Did Notre Dame get screwed in the bowl selection?

[belcherboy]

expanding to 16 teams would have zero effect on the regular season. just cancel the conference championships, and start the playoffs.

Also, I just don't understand how a 16 team playoff would have "zero effect" on the regular season. If a playoff spot for P5 teams was all but assured with 2 losses or less (and you are still in the discussion with 3 losses), why would you ever risk a loss outside of the conference? What would be the point of scheduling a tough OOC game? The only benefit would be possibly getting a higher seed, but why risk an unnecessary potential loss if the playoffs are the goal, and 2 or less losses guarantees that if you play in a Power 5 conference?

 

[desert heat]

It's comparing apples and oranges in comparing those leagues. Every NBA team plays each other multiple times during the season. The NFL is similar as all schedules are weighted (it doesn't mean that some are not easier than others, but they all play common opponents, and have tough games throughout). It's just incomparable when having 100 teams in the discussion, who all play 2/3's of the amount of games that the NFL teams play.



When BSU, Cincy or Memphis have gone unbeaten in this playoff era, let's have that discussion. So far it hasn't happened with those teams. Regardless, what incentive would Boise St, have in scheduling any tough OOC games? From 2002-2012 they had 4-5 seasons where their only regular season loss was to a POWER 5 OOC team. So, if all they had to do was go undefeated to make the playoffs every year, why would they schedule anyone tough OOC? During that time period, they would have be an automatic in the playoffs for most of a decade. How is that fair to middle of the pack POWER 5 teams that would likely do the same as BSU if they played the same schedule? (No disrespect to Boise St, I'm just using them as an example)

I understand the dilemma you are painting, but why create solutions for problems that have not really existed in this 4 team playoff era? UCF could be an argument though. I just don't see anyone rationally thinking they were a top 4 team that year. They would have made the playoffs simply by not playing anyone that season. I don't see that as making the playoffs more legit. That could make the playoffs a farce, and hurt the middle of the pack Power 5 teams who could likely have better rosters, but a much more robust schedule.

i'm not sure what your point is. the nfl and nba team do have a lengthy regular season, either all play one another, or have common opponents, yet @ half the teams making the playoffs is justified, while in ncaaf most teams don't play one another, have few common opponents, don't have similar sos, yet only 4 out of 130 teams should make the playoffs, and as decided by committee? nfl wildcard teams have won the superbowl before.

the current playoff system has only been in place for a few years, but ucf was unbeaten in 2017, and were not chosen. boise st went unbeaten in the bcs era and was not chosen, and went on to beat oklahoma in the fiesta bowl. and that was not their even best team.

a 16 team playoff could include the better p5 teams, as well as an unbeaten boise or ucf, depending on their ranking. under the current system they are penalized. top recruits or coach will not go there because they essentially have zero chance of even making the playoff.

in the meantime, there are @ 40 bowl games, with few worth watching.

 

[belcherboy]

i'm not sure what your point is. the nfl and nba team do have a lengthy regular season, either all play one another, or have common opponents, yet @ half the teams making the playoffs is justified, while in ncaaf most teams don't play one another, have few common opponents, don't have similar sos, yet only 4 out of 130 teams should make the playoffs, and as decided by committee?

The thing is, they all beat each other, play tough schedules, so a fuller playoff is necessary in the NFL and NBA. In the NCAA, you half the teams playing clearly inferior schedules. I'm not saying they are purposely playing weak schedules, because your conference is your conference. In professional athletics, you don't have the problem. It's a problem, but unless you start eliminating teams, it won't go away from a 100 team league. On top of all that, having a 16 team playoff will further incentivize these teams to not improve their OOC schedule. Why risk a loss, when all you have to do is win a weaker conference to assure a playoff spot?

the system has only been in place for a few years, but ucf was unbeaten in 2017, and were not chosen. boise st went unbeaten in the bcs era and was not chosen, and went on to beat oklahoma in the fiesta bowl. and that was not their even best team.

