How this season changed my mind on a 12 team playoff

[sami]

This season…….just like basically every other season (once you get to the end) simply proves……you DONT need 12 teams.

4 is definitely enough.

Literally not ONE single team outside of the current top 4 has any real argument to be in the playoff. If USC were to lose someone who has NO business whatsoever in the playoff will be in the playoff.

There is absolutely NO need for the 12 team playoff it’s literally absurd.

OSU just got rolled at home……should they get rewarded with a playoff spot? And Michigan was without their best player.

Tennessee just got absolutely throttled by SC.

Bama has 2 losses, one to Tennessee (who doesn’t belong) another to LSU who just got beat again……and Bama didn’t really beat anyone.

P-ST played 2 good teams……and lost both times.

Washington got beat by a 3-9 team and have another loss.

Clemson has no good wins and lost twice to 8-4 teams

LSU has 3 losses and 1 was to a 5-7 team

Tulane lost to UCF and Southern Miss a 6-6 mid team.

Literally ONLY the current top 4 belong.

Playoffs and tournaments are amazing. However for college football…….I think it will become a show. Not to mention when terrible teams find one win in the season during their championship and beat a good team……..BAM their in.

This says it perfectly. The playoffs are a cash cow that will result in a ton of blowouts in bland neutral sites leading to the only 2-3 teams that ever have a chance to win each year anyway.

Another potential issue will be kids who will be entering the draft now being asked to play another 3-4 games after the season is over. At what point will the opt-outs start happening?

An awful idea being pushed for the only reason that motivates any change in pro or college sports - money. But this one has the potential to be a complete disaster.

 

[sami]

I could support eliminating the conference championships.

If this travesty is really happening, they really should eliminate them. But they won't, because of the one constant of all rule or policy changes - no rule or policy change is ever enacted that will not have a positive effect on revenue.

 

[Behr]

Okay, that's fine. I can compromise on "there's zero good reason for expansion".

Cool.

Whe the expansion takes place I'm gonna miss seeing you around since you won't care about any of it.

 

[Vol8188]

Cool.

Whe the expansion takes place I'm gonna miss seeing you around since you won't care about any of it.

Right. That's clearly what I said. Good job.

 

[Behr]

Right. That's clearly what I said. Good job.

Nice cents of humor.

 

[Voltopia]

It's remarkable how quickly people will sell out their regional rivalries, their conference histories, their autonomy over their own leagues, and their very sport itself - all to take part in a glitzy corporate controlled tournament that media and power brokers dictate access to. "Expanding the playoffs" is just bait. The real question should be why invest so much time and attention to sport run by people who do not care about what happens to it - as evidenced by their constant insistent on devaluing the regular season, devaluing tradition, and devaluing rivalries. Once upon a time supporting college football was also supporting your regional school and your local communities, but that stuff's going right out the window with all this advertising money.

The SEC never needed and never should need anything else. But what else is new? It's only about money now. Fans say they won't care, that it doesn't matter, but deep down, they'll know they're just cheering for a hollow shell of what used to be a college sport, with players who come and go as they please, and with a structure built solely to maximize profit at the expense of everything else. Have fun cheering for that.

 

[Adam Sandler]

Yeah I think 12 teams spits in the face of any team who has accomplished the lofty feat of making it through a season unscathed (or relatively so). I like a 6 team where the 1 and 2 get a first round bye.

 

[RabunRaven]

The issue I have with 4 is the PRESEASON rankings play way too much into how things unfold. The ONLY reason OSU is #5 right now and will likely get in is they started the year at #2 based on nothing but perception. Their schedule is a joke, they get housed at home by UM, and they've beaten damn near nobody but Penn State and that's not saying a ton. So only having 4 teams in the playoffs IMO benefits the few privileged teams that get ranked high each year based on their logo. This is college football - not voting for homecoming queen.

Anywhere from 8 to 16 seems right.

 

[BenGrimm]

Why are they even given a shot?
The entire original problem/ question was: how do we know the top 2 in the bcs standings are really the best? #3 and 4, maybe 5 has a legitimate argument.
Ok, then we went to 4 teams.
Now all of a sudden we are going to 12. It's the nfl system now. It's not who has collectively had the best season of proving they are the best, but just who is hottest once the playoffs start.

I’m ok with that. Some teams start slow and get better as the year goes on.

If crowning a champion is about who had the best regular season then there is no need for any playoff or title game. Let the AP name whoever they feel had the best season and go back to bowl games being glorified exhibition games.

Quite honestly I would be ok with that too.

 

[bigorangepoppa]

Make it a conference champioms only tournament. Then its truly decided on the field. If you arent good enough to win your conference, how the hell can you be the best in the nation for that season?


Anything else and its still just a bunch of nerds deciding who gets a chance to get hot and win an end of the season tournament.

