The First 2018 College Football Playoff

[TheRobotDevil]

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 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.


This is the best way IMO.

That's the direction I would like to see. expand to 6. Reduces human influence and more spots are earned on the field. While using a fail safe and increasing regular season competition levels

 

[Mistaken4193]

Problem with that is the last year we saw an example of a team that plays a 4 game OOC that included 2 G5s and an FCS get in over a team that played 11 P5's and 1 G5 with a conference championship. Both teams had 11 wins one won a CCG

The year before that we saw a team that won a H2H get left out for the team they beat. Both teams won 11 games one won a CCG

Baylor and TCU were left out because they had no CCG

The system has a lot of flaws. The committee has shown over time they have no criteria.

Conferences do not play uniform schedules and teams don't play uniform OOC schedules

Tbh theres a very strong case for expansion,outbids and at large. Cuts down the human influence and question marks. While leaving room for at large to round it out

Some Different people in the room. The people on the first 2 year committee valued conferwnce championships more than the people on the last 2 years committee did. Its Subjective.

 

[WizardHawk]

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 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.


This is the best way IMO.

That is so broken it's not funny.

Auto bids are the devils work (intentional double reference).

You want every team to play 10 P5's. How many are conference and how many are OOC? That has to be exact for everyone now, not this 8 for some, 9 for others bullshit. Those OOC games will be horrible from now on. They no longer have ANY IMPACT AT ALL on playoffs since simply winning your conf gets you in. And this is a fact. Teams that can get away with not having tough OOC's now already do so for obvious reasons.

5+1 leaves one G5 or the next best P5. And you want a full on committee just for that one decision? Really?

If UW beats the cougs in the AC this year, a 3 loss north team will face at least a 3 loss south team for our title. Good chance it could be a 4 loss south team at that given Utah just lost their QB.

I want to repeat that again. This year the winner of the Pac might have either 3 or 4 losses unless WSU does something they haven't done in a while and beat UW.

An autobid would put that 3-4 loss team in and leave many 1 loss teams home. And why? Because of this misnomer of 'fair'. It is just as unfair to punish otherwise better teams by putting the tallest midget in a playoff over them.

 

[Mistaken4193]

That is so broken it's not funny.

Auto bids are the devils work (intentional double reference).

You want every team to play 10 P5's. How many are conference and how many are OOC? That has to be exact for everyone now, not this 8 for some, 9 for others bullshit. Those OOC games will be horrible from now on. They no longer have ANY IMPACT AT ALL on playoffs since simply winning your conf gets you in. And this is a fact. Teams that can get away with not having tough OOC's now already do so for obvious reasons.

5+1 leaves one G5 or the next best P5. And you want a full on committee just for that one decision? Really?

If UW beats the cougs in the AC this year, a 3 loss north team will face at least a 3 loss south team for our title. Good chance it could be a 4 loss south team at that given Utah just lost their QB.

I want to repeat that again. This year the winner of the Pac might have either 3 or 4 losses unless WSU does something they haven't done in a while and beat UW.

An autobid would put that 3-4 loss team in and leave many 1 loss teams home. And why? Because of this misnomer of 'fair'. It is just as unfair to punish otherwise better teams by putting the tallest midget in a playoff over them.

At least 10 P5's across the board..SEC can stay at 8(I pray they go to 9) but that means they have 2 schedule 2 P5's OOC.
A 3-4 loss team would forfeit an autobid in my system and it would become an extra WC spot. That prevents an 8-4 team getting lucky in the CCG from getting in.

 

[TheRobotDevil]

Some Different people in the room. The people on the first 2 year committee valued conferwnce championships more than the people on the last 2 years committee did. Its Subjective.

the concept of a committee just isn't working. They need to work towards a format much more like the one you proposed. Its a much stronger selection format. Increases both competition levels and meaningful games during the regular season. And improves the product as a whole. 5 autobids gives the CCGs meaning while including a fail safe

 

[TheDayMan]

Some Different people in the room. The people on the first 2 year committee valued conferwnce championships more than the people on the last 2 years committee did. Its Subjective.

