|
Replies: 45
| visibility 152
|
Orange Immortal [61331]
TigerPulse: 100%
60
Posts: 47747
Joined: 2000
|
The CFP should NOT be about getting the 4 best teams to play
Nov 30, 2016, 7:14 PM
|
|
for the title. The reason is irrefutable: We will never know who the best teams are, especially if we can't all agree on immutable, objective, clearly defined criteria for determining such. Furthermore, if we had such criteria, there would be no reason to have the playoff, at least not to determine who was the best; no, we could just apply the crieria and crown a champion without a single snap. And, the best team does not always win - that's just a fact. Being "the best", which is 100% subjective, is not what we should be rewarding. As long as "Best" is the goal, then losers can (and do) claim to be "better" than teams that beat them.
The objective of a playoff should be to reward on-field achievement, particularly winning, and specifically navigating an entire season in such a way that leads to winning a conference championship. Now, if you have a playoff which includes the major conference winners (as long as they all have a conference championship game), and you want to call the winner of that playoff "The Best", I wouldn't have a problem with that, even though "Champion" would be more accurate, and more meaningful.
Let's have winners in the playoff, not teams who people (who are often dead wrong) believe are the "best".
|
|
|
|
 |
Legend [6865]
TigerPulse: 100%
41
|
Re: The CFP should NOT be about getting the 4 best teams to play
Nov 30, 2016, 7:26 PM
|
|
You really need to get yourself a sports board thesaurus so you can communicate clearer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Clemson Legend [102411]
TigerPulse: 100%
64
Posts: 67363
Joined: 2002
|
Just make it 8 teams and you're guaranteed to get the best
Nov 30, 2016, 7:29 PM
|
|
Have a committee that ranks the same way as now. Pick 8 teams for the playoffs. Have THREE games (potentially). Give a weekend off between games. Play at the end of January. This year you would have the first round on New Years Eve. Week off. Four remaining teams play. Week off. The NC game would be on January 28th. I can see many years where the 2-4 picks could be argued among 4 teams or more. With 8 teams selected, you're giving everyone who realistically has a chance a chance. You might not some years with 4 teams.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [12943]
TigerPulse: 100%
47
|
IMO... 8 teams would be worse than 4 this year
Nov 30, 2016, 7:31 PM
|
|
You have several teams who could lay claim to spots 7 and 8... and it will be even murkier that far down after conference championship games
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4854]
TigerPulse: 100%
37
|
Re: IMO... 8 teams would be worse than 4 this year
Nov 30, 2016, 10:24 PM
|
|
Agreed, can you imagine all the "deserving" 2 loss teams?
Not a good look at all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Team Captain [453]
TigerPulse: 95%
18
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [20788]
TigerPulse: 100%
52
Posts: 13715
Joined: 1995
|
Use stats
Nov 30, 2016, 7:41 PM
|
|
how many top 8 teams win the basketball tourny compared to the 64th teams? Sure you can argue but it doubles the chances of getting the BEST teams in, even if you don't. I agree though, the arguing would continue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Head Coach [971]
TigerPulse: 93%
24
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3820]
TigerPulse: 100%
35
|
But again, erases the meaning of the regular season. Which
Dec 1, 2016, 4:58 PM
|
|
college football is the only sport where the regular season means anything anymore anyway. Please don't take that away.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2355]
TigerPulse: 100%
32
|
Re: Just make it 8 teams and you're guaranteed to get the best
Nov 30, 2016, 8:06 PM
[ in reply to Just make it 8 teams and you're guaranteed to get the best ] |
|
I think if you go that late (Jan 28th), you're going to have an issue with players who are going pro either playing and not giving their all, or skipping out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [11058]
TigerPulse: 100%
45
Posts: 13130
Joined: 2014
|
With 8 teams, play the 1st round 2 weeks after the CCGs,
Nov 30, 2016, 10:44 PM
|
|
with semis & final the same as now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ring of Honor [23030]
TigerPulse: 100%
53
Posts: 23943
Joined: 2003
|
|
|
|
|
|
Team Captain [453]
TigerPulse: 95%
18
|
So is Western Michigan...
Nov 30, 2016, 7:32 PM
|
|
The 1 or the 2 seed in your playoff?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Immortal [61331]
TigerPulse: 100%
60
Posts: 47747
Joined: 2000
|
They would not be included at this point.
Nov 30, 2016, 7:37 PM
|
|
I would like to see a time when they would be, however.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Team Captain [453]
TigerPulse: 95%
18
|
Your arguement was for "Winners"
Dec 1, 2016, 8:30 AM
|
|
Let's have winners in the playoff, not teams who people (who are often dead wrong) believe are the "best".
