What's your view of the NCAA FBS Playoffs?

[Tigertown_a_Rick]

Just wondering what folks think about this new playoff system?

I for one am truly happy that the championships will be determined on the field, and look forward to a January 1st day that will be unlike any other that I have seen in my lifetime....I'm happy that the NCAA decided to hold the National Semifinals on Jan 1st...Remember when I was young watching all the big bowl games on New Years Day, and really enjoyed it, and looked forwrard to it...Big Bowls wanted their own exclusive night, and my personal interest waned after that, but now it's back....

Also like the fact that the 13 member(12 this year) Committee will also be selecting the teams for the Cotton,Peach,Fiesta and Orange Bowls, and look forward to those matchups on Dec 31st with the exception of the Cotton Bowl, which will be played of course on Jan 1st, prior to the National Semifinals that begin with the Rose Bowl at or around 5pm ET...

Also like the human element with this new committee made up of very knowledgeable and reputable people who make the decisions on the top 4 teams....

What needs work, I think is:

Not to be a debbie-downer, but the playoff field is still too small, and should be expanded to 8 teams as early as next season IMO, and the reason is simple....The NCAA granted automtomy this year to the Power-5 Conferences to determine their champion in their own way, but yet one or more of those champions will not be a part of the chase for the national title each year under the present setup, and that's just not fair...

By expanding the playoff field to 8 teams, the Champions from the Power-5 Conferences will be rightly included every year in the playoffs, and other deserving quality teams from those conferences could also have an opportunity to win a title by being included as 1 of 2 Wildcards chosen by the Committee...The other lone playoff spot would be awarded to the team who the committee feels is the best respresentative from those D-1 Conferences other than the Power-5....Don't have a problem with the way it was done this year, but those conferences could actually conduct their own championship game between the 2 top teams from those collective conferences with the winner advancing to the playoffs...Still working on that idea in my mind..lol!

The Selection Bowls are already set-up to accomodate an expansion from 4 to 8 playoff teams, so why not go ahead and pull the trigger?

You views are welcomed!

 

[dooksux]

BIG XII doesn't have a champion, it has a couple of half-champions. Leave them out.

 

[SeaHawk98]

1. FSU - struggled but they won every game. Started season #1 and are defending champion. OOC schedule is good and they play in the league that has best record vs. Power 5.
2. Oregon - Redeemed their one loss and looked good all year.
3. Alabama - Good, but not great Alabama team. I believe their OOC schedule is weak and they lost to a team that didn't even score against Arkansas. SEC is very good, but is overrated.
4. This of course was the tough one. I'm going with TCU. Overall, better resume. Ohio State's schedule is a joke and they have the worst loss of the 6 teams that should be considered for the playoffs.

Baylor of course beat TCU, but their OOC schedule is a joke. You can't reward programs for playing scared.

 

[WoadBlue]

All hell is about to break out. The Big 12 team, or teams, left out will raise want the system nuked. If Ohio St gets left out, so will the Big Ten.

The playoffs are going to have to go to 8. Each P5 champ gets in, and the committee picks 3 at large teams and seeds the 8.

Because not 1 slot is held for the best team from the Other 5 leagues, you then need to guaranteee that each of their champs get a bowl against a P5 team.

 

[strummingram]

The playoffs need to go to 8 teams to make it legit. I think it's pretty strange they didn't see that to begin with.

 

[TarHeelMark]

Un-freaking-believable! They let OSU in the playoffs. They lost to VT, and only beat Penn State thanks to two total BS calls. I hope Alabama beats the living $#!+ out of the luck-eyes.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[SeaHawk98]

Originally posted by TarHeelMark:
Un-freaking-believable! They let OSU in the playoffs. They lost to VT, and only beat Penn State thanks to two total BS calls. I hope Alabama beats the living $#!+ out of the luck-eyes.

Posted from Rivals Mobile

Not really unbelievable, the bias in college football is at an all time high. How are 2 teams who lost higher than an undefeated FSU team. It needs to be 8 teams.

 

[tarheelblueee]

It's only my opinion, but others might feel the same way. Nothing has really changed other than saying it's a playoff. You have a group of guys staying in a hotel room making decision on who's in & who's out.its like if you are not on the bandwagon of the higher ups with the money you will never make it. They don't care if you go undefeated or not it's about money. Either your school has it or you don't.

