we have now is still an invitational as opposed to a true championship. They still haven't totally removed the M from MNC.

(12-09-2019 06:50 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(12-09-2019 11:07 AM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  *B1G/PAC to Rose (Ohio St/Oregon)
*SEC to Sugar (LSU)
*BXII to Cotton (Oklahoma)
*ACC to Orange (Clemson)

CFP NYD Quarterfinals
ORANGE 11est --- #3 Clemson/#7 Baylor
COTTON 230est -- #4 Oklahoma/#5 Georgia
ROSE 6est -------- #2 Ohio St/#6 Oregon
SUGAR 930est ---- #1 LSU/#8 Memphis

I know the Rose Bowl is traditionally Big Ten vs. Pac, but the problem with tying the champs of these conferences to the same quarterfinal bowl is what happens when one is ranked #1 and the other #2?

If the Pac 12 and Big 10 want it that way, fine. Sometimes #1 and #2 are in the same conference.

(12-10-2019 01:57 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(12-10-2019 01:08 PM)Eldonabe Wrote:  

(12-10-2019 12:01 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  However, I'd disagree that #7 and #8 would be body bag games assuming that an 8-team playoff takes 3 at-larges. I don't think that either #7 Baylor or #8 Wisconsin this year could ever be considered body bag games even if they wouldn't necessarily be favored. Most years, we have a pretty clear sense of the top 2 or 3 teams, but the rest of the top 10 are usually interchangeable and would certainly be threats in any given game.

I'd also disagree about discounting the "odd man out." When you have multiple teams with similar records and accomplishments (e.g. a P5 conference championship) and you start excluding them because of a subjective committee, it does put pressure on the system because we're using a subjective exercise to determine what should be an objective process (winning games on the field). I truly believe that having an 8-team playoff with P5 autobids alleviates that pressure: there aren't talking heads obsessed with whether the Big 12 is better than the Pac-12 this year or vice versa, every team in America (at least in the P5) understands that it has an *objective* on-the-field way to get to the playoff (winning a conference championship), and if you don't win your conference championship, then it's at *that* point you're left to being judged on a subjective basis by a bunch of random guys in a conference room in Dallas (because you didn't take care of business on the field).

If there are 8 teams it would be a really rough year if at least 4 if not all P5 champs were not in the top 8. The pressure argument is BS. There is so much data available to legitimize any subjective arguments - as long as an "egregious omission" is avoided it fine.

I am speaking in some hyperbole with the "body bag" comment, but - again - I would rather have a legitimate 8th seed than a fluke CCG winner in that spot - you avoid that with NO GUARANTEES.

As for the odd man out - I am not "discounting" that team - I just don't care. At that point you are really splitting hairs under normal circumstances. The first team out will ALWAYS have a claim..... well, life isn't always fair ..... get over it.

Well, we can go all around in circles all day. I firmly disagree with all of that if we move to an 8-team playoff. To me (and probably to the powers that be), the only purpose of an 8-team playoff is to provide P5 autobids. Otherwise, if we're going to have a purely subjective tournament, then we may as well stay at 4 teams.

The faith that so many people have that a bunch of random old guys sitting in a conference room in Dallas should have more say in the national championship than the actual objective results (such as conference championships) on the field will always and continuously astound me.

Just look at all of the discussions that we see every year about whether the CFP (or BCS or whatever system is in place) "got it right." This is a perfect encapsulation of the Stockholm Syndrome of many college football fans. No one asks if the NFL playoffs "got it right." No one asks if the MLB and NBA postseasons "got it right." Even when there is a dissection of the last at-large bids for the NCAA Tournament, there isn't any consternation that any truly elite teams have been left out.

In all other sports, people know the rules and what they have to do *on-the-field/court* to get into the postseason. It doesn't matter that this year's NFC East champ may be .500 or worse and get into the playoff over my Chicago Bears that could end up with a better record because we knew the rules going into it. It doesn't matter that a mid-major team that gets hot in its conference tournament gets into the NCAA Tournament over the regular season champ of that same conference because we knew the rules going into it. We can argue whether that's good for us as the viewing public or the competitiveness of those playoff systems, but the one thing that you can't argue is that it's not fair. At the end of the day, all of those systems allow for each team to determine its fate 100% on-the-field/court and, if they aren't able to do that, then they put their fate into the hands of others. That's ultimately *fair*.

