6 team playoff

[Yo Tee]

I don't think you can make all 5 P5 conference champions automatically make it unless you have 8 teams. If you have an 8-team then I think the best way would be P5 champs and 3 at-large. Maybe, MAYBE, in that scenario you could give the best G5 team a chance. Problem is most years even the best G5 team is nowhere near that level. Sometimes you do get a UCF from last year where you could at least argue they deserve a shot, but that's far from every year. So I don't think you can automatically give a G5 team a spot every year.

I just think if you give put a brighter spotlight to the "lower tiered" teams, that will garner more competition in recruiting and will only make the competition on the field better all around. I believe we were able to "turn" at least 4-5 recruits from other schools to come to UCF with our whole "We're the real National Champions" recruiting thing, and it helped that we were able to showcase how good the program was on national TV against Auburn.

 

[Mike A. S.]

I just think if you give put a brighter spotlight to the "lower tiered" teams, that will garner more competition in recruiting and will only make the competition on the field better all around.

I agree. And I think it would probably technically be a more accurate way to determine the legit national champion. I just think there would be a lot of years where the team isn't even close to the same caliber as the other 7 and it would just be kinda embarrassing.

 

[Deep Creek]

I feel like the term "mid major" is created by a program like Wake Forest ( no insult @Hitman Hart ) who have never accomplish anything before and it's just a way to undermind and insult other programs who don't have the revenue and etc...

It makes little to no sense. It's even worse in College Basketball. It's toxic and whoever created it needs to have a talking to.

It feels like we're talking iin circles about the same thing for years now which is the first sign of a flawed system. I just say this... This G5 / P5 thing has brought out the most delusional and superiority complex of fans. It's fascinating to watch.

While I'm not sure it was "created" by one of the schools, one thing is obvious. The only significant difference between schools like Wake Forest (lower P5) and Cincinnati (upper G5) is the conference revenue generated by the bigger dogs in the P5 conference. That's it.

But, here's the cold hard reality. If those two switched places and Cincy was receiving ACC P5 money, they'd be very, very similar to what Wake is in the ACC. They still wouldn't be up with the biggies in the P5.

Use Utah and TCU as examples. Both were upper G5 schools. And while both have benefitted from the revenue that comes from being able to eat at the P5 table, neither are on the same level as their conference brethren USC, UCLA, Texas or Oklahoma. Not all P5s are true P5s. In fact, only a handful are.

And before all the babble starts about "academic is important in P5 membership blah, blah, blah", Rice is waaaayyyyyyyy above nearly every P5 school when it comes to academics. Last I checked, they were G5.

 

[Yo Tee]

I agree. And I think it would probably technically be a more accurate way to determine the legit national champion. I just think there would be a lot of years where the team isn't even close to the same caliber as the other 7 and it would just be kinda embarrassing.

I definitely think 8 teams is too much, but I do agree with a 6-team playoff. There's always gonna be a debate, that's just the nature of the sport. But to put a team that was 3rd in their conference over a conference champion, there's gotta be some sort of standard. I personally don't think if you can't win your division, you shouldn't be considered for the playoff.

 

[Mike A. S.]

While I'm not sure it was "created" by one of the schools, one thing is obvious. The only significant difference between schools like Wake Forest (lower P5) and Cincinnati (upper G5) is the conference revenue generated by the bigger dogs in the P5 conference. That's it.

But, here's the cold hard reality. If those two switched places and Cincy was receiving ACC P5 money, they'd be very, very similar to what Wake is in the ACC. They still wouldn't be up with the biggies in the P5.

Use Utah and TCU as examples. Both were upper G5 schools. And while both have benefitted from the revenue that comes from being able to eat at the P5 table, neither are on the same level as their conference brethren USC, UCLA, Texas or Oklahoma. Not all P5s are true P5s. In fact, only a handful are.

And before all the babble starts about "academic is important in P5 membership blah, blah, blah", Rice is waaaayyyyyyyy above nearly every P5 school when it comes to academics. Last I checked, they were G5.

Agreed. But we're talking about P5 champs. So if those teams manage to win their P5 conference than they'd deserve a shot.

 

[Mike A. S.]

I definitely think 8 teams is too much, but I do agree with a 6-team playoff. There's always gonna be a debate, that's just the nature of the sport. But to put a team that was 3rd in their conference over a conference champion, there's gotta be some sort of standard. I personally don't think if you can't win your division, you shouldn't be considered for the playoff.

I can agree with that with the current 4-team format. But if we went to 6 or 8 then I wouldn't necessarily agree with that.

