I've learned if so much as one person feels left out you have to overhaul the entire mousetrap. Everyone has to be included and feel like they belong!!! Yay!!!!!!
It's time for an 8 team playoff
- Thread starter SLOHusker
- Start date
Why does everything always have to change to the way Nebraska or the Big Ten does things.
I get so tired of institutions self imposing rules that restrict their ability to play at a high level, then bitching and moaning when everyone else doesn't want to play by the rules they self imposed.
It's like if an MMA fighter says he isn't going to use any sort of boxing in his fight plan, then gets pissed when his opponents are throwing punches.
No one told the Big Ten or Pac 12 that they needed or had to play 9 league games. Those decisions where made by those leagues. The Big 12 is different because they only have 10 teams, so they just play a true round robin.
The lower divisions give first round buys because 16 teams wasn't enough, and in 2005 they expanded to 20 and later to 24. Because it was never enough.
The only reason for a CCG is $$$$. If Northwestern beats OSU, does anyone really believe Northwestern was better? CCG's were created solely to make conferences more money. The reason that a conference championship was a determining factor in getting the auto bowl tie-in back in the day was that you actually played everyone else in your conference and were a true champ. Now with unbalanced schedules, conference championships are much more random and schedule reliant.
The same thing is true with 9 conference games. The only reason certain conferences went to 9 conference games was to get more money out of TV providers that wanted better content. There isn't anything magical or sacrosanct out of 9 games as opposed to 8, especially in the mega conferences when you still don't play everybody else.
OU is in the CFP over OSU because of the perceived value of losses, not the real value of having won their conferences. That in itself should be impetus for a re-evaluation of how the playoff field is chosen. As things stand now, OU's loss was better than OSU's loss, but that's a dicey way to pick a potential champion.
First, there's the most simplistic measure: OU was better than nine teams in its conference; OSU was better than 13 teams in its conference. But that's not a real measuring stick.
Which is better?
Is the Big XII better than the Big Ten overall? Meaning, does OU's league championship mean more than OSU's (or even Washington's, for that matter)?
Well, RealTimeRPI rates the Big XII second (28.96 rating) and the Big Ten third (28.56), both behind the SEC (33.84) and ahead of the Pac-12 (28.17) and the ACC (26.86). The American is sixth (24.81).
Sagarin rates the Big Ten East as the third most powerful division, behind the SEC West and SEC East. The Pac-12 North is fourth, and the entire Big XII is fifth. The ACC Atlantic is sixth, and the Big Ten West seventh.
So at least that set of data is inconclusive.
Head to head
The Big Ten and Big XII matched up four times early in the regular season. Here are the results:
So, if everyone is happy with computers and beauty-contest-style sheets determining who plays for national titles, then there's nothing to change. Certainly Nebraska was the recipient of such generosity and ridiculousness in 2001. And Ohio State knew that if it lost any games this year, it would be taking a chance that it wouldn't — as was the case in 2017 — have a chance at the title, especially if the loss was considered a "bad" loss.
I wouldn't want Nebraska to be shut out of a title game shot on those criteria, were we ever again to be in that position. Hell, our basketball team could finish 7th or 8th in its conference this year (I'm hoping for better) but still have a chance at a national title. We're talking about a conference champion from either the second or third best conference in the country (take your pick) being shut out because it lost a game "the wrong way."
In the end, there's no true path to the national playoffs. What if five teams finish undefeated? You can't definitively say even that "if you win all your games, you'll get a chance." To me, that's madness.
First, there's the most simplistic measure: OU was better than nine teams in its conference; OSU was better than 13 teams in its conference. But that's not a real measuring stick.
Which is better?
Is the Big XII better than the Big Ten overall? Meaning, does OU's league championship mean more than OSU's (or even Washington's, for that matter)?
Well, RealTimeRPI rates the Big XII second (28.96 rating) and the Big Ten third (28.56), both behind the SEC (33.84) and ahead of the Pac-12 (28.17) and the ACC (26.86). The American is sixth (24.81).
Sagarin rates the Big Ten East as the third most powerful division, behind the SEC West and SEC East. The Pac-12 North is fourth, and the entire Big XII is fifth. The ACC Atlantic is sixth, and the Big Ten West seventh.
So at least that set of data is inconclusive.
Head to head
The Big Ten and Big XII matched up four times early in the regular season. Here are the results:
- Maryland 34, Texas 29
- Iowa 13, Iowa State 3
- Kansas 55, Rutgers 14
- Ohio State 40, TCU 28
So, if everyone is happy with computers and beauty-contest-style sheets determining who plays for national titles, then there's nothing to change. Certainly Nebraska was the recipient of such generosity and ridiculousness in 2001. And Ohio State knew that if it lost any games this year, it would be taking a chance that it wouldn't — as was the case in 2017 — have a chance at the title, especially if the loss was considered a "bad" loss.
