It's time for an 8 team playoff

[HuskerO]

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.

Not all conferences are equal so your way is very flawed and subjective. The rankings aren't random.

How does your way create more competition when you can have a team with 4 losses make it into the playoffs while another team with 1 or 2 losses get left out?

 

[saluno22]

Not all conferences are equal so your way is very flawed and subjective. The rankings aren't random.

How does your way create more competition when you can have a team with 4 losses make it into the playoffs while another team with 1 or 2 losses get left out?

Outside of when the Big 12 had to use like the 5th tiebreaker in 2008 for the South division (BCS rankings or something like that), how is "winning your conference" subjective? There are clear metrics by which teams are positioned in the standings (wins and losses, then head to head, then wins against common opponents, etc., depends on the conference the farther you get down the line) to make objective decisions on who are crowned division winners, then they play each other for the conference championship. If anything, look at ways to improve how conference champions are determined (get rid of divisions, full round robin scheduling, etc.).

 

[HuskerO]

My point is those polls you mention all rely heavily on voting subject to individual voter bias, collective group think, or other motive.

So what are you saying? That the 2008 VaTech team should've been ranked #5 going into the bowl games?

#1 Oklahoma (Big XII) 12-1
#2 Florida (SEC) 12-1
#3 USC (Pac12) 11-1
#4 Penn St (BIG10) 11-1
#5 VaTech (ACC) 9-4
#6 Cincinnati (Big East) 11-2
#9 Utah (Mountain West) 12-0
#8 Texas 11-1
#9 Alabama 12-1
#10 Texas Tech (11-1)

Yeah that makes a ton of sense.

 

[HuskerO]

how is "winning your conference" subjective

Winning your conference isn't subjective. Using conference champions as a metric to get an automatic bid in an 8-team playoff is subjective because not all conferences are the same and it can throw out the entire body of the season if a team like 2008 VaTech wins their pathetic conference. Or if there's an upset like if NW were to upset Ohio St or Pitt upsetting Clemson.

 

[Tuco Salamanca]

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.

meh, objective or a cop out? It is just easier to say give every P5 league an AQ.

The fact is that since the CFP committee has put out a poll, every year but this year, all P5 conference champions would get a bid to an 8 team playoff.

Also, contrary to public opinion, and conspiracy theorists, the SEC wouldn't even have the most number of bids.

If the CFP final rankings were used to determine the field in an 8 team playoff, the following would illustrate the number of teams that would have been selected.

Big Ten - 13
SEC - 9
Big 12 - 6
ACC - 5
Pac 12 - 4
Ind - 2
G6 - 1

In fact, the Big 10 would have at least 2 of the 8 teams in every season, 4 of the 8 in 2016, 3 of the 8 in 2015. The SEC would have had 1 season with 3 of 8, 2 seasons with 2 of the 8 and 2 season with just 1 of the 8.

Perception is not always reality.

 

[saluno22]

So what are you saying? That the 2008 VaTech team should've been ranked #5 going into the bowl games?

#1 Oklahoma (Big XII) 12-1
#2 Florida (SEC) 12-1
#3 USC (Pac12) 11-1
#4 Penn St (BIG10) 11-1
#5 VaTech (ACC) 9-4
#6 Cincinnati (Big East) 11-2
#9 Utah (Mountain West) 12-0
#8 Texas 11-1
#9 Alabama 12-1
#10 Texas Tech (11-1)

Yeah that makes a ton of sense.

I don't care where you rank them, but provide every team an objective path to the championship field that isn't reliant on pollsters.

The problem I see is people jumping to say "Include the X best teams" at the mention of a X-team playoff field. Who determines "best" and by what measures?

You say win "Clear objective is to win your games". Under that standard, the only team worthy of qualifying for the playoff in the example you provide is Utah, so obviously there are other factors influencing who you see fit to qualify for the playoff field. Is there supposed to be a variable playoff field size from year to year that forms the "win your games" objective? Some years could have no undefeated teams (2003), some could have 5 (2004) after the CCGs. Or do we need more data points to show Utah is or isn't the best team?

Provide an objective path for any team to automatically qualify, then argue about whose losses were best or whichever metrics you choose for the rest of the field.

 

[Husker4real]

Since I know you all want my opinion on this matter, the thought of a 4 loss conference champ making a playoff doesn’t bother me in the least.