In contrast, the entire problem with letting a bunch of old guys sitting in a conference room in Dallas is that they continuously apply post-hoc justifications for their desired outcomes. Strength of schedule and non-conference wins might matter... but they may not if the "eye test" says otherwise. A conference championship and head-to-head results might matter... but they may not if in their brains that a different team without such accomplishments would be favored against them. The committee gets the 4 teams that they want and then apply the reasoning to attempt to back it up as opposed to the other way around.

And look - I get that in a *4*-team playoff, that all may be necessary because the field isn't large enough to allow all P5 champs into the system. It's what we have to do in a 4-team playoff world. However, I truly don't understand the consternation about the P5 autobids in an 8-team playoff scenario. There are still at-large spots available to provide access for the independents, G5 and "eye test" teams just as the NCAA Tournament has its own at-large bids. We can still turn 40% of the playoff field over to those old guys sitting in a conference room of Dallas for everyone that still actually *wants* the "eye test" to matter. At least leave the other 60% to purely objective 100% on-the-field results just like every other single freaking professional and college sport out there.

Well MLB did get it wrong in the strike year of 1981 when they went with split season and the team with the best record in the NL and 2nd best in baseball (Cincinnati) didn't make the playoffs.

As for the bold, amen!

Frank has some decent points. Part of the reason no one questions the validity of the playoffs in the Pros is because on the level on inclusion possible when 8-10 teams are participating from leagues of 30-32 members. That type of inclusion just isn’t possible when we have 130 teams.

Inclusion is certainly a factor in allowing for autobids for the CCG winners but I see other benefits too. It keeps more team’s playoff hopes alive deeper into the season and it also raises the profile and interest in the CCGs since they are all meaningful.

Letting more teams not the field also takes away the “smoke filled room” decision making and places things firmly on the results that occurred on the field.

Will there be mismatches and an occasional blowout? Yes, but that already happens in the current bowl system so a 5-1-2 doesn’t create a new problem in this regard. Much like with the NCAA, you bury the less desirable matchups in the less desirable time slots so you get the most bang for the buck.

(12-10-2019 10:30 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-10-2019 09:56 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-10-2019 08:49 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-10-2019 08:09 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  This year the 4 team system worked very well. In most years, not so much. I am for 8 teams, I think 16 is plain dumb. 5 p5 champs plus 1 from G4, plus 2 at large. Often you will have 1 or 2 that don't belong, but that just make a Cinderella run possible, which is a good thing not bad. (see Ncaa tournie)

I don't care about the Cinderella's. I care about the Sleeping Beauties who don't even get a chance to play. With two, the CFP has proven that the best team often gets left out. With four, there's still a good chance the best team gets left out.

There is? Like when?

2014 TCU to name one.

+1

(12-10-2019 01:57 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(12-10-2019 01:08 PM)Eldonabe Wrote:  

(12-10-2019 12:01 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  However, I'd disagree that #7 and #8 would be body bag games assuming that an 8-team playoff takes 3 at-larges. I don't think that either #7 Baylor or #8 Wisconsin this year could ever be considered body bag games even if they wouldn't necessarily be favored. Most years, we have a pretty clear sense of the top 2 or 3 teams, but the rest of the top 10 are usually interchangeable and would certainly be threats in any given game.

I'd also disagree about discounting the "odd man out." When you have multiple teams with similar records and accomplishments (e.g. a P5 conference championship) and you start excluding them because of a subjective committee, it does put pressure on the system because we're using a subjective exercise to determine what should be an objective process (winning games on the field). I truly believe that having an 8-team playoff with P5 autobids alleviates that pressure: there aren't talking heads obsessed with whether the Big 12 is better than the Pac-12 this year or vice versa, every team in America (at least in the P5) understands that it has an *objective* on-the-field way to get to the playoff (winning a conference championship), and if you don't win your conference championship, then it's at *that* point you're left to being judged on a subjective basis by a bunch of random guys in a conference room in Dallas (because you didn't take care of business on the field).

