So the committee is officially a joke

[TUSKtimes]

BS. Real playoffs happen in other sports, including football. It’s based on records and on field play. It has established rules for getting in. At the end of the season it crowns a winner, and how a certain team did is not based on the previous season, much less what they did 10 years ago. And there are no exceptions to the “rule”.

No, a playoff occurs and you call it real because you prefer it. Another human bias that you can't leave out of the equation.

Almost every year you will have a number of bad teams with average records get into the NFL playoffs as division winners and at the same time, you will have better teams with better records, in the same conference, who don't make it in as wildcards. You do the math, nothing "objectively" fair about that. In fact, it sounds kinda human.

The reason fewer people moan and groan about such injustices is that half the league ends up qualifying for the playoffs anyway. Something that's not going to happen in college football.

What's "real" is that we only have 4 chances to get it subjectively correct.

 

[NashVol11]

Does anyone here actually think the OSU team that got blown out by Iowa is better than Alabama, or do people just not like Bama?

That's what I thought.

 

[NashVol11]

BS. Real playoffs happen in other sports, including football. It’s based on records and on field play. It has established rules for getting in. At the end of the season it crowns a winner, and how a certain team did is not based on the previous season, much less what they did 10 years ago. And there are no exceptions to the “rule”.

What's a better record, 11-1 or 11-2?

 

[rjd970]

No, a playoff occurs and you call it real because you prefer it. Another human bias that you can't leave out of the equation.

Almost every year you will have a number of bad teams with average records get into the NFL playoffs as division winners and at the same time, you will have better teams with better records, in the same conference, who don't make it in as wildcards. You do the math, nothing "objectively" fair about that. In fact, it sounds kinda human.

The reason fewer people moan and groan about such injustices is that half the league ends up qualifying for the playoffs anyway. Something that's not going to happen in college football.

What's "real" is that we only have 4 chances to get it subjectively correct.

Of course it’s fair. You win enough to get in, and you win the games that count, like you know, division championships. And it’s infinitely more fair because every team has the ability to make it to the playoffs, nobody is left out because of an “eye test”, whatever the hell that means.

 

[rjd970]

What's a better record, 11-1 or 11-2?

11-1.

12-1 is even better, especially if the 11-1 team didn’t win its division.

All I’m saying is Bama got what amounts to a first round bye and extra week to prepare and heal because they DIDN’T win their conference. That is clearly less fair than a real playoff. And they got in because of an opinion of a small group of people simply decided they were better based on an “eye test”.

Maybe Bama is the best team in the country. Wouldn’t surprise me one bit. But the simple fact of the matter is they didn’t earn the right to play for it based on who they beat and who they lost too.

 

[NashVol11]

11-1.

12-1 is even better, especially if the 11-1 team didn’t win its division.

All I’m saying is Bama got what amounts to a first round bye and extra week to prepare and heal because they DIDN’T win their conference. That is clearly less fair than a real playoff. And they got in because of an opinion of a small group of people simply decided they were better based on an “eye test”.

Maybe Bama is the best team in the country. Wouldn’t surprise me one bit. But the simple fact of the matter is they didn’t earn the right to play for it based on who they beat and who they lost too.

It's not really a "first round bye" if everyone is getting a month off. All of those teams will be fresh by New Year's Day.

If you and everyone can tell they're one of the four best teams in the country, then they've earned it, because that's the entire point. People spent years pleading for the best teams to play each other, and now when it's a team they don't like, they want something else instead.

 

[rjd970]

It's not really a "first round bye" if everyone is getting a month off. All of those teams will be fresh by New Year's Day.

If you and everyone can tell they're one of the four best teams in the country, then they've earned it, because that's the entire point. People spent years pleading for the best teams to play each other, and now when it's a team they don't like, they want something else instead.

We’ll see. Maybe they are.

 

[NashVol11]

We’ll see. Maybe they are.

Make no mistake, I hope they get obliterated. But I can't honestly say that any team outside the playoff is better than them. People can argue about conferences and criteria and whatever, but I'd much rather have the best teams.

 

[05_never_again]

They both played weak schedules, got it.

