What's the perfect playoff system?

[daglafe]

I don't think giving a team an automatic bid is the best thing for these playoffs. I still don't think the Pac 12 had a top 6 or even 8 team IMO. It was just an off year for them, and I'm glad they didn't make the playoffs just because their top team won the conference.

Maybe, but in an 8 team playoff they would have been exposed and eliminated quickly if that were the case. I don't see the downside.

 

[belcherboy]

Maybe, but in an 8 tea playoff they would have been exposed and eliminated quickly if that were the case. I don't see the downside.

The downside is that right now, I believe, we have had the best 4 teams selected every playoff season. Let's keep the system that works, rather than try to force a system where a 3 loss team can sneak in the back door simply because they win their conference.

Even in a 6 or 8 team playoff...just pick the best teams. The committee deserves a lot of credit for the teams they have selected every year IMO. I know not everyone agrees with that though.

 

[Yo Tee]

Based on what? The Pac 12 had more top 25 wins, and more teams with top 25 wins. I still haven't found any sports news site that ranks them higher than #6 in conference strength.

The AAC was a one trick pony, and Memphis was the only other team that registered a top 25 win this year in the entire conference.

In my opinion, I would rank the AAC higher than the Pac-12. AAC went undefeated against the Pac-12 this year and UCF didn't play a Pac-12 team this year. AAC had a better bowl record, an undefeated team and the AAC also had more wins this year than the B1G and a better combined SOS ranking than the Pac-12 and the B1G.

Here's an article from an unbiased source speaking about schedule strength and OOC schedules.

Chuck Landon: UCF should have played in college championship

 

[4down20]

Waited my entire life for the format we have now, doesn't need to be changed no matter how much a bunch of cry babies want to cry about it.

 

[belcherboy]

In my opinion, I would rank the AAC higher than the Pac-12. AAC went undefeated against the Pac-12 this year and UCF didn't play a Pac-12 team this year. AAC had a better bowl record, an undefeated team and the AAC also had more wins this year than the B1G and a better combined SOS ranking than the Pac-12 and the B1G.

Here's an article from an unbiased source speaking about schedule strength and OOC schedules.

Chuck Landon: UCF should have played in college championship

Bowl records don't mean much IMO. It all depends on whom you play in those bowl games. UCF had a HUGE win, but it's all about who you play in the bowl game, and I don't think I saw another real signature win from the AAC teams.

I'll have to read the article, because I haven't found anyone that agrees with you yet that the AAC was a better conference than the Pac 12. The AAC definitely had the best team between the two conferences, but I just don't see them being a better overall conference this year...and it was probably the Pac 12's worth conference season in decades.

 

[4down20]

In my opinion, I would rank the AAC higher than the Pac-12. AAC went undefeated against the Pac-12 this year and UCF didn't play a Pac-12 team this year. AAC had a better bowl record, an undefeated team and the AAC also had more wins this year than the B1G and a better combined SOS ranking than the Pac-12 and the B1G.

Here's an article from an unbiased source speaking about schedule strength and OOC schedules.

Chuck Landon: UCF should have played in college championship

Why is UCF asking for special treatment?

 

[daglafe]

The downside is that right now, I believe, we have had the best 4 teams selected every playoff season. Let's keep the system that works, rather than try to force a system where a 3 loss team can sneak in the back door simply because they win their conference.

Even in a 6 or 8 team playoff...just pick the best teams. The committee deserves a lot of credit for the teams they have selected every year IMO. I know not everyone agrees with that though.

With all due respect, I don't believe they always get it right.

There are too many factors that can influence a committee selection to inflate one program while deflating another.

I would rather see clearly defined criteria for reaching the playoff that has as little subjectivity as possible so that every school knows what that have to do to make it.

I don't really believe it, but to use an old SEC argument "Maybe they beat each other up in the PAC 12." I don't care if a 3 loss team slips in as long as a playoff is representing the best each conference has to offer that year. Throw in the wild cards and a non conference winner like this years champion still gets a shot.