Basically if you want non-subjective criteria, Western Michigan HAS to be in if they win their conference. They along with Alabama meet your definition of "winners" as neither has lost and both will be conference champions.
I'm just trying to illustrate the fallacy of counting losses as a criteria for how good or bad a team is. There is no doubt in my mind that any of the top 10 teams in the playoff poll would beat WMU 95% of the time by double figures. But there's not a direct comparison that can be made so if we are just counting wins vs losses, WMU has to be in.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2702]
TigerPulse: 100%
33
|
At some point the criteria for Div 1A needs to change
Dec 1, 2016, 8:33 AM
|
|
If a team is 1A it should have the same respect as any other 1A team. If a conference never stands a chance of winning a national championship then lets just remove them from the equation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Immortal [61331]
TigerPulse: 100%
60
Posts: 47747
Joined: 2000
|
My argument is for conference winners, and I would be fine
Dec 1, 2016, 5:50 PM
[ in reply to Your arguement was for "Winners" ] |
|
with WMU in an 8-team playoff this year, but not a 4-team, as there has to be a cutoff.
|
|
|
|
|
|
1st Rounder [650]
TigerPulse: 95%
21
|
Re: Your arguement was for "Winners"
Dec 1, 2016, 6:18 PM
[ in reply to Your arguement was for "Winners" ] |
|
Were I in charge, Western Michigan (if they get to 13-0) would be in. To give a nod to the screamers, I would seed them 4th.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Tiger [36452]
TigerPulse: 100%
56
Posts: 18324
Joined: 2013
|
If they were the highest ranked non-power team they in.
Nov 30, 2016, 7:50 PM
[ in reply to So is Western Michigan... ] |
|
if we had an 8 team playoff. People love Cinderella stories and having those mid majors in the playoff would generate excitement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rival Killer [2659]
TigerPulse: 100%
33
|
We don't have a playoff
Nov 30, 2016, 7:41 PM
|
|
We still have a ranking system. We just happen to let the Top 4 play a little playoff based on rankings.
A true playoff would require all participants be in similar divisions and all wins and losses considered equal, and counted.
You can't wedge CFB into this format with 130 teams. As it is FBS teams are unequal, conferences are unequal and differ from others, some teams aren't even in conferences.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Tiger [36452]
TigerPulse: 100%
56
Posts: 18324
Joined: 2013
|
I completely agree.
Nov 30, 2016, 7:48 PM
|
|
Penn State beat OSU, end of story, if they win the Big10 they deserve to be in over OSU. Not like their other loss was a really bad one, by a few points on the road to a Pitt team that beat clemson as well.
Im tired of the eye test! Loserville was supposedly better than Clemson even though they lost head to head bc of the eye test!!!! Then that house of cards crumbled and clearly CU is and always was the better team.
We need an 8 team playoff. All 5 major conference champs get in; end of story, the highest non-power 5 team gets in, and then 2 at large bids for some controversy. It is really the only way to go, and only adds one more game.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rival Killer [2659]
TigerPulse: 100%
33
|
Re: I completely agree.
Nov 30, 2016, 8:03 PM
|
|
Penn State is 10-2
Ohio State is 11-1
Head to head is irrelevant
The fact that B1G ignores 1/4 of the teams' records is an internal matter.
They see both teams as 8-1 so head to head breaks the tie. Conferences are decided on different criteria which in cases like this is at odds with the total record. Nationally we need to look at the entire schedule.
Bama is 12-0, not 8-0 as sec sees them
Clemson is 11-1, not 7-1 as ACC sees us
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [11058]
TigerPulse: 100%
45
Posts: 13130
Joined: 2014
|
Well, it adds 4 more games, 1 more round of playoff.
Nov 30, 2016, 10:48 PM
[ in reply to I completely agree. ] |
|
I don't have a problem with that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Athletic Dir [1160]
TigerPulse: 97%
26
|
Re: I completely agree.
Dec 2, 2016, 7:23 PM
[ in reply to I completely agree. ] |
|
"We need an 8 team playoff. All 5 major conference champs get in; end of story, the highest non-power 5 team gets in, and then 2 at large bids for some controversy. It is really the only way to go, and only adds one more game."
DING DING DING... we have a winner
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [3973]
TigerPulse: 100%
35
|
Agreed. It should be a body of work with the largest
Nov 30, 2016, 7:58 PM
|
|
possible sample size: a full season.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3820]
TigerPulse: 82%
35
|
immutable stat: OSU 1 loss, PSU 2 losses....
