- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Wouldn't an eight team playoff just shift the controversy down a few rankings?
Posted on 11/29/16 at 12:23 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
Posted on 11/29/16 at 12:23 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
It would
The point I've always made though is that it would make it fairly unlikely the true best team in the nation was left out
In other words, the consensus 5th best team in the country is much more likely to actually be the best team in the country than the 9th best team and therefore has a bigger gripe
We forget the whole point of all of this is to find out who the BEST team is
The point I've always made though is that it would make it fairly unlikely the true best team in the nation was left out
In other words, the consensus 5th best team in the country is much more likely to actually be the best team in the country than the 9th best team and therefore has a bigger gripe
We forget the whole point of all of this is to find out who the BEST team is
1
Posted on 11/29/16 at 12:34 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
For me, the biggest issue is that teams 7-8 never deserve to be champs. Really, a 6 team playoff is pushing it.
Posted on 11/29/16 at 12:41 am to ElroyJetSon
quote:
Sure, but we all know an 8 team would be way better. I just wish they would've let the BCS rankings determine the 4 or 8 teams, not a stupid committee.
I don't know that an 8 team playoff would be way better. I believe it would be substantially worse.
Here is the way I look at it: let's roll back the clock to circa 1991. Now at the end of a given season, there might be have been some controversy as to who the best team in CFB was. The 1991 season was a prime example of this as there were compelling arguments for both Miami and Washington. But in any given year, for almost a hundred years, there was never a single year where there were 4 teams that had a decent argument to be national champions.
And so keep the question just as it was pre-BCS and BCS predecessors: who is the best team in college football? This is the question that the BCS was created to help answer more definitively, and that the current CFP has arisen to make sure it is answered even more definitively.
Now I personally think the BCS was fine, and answered the question in most years. But there were some years where a third team had a decent argument (I can't think of a year where a fourth team had a decent argument). And to accommodate those years, we've created a four team playoff.
But when asking, at the end of the season, "who is the best team?" never ever ever in the long and storied history of college football have more than 4 teams had a decent argument as being the best in CFB for that given year. And, as such, any playoff larger than 4 teams is completely superfluous. Absolutely unnecessary. It adds nothing to the table, and in fact takes much off of the table in the form a further devalued regular season , and a playoff consisting of shitty teams that have zero chance of winning.
I think this argument is straightforward and persuasive. In other words, I don't think there is even a decent argument that an 8 team playoff is a good idea.
Posted on 11/29/16 at 12:43 am to Wishnitwas1998
quote:
We forget the whole point of all of this is to find out who the BEST team is
Zackly. Which is why there isn't a need to expand it.
Posted on 11/29/16 at 1:04 am to Kodar
This would never happen, but if you used the BCS system and gave playoff berths to the following (as few as two, no more than eight):
1. BCS #1
2. BCS #2
3. Any undefeated team whose opponents combined winning % is .400 or greater
4. Any other team whose BCS rating is .8500 or greater,
and seeded by BCS rating and played at home sites until the title game you could have some interesting scenarios.