 

[belcherboy]

Chuck Landon: UCF should have played in college championship

No offense, but that was a pretty crappy argument in that article. Sounds more like a "shock and awe" article to me.

 

[Yo Tee]

Bowl records don't mean much IMO. It all depends on whom you play in those bowl games. UCF had a HUGE win, but it's all about who you play in the bowl game, and I don't think I saw another real signature win from the AAC teams.

I'll have to read the article, because I haven't found anyone that agrees with you yet that the AAC was a better conference than the Pac 12. The AAC definitely had the best team between the two conferences, but I just don't see them being a better overall conference this year...and it was probably the Pac 12's worth conference season in decades.

If you're looking for someone to agree with me about the AAC being better than the Pac-12 than you probably aren't gonna find anything. That's just my opinion.

 

[4down20]

With all due respect, I don't believe they always get it right.

There are too many factors that can influence a committee selection to inflate one program while deflating another.

I would rather see clearly defined criteria for reaching the playoff that has as little subjectivity as possible so that every school knows what that have to do to make it.

I don't really believe it, but to use an old SEC argument "Maybe they beat each other up in the PAC 12." I don't care if a 3 loss team slips in as long as a playoff is representing the best each conference has to offer that year. Throw in the wild cards and a non conference winner like this years champion still gets a shot.

They always get it right because it's easy as hell by the time it matters as most of these things work themselves out over the season.

And please tell me why a conference championship which only takes account that conference should have national implications? A team could lose every OOC game they play in a year, lose multiple conference games but then somehow make the conference championship game and win - and that is supposed to mean something nationally?

No. If your conference champion gets left out - then there is a reason for it.

Now there is an area that can be fixed that would help the playoffs and that's for the conferences to change how they decide their champions.

 

[Yo Tee]

Why is UCF asking for special treatment?

Not asking for special treatment. Asking to be judge fairly. If UCF gets knocked for their "crappy schedule" then so should Alabama and every other P5 team that had a shit schedule.

 

[belcherboy]

With all due respect, I don't believe they always get it right.

There are too many factors that can influence a committee selection to inflate one program while deflating another.

I would rather see clearly defined criteria for reaching the playoff that has as little subjectivity as possible so that every school knows what that have to do to make it.

I don't really believe it, but to use an old SEC argument "Maybe they beat each other up in the PAC 12." I don't care if a 3 loss team slips in as long as a playoff is representing the best each conference has to offer that year. Throw in the wild cards and a non conference winner like this years champion still gets a shot.

Personally, I don't want another formula. Just pick a group of qualified people, and have them choose the best teams. Don't let an undeserving team in the playoffs. I think they have done that so far since the playoffs started.

Where do you believe that the playoff committee has gotten it wrong in the past?

 

[Yo Tee]

No offense, but that was a pretty crappy argument in that article. Sounds more like a "shock and awe" article to me.

You put the AAC against the Pac-12 and the AAC had the better overall season in my opinion.

 

[belcherboy]

If you're looking for someone to agree with me about the AAC being better than the Pac-12 than you probably aren't gonna find anything. That's just my opinion.

With all due respect, I think you have way too much bias to truly have a balanced opinion. That is likely why we can't find any respectful sports analyst that shares your opinion about the AAC being better than the Pac-12. Again, that doesn't take anything away from the fantastic year UCF had this season...they just play in a pretty weak conference...at least compared to the power 5.

 

[Yo Tee]

Personally, I don't want another formula. Just pick a group of qualified people, and have them choose the best teams. Don't let an undeserving team in the playoffs. I think they have done that so far since the playoffs started.

Where do you believe that the playoff committee has gotten it wrong in the past?

How do you determine if they are qualified or not. There should be no biases no matter what. Noone currently with a university or working for a specific conference. There is no perfect system but this isn't as close as you can get to perfect. Bama was the wrong choice in my opinion. OSU was the wrong choice last year. There's no consistent flow of information that is being critiqued. If teams you've beaten is all that matters, then why try and win the conference title? That obviously doesn't matter at all to the playoff committee and they've shown that the last two years.

