»
Topic: For anybody wanting an 8-team Playoff
Replies: 36   Last Post: Dec 6, 2017 1:34 PM by: vandalay
This topic has been archived - replies are not allowed.


[ Archives - Tiger Boards Archive ]
Start New Topic
Replies: 36  

For anybody wanting an 8-team Playoff

[4]
Posted: Dec 4, 2017 10:58 AM
 

We had one that began this past weekend. The ACC and SEC were play-in games and the OU and Wisc needed to win to be in. Past losses from TCU, USC and OSU nullified their chances even with a win (so in this case, not a playoff), with Alabama the beneficiary of one of the top 4 teams going down.

Alabama IS a top 4 team and their resume does not include a 31 point loss to an unranked mediocre team or a 49-14 loss to a 9-3 ND. As with the argument that Clemson may have lost due to an injured KB, Bama lost with a depleted LB corps. If they were a full strength, there would most likely be another outcome.

OSU is garbage and would get destroyed yet again. I'm psyched for the Bama rubber match!


Except that's not how playoffs work

[2]
Posted: Dec 4, 2017 11:04 AM
 

It's not a playoff game, as you assert, if you can win and still go home.

2019 white level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpg


It's a "de facto" playoff


Posted: Dec 4, 2017 11:31 AM
 

Close enough. 8 would dilute the product, look at this year:

1. Clemson v. 8. USC
2. OU v. 7. Auburn (with 3 losses)
3. UGA v. 6. Wisconsin
4. Bama v. 5. OSU

While Clemson v. USC would be cool and Bama v. OSU would settle the 4 v 5 debate, you also have a 3-loss Auburn. Who in the wide wide world of sports wants a 3-loss team in the playoffs?


Re: It's a "de facto" playoff

[1]
Posted: Dec 5, 2017 9:41 PM
 

That's not how most would seed an 8 team playoff. Five power 5 champs, best group of five, then two at large. Your precious Bama would be there since they have such a dominant reputation and crushed such powerhouses this year as Ole Miss, Vanderbilt, and Tennessee.

I have no sympathy for a team who can recruit and has the resources of Alabama to lose injured players. Don't get sucked in to the ESPN media narrative.


Re: It's a "de facto" playoff

[2]
Posted: Dec 5, 2017 10:21 PM
 

We recruit also and lost to Syracuse when our QB went down. We were mostly healthy last year and lost a game to Pitt. The difference is we were lucky enough that the conference teams who beat us had too poor of records, or in the case of Pitt too poor of a record and weren't in our division, so it didn't cost us a shot at our conference championship.

So basically if Syracuse was good enough to go 7-1 in the ACC this year instead of 2-6, then we shouldn't have made the CFP since we didn't play for our conference title? We would've had the same season, expect our loss would be to a really good team instead of a bad one, and yet you'd want us to be punished for the loss coming against a better team?

I'd also never be for automatically putting in all the conference champions. I know this is an extreme example, but a few years ago a 6-6 GT team played for the ACC Championship. What if something like that happened again and they won? Would you really want a 7-6 team to have a chance at winning a NC?


Re: It's a "de facto" playoff


Posted: Dec 5, 2017 10:25 PM
 

It could be that we lost by 3 and Ohio st lost by 30

2019 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg

Go Tigers! Once A Tiger Always A Tiger


Re: It's a "de facto" playoff

[2]
Posted: Dec 5, 2017 10:45 PM
 

The year that 6-6 Georgia Tech nearly won the ACC (2012, and they just needed a TD on their last drive), a 7-5 Wisconsin actually did win the Big 10 (making them 8-5). And if you did the 5 P5 champs, best G5, 2 at-large model, either 11-1 Florida or 11-1 Oregon would have been left out. They were ranked 3 and 4 in the BCS. So leave out either the 3rd or 4th best team because they obviously don't deserve a shot ("but they didn't even win their division!!!") and put in an 8-5 team (and nearly a 7-6 team) plus several other teams ranked below the team you're leaving out. I'm glad I'm not the only one who sees the flaws in the conference champ auto-bids. Your other points are good too.