Uh, sorta like UGA last year.

 

[luthervol]

Here is a list of Week 13 games that had playoff relevance:
GA - GT
Mich - Oh St
TCU - Iowa St
LSU - TX A&M
USC - Notre Dame
Bama - Auburn

Here is a list of Week 13 games that had no relevance BUT WOULD HAVE with a 12 team playoff:
Fl St - FL
UCLA - Cali
Clemson - SC
TN - Vandy
PN St - Mich St
Oregon - Oregon St.
Kansas St - Kansas
Wash - Wash St
Utah - Colorado
Ole Miss - Miss St
NC - NC St
Tulane - Cincy
Baylor - TX

Just for consideration.

 

[90 Vol]

And if USC and TCU lose this weekend, who belongs?

Tennessee and Ohio State

 

[malinoisvol]

Not for the reason you may be thinking.

How some of these voters vote is pure insanity. I get that the CFP committee doesn’t have Lou Holtz and that Midwest troll that had us ranked behind LSU the day after we spanked them in Death Valley. But just watching this weekly, I don’t trust human beings to pick the 4 best teams to play for the title.

Yes. I know they are going to pick the 12 best teams in our next version of the playoffs. The difference is the teams that are left out of those playoffs most likely have 3 losses or more. That’s on them!

Point is, because our Vols have been so active in the polls this year, I’ve seen with fresh eyes just how ridiculous some of these voters and committee members can be. Let the kids decide it on the field. I’m all in for a 12 team playoff.

Humans... This is why I liked the BCS. IIRC, it was more computer based.

 

[Brave Volunteer]

Humans... This is why I liked the BCS. IIRC, it was more computer based.

And when we had the bcs everyone complained because it eliminated the "eyeball test" only humans can give. Lol.

 

[90 Vol]

And when we had the bcs everyone complained because it eliminated the "eyeball test" only humans can give. Lol.

That eyeball test is the problem. It all depends on what glasses are in front of those eyeballs.

 

[Winchester73]

It's remarkable how quickly people will sell out their regional rivalries, their conference histories, their autonomy over their own leagues, and their very sport itself - all to take part in a glitzy corporate controlled tournament that media and power brokers dictate access to. "Expanding the playoffs" is just bait. The real question should be why invest so much time and attention to sport run by people who do not care about what happens to it - as evidenced by their constant insistent on devaluing the regular season, devaluing tradition, and devaluing rivalries. Once upon a time supporting college football was also supporting your regional school and your local communities, but that stuff's going right out the window with all this advertising money.

The SEC never needed and never should need anything else. But what else is new? It's only about money now. Fans say they won't care, that it doesn't matter, but deep down, they'll know they're just cheering for a hollow shell of what used to be a college sport, with players who come and go as they please, and with a structure built solely to maximize profit at the expense of everything else. Have fun cheering for that.

Let’s also remember that prior to the WAY BACK year of 1992, we didn’t HAVE a conference championship game. It was regular season games then straight to the bowl game. And that was IT … ah, the good old days. I think most of us were fine with that. I also don’t think the SEC can continue to expand AND also retain the rivalry games. There’s too much at stake and certain teams will have an advantage in most years.

 

[Voltopia]

Let’s also remember that prior to the WAY BACK year of 1992, we didn’t HAVE a conference championship game. It was regular season games then straight to the bowl game. And that was IT … ah, the good old days. I think most of us were fine with that. I also don’t think the SEC can continue to expand AND also retain the rivalry games. There’s too much at stake and certain teams will have an advantage in most years.

I definitely was fine with it. And in some ways it was much easier to enjoy. People used to be more patient with the sport in general. The coaches, the players, there was more room for patience, because it was about supporting kids who chose your school and took up your colors. Back then, the most important thing were your rivalries. The Third Saturday, the Iron Bowl, the Egg Bowl, all of them. The same rivalries that ESPN and FOX now milk for advertising money, even as they drain the sport dry of its authenticity. ESPN could never make a "Third Saturday In October." Never. But they sure as hell could buy it off the SEC, and the SEC happily sold it to them. You're definitely right about the rivalries. They won't survive whatever contortions schools go through to swallow their fat paychecks.

I think, really, that's the thing that really bums me out about all of it. The playoffs, the media, ESPN and its 4000 employees, they all exist because the schools SOLD the experience out for TV money. They sold us out. The genuine passion of generational fan support, built by schools and communities. No pro team could ever hope to replicate that. No team made up of players drawing million dollar paychecks, who can leave on a whim, can ever be authentic in the way college sports once was. But the schools sold everything we enjoyed out for money. Money and stupid Disney-owned playoff that they can both gatekeep and profit from. Lame.

 

[Daniel_Lincolns_Foot]

That eyeball test is the problem. It all depends on what glasses are in front of those eyeballs.

