Expanded CFP - will it ruin the regular season? from The Athletic

[WhosYourDawggy]

Which is why it should stay at a 4-6 team playoff. "best" is based on nothing but the eyeball test.

We absolutely know that best wouldn't be the top 4 conference champs. We have proof of that. Can't be argued.

 

[MAIZEandBLUE09]

We absolutely know that best wouldn't be the top 4 conference champs. We have proof of that. Can't be argued.

I'd argue differently. Just because a game is won doesn't mean you're the best. Georgia was the 2nd best team in the SEC last year, but national champions? That makes absolutely no sense. Georgia just happened to win the RIGHT game. The best teams win their conference. It requires a full season of accomplishments and grinding out, not just one lucky win. The playoff has created this idea that the regular season doesn't matter, just get to the playoff and hope you can get a couple wins in a row. The SEC championship didn't matter last year. Alabama vs georgia part 1 didn't matter.

 

[Wizardhawk]

The proof that the BCS model didn't work is when you look at how often the no. 3 or 4 seeds have won the NC in the CFP era. In those years, the wrong NC would have been crowned. Instead of deciding it on the field, an imperfect committee would have gotten it wrong. I don't the exact number but it's happened a couple of times ... 2017 and last year come to mind. The CFP absolutely damned the nonsensical BCS.

Proof it didn't work? That conflates a few things.

You could take a slate of 64 teams into a playoff and eventually a team near the end of that 64 seed would win. That doesn't mean it somehow validates the format. A 4 seed winning in a 4 team playoff also doesn't somehow render a 2 team format invalid. The 2 seed doesn't pretend to indicate that no other teams outside of the 2 could possibly beat those 2. It simply says those were the most deserving of that last game based on the entry criteria.

Same for 12 vs 4. No one ever suggests a 12 seed can't win a playoff in college football. Upsets happen every single week so why would anyone believe it couldn't happen in a playoff? That doesn't somehow mean every 4 team format before was somehow wrong.

 

[WhosYourDawggy]

I'd argue differently. Just because a game is won doesn't mean you're the best. Georgia was the 2nd best team in the SEC last year, but national champions? That makes absolutely no sense. Georgia just happened to win the RIGHT game. The best teams win their conference. It requires a full season of accomplishments and grinding out, not just one lucky win. The playoff has created this idea that the regular season doesn't matter, just get to the playoff and hope you can get a couple wins in a row. The SEC championship didn't matter last year. Alabama vs georgia part 1 didn't matter.

Actually it means exactly that. There are rules set up to determine the NC. Everyone followed them. And the best teams don’t win their conferences all the time. I could argue tOSU was better than you last year but you happened to win the RIGHT game. I’m pretty confident they would have given us a better game than you did. But that’s not how it works … I don’t get to say that. We follow the rules, you got in the CFP, and a NC is crowned.

 

[WhosYourDawggy]

Proof it didn't work? That conflates a few things.

You could take a slate of 64 teams into a playoff and eventually a team near the end of that 64 seed would win. That doesn't mean it somehow validates the format. A 4 seed winning in a 4 team playoff also doesn't somehow render a 2 team format invalid. The 2 seed doesn't pretend to indicate that no other teams outside of the 2 could possibly beat those 2. It simply says those were the most deserving of that last game based on the entry criteria.

Same for 12 vs 4. No one ever suggests a 12 seed can't win a playoff in college football. Upsets happen every single week so why would anyone believe it couldn't happen in a playoff? That doesn't somehow mean every 4 team format before was somehow wrong.

Sure it does. The committee picks the 2 in a 2 team format, and 4 in a 4 team format. The fact that we’ve seen them miss on 1 and 2 multiple times proves they haven’t gotten or wouldn’t get 2 right all the time. Proof positive.

 

[MAIZEandBLUE09]

Actually it means exactly that. There are rules set up to determine the NC. Everyone followed them. And the best teams don’t win their conferences all the time. I could argue tOSU was better than you last year but you happened to win the RIGHT game. I’m pretty confident they would have given us a better game than you did. But that’s not how it works … I don’t get to say that. We follow the rules, you got in the CFP, and a NC is crowned.

But it doesn't mean that, it just means Georgia met the requirements to be national champion. It's logically impossible to say that Georgia wasn't the best team in the SEC while also saying Georgia was the best team in the country. You can't be one without the other.

 

[Collegefbfan]

It was impossible to decide as well because you are just going to have seasons where you have more than 2 options.

The perfect number currently would actually be 6. All five of the Power 5 Conference Champions plus a wild card for an undefeated Cinderella team like Boise State or 2017 UCF. The 6th spot though is questionable.