Assuming that the favorites win this week:
Quarterfinals, 12/17: 5 Western Michigan at 4 Washington
Semifinals 12/24: WMU/UW at 1 Alabama; 3 Ohio State at 2 Clemson
Championship game 1/9: WMU/UW/Bama vs tOSU/Clem
2015
Semifinals 12/16: 3 Michigan State at 2 Alabama; 4 Oklahoma at 1 Clemson
Championship game 1/11: Sparty/Bama vs Clem/OU
2014
Quarterfinals 12/20: 6 TCU at 3 Florida State; 5 Baylor at 4 Ohio State
Semifinals 12/27: TCU/FSU at 2 Oregon; BU/tOSU at 1 Alabama
Championship game 1/12: TCU/FSU/UO vs BU/tOSU/Bama
2013
Semifinals 12/21: 4 Michigan State at 1 Florida State;
3 Alabama at 2 Auburn again
Championship game 1/13: Sparty/FSU vs Bama/AU
2012
Semifinals 12/15: 4 Oregon at 1 Notre Dame; 3 Florida at 2 Alabama again
Championship game 1/14: UO/ND vs UF/Bama
2011
Semifinals 12/16: 3 Oklahoma State at 2 Alabama
Championship game 1/9: Pokes/Bama vs 1 LSU
2010
Semifinals 12/18: 3 TCU at 2 Oregon
Championship game 1/10: TCU/UO vs Auburn
2009
Quarterfinals 12/19: 6 Boise State at 3 Cincinnati; 5 Florida at 4 TCU
Semifinals 12/26: BSU/Cincy at 2 Texas; UF/TCU at 1 Alabama
Championship game 1/11: BSU/Cincy/UT v UF/TCU/Bama
2008
Quarterfinals 12/20: 5 Boise State at 4 Utah
Semifinals 12/27: BSU/Utah at 1 Oklahoma; 3 Texas at 2 Florida
Championship game 1/12: BSU/Utah/OU vs UT/UF
(Alabama snubbed at .8443)
2007
Semifinals 12/15: 4 Oklahoma at 1 Ohio State; 3 Virginia Tech at 2 LSU again
Championship game 1/13: OU/tOSU vs VPI/LSU
(undefeated Hawaii snubbed for weak schedule)
2006
Semifinals 12/16: 4 Boise State at 1 Ohio State; 3 Michigan at 2 Florida
Championship game 1/14: BSU/tOSU vs UM/UF
(LSU snubbed at .8326)
2005
Semifinals 12/17: 4 Ohio State at 1 Southern California; 3 Penn State at 2 Texas
Championship game 1/8: tOSU/USC vs PSU/UT
2004
Quarterfinals 12/18: 5 Boise State at 4 Utah
Semifinals 12/25: BSU/Utah at 1 (vacated); 3 Auburn at 2 Oklahoma
Championship game 1/9: BSU/Utah/(v) vs AU/OU
(Texas snubbed at .8476)
2003
Semifinals 12/20: 3 Southern California at 2 LSU; 4 Michigan at 1 Oklahoma
Championship game 1/11: USC/LSU vs UM/OU
2002
Quarterfinals 12/21: 5 Iowa at 4 Southern California
Semifinals 12/28: Iowa/USC at 1 Miami; 3 Georgia at 2 Ohio State
Championship game 1/12: Iowa/USC/theU vs UGA/tOSU
2001
Semifinals 12/15: 4 Oregon at 1 Miami; 3 Colorado at 2 Nebraska again
Championship game 1/13: UO/theU vs CU/NU
2000
Semifinals 12/16: 4 Washington at 1 Oklahoma; :popcorn: 3 Miami at 2 Florida State again
Championship game 1/14: UW/OU vs theU/FSU
1999
Semifinals 12/18: 4 Marshall at 1 Florida State; 3 Nebraska at 2 Virginia Tech
Championship game 1/9: MU/FSU vs NU/VPI
1998
Semifinals 12/19: 4 Ohio State at 1 Tennessee; 3 Kansas State at 2 Florida State
Championship game 1/10: tOSU/UT vs KSU/FSU
(Tulane snubbed for weak schedule)
1. BCS #1
2. BCS #2
3. Any undefeated team whose opponents combined winning % is .400 or greater
4. Any other team whose BCS rating is .8500 or greater,
and seeded by BCS rating and played at home sites until the title game you could have some interesting scenarios.
