- 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: Does Miami's win change the narrative of there's too many teams in the playoff?
Posted on 1/1/26 at 1:10 am to CollegeFBRules
Posted on 1/1/26 at 1:10 am to CollegeFBRules
quote:
A playoff is by far and away the most objective way to determine a champion.
It’s not. But it is a great way of determining who is playing the best ball in January.
0
Posted on 1/1/26 at 1:15 am to QJenk
quote:
That sounds much easier said than done. Because who was actually the best team all year?
How many times in pro sports does the top seed win the playoff?
The best teams make the playoffs, hottest team wins it
Posted on 1/1/26 at 1:17 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The last thing people promoting the legitimacy of this playoff should want is an 11-2, non-conference champ Miami winning the playoff.
This exact situation actually played out last year with OSU. They didn’t play in the B1G title game either and they had 2 losses.
Posted on 1/1/26 at 2:41 am to SlowFlowPro
This already happened last year. 24 Ohio State and 25 Miami were both 10-2 at-large P4 teams when their respective playoffs started.
I do agree with your observation that this playoff format (like most) favors teams that get hot late. And at least before the advent of the playoffs, fans mostly said that college football was an awesome sport because the entire season mattered. "The whole season is a playoff," etc. So there's definitely an argument that this format is bad because it threw that away.
I think I would have preferred expansion to six teams and stopping there. But four was fine. I think going beyond eight was a major mistake, but it's not getting fixed
I do agree with your observation that this playoff format (like most) favors teams that get hot late. And at least before the advent of the playoffs, fans mostly said that college football was an awesome sport because the entire season mattered. "The whole season is a playoff," etc. So there's definitely an argument that this format is bad because it threw that away.
I think I would have preferred expansion to six teams and stopping there. But four was fine. I think going beyond eight was a major mistake, but it's not getting fixed
Posted on 1/1/26 at 2:43 am to LSUFanHouston
quote:
How many times in pro sports does the top seed win the playoff?
The best teams make the playoffs, hottest team wins it
Right, and because that's normalized for pro sports, that's cool there.
"The whole season IS the playoff, every game matters" has been a vocal sentiment among fans for many years. It used to be a factor distinguishing college football from other sports. I really enjoy the playoffs, but there's no question this charm of the sport is gone.
Posted on 1/1/26 at 2:48 am to maizegoblue
quote:
This exact situation actually played out last year with OSU. They didn’t play in the B1G title game
Not the exact same, the team that won the B1GCG was undefeated and ranked #1 not 7-5 and unranked behind Tulane and JMU. But more importantly there a good chance Ohio State would have made a 4 team playoff in 2024 at worst they would have been #5-6 probably
This post was edited on 1/1/26 at 2:48 am
Posted on 1/1/26 at 3:30 am to H-Town Tiger
quote:
But more importantly there a good chance Ohio State would have made a 4 team playoff in 2024 at worst they would have been #5-6 probably
OSU was the 8 seed in 2024. They would not have made the top 4 with 2 losses and a non-conference champion.
Posted on 1/1/26 at 6:43 am to LSUFanHouston
quote:
How many times in pro sports does the top seed win the playoff?
The best teams make the playoffs, hottest team wins it
I would argue if I'm you are the hottest team when it matters the most. Then you are deserving of being called the best team.
Posted on 1/1/26 at 7:03 am to Antonio Moss
quote:It would’ve been Indiana vs UGA. This season would’ve been one of the more perfect seasons to just have a national championship game vs a 4,8,12,16 team playoff
under the old BCS system, the national championship game would have been a rematch between Indiana and Ohio State.
Posted on 1/1/26 at 7:20 am to CollegeFBRules
Not really, I truly believe the long layoffs are an equalizer and that teams 9-12 couldn't compete with 1-4 without it. But I guess we'll never know
This post was edited on 1/1/26 at 7:21 am
Posted on 1/1/26 at 7:25 am to icecreamsnowball
quote:
It would’ve been Indiana vs UGA
Nope
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here.Posted on 1/1/26 at 7:27 am to SlowFlowPro
You realize Ohio State lost 2 games and didn’t win the big 10 last year.
