Qualifications for making the College Football Playoff

[WizardHawk]

Why waste my time?If you cant stay on the topic of college football.And want to talk about spiders unless you're talking about the Richmond Spiders. You've already proven my point.Should you decide you would liketo talk about college football. Then I will get back to you.

Who's talking about spiders? Jesus. You can't have a rational discussion. We ALL know that. Even people who loosely agree with some of your bullshit understand you flat out won't discuss things that don't fit your narratives no matter how on point they are.

It's simple. Dead simple. You want to change college football and believe going to 6 team playoffs with auto bids is an improvement. We don't need to guess that this is what you want. We know it. You want up to 5/6 of those slots to be chosen for you based off the outcome of how each of the 5 power conferences chooses a champion. This is the centerpiece of your entire platform. And yet if anyone brings up questions about how we currently choose those champions you cry about it veering off topic. And why do you keep ducking it? Because it burns giant holes in your favored format. You can't simply say yes it is a problem, but I'm willing to live with it vs what we do now. That's something a rational person would say. You'd rather bury your head in the sand and pretend it doesn't exist. That's not rational.

 

[WizardHawk]

Any other auto bid fans feel free to chime in since your champion keeps the point. Are you troubled at all with how we currently choose conference champions and the utter imbalanced records used to seed each CCG outside of the Big12? It's not trolling and it's not off topic. It's at the very center of what you all believe you want. 4 of the 5 power conferences do not play balanced conference schedules. How does this make the playoff seeding more fair?

Again, this question isn't for Clark because he's failed to answer it for years now. He will spin off to something entirely unrelated to avoid it because it's way too difficult of a question for him to handle. How do the rest of you feel about it? Do you agree auto bids can't really be seen as level and fair unless all of the majors go back to balanced schedules which means cutting teams down?

 

[TheRobotDevil]

Who's talking about spiders? Jesus. You can't have a rational discussion. We ALL know that. Even people who loosely agree with some of your bullshit understand you flat out won't discuss things that don't fit your narratives no matter how on point they are.

It's simple. Dead simple. You want to change college football and believe going to 6 team playoffs with auto bids is an improvement. We don't need to guess that this is what you want. We know it. You want up to 5/6 of those slots to be chosen for you based off the outcome of how each of the 5 power conferences chooses a champion. This is the centerpiece of your entire platform. And yet if anyone brings up questions about how we currently choose those champions you cry about it veering off topic. And why do you keep ducking it? Because it burns giant holes in your favored format. You can't simply say yes it is a problem, but I'm willing to live with it vs what we do now. That's something a rational person would say. You'd rather bury your head in the sand and pretend it doesn't exist. That's not rational.

Nope you went completely off topic. When one needs to go off topic. talk about "crying"etc....logic dictates thats because they can't handle the topic. Should you want to have an intelligent conversation about the college football play off system. I'm fine with that . But only when you are ready to discuss the flaws in the current system. And why they need to go to 6 or at he very least find a concrete section format.......

 

[WizardHawk]

Nope you went completely off topic. When one needs to go off topic. talk about "crying"etc....logic dictates thats because they can't handle the topic. Should you want to have an intelligent conversation about the college football play off system. I'm fine with that . But only when you are ready to discuss the flaws in the current system. And why they need to go to 6 or at he very least find a concrete section format.......

Yeah, here's a shock. You once again duck the basic question at the very heart of going to auto bids. And you will do it next post, the post after that, and the one after that. Because imbalanced schedules deciding CCG seeding is a REALLY big problem you have no idea how to counter so ignoring it is just easier.



Go back under your rock and lets see if any other auto bid fans are willing and able to discuss how bad seeding off imbalanced schedules really is. Maybe there's a rational proponent of that idea somewhere on this board. We'll see.

 

[TigerBait1971]

Yeah, here's a shock. You once again duck the basic question at the very heart of going to auto bids. And you will do it next post, the post after that, and the one after that. Because imbalanced schedules deciding CCG seeding is a REALLY big problem you have no idea how to counter so ignoring it is just easier.



Go back under your rock and lets see if any other auto bid fans are willing and able to discuss how bad seeding off imbalanced schedules really is. Maybe there's a rational proponent of that idea somewhere on this board. We'll see.

You'd accomplish more slamming your dick in a desk drawer repeatedly.

