Let's be honest: so far, it's very clear that Indiana, and SMU can't stack up to the better teams in the country. They just can't. And I know so many here still want to build up Indiana as top 12 team, the truth is despite their record, they're probably not even a top 20 team. Same with SMU. So going forward in years ahead with this playoff, do they take a deserving team like Indiana with just one loss, or do they take a better 3 loss team? You have to admit that the talent at Alabama or Ole Miss is far superior than the talent at Indiana where they have so many James Madison transfers.
Deserving or Best?
- Thread starter kev2225
- Start date
Talent vs Coaching. You can have all the talent in the world and yet, those teams lose multiple games. Coaching plays a factor into this, and a team that's well coached with inferior talent can beat a team with superior talent that isn't coached well or as well.
How can you say you’re one of the best if you keep losing? Those teams have only themselves to blame for being at home
The 2007 Patriots were clearly the better team compared to the NY Giants that year. Do we give the Patriots the Super Bowl trophy?
Doesn’t matter if you’re better. Win the games. Don’t cry because you went 9-3.
By the way, this game isn’t even over.
Doesn’t matter if you’re better. Win the games. Don’t cry because you went 9-3.
By the way, this game isn’t even over.
The seeding isnt fair but SEC teams get 2 mulligans.
Ole Miss controled their own destiny after 2 bad losses to LSU and Kentucky. All they had to do was beat .500 Florida team and they were in.
All Bama had to do was beat a .500 Oklahoma team and they lost bad by 21.
S Carolina I feel the worse for because 1 boneheaded play vs LSU and they are in.
The Super Conf format has to be adjusted. You will never have balanced schedules when you dont play half ypur conference.
Ole Miss controled their own destiny after 2 bad losses to LSU and Kentucky. All they had to do was beat .500 Florida team and they were in.
All Bama had to do was beat a .500 Oklahoma team and they lost bad by 21.
S Carolina I feel the worse for because 1 boneheaded play vs LSU and they are in.
The Super Conf format has to be adjusted. You will never have balanced schedules when you dont play half ypur conference.
Level of competition matters. C'mon. Look at Army. Not even a top 30 team is we're being honest, but people wanted them in if they only had one loss.
Is Army in the playoffs? If those teams had Top10 losses, i might buy the argument. They had ugly losses though. You don’t deserve to even be discussed with 3 losses IMO. I don’t care who you are. You’d basically be turning it into a popularity contest if you did.
Indiana had one loss to a Top10 team and an average margin of victory over their remaining opponents of more than 30 points while playing a P4 schedule. Get real if you don’t think they deserved a chance over 3 loss teams with uglier losses.
Perhaps now, but SMU had the ball around the PSU 10 when I typed that. You don’t think a team can erase a 28 point lead with 20 minutes remaining? It’s impossible? The point was don’t assume it’s over. Didn’t you see Indiana almost erase a 24 point lead in 5 minutes just yesterday?
You act like SMU doesn’t deserve to be on the field with PSU but PSU got all of the big plays early in the game. That’s football. It happens. SMU could have easily been in this game.
This isn’t true. Quite possibly zero people thought a one loss Army should be in. I’m pretty sure you were called on this in another thread.
Last edited:
You get rid of conference champions and pick the best 16 teams
They looked like a poorly coached team last night? How? Because they lost? I don’t believe that at all.
If CFB truly wants to let the best teams determine playoffs spots on the field they have to adopt the European Soccer model. A top league of 32-48 I prefer 32. That way the best play the best every week.
Using relegation and promotion teams can play their way up and bad teams move down. The schedules would become even and you elimanate the gymnastic judging that plagues cfb.
Using relegation and promotion teams can play their way up and bad teams move down. The schedules would become even and you elimanate the gymnastic judging that plagues cfb.
One of the things that DISTORTS THE PROCESS is scheduling. SMU could easily be a FOUR-LOSS TEAM in the SEC, and the same could be true of Indiana had it played USC's schedule in the B1G.
Turning to ND, the only NEAR-PEER it played in my opinion was A&M. No other opponent was in ND's class, so ND on paper should have prevailed in every game which, but for the NIU implosion, it did. And that includes Indiana. But Georgia and potentially, OSU, Oregon, Texas, PSU and Tennessee WILL ALL BE PEERS. To run some combination of THAT GAMUT is a WHOLE NEW BALL GAME.
