The CFP is garbage

[cyhiphopp]

I have no problem with the loser of a conference championship game getting in as long as there isn't a rule against it. Should there be that rule? Different argument.

The top 2 teams in the country could be in the same conference.

The thing is, if the supposed top 2 teams in the country are in the same conference, then they have the chance to solve the issue in the Conference Championship or in a divisional game earlier in the year. What does a rematch decide? Give someone else a chance to prove they are the best team.

Unfortunately the "top 2 teams in the country" designation is very subjective. This year Bama and Georgia MAY be the top two teams in the country, but until they play someone from the other conferences in the playoff, they can't prove it. When they play each other, that should be enough to decide who is the better of those two teams.

 

[SiouxCityCyclone]

I'm hoping the playoff goes to 8 teams. I've had a few thoughts on how we get to 8, so follow me here....

Scenario 1: Each Power 5 conference champion is in, and three at large teams. Seems simple enough.

Scenario 2: Each Power 5 conference champion is in, and three at large teams. Group of 5 team can ( qualify as an at large if they are ranked in the top (insert number here).

Scenario 3: Each Power 5 conference champion is in, and three at large teams. However, the conference champion needs to be ranked within the top (insert number here) otherwise that conference loses it's automatic qualifier for that season, and there would be additional at large bids.

Scenario 4: Each Power 5 conference champion is in, and three at large teams. However, if a Group of 5 team is a conference champion and ranked higher than a conference champion from the Power 5, that G5 team is an auto qualifier and there would only be two at large teams.

Interesting to think/talk about where the CFP is going. Lots of different directions and options.

 

[jdoggivjc]

I personally think 5 Conf Champs, Top ranked G5 conference champ, two at large bids. Make the most sense.

UCF should not be ranked where they are. Should be 12-14 range.

Personally, I think it should be 6 - the 5 P5 champs and 1 G5 conference champ. Give the top 2 teams a bye, and compensate the 3 and 4 teams by giving them a home game.

 

[ZB4CY]

Personally, I think it should be 6 - the 5 P5 champs and 1 G5 conference champ. Give the top 2 teams a bye, and compensate the 3 and 4 teams by giving them a home game.

Yeah, but those 2 at large bids could be needed.

A 12-0 Ohio State loses to a 12-0 Wisconsin and only one would make it in that scenario?

2 at large bids would be nice to have in that situation.

 

[jdoggivjc]

Yeah, but those 2 at large bids could be needed.

A 12-0 Ohio State loses to a 12-0 Wisconsin and only one would make it in that scenario?

2 at large bids would be nice to have in that situation.

Absolutely leave the 12-1 team out. It makes winning your conference mean something.

 

[surly]

Whenever it's a subjective judgment there will be errors aplenty ripe for the pickin'.

Big 10 schools have scored exactly zero points in the last two CFP games.

Until the standard includes all power five champions, this system will be misdirected by agendas and biases.

 

[BryceC]

Yes, I literally did...literally.

You obviously have trouble with the linkage (and use a the tired "straw man" excuse) so I'll try to explain it for you.

Tre states...(in response to the example of Washington)



The point is that in the absence of a head to head game *or* the teams trading schedules we can't truly know who is better. For some teams it's obvious, Georgia would blow KU off the field. For others it gets tricky. When you disqualify a team because their conference "stinks" you replace them with a team whose conference presumably doesn't stink. You've now weighted conferences yet Alabama doesn't play a Pac schedule and Washington could very well be undefeated with Alabama's schedule. The B1G West kind of stinks but if Wisconsin becomes the B1G Champion they absolutely should have a chance to play in a playoff because through no fault of their own they didn't play ND's or Clemson's schedule.

We'll never know if TCU could've won it all in 2014 but we do know that neither the #1 or #2 won it. And we also know that TCU had a legit case to be that 4th team who won it all.

