Let's talk about "not punishing those who play in championship games"

[VFL-82-JP]

There is a whole spectrum of viewpoints on what "not punishing" means, when it comes to the CFP Committee and football programs.

At one extreme, the viewpoint is that a team shouldn't drop even a single spot in the rankings, win or lose. But even casual analysis reveals this as untenable. If your team is #1 in the land, but loses to the #6 team in your conference CG, should you remain #1? Of course not. Should you remain above the team that beat you? Probably not. So that means you're going to drop below at least some if not all of the teams in the #2 through #5 spots, as well.

Or say the #2 team in that same scenario wins its own championship. The #1 team loses, you win. Shouldn't you now be the #1 team?

Point is, movement is not only expected based on results of the games, but is absolutely necessary.

~ ~ ~

At the other extreme are those who believe the CFP Committee didn't really mean it. Teams will rise and fall JUST LIKE they do during the regular season. It was all just platitudes.

This extreme, while possible, is unlikely. The Committee has one purpose: to ensure the best teams in the country compete for the national title. But they have clearly added a secondary, social engineering kind of function: to ensure the conference championships continue to have relevance even as the national championship footprint expands. They're not doing too great at that, but it is clearly part of their intent.

~ ~ ~

So what are we really going to see? I think something in between. I think teams who win this coming weekend will rise, and teams who lose will fall. Just not as drastically as sometimes happens.

If it is a close game, I would not expect to see the winner leap over a lot of teams, or the loser to fall very far. Maybe 1 or 2 spots.

And even if it's a blowout, the losing team's fall probably won't be as drastic as it would in the regular season. What would've been 6, or even 8 or 9 spots in October, might only be 3 or 4 after a championship game.

But it won't be nothing, either.

That's where I think we're going. We'll see in less than a week.

Go Vols!

 

[1Big_Orange_Fan]

Exactly. If #5 UGA gets beat by Texas they will fall behind #6 UT even with the head-to-head win. It's dumb to think otherwise.

 

[hUTch2002]

There is a whole spectrum of viewpoints on what "not punishing" means, when it comes to the CFP Committee and football programs.

At one extreme, the viewpoint is that a team shouldn't drop even a single spot in the rankings, win or lose. But even casual analysis reveals this as untenable. If your team is #1 in the land, but loses to the #6 team in your conference CG, should you remain #1? Of course not. Should you remain above the team that beat you? Probably not. So that means you're going to drop below at least some if not all of the teams in the #2 through #5 spots, as well.

Or say the #2 team in that same scenario wins its own championship. The #1 team lost, you won. Shouldn't you now be the #1 team?

Point is, movement is not only expected based on results of the games, but it's absolutely necessary.

~ ~ ~

At the other extreme are those who believe the CFP Committee didn't really mean it. Teams will rise and fall JUST LIKE they do during the regular season. It was all just platitudes.

This extreme, while possible, is unlikely. The Committee has one purpose: to ensure the best teams in the country compete for the national title. But they have clearly added a secondary, social engineering kind of function: to ensure the conference championships continue to have relevance even as the national championship footprint expands. They're not doing too great at that, but it's clearly part of their intent.

~ ~ ~

So what are we really gonna see? I think something in between. I think teams who win this coming weekend will rise, and teams who lose will fall. Just not as drastically as sometimes happens.

If it's a close game, I would not expect to see the winner leap over a lot of teams, or the loser to fall very far. Maybe 1 or 2 spots.

And even if it's a blowout, the losing team's fall probably won't be as drastic as it would in the regular season. What would've been 6, or even 8 or 9 spots in October, might only be 3 or 4 after a championship game.

But it won't be nothing, either.

That's where I think we're going. We'll see in less than a week.

Go Vols!

Pretty simple, if you can be rewarded for winning then you should have some consequence for losing.

 

[volfan102455]

Agree - if championship week is anything like the season it will not go perfect as expected by the polls with the higher seed winning every game and the games being close. That implies there has to be movement within the realm of where the teams that are playing are ranked. There are 4 teams in the top 5 who are playing. If they are close games, possibly just swaps - if the games are not close games, it will be difficult to avoid movement that extends into the 6-8 positions.

There is also the situation where at least two, maybe three depending upon whether ASU somehow finds its way into the top 12, situations where a team clearly in the playoffs will play a team trying to secure a place in that game. If they protect SMU and Boise State and keep both in regardless, that implies the teams in the 10, 11 and 12 spot are in danger of being pushed out.