 

[CJH9972]

Any other auto bid fans feel free to chime in since your champion keeps the point. Are you troubled at all with how we currently choose conference champions and the utter imbalanced records used to seed each CCG outside of the Big12? It's not trolling and it's not off topic. It's at the very center of what you all believe you want. 4 of the 5 power conferences do not play balanced conference schedules. How does this make the playoff seeding more fair?

Again, this question isn't for Clark because he's failed to answer it for years now. He will spin off to something entirely unrelated to avoid it because it's way too difficult of a question for him to handle. How do the rest of you feel about it? Do you agree auto bids can't really be seen as level and fair unless all of the majors go back to balanced schedules which means cutting teams down?

I would prefer schedules in leagues that don't play round robin be determined differently but I don't see the lack of balanced schedules in those leagues to be a significant problem given that each conference agrees to how its conference schedules are determined. Every team controls their conference destiny and you play the hand you are dealt. Some times you might get a strong schedule and other times a weaker schedule. Even the Big 12 has unbalanced schedules due to home and away schedules. Even in pro sports, teams don't play identical schedules. NFL division rivals play two different games which may not seem like much except when one team is playing two first place teams versus two fourth place teams based on previous year's standings and conference rivals which compete for byes, home games, seeding, and playoff berths play as many as 10 different opponents. Yet, I don't think it is a big deal because the manner in which schedules are determined is applied the same way to all teams without regard to identity or any attempt to unfairly advantage or disadvantage any teams.

That said, I think any AQ format needs to have room for wildcards in order for OOC games to remain very important. I also think all playoff teams and seeds should be determined by rules and never by a vote.

 

[WizardHawk]

I would prefer schedules in leagues that don't play round robin be determined differently but I don't see the lack of balanced schedules in those leagues to be a significant problem given that each conference agrees to how its conference schedules are determined. Every team controls their conference destiny and you play the hand you are dealt. Some times you might get a strong schedule and other times a weaker schedule. Even the Big 12 has unbalanced schedules due to home and away schedules. Even in pro sports, teams don't play identical schedules. NFL division rivals play two different games which may not seem like much except when one team is playing two first place teams versus two fourth place teams based on previous year's standings and conference rivals which compete for byes, home games, seeding, and playoff berths play as many as 10 different opponents. Yet, I don't think it is a big deal because the manner in which schedules are determined is applied the same way to all teams without regard to identity or any attempt to unfairly advantage or disadvantage any teams.

That said, I think any AQ format needs to have room for wildcards in order for OOC games to remain very important. I also think all playoff teams and seeds should be determined by rules and never by a vote.

See clark, there are people who can discuss the merits of these without going derp.

Couple of thoughts here though. The current formats weren't picked to seed a playoff so the argument that they got to pick this doesn't really fit here IMO. Yes, the B12 isn't entirely equal because home/away does matter, but at least every team plays every team and no team is avoided. It's much closer to balanced than what the other 4 are doing.

Let me ask you a hypothetical though based of this years very real schedule. You are a fan of Utah (sorry to put that evil on you lolz). Your rival for reaching the Pac12 CCG is USC. The Trojans skip UW and Oregon because of the 'hand they were dealt'. Instead they played Oregon State and Cal. Two pretty much penciled in W's. Utah had the opposite and played UW/Oregon and skipped those other two.

If you are being honest here, you wouldn't be pissed off at all and question the fairness if USC ended up one conf win better on that schedule variance knowing full well that had it been the other way your team is a lock to go?

We all remember the home/away argument when it was the Pac10, Big10(with really 10 teams even lolz), etc. You still got to prove your game against every other team and no one got skipped. Now we have BOTH the home/away disparity, AND sometimes grossly imbalanced slates with as may as 5 other teams skipped each season.

None of that is even a bit of a problem in using their champions to seed a playoff to you? Like some percentage greater than zero?

 

[TigerBait1971]

Come play in a division with Alabama and argue that CCG should determine playoff chances.

 

[WizardHawk]

Lighting round here @CJH9972 : You can answer/address or skip any of this. Just curious about your takes and how hard pressed you are behind auto seeding and/or supporting clarks specific 5+1WC (mostly) format.

