College Playoffs Setup: Poll

[Ski U Mah 55]

Sure you can. Some people may not like it but you definitely can stay at 4 teams.

I prefer it to stay as it is but I'd be okay if it expanded to 6 or 8 as long as the first round games are played at the higher seeds' home stadium. Then 2nd round games would be the bowl games. I'd even say that the teams that lose in the first round would still get to play in a bowl game as well.

I guess the mess for qualifying is okay with some, but to me it's a horrible way of doing a "Champion". Criteria is unclear, qualification is subjective. Any system where a P5 conference champ can be excluded is inherently flawed.

 

[Lakeville Goldy]

How would the Irish fit into the mix?

The Irish can join a conference if they have any concerns.

Exactly. Everything doesn't have to consider those that choose to not be in conferences. They can still get an at large bid. It just makes it that much more difficult. If they don't want that, they can choose to join a conference.

BYU isn't in a conference and nobody cares that they couldn't get in. Nobody makes special arrangements for them.

 

[theTurning]

I guess the mess for qualifying is okay with some, but to me it's a horrible way of doing a "Champion". Criteria is unclear, qualification is subjective. Any system where a P5 conference champ can be excluded is inherently flawed.

The problem is that not all conferences are created equal. CFB is very different from the pro leagues in that way. The SEC could realistically have 2-3 teams that are clearly better than the Big12 champ for example. There are just too many nuances and challenges to create a relatively equal conference structure.

 

[dpodoll68]

I guess the mess for qualifying is okay with some, but to me it's a horrible way of doing a "Champion". Criteria is unclear, qualification is subjective. Any system where a P5 conference champ can be excluded is inherently flawed.

There is no way to have objective qualification when you have 130 teams of widely varying quality. Even in FCS, where there are 24 playoff teams, 10 are conference champions and 14 are selected by a committee. I don't follow FCS football on anything more than an extremely casual level, but logic dictates that there are more deserving teams left out in favor of poor teams who are champions of weak conferences. This happens even in a playoff bracket with 24 teams.

 

[Some guy]

There is no way to have objective qualification when you have 130 teams of widely varying quality. Even in FCS, where there are 24 playoff teams, 10 are conference champions and 14 are selected by a committee. I don't follow FCS football on anything more than an extremely casual level, but logic dictates that there are more deserving teams left out in favor of poor teams who are champions of weak conferences. This happens even in a playoff bracket with 24 teams.

Putting all 10 conference champs in would indeed ensure some teams that are in are worse than some teams that are out. However, this is a good thing in my opinion. Because although we think Wisconsin is better than UCF, we don’t actually know.

We know Ohio State is better than Wisconsin.

I’d rather see UCF and Ohio State than Ohio State and Wisconsin. Even if Wisconsin is better than UCF...we already know they aren’t the best team in the big ten, and thus the country.



I’d rather see the UMAC champ in the d3 playoff than the 4th place team in the MIAC because even though the 4th best team in the MIAC is better than the UMAC champ in my opinion and in most years...I know 4th place MIAC is not deserving of a national championship and I only think the UMAC champion is underserving.

 

[Ski U Mah 55]

There is no way to have objective qualification when you have 130 teams of widely varying quality. Even in FCS, where there are 24 playoff teams, 10 are conference champions and 14 are selected by a committee. I don't follow FCS football on anything more than an extremely casual level, but logic dictates that there are more deserving teams left out in favor of poor teams who are champions of weak conferences. This happens even in a playoff bracket with 24 teams.

Yes that is why a system that includes conference champions is necessary. The at-large teams will still be subjective, but the more teams that you add the more watered down the complaints are by the "first team out". The #5 team can have a real case that they are the best team in the nation, the #17 not so much.

 

[HoustonTXGopher]

Currently the NCAA only realistically gives 4 teams the chance to win the championship. This is by far the lowest percentage of teams than any other NCAA mens sport. For that reason alone, 8 should be the minimum and I would love to see 10, 12 or even 16.

If only their was someone smart enough in the NCAA to figure it out, oh well.

 

[MplsGopher]

Realistically? I would say that if you don't make the 4-team CFP, it is quite impossible to win the championship.

The devil's advocate response would go something like this: while true that in DIII, DII, and FCS, the playoffs are much larger (32 to 24 teams in the bracket), most of those teams have zero chance to win the championship. It's really only about 4-6 teams a year that have a legitimate shot. The rest are just getting to participate in the post-seasons. OK, so then look at FBS: 78 teams get to participate in the post-season, in some form. And 4 teams have a shot to win the championship. So it's actually not all that different ...