Assuming that the favorites win this week:
Quarterfinals, 12/17: 5 Western Michigan at 4 Washington
Semifinals 12/24: WMU/UW at 1 Alabama; 3 Ohio State at 2 Clemson
Championship game 1/9: WMU/UW/Bama vs tOSU/Clem
2015
Semifinals 12/16: 3 Michigan State at 2 Alabama; 4 Oklahoma at 1 Clemson
Championship game 1/11: Sparty/Bama vs Clem/OU
2014
Quarterfinals 12/20: 6 TCU at 3 Florida State; 5 Baylor at 4 Ohio State
Semifinals 12/27: TCU/FSU at 2 Oregon; BU/tOSU at 1 Alabama
Championship game 1/12: TCU/FSU/UO vs BU/tOSU/Bama
2013
Semifinals 12/21: 4 Michigan State at 1 Florida State;
3 Alabama at 2 Auburn again Championship game 1/13: Sparty/FSU vs Bama/AU
2012
Semifinals 12/15: 4 Oregon at 1 Notre Dame;
3 Florida at 2 Alabama again Championship game 1/14: UO/ND vs UF/Bama
2011
Semifinals 12/16: 3 Oklahoma State at 2 Alabama
Championship game 1/9: Pokes/Bama vs 1 LSU
2010
Semifinals 12/18: 3 TCU at 2 Oregon
Championship game 1/10: TCU/UO vs Auburn
2009
Quarterfinals 12/19: 6 Boise State at 3 Cincinnati; 5 Florida at 4 TCU
Semifinals 12/26: BSU/Cincy at 2 Texas; UF/TCU at 1 Alabama
Championship game 1/11: BSU/Cincy/UT v UF/TCU/Bama
2008
Quarterfinals 12/20: 5 Boise State at 4 Utah
Semifinals 12/27: BSU/Utah at 1 Oklahoma; 3 Texas at 2 Florida
Championship game 1/12: BSU/Utah/OU vs UT/UF
(Alabama snubbed at .8443)
2007
Semifinals 12/15: 4 Oklahoma at 1 Ohio State; 3 Virginia Tech at 2 LSU again
Championship game 1/13: OU/tOSU vs VPI/LSU
(undefeated Hawaii snubbed for weak schedule)
2006
Semifinals 12/16: 4 Boise State at 1 Ohio State; 3 Michigan at 2 Florida
Championship game 1/14: BSU/tOSU vs UM/UF
(LSU snubbed at .8326)
2005
Semifinals 12/17: 4 Ohio State at 1 Southern California; 3 Penn State at 2 Texas
Championship game 1/8: tOSU/USC vs PSU/UT
2004
Quarterfinals 12/18: 5 Boise State at 4 Utah
Semifinals 12/25: BSU/Utah at 1 (vacated); 3 Auburn at 2 Oklahoma
Championship game 1/9: BSU/Utah/(v) vs AU/OU
(Texas snubbed at .8476)
2003
Semifinals 12/20: 3 Southern California at 2 LSU; 4 Michigan at 1 Oklahoma
Championship game 1/11: USC/LSU vs UM/OU
2002
Quarterfinals 12/21: 5 Iowa at 4 Southern California
Semifinals 12/28: Iowa/USC at 1 Miami; 3 Georgia at 2 Ohio State
Championship game 1/12: Iowa/USC/theU vs UGA/tOSU
2001
Semifinals 12/15: 4 Oregon at 1 Miami;
3 Colorado at 2 Nebraska again Championship game 1/13: UO/theU vs CU/NU
2000
Semifinals 12/16: 4 Washington at 1 Oklahoma; :popcorn: 3 Miami at 2 Florida State again
Championship game 1/14: UW/OU vs theU/FSU
1999
Semifinals 12/18: 4 Marshall at 1 Florida State; 3 Nebraska at 2 Virginia Tech
Championship game 1/9: MU/FSU vs NU/VPI
1998
Semifinals 12/19: 4 Ohio State at 1 Tennessee; 3 Kansas State at 2 Florida State
Championship game 1/10: tOSU/UT vs KSU/FSU
(Tulane snubbed for weak schedule)
Posted on 11/29/16 at 1:04 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
Sort of, but the argument that a school that ends up missing the cutoff has earned a right to play for the championship becomes less if you move the cut off lower. As an extreme example to prove the point, let's say we are in a situation where there is no playoff at all again. There are just two teams that get elected to the game. 3 teams are undefeated. It is unfair that the 3rd team is excluded because what more could it have done to prove that it deserves to be in the game? It's an arbitrary decision, and mutual teams are actually just as worthy. Obvious flaw of the old system.
