The committee experiment failed

[WizardHawk]

I wasn't referring to an 8 team playoff. Just commenting that it matters who qualifies and why under the current format even we don't feel sorry for any teams that miss the playoffs due to a loss.

And I'm telling you that teams ducking playing decent OOC schedules are for sure a problem. One that can be addressed without changing the depth of the playoffs. Adding more doesn't alone suddenly tell 50 teams to add more meat the way some assume it would. It sure didn't going from 2 to 4.

 

[CJH9972]

And I'm telling you that teams ducking playing decent OOC schedules are for sure a problem. One that can be addressed without changing the depth of the playoffs. Adding more doesn't alone suddenly tell 50 teams to add more meat the way some assume it would. It sure didn't going from 2 to 4.

I don't disagree that expanding the playoffs is not required to compel stronger scheduling. I wasn't addressing playoff expansion. Just stating my pov that it matters what teams qualify and why under a four team playoff even if we don't feel bad for any teams that missed out because they lost.

 

[ThereIsNoPlace]

Haha @NU_FTW gave up.

 

[dtgold88]

Yep, definitely just trolling now. Is this really necessary? Out of ammo on your debate topics so just troll that crap out of us now?

I'm not sure what part you are stuck on at this point. Let me try this again until it gets through.

There isn't any possible type of event EVER that would have me in favor of more than 4 teams in a college football FBS postseason. Period. I don't care if you want to keep the committee and go to 8, go to some computer driven matrix, autobids, draw names from a hat. There isn't any type of possible scenario I would ever go for. At all. Clear?

And no, that's not what I said. You want to add things to characterize what was said in a different light and then use it in some odd form of trolling.

It wasn't just those two years. There were other famous splits. Neb/Mich fans still debate '97. Had it stayed the way it was I would have been fine with it. I really don't care if more than one team is awarded that title by different entities, but the momentum to want unification was overwhelming. I didn't fight against it. I understood why it was going to happen. I accepted the public demand to fix those two issues. I would not go back to how it was prior to the BCS now. I would go back to a 2 team format if I had a choice. It's a solid compromise. We don't need more than that IMO.

I get so many in this debate think with just what is in their own teams best interest. That's not why I hold these views. With an autobid system UW would have been in the playoffs last year and didn't deserve to be. They were not a worthy champion even if they won the weak ass Pac12. I hold these opinions no matter who benefits or misses out.

Just so we are again clear, you should win ALL 12 of your games to remove doubt. Failure to do so leaves you vulnerable. And I won't change my mind no matter which teams are on either side of that bubble. Not now, not ever. Adding more is not in the best interest of the sport.

All fair, but you did say you wanted the change AFTER what happened to BYU in 1984.

But, yes, rest was my assumption (that you'd change your tune if it ever affected BYU). While I cannot say I don't believe you, I will say this is easier for you to say knowing how unlikely it is BYU will ever be in consideration for top 4...8....etc. Not a troll. Reality.

Hopefully, you also get your final comment is opinion and not fact. I'm not so sure you do.

 

[dtgold88]

Says another who knows how unlikely it is his team will be in conversation for top 4....8....etc.

 

[dtgold88]

If you can create rules to compel teams to schedule better on an 8 team playoff, you can also create them to do so on a 4 team format. For example, wins against FCS teams should count as .5 of a win. There are others. Conferences have set standards before and can do so again.

There seriously are no rules that would repair the damage of an autobid system. And we don't need a set of rules to fix an 8 team format not including an autobid. Again, many of us feel watering down what it takes to get in does more harm that good. You can disagree with that all you like, but there are a great many who feel the same.

No doubt many share your opinion. Many don't. That's why we have forums like this one. Sports would be boring if we all agreed.

 

[NU_FTW]

Says another who knows how unlikely it is his team will be in conversation for top 4....8....etc.

It doesnt matter if my team is there, the point is to protect how difficult and challenging it is to get there.

I dont want nebraska winning off a fluke, and should nebraska earn it outright with outstanding play on the field i would find it terrible if some team just managed to get lucky.

I see you have resorted to trying to attack "my team"

Ill let you in on a secret, my lifes accomplishments are not measured by how well my favorite sports team performs any give day/year/decade.