I wouldn't want Nebraska to be shut out of a title game shot on those criteria, were we ever again to be in that position. Hell, our basketball team could finish 7th or 8th in its conference this year (I'm hoping for better) but still have a chance at a national title. We're talking about a conference champion from either the second or third best conference in the country (take your pick) being shut out because it lost a game "the wrong way."
In the end, there's no true path to the national playoffs. What if five teams finish undefeated? You can't definitively say even that "if you win all your games, you'll get a chance." To me, that's madness.
Where are you seeing that UCF had remotely close the strength of schedule Clemson & Notre Dame has?
Ask Scott Frost, he discussed it last year on ESPN before the National Title game after being hired by Moos..
Sheep.
That doesn't answer the question. Why do people who put limitations on themselves get pissed when everyone else doesn't also put those same limitations on themselves?
Contact Pennsyhusker, if you want some sheep he owns and farms them out in Pennsylvania..
Even with 8 teams, UCF would be left out, based on the way I think it should be applied. Keep it simple:
-The five P5 Conf Champs.
-The three highest rated teams to not win the conference (based on CFB committee rankings).
Bama (1), Clemson (2), Oklahoma (4), Ohio St (6) and Washington (9) in for winning the conference. Notre Dame (3), Georgia (5) and Michigan (7) get the at-larges.
Bama/UW winner gets OU/UGA winner. Clemson/MU winner gets ND/OSU winner.
Only argument is who should be ranked higher, Michigan or UCF, to get in the playoff.
The argument of "too many games" is silly. Quarterfinals of playoffs is like the bowl game for everyone. Then you've got 4 teams playing an extra game (we already have 2 doing that). Finally you'll have 2 teams that have to play 1 extra game. 1 extra game, for the undisputed champ. Worth it.
We need to expand to 8!
-The five P5 Conf Champs.
-The three highest rated teams to not win the conference (based on CFB committee rankings).
Bama (1), Clemson (2), Oklahoma (4), Ohio St (6) and Washington (9) in for winning the conference. Notre Dame (3), Georgia (5) and Michigan (7) get the at-larges.
Bama/UW winner gets OU/UGA winner. Clemson/MU winner gets ND/OSU winner.
Only argument is who should be ranked higher, Michigan or UCF, to get in the playoff.
The argument of "too many games" is silly. Quarterfinals of playoffs is like the bowl game for everyone. Then you've got 4 teams playing an extra game (we already have 2 doing that). Finally you'll have 2 teams that have to play 1 extra game. 1 extra game, for the undisputed champ. Worth it.
We need to expand to 8!
I'm against an 8-team playoff, but if we did I'd go with.
1. Bama vs 8. UCF
2. Clemson vs 7. Michigan
3. ND vs 6. Ohio St
4. OU vs 5. Georgia
Shouldn’t winning your conference count for something?
Imagine the drama to the conference season if it was known that there’s no guarantee of anything if you don’t win your conference.
As far as 2008 goes, that was a rare case where they had to go to the 5th tie breaker.
This assumption that people know who the best teams are is a joke. As I noted in another post, who saw Ohio State winning the first playoff?
Who saw Oklahoma beating Bama in the 2014 Sugar Bowl?
Who saw Utah beating Bama in the 2009 Sugar Bowl?
Who saw Arkansas beating Oklahoma in the 1978 Orange Bowl?
Who saw Boise State besting Oklahoma in the 2007 Fiesta?
Who saw Penn State beating Miami in the 1987 Fiesta?
Who saw Texas beating USC in the 2005 Rose?
Who saw Miami beating Nebraska in the 1984 Orange?
Who saw Nebraska (a -17 underdog) coming a missed field goal away from beating FSU in the 1994 Orange (oh and a lot of people just knew FSU and Notre Dame were the best 2 teams in the country).
If conference championships aren’t going to count for anything, then dissolve the conferences and make the selection committee also be responsible for scheduling. Or else make sure all conferences play by the same rules, same amount of conference games, and no cream puffs in November (SEC).
Not sure why you brought up all of those games? Yes, underdogs can win, but all of those games you listed were top teams playing one another.
The point of me bringing up the 2008 season is that if we had an 8-team playoff & conference champions were guaranteed a spot, you'd have a #19 team get in over a #7 team. Sorry, but that's just dumb.
Conference Championships still count for something, but the entire body of the season should count for more especially if you're in a strong conference (see Big XII in 2008).
#7 and #19 according to whom?
Provide an objective path for all teams. Obviously that would be a large jump in field size to include ALL conferences, so start with expanding to 8, all P5 conference champs qualify (whose to say this won't be an impetus for conferences to do away with the division models?), and determine a metric for non-P5 teams (including ND) and for the balance of the field (and for seeding).
And exactly who decides a conference is strong? How is that decided? How does anyone know when there is so few games matching P5 teams against each other?
The big 12 in 2008 was a “competitive” conference. Those top 3 teams went 1-2 in bowl games, and overall the conference was 4-3. Hmm.