The only thing the committee should do is set the criteria by which teams are ranked. That way there is no ambiguity or "eye tests" needed.

For example, I don't think a "bad loss" should carry any weight. A loss is a loss, a win is a win. Now, if you really want to consider "bad losses," then it should be a part of a metric that takes into account something like point differential. For example, when comparing Tennessee and Alabama:

--We beat them head to head
--We beat a team they lost to (LSU)
--We had a better point differential against a common opponent (Vanderbilt)

on top of that, we have a better point differential in:
--Total games
--Conference play
--Ranked opponents (at the time of matchup, of which we had an additional game)

What "eyeball test" is there when we are literally the better team where it matters the most? (The scoreboard)

 

[JoAllan]

100% disagree.
How many Super Bowl champs were undefeated over their first 12 games? The best team often has one or two losses. Without a 12 team playoff, there is little incentive to play tough opponents during the regular season because the team with the easiest schedule has the most advantage.....and nobody benefits from that. The SEC ends up being penalized for being a strong conference...the top four teams could easily be in the SEC and those four would never be the four selected in a four team playoff.

how many teams who have won the title haven’t beaten good teams?

I’m simply talking about deserving…….every other team has proven this season they didn’t deserve it. They each had their opportunity and they each blew it.

 

[JoAllan]

And if USC and TCU lose this weekend, who belongs?

TCU is a lock

Read the post, I said if USC were to lose someone who isn’t deserving will be in. NO one else is. Would be Bama or OSU.

Teams who are left out will argue but only have themselves to blame.

 

[West Vol]

A lot needs to change in the way that teams are selected. As we judge things currently, 12 teams means auto bids for Clemson, USC, Notre Dame, and probably both Michigan and Ohio State most years.

 

[JoAllan]

Yeah...I actually agree with this. I was all in for a 12 - 16 team playoff....but after this year, I am not sure that it is needed. Agree with post above regarding the reasons.

However, if the committee is going to push for teams like OSU or Alabama to get in because of pedigree and not because of quality of wins, then it would be interesting to include teams with similar background but without the "Bama" or "Buckeye" name to see how those "pedigree" schools would fair against other teams with similar records.

Case in point--Alabama ranked higher than UT....yeah, we had a bad loss on the road to SCAR...who actually ended up beating Clemson on the road as well--so that loss is not as horrible as it turned out being...but, in every measurable for tiebreakers, we beat Alabama--head-to-head, common opponents, top 25 wins.....yet, watch--the Alabama Bias will have the selection committee put Alabama above UT simply on name alone...that kind of BS needs to be weeded out for a selection committee that is going to limit itself to 4 - 12 teams.

to me, if we are going to keep this as a human committee selection--then we should open it up to 12-16 schools because the human mind is going to convince itself pedigree schools deserve a spot. If we go to something less biased (like a blend of computer rankings), then I would likely want to see how that turns out for a couple years in selecting the top 4...

I really hope they change how the top 4 is determined.

By the end of the year everyone has a good idea of the 4 best teams (at least who preformed the best throughout the regular season) and those should get the bye.

I DO not want to se an 8-4 Purdue getting a bye and say a 12-1 Michigan (or whoever) playing game 1…….just dumb.

 

[Firebirdparts]

Is it about getting "good teams" in or finding the teams who have had the best season?

I think it's about determining a single champion without "oops the right teams didn't play each other". It's important to get THE BEST team in there and you get four chances to be sure you have THE BEST ONE in there. And they've never needed 4. You don't really even need 3. This idea that teams "need a chance" is just something somebody made up. If you have 64 teams, then there will always be debate about the 65th best team "didn't get a chance". The number is not really relevant as long as it's big enough, and it turns out 4 is more than enough.

It's pretty evident that we discuss A LOT the half dozen teams that expect a Natty every year at any cost. Personally I am very careful about creating arguments based on imaginary responses of hordes of other people. I have no idea if people will see an 8 team playoff as better or worse. Guaranteed you're going to get to wait a month for the "correct" teams to play each other. That's for sure. The winner is going to have a 16 game season, or whatever it is, that's also a given. If it goes beyond 8 (or maybe 16) teams, it gets too long for the calendar, I guess. The popular response, I don't know. I've always said happiness is genetic. The legion of the miserable will be miserable whatever the format.

 

[luthervol]

how many teams who have won the title haven’t beaten good teams?

I’m simply talking about deserving…….every other team has proven this season they didn’t deserve it. They each had their opportunity and they each blew it.

Did GA deserve it last year?
They lost their 13th game.....badly.

Can you badly lose your 13th game yet still be deserving?
"Deserving" is certainly subjective.
I personally feel that their are easily 12 teams deserving of a final shot.

 

[Firebirdparts]

See? ^^^ If you forget about this deserve stuff, you no longer have to ask questions like that.