1) Auto seeding means OOC games have zero value now. They are exhibition games. Is that any type of a downside, or doesn't matter?
2) His format says P5 champs are a lock... well unless they lose more than 2 so not really always a lock. So we still have a committee to pick that wildcard 6th and sometimes another in a year like this with UW sitting on 3 losses (only 2 were in conf though so he has problems with really keeping them out IMO). We still need them to seed the order and pick which two are getting a bye... which leads to
3) With 6 teams we now add the additional bitching of which teams were 2nd and 3rd which is huge for getting to sit out week 1. We've now introduced more room for human eye test picking teams that people don't like, not less.
4) We broke down what a 6 team all committee vs his proposed 6 team 5+1 (mostly) over the prior 4 seasons and found 22 of 24 teams would have been seeded the same in both formats. Is it really worth the headaches above of turning OOC's into exhibition games, having to have side rules for when to ignore champions, and still use the same committee for much of the work anyway? Does it REALLY solve more than it adds in new problems?
5) Since a lot of this is based on how hard it is for G5's to get in and yet we are still using the same committee now to pick that last WC slot, does this drastic change really address that problem in any way? Don't we still end up with a Georgia or 2nd place team from the B1G more likely than the G5 big dog?

 

[CJH9972]

See clark, there are people who can discuss the merits of these without going derp.

Couple of thoughts here though. The current formats weren't picked to seed a playoff so the argument that they got to pick this doesn't really fit here IMO. Yes, the B12 isn't entirely equal because home/away does matter, but at least every team plays every team and no team is avoided. It's much closer to balanced than what the other 4 are doing.

Let me ask you a hypothetical though based of this years very real schedule. You are a fan of Utah (sorry to put that evil on you lolz). Your rival for reaching the Pac12 CCG is USC. The Trojans skip UW and Oregon because of the 'hand they were dealt'. Instead they played Oregon State and Cal. Two pretty much penciled in W's. Utah had the opposite and played UW/Oregon and skipped those other two.

If you are being honest here, you wouldn't be pissed off at all and question the fairness if USC ended up one conf win better on that schedule variance knowing full well that had it been the other way your team is a lock to go?

We all remember the home/away argument when it was the Pac10, Big10(with really 10 teams even lolz), etc. You still got to prove your game against every other team and no one got skipped. Now we have BOTH the home/away disparity, AND sometimes grossly imbalanced slates with as may as 5 other teams skipped each season.

None of that is even a bit of a problem in using their champions to seed a playoff to you? Like some percentage greater than zero?

To be clear, I'm for eliminating divisions and matching the top two teams in CCGs. I'd also favor a scheduling philosophy where the previous year's standings determine the next season's schedules so teams play "balanced" league schedules from that perspective. Of course, there is no guarantee that the schedules will end up being balanced as far as difficulty is concerned but I can accept the differences that are produced by a scheduling method that plays no favorites. You play the hand you are dealt. If that means differences like your USC/Utah example, so be it. Even with a no AQ format, Utah's playoff chances would still be impacted by the differences in league schedules. They finish 10-2 and don't make the CCG, not having the 13th game may hurt. Of course, depending on the importance of SOS, the difference could help. While I'm not completely sold on AQs with a field smaller than 16 teams, I think I'd rather control my playoff destiny by winning the Pac-12 regardless of schedule differences versus having my fate decided by a committee with those same scheduling differences affecting my chances.

 

[WizardHawk]

To be clear, I'm for eliminating divisions and matching the top two teams in CCGs. I'd also favor a scheduling philosophy where the previous year's standings determine the next season's schedules so teams play "balanced" league schedules from that perspective. Of course, there is no guarantee that the schedules will end up being balanced as far as difficulty is concerned but I can accept the differences that are produced by a scheduling method that plays no favorites. You play the hand you are dealt. If that means differences like your USC/Utah example, so be it. Even with a no AQ format, Utah's playoff chances would still be impacted by the differences in league schedules. They finish 10-2 and don't make the CCG, not having the 13th game may hurt. Of course, depending on the importance of SOS, the difference could help. While I'm not completely sold on AQs with a field smaller than 16 teams, I think I'd rather control my playoff destiny by winning the Pac-12 regardless of schedule differences versus having my fate decided by a committee with those same scheduling differences affecting my chances.

So you are really in favor of massive reform, not really clarks proposal, even if there are things within it you are closer to than where we are now. That means you don't entirely meet the criteria of who I was hoping to discuss this with.