 

[Hitman Hart]

I feel like the term "mid major" is created by a program like Wake Forest ( no insult @Hitman Hart ) who have never accomplish anything before and it's just a way to undermind and insult other programs who don't have the revenue and etc...

It makes little to no sense. It's even worse in College Basketball. It's toxic and whoever created it needs to have a talking to.

It feels like we're talking iin circles about the same thing for years now which is the first sign of a flawed system. I just say this... This G5 / P5 thing has brought out the most delusional and superiority complex of fans. It's fascinating to watch.

Bottom feeders creating the term "mid-major" as a way to stick their chest out over non-P5's is one of the dumbest opinions I have read on here.

 

[Yo Tee]

I can agree with that with the current 4-team format. But if we went to 6 or 8 then I wouldn't necessarily agree with that.

Either the number of teams needs to change or the way they determine who are in the playoff needs to change, in my opinion.

 

[belcherboy]

Bama didn't win their division yet got in after finishing 3rd in their conference. Auburn's 3 regular season losses were to 2 of the top 4 teams in the country and the 18th ranked team in the country, they beat the best team in the country yet miss out.

How was Alabama the best team last year over Ohio State with Alabama's shit schedule where their best regular season wins was over the 18th and 19th ranked teams in the country? Also, you have a conference champion in Ohio State who, yes, lost badly to Iowa, but also had better quality wins over Alabama. They had 3 wins over top 15 teams, while Alabama had 2 wins over top 20 teams and didn't even finish 1st or 2nd in their conference.

Do you think Ohio State was a better team than Alabama last year?

 

[Deep Creek]

Do you think Ohio State was a better team than Alabama last year?

I don't think they were but they didn't play so I can't so say definitely.

But we know for sure Clemson and Georgia weren't either because they did play.

Could probably say Oklahoma wasn't either but they also didn't play head to head. Oklahoma would have probably been the most problematic for Bama. But, we'll never know ao that is JMO.

 

[belcherboy]

I don't think they were but they didn't play so I can't so say definitely.

But we know for sure Clemson and Georgia weren't either because they did play.

Could probably say Oklahoma wasn't either but they also didn't play head to head. Oklahoma would have probably been the most problematic for Bama. But, we'll never know ao that is JMO.

The job of the committee is to determine the four best teams. What he posted above was the first time I had seen anyone question whether Alabama should have gotten into the playoffs over Ohio State last year. First, Ohio State had two losses. Second, does anyone who watched Alabama last year have any doubt they were the best team in college football? On a neutral site, anything could happen, and we did have two overtime games in the playoffs that proved it, but at the end of season, was it really questionable if Alabama was the best team?

I found it really weird that he was comparing Ohio State to Alabama. Has there even been a two loss playoff team? I thought it was a "no brainer" decision by the committee that Bama got in the playoffs ahead of Ohio State last season.

 

[Deep Creek]

The job of the committee is to determine the four best teams. What he posted above was the first time I had seen anyone question whether Alabama should have gotten into the playoffs over Ohio State last year. First, Ohio State had two losses. Second, does anyone who watched Alabama last year have any doubt they were the best team in college football? On a neutral site, anything could happen, and we did have two overtime games in the playoffs that proved it, but at the end of season, was it really questionable if Alabama was the best team?

I found it really weird that he was comparing Ohio State to Alabama. Has there even been a two loss playoff team? I thought it was a "no brainer" decision by the committee that Bama got in the playoffs ahead of Ohio State last season.

I think Bama proved it was the best team at the end of the season...but they probably weren't at the end of the REGULAR season. They had a ton of injuries and were stumbling down the stretch. Even the Bammers will tell you they were struggling to finish the season. IMO they are probably the only team in the nation that had the quality of depth to even make it to the end without falling completely apart. The Bama team in the playoffs wasn't the same Bama team that ended the season. Not even close.

 

[belcherboy]

Also, why are people being so critical of Alabama's schedule last year?? Were they suppose to know that Florida State was going to implode? The AP and the Coaches poll had FSU as the #3 team in the country, and they had several top 5 recruiting classes on the field. They lost to an Auburn team that had beat Georgia, and also had a team that had a few top 10 recruiting classes on it's roster. Their schedule last year was not bad IMO. Regardless, they scheduled a top 10 program for an OOC game for week 1 in 2017. I don't think you can ask an SEC team for much more than that.