If there are 8 teams it would be a really rough year if at least 4 if not all P5 champs were not in the top 8. The pressure argument is BS. There is so much data available to legitimize any subjective arguments - as long as an "egregious omission" is avoided it fine.

I am speaking in some hyperbole with the "body bag" comment, but - again - I would rather have a legitimate 8th seed than a fluke CCG winner in that spot - you avoid that with NO GUARANTEES.

As for the odd man out - I am not "discounting" that team - I just don't care. At that point you are really splitting hairs under normal circumstances. The first team out will ALWAYS have a claim..... well, life isn't always fair ..... get over it.

Well, we can go all around in circles all day. I firmly disagree with all of that if we move to an 8-team playoff. To me (and probably to the powers that be), the only purpose of an 8-team playoff is to provide P5 autobids. Otherwise, if we're going to have a purely subjective tournament, then we may as well stay at 4 teams.

The faith that so many people have that a bunch of random old guys sitting in a conference room in Dallas should have more say in the national championship than the actual objective results (such as conference championships) on the field will always and continuously astound me.

Just look at all of the discussions that we see every year about whether the CFP (or BCS or whatever system is in place) "got it right." This is a perfect encapsulation of the Stockholm Syndrome of many college football fans. No one asks if the NFL playoffs "got it right." No one asks if the MLB and NBA postseasons "got it right." Even when there is a dissection of the last at-large bids for the NCAA Tournament, there isn't any consternation that any truly elite teams have been left out.

In all other sports, people know the rules and what they have to do *on-the-field/court* to get into the postseason. It doesn't matter that this year's NFC East champ may be .500 or worse and get into the playoff over my Chicago Bears that could end up with a better record because we knew the rules going into it. It doesn't matter that a mid-major team that gets hot in its conference tournament gets into the NCAA Tournament over the regular season champ of that same conference because we knew the rules going into it. We can argue whether that's good for us as the viewing public or the competitiveness of those playoff systems, but the one thing that you can't argue is that it's not fair. At the end of the day, all of those systems allow for each team to determine its fate 100% on-the-field/court and, if they aren't able to do that, then they put their fate into the hands of others. That's ultimately *fair*.

In contrast, the entire problem with letting a bunch of old guys sitting in a conference room in Dallas is that they continuously apply post-hoc justifications for their desired outcomes. Strength of schedule and non-conference wins might matter... but they may not if the "eye test" says otherwise. A conference championship and head-to-head results might matter... but they may not if in their brains that a different team without such accomplishments would be favored against them. The committee gets the 4 teams that they want and then apply the reasoning to attempt to back it up as opposed to the other way around.

And look - I get that in a *4*-team playoff, that all may be necessary because the field isn't large enough to allow all P5 champs into the system. It's what we have to do in a 4-team playoff world. However, I truly don't understand the consternation about the P5 autobids in an 8-team playoff scenario. There are still at-large spots available to provide access for the independents, G5 and "eye test" teams just as the NCAA Tournament has its own at-large bids. We can still turn 40% of the playoff field over to those old guys sitting in a conference room of Dallas for everyone that still actually *wants* the "eye test" to matter. At least leave the other 60% to purely objective 100% on-the-field results just like every other single freaking professional and college sport out there.

Frank - have 5 words for you.

Dallas Cowboys or Philadelphia Eagles


CASE IN POINT for no Auto bids. Neither of these teams should be in the playoffs this year but guess what, no only will one of them make it, they will get a home game too against a far superior team! Yes those are the rules and those rules suck.....


Plain and simple - there are not enough spaces to allow some feel good entry in the CFP. The best team in at least 4 of each of the P5's is getting in an 8 team field every year and most years all 5 P5's will probably have a representative in a "subjective system".

What you don't get or want to get is that "Did they get it right" is the beauty of this whole thing. These debates have given people careers on TV and radio. 50% (or more) of the posts in this section of this site is about this stuff.... There are countless threads about fantasy conference realignment scenarios that will help their own teams have a better chance of getting in the playoff....