A CFP that selects four teams while there are five P5 conferences is a failure. It fails to eliminate the uncertainty that it was designed to solve.

His post literally stated he didn't care about conferences. He just wants the best teams.

Your response? "So, the SEC is better? How do you know?" He literally didn't make any claim on the quality of the SEC. That is the definition of a straw man.

We have a very hard time comparing teams because the top squads play each other so rarely in the noncon. We use what metrics we have, be it computer rankings and eyeballs, and rate them from there.

IMO anybody that has lost a game puts themselves at the mercy of the playoff committee. Win your games and you're in. I think the committee has done a good job. We can agree to disagree.

 

[Cyrocks]

Personally, I think it should be 6 - the 5 P5 champs and 1 G5 conference champ. Give the top 2 teams a bye, and compensate the 3 and 4 teams by giving them a home game.

Whatever it takes to get rid of a "Selection" committee.

 

[surly]

Win your games and you're in. I think the committee has done a good job. We can agree to disagree.

The flaw in your argument is that few teams go undefeated. So, at that point today, it's all subjective. And as a result the system is open to question, bias, and agendizing.

 

[cyclones500]

I'd love to know which of

OU
TCU
UDub
Wisconsin
Miami

wouldn't be undefeated against Alabama's schedule...

I’ll speculate on that thought experiment. I think all the teams you listed would have no more than one loss vs. that schedule, highest probability loss being at Texas A&M. OU losing at home to Iowa State is a notch better than a road loss to ATM, so that game isn't a gimmie.

Miami might beat all of them, but A&M would be survival in final minutes, as is The U's M.O. this season.

Any of those teams could be undefeated vs. Alabama's slate, but logic says it wouldn't be all of them.

 

[BryceC]

The flaw in your argument is that few teams go undefeated. So, at that point today, it's all subjective. And as a result the system is open to question, bias, and agendizing.

Well of course it is. But it's only open to that because teams lose. You lose, and again, you lose control of your destiny. I'll agree that somebody is getting screwed as soon as 5 power 5 teams all end up undefeated and one gets left out, and it isn't against some patty cake schedule like Wisky.

 

[cyclones500]

Reaching back to a discussion earlier in the thread — On Wisconsin, and benefit-of-doubt.

There’s a bit of freak-out about UW’s schedule weakness, but it’s extrapolating what happens if Badgers stay undefeated and begin jumping some 1-loss teams, and if SOS should be a hindrance. As it stands now, Wisconsin is only #8 and that’s about right, given the parameters. In a way, it’s encouraging that the committee doesn’t seem to be elevating unbeaten teams simply because they “haven’t lost.”

In defense of UW schedule, two things:
* They have no control over the rotation among Big Ten East teams. I don’t know if B10 has a routine rotation setup that cycles the opponents consistently, but the fact they happened to draw Maryland, Indiana and Purdue and avoided OSU, PSU, MSU is not their fault. Also nothing Wisconsin can do if there's no serious threat in its own division. (Even that is a matter of perception).
* The non-conference is “controllable,” but I doubt anyone assumed BYU would be so awful this year. On paper, a road game vs. that opponent suggests having a solid non-league test.

 

[Playboi Carti]

Joel Klatts take...why the rankings now do matter.

He actually makes good points, especially with Auburn they have no business being that high.

 

[weR138]

His post literally stated he didn't care about conferences. He just wants the best teams.

Your response? "So, the SEC is better? How do you know?" He literally didn't make any claim on the quality of the SEC. That is the definition of a straw man.

We have a very hard time comparing teams because the top squads play each other so rarely in the noncon. We use what metrics we have, be it computer rankings and eyeballs, and rate them from there.

IMO anybody that has lost a game puts themselves at the mercy of the playoff committee. Win your games and you're in. I think the committee has done a good job. We can agree to disagree.

JFC...read post #24 if you're so concerned with our dialogue.

One more time...