You must admit the chances of massive reforms to the structure and teams of the conferences isn't likely coming. What you want already exists in the B12 and is balanced. They are the only conf that crowns a champion that has anything that resembles an even playing field. Just eliminating divisions doesn't really improve it. And making next years schedule be as a result of this years play given how much change there is at the college level from year to year also seems a bit off. Yes, the NFL does this with two of their games. Two. Of sixteen. It's not the same and NFL teams don't change nearly as much each year.

No one believes our current system is perfect. It is still based on what happens on the field though. Win your schedule as a P5 and you are almost certainly in the playoffs. Lose and you need help. No proposed changes really change those basic elements. You still get in running the table with AQ's and still might need help with losses. But AQ's throw out up to 33% of games played when it comes to the SEC. 4 of their 12 are OOC and wouldn't have any impact at all on their CCG standings. You water down the product so much and get nothing back IMO.

 

[CJH9972]

Lighting round here @CJH9972 : You can answer/address or skip any of this. Just curious about your takes and how hard pressed you are behind auto seeding and/or supporting clarks specific 5+1WC (mostly) format.

1) Auto seeding means OOC games have zero value now. They are exhibition games. Is that any type of a downside, or doesn't matter?
2) His format says P5 champs are a lock... well unless they lose more than 2 so not really always a lock. So we still have a committee to pick that wildcard 6th and sometimes another in a year like this with UW sitting on 3 losses (only 2 were in conf though so he has problems with really keeping them out IMO). We still need them to seed the order and pick which two are getting a bye... which leads to
3) With 6 teams we now add the additional bitching of which teams were 2nd and 3rd which is huge for getting to sit out week 1. We've now introduced more room for human eye test picking teams that people don't like, not less.
4) We broke down what a 6 team all committee vs his proposed 6 team 5+1 (mostly) over the prior 4 seasons and found 22 of 24 teams would have been seeded the same in both formats. Is it really worth the headaches above of turning OOC's into exhibition games, having to have side rules for when to ignore champions, and still use the same committee for much of the work anyway? Does it REALLY solve more than it adds in new problems?
5) Since a lot of this is based on how hard it is for G5's to get in and yet we are still using the same committee now to pick that last WC slot, does this drastic change really address that problem in any way? Don't we still end up with a Georgia or 2nd place team from the B1G more likely than the G5 big dog?

1-Not quite certain what auto seeding means but I'd be against reducing OOC games to meaningless exhibitions.
2-If AQs are used, I think they should be locks. A two loss rule has the potential to penalize strong scheduling and/or a competitive conference. And you have CCGs where it is not a play in game for both teams.
3-I'm against any format with voting on seeds and playoff teams. I have my own idea for a point system which I won't bore you with here. I just think there needs to be rules for determining the national standings so that any byes and wildcards are determined as a matter of rule and not opinion.
4-Not surprised there are similar results but I'd likely lean towards any format that favors rules over opinions but I'm not a big fan of a six team playoff with only one wildcard.
5-If the goal is to give G5 teams a better chance at the playoffs, I would agree that the 5+1 format doesn't help.

 

[CJH9972]

So you are really in favor of massive reform, not really clarks proposal, even if there are things within it you are closer to than where we are now. That means you don't entirely meet the criteria of who I was hoping to discuss this with.

You must admit the chances of massive reforms to the structure and teams of the conferences isn't likely coming. What you want already exists in the B12 and is balanced. They are the only conf that crowns a champion that has anything that resembles an even playing field. Just eliminating divisions doesn't really improve it. And making next years schedule be as a result of this years play given how much change there is at the college level from year to year also seems a bit off. Yes, the NFL does this with two of their games. Two. Of sixteen. It's not the same and NFL teams don't change nearly as much each year.

No one believes our current system is perfect. It is still based on what happens on the field though. Win your schedule as a P5 and you are almost certainly in the playoffs. Lose and you need help. No proposed changes really change those basic elements. You still get in running the table with AQ's and still might need help with losses. But AQ's throw out up to 33% of games played when it comes to the SEC. 4 of their 12 are OOC and wouldn't have any impact at all on their CCG standings. You water down the product so much and get nothing back IMO.

