The Non Existent Playoff Parity

#51
#51
RDU VOL#14 said:
I’m at work and have been doing this off the top of my head. Don’t really have time to research the preseason AP poll from 19 years ago.
You’re saying the best teams played because of a preseason ranking system had them at 1 and 2, and the computer sent them to the title because they didn’t lose? That’s a good system to you? Or could it be that Auburn got drubbed by USC in 2003 and that might’ve influenced the “computer” some?
Click to expand...
Now complain about the playoff committee who didnt even drop TCU after a loss.

This is why I am saying the playoffs are no better/more valid than the BCS. And the results are worse.
 
#52
#52
hog88 said:
Expanding the regular season does nothing unless you dictate the quality of competition each team plays during the regular season. What good does a 13-16 game regular season do if the power programs are loading up on weak OOC games?
Click to expand...
Agreed.
 
#53
#53
Dadof2Vols said:
For me 2022-2023. I think UT and Alabama were both better teams than TCU. The CFP-4 & CFP-12 have been created because there were years that the poll/committee biases put the wrong teams in just like this years political process.

A lot of people did not agree with this years CFP-4 or AP final rankings. H$LL, the committee didn't even follow it's only guidelines to pick the Top 12 this year (Head to Head).

Until we see honest and integrity in the process people want it settled on the field instead of a smoke filled room with people who are political.
Click to expand...
It's all political. It will still be with a 12 game playoff. That's not going away.

How do you judge who "should" be in? At some point the regular season had to matter. Ypu cant just say eh, this team should beat this team head to head they are in. Do you put in a 6-6 2022 UGA because their whole defense was out the entire season, but they are back for the playoffs and ready to be elite?

We can play what ifs all day long. Going to 12 just means we are discussing less and less relevant teams. We are already talking about pity lays, you get in if you win your championship, didnt a 7-6 or 8-5 UCLA win the PAC once?

I mean great we are replacing 12-1 TCU with 10-3 K state? So much better. Wow playoffs, thanks.
 
#54
#54
LouderVol said:
For a system that is supposed to be an improvement over the old failed system to be worse, even a little, is very telling imo. Like a FG off of an interception thrown in the end zone. Yeah its "only" -3, but it should have been +7.

I think we need another seismic shift, adding more teams to the playoffs isnt that.
Click to expand...

I think you're being over-dramatic for the purpose of...you just don't like it. It's "very telling" to you because you obviously have an agenda and acting like this 2% is a big deal. But it really isn't.

Not to mention you're leaving out that the BCS was around from 1998-2013, the CFP has been around since 2014. And tough luck, we're getting more teams and there's no turning back from that. You're not putting that toothpase back in the tube.
 
#55
#55
RDU VOL#14 said:
Point being, there is incentive to play and get home field and a bye. Nobody wants to be the road team in a CFP environment . I wouldn’t want go to play at Penn State in December, or travel across the country to Utah or USC.
Click to expand...
But if you have 1 loss, or there are still people in front of you no matter what, there wont be any incentive to go all out.
 
#56
#56
VolGee4 said:
Having a committee pairing it down to 4 teams brings politics into play. We know it's probably not always the "4 best teams."

Expanding the playoffs will leave no doubt and will cause the committee to have very little room for error. I am happy that there will be more football and that we won't have to rely on a group of individuals to break it down to just 4 teams. I actually think the first week in a 12 team playoff could be really competitive. Then, the two teams deserve the title game if they made it through.
Click to expand...
Again, what does "best" even mean? TCU beat Michigan to make it to the championship game. If you remove TCU, you would have to remove 13-0 conference champ Michigan as well since TCU beat them.

Does a 2 loss Bama deserve to be in the playoffs? The entire argument is if we let the committee make enough bad choices eventually they will get one right. I would rather improve their data than just have them throw more crap on the wall.
 
#57
#57
LouderVol said:
It's all political. It will still be with a 12 game playoff. That's not going away.

How do you judge who "should" be in? At some point the regular season had to matter. Ypu cant just say eh, this team should beat this team head to head they are in. Do you put in a 6-6 2022 UGA because their whole defense was out the entire season, but they are back for the playoffs and ready to be elite?

We can play what ifs all day long. Going to 12 just means we are discussing less and less relevant teams. We are already talking about pity lays, you get in if you win your championship, didnt a 7-6 or 8-5 UCLA win the PAC once?

I mean great we are replacing 12-1 TCU with 10-3 K state? So much better. Wow playoffs, thanks.
Click to expand...


So regular seasons have to matter but conference championships don't? So why have conference championships at all?
 
#58
#58
VolGee4 said:
Well, there will always be people complaining about their team had a better resume to get the 12th spot. There are for the NCAAT in basketball. But football and basketball are different. If you are arguing about 11-15 ranked teams, you probably aren't title worthy. Those teams have flaws.
Click to expand...
Pretty much every champ has flaws. Heck too many fans still think a back to back National title winning qb wouldnt start for any other P5 school.

