Tweeking the CFP

Guille said:
Once again I disagree. Last year Bama was in the playoffs because the committee gifted them a spot they didn't earn.
Click to expand...

Really? Was there another team with only 1 loss that should have been there? Or do you think a 2 loss team should get in because they won their conference?
 
WinterBorn said:
I disagree. The best thing about the CFP Committee is that they work to put the best teams in the playoffs.

In 2015 Ohio State finished the regular season 11-1. Florida finished the regular season 10-2. OSU didn't play in their conference championship and Florida did. If the Gators had beaten Alabama, they would have been in the playoffs with 2 losses. OSU would have been locked out with 1 loss.

In 2013 Stanford was the PAC12 conference champion. They finished the year with a record of 11-3.

Winning a conference does not mean you are one of the top 6 to 8 teams in the country. And THAT is was should count.
Click to expand...
Well we've argued this a zillion times. I could care less about anyones opinion as to who the best teams are. That's why we have the situation where it only took two years to undermine the credibility of the CFP.

As for Standford's record in 2013...so what...they earned it on the field. They won their division and their conference. No one can dispute that they won their division and conference.

As soon as we go to subjective opinions then it's going to be the big money programs like Ohio State and Alabama who are going to dominate regardless of whether they won it on the field or not. We need to get rid of the corrupting influence of polls and selection committees. Win your conference or go home.

And yes...I'm all for an 11-3 Pac 12 Champion in the CFP vs an 11-1 OSU or Alabama who didn't win their division or conference. Though that's probably not going to happen as their were 4 Big 5 conference champs with better records than Stanford in 2013.
 
Last edited:
Guille said:
This is where we disagree I see. I think the regular season means something. I say Champions In!

You want in, win your conference. Don't finish second in your division. What happened last season with Bama was a joke.
Click to expand...

If you want to call it a joke, that is fine. But after Ohio State got their ass waxed by an unranked team, and had 2 losses, they didn't deserve to jump a one loss team to get in. And the year before, Ohio State got in despite not winning their conference. (and then got skunked by Clemson)
 
WinterBorn said:
Really? Was there another team with only 1 loss that should have been there? Or do you think a 2 loss team should get in because they won their conference?
Click to expand...

Another team? How about a Power 5 champion for starters over a Bama team who didn't even win their division. Bama's invitation last year, and that's what it was an invitation, made a mockery of the "playoff" concept.
 
WinterBorn said:
If you want to call it a joke, that is fine. But after Ohio State got their ass waxed by an unranked team, and had 2 losses, they didn't deserve to jump a one loss team to get in. And the year before, Ohio State got in despite not winning their conference. (and then got skunked by Clemson)
Click to expand...

It was a joke, Bama didn't even win their own division.
 
WinterBorn said:
Really? Was there another team with only 1 loss that should have been there? Or do you think a 2 loss team should get in because they won their conference?
Click to expand...

Yes. It's good enough for the NFL. Why not college? I have no problem with expanding the playoff to include non-conference at large teams, as long as they are not determined by polls or committees but by objective critieria. I'd have no problem with an 11-1 Alabama or Ohio State, that are not division or conference champs as at large teams based on that record.

But with a 4 team CFP...the only credible approach is win your conference or go home.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Well we've argued this a zillion times. I could care less about anyones opinion as to who the best teams are. That's why we have the situation where it only took two years to undermine the credibility of the CFP.

As for Standford's record in 2013...so what...they earned it on the field. They won their division and their conference. No one can dispute that they won their division and conference.

As soon as we go to subjective opinions then it's going to be the big money programs like Ohio State and Alabama who are going to dominate regardless of whether they won it on the field or not. We need to get rid of the corrupting influence of polls and selection committees. Win your conference or go home.

And yes...I'm all for an 11-3 Pac 12 Champion in the CFP vs an 11-1 OSU or Alabama who didn't win their division or conference. Though that's probably not going to happen as their were 4 Big 5 conference champs with better records than Stanford in 2013.
Click to expand...

USC earned it on the field? Just by beating a team in the conference championship? A team that ended the year with 5 losses? USC beat a team that lost 3 regular season games and that earned them a spot?
 
WinterBorn said:
I disagree. The best thing about the CFP Committee is that they work to put the best teams in the playoffs.

In 2015 Ohio State finished the regular season 11-1. Florida finished the regular season 10-2. OSU didn't play in their conference championship and Florida did. If the Gators had beaten Alabama, they would have been in the playoffs with 2 losses. OSU would have been locked out with 1 loss.

In 2013 Stanford was the PAC12 conference champion. They finished the year with a record of 11-3.

Winning a conference does not mean you are one of the top 6 to 8 teams in the country. And THAT is was should count.
Click to expand...