Now, let's expand that same concept to 1 loss teams that are ranked say 3-7 and maybe a few of them even won their conference championships. You run into a similar argument of saying that a decision between a couple of them seems pretty arbitrary because the accomplishments seem kind of equal. So you don't want to penalize teams for something that is out of their hands.
However, once you get to that 8-10 range you are getting well into teams that have a couple of losses and probably didn't even win their conferences. Maybe the distinction between them and the teams ranked 6-7 isn't that great, but there is looking like a significant difference between them and the teams ranked 2-5. They definitely had it in their power to earn a spot in the playoffs, and they fell short. A person can feel more comfortable thinking that they probably weren't deserving anyway.
Thus by making the playoff bigger you decrease the chances that a deserving team gets excluded, but the cost is that you include a couple of teams that arguable weren't particularly deserving. The teams that are just on the other side of the cut off one can comfortably say that they didn't deserve a shot anyway.
Eta: all this said, it's all kind of irrelevant if you think that the #5 ranked team isn't deserving anyway and had every opportunity to make their resume look as good as the teams 1-4. I think the argument might occasionally be able to be made if there is a P5 conference winner with 1 loss that gets left out.
Now, let's expand that same concept to 1 loss teams that are ranked say 3-7 and maybe a few of them even won their conference championships. You run into a similar argument of saying that a decision between a couple of them seems pretty arbitrary because the accomplishments seem kind of equal. So you don't want to penalize teams for something that is out of their hands.
However, once you get to that 8-10 range you are getting well into teams that have a couple of losses and probably didn't even win their conferences. Maybe the distinction between them and the teams ranked 6-7 isn't that great, but there is looking like a significant difference between them and the teams ranked 2-5. They definitely had it in their power to earn a spot in the playoffs, and they fell short. A person can feel more comfortable thinking that they probably weren't deserving anyway.
Thus by making the playoff bigger you decrease the chances that a deserving team gets excluded, but the cost is that you include a couple of teams that arguable weren't particularly deserving. The teams that are just on the other side of the cut off one can comfortably say that they didn't deserve a shot anyway.
Eta: all this said, it's all kind of irrelevant if you think that the #5 ranked team isn't deserving anyway and had every opportunity to make their resume look as good as the teams 1-4. I think the argument might occasionally be able to be made if there is a P5 conference winner with 1 loss that gets left out.
This post was edited on 11/29/16 at 1:12 am
Posted on 11/29/16 at 7:58 am to FairhopeTider
quote:
preserving the greatness of the regular season.
This season there is the potential, however unlikely, that two teams who will not even play for their conference title could get in over their conference champion. How does that not devalue the "greatness of the regular season."
Posted on 11/29/16 at 8:05 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
Wouldn't an eight team playoff
man the prophecy of SFP just keeps coming true about this stupid playoff idea
quote:
shift from the 4th, 5th, 6th ranked teams to the 8th, 9th and 10th ranked teams.
it gets exponentially worse as you move down b/c your eligible teams for those ranges increases every pip
Posted on 11/29/16 at 8:07 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
Wouldn't an eight team playoff just shift the controversy down a few rankings?
Yes it would.
We DO NOT need an 8 team playoff.
The more teams you add the less the regular season and conference titles mean.
Posted on 11/29/16 at 8:07 am to Wayne Campbell
quote:
This season there is the potential, however unlikely, that two teams who will not even play for their conference title could get in over their conference champion. How does that not devalue the "greatness of the regular season."
It doesn't. Opening up the playoff to regularly allow two loss teams to play for a national championship does.
