This year is a perfect answer why the playoff shouldn't go to 8 teams

[topdecktiger]

The AP/Harris Polls and Coaches Poll get votes from their individual committee members. You must be a member of their individual committees to vote.

If you want to disregard the fact that every final college football poll that includes all games ranked TCU higher than Baylor in 2014 that is your prerogative.

If you want to disregard that every final college football poll that includes all games ranked Ohio State higher than Michigan State in 2015 that is also your prerogative.

However, it is very easy for anyone who understands college football to look at the performance of each of those teams and conclude that TCU was better than Baylor in 2014 and Ohio State was better than Michigan State in 2015. I provided some information that backs those facts up earlier in this thread.

TCU had a much better defense than Baylor in 2014 and it wasn't even close and Ohio State had a much better defense than Michigan State in 2015 and that wasn't even close.

At least we both agree that an 8-team playoff system is needed ASAP.

Regarding which team to take out instead of TCU in 2014, I wouldn't have eliminated any of those teams. In fact, I would have also included Baylor as 1 of 8 teams in an 8-team playoff in 2014.

No, the AP and Coaches' polls were not committees. They did not meet together and discuss the rankings, as the CFP does. The coaches or media members cast individual votes, without input from other voting members. Not a committee in any sense of the word.

I will definitely disregard the rankings you mentioned for TCU and Ohio St. There is nothing you can say that proves either TCU or Ohio St were better than Baylor or Michigan St in those respective years. I don't care which team had a better defensive ranking, better passing stats, or any other bullshit. The bottom line is, those teams had identical records, and Baylor and Michigan St won head to head. End of story.

Let's take your logic even further. Michigan St and Ohio St are in the same division. So last year, Michigan ST and Ohio ST both finished with 11-1 overall records, and were 7-1 in conference. Well, by your logic, Ohio St should have made the Big Ten CCG last year, instead of Michigan St, even though both teams had identical records, and Michigan ST won head to head. Well, if that's your position, then it's ****ing stupid. If you say that isn't your position, then it makes no logical sense why Michigan St should win the division over Ohio St, but not make the playoffs. That's asinine.

To your final point about 2014, you can't judge 2014 against an 8-team format. The format was what it was, so you have to deal with the reality of that situation. In that situation, if TCU gets in, then somebody has to be left out. There simply isn't any justification for TCU jumping any of the 4 teams that did get in.

By the way, if you say head to head doesn't matter, then I say Ohio St should get into the playoffs (and the Big Ten CCG) ahead of Penn St.

 

[PSUPOWER]

That's all fine and good when the teams have identical records and there aren't head-to-head results. In both cases, there were and TCU and Ohio State lost. That makes everything else moot. Your reasoning is why the BCS was such a joke. Ranking the LOSER of a head-to-head matchup of two teams with the same record higher is a farce.

Head to head results are important, but, they are not everything.
There are 12 regular season games in a season and all of those games are very important. Two teams can have the same number of wins and same number of losses yet have very different Strength Of Schedules and/or very different point differentials in each of their 12 regular season games.

Your reasoning is shortsighted and limited. I'm glad that you are not on the committee. Basing your entire comparison between TCU and Baylor in 2014 on one 3 point win and your entire comparison between Ohio State and Michigan State on one 3 point win is one of the reasons that a larger margin of error is needed beyond just the existing 4-team playoff system.

Obviously, there are teams that haven't been included in each of the prior 4-team playoffs to date that should have been given a chance to compete for the national championship on the field.

It is only a matter of time before the FBS playoff system is expanded.

 

[topdecktiger]

Head to head results are important, but, they are not everything.
There are 12 regular season games in a season and all of those games are very important. Two teams can have the same number of wins and same number of losses yet have very different Strength Of Schedules and/or very different point differentials in each of their 12 regular season games.

This is exactly the problem. Baylor and TCU were not demonstrably different over the 12 game regular season. For every statistical category you can quote for TCU, I can also quote one for Baylor. TCU and Baylor both had weak SOS in 2014. Both were well below the 4 teams who did make the playoffs. Even when you evaluate the entire 12 game season, there simply isn't anything for TCU that overrides the head to head result.

 

[PSUPOWER]

No, the AP and Coaches' polls were not committees. They did not meet together and discuss the rankings, as the CFP does. The coaches or media members cast individual votes, without input from other voting members. Not a committee in any sense of the word.

I will definitely disregard the rankings you mentioned for TCU and Ohio St. There is nothing you can say that proves either TCU or Ohio St were better than Baylor or Michigan St in those respective years. I don't care which team had a better defensive ranking, better passing stats, or any other bullshit. The bottom line is, those teams had identical records, and Baylor and Michigan St won head to head. End of story.

Let's take your logic even further. Michigan St and Ohio St are in the same division. So last year, Michigan ST and Ohio ST both finished with 11-1 overall records, and were 7-1 in conference. Well, by your logic, Ohio St should have made the Big Ten CCG last year, instead of Michigan St, even though both teams had identical records, and Michigan ST won head to head. Well, if that's your position, then it's ****ing stupid. If you say that isn't your position, then it makes no logical sense why Michigan St should win the division over Ohio St, but not make the playoffs. That's asinine.

