• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

2017 College Football Playoffs (and Other Bowl Games)

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
MightbeaBuck said:
Alabama got into the playoffs instead of Ohio State. I have seen two members of the playoff committee explain why this happened, along with several sports commentator's explaining the reasons they agree with the selection committee.

Total victories was considered... the Buckeyes have eleven wins, the Tide has eleven wins.
Conference strength is considered... Ohio State's B1G is ranked higher than Alabama's SEC.
Strength of schedule was considered... the Buckeyes played the 28th toughest schedule, Alabama played the 56th.
Finish first in their conference subdivision... Ohio State yes, Alabama no.
Win their Power Five Conference championship: Ohio State yes, Alabama, no.
Victories against the top ranked teams were considered...the Buckeyes had two wins against top ten teams, the Tide had zero.
Most telling though was the losses. Buckeyes had two losses, where the Tide only had one.

So far, that logic is fine. And if it held through the selection process, then the B1G should have been happy with it, because using all those points THEY (the selection committee) MADE, Wisconsin should have been in the playoffs instead of Alabama.

Total victories: Wisconsin 12, Alabama 11
Conference strength: B1G over SEC
Strength of schedule: Badgers 50th, Tide 56th
Victories against top ranked teams: Wisconsin 0, Alabama 0
Win college subdivision: Badgers yes, Alabama no
Play in a conference championship game: Badgers yes, Alabama no
Win conference championship: Wisky no, Bama no
Total loses: Badgers 1, Tide 1 - However Bama's loss was to the number ranked 9 team (by 12 points,) but the Badgers loss was to the number 5 ranked team (by only 6 points,) so even the Tides loss was worse than the Badgers loss.
Covering the spread against a top ten opponent: Wisconsin yes, Alabama no.
The Wisconsin Badgers took the fifth best team down to the closing minutes. The Alabama Crimson Tide was out of the game by the second quarter against a lesser ranked opponent.

Now tell me again how the Southeast Conference isn't always favored?
Click to expand...
Do you even eye test, breh?

Edit: Beaten like a SCUM fan.
 
Upvote 0
Jaxbuck said:
CBB has a tournament with 64 teams in it and the talking heads still spend a week crying over the injustice of some poor team not getting the opportunity to go get poleaxed by a #1 seed. You will never get rid of the crying so I don't think that is the problem that should be looked at as needing solved.

The single biggest issue I see is that you have 65 teams in the P5, including ND, and by and large they don't play each other enough to know who the best 4 or 8 teams really are. The solutions to this issue all go against the current conference/Bowl/polls structure of CFB and therefore are highly unlikely to ever get implemented. Therefore you are always going to have this whether it be 4 teams or 8.

So if you are always going to have the arbitrary selection process and arguments from it, I say stick with the structure that protects the one unique thing about CFB and that is the rivalries. Keep it at 4 or go to 8 and have no auto bids, just please don't kill the rivalries.
Click to expand...

Win your conference and you're in eliminates some of the arbitrary-ness, though, no?

I'm not saying the crying of the eliminated is something that needs to get solved. But I do think Ohio State and USC had a reasonable argument to be in the playoff over Alabama. And Alabama would get in in either a 4 or 8 team playoff. But a team like Penn State who would be on the fence in an 8 team playoff. Tough break if you don't get in, you should have won your conference.

No system will be entirely fair b/c, like you said, there are so many teams and they don't play each other. I just think 8 is the most fair. In part b/c I am against anything larger than 8 b/c then you are adding too many games for these players playing a dangerous game without getting (imo) properly compensated.

I don't see how going to 8 takes any luster off rivalry games, either in theory or practice. College football fans are maniacs. Rivalry games will always be important to them. And assuming the 2 teams are good, they will almost always be important to the standings and a potential playoff berth.
 
Upvote 0
MililaniBuckeye said:
An 8-4 team does not belong in the playoffs simply because they happened to luck into CCG because they won a [Mark May]ty division and then pulled an upset.
Click to expand...

8-4 teams is a bit of a straw man. It's not going to happen often. And conference title games, in an 8 team playoff with automatic bids, would essentially be playoff games. Sometimes teams with worse record beat teams with better records in the playoffs.
 