In addition to being consistent with other NCAA championships, it actually adds the benefit of giving the top seed an “easier” first round game. That’ll keep the regular season interesting as teams fight for higher seeds.

I know some people have anxiety over it, but the occasional team with 3 or 4 losses in the field would in no way detract from my enthusiasm over such a playoff.

 

[saluno22]

meh, objective or a cop out? It is just easier to say give every P5 league an AQ.

The fact is that since the CFP committee has put out a poll, every year but this year, all P5 conference champions would get a bid to an 8 team playoff.

Also, contrary to public opinion, and conspiracy theorists, the SEC wouldn't even have the most number of bids.

If the CFP final rankings were used to determine the field in an 8 team playoff, the following would illustrate the number of teams that would have been selected.

Big Ten - 13
SEC - 9
Big 12 - 6
ACC - 5
Pac 12 - 4
Ind - 2
G6 - 1

In fact, the Big 10 would have at least 2 of the 8 teams in every season, 4 of the 8 in 2016, 3 of the 8 in 2015. The SEC would have had 1 season with 3 of 8, 2 seasons with 2 of the 8 and 2 season with just 1 of the 8.

Perception is not always reality.

I appreciate your post, but if I were writing the bylaws for an expanded CFP, I would prefer to write into the rules that there are automatic qualifiers rather than relying on your argument of convenience that the P5 champions have always ended up in the Top 8.

It isn't beyond pollsters (and I'm lumping in the committee as pollsters because they have a seemingly fluid set of criteria from year to year) to rank teams conveniently outside the championship threshold.

If a team with several losses happens to win a P5 conference and gets into the field, so be it in my opinion as long as there is an objective path to qualify.

 

[saluno22]

Winning your conference isn't subjective. Using conference champions as a metric to get an automatic bid in an 8-team playoff is subjective because not all conferences are the same and it can throw out the entire body of the season if a team like 2008 VaTech wins their pathetic conference. Or if there's an upset like if NW were to upset Ohio St or Pitt upsetting Clemson.

Good for them, the stakes just got bigger for CCGs for a lot of teams.

 

[newAD]

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?

Here’s your scenario with last year’s CFB playoff ranking before the bowl games, with a 1-8 matchups:

1. Clemson
8. USC

4. Alabama
5. Ohio State

3. Georgia
4. Wisconsin

2. Oklahoma
7. Auburn

Under mine, with the assumption that UCF gets the last at large spot (because I thoroughly believe the system was manipulated against them last year, and probably this year).

1. Clemson
8. UCF

4. Ohio State
5. USC

3. Georgia
6. Alabama

2. OU
7. Wisconsin

Who is hurt by my scenario? Auburn. The division champion, who beat Alabama. Hmm. The conference champs get a higher seed except for the one who looses the beauty contest, which would have been USC.

Your scenario:
1 ACC
1 Big 12
3 SEC
2. Big 10
1 PAC 12

Mine:
Take out 1 SEC team and add the AAC conference champion. So a lowly Cinderella gets a shot at the expense of the SEC. Cry me a river.

My scenario, Bama, who didn’t even get to their conference championship, gets a bitch of an opener. Seems fair. Georgia, well shouldn’t have lost to Auburn so badly in the regular season, and got knocked down to #3 in the beauty contest.

This year your scenario:
1. Bama
8. UCF

4. OU
5. Georgia

3. Notre Dame
6. Ohio State

2. Clemson
7. Michigan

Mine
1. Bama
8. UCF

4. OU
5. Ohio State

3. Notre Dame
6. Washington

2. Clemson
7. Georgia

So the PAC 12 champion gets in over Michigan.

OMG, my scenario is so outrageous.

 

[saluno22]

Since I know you all want my opinion on this matter, the thought of a 4 loss conference champ making a playoff doesn’t bother me in the least.

In addition to being consistent with other NCAA championships, it actually adds the benefit of giving the top seed an “easier” first round game. That’ll keep the regular season interesting as teams fight for higher seeds.

I know some people have anxiety over it, but the occasional team with 3 or 4 losses in the field would in no way detract from my enthusiasm over such a playoff.

There is a degree of scarcity of playoff spots in college football that is not seen in other sports. Using March Madness for comparison, NCAA basketball's field is about 20% of all of D1. The current CFP is about 3% of FBS, expanding to 8 teams gets that up to about 6%. That artificially scarcity in CFP creates fervor to only include the "best" and "most deserving". Great for business. Look at what we're talking about.

