Qualifications for making the College Football Playoff

[7Samurai13]

Isn't it called the College Football Playoff? Or is it called the Power 5 Football Playoff?

I think UCF should have been given a shot. Being 26-0 over the last two years with a win over Auburn in last year's bowl.

Not only did UCF beat a power 5 team, they beat a power 5 SEC team. Since ESPN always ejaculates SEC, that should have counted for something for UCF.

Yes, I thought UCF deserved a shot last year. Undefeated has got to count for something.

If I was a G5 school, i would sue the NCAA in a class action suit.

Last year is last year, this year is this year. What they did last year should have no effect on decisions for this year.

 

[CJH9972]

So no specifics? No list of statistical benchmarks G5 teams need to meet to have the necessary schedule required for playoff consideration?

 

[7Samurai13]

So no specifics? No list of statistical benchmarks G5 teams need to meet to have the necessary schedule required for playoff consideration?

Because it depends on the year. If Ohio State, Bama, Clemson, and Oklahoma all go undefeated, nothing is getting a G5 in.

If next year every conference champ loses at least two games, then it will be easier to get in. Just like their are no hard lines for P5 teams either.

 

[CJH9972]

Because it depends on the year. If Ohio State, Bama, Clemson, and Oklahoma all go undefeated, nothing is getting a G5 in.

If next year every conference champ loses at least two games, then it will be easier to get in. Just like their are no hard lines for P5 teams either.

True but examples for specific seasons would be good.

 

[7Samurai13]

True but examples for specific seasons would be good.

Troy goes undefeated last season, they are in. Same goes for Fresno State.

 

[TheRobotDevil]

The guy is a total ass clown. All he does is march thread to thread calling people bitch’s that he disagrees with. It’s really a sad display of somebody who’s internally miserable with themselves. Can’t think of a more sad existence?

Debating logi and an upgraded system. With one who prefers a system based on opinion. Is basically a lost cause. All you will get is shifting goal posts,skewed numbers, veering off topic ,semantics etc....Some prefer the debate participation trophy. One of the most functional systems I've read actually came from an Alabama fan.And it cleans up all the question marks since the inception of the play offs. Which were needed due to a flawed BCS system.

The best way to do it IMO is to have a 6 team playoff with 5 autobids CC and 1 WC but there are some rules.

1.Every P5 team plays 10 P5 games and 2 patsy G5/FCS games. The committee can only use P5 games to evaluate a team.

2. If you have more than 2 losses and win your conference you lose your autobid. That spot becomes an extra WC spot.

2017
Clemson 12-1 CC, 12–1 Oklahoma CC,, 11-2 Ohio State CC , 11-2 USC,
Are in on Auto bid and12-1 Alabama most likely gets the At Large spot

2016
12- 1 Clemson CC, 12-1 Oklahoma CC,11-2 Penn State CC,11-1 Washington CC, 13-0 Alabama CC,
Are all in on Auto bid 11-1 Ohio State moct likely gets the At Large Bid

2015
13-0 Clemson CC,,12-1 Oklahoma CC,12-1 Michigan State CC,11-2 Stanford CC,12-1 Alabama CC

Are allí in on Auto Bids 11-1 Ohio State or !!-1 Iowa most likely get the At Large Bid

2014
13-0 FSU CC, 12-1 Ohio State CC, 12-1 Oregon CC,12-1 Alabama CC
Are all in on Auto Bod 11 - 1 TCU and !1 - 1 Baylor are most likely in as the At Large Bids

This year you would most likely see
13-0 Alabama 13-0 Clemson 12-0 Notre Dame 12-1 Ohio State 12-1 Oklahoma and 13-0 UCF as an at large with the PAC losing its auto bid

UCF may not fit the rules and you could argue another team for the 6th slot. But I don't see the fear some teams have when it comes to a UCF or G% team that performs anther level. Or why anyone wouldnt want to see it decided on the field. With a higher competition level and the closest thing you will see to a true champion as possible

I agree eye tests and opinions are not football

 

[Hang_On_Sloopy08]

Debating logi and an upgraded system. With one who prefers a system based on opinion. Is basically a lost cause. All you will get is shifting goal posts,skewed numbers, veering off topic ,semantics etc....Some prefer the debate participation trophy. One of the most functional systems I've read actually came from an Alabama fan.And it cleans up all the question marks since the inception of the play offs. Which were needed due to a flawed BCS system.

The best way to do it IMO is to have a 6 team playoff with 5 autobids CC and 1 WC but there are some rules.