So, even as we've seen how poorly Indiana and SMU have stacked up against teams that are DECIDEDLY BETTER, we'll now get to see just how well ND does against one or more teams AS TALENTED AS ITSELF.
Because both the regular season and this first playoff win DID NOT ANSWER THAT QUESTION.
Thank you for making this thread, at least somebody wants to engage in some real talk about the playoff, instead of just totally mega biased bullshit, most of which goes straight into the toilet. With that said, at least on a philosophical level, if you go with 'better', it would be worse than even the bowls, and the playoff becomes nothing more than a sweaty, violent Roman mob extravaganza, the regular season is entirely irrelevant, every game completely meaningless, utterly devoid of anything at all, and when it's all said and done, W/Ls, SOS, none of it means anything. And the national champion is truly mythical. You just make your own personal choice on who the purportedly best teams are, however you see fit. And when you reduce yourself to that level of savagery, recruiting stars really do matter, because that's essentially the true and sole criteria for inclusion in the playoff, the one bit of reliable substance by which you actually guide your choices. If you want to make a pretense of carefully consideing a team's record and SOS and all that shit, knock yourself out, but the only reason the SEC is the SEC is because of recruiting. And that would become the de facto criteria for all teams by default. But more importantly, there is no criteria, it really is just personal judgement. One's own sense of things, however such sense is arrived at. It is indeed the emperor giving the thumbs up or thumbs down. Essentially the antithesis of winning it on the field.
If you go on putative 'merit', as nebulous as that may be, W/Ls are still the supreme criterion, SOS coming next, and while one's own personal honor and intellectual scruples remain paramount when it comes to the task of deciding something inherently subjective on the basis of comparative merit, so long as that is in enough supply, you could maintain a modicum of dignity and legitimacy in your playoff. And some teams will be disappointed, not everyone will make it in. But you can know in advance that recruiting stars and a preponderance of elite 'talent' will not be a particularly significant criteria. So you'll have to make sure you win enough games, regardless of anything else.
If you go on putative 'merit', as nebulous as that may be, W/Ls are still the supreme criterion, SOS coming next, and while one's own personal honor and intellectual scruples remain paramount when it comes to the task of deciding something inherently subjective on the basis of comparative merit, so long as that is in enough supply, you could maintain a modicum of dignity and legitimacy in your playoff. And some teams will be disappointed, not everyone will make it in. But you can know in advance that recruiting stars and a preponderance of elite 'talent' will not be a particularly significant criteria. So you'll have to make sure you win enough games, regardless of anything else.
I still agree with the Committee's decision, to take 11-1 (regular season) teams from P4 conferences over 9-3 SEC teams. If Bama and Ole Miss had been 10-2, they'd have gotten in over SMU and Indiana IMO. But their 3rd losses did them in.
No, 12 is already a stretch as we can see. 6 is plenty but agree with the conference champions part
I think the best solution is to play 12 game seasons, no conference championships, 16 team playoff over the course of 4 weeks. This way you get the most talented and also the most deserving a chance. Is it perfect? No, buy I think it's closest to fair.
Let’s be honest. Based on your analysis and that of Herbstreit, the ND teams of 2012, 2018 and 2020 do not belong.
This is bs. SMU n Indiana had great seasons it’s hard to win Im not saying they are as good as some teams that got left out but those teams had 3 losses and that is not acceptable and should not be rewarded. We flat out beat Indiana And Ohio state did not - nd should be celebrated n Indiana not denigrated
I'm almost certain that's what going to happen, not because of the playoff, but because the NCAA is so corrupt, and they won't let the players make any money. And if they do have a super league with 40 teams and all automatic bids, then the lustful mob will finally have what they demand. Unless they still want to have at-large bids, even after leveling the playing field such that there's no need, but what would CFB fans do if they couldn't pull their hair out with outrage and disgust over the effin' rankings....
But you're a soccer fan, you know what happened when the elitist powers that be tried to completely buy out and rig the champions league, and fans revolted, even former players who had played only for elite clubs wouldn't stand for it. And they've never had anything even vaguely resembling competitive balance in European soccer since the founding of the first clubs. But when what little opportunity there was for underdogs to possibly get their chance was about to be confiscated, fans understandably rioted.
But there's no need for relegation. Just create a new classification for the big dog programs and that's sufficient.
