- Aug 31, 2014
- 2,625
- 4,535
Good morning Captain Obvious. Of course it will be humans that determine the rules aka the formula unless we let Watson do it. Somehow I feel less intelligent for responding.
What's your best argument against expanding the CFP to eight teams? (Poll!)
- Thread starter G. Gordon Gator
- Start date
Good morning Captain Obvious. Of course it will be humans that determine the rules aka the formula unless we let Watson do it. Somehow I feel less intelligent for responding.
- Jul 29, 2014
- 22,219
- 23,491
I understand this point and part of me wants the same....however when was the last time there was more than 3 teams that legitimately deserved a chance after the regular season and CCG's.....I can't think of any year I've been watching CFB, 50 years now, that I could honestly say that. Hell look at how many times the NCG has been lopsided even going back to pre BCS days....
We have a 12 game regular season now and I don't want to de value it anymore than it already is. Even this season is a bit of an oddity with 3 teams still standing head and toe above the rest.....You could make an argument that the ACC and B10 suck but the fact that Clemson and the Buckeye's have literally poleaxed every team they've faced makes a powerful argument for them being there and not more teams with 1 or 2 losses. In the case that there are no undefeated teams left or only 1 I still prefer the eye test like us in 1996, 2006 & 2008.....
I don't watch college basketball at all anymore because regular season games have been rendered useless and even conference championships unless the winner has a truly sh!tty record and gets in.….It wasn't that way back in the 70's, 80's and even early 90's.
- Aug 25, 2014
- 6,349
- 7,082
They already do what you ask for. They use computers to aggregate data, use analytics, etc. and agree on who should be in. If it’s that obvious, I’m not sure what your gripe is...other than they do this to determine which 4 teams are in rather than 8 teams.
- Aug 28, 2014
- 16,541
- 26,097
- Aug 31, 2014
- 2,625
- 4,535
If that were true then you hire a firm to run the numbers. Instead you have a committee voting and a different committee group could potentially come up with a different result.
- Aug 25, 2014
- 6,349
- 7,082
They use SportSource Analytics for the data. SOS, Opponents’ SOS, records against common opponents, etc. is taken into account.
It sounds like you really do want a AI only “Watson” like computer to make the decision. Me personally, I’ll pass on that set up.
Ironically, the old BCS #1 vs #2 format (which I’ve already said I prefer to the playoffs) appears to have had less human eye test input, in as much as the current playoff committee isn’t technically bound by the data they review, than the current playoff system but people bytched about that. Now they’re bytching about less computer input. Go figure.
How the College Football Playoff works | NCAA.com
SportSource Analytics
- Aug 14, 2018
- 10,768
- 20,655
This columnist Matt Culkins is biased because he's a Pac 12 shill from Seattle, so of course he wants to expand the CFP. But he has an interesting suggestion, which is that the higher-seeded teams host the opening round of four games. In response to the question of whether expanding to eight teams would devalue the regular season, he says:
No, it would likely increase the value — particularly if you gave the higher seeds home-field advantage in the first round.
One might argue that a loss such as Oregon’s to Auburn last August would be inconsequential under this new format. Wrong. Not just because teams need to build résumés in case they lose their conference-championship games, but because such defeats could cost them a first-round game on campus.
If you had the first round played on the higher seed’s home turf, the marquee nonconference games would be just as enticing as they are now. Every conference game, meanwhile, could be the difference between you making the CFP or not.
The final four would remain as it is, with both teams playing on neutral sites. As far as all the bowl games go? Haven’t they already lost their majesty?
The Orange Bowl, Sugar Bowl or Cotton Bowl don’t mean what they once did. And though the pageantry of the Rose Bowl still sparks emotion, most fan bases would rather see their teams play for a chance at the national championship. I realize that we’re talking about the Granddaddy of Them All — but the thing about grandaddies is that they eventually have to make way for youth.
One might argue that a loss such as Oregon’s to Auburn last August would be inconsequential under this new format. Wrong. Not just because teams need to build résumés in case they lose their conference-championship games, but because such defeats could cost them a first-round game on campus.
If you had the first round played on the higher seed’s home turf, the marquee nonconference games would be just as enticing as they are now. Every conference game, meanwhile, could be the difference between you making the CFP or not.
The final four would remain as it is, with both teams playing on neutral sites. As far as all the bowl games go? Haven’t they already lost their majesty?
The Orange Bowl, Sugar Bowl or Cotton Bowl don’t mean what they once did. And though the pageantry of the Rose Bowl still sparks emotion, most fan bases would rather see their teams play for a chance at the national championship. I realize that we’re talking about the Granddaddy of Them All — but the thing about grandaddies is that they eventually have to make way for youth.