1.Every P5 team plays 10 P5 games and 2 patsy G5/FCS games. The committee can only use P5 games to evaluate a team.

2. If you have more than 2 losses and win your conference you lose your autobid. That spot becomes an extra WC spot.

2017
Clemson 12-1 CC, 12–1 Oklahoma CC,, 11-2 Ohio State CC , 11-2 USC,
Are in on Auto bid and12-1 Alabama most likely gets the At Large spot

2016
12- 1 Clemson CC, 12-1 Oklahoma CC,11-2 Penn State CC,11-1 Washington CC, 13-0 Alabama CC,
Are all in on Auto bid 11-1 Ohio State moct likely gets the At Large Bid

2015
13-0 Clemson CC,,12-1 Oklahoma CC,12-1 Michigan State CC,11-2 Stanford CC,12-1 Alabama CC

Are allí in on Auto Bids 11-1 Ohio State or !!-1 Iowa most likely get the At Large Bid

2014
13-0 FSU CC, 12-1 Ohio State CC, 12-1 Oregon CC,12-1 Alabama CC
Are all in on Auto Bod 11 - 1 TCU and !1 - 1 Baylor are most likely in as the At Large Bids

This year you would most likely see
13-0 Alabama 13-0 Clemson 12-0 Notre Dame 12-1 Ohio State 12-1 Oklahoma and 13-0 UCF as an at large with the PAC losing its auto bid

UCF may not fit the rules and you could argue another team for the 6th slot. But I don't see the fear some teams have when it comes to a UCF or G% team that performs anther level. Or why anyone wouldnt want to see it decided on the field. With a higher competition level and the closest thing you will see to a true champion as possible

I agree eye tests and opinions are not football

That would be a major upgrade from what he have now. I'm not the type screaming we need inclusion, but I do find it very odd that a G5 member has a virtually impossible road to make the post season? They're competing in a system designed to exclude them. I've got friends at both Boise and UCF, and they've had some awesome football teams this century that deserved IMO their right to compete for a title. The obvious pushback every time comes down to SOS. But they really can't help that, even if they scheduled top tier OOC opponents, it still wouldn't be enough. They need a direct path to the playoffs if they're going to compete in an FBS system, otherwise what's the point?

What needs to happen is the NCAA needs to put their foot down and start standardizing scheduling across the board. This would help create a more valid playoff system. There's too many teams participating in the system as it is, so there's no way creating parody all the way across the board. But the least you could do is standardized schedule that a) you must belong to a conference, b) play same number of conference games across the board) and c) must play 2 P5 OOC games. That would create a baseline for competition and validate playoff participation. I do prefer 8 team playoffs, that way it protects the integrity of the regular season. It would encourage bigger OOC preseason games because if you don't win your conference auto-bid, having played a tougher OOC schedule gives you a better chance at securing an at-large bid.

 

[TheRobotDevil]

That would be a major upgrade from what he have now. I'm not the type screaming we need inclusion, but I do find it very odd that a G5 member has a virtually impossible road to make the post season? They're competing in a system designed to exclude them. I've got friends at both Boise and UCF, and they've had some awesome football teams this century that deserved IMO their right to compete for a title. The obvious pushback every time comes down to SOS. But they really can't help that, even if they scheduled top tier OOC opponents, it still wouldn't be enough. They need a direct path to the playoffs if they're going to compete in an FBS system, otherwise what's the point?

What needs to happen is the NCAA needs to put their foot down and start standardizing scheduling across the board. This would help create a more valid playoff system. There's too many teams participating in the system as it is, so there's no way creating parody all the way across the board. But the least you could do is standardized schedule that a) you must belong to a conference, b) play same number of conference games across the board) and c) must play 2 P5 OOC games. That would create a baseline for competition and validate playoff participation. I do prefer 8 team playoffs, that way it protects the integrity of the regular season. It would encourage bigger OOC preseason games because if you don't win your conference auto-bid, having played a tougher OOC schedule gives you a better chance at securing an at-large bid.