 

[HoustonTXGopher]

Realistically? I would say that if you don't make the 4-team CFP, it is quite impossible to win the championship.

The devil's advocate response would go something like this: while true that in DIII, DII, and FCS, the playoffs are much larger (32 to 24 teams in the bracket), most of those teams have zero chance to win the championship. It's really only about 4-6 teams a year that have a legitimate shot. The rest are just getting to participate in the post-seasons. OK, so then look at FBS: 78 teams get to participate in the post-season, in some form. And 4 teams have a shot to win the championship. So it's actually not all that different ...

16 teams in hockey
64 for teams in baseball
64+ teams in basketball

This year spoke to the parody in college football. Add USC, Ohio ST, Penn St, Auburn and you can't tell me that any of these teams could defeat those that were actually invited? Heck, Auburn beat 2 of the teams that got an invitation.

 

[MplsGopher]

16 teams in hockey
64 for teams in baseball
64+ teams in basketball

This year spoke to the parody in college football. Add USC, Ohio ST, Penn St, Auburn and you can't tell me that any of these teams could defeat those that were actually invited? Heck, Auburn beat 2 of the teams that got an invitation.

Yep, that is a valid argument.

But again, the devil's advocate goes something like: yeah, but those teams (USC, OH St, Penn St, Auburn) lost critical games, and that's why they're not there. They had their chances, on the field. AND they still get to participate in the post-season, just not in the bracket. So it's really not much different.

 

[bizzle22]

Yep, that is a valid argument.

But again, the devil's advocate goes something like: yeah, but those teams (USC, OH St, Penn St, Auburn) lost critical games, and that's why they're not there. They had their chances, on the field. AND they still get to participate in the post-season, just not in the bracket. So it's really not much different.

Exactly. We already sort of have a bigger playoff. it's just that people don't realize it. The SEC and ACC title games were quarterfinal/play-in games and everyone knew that going into those games.

The B1G had a cluster of teams that were pretty good, but no one who was really worthy of a shot at a national title. Best B1G nonconf win -- probably either at 7-5 Mizzou or at 7-5 Iowa State.

Every conference that got a team in the playoff either had multiple nonconference wins over CFP ranked opponents OR had a win over a top 10 nonconference opponent. The B1G and Pac12 had neither.

There already are play-in games, it's just that they aren't officially called play-in games.

 

[MplsGopher]

Exactly. We already sort of have a bigger playoff. it's just that people don't realize it. The SEC and ACC title games were quarterfinal/play-in games and everyone knew that going into those games.

The B1G had a cluster of teams that were pretty good, but no one who was really worthy of a shot at a national title. Best B1G nonconf win -- probably either at 7-5 Mizzou or at 7-5 Iowa State.

Every conference that got a team in the playoff either had multiple nonconference wins over CFP ranked opponents OR had a win over a top 10 nonconference opponent. The B1G and Pac12 had neither.

There already are play-in games, it's just that they aren't officially called play-in games.

Yep.

Ohio State's playoff game was Oklahoma. And it was even at home, in Columbus ... and they still lost. OU was just a better team, both at that time and at the end of the season. I think they could've overcome the loss to Iowa, if that had been their only loss. Similar story with USC. Beat Notre Dame, which was in South Bend, and they probably make it despite the close loss to Wash St.

 

[HoustonTXGopher]

Exactly. We already sort of have a bigger playoff. it's just that people don't realize it. The SEC and ACC title games were quarterfinal/play-in games and everyone knew that going into those games.

The B1G had a cluster of teams that were pretty good, but no one who was really worthy of a shot at a national title. Best B1G nonconf win -- probably either at 7-5 Mizzou or at 7-5 Iowa State.

Every conference that got a team in the playoff either had multiple nonconference wins over CFP ranked opponents OR had a win over a top 10 nonconference opponent. The B1G and Pac12 had neither.

There already are play-in games, it's just that they aren't officially called play-in games.

SEC play-in game? Remind me, did Alabama win the SEC in their "play-in" game?

Auburn beats Alabama just a couple weeks ago and when they lose a rematch to Georgia they are now out? It really is a National Invitational and not settled on the field of all worthy teams!