I don’t even think that’s the case. Seems to do more with when all things are close to equal a conference championship is good to have when they make their decision. When they go through and analyze teams and see one with a couple couple losses, one being a blowout, and one with just one close loss to a rival who happens to be pretty good, all things probably aren’t close to equal.

 

[TheDayMan]

the concept of a committee just isn't working. They need to work towards a format much more like the one you proposed. Its a much stronger selection format. Increases both competition levels and meaningful games during the regular season. And improves the product as a whole. While incorporating the value of conference championships

I like how you say it’s not working, but all you can do is throw out examples of it seeming to work just fine.

 

[TheRobotDevil]

I like how you say it’s not working, but all you can do is throw out examples of it seeming to work just fine.

I gave several examples where the current system has failed

 

[TheDayMan]

I gave several examples where the current system has failed

I have no doubt you think so. I’d suggest actually considering what’s been explained to you here, but we’re on page 20 and you haven’t yet, I won’t hold my breath.

 

[TheRobotDevil]

I have no doubt you think so. I’d suggest actually considering what’s been explained to you here, but we’re on page 20 and you haven’t yet, I won’t hold my breath.

I don't have to think so. I used facts and data. This would be the best response in the thread. Its progression.....Improving upon the current systems flaws and moving forward. Reducing more of the human influence and putting the game on the field.

Increased competition and much more solid platform in the regular season

Providing meaningful CCGs with Auto bids with a fail safe

And leaving an at large bid.

This is moving in the right direction for a true champion.Great post imo

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.


This is the best way IMO.

 

[Deep Creek]

Go out and win the quality schedule you have and don't do derp on the field. That's all you have to do. Just don't crap the bed. And when you do, you lose the ability to really bitch about seating. You just do.

Added a word that makes this more acceptable for me Wiz. A G5 (and possibly a P5 because of unbalanced scheduling) who doesn't play decent OOC games and their conference opponents ain't worth a hoot, doesn't deserve a spot even if they "win the schedule they have and don't do derp on the field."

 

[WizardHawk]

At least 10 P5's across the board..SEC can stay at 8(I pray they go to 9) but that means they have 2 schedule 2 P5's OOC.
A 3-4 loss team would forfeit an autobid in my system and it would become an extra WC spot. That prevents an 8-4 team getting lucky in the CCG from getting in.

So it's an auto bid, but not really. If there are ways to keep conf champs out, how is that different than now?

We already give credit for them despite Clark and his inability to comprehend that fact. However, like your system, it isn't a free pass to let bad teams in.

If you still need a committee to settle your 6th, and fill in when a conf champ has too many losses, you aren't really doing much different than we are now outside of adding two more games. The majority of teams going in now are conference champions as it is and that's a fact.

Also, you would all but make it impossible for a G5 to ever be close to getting in. You give 5 of your 6 purely to P5s. That means this committee of yours is picking the next best. How likely is it that the second rated team not a conf champ is a G5? As close to impossible as it gets.

That means you have to go to at least 8 to even have a slim chance.

If your proposal still requires human pickers and has to at least double the playoffs just to give the same slim margin for G5s we have now, how is this better exactly?

Clark says it's awesome and supports it, but is a hypocrite in doing so. It doesn't eliminate human eye tests as he demands. It doesn't create a criteria only selection process.

The outcome wouldn't be much different from what we have now if they expanded it to 6 teams. You would normally have no less than 4 of the 5 P5 champs at 6, and normally all 5 would be in.

We don't need to fix anything. It isn't broken. At all.

 

[TheDayMan]

I don't have to think so. I used facts and data. This would be the best response in the thread. Its progression.....Improving upon the current systems flaws and moving forward. Reducing more of the human influence and putting the game on the field.

Increased competition and much more solid platform in the regular season

Providing meaningful CCGs with Auto bids with a fail safe

And leaving an at large bid.