To your final point about 2014, you can't judge 2014 against an 8-team format. The format was what it was, so you have to deal with the reality of that situation. In that situation, if TCU gets in, then somebody has to be left out. There simply isn't any justification for TCU jumping any of the 4 teams that did get in.

By the way, if you say head to head doesn't matter, then I say Ohio St should get into the playoffs (and the Big Ten CCG) ahead of Penn St.

The definition of a committee is a group of people appointed for a specific function. The AP and Coaches polls have members that perform the function of ranking college football teams. There is nothing that restricts them from collaborating with one another before casting their votes if they wish and the amount of collaboration that they participate in has no bearing on whether or not they are a committee of people that decide who plays for the national championship or not from a vantage point that is off the field.

Regarding the fact that you choose to disregard the rankings; that isn't surprising since you seem to disregard most of the regular season games that take place in college football too.

My logic and the logic of the people who rank college football teams for a living has no bearing on conference tiebreaker rules. Conference tiebreaker rules are established by people off the field. My goal is to get the best 8 FBS College Football teams in a playoff to decide that national championship on the field.

Finally, the only way anyone can evaluate the existing 4-team playoff system thus far is to look at the results of 2014 and 2015.

TCU may have been better than Ohio State in 2014 and
Ohio State may have been better than Alabama in 2015.
We will never know...

 

[topdecktiger]

The definition of a committee is a group of people appointed for a specific function. The AP and Coaches polls have members that perform the function of ranking college football teams. There is nothing that restricts them from collaborating with one another before casting their votes if they wish and the amount of collaboration that they participate in has no bearing on whether or not they are a committee of people that decide who plays for the national championship or not from a vantage point that is off the field.

Regarding the fact that you choose to disregard the rankings; that isn't surprising since you seem to disregard most of the regular season games that take place in college football too.

My logic and the logic of the people who rank college football teams for a living has no bearing on conference tiebreaker rules. Conference tiebreaker rules are established by people off the field. My goal is to get the best 8 FBS College Football teams in a playoff to decide that national championship on the field.

Finally, the only way anyone can evaluate the existing 4-team playoff system thus far is to look at the results of 2014 and 2015.

TCU may have been better than Ohio State in 2014 and
Ohio State may have been better than Alabama in 2015.
We will never know...

The AP and Coaches polls are not a committee. It's a ridiculous argument.

I don't "seem" to disregard the rest of the regular season. What I'm telling you is, there is nothing in the rest of the 2014 season that puts TCU demonstrably ahead of Baylor. They were just about even by any measure that year, except for one, which was head to head. There is no metric for TCU that can trump the head to head matchup.

So, conference tiebreakers are established by people off the field, but playoff tiebreakers aren't? Really? So what field has Condoleezza Rice been on?

The problem is, when you say you want the 8 best teams, head to head has to matter. If you have a team that 11-1, vs. a team that's 6-6, then obviously the course of the entire season would tell you which team is consistently better. However, when you have two 11-1 teams, and one beats the other, there simply isn't any way to claim the loser is better.

Regarding looking at the 4 team playoff, that's not what I'm telling you. You can't evaluate a real 4 team playoff against a hypothetical 8 team playoff. What I'm telling is, you are ****ing up your argument with this TCU/Ohio St nonsense. There are much better arguments for an 8 team playoff than the one you are making.

 

[PSUPOWER]

This is exactly the problem. Baylor and TCU were not demonstrably different over the 12 game regular season. For every statistical category you can quote for TCU, I can also quote one for Baylor. TCU and Baylor both had weak SOS in 2014. Both were well below the 4 teams who did make the playoffs. Even when you evaluate the entire 12 game season, there simply isn't anything for TCU that overrides the head to head result.

Did you know that in 2014 TCU played against the same 9 Big 12 conference opponents as Baylor did, scored more points than Baylor in conference 428 to 408 and gave up significantly fewer points than Baylor in conference 223 to 263 ?

TCU had a much better defense than Baylor in 2014.

You may feel that Baylor was more deserving of a national championship playoff shot than TCU in 2014, because, they beat TCU at Baylor by 3 points in one game, but, which team would have won that game if that game was played at TCU ?

How can you determine that Baylor was more deserving of a chance at the national championship than TCU in 2014 ?

Please show us some statistics that demonstrate why Baylor was better than TCU in 2014.

 

[topdecktiger]

Did you know that in 2014 TCU played against the same 9 Big 12 conference opponents as Baylor did, scored more points than Baylor in conference 428 to 408 and gave up significantly fewer points than Baylor in conference 223 to 263 ?
TCU had a much better defense than Baylor in 2014.
You may feel that Baylor was more deserving of a national championship playoff shot than TCU in 2014, because, they beat TCU at Baylor by 3 points in one game, but, which team would have won that game if that game was played at TCU ?
How can you determine that Baylor was more deserving of a chance at the national championship than TCU in 2014 ?