Not sure if what I'd change qualifies as massive reform. Ultimately, my biggest issue is and will always be using subjective methods to determine playoff teams and seeds. Anything that gets us away from that is for the better although I do have an issue with OOC games only having an impact on determining byes and one playoff berths.

 

[WizardHawk]

Good stuff. At least you are willing to have rational and thoughtful conversation. And FWIW, auto bids and AQ mean the same thing. They are both about having a seat simply for winning your conference. I'm obviously against it.

I was for it at one point. Started out liking the idea and it made sense... until I dug deeper. Couldn't be more against it now.

 

[WizardHawk]

Not sure if what I'd change qualifies as massive reform. Ultimately, my biggest issue is and will always be using subjective methods to determine playoff teams and seeds. Anything that gets us away from that is for the better although I do have an issue with OOC games only having an impact on determining byes and one playoff berths.

That for sure is a big one to me as well. If you feel like your road to reaching AQ is solid enough, why wouldn't you sit your stars in every OOC game to get that competitive edge for having more rested players and less injuries than your opponents? It just feels like it creates more problems than it purports to solve.

In our current system there are for sure teams that have gotten away with shitting OOC games, UW is one of them, but how you look in each still matters. I'd be for some way of removing all FCS games and maybe no G5's after week 5 if that makes everyone happier. I'm for making OOC's mean more, not less. Just can't see AQ/auto bids giving us that.

 

[yourTEAMreallySUCKS]

Easy.... go undefeated or be a blue blood program.

 

[TheRobotDevil]

1-Not quite certain what auto seeding means but I'd be against reducing OOC games to meaningless exhibitions.
2-If AQs are used, I think they should be locks. A two loss rule has the potential to penalize strong scheduling and/or a competitive conference. And you have CCGs where it is not a play in game for both teams.
3-I'm against any format with voting on seeds and playoff teams. I have my own idea for a point system which I won't bore you with here. I just think there needs to be rules for determining the national standings so that any byes and wildcards are determined as a matter of rule and not opinion.
4-Not surprised there are similar results but I'd likely lean towards any format that favors rules over opinions but I'm not a big fan of a six team playoff with only one wildcard.
5-If the goal is to give G5 teams a better chance at the playoffs, I would agree that the 5+1 format doesn't help.

There would be no auto seeding. What I was referring to would be expanding to 6 - 8 teams. And using auto bids with a fail safe. A team would be in the play offs if they win their conference as long as they donthave 2 losses. In which case that spot would become an extra at larger bid if necessary. Until this year no team in the "discussion has had more than 2 loses.

Part of the problem with the current system is there are two different formats. Some play a 9 game schedule with 3 OOC games. While some play an 8 game schedule with 4 OOC games. By playing an 8 game schedule it has a direct effect on conference win loss record. An 8 game Conference schedule avoids one guaranteed loss which is distributed throughout the conference. In a lot of cases they pad a win with an extra FCS team while playing 2 G5s. Which manipulates the numbers from conference W/L to team W/L down to Bowl eligibility. Basically giving the illusion of a higher SOS or stronger conference.

The committee has also disregarded conference championships. Which is an extra game and much more difficult to accomplish. These two components are why the 2 loss argument under the committee format is a asinine. An team that went 11-2 while playing higher competition and an extra game while winning a conference championship. Is better than a team that went 11-1 while shifting a guaranteed conference loss with a padded win and finishing 3rd in their conference.

You cant compare two teams that play different conference formats. And a different amount of games. Thats working with uneven numbers. Nor should one rely on an a system based on human opinion. Which has already shown multiple inconstancies.Rather that basing qualification on fact you cant debate earning it on the field with a set standard.

These are facts that just cant be refuted. Not opinions,politics or debate.

We also already went through the watered down schedules. The teams missing the play offs are playing 2 P5s and a G5 OOC 3 P5s including that 9th conference game.. While the teams qualifying are playing 1 P5 generally neutral site 2 G5's nd a late FCS team. By utilizing a committee that has set this president. You will see ore teams watering down their regular season schedules and less CCG's. In order to follow the mold the committee is setting. Which means more bad football.

We've been through every scenario and ithis discussion always ends the same. People who do not want expansion have no facts to refute it. Just opinion and excuses that are easily debunked. And people that want expansion and guidelines who base their stance in facts and logic.