What teams were on UCF's schedule that year? I don't think you can simply look at wins and losses like you do in the NBA and NFL when determining playoff teams. It's simply not fair to the teams playing much tougher schedules.

a 16 team playoff could include the better p5 teams, as well as an unbeaten boise or ucf, depending on their ranking. under the current system they are penalized. top recruits or coach will not go there because they essentially have zero chance of even making the playoff.

They aren't penalized yet. UCF played no one with a pulse during the regular season the year they were undefeated. Boise St has not gone undefeated in the new playoff era (it was created to give more teams a chance at a national title, like BSU , but so far they haven't been worthy)

Again, let's not create a solution to a problem that really doesn't exist.

 

[ATL96Steeler]

First off, I don't like Notre Dame at all, but I found myself reading this article, and kind of agreeing with it. Someone talk me off the ledge here! They played 5 top 25 teams (losing to #5 and #14 both on the road)

Barstool Sports

Well...the article makes a good point for a school with the brand of ND.

IMO...what the non-CFB playoff bowls have evolved into now is a check and extended practice time....but with that said, ND should have gotten a better bowl, with a bigger check.

 

[desert heat]

The thing is, they all beat each other, play tough schedules, so a fuller playoff is necessary in the NFL and NBA. In the NCAA, you half the teams playing clearly inferior schedules. I'm not saying they are purposely playing weak schedules, because your conference is your conference. In professional athletics, you don't have the problem. It's a problem, but unless you start eliminating teams, it won't go away from a 100 team league. On top of all that, having a 16 team playoff will further incentivize these teams to not improve their OOC schedule. Why risk a loss, when all you have to do is win a weaker conference to assure a playoff spot?



What teams were on UCF's schedule that year? I don't think you can simply look at wins and losses like you do in the NBA and NFL when determining playoff teams. It's simply not fair to the teams playing much tougher schedules.



They aren't penalized yet. UCF played no one with a pulse during the regular season the year they were undefeated. Boise St has not gone undefeated in the new playoff era (it was created to give more teams a chance at a national title, like BSU , but so far they haven't been worthy)

nfl and nba have common opponents, but half the teams should make the playoffs, while ncaaf teams not having common opponents justifies only 4 teams. sorry does not compute. you're essentially saying you prefer the good ole boys club to a playoff. you said it yourself, most teams don't control what conference they are in or their schedule.

the 4 team playoff format was designed to help teams like ucf, but the fact is it didn't. it didn't even come close, and didn't even help ohio state last year, either.

i said boise went undefeated in the bcs era, and they did.

and when teams can't compete for a national championship because of a rigged system, it hinders their ability to recruit plays and personnel. they are penalized.

you started the thread that nd deserved a better bowl. that situation was created by the current system. a legit playoff solves that.

 

[belcherboy]

nfl and nba have common opponents, but half the teams should make the playoffs, while ncaaf teams not having common opponents justifies only 4 teams. sorry does not compute. you're essentially saying you prefer the good ole boys club to a playoff. you said it yourself, most teams don't control what conference they are in or their schedule.

I'm not sure why it doesn't compute. I prefer a fair playoff. Please tell me how would it be fair to choose UCF as a playoff team over any team in the SEC West that year they went undefeated? Again, in the NBA and NFL, they all play comparable schedules. IIRC, UCF didn't play a Power 5 team during the regular season that year (please correct me if I am wrong). Yet, they would be worthy of a playoff spot, and half the SEC wouldn't? That does not compute with me. It just isn't fair.

I'd rather be unfair to the teams playing weaker schedules, than to the teams playing tougher schedules.

the 4 team playoff format was designed to help teams like ucf, but the fact is it didn't. it didn't even come close

Seriously, you think their schedule should have been rewarded? Really?

i said boise went undefeated in the bcs era, and they did.

yes, they did, but we are talking about a 4 team playoff now. I haven't looked at it in a while, but I believe Boise was a top 4 team at the end of at least one of those undefeated seasons. Now, we don't know if they would have been voted in by the playoff committee, but the fact of the matter is, they went with a 4 team playoff so that they could begin to take away that argument. So far, Boise St has not put themselves in that position since the playoffs started.

and when teams can't compete for a national championship because of a rigged system, it hinders their ability to recruit plays and personnel. they are penalized.