My biggest issue isn't with a non CCG winner getting in,


Posted: Dec 5, 2017 11:32 PM
 

it is two teams from the same conference, when we have just four teams in the playoff. That is giving the committee way too much subjective power. Too much of the "eye test" bullcrap! We don't know how good Bama really is because they haven't played anybody, and they got to sit home and recuperate last week, while the other contenders were busting their butts in CCGs.

In my opinion, as long s we have just 4 teams in the playoff, no conference should get two in. Let the committee decide which conference is left out, and IF there is a situation like some have cited, of a 3 or 4 loss CCG winner, they have the discretion to pick a different representative of that conference, as they did last year with OhSt.

Bama is the only team to make the playoff without beating a single top 15 team, and they have done it twice! How is their resume any better than one-loss Wisconsin's?

Possibly one way to address the problem, as some have suggested, is to do away with division winners, and let the two highest ranked teams in each conference play in the CCG. That would make rematches more likely, but it would make for better CCGs, and the conferences are not going to give up the CCGs.

If we had that scenario this year in the SEC, Auburn and UGA would have still played in their CCG, and UGA would be their representative.

2019 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg

Re: It's a "de facto" playoff


Posted: Dec 6, 2017 1:34 PM
 

what are you talking about? we WON our conference. If we didn't win our division would you really expect us to be in the playoff? If we went 11-1 not winning the division with our rep we'd probably still get in. The At-Large category would be for exactly situations like that. We have OBVIOUSLY not been punished for losing to 4-8 Syracuse, I don't understand what you're getting at.

so what if a bad conference champ won? If somehow we won the ACC going 8-4 you wouldn't want a shot?

They'll NEVER go to that because then the polls wouldn't matter as much, the money involved with polls and CFP committees would be much less.


Yeah, right, just what we need! 3 teams from the SEC!***


Posted: Dec 5, 2017 11:05 PM
 



2019 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg

You Conveniently Leave Out The Fact That Alabama Played a

[1]
Posted: Dec 4, 2017 11:05 AM
 

Very weak schedule. By your logic teams should go back to playing cupcake schedules. When Clemson lost late in the year by 3 pts they were deep into playing many top 30 teams away and at night. That kind of pressure is additive and a far tougher slate than the likes of San Jose State, Mercer and the other mediocre teams they played.

2019 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg

Re: You Conveniently Leave Out The Fact That Alabama Played a


Posted: Dec 4, 2017 11:33 AM
 

It works both ways: play a cupcake schedule and dominate or play a tough schedule and win. Bama had significant injuries to their LBs for the Auburn game, so 1 loss is forgivable.


I would argue that 1 loss isn't forgivable in this situation

[3]
Posted: Dec 4, 2017 11:45 AM
 

because it prevented Alabama from even winning their division, much less their conference. It is a slippery slope to take a team that played a relatively easy schedule, did not win their conference, and did not win their division, but simply got in because the committee felt they were a top four team.

Don't get me wrong, I believe that they are one of the top four teams. But I don't believe that they should've gotten in this year based on their resume.

Which begs the question: is the playoff committee supposed to pick the four best teams, or the four most deserving teams? If it's the former, they got it right. If it's the latter, they screwed up.

And if it is truly supposed to be the four best teams, then they need to better define how those teams are being judged. There is obviously a subjective component here, because you have humans making decisions rather than computers. I'm fine with that, but I do not feel that objective metrics such as conference finish, strength of schedule, etc. should go out the window. And by choosing Alabama for the playoff, it seems that such objective measurements were excluded.

Alabama's best wins were against LSU and Mississippi State. They weren't really close to beating Auburn. While Auburn played in the SEC championship game, Alabama sat at home, rested, recuperated, and got into the playoffs. Auburn was essentially penalized for playing in the SEC championship. That doesn't seem fair.

2019 white level member

Re: I would argue that 1 loss isn't forgivable in this situation


Posted: Dec 4, 2017 11:53 AM
 

I agree with a lot you said, but Bama is the most deserving- they didn't lose by 31 to an unranked Iowa nor by 35 to a 3 loss ND. So I think they chose not only the most deserving team for 4 but the best team.

And I understand your sentiment on Auburn getting left out because they played the SECCG, but if they hadn't lost to both LSU and Clemson, they would have been measured up against Bama, and would've gotten in above them.


