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

You can't compare the NFL playoff system and CFB.  One is subjective while the other is not.  Until that changes, we're stuck with Alabama and Clemson getting in with 1 loss.

gossamorharpy said:
Not arguing they're not the 2 top programs, pretty clear they're a step ahead.  That being said, anything can happen in one game and if they're truly the best and a cut above then they should have no issue getting through an 8 or 12 or 16 team playoff to end it.  

If anything it adds credibility to their resume and helps some of the bs scheduling differences (SEC never really plays a true tough road game, seemingly always neutral site somewhere in the south, for instance)

I think what's flawed, to me, is saying there are 5 equal major conferences yet the system in place will always leave the champ of that conf looking on the outside, possibly 2 when notre dame has a solid year.  That equation is broken from day 1- might as well just consolidate to 4 major conferences if were keeping it at 4
Click to expand...
Agreed

 
Guy Chamberlin said:
actually you are. 

Subjectively, the four best teams have been invited to the playoffs, where they've generally proven themselves on the field. 

We could always speculate what would have happened if an undervalued UCF, Utah, or TCU had gotten in, or if a two-loss Big 10 or Pac 10 team was better than a two-loss SEC team, but after watching the actual games, it's really, really hard to say any of the recent National Champions didn't deserve it. Meaning the invite wasn't "automatic" but as close to a subjective ranking of the best teams as we're likely to get. 

Does anyone have a glaring example of a team with the talent and scheme to knock off an Alabama, Clemson, or LSU that didn't make the cut? A team you would put your own money on? 
Click to expand...
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.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Cobra Kai said:
What is hilarious about this is the team you're referring to won the national championship.  But they didn't deserve to get in, right?  Weren't good enough.
Click to expand...
So, the team that beat them in the conference had no chance to prove that they could do the same thing?  What about the other teams that had one loss?

 
Guy Chamberlin said:
Subjectively
Click to expand...
That's the whole problem though - the admission criteria is vague and extremely subjective. The committee has even gone away from the original intent of only valuing the entire body of work and doing a ranking at the end vs just a weekly move up/down ranking system like the old polls. I don't watch the playoffs anymore because the whole thing is such a farce. If it's going to be arguing over vague interpretations of which teams should even be considered, thenI'd rather just go back to the old bowl system and arguing over the polls - it was more fun.

If the CFB playoffs are going to be anything other than a thinly veiled way for the top teams to get in, then the subjectivity needs to be minimized and admission to the tournament needs as much objectivity as possible. That's why I prefer the standard be conference champs as much as possible. I'd even be in favor of realigning the conferences so that there's 8 and only conference champs get in.

 
Guy Chamberlin said:
actually you are. 

Subjectively, the four best teams have been invited to the playoffs, where they've generally proven themselves on the field. 

We could always speculate what would have happened if an undervalued UCF, Utah, or TCU had gotten in, or if a two-loss Big 10 or Pac 10 team was better than a two-loss SEC team, but after watching the actual games, it's really, really hard to say any of the recent National Champions didn't deserve it. Meaning the invite wasn't "automatic" but as close to a subjective ranking of the best teams as we're likely to get. 

Does anyone have a glaring example of a team with the talent and scheme to knock off an Alabama, Clemson, or LSU that didn't make the cut? A team you would put your own money on? 
Click to expand...
i mean 2017 auburn took out bama, and their only losses on the year before the bowl game was to clemson (14-6), lsu (27-23) and georgia in the sec title game... yet bama made the playoff and ended up winning the title...  pretty egregious a team couldnt even earn the right to win their conference yet wins the natty

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Saunders said:
Imagine if MLB or NFL always put the Yankees or Patriots in because on paper they're the "best" team.
Click to expand...




Imagine if an 11-5-NFL team or a 96 game winning MLB team missed the playoff because they play in a tougher division, and had to watch a .500 team play in their place because they won a weak division. 

You don't really have to imagine that because that happens all the time. The Washington Football team made the playoffs at 7-9 last year. Adding wild card games a few years ago really helped, and that's essentially what will happen with an expanded NCAA format, but it hardly ended the arguments. Fwiw...the years the Yankees and Patriots didn't make the playoffs, they weren't good enough on paper either. No matter how much a league or a television network prefers a team, the team still needs to earn its way in.

Also, it's getting kinda weird to suggest these Alabama and Clemson teams weren't among the "best" teams in the country at the time they were invited, or by the time they beat the other "best" teams. 

 
BigRedBuster said:
So, the team that beat them in the conference had no chance to prove that they could do the same thing?  What about the other teams that had one loss?
Click to expand...
What about them?  They didn't get it.  Right or wrong.  When the rules change more teams will have a chance...right now, it's 4.  So it's Alabama, Clemson and 2 others.

Not saying it's right or wrong, I am saying that is the way it is.

 
Guy Chamberlin said:
Imagine if an 11-5-NFL team or a 96 game winning MLB team missed the playoff because they play in a tougher division, and had to watch a .500 team play in their place because they won a weak division. 

You don't really have to imagine that because that happens all the time.
Click to expand...
And that happened because a committee selected the .500 team over the 11-5 team?

 
BigRedBuster said:
You have too been saying it’s right. 
Click to expand...


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.  

 
Guy Chamberlin said:
Imagine if an 11-5-NFL team or a 96 game winning MLB team missed the playoff because they play in a tougher division, and had to watch a .500 team play in their place because they won a weak division. 
Click to expand...
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.

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

 
Back
Top