I believe the committee, if they did say such a thing - and I'm not sure they really did - said something they will not be able to honor for every conference.

 

[volfan102455]

Exactly. If #5 UGA gets beat by Texas they will fall behind #6 UT even with the head-to-head win. It's dumb to think otherwise.

It would be difficult to justify a 3-loss team as a host.

 

[CAVPUT]

A loss is a loss. No reason to ignore it.

 

[Titans4Vols]

Conference title games may end up just going out the window sometime in the future. Because while a team dropping because of a loss in the conference title game makes sense because, well, they lost, it equally makes no sense because why should a team be punished for being good enough to make their conference title game while teams not good enough to do that benefit from the loser falling behind them?

You shouldn't benefit because you were worse during the regular season than the team that falls behind you due to a conference title game loss.

 

[Fatman Photos]

Need to change to either a 12 season with no championship game or go to a 13 game season with no championship. That way every team plays the same number of games and with 13 games there is more revenue.

 

[VFL-82-JP]

Conference title games may end up just going out the window sometime in the future. Because while a team dropping because of a loss in the conference title game makes sense because, well, they lost, it equally makes no sense because why should a team be punished for being good enough to make their conference title game while teams not good enough to do that benefit from the loser falling behind them?

You shouldn't benefit because you were worse during the regular season than the team that falls behind you due to a conference title game loss.

One thing that is not going to happen is conferences giving up their championship games. There is far too much history, cache, and well, honestly, money involved. No conference will ever do it willingly. Plus, most fans love them. Love being able to compete for that accolade as well as the national one.

So...never happen.

What is far more likely, starting about a month from now, is that the CFP Committee will work hard to figure out a new playoff format that doesn't make conference championship games so risky. They'll somehow figure out a format that doesn't put conference titles at odds with the national title.

How are they gonna do that? Dunno. And I don't know how WELL they'll do it, either. But I damn sure know two things:

(1) they're gonna try hard, and
(2) conference CGs are going nowhere.

Go Vols!

 

[Jax_Vol]

It works exactly like baseball in Omaha.

Gotta be thinking 4-5 moves ahead.

Not easy

 

[Titans4Vols]

One thing that is not going to happen is conferences losing their championship games. There is far too much history, cache, and well, honestly, money involved. No conference will ever do it willingly. Plus, most fans love them. Love being able to compete for that accolade as well as the national one.

So...never happen.

What is far more likely, starting about a month from now, is that the CFP Committee will work hard to figure out a new playoff format that doesn't make conference championship games so risky. They'll somehow figure out a format that doesn't put conference titles at odds with the national title.

How are they gonna do that? Dunno. And I don't know how WELL they'll do it, either. But I damn sure know two things:

(1) they're gonna try hard, and
(2) conference CGs are going nowhere.

Go Vols!

I used to think like you, but if history mattered as much as some of us think it does, CFB wouldn't look anything like it does now. History only matters until it gets in the way of making more money, and then they throw it out the window. Can just go back a decade at a time. 2024 looks a lot different than 2014. 2014 looks a lot different than 2004. 04 different than 94, so on and so forth.

People like Josh Pate say they hear that the SEC and Big 10 want to just create their own league, and I can imagine they'd figure out some way to take some of the bigger outside schools(Clemson and FSU as random examples) with them in to said league.

Which if you're going to do a large playoff format honestly makes far more sense.

 

[volfan102455]

You shouldn't benefit because you were worse during the regular season than the team that falls behind you due to a conference title game loss.

The problem is that some of the teams not playing have the same conference and overall record as those who were selected with a tie-breaker.

Maybe Georgia should respectfully decline and tell Tennessee to go play Texas.
Maybe Penn State should decline and tell Indiana to go play Oregon.

But both are playing because if they win, they get a first-round bye and will be seeded in the top 4.

The ACC has the top two based on conference records.

The Big 12 has a 4-way tie - who is to say that two that were selected are really the best of the 4? Iowa State did not play ASU, Colorado or BYU. Colorado did not play Iowa State, BYU or ASU. Only ASU and BYU played each other - so BYU did not play Colorado or Iowa State - same was true for ASU.

 

[volfan102455]

I used to think like you, but if history mattered as much as some of us think it does, CFB wouldn't look anything like it does now. History only matters until it gets in the way of making more money, and then they throw it out the window. Can just go back a decade at a time. 2024 looks a lot different than 2014. 2014 looks a lot different than 2004. 04 different than 94, so on and so forth.

