The committee experiment failed

[Deep Creek]

Progress isn't expansion

You may be correct. But what is progress in CFB?

 

[trojanfan12]

8 is probably more easily doable, and better than what we have, but 16 would be more exciting, and less controversial. people are less likely to complain about the #17 team not making the cut, since they were unlikely to win the championship anyway. it also brings the long shot cinderella factor into the tournament, where a lower ranked team, like a boise, could surprise everyone and run the table.

16 just seems too big, imo. I don't see the NCAA jumping from 4 to 16 anyway. If the playoff expands, it'll likely only be to 8.

 

[olympicoscar]

major teams get left out every year, and will again this year.

By major teams, I mean someone that has an outstanding record and looks like they could win the playoff.

Now every year in sports, we have teams that do poorly during one part of the season, but peak at the end. In sports with more games, they have won the World Series and the Super Bowl.

In college football, it's different. What if a team lost it's first 2 games and then all of a sudden blasted everyone they played? Tough to make a 4 team playoff, and yet they could win the whole thing. That's the sort of thing that would make the NCAA to expand the playoffs.

 

[trojanfan12]

So spell out what you think im skipping. I've never ducked an argument in all the years you've known me. Why would I start now?

It's literally in the post you quoted.

 

[trojanfan12]

No, but it further brings up a group of issues that also plague alternatives proposed up here on the hoop.

No, it really doesn't.

An expansion to 8 teams could be easily done while keeping the CCG's. I do like the other option you suggested of 11 conference games (although the SEC would have to drop a couple of teams).

As things are currently set up. You keep the CCG's. Autobid the conference champs in and you let the committee pick the at large teams.

In a year like this one, say Colorado had beaten Utah. That would have put 8-4 USC in the CCG. Now let's say they upset the Ducks...

As conference champs, you'd have 8-4 USC in the playoff. You then have the committee seed the teams. USC would likely end up with a low seed (7 or 8) and no home game.

The reward for winning the conference is the playoff berth. The "punishment" for not having the resume' of the other conference champs is the low seed, having to play on the road and likely being out after 1 game.

Meanwhile, because they went to the playoff, maybe another PAC team gets a better bowl game?

Really not seeing the problem.

 

[trojanfan12]

Don't like these proposals? Has to be ONLY you must hate any change at all.

I wouldn't go that far. But you're awfully dug in and seem to be completely discounting any form of playoff expansion and keep throwing out arguments that are fairly easily debunked or at least fixable.

Besides, I think it's about you being a commie who is against more football. lol

 

[NU_FTW]

You may be correct. But what is progress in CFB?

Like i said in an earlier post. Standardize schedules, Ensure divisions play cross divisional opponents more than once a decade, maybe even do a rotating conference vs conference where all OOC games for one conference is against another and they rotate yearly. Address the issues that make schedules so unbalanced and difficult to see who is better and whether or not a conference is subjectively crappy or objectively crappy. Start there, fix that first, otherwise we'll just have these issues and more undeserving teams in for all the marbles

 

[desert heat]

By major teams, I mean someone that has an outstanding record and looks like they could win the playoff.

Now every year in sports, we have teams that do poorly during one part of the season, but peak at the end. In sports with more games, they have won the World Series and the Super Bowl.

In college football, it's different. What if a team lost it's first 2 games and then all of a sudden blasted everyone they played? Tough to make a 4 team playoff, and yet they could win the whole thing. That's the sort of thing that would make the NCAA to expand the playoffs.

ohio state was left out the last two years, and this year we have several teams at 11-1, and several more at 10-2. georgia will also play lsu, so there's one more to add to the bunch.

you can't just assume a team can't win, otherwise there would be no need to play the games.

 

[WizardHawk]

It's literally in the post you quoted.

Im on my phone, just make it easy. What do you want me to answer buddy. Im right here.

 

[belcherboy]

You may be correct. But what is progress in CFB?

I know this isn't a popular opinion, but I would create another sub category. Only allow the Power 5 teams into the playoffs. If those conferences want to expand to include more teams, that is their prerogative. The committee doesn't appear to have any desire to include non power 5 teams anytime soon, nor should they IMO. The big Power 5 teams aren't going to schedule a strong non Power 5 team unless it is heavily in their favor (only home field games, if they schedule them at all). The non Power 5 teams aren't going to be able to overcome a weak conference schedule. So why fight it? Just make it Power 5 only playoffs. The sub division can still have playoffs, or simply just get some bowl games.

 

[WizardHawk]

No, it really doesn't.

An expansion to 8 teams could be easily done while keeping the CCG's. I do like the other option you suggested of 11 conference games (although the SEC would have to drop a couple of teams).

As things are currently set up. You keep the CCG's. Autobid the conference champs in and you let the committee pick the at large teams.

In a year like this one, say Colorado had beaten Utah. That would have put 8-4 USC in the CCG. Now let's say they upset the Ducks...

As conference champs, you'd have 8-4 USC in the playoff. You then have the committee seed the teams. USC would likely end up with a low seed (7 or 8) and no home game.

The reward for winning the conference is the playoff berth. The "punishment" for not having the resume' of the other conference champs is the low seed, having to play on the road and likely being out after 1 game.

Meanwhile, because they went to the playoff, maybe another PAC team gets a better bowl game?