EDIT: The scarcity is also what makes for "the best regular season in all of sports." Which taken another way could mean "our postseason really sucks."

 

[Tuco Salamanca]

I appreciate your post, but if I were writing the bylaws for an expanded CFP, I would prefer to write into the rules that there are automatic qualifiers rather than relying on your argument of convenience that the P5 champions have always ended up in the Top 8.

It isn't beyond pollsters (and I'm lumping in the committee as pollsters because they have a seemingly fluid set of criteria from year to year) to rank teams conveniently outside the championship threshold.

If a team with several losses happens to win a P5 conference and gets into the field, so be it in my opinion as long as there is an objective path to qualify.

College football has never been about objective paths. Having an objective path does nothing to reduce the amount of controversy. There will still be arguments over the 3 at large berths, in addition to the arguments over the AQ that doesn't "deserve" to be in. Or the 2 loss 9th place team or undefeated G6 team that got snubbed because the 4 loss P5 AQ took that spot.

 

[Tuco Salamanca]

Here’s your scenario with last year’s CFB playoff ranking before the bowl games, with a 1-8 matchups:

1. Clemson
8. USC

4. Alabama
5. Ohio State

3. Georgia
4. Wisconsin

2. Oklahoma
7. Auburn

Under mine, with the assumption that UCF gets the last at large spot (because I thoroughly believe the system was manipulated against them last year, and probably this year).

1. Clemson
8. UCF

4. Ohio State
5. USC

3. Georgia
6. Alabama

2. OU
7. Wisconsin

Who is hurt by my scenario? Auburn. The division champion, who beat Alabama. Hmm. The conference champs get a higher seed except for the one who looses the beauty contest, which would have been USC.

Your scenario:
1 ACC
1 Big 12
3 SEC
2. Big 10
1 PAC 12

Mine:
Take out 1 SEC team and add the AAC conference champion. So a lowly Cinderella gets a shot at the expense of the SEC. Cry me a river.

My scenario, Bama, who didn’t even get to their conference championship, gets a bitch of an opener. Seems fair. Georgia, well shouldn’t have lost to Auburn so badly in the regular season, and got knocked down to #3 in the beauty contest.

This year your scenario:
1. Bama
8. UCF

4. OU
5. Georgia

3. Notre Dame
6. Ohio State

2. Clemson
7. Michigan

Mine
1. Bama
8. UCF

4. OU
5. Ohio State

3. Notre Dame
6. Washington

2. Clemson
7. Georgia

So the PAC 12 champion gets in over Michigan.

OMG, my scenario is so outrageous.

Why do you want to mess with the rankings. If Washington gets the AQ, put them in at 8 and take out number 8. You can't bitch about subjectivity then subjectively seed the teams.

 

[Tuco Salamanca]

There is a degree of scarcity of playoff spots in college football that is not seen in other sports. Using March Madness for comparison, NCAA basketball's field is about 20% of all of D1. The current CFP is about 3% of FBS, expanding to 8 teams gets that up to about 6%. That artificially scarcity in CFP creates fervor to only include the "best" and "most deserving". Great for business. Look at what we're talking about.

EDIT: The scarcity is also what makes for "the best regular season in all of sports." Which taken another way could mean "our postseason really sucks."

The edit is why I think you don't just guarantee a team a berth based on a conference title. By giving a berth to a 3 loss AQ, you have diminished the regular season and did nothing to enhance the postseason. No one says our postseason is awesome now that Washington got a shot over Michigan or UCF.

 

[saluno22]

The edit is why I think you don't just guarantee a team a berth based on a conference title. By giving a berth to a 3 loss AQ, you have diminished the regular season and did nothing to enhance the postseason. No one says our postseason is awesome now that Washington got a shot over Michigan or UCF.

I don't disagree with your statement, but I still believe providing an objective path for as many teams as possible (by that I mean P5 champions for now if the expansion is to 8, maybe throw in a non-P5 conference in this as well) is an improvement over the current system.

I think most will agree there anywhere from a couple to a handful of "deserving" teams that should be in the conversation for the national title each year at the end of the season if you look at it from the optics of the longstanding FBS paradigm. But there is always a team or teams every year that are borderline and get left out either as a function of a limited playoff field size or because a team that may be "less deserving" got in due to a real or perceived bias. While providing AQ to conference champs, this mitigates the bias argument as the every team had their objective chance to qualify.