Please show us some statistics that demonstrate why Baylor was better than TCU in 2014

Let me take your individual questions first:

Did you know that in 2014 TCU played against the same 9 Big 12 conference opponents as Baylor did, scored more points than Baylor in conference 428 to 408 and gave up significantly fewer points than Baylor in conference 223 to 263 ?

Yes

which team would have won that game if that game was played at TCU ?

We don't know. You can't say TCU, because you don't know that. Just as you said we don't know if Ohio St would beat Alabama in 2015, or TCU would beat Ohio St in 2014. You cannot use hypotheticals. You can only use what actually happened.

How can you determine that Baylor was more deserving of a chance at the national championship than TCU in 2014 ?

Simple. They were both 11-1, and Baylor beat TCU. I don't give a shit if TCU ran up the score on Northwestern Alabama Tech more than Baylor did. It's meaningless.

Now as to stats. Here are a few. Baylor beat Oklahoma (one of the better teams in the Big 12) 48-14, in Oklahoma. TCU beat Oklahoma 37-33, at home. Baylor beat Kansas (one of the worst teams in the Big 12) 60-14. TCU beat Kansas 34-30. Baylor's offense had the most yards per game in the entire country. They were #1 in both yards per game, and points per game. Defensively, TCU was only 6 yards better in ypg (360-368).

Here's what you don't get. When it comes to head to head, you have to be demonstrably better than the team that beat you. You simply can't make that claim for TCU. You can cherrypick one category or the other (like I did), but that's not good enough to overcome head to head. The truth is, Baylor and TCU were about the same in 2014. Neither one really stood out on the other. The only real difference was head to head.

 

[PSUPOWER]

Let me take your individual questions first:

Did you know that in 2014 TCU played against the same 9 Big 12 conference opponents as Baylor did, scored more points than Baylor in conference 428 to 408 and gave up significantly fewer points than Baylor in conference 223 to 263 ?

Yes

which team would have won that game if that game was played at TCU ?

We don't know. You can't say TCU, because you don't know that. Just as you said we don't know if Ohio St would beat Alabama in 2015, or TCU would beat Ohio St in 2014. You cannot use hypotheticals. You can only use what actually happened.

How can you determine that Baylor was more deserving of a chance at the national championship than TCU in 2014 ?

Simple. They were both 11-1, and Baylor beat TCU. I don't give a shit if TCU ran up the score on Northwestern Alabama Tech more than Baylor did. It's meaningless.

Now as to stats. Here are a few. Baylor beat Oklahoma (one of the better teams in the Big 12) 48-14, in Oklahoma. TCU beat Oklahoma 37-33, at home. Baylor beat Kansas (one of the worst teams in the Big 12) 60-14. TCU beat Kansas 34-30. Baylor's offense had the most yards per game in the entire country. They were #1 in both yards per game, and points per game. Defensively, TCU was only 6 yards better in ypg (360-368).

Here's what you don't get. When it comes to head to head, you have to be demonstrably better than the team that beat you. You simply can't make that claim for TCU. You can cherrypick one category or the other (like I did), but that's not good enough to overcome head to head. The truth is, Baylor and TCU were about the same in 2014. Neither one really stood out on the other. The only real difference was head to head.

The TCU at Baylor head to head matchup was included within the following stats in addition to the other games you just cited.

In 2014 TCU played against the same 9 Big 12 conference opponents as Baylor did, scored more points than Baylor in conference 428 to 408 and gave up significantly fewer points than Baylor in conference 223 to 263 ?

Why did you cite a subset of what I already demonstrated for you ? They played 8 of the exact same Big 12 teams plus each other. Those are Big 12 stats. The Big 12 coaches felt that TCU was the best team in the conference in 2014.

TCU came within 3 points of being 13-0 in 2014 and
Ohio State came within 3 points of being 13-0 in 2015,
while defending their 2014 national championship title.

A lot of people feel those two teams deserved a chance to play in the playoffs for the national championship.

An 8-team playoff system would have allowed them to in addition to Baylor in 2014.

 

[topdecktiger]

The TCU at Baylor head to head matchup was included within the following stats in addition to the other games you just cited.

In 2014 TCU played against the same 9 Big 12 conference opponents as Baylor did, scored more points than Baylor in conference 428 to 408 and gave up significantly fewer points than Baylor in conference 223 to 263 ?

Why did you cite a subset of what I already demonstrated for you ? They played 8 of the exact same Big 12 teams plus each other. Those are Big 12 stats. The Big 12 coaches felt that TCU was the best team in the conference in 2014.

TCU came within 3 points of being 13-0 in 2014 and
Ohio State came within 3 points of being 13-0 in 2015,
while defending their 2014 national championship title.

A lot of people feel those two teams deserved a chance to play in the playoffs for the national championship.

An 8-team playoff system would have allowed them to in addition to Baylor in 2014.

