Cfb will survive regardless. This just makes the greatest regular seqson in all of sports much less great
CFP considering expanding playoffs to 12 teams
- Thread starter Bumpdaddy
- Start date
- Status
"Selection" and "qualification" are both sort of inextricable linked, are they not? You are selected based on your qualifications. I guess that means qualifications precedes selection, which would inevitably lead to the question : what should be the qualifiers?
However, again, I think you can't even answer that question unless you answer my initial question : what even is the purpose of the playoffs system? Without a purpose, it's impossible to suggest Team A is more deserving than Team B to participate.
As for "subjectivity", there is always going to be some form of it, since this is a human idea. The only way to sort of negate that is to come to some sort of consensus as to what objective purpose the playoffs serve. I think the committee is the best (not perfect since perfection is unattainable) method because it weighs all of the relevant factors that makes a team deserving. Humans have a way of reasoning and possess the ability to consider context that computers or some impersonal method cannot do.
Having something like a computer system would involve pre-determining the selections, because they obviously act solely based on how they were programmed in advance. Computers do not have the flexibility to account for anomalies: for example a team affected by a rash of injuries, or a team that has several blow outs against teams that "quit" making their point differential lopsided. The "eye-ball test" is important.
They are trying to make this a "March Madness" college hoop event. Unfortunately, you can't compare the 2 sports. This is a recipe for disaster to those who enjoy the regular season games
They aren't the same thing. Qualification would be an automatic bid. For example, in the NFL, if you win your division, you automatically make the playoffs. There isn't any subjectivity, like a committe choosing who participates based on vague and undefined criteria.
The best way to do it would be like the lower divisions, where each conference winner automatically qualifies for the playoffs. They aren't selected. Every team in the country starts out with the same opportunity: win your conference, and you qualify.
I didn't suggest they were the same, I suggested that they are concomitant. You would be selected based on your qualification(s). Your example of the NFL leads to the conclusion that those who meet the qualification of winning their division are automatically selected into the playoffs.
I guess one criticism of that would be that this is also highly subjective. It's an opinion that winning the division is the most important thing. Why not just have the teams with simply the best records make the playoffs, or the teams with the best point differential? Why not have a weighted record based on strength of schedule determine the teams?
The NFL has a very flawed way of doing things, so I wouldn't want college football to emulate it. It's possible that a 6-10 team could win the division, but a human committee that existed could intervene and keep such a team (deservedly) out. That would represent a more ideal scenario in my view.
It's not subjective. The reason the NFL has the system it does is that the division winners play an almost identical schedule. 14 of the 16 games are against common opponents, and they all play each other head-to-head. There isn't any subjectivity there. All the teams played each other, in addition to a identical schedule. The team with the best record qualifies.
In college football, there are few inter conference games, especially between P5 teams. You are choosing teams because you "think" one us better than the other. UCF went undefeated a few years ago and wasn't selected, and teams that lost games were.
It's simple: I'm saying that choosing one criteria over another is subjective. You'll notice I just presented a couple other possible (equally valid) criterion for the NFL to use in determining the playoff teams, yet only one is being applied.
It is your opinion that winning your division is more important than having a better record. It is your opinion that a possible 6-10 or 7-9 team is more deserving than a team that went 9-7 or 10-6 simply because one unfortunately played in a tougher division. That's not only subjective, it's arbitrary and frankly, absurd.
Why would a system that automatically selects the teams with the best record be subjective while the current system is not?
I also have no idea what you mean by NFL teams playing "identical schedules". There are obviously some teams that have a tougher slate of games than others, and that disparity is not accounted for due to the lack of any selection committee. I could present examples but it so self-evidently true, so why should I bother?
Last edited:
Over the last 10 years it was only a few years that a 3 loss team wound up in the top 12 at the end of the regular season. One year there were four; but all top programs that had good years - OU, Baylor, Fla. State, etc. So with a 12 team format do you disqualify based on 3 losses and, say, pick No. 18 Liberty with only 2 losses playing a G5 schedule? 12 looks fine to me. And a 9-3 team would have to win 4 games against pretty good teams. Steep hill.