A team that loses three games against mediocre teams, no matter what conference, is not one of the best teams deserving to play for the National Championship. Doesn't matter how much politicking is involved.
2nd place in the ACC does not belong, no matter how much politicking is involved. I don't even know if the ACC champ belongs.
16 teams is too much. The talent gap is just too great right now, even with NIL. Game #3, close to being a blowout as we near halftime.
I dont disagree, but it's a bad look if south Carolina, Bama, Miss get in over ASU, IU, Boise. This way you can have both and say have at it and no one can say we didn't get a fair chance or right teams weren't selected.
You could also argue the entire ACC doesn’t belong in the CFB playoff.
I BROADLY AGREE that merit is the way to go.
And since CONFERENCES EXIST a system of SUBDIVIDING PERFORMANCE is already in place, i.e. a means by which MERIT CAN BE MEASURED. Plus, conferences are part of the LORE OF THE GAME, even though they've been RECONSTRUCTED rather SLOPPILY.
The trouble is, it's impossible to create out of conferences as they now exist the kind of COHESIVE and EQUITABLE scheduling that exists in virtually all PROFESSIONAL SPORTS. There's neither enough PARITY within CFB conferences as respects scheduling nor, more glaringly, AMONG CONFERENCES. So, we get the kind of mismatches in these early playoff rounds that we're watching.
But while I'm for maintaining conferences, I'm also for realigning them MORE EQUITABLY. And that might include dividing them into STANDARD AND PREMIUM DIVISIONS where LIKES COMPETE AGAINST LIKES on a regular basis.
The trouble with disbanding them and merely 'SELECTING' the best 12 or 16 teams is that no matter how much that process may be QUANTIFIED, the SUBJECTIVE ELEMENT remains at the heart of it which -- as you've pointed out -- leads back to the very thing that playoffs are meant to abolish -- the concept of a MYTHICAL CHAMPION.
Last edited:
You have had the same issue in college basketball for years. I've watched the hoops tournament go from 32 teams to 48 teams to 64 teams. You end up with the same scenario....there are 16 seeds who shouldn't be there....while their betters are playing for the NIT. Adding more teams doesn't fix anything. Regardless of how many teams are in the field, there will be teams who get bumped that are superior. On the other hand......David and Goliath does happen every once in a while. Twice....a 1 seed has been beaten in the NCAA basketball tournament by a 16 seed. Football may be different....but America is still the land of opportunity. Notre Dame is where they are because they lost to NIU (an impossible game to lose) and rejuvenated themselves.
Well I was exaggerating a bit, in my fulminations, about the relevance of the regular season if you don't have conference auto-bids. But in a sense it's true. It is a free for all at that point, which I thought is what we we're trying to avert. And I'm with you, conference expansion has been a monstrosity, quite manifestly. But I guess that's on account of better TV revenue, and that's like a whole 'nother matter altogether. Bottom line, if we're going to have at large bids, following the model of March Madness, then of course they have to be merit based, whatever that means exactly. And I'm sure there's enough latitude implicit in that guiding principle, to satisfy the SEC. 9-3 just wasn't good enough this year! Even if Bama is probably 'better' than SMU.
What a bunch of bullshit. Does that mean Tennessee shouldn’t have been in either? They got their asses kicked but no one will say a word about them cuz they’re from the beloved SEC. Tennessee ole miss lsu are all mediocre teams that SEC teams get credit for playing and/or beating. Put smu against Tennessee and it’s a toss up at best for tennessse. The getting down on your knees for the SEC is getting ridiculous.
Considering they beat 11 teams on their schedule with some having better talent yes. I see where you are going with this based on my previous comment. However, I'll save you an embarrassing follow-up. They are a well coached team, but when they came up against another well coached team with superior talent they lose.
I think as long as there is an UNWIELDY NUMBER of teams -- ALL THEORETICALLY EQUALLY ELIGIBLE TO QUALIFY -- though VASTLY DIFFERENT AT TIMES in terms of whom they play -- it will be difficult to eliminate the subjective element entirely, so that the argument between whose "better" vs. whose more "deserving" will remain a flashpoint.
But then, many see that sort of debate as just as much a part of the appeal of college football as the actual competition itself. It certainly keeps a lot of telecasters, broadcasters and podcasters jabbering. Message board posters -- and I'm SELF-INCRIMINATING HERE -- as well.