Again, someone is always penalized when you have 100 teams. It seems like your solution is to give the teams with weaker schedules more ability to make the playoffs than the teams with tougher schedules. I just disagree with that.

 

[desert heat]

I'm not sure why it doesn't compute. I prefer a fair playoff. Please tell me how would it be fair to choose UCF as a playoff team over any team in the SEC West that year they went undefeated? Again, in the NBA and NFL, they all play comparable schedules. IIRC, UCF didn't play a Power 5 team during the regular season that year (please correct me if I am wrong). Yet, they would be worthy of a playoff spot, and half the SEC wouldn't? That does not compute with me. It just isn't fair.

I'd rather be unfair to the teams playing weaker schedules, than to the teams playing tougher schedules.



Seriously, you think their schedule should have been rewarded? Really?



yes, they did, but we are talking about a 4 team playoff now. I haven't looked at it in a while, but I believe Boise was a top 4 team at the end of at least one of those undefeated seasons. Now, we don't know if they would have been voted in by the playoff committee, but the fact of the matter is, they went with a 4 team playoff so that they could begin to take away that argument. So far, Boise St has not put themselves in that position since the playoffs started.



Again, someone is always penalized when you have 100 teams. It seems like your solution is to give the teams with weaker schedules more ability to make the playoffs than the teams with tougher schedules. I just disagree with that.

boise state has never finished top 4.

teams would not be rewarded for playing a weaker schedule. they would still be subject to the ranking system, where sos is taken into account. i'm just saying they shouldn't be automatically eliminated for something they have little control over.

you started the thread that nd deserved a better bowl. that situation was created by the current system. a legit playoff solves that.

 

[belcherboy]

boise state has never finished top 4.

Thanks for that info.

teams would not be rewarded for playing a weaker schedule. they would still be subject to the ranking system, where sos is taken into account. i'm just saying they shouldn't be automatically eliminated for something they have little control over.

This seasey would be rewarded with the current ranking system. All they would need to do is go undefeated. The schedule would not matter. Is there an undefeated team that isn't ranked in the top 16 right now? Where are they all ranked with 1 loss?

you started the thread that nd deserved a better bowl. that situation was created by the current system. a legit playoff solves that.

I said the opposite in this thread. I said ND doesn't deserve a playoff spot (among the other 12 teams in the top 16 rankings). I posted an article that made an argument that they deserved a better bowl than Virginia (a team they beat).

 

[rmilia1]

Also, I just don't understand how a 16 team playoff would have "zero effect" on the regular season. If a playoff spot for P5 teams was all but assured with 2 losses or less (and you are still in the discussion with 3 losses), why would you ever risk a loss outside of the conference? What would be the point of scheduling a tough OOC game? The only benefit would be possibly getting a higher seed, but why risk an unnecessary potential loss if the playoffs are the goal, and 2 or less losses guarantees that if you play in a Power 5 conference?

Because right now you cant get in with more than 1 loss and there were only 4 P5 teams who had 0 or 1 loss.

This means that RIGHT NOW theres no benefit to a tough OOC.

Conversely there are a TON of 2 loss. 3 loss P5s and 1 or 2 loss G5s

Expanding the playoffs would require teams to separate themselves from the other multitides of similarly recorded teams.

Best way to do that is OOC

Its why you see far FAR better OOC games in CBB .

 

[belcherboy]

Because right now you cant get in with more than 1 loss and there were only 4 P5 teams who had 0 or 1 loss.

This means that RIGHT NOW theres no benefit to a tough OOC.

Conversely there are a TON of 2 loss. 3 loss P5s and 1 or 2 loss G5s

Expanding the playoffs would require teams to separate themselves from the other multitides of similarly recorded teams.

