• You do not need to register if you are not going to pay the yearly fee to post. If you register please click here or log in go to "settings" then "my account" then "User Upgrades" and you can renew.

Not Really Qualified

Huskerthom

All Legend
5 Year Member
#1 vs #16...#2 vs #15...#3 vs #14...#4 vs #13...and so on.

Are those really games you want to watch? That kind of stuff happens throughout the regular season.

A 16-team playoff would take away the one thing that sets college football apart from any other sport – every week matters.
I guarantee that if it were 16 there would be upsets. Also there would be teams that because of where they play would actually get a chance and would make some noise for example UCF and Boise. They may just make it deeper than you think. It would also give teams that had one bad game like OSU and MI this year the chance to redeem themselves.
 

Bigger Ed

Red Shirt
2 Year Member
Don't discount the players that decide to forgo the games to prep for the combine and those few, like this year, that fail their drug test. Some are different teams in the post season that they were during the regular season. Lots of variables. Just prefer the old bowl system and the arguments.
Excellent point. "I'm going to make hard cash in the NFL and I'm not going to risk it potentially playing 4 more games." They're already dropping out of just one game.
 

David3464

Red Shirt
5 Year Member
I think the issue is that every season isn't cut and dry about four teams. I mean tOSU had the same record as Okie, correct? Baylor and TCU had the same records as a playoff team and didn't get in. Why should a committee get to choose which team is deemed worthy of them? There are many years when there are several teams with one loss. How is it fair to let a committee choose which one gets in? Especially when they don't even value a Conf Championship winner (i.e. let's choose Alabama or rOSU, which didn't even win their divisions). Committee members have a built in bias already and it has been shown already in this 4 game CFP field.

So I would much rather take it out of their hands and have the participants actually earn it by winning their way into it (i.e. winning their Conference, Division). To me, that is the big issue. I guarantee if the committee was REQUIRED to only choose either Division or Conference winners, Alabama and the SEC would be a little more open to expanding the playoff. Otherwise, Alabama would not have gotten in. Had there been a WC, maybe they do.

It just seems so logical to actually have CCG's that matter by having the winner of them getting in PERIOD. Then the regular season does really matter and it is THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY. Oh, the PAC doesn't have a great team this year? So what. I am interested in seeing which team makes it and I bet the PAC TV ratings are elevated at least amongst that conference's footprint knowing that one of their teams gets in. Toward the end of the year, even if you're a fan of other teams, you may be interested in seeing who the other teams are that look like they might get in from the PAC. Ratings bonanza!
 
Last edited:

FeelLikeAStranger

How are ya now?
15 Year Member
Only amongst the fans of the two teams. Two months after the season all other college fans move on. Decide it on the field not the media and coaches poll.


And to be clear I am not for 16 teams. 6 is my magic number.


C
6 > 4. Might be a good compromise.

I still think eight is enough. And screm the old systems where the top teams didnt play each other.
 

solesrfr

Varsity
5 Year Member
H


I don't think I follow your point. The expectation each year in college football is that if a P5 team loses a game, there's no guarantee they'll be in the National Championship. The year you referenced, no one went undefeated, and the only other 1-loss teams outside of Ohio State were Hawaii and Kansas. So yes, a 2-loss LSU team made it into the National Championship and won.

That year you did not have to win every game and the champion was able to lose two regular season games. The idea that all regular season games meant something before the playoffs or BCS is a fallacy to a certain extent. There have been lots of 1 loss teams that have one the MNC.


C
 

wcbsas

All Legend
15 Year Member
A little satire here for those who might be a little bored today. With a little truth and frustration mixed in.

Alabama proved one of my points Monday night. There was no need for a play-offs period. Clemson was so much better, the game was a blow-out. Alabama did not even belong on the same field. We, as competent CF fans are being duped by all this playoff talk. Clemson is the unquestionable deserving champions. We should have just crown them as such on Dec 15th.

I will try to avoid the facts here and just tell you how I feel right now. You can debate the facts with your replies.

