Klatt on the playoff committee
- Thread starter State43
- Start date
Honestly, It doesn't matter how it's done, because commentators are going to line up and say it's the wrong way. It's how they justify a paycheck, imho
Disappointed. I was hoping Joel Klatt was going to be "on the committee." That would have been truly great news.
Joel Klatt is one of the best in the business. His views are dead on but he's preaching to deaf ears.
Cyclonepride
Thought Police
Unfortunately, his argument results in two SEC teams every year. That's the end result of what he is pushing for.
The playoff needs to be expanded to 16 or (IMO) 24 teams. The more inclusive you make it, the less real argument anyone has for a claim that they could have been national champion.
The playoff needs to be expanded to 16 or (IMO) 24 teams. The more inclusive you make it, the less real argument anyone has for a claim that they could have been national champion.
So he posted this a month ago. Actually the CFP ended up with 3 of the 4 teams that his argument would have called for. The outlier was Notre Dame, and who would put a 2-loss Georgia team or a 2-loss MIchigan into the CFP ahead of unbeaten Notre Dame? You just can't. There have to be consequences for losing games.
24 teams would be a terrible idea.
Eh, 16 is too many.
8 seems fine to me.You get 6 conference champions (P5+1G5) and 2 at larges (i might also include a 'max 1 at larger per conference) and call it a day.
If you're not a conference champion you already don't have much claim you should be national champion so i'm not really concerned with claims by the 9th or greater team that they deserve it. Don't like that you didnt get an at large? Should have won your conference. Your conference is too hard because it has too many damn teams? Sucks for you, switch conferences.
Agree that 24 is probably too many - however, FCS seems to make it work just fine with much smaller athletic budgets. D2 has 28 and D3 has 32.
I get the "tradition" of the bowl games, etc. but 16 seems to me to be the perfect number. You give each conference an auto bid (yes, even the G5 leagues, just like in basketball), and have 6 at-larges. The ratio isn't quite the same as basketball where it's half auto-bid and half at-large - you could do a 20-team bracket with byes to solve this issue. However, with a 16-team bracket, this year's tournament would give at-larges to Notre Dame, Georgia, Michigan, Florida, LSU, and Penn State.
Conference championships should mean something, even if your league is down that year - you still were the best team from that league. You don't think a 2-15 Clemson-App St game would be exciting? I know it's much tougher in FB than BB simply based on the number of personnel involved, but we would see the occasional upset and people love to root for the underdog. This would also still mean you have to go about 10-2 at the worst in a P5 league to make it in. SEC might get some 9-3 teams in to start with, but watch them lose to some non-SEC schools and see what happens to the reputation of the league. Could be one of the best things to happen to the B1G, B12, etc.
I don't get the push of people for 16 or 24 teams unless you want to totally blow up traditional bowls. Even then, I don't see the reason for that many. I am still on the side of taking 6. You take all of the major conference champions and then a plus one either from the group of five, Notre Dame, or another team that seems really deserving. The conference championship games serve as a semi-final of sorts. If you can't win your conference you don't deserve to be in.
Another advantage to 6 is winning games is kept important as the top two get byes.
Another advantage to 6 is winning games is kept important as the top two get byes.
If GA wants to be in the final 4, beat Bama. Twice in 13 months virtually playing a home game had Bama on the ropes - then fail to put it away.
They have had their chances, why take away other teams from having a chance because you think Ga is better.
Also GA does lose by 20 to LSU
College football regular season is the best sport, adding more doesn’t always make something better
They have had their chances, why take away other teams from having a chance because you think Ga is better.
Also GA does lose by 20 to LSU
College football regular season is the best sport, adding more doesn’t always make something better
I'm with you on 6 teams. Maybe go 8 if people think it's unfair for 2 teams to get byes. There just aren't more than 6 teams capable of winning the national title.
Alternatively, if you don't want to destroy the entire bowl system, expand to 6 and have the top 6 conference champions.
It would certainly provide a much more realistic path to the championship for non-blue-blood teams than the current system allows.
Cyclonepride
Thought Police
Blow up the totally irrelevant exhibition games? Yep.
24 makes the postseason mean something. Only adds four games (five at most, but playing a fifth is highly unlikely). Ditch the 12th game, ditch the conference championships (both ideas were ways to prop up the bowl system by making the season too long for a multi-game playoff.
Don't get me wrong- I'm loving the hell out of ISU going to the Alamo bowl, but there are four teams left playing games that actually matter.
With 8 teams you can pick the best pure 8 without worrying about nation wide representation. With 4 it's absolutely idiotic to have a potential instant rematch of the SEC championship, there's just not enough certainty and not enough non conference matchups to be confident that 50% of a playoff system should be from just one conference.