See, now you're changing your tune. You said the ENTIRE 12 game season matters. Now, you want to limit it to just Big 12 games. Here's a better look at the stats I quoted.

Total Offense
Baylor 581 ypg, 48.2 ppg
TCU 533 ypg, 46.5 ppg
For the year, Baylor was +48 ypg, and +1.7 ppg

Total Defense
Baylor 368 ypg, 24.2 ppg
TCU 360 ypg, 20.3 ppg
For the year, TCU was +8 ypg, and + 3.9 ppg

Those stats don't say TCU was better. What's funny is, you said TCU was "much better" on defense, yet they were only 8 yards better. Those stats don't look "much better" at all.

I'm going to say it yet again. You don't understand the point I'm making to you. In 2014 &2015 there was not an 8 team playoff, so a choice had to be made. If there was an 8 team playoff, then all those teams would have made it, and there won't be a problem. However, since only 4 teams could make it, then you had to make a choice, and you simply can't justify picking Ohio St or TCU ahead of Michigan St and Baylor. If it's an 8 team playoff, then no problem with TCU and Ohio St getting in. With just a 4 team playoff, there is a big problem with them getting in over teams that beat them.

 

[PSUPOWER]

See, now you're changing your tune. You said the ENTIRE 12 game season matters. Now, you want to limit it to just Big 12 games. Here's a better look at the stats I quoted.

Total Offense
Baylor 581 ypg, 48.2 ppg
TCU 533 ypg, 46.5 ppg
For the year, Baylor was +48 ypg, and +1.7 ppg

Total Defense
Baylor 368 ypg, 24.2 ppg
TCU 360 ypg, 20.3 ppg
For the year, TCU was +8 ypg, and + 3.9 ppg

Those stats don't say TCU was better. What's funny is, you said TCU was "much better" on defense, yet they were only 8 yards better. Those stats don't look "much better" at all.

I'm going to say it yet again. You don't understand the point I'm making to you. In 2014 &2015 there was not an 8 team playoff, so a choice had to be made. If there was an 8 team playoff, then all those teams would have made it, and there won't be a problem. However, since only 4 teams could make it, then you had to make a choice, and you simply can't justify picking Ohio St or TCU ahead of Michigan St and Baylor. If it's an 8 team playoff, then no problem with TCU and Ohio St getting in. With just a 4 team playoff, there is a big problem with them getting in over teams that beat them.

I'm not changing my tune at all. The entire 12-game regular season does matter as I have said all along. The reason that I cited Big 12 stats was to eliminate Strength Of Schedule differentials due to different OOC games and make an apples to apples comparison between Baylor and TCU over their 9 Big 12 conference games. As you could see, TCU was the better team in conference by a wide margin.

Out Of Conference, SMU was the only common opponent of Baylor and TCU.
Baylor beat SMU 45-0 and TCU beat SMU 56-0.

Baylor also dominated Buffalo U and Northwestern State, which are both weak teams.
TCU dominated a weak Samford team and a good Minnesota team.

In bowl games, Baylor lost to Michigan State and TCU dominated an Ole Miss team 42-3 that beat one of the four teams that were invited to the playoffs by the committee, Alabama. Ole Miss had beaten Alabama 23-17 during the regular season.

 

[robcac26]

There is no doubt that there will always be teams that will feel like they were snubbed unfairly in any FBS playoff system, regardless of how many teams are involved. But, in the two years that the 4-team playoff system has been in place there hasn't been any team ranked lower than 8th by a committee that has established a resume that was deserving of national championship consideration.

If you can think of one please make a case for that team.

Thanks !

I can't think of a team ranked lower than 8 that could have claimed to be deserving of being ranked 1 or 2, but if you expand the field to 8 teams, you don't need to have a case for being ranked that high to say you deserve to go to the playoff, you just need to have a case for being ranked 8th. Surely there were teams ranked 9 or 10 that may have had a case for being 8.

 

[PSUPOWER]

I can't think of a team ranked lower than 8 that could have claimed to be deserving of being ranked 1 or 2, but if you expand the field to 8 teams, you don't need to have a case for being ranked that high to say you deserve to go to the playoff, you just need to have a case for being ranked 8th. Surely there were teams ranked 9 or 10 that may have had a case for being 8.

Making a case for being the 8th best team in the country isn't really enough to deserve national championship consideration in my opinion.

However, in 2014 TCU could make a case for national championship consideration and the committee ranked them 6th.

And in 2015 Ohio State could make a case for national championship consideration and the committee ranked them 7th.

If an 8-team playoff system was used in 2014 TCU would have been able to play for the national championship.

If an 8-team playoff system was used in 2015 Ohio State would have been able to defend their 2014 national title on the field.

Essentially, an 8-team playoff system is needed to give the committee enough of a margin for error that all teams that really can make a case for national championship consideration are allowed to play it out on the field.

 

[robcac26]

Making a case for being the 8th best team in the country isn't really enough to deserve national championship consideration in my opinion.