 

[gteeitup]

needs 8

 

[topdecktiger]

The fundamental problem is that there is no way to play your way in on the field. In the basketball tournament, you can win you way in, without any subjectivity coming into play. Yes, they do have the selections, but every team has the same chance to win its way in. Football really needs automatic bids, as others have suggested. True, the mid-majors wouldn't have a direct path to the playoffs, but seeing as how they so rarely have a chance in the first place, I think the automatic bids for the P5 need to happen.

 

[strummingram]

Originally posted by tarheelblueee:
It's only my opinion, but others might feel the same way. Nothing has really changed other than saying it's a playoff. You have a group of guys staying in a hotel room making decision on who's in & who's out.its like if you are not on the bandwagon of the higher ups with the money you will never make it. They don't care if you go undefeated or not it's about money. Either your school has it or you don't.

Yeah, that was my take on it. It's a big hype machine to get people to watch TV more! Just more drama and TV airtime attention. "Who's going to get in? Who's not? Who should? Who shouldn't?"

It's pretty simple and concise when you have 8 teams. That, of course, removes the drama factor.

 

[NENCHeel]

I'm loving the idea that after all these years we FINALLY get a really clear picture of the new NC. And there's something else I find truly wonderful and richly deserved.


Remember back to recent years when expansion and FSU/Clemson to the B12 was all people could talk about? Remember the Eeers et al claiming that FSU and Clemson could NEVER win an NC from the weak ACC? Remember that
once they jumped the B12 could be assured of TWO of the top 4 teams every year and would own the college sports purse strings?

Go to the Eeers Scout Board now, look at the Conference Talk forum and it's all about having to expand with a couple of weak teams so they can get a CC Game and how they will lose money in the split. And they have to sue the NCAA because TCU and Baylor were excluded this year.

Bless their little hearts.

 

[topdecktiger]

There are still people on the West Virginia board who hold a grudge against me because I said that Big 12 business was hogwash. There was absolutely no talk coming out of Clemson that the move ever had a prayer of happening, but people insisted it was a foregone conclusion. It made no sense at the time, and it makes even less sense now. The ACC is a much better fit, especially considering that it appears a network is coming in a couple of years.

 

[NENCHeel]

Agreed..it was good for some Boards since their hit counts skyrocketed but serious fans knew it was a load of BS all along. The ACC without Clemson would never be the real ACC anyway...best tailgating atmosphere in the country. You couldn't get fan mugged there even if you tried. They'd just hand you another beer and smile

 

[uncboy10]

Seems like about 90% of the people I've talked to are in favor of expanding to 8 teams, or at least 6.

 

[bobby121567]

I feel for TCU. From three to out. Just because of one great game played by OSU. And all they did was take care of business 55-3. Ole well itis like always the big football names are in. And to be honest,even though I'm glad they made it. But if you do the eye test thing they talk about. TCU is better than FSU. But they are unbeaten. But by the eye test TCU looks better.

This post was edited on 12/7 10:05 PM by bobby121567

 

[Raising Heel]

Heck, I say make it 12 teams with a few simple rules:

1) Every Power 5 conference gets an automatic berth as does at least 1 team from the Group of 5
2) College Football Playoff Commission still determines seeds
3) Top 4 seeds get a first-round bye

Imagine what a kick-ass event that would create. Take a look at this season, assuming Boise State got in over Marshall thanks to better quality wins (I filled out the bracket with the top seeds always winning). That is 11 unbelievable games over 4 weeks.

 

[strummingram]

Originally posted by Raising Heel:
Heck, I say make it 12 teams with a few simple rules:

1) Every Power 5 conference gets an automatic berth as does at least 1 team from the Group of 5
2) College Football Playoff Commission still determines seeds
3) Top 4 seeds get a first-round bye

Imagine what a kick-ass event that would create. Take a look at this season, assuming Boise State got in over Marshall thanks to better quality wins (I filled out the bracket with the top seeds always winning). That is 11 unbelievable games over 4 weeks.

Sounds like a great idea. More money that way, too. And, you actually get a REAL "winner" without as much subjectivity.

 

[uncboy10]

Originally posted by strummingram:

Originally posted by Raising Heel:
Heck, I say make it 12 teams with a few simple rules:

1) Every Power 5 conference gets an automatic berth as does at least 1 team from the Group of 5
2) College Football Playoff Commission still determines seeds
3) Top 4 seeds get a first-round bye

Imagine what a kick-ass event that would create. Take a look at this season, assuming Boise State got in over Marshall thanks to better quality wins (I filled out the bracket with the top seeds always winning). That is 11 unbelievable games over 4 weeks.