 

[newAD]

Why do you want to mess with the rankings. If Washington gets the AQ, put them in at 8 and take out number 8. You can't bitch about subjectivity then subjectively seed the teams.

Remind me again how the NFL does seeds their teams for the playoffs? Division winners first?

 

[kidofSN]

Do some of you really read what you write? It is ok for a four loss team go get into the playoffs with eight teams? As said then it makes the regular season mean even less and the bowl system which is already been hurt will be even hurt worse. Have to be honest I wish there was no playoff system at all and what I feared is happening now!

 

[newAD]

Not all conferences are equal so your way is very flawed and subjective. The rankings aren't random.

How does your way create more competition when you can have a team with 4 losses make it into the playoffs while another team with 1 or 2 losses get left out?

Win your conference. How is it fair that some NFL teams get left out of the playoffs with a 10-6 record?

 

[saluno22]

College football has never been about objective paths. Having an objective path does nothing to reduce the amount of controversy. There will still be arguments over the 3 at large berths, in addition to the arguments over the AQ that doesn't "deserve" to be in. Or the 2 loss 9th place team or undefeated G6 team that got snubbed because the 4 loss P5 AQ took that spot.

There isn't going to be a perfect system, but you have to admit that due to conference affiliations, original poll positions, historical performance, and other biases, some teams are provided with a subjective advantage over other teams before the season even starts. Just because college football hasn't been about objective paths doesn't mean providing objective paths to a championship would make college football worse (and just like determining the "best" teams, what makes college football overall "worse" is open to one's interpretation). I personally think it would make it better because...

- There are so few data points for comparing teams in the current system. Either force more data points (longer regular season and/or committee-determined schedule; not likely) or expand the field.
- More teams remain in contention for longer in the regular season.
- CCGs mean more.
- The current arrangement favors juggernaut/mature programs that leave little or no room for error in the beginning of the season. (For example: Was 2016 Penn State deserving or not compared to Ohio State?)

Also, you're now expanding the definition of "deserve". In a given year, most would argue there are 2-5 teams that "deserve" a chance at the national title from a conventional standpoint, can we agree on that? Take the P5 AQs, that leaves 3 at large spots. Surely a couple of those AQs would be "deserving" in the conventional sense, that means there are still 3 spots left to get up to 5 total "deserving" teams.

 

[kidofSN]

No four loss teams in the NFL are getting in the playoffs over one loss teams. No comparison! That is what we are talking about if conference champions are let in!

 

[scarletred]

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.

Except Michigan didn’t win the division based on losing to Ohio St in the Division..

Washington won their division and Conference.Michigan even with that lone loss didn’t win their division or play in the CCG...

If you want the 8 best teams then get rid of the CCG..

Guess what never going to happen..

 

[HuskerO]

I don't care where you rank them, but provide every team an objective path to the championship field that isn't reliant on pollsters.

The problem I see is people jumping to say "Include the X best teams" at the mention of a X-team playoff field. Who determines "best" and by what measures?

You say win "Clear objective is to win your games". Under that standard, the only team worthy of qualifying for the playoff in the example you provide is Utah, so obviously there are other factors influencing who you see fit to qualify for the playoff field. Is there supposed to be a variable playoff field size from year to year that forms the "win your games" objective? Some years could have no undefeated teams (2003), some could have 5 (2004) after the CCGs. Or do we need more data points to show Utah is or isn't the best team?

Provide an objective path for any team to automatically qualify, then argue about whose losses were best or whichever metrics you choose for the rest of the field.

Would the 2008 VaTech team be deserving to be in an 8-team playoff? Would 2018 NW or Pitt be deserving to make an 8-team playoff if they would have won their ccg? The undeniable answer is no and if you think otherwise then regular season college football can be kissed goodbye.

Sorry I didn't spell out the obvious, but SOS will play a role.

All I know is that using Conference Champions as an AQ is dumb because it could put in undeserving teams into the playoffs. If you go off of rankings (which is mostly season wins + SOS) you're going to get closer to having top teams in the playoffs than not. Use the current system to determine the top 8 teams. It really isn't difficult.

