6 team playoff

[WizardHawk]

Actually, this is an idea that I have in fact proposed in another forum and guess what................I got totally canned for it.

I think it's an excellent idea.

It is what needs to be done, but as I have already said (and a couple of others have said as well) it won't happen because of money. There's a huge chunk of the CFP pool that is shared among every single G5 team. That subsidy would go away if they broke off. It is very unlikely their own playoff format would replace all of that money, and their playoffs would cost them a bunch to run.

I think you would find most on this site would be in favor of splitting them off, but while it would fix a lot of problems it isn't likely to actually happen.

 

[TheDayMan]

Kind of a moot point. They have tough choices deciding between perceived strength and interpreting resume.

The real point is farting in the wind over whether or not #5 or #6 got hosed over whoever they put in #4 is more incentive to make a better case next year. Schedule enough meat to make your resume strong. Then go win your slate. Do that and you are almost certainly in. That means your fate IS in your own hands. Lose a game and you leave it up to others to decide what that means. That's how it is. And that's how it should be. Period.

This. They at least haven’t got it wrong, and they’ve been consistent. Don’t know what more you could want, if you’re not one of the turds who wants to see the entire landscape of college football to change, anyway.

 

[belcherboy]

Pittsburgh loss was a bad one, but like the same argument as the 2017 OSU team, losing to a top 10 team isn't a bad loss. But in this situation, Penn State beat Ohio State and won their conference. How is Ohio State better than Penn State if they couldn't beat them? This is why I'm saying they put more emphasis on resume than conference titles. Penn State beat Ohio State, the won their conference title and STILL were considered to be a lesser team to a team they beat 2 months earlier. Ohio State barely beat Northwestern and Michigan State who were a combined 10-15 in 2016.

Again, we are comparing a one loss team to a two loss team. Ohio State lost, on the road, by a field goal to Penn State that year. Penn State lost to a bad Pitt team, and lost by 40 points to Michigan. Regardless if Penn St ended up winning the B10 East, and won the B10 championship, they still had two losses...and one of them was an annihilation. On top of that, iirc, PSU had a TERRIBLE OOC schedule...so they got no bonus from a big win there. (Ohio State likely got a big bump from beating OK on the road)

The committee has been pretty consistent in one area when choosing playoff teams, they don't like two loss teams. If you want in the playoffs, don't lose more than one game. Perhaps we will see a two loss playoff team this year, but the odds are stacked against that, and I can't say I disagree with the playoff committee's choices over these past 4 years.

 

[Fitbud]

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 wouldn't be against this. Again, my only gripe with the current system is that a P5 school always gets left out of a 4 team playoff. The top five conferences should all get a shot at the title every year.

 

[TheDayMan]

No it doesn't because they were undefeated and should have had a chance to prove whether or not they were good enough to compete. They defeated Auburn who defeated both schools in the championship.

Undefeated with a shitty schedule. They deserved what they got. G5 teams are playing for a big 6 bowl, not the playoff.

 

[Fitbud]

Undefeated with a shitty schedule. They deserved what they got. G5 teams are playing for a big 6 bowl, not the playoff.

They know that they will never ever be considered for a playoff spot. That too is a disservice to football fans. This is why my 6 team playoff would solve this problem.

 

[WizardHawk]

So maybe the answer isn't an auto bid for conference titles. My gripe with the way it's done now is that it seems like conference titles are taken with a grain of salt when it comes to resume. IDK, just doesn't feel right to me.

Alabama didn't play a single top 15 team last year, had 2 wins against the top 25 and finished 3rd in their conference while Ohio State won their conference title and had 3 top 15 wins but because of 1 bad loss, they lose their shot to at a National title. I don't think that's right.

So you want to dwell on only wins and ignore losses. The committee has to look at all of it. Who you lost to, when, and by how much, as well as the circumstances around it (such as any major injuries, weather, whatever) are all a factor.

Had Ohio State ran the table they were in. They didn't. Their loss was a bad one and it hurt them. Losing MUST have consequences. That's one of the best differences between the NFL and college IMO. NFL teams can get entirely blown out several times in a season and still make it to the playoffs. It's just stupid. In college you bad better take EVERY SINGLE GAME as important because they are. Have an off day and it may derail you no matter what else you do, of course depending on how bad other teams also screw up.

Again, this is way more simple than people want to make it out to be. And they over complicate it usually out of some perceived slight of teams they follow.

Make sure your team has a competitive schedule. This is the part where most G5's fail. If you don't have at least a couple of likely season end top 25 teams on it you have lost before you played a game.

Win your games.

There's just two things you have to do to be in the playoffs. If you fail at either one too damned bad if you are left out. PERIOD. It's that simple. And always has been. I won't get all bent over how things shake out for my team if they fail at either element. Because they blame is on THEM for not taking their schedule seriously or not winning their games.

 

[TheDayMan]

They know that they will never ever be considered for a playoff spot. That too is a disservice to football fans. This is why my 6 team playoff would solve this problem.

No it’s not. No one wants to see a team coast through an easy schedule for a chance at stealing a National Championship. Your idea would ruin college football.

