6 team playoff

[WizardHawk]

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.

No, you are just wrong.

As I already laid out, it was to end split championships and also prevent teams like BYU in '84 from being crowned.

And it has done so quite well. We no longer have ties and the winners have all had to prove it on the field. BYU didn't have to prove they were a champion. They played a terrible schedule.

People are bitching over whether #5 or #6 should have been in and that is entirely trivial. Completely.

You get 4 of the top teams in the country playing head to head. You have to beat 2 of the 3 to win a title. You are battle tested in the best possible way and have EARNED that title. Of course some teams make it in and end up being blown out or otherwise not looking like they belong. They are weeded out. It works.

 

[Yo Tee]

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.

That was my point. For instance, in 2015 we scheduled to play UNC in 2020, they were fighting for an ACC title. But now, we will probably be playing against a 3-4 win program. So, even though we scheduled them when they were really good, we are gonna end up playing a shell of the program we originally scheduled so that won't do us any good in the eyes of anyone. Same thing with Georgia Tech. We scheduled them when they were a 9 win team but when we play them in 2020, they will be a 4-5 win school, maybe even a 3 win program. It's not as easy as, schedule top level P5 teams because when we schedule them, we have to hope they are good for the next 4-5 years.

 

[TheDayMan]

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

I see, I thought you meant actually having a chance to get in the title game. If I recall correctly Boise had a good shot that year until they lost to Nevada.

 

[7Samurai13]

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?

Were they a good G5 team three years ago when they were 0-12? They weren’t even that good the year before that it would scare teams off.

 

[Fitbud]

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.

That is by design. The good P5 schools might make a deal with a decent G5 school when they are hot but the will make it 3 or 4 years down the road knowing full well that if they continue their success, that coach will be picked up by another P5 school and the team will be on a down year.

 

[WizardHawk]

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.

I'm not complaining about your schedule. I'm saying if you don't have meat on it you are NOT playing for a title. That's just a fact. And you aren't alone. UW had a terrible schedule last year and probably would have been left out based on how that season ended had they ran the table. Oregon's is entirely garbage this year and having one loss completely eliminates them.

It's easier to look at G5's because their conferences don't typically give them any meat so their only road is out of conference, but they and their leagues could do more if they wanted to. Schedule less conference games and give you more OOC to draw from. Schedule as much meat as you can and hope the teams you do schedule live up to their end of things.

P5's are in the same boat, but their conference schedules typically have 1-4 other top 25 caliber teams built in.

This is why G5's should split off and crown their own champions IMO. Apples play apples and oranges play oranges. Stop trying to guess where an orange should be ranked next to apples when they don't play in the same barrel.

 

[Yo Tee]

That is by design. The good P5 schools might make a deal with a decent G5 school when they are hot but the will make it 3 or 4 years down the road knowing full well that if they continue their success, that coach will be picked up by another P5 school and the team will be on a down year.

All I'm saying is, G5 schools will never win this debate over whether they deserve a playoff spot or not because of their weak schedules. Yet when we try to make out schedules tougher, our P5 competition can't keep their success up and we get punished for it.

 

[Yo Tee]

This is why G5's should split off and crown their own champions IMO. Apples play apples and oranges play oranges. Stop trying to guess where an orange should be ranked next to apples when they don't play in the same barrel.

Fuck, that's a good idea.

 

[WizardHawk]

That is by design. The good P5 schools might make a deal with a decent G5 school when they are hot but the will make it 3 or 4 years down the road knowing full well that if they continue their success, that coach will be picked up by another P5 school and the team will be on a down year.

There isn't a single P5 team that schedules an OOC game with another P5 team that isn't at LEAST 4-6 years out.

You are completely off your rocker if you think there is any such thing going on. No one EVER schedules someone the next year unless they have a hole created by some weird movement like a team pulling out for some reason.

What you suggest is completely ludicrous.

 

[WizardHawk]

All I'm saying is, G5 schools will never win this debate over whether they deserve a playoff spot or not because of their weak schedules. Yet when we try to make out schedules tougher, our P5 competition can't keep their success up and we get punished for it.