Sounds like a great idea. More money that way, too. And, you actually get a REAL "winner" without as much subjectivity.

I can dig it. This would be awesome but could result in a team playing as many as 17 games in a season, which the NCAA would reject.

12 game regular season + Conference championship + 4 games in playoff if not in the top 4.

 

[gunslingerdick]

Originally posted by Tigertown@Rick:
Just wondering what folks think about this new playoff system?

I for one am truly happy that the championships will be determined on the field, and look forward to a January 1st day that will be unlike any other that I have seen in my lifetime....

Will it really be determined on the field? How is this much different than the BCS era? Now we just have 4 teams that are chosen rather than 2.

Personally, and I've said this many times, I had no problem with the original bowl system where we could have had shared national championships. What's the probloem with 2 teams feeling like champs? Is that a bad thing?

I guess the new system is fine. I have no problem with it. But I had no problem with the BCS. I had no problem with the system before the BCS. Why do people make such a big deal out of this?

 

[gunslingerdick]

Originally posted by SeaHawk98:
1. FSU - struggled but they won every game. Started season #1 and are defending champion. OOC schedule is good and they play in the league that has best record vs. Power 5.
2. Oregon - Redeemed their one loss and looked good all year.
3. Alabama - Good, but not great Alabama team. I believe their OOC schedule is weak and they lost to a team that didn't even score against Arkansas. SEC is very good, but is overrated.
4. This of course was the tough one. I'm going with TCU. Overall, better resume. Ohio State's schedule is a joke and they have the worst loss of the 6 teams that should be considered for the playoffs.

Baylor of course beat TCU, but their OOC schedule is a joke. You can't reward programs for playing scared.

Not how I see it.

1 - Bama - like usual, they look the best to me. Their secondary is a bit suspect, but other than that, they're the most complete team.
2 - Oregon - I hate their uniforms, I hate their style of play, I hate pretty much everything about that program so I really want them to lose, But they're good. That offense is mighty hard to stop.
3 - To the eye test, they fail. Maybe they pass with a D. But whatever, they don't impress. Granted, not losing is impressive. But that defense is not good and when Jameis isn't on, they look pedestrian.
4 - I go with OSU. They destroyed the 13 team in the country with their 13th string QB. That's good enough for me considering their only loss was 3 months ago and was because it was the second string QB's first start of his career. They'd pummel VT today.

Bama beats OSU. Oregon beats FSU. Bama beast Oregon.

 

[WoadBlue]

Most fun response to the madness yesterday came from Baylor QB Petty: Bryce Petty @b_petty14
Follow

And I need to ask for forgiveness bc I was definitely checking Twitter in church haha
11:50 AM - 7 Dec 2014

 

[Raising Heel]

Originally posted by uncboy10:

This would be awesome but could result in a team playing as many as 17 games in a season, which the NCAA would reject.

12 game regular season + Conference championship + 4 games in playoff if not in the top 4.

True. I'm in favor of dropping at least 1 regular season non-conference game. The 12th game was only added in the last ~15 years and most teams just play a cream puff anyway. Last year's FCS Champion North Dakota State went 15-0 by virtue of a first-round playoff bye. What I'm suggesting would result in the same 15-game schedule for a top 4 team.

 

[Raising Heel]

Originally posted by gunslingerdick:

Personally, and I've said this many times, I had no problem with the original bowl system where we could have had shared national championships. What's the probloem with 2 teams feeling like champs? Is that a bad thing?

I guess the new system is fine. I have no problem with it. But I had no problem with the BCS. I had no problem with the system before the BCS. Why do people make such a big deal out of this?

Of all the people to advocate for participation trophies. 2 champions? That's just un-American.

I'll tell you why it's such a big deal. Every other NCAA-sanctioned sport has a playoff. Every single one. And they're true playoffs with several contenders, not the watered-down version that we've finally managed to squeeze out of the power brokers.

I love tradition and I love bowl season, but the NCAA's decision to outsource its most valuable product was absolutely idiotic. It's time for the member institutions to reel it back in.