 

[Ski U Mah 55]

most of those teams have zero chance to win the championship.

False. They all actually DO have a shot to win the championship. Unlikely? Yes, but they have the opportunity, something not even granted to conference champions in the current 4 team format.

 

[MplsGopher]

False. They all actually DO have a shot to win the championship. Unlikely? Yes, but they have the opportunity, something not even granted to conference champions in the current 4 team format.

But it’s just semantics, at some point.

 

[bizzle22]

SEC play-in game? Remind me, did Alabama win the SEC in their "play-in" game?

Auburn beats Alabama just a couple weeks ago and when they lose a rematch to Georgia they are now out? It really is a National Invitational and not settled on the field of all worthy teams!

Auburn has three losses. Alabama has one. It's not that hard to understand.

 

[MNfootballfan]

Auburn has three losses. Alabama has one. It's not that hard to understand.

There is no way Auburn should be out of the playoffs and Alabama in it.

Note to college football teams - do not play any playoff caliber teams early in the year.

 

[Some guy]

Auburn has three losses. Alabama has one. It's not that hard to understand.

When both teams completed the regular season auburn had 2, both early, to eventual number one clemson and to an okay LSU team.

Alabama only had one. But it was getting beaten down by auburn the last week of the season.


If auburn had refused to play in the sec title game they’d be in the playoff. In fact, if you want to play the fewer losses game...UCF has fewer losses than Bama and the same number of top 25 wins.

 

[dpodoll68]

If auburn had refused to play in the sec title game they’d be in the playoff.

You've posted this before, and it's silly. A forfeit is a loss.

 

[MplsGopher]

If Auburn had beaten Georgia, they'd be in the playoff. Simple as that.

They ran out of gas after beating Alabama, safe to say.

 

[bizzle22]

There is no way Auburn should be out of the playoffs and Alabama in it.

Note to college football teams - do not play any playoff caliber teams early in the year.

Because of one game? Should Syracuse be in over Clemson too?

 

[bizzle22]

When both teams completed the regular season auburn had 2, both early, to eventual number one clemson and to an okay LSU team.

Alabama only had one. But it was getting beaten down by auburn the last week of the season.


If auburn had refused to play in the sec title game they’d be in the playoff. In fact, if you want to play the fewer losses game...UCF has fewer losses than Bama and the same number of top 25 wins.

Auburn lost their quarterfinal game vs Georgia. Everyone knows if they won that game they would be in the top 4 and they lost.

I don't disagree that UCF was shown no respect. I've posted such things before. Are they one of the top 4 teams? Probably not. But they deserve to be ranked better than 12th.

 

[Some guy]

You've posted this before, and it's silly. A forfeit is a loss.

You have no idea if that would be the case because the committee has never dealt with it.
Division winners in the past have not played in championship games (I should’ve say division winner, teams with the best record in the division like probation teams). Auburn should’ve opted out. They’d likely have a hefty fine from the conference and Alabama would’ve gone instead. If Alabama goes because auburn opted to not go. Auburn would still be rated second.

 

[MplsGopher]

That is an interesting hypothetical idea. But I don't think we'll ever see a school refuse to play in the conference championship game. And I would guess that if it was ever tried, the conference would indeed automatically award the other team the victory and give a forfeit loss to the team refusing to play.

Because, the CCG's are huge cash cows for the conferences, so they want to deter anyone from ever having the gall to refuse playing.

 

[dpodoll68]

You have no idea if that would be the case because the committee has never dealt with it.
Division winners in the past have not played in championship games (I should’ve say division winner, teams with the best record in the division like probation teams). Auburn should’ve opted out. They’d likely have a hefty fine from the conference and Alabama would’ve gone instead. If Alabama goes because auburn opted to not go. Auburn would still be rated second.

I absolutely do have an idea. Refusing to take the field is a forfeit and therefore a loss, period.

Division winners have not played in conference championship games in the past because they were banned from doing so, not because they chose not to.

 

[Ski U Mah 55]

Choosing not to play in the CCG is never going to happen. The Conference would never allow it, and it would surprise me if there wasn't some language around if you qualify you must play.

 

[MplsGopher]

Choosing not to play in the CCG is never going to happen. The Conference would never allow it, and it would surprise me if there wasn't some language around if you qualify you must play.

Yes. The conference bylaws probably have language in regards to "scheduled conference contests", with penalties prescribed for refusal to participate.