You're being too nice about it. For the entire history of the sport of CFB, it's been the polls, a bunch of sportswriters and dopes in suits, or the proverbial smoke filled room and a star chamber 'committee' deciding who was going to play in the championship game. That's why they started calling it a 'mythical' national title. Because that's what it was, it's never been a real championship. Because we've never had anything remotely resembling a legitimate playoff or post season.
This new system is far from a philosophically perfect or proper playoff, nevertheless six conference champions will earn their way into without having to wait on what the judges say like this is men's figure skating or something. And then we're going to throw in six at-large bid because it's CFB and we want it to be awesome.
And as far as the season being 'relevant' which is all we hear from these backwards blowhards, with a 12-team playoff practically every game will be relevant. It will makes the regular season ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE more relevant than the status quo. Unless you belong to the cult of the undefeated season. In which case nothing will satisfy you but that. And finally the days of those religious zealots running and quite frankly ruining the great sport of CFB are finally over.
This a truly great day for CFB, and I can't wait. I hope they move it up to 2022!
I generally agree with your posts on here but just wanted to point out a few things:
With the new system, the stakes for the regular season games will be lower because a team can afford to lose more games. If losing games becomes more inconsequential or surmountable, then the games themselves become less relevant or important, thus they become less exciting and intense. That's my attitude as a fan, and it's grounded in reality. It could literally be the case where a team loses three games in a row and still makes the playoffs. I'd say such a team has disqualified themselves from consideration. I can only think of one decent counterargument, but I'll withhold.
As for needing to go undefeated....that is of course untrue. Lots of one and even two loss teams at least make the playoffs given the current format. But I find it a strange criticism to say "in order to win a championship you need to have an amazing team and season". That's sort of true by necessity. That doesn't represent a bug in the system, that's an intended effect. I don't see what the alternative is supposed to be.
Great post and I love the analogy to figure skating. Every year the playoff committee chairman was doing verbal gymnastics as to how the decision was made; it's as if Dick Button was explaining the process.
I have read many reports from media, coaches and AD's. No one is saying that this will ruin the regular season other than some posters on this board. And I mean no one. Nearly all agree that this will turbo charge fan interest, especially in November. Yes, only those in the "cult of the undefeated season" are bemoaning this proposal. And let's be honest. Only a school that is not in a conference has to be concerned about something as challenging as an undefeated season. Nevertheless, there are 6 at large bids and it looks like ND can keep its independence status. Let me raise a concern as follows:
There are roadblocks. Sure there will be some self righteous jibber jabber about the impact on academics. But the real sticking points will be the location of the quarter finals (currently all we know is that they will be neutral sites) and the Grandaddy of Them All - the Rose Bowl. They may be asked to give up the Jan 1 date depending on how their game fits into the system. That could be a challenge and the Rose Bowl may not play along. This proposal currently allows ND plenty of opportunity to stay independent. But it's not perfect for them, and the other 64 power 5 teams clearly have the advantage by having two pathways to get into the playoff. More importantly, it is clear that this proposal is being driven by the conferences. Swarbrick has a very large seat at the table, but former B10 commish Delany is a consultant to the Rose Bowl. This proposal may be significantly altered. And I don't think Delany cares as much about the totality of the sport as much as he cares about what is best for the Big Ten and the Rose Bowl. The number 12 may be reduced.
On a side note, please beat those cowbell knuckeheads at 7 pm tonight and get to the College Baseball World Series.
Oh really, is it true that if no teams go undefeated that they just go ahead and give it to the highest-ranked one-loss team? That's an hell of an observation you made there, you must have captained your college debate team....
This is the level of argumentation that you get on a subject like this. I've never seen such almost head-scratching, bad-faith debating like you do on the subject of the CFB playoff. Like you do you actually think you scored a point there? It's okay for your preference to be the shitty-ass system we have now and that's just how you like it. A lot of people like shit in this world. But don't insult my intelligence, though. Just say 'I like eating shit, and I want to keep eatin' it!' I want more shit!!! But for me personally, I want to have an awesome playoff, awesome to watch, and one that comes much closer to crowing a bona fide champ, than this huckster's relic of the Bowl era that up until a couple days ago we were still saddled with.