The bottom line, in my mind, is that if Alabama loses one game, they will get preferential treatment in playoff selection when it comes to comparing them to other one loss teams. I believe that is how it should be. The selection committee is HIGHLY unlikely to find another team, with the same record, filled with more NFL players than Alabama. Their job is to select who they think are the best four teams. They succeeded in doing that last year IMO.

 

[Deep Creek]

Also, why are people being so critical of Alabama's schedule last year?? Were they suppose to know that Florida State was going to implode? The AP and the Coaches poll had them as the #3 team in the country, and they had several top 5 recruiting classes on the field. They lost to an Auburn team that had beat Georgia, and also had a team that had a few top 10 recruiting classes on it's roster. There schedule last year was not bad IMO. Regardless, they scheduled a top 10 program for an OOC game for week 1 in 2017. I don't think you can ask an SEC team for much more than that.

The bottom line, in my mind, is that if Alabama loses one game (to a pretty good team, and it's not a blowout), they will get preferential treatment in playoff selection when it comes to other comparing them to other one loss teams. I believe that is how it should be. The selection committee is HIGHLY unlikely to find another team, with the same record, filled with more NFL players than Alabama. Their job is to select who they think are the best four teams. They succeeded in doing that last year IMO.

Hell no Bama can't be blamed for FSU's downfall. No team should be. And Bama's schedule wasn't bad because their conference schedule was good.

Here's where I do blame most of the teams like Bama..and not Bama alone. They have FOUR OOC open slots. They could have scheduled TWO OOC games with teams like FSU instead of one and still have two OOC cupcakes (instead of three). They (and most of them) choose to only schedule one other P5 team. Hell, some P5s don't even schedule ONE other P5 for their OOC.

 

[belcherboy]

Hell no Bama can't be blamed for FSU's downfall. No team should be. And Bama's schedule wasn't bad because their conference schedule was good.

Here's where I do blame most of the teams like Bama..and not Bama alone. They have FOUR OOC open slots. They could have scheduled TWO OOC games with teams like FSU instead of one and still have two OOC cupcakes (instead of three). They (and most of them) choose to only schedule one other P5 team. Hell, some P5s don't even schedule ONE other P5 for their OOC.

Why should Bama schedule two top 25 teams in their OOC schedule? What advantage does it give them? They play in the SEC. What other top 15 program schedules two big OOC games? All they need to do is play one big OOC game (which IMO they have done for the greater part of the past decade...USC, Virginia Tech, Wisconsin, West Virginia, Michigan, FSU, etc.), and an SEC schedule. That is plenty enough competition to prove whether they deserve a playoff spot or not. It's been a tough enough schedule for them, that they have still gotten a playoff spot with one loss a few times.

 

[Mike A. S.]

Bama didn't win their division yet got in after finishing 3rd in their conference. Auburn's 3 regular season losses were to 2 of the top 4 teams in the country and the 18th ranked team in the country, they beat the best team in the country yet miss out.

How was Alabama the best team last year over Ohio State with Alabama's shit schedule where their best regular season wins was over the 18th and 19th ranked teams in the country? Also, you have a conference champion in Ohio State who, yes, lost badly to Iowa, but also had better quality wins over Alabama. They had 3 wins over top 15 teams, while Alabama had 2 wins over top 20 teams and didn't even finish 1st or 2nd in their conference.

The committee was consistent. Either Ohio State didn't deserve it over Alabama last year or they didn't deserve it over Penn State the year before. It was almost exact same scenarios, OSU was just on opposite ends of the situation.

 

[Yo Tee]

Do you think Ohio State was a better team than Alabama last year?

Yes, I do and they had a better resume to back it up, even with a blowout loss to Iowa.

 

[belcherboy]

The committee was consistent. Either Ohio State didn't deserve it over Alabama last year or they didn't deserve it over Penn State the year before. It was almost exact same scenarios, OSU was just on opposite ends of the situation.

One thing we know for sure with this committee...they haven't seen a two loss team they felt was playoff worthy. So the advice to any P5 team out there would be...don't lose more than one game if you want to be considered for a playoff spot. Maybe that will change in the future though.

 

[Yo Tee]

The committee was consistent. Either Ohio State didn't deserve it over Alabama last year or they didn't deserve it over Penn State the year before. It was almost exact same scenarios, OSU was just on opposite ends of the situation.

The Committee got it wrong both years, in my opinion.

 

[belcherboy]

Yes, I do and they had a better resume to back it up, even with a blowout loss to Iowa.

They lost two games? Alabama lost one game. I'm not sure why it is difficult to see why the playoff committee chose Alabama over Ohio State.