Re: I would argue that 1 loss isn't forgivable in this situation


Posted: Dec 5, 2017 9:11 PM
 

I will certainly agree with, why put down things that are supposedly important in the recruiting process if you are going to ignore them. Personally, I thought that UCF should have gotten in. I do not think that they are one of the top 4 or even the top 8, but if they won 2 more games then I think they would deserve to be national champs. I don't think that Alabama or OSU can make an argument that they have had a season deserving of a championship regardless of what happens.


Re: You Conveniently Leave Out The Fact That Alabama Played a


Posted: Dec 6, 2017 10:29 AM
 

'Zackly! +1

military_donation.jpg

Also,an 8 team playoff would give you

[1]
Posted: Dec 4, 2017 11:07 AM
 

3 teams that possibly didn't play on Conference Championship weekend,just magnifying this year's problem.




If anything,this year is an argument against an 8 team playoff.


Yeah, why do people want 3 loss teams and more non-champs


Posted: Dec 4, 2017 11:35 AM
 

in the playoff?


Re: For anybody wanting an 8-team Playoff

[1]
Posted: Dec 4, 2017 11:07 AM
 

Agree stay at 4, just means more. 8, u have 3 loss team in there.


Honest question

[2]
Posted: Dec 4, 2017 11:11 AM
 

Is having a 3 loss team included in an expanded field worse than having a non-conference champ included in a smaller field?

I think perhaps the different opinions on that may illuminate the differing views on the current situation.

For me, my only real issue with this year is that we left out 2 conference champs (and an undefeated no p5 champ) in a smaller field in order to include a team which didn't win it's division or conference.

2019 white level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpg


Honest answer

[2]
Posted: Dec 4, 2017 11:28 AM
 

No need to bend over to include 3 loss conference champions and none P5 teams, by putting undue pressure on those at the top to risk injury ,by having to play an extra game,just because other teams didn't do what they were suppose to do during the season. This is College Football,not the NFL wher 7-0 teams make the playoff. The season matters



Did Bama deserve it ? On the surface no, but a deeper look did an OSU that lost one game by 15 points at home and another one on the road by 31 to a team playing their 3rd string QB deserve it ? No. Did a 2 loss USC ,Champs of a weak PAC12 deserve it ? NO


Those were the choices for #4. Expending the playoff is just too much like giving everyone a ribbon.

We all know as Clemson fans, a 2 loss ACC Champ is facing an uphill battle getting in. Seems other conferences should know that.


Somebody's gotta be number 4, maybe having OSU/Bama play it on the field ? This Saturday is open.


It depends if you want a "tournament champion" similar to


Posted: Dec 4, 2017 11:38 AM
 

basketball or a champion where regular season also matters.

Bama cannot help the fact that they did not play UGA this year in the regular season. There are plenty of examples where the top 2 teams could be in the same division.


Re: Honest question

[1]
Posted: Dec 5, 2017 10:36 PM
 

I know in theory it's nice to say you put in the conference champions, but I don't see it as big of a deal as some of you. Sometimes it comes down to being unlucky in who your loss came against. Georgia playing in the same conference as Alabama lost to the same Auburn team by 11 points more. The only difference is that loss didn't cost Georgia a chance at playing for a conference title due to them not being in the same division. Perhaps Bama would have also beaten Auburn on a neutral field had they been given the chance?

Clemson also lost a conference game, but was lucky enough that Syracuse only went 2-6 in conference. Had Syracuse been a good enough team to go 7-1 then Clemson would have been sitting at home last weekend. So Clemson was the #1 team with Syracuse being 2-6, but would have been #5 had Syracuse been 7-1? How does that make sense?


Bama is better than OSU

[2]
Posted: Dec 4, 2017 11:19 AM
 

But let's face it, the committee indulged themselves picking who they wanted subjectively. Bama lost their last game - with rivalry, division, conference, and national implications on the line. OSU had worse losses, but better wins and got it done at the end beating undefeated #4 for a conference title. This eye test thing is BS. Soon the committee vote will resemble the Heisman vote.


Re: For anybody wanting an 8-team Playoff


Posted: Dec 4, 2017 11:20 AM
 

Not exactly- there was a 10-team playoff, three plus an eleventh got in. And just imagine if a couple of power teams from a power conference had scheduled UCF thinking it was a cupcake this year and lost?