Again, P5 teams also get the same punishment. When UW scheduled Rutgers they were on the rise with a hot coach and looked like they might become something more legit. By the time the game came up that coach had left and Rutgers became worse than they were before that blip. UW was roasted for having them on the schedule.

These things happen every year. Wisky has hot garbage. Oregon's slate is a pure joke. People defend them with all sorts of excuses, but in the end they ARE punished for it.

The difference again is their conference slate is still stronger.

If you group up with a league of midgets, don't be upset when people call you a midget.

 

[Across The Field]

All I'm saying is, G5 schools will never win this debate over whether they deserve a playoff spot or not because of their weak schedules. Yet when we try to make out schedules tougher, our P5 competition can't keep their success up and we get punished for it.

It depends entirely on three things:
1. Who did they play non-conference? For example, if UCF had played someone last year like USC or Wisconsin non-conference and knocked them off and went unbeaten, things might've been different. Unfortunately, Maryland lost all their QBs and fell apart last year.
2. What's the rest of their conference doing? Are there other ranked teams who have beaten a really good P5 or been competitive with an elite P5?
3. What do the P5 champs look like? Do we have a 2-loss champ or a really uninspiring 1-loss?

 

[Codaxx]

All I'm saying is, G5 schools will never win this debate over whether they deserve a playoff spot or not because of their weak schedules. Yet when we try to make out schedules tougher, our P5 competition can't keep their success up and we get punished for it.

It’s true. It is just another reason why I would like to see the playoffs expanded. I would love to see a team like UCF 2017 get a shot. I doubt they win, but once ever 5 years they probably provide a very memorable and enjoyable moment.

 

[Deep Creek]

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.

Bama doesn't have to. But when they only schedule one and that one has turned to shit by the time they play them, they don't have another one to help their SOS out now do they?

And if you want to use the thinking of "they play in the SEC" as a tough enough reason not to schedule two, then why the fuck should they even schedule ONE! What advantage does even scheduling one do if that is the rationale? "The SEC schedule is tough enough." If that is the case, they sould just pull an Okie Lite and play an OOC schedule of Missouri State, South Alabama and Boise State (though Boise is a hell of a lot better than some P5s).

To answer your question, it depends on what your definition of top 15 is. Of the currenty ranked top 15, I'd say #3 Clemson (A&M, South Carolina), #4 Notre Dame (all but Navy, Bowling Green), #7 Texas (Maryland, USC), and #13 West Virgina (Tennessee, NC State...canceled). So about 25% of the top 15 scheduled two.

 

[Deep Creek]

They can't be in the playoffs together, there is a rule of a max of two teams from the same conference in the playoffs.

They either need to throw that rule out or get rid of the charge of selecting the four best teams. The four best teams could damn well all be in the same conference.

 

[WizardHawk]

That was my point. For instance, in 2015 we scheduled to play UNC in 2020, they were fighting for an ACC title. But now, we will probably be playing against a 3-4 win program. So, even though we scheduled them when they were really good, we are gonna end up playing a shell of the program we originally scheduled so that won't do us any good in the eyes of anyone. Same thing with Georgia Tech. We scheduled them when they were a 9 win team but when we play them in 2020, they will be a 4-5 win school, maybe even a 3 win program. It's not as easy as, schedule top level P5 teams because when we schedule them, we have to hope they are good for the next 4-5 years.

Last year Maryland was your top OOC game. Maryland. The freaking turtles. There is no year where that would be good enough for an undefeated team to have a resume worthy of post season play.

Again, I'm not placing blame as to why. The GT game got cancelled and who knows what that would have done. Maybe they win, maybe the get blown out. We don't know. A hurricane took that one extra chance to put your team on the line off the slate. And whether or not there was anything that could be done about it, they had to take that into account. They played less games than everyone else AND had no real meat.

The system doesn't need to engage in the whys and hows. You either have the resume or you don't. And your resume is compared to those of the other top tier teams. Yours either stands up to the teams in the top 5, or it doesn't. It shouldn't have prejudice and it doesn't.