This is moving in the right direction for a true champion.Great post imo

You’re using cherry picked facts with no context to pretend there’s a problem that needs to be fixed. You’re choosing not to see the whole picture because you have it in your head ‘human element must equal bad.’ You’re just way off on this and doing what you do when challenged, falling back on just repeating the words “facts and data” while not actually comprehending anything.

 

[osubuckeye89]

How far will Auburn be rocketed into the CFP ranking to keep the SEC quota now that mediocre Texas A&M has to fall out for losing to them? Thats my question.

 

[osubuckeye89]

Mizzou won in West Lafayette against Purdue(something tOSU cant say) and Destroyed a good Florida team in Gainesville(even though it was obvious UF has just given up now)They are 5-4, but they are a legit 5-4 with 3 of those losses to top 10 teams coming into this week.


Every FBS team LSU has played has a winning record. They are legit, they just ran into a buzzsaw. I would pick them on a neutral field against everyone but Bama and Clemson.

"Missouri is a good team because they beat Purdue"

The retardation behind this statement is astonishing.

 

[WizardHawk]

Again, Clark's failing is the notion that win/ loss is a better measure than any type of system meant to compare wins.

To him a 1pt win at home against Rutgers is exactly the same thing as a 14pt road win against say, Oklahoma. Neither matters more than the other.

Doesn't matter how bad each conference outside of the b12 is with entirely imbalanced schedules. Miss the top team in the other division this year? Lucky you. Your path is much easier than the others in your division that do play them.

Somehow there is supposed be fairness with this system because we know the formula.

Win/loss on imbalanced schedules is bad. Then each conference is entirely different and not near equal in challenge as it is. We also have to view each champ as equal.

It's a bad idea.

 

[TheDayMan]

How far will Auburn be rocketed into the CFP ranking to keep the SEC quota now that mediocre Texas A&M has to fall out for losing to them? Thats my question.

Hopefully just far enough to keep you occupied.

 

[ericd7633]

It would be funny if a 5 loss Northwestern, 5 loss Pitt and a 3/4 loss Pac 12 South team win their conference championships. That would very quickly make the conference championships should matter crowd become extinct.

This would be your playoff:

1. Alabama
2. West Virginia
3. Arizona State
4. Pitt

Lmao.

 

[TheDayMan]

It would be funny if a 5 loss Northwestern, 5 loss Pitt and a 3/4 loss Pac 12 South team win their conference championships. That would very quickly make the conference championships should matter crowd become extinct.

This would be your playoff:

1. Alabama
2. West Virginia
3. Arizona State
4. Pitt

Lmao.

It should, but so should just the thought of that happening. They’ve proven to not be the brightest tools.

 

[TheRobotDevil]

You’re using cherry picked facts with no context to pretend there’s a problem that needs to be fixed. You’re choosing not to see the whole picture because you have it in your head ‘human element must equal bad.’ You’re just way off on this and doing what you do when challenged, falling back on just repeating the words “facts and data” while not actually comprehending anything.

The currents system relies on "cherry picked stats. The system Mistaken proposed is an upgrade from the current system.

I get some people like debate and opinion. Or are afraid of change and improvement. But this is an upgrade

6 team playoff with 5 autobids CC and 1 WC
The Outbids put emphasis on conference championships . And decide spots based on play on the field. Increasing the on the field impact while reducing the off the field human opinion. 6 teams allows less room for error and reduces question marks

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.
By playing a more uniform schedule. This is a step forward towards a closer gauge. To select the At Large bid.Or WC bids should a CC have more than 2 losses

2. If you have more than 2 losses and win your conference you lose your autobid. That spot becomes an extra WC spot.
Chances are we don't see a 2 loss Conference champion. But should that problem arise this functions as a fail safe.

This system relies much more on the results on the field. Th you use this system that actually has a stronger gauge,set criteria and less room for error. Completely changes the prior play offs by design. The amount of question marks would be remote in comparison to the current system. Its progress and a big step in the right direction.

Mistaken nailed the concept of play off expansion , increasing meaningful games, using a stranger regular season foundation and reducing off the field human influence. His system is much more thorough than the current system. And it gives room to build great post gotta give him credit

EOT/Imo