Really not seeing the problem.

So you like forcing balanced schedules, but don't otherwise have a problem using the existing unbalanced ones as pure playoff games/ seeds. That one is a pure deal breaker for many of us.

It's a joke to ignore OOC entirely as part of the criteria to get into the playoffs. But to also treat all wins within a conference as the same with these unbalanced schedules is just bad.

 

[desert heat]

16 just seems too big, imo. I don't see the NCAA jumping from 4 to 16 anyway. If the playoff expands, it'll likely only be to 8.

just eliminate the conference championship games, and replace it with the first round of the 16 team playoff. then you are down to eight.

 

[WizardHawk]

I wouldn't go that far. But you're awfully dug in and seem to be completely discounting any form of playoff expansion and keep throwing out arguments that are fairly easily debunked or at least fixable.

Besides, I think it's about you being a commie who is against more football. lol

I gave you alternatives. I simply live in reality. The things that would have to change aren't going to happen. So it's disingenuous to say any of us are entirely against change just because we are firmly against the changes proposed here.

How about taking OOC scheduling out of the hands of the teams with key exceptions? Maybe 2 done by lottery unless you have a top flight rivalry that can count as one like fsu/uf. Fuck ND. Join a conf or forget about playoffs. Get rid off ccg and expand to 13 reg session games. That adds more football right? BUT you have to play at least 9 balanced games from your conference to qualify for the post season. Gives room for 10 to 12 team leagues if you want flexibility.

Even with all of that I still don't see a need for more than 4, but I'd have a lot less problems. Going to balanced schedules and forcing good OOC through some form of rule charges does way more to fix the actual issues in the game today than trying to expand the playoffs with auto bids from this broken ccg system.

One addresses the problem, the other makes those issues worse.

 

[trojanfan12]

So you like forcing balanced schedules, but don't otherwise have a problem using the existing unbalanced ones as pure playoff games/ seeds. That one is a pure deal breaker for many of us.

No. I stated earlier that I think the scheduling issue needs to be fixed. I just don't think it needs to be fixed first. I think the NCAA could actually do both at the same time or at least within a couple of seasons of each other.

It's a joke to ignore OOC entirely as part of the criteria to get into the playoffs. But to also treat all wins within a conference as the same with these unbalanced schedules is just bad.

Agree with this. That's why I want to see the NCAA step in and deal with the scheduling issue.

I also think that diminishing the importance of OOC could actually help curb some of the scheduling issues. I think teams would be more likely to schedule challenging OOC games if they knew that a single loss wasn't likely to end their shot at the playoff.

I mean, if they don't shit the bed against ASU, we could have seen Oregon left out because they decided to challenge themselves vs. Auburn and lost a close game.

 

[trojanfan12]

I gave you alternatives.

What alternatives? The only alternatives I've seen are from folks shooting down your arguments.

I'd say it's also almost a foregone conclusion that the playoff will expand to 8 teams. There's too much momentum for it.

You must also think that it's going to happen or you'd just be on here stating that it's never going to happen rather than railing so hard against it.

 

[LongTimeSooner]

I'm not disregarding the academic arguments here, which are interesting, but...

Simply expanding to 16 teams takes most of the d*ckheat off the biggest and most compelling objections of the current system.

 

[trojanfan12]

How about taking OOC scheduling out of the hands of the teams with key exceptions? Maybe 2 done by lottery unless you have a top flight rivalry that can count as one like fsu/uf. Fuck ND. Join a conf or forget about playoffs. Get rid off ccg and expand to 13 reg session games. That adds more football right? BUT you have to play at least 9 balanced games from your conference to qualify for the post season. Gives room for 10 to 12 team leagues if you want flexibility.

Even with all of that I still don't see a need for more than 4, but I'd have a lot less problems. Going to balanced schedules and forcing good OOC through some form of rule charges does way more to fix the actual issues in the game today than trying to expand the playoffs with auto bids from this broken ccg system.

As I've said all along. I agree that the scheduling issues need to be fixed.

 

[WizardHawk]

As I've said all along. I agree that the scheduling issues need to be fixed.

Those are the problems in college football. If you balance the schedules and force decent OOC games, the rest that people complain about now at the very least diminishes substantially. There would be a lot more fairness overall.

See, not against any change just to hold onto the past. Just against change that doesn't actually fix what really is wrong and probably makes things worse.

 

[WizardHawk]

I'm not disregarding the academic arguments here, which are interesting, but...

Simply expanding to 16 teams takes most of the d*ckheat off the biggest and most compelling objections of the current system.

12 or 20. To me everything else is not good. 20 you still need a ccg and that is the only commonality. It is a financial arrangement more than football format thing. More than 12 you can't balance schedules again. 16 leaves too few conf games or has weird cross div games that are already lame in the SEC.

 

[NU_FTW]

12 or 20. To me everything else is not good. 20 you still need a ccg and that is the only commonality. It is a financial arrangement more than football format thing. More than 12 you can't balance schedules again. 16 leaves too few conf games or has weird cross div games that are already lame in the SEC.

There is an exception to this. Expand to 20 team conferences where there are 10 in each division, then the CCG is literally the expanded playoff that the expansion people wants everyone in each division plays eachother and so on