Bowl games are glorified exhibition games. Motivation, preparation, intensity are all dependent on how much that game means to one team or the other.
As far as deciding a championship, the first thing you have to determine is if you want the 8 best teams or if you want to reward conference champions.
If one of the “so called best teams” can’t win a CCG they don’t deserve to be in the playoffs..
Further more you could have 2 teams with best record or toughest schedule as at-large berths.
I wouldn't necessarily say winning a CCG is a prerequisite for being in the playoff, but that winning the conference automatically qualifies you for the playoff. But otherwise agree with the sentiment.
Georgia is better than Washington and clearly one of the best 8 teams in the country. Michigan is better than Washington and is clearly one of the 8 best teams in the country. So there goes that theory.
Then even if you reward conference champions with auto berths, you will still have non conference champions in the 8 team playoff. You just stated that they don't deserve to be there. Weird. How does that work in your scenario? Again your theory is debunked.
In an 8 team playoff where you go with who is the best team, and not just rewarding conference titles with auto bids, all 8 berths are at large berths. So of course 2 teams could have the best record or toughest schedule.
Try again.
So you are good with having a team, in an 8 team playoff, that lost to 7-5 Auburn, 8-4 Oregon, and 7-5 California, but a team that lost to 12-0 Notre Dame and 11-1 Ohio St, is totally unworthy? That makes absolutely no sense at all.
Their has to be some sort of sorting system though. You just can't say "oh yes they are the best" if they lose games. I agree with your example with Washington as they lost three games, but you have to find a way to reward teams who proved it vs. might have all the talent in the world and probably are the best team but slipped up.
My personal opinion is 8 might be ok, but once we go to 8 people are going to continuously wanting to increase. I'm ok with the 4 team, but also think they need to put some teeth into actually winning a conference championship, but also their scheduling. This might make the love affair of the SEC go away if teams outside of Bama start playing someone. It also may prove they are actually deserving, but right now their is such a love fest for the SEC all because 2-3 of their top teams are very very good.
According to the BCS. Also;
Harris: TTech #8 and VaTech #22
Coaches: TTech #8 and VaTech #19
AP: TTech #8 and VaTech #21
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_NCAA_Division_I_FBS_football_rankings
Clear objective is to win your games. Be ranked in the Top 8 and you're in the playoffs. Use current system / method to determine those rankings.Then MAYBE use conference champion to fill that 7th or 8th spot if needed.
For example this year. It's clear who should be in the top 7. Can we at least agree on that? So who gets that 8th spot? It'd be a tossup between Washington and Michigan. You can logically say that Washington gets that 8th and final spot because they're conference champions.
Last edited:
If Georgia, LSU and Alabama are 3 of the best 8 teams in the country, by whatever metric you choose, then I am fine with them being in an 8 team playoff.
Similarly, If Nebraska, Ohio St, Michigan and Penn St were all ranked in the top 8, by whatever metric you want to use, I would have no problem with all 4 being in an 8 team playoff.
If given the choice, I would watch a game between Alabama and Michigan over Alabama and Washington.
I think it's pretty easy to figure out. From worst to first I would way this year the ACC and Pac12 really suck. BIG10 next, then SEC and finally the BIG XII may be the best overall conference.
Let me ask you this; which teams ranked #1 - #8 going into their respective bowl games wouldn't deserve to be in an 8-team playoff the past 10 years?
I can't even get behind that. Michigan is better than Washington. If OU got the nod over tOSU because their loss to Texas was better than tOSUs loss to Purdue, than Michigan would have to get in based on the fact they have 2 losses compared to 3, and their losses were to significantly better teams.
Yup, I agree with this. I think I forgot the teams Michigan lost to vs the teams Washington had lost to.
Winning a conference is an “objective” standard. Going by rankings is a “subjective” and flawed standard. You want a beauty contest and I want a competition.
Imagine if the NCAA basketball tournament went by as flawed a standard as what you are proposing. Does Loyola-Chicago get left out of the top 68? Does Florida Gulf Coast get in the tournament in 2013? That’s why the Dance is the best championship in sports and college football is a joke, and would continue to be a joke under your scenario.
And as I’ve said, one of those is objective and one is a flawed beauty contest.
I'm okay with providing an objective path for each team to make the playoffs rather than conjecture over rankings and metrics making up the entirety of the field. Fill in the balance of the field beyond the automatic qualifiers to get to a round number of teams (be it 8, 12, 16, etc.) with a poll, committee, advanced computer analytics, whatever. My bottom line is there should be an objective path that isn't relying on pollsters mailing in their votes or 13 people sitting around the table for a team to qualify for the playoff.
My point is those polls you mention all rely heavily on voting subject to individual voter bias, collective group think, or other motive.
I'll throw one more out there: 2008 Fresno State baseball. They would not have even qualified for the NCAA tournament had they not won their conference, ended up as a 4 seed (out of 4) in their regional, then won the CWS.
Similar threads