10-team, same difference


Posted: Dec 4, 2017 11:39 AM
 

Large enough pool of teams to be able to compete for a spot.

College football is such that if a team wins all of their games, they will make the playoff. Not group of five teams, they aren't good enough, but any P5 team goes undefeated, they're in. Wisconsin proved that, even though they had one of the worst P5 schedules. So 5 conferences can equally qualify, and any team with 2 losses has exactly ZERO arguments.


I still desire an 8-team playoff.***


Posted: Dec 4, 2017 11:54 AM
 



2019 purple level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg

Re: For anybody wanting an 8-team Playoff

[1]
Posted: Dec 4, 2017 11:56 AM
 

I've wanted an 8 team PLAYOFF from the beginning. Four teams is a semifinal not a playoff. Conference championships need to mean something. So in my 8 team playoff the p5 champs are automatically in. This will take some of the power from the committee. Then the other three are chosen by the committee. Hopefully this will give the best group of five team a chance to get in. If not they need their own playoff. So they will have something to play for and people will have a reason to go to and watch their games. If they don't want to add an extra game they should get rid of one of the cup cake games and only have an 11 game regular season. I think an 8 team playoff is the only way it will ever be fair to every conference. Other they will always just tell us who the weakest conference is. They gave us a four team semifinal because they never wanted a playoff. This way they still choose every team. The 8 team would take control away from them and give teams a reason to win the conference. I don't see how anyone saying 8 teams out of over 120 is water down.


Re: For anybody wanting an 8-team Playoff


Posted: Dec 5, 2017 9:16 PM
 

I disagree completely. Have a 8 team playoff BUT make 8 conferences. When the conference and you are in. Do t win and you are out. Simple.


Why not 6?


Posted: Dec 5, 2017 9:18 PM
 

I think this year there are only 3 deserving teams so I don't like my argument this year. However, in the past I have thought 6 teams would be best. Why should we not have byes for a couple of teams with the best seasons? That would allow the most deserving a little better shot at actually finishing as national champs.


Re: For anybody wanting an 8-team Playoff


Posted: Dec 5, 2017 9:42 PM
 

I think you hit the nail on the head. Four teams may not be perfect, but it is pretty darn close. Expanding past four would make the bowls even more irrelevant and make the regular season not as exciting either. Bring on BAMA ... the last time they had a long time to prepare for us it did not turn out so well, but that was a long time ago ( Julio Jones breakout game) . We will get their best shot, but it will not be enough.


Why would anybody want an 8 team playoff?


Posted: Dec 5, 2017 9:46 PM
 

The current system has worked out well for Clemson. 4 is enough. If you are not in the four, you don’t deserve to be National Championship

2019 white level member

Not 8... 6. I want 6


Posted: Dec 5, 2017 10:10 PM
 

All conference champs get in, 6 seed is best left over. 1 and 2 first round bye.


Re: For anybody wanting an 8-team Playoff


Posted: Dec 5, 2017 10:24 PM
 

I agree

2019 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg

Go Tigers! Once A Tiger Always A Tiger


sometimes you just have to put

[1]
Posted: Dec 6, 2017 8:39 AM
 

lipstick on a pig. You have not choice.


Re: For anybody wanting an 8-team Playoff

[1]
Posted: Dec 6, 2017 8:42 AM
 

The only way I see a 8 team playoff is for the conferences to do away with the championship game and I can't see them doing that because of the revenue generated.

2019 orange level member

Actually, the BCS model for choosing teams would be fine


Posted: Dec 6, 2017 10:37 AM
 

but keep it at 4 teams.

I'd like 8 because it can be made so that, theoretically, every D1 team in America has a shot. And, if the committee is biased or wrong, the wronged party can still win it.

2019 white level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpg

Replies: 36  

TIGER TICKETS

FB GAME: South Carolina
FOR SALE: Clemson VS South Carolina 4 tickets in Clemson section Section 501 Row 34 Face value $125 per tick...

Buy or Sell CU Tickets and More in Tiger Tickets!

[ Archives - Tiger Boards Archive ]
Start New Topic
4492 people have read this post