 

[gunslingerdick]

Originally posted by Raising Heel:

Originally posted by gunslingerdick:

Personally, and I've said this many times, I had no problem with the original bowl system where we could have had shared national championships. What's the probloem with 2 teams feeling like champs? Is that a bad thing?

I guess the new system is fine. I have no problem with it. But I had no problem with the BCS. I had no problem with the system before the BCS. Why do people make such a big deal out of this?

Of all the people to advocate for participation trophies. 2 champions? That's just un-American.

I'll tell you why it's such a big deal. Every other NCAA-sanctioned sport has a playoff. Every single one. And they're true playoffs with several contenders, not the watered-down version that we've finally managed to squeeze out of the power brokers.

I love tradition and I love bowl season, but the NCAA's decision to outsource its most valuable product was absolutely idiotic. It's time for the member institutions to reel it back in.

I'm not advocating for "participation trophies". But I kind of liked when the AP gave one championship out and the coaches gave another. What I always liked was thinking about the match up that would never happen. Could Colorado have beaten GT? Could Washington have beaten Miami in 91? Nebraska vs Michigan in 97? Who wins? I liked all that discussion. And while I don't support participation trophies, what's the problem with two teams being "champs"?

What other sports do really is irrelevant.

If you're so big on "tru playoffs", you can't be happy with the current system. 4 teams? And selected by people based on?...uhh...what now? Just what the committee thinks? How is that "fair"?

 

[Raising Heel]

Originally posted by gunslingerdick:
What I always liked was thinking about the match up that would never happen. Could Colorado have beaten GT? Could Washington have beaten Miami in 91? Nebraska vs Michigan in 97? Who wins?

What I'd like would be to actually find out.

Originally posted by gunslingerdick:
What other sports do really is irrelevant.

Disagree. We're not talking about the NFL versus the NHL. We're talking about NCAA sports. They're all under the same umbrella and their champions should be decided similarly, at least IMO.

Originally posted by gunslingerdick:
If you're so big on "tru playoffs", you can't be happy with the current system. 4 teams? And selected by people based on?...uhh...what now? Just what the committee thinks? How is that "fair"?

Pretty sure I spelled it right. Who said I'm happy with the current system? I'm not because it's not inclusive. Any selection process is going to be inherently subjective. Even the BCS computers used algorithms that contained human-programmed biases. The committee goes by more than just what they think. They did into data on win-loss, strength of schedule, head-to-head competition, actual game video, etc. It's not much different than the basketball selection process, which I have no problems with. My only complaint about the CFP committee is that 4 teams is too few.

 

[Littlejon]

Personally I am all for things being settled on the field and I NEVER liked the BCS. Playoffs are the only way to crown a true champion. Sure, the 4 team model has some flaws, but the process for crowning a champion is MUCH better, IMHO.

Ideally I would prefer at least 8 teams over 4, but 12 would be even better. I HATE the cupcakes almost every team schedules, so bouncing one in favor of a playoff game would be fine in my book. Plus, only 12 teams would have to worry about that, not the majority of them.

I think, and have said since this playoff system gained serious traction, that eventually we will see an 8 team playoff and dropping of one non-conference game. With the way the committee put an emphasis on strength of schedule and such, there is no need to schedule cupcakes if you want to be in the hunt, so why not get rid of one? I just don't see a move to 12 teams anytime soon and, truthfully, football isn't like basketball where some Cinderella can realistically knock off a big boy very often. Very few 10-20 ranked teams would have much of a chance beating a top 5 team, so 8 seems like a good number to go with to satisfy most everyone. I doubt you would have too many #9 ranked teams screaming at being left out like a #5-6 team would either since a lot of those teams have been beaten by the top 5 teams already anyway. Yes, I know Ole Miss beat Alabama this year, but didn't even make it to the SEC championship game, which is where the "top" teams in ANY playoff should come from anyway!

Regardless, no matter what system you throw out there SOMEONE won't be happy no matter what. Like I said, I like the playoff MUCH better than the BCS because at least the championship is settled on the field.


This post was edited on 12/8 2:33 PM by Littlejon

 

[gunslingerdick]

Originally posted by Littlejon:


Ideally I would prefer at least 8 teams over 4, but 12 would be even better.

What about team #9? Or team #13? They might have a chance to win if in a playoff. I still don't see how we arrive at a "true champion" and "it's settled on the field" when you are leaving teams out that would have a legitimate shot at winning. For instance, GT is not in the top 13 and they just took an undefeated FSU team to the wire. Who's to say that with the right match ups, they couldn't win it?

