4 vs 12 Teams

[MaxyJR1]

People quick to say that 12 worked because #5 and #6 are in the title game. It worked because it took the committee out of getting the top teams wrong.

If still 4:
Oregon is #1
Georgia might get left out without Starting QB.
Notre Dame and tOSU possibly seeded ahead of Texas and Penn State.
Committee would have had hands full.

Instead they got forgiveness in 12 team playoff and only 9-3 teams are left complaining.

 

[watertown 1987 guy n]

It worked because 11-12 games in a season is too small a sample size to adequately judge teams against others when there isn’t many cross conference games. The new format is great for college football. TX earned a final 4 spot; a good, well coached team - that is what the new format provides.

 

[GophersInIowa]

The fact that we were arguing which 2 or 3 loss teams should be in over 1 or even 0 loss teams makes it so much better.

The only thing to fix is to do it like the NFL does where the top seed plays the lowest ranked team, etc in the 2nd round.

 

[Some guy]

The fact that we were arguing which 2 or 3 loss teams should be in over 1 or even 0 loss teams makes it so much better.

The only thing to fix is to do it like the NFL does where the top seed plays the lowest ranked team, etc in the 2nd round.

That won’t happen because it’s not as fun

And it won’t fix what you’re trying to fix because the committee seeded the teams wrong

Penn state should’ve been below Ohio state
Notre dame Ohio state and Penn state should’ve all been above Texas and Georgia

 

[short ornery norwegian]

I think there is a general consensus that the seeding has to be adjusted. let the P4 conf champs and the top G5 conf champ get automatic bids, but seed the tournament from 1-12.

for a team seeded below the top 4 or 5, the odds of winning the playoff will be very low - but in the right year, it could happen. a team that had injuries during the season and lost a couple of games could get healthy and get hot at the right time and make a run. it might only happen once a decade, but it's possible.

 

[GophersInIowa]

That won’t happen because it’s not as fun

And it won’t fix what you’re trying to fix because the committee seeded the teams wrong

Penn state should’ve been below Ohio state
Notre dame Ohio state and Penn state should’ve all been above Texas and Georgia

Then go back to using something like the BCS formula. Either way, it would have been significantly better than it was. Oregon as the 1 seed got the toughest matchup in the 2nd round.

 

[Some guy]

I think there is a general consensus that the seeding has to be adjusted. let the P4 conf champs and the top G5 conf champ get automatic bids, but seed the tournament from 1-12.

for a team seeded below the top 4 or 5, the odds of winning the playoff will be very low - but in the right year, it could happen. a team that had injuries during the season and lost a couple of games could get healthy and get hot at the right time and make a run. it might only happen once a decade, but it's possible.

I don’t think there is general consensus there

The bigger issue than the conference champions getting byes is how terrible the committee is at doing the rankings

Texas Arizona state and Georgia are probably teams 5-7 and if you just did seeding Georgia is 2 Texas would’ve been 3 and Arizona state would’ve been 11

So the one of the top two teams best team in the country Ohio state would’ve had to play a top 7 team Arizona state in the first round.


Adjusting seeds to fit peoples’ bias won’t fix the problem of the committee being ass

 

[Some guy]

Then go back to using something like the BCS formula. Either way, it would have been significantly better than it was. Oregon as the 1 seed got the toughest matchup in the 2nd round.

Agree

Formula needs to be objective so that games in October matter as much as games in November. And so that SEC and Big ten brands don’t get eye test bias over non brands

If you fixed the way the rankings were done I would be okay just seeding 1-12.

Without their QB Georgia was probably in the 7-10 range and would’ve been the two seed. While Ohio state is a top 2-3 team in the country and would’ve been the 6

Broken committee

 

[Slim Tubby]

Then go back to using something like the BCS formula. Either way, it would have been significantly better than it was. Oregon as the 1 seed got the toughest matchup in the 2nd round.

I agree and it's hard to account for teams that are playing their best football at the end of the season when it comes to seeding.

The NFL has established seeding rules rather than arbitrary rankings but if CIN had snuck in as the 7 Seed, nobody would've been thrilled about playing them early in the Playoffs, either.

Like you said earlier, it's easier tossing out a 3-loss team from the expanded tourney than trying to avoid bias when deciding between 0 or 1 loss teams for the 4-team bracket.

Overall, I've liked the new format this year. Now just try to refine the qualifying and bidding process moving forward.

 

[Some guy]

I agree and it's hard to account for teams that are playing their best football at the end of the season when it comes to seeding.

The NFL has established seeding rules rather than arbitrary rankings but if CIN had snuck in as the 7 Seed, nobody would've been thrilled about playing them early in the Playoffs, either.

Like you said earlier, it's easier tossing out a 3-loss team from the expanded tourney than trying to avoid bias when deciding between 0 or 1 loss teams for the 4-team bracket.

Overall, I've liked the new format this year. Now just try to refine the qualifying and bidding process moving forward.