If you want an 8-team playoff, then making a case for being the 8th best team IS enough to deserve national championship consideration.

 

[PSUPOWER]

If you want an 8-team playoff, then making a case for being the 8th best team IS enough to deserve national championship consideration.

Most years there are four or five teams with regular season resumes that command national championship consideration.
But, each year is different. In 2014 TCU was ranked 6th by the committee, but, they clearly deserved national championship consideration. In 2015 Ohio State was ranked 7th by the commitee, but, they clearly deserved national championship consideration.

There are many teams that may be able to claim that they are the 8th best team in the country, but, in the last two years I haven't seen one of those teams with a resume that deserves national championship consideration yet.

If you have please name those teams.

Name one team that wasn't ranked in the top 8 by the committee that had a regular season resume that showed that said snubbed team deserved national championship consideration.

Thanks !

 

[topdecktiger]

I'm not changing my tune at all. The entire 12-game regular season does matter as I have said all along. The reason that I cited Big 12 stats was to eliminate Strength Of Schedule differentials due to different OOC games and make an apples to apples comparison between Baylor and TCU over their 9 Big 12 conference games. As you could see, TCU was the better team in conference by a wide margin.

Out Of Conference, SMU was the only common opponent of Baylor and TCU.
Baylor beat SMU 45-0 and TCU beat SMU 56-0.

Baylor also dominated Buffalo U and Northwestern State, which are both weak teams.
TCU dominated a weak Samford team and a good Minnesota team.

In bowl games, Baylor lost to Michigan State and TCU dominated an Ole Miss team 42-3 that beat one of the four teams that were invited to the playoffs by the committee, Alabama. Ole Miss had beaten Alabama 23-17 during the regular season.

No, TCU was not better by a wide margin. Not by a long shot. For example, you are making an issue that TCU beat SMU 56-0 instead of 45-0. That's meaningless. Completely meaningless. That fact that TCU beat SMU by 11 extra points doesn't come close mitigating the fact that Baylor beat TCU head to head. The fact that TCU scored 20 extra points in conference play doesn't mitigate the fact that Baylor beat TCU head to head. The only way that would matter is if the margin was gaping wide, like if Baylor only beat SMU 20-16, or if TCU scored 100 more points. All the stats you are throwing out have a minimal difference. Again, the fact that TCU scored a couple of extra touchdowns in blowouts in no way, shape, or form mitigates the head to head loss.

The bowl games didn't occur until after the playoff teams had been selected, so that's completely irrelevant to the discussion. The committee could only choose based on what happened in the regular season. And one other point about the regular season. The only difference in the OOC schedules is that Baylor played Buffalo and TCU played an average (not "good") Minnesota team. They both played SMU and a AA team. That's not enough to mitigate the head to head loss either.

 

[topdecktiger]

In 2014 TCU was ranked 6th by the committee, but, they clearly deserved national championship consideration.

And I'll again make the point, who should they jump? Alabama? Oregon? Florida St? Ohio St? All four of those teams had better resumes than TCU.

 

[robcac26]

Most years there are four or five teams with regular season resumes that command national championship consideration.
But, each year is different. In 2014 TCU was ranked 6th by the committee, but, they clearly deserved national championship consideration. In 2015 Ohio State was ranked 7th by the commitee, but, they clearly deserved national championship consideration.

There are many teams that may be able to claim that they are the 8th best team in the country, but, in the last two years I haven't seen one of those teams with a resume that deserves national championship consideration yet.

If you have please name those teams.

Thanks !

I understand what you're saying, but if the criteria you need to meet in order to have a chance to play for the national title is to either win your conference or otherwise finish in the top 8, then you aren't asking for only the teams whose regular season performances were enough for them to claim to be the best team, you are asking for the top 8 teams. If Team X is ranked 9 but feels they should have been ranked 8, they will 100% feel snubbed by the committee just like 2014 TCU and 2015 Ohio State were. While they may not feel as though they should have been ranked #1 or #2, the #8 team may not feel like they were top two either, but they were given an opportunity to keep playing towards a national championship while #9 may feel as though they deserved that opportunity instead.

 

[PSUPOWER]

And I'll again make the point, who should they jump? Alabama? Oregon? Florida St? Ohio St? All four of those teams had better resumes than TCU.

Many people think that TCU had the best resume of them all in 2014 and that what TCU did to Ole Miss in their bowl game proved that in 2014. But, as I have said all along, I am not interested in jumping any teams with resumes that deserve national championship consideration.

My goal is to get the best 8 teams in a playoff every year to decide the national championship on the field from there.

That will not happen this year or next, but, hopefully it will happen soon or more teams worthy of national championship consideration may be eliminated by a committee.