Again, not denying any of that. In 2017, tell me what makes Bama qualitatively better than Wisconsin.

IMO, if Wisconsin played Alabama's schedule, I see several potential losses...FSU, LSU, Miss St, and Auburn. Alabama lost only one of those games; I think Wisconsin would have lost at least 2. Wisconsin didn't exactly overwhelm some of the weak teams on their schedule either. They beat a 6-6 Purdue team by 8 and a 2-10 Illinois team by 14. Meanwhile, Alabama beat 5-7 Vandy by 59 and 6-6 Ole Miss by 63, among others.

 

[rjd970]

IMO, if Wisconsin played Alabama's schedule, I see several potential losses...FSU, LSU, Miss St, and Auburn. Alabama lost only one of those games; I think Wisconsin would have lost at least 2. Wisconsin didn't exactly overwhelm some of the weak teams on their schedule either. They beat a 6-6 Purdue team by 8 and a 2-10 Illinois team by 14. Meanwhile, Alabama beat 5-7 Vandy by 59 and 6-6 Ole Miss by 63, among others.

Everything you stated is perfectly valid. My issue is Bama got in because of the bolded.

 

[bamawriter]

Everything you stated is perfectly valid. My issue is Bama got in because of the bolded.

So did Clemson, Oklahoma, and Georgia.

 

[zooguy]

Finish 3rd and still get.
Auburn beats both playoff teams by double digits then gets penalized for playing in the conference championship game.
And I can't believe I was foolish enough to convince myaelf that the committee would put OSU in.

OSU didn't win their conference last year and got in.

Not sure how that's any different from Alabama getting in this year.

 

[05_never_again]

Everything you stated is perfectly valid. My issue is Bama got in because of the bolded.

Again, this is college football. Unless you want the whole thing to be decided by computers, which is the system we had not all that long ago but was revolted against, the opinions of people are going to be involved. Either via polls, a committee, or some other idea.

College football is not a 32-team league where all the teams play 16 games and the talent differential between the good teams and the bad teams is very thin. You get a good measure of how the teams stack up against each other by straight win-loss record in such a league, which is why the NFL can seed teams based purely on record/division winners.

There are approx. 90 Power 5 schools and 130 schools total in FBS. They only play 12 games with 8 or 9 of those games (66-75%) coming against teams in their own conference. There is also a gigantic talent gap between #1 and #90. There is always, always, going to be some kind of subjective measure in college sports, especially football, where they can't play 30+ games in a year.

 

[rjd970]

So did Clemson, Oklahoma, and Georgia.

At least all three were the best teams in their conference.

Bama got in on straight up opinion. Period.

 

[rjd970]

OSU didn't win their conference last year and got in.

Not sure how that's any different from Alabama getting in this year.

The argument against Bama this year applies those examples as well.

 

[rjd970]

Again, this is college football. Unless you want the whole thing to be decided by computers, which is the system we had not all that long ago but was revolted against, the opinions of people are going to be involved. Either via polls, a committee, or some other idea.

College football is not a 32-team league where all the teams play 16 games and the talent differential between the good teams and the bad teams is very thin. You get a good measure of how the teams stack up against each other by straight win-loss record in such a league, which is why the NFL can seed teams based purely on record/division winners.

There are approx. 90 Power 5 schools and 130 schools total in FBS. They only play 12 games with 8 or 9 of those games (66-75%) coming against teams in their own conference. There is also a gigantic talent gap between #1 and #90. There is always, always, going to be some kind of subjective measure in college sports, especially football, where they can't play 30+ games in a year.

The bolded is a bad argument.

If UCF this year, BSU, TCU, etc prove anything...its that only certain teams will get the chance to play for it at all. There really is only about 40-50 teams in Div I that can even make it to the "playoff" every year. It's completely doable to design a playoff from that. It's stupid simple in fact.

Go to a 10 game season, cut out the homecoming cupcake teams, and have a 32 team playoff. You will have, what, 14-15 game season which is the way it is now for the winner in our current "playoff".

Cutout all this nonsense with a 130 Div I teams. Currently, if the bottom feeder goes undefeated, he MIGHT crack the top 10. In a true playoff, he actualyy gets the chance to play for it all.