Better luck next time kid

 

[dtgold88]

And I'm telling you that teams ducking playing decent OOC schedules are for sure a problem. One that can be addressed without changing the depth of the playoffs. Adding more doesn't alone suddenly tell 50 teams to add more meat the way some assume it would. It sure didn't going from 2 to 4.

who is playing lesser OOC opponents since the CFP was created? Seems if anything, of late, teams are scheduling tougher OOC. Why would an 8-teamer change this (some speculate Bama has upped their game BECAUSE they feel an 8-teamer is coming)?

 

[dtgold88]

It doesnt matter if my team is there, the point is to protect how difficult and challenging it is to get there.

I dont want nebraska winning off a fluke, and should nebraska earn it outright with outstanding play on the field i would find it terrible if some team just managed to get lucky.

I see you have resorted to trying to attack "my team"

Ill let you in on a secret, my lifes accomplishments are not measured by how well my favorite sports team performs any give day/year/decade.


Better luck next time kid

No one is attacking your team. It's reality. Also not discrediting NU's success from earlier seasons as they have had some of the best teams I've ever seen.

Since you seem to copy my comments I'll do the same....nice try, kid.

 

[NU_FTW]

No one is attacking your team. It's reality. Also not discrediting NU's success from earlier seasons as they have had some of the best teams I've ever seen.

Since you seem to copy my comments I'll do the same....nice try, kid.

You used my team as an example saying "Says another who knows how unlikely it is his team will be in conversation for top 4....8....etc."

Trying to claim you werent attempting to take a shot at nebraska is laughable at best.

C'mon stop pretending like you were even paying attention to our teams in the 90's you were what 7 years old in 95?

(i didnt bring up husker past you did btw)

The point is the significance of the achievement would be pooped on if there were auto bids, getting there would just be meh, and once some seriously crappy teams found miracles to win against vastly superior teams it would really start to diminish the product.

 

[dtgold88]

You used my team as an example saying "Says another who knows how unlikely it is his team will be in conversation for top 4....8....etc."

Trying to claim you werent attempting to take a shot at nebraska is laughable at best.

C'mon stop pretending like you were even paying attention to our teams in the 90's you were what 7 years old in 95?

(i didnt bring up husker past you did btw)

The point is the significance of the achievement would be pooped on if there were auto bids, getting there would just be meh, and once some seriously crappy teams found miracles to win against vastly superior teams it would really start to diminish the product.

Not a shot....it's reality. Nebraska has fallen off a cliff. Like you, I thought they might turn things around some and maybe even win the West this year. Not even close unfortunately.

Yes, unfortunately, as better for BIG if Nebraska could be what they once were.

And, yes, a 4-loss team getting in would not be the best situation but 2 things......could make a rule no team with more than 3 losses qualifies, and second, how many times would this have happened the last decade or so? Maybe once (and that was when OSU/PSU were on probation)?

 

[NU_FTW]

Not a shot....it's reality. Nebraska has fallen off a cliff. Like you, I thought they might turn things around some and maybe even win the West this year. Not even close unfortunately.

Yes, unfortunately, as better for BIG if Nebraska could be what they once were.

And, yes, a 4-loss team getting in would not be the best situation but 2 things......could make a rule no team with more than 3 losses qualifies, and second, how many times would this have happened the last decade or so? Maybe once (and that was when OSU/PSU were on probation)?

I understand it is reality, but after a 4-8 followed by a 4-8 followed by a 5-7 season it would go without saying nebraska wont make a 4 or even 8 team playoff so where is the relevance, you simply wanted to take a shot at nebraska. It is okay i am just pointing it out and how silly it was.

3 loss teams shouldnt be playing for a national championship, ever, period the end.

Frost will get us back to being respectable, right now there is a lot that is going on beyond what the media reported. The mentality of players and the culture was just completely screwed, with optional weight lifting etc. It will take a lot longer to get us back to being respectable than what the media tried saying ranking us at 24th and putting us as a contender for the B1G lol. year 4 maybe 5 (before this year i was saying year 4 but after this year i have added the maybe 5) we'll be competing for a west title (hopefully)

 

[dtgold88]

I understand it is reality, but after a 4-8 followed by a 4-8 followed by a 5-7 season it would go without saying nebraska wont make a 4 or even 8 team playoff so where is the relevance, you simply wanted to take a shot at nebraska. It is okay i am just pointing it out and how silly it was.

