CFP since 1998...

[B_dub]

 

[7Samurai13]

Wouldn't 98 have had Ohio State rather than Wisconsin. Wisconsin only went to the Rose Bowl because there was a rule that in a tie the team that has gone longer without going to the Rose Bowl got to go.

 

[Deep Creek]

If a conference champion can't get in the top4 on its actual merit, there is a reason for it.

Two P5 conference champions didn't get in last year on their actual merit...and could have easily been three.

Do you think the top 4 teams are selected based on 100% meritocracy and 0% subjectivity?

 

[4down20]

Two P5 conference champions didn't get in last year on their actual merit...and could have easily been three.

Do you think the top 4 teams are selected based on 100% meritocracy and 0% subjectivity?

It's not black and white.

The issue with conference champions is that 2 teams can lose 1 game on the year and the team who loses to the worst team is the one who becomes the conference champion, while a team can lose to a better team and not be the conference champion.

In the NFL such things work because they have limited teams to play each other, and they have 16 game season so they play the same teams twice, etc. College football has a lot more teams and less games.

If conferences want to continue to name their champions in that manner, it's fine(although much of this problem could be fixed if they did away with divisions and put the 2 best teams in their championships). But the college football playoff needs to take the 4 best teams, and that needs to be done on the merits, not labels.

Most of the time, it's the conference champions that get in because most of the time those teams are going to be the best teams the conferences have to offer. There have been 12 playoff teams thus far, and 11 of them have been conference champions(I'm thinking, can't think of another other than Ohio St last year).

 

[Deep Creek]

But the college football playoff needs to take the 4 best teams, and that needs to be done on the merits, not labels.

Good points. It can happen as you describe on occasion. But, like you said, determining a teams "merit" isn't 100% black and white...at least not totally by the way it is done now. The CFP committee tries to base the selections solely on meritocracy but they still have some subjectivity or "labels" in the process IMO. It isn't a "total" meritocracy. That said, the CFP has done a pretty good job IMO. They'd get a lot closer to a pure meritocracy if they wouldn't put out a list until at least the week before the CCGs. Again, JMO.

 

[PhilSimms11]

Wouldn't 98 have had Ohio State rather than Wisconsin. Wisconsin only went to the Rose Bowl because there was a rule that in a tie the team that has gone longer without going to the Rose Bowl got to go.

CORRECT. Good call. 1998 should look like this...

(1)Tennessee (12-0)
(2)Florida St (11-1)
(3)Ohio St (10-1) vs (6)Tulane (11-0)
(4)UCLA (10-1) vs (5)Texas A&M (11-2)

 

[PhilSimms11]

Good points. It can happen as you describe on occasion. But, like you said, determining a teams "merit" isn't 100% black and white...at least not totally by the way it is done now. The CFP committee tries to base the selections solely on meritocracy but they still have some subjectivity or "labels" in the process IMO. It isn't a "total" meritocracy. That said, the CFP has done a pretty good job IMO. They'd get a lot closer to a pure meritocracy if they wouldn't put out a list until at least the week before the CCGs. Again, JMO.

This is why I'd love to see the 5 automatic spots with the one at-large. That would eliminate a lot of the subjectivity. There's the one at-large spot people can fuss over and that's okay. It's fine to banter back and forth as to which team deserves to get in. 2016 was simple. (3)Ohio St (11-1) had the clear cut at-large. The next at-large hopeful after that was (6)Michigan (10-2), which Ohio St beat HTH.

 

[PhilSimms11]

For the Other 5 fans out there, I haven't forgotten you. You guys deserve a playoff also.

(1)Western Michigan (13-0)
(2)Temple (10-3)
(3)So Florida (10-2) vs (6)App St (9-3)
(4)San Diego St (10-3) vs (5)Western Kentucky (10-3)

 

[PhilSimms11]

Everytime PhilSimms stops by for his bi-annual playoff post.

Still waiting. Come on. Give me your best CFP. Open my eyes to your wisdom. Give me a better CFP than mine. Can you?

 

[HuskerinBig10]

OP you must be bored today.

Rehashing history, does it change it? Let us rehash the armies of WW I. Nope, doesn't change it.

Don't care about this thread.

You want it to happen, offer College Football $1,000,000,000 I bet you can have your way.

 

[4down20]

Good points. It can happen as you describe on occasion. But, like you said, determining a teams "merit" isn't 100% black and white...at least not totally by the way it is done now. The CFP committee tries to base the selections solely on meritocracy but they still have some subjectivity or "labels" in the process IMO. It isn't a "total" meritocracy. That said, the CFP has done a pretty good job IMO. They'd get a lot closer to a pure meritocracy if they wouldn't put out a list until at least the week before the CCGs. Again, JMO.

I don't even pay much attention to the rankings before the end. I especially don't pay attention to ESPN talking about them.