Bama fans this year, and OSU, OK fans of past should be screaming for this, because it kills the argument in this thread before it ever happens.

 

[zooguy]

The argument against Bama this year applies those examples as well.

The argument isn't valid because the committee already let OSU in last year in a similar situation. It's not as if they are suddenly going to shift how they pick teams.

 

[bamawriter]

Go to a 10 game season, cut out the homecoming cupcake teams, and have a 32 team playoff.

That would require surrendering a crap ton of revenue.

 

[rjd970]

The argument isn't valid because the committee already let OSU in last year in a similar situation. It's not as if they are suddenly shift how they pick teams.

I said the exact same thing last year and the OSU/Clemson game proved it. They went for consistency instead of right this year.

 

[rjd970]

That would require surrendering a crap ton of revenue.

Maybe, maybe not. The committee can still pick the at large teams. First playoff round is conference championship games and wildcard games (at large teams). What revenue will they really lose by cutting out the cupcake nonconference games from everybody's schedule? Personally I would rather see Bama play Wisconsin over a meaningless Mercer blowout.

 

[bamawriter]

Maybe, maybe not. The committee can still pick the at large teams. First playoff round is conference championship games and wildcard games (at large teams). What revenue will they really lose by cutting out the cupcake nonconference games from everybody's schedule? Personally I would rather see Bama play Wisconsin over a meaningless Mercer blowout.

You're asking teams to go from a minimum of 7 home games a year to a maximum of 6. There are teams who will rarely make the playoff who will get jobbed in that arrangement. Not to mention many schools outside the Power 5 would no longer be able to afford football.

 

[05_never_again]

Go to a 10 game season, cut out the homecoming cupcake teams, and have a 32 team playoff. You will have, what, 14-15 game season which is the way it is now for the winner in our current "playoff".

They'll never do that. That would mean eliminating two regular season games (which the schools wouldn't like) and the conference championship games, the latter of which is an absolute cash cow for the conferences. As bamawriter said, there are a lot of P5 teams who rarely, if ever, are in contention for postseason play and would hate that arrangement. They'd never go for it.

Only "certain teams" get to play for it all because only "certain teams" have a strength of schedule high enough to even be considered for it. You shouldn't (and don't) automatically get in the playoff by going undefeated. Who did you beat is the better question.

 

[rjd970]

You're asking teams to go from a minimum of 7 home games a year to a maximum of 6. There are teams who will rarely make the playoff who will get jobbed in that arrangement. Not to mention many schools outside the Power 5 would no longer be able to afford football.

Home field advantage can be earned. Total revenue can be shared. There are ways to do it without pushing the apocalypse button.

I get why the big programs don't want to do it. They have all the power and advantage and don't want to give it up. Cut the foreplay and call it what it is.

If that is the way it has to be, then fine. But lets stop this nonsense about a playoff, or national championship. Because it isn't.

 

[rjd970]

They'll never do that. That would mean eliminating two regular season games (which the schools wouldn't like) and the conference championship games, the latter of which is an absolute cash cow for the conferences.

You mean cut out the UMASS and S. Miss games? How much revenue will they really lose?

And why do the Conf. Championship Games need to be cut? They are the first round of the playoffs, like the divisional games in the NFL....aka..Round 1 - SEC Championship.

As bamawriter said, there are a lot of P5 teams who rarely, if ever, are in contention for postseason play and would hate that arrangement. They'd never go for it.

There are P5 teams now that will never get to play for it. Ask BSU, TCU, and UCF what they think about it. Cutting the regular season to 10 games and expanding a playoff ensures those teams a HIGHER chance of getting in.

Only "certain teams" get to play for it all because only "certain teams" have a strength of schedule high enough to even be considered for it. You shouldn't (and don't) automatically get in the playoff by going undefeated. Who did you beat is the better question.

Expanded playoff addresses both at the same time by opening the field to all leitimate question mark teams.

 

[bamawriter]

Home field advantage can be earned. Total revenue can be shared. There are ways to do it without pushing the apocalypse button.

Yeah, revenue can be shared, but you're talking about adding 12 games at the expense of 130 or more. That's a lot of lost revenue just in media rights.