3 loss teams shouldnt be playing for a national championship, ever, period the end.

Frost will get us back to being respectable, right now there is a lot that is going on beyond what the media reported. The mentality of players and the culture was just completely screwed, with optional weight lifting etc. It will take a lot longer to get us back to being respectable than what the media tried saying ranking us at 24th and putting us as a contender for the B1G lol. year 4 maybe 5 (before this year i was saying year 4 but after this year i have added the maybe 5) we'll be competing for a west title (hopefully)

I do wonder if you at least know the highlighted comment is opinion and not factual.

Not sure them getting back to respectability is close to a sure thing, though. same was thought about Herman at Texas, and that is a marquee program. But I like Frost and hope you are right. Makes OSU's schedule look better (the years they play UN).

 

[trojanfan12]

The point is the significance of the achievement would be pooped on if there were auto bids, getting there would just be meh, and once some seriously crappy teams found miracles to win against vastly superior teams it would really start to diminish the product.

I disagree on this.

I would like to see an 8 team playoff with autobids for the P5 conference champs with perhaps a committee to determine 3 "wildcard" participants.

I don't think autobids would "poop on the achievement" of making the playoff. I think it adds to the significance of being a conference champ.

Plus, there are potentially reasons beyond just not being very good that a team may not necessarily have the resume' for a playoff berth. Injuries and/or a young team that takes a few games to start really clicking come to mind.

If there is a conference champ who, based on record/ranking, wouldn't get in under the current format, they will be exposed and be out of the playoff quickly (just like undeserving teams in any playoff). Assuming the first round games are played at campus stadiums and you have a conference champ facing a higher ranked team that isn't a conference champ, you can give the home game to that higher ranked team. The conference champ gets to go to the playoff as a benefit of being a conference champ, but doesn't get rewarded with a home game.

As for "some seriously crappy teams finding miracles to win against vastly superior teams"...it would actually make the playoff more exciting, imo. People love underdogs and huge upsets. It's largely why people tune into the early rounds of March Madness rather than just wait for the Final Four.

Plus, if those teams are truly "vastly superior", they should be able to handle a crappy team.

 

[NU_FTW]

I do wonder if you at least know the highlighted comment is opinion and not factual.

Not sure them getting back to respectability is close to a sure thing, though. same was thought about Herman at Texas, and that is a marquee program. But I like Frost and hope you are right. Makes OSU's schedule look better (the years they play UN).

You suggested limiting it to no 4 loss teams getting in. Automatic bids are a terrible idea there is no way to set the criteria to preserve the achievement that it currently represents.

You want participation trophies, the NFL and FCS already has those.

 

[NU_FTW]

I disagree on this.

I would like to see an 8 team playoff with autobids for the P5 conference champs with perhaps a committee to determine 3 "wildcard" participants.

I don't think autobids would "poop on the achievement" of making the playoff. I think it adds to the significance of being a conference champ.

Plus, there are potentially reasons beyond just not being very good that a team may not necessarily have the resume' for a playoff berth. Injuries and/or a young team that takes a few games to start really clicking come to mind.

If there is a conference champ who, based on record/ranking, wouldn't get in under the current format, they will be exposed and be out of the playoff quickly (just like undeserving teams in any playoff). Assuming the first round games are played at campus stadiums and you have a conference champ facing a higher ranked team that isn't a conference champ, you can give the home game to that higher ranked team. The conference champ gets to go to the playoff as a benefit of being a conference champ, but doesn't get rewarded with a home game.

As for "some seriously crappy teams finding miracles to win against vastly superior teams"...it would actually make the playoff more exciting, imo. People love underdogs and huge upsets. It's largely why people tune into the early rounds of March Madness rather than just wait for the Final Four.

Plus, if those teams are truly "vastly superior", they should be able to handle a crappy team.

Being a conference champ is already quite significant as it is. Being a shitty conference champ shouldnt be rewarded.

You can disagree all you want but making it so that OOC games dont matter in the auto-bid process is just terrible and WILL result in teams resting their starters and not caring about a loss. It will make it so every game is not important.