To be frank, if you are not an undefeated Conference Champion, you shouldn't get a lot of sympathy because you have a loss that people can point to. This makes 2004 Auburn plus the undefeated Boise State/UCF teams as the only teams that truly have a gripe against the system. 2003 USC's situation sucked and I felt like they should have got the nod over Oklahoma personally but they had a loss to Cal and you can point to that. (I am also alright with USC getting a split title that year based on circumstances because although I think LSU was better, I am not confident that I am 100% correct on that opinion. I do think 2004 USC would have killed Auburn but I think Auburn deserved the shot being undefeated).

The crazy thing is how Auburn is SEC, and there is no way in hell an SEC team gets left out of shit nowadays. I know some media folks pointed to that Louisiana Tech game or the Tigers SOS that season. Still was crap.

 

[Volbound1700]

The crazy thing is how Auburn is SEC, and there is no way in hell an SEC team gets left out of shit nowadays. I know some media folks pointed to that Louisiana Tech game or the Tigers SOS that season. Still was crap.

There was a game on Auburn's OOC schedule against a Power 6 (called BCS Conferences back then) that got cancelled and they had to replace with an FCS team. That was used as a fact to keep them out.

Although Oklahoma and USC were just flashy names. Now if it was Alabama, the story may have been different.

 

[Deep Creek]

Personally, I don't but they should get a shot. Why are you in Division I if you can go undefeated but not play for a title? Keep in mind that in 2017, UCF did beat Auburn (the same team that beat the National Champion). I don't think that makes them the best team but it shows that G5's have competed.

Boise State has beaten some big names in the past as well including some very good Oregon and Oklahoma teams. They also came down to Atlanta and beat Georgia one year.

No doubt many of them "can compete". In fact, several are a hell of a lot better than some of the lower P5 teams in spite of the resource difference. But those P5s don't really have much of a chance as long as that talent isn't distributed more evenly. JMO.

 

[Wizardhawk]

Sure it does. The committee picks the 2 in a 2 team format, and 4 in a 4 team format. The fact that we’ve seen them miss on 1 and 2 multiple times proves they haven’t gotten or wouldn’t get 2 right all the time. Proof positive.

Nope. 100% false. You base your assertion on the misnomer that the goal of any format is to only find who the top team would be at that exact time of a final game. It isn't and never has been. Once you remove that fallacious assumption your proof goes poof.

The goal of any/all of the formats is to find the teams that DESERVE to play those games the most. That is not in anyway the same as who is actually better on any given saturday. As has already been mentioned, upsets happen. Any team beating any other team on any given saturday only means they were better that day, not some grander overall meaning.

Michigan could have played App St 10 times the year they lost to them and likely wins 9 of them. Losing that game didn't make App St an overall superior team, it made them the better team that day.

Those wins can and do add to who deserves to be ranked higher. Even then we see teams that beat another team ranked below them all the time.

It no more validates a format that a lowest seed won over a format with less, than it will invalidate a deeper playoff because one or more players gets seriously/career ending injuries with more weeks of play. Every format has it's variances that some like over others. That some prefer one over another renders this idea that there is only one that is right for all entirely wrong.

 

[WhosYourDawggy]

But it doesn't mean that, it just means Georgia met the requirements to be national champion. It's logically impossible to say that Georgia wasn't the best team in the SEC while also saying Georgia was the best team in the country. You can't be one without the other.

Because we split games with Bama I suppose you can’t say either team is better than the other, right? By rule, they are the SEC Champ, we are the National Champ. LOL, I can live with that.

 

[MAIZEandBLUE09]

Because we split games with Bama I suppose you can’t say either team is better than the other, right? By rule, they are the SEC Champ, we are the National Champ. LOL, I can live with that.

But that's the problem. It should be that there are 4-5 major conferences, they play a conference championship game as the first part of a 8-10 team playoff. A team who wins the national title should be both conference champions and national champions.

 

[Volbound1700]

@MAIZEandBLUE09, you must really hate March Madness or College Baseball. Teams that don't win their conference win the National Title all of the time.

 

[MAIZEandBLUE09]

@MAIZEandBLUE09, you must really hate March Madness or College Baseball. Teams that don't win their conference win the National Title all of the time.

I have to say, not a huge fan of basketball. I played baseball for like 15 years throughout school, not a huge fan of watching it. Don't like their systems.

And my retort to that, I bet not many people watch regular season college basketball or baseball around here, most probably just tune in for the tournament because it's all that really matters.

 

[Volbound1700]

I have to say, not a huge fan of basketball. I played baseball for like 15 years throughout school, not a huge fan of watching it. Don't like their systems.

And my retort to that, I bet not many people watch regular season college basketball or baseball around here, most probably just tune in for the tournament because it's all that really matters.