 

[newAD]

No four loss teams in the NFL are getting in the playoffs over one loss teams. No comparison! That is what we are talking about if conference champions are let in!

Then don’t lose the game that costs you the conference championship. Pretty simple. Make the season mean something. If not the. Why the hell are there conferences?

 

[Husker4real]

One thing I don’t think I understand is the thought that the fewer teams in the playoffs, the more meaningful the regular season. I think it’s quite the opposite.

An overwhelming majority of games now have no bearing on the national title. They’re merely playing out the string hoping to get a meaningless bowl game with a decent gift basket. Add an AQ element to the playoff criteria and suddenly the number of meaningful games grows exponentially. And they’ll still get gift baskets.

 

[HuskerO]

Then don’t lose the game that costs you the conference championship. Pretty simple. Make the season mean something. If not the. Why the hell are there conferences?

You're clearly stating that the season doesn't matter then EXCEPT conference games and the conference championship game.

 

[Husker4real]

No four loss teams in the NFL are getting in the playoffs over one loss teams. No comparison! That is what we are talking about if conference champions are let in!

Some 10 win NFL teams have missed the playoffs while 9 win division winners advance. The NFL post-season remains quite popular.

 

[Tuco Salamanca]

Remind me again how the NFL does seeds their teams for the playoffs? Division winners first?

Don't care about how the NFL does it. The NFL is 32 teams, with a schedule based on how they finished the year before. Each team play their division opponents 2 times and plays against all four teams in one other division from each conference. Literally 12 or so games are against the exact same opponents as the teams in their divisions. As I said in this thread, or another thread, earlier. When the NCAA has schedules based on similar criteria, then you can use the NFL version for seeding playoff teams. Until then, apples and oranges.

 

[saluno22]

Would the 2008 VaTech team be deserving to be in an 8-team playoff? Would 2018 NW or Pitt be deserving to make an 8-team playoff if they would have won their ccg? The undeniable answer is no and if you think otherwise then regular season college football can be kissed goodbye.

Sorry I didn't spell out the obvious, but SOS will play a role.

All I know is that using Conference Champions as an AQ is dumb because it could put in undeserving teams into the playoffs. If you go off of rankings (which is mostly season wins + SOS) you're going to get closer to having top teams in the playoffs than not. Use the current system to determine the top 8 teams. It really isn't difficult.

Do you think the current system doesn't have biases? How is "best" or "deserving" determined? As soon as you inject multiple factors into a metric, you are making it subjective by determining how much to weight each factor.

Also, the terms "deserving" and "undeserving" keep getting brought up, let me ask this: How many "deserving" teams are there in a given year? Will there be a variable playoff field size that prevents "undeserving" teams from ever qualifying? Maybe this year's playoff should just be three teams since that's the number of P5 schools that went undefeated and UCF's schedule sucks.

I'm not saying a conference championship is an end all be all, I'm saying it should be one way (an objective one) to qualify for a playoff spot to provide a path for more teams. Have at large spots for the balance of the field (how this is determined is up for debate, as is home field), but an objective path takes away the argument that any team wouldn't qualify because of real or perceived bias.

 

[saluno22]

Don't care about how the NFL does it. The NFL is 32 teams, with a schedule based on how they finished the year before. Each team play their division opponents 2 times and plays against all four teams in one other division from each conference. Literally 12 or so games are against the exact same opponents as the teams in their divisions. As I said in this thread, or another thread, earlier. When the NCAA has schedules based on similar criteria, then you can use the NFL version for seeding playoff teams. Until then, apples and oranges.

So... expand the FBS playoff to 48 teams?

 

[SLOHusker]

8 would not solve anything OUTSIDE OF the Boise States / UCF type teams no longer being shut out.

In fact, I think there would be a whole lot MORE complaining about who got left out of an 8 team playoff than who got left out of a 4 team playoff.

The NCAA tourney includes 68. ESPN schedules hours of programming annually in order to analyze who got "snubbed" and "left out".

Of a field of 68.

I hear the argument about 8 teams leading to complaints about who got left out but I really don't think it's much of an issue. A 16 team tournament would feature 3 and 4 loss teams and you can't really argue that teams that lose that many times deserve a shot. 8 teams is just enough space to allow all the legitimately deserving teams a chance. I think a slate of Alabama, Clemson, ND, OU, Ohio St, Washington, UCF, and Georgia would have been perfect. Also keep in mind the Big Ten has been left out 3 straight years and that's got to start weighing on conference admins who see other 1-loss teams from other conferences getting in ahead of our champions.