If in the same breath you say you want the "best teams" and that you "don't care about conferences" but state that one team is not deserving (UDub) because their "conference stinks" (Pac 12)...YOU'VE JUST MADE AN ENDORSEMENT FOR ANOTHER CONFERENCE. In this case that the SEC (Alabama) is better than the Pac (UDub).

Pointing out a contradiction is not a straw man.

 

[weR138]

He actually makes good points, especially with Auburn they have no business being that high.

No, they don't.

So, cui bono?

 

[TykeClone]

Yeah, but those 2 at large bids could be needed.

A 12-0 Ohio State loses to a 12-0 Wisconsin and only one would make it in that scenario?

2 at large bids would be nice to have in that situation.

The conference championship game would be a de-facto playoff game in that situation.

 

[KidSilverhair]

All of you people saying a conference championship game loser should not be in the playoff - you've got it exactly right. Conference championships should be a de facto play-in, almost like a pre-first-round kind of deal; you lose, no playoff for you, here's the Outback Bowl as your parting gift.

ESPN is really hyping the "Bama and Georgia both deserve playoff spots!" hysteria HARD, and why not? When the SEC makes money, ESPN makes money. But no, it should absolutely not work that way. I don't care if you think a 12-1 Georgia (after losing to a 13-0 Alabama) or a 12-1 Wisconsin (after losing to a 13-0 Ohio State) are still among the four best teams in the land: They just lost to another one of those top playoff teams. Why would they get a rematch? That conference championship should be a playoff game, not an exhibition that doesn't really settle anything. Make it mean something.

And don't get me started about the committee taking teams that didn't even win their division (cough*Ohio State*cough). What a farce.

 

[KidSilverhair]

Reaching back to a discussion earlier in the thread — On Wisconsin, and benefit-of-doubt.

There’s a bit of freak-out about UW’s schedule weakness, but it’s extrapolating what happens if Badgers stay undefeated and begin jumping some 1-loss teams, and if SOS should be a hindrance. As it stands now, Wisconsin is only #8 and that’s about right, given the parameters. In a way, it’s encouraging that the committee doesn’t seem to be elevating unbeaten teams simply because they “haven’t lost.”

In defense of UW schedule, two things:
* They have no control over the rotation among Big Ten East teams. I don’t know if B10 has a routine rotation setup that cycles the opponents consistently, but the fact they happened to draw Maryland, Indiana and Purdue and avoided OSU, PSU, MSU is not their fault. Also nothing Wisconsin can do if there's no serious threat in its own division. (Even that is a matter of perception).
* The non-conference is “controllable,” but I doubt anyone assumed BYU would be so awful this year. On paper, a road game vs. that opponent suggests having a solid non-league test.

Here's a thought on teams not having control of their conference schedules: Maybe the B1G should be punished for expanding beyond all reason and adding garbage programs like Rutgers. The reason why teams like Iowa and Wisconsin can build flashy records while avoiding strong teams in the other division is because the B1G set it up that way. Maybe don't reward the conference with undeserved playoff spots.

You want to expand to a ridiculous number so conference "mates" hardly ever play each other? Go ahead. But there should be a price to pay - just like a true round-robin champion should get more credit (although we've seen where the committee falls on that with their nonsensical "thirteenth data point" trash.)

 

[Incyte]

I think yesterday proved debating week 11 rankings is a colossal waste of time.

 

[dirtyninety]

We must have the winner of the Super Bowl play the winner of the College Championship game....it can easily be done two weeks after the Superbowl. It would be good for television ratings. We must have this because for too long we just don't know who the best team is...the college team or the NFL team? Who knows? Alabama could have beaten that Patriots team last year.....Edelman's 40 meter dash time just doesn't match up to the Alabama secondary. It is Time for a true playoff....we must demand this on facebook and instagram. We must know who the winner would be. A couple of the boys from the Bachelor series on ABC/ESPN/Disney should demand this with furrowed brow.