 

[7Samurai13]

They know that they will never ever be considered for a playoff spot. That too is a disservice to football fans. This is why my 6 team playoff would solve this problem.

How many times since the start of the BCS era do you think that a G5 team had a legitimate shot at winning a championship? Two, maybe three?

 

[Yo Tee]

Undefeated with a shitty schedule. They deserved what they got. G5 teams are playing for a big 6 bowl, not the playoff.

If UCF goes undefeated, they would arguably one of the 4 best teams in the country. Cincinnati and South Florida being good so far is helping them.

But even I can't argue that due to what will always be considered a shit schedule because they aren't a P5 team, UCF will never sniff a CFP. And that really sucks because the more spotlight that is being put on smaller schools, it makes the competition much better all around, in my opinion

 

[WizardHawk]

They know that they will never ever be considered for a playoff spot. That too is a disservice to football fans. This is why my 6 team playoff would solve this problem.

No, it would ruin football in some horrible attempt to fix a problem that isn't a problem and has better solutions.

UCF should go find top level P5's to play. Or BSU, or whoever the next hot mid major is. SCHEDULE BETTER. Or accept that you are not playing for a playoff spot no matter how good you are against crappy state.

The system is the way it is because of BYU in '84. It was an abomination for that team to be crowned champions when they didn't face a single ranked team the whole year, even in their bowl. The reverberations of that were still alive and well when the BCS was formed. That and split national champions like Miami/UW in '91. It is ingrained into the fabric of the CFP as well. Crappy schedules will NOT be rewarded. To change that would be to invite everyone to make even worse schedules than they have now. That CANNOT be tolerated at all.

 

[TheDayMan]

How many times since the start of the BCS era do you think that a G5 team had a legitimate shot at winning a championship? Two, maybe three?

Maybe that year Boise beat Georgia to open the year? What are the other two?

 

[Fitbud]

How many times since the start of the BCS era do you think that a G5 team had a legitimate shot at winning a championship? Two, maybe three?

Yes but that was two or three times too many. The reason a playoff was started in the first place was because we would sometimes end the season with more than one undefeated team or two or three "one loss" teams that deserved consideration for national champion. The idea was to settle it on the field but that still isn't happening because we sometimes get an undefeated team that gets not shot at the title.

 

[belcherboy]

I wouldn't be against this. Again, my only gripe with the current system is that a P5 school always gets left out of a 4 team playoff. The top five conferences should all get a shot at the title every year.

I personally would rather see the top 4 teams, as opposed to the conference champs plus one or two. I'd rather see two teams from two conferences, if they are considered the top 4 teams in the country. Again, I like who the committee has chosen so far, but Michigan hasn't even sniffed a playoff spot yet, so maybe if they were left out, I might change my opinion of the committee.

 

[7Samurai13]

Maybe that year Boise beat Georgia to open the year? What are the other two?

I was giving the benefit of the doubt to UCF and Utah.

 

[7Samurai13]

Yes but that was two or three times too many. The reason a playoff was started in the first place was because we would sometimes end the season with more than one undefeated team or two or three "one loss" teams that deserved consideration for national champion. The idea was to settle it on the field but that still isn't happening because we sometimes get an undefeated team that gets not shot at the title.

Maybe don’t play the dregs of the P5 ranks. It’s not like they were a tough team when these games were scheduled.

 

[Fitbud]

Maybe that year Boise beat Georgia to open the year? What are the other two?

What about the year Utah beat Alabama in the Sugar Bowl? They went undefeated that year and they were still in the MWC.

 

[Yo Tee]

UCF should go find top level P5's to play.

Easier said than done. We schedule UNC when they were playing for an ACC title, schedule to play them 2 years later and now look at them. We have Stanford scheduled next year, but when you, as a G5 team, schedule P5 opponents, you can't play them the following year, you gotta play them a few years down the road and you can't predict whether these P5 teams that are really good now are gonna be good when you play them. When we scheduled to play Georgia Tech, they were a 9 win football team, when we play them in 2 years, we might be lucky to play a 3-4 win program. It's not that easy. That's why I'm rooting so hard for Stanford to be good this year so we can somewhat silence all these people who complain about our schedule.

 

[7Samurai13]

Easier said than done. We schedule UNC when they were playing for an ACC title, schedule to play them 2 years later and now look at them. We have Stanford scheduled next year, but when you, as a G5 team, schedule P5 opponents, you can't play them the following year, you gotta play them a few years down the road and you can't predict whether these P5 teams that are really good now are gonna be good when you play them. When we scheduled to play Georgia Tech, they were a 9 win football team, when we play them in 2 years, we might be lucky to play a 3-4 win program. It's not that easy. That's why I'm rooting so hard for Stanford to be good this year so we can somewhat silence all these people who complain about our schedule.

When does P5 opponents agree to play a game the next year? Whenever anyone signs up games, it’s usually 3-4 years down the road. That’s just a BS excuse.

 

[Fitbud]

Maybe don’t play the dregs of the P5 ranks. It’s not like they were a tough team when these games were scheduled.

But it's not like they want to play those teams. The good G5 teams could never get a good P5 team to play a home and home game because it's too risky.

Can you imagine Alabama going down to play UCF? or up to Idaho to play Boise?