 

[Yo Tee]

With all due respect, I think you have way too much bias to truly have a balanced opinion. That is likely why we can't find any respectful sports analyst that shares your opinion about the AAC being better than the Pac-12. Again, that doesn't take anything away from the fantastic year UCF had this season...they just play in a pretty weak conference...at least compared to the power 5.

With all due respect, we disagree. If I were truly biased, I'd be jumping on the whole UCF is the real national champs bandwagon but I'm not. And the comparison of power 5 against non-power 5 conference is what always puts the non-power 5 team down all the time and always will. It's not a fair comparison if power 5 conference will ALWAYS be held at a higher regard than any non-power 5 conference. Might as well just have a playoff for power 5 teams and a playoff for non-power 5 teams.

 

[belcherboy]

How do you determine if they are qualified or not. There should be no biases no matter what. Noone currently with a university or working for a specific conference. There is no perfect system but this isn't as close as you can get to perfect. Bama was the wrong choice in my opinion. OSU was the wrong choice last year. There's no consistent flow of information that is being critiqued. If teams you've beaten is all that matters, then why try and win the conference title? That obviously doesn't matter at all to the playoff committee and they've shown that the last two years.

How does the AP determine who gets ranked where? You get the best football analysts, and get their opinions.

There will always be a bias toward teams in Power 5 conferences....why? Because they have the most guys drafted in the NFL every year, and when you see them play against other NFL caliber players (most often teams INSIDE their conference), it's often pretty obvious who are the best teams.

Bama was the right choice, and they proved it the past 2 weeks. Ohio St, as much as it pains me to say, was also the right choice last year, but that is debatable...they still had enough evidence in their season last year to be given the last playoff spot.

Also, who said that conference titles don't matter? They just aren't the only deciding factor. I like that. The SEC, B12, and ACC champions all made the playoffs. None of those teams make the playoffs if they don't win their conference. So it did matter.

 

[Yo Tee]

How does the AP determine who gets ranked where? You get the best football analysts, and get their opinions.

There will always be a bias toward teams in Power 5 conferences....why? Because they have the most guys drafted in the NFL every year, and when you see them play against other NFL caliber players (most often teams INSIDE their conference), it's often pretty obvious who are the best teams.

Bama was the right choice, and they proved it the past 2 weeks. Ohio St, as much as it pains me to say, was also the right choice last year, but that is debatable...they still had enough evidence in their season last year to be given the last playoff spot.

Also, who said that conference titles don't matter? They just aren't the only deciding factor. I like that. The SEC, B12, and ACC champions all made the playoffs. None of those teams make the playoffs if they don't win their conference. So it did matter.

The playoff committee says conference titles don't matter when you choose to put in a non-conference champion 2 years in a row over a conference champion.

 

[belcherboy]

With all due respect, we disagree. If I were truly biased, I'd be jumping on the whole UCF is the real national champs bandwagon but I'm not. And the comparison of power 5 against non-power 5 conference is what always puts the non-power 5 team down all the time and always will. It's not a fair comparison if power 5 conference will ALWAYS be held at a higher regard than any non-power 5 conference. Might as well just have a playoff for power 5 teams and a playoff for non-power 5 teams.

You can't hardly find ANYONE in the media that agrees with you that the AAC was a better overall conference than the Pac 12. Heck, I'm not sure I've found anyone else on this message board that agrees with you. That seems to hint bias to me...especially with UCF being your team.

It's tougher for non power 5 teams to make the playoffs, but you can't cry when you didn't play any of them last year to prove how good a team you had. Boise St would have likely made the playoffs if they had a 4 team playoff in the 2000's IMO. Why? Because they scheduled some TOUGH teams and won. UCF just didn't have the resume to be considered a playoff team IMO.

 

[belcherboy]

The playoff committee says conference titles don't matter when you choose to put in a non-conference champion 2 years in a row over a conference champion.

No, the playoff committee decides who the 4 best teams are. Conference championships play a HUGE role in that (75% of the playoff teams have been conference champions the past 2 seasons).

Are you really arguing that Alabama WASN'T the best team in the country last night?