Completely agree. Without a standardized schedule. There is no real platform for comparison. This is why a computer system or committee will never work. And why I don't buy the 2 loss excuse. Common logic says a team is more likely to lose a game or be "blown out" by another conference team. Than a team losing to an FCS team. Because they run a format that allows them to schedule 2 G5s and a late season FCS game. The format also effects conference win loss differentials. You cant depend on polls whether it be the AP,Coaches or Committee. Too much room for human error. Or a computer which is based on a program. Especially when you have no consistent foundation to work with. If the goal is a true champion. They need to go 6 minimum and use a qualification system that reduces the human factor. And putts game on the field where it belongs

 

[Hang_On_Sloopy08]

Completely agree. Without a standardized schedule. There is no real platform for comparison. This is why a computer system or committee will never work. And why I don't buy the 2 loss excuse. Common logic says a team is more likely to lose a game or be "blown out" by another conference team. Than a team losing to an FCS team. Because they run a format that allows them to schedule 2 G5s and a late season FCS game. The format also effects conference win loss differentials. You cant depend on polls whether it be the AP,Coaches or Committee. Too much room for human error. Or a computer which is based on a program. Especially when you have no consistent foundation to work with. If the goal is a true champion. They need to go 6 minimum and use a qualification system that reduces the human factor. And putts game on the field where it belongs

And the problem I have is the SEC getting away with 8 conference game schedules. That's guaranteeing almost 7 less losses wherever they fall across the conference. Insert November FCS marathon here. Meanwhile, conferences playing 9 conference games add a cross divisional game per school, that ensures 7 more losses across the conference, again, wherever they fall. And in some years that kills your playoffs chances, see my Buckeyes the past two seasons losing cross division games. I don't blame the SEC for taking advantage of this, but it hurts the integrity of the sport when they're getting 2 teams in out of the 4. This is where the NCAA needs to end this crap.

 

[TheRobotDevil]

And the problem I have is the SEC getting away with 8 conference game schedules. That's guaranteeing almost 7 less losses wherever they fall across the conference. Insert November FCS marathon here. Meanwhile, conferences playing 9 conference games add a cross divisional game per school, that ensures 7 more losses across the conference, again, wherever they fall. And in some years that kills your playoffs chances, see my Buckeyes the past two seasons losing cross division games. I don't blame the SEC for taking advantage of this, but it hurts the integrity of the sport when they're getting 2 teams in out of the 4. This is where the NCAA needs to end this crap.

And thats where math and logic come in. SOS and Rankings are a myth neither are actually gauge anything. And without standardized scheduling we are seeing 8 game conferences manipulate numbers.Padding wins with that extra FCS game. While dodging those guaranteed conference losses. Which effect everything from W?L records,Conference opponents W/l records down to bowl eligibility.

I have yet see a factual reason against expansion and set guidelines just opinion. But theres a shit ton of factual data that supports it. Along with the factual examples of how the current and past systems are flawed. Last year being another prime example. When looking at OSU's schedule compared to Bama's. It's all really just common sense some people just like to debate what teams belong.Fear a concrete system that doesn't favor certain conferences.Seeing a dangerous G5 team qualify Rather than the product on the field imo

 

[Hang_On_Sloopy08]

And thats where math and logic come in. SOS and Rankings are a myth neither are actually gauge anything. And without standardized scheduling we are seeing 8 game conferences manipulate numbers.Padding wins with that extra FCS game. While dodging those guaranteed conference losses. Which effect everything from W?L records,Conference opponents W/l records down to bowl eligibility.

I have yet see a factual reason against expansion and set guidelines just opinion. But theres a shit ton of factual data that supports it. Along with the factual examples of how the current and past systems are flawed. Last year being another prime example. When looking at OSU's schedule compared to Bama's. It's all really just common sense some people just like to debate what teams belong.Fear a concrete system that doesn't favor certain conferences.Seeing a dangerous G5 team qualify Rather than the product on the field imo

Exactly right. Because of the system we have, we're relegated to picking the "4 best teams" instead of the "4 most deserving teams". The 4 most deserving teams can't be determined because the numbers are so skewed across competition. How many times do they bring up asinine metrics like "common opponents" aka transitive wins, or "the eye test" or "game control"? That's the kind of subjective shit this system uses to determine valid playoff participation.

 

[TheRobotDevil]

Exactly right. Because of the system we have, we're relegated to picking the "4 best teams" instead of the "4 most deserving teams". The 4 most deserving teams can't be determined because the numbers are so skewed across competition. How many times do they bring up asinine metrics like "common opponents" aka transitive wins, or "the eye test" or "game control"? That's the kind of subjective shit this system uses to determine valid playoff participation.