Best way to do that is OOC

Its why you see far FAR better OOC games in CBB .

So what OOC games help put those 1 loss G5's in the top 20 rankings this season? Basically, there is NO incentive for them to create a tougher schedule in a 16 team playoff right now, because all of them would be ranked in the top 16 if they were undefeated this season. Seems like it would be a backdoor into the playoffs that most P5 teams would not have. Am I wrong here? (I'm often wrong)

 

[rmilia1]

So what OOC games help put those 1 loss G5's in the top 20 rankings this season? Basically, there is NO incentive for them to create a tougher schedule in a 16 team playoff right now, because all of them would be ranked in the top 16 if they were undefeated this season. Seems like it would be a backdoor into the playoffs that most P5 teams would not have. Am I wrong here? (I'm often wrong)

Well theres only 3 1 loss G5s right now and none of them are in the top 16 so the answer to your question is none. There were no great OOC wins that helped a G5 this year .

This year your playoff would be

.LSU vs Iowa
OSU vs ND
Clemson vs Michigan
Oklahoma vs Bama
UGA vs Utah
Oregon vs Auburn
Baylor vs Penn St
Wisky vs Florida

 

[belcherboy]

Well theres only 3 1 loss G5s right now and none of them are in the top 16 so the answer to your question is none. There were no great OOC wins that helped a G5 this year .

But they all have one loss, and we are talking hypothetical (a 16 team playoff is a hypothetical). If these teams knew they were assured a spot in the top 16 with an undefeated season (they would be this year for sure), why would they EVER consider playing a tough OOC opponent? If they were undefeated this year, all three would be in the top 16 right now.

Boise would have been a playoff team at least 5 times between 2002-2012 if it were a 16 team playoff system, because their only loss in many of those seasons was an OOC loss to a P5 team. So it would create a back door for the playoff for teams that play in weak conferences. There would be ZERO incentive to play a tough OOC game. I imagine that the P5 programs would probably do the same thing and choose weaker OOC opponents.

 

[desert heat]

Thanks for that info.



This seasey would be rewarded with the current ranking system. All they would need to do is go undefeated. The schedule would not matter. Is there an undefeated team that isn't ranked in the top 16 right now? Where are they all ranked with 1 loss?



I said the opposite in this thread. I said ND doesn't deserve a playoff spot (among the other 12 teams in the top 16 rankings). I posted an article that made an argument that they deserved a better bowl than Virginia (a team they beat).

i haven't read all your posts, but in the op you stated you agree nd deserved a better bowl.

if a team finishes ranked in the top 16, why shouldn't they be eligible? sos is taken into account. and there's no guarantee an undefeated team will be ranked in the top 16. it didn't happen this year but it has happened. if we had a 16 team playoff, and seeded the top 4, i would bet one of the seeds would lose, before the semi's.

the current system also hurts p5 schools. osu had an as good or better resume than alabama last year. the committee selected alabama who got crushed.

 

[SlinkyRedfoot]

1991 Notre Dame signed a TV contract with NBC and received $19 million over 5 years.

Been on NBC since.

Too bad Notre Dame has a bad bowl. I don't feel sorry for them. I don't watch their games anyway.

Notre Dame claims a lot of the money is used for academics, but a lot of the money is also funneled to lawyers to protect the football players that prey on the women of St. Mary's College.

^his mom went to St Mary’s, his dad was a ND football player^

 

[belcherboy]

i haven't read all your posts, but in the op you stated you agree nd deserved a better bowl.

I said he made a good argument, and asked for help to "talk me off the ledge" because I don't like ND at all.

if a team finishes ranked in the top 16, why shouldn't they be eligible? sos is taken into account.