People like Josh Pate say they hear that the SEC and Big 10 want to just create their own league, and I can imagine they'd figure out some way to take some of the bigger outside schools(Clemson and FSU as random examples) with them in to said league.

Which if you're going to do a large playoff format honestly makes far more sense.

I don't know why they don't break the division into 2 separate divisions with the SEC, Big 10, Big 12 and ACC in one and all the rest in the second division. They could then take # 1-4 from those 4 conferences and let them play for a championship. Any independent, like Notre Dame, who wants to be included must join a conference.

I don't think adding more teams to the SEC and Big 10 is the answer - they already have too many to effectively determine champion participants without insane tie breaking rules.

 

[volfan102455]

And lest we forget - at the top of the last ranking was a former PAC10 school and 2nd is a former Big 12 school. Crazy!

 

[Volbrando]

A loss is a loss. No reason to ignore it.

Bingo it’s a playoff game before the playoffs. If the can’t beat the team they are playing they should drop. Period

 

[Memphisvol87]

A loss is a loss. No reason to ignore it.

Unless you’re bama and get blown out by Oklahoma. Then everyone on the committee seems to ignore it.

 

[unfrozencvmanvol]

It would be difficult to justify a 3-loss team as a host.

Not if UGA has beaten 3 playoff teams though.

 

[deatojl]

I used to think like you, but if history mattered as much as some of us think it does, CFB wouldn't look anything like it does now. History only matters until it gets in the way of making more money, and then they throw it out the window. Can just go back a decade at a time. 2024 looks a lot different than 2014. 2014 looks a lot different than 2004. 04 different than 94, so on and so forth.

People like Josh Pate say they hear that the SEC and Big 10 want to just create their own league, and I can imagine they'd figure out some way to take some of the bigger outside schools(Clemson and FSU as random examples) with them in to said league.

Which if you're going to do a large playoff format honestly makes far more sense.

In addition, the "history" involved with the conference championship games started with the SEC in 1992. I know 32 years is a long time but conference champions were decided without a championship game for a lot longer than with them.

 

[ShelbourneVol]

Conference title games may end up just going out the window sometime in the future. Because while a team dropping because of a loss in the conference title game makes sense because, well, they lost, it equally makes no sense because why should a team be punished for being good enough to make their conference title game while teams not good enough to do that benefit from the loser falling behind them?

You shouldn't benefit because you were worse during the regular season than the team that falls behind you due to a conference title game loss.

Exactly

 

[deatojl]

Not if UGA has beaten 3 playoff teams though.

By my count, judging by the most recent rankings, they have only beaten one.

 

[unfrozencvmanvol]

By my count, judging by the most recent rankings, they have only beaten one.

They'll have beaten Texas and Tennessee for sure, and Clemson if they win the ACCCG. Throw in the head to head and you guys are kidding yourself if you don't think they'll rank them above us.

 

[Prayivm3rcy]

Exactly. If #5 UGA gets beat by Texas they will fall behind #6 UT even with the head-to-head win. It's dumb to think otherwise.

Strongly disagree. Georgia would have played in a game that we couldn't get to. On top of that they beat us already.

 

[Johnnyreb#VFL]

In b4 the CFP police get here

 

[hUTch2002]

Conference title games may end up just going out the window sometime in the future. Because while a team dropping because of a loss in the conference title game makes sense because, well, they lost, it equally makes no sense because why should a team be punished for being good enough to make their conference title game while teams not good enough to do that benefit from the loser falling behind them?

You shouldn't benefit because you were worse during the regular season than the team that falls behind you due to a conference title game loss.

That’s where it gets complicated. Just because you missed the championship game doesn’t necessarily mean you were worse. These unbalanced schedules make it tough to evaluate teams. That’s why no one will be in a hurry to change it either, it creates controversy which creates clicks and views.

 

[deatojl]

They'll have beaten Texas and Tennessee for sure, and Clemson if they win the ACCCG. Throw in the head to head and you guys are kidding yourself if you don't think they'll rank them above us.

I missed one. They have beaten two playoff teams. It is impressive but they would still be a three loss team. Yes, they have the head to head but they would have an additional loss, which would match the number of losses for Alabama and Ole Miss who both have the head to head over Georgia.