T-Rode's Unpopular Opinion - Session 1: BCS vs. CFP

[Rolltide94]

Yep. Anyone that is altruistic enough to think decisions are made solely on what is in the best interest of college football is naive as hell. It is and has been about the Benjamins now and has been for quite some time. Why else would my Miners be willing to go get their ass kicked every year in places like Norman, Austin, Knoxville, etc?

I though maybe y'all had a bunch of sadists floating around El Paso.

 

[7Samurai13]

Before 2K - We need to break ties and have a unified champion!

Mid 2k's - We need to go to 4 because sometimes it's vague who should be 2 vs. 3.

2018 - We need to go to 6 or 8 because sometimes it's vague who should be 4 vs 5.

Few years from now - We need to go to 16 because sometimes it's vague who should be 8 vs 9.

Next - We need to go back to 4 because there's too many crappy teams profiting off shitty schedules and bad conferences.


The cycle of football fans.

Let’s just go from 4 to 128 that way almost everyone gets a shot. Sorry @Deep Creek

 

[Yo Tee]

Before 2K - We need to break ties and have a unified champion!

Mid 2k's - We need to go to 4 because sometimes it's vague who should be 2 vs. 3.

2018 - We need to go to 6 or 8 because sometimes it's vague who should be 4 vs 5.

Few years from now - We need to go to 16 because sometimes it's vague who should be 8 vs 9.

Next - We need to go back to 4 because there's too many crappy teams profiting off shitty schedules and bad conferences.


The cycle of football fans.

And that cycle will never stop because it's a part of the sport.

 

[trojanfan12]

From what I've read, it looks like we get the same result whether it's the old BCS system or the current committee system.

Imo, this means the issue isn't really the way the teams are chosen.

To me, it says the only thing that needs to change is the number of teams allowed in. Imo, it should be expanded to at least 6, preferably 8 teams.

This allows for all P5 conference champs and 1 or 3 "wild card teams" which would allow deserving non-conference champs and/or non-P5 teams to get a shot.

 

[Yo Tee]

From what I've read, it looks like we get the same result whether it's the old BCS system or the current committee system.

Imo, this means the issue isn't really the way the teams are chosen.

To me, it says the only thing that needs to change is the number of teams allowed in. Imo, it should be expanded to at least 6, preferably 8 teams.

This allows for all P5 conference champs and 1 or 3 "wild card teams" which would allow deserving non-conference champs and/or non-P5 teams to get a shot.

Yeah, 1 change in the last 5 years that may have impacted the CFP but like you said, we've gotten practically the same results between the committee and what we would've gotten in the CFP. During these conversations and doing some more research, the additions of more teams aren't necessary every year. Really weren't necessary the last two years but, in my opinion, were the first two years. This year, we don't know yet, but I would assume that there might be 6 teams that would be worthy of a CFP spot. But, won't know til season's end.

 

[Deep Creek]

Let’s just go from 4 to 128 that way almost everyone gets a shot. Sorry @Deep Creek

Everyone gets a trophy...except us!

But, there would be some real lopsided games in the first few rounds of a 128 team playoff. Probably rival the number of lopsided OOC games we get currently.

 

[Yo Tee]

I appreciate all the discussion and keeping it civilized. Really appreciate it. Wish I could say the same for my other threads

Haha. But, as stated, these are unpopular opinions.

Thanks again, gentlemen!

 

[7Samurai13]

Everyone gets a trophy...except us!

But, there would be some real lopsided games in the first few rounds of a 128 team playoff. Probably rival the number of lopsided OOC games we get currently.

Well there is someone else left out too. We are up to 130 now with Liberty as FBS.

 

[belcherboy]

Let’s just go from 4 to 128 that way almost everyone gets a shot. Sorry @Deep Creek

It would be great if every team got 2 rivalry games to start the season (one home and one road), then the tournament starts. Everyone is eligible for the tournament. Each week half the teams are eliminated, and enter a losers tournament. After two losses, your season is over. So every team is guaranteed at least 4 games. In December and January, those teams that don’t make the top 16 teams in the tournament, can be invited to play a bowl game.

Problem solved!

 

[belcherboy]

Well there is someone else left out too. We are up to 130 now with Liberty as FBS.

That’s when the ncaa starts bumping a few teams to FCS.

 

[Deep Creek]

During these conversations and doing some more research, the additions of more teams aren't necessary every year. Really weren't necessary the last two years but, in my opinion, were the first two years.