 

[7Samurai13]

Bama doesn't have to. But when they only schedule one and that one has turned to shit by the time they play them, they don't have another one to help their SOS out now do they?

And if you want to use the thinking of "they play in the SEC" as a tough enough reason not to schedule two, then why the fuck should they even schedule ONE! What advantage does even scheduling one do if that is the rationale? "The SEC schedule is tough enough." If that is the case, they sould just pull an Okie Lite and play an OOC schedule of Missouri State, South Alabama and Boise State (though Boise is a hell of a lot better than some P5s).

To answer your question, it depends on what your definition of top 15 is. Of the currenty ranked top 15, I'd say #3 Clemson (A&M, South Carolina), #4 Notre Dame (all but Navy, Bowling Green), #7 Texas (Maryland, USC), and #13 West Virgina (Tennessee, NC State...canceled). So about 25% of the top 15 scheduled two.

South Carolina? Maryland?

Why didn’t you include Ohio State with TCU and Oregon State?

 

[Deep Creek]

I'm not sure I said that, but I'm good with the rule of having a max of two teams from a conference.

Why? If the goal is to select the four best teams, what difference does conference affiliation matter?

 

[belcherboy]

Bama doesn't have to. But when they only schedule one and that one has turned to shit by the time they play them, they don't have another one to help their SOS out now do they?

But why should Bama risk it? They scheduled a team that had first place votes in the preseason last year (they were ranked #3). That team had won the national title, around the time that Bama scheduled them. It's not their fault that FSU crapped the bed.

And if you want to use the thinking of "they play in the SEC" as a tough enough reason not to schedule two, then why the fuck should they even schedule ONE! What advantage does even scheduling one do if that is the rationale? "The SEC schedule is tough enough." If that is the case, they sould just pull an Okie Lite and play an OOC schedule of Missouri State, South Alabama and Boise State (though Boise is a hell of a lot better than some P5s).

One BIG reason why they schedule a BIG OOC game just about every year...because they know there is a good chance they will stub their foot and lose a game in the SEC. IMO, a big reason Bama is always ranked as the top one loss team when they lose a game, is because of that big OOC win at the beginning of the season. It's an insurance policy. Two teams just doesn't help them much at all, and it risks a whole lot in terms of the possibility of them losing two games (a playoff killer). If they lose the big opening game, they know they can't lose a game in the SEC.

To answer your question, it depends on what your definition of top 15 is. Of the currenty ranked top 15, I'd say #3 Clemson (A&M, South Carolina), #4 Notre Dame (all but Navy, Bowling Green), #7 Texas (Maryland, USC), and #13 West Virgina (Tennessee, NC State...canceled). So about 25% of the top 15 scheduled two.

Notre Dame doesn't count. They play a few ACC games, they are not in a conference (although they play a great schedule). Besides ND's SOS is about the same as Alabama's is right now, and they don't play another ranked team for the rest of the season, nor do they have a CCG.

Maybe it's just a bad opinion on my part, but I don't consider NC State and Maryland a BIG OOC game. Good games, no doubt, but far from playing a top 25 team (although both have had a good year in the past 4-5 seasons)

So, do you think that Bama's schedule has been traditionally weak, and they need another P5 team on their schedule?

Bama still has a top 30 SOS this season from what I've seen. They already have a stronger SOS than WVU from everything I've read, and with LSU still on the horizon, and the CCG, they will likely have a better SOS than Notre Dame and Texas.

I'm sorry, I don't understand all the hate for Bama's schedule. It's weaker this year, but that is definitely different than most years. They often schedule a top 25 program to open up with every year. I don't think they deserve criticism. Just my two cents.

 

[Deep Creek]

South Carolina? Maryland?

Why didn’t you include Ohio State with TCU and Oregon State?

Because I'm old and it didn't stick out to me when I looked at their schedule.

 

[belcherboy]

Why? If the goal is to select the four best teams, what difference does conference affiliation matter?

It doesn't matter to me, but that is the rule. I'm good with it.