re: Does anyone actually prefer the playoffs over BCS

quote:

---

not really. If after 12 games + CCGs you are only 5th, you have clearly done something along the way to lose your shot.

---

Unless you're undefeated and the gumps have an L.

quote:

---

the first 9 years of the 4 team playoff was perfection, and IMO, they got it right literally every single time.

---

I disagree.

In 2017 Auburn beat both Alabama and Georgia in the regular season. They were No. 2 in the final reg. season CFP poll. Their "reward" for beating Alabama was they had to play in the SEC Championship game vs. Georgia...while Alabama stayed home. Georgia won and, as a result, Alabama got to jump a team they had just lost to for literally doing nothing.

In 2023 Florida St was the UNDEFEATED ACC Champion. Yet, TWO 1-loss teams got in ahead of them. Yes, it was true FSU was not the same team without their starting QB. But it was ridiculous that the committed used a totally subjective criteria to keep FSU out when, objectively, it was an undefeated major conf. champ.

Any time there something else besides predetermined objective criteria is used to select playoff teams there will be controversy. But the fact that there once were only 2 or even 4 CFP in a sport with ~ 130 teams in the "league" was ridiculous. At 4 teams that = only 3% of the total league reaching the playoffs. NO other sport had/has such a low proportion.

Hell, just last season, in the first 12 team CFP, the No. 7 and No. 8 seeds played for the championship. Under the 2 or even 4 team criteria neither ND nor OSU would have made the CFP. In fact, the "Final Four" were the Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6 ranked teams in the final CFP (pre-playoff) poll.

I get it. It's human nature to be resistant to change. But there will come a time in the future that people will look back on the pre 12 (even 16) CFP era and think how stupid it was college football determined the its champion that way.

The 4 team playoff “got it right” almost every time, but they f$&ked up massively when they excluded undefeated ACC Champ Florida St in order to accommodate Alabama and Texas.

quote:

---

In 2017 Auburn beat both Alabama and Georgia in the regular season.

---

they had 2 losses to those other team's 1, which is preeeetty important. But let's continue.

quote:

---

Their "reward" for beating Alabama was they had to play in the SEC Championship game vs. Georgia.

---

Yes, from 1992-2023 the winners of each division played for the conference title. That isn't anything new or fist shaking unique to AU in 2017

quote:

---

while Alabama stayed home.

---

yes, stayed home meaning they were not in control of their destiny. Had Auburn won the game, you would have a top 4 of the major conference winners; Clemson/AU/OU/OSU.

quote:

---

Georgia won and, as a result, Alabama got to jump a team they had just lost to for literally doing nothing.

---

Well alabama had 1 loss compared to AU's 3, so yeah I'd say that makes sense.

quote:

---

In 2023

---

Was not in the first 9 years of the playoff as I mentioned. That final year in 2023 was FUBAR'd every which way so you'll get no arugment from me.

quote:

---

Any time there something else besides predetermined objective criteria

---

The first 9 years they did use this even if people stick their fingers in their ears and ignore it. You needed to be a conference champion, or if you didn't win your conference you needed 1 loss and some luck. I posted a "Playoff committee decision making thread" 9 straight yeras on thsi board explaning in detial why the ocmmittee operated like they did and they operated the exact same way 100% of the time in those 9 years.

quote:

---

Hell, just last season, in the first 12 team CFP,

---

The 12 team playoff is dumb as shite so again I have no arugments otherwise

College football was more fun when every game mattered under the BCS system

In the four team era, the regular season was still very important, as even 1 loss might keep you out.

Also, CCGs were games that propelled the winner into the playoff, as opposed to an obstacle for teams already in.

It was near perfect, so of course they changed it.

quote:

---

I disagree. In 2017 Auburn beat both Alabama and Georgia in the regular season. They were No. 2 in the final reg. season CFP poll. Their "reward" for beating Alabama was they had to play in the SEC Championship game vs. Georgia...while Alabama stayed home.

---

Alabama was 11-1

Auburn after losing the SECCG was 10-3.

There were 2-3 teams ranked between Alabama and Auburn after Alabama snuck in.

quote:

---

College football was more fun when every game mattered under the BCS system

---

For who?

How exciting was it for Mizzou? Or Texas Tech?

quote:

---

they had 2 losses to those other team's 1, which is preeeetty important. But let's continue.

---

Auburn did lose 2 games. They lost to LSU and lost an OOC game by a TD at Clemson, the defending national champions and a team who lost in the championshp game that year.

Meanwhile Alabama had 1 loss to Auburn, and while they did schedule a decent OOC opponent, beating an FSU team that finished 6-6 is no where near comparable to having to play Clemson.

and this is why BCS rankings and Playoff committees will always be the dumbest way to determine who gets in the playoffs.


The B10 and SEC need to have balanced schedules throughout their teams. They also need to have divisions, and division winners should be in the playoffs. Same goes for the ACC and Big12.
the G5 schools need their own playoff. They have no business being in the playoffs with the big boys.

I think the best system would be BCS rankings, 2 separate playoffs. An 8 team P4 playoff and an 8 team G5 playoff.

I don't think they will do that so I think the next best solution that is realistic is to get rid of conference championships, go to a 16 team playoff, BCS rankings, no automatic qualifiers.