Nov 30, 2016, 8:06 PM
|
|
y'all just keep ignoring that FACT.
Otherwise, put PItt into the Playoff - they've only got 4 losses. Who cares?
|
|
|
|
|
|
1st Rounder [648]
TigerPulse: 100%
21
|
But.....
Nov 30, 2016, 10:20 PM
|
|
But if psu wins championship, they have the same amount of wins
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rival Killer [2659]
TigerPulse: 100%
33
|
And...... 11-1 still > 11-2....***
Nov 30, 2016, 10:41 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1st Rounder [648]
TigerPulse: 100%
21
|
Is it?
Nov 30, 2016, 10:53 PM
|
|
I would say it is really about equal, in this situation. No reason a team should get rewarded for a game it didn't play. If you say Ohio State is better at 11-1 than PSU at 11-2, you are giving Ohio the win in a 13th game they never played.
In this case record should not be considered at all, should be implied as equal, and the other criteria used.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Recruit [97]
TigerPulse: 93%
10
|
Re: And...... 11-1 still > 11-2....***
Dec 1, 2016, 9:12 AM
[ in reply to And...... 11-1 still > 11-2....*** ] |
|
^^^^Not when 11-2 beat 11-1 in the head-to-head match up. THAT one single factoid changes everything. Otherwise, UL could be thinking they are actually better than CLEMSON.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rival Killer [2659]
TigerPulse: 100%
33
|
Re: And...... 11-1 still > 11-2....***
Dec 1, 2016, 9:58 AM
|
|
Head to head ONLY matters if teams are TIED! It's a tiebreaker! OSU and PSU are not tied and won't be tied after the B1GCG. How hard is this?
Also Pitt is not > Clemson.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Team Captain [453]
TigerPulse: 95%
18
|
Another Immutable stat: Western Michigan = 0 Losses
Dec 1, 2016, 8:20 AM
[ in reply to immutable stat: OSU 1 loss, PSU 2 losses.... ] |
|
The loss count argument holds no value unless you are willing to include WMU. Once you start using strength of schedule and quality of wins and losses, the sheer number of losses means less.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2576]
TigerPulse: 100%
32
|
8 teams gives every team a chance to play their way in
Dec 1, 2016, 9:03 AM
|
|
and overcome human bias.
And if a 3 loss team wins the NC, then so be it. It will have been earned on the field.
If that season is too long, go back to the 11 game regular season.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top TigerNet [32293]
TigerPulse: 100%
55
Posts: 35280
Joined: 2003
|
A gree***
Dec 1, 2016, 9:59 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6662]
TigerPulse: 100%
41
|
Re: The CFP should NOT be about getting the 4 best teams to play
Dec 1, 2016, 10:03 AM
|
|
Five power five conferences. Take the 4 highest ranked, and put them in the playoffs. OSU doesn't deserve to be there. They can't even win their own conference. They BARELY beat a 3-9 team because their coach decided to go for the win and missed the 2pt. Would be much easier that way. Then it's a simply matter of ranking the 5 champions and taking the top 4. How hard is that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rival Killer [2659]
TigerPulse: 100%
33
|
Re: The CFP should NOT be about getting the 4 best teams to play
Dec 1, 2016, 10:10 AM
|
|
And with this move you've just turned all non-conference games into exhibition games. Conference champions are determined solely on conference games.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Walk-On [129]
TigerPulse: 100%
11
|
Re: The CFP should NOT be about getting the 4 best teams to play
Dec 1, 2016, 1:56 PM
|
|
If going by wins and losses (winning percentage)... the 4 team field would be:
Alabama, W Michigan, 3/4 Clemson, 3/4 Washington.
Would W Michigan stand a chance? We'll never know, we can only guess. But we ARE saying that their conference doesn't mean jack.
Out of conference games (depending ON the conference of course) do mean something, but it's always and forever based on preconceived rankings that some guy or group of guys put together ... see Josh Kendall for the flaws in that.
I don't know what the best is, but anyone arguing over PSU/OSU is ignoring 2 factors no matter which side they argue.
