College Playoff

[LordJeffBuck]

I'm not sure why anyone wants an expanded playoff when there have rarely (never?) been even four teams worthy of inclusion.

In eight seasons of the playoffs, there have been sixteen semi-final games....

• The average score in those games was 38.6 to 17.5
• The average margin of victory was 21.1 points
• In four games, the victor won by 30+ points
• In six games, the loser scored 7 points or less
• Only three games (18.8%) were decided by one score

The eight final games have been a little better, but still fairly lopsided....

• The average score in those games was 39.9 to 24.6
• The average margin of victory was 15.3 points
• In three games, the victor won by 22+ points
• The largest margin of victory was 28 points (twice)
• In all games, the loser scored at least 16 points
• Three games (37.5%) were decided by one score

The overall numbers for the twenty-four playoff games....

• The average score in those games was 39.0 to 19.9
  
• The average margin of victory was 19.1 points
  
• In seven games (29.2%), the victor won by 27+ points
• In nine games (37.5%), the victor won by 17-26 points
• Only six games (25.0%) were decided by one score

So eight years of playoffs, 1/4 of the games were close (7 points or less), and 2/3 were blowouts (17+ points). But yeah, let's expand up to 12 teams.

 

[pnuts34]

I'm not sure why anyone wants an expanded playoff when there have rarely (never?) been even four teams worthy of inclusion.

In eight seasons of the playoffs, there have been sixteen semi-final games....

• The average score in those games was 38.6 to 17.5
• The average margin of victory was 21.1 points
• In four games, the victor won by 30+ points
• In six games, the loser scored 7 points or less
• Only three games (18.8%) were decided by one score

The eight final games have been a little better, but still fairly lopsided....

• The average score in those games was 39.9 to 24.6
• The average margin of victory was 15.3 points
• In three games, the victor won by 22+ points
• The largest margin of victory was 28 points (twice)
• In all games, the loser scored at least 16 points
• Three games (37.5%) were decided by one score

The overall numbers for the twenty-four playoff games....

• The average score in those games was 39.0 to 19.9
  
• The average margin of victory was 19.1 points
  
• In seven games (29.2%), the victor won by 27+ points
• In nine games (37.5%), the victor won by 17-26 points
• Only six games (25.0%) were decided by one score

So eight years of playoffs, 1/4 of the games were close (7 points or less), and 2/3 were blowouts (17+ points). But yeah, let's expand up to 12 teams.

It's all to appease fans and programs. It'd be more fun for UK to say that they made the CFP instead of saying they played in a NY6 in the Citrus Bowl. That would be a recruiting tool, regardless if they lose by 3TDs in the CFP or NY6 bowl

 

[LordJeffBuck]

It's all to appease fans and programs. It'd be more fun for UK to say that they made the CFP instead of saying they played in a NY6 in the Citrus Bowl. That would be a recruiting tool, regardless if they lose by 3TDs in the CFP or NY6 bowl

So we should make a bad playoff worse so that second-rate schools like UK can have a recruiting tool? No thanks.

 

[ORD_Buckeye]

If this is true and the pac 12 supports all of these then we have their commish way too much credit.

He can afford to be magnanimous because the B1G is doing him a solid and holding the line on AQ for him. Think about. Is there any scenario where the BIG champ isn't one of the six top champs? The PAC? Uhhh, not so much.

 

[Abenaki]

I'm not sure why anyone wants an expanded playoff when there have rarely (never?) been even four teams worthy of inclusion.

In eight seasons of the playoffs, there have been sixteen semi-final games....

• The average score in those games was 38.6 to 17.5
• The average margin of victory was 21.1 points
• In four games, the victor won by 30+ points
• In six games, the loser scored 7 points or less
• Only three games (18.8%) were decided by one score

The eight final games have been a little better, but still fairly lopsided....

• The average score in those games was 39.9 to 24.6
• The average margin of victory was 15.3 points
• In three games, the victor won by 22+ points
• The largest margin of victory was 28 points (twice)
• In all games, the loser scored at least 16 points
• Three games (37.5%) were decided by one score

The overall numbers for the twenty-four playoff games....

• The average score in those games was 39.0 to 19.9
  
• The average margin of victory was 19.1 points
  
• In seven games (29.2%), the victor won by 27+ points
• In nine games (37.5%), the victor won by 17-26 points
• Only six games (25.0%) were decided by one score

So eight years of playoffs, 1/4 of the games were close (7 points or less), and 2/3 were blowouts (17+ points). But yeah, let's expand up to 12 teams.

And even if you get blowouts in the 1/8 and 2/7 matchups, chances are you're getting better games in the 3/6 and 4/5. Now, you get to say that only half the first round games were blowouts, instead of all the first round games.