And once again, only if you belong to the cult of the undefeated season will you keep recycling this sorry-ass loser's argument that if you lose a game that the season is somehow inexorably diminished. I don't have a PhD in philosophy or philosophical logic, or whatever academic speciality would be applicable to this mind-numbing debate, but a loss only implicates what you say it does if you have such an entrenched shitty system like we currently have to start with, and it's all pre-ordained. AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE CHANGING IT!!!! And voila, just like that, everyone's motivations and incentives change based on the carrots and sticks of the new arrangement. It's almost like it's magic or something.....
And I think calling it a 'cult' is absolutely fair. Only a devoted cultist would ever keep trying to disingenuously push these tired, false talking points. Almost like I'm arguing with monks from the middle ages about the trinity or some shit.... Sorry to be so irascible, but I'm especially passionate on this subject. Pretty much a lifelong dream come true as a CFB fan. I wasn't sure it would ever come. And I gotta say.... Swarbrick delivered!
You're definitely right about ND's continued independence. That's an open question IMO. Not only are we limited to at-large bids, which I personally would consider that alone to be unacceptable. And we get no chance at a bye? That's the double whammy right there. I don't personally care that much about joining the ACC, I would be fine with it. But most ND fans totally care a lot about staying independent. Quite frankly that's gotta be why so many ND fans are biased against a playoff. Because almost any legit playoff setup seriously compromises ND's independent status going forward.
It is what it is....
I sure hope you're wrong about the Rose Bowl's influence. Because.... well, for obvious reasons. Other than to say it's incredible the pernicious influence and the stranglehold the bowls have had over the sport of CFB all these years. It's a real tragedy IMO. And it's guys like Delaney which is why ND will never be joining the Big Ten.
Well thank you for that, whatever that was. Clearly a well-thought out and level headed response. Very amusing. Now that you have vented out all the hot air with your tirades and non-sequiturs, would you like to actually engage with the valid points I raised?
I stated an indisputable fact : that you are not required to go undefeated to make the playoffs and win a championship. Half the time a one loss team wins. Of course the best teams tend to go undefeated so the undefeated teams in turn tend to win championships. Explain how that is a flaw though please. If the goal of the playoffs is to crown the best or most deserving team in the country, then I'm trying to understand how this mission is not being accomplished. Seems you are making an observation without an actual point.
It's also inescapably true that games will be less exciting and meaningful if losing becomes less consequential. I want to keep the stakes as high as possible. There's a reason why a Game 1 playoff game in baseball or basketball is less exciting than a Game 7 winner-takes-all matchup, because a lot more is on the line and there is less margin for error. This tests the meddle of the true championship caliber teams.
You can flippantly brush it all off as "shitty arguments" or "lame talking points" but that does absolutely nothing to actually refute the reality of what I'm pointing out. Obviously what constitutes a better system is wildly different for you than what it is for me. So explain what the ideal is and why. Apparently it's a watered-down system that features even more lopsided matchups and blow outs. Yawn.
No, I don't want to. You haven't made any compelling points, and I don't suffer fools with bullshit like that. You're actually saying that because I'm taking a certain poetic license in calling it the 'cult of the undefeated season', and yet sometimes teams who actually have one loss - maybe even two! - end up on top, that in some logical bizzaro world, I haven't refuted anything you said. I've heard of technicalities, but give me a break....
Sorry but you're a liar, you're a dishonest arguer, and just an embarrassingly bad one. So I'm out. It's possible for guys like you to argue your case even if it's a dead loser like this one is, if you're compelling enough you can at least make it interesting. But you bring up the most irrelevant possible quibbles, the sort of thing that would get you scolded in a courtroom by the judge for wasting the court's time, and then get all arrogant and defiant on that basis. While actively avoiding the obvious crux of my argument....
So I gotta go. All I got left for you is personal insults if that's what you're going debate on. You're not serious. Besides, you lose, they're dumping the old system on account of how badly it sucks. And this is CFB we're talking about, where tradition is king and yet they're still making these massive changes. So that's the ultimate condemnation right there. You're only real 'argument', to be generous in describing it as such, is your own personal preference. Good luck convincing people on that basis.....
