Against adding to playoff

Cdog923 said:
Even then, the Big Ten is only at a 60% clip for getting teams into the CFP. 
Click to expand...


We only have a 4 year sample size to base this conclusion on.  The bottom line is if the Big Ten champ has one loss, they are almost automatic.  The same can't be said about the Pac 12 or the Big 12, especially the Big 12.  The selection committee placing two teams from the SEC was soemthing they won't look to repeat this year.

That said, it's really neither here nor there.  My original point was this: A 4 team playoff is clearly the easier path to a natty because it's less games needed to win one.  Getting in isn't a problem for Nebraska if they can go 12-1 just like every other power 5 team.  It all depends on how the dominoes fall and how many two loss teams there are.  The Big Ten having multiple 2 loss teams is what hurt it, nothing more.

And furthermore, if you look at my op, I'm for moving to 8 teams anyways so this is a moot debate.

 
brophog said:
Completion percentage is a number, a ratio, no inherent bias. If I write an algorithm that double weights completion percentage to compute qb rating, then I've inserted bias towards qbs with that statistic.

One of the failings of the bcs was calling them "computers" when they're really human created data models. That's why there were multiple models to account for multiple bias.
Click to expand...
I understand the program used to analyze the data would be complex,  but once an optimum one has been created, and all relative data was entered , it would do a much better job of providing an accurate , unbiased , analysis of that data than any human . No? 

 
Redux said:
We only have a 4 year sample size to base this conclusion on.  The bottom line is if the Big Ten champ has one loss, they are almost automatic.  The same can't be said about the Pac 12 or the Big 12, especially the Big 12.  The selection committee placing two teams from the SEC was soemthing they won't look to repeat this year.

That said, it's really neither here nor there.  My original point was this: A 4 team playoff is clearly the easier path to a natty because it's less games needed to win one.  Getting in isn't a problem for Nebraska if they can go 12-1 just like every other power 5 team.  It all depends on how the dominoes fall and how many two loss teams there are.  The Big Ten having multiple 2 loss teams is what hurt it, nothing more.

And furthermore, if you look at my op, I'm for moving to 8 teams anyways so this is a moot debate.
Click to expand...


Yea, but it's still the offseason, so we have to fill the board quota for disagreements. 

"I disagree with your opinion that you want to move to 8 teams". 

Husker_Bohunk said:
There is going to be a lot of subjectivity in that answer...
Click to expand...


tenor.gif


 
Last edited by a moderator:
knapplc said:
Sure, but the argument for a two- or three-loss #9 team is much worse, and will gain far less traction, than an undefeated or one-loss #5 team.  There's a diminishing point of return on protesting you deserve a shot the lower you go in the rankings.
Click to expand...
Not if the shot you want is a spot in an 8 team tournament.

A lot more teams can argue they're the 8th best team in the nation than the 4th best team in the nation.

The only solution to any of this is more objective selection criteria in the first place.

As long as you leave it up to polls it's a nonsense system.

 
Expand to 6.  P5 conference champs (unless W/L is ridiculously low), plus 1 at large (or more, if conf champ(s) doesn't qualify and G5 does).

Top 2 get to watch the remaining 4 battle the first week, to see who they'll play in the next round.  Then there were 4, and we pick up right where the playoffs are now.

 
Dilly Dilly said:
Expand to 6.  P5 conference champs (unless W/L is ridiculously low), plus 1 at large (or more, if conf champ(s) doesn't qualify and G5 does).

Top 2 get to watch the remaining 4 battle the first week, to see who they'll play in the next round.  Then there were 4, and we pick up right where the playoffs are now.
Click to expand...
Then you get the complaining between 2 & 3 and the complaining between 6 & 7-12... best of both worlds  :thumbs :D

 
Comfortably Numb said:
I liked college football just fine without any playoff system  :dunno but as long as they're going to have a playoff they might as well expand it to 8 teams.
Click to expand...
 I did too. It was actually easier to get a MNC because of bowl tie-ins. Proof is multiple champs in a year. It also sparks lots of offseason debates, which gives us more football pundits to listen to. Wait, that is that s bad thing?

 
I personally like the idea of 6 teams in a playoff. But whether it is 4, 6, or 8, I thought the whole point was to make sure a true champion was crowned on the field.

The crap that happened last year with UCF, just like with Boise State on prior years, indicates that they aren’t going to give smaller schools a chance, even if they are undefeated. The playoff should either prove that the Cinderella school does or doesn’t belong. But if it’s in the hands of the voters to essentially lock out half of the FSB schools no matter what, the concept of the playoff altogether is tainted.

 
jager said:
 I did too. It was actually easier to get a MNC because of bowl tie-ins. Proof is multiple champs in a year. It also sparks lots of offseason debates, which gives us more football pundits to listen to. Wait, that is that s bad thing?
Click to expand...


I agree. A lot of the fun was the debate and speculation about who really was the best. I always liked that CFB was different than most other sports because it was not necessarily resolved head to head on the field. Like in 97 when we proved we were the best yet Michigan ran off to the Rose Bowl and squeaked by a nobody yet they still claim they could’ve beat Nebraska. You don’t get comedy and entertainment like that nowadays. And I’m serious, it doesn’t hurt a thing to have these wild claims to natty’s, it drives more interaction for the fans. It’s fun and entertaining, it doesn’t need to be foolproof or perfect.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Comfortably Numb said:
I agree. A lot of the fun was the debate and speculation about who really was the best. I always liked that CFB was different than most other sports because it was not necessarily resolved head to head on the field. Like in 97 when we proved we were the best yet Michigan ran off to the Rose Bowl and squeaked by a nobody yet they still claim they could’ve beat Nebraska. You don’t get comedy and entertainment like that nowadays. And I’m serious, it doesn’t hurt a thing to have these wild claims to natty’s, it drives more interaction for the fans. It’s fun and entertaining, it doesn’t need to be foolproof or perfect.
Click to expand...
It’s nice to know other people feel that way too.

 
Back
Top