The thing that bothers me is everyone is talking about breaking this good model because one team got screwed

The only team that got a noticeably better or worse deal than they should have is Oregon.
And Oregon getting that bad deal had more to do with the rankings than the format

Even if you seeded 1-12 Oregon would’ve had to play a top 2 team (notre dame) in the round of 4

What is broken isn’t the format, it’s the rankings

 

[MaxyJR1]

Obviously hindsight after the games is going to play a role in what people believe. I was pointing out that the 12 team simply took away the conundrum of a 4 team field.

With large unbalanced schedules in a 4 team playoff, I would have had.

Oregon (13-0)
Notre Dame (11-1)
Texas (11-2 based on Georgia QB out)
tOSU (H2H over Penn State)

This is why 12 is better. Now just seed 1-12 and maybe give conference champs a home game like the NFL.

 

[Some guy]

Obviously hindsight after the games is going to play a role in what people believe. I was pointing out that the 12 team simply took away the conundrum of a 4 team field.

With large unbalanced schedules in a 4 team playoff, I would have had.

Oregon (13-0)
Notre Dame (11-1)
Texas (11-2 based on Georgia QB out)
tOSU (H2H over Penn State)

This is why 12 is better. Now just seed 1-12 and maybe give conference champs a home game like the NFL.

If you don’t fix the order of 1-12 you don’t solve the issue you just move the issue

 

[MaxyJR1]

The thing that bothers me is everyone is talking about breaking this good model because one team got screwed

The only team that got a noticeably better or worse deal than they should have is Oregon.
And Oregon getting that bad deal had more to do with the rankings than the format

Even if you seeded 1-12 Oregon would’ve had to play a top 2 team (notre dame) in the round of 4

What is broken isn’t the format, it’s the rankings

Format for seeding is bad not the actual rankings. The format puts lowers ranked teams at 3 and 4 and seeds them wrong. Boise and ASU were not top four teams but seeded that way.

Oregon would have played. Ind/Boise and then. PSU or ND.

In hindsight Georgia was probably the most egregious mis ranking.

 

[Pompous Elitist]

It worked because 11-12 games in a season is too small a sample size to adequately judge teams against others when there isn’t many cross conference games. The new format is great for college football. TX earned a final 4 spot; a good, well coached team - that is what the new format provides.

This ^

The Ohio State redemption arc is also pretty cool when most of us (including me) had left them for dead. Not unlike the 2024 Gophers. Teams that improve over the season shouldn’t be left out of the championship race.

 

[Slim Tubby]

The thing that bothers me is everyone is talking about breaking this good model because one team got screwed

The only team that got a noticeably better or worse deal than they should have is Oregon.
And Oregon getting that bad deal had more to do with the rankings than the format

Even if you seeded 1-12 Oregon would’ve had to play a top 2 team (notre dame) in the round of 4

What is broken isn’t the format, it’s the rankings

I think Conference bias can skew the rankings and who ultimately makes the 12-team format. No doubt.

With that said, "to be the best, you gotta beat the rest". If Oregon was worthy of being the National Champs, they would've beaten OSU regardless of when they met in the tourney.

It's a debate with no definitive right answer. I usually head out to the garage to "clean the fridge" when my gal is in the mood for one (1) of these discussions.

 

[MaxyJR1]

My bet for next year is they seed 1-12 and the five conference champs get a bye if 1-4 or a home game if 5-12.

 

[Some guy]

Format for seeding is bad not the actual rankings. The format puts lowers ranked teams at 3 and 4 and seeds them wrong. Boise and ASU were not top four teams but seeded that way.

Arizona state was a double overtime game against texas and totally out played them

Texas would’ve been seeded 3 and Arizona state 11

This is doesn’t get fixed by seeing and moved it to another place

Oregon would have played. Ind/Boise and then. PSU or ND.

Yup. Oregon would’ve played a top 2 team in the round of 4 even though they’re a 1 seed. The problem for Oregon was moved from the round of 8 to the round of 4

In hindsight Georgia was probably the most egregious mis ranking.

And so is Texas. Georgia beat Texas twice. Texas’ best win was either Michigan or Texas A&M this year entering the playoff

Two teams in the 5-7 range, at best, would’ve been seeded 2-3. Breaking the whole playoff.

I would argue Georgia with the backup QB should’ve been seeded 11th ahead of only SMU. But they’d have been the two.

If you’re going to have subjective ratings..:the ratings being shit means no matter how you seed it someone is going to get an unfairly hard draw and someone else might get an unfairly easy draw.

 

[Some guy]

I think Conference bias can skew the rankings and who ultimately makes the 12-team format. No doubt.

With that said, "to be the best, you gotta beat the rest". If Oregon was worthy of being the National Champs, they would've beaten OSU regardless of when they met in the tourney.

True. So why are we redoing the format then?

It's a debate with no definitive right answer. I usually head out to the garage to "clean the fridge" when my gal is in the mood for one (1) of these discussions.

Yeah. There is a definitive right answer though. And that’s to have an objective ranking system rather than a subjective one

 

[MaxyJR1]

I think Conference bias can skew the rankings and who ultimately makes the 12-team format. No doubt.