You have offered nothing more than vague criticisms and cheap insults. Where is the beef, man? I think you are deliberately keeping distant from the nitty gritty of the discussion because your position is susceptible to crumbling under scrutiny.
How am I a liar? Where is the dishonesty? Examples please. Just generic charges without the heavy lifting of actually proving anything. If I'm an embarrassingly bad at debate, then what is someone who is wholly unable and unwilling to even engage?
You also claim my points are irrelevant in order to, shockingly again, just excuse yourself and be evasive. Level of competition, maintaining integrity, and overall excitement seems very much relevant to the discussion of what constitutes a great season and playoff format, but let's pretend my remarks were largely tangential. Is the hit-and-run tactic your modus operandi on here? I have a casual and passing interest on the boards and am not clued into everyone's style, but perhaps that's "your thing".
Lastly, your point about how winning championships is unfairly reserved for the elite is the most dumbfounding argument I've heard on this subject. Of course it is. That's the whole point! You must be elite (i.e. have a great record) to be the champions. What exactly are you asking for? You want three and four loss teams to be crowned instead?
Bizarro world indeed.
I'm sorry I don't have any respect for anything you've had to say. You've managed to make the old shitty system were relegating to the trash heap seem even worse, even more shitty and unjust than I already thought it was. Now that we're arguing about it and whatnot, and I'm putting renewed thought into it.
I'm actually a bit disturbed by your posts on the whole, you come off as a fairly warped dude to me. Yeah, I would be fine with a four-loss team both qualifying for and then winning the playoff. That would be just fine and dandy if it ever played out that way. And on that note I'm out of here, you're a creep....
I'm a creep? Where do you get off saying these things? You need to get a grip. To be triggered so easily over a discussion about something pretty trivial like amateur sports indicates that you are either having a horrible day and taking it out on me or you need counseling of some kind. I hope it's just the former and nothing super serious. So maybe log off, take a walk, cool down, and hope for a better tomorrow.
I thought this was an interesting topic to discuss on here, but if I had known there were super-sensitive posters like you who'd rather resort to petty, totally unwarranted personal attacks, I would have probably just refrained.
SOOO sorry that the message board isn't your personal echo chamber and that people might see things differently. You've done absolutely nothing to make me question my much more reasonable views. The playoffs should be about honoring the elite teams while maintaining high competition as a means of fairly determining the champion. The 12-team expansion fails all around in accomplishing this.
Last edited:
They "eye test" is mainly 'how many fans will we see if they are let in?'
The "National Champion" was originally a statement of who had the best season that year. That's why they voted on it and ignored the bowls. It is/was supposed to refer to the entire season and not who got a lot better at the very end.
Everyone knows the NFL chopped up its divisions so people would pay more attention to 8-8 teams. That has no place in college athletics.
The past shows that playing a 10 win team in a bowl game has not had good results for the Irish...since 2000, no victory in a bowl over a team with at least 10 wins.
The real truth here is that it will not be format of the playoff or seeding awarded that ultimately will limit the team, but the strength of that team.
Since 2000...
2001...Fiesta...lost by 32 points
2002...Gator....lost by 22
2005...Fiesta....lost by 14
2006...Sugar....lost by 27
2012....BCS.......lost by 28
2015....Fiesta....lost by 16
2018...Cotton...lost by 27
2020...Rose......lost by 17
The real truth here is that it will not be format of the playoff or seeding awarded that ultimately will limit the team, but the strength of that team.
Since 2000...
2001...Fiesta...lost by 32 points
2002...Gator....lost by 22
2005...Fiesta....lost by 14
2006...Sugar....lost by 27
2012....BCS.......lost by 28
2015....Fiesta....lost by 16
2018...Cotton...lost by 27
2020...Rose......lost by 17
Thanks for the reply. I read that the Rose Bowl has a unique and unusual TV contract that gives its Bowl committee more power than any other bowl. And that bowl game is linked to the hip with the Rose Bowl Parade which must be Jan. 1. As a reminder, in 2011-2012 when the BCS was being converted to the current playoff system, the proposal from B10 commish Delany is that they just do a +1 additional game after the traditional bowls are played. That would keep the traditional Rose Bowl, but logistically that was problematic for a number of fan bases that wouldn’t know until Jan. 1 that it was in the champ game. So they settled for the system we know now….and that was actually called the new “Plus one” before the committee called it a “playoff”.
