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

[TaikoTiger]

Only someone in the ACC would say this. Sure, who wouldn't want to have their regular season be the playoffs when you are in a conference that provides little competition? Come play in the SEC and let's see you make this argument. Seriously, you might not even have made the CFP in the two years you won the NC. I am not saying that you wouldn't have won the SEC ... you might have, but your path would have been way more difficult.

To be fair, the expanded playoffs only helps teams like Bama, OSU and Clemson where now we have free loses to spear and could spare more time to young players knowing two loses is not ending the season

 

[TaikoTiger]

If I remember this game correctly, the game was actually VERY CLOSE, but 2 bad Alabama turnovers changed it completely.

Try a pick 6 on the opening play. The game was over by halftime

 

[iowajerms]

I like it. I think there are 2 things it should have.

More than needed in
Every team in the league has a shot.

 

[WhosYourDawggy]

Clemson beats Bama, OSU, Lamar Jackson and you think some how the 2016 Gators are stopping Clemson?
View attachment 87339 View attachment 87341

And also 3-0 against the SEC including its best team in 2018
View attachment 87343

That's exactly correct ... even that team if they have to play a full SEC slate might have lost a game and been left out. Probably not in 2016 as bad as the SECE was right then, but you would have had to play Bama in the SECCG to get there.

Keep in mind, I said you might not have made it. I am not trying to minimize your NC. I am just pointing out for a half a dozen years, you guys had a cake walk through the ACC. Only someone who pretty much knows that they are going to the CFP every year would say, "the beauty in CFB is that the regular season is the playoffs."

 

[WhosYourDawggy]

Try a pick 6 on the opening play. The game was over by halftime

Yeah, your D line was nasty that year. Experienced, good, and nasty. Bama never recovered from that INT.

 

[TaikoTiger]

That's exactly correct ... even that team if they have to play a full SEC slate might have lost a game and been left out. Probably not in 2016 as bad as the SECE was right then, but you would have had to play Bama in the SECCG to get there.

Keep in mind, I said you might not have made it. I am not trying to minimize your NC. I am just pointing out for a half a dozen years, you guys had a cake walk through the ACC. Only someone who pretty much knows that they are going to the CFP every year would say, "the beauty in CFB is that the regular season is the playoffs."

I've been saying it since the BCS era, long before Clemson was run. You're looking at someone who actually liked the BCS model, it was fun while it lasted

 

[Volbound1700]

I've been saying it since the BCS era, long before Clemson was run. You're looking at someone who actually liked the BCS model, it was fun while it lasted

BCS model was the best model until playoffs. However 2003, 2004, and 2011 are all examples of why the BCS model was not working.

2003: USC, Oklahoma, and LSU were all deserving of playing for title and USC was left out
2004: USC, Oklahoma, and Auburn were all deserving of playing for title and Auburn was left out despite being undefeated
2011: Alabama got a rematch with LSU but arguably Oklahoma State should have been in the game

The playoff system would have solved the issue with all three of those years

 

[Collegefbfan]

Well, I thought the BCS was okay. I like 4 team model also. The 12 team deal will also be okay, I guess. For the most part, I just hate already knowing who is gonna be there. You know the usuals. I am not hating on any teams. If you are great, shit man, you are great. However, I do miss the days of arguing and expressing viewpoints related to who the #4 team that should have made it in. Or the fact that so and so should not have made it in because of blah, blah, blah and you lost by 40 to a mid level ACC team but it was your only loss. You get the idea. I wanna fuss about something.

 

[Collegefbfan]

BCS model was the best model until playoffs. However 2003, 2004, and 2011 are all examples of why the BCS model was not working.

2003: USC, Oklahoma, and LSU were all deserving of playing for title and USC was left out
2004: USC, Oklahoma, and Auburn were all deserving of playing for title and Auburn was left out despite being undefeated
2011: Alabama got a rematch with LSU but arguably Oklahoma State should have been in the game

The playoff system would have solved the issue with all three of those years

Yes those seasons made the BCS look like bullshit.

 

[MAIZEandBLUE09]

The only way a 12 team doesn't ruin the regular season is if they make conference championship game part of the playoff, or at least a victory necessary for a bid. IE the B10 or SEC title games are the first leg of the 12 team playoff.

 

[WhosYourDawggy]

I've been saying it since the BCS era, long before Clemson was run. You're looking at someone who actually liked the BCS model, it was fun while it lasted

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.