 

[HuskerO]

Do you think the current system doesn't have biases? How is "best" or "deserving" determined? As soon as you inject multiple factors into a metric, you are making it subjective by determining how much to weight each factor.

Also, the terms "deserving" and "undeserving" keep getting brought up, let me ask this: How many "deserving" teams are there in a given year? Will there be a variable playoff field size that prevents "undeserving" teams from ever qualifying? Maybe this year's playoff should just be three teams since that's the number of P5 schools that went undefeated and UCF's schedule sucks.

I'm not saying a conference championship is an end all be all, I'm saying it should be one way (an objective one) to qualify for a playoff spot to provide a path for more teams. Have at large spots for the balance of the field (how this is determined is up for debate, as is home field), but an objective path takes away the argument that any team wouldn't qualify because of real or perceived bias.

You're asking for a perfect system and there isn't going to be one. The best playoff system is one where we take the top ranked teams. Really there's probably only 3-5 teams really deserving, but if we're going to 8 then that's what we have to work with. Why are you talking about changing the number of playoff teams each year?

Yes there may be some bias, but if you're arguing to get that 8th & final spot then you're probably not that deserving to be in the playoffs.

Another example is 1996 season. How can anyone believe that #20 Texas at 8-4 would be more deserving to be in an 8-team playoff than #6 Nebraska because of one game? But I can justify keeping 2 of these 6 teams out of the playoffs (BYU, Nebraska, Penn St, Colorado, Tennessee or North Carolina) by using strength of schedule & how you win/lose games as the next metric. Could there be bias on my end on choosing 4 of those 6 to be in the playoffs? Sure, but I can also justify my decision using SOS, etc as long as I'm using the same reasoning for all teams. Voila, you have your 8.

I think I can come up with more real examples where having a Conference Champion as an AQ for an 8-team playoff be worse than selecting the top 8 ranked teams.

 

[Tuco Salamanca]

Except Michigan didn’t win the division based on losing to Ohio St in the Division..

Washington won their division and Conference.Michigan even with that lone loss didn’t win their division or play in the CCG...

If you want the 8 best teams then get rid of the CCG..

Guess what never going to happen..

You are creating your own criteria I don’t care about division winners or conference champions. I want to see the best eight teams played out for a championship. This season, if you compared Michigan to Washington as far as teams they beat strength of schedule, teams they lost to, any other metric you want to use, Michigan is simply a better team. You want to use Division or conference championships as a way to justify Washington being in there even though they aren’t as good as Michigan. I simply don’t understand that logic

 

[saluno22]

You're asking for a perfect system and there isn't going to be one

Correct, I've said that many times. There is no perfect system, everyone is going to have a problem.

The best playoff system is one where we take the top ranked teams.

Again, how are the teams "ranked"? It's easy to say "take the best" or "take the top ranked". If that is the only qualifier, it remains extremely subjective.

TReally there's probably only 3-5 teams really deserving, but if we're going to 8 then that's what we have to work with. Why are you talking about changing the number of playoff teams each year?

I talk about changing the number of playoff teams each year because others keep posting about the number of "deserving" teams and that "undeserving" teams shouldn't be in the playoff. If you want to keep "undeserving" teams out, you would need to trim or expand the field size to match the number of "deserving" teams. I don't like the idea, but I keep posting it to show that with a given field size, there will likely be some "undeserving" teams in the field some years and "deserving" teams left out of the field in other years. Rarely will the field be the "right size".

Yes there may be some bias, but if you're arguing to get that 8th & final spot then you're probably not that deserving to be in the playoffs.

Agree. But if you're arguing over the 8th and final spot and neither team is "deserving" as you say, why is a committee, poll, etc., needed to make that determination? Pick an agreed-upon metric that is uninfluenced by anything off the field (ie, ignore historical performance, TV viewership potential, etc., keep it to something tangible accomplished by the teams) and don't waver for it. When there is a committee or poll involved, there is bias, whether real or perceived.