For all the complaining, not one team (so far) has won the championship who wasn't good enough to win it in the first place - and only ND was in over their head in the championship game even though they "earned their spot" in the final 4.

(12-10-2019 01:57 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  The faith that so many people have that a bunch of random old guys sitting in a conference room in Dallas should have more say in the national championship than the actual objective results (such as conference championships) on the field will always and continuously astound me.

Remember a few months ago when it was pointed out that in the first five years of the CFP, fully 24 out of 25 P5 champs would have made the playoffs under straight 8, so P5 champs missing wasn't really a problem?

Well it's now 29/30 because once again all five would have gotten in this year under straight 8.

That should salve the "deserving P5 champs left out" problem, if you really do think its a MERIT thing not a POWER thing.

In contrast, UVA in the Orange Bowl highlights the bad things that can happen when a P5 conference is guaranteed something.

(12-10-2019 02:42 PM)Eldonabe Wrote:  

(12-10-2019 01:57 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(12-10-2019 01:08 PM)Eldonabe Wrote:  

(12-10-2019 12:01 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  However, I'd disagree that #7 and #8 would be body bag games assuming that an 8-team playoff takes 3 at-larges. I don't think that either #7 Baylor or #8 Wisconsin this year could ever be considered body bag games even if they wouldn't necessarily be favored. Most years, we have a pretty clear sense of the top 2 or 3 teams, but the rest of the top 10 are usually interchangeable and would certainly be threats in any given game.

I'd also disagree about discounting the "odd man out." When you have multiple teams with similar records and accomplishments (e.g. a P5 conference championship) and you start excluding them because of a subjective committee, it does put pressure on the system because we're using a subjective exercise to determine what should be an objective process (winning games on the field). I truly believe that having an 8-team playoff with P5 autobids alleviates that pressure: there aren't talking heads obsessed with whether the Big 12 is better than the Pac-12 this year or vice versa, every team in America (at least in the P5) understands that it has an *objective* on-the-field way to get to the playoff (winning a conference championship), and if you don't win your conference championship, then it's at *that* point you're left to being judged on a subjective basis by a bunch of random guys in a conference room in Dallas (because you didn't take care of business on the field).

If there are 8 teams it would be a really rough year if at least 4 if not all P5 champs were not in the top 8. The pressure argument is BS. There is so much data available to legitimize any subjective arguments - as long as an "egregious omission" is avoided it fine.

I am speaking in some hyperbole with the "body bag" comment, but - again - I would rather have a legitimate 8th seed than a fluke CCG winner in that spot - you avoid that with NO GUARANTEES.

As for the odd man out - I am not "discounting" that team - I just don't care. At that point you are really splitting hairs under normal circumstances. The first team out will ALWAYS have a claim..... well, life isn't always fair ..... get over it.

Well, we can go all around in circles all day. I firmly disagree with all of that if we move to an 8-team playoff. To me (and probably to the powers that be), the only purpose of an 8-team playoff is to provide P5 autobids. Otherwise, if we're going to have a purely subjective tournament, then we may as well stay at 4 teams.

The faith that so many people have that a bunch of random old guys sitting in a conference room in Dallas should have more say in the national championship than the actual objective results (such as conference championships) on the field will always and continuously astound me.

Just look at all of the discussions that we see every year about whether the CFP (or BCS or whatever system is in place) "got it right." This is a perfect encapsulation of the Stockholm Syndrome of many college football fans. No one asks if the NFL playoffs "got it right." No one asks if the MLB and NBA postseasons "got it right." Even when there is a dissection of the last at-large bids for the NCAA Tournament, there isn't any consternation that any truly elite teams have been left out.

In all other sports, people know the rules and what they have to do *on-the-field/court* to get into the postseason. It doesn't matter that this year's NFC East champ may be .500 or worse and get into the playoff over my Chicago Bears that could end up with a better record because we knew the rules going into it. It doesn't matter that a mid-major team that gets hot in its conference tournament gets into the NCAA Tournament over the regular season champ of that same conference because we knew the rules going into it. We can argue whether that's good for us as the viewing public or the competitiveness of those playoff systems, but the one thing that you can't argue is that it's not fair. At the end of the day, all of those systems allow for each team to determine its fate 100% on-the-field/court and, if they aren't able to do that, then they put their fate into the hands of others. That's ultimately *fair*.