Nobody likes FCS week in the SEC... now make that 3-4 games every conference doing it (at least the auto-bid ones) It is completely bogus to think that teams wont do it. The SEC does it because they know they can and still get in the CFP there is no incentive to change that.


Personally before anyone addresses the CFP's expansion way prior to that there needs to be a standardization of scheduling when it comes to how you schedule OOC and how often you have to play your cross divisional opponents. You shouldnt be able to go 5-9 years without playing a team from the other division. Id rather see 10 team Power conferences where everyone plays everyone. Get to that point see where we are then we can discuss expansion and automatic criteria. Until then you are not improving anything just watering down the problem.

 

[WizardHawk]

All fair, but you did say you wanted the change AFTER what happened to BYU in 1984.

But, yes, rest was my assumption (that you'd change your tune if it ever affected BYU). While I cannot say I don't believe you, I will say this is easier for you to say knowing how unlikely it is BYU will ever be in consideration for top 4...8....etc. Not a troll. Reality.

Hopefully, you also get your final comment is opinion and not fact. I'm not so sure you do.

First, why do you keep obsessing on BYU? I couldn't care less what happens to them, or any other mid major. The point was it was controversial and discussed for many years after the fact that they were paper champions. Awarded a title having not played a single ranked team the whole year. Including playing an unranked Michigan in their bowl. That was a problem.

I said I understood and accepted the momentum for creating the BCS.

There is no way that either of the reasons for the BCS can happen under our current system. Isn't that obvious? Impossible for the top teams to win it without facing two ranked teams now at the end. So people can bitch all they want about weak schedules getting them in, but they still have to earn it. And we have a unified title. Doesn't matter if any of us wish the format was different. We have a clear champion.

Why are we going round and round on these?

 

[WizardHawk]

who is playing lesser OOC opponents since the CFP was created? Seems if anything, of late, teams are scheduling tougher OOC. Why would an 8-teamer change this (some speculate Bama has upped their game BECAUSE they feel an 8-teamer is coming)?

Several teams broke their streak of never playing FCS teams since the CFP started and pretty much everyone now does one. It's a travesty that needs to be stopped.

 

[trojanfan12]

You can disagree all you want but making it so that OOC games dont matter in the auto-bid process is just terrible and WILL result in teams resting their starters and not caring about a loss. It will make it so every game is not important.

OOC games already don't matter. At least not much. The NCAA can take care of OOC schedules with a literal stroke of a pen and by making sure that all conferences are playing the same number of conference games (which imo, is the real problem with scheduling).

Additionally, I'd argue that certain OOC games are where you want to rest your starters and get some playing time for backups to help prepare them in case you need them later in the season.

Nobody likes FCS week in the SEC... now make that 3-4 games every conference doing it (at least the auto-bid ones) It is completely bogus to think that teams wont do it. The SEC does it because they know they can and still get in the CFP there is no incentive to change that.

And much of that can be eliminated by having each conference go to a 9 game IC schedule. Even if they went to every conference playing an 8 game schedule, the NCAA would just need to make a rule limiting the number of FCS games and not allowing them after a certain point in the season.

Personally before anyone addresses the CFP's expansion way prior to that there needs to be a standardization of scheduling when it comes to how you schedule OOC and how often you have to play your cross divisional opponents. You shouldnt be able to go 5-9 years without playing a team from the other division. Id rather see 10 team Power conferences where everyone plays everyone. Get to that point see where we are then we can discuss expansion and automatic criteria. Until then you are not improving anything just watering down the problem.

I agree with this 100%.

I loved it when the PAC, prior to expansion, went to a 9 game in conference schedule, so everyone played everyone else, every year. It hurt the conference as far as national rankings, etc. but I think it was the best way to determine a true conference champ.

I don't think that can happen again unless they shrink conferences (which I don't see happening), but each conference should definitely be playing the same number of conference games.

 

[dtgold88]

You suggested limiting it to no 4 loss teams getting in. Automatic bids are a terrible idea there is no way to set the criteria to preserve the achievement that it currently represents.

You want participation trophies, the NFL and FCS already has those.

My choice would be to limit it to 3 losses, but if they make it all CCG winners, so be it.

How does the NFL have participation trophies? Only trophy I know of anyone cares about is the Lombardi.

Nice try, but another fail.