The fact of the matter is the committee has a somewhat easy job at the end of the day. In week 8 it looks wide open, but as the season gets to the end it's pretty much obvious who should go. It's only been that 4th spot with any kind of drama around it, which means they are getting it right where it matters most.

 

[4down20]

This is why I'd love to see the 5 automatic spots with the one at-large. That would eliminate a lot of the subjectivity. There's the one at-large spot people can fuss over and that's okay. It's fine to banter back and forth as to which team deserves to get in. 2016 was simple. (3)Ohio St (11-1) had the clear cut at-large. The next at-large hopeful after that was (6)Michigan (10-2), which Ohio St beat HTH.

Conference champions with automatic bids are even worse than the "subjectivity" of the current system. And it's demonstratable. You're just being subjective with the label of conference champions, giving it way more meaning that it actually has, while completely ignoring the actual merits of the season.

You are making a mountain of a molehill of a problem to start with. As I was just saying in another post, by the time the end of the season gets here it's pretty much obvious what teams deserve to go. Those teams are not based on subjective reasoning, it's done by objectively looking at the season.

Only the 4th spot has been debatable, and it's been a pretty weak debate.

And because you leave the 6th spot as an "at large" bid, your system doesn't even actually address what you call a problem in the first place. In fact, the 6th spot is going to be even more subjective than the 4th spot most of the time.

Meanwhile, your rigid approach will for sure result in weaker teams that don't really belong making the playoffs, while thus far there is only a weak debate about that happening.

And that's not even getting into the harm it would cause to the regular season.

I see no reason to change a system you can't even really show is broken and replace it with one that you can easily prove is broken.

 

[PhilSimms11]

Does anyone think it's a foregone conclusion that they will expand to 8? Is that worse than my idea?

 

[Deep Creek]

Does anyone think it's a foregone conclusion that they will expand to 8? Is that worse than my idea?

Not sure it is necessarily a "foregone conclusion". All about $$$$$$$$$. They'd vote to expand it to whatever number needed to meet the financial desire/thirst and demands of the money giver. All the changes have been money driven so far haven't they? None were done for football reasons. Done to generate the money needed to keep up with the Jones'.

 

[outofyourmind]

Does anyone think it's a foregone conclusion that they will expand to 8? Is that worse than my idea?

I think that if it does expand, that it goes to 8 instead of 6.
The idea of a bye week for the top 2 teams won't sit well with people.
Plus you squeeze 2 more teams in there.

 

[batchaps4me]

2004
(1)Oklahoma (12-0)
(2)USC (12-0)
(3)Auburn (12-0) vs (6)Boise St (11-0)
(4)Utah (11-0) vs (5)VA Tech (10-2)

I am curious as to your thoughts to this season in particular. You included USC even though they were later sanctioned by the NCAA. Is this just a leave it on the field approach? I have no issues if it is, just curious.

 

[7Samurai13]

I think that if it does expand, that it goes to 8 instead of 6.
The idea of a bye week for the top 2 teams won't sit well with people.
Plus you squeeze 2 more games in there.

FIFY

 

[PhilSimms11]

I think that if it does expand, that it goes to 8 instead of 6.
The idea of a bye week for the top 2 teams won't sit well with people.
Plus you squeeze 2 more teams in there.

Let's look at the last few seasons if it were 8 teams.

2016
(1)Alabama (13-0) vs (8)Wisconsin (10-3)
(4)Washington (12-1) vs (5)Penn St (11-2)

(2)Clemson (12-1) vs (7)Oklahoma (10-2)
(3)Ohio St (11-1) vs (6)Michigan (10-2)

2015
(1)Clemson (13-0) vs (8)Notre Dame (10-2)
(4)Oklahoma (11-1) vs (5)Iowa (12-1)

(2)Alabama (12-1) vs (7)Ohio St (11-1)
(3)Michigan St (12-1) vs (6)Stanford (11-2)

2014
(1)Alabama (12-1) vs (8)Michigan St (10-2)
(4)Ohio St (12-1) vs (5)Baylor (11-1)

(2)Oregon (12-1) vs (7)Mississippi St (10-2)
(3)Florida St (13-0) vs (6)TCU (11-1)

 

[PhilSimms11]

I am curious as to your thoughts to this season in particular. You included USC even though they were later sanctioned by the NCAA. Is this just a leave it on the field approach? I have no issues if it is, just curious.

Yeah, you can't go back and say "these games were never played or won". That's just stupid. If something is discovered after the fact that's the way it is. Ohio St (12-0) got busted in 2011 and were ruled ineligible from day 1 for 2012 so they missed all of the postseason stuff.

 

[4down20]

Does anyone think it's a foregone conclusion that they will expand to 8? Is that worse than my idea?

Why are you so sure it's going to expand?

Has anyone even managed to define an actual problem with the current system yet?

Auburn and Oklahoma St getting left out of the National Championship games is why we went to 4. How do you think they are going to get to 6 or 8 without something like that happening?