In contrast, the entire problem with letting a bunch of old guys sitting in a conference room in Dallas is that they continuously apply post-hoc justifications for their desired outcomes. Strength of schedule and non-conference wins might matter... but they may not if the "eye test" says otherwise. A conference championship and head-to-head results might matter... but they may not if in their brains that a different team without such accomplishments would be favored against them. The committee gets the 4 teams that they want and then apply the reasoning to attempt to back it up as opposed to the other way around.

And look - I get that in a *4*-team playoff, that all may be necessary because the field isn't large enough to allow all P5 champs into the system. It's what we have to do in a 4-team playoff world. However, I truly don't understand the consternation about the P5 autobids in an 8-team playoff scenario. There are still at-large spots available to provide access for the independents, G5 and "eye test" teams just as the NCAA Tournament has its own at-large bids. We can still turn 40% of the playoff field over to those old guys sitting in a conference room of Dallas for everyone that still actually *wants* the "eye test" to matter. At least leave the other 60% to purely objective 100% on-the-field results just like every other single freaking professional and college sport out there.

Frank - have 5 words for you.

Dallas Cowboys or Philadelphia Eagles


CASE IN POINT for no Auto bids. Neither of these teams should be in the playoffs this year but guess what, no only will one of them make it, they will get a home game too against a far superior team! Yes those are the rules and those rules suck.....


Plain and simple - there are not enough spaces to allow some feel good entry in the CFP. The best team in at least 4 of each of the P5's is getting in an 8 team field every year and most years all 5 P5's will probably have a representative in a "subjective system".

What you don't get or want to get is that "Did they get it right" is the beauty of this whole thing. These debates have given people careers on TV and radio. 50% (or more) of the posts in this section of this site is about this stuff.... There are countless threads about fantasy conference realignment scenarios that will help their own teams have a better chance of getting in the playoff....

For all the complaining, not one team (so far) has won the championship who wasn't good enough to win it in the first place - and only ND was in over their head in the championship game even though they "earned their spot" in the final 4.

I stated this specifically: "It doesn't matter that this year's NFC East champ may be .500 or worse and get into the playoff over my Chicago Bears that could end up with a better record because we knew the rules going into it."

Does that personally blow for me as a Bears fan that one of the Cowboys or Eagles will be getting into the playoffs? Yes, it blows... but it's a fair system because we all knew the rules of the game going into it. As long as the "input" (the rules for qualification) is objective and clear, then the "output" is going to be fair, even if the resulting output is going to be unpredictable or even nonsensical at times. That goes back to the oldest sports adage in the book: That's why they play the games!

The arguments for the current subjective method are essentially based in attempting to get the desired "output", which is all well and good, but what will frustrate people like me until the end of time is that means that the "inputs" can change on a whim or not even matter. There's inherently a problem when that is the case in sports where objective results are supposed to matter.

Also, I've addressed the argument that "People love the debate!" many times over the years. No, people don't love the debate - it's another post-hoc justification for the convoluted system that we have today. What people really love is to see *their* team competing for the chance at a championship. It's not about arguing about Ohio State or Alabama or some other school that I don't have any relation to. Instead, it's about Illinois (or whoever your school might be) actually having a mathematical *objective* chance of making the playoff, no matter how small it might be. It's easy to be a fan of today's system when you're an Ohio State or Alabama fan because they don't ever have to worry about the "eye test" arguments or where they ranked in the preseason, but 95% of the other schools in this country don't have that luxury and that limits the fan potential of college football.

Going back to my Bears, it's a *massive* deal that they are still mathematically in the hunt for a playoff spot. It might not be much of a mathematical chance, but it's still there. This means that me and every other sports fan in Chicago is still watching a 7-6 team in the middle of December with ratings that blow the doors off even the college football playoff games. Fans of other teams like the Rams and Eagles are still watching every single game in the same way. You may believe that the NFC East champion getting into the playoffs this year is some sort of bug, but it's really a feature of the system: the NFL always has a large critical mass of teams that have a mathematical chance at the playoffs late into the year... which means that increases the chance that *your* team has a mathematical chance at the playoffs late into the year... and that translates into true rabid fandom.