I would think a variable number playoff would be really interesting. No guarantees. Just a list of prerequisites. Must win at least X number of games, must have a SOS over X, must have played X number of P5 opponents, whatever.

If 25 teams meet the qualifications, great let's have at it. If its 1, congrats here's the title. That way it's actually about the best, and not just a political top 12 or some quota.
 
#59
#59
AthensVol2007 said:
Oklahoma played 11-1 Texas and then 8-4 TTU was their next best win. Oregon was 5-6, AM 7-5, Ok St 7-5, KSU 4-7. Colorado was their opponent in the Big 12 title game and they went 8-5. OU beat AM by 7, we beat AM by 31 and lost to Auburn 2x. Auburn beat 10 win TN 2x, 10 win UGA and 9 win LSU. OU did not play a better overall schedule than AU that year.
Click to expand...
Auburn played Citadel. They are FCS. Neither usc nor okl played a fcs team. Yes aub had an inferior schedule
who would you have aub jump to play in the NC game? Both were 1 & 2 all year long not losing one one game. There’s no reason on Gods green earth for Aub to jump either.
 
#60
#60
LouderVol said:
Now complain about the playoff committee who didnt even drop TCU after a loss.

This is why I am saying the playoffs are no better/more valid than the BCS. And the results are worse.
Click to expand...

Who gets in over them? A team that didn't have to play a 13th game?
 
#61
#61
LouderVol said:
Pretty much every champ has flaws. Heck too many fans still think a back to back National title winning qb wouldnt start for any other P5 school.

I would think a variable number playoff would be really interesting. No guarantees. Just a list of prerequisites. Must win at least X number of games, must have a SOS over X, must have played X number of P5 opponents, whatever.

If 25 teams meet the qualifications, great let's have at it. If its 1, congrats here's the title. That way it's actually about the best, and not just a political top 12 or some quota.
Click to expand...

I mean that sounds great for a video game but that's not even remotely a feasible solution.
 
#62
#62
LouderVol said:
But if you have 1 loss, or there are still people in front of you no matter what, there wont be any incentive to go all out.
Click to expand...
I think that’s the agreement for the first 2 years of the expanded CFP. I think they can redo the system in 2026. I’ve already said that I disagree with the way the 2024 format is. I hate the AQ teams that get an automatic bye, like Clemson would’ve . I want as many games on campus or home stadium as possible. I want the unique matchups that will happen. I think if 1-4 get a bye they should get a home game and then move the semis and finals to neutral sites . To me that incentivizes the regular season even more, so that teams aren’t resting starters. In short, I’m all for more important games later in the season. If we had the CFP at 12 this year we would’ve hosted K State at Neyland. If there’s a Tennessee fan that doesn’t want that, I’d question their fandom . It would be an incredible environment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VolsSportsFan
#63
#63
VolsSportsFan said:
I think you're being over-dramatic for the purpose of...you just don't like it. It's "very telling" to you because you obviously have an agenda and acting like this 2% is a big deal. But it really isn't.

Not to mention you're leaving out that the BCS was around from 1998-2013, the CFP has been around since 2014. And tough luck, we're getting more teams and there's no turning back from that. You're not putting that toothpase back in the tube.
Click to expand...
You need to go back and reread what I said. I never said to drop the playoffs, or that we should go back to the BCS.

I just pointed out the Playoffs have some big flaws. Flaws that were the reason we ditched the old system. And those flaws are worse than what we ditched. If people were consistent there would be more clamour for another big change. But now people want the playoffs because they dont want to admit they were wrong about it.

I will bring it up again, a round robin system would be a better system to rank the teams than either the BCS or plain playoffs we have now.
Expanded regular season, or more strict scheduling to get better data on a 4 team playoff.

I want to move forward, not stay stuck in the playoffs or back to the BCS.
 
#64
#64
LouderVol said:
You need to go back and reread what I said. I never said to drop the playoffs, or that we should go back to the BCS.

I just pointed out the Playoffs have some big flaws. Flaws that were the reason we ditched the old system. And those flaws are worse than what we ditched. If people were consistent there would be more clamour for another big change. But now people want the playoffs because they dont want to admit they were wrong about it.

I will bring it up again, a round robin system would be a better system to rank the teams than either the BCS or plain playoffs we have now.
Expanded regular season, or more strict scheduling to get better data on a 4 team playoff.

I want to move forward, not stay stuck in the playoffs or back to the BCS.
Click to expand...

Lol, or maybe like I said, you're being over-dramatic.
 
#65
#65
VolsSportsFan said:
So regular seasons have to matter but conference championships don't? So why have conference championships at all?
Click to expand...
They can matter, but the playoffs have made them clear they dont. The reason being it's one more game against a good opponent that others dont have to play.

If you rewind to before the UGA the talking heads pointed out that a win over Georgia made our path to the playoffs more difficult than 1 loss. Because we would have had to play Bama at the time, in the CC. And then we might have had a fresh loss in the CC and three SEC teams all with 1 loss with an argument to get into the playoffs.