Feels to me like its ok for Alabama to get blown away with no remorse while Oklahoma ND et.al are just considered non-deserving imps that just waste our time. Some of you already knew who was the best and it was obvious. Wait, did you say Clemson? Were you saying Clemson back in November? I seem to recall many pundits mentioning how weak the ACC was and that Clemson almost lost their only real competitive game, Syracuse.

My real point is that you can just be omniscient and name the obvious champion, Alabama, or the obvious 2 team deserving of the championship game, Alab-Clem. Or you can have an interesting 16 team play-off. OK I will keep it to just 8 for now. With a tournament, we all get to be involved and watch a variety of football. Some blowouts, some squeakers, some upsets and some "I told you so" games. As teams progress through the tournament, you can rally behind some and grow to despise others, you can make crazy predictions and brag when you are right. Mostly, with a tournament, you get to see a champion emerge, without depending on the experts to tell you why the also rans are also rans.

Wait. Did we even need to play that boring game on Monday. I knew Clemson was far and away the best team before the season even started. Didn't you? Go Paws!
Sounds like a bunch of lawyers in love!

 

FeelLikeAStranger

How are ya now?
15 Year Member
I think the issue is that every season isn't cut and dry about four teams. I mean tOSU had the same record as Okie, correct? Why should a committee get to choose which team is deemed worthy of them? There are many years when there are several teams with one loss. How is it fair to let a committee choose which one gets in? Especially when they don't even value a Conf Championship winner (i.e. let's choose Alabama or rOSU, which didn't even win their divisions). Committee members have a built in bias already and it has been shown already in this 4 game CFP field.

So I would much rather take it out of their hands and have the participants actually earn it by winning their way into it (i.e. winning their Conference, Division). To me, that is the big issue. I guarantee if the committee was REQUIRED to only choose either Division or Conference winners, Alabama and the SEC would be a little more open to expanding the playoff. Otherwise, Alabama would not have gotten in. Had there been a WC, maybe they do.
In many ways, this is an argument about subjectivity vs objectivity, and how much is acceptable to determine a “champion.” The old bowl system had almost none of either...only the selection committees for a tiny number of bowls that weren’t locked in to conferences could determine anything about matchups. It was arguably random that a subjective 1-2 matchup could even happen in a given year. “Best team” was a completely subjective question that couldnt be answered most years.

Currently, it is all in a highly subjective, closed door process. It is also 99.9% impossible to eliminate most/all subjectivity in the process. Nor, honestly, should we?

The BCS tried to move toward some measure of objectivity by introducing computer poll rankings. Still flawed/biased/subjective to a great extent. Human polls definitely subjective. Subtract 1 point for a loss....added a somewhat objective element it would seem, but penalized a tough schedule/rewarded easy schedule. System changes to try and adapt.

Still it got us to a virtual 1-2 matchup every year vs. almost never/random. Some STILL want to argue that is worse? Not perfect, but arguably more objective when there were 2 teams included. Still highly subjective and high chance one of the two “best teams” were excluded. 2 of ~120 teams had a shot..~1.67%

4 team CFP decreases the possibility that you are going to have the “best team(s) left out. But, it ain’t perfect. Now almost 130 teams, 4 teams...~3%.

Conference champions, IMO, in a larger field would be far more objective. Since the remaining choices and seeding are still highly subjective, 8 teams allows for subjectivity...even sanity...in the process. 8 teams greatly reduces the probability that the “best team(s)” are left out. 8/130 ~6%

The other argument is break even point on adding too many games and > 3 games is near/at the limit.
 

Professor Chaos

Recruit
2 Year Member
I would rather the Power 5 separate from the rest of FBS. Divide the Power 5 into 8 regional conferences with 8 teams and let them only play FBS or P5 teams. No more Mercer, Liberty or The Citadel (looking at you SEC). Each 8 team conference winner then plays a Regional Championship Game which narrows the field down to the North, West, East and South Champions to play in the playoff. Basically, it is an 8 team playoff where each region has a champion that plays in the Final 4. Notre Dame joins a conference or gets left out. Finally, every year, the bottom 2 teams in each region get relegated to FBS and the top 2 in each FBS region get promoted. P5 and FBS crown their own champions.
 
Top