Upvote 0
Tanner said:
8-4 teams is a bit of a straw man. It's not going to happen often.
Click to expand...
Not sure how that's a "straw man", as it's already happened in the B1C CCG in 2012, when unranked 7-5 Wisconsin (4-4 in conference) won the CCG by beating #14 10-2 Nebraska 70-31, despite Nebraska already having won a head-to-head earlier in the season 30-27.
 
Upvote 0
Tanner said:
So once in the last 6 years?
Click to expand...
Now you're arguing just for the sake of arguing. It doesn't matter how often it happens, the fact that it does happen is what's important. An 8-4 team should never, ever be considered in an eight-team playoff--conference champion or not--unless the best records in all of FBS happen to be 9-3 and 8-4.

By the way:

Va Tech won the 2008 ACC title game despite going only 8-4 and finishing unranked during the regular season.
Texas won the 2006 Big 12 title game despite going only 7-4 and finishing unranked during the regular season.
Kansas State won the 2003 Big 16 despite going only 7-4 and finishing ranked #19 during the regular season.

So at least four times in the last 15 seasons, you've had four teams (three of them not even ranked) that have averaged four losses end up winning their CCG, so that's slightly more often than once every four years and therefore hardly uncommon.
 
Upvote 0
Jaxbuck said:
No they don't.

The rivalry games held the last week of the season, right before the games that would actually matter (conference championship games), are instantly at risk.

8 teams is fine, just don't do the auto bid thing.
Click to expand...

If they really went to 8 teams, I'd say scratch the CCGs altogether ... pick 8 from the 8 division winners + BXII winners (ties included).

MililaniBuckeye said:
Now you're arguing just for the sake of arguing. It doesn't matter how often it happens, the fact that it does happen is what's important. An 8-4 team should never, ever be considered in an eight-team playoff--conference champion or not--unless the best records in all of FBS happen to be 9-3 and 8-4.

By the way:

Va Tech won the 2008 ACC title game despite going only 8-4 and finishing unranked during the regular season.
Texas won the 2006 Big 12 title game despite going only 7-4 and finishing unranked during the regular season.
Kansas State won the 2003 Big 16 despite going only 7-4 and finishing ranked #19 during the regular season.

So at least four times in the last 15 seasons, you've had four teams (three of them not even ranked) that have averaged four losses end up winning their CCG, so that's slightly more often than once every four years and therefore hardly uncommon.
Click to expand...

You can't argue for NFL style playoffs then complain when 11-5 Wildcards win the Super Bowl. You implicitly create that situation by expanding the number of teams.

Bestbuck36 said:
4 super conferences of 16. Best way to settle the entire, issue. Do it on the field. 4 CCG's after playing a legit, full conference schedule and a few QUALITY out of conference games. Can still keep the rivalry games this way.
Click to expand...

Have to think this is eventually where it's headed... I vote to boot BXII off the island.
 
Upvote 0
MililaniBuckeye said:
Not sure how that's a "straw man", as it's already happened in the B1C CCG in 2012, when unranked 7-5 Wisconsin (4-4 in conference) won the CCG by beating #14 10-2 Nebraska 70-31, despite Nebraska already having won a head-to-head earlier in the season 30-27.
Click to expand...
Isn’t that the year Wisconsin got in the title game despite being 3rd? That’s an awful lot of things falling into (or out of) place to hit your scenario.
 
Upvote 0
BuckeyeNation27 said:
Isn’t that the year Wisconsin got in the title game despite being 3rd? That’s an awful lot of things falling into (or out of) place to hit your scenario.
Click to expand...

Yes. Ohio State was 8-0 and Penn State was 6-2. Wisconsin was 4-4. Wisconsin was trying to beat Penn State the last game of the year to hopefully finish 2nd in the division and give themselves SOME claim to the conference championship game (though, that claim would have been weak). Unfortunately for Wisconsin, the recent death of #42 Mike Mauti inspired the Penn Staters to a 24-21 victory in overtime.

So I agree that 2012 is a bad example. But I hate the idea of automatic bids. If a 4-loss team is ever put on the list of 4 teams being "worthy" of a national title, then that season is a failure.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top