College Playoff

[BB73]

Talk about foolhardy systems.

Yeah, let's set up a system to give ESPN even more control over the postseason. If we're lucky, we can get 50% of the playoffs reserved for Disney's chosen ones.

Exactly. That's why I want conference champions only. Fuck ESPN's hype and subjectivity affecting the participants. They'd spend the entire year dissing the B1G and fellating the SEC, in order to get more SEC teams into the playoff.

I simply can't say fuck that loud enough.

All of the other conference commissioners really should be able to see the benefit of only allowing conference champions into a playoff. It diminishes the effect of ESPN and their chosen conference and team partners.

 

[Gatorubet]

Exactly. That's why I want conference champions only. [censored] ESPN's hype and subjectivity affecting the participants.

Yeah. Because if we had a replay of 2009 we'd have Cincinnati in instead of Florida. Makes sense.

 

[BB73]

Another point on the 4-team playoff including at least 3 conference champions. (The 4th spot may have to be reserved for the 'highest ranked team among independents or other conference champions', in order to get ND to buy into the 4-team playoff).

It's really a larger playoff system than 4 teams, since most of the relevant conferences all have CCGs, so it's very close to already having an 8-team playoff of division winners, with the CCGs being round 1 of the playoffs.

I would not want a system that allowed a CCG loser into the playoff - they had their chance.

 

[BB73]

Yeah. Because if we had a replay of 2009 we'd have Cincinnati in instead of Florida. Makes sense.

Makes perfect sense to me. Cincinnati was an undefeated conference champion that was #3 in the BCS. They deserved a shot in a 4-team playoff, #5 SEC runner-up Florida didn't.

I know you killed them in the Sugar Bowl, but the 2009 Florida team wouldn't deserve a shot in my 4-team proposal.

And having Bama kill Cincy in the playoff is a preferred outcome to me over having a Florida-Bama rematch.

 

[MililaniBuckeye]

Importance of the regular season, I'd like you to meet my friend, Jack Shit.

Clemson was the ACC champ while having not one but two conference losses (14-point loss to GT and a 24-point loss to NCSU), in addition to getting beat by 21 points by South Carolina. So, the regular season said that Clemson was the ACC's best team despite losing three games by an average margin of almost 20 points.

Look, no system is perfect and we can find holes in any setup that is used. We know that CCGs are there just for money-making, and not determining a "true conference champion". Giving a team that happens to have won its CCG an auto-bid in the playoffs is almost as counter-productive as having a single human poll determine the seedings. I'm still not convinvced that E$P!N would have all that much control over both the Coaches and Harris polls, and they would have virtually no control over the computer polls.

 

[Oh8ch]

Arkansas was the fourth place SEC team. I'm not sure why you're so hung up on rankings.

Arkansas lost to the #1 and #2 teams in the country. Clemson lost to NC St, Ga Tech and a South Carolina team that Arkansas beat by 16 points. That is the sort of thing that drives the rankings I prefer. Seems less arbitrary than historical conference groupings. (If only Louisville had won the tie breaker.)

I think Alabama was a lousy choice in a terrible year for CFB, which was as bad on the field as it was off of it.

Bama played two tough games. They lost the biggest one, at home. Then they were given a trophy for not failing both times.

For months, Bama wasn't in the same stratosphere as LSU.

For 3 hours, in their second try, Bama was finally better than LSU.

Alabama outplayed LSU twice. They just didn't miss four field goals the second time.

LSU played a tougher schedule, but the margin of victory was roughly comparable - until that last game. That's the one where Alabama scored on six possessions while shutting out LSU. The one where Alabama ran up almost 400 total yards while holding LSU under 100. But if that doesn't prove anything perhaps you would like to see a third game.

I'm good.

Yeah, let's set up a system to give ESPN even more control over the postseason.

Wasn't aware that ESPN now had control over all major polls.

 

[FCollinsBuckeye]

Wasn't aware that ESPN now had control over all major polls.

Only in the sense that a propaganda machine has control over hearts and minds.

 

[jwinslow]

Arkansas lost to the #1 and #2 teams in the country.

So naturally they deserve two potential rematches.

Clemson lost to NC St, Ga Tech and a South Carolina team that Arkansas beat by 16 points. That is the sort of thing that drives the rankings I prefer. Seems less arbitrary than historical conference groupings. (If only Louisville had won the tie breaker.)

Which would probably make them a low seed for LSU to drill in round 1.

Alabama outplayed LSU twice. They just didn't miss four field goals the second time.

So they outplayed them but sucked? Got it.

LSU played a tougher schedule, but the margin of victory was roughly comparable - until that last game. That's the one where Alabama scored on six possessions while shutting out LSU. The one where Alabama ran up almost 400 total yards while holding LSU under 100. But if that doesn't prove anything perhaps you would like to see a third game.

