Against adding to playoff

HS_Coach_C said:
But not to the point where they would be in the conference championship game, so they still wouldn't have that.
Click to expand...


No, not yet.  But they will be.  And their reasoning is that their other sports blah blah blah.  Real reason is they knew they would fare avout as well as we have up to this point in Big Ten play.  Easier path to the playoff will be a terrible ACC division, and believe me, they'll be placed in the weaker one when the time comes.

 
junior4949 said:
While I have no idea what the committee would do given the bolded, I can tell you that all h**l would break loose if Notre Dame didn't make the playoff.  At one time, I was against P5 champions getting an automatic bid into an 8 team playoff.  However, every conference has made tremendous upgrades in the past five or so years in terms of coaching.  I'm willing to now concede putting all P5 champions in with three at large teams.  This leaves room for an independent like Notre Dame as well as room for a cinderella like UCF. 
Click to expand...
I was in the same boat as you about P5 and automatic bids until recently, as well. I'm still not crazy about it but I'd be willing to concede it for some of the other benefits of eight.

I'm still weighing in my mind what it would ultimately mean for non-P5 schools, though. I'm not convinced a school like UCF would've even made an eight team playoff in 2017. They still finished 12th behind Washington, Miami and Penn St. I think there's a very strong chance that a UCF might be 'kept at bay' or just outside of the eight teams all year in exchange for P5 schools with perceived tougher SOS. I feel like the only way to get a cinderella in there would be mass chaos at the top (i.e. multiple 2-loss, top 10, P5 teams vying for position) or a guaranteed spot for a non-P5.

 
At some point there will/should be too much pressure for them to leave those schools out. People want cinderella stories, and at the end of the day the NCAA wants to make $.

 
Cdog923 said:
it gives Nebraska many more opportunities to be able to win a National Title. 
Click to expand...
As much as I love the Huskers the goal shouldn’t be to make it easier for them, or anyone else to win a championship .

The goal is to determine who was the best team in college football any given year . Teams play the regular season to try to prove they are the best , by  playing quality opponents and beating them . Occasionally there will be multiple teams with a legitimate claim to be in the discussion , but rarely 4 and never 8, that I can remember . Adding more teams is unnecessary and cheapens the accomplishments of the regular season imo .

 
Enhance said:
I was in the same boat as you about P5 and automatic bids until recently, as well. I'm still not crazy about it but I'd be willing to concede it for some of the other benefits of eight.

I'm still weighing in my mind what it would ultimately mean for non-P5 schools, though. I'm not convinced a school like UCF would've even made an eight team playoff in 2017. They still finished 12th behind Washington, Miami and Penn St. I think there's a very strong chance that a UCF might be 'kept at bay' or just outside of the eight teams all year in exchange for P5 schools with perceived tougher SOS. I feel like the only way to get a cinderella in there would be mass chaos at the top (i.e. multiple 2-loss, top 10, P5 teams vying for position) or a guaranteed spot for a non-P5.
Click to expand...
I think the playoff system works better in pro sports because there are less teams , less conferences/divisions, and less talent disparities . There are 130 teams in ncaa division one college football  , 11 conferences , independents , and large talent divides between some of the teams . A lot more variables to account for . 

 
Big Red 40 said:
I think the playoff system works better in pro sports because there are less teams , less conferences/divisions, and less talent disparities . There are 130 teams in ncaa division one college football  , 11 conferences , independents , and large talent divides between some of the teams . A lot more variables to account for . 
Click to expand...


Thus, it's really hard to compare teams who haven't played each other and rarely have common opponents.

A much better way to determine which team is better?  Have them play on the field.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Big Red 40 said:
As much as I love the Huskers the goal shouldn’t be to make it easier for them, or anyone else to win a championship .

The goal is to determine who was the best team in college football any given year . Teams play the regular season to try to prove they are the best , by  playing quality opponents and beating them . Occasionally there will be multiple teams with a legitimate claim to be in the discussion , but rarely 4 and never 8, that I can remember . Adding more teams is unnecessary and cheapens the accomplishments of the regular season imo .
Click to expand...


If that's the case, just go back to the bowl coalition. 

 
Mavric How are you going to do that? Not every one of the 130 teams can play each other and a 130 team tournament won’t work so ? 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
For a good discussion point, those of you in favor of an 8 team playoff should list who you would have included over the past 3 seasons.  I'm curious how much these will differ just from us here.  

 
I think its important to remember the goal of the committee is to find THE best team and not the top 4 best teams or top 8 best teams. If after 12-13 games its not clear if you are in the top 4 then you surely aren't the TOP team. 

 
bugeater17 said:
I think its important to remember the goal of the committee is to find THE best team and not the top 4 best teams or top 8 best teams. If after 12-13 games its not clear if you are in the top 4 then you surely aren't the TOP team. 
Click to expand...




That's not necessarily the case with 4. Hence the problem in deciding between Alabama and Ohio State.

With 8 teams it would be really hard not to include the best team. With 4 it's definitely possible. Just look at the year OSU won it. They barely squeaked in.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Big Red 40 said:
Mavric How are you going to do that? Not every one of the 130 teams can play each other and a 130 team tournament won’t work so ? 
Click to expand...


Not every team.  Just more than the two you seem to favor.  And more than the four there are now.  

Eight is the perfect number (IMO).  We're not stuck picking nits between one-loss teams that no one really knows which is better.  Yeah, you'll probably get a team or two that really don't deserve another shot.  But it's better than leaving teams out that really did deserve a shot.  Plus it's more football.

 
GSG said:
I think a big change that would go a long way towards "fixing" the postseason would be some semblance of regular season scheduling parity. Right now, someone might play an FCS and 2 or 3 of the worst G5 teams in the country while another team plays a marquee P5 opponent alongside a couple of above average G5 opponents. I'm not sure how you fix that though
Click to expand...


I think that is supposed to be the purpose of the committee, to look at strength of schedule, quality of opponents, etc....to look deeper than the simple win-loss records.

 
Back
Top