With that said, "to be the best, you gotta beat the rest". If Oregon was worthy of being the National Champs, they would've beaten OSU regardless of when they met in the tourney.

It's a debate with no definitive right answer. I usually head out to the garage to "clean the fridge" when my gal is in the mood for one (1) of these discussions.

Absolutely bias when you take into account September non conference games and try to equal them to November and December games. Also preseason rankings add to the bias.

My issue with Oregon is they played arguably the best team in the country on 25 days off while OSU rested, played and got 10 days rest.

The format can’t be fixed unless they shorten the time between games.

 

[MaxyJR1]

Arizona state was a double overtime game against texas and totally out played them

Texas would’ve been seeded 3 and Arizona state 11

This is doesn’t get fixed by seeing and moved it to another place

Yup. Oregon would’ve played a top 2 team in the round of 4 even though they’re a 1 seed. The problem for Oregon was moved from the round of 8 to the round of 4

And so is Texas. Georgia beat Texas twice. Texas’ best win was either Michigan or Texas A&M this year entering the playoff

Two teams in the 5-7 range, at best, would’ve been seeded 2-3. Breaking the whole playoff.

I would argue Georgia with the backup QB should’ve been seeded 11th ahead of only SMU. But they’d have been the two.

If you’re going to have subjective ratings..:the ratings being shit means no matter how you seed it someone is going to get an unfairly hard draw and someone else might get an unfairly easy draw.

I think it’s the optics of seeding 1-12. If they still get some seeds wrong there will be complaints, but less than auto giving teams top 4 seeds.

Truly biased that the SEC was handed the 2&3 rankings. Especially when there was a pretty good consensus that OSU was a top two team outside the committee.

 

[Some guy]

I think it’s the optics of seeding 1-12. If they still get some seeds wrong there will be complaints, but less than auto giving teams top 4 seeds.

Truly biased that the SEC was handed the 2&3 rankings. Especially when there was a pretty good consensus that OSU was a top two team outside the committee.

Yeah. So seeding 1-12 wouldn’t fix the problem. You agree with me.
Who cares about the optics? The optics probably make them more money than it costs them by stirring up conversation

Plus it makes more money by making Texas play in the first round. Making Penn state play in the first round. Etc

Seeding 1-12 doesn’t fix the problems. And it makes it less likely to have big brands playing in the round of 12.

 

[btowngopher]

This ^

The Ohio State redemption arc is also pretty cool when most of us (including me) had left them for dead. Not unlike the 2024 Gophers. Teams that improve over the season shouldn’t be left out of the championship race.

If you’re trying to crown the team that’s best at the end of the year sure, but if you’re trying to crown the team that was best all year than it’s fine to leave them out.

 

[Ope3]

Absolutely bias when you take into account September non conference games and try to equal them to November and December games. Also preseason rankings add to the bias.

My issue with Oregon is they played arguably the best team in the country on 25 days off while OSU rested, played and got 10 days rest.

The format can’t be fixed unless they shorten the time between games.

I also think Oregon was screwed due to the fact they had already played an beat Ohio St. I would be in favor of avoiding rematches (move teams up or down a spot) until the Semis.

 

[MaxyJR1]

True. So why are we redoing the format then?

Yeah. There is a definitive right answer though. And that’s to have an objective ranking system rather than a subjective one

Not sure what will make games less meaningful, the subjective or objective system.

There has to be rewards for playing extra games.

ND has to be on a level playing field. They just made $20M, while OSU shares with 17 other schools.

Non conference game reform needs to be in play.

Balance in size of conference needs to be in play

There needs to be a balance of auto bids and play in games to take subjectivity out.

 

[Some guy]

I also think Oregon was screwed due to the fact they had already played a beat Ohio St. I would be in favor of avoiding rematches (move teams up or down a spot) until the Semis.

yeah. Bigger issue than the rematch was still they seeded the second best team in the country 8. They seeded the second best team in the country behind a team that had same number of losses who they beat.


If Oregon was playing Penn state in the rose bowl I would’ve had less of a problem with the rematch. Because Oregon would’ve won the game

 

[Some guy]

Not sure what will make games less meaningful, the subjective or objective system.

There has to be rewards for playing extra games.

There does not have to be

ND has to be on a level playing field. They just made $20M, while OSU shares with 17 other schools.

Ohio state made more money than Notre dame this year by a significant margin even with the 20 million

Non conference game reform needs to be in play.

Not sure what this means

Balance in size of conference needs to be in play

They need round robins within the conference schedule. Actually it should be the conferences that want this. The SEC didn’t put its 3 best teams in the playoff because their scheduling model was broken (I think ole miss and South Carolina were both better than Tennessee this year)
So the SEC had less chance at success because their scheduling model was broken.
The big ten’s is broken too but it worked out that their best 4 went to playoff this year anyways.

There needs to be a balance of auto bids and play in games to take subjectivity out.

Agree I hope they go more auto bids.
Even if conference are awarded multiple auto bids that would fix issues.
If big ten gets 3 auto bids you’d think that would make them build a schedule to ensure the three best teams get those 3 spots.