Alabama humiliated LSU for 3 hours. They weren't close to LSU's accomplishments before that.

Wasn't aware that ESPN now had control over all major polls.

Then you've been living in a dream world.

 

[jwinslow]

Talk about foolhardy systems.

Yeah, let's set up a system to give ESPN even more control over the postseason. If we're lucky, we can get 50% of the playoffs reserved for Disney's chosen ones.

Exactly. That's why I want conference champions only. Fuck ESPN's hype and subjectivity affecting the participants. They'd spend the entire year dissing the B1G and fellating the SEC, in order to get more SEC teams into the playoff.

I simply can't say fuck that loud enough.

All of the other conference commissioners really should be able to see the benefit of only allowing conference champions into a playoff. It diminishes the effect of ESPN and their chosen conference and team partners.

For those that missed it, the SEC almost had 50% of the top-8 this year. An unimpressive S Carolina checked in at 9.


Under Oh8ch's system, 3-loss KSU gets in but Wisconsin does not.


Even better, if Georgia had upset LSU, they would have needed help in the polls to make the playoffs, while the other 3 SEC teams went to the playoffs, 2 without winning their division.

 

[kn1f3party]

In defense of my proposal, clemson had not taken a shit yet. The most vocal opponents of a change are the ones that want to preserve the regular season. I think my proposal accommodates that.

 

[kn1f3party]

Forgot TCU won MWC. Which puts west virginia in.

 

[muffler dragon]

For me, a playoff (and the seeding therein) is only of value IF there is more inter-league playing. We don't know how good teams are unless they're competing against teams of like quality. That's simply impossible to determine when the OOC schedules are so weak and intra-league play doesn't paint the whole picture. This is a MAJOR reason why playoffs work well in the others sports: more teams of like quality play each other and help give a true sense of who deserves to compete for the Championship via a playoff. Until that sort of playing occurs, the arguments are going to continue to circle.

 

[MililaniBuckeye]

For those that missed it, the SEC almost had 50% of the top-8 this year. An unimpressive S Carolina checked in at 9.

For those that missed it, the SEC indeed had the two best teams in college football and another damned good one whose only losses were to the top two teams in the country. As for "unimpressive S Carolina" being at #9, there were very few impressive teams thoughout all of college football this year.

I would've loved to see what you would've said had you been around for the 1971 season where the top three teams in the final poll were from the same eight-team conference (#1 Nebraska, #2 Oklahoma, #3 Colorado from the Big 8).

 

[Oh8ch]

For those that missed it, the SEC almost had 50% of the top-8 this year. An unimpressive S Carolina checked in at 9.


Under Oh8ch's system, 3-loss KSU gets in but Wisconsin does not.


Even better, if Georgia had upset LSU, they would have needed help in the polls to make the playoffs, while the other 4 SEC teams went to the playoffs, 3 without winning their division.

Wow. I have been against a playoff for years. I give in for one post and suddenly the system so may have been proposing is mine.

And I don't believe I ever said use the BCS rankings. In the polls I would consider KSU does not rise above 15th.

As far as Georgia is concerned a playoff system by its nature discounts the regular season. Or would you also have found room for UCLA?

To be sure, the love fest for the SEC is problematic, but not entirely driven by ESPN. The final rankings are not far out of syn with recruiting rankings from the years that built those teams. Recruiting rankings are biased and skewed as well, but it is not an overarching ESPN driven conspiracy (if it is the NFL is also part of it).

That said, if your purpose in having an 8 team playoff based on conference championships is to create early round mismatches so LSU can tune their game so be it. We almost had a 7-5 Louisville. Wouldn't that have been sweet.

I never really wanted a playoff. Just seemed to me that if the purpose was to see who the best team is coming out you might want to start with the best teams going in.

 

[Fungo Squiggly]

Gawd, I hate that line. You don't know what I know.

Well, you have to admit that he doesn't know what you know.

We know that CCGs are there just for money-making, and not determining a "true conference champion". Giving a team that happens to have won its CCG an auto-bid in the playoffs is almost as counter-productive as having a single human poll determine the seedings.

I don't disagree, but I don't understand how someone pro-playoff can make that argument against the CCG's. Isn't a playoff (pretty much) exactly the same thing? What if I said:

"We know that playoffs are there just for money-making, and not determining a 'true national champion'. Giving a team that happens to have won its playoff games an NC...."

Both the CCG and playoff systems try to compress a season's worth of what we think we know about two (or 4/8/16) teams and redefine it based on 1 (or 2/4/8) games. How is 3-loss Clemson beating 1-loss VT for an ACC Championship any worse than (hypothetically) #16 seed 3-loss Georgia defeating undefeated #1 LSU in the first round of the playoffs?

Who was the better team this season? VT and LSU. Who gets to go to the BCS game/next round? Clemson & Georgia.