 

[pnuts34]

So we should make a bad playoff worse so that second-rate schools like UK can have a recruiting tool? No thanks.

I'm in agreement with you. But a lot of those 2nd rate schools would love to say they made the CFP

 

[LovelandBuckeye]

And even if you get blowouts in the 1/8 and 2/7 matchups, chances are you're getting better games in the 3/6 and 4/5. Now, you get to say that only half the first round games were blowouts, instead of all the first round games.

Top 8 team playoff:

Bama vs Ole Miss
TTUN vs Baylor
UGA vs Ohio State
Cincinnati vs ND

Two rematches and one game that would have broken the viewing record. The committe would have done some mental gymnastics to avoid those rematches.

 

[LordJeffBuck]

And even if you get blowouts in the 1/8 and 2/7 matchups, chances are you're getting better games in the 3/6 and 4/5. Now, you get to say that only half the first round games were blowouts, instead of all the first round games.

The theory being, I suppose, that the top two seeds are clearly better than everybody else, but the 3-6 seeds are more or less equal.

In practice, the #3 seed has won the CFP title once (2021), and the #4 seed has won it twice (2014; 2017). Now, that might say more about the committee's ability to rank teams than anything else (for example, did anyone really think that scUM deserved the #2 seed this year over UGa?).

But let's go with the theory for a minute. If we admit that the 1-8 and 2-7 games are going to be crap, and the 3-6 and 4-5 games are going to be at least competitive, then why not go with a 6-team playoff with the #1 and #2 seeds getting a bye? You keep the two good games, eliminate the two crap games, and give the two best teams an extra week off.

 

[jwinslow]

The theory being, I suppose, that the top two seeds are clearly better than everybody else, but the 3-6 seeds are more or less equal.

In practice, the #3 seed has won the CFP title once (2021), and the #4 seed has won it twice (2014; 2017). Now, that might say more about the committee's ability to rank teams than anything else (for example, did anyone really think that scUM deserved the #2 seed this year over UGa?).

But let's go with the theory for a minute. If we admit that the 1-8 and 2-7 games are going to be crap, and the 3-6 and 4-5 games are going to be at least competitive, then why not go with a 6-team playoff with the #1 and #2 seeds getting a bye? You keep the two good games, eliminate the two crap games, and give the two best teams an extra week off.

And most of the whining is about 4-6. '14 OSU-Baylor-TCU

SEC #2 almost any year vs mid-major / kinda good ND / flawed #2 B1G team (ie '15 OSU, '16 PSU).


6 also makes the final week count. Auburn staying in bounds to beat Bama might keep them out in '21. Michigan beating OSU would possibly eliminate them depending on the strength of the field.

If there are 8 spots, those two can feel pretty confident that they'll back in (albeit with a tougher seed).

 

[Abenaki]

Top 8 team playoff:

Bama vs Ole Miss
TTUN vs Baylor
UGA vs Ohio State
Cincinnati vs ND

Two rematches and one game that would have broken the viewing record. The committe would have done some mental gymnastics to avoid those rematches.

The theory being, I suppose, that the top two seeds are clearly better than everybody else, but the 3-6 seeds are more or less equal.

In practice, the #3 seed has won the CFP title once (2021), and the #4 seed has won it twice (2014; 2017). Now, that might say more about the committee's ability to rank teams than anything else (for example, did anyone really think that scUM deserved the #2 seed this year over UGa?).

But let's go with the theory for a minute. If we admit that the 1-8 and 2-7 games are going to be crap, and the 3-6 and 4-5 games are going to be at least competitive, then why not go with a 6-team playoff with the #1 and #2 seeds getting a bye? You keep the two good games, eliminate the two crap games, and give the two best teams an extra week off.

Not saying it's right or it will work out, just that you look at the non-playoff NY6 games they have been more competitive.

• The average score in those games was 37.1 to 24.7
  
• The average margin of victory was 12.4 points
  
• In four games (12.5%), the victor won by 27+ points
• In three games (9.4%), the victor won by 17-26 points
• 15 games (46.9%) were decided by one score

People want to take those results, and put them inside the playoff structure. Would it work? Hell if I know.

 

[LovelandBuckeye]

This is why expansion is dumb. There are fans like this out there.

 

[DZ83CK]

I'm not sure why anyone wants an expanded playoff when there have rarely (never?) been even four teams worthy of inclusion.

In eight seasons of the playoffs, there have been sixteen semi-final games....

• The average score in those games was 38.6 to 17.5
• The average margin of victory was 21.1 points
• In four games, the victor won by 30+ points
• In six games, the loser scored 7 points or less
• Only three games (18.8%) were decided by one score

The eight final games have been a little better, but still fairly lopsided....