Its all just based on human opinion.Qualifications like "The eye test" and schedule manipulation etc..I just cant take seriously.May as well just have a fan vote UCF exposed the system even more last year. Beating the same Auburn team that beat both Alabama and UGA. It was basically impossible for the NCAA not to credit them with part of the national championship.I may never get the fans that are for deciding champions off the field. As a college football fan in general. I want to see the best teams that actually earned it. Play for a tile on the field. I don't care for politics I prefer actual football. The current system is basically a beauty pageant nothing more

 

[WizardHawk]

Oh look, clark found a new dipshit to sell his complete stupidity to.

 

[Stakesarehigh]

Completely agree. Without a standardized schedule. There is no real platform for comparison. This is why a computer system or committee will never work. And why I don't buy the 2 loss excuse. Common logic says a team is more likely to lose a game or be "blown out" by another conference team. Than a team losing to an FCS team. Because they run a format that allows them to schedule 2 G5s and a late season FCS game. The format also effects conference win loss differentials. You cant depend on polls whether it be the AP,Coaches or Committee. Too much room for human error. Or a computer which is based on a program. Especially when you have no consistent foundation to work with. If the goal is a true champion. They need to go 6 minimum and use a qualification system that reduces the human factor. And putts game on the field where it belongs

To see just how differently various systems measure metrics just look at SOS. Clemson is a perfect example of that this year. They played a lot of middle of the road teams but zero teams with even a remote chance of being favored to beat them. So some models rate them very highly while others do not. Which is why I prefer the Massey composite as to a bcs model because I don't think six data points is enough with as wide as their criteria is.

 

[TheRobotDevil]

Oh look, clark found a new dipshit to sell his complete stupidity to.

And yo still have no facts to dispute it. Just the typical veer.....

But thats understandable. This is common logic. The argument for qualifications and expansion is based on facts. While the argument against is opinion at best . As you see again here

 

[WizardHawk]

And yo still have no facts to dispute it. Just the typical veer.....

But thats understandable. This is common logic. The argument for qualifications and expansion is based on facts. While the argument against is opinion at best . As you see again here

Several of us have destroyed your bullshit over and over with nothing but pure facts. You just aren't smart enough to realize it because you have your head buried way too far up your own ass to see it.

 

[TheRobotDevil]

To see just how differently various systems measure metrics just look at SOS. Clemson is a perfect example of that this year. They played a lot of middle of the road teams but zero teams with even a remote chance of being favored to beat them. So some models rate them very highly while others do not. Which is why I prefer the Massey composite as to a bcs model because I don't think six data points is enough with as wide as their criteria is.

Thats another prime example. We can run a variety of formulas that shift everything in one direction or the other. Some come a little closer than others. But in the end the BCS system failed. Ie Bama/LSU/Oklahoma state. Where it came down to a coaches vote in the end.

he current system is a slight upgrade. But still needs a lot of work

 

[WizardHawk]

Keep pushing your stupid auto bid system though. It has ended up educating quite a few that have since changed their minds and seen why auto bids can't ever happen and why we don't have them now. Your drivel does a community service when people take the time to actually look into it and see how utterly stupid it really is. So there's that.

 

[TheRobotDevil]

Several of us have destroyed your bullshit over and over with nothing but pure facts. You just aren't smart enough to realize it because you have your head buried way too far up your own ass to see it.

If thats what you want to think. Thats what you will choose to believe. But you already know until you have factual data numbers,a rebuttal that actually contains substance. Rather than basing your stance on semantics and opinion.Its not worth the time.......You prefer beauty pageants I prefer football.

 

[WizardHawk]

If thats what you want to think. Thats what you will choose to believe. But you already know until you have factual data numbers,a rebuttal that actually contains substance. Rather than basing your stance on semantics and opinion.Its not worth the time.......You prefer beauty pageants I prefer football.

Facts are facts dipshit.

It is a pure FACT that right now conf champions are crowned on imbalanced schedules. The teams competing in each division do not play the same schedule they are graded against. It is a fact and one that entirely destroys the validity of claiming it somehow creates a more fair and balanced approach. It is a pure deathnail.

It is also a FACT that no two conference are setup the same in their approach to conference schedules, although the Pac and B1G are more similar than what the B12 or SEC do. You want them to all be considered equal for post season comparison and there isn't much they have in common.

These, and many more have been brought up over and over and your ONLY response to any of them amounts to sticking your fingers in your ears and pretending they don't exist. You have no debate because there isn't a rational one that can be had.

Without throwing out teams and making everyone go back to 10 team leagues where everyone plays everyone else there is no rational format for claiming conference champions have any merit toward post season auto seeding. And really no one without their heads up their ass fails to see how obvious it is.