In other words, despite you claiming records aren't all that matters, it's the only thing you keep mentioning.
 
WinterBorn said:
In other words, despite having it explained to you numerous times, you keep harping on it.
Click to expand...

In other words, despite having claimed it's more than just the team's record that matters, it's the only thing you mention on a regular basis.
 
leaningright said:
As my boy said yesterday, if a team loses twice in the regular season they are out of the picture as far as the NC is concerned ... unless they are from the SEC. .
Click to expand...
I can't think of any two loss team from any conf. getting in to the CFP ever. What team are you referring to?
 
WinterBorn said:
Winning games is the goal of every team.
Click to expand...

Despite your claims the playoffs involve picking teams using several factors, when it's pointed out that Alabama wasn't successful in some of them, you revert back to the win/loss record. If that's the case, why didn't UCF make the playoffs over Alabama or any of the other 3. They were undefeated, won their conference, AND beat a team to which Alabama lost.
 
CFM said:
Despite your claims the playoffs involve picking teams using several factors, when it's pointed out that Alabama wasn't successful in some of them, you revert back to the win/loss record. If that's the case, why didn't UCF make the playoffs over Alabama or any of the other 3. They were undefeated, won their conference, AND beat a team to which Alabama lost.
Click to expand...

The fact that UCF was not in the playoff had nothing to do with whether or not they beat the only team to beat Alabama.
 
anonymoose said:
I can't think of any two loss team from any conf. getting in to the CFP ever. What team are you referring to?
Click to expand...

Being facetious, my friend. Pointing out the obvious SEC bias that exists in the college football world. If there ever is a two loss team in the playoff it will be an SEC team. That you can bank on.
 
leaningright said:
Being facetious, my friend. Pointing out the obvious SEC bias that exists in the college football world. If there ever is a two loss team in the playoff it will be an SEC team. That you can bank on.
Click to expand...

I can see a 2 loss Notre Dame or a 2 loss Michigan team getting in. It is all about the money and those schools have some money.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
I was reading some ideas on tweeking the CFP to make it better with out expanding it. The one I liked the best was based on a point system.

Before I explain it let’s go over what we’d want to accomplish.

Have a true national championship. Originally the CFP was intended to give conference championships heavy weight when selecting teams. It only took two years for a rogue committee to undermine that intention and send us back to National Championship by proxy.

Determine playoff teams on the field and not the committee room.

Eliminate subjective polls in the selection process.

Maintain the most meaningful regular season in team sports.

Make non-conference games meaningful to eliminate scheduling disparities.

Place more weight on division and conference championships.


The point system would be fairly simple. Each team wins a point for each victory during the regular season. For each victory against a top 5 conference team an additional point is awarded.

In addition a division champion is awarded 3 additional points and a conference champion is awarded 5 additional points.

This system would punish teams that schedule four weak mid majors as non-conference games and punishes teams that don’t play a conference championship game, as they should be, for playing one less game.

The question of a tie breaker comes up but some objective criteria can be used for that.
Click to expand...

The only reason we have this is because the Bowl Season makes a lot of money and the NCAA thinks a playoff will mess with that. I think they're wrong, we could do a 16 team bracket...have a true National Champion...and it wouldn't mess with the Bowl Season at all. Best of both worlds.
 
College football isn't really conducive to any post season at all.

It interferes with final exams and it screws up the holiday break.

It seems that only the Ivy League does college football intelligently.

That's why the Harvard-Yale Game at Fenway Park this year will be the only college football game that I watch all season.
 
WinterBorn said:
The fact that UCF was not in the playoff had nothing to do with whether or not they beat the only team to beat Alabama.
Click to expand...

So win/loss records aren't as important as you have made them out to be? You've argued, although admittedly biased, that Alabama was in because they only had one loss while other teams, despite winning their conference championship didn't get it because of two losses. UCF had NO losses and beat the team to which Alabama lost. There is no reason UCF should have been left out based on the items YOU regularly use to defend Alabama being picked. In fact, the things you mentioned that were important, with win/loss being the one you mentioned the most, are things for which UCF had a better record than Alabama.
 
CFM said:
So win/loss records aren't as important as you have made them out to be? You've argued, although admittedly biased, that Alabama was in because they only had one loss while other teams, despite winning their conference championship didn't get it because of two losses. UCF had NO losses and beat the team to which Alabama lost. There is no reason UCF should have been left out based on the items YOU regularly use to defend Alabama being picked. In fact, the things you mentioned that were important, with win/loss being the one you mentioned the most, are things for which UCF had a better record than Alabama.
Click to expand...

Alabama played Mercer. According to the committee themselves that should have kept Bama out....but, but, it's Bama so....they're in. This whole thing is a fucking joke.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top