This post was edited on 1/1/26 at 7:28 am
Posted on 1/1/26 at 7:40 am to CollegeFBRules
I think the overuse of the word “narrative” in TD threads has become disturbing.
Posted on 1/1/26 at 7:40 am to CollegeFBRules
(no message)
This post was edited on 1/1/26 at 7:44 am
Posted on 1/1/26 at 7:50 am to OKBoomerSooner
quote:
It is basically saying "frick it we want to crown the hottest team late and not the team who was the best all year"
quote:
I do agree with your observation that this playoff format (like most) favors teams that get hot late.
Maybe it’s not so much “getting hot” late as just peaking late once all the pieces come together.
My senior year of high school my dad (who was a coach) and I (who was a QB) moved to a new school. We started the season 1-2 but finished 11-2 as state champs. We beat the two teams that beat us early in the playoffs after our team had adapted to a new coach, new system, new QB, etc., and became a much better team.
It makes more sense to me to have a champion who’s the best team at the end of the year than the beginning.
This post was edited on 1/1/26 at 7:52 am
Posted on 1/1/26 at 7:55 am to Globetrotter747
Miami’s win does a few things for me:
— Makes Notre Dame’s loss to them look better on paper
— Confirms that the committee got it right, at least in regard to Miami (Oklahoma, JMU, and Tulane are different stories)
— Makes me very skeptical of Indiana and Oregon; we’ll see how today goes.
— Makes Notre Dame’s loss to them look better on paper
— Confirms that the committee got it right, at least in regard to Miami (Oklahoma, JMU, and Tulane are different stories)
— Makes me very skeptical of Indiana and Oregon; we’ll see how today goes.
Posted on 1/1/26 at 8:11 am to maizegoblue
quote:
OSU was the 8 seed in 2024
The top 4 seeds were reserved for conference winners Boise was the 3 seed and Arizona State the 4. They would or have been in the 4 team playoff.
Going off strictly off the final rankings Ohio State was 6. Texas was 3 and Penn St 4 also with 2 losses but the committee was going out of their way to not “punish” the losers of the conference championship games.
We can’t know for sure how they would have ranked under the 4 team playoff but I don’t think it would have been Oregon UGA Texas Penn St. I would think 11-1 Notre Dame would have been in over at least Penn State who Ohio State did beat. Last spot probably comes down to Texas and tOSU
LINK
Posted on 1/1/26 at 8:53 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
It is basically saying "frick it we want to crown the hottest team late and not the team who was the best all year"year"
Isn't that what every playoff does? If the best team in the country has one bad game and it happens to be in the playoffs, they lose. If one of the weakest teams in the playoffs goes on a hot streak in the playoffs, they end up winning. Like the 2007 NY Giants.
Posted on 1/1/26 at 8:56 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The last thing people promoting the legitimacy of this playoff should want is an 11-2, non-conference champ Miami winning the playoff.
So exactly what happened with tOSU last year, right?
Posted on 1/1/26 at 8:56 am to OKBoomerSooner
quote:
fans mostly said that college football was an awesome sport because the entire season mattered. "The whole season is a playoff," etc. So there's definitely an argument that this format is bad because it threw that away.
Fans of major college football (i.e., FBS), which appear to be largely ignorant to how the rest of college football operates.
This whole "the regular season doesn't matter anymore" rhetoric that some want to suggest because it's now a 12 team playoff are just complaining. Nobody says this about any other level of any sport that has a playoff. It's just an ignorant argument.
At least the playoff creates more meaningful games beyond the first weekend of December. There was only one game that mattered under the BCS. The rest just fell on a sliding scale of how interesting they were because of the matchup and/or the prestige of the bowl game.
Unless we overcorrect and go back to a dozen or so bowl games, the only logical way to make the postseason entertaining again is to expand this thing to the same number of teams as the rest of college football. Nobody cares to see conference rematches in meaningless bowl games in Birmingham. And games like BYU/GT deserved a bigger spotlight and to not be played in some ridiculous Pop Tart Bowl...
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News