6 team playoff

[Yo Tee]

But there should be a penalty when you lose by FORTY FUCKING POINTS.

They beat the team that was deemed to be better than them by a committee of old white dudes. Sorry, I think the committee got 2016 wrong and I believe they got 2017 wrong.

 

[TheDayMan]

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.

Getting your ass kicked by a top 10 team isn’t a good look if you want to be taken seriously as one of the 4 best.

 

[Yo Tee]

Getting your ass kicked by a top 10 team isn’t a good look if you want to be taken seriously as one of the 4 best.

Wasn't even one of the two best teams in their own conference, yet one of the best 4 teams in the country?

 

[TheDayMan]

Wasn't even one of the two best teams in their own conference, yet one of the best 4 teams in the country?

So, your take is making to a conference title game automatically makes you at least one of the best two teams in your conference?

That’s stupid, and exactly why more weight shouldn’t be put on conference titles.

 

[WizardHawk]

Here's a what if.

What if after the CCG's (even if highly unlikely) the SEC has the #'s 1, 2 & 4 teams in the country. You really think all 3 should go to the Playoff?

Yes. 100%

Why would it be fair to take a team that has earned the respect of being the 4th best team in the country and not let them battle it out for the title?

We leave out conference champions every year. There are 10 conferences. Even if you want to discount the G5's, we have 5 power conferences and at least one champion will be left out every year. So why is leaving them out a big deal?

Playoffs should be the top 4 teams in the country going for a title.

Thankfully, that's exactly what they do now.

Don't change it.

 

[Yo Tee]

So, your take is making to a conference title game automatically makes you at least one of the best two teams in your conference?

That’s stupid, and exactly why more weight shouldn’t be put on conference titles.

No, that's not my take. Just because you make it to your conference title game doesn't make you a top 4 team in the country, but if the committee is down to two teams to put into the playoff, a 2-loss conference champion Penn State or a 1 loss Ohio State team that lost to that conference champion, my vote goes to the conference champion because it was decided earlier in the season that Ohio State was not better than Penn State. It was decided on the field and Penn State has a conference title to show for it.

 

[7Samurai13]

Wasn't even one of the two best teams in their own conference, yet one of the best 4 teams in the country?

How do you know that Wisconsin was better than Ohio State? Unbalanced schedule and Wisconsin plays in a significantly easier division.

 

[Yo Tee]

Playoffs should be the top 4 teams in the country going for a title.

In your opinion, have they got it right every year?

 

[Yo Tee]

How do you know that Wisconsin was better than Ohio State? Unbalanced schedule and Wisconsin plays in a significantly easier division.

I don't think Wisconsin was better than Ohio State. Poor choice of words on my part.

 

[Fitbud]

I don’t care, they played a whole schedule of games you’re complaining about Alabama playing 3 of, they had no business in the discussion.

But that isn't in their control. That's why it needs to be played out on the field.

 

[TheDayMan]

No, that's not my take. Just because you make it to your conference title game doesn't make you a top 4 team in the country, but if the committee is down to two teams to put into the playoff, a 2-loss conference champion Penn State or a 1 loss Ohio State team that lost to that conference champion, my vote goes to the conference champion because it was decided earlier in the season that Ohio State was not better than Penn State. It was decided on the field and Penn State has a conference title to show for it.

1. Beat Ohio State by 3 at home to get the tie breaker over them to go to the conference title game = clear conference champion who should be in the top 4.

2. Lose to a shitty team out of conference and get absolutely destroyed in your conference loss = don’t worry about it, see # 1, they earned it on the field, never mind anything else that happened on the field.


Again, this is why conference titles shouldn’t carry more weight.

 

[Fitbud]

Every conference has members that play FCS members, the Bama isn’t the only one gaming the system.

Of course not. Lots of P5 schools do it. Alabama just does it the best.

 

[WizardHawk]

They beat the team that was deemed to be better than them by a committee of old white dudes. Sorry, I think the committee got 2016 wrong and I believe they got 2017 wrong.

Does the 'best' team win 100% of games?

No, of course not. Was michigan better than app st the year they lost to them? Of course they were. The examples are endless. Sometimes an inferior team wins.

So losing to a team doesn't necessarily mean you are worse than they are.

Yet all we have is 12-13 games to decide who is stronger and/or more deserving to reach the playoffs. How much of that formula is perceived strength vs actual resume isn't cut and dry. When few of these teams are playing more than 5-6 games that actually can count toward valuing where they are it makes it impossible to be defined by a formula.

Even with all of that, it would entirely destroy college football to switch to an auto bid system. That FACT is exactly why we do not have that now, and there is no serious talk of going that way. Maybe, just maybe the folks that look deeply into all of the upsides and dangers know what they are doing.

 

[Fitbud]

No, they shouldn't have.

Mid majors should be in their own division with their own championship.

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.

 

[Yo Tee]

1. Beat Ohio State by 3 at home to get the tie breaker over them to go to the conference title game = clear conference champion who should be in the top 4.

2. Lose to a shitty team out of conference and get absolutely destroyed in your conference loss = don’t worry about it, see # 1, they earned it on the field, never mind anything else that happened on the field.


Again, this is why conference titles shouldn’t carry more weight.

We will just agree to disagree.

 

[TheDayMan]

But that isn't in their control. That's why it needs to be played out on the field.

It does play out on the field.

 

[7Samurai13]

In your opinion, have they got it right every year?

I think based on the information on hand, they made the wrong choice in 2014 with the uncertainty at QB for OSU, but the Big12 fucked their “one true champion” Baylor by trying to get both Baylor and TCU in.

2015 was correct.

I think Penn State should have gone in 2016 but i can see why they went with OSU.

2017 I think three teams proved they deserved to be there and made the least bad choice for the fourth team.

 

[WizardHawk]

In your opinion, have they got it right every year?

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.

 

[Yo Tee]

Does the 'best' team win 100% of games?

No, of course not. Was michigan better than app st the year they lost to them? Of course they were. The examples are endless. Sometimes an inferior team wins.

So losing to a team doesn't necessarily mean you are worse than they are.

Yet all we have is 12-13 games to decide who is stronger and/or more deserving to reach the playoffs. How much of that formula is perceived strength vs actual resume isn't cut and dry. When few of these teams are playing more than 5-6 games that actually can count toward valuing where they are it makes it impossible to be defined by a formula.

Even with all of that, it would entirely destroy college football to switch to an auto bid system. That FACT is exactly why we do not have that now, and there is no serious talk of going that way. Maybe, just maybe the folks that look deeply into all of the upsides and dangers know what they are doing.

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.

 

[Fitbud]

It does play out on the field.

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.