I can't speak for others but I watch regular season SEC basketball when I can. I cannot catch every game because they have games every 2-3 days sometimes. However, using the extended playoff ruins regular season argument doesn't really work because the NFL regular season is still very popular despite NFL having a longer playoff.

In fact, Division I CFB is the only version of football without an extended playoff.

 

[MAIZEandBLUE09]

I can't speak for others but I watch regular season SEC basketball when I can. I cannot catch every game because they have games every 2-3 days sometimes. However, using the extended playoff ruins regular season argument doesn't really work because the NFL regular season is still very popular despite NFL having a longer playoff.

In fact, Division I CFB is the only version of football without an extended playoff.

I just think it's funny to try and use less popular sports as the justification for "see, it works!". I think the NFL is popular, but lacks the drama of the college game. People watch that to see a more polished product, and popularity is often related to fantasy sports or gambling.

 

[Volbound1700]

I just think it's funny to try and use less popular sports as the justification for "see, it works!". I think the NFL is popular, but lacks the drama of the college game. People watch that to see a more polished product, and popularity is often related to fantasy sports or gambling.

Rating-wise, NFL has more viewership than College Football. I think it is a very fair and accurate comparison.

NFL, college football continue TV ratings dominance with upsets and thrillers: Sports on TV

NFL's Week 1 and a wild week in college football spelled another big weekend for pigskin TV ratings. Plus, notes on the WNBA and U.S. Open.

theathletic.com

I am not sure why you would call it "less" popular. College Football is literally the only team sport that I can think of without a playoff historically (at least until the recent 4-team playoff).

Even other levels of football: High School, Lower Divisions of College, etc. have playoffs.

I am sorry, the anti-playoff argument is running out of steam fast.

 

[MAIZEandBLUE09]

Rating-wise, NFL has more viewership than College Football. I think it is a very fair and accurate comparison.

NFL, college football continue TV ratings dominance with upsets and thrillers: Sports on TV

NFL's Week 1 and a wild week in college football spelled another big weekend for pigskin TV ratings. Plus, notes on the WNBA and U.S. Open.

theathletic.com

I am not sure why you would call it "less" popular. College Football is literally the only team sport that I can think of without a playoff historically (at least until the recent 4-team playoff).

Even other levels of football: High School, Lower Divisions of College, etc. have playoffs.

I am sorry, the anti-playoff argument is running out of steam fast.

I wasn't saying the NFL was less popular, you mentioned basketball and baseball. Professional sports, in general, are often more popular because of the extra curriculars - like sports betting. It's why boxing is so popular or the Kentucky derby when it airs. There's no other sport where there's 120+ teams in one division competing for the same title, that can pull in the amount of viewership that it does for even average games on weeknights. It's because of the drama associated with the college football regular season. And a lot of that has to do with knocking teams out of contention. You are removing that with a 12 team playoff.

And I'm going to be right about that. Just like those of us who were against the 4 team playoff because it was bound to ruin bowl games. And now look where we are, most bowl games don't matter (even the historically significant ones). Unless you're in the 3 game playoff, no one cares about your bowl game. Kids sit out. We're watching 3rd string QB's playing in the Fiesta bowl. The 4 team playoff ruined the bowl games in the same way a 12 team playoff is going to ruin the regular season.

 

[WhosYourDawggy]

But that's the problem. It should be that there are 4-5 major conferences, they play a conference championship game as the first part of a 8-10 team playoff. A team who wins the national title should be both conference champions and national champions.

Again in a sport where there is some level of parity, that might make sense. It makes zero sense in CFB where two conferences are now heads and shoulders above the rest. It would make no sense to have the conf champ of, say a G5, but not the no. 2 schools in the SEC or the B1G.

Sports has been going against this for years. MLB used to be 2 teams ... winner of the NL v. the winner of the AL. Not so any more because having more teams wit more opportunities, and not keeping better teams out is more attractive to the average fan.

Your idea was certainly considered at the time they went to the CFP. They flatly rejected it. That's why CCs are not a requirement and aren't even considered except as a tie breaker between two otherwise even teams.

I would also ask you ... what format brings in the most money? I ask that because that is the market speaking and the market says it doesn't want what you are selling because it would result in more sucky games, and championships not decided on the field by a tournament of the best teams. It's why 12 is so good. You can get your CCs in - good for you - and lets me see the best teams have a shot. Good for me.

 

[Collegefbfan]

There was a game on Auburn's OOC schedule against a Power 6 (called BCS Conferences back then) that got cancelled and they had to replace with an FCS team. That was used as a fact to keep them out.

Although Oklahoma and USC were just flashy names. Now if it was Alabama, the story may have been different.

Wait. I believe you are more correct than me. I forgot about the canceled game. That’s what it was.