Want to go to all conference champs? Then we need at least a 10 team playoff.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6662]
TigerPulse: 100%
41
|
Re: The CFP should NOT be about getting the 4 best teams to play
Dec 1, 2016, 2:14 PM
|
|
Well, non conference games DONT figure into conference championships. No kidding. The NCAA isn't going to ask my opinion, but that's still how I'd do it. Putting an at large team into the final four after losing to the conference champion is simply lame. By your logic, why even have conference championships. Just make a listing of all NCAA teams and rank them based on record.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Walk-On [129]
TigerPulse: 100%
11
|
Re: The CFP should NOT be about getting the 4 best teams to play
Dec 1, 2016, 2:46 PM
|
|
Why play them indeed! We're proving this year that it may not mean anything in the B1G. We prove it every year with the MAC, AAC, MW, Conf USA, Mid-America, and Sun Belt Champs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rival Killer [2659]
TigerPulse: 100%
33
|
Re: The CFP should NOT be about getting the 4 best teams to play
Dec 1, 2016, 3:07 PM
[ in reply to Re: The CFP should NOT be about getting the 4 best teams to play ] |
|
Conference championships were around before the 4-team playoff. Conferences may want them, but having them is no reason we can't select teams on the entire schedule.
If Penn State and Ohio State were in different conferences, they'd be compared the same way they are compared to Clemson or Bama. OSU is 11-1 with wins over Michigan and Ok and a loss to PSU. PSU is 10-2 with a win over OSU and losses to Michigan and Pitt. No one would place PSU above OSU on the h2h win unless they were tied on schedule/result. They aren't. So the national ranking should not be hijacked by a conference ranking that ignores the non conference results that set the teams apart.
Clemson and Michigan aren't compared on only conference results. Do it the same same same for any comparison between any teams.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rival Killer [2659]
TigerPulse: 100%
33
|
Re: The CFP should NOT be about getting the 4 best teams to play
Dec 1, 2016, 3:17 PM
[ in reply to Re: The CFP should NOT be about getting the 4 best teams to play ] |
|
We aren't going by W/L. We go by schedule/results. Schedules are weighed against the W/L a team compiled.
That's why western mich isn't in top 4.
I'm saying it has to be consistently based on the entire schedule. Conference and division champions are decided in a different and incompatible way: only on conf games.
When we can see OSU > PSU on the entire schedule, yet PSU has the edge when non conf games are removed, why defer to the smaller subset of games? It makes sense for division title, but not national rankings.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rival Killer [2659]
TigerPulse: 100%
33
|
I think my reply landed in the wrong place because phone app
Dec 1, 2016, 3:58 PM
[ in reply to Re: The CFP should NOT be about getting the 4 best teams to play ] |
|
So I'll just compound the mistake here.
I think the committee is ranking the teams as I was saying, on entire schedule/result with no regard for who won a division.
They like OSU's 11-1 better than ours, and ours better than Washington's.
We'll see how they react after someone wins a conference, though. We will be 12-1 and they will give some credential for conf champ. Hoping it's us and Washington leaping OSU. But skeptical they'd create their dream matchup in semis. Unless they remember last year's game!...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Walk-On [129]
TigerPulse: 100%
11
|
Re: I think my reply landed in the wrong place because phone app
Dec 1, 2016, 6:11 PM
|
|
No doubt it will be a fun ride.
I'm completely fine with the rankings as they stand now. In the hypothetical world where PSU wins that conference title, then they add another quality win to their resume (one that OSU brags about currently); and that's going to generate a lot of this conversation.
This strength of schedule argument is what's most flawed, imo. Guess which conference (P5 or G5) has the most teams with less than 4 wins ... B1G. They do still have the best 4 team combo of all conferences. Big picture, I think PSU and OSU today are closer in resume than some.
|
|
|
|
|
|
1st Rounder [650]
TigerPulse: 95%
21
|
Re: The CFP should NOT be about getting the 4 best teams to play
Dec 1, 2016, 6:15 PM
|
|
You've said what I've been thinking ... thanks.
Now ... having said that, my four team playoff would be Alabama, Western Michigan, Washington and Clemson. Loss or losses this weekend would change those four.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ring of Honor [23030]
TigerPulse: 100%
53
Posts: 23943
Joined: 2003
|
It's not about that at all. It's about getting the best 2 in
Dec 1, 2016, 6:24 PM
|
|
It does that job perfectly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
1st Rounder [648]
TigerPulse: 100%
21
|
If it were just conference champions
Dec 1, 2016, 6:27 PM
|
|
Then you would have these issues-
Out of conference games lose a great deal of excitement
The instances where a conference champ may not necessarily get in increases the stakes of end of season play for a greater number of teams
There are probably more but these two reasons alone tell me it is more important that they do it the way they are now because it increases the coolness level of college football. It increases ratings and profits. It increases many things that make the sport more worth being a part of, whether fan or player.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 45
| visibility 152
|
|
|
50