As far as ND joining the ACC in football, I agree that ND just can’t pop into the ACC as it is currently structured…..and managed. The history of infighting and power grabs by Tobacco Road that created the nonsensical divisions should make any Irish fan cringe in terror. I jumped for joy when the ACC 2020 season had no divisions…that had “ND” written all over it. If ND is going to join any conference, it has to be a change agent for a conference that allows ND to keep it stature and mystique. Makes my head spin how some ACC “fans” want ND to join the ACC just to make the Irish like everyone else. I am not sure what marketing skill these “fans” have in their day jobs.
No, ND has to lead its own way into the ACC if that is where it wants to end up. Perhaps come along with Texas (don’t laugh…former Northwestern AD Jim Phillips and new current ACC commish as hinted as such). Perhaps carve out a separate piece of the ACC that actually makes sense for ND for its football heritage and national image…and not worry about the ACC bottom feeders.
But until then, I do wonder if Delany will push back on this proposal and suggest that there be only four power conferences. And although that seems like a small change from 5 to 4, it is a massive paradigm change because it gives many opportunities to go from 12 to 8. To many, it will look cleaner. And don’t forget that the current B10 commish (handpicked at the last minute by Delany over front runner Jim Phillips who then went to the ACC) is Kevin Warren, who spent over 20 years in the NFL. You all experienced Warren when the pandemic started. He has no nuance for things like “OOC games that matter”, conferences with “different scheduling protocols” and something as foreign as “independence”.
So if you don’t like the 12 team proposal, you better have a backup plan that works for you.
"It's simple: I'm saying that choosing one criteria over another is subjective."
That's not the argument. You are saying the choice of a system is subjective. I'm talking about how a particular system functions. I'm saying the function of the division system is not subjective. That's the difference.
Regarding the NFL schedules, I meant to say "near identical schedules." The point is, the teams within a given division play almost identical schedules. In other words, all the teams from the AFC West play basically the same schedule. They have 14 out of 16 common opponents.
The premise behind the division format is that each division/group is playing a nearly identical schedule, so a 12-4 record vs. a 10-6 is achieved against the same competition.
In contrast, a 12-4 record in the AFC West is achieved against different competition as a 10-6 record in the NFC North. That's why each division winner gets a playoff spot, as opposed to simply taking the top 6 teams. Since the teams are playing different levels of competition, you don't exactly know if one team is better, simply based on record, especially since they might not play head to head. That's why a representative from each schedule group (i.e. division) is qualified for the playoff.
A 2-loss team has never made the CFP playoffs. Only one team with 2 losses ever made the BCS. That was LSU in 2007. LSU in 2007 and Minnesota in 1960 are the only two teams to win a national championship with 2 losses.
You could make the same argument for the AP Poll Trophy. Teams do not play the same schedule (or have access to comparable talent) so the pollsters take that into account when they compare seasons.
That's the problem through. You have pollsters taking it into account, rather than just having it decided strictly by the outcome of games.
That's just how it's going to have to be, then. There's a few dudes on this board who might hold your hand, and shepherd you through these unsettling times, and comfort you in your distress. I'm not one of them.
But the reason I called you a creep, and actually consider you to be a creep, is the way you said at the end of your post, you asked in a tone of almost incredulous disbelief, would I actually be okay with a 3 or 4 loss team winning the national championship..... and I thought to myself, this guy's a creep. A pretty serious creep at that. The wording of it was off-putting and strangely evocative and I'll leave it at that. And so what you're saying is you're some sort of elitist who would feel it beneath him if a three-loss team won the championship, and your precious, pristine pseudo national championship was somehow tarnished or sullied if, say, Texas A&M at 9-3 won the title?