 

[WhosYourDawggy]

The only way a 12 team doesn't ruin the regular season is if they make conference championship game part of the playoff, or at least a victory necessary for a bid. IE the B10 or SEC title games are the first leg of the 12 team playoff.

That makes no sense in that there are 12 slots and 10 conferences. That aside, the conferences are not equal, and getting less equal over time. The idea that you don't want as many of the best teams as you can get in the CFP seems odd.

 

[Volbound1700]

Yes those seasons made the BCS look like bullshit.

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).

 

[MAIZEandBLUE09]

That makes no sense in that there are 12 slots and 10 conferences. That aside, the conferences are not equal, and getting less equal over time. The idea that you don't want as many of the best teams as you can get in the CFP seems odd.

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

 

[Volbound1700]

That makes no sense in that there are 12 slots and 10 conferences. That aside, the conferences are not equal, and getting less equal over time. The idea that you don't want as many of the best teams as you can get in the CFP seems odd.

I am a big fan of moving most of the G5 down to FCS. Frankly there is a MAJOR gap between programs like Tennessee vs. MTSU. Now I do think there are some G5 programs that are higher level and probably could stay up in the higher division. Great examples are Boise State, Fresno State, San Diego State, East Carolina, USF, etc.

Most of them have been picked up by the new Big12.

 

[Deep Creek]

BCS model was the best model until playoffs. However 2003, 2004, and 2011 are all examples of why the BCS model was not working.

2003: USC, Oklahoma, and LSU were all deserving of playing for title and USC was left out
2004: USC, Oklahoma, and Auburn were all deserving of playing for title and Auburn was left out despite being undefeated
2011: Alabama got a rematch with LSU but arguably Oklahoma State should have been in the game

The playoff system would have solved the issue with all three of those years

I would have loved the BCS and the CFP model if there were a way to more accurately measure ALL the teams that are "in the hunt". Both have an element of beauty contest and perception IMHO. Who knows how many have been excluded that could very well have won it. So what if some team that is viewed as "undeserving" makes it? They'll get eliminated immediately. I view it more like the old 1769 doctrine that said, “the law holds that it is better that 10 guilty persons escape, than that 1 innocent suffer.” Let's ask our resident lawyer @WhosYourDawggy.

 

[Deep Creek]

I am a big fan of moving most of the G5 down to FCS. Frankly there is a MAJOR gap between programs like Tennessee vs. MTSU. Now I do think there are some G5 programs that are higher level and probably could stay up in the higher division. Great examples are Boise State, Fresno State, San Diego State, East Carolina, USF, etc.

Most of them have been picked up by the new Big12.

Do you really think any G5 really has a chance...even if they do become one of the P5s? (Or P2 and Middling 3)?

The only way I see them (or any of the current lower level P5 teams) winning a natty is if they are able to utilize NIL and the transfer portal to more even the playing field in regards to talent accumulation. As long as the talent gap is as wide as it is, only once in a blue moon will any of those have a chance.

 

[Volbound1700]

I would have loved the BCS and the CFP model if there were a way to more accurately measure ALL the teams that are "in the hunt". Both have an element of beauty contest and perception IMHO. Who knows how many have been excluded that could very well have won it. So what if some team that is viewed as "undeserving" makes it? They'll get eliminated immediately. I view it more like the old 1769 doctrine that said, “the law holds that it is better that 10 guilty persons escape, than that 1 innocent suffer.” Let's ask our resident lawyer @WhosYourDawggy.

You can have the math as best as possible but you could still have a problem were 3-4 teams are deserving. Also teams cannot 100% control their schedule and having something nuanced as Team A played one more team with a winning record than Team B is just not a good system. It is great for seeding but not for determining a true champion.

 

[jjc2009]

I don’t see how it will make the regular season less meaningful. It’s hard to overcome one loss to make the playoff now. Two losses and you’re all but done. If one game is enough to knock your team out of the playoffs then it’s easy to mentally check out for the year. This allows some grace and a little bit more chaos as well.

 

[Volbound1700]

Do you really think any G5 really has a chance...even if they do become one of the P5s? (Or P2 and Middling 3)?

The only way I see them (or any of the current lower level P5 teams) winning a natty is if they are able to utilize NIL and the transfer portal to more even the playing field in regards to talent accumulation. As long as the talent gap is as wide as it is, only once in a blue moon will any of those have a chance.

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.