runningblind
New member
A single loss is not meaningless, it can lead to two etc. It all matters and this argument never made sense to me. All the games lead to the results at the end, they all matter. They always did, they always continue to.
12-Team Playoff On the Way; 14-Team to Follow
- Thread starter Mavric
- Start date
teachercd
Active member
12 (and soon to be 16) team playoff only makes the regular season more important. There are still what, 20 teams fighting for spots?
Normally by week 8, pretty much everything is set and done.
What it does is make losses "less" meaningful but the regular season more important because more teams have a chance now.
NU was probably never going to make the final 4. But NU can totally make the final 12 (soon to be 16)
Normally by week 8, pretty much everything is set and done.
What it does is make losses "less" meaningful but the regular season more important because more teams have a chance now.
NU was probably never going to make the final 4. But NU can totally make the final 12 (soon to be 16)
BigRedBuster
Active member
I totally disagree with this.
This has been the mantra of the anti playoff crowd all along and it’s just simply not the case.
admo
New member
Yeah I agree with @BigRedBuster and @teachercd.
In fact, this has been crazy exciting to watch it unfold. Winning and losing during the season - esp late - changes the CFP rankings week to week.
I think they need a better format for the Top 4 teams. I don't know what it could be, but the importance of auto-qualifiers for winning a conference championship should be that they make the playoffs, but not given a top 4 ranking and bye week "just because".
But, that is what the Conf ADs agreed upon for this year, and I think next season too. But it can be changed after this year.
In fact, this has been crazy exciting to watch it unfold. Winning and losing during the season - esp late - changes the CFP rankings week to week.
I think they need a better format for the Top 4 teams. I don't know what it could be, but the importance of auto-qualifiers for winning a conference championship should be that they make the playoffs, but not given a top 4 ranking and bye week "just because".
But, that is what the Conf ADs agreed upon for this year, and I think next season too. But it can be changed after this year.
Last edited by a moderator:
teachercd
Active member
Just like this last weekend. Two years ago the Ole Miss loss to UF did not mean anything. Now that loss knocked them out of the playoffs. That is a big deal.
My thought twist is that I just don't like the idea of 2 or 3 loss teams getting a shot at the title (I know LSU won with 2 OT losses a decade ago). I want to perceive the champion to be the best team all or vast majority of season. I'm not a fan of the "playoff" champion mindset.
I think its partly why we have the added "parity" this year, along with NIL and the portal. Its a different mindset when one loss might, or likely, end your national championship dreams versus knowing you're able to lose a game or two (if you start season ranked highly), as long as you can turn it on later in the season.
I think its partly why we have the added "parity" this year, along with NIL and the portal. Its a different mindset when one loss might, or likely, end your national championship dreams versus knowing you're able to lose a game or two (if you start season ranked highly), as long as you can turn it on later in the season.
BigRedBuster
Active member
BigRedBuster
Active member
So, the anti-playoff crowd that doesn't like how we still have so many games that affect who makes the playoff, really want seasons where about half way through, the nation just watches a handful of teams and the rest of the games really don't mean anything. And....because then it's based so much on the rankings, it tends to be the same teams year after year.
BigRedBuster
Active member
And, this is the type of crap you want to have more of a say in who has a chance to win the championship.
The more we can take it out of the pole's hands, the better.
The more we can take it out of the pole's hands, the better.
Gorillahawk
New member
For the most part I disagree with this. A playoff system allows teams to schedule tougher OOC opponents, because a loss doesn't eliminate them from NC contention. Why would an Ohio State, Georgia, or anyone else want to schedule a game against a like opponent early in the season if it means a loss could potentially eliminate you from any chance to play for the NC? Scheduling a top tier team allows you to get better, win or lose. I hate how the SEC teams always schedule a FCS or bottom G5 team at the end of the season. A close loss to an undefeated or 1 loss Ohio State looks a lot better than a win of the little sisters of the poor university.
I like the playoff, imagine what a playoff would have meant for the 96 huskers, or any other Nebraska team of the pass that was arguably the best team in the country who was screwed because they lost to an equally good OU team in a rivalry game? How many times have we seen a team that was clearly one of the top teams in CFB stumble and a lesser team get in and get blown out? A playoff has a better chance of letting the true best team rise to the top imo.
BigRedBuster
Active member
Husker in WI
New member
I don't think more teams in the playoff automatically means more parity. I do think the playoff combined with roster restrictions will, but to me 12 is still too many. I recognize I'm in the minority here, but I want the team with the best season to win the championship, not the "best" team. I don't like 2 and 3 loss champions, and we will see more of them.
An expanded playoff is most beneficial to the same elite teams that have been there the past 10 years, it just gives them more chances when they lose a game. Yeah it's cool that more teams will be able to claim a playoff appearance, but frankly it means teams like Indiana or the Big 12 champion are going to have their season end before Christmas in the first round of the playoffs instead of on New Year's day. Is that better for them?
They're not worried about losing to the cupcakes. They might lose to underachieving conference opponents, but I'd argue there's even less incentive to schedule difficult out of conference games. To me, 8 is a good balance - I hate bye weeks, I don't think (in any sport) that your reward for playing well should be playing fewer games. Home field advantage sure, even a "pick your opponent" system. Not byes. 16 will resolve that, but again it sets up more 9-3 Georgia types beating down 11-1 G5 teams or 10-2 surprise P4 teams.
BigRedBuster
Active member
I think it's stupid they went from 4 teams to 12 because I think 8 is the perfect number. I can't stand the idea that college sports has of giving some of the teams a pass in the first round of a playoff.
I generally really don't care if a team has their season end before Christmas or after. I disagree with this paragraph.
Hilltop
New member
I like to watch football so the more games, the better from my seat.
To see a team like Indiana get left out would be a shame. Anyone can have a bad day but since their name isn't Alabama, Ohio State or Notre Dame, etc.. they don't get any slack. In an 8 team playoff, there would be a real chance they wouldn't make it.
To see a team like Indiana get left out would be a shame. Anyone can have a bad day but since their name isn't Alabama, Ohio State or Notre Dame, etc.. they don't get any slack. In an 8 team playoff, there would be a real chance they wouldn't make it.
Husker in WI
New member
Fair enough, to put it another way - I just don't think some of the teams projected into the playoff deserve a shot at a championship. And for their fans, watching a winner take-all New Year's bowl game against a similar team is probably more enjoyable than getting curb stomped by the SEC or Big Ten championship game loser on December 20th. But the main thing is whether or not they deserve to be there, not the date of the bowl game or how fans feel.
This is why I'd personally prefer it to be the "best season" rather than "best teams" - I think Indiana is significantly worse than Georgia or Bama. I think 11-1 in the Big Ten should be rewarded, but I can also admit they wouldn't be 11-1 with anyone else's schedule. To incentivize "best season" in any capacity they need to figure out a way to make the schedules more even. I realize that's an impossible problem to solve, but there's no right answer on who to include when the schedules aren't remotely comparable. Expanding by 4 more teams makes it easier to reward teams like Indiana or even Tulane, but those other 2-3 spots are still going to multiple loss SEC/Big Ten schools who I don't think should be in based on results.