In your opinion TR, what do you consider the downsides of adding more teams than are necessary in a given year? i.e. in 20XX we only really have three teams that have separated themselves so let's stick 1, 3 or 5 more in the playoff, In 20XX we only really have five teams that have separated themselves so let's stick 1 or 3 more in the playoff, etc.

I've got my reasons why I think that is bad, just curious as to your reasons.

 

[Deep Creek]

Well there is someone else left out too. We are up to 130 now with Liberty as FBS.

Misery loves company!

 

[Deep Creek]

That’s when the ncaa starts bumping a few teams to FCS.

Hell, I can't find one FCS conference we could win in our current status!

 

[Yo Tee]

In your opinion TR, what do you consider the downsides of adding more teams than are necessary in a given year? i.e. in 20XX we only really have three teams that have separated themselves so let's stick 1, 3 or 5 more in the playoff, In 20XX we only really have five teams that have separated themselves so let's stick 1 or 3 more in the playoff, etc.

I've got my reasons why I think that is bad, just curious as to your reasons.

For instance, last year, there was a debate over Bama or OSU. Committee thought Bama should've gone in, but I believe a good case could've been made for Ohio State. It doesn't make sense, to me, to just throw in a 6th team just to fill the 6 team playoff when there isn't a 6th team worthy for that spot. At that point, it would make sense to keep it at 4.

2016, the debate was between Ohio State or Penn State, which the committee got 100% wrong, BTW. But, once again, the 6th team would've been included just to fill an empty slot.

Now 2015 would've been a good year for 6 as you had Clemson, Bama, MSU, Washington, Iowa and Ohio State all worthy of a CFP spot. Same with 2014 where you could've added Baylor and TCU. 4 makes sense the last two years, 6 made sense the previous two years, and 4 made sense again in 2013. If the NCAA says, starting next year, it's 6 teams, I feel like if a case can be made for only 5 teams, that 6th team is literally just there to fill a hole. They aren't deserving enough to be in the debate for 4th or 5th, but because we need 6 teams we might as well include them. Ya know?

Maybe it should be a year by year basis and leave it open ended. If the committee thinks we need 6 teams in a playoff, we need 6 teams, if they think we could get away with only having 2, then it's two. If the committee has a clear #1 but is stuck on 2 and 3, maybe it's a 3 team playoff and the winner between 2 and 3 plays 1. IDK what the right answer is and I honestly don't think there is one.

 

[7Samurai13]

Misery loves company!

Sure, we can leave Missouri out, no one will really notice.

 

[trojanfan12]

Yeah, 1 change in the last 5 years that may have impacted the CFP but like you said, we've gotten practically the same results between the committee and what we would've gotten in the CFP. During these conversations and doing some more research, the additions of more teams aren't necessary every year. Really weren't necessary the last two years but, in my opinion, were the first two years. This year, we don't know yet, but I would assume that there might be 6 teams that would be worthy of a CFP spot. But, won't know til season's end.

Under the current system, there are 5 P5 conference champs, but only 4 spots. So every year, at least one and sometimes 2, conference champs are left out.

I'm less concerned about a conference champion that gets in, but wasn't worthy than I am about a conference champion not getting in that is worthy.

 

[7Samurai13]

Under the current system, there are 5 P5 conference champs, but only 4 spots. So every year, at least one and sometimes 2, conference champs are left out.

I'm less concerned about a conference champion that gets in, but wasn't worthy than I am about a conference champion not getting in that is worthy.

We haven’t had a year yet where a worthy conference champ was left out.

 

[Yo Tee]

We haven’t had a year yet where a worthy conference champ was left out.

I would argue that Penn State in 2016. Won the conference title AND beat Ohio State in the same season that Ohio State was put in the CFP. Yes, Penn State lost to Pittsburgh. But if the point is to find the best teams in the country, how is Ohio State better than the team that beat them?

 

[TheDayMan]

2016, the debate was between Ohio State or Penn State, which the committee got 100% wrong, BTW. But, once again, the 6th team would've been included just to fill an empty slot.

Why do you think they got it 100% wrong?

 

[7Samurai13]

I would argue that Penn State in 2016. Won the conference title AND beat Ohio State in the same season that Ohio State was put in the CFP. Yes, Penn State lost to Pittsburgh. But if the point is to find the best teams in the country, how is Ohio State better than the team that beat them?

You mean the Penn State that got BLOWN THE FUCK OUT by Michigan and lost by 6 scores on top of losing to Pitt?