Another example is 1996 season. How can anyone believe that #20 Texas at 8-4 would be more deserving to be in an 8-team playoff than #6 Nebraska because of one game? But I can justify keeping 2 of these 6 teams out of the playoffs (BYU, Nebraska, Penn St, Colorado, Tennessee or North Carolina) by using strength of schedule & how you win/lose games as the next metric. Could there be bias on my end on choosing 4 of those 6 to be in the playoffs? Sure, but I can also justify my decision using SOS, etc as long as I'm using the same reasoning for all teams. Voila, you have your 8.

I think I can come up with more real examples where having a Conference Champion as an AQ for an 8-team playoff be worse than selecting the top 8 ranked teams.

There are plenty of examples where conference champion AQs would produce a "worse" field than the top 8 "ranked" teams. That's not my point, which is every team should have an objective path to qualifying for the playoff. P5 AQs won't eliminate bias from the playoff field completely as there will still be 3 at large teams with which a potentially non-objective metric will be used to select. However, it assures every team in an AQ conference that a pollster or committee (or a metric they create) won't keep them out of the playoff if they win their conference.

As you say, "there's probably only 3-5 teams really deserving." I believe it could be reasonably assumed that at least 2 of the 5 AQs would fit into the "deserving" 3-5 teams, and with 3 at large spots, the other 1-3 "deserving" teams will also be in the playoff field. Voila, you have your 8 and it includes your 3-5 "deserving" teams while also providing an objective path for all AQ conference members to qualify for the field.

 

[HuskerO]

@saluno22
"Again, how are the teams "ranked"? It's easy to say "take the best" or "take the top ranked". If that is the only qualifier, it remains extremely subjective."
- I've already answered this question multiple times.

"I talk about changing the number of playoff teams each year because others keep posting about the number of "deserving" teams and that "undeserving" teams shouldn't be in the playoff. If you want to keep "undeserving" teams out, you would need to trim or expand the field size to match the number of "deserving" teams."
- If you have a 4-team playoff you take the 4 most qualified teams. If you have an 8-team playoff you take the 8 most qualified teams. I've already explained how you pick those teams. Again, I've already explained how you pick those teams.

"I believe it could be reasonably assumed that at least 2 of the 5 AQs would fit into the "deserving" 3-5 teams, and with 3 at large spots, the other 1-3 "deserving" teams will also be in the playoff field."
- Yeah, if they're already in the top 8. Again, 1996 Texas or 2008 VaTech are barely deserving to be in the Top 25 let alone to be in an 8-team playoff.

The rest I'm too burned out to address so I'm probably out. Good conversation!

 

[scarletred]

You are creating your own criteria I don’t care about division winners or conference champions. I want to see the best eight teams played out for a championship. This season, if you compared Michigan to Washington as far as teams they beat strength of schedule, teams they lost to, any other metric you want to use, Michigan is simply a better team. You want to use Division or conference championships as a way to justify Washington being in there even though they aren’t as good as Michigan. I simply don’t understand that logic

Well you should have told all these conference’s not too have 12-14 teams so they don’t have to divide into divisions to have a CCG other wise what is the sense..

We’re both looking at this subject in a different criteria..

Can we both agree on that.

 

[saluno22]

@saluno22
"Again, how are the teams "ranked"? It's easy to say "take the best" or "take the top ranked". If that is the only qualifier, it remains extremely subjective."
- I've already answered this question multiple times.

"I talk about changing the number of playoff teams each year because others keep posting about the number of "deserving" teams and that "undeserving" teams shouldn't be in the playoff. If you want to keep "undeserving" teams out, you would need to trim or expand the field size to match the number of "deserving" teams."
- If you have a 4-team playoff you take the 4 most qualified teams. If you have an 8-team playoff you take the 8 most qualified teams. I've already explained how you pick those teams. Again, I've already explained how you pick those teams.

"I believe it could be reasonably assumed that at least 2 of the 5 AQs would fit into the "deserving" 3-5 teams, and with 3 at large spots, the other 1-3 "deserving" teams will also be in the playoff field."
- Yeah, if they're already in the top 8. Again, 1996 Texas or 2008 VaTech are barely deserving to be in the Top 25 let alone to be in an 8-team playoff.

The rest I'm too burned out to address so I'm probably out. Good conversation!

Appreciate the response, enjoyed the conversation.

One could argue that there is a difference between "deserving" and "most qualified".

The part we won't see eye to eye on is AQs vs. "ranking" (I will maintain that this will inherently be bias depending on the factors considered and the weight given to each factor), tangentially in this thread the devaluing of the regular season.