That's my point. You can claim that it's being "settled on the field" with the new format, but is it? I mean, the teams that get in,...yeah, they get to settle it on the field. But the ones left out don't. Baylor and TCU are good teams. Good enough to beat any of the 4 above them. How are we crowning a "true champion" when we're leaving out 2 of the best teams - one of which only lost to the other?

There will never be a true champion in NCAA football. Unless they were prepared to include the top 24-32 teams and then even then it's still a little suspect. The NCAA basketball tourney works because it allows for so many teams to have a shot. But even then, it's not inclusive so really how do we know we're crowning a true champ?

 

[Raising Heel]

Originally posted by gunslingerdick:
For instance, GT is not in the top 13 and they just took an undefeated FSU team to the wire. Who's to say that with the right match ups, they couldn't win it?

GT is actually #12 in the CFP rankings but got bumped for the inclusion of a Group of 5 team (Boise State) in my example. They had a chance to get into my playoffs by beating Florida State, but didn't do it. They also could've secured a spot by beating dook or UNC, but they didn't do that either.

Originally posted by gunslingerdick:
There will never be a true champion in NCAA football. Unless they were prepared to include the top 24-32 teams and then even then it's still a little suspect. The NCAA basketball tourney works because it allows for so many teams to have a shot. But even then, it's not inclusive so really how do we know we're crowning a true champ?

Because reasonable observers recognize that team #65 (or #69 or whatever) doesn't have a realistic chance of running the table. The same principle applies to a college football playoff, or any other playoff system you want to reference.

There is a cut-off point for who gets in and who doesn't. The only issue is where to draw that line. And that line is drawn from the season's results and subsequent rankings. If you look at the teams ranked 13-25 in the CFP rankings, every one of those teams lost at least once to a team ranked above them. Every single one. There's your "how do we know?" answer --- because they already played each other.

 

[gunslingerdick]

Originally posted by Raising Heel:

Originally posted by gunslingerdick:
For instance, GT is not in the top 13 and they just took an undefeated FSU team to the wire. Who's to say that with the right match ups, they couldn't win it?

GT is actually #12 in the CFP rankings but got bumped for the inclusion of a Group of 5 team (Boise State) in my example. They had a chance to get into my playoffs by beating Florida State, but didn't do it. They also could've secured a spot by beating dook or UNC, but they didn't do that either.

Originally posted by gunslingerdick:
There will never be a true champion in NCAA football. Unless they were prepared to include the top 24-32 teams and then even then it's still a little suspect. The NCAA basketball tourney works because it allows for so many teams to have a shot. But even then, it's not inclusive so really how do we know we're crowning a true champ?

Because reasonable observers recognize that team #65 (or #69 or whatever) doesn't have a realistic chance of running the table. The same principle applies to a college football playoff, or any other playoff system you want to reference.

There is a cut-off point for who gets in and who doesn't. The only issue is where to draw that line. And that line is drawn from the season's results and subsequent rankings. If you look at the teams ranked 13-25 in the CFP rankings, every one of those teams lost at least once to a team ranked above them. Every single one. There's your "how do we know?" answer --- because they already played each other.

So,...Baylor is better than TCU. You would have to agree. However, TCU was ahead of Baylor for the second half of the season and was very close to getting in over them. But Baylor beat them. Proof that the system is flawed.

And who's to say team #65 doesn't have a chance? You? A committee? Maybe the team performed much better down the stretch and was a legit contender at season's end. They lost too many at the beginning of the season, but that doesn't mean they couldn't win now.

What you're saying here isn't outlandish and I realize most would agree. But if you're pushing and chastising me because I liked the old system, I'm obligated to point out that the new system, the BCS system and any other system put in place that excludes any team at all, is not "crowning a true champion" like so many of you want to believe.

 

[Littlejon]

Well, I don't pretend to be the expert here and I certainly am not going to chastise you for liking the old way, but to say we can never "truly" crown a champion on the field using a playoff system is a bit of a stretch. Yes, "theoretically" some team outside the cutoff line "could" win it all but I think logically most people realize that beyond a certain point the odds are almost completely against anyone realistically winning it all. Hence the reason you have never seen a #16 in the basketball tournament win it all. Heck, almost no one seeded below 10 ever make it to the Final Four, much less win it all. Villanova notwithstanding. Without fail the basketball champion is almost always one of the top 4-8 teams in the country at the time of the tournament.