• The average score in those games was 39.9 to 24.6
• The average margin of victory was 15.3 points
• In three games, the victor won by 22+ points
• The largest margin of victory was 28 points (twice)
• In all games, the loser scored at least 16 points
• Three games (37.5%) were decided by one score

The overall numbers for the twenty-four playoff games....

• The average score in those games was 39.0 to 19.9
  
• The average margin of victory was 19.1 points
  
• In seven games (29.2%), the victor won by 27+ points
• In nine games (37.5%), the victor won by 17-26 points
• Only six games (25.0%) were decided by one score

So eight years of playoffs, 1/4 of the games were close (7 points or less), and 2/3 were blowouts (17+ points). But yeah, let's expand up to 12 teams.

Continuing to make sure that kids from all power conferences don't even have a chance to compete for the national title if they lose one game, even very early in the season, is not a positive.

The basic format of the postseason is heavily flawed when you're excluding at least one P5 conference champ (usually 2 and sometimes 3) from the CFP every year. I'm not saying you're wrong from the standpoint that the games often are not very compelling, and many probably won't be in the near future, but the basic design of system is flawed.

I believe that there are usually 5 or 6 teams that put themselves in a position where it seems plausible for them to be in the playoff based on their performance over the course of the season. You say that 4 teams are more than enough, but I remember 2015 when OSU lost 1 game in a rainstorm, literally trailed for 0 seconds the entire season, and yet it was a foregone conclusion that they didn't deserve to make the playoff because other teams won their conference and didn't lose more than 1 game. To me, just the fact that another 1-loss team was chosen that year made it very debatable. The whole point of the playoff is to settle it on the field and remove the debate. The fact that there are blowouts can't be avoided, but you can easily plan to avoid excluding entire regions of the country for a chance at the national championship. I think 8 would be just about perfect. That way you can get the P5 champs and the next 3 most qualified teams. It would no longer be what's basically now a regional invitational, and become more of a true national championship.

 

[jwinslow]

Continuing to make sure that kids from all power conferences don't even have a chance to compete for the national title if they lose one game, even very early in the season, is not a positive.

The basic format of the postseason is heavily flawed when you're excluding at least one P5 conference champ (usually 2 and sometimes 3) from the CFP every year. I'm not saying you're wrong from the standpoint that the games often are not very compelling, and many probably won't be in the near future, but the basic design of system is flawed.

I believe that there are usually 5 or 6 teams that put themselves in a position where it seems plausible for them to be in the playoff based on their performance over the course of the season. You say that 4 teams are more than enough, but I remember 2015 when OSU lost 1 game in a rainstorm, literally trailed for 0 seconds the entire season, and yet it was a foregone conclusion that they didn't deserve to make the playoff because other teams won their conference and didn't lose more than 1 game. To me, just the fact that another 1-loss team was chosen that year made it very debatable. The whole point of the playoff is to settle it on the field and remove the debate. The fact that there are blowouts can't be avoided, but you can easily plan to avoid excluding entire regions of the country for a chance at the national championship. I think 8 would be just about perfect. That way you can get the P5 champs and the next 3 most qualified teams. It would no longer be what's basically now a regional invitational, and become more of a true national championship.

You're valuing a tournament over a season. You typically can't have both.

Also that 2015 season was exceptionally rare in its depth of good resumes, with a great OSU team dropping to #7 with 1 loss.

OSU could have easily lost in AA and played their next game against Michigan in a warm weather / indoor venue as a 2-7 rematch.

Georgia could have beaten Bama, and been rewarded with a 1-8 rematch.

Cinci could have finally let their lethargic play in one of those games cost them, but still not slid all the way out of the top 8.


8 means you have to lose 3 times to feel scared.

Wisconsin would've been in for 2019, narrowly edging out Florida. Remember the amazing shoe toss? That nearly happened as a preamble to a hypothetical 1 LSU - 8 Florida rematch.

Remember the humiliating beatdown of Michigan in 2018, where they went from in the top-4 to being firmly out? Yeah, they are still comfortably in it at 7. So are the Ohio State Red Raiders with Dwayne Haskins and no defense.

I've only made it to 2016 and I now have two separate Badger teams making it with 3 losses at #8. Blah.

 

[DZ83CK]

You're valuing a tournament over a season. You typically can't have both.

8-team CFP means 3 playoff games for 2 teams and 2 for two others. I don't see the problem. There will be a lot of regular season games that will matter more when a team isn't eliminated just for losing 1 game. I feel like a P5 team deserves to be part of the CFP when they win their conference championship. Regionalizing the CFP isn't at all good for the sport.

 

[LovelandBuckeye]

Ohio State Red Raiders with Dwayne Haskins and no defense