In contrast, the college football system is designed to eliminate 95% or even more of the potential playoff field by the end of September. That inherently caps interest in the sport. It's a totally different viewpoint as a fan when your *own* team is still in a division race to qualify for a conference championship game late into November that would *automatically* get your team into the playoff versus a situation where that same game can only get a consolation bowl spot at best.

Look - I get the romanticism with the heavyweight fights and high stakes regular season games and the desire to have only the elite of the elite participate in the playoff. I just don't think that's better than a system where teams (at least in the P5) have a clear objective on-the-field way to make it into the playoff that has nothing to do with committees or polls.

(12-10-2019 02:22 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Frank has some decent points. Part of the reason no one questions the validity of the playoffs in the Pros is because on the level on inclusion possible when 8-10 teams are participating from leagues of 30-32 members. That type of inclusion just isn’t possible when we have 130 teams.

Inclusion is certainly a factor in allowing for autobids for the CCG winners but I see other benefits too. It keeps more team’s playoff hopes alive deeper into the season and it also raises the profile and interest in the CCGs since they are all meaningful.

Letting more teams not the field also takes away the “smoke filled room” decision making and places things firmly on the results that occurred on the field.

Will there be mismatches and an occasional blowout? Yes, but that already happens in the current bowl system so a 5-1-2 doesn’t create a new problem in this regard. Much like with the NCAA, you bury the less desirable matchups in the less desirable time slots so you get the most bang for the buck.

Wrong - while the 30-50% of the pro level inclusion isn't needed or warranted, the 18% level of FCS and NCAA Men's basketball is very possible, and no VALID reason exists to not go to 18% inclusion - which would give a 24 team playoff, just like FCS manages to do every year.

Quote:Of course it's still imperfect...but I think it's the better than what we have.

Two main issues with an 8-team playoff:

(1) Chances are Unlikely they'd Unconditionally add a G5 Champ. With 10 NY/BCS bowl teams, they allowed the G4 in if they were Above a P6 team -- and had to be #16 or higher too, while a P6 Champ team would make it no matter what. Big East lowered to AAC -> G5. And they expanded it to 12, and allowed an Unconditional G5. I could see with 10, due to the G4 -> better G5, possibly giving an unconditional G5 within 10 maybe -- but 8? No way. Nope. The closer you get to just a few teams the Way More Stringent it gets. However, it'd be closer to something Like "Must be in Top 12 or undefeated within Top 16".

(2) This one's just as big or Bigger: You're ELIMINATING "elite" bowl teams from 12 --> 8. P5s are NOT going to like this either!

Solution: 12-team playoff. You take all Elite teams and shift it all into a playoff. Top 4 get a bye instead of their own playoff. Still always keeps top G5 unconditionally, no room to complain by anyone.

Issue: Same with 8-team playoff -- traveling in multiple games.
Possible Solution: 1st Round home/away (Dec 20-21) --> 2nd Round BOWL GAMES (NYE/NY) --> Final Four home/away (Jan 11) --> National Championship "Bowl" (Jan 20).

(12-10-2019 02:45 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-10-2019 01:57 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  The faith that so many people have that a bunch of random old guys sitting in a conference room in Dallas should have more say in the national championship than the actual objective results (such as conference championships) on the field will always and continuously astound me.

Remember a few months ago when it was pointed out that in the first five years of the CFP, fully 24 out of 25 P5 champs would have made the playoffs under straight 8, so P5 champs missing wasn't really a problem?

Well it's now 29/30 because once again all five would have gotten in this year under straight 8.

That should salve the "deserving P5 champs left out" problem, if you really do think its a MERIT thing not a POWER thing.

In contrast, UVA in the Orange Bowl highlights the bad things that can happen when a P5 conference is guaranteed something.

