College Football's 'Influential Voices' Ready to Discuss 8-Team Playoff Format
- Thread starter phoenix4nu
- Start date
Your post#33 basically confirms what I was speculating in my post#22. You did the leg work. Agreed that BIG would be the winner and Sec not so much.
That's why SEC not very warm to it
Have everyone go back to 8 conference games. Week 12 becomes the matchup of teams in a conference based on their divisional standings. Play 1v1, 2v2, 3v3 and on for week twelve. The matchup of the 1v1 games would be the Conference Championship game and the winner moves on to the playoff. This way everyone plays 9 conference games in the end and still keeps Conference Championship games. Hope this makes sense.
They don't lose anything either. They aren't getting 2 of the 4 in now on a regular basis. Only happened 1 time. Has there been a doubt that one of the SEC teams was one of the top 4 every year since 2014?
But having 2 in is better than 0. Which has happened.
I guess we'll have to just agree that the Big would probably be a benefactor of an 8 team playoff and leave it at that??
What the point of having a CCG if the winner doesn’t advance to the playoffs..
Well, unless the CCGs are somehow integrated into the CFP and become part of the tournament, teams don’t advance based on winning that game.
We have CCG now and the winner doesn’t get a guaranteed spot. So I would imagine the point of the CCG would be the same as it is now. To crown a champion of a particular conference
I don’t disagree that the B1G would be a benefactor. I just don’t see what the SEC loses by going to 8 and keeping the CCG?
It appeared that some of you were saying that the SEC is somehow getting some sort of special treatment in the current format, that would somehow go away with a move to 8.
I just don’t see that. That league has had 1 of the 4 best teams every year since 2014. So they received a berth. Last year they had two of the 4. Just because the other leagues haven’t had 1 of the 4 best teams doesn’t mean the system is flawed. It means that the league doesn’t have 1 of the best teams.
I believe they need to be integrated into the CFP other wise what is the point of having a CCG..
Students who skip bowl games just to avoid injuries are totally irresponsible and self importance. They must realize that they were offered scholarship to play for the school from first one to the very last game of their careers.
When you have a 14team, 2 division league and don’t play a round robin schedule, you determine a way to decide who is champion. You could just take the team with the best overall record, utilize an elaborate & lengthy set of tiebreakers and not play a CCG or you can have a CCG between the winners of the 2 divisions. Either way the point of the CCG is simply to crown the conference champion.
Or a 12 team, 2 division league and don’t play a round robin schedule..
Ya you could do that but since they don’t play a round robin playing the game makes more sense instead of just giving it too let's say Nebraska when they were in the Big 12 with one loss and everyone else had at least 2 or 3 losses like texass had in 1996..
That CCG costed Nebraska at a National title, they had no 2nd chance lika Bama Gump had...
Nebraska also got a gift in 2001 when they lost to Colorado and still played Miami in the Rose Bowl. Didn't win the division, played for the national title, just like Bama Gump. Where is the outrage?
Glad to have been there and it happened but they should have never been playing in the National Championship game..
Oregon deserved to play Miami in the Rose Bowl..
Agreed, and would have been the same result. Miami was the champ that year. It worked out.
Colorado would have beaten Nebraska out winning 62-36 and winning the Big 12 conference..
He is correct, the BCS top 4 was Miami, Nebraska, Colorado and Oregon
Miami vs Oregon
Nebraska vs Colorado
Tennessee and Florida were 5 and 6. Florida didn't win their division and Tennessee lost to LSU in the SEC championship game. 8 was Texas who had just lost to Colorado
See how the advantages works when you don’t have to play in the conference CCG and not won your division..
OU Lost to Okie lite and LSU knocked off 1 loss Tennessee in the SEC CCG..
It was certainly an amazing sequence of events in the 8 days that followed Black Friday 2001 that allowed Nebraska to back into the Rose Bowl.
The end of that year and pretty much the entire 2007 (when nobody seemed to want to win the national title, the "Top 6" teams all ended up with 2 losses, #7 Kansas and #19 Hawaii was the only 1-loss teams) were the craziest I've seen.
The end of that year and pretty much the entire 2007 (when nobody seemed to want to win the national title, the "Top 6" teams all ended up with 2 losses, #7 Kansas and #19 Hawaii was the only 1-loss teams) were the craziest I've seen.
What?
Who cares about OU in that season. They were the 4th best team in the league behind Texas, Colorado and Nebraska.