The point of this all is to balance the realistic chances a program has to make it based on their season performance with the logistics of having a means for crowning a true champion. No system is perfect and I am sure a lot of people prefer the bowl system over a playoff. I would rather see teams play each other to determine the champion in a tournament setting rather than one game based on a myriad of factors that allow no more than 2 teams to have a chance. By the same token I don't want to see every team in the country thrown in there either.

I think you have to balance it out and, IMHO, the current 4 team playoff is a good start. I think 8 teams would be better and if I had my way, 12 would be the final number and I wouldn't go any more than that.

Like you have yours, that is MY opinion.



This post was edited on 12/8 3:45 PM by Littlejon

 

[Raising Heel]

Originally posted by gunslingerdick:
So,...Baylor is better than TCU. You would have to agree. However, TCU was ahead of Baylor for the second half of the season and was very close to getting in over them. But Baylor beat them. Proof that the system is flawed.

Moot point. Both get in under a 12-team playoff.

Originally posted by gunslingerdick:
And who's to say team #65 doesn't have a chance? You? A committee? Maybe the team performed much better down the stretch and was a legit contender at season's end. They lost too many at the beginning of the season, but that doesn't mean they couldn't win now.

It's not about whether a team could run the table at season's end. It's about consistency, and playing at a championship level throughout the entire season. Teams should be judged by their entire body of work. Again, the top 12 ranked teams this year earned those rankings in head-to-head competition over the course of the season, meaning that the champion absolutely will have been settled on the field.

Let's agree to disagree and you can predictably cling to "the way things used to be" as usual.

 

[TVJ]

Assuming the Big 12 can get its act together and name one conference champion, I still like the idea of an 8-team playoff - automatic berths for each of the Power 5 conference champs and three at large teams chosen by committee. This wouldn't solve all the "subjective" issues, but it would possibly open the door for teams like Marshall who had a great year this year but would never have a chance under the 4-team system.
Coming through an entire season and winning your conference is significant and should count for a lot. (If either Baylor or TCU had been THE champ of the Big 12 they could very well have been in this year.

 

[gunslingerdick]

Originally posted by Raising Heel:

Let's agree to disagree

Oh no you don't.

Originally posted by Raising Heel:

Originally posted by gunslingerdick:
So,...Baylor is better than TCU. You would have to agree. However, TCU was ahead of Baylor for the second half of the season and was very close to getting in over them. But Baylor beat them. Proof that the system is flawed.

Moot point. Both get in under a 12-team playoff.

But we're not doing a 12 team playoff. We're doing a 4 team playoff. Which makes the point that 2 teams very deserving of a chance in the playoff very relevant. And let's just play the "what if" game because it "almost was". If OSU doesn't throttle Wisc, TCU might be in. Now I know they finished behind Baylor, but IMO, the committee finally decided to make that change because they knew at that point it didn't matter. How does Baylor finally jump TCU after TCU destroys the team they played last weekend and Baylor struggled? How is that? There's no way people all of a sudden agreed that Baylor was better. What happened was that neither got in so the committee said, "we better try to at least try to put some respectability to this thing. We better move Baylor ahead of TCU." But like I said, it almost was TCU which would have completely shot holes in the system.

Originally posted by Raising Heel:

It's not about whether a team could run the table at season's end. It's about consistency, and playing at a championship level throughout the entire season. Teams should be judged by their entire body of work. Again, the top 12 ranked teams this year earned those rankings in head-to-head competition over the course of the season, meaning that the champion absolutely will have been settled on the field.

So if Marshall had won every game were they getting in? I know it didn't happen. But I'm asking you, if Marshall finished the season undefeated, would you have put them in? Of course not. Why? Because they didn't play anyone? So what? Why would they not deserve a place in the playoff? Even if they had finished undefeated and even if the playoff was 12, they weren't getting in. And you want to claim that it's settled on the field? Baloney.

Originally posted by Raising Heel:
you can predictably cling to "the way things used to be" as usual.

You can heckle that all you want. But I maintain that change for change sake is retarded. They can dress it up and the suckers will believe that it's better this way...until they come up with a new subjective way that they claim is better and you and others might buy in again. I was fine with it the way it was. I'm not against tinkering to make things better. But like I tell my wife, my kids, my staff anyone else - my way is the best way until you can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that your way is better. I see plenty of doubt with this.


