*** The CFB Playoff Misc bullsh#t Thread ***

Cobra Kai said:
I have never said it's right.  I have said that Alabama and Clemson the two best teams until proven otherwise.  So it's those two and two others in a 4 team playoff.  

Does it suck for another school that didn't get in?  Yeah.  Did it suck for UCF?  Uh huh.  Did the committee make the right decision based on "best teams", yes.  Without a doubt.  
Click to expand...
You just contradicted yourself. 

 
Saunders said:
The better example is if an 12-4 NFL divisional winner didn't get in the playoffs so that a 12-4 divisional runner up can go instead because they won it last year.

The term"best" is subjective when you're not on equal terms.
Click to expand...


Not when it comes to Alabama and Clemson currently in CFB.  That's a super objective statement.

 
Saunders said:
The biggest problem with the CFP,  it's a moving target week to week with the committee. So, like I said, I ain't wrong. It's easier to win when you're given more chances because the criteria is adjusted to ensure your participation.
Click to expand...


The target moves week to week because games are played and those games have consequences. 

You get an additional chance to win if you make it to your conference championship, I guess, but you earn that right. Right? You get more chances if you're one of the four teams invited to the CFP,  and yeah that criteria can be subjective, but there's usually not much debate about 3 of the 4 teams. 

I think we're going around in circles here when the issue is really about the second place SEC team getting preference over a P5 champion with an identical record. That happens sometimes, but at the end of the day it's still hard to say the best team didn't win. 

 
Saunders said:
New England was better than the Giants in 2007 because they had won all their previous games. We should give them the trophy and crown them the GOATS.
Click to expand...


I have no idea where you're going with this. 

The NFL has a playoff. New England had to win all its playoff games to be crowned the GOATS. They lost and they weren't. 

Who is suggesting the NCAA team with the best record doesn't have to win its playoff games? 

 
Saunders said:
The better example is if an 12-4 NFL divisional winner didn't get in the playoffs so that a 12-4 divisional runner up can go instead because they won it last year.

The term"best" is subjective when you're not on equal terms.
Click to expand...


The term "best" is always subjective. 

Your example is based on the presumption that your definition of best is better -- or more equal -- than somebody else's. 

Your example also has two teams with identical records, but you don't think past performance or conference strength should be a tie-breaker. Not sure your "equal terms" is anything more than "give somebody else a chance."

 
RedDenver said:
And that happened because a committee selected the .500 team over the 11-5 team?
Click to expand...


No. It happened because teams that win their division automatically make the playoffs. Which means that clearly better teams sometimes don't make the playoffs at all. There is no committee to step in and ensure that the best teams make the playoffs. When a 7-9 Washington makes the playoffs it's an embarrassment to the NFC Central Division, but we move on with our lives. 

At the moment, the NCAA has a committee entrusted to putting the four best teams in a two round playoff. Given the imperfections built into the system, they've done a pretty good job, and nothing remotely close to putting a .500 team in over an 11-5 team, so I'm not sure why you introduced that question.

The National Championship is a lot less mythical than it was when Bowl Games called the shots and two different polls often crowned two different winners using highly emotional criteria. It will end a lot of arguments when the playoffs get expanded to 8 teams, except for fans of the #9 through #16 teams. 

 
Guy Chamberlin said:
No. It happened because teams that win their division automatically make the playoffs. Which means that clearly better teams sometimes don't make the playoffs at all. There is no committee to step in and ensure that the best teams make the playoffs. When a 7-9 Washington makes the playoffs it's an embarrassment to the NFC Central Division, but we move on with our lives. 

At the moment, the NCAA has a committee entrusted to putting the four best teams in a two round playoff. Given the imperfections built into the system, they've done a pretty good job, and nothing remotely close to putting a .500 team in over an 11-5 team, so I'm not sure why you introduced that question.

The National Championship is a lot less mythical than it was when Bowl Games called the shots and two different polls often crowned two different winners using highly emotional criteria. It will end a lot of arguments when the playoffs get expanded to 8 teams, except for fans of the #9 through #16 teams. 
Click to expand...
I disagree. The "committee stepping in" is the worst part of the CFB playoff. The NFL's worst years of their playoffs are still MUCH better than the committee's best years because of the objectivity in the NFL. JMHO.

 
Guy Chamberlin said:
The term "best" is always subjective. 

Your example is based on the presumption that your definition of best is better -- or more equal -- than somebody else's. 

Your example also has two teams with identical records, but you don't think past performance or conference strength should be a tie-breaker. Not sure your "equal terms" is anything more than "give somebody else a chance."
Click to expand...
Winning the division is the tie breaker. It's an achievement that you have control over, and if you don't clear that hurdle, you have nobody else to blame.

 
RedDenver said:
I disagree. The "committee stepping in" is the worst part of the CFB playoff. The NFL's worst years of their playoffs are still MUCH better than the committee's best years because of the objectivity in the NFL. JMHO.
Click to expand...


I get that. Like I said, the imperfection is built in because the NCAA originally wanted to avoid a month long playoff because they honestly thought it looked bad for amateur athletics given the presumption that student athletes would need to be studying for finals in December. Seriously.

But if the question is whether the recent CFP Champions have earned it on the field or not, I'd say they've earned it on the field. Given the format, I think the committee has done a decent job. JMHO.  

 
Guy Chamberlin said:
I get that. Like I said, the imperfection is built in because the NCAA originally wanted to avoid a month long playoff because they honestly thought it looked bad for amateur athletics given the presumption that student athletes would need to be studying for finals in December. Seriously.

But if the question is whether the recent CFP Champions have earned it on the field or not, I'd say they've earned it on the field. Given the format, I think the committee has done a decent job. JMHO.  
Click to expand...
I just disagree that they've earned getting into the tourney on the field. It's partly earned and partly popularity contest. But it's not really the committee's fault (or Alabama's or other teams for that matter); it's the NCAA's fault they setup a flawed system and haven't fixed it.

 
RedDenver said:
I just disagree that they've earned getting into the tourney on the field. It's partly earned and partly popularity contest. But it's not really the committee's fault (or Alabama's or other teams for that matter); it's the NCAA's fault they setup a flawed system and haven't fixed it.
Click to expand...


So you honestly think there were better teams than Alabama, Clemson, and LSU the past few seasons?

I get tired of dynasties and I hate the SEC's arrogance, but I like football and based on what I've seen on the field, I can see no reason not to give these teams credit for playing the game extremely well. 

 
Back
Top