If you were to just go with the top 4 league champs it would have been 8th ranked Illinois, who had lost to Michigan earlier in the year.
No perfect system. Trying to tweak things to find the perfect system just creates other imperfections.
That was a different year I think. Kansas was typical Kansas that year, like 3-8 or 4-7
Agree. What we will end up with is the system that will get the most eyeballs/ad money while avoid being sued by the G5 conferences. That probably means no playoff games on New Year's Eve
If case you forgot if OU would have beaten Okie St they would have played Colorado instead of texass, OU only loss was the 20-10 Stunz to Crouch TD pass..
If Okie st doesn’t beat OU, Ou could have been Big 12 champs by vertue of beating Colorado..
But they didn't beat Oklahoma St and they fell in the rankings from 3 to eventually 11. That has nothing to do with getting a break by not playing in the CCG. They caught no breaks, they went to the Cotton Bowl and played a 3 or 4 loss Arkansas team.
Florida probably fits what you are trying to describe better. They lost to Tennessee, the last week of the season, fell from 2 to 6, then when Tennessee lost to LSU, moved up to 5.
Texas would have made the BCS Title Game as a non-division champion had Oklahoma qualified for the CCG and lost to Colorado. That is the argument that should have been made.
Had Oklahoma beaten Oklahoma State, Oklahoma would have been in the Big 12 title game. That much is agreed upon and in line with the tiebreaker rules (OU and Texas each 7-1, OU won head-to-head). The rankings would have looked approximately like this going into the 01 Dec 2001 weekend:
(approximating the BCS rankings)
1. Miami (11-0; no CCG, vs. VT)
2. Florida (9-1, vs. Tennessee in a ppd. game for the SEC East title, winner plays LSU the following week in the SEC CCG)
3. Oklahoma (11-1 in this scenario; vs. Colorado in Big 12 CCG)
4. Texas (10-1 in this scenario; season complete)
5. Nebraska (11-1; season complete)
6. Oregon (9-1; no CCG, vs. Oregon State)
7. Tennessee (9-1; at Florida in a ppd. game for the SEC East title, winner plays LSU the following week in SEC CCG)
8. Colorado (9-2; vs. Oklahoma in Big 12 CCG)
9. Illinois (10-1; season complete)
The following results from the 01 Dec 2001 weekend...
Miami over VT
Tennessee over Florida
Oregon over Oregon State
Plus, for the purposes of the hypothetical to show a non-division winner in the BCS Title Game...
Colorado over Oklahoma
The approximate BCS rankings after the 01 Dec 2001 weekend:
1. Miami (12-0; season complete)
2. Tennessee (10-1; vs. LSU in SEC CCG)
3. Texas (10-1 in this scenario; season complete)
4. Nebraska (11-1; season complete)
5. Colorado (10-2; season complete)
6. Oregon (10-1; season complete)
7. Oklahoma (11-2 in this scenario; season complete)
8. Florida (9-2; season complete)
9. Illinois (10-1; season complete)
I put Tennessee at #2 because that is where they landed after beating Florida in that ranking.
I put Oklahoma ahead of Florida because I think the pollsters would have moved them down in the same order, but for this exercise it doesn't matter.
THEN... Tennessee lost to LSU on 08 Dec 2001.
That moves TEXAS, a non-division winner, into the BCS Title Game.
The rankings would have approximately been (conference champions in bold)...
1. Miami (12-0, Big East Champ)
2. Texas (10-1, Big 12 South 2nd Place)
3. Nebraska (11-1, Big 12 North 2nd Place)
4. Colorado (10-2, Big 12 Champ)
5. Oregon (10-1, Pac-10 Champ)
6. Oklahoma (11-2, Big 12 CCG Loser)
7. Florida (9-2, SEC East 2nd Place)
8. Tennessee (10-2, SEC CCG Loser)
9. Illinois (10-1, Big Ten Champ)
10. Stanford (9-2, T-2 Pac-10 with UW and WSU)
11. Maryland (10-1, ACC Champ)
12. Washington State (9-2, T-2 Pac-10 with UW and Stanford)
13. LSU (9-3, SEC Champ)
14. South Carolina (8-3, T-3 SEC East with UGA)
15. Washington (8-3, T-2 Pac-10 with WSU and Stanford)
I put Tennessee behind Florida because they dropped behind the Gators after losing the SEC CCG to LSU.