Now, we'll agree to disagree.

 

[JimmyinVA]

i've supported an 8 team playoff for years. with a 4 team playoff you're going to leave out a few schools ranked 5-7 who can legitimately claim to be national championship quality teams. but it's much harder for a 9th or 10th ranked team to argue that. college football needs an 8 team playoff, and will go to that eventually i believe.

 

[Raising Heel]

Originally posted by gunslingerdick:
But we're not doing a 12 team playoff. We're doing a 4 team playoff.

Nobody here wants the playoff to remain at 4 teams. It excludes too many teams with a legitimate argument for inclusion. I readily admit the current system isn't ideal. To answer your TCU question, the three teams that moved in front of TCU this week all beat ranked teams while TCU beat a 2-10 team. It's not unreasonable to think that propelled them ahead of TCU. There are no "points" to evaluate the relative positions of each team, so teams 4 through 7 could have been tightly clustered in the prior week for all we know.

Originally posted by gunslingerdick:
So if Marshall had won every game were they getting in? I know it didn't happen. But I'm asking you, if Marshall finished the season undefeated, would you have put them in? Of course not. Why? Because they didn't play anyone? So what? Why would they not deserve a place in the playoff? Even if they had finished undefeated and even if the playoff was 12, they weren't getting in. And you want to claim that it's settled on the field? Baloney.

Personally, I would have included them in a 12-team field over Boise State. And no, an undefeated Marshall team didn't deserve a place in the 4-team playoff over three 1-loss teams because of their weak schedule. That completely contradicts your criticism that it isn't settled on the field. It absolutely is, throughout the season, by beating quality teams. And I hope it's a lesson to ADs to stop scheduling non-conference garbage like Marshall did this season -- 2 MAC teams, 1 FCS team, and 1 FBS transitional team. If you schedule like that, you forfeit the right to complain.

Originally posted by gunslingerdick:
my way is the best way until you can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that your way is better.

Your way is exactly what we have now with less teams having an opportunity for a championship. There is no conceivable way it's better.

 

[ball4me2]

Originally posted by gteeitup:
needs 8

yep, at a minimum and 16 as a maximum. But that would be a playoff and would require enough bowl games to eliminate all those great 6-6 and some 7-5 teams from going to a bowl game. Wouldn't that be unfair!

 

[strummingram]

Originally posted by ball4me2:

Originally posted by gteeitup:
needs 8

yep, at a minimum and 16 as a maximum. But that would be a playoff and would require enough bowl games to eliminate all those great 6-6 and some 7-5 teams from going to a bowl game. Wouldn't that be unfair!

6-6 teams, even 7-5 teams, should NEVER be invited to a bowl game... ever. They have debased everything bowl games ecer were by inventing all of these token games. It's embarrassing in every way... except to the sponsors, concessions, hotels, and parking vendors.

 

[topdecktiger]

Originally posted by gunslingerdick:

You can heckle that all you want. But I maintain that change for change sake is retarded. They can dress it up and the suckers will believe that it's better this way...until they come up with a new subjective way that they claim is better and you and others might buy in again. I was fine with it the way it was. I'm not against tinkering to make things better. But like I tell my wife, my kids, my staff anyone else - my way is the best way until you can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that your way is better. I see plenty of doubt with this.


Now, we'll agree to disagree.

First problem is, it doesn't have to be proved to you that another way is better. It only has to be proven in general. Beyond that, the reason they other poster's way is better is because it included automatic bids. That's the key. It means that every P5 team has the exact same chance to get into the playoffs, win your conference and you're in. That takes all the subjectivity out of it. You mentioned a scenario about Georgia Tech, about what they could possibly do if they were included in this hypothetical playoff format. Well, under that format, Georgia Tech had an opportunity to get in simply by winning their conference. So, they wouldn't be "left out," because they had their destiny in their hands.

 

[JimmyinVA]

Originally posted by strummingram:
6-6 teams, even 7-5 teams, should NEVER be invited to a bowl game... ever. They have debased everything bowl games ecer were by inventing all of these token games. It's embarrassing in every way... except to the sponsors, concessions, hotels, and parking vendors.

i agree with you about 6-6. in my view a bowl game is a reward for a winning season, and 6-6 is not a winning season. 7-5 is a winning season so i have no problem with bowl games for 7-5.