 

[PSUPOWER]

I understand what you're saying, but if the criteria you need to meet in order to have a chance to play for the national title is to either win your conference or otherwise finish in the top 8, then you aren't asking for only the teams whose regular season performances were enough for them to claim to be the best team, you are asking for the top 8 teams. If Team X is ranked 9 but feels they should have been ranked 8, they will 100% feel snubbed by the committee just like 2014 TCU and 2015 Ohio State were. While they may not feel as though they should have been ranked #1 or #2, the #8 team may not feel like they were top two either, but they were given an opportunity to keep playing towards a national championship while #9 may feel as though they deserved that opportunity instead.

Like I said, there will always be teams that will feel like they were snubbed. No playoff system will eliminate that. But, the current 4-team playoff system is better than the old 2-team playoff system and an 8-team playoff system would be a lot better than the current 4-team playoff system.

FCS Football currently uses a 24-team playoff system and FBS Football would generate a lot more revenue to justify an expanded playoff system than FCS Football can. A portion of that additional FBS revenue can also be shared by all FBS teams to benefit all involved.

It is a Win... Win...

 

[topdecktiger]

Many people think that TCU had the best resume of them all in 2014 and that what TCU did to Ole Miss in their bowl game proved that in 2014. But, as I have said all along, I am not interested in jumping any teams with resumes that deserve national championship consideration.

My goal is to get the best 8 teams in a playoff every year to decide the national championship on the field from there.

That will not happen this year or next, but, hopefully it will happen soon or more teams worthy of national championship consideration may be eliminated by a committee.

No, many people don't feel TCU had the best resume in 2014, and it's easily disproven. TCU only beat two ranked teams in 2014. Florida St, Oregon, and Ohio St all beat three each. Alabama beat 5. All four schools had stronger SOS than TCU, by a wide margin.

If you aren't interested in jumping teams, then you have no argument in support of TCU.

If your goal is to get the best 8 teams in the playoffs, you are failing miserably. You are making one of the worst arguments for an 8 team playoff I've ever heard. I would like to see 8 teams, and there definitely IS an argument for that case, but your argument is doing nothing but undermining your position.

 

[robcac26]

Like I said, there will always be teams that will feel like they were snubbed. No playoff system will eliminate that. But, the current 4-team playoff system is better than the old 2-team playoff system and an 8-team playoff system would be a lot better than the current 4-team playoff system.

FCS Football currently uses a 24-team playoff system and FBS Football would generate a lot more revenue to justify an expanded playoff system than FCS Football can. A portion of that additional FBS revenue can also be shared by all FBS teams to benefit all involved.

It is a Win... Win...

I don't see how anyone can feel snubbed if you do a five-team playoff where the only criteria involved is winning your P5 conference. Anyone who isn't there is left out simply because they didn't win their conference, no worrying about how a committee is going to decide between you and another team.

I agree with you that expanding the playoffs is better, but unless you eliminate the committee's role in choosing who is worthy and who is unworthy, we will always have this problem, and by making it so that only conference champions advance to the national playoff, every conference championship game becomes a national playoff game, effectively expanding the playoffs to 10 teams without adding too many games.

 

[topdecktiger]

I agree with you that expanding the playoffs is better, but unless you eliminate the committee's role in choosing who is worthy and who is unworthy, we will always have this problem, and by making it so that only conference champions advance to the national playoff, every conference championship game becomes a national playoff game, effectively expanding the playoffs to 10 teams without adding too many games.

As long as you have automatic bids, it won't be a problem. It doesn't matter if a committee selects some supplemental teams, so long as there is a direct path (winning your conference) to the playoffs. Nobody has ever complained about the basketball national champion, even if Team X got left out of the tournament. That's because everybody had the same shot to win their conference and get in.

 

[robcac26]

As long as you have automatic bids, it won't be a problem. It doesn't matter if a committee selects some supplemental teams, so long as there is a direct path (winning your conference) to the playoffs. Nobody has ever complained about the basketball national champion, even if Team X got left out of the tournament. That's because everybody had the same shot to win their conference and get in.

I don't buy this at all. If you take the top 8 teams and #9 has a good case for being #8, well yeah they could have avoided it by winning their conference, but they still aren't going to be happy if they have a legitimate case for that #8 spot.

 

[PSUPOWER]

No, many people don't feel TCU had the best resume in 2014, and it's easily disproven. TCU only beat two ranked teams in 2014. Florida St, Oregon, and Ohio St all beat three each. Alabama beat 5. All four schools had stronger SOS than TCU, by a wide margin.

If you aren't interested in jumping teams, then you have no argument in support of TCU.

If your goal is to get the best 8 teams in the playoffs, you are failing miserably. You are making one of the worst arguments for an 8 team playoff I've ever heard. I would like to see 8 teams, and there definitely IS an argument for that case, but your argument is doing nothing but undermining your position.

Every final college football poll that includes all games in 2014 and every final college football poll that includes all games in 2015 disagrees with you.

You can't make a better case for a snubbed team that deserved a chance to play for the national championship than TCU in 2014 and Ohio State in 2015.

If you think you can then please try and do so...