========
Now, had an 8-team playoff been in place that year with 6 AQs and 2 at-large teams, this would have been the field...
1. Miami (12-0, Big East Champ)
2. Texas (10-1, Big 12 South 2nd Place)
3. Nebraska (11-1, Big 12 North 2nd Place)
4. Colorado (10-2, Big 12 Champ)
5. Oregon (10-1, Pac-10 Champ)
9. Illinois (10-1, Big Ten Champ)
11. Maryland (10-1, ACC Champ)
13. LSU (9-3, SEC Champ)
Both at-large teams would have been non-division winners.
Here's your bracket if no seeding priority is given to winning your conference:
Game 1: #13 LSU (9-3, 8 seed) at #1 Miami (12-0, 1 seed)
Game 2: #5 Oregon (10-1, 5 seed) at #4 Colorado (10-2, 4 seed)
Game 3: #9 Illinois (10-1, 6 seed) at #3 Nebraska (11-1, 3 seed)
Game 4: #11 Maryland (10-1, 7 seed) at #2 Texas (10-1, 2 seed)
And the bracket if seeding priority is given to conference champions (ie guaranteeing CCG victory is a pre-requisite to hosting a first-round game):
Game 1: #3 Nebraska (11-1, 8 seed) at #1 Miami (12-0, 1 seed)
Game 2: #11 Maryland (10-1, 5 seed) at #9 Illinois (10-1, 4 seed)
Game 3: #13 LSU (9-3, 6 seed) at #5 Oregon (10-1, 3 seed)
Game 4: #2 Texas (10-1, 7 seed) at #4 Colorado (10-2, 2 seed)
Great! Anything that makes the college game closer to the NFL will be another step in the wrong direction and will ultimately hurt the game. Thta's ok if they screw it up enough I will get back a lot of time on fall Saturdays...
Its ridiculous to automatically include Power 5 champs....I don't care if it's 4 teams or 8 teams...but it should be the best 4 or 8. Do you want a 18th ranked Pac-12 champ in? Group of 5 shouldn't even be considered unless they are in the top 10.
I know you aren't asking me, but between 1869-2014 the national champion in major college football has been crowned by the team with the most votes of a poll.
From 2014 to the present, the teams selected to play in a 4 team playoff have been selected by a poll.
In 148 years, there have only been a handful of time that there was controversy on who the champion was. In at least two of those occasions, the controversy was created by conference who insisted on keeping an alliance with a specific bowl rather than play it out on the field. In both instances the polls had the consensus two top teams correct.
The only people complaining are the fans of the schools and the conferences that haven't had as many top 4 teams as other conferences. So the natural "solution" is to make an auto qualifier, so everyone gets a fair shot.
If the top of the Big Ten was having the success that the top of the SEC is currently experiencing, the fans of the Big Ten would be against changing the selection process, even if there is a change from 4 to 8. It is human nature, but the severity of the problem is tied only to the fact that your conference is not experiencing the success.
I know, you and I have discussed this ad nauseam. FBS is certainly not like any other sport where a poll is taken to determine the best team(s).
Then again it’s ridiculous to even have a CCG. The winner means nothing.. Stupid.
It’s about money and crowning a conference champion. Nothing more. Why is the concept so hard?
These games have been around since 1992 and winning those games has never been a requirement to winning a national title.
If the system is altered to provide an objective path for teams to qualify for the playoff via conference championship, I would have no problem with it.
How would you determine the "best" teams?
If that was the system fine. But that isn’t the system.
An 8 team playoff isn’t going to stop teams that don’t win their division a shot at the title.
If 11-1 Nebraska lost to 11-1 Ohio St by 4, who lost to 12-0 Michigan by 3. Michigan beats Nebraska by 3 in the CCG. Michigan and Ohio St are both getting in an 8 team playoff.
9-4 Pitt upset 12-1 Clemson and both of those teams are getting in.
There is still subjectivity and we have the same conversations, except 9-4 Pitt is taking a spot, in the tournament, from a team with a much better shot at beating #1. Hell, some people want to reward 9-4 Pitt with a 5 seed.
I love this discussion.
And that is fine with me as well. There will still be at large spots to fill out the field with other "deserving" teams, whether it be determined by poll, statistical analysis, etc. And there shouldn't be restrictions on who can fill the at large spots (save for perhaps some types of NCAA probation) aside from the highest teams in the predetermined metric.
Feels like deja vu, right?