I look at it the other way: if 29 out of the 30 P5 champs would have made a straight 8 playoff, why are the people that object to auto-bids so worried about an "unworthy" P5 champ getting into the playoff? From my eyes, the P5 auto-bids provide objective on-the-field clarity every year (with the benefit of every P5 team having a *mathematical* opportunity of making the playoff that isn't dealing with committees or polls) while still having the desired outcome of the best 8 teams playing in the playoff outside of a once-in-a-blue-moon exception (similar to the NFC East situation that we see this year in the NFL). The worry of avoiding that once-in-a-blue-moon exception shouldn't mean that we should be throwing out the proverbial baby (objective on-the-field ways to clinch a playoff spot) with the bathwater.

29 out of 30 means that the gain of an objective on-the-field auto-bid will rarely have any bearing on the "sanctity" of having the best 8 teams in the playoff. You have referred to Virginia having a chance as some sort of bug in that system, but I see that as a feature. The college football system should *want* Virginia fans... and Oregon fans and Wisconsin fans and the fans at Minnesota and even Illinois that were still in their division races late into November to have that *chance* at the playoff. It may not be likely when they run into a buzzsaw like Clemson, LSU or Ohio State, but the point is that they have the *hope*... and that's the entire point of being a sports fan. Most of us don't get to experience our favorite teams winning championships very often, if ever. It may be corny, but that *hope* is what keeps people coming back for more even in the face of crushing defeats. The college football system today is artificially capping the number of teams with hope without any good reason (and as evidenced by the 29 out of 30 figure, unnecessarily using a gerrymandered subjective system compared to an objective system).

(12-10-2019 03:38 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  In contrast, the college football system is designed to eliminate 95% or even more of the potential playoff field by the end of September. That inherently caps interest in the sport. It's a totally different viewpoint as a fan when your *own* team is still in a division race to qualify for a conference championship game late into November that would *automatically* get your team into the playoff versus a situation where that same game can only get a consolation bowl spot at best.

Look - I get the romanticism with the heavyweight fights and high stakes regular season games and the desire to have only the elite of the elite participate in the playoff. I just don't think that's better than a system where teams (at least in the P5) have a clear objective on-the-field way to make it into the playoff that has nothing to do with committees or polls.

I agree with the bolded statement but I don't have a problem with it.

Win your games.... The best teams rise to the top, and there have been a couple that have lost early but still proved to be near the top at the end of the year.

I will say it again, every year there will be a team or three who think they got shafted and left out - EVERY YEAR.

I will modify my earlier statement - if there is ANY - even one - "at large" bid then there should be NO guaranteed games. If you want to set the number at 8 and have a 8 guaranteed spots by whatever measure you want, that is fine too, but either way a "good enough" team will not make your tournament.

I would rather leave that decision in a room of "old guys" to decide than a guarantee system that will only guarantee a team that has a microscopic chance will be there over a team that has a better chance than that - every day of the week!


Frank - this is nothing personal, we are obviously not going to change each others minds on this. And I do respect your view point. In the end I think we both want the same thing which is the best set of games possible... we just disagree on how to set those matchups.

(12-10-2019 03:56 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(12-10-2019 02:45 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-10-2019 01:57 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  The faith that so many people have that a bunch of random old guys sitting in a conference room in Dallas should have more say in the national championship than the actual objective results (such as conference championships) on the field will always and continuously astound me.

Remember a few months ago when it was pointed out that in the first five years of the CFP, fully 24 out of 25 P5 champs would have made the playoffs under straight 8, so P5 champs missing wasn't really a problem?

Well it's now 29/30 because once again all five would have gotten in this year under straight 8.

That should salve the "deserving P5 champs left out" problem, if you really do think its a MERIT thing not a POWER thing.

In contrast, UVA in the Orange Bowl highlights the bad things that can happen when a P5 conference is guaranteed something.

I look at it the other way: if 29 out of the 30 P5 champs would have made a straight 8 playoff, why are the people that object to auto-bids so worried about an "unworthy" P5 champ getting into the playoff? From my eyes, the P5 auto-bids provide objective on-the-field clarity every year (with the benefit of every P5 team having a *mathematical* opportunity of making the playoff that isn't dealing with committees or polls) while still having the desired outcome of the best 8 teams playing in the playoff outside of a once-in-a-blue-moon exception (similar to the NFC East situation that we see this year in the NFL). The worry of avoiding that once-in-a-blue-moon exception shouldn't mean that we should be throwing out the proverbial baby (objective on-the-field ways to clinch a playoff spot) with the bathwater.