 

[PSUPOWER]

I don't see how anyone can feel snubbed if you do a five-team playoff where the only criteria involved is winning your P5 conference. Anyone who isn't there is left out simply because they didn't win their conference, no worrying about how a committee is going to decide between you and another team.

I agree with you that expanding the playoffs is better, but unless you eliminate the committee's role in choosing who is worthy and who is unworthy, we will always have this problem, and by making it so that only conference champions advance to the national playoff, every conference championship game becomes a national playoff game, effectively expanding the playoffs to 10 teams without adding too many games.

If the top 64 FBS teams were used to create 4 relatively equal 16-team conferences and each of those 64 teams played 12 conference games a year then an FBS playoff system that is based solely on conference winners would make sense. But, that isn’t what we have.

128 teams is way too many to compete at the same level. But, until those 128 teams are divided up into more competitive groups, a playoff system must be in place to give all 128 of those teams a chance at the national title.

Since the 10 FBS Conferences are not equal, it would be impractical to base the entire FBS playoff field solely on conference winners.

If the two best teams in the country appear to be from the same conference, both of those great teams are more deserving of a playoff spot than many conference champions that are clearly not top 10 teams.

14-team conferences like the ACC & SEC only play 8-game conference slates, where some of their best teams don't always play each other. Occasionally, there are FBS independents that are great teams. Frequently, 14-team conferences like the ACC, B1G & SEC have two teams that are much better than any Group of 5 team or Big 12 team, where only 10 teams reside despite the name Big 12.

Let's get the best 8 teams in a playoff to decide the national champion on the field. Some years there are 4 great teams. Other years there are 5 great teams. Some years there are 6 great teams. And other years there are 7 great teams.

All regular season games are important. Your system doesn’t consider the importance of OOC games enough. By focusing on just conference games in the current FBS landscape all you are really doing is shrinking an already small sample size of games currently used to determine a true national champion even further.

With an 8-team playoff system that gives teams extra credit for winning their conference beyond their record and overall Strength Of Schedule, a great team can earn a true national championship on the field by winning 3 playoff games. This would be much better than the 4-team playoff system that we have now.

 

[robcac26]

If the top 64 FBS teams were used to create 4 relatively equal 16-team conferences and each of those 64 teams played 12 conference games a year then an FBS playoff system that is based solely on conference winners would make sense. But, that isn’t what we have.

128 teams is way too many to compete at the same level. But, until those 128 teams are divided up into more competitive groups, a playoff system must be in place to give all 128 of those teams a chance at the national title.

Since the 10 FBS Conferences are not equal, it would be impractical to base the entire FBS playoff field solely on conference winners.

If the two best teams in the country appear to be from the same conference, both of those great teams are more deserving of a playoff spot than many conference champions that are clearly not top 10 teams.

14-team conferences like the ACC & SEC only play 8-game conference slates, where some of their best teams don't always play each other. Occasionally, there are FBS independents that are great teams. Frequently, 14-team conferences like the ACC, B1G & SEC have two teams that are much better than any Group of 5 team or Big 12 team, where only 10 teams reside despite the name Big 12.

Let's get the best 8 teams in a playoff to decide the national champion on the field. Some years there are 4 great teams. Other years there are 5 great teams. Some years there are 6 great teams. And other years there are 7 great teams.

With an 8-team playoff system that gives teams extra credit for winning their conference beyond their record and overall Strength Of Schedule, a great team can earn a true national championship on the field by winning 3 playoff games. This would be much better than the 4-team playoff system that we have now.

If we must include the G5 teams, then I'd rather see a 6-team playoff where the G5 has their own championship, and the winner joins the five P5 champions in a 6-team national playoff.

If the top two teams in the country are from the same conference, then they will have already played each other in a national playoff game when they met in the conference championship game, or they played each other in the regular season already and one team beat the other. It takes a lot of guesswork out of the equation if the primary goal is to simply be the best team in your conference, and not worry about polls and committees. Yeah we don't have perfectly equal conferences, but no league in any sport does.

 

[PSUPOWER]

If we must include the G5 teams, then I'd rather see a 6-team playoff where the G5 has their own championship, and the winner joins the five P5 champions in a 6-team national playoff.

If the top two teams in the country are from the same conference, then they will have already played each other in a national playoff game when they met in the conference championship game, or they played each other in the regular season already and one team beat the other. It takes a lot of guesswork out of the equation if the primary goal is to simply be the best team in your conference, and not worry about polls and committees. Yeah we don't have perfectly equal conferences, but no league in any sport does.

If ACC team #1 wins 6 ACC Conference games, their division and their ACC Championship game and loses 4 OOC games finishing their regular season with 6 losses, are they more deserving of a national title playoff bid than SEC West team #2 that lost their conference opener by 1 point to division rival SEC team #1 and finished their season with 1 loss ?

All regular season games that are played on the field need to be considered, if you want the national title to be determined on the field.

Your proposed 6-team playoff system would be fortunate to get 3 of the nation's 8 best teams in the playoff to decide the national championship on the field. SEC West team #2 would probably be better than most of the 6 teams in your proposed playoff system.