Sorry dude, you're a creep. If that's how you actually feel. And you were pretty unequivocal about it, so I don't think I'm misunderstanding you. You're entitled to your opinion, that doesn't prevent from being some sort of elitist weirdo fan, and proudly fetishizing undefeated seasons to that degree makes you a creep in my book.
Yeah, I guess for everyone else adjusting to a big playoff is pretty straightforward. Not so much for ND. So we'll see what happens.
And looking forward to playing you guys in about 3 months time....
Go tend to your rye field, Holden.
Normally I would put you right in your place at a moment like this! But you've been such a superstar in this thread it just wouldn't be right. All I can say is kudos to you for your thorough expositions on this subject, which must come as a most revoltin' development for many ND fans. I wouldn't consider it a too complicated subject matter to come to grips with IMO, but some fans are pretty slow and stubborn.
Maybe that's just the damage all these years of the bowls & polls has wrought. They got the dreaded stockholm syndrome! In any case you've been a real good samaritan about it.
the drooling one is so stupid; wonder why so many spend numerous posts trying to educate a moron.
Savvy ain't and never will be.
I gotta say, I just looked at it and that one post was a little Holden Caulfield-y. I will grudgingly admit.
It was still a good post. Old boy is so corny calling me Holden Caufield, he must have been so proud of himself when he thought of that. Oh shit, there I go, I'm doing it again.....
Why does the level of subjectivity bother you in how it functions but not in how the format is established? If you think about it, it's pretty much a distinction without a difference because the standard in either case is subjectively determined, and after that, the standard is simply being applied. The only concern I have is "is everyone on the committee appealing to the same standard"? That needs to be better addressed and clarified, which involves refining the system, not throwing it away completely.
Anyway, simply having automatic qualifiers isn't necessarily a good thing if the chosen criteria is poorly thought out. The old BCS system had definite qualifiers based on a very complex algorithm/computer system rather than interjecting human opinion. Every team was simply given a score and the highest scored teams faced off. There was no debating anything. Are you in favor of returning to that? If not, why not, since it quells your concerns over subjectivity?
I prefer the current method because deciding which teams are selected by pre-determined means are inflexible, and not accommodating of unforeseen scenarios or anomalies. Such a method is unable to put everything in a proper perspective and go beyond the numbers. In other words, it lacks the capacity to make a more comprehensive assessment.
For example: having automatic bids based on winning a conference may lead to a scenario where such a team goes 8-5 which causes a 10-2 team - one with a more difficult schedule and a more impressive collection of wins - to be left out. One lousy factor overrides a slew of others, which I find absurd. A human committee could recognize how unfair that is and veer things in the direction by which the more deserving 10-2 team gets one of the coveted playoff spots instead.
I'm trying to account for how we've spotlighted this in the discussion, because the main topic is "how many teams should be in the playoffs" (I say four is plenty), not "how should they be selected", although I find both questions interesting.
As for your comments about the NFL:
I'm not fully understanding why it's difficult to compare teams across different divisions. This is precisely my problem : you are making assumptions in advance. You can't just assume that the winner in one division is superior to a second or third place finisher in a different division. Maybe yes, maybe no. There are way too many factors at play. It's easily possible for a team to, say, win the NFC East at 7-9, and then another team could go 10-6 in a tougher NFC West division and finish third and get left out. Sure - you can explain why the winner of the NFC West deserves a spot over the third place team - but you aren't explaining why the 10-6 third place NFC West team deserves to get passed by the inferior NFC East champ. Because they played a similar schedule as their fellow division rivals? I'm not following the logic there.
Anyway, don't want to really fixate on the NFL. I think they are an example of how NOT to do it. There are way too many factors to consider so it's dumb to arbitrarily pick just one as the be-all end-all. Stick with the committee. It works for March Madness and it works for the CFP.
Last edited:
I'd have to fact check that, but regardless, I don't see how that's inherently a problem. The observation is basically "a very good team didn't get invited to play against the great teams to determine the best team in the country". Ok. And?
- Status
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
Breaking Starting punter Bryce McFerson enters transfer portal- Latest: Tyler James
-