Another good one is they don't want to risk player safety. Yet they play games in snow

I prefer fact over opinion right now its really just a participation trophy

 

[Stakesarehigh]

I'd want an 8 team before autobids came into play myself because I think having three wild cards enforces the need for good OOC scheduling.

With that said we've never had more than one team in the playoffs who didn't win their conference so it's not as if five plus one wild card would be completely crazy just that you're pretty likely to leave a solid non conf champ out in lieu of a weak conf champion most years.

 

[TheRobotDevil]

Easy.... go undefeated or be a blue blood program.

Or just drop games like Ohio State Oklahoma home and home. Conferences that play a 9 game conference schedule can play 2 G5's and and FCS OOC. And skip the CCG's to match the "committee criteria".Thats high quality football

 

[WizardHawk]

There would be no auto seeding. What I was referring to would be expanding to 6 - 8 teams. And using auto bids with a fail safe. A team would be in the play offs if they win their conference as long as they donthave 2 losses. In which case that spot would become an extra at larger bid if necessary. Until this year no team in the "discussion has had more than 2 loses.

And UW had two conf losses this year. In your world OOC games don't count so therefor they are still in. You may need to rethink how you word this bullshit failsafe of yours.

Part of the problem with the current system is there are two different formats. Some play a 9 game schedule with 3 OOC games. While some play an 8 game schedule with 4 OOC games. By playing an 8 game schedule it has a direct effect on conference win loss record. An 8 game Conference schedule avoids one guaranteed loss which is distributed throughout the conference. In a lot of cases they pad a win with an extra FCS team while playing 2 G5s. Which manipulates the numbers from conference W/L to team W/L down to Bowl eligibility. Basically giving the illusion of a higher SOS or stronger conference.

So you agree shit is all over the fucking place in conference schedules... but now want to make 100% of the criteria to get into the playoffs purely off that bullshit you describe above? That's insanity. It truely is.

The committee has also disregarded conference championships. Which is an extra game and much more difficult to accomplish. These two components are why the 2 loss argument under the committee format is a asinine. An team that went 11-2 while playing higher competition and an extra game while winning a conference championship. Is better than a team that went 11-1 while shifting a guaranteed conference loss with a padded win and finishing 3rd in their conference.

Bullshit. The committee has not disregarded conf champions. This is one of those insane lies you keep telling. Expand things to 6 right now with nothing but the committee and in the first 4 years 22 of 24 teams would have been the same as with your auto bid. By definition that means they do very much still give solid credit to them. When you have only 4 now it isn't possible to give them all a spot. You incorrectly use this as an excuse to say they are ignored. The facts do not support this.

You cant compare two teams that play different conference formats. And a different amount of games. Thats working with uneven numbers. Nor should one rely on an a system based on human opinion. Which has already shown multiple inconstancies.Rather that basing qualification on fact you cant debate earning it on the field with a set standard.

But to you we can compare those two teams that play different conference formats once you place them automatically in a playoff. You want to place them despite 4 of those not playing a balanced schedule and instead rely on 'luck of the draw' to decide who skips which tougher conf opponents and somehow find that more fair. Dumb.

We also already went through the watered down schedules. The teams missing the play offs are playing 2 P5s and a G5 OOC 3 P5s including that 9th conference game.. While the teams qualifying are playing 1 P5 generally neutral site 2 G5's nd a late FCS team. By utilizing a committee that has set this president. You will see ore teams watering down their regular season schedules and less CCG's. In order to follow the mold the committee is setting. Which means more bad football.

Schedules get a lot more watered down once you get your way and OOC games become exhibition matches that mean nothing except for one wild card team, maybe. You destroy 1/3 of SEC played games and render them meaningless. It doesn't get more watered down than that. You want to destroy college football as we know it.

We've been through every scenario and ithis discussion always ends the same. People who do not want expansion have no facts to refute it. Just opinion and excuses that are easily debunked. And people that want expansion and guidelines who base their stance in facts and logic.

More bullshit lies. The one willing to have a discussion and not stick their head up thier ass admitted there were real substantial issues. Because anyone being rational HAS to conclude your format does damage to the game, even if they are still attracted to the idea behind it. This application is just pure shit.

Here comes another 20 pages of the same bullshit. At least the noobs are getting an introduction to clarky 101.