If we want to create a regular season where that Ohio State-Michigan game was essentially meaningless because there were no playoff implications, then have fun with all of that.
This post was edited on 11/29/16 at 8:11 am
Posted on 11/29/16 at 8:09 am to SG_Geaux
Everybody who wants 8 wants auto bids for conference champs. This probably wouldn't happen, but you could have a bunch of 8-4s win their conference, then it would be disaster picking the at-larges. Also, once you go to 8 and have auto bids, I think the non-p5s are going to start screaming they want access. Then, you're up to 16.
Posted on 11/29/16 at 8:10 am to Bunk Moreland
quote:
Everybody who wants 8 wants auto bids for conference champs.
that is utterly retarded (and won't work b/c there are only 5 real conferences and 1 is typically terrible)
quote:
Also, once you go to 8 and have auto bids, I think the non-p5s are going to start screaming they want access.
100%
quote:
Then, you're up to 16.
yes, and you still have the same issues but more teams clamoring for the openings b/c of the exponential nature of the ranges and pips (like i said earlier)
Posted on 11/29/16 at 8:15 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
yes, and you still have the same issues but more teams clamoring for the openings b/c of the exponential nature of the ranges and pips (like i said earlier)
Yep. We see bubble teams in the NCAA tournament bitch about not getting in. It never ends because there will always be teams on the periphery.
Again, at the end of the day, the playoff was designed to give us a definitive national champion, not pacify a bunch of 2 loss teams. When you lose once, your destiny is out of your hands. That is what makes college football so special. If we widen this scope, "Upset Saturdays" like we saw a few weeks ago will be rendered meaningless.
Posted on 11/29/16 at 10:33 am to Wayne Campbell
quote:What we don't realize is that it is the conference championship games that, in this context, devalue the regular season. The playoff committee considers every game played when doling out the berths; a conference championship ignores a fraction of a team's season. Therefore, to say that the playoff devalues the regular season is sort of backward.
This season there is the potential, however unlikely, that two teams who will not even play for their conference title could get in over their conference champion. How does that not devalue the "greatness of the regular season."
Posted on 11/29/16 at 10:39 am to ballscaster
A 2 team playoff this year is all that's needed. Bama vs OSU
Posted on 11/29/16 at 1:03 pm to ballscaster
I'm warming up to the idea of eight teams but the sheer length of the season--particularly minutes played, to say nothing of the winter break that essentially disappears--makes me really nervous.
If they'd cut quarters down to 12 minutes instead of 15 I could get behind it.
If they'd cut quarters down to 12 minutes instead of 15 I could get behind it.
Posted on 11/29/16 at 3:12 pm to ballscaster
The current system is less exciting. You should never be able to lose a game and it not matter. If Alabama loses to Florida it will not matter. I absolutely hate the NFL and that is what this will all eventually become.
Posted on 11/29/16 at 4:11 pm to LG2BAMA
quote:On what planet? Look at the insanity already going on revolving around it. It may be insanity, but it's exciting at least.
The current system is less exciting.
quote:
You should never be able to lose a game and it not matter.
Just like in 2011 right? quote:See above.
If Alabama loses to Florida it will not matter.
quote:What does that have to do with the discussion?
I absolutely hate the NFL
quote:CFB has ALWAYS been NFL's glorified minor league. Of course they're going to be similar. However, they will always have a different system due to the fact that CFB has 128 teams, which by the way is way too many teams.
and that is what this will all eventually become.
To take it further, NFL has a far superior post season to CFB. I don't even know anyone who would debate that.
Posted on 11/29/16 at 4:18 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
Wouldn't an eight team playoff just shift the controversy down a few rankings?
Yeah, but no one would care nearly as much about a 3 loss team getting pushed out.
With 4 teams there is a legit chance a 1 loss, excellent team gets left out or a 0 loss small conference team won't get a shot.
Page 4 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News