Go with auto bids for the power 5 and 3 at large. If 2 of those at large teams are SEC teams so be it, no big deal when there's some guaranteed access for all regions.
I think they were including a g5 team, which I think is a great idea as long as they meet some criteria, similar to how Boise, Utah and TCU got in to BCS games in the past. I think they had to be in the top 12 or something like that. I don't like just going with the highest rated g5 team but if you have a team like UCF that nearly every ranking has in the top 8, they should get a shot.
The only thing I would add is have 7 bowls bid for the right to hold a playoff game. The rest of the bowls are just rewards for a good season by the teams and their fans.
First of all, this is a month old, correct?
I agree that the human element lends itself to controversy. I've never understood why they didn't just keep the BCS data to select playoff teams. It generally got the two best teams to the national championship game while keeping emotion and the opportunity for the confirmation bias that Klatt speaks about out of the equation. Keep the data and select 4 (or 6 with a couple byes, or at the most, 8.)
Now, while I really like Klatt and agree that he's one of the best in the business, his talking points defending those select teams in the B1G really fell apart down the stretch. Purdue? 6-6. Some good wins, but some bad losses as well. NW? Good finish and a division champ, but let's not forget they were winless in the non-con. That stink SHOULD take a while to rinse off. MSU? 7-5 with an awful loss to Nebraska and a close call with Rutgers. Wisconsin? One of the most disappointing teams in FBS football. The argument that they were undervalued did not age well at all, and as always, they were the portion of the conference that the top end was able to prop itself up with.
Like I said, I really like Klatt in booth and with his analytical skills but he lost me to an extent the day of the tOSU-Michigan game. He spent that whole 2nd half talking about how tOSU was without a doubt a playoff team based on how soundly they were beating the "best defense in the country" while actually playing some defense themselves (giving up 39??) vs. the OU that played zero defense (which was hard to argue with after you got done watching them play WVU.) He seemed to completely disregard the ass kicking tOSU took to an average Purdue team and the close call they had the week before while giving up 50+ to Maryland. It's surprising for me to see an old B12 (now P12) guy stumping for the B1G as though they need more help from the media. Is the SEC given the benefit of the doubt way too much? Absolutely. Is the B1G somehow a victim in all of this? Umm, no.
His argument against the playoff system is spot on, but in the end the "undervaluation" of the teams he was choosing to portray as their casualties was just as spot on.
I agree that the human element lends itself to controversy. I've never understood why they didn't just keep the BCS data to select playoff teams. It generally got the two best teams to the national championship game while keeping emotion and the opportunity for the confirmation bias that Klatt speaks about out of the equation. Keep the data and select 4 (or 6 with a couple byes, or at the most, 8.)
Now, while I really like Klatt and agree that he's one of the best in the business, his talking points defending those select teams in the B1G really fell apart down the stretch. Purdue? 6-6. Some good wins, but some bad losses as well. NW? Good finish and a division champ, but let's not forget they were winless in the non-con. That stink SHOULD take a while to rinse off. MSU? 7-5 with an awful loss to Nebraska and a close call with Rutgers. Wisconsin? One of the most disappointing teams in FBS football. The argument that they were undervalued did not age well at all, and as always, they were the portion of the conference that the top end was able to prop itself up with.
Like I said, I really like Klatt in booth and with his analytical skills but he lost me to an extent the day of the tOSU-Michigan game. He spent that whole 2nd half talking about how tOSU was without a doubt a playoff team based on how soundly they were beating the "best defense in the country" while actually playing some defense themselves (giving up 39??) vs. the OU that played zero defense (which was hard to argue with after you got done watching them play WVU.) He seemed to completely disregard the ass kicking tOSU took to an average Purdue team and the close call they had the week before while giving up 50+ to Maryland. It's surprising for me to see an old B12 (now P12) guy stumping for the B1G as though they need more help from the media. Is the SEC given the benefit of the doubt way too much? Absolutely. Is the B1G somehow a victim in all of this? Umm, no.
His argument against the playoff system is spot on, but in the end the "undervaluation" of the teams he was choosing to portray as their casualties was just as spot on.
I agree with most of what he says except for the conference vs. conference blanket comparison. The Big 10 may be 7-6 against the other P5 conferences, but that doesn't tell me who was in the games. If all 13 games were against lower tiered teams from the other conferences then that stat doesn't show the entire story. Other than that, he is totally right and the ACC has some strange boosts in their rankings. Plus the fact that half of the SEC and ACC should have another loss if they played would do what the other 3 P5's do and play 9 conference games.