Because it would incentivize these teams to never schedule a tough OOC opponent. They would have an easier path to the playoffs than any P5 team. Yes, they would have to go undefeated, but it would be MUCH easier to do so when your conference is filled with teams that wouldn't win a single game in a P5 conference. All the one loss G5 teams in the top 25 would be top 16 teams right now if they hadn't lost a game. So, in a 16 team playoff, they would be foolish to risk a loss by scheduling anyone tough OOC.

and there's no guarantee an undefeated team will be ranked in the top 16.

There would be this season, unless you think the playoff committee would penalize them more in a 16 team playoff scenario.

it didn't happen this year but it has happened. if we had a 16 team playoff, and seeded the top 4, i would bet one of the seeds would lose

Why would that matter? The same thing can be accomplished with just 4 teams.

the current system also hurts p5 schools. osu had an as good or better resume than alabama last year. the committee selected alabama who got crushed.

I'm sorry, you lost me. An undefeated Bama was chosen over a one loss Ohio State? Why is that shocking? Bama was in the national title game, so they even won a playoff game. Ohio State lost by 4 TD's to an unranked Purdue last year that won 6 games.

 

[rmilia1]

But they all have one loss, and we are talking hypothetical (a 16 team playoff is a hypothetical). If these teams knew they were assured a spot in the top 16 with an undefeated season (they would be this year for sure), why would they EVER consider playing a tough OOC opponent? If they were undefeated this year, all three would be in the top 16 right now.

Boise would have been a playoff team at least 5 times between 2002-2012 if it were a 16 team playoff system, because their only loss in many of those seasons was an OOC loss to a P5 team. So it would create a back door for the playoff for teams that play in weak conferences. There would be ZERO incentive to play a tough OOC game. I imagine that the P5 programs would probably do the same thing and choose weaker OOC opponents.

Because its a lot easier to just schedule great and then do your best than it is to schedule poorly then know you cant lose a single game.

Its tough to go unbeaten ( even in a G5 )

I mean Memphis and App St both lost IN conference not OOC.

Any teams best shot to make a 16 team playoff would be to schedule better . AND it would be easier to schedule better as teams wouldnt be as scared to do so because theyd know a loss wouldnt kill you like it does now

 

[Groo]

ISU is going to kick their ass

 

[belcherboy]

Because its a lot easier to just schedule great and then do your best than it is to schedule poorly then know you cant lose a single game.

Its tough to go unbeaten ( even in a G5 )

I mean Memphis and App St both lost IN conference not OOC.

Any teams best shot to make a 16 team playoff would be to schedule better . AND it would be easier to schedule better as teams wouldnt be as scared to do so because theyd know a loss wouldnt kill you like it does now

I just disagree. I don't think Memphis or App St would make their OOC schedule more difficult, knowing they have to go undefeated to get a playoff spot. It just doesn't make sense that they would. Maybe they need the paycheck, so it wouldn't matter, but coming so close this year, I imagine they would change their mind if they knew they were pretty much assured a playoff spot if they could just go undefeated. I imagine the top teams would do the same thing.

Right now, winning a tough OOC game gives you an advantage if you lose a game during the season. In a 16 team playoff, it wouldn't matter. Just get in the playoff, and don't risk anything getting there. Again, maybe I'm wrong, but I don't see how a 16 team playoff does anything but water down the football season.

It would be fun to watch, no doubt. I'd love for Michigan to have a chance every year for a national title in a season ending playoff. I just don't think they have deserved that chance by their regular season play. I think they would have been in the playoffs every year under Harbaugh in a 16 team playoff.

 

[SlinkyRedfoot]

16 teams?! Dios mio!

and here I thought the people asking for 8 were retarded.

 

[belcherboy]

16 teams?! Dios mio!

and here I thought the people asking for 8 were retarded.

I really like the 4 teams system, but I can understand why others don't. It would be fun to see a football playoff.

I just don't think I need to see UGA, or Baylor, or Oregon, or Auburn, or Notre Dame, or Michigan etc. play again to realize they do not deserve to be top 4 teams, and don't deserve a shot at a national title. I think they got the top 4 teams correct this season (and pretty much every season) and the regular season did it's job in helping the committee determine who the best 4 teams were.