The teams with the best 12-game or 13-game regular season resumes is what you should want in the playoffs. Not conference champions from conferences without any top 10 teams.

Do you have any idea how many teams with resumes that may be worthy of national championship consideration would be upset if they were left out, because, of a playoff system that is flawed to this degree ?

 

[robcac26]

If ACC team #1 wins 6 ACC Conference games, their division and their ACC Championship game and loses 4 OOC games finishing their regular season with 6 losses, are they more deserving of a national title playoff bid than SEC West team #2 that lost their conference opener by 1 point to division rival SEC team #1 and finished their season with 1 loss ?

All regular season games that are played on the field need to be considered, if you want the national title to be determined on the field.

Your proposed 6-team playoff system would be fortunate to get 3 of the nation's 8 best teams in the playoff to decide the national championship on the field. SEC West team #2 would probably be better than most of the 6 teams in your proposed playoff system.

The teams with the best 12-game or 13-game regular season resumes is what you should want in the playoffs. Not conference champions from conferences without any top 10 teams.

Do you have any idea how many teams with resumes that may be worthy of national championship consideration would be upset if they were left out, because, of a playoff system that is flawed to this degree ?

In my opinion, if it has already been proven on the field that you are not the best team in your conference, you shouldn't get a chance to play for the title of best team in the country.

 

[topdecktiger]

I don't buy this at all. If you take the top 8 teams and #9 has a good case for being #8, well yeah they could have avoided it by winning their conference, but they still aren't going to be happy if they have a legitimate case for that #8 spot.

It doesn't matter if a team feels snubbed. That's not the point. The point is how the general public feels about the system, not an individual team. If you have a direct path to the playoffs, it takes this business of favoritism and guesswork out of it. Everybody has a chance to win their way in on the field.

The entire reason the BCS gave way to the CFP is because the general public rejected the BCS.

Every final college football poll that includes all games in 2014 and every final college football poll that includes all games in 2015 disagrees with you.

You can't make a better case for a snubbed team that deserved a chance to play for the national championship than TCU in 2014 and Ohio State in 2015.

If you think you can then please try and do so...

You can't make a better case for a snubbed team that deserved a chance to play for the national championship than TCU in 2014 and Ohio State in 2015.

If you think you can then please try and do so...

See, that's your problem right there. That is not the argument at all. It doesn't matter who the "best snubbed team" is. The only thing that matters is, did TCU deserve to be in ahead of the 4 teams who made it? Answer is no. Did Ohio St deserve to be in ahead of the 4 teams that made it? The answer is no. If you want to use TCU and Ohio St to argue that the playoffs should be expanded to 8, that's fine. But, when you start this idiotic business that TCU should be in ahead of Baylor, you lose all credibility.

Regarding the polls, you are dead wrong on this too. It doesn't matter if the final polls had TCU ranked higher than Baylor. Do you know why that is? It's because, the playoffs have to be set up before the postseason. You can only go by what information you have available at the time. At that time, Baylor and TCU had identical records, and Baylor won head to head. That ends the argument right there. You have absolutely no justification for picking TCU ahead of Baylor, or Ohio St ahead of Michigan St in that situation.

If ACC team #1 wins 6 ACC Conference games, their division and their ACC Championship game and loses 4 OOC games finishing their regular season with 6 losses, are they more deserving of a national title playoff bid than SEC West team #2 that lost their conference opener by 1 point to division rival SEC team #1 and finished their season with 1 loss ?

You are making a mistake by trying to construct these specific scenarios. You have evaluate how the framework works in a general sense.

You are missing the key problem with college football. You have too many teams, and not enough games. There are only 12 regular season games, and 128 teams. On top of that, only ~25% of those games are interconference games, and even fewer than that are against P5 level competition. The bulk of college football games are played in conference, so you really have no accurate way to compare teams from different regions. There is too much guesswork and bias in a selection system.

Along those lines, the national championship is supposed to be just that, a NATIONAL championship. You can't have a national championship if you don't have teams from around the nation competing. That's why it's counter productive to have a bunch of teams from one conference in the playoffs. If you had a longer season, like in basketball, then it wouldn't be a problem. However, with a limited schedule in football, you have to weed out the teams in conference play.

 

[robcac26]

It doesn't matter if a team feels snubbed. That's not the point. The point is how the general public feels about the system, not an individual team. If you have a direct path to the playoffs, it takes this business of favoritism and guesswork out of it. Everybody has a chance to win their way in on the field.

Fine then suppose the "general public" isn't in agreement as to who is #8 and who is #9. With an 8-team playoff, you have two paths to the playoffs. One is by winning your conference, the other is by committee. The first path eliminates the favoritism and guesswork, but the second path does not. I don't think it's good enough to say, "Well Path 2 didn't provide us with clear choices, but anyone we decide against didn't get there on Path 1 anyway so it's no big deal." At the end of the day, we could end up with teams not in the playoffs that could have been there over other teams just based on some people's opinions.