Like I said before we need consistent rules or prerequisites. All the playoff committee has been consistent at is ignoring their own standards in order to get the "best" in.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dadof2Vols
#67
#67
VolsSportsFan said:
I mean that sounds great for a video game but that's not even remotely a feasible solution.
Click to expand...
Why not?

We have a consistent set of rules applied every year. Let them fall as they will. The regular season matters, conference championships matter, and you still get a playoff if needed. We dont need a playoff every year.

We will still be able to watch Tennessee play Clemson, Bama play K State, Utah play Penn State, and Tulane play USC. It just wont be for the playoffs. We wont miss out on anything.
 
#69
#69
hog88 said:
There are not 16 teams capable of winning the NC. 6 in a good year have the means to do so and that's not going to change with expanding the playoffs alone.
Click to expand...
I think he simply means there are 16-20 programs in total capable from a resources, recruiting, scheduling etc. standpoint to win a title. I’m not sure I’d disagree with that.

I would say the following schools have all the right things in place (maybe not right this moment, but the capability) necessary to compete for a title: UGA, Bama, UF, AU, LSU, TAMU, UT, UM, OSU, PSU, TX, OU, USC, Oregon, FSU, Miami, Clemson, ND
 
#70
#70
LouderVol said:
Again, what does "best" even mean? TCU beat Michigan to make it to the championship game. If you remove TCU, you would have to remove 13-0 conference champ Michigan as well since TCU beat them.

Does a 2 loss Bama deserve to be in the playoffs? The entire argument is if we let the committee make enough bad choices eventually they will get one right. I would rather improve their data than just have them throw more crap on the wall.
Click to expand...

I don’t believe the regular season will be extended, and even if it is, Bama playing Vandy in an extra game won’t help. Yes, getting 12 darts to hit the target is better than 4, especially when the 4 involves politics.

We can theorize all day, but the data points now are that the SEC has won 14 of the last 17 titles. While teams change from year to year, it’s the best conference hands down, and even the 2/3 ranked team in the conference are better than other conference champions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VolsSportsFan
#72
#72
GreveHaller said:
Auburn played Citadel. They are FCS. Neither usc nor okl played a fcs team. Yes aub had an inferior schedule
who would you have aub jump to play in the NC game? Both were 1 & 2 all year long not losing one one game. There’s no reason on Gods green earth for Aub to jump either.
Click to expand...
Playing one FCS opponent doesn’t diminishing playing 4 games vs 9+ win teams when OU played 1. And that’s the problem with preseason polls. Who says just because you start somewhere you can’t move down as long as you don’t lose? We literally saw that happen this year with Bama. They were #1 going into the AM game, they dropped to 3 after struggling to eke out a win. Auburn should’ve jumped OU when they were beating KSU by 10, AM by 7 or Ok St by 3 while Auburn was beating TN by 24 and 10, UGA by 18. Auburn played 5 teams ranked at the time and had a scoring differential of +56, OU played 4 teams ranked at the time and a scoring differential of -14. Auburn would’ve given USC a much better game; playing the Citadel is irrelevant.
 
#73
#73
LouderVol said:
And lol, you dont have an argument.
Click to expand...

You don't either, you're complaining about a 2% difference in an 8 year old system and acting like it's proof of failure. We sat through decades of a crap bowl system and 15 years of a better but still not great BCS system, and after 8 years you're screaming that this is a failure.

Maybe the problem is your own silly expectations aren't being met. Plus your solution is beyond feasbile and you know it.
 
#74
#74
AthensVol2007 said:
Playing one FCS opponent doesn’t diminishing playing 4 games vs 9+ win teams when OU played 1. And that’s the problem with preseason polls. Who says just because you start somewhere you can’t move down as long as you don’t lose? We literally saw that happen this year with Bama. They were #1 going into the AM game, they dropped to 3 after struggling to eke out a win. Auburn should’ve jumped OU when they were beating KSU by 10, AM by 7 or Ok St by 3 while Auburn was beating TN by 24 and 10, UGA by 18. Auburn played 5 teams ranked at the time and had a scoring differential of +56, OU played 4 teams ranked at the time and a scoring differential of -14. Auburn would’ve given USC a much better game; playing the Citadel is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

One big change is they need to do away with pre-season polls. The fist poll doesn't need to come out until at least October.
 
#75
#75
LouderVol said:
Why not?

We have a consistent set of rules applied every year. Let them fall as they will. The regular season matters, conference championships matter, and you still get a playoff if needed. We dont need a playoff every year.

We will still be able to watch Tennessee play Clemson, Bama play K State, Utah play Penn State, and Tulane play USC. It just wont be for the playoffs. We wont miss out on anything.
Click to expand...

Why do we "need" anything? Why do we need bowl games every year? Why is your hang up about a playoff but nothing else?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top