29 out of 30 means that the gain of an objective on-the-field auto-bid will rarely have any bearing on the "sanctity" of having the best 8 teams in the playoff. You have referred to Virginia having a chance as some sort of bug in that system, but I see that as a feature. The college football system should *want* Virginia fans... and Oregon fans and Wisconsin fans and the fans at Minnesota and even Illinois that were still in their division races late into November to have that *chance* at the playoff. It may not be likely when they run into a buzzsaw like Clemson, LSU or Ohio State, but the point is that they have the *hope*... and that's the entire point of being a sports fan. Most of us don't get to experience our favorite teams winning championships very often, if ever. It may be corny, but that *hope* is what keeps people coming back for more even in the face of crushing defeats. The college football system today is artificially capping the number of teams with hope without any good reason (and as evidenced by the 29 out of 30 figure, unnecessarily using a gerrymandered subjective system compared to an objective system).

Agree.

Also there is a selective sample here.

2001, 2002, 2005, 2006, and 2008-12, 9 out of 12 years, the ACC was not in the top 8. In two of the other years, they barely made it in at #7 and #8. That is clearly not going to be acceptable to them. Imagine a different coach than Dabo and they could have been out 3 or 4 out of the last 7 as well.

With a straight 8, you are once again putting it in the hands of a bunch of people in a smoke filled room making arbitrary decisions. The idea is to quit having it be a beauty contest but be a sports contest. The ACC was top 15 in all but two of those years, so the rankings could be contested.

There's conclusive proof the experts really DON'T know who is best. So why do you want to put it in the hands of so called experts who have repeatedly proven themselves wrong?

(12-10-2019 04:07 PM)Eldonabe Wrote:  

(12-10-2019 03:38 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  In contrast, the college football system is designed to eliminate 95% or even more of the potential playoff field by the end of September. That inherently caps interest in the sport. It's a totally different viewpoint as a fan when your *own* team is still in a division race to qualify for a conference championship game late into November that would *automatically* get your team into the playoff versus a situation where that same game can only get a consolation bowl spot at best.

Look - I get the romanticism with the heavyweight fights and high stakes regular season games and the desire to have only the elite of the elite participate in the playoff. I just don't think that's better than a system where teams (at least in the P5) have a clear objective on-the-field way to make it into the playoff that has nothing to do with committees or polls.

I agree with the bolded statement but I don't have a problem with it.

Win your games.... The best teams rise to the top, and there have been a couple that have lost early but still proved to be near the top at the end of the year.

I will say it again, every year there will be a team or three who think they got shafted and left out - EVERY YEAR.

I will modify my earlier statement - if there is ANY - even one - "at large" bid then there should be NO guaranteed games. If you want to set the number at 8 and have a 8 guaranteed spots by whatever measure you want, that is fine too, but either way a "good enough" team will not make your tournament.

I would rather leave that decision in a room of "old guys" to decide than a guarantee system that will only guarantee a team that has a microscopic chance will be there over a team that has a better chance than that - every day of the week!


Frank - this is nothing personal, we are obviously not going to change each others minds on this. And I do respect your view point. In the end I think we both want the same thing which is the best set of games possible... we just disagree on how to set those matchups.

That is where you are missing. Its not about the best set of games. That is a side benefit of deciding things objectively on the field.

I think the NCAA tourney is too big. I think there are too many .500 teams from the major conferences. They had a chance in the regular season. They had a chance in the conference tourney. They don't need to be in the NCAA tourney. I think there are about 10 too many conferences in Division I, but as long as they are there I support autobids for them. But those are the teams that create mismatches.

With basketball, those .500 teams often produce good games. Putting in a #15 champ from the ACC is not going to guarantee a mismatch. You aren't bringing in the #9 team from the Big 10. You are merely making sure all the major champs get in.