- Aug 14, 2018
- 10,768
- 20,655
Bill Connelly from ESPN is big on the idea of expanding to 8 teams and including a Group of Five representative.
There's a "journey vs. destination" aspect to which side you take here. On one hand, if the goal of the CFP is to simply determine a fairer national champion with the least possible disruption to the rest of the sport, then the current system works fine. We still get our bowls, more than two teams have a shot at the title, and the Every Game Matters thing still rings mostly true.
On the other hand, if the goal is to provide added interest and fun while also giving us an undisputed (well, only semi-disputed) champ and keeping bowls involved, expanding the CFP still makes a lot of sense.
...
I'm not going to waste your time proposing a 24-team, FCS-style bracket. But let's take a moment to see what the most commonly proposed playoff expansion option would have produced in 2019.
An eight-team bracket that includes five conference champs, a Group of 5 representative, two at-large bids and quarterfinals in home stadiums (where the environment would be spectacular, the weather a little chilly) has been brought up plenty of times in recent years. It's by far my favorite option, especially if we finally get around to figuring out how to more fairly compensate athletes.
(Compensation is a topic for another column, but the players will obviously be taking on more physical risk, and that should be taken into account before expansion can occur.)
An eight-teamer also wouldn't automatically have to dilute the pool of available bowl teams: There could easily be an option for teams losing in the quarterfinals to get dumped into the bowl pool if they wanted to. The New Year's Six bowls -- which would take place at least two weeks after the quarterfinals so everyone gets rest -- could feature two semifinals, two consolation rounds with four quarterfinal losers and two games pitting the teams ranked 9-12. Again, as long as players are rewarded for the extra risk, this sounds fantastic to me.
...
The simple inclusion of a Group of 5 team in an eight-team field would mean that every FBS team could actually begin the season dreaming of a shot at the national title. That has never, ever existed in college football. Goodness knows it doesn't exist now.
...
A Group of 5 conference champion is never going to get an honest shot at the CFP. I'd love to be proved wrong, but it just isn't going to happen. An eight-team playoff with full representation might give us the same semifinals we're already looking at, but it would also offer a level of fairness that this sport has never been all that interested in providing. That should matter.
I keep going back and forth on the Go5 thing. I had said that to keep it competitive, the Go5 rep should only get in if they're ranked in the top ten, but that seems so arbitrary. How about, the highest-ranked Go5 champ gets in, but only if they're undefeated? Or, only if they beat at least one P5 team during the year? There should be a way give a Go5 rep a chance, but make it conditional on some kind of qualitative measure.On the other hand, if the goal is to provide added interest and fun while also giving us an undisputed (well, only semi-disputed) champ and keeping bowls involved, expanding the CFP still makes a lot of sense.
...
I'm not going to waste your time proposing a 24-team, FCS-style bracket. But let's take a moment to see what the most commonly proposed playoff expansion option would have produced in 2019.
An eight-team bracket that includes five conference champs, a Group of 5 representative, two at-large bids and quarterfinals in home stadiums (where the environment would be spectacular, the weather a little chilly) has been brought up plenty of times in recent years. It's by far my favorite option, especially if we finally get around to figuring out how to more fairly compensate athletes.
(Compensation is a topic for another column, but the players will obviously be taking on more physical risk, and that should be taken into account before expansion can occur.)
An eight-teamer also wouldn't automatically have to dilute the pool of available bowl teams: There could easily be an option for teams losing in the quarterfinals to get dumped into the bowl pool if they wanted to. The New Year's Six bowls -- which would take place at least two weeks after the quarterfinals so everyone gets rest -- could feature two semifinals, two consolation rounds with four quarterfinal losers and two games pitting the teams ranked 9-12. Again, as long as players are rewarded for the extra risk, this sounds fantastic to me.
...
The simple inclusion of a Group of 5 team in an eight-team field would mean that every FBS team could actually begin the season dreaming of a shot at the national title. That has never, ever existed in college football. Goodness knows it doesn't exist now.
...
A Group of 5 conference champion is never going to get an honest shot at the CFP. I'd love to be proved wrong, but it just isn't going to happen. An eight-team playoff with full representation might give us the same semifinals we're already looking at, but it would also offer a level of fairness that this sport has never been all that interested in providing. That should matter.
- Aug 14, 2018
- 10,768
- 20,655
- Jun 9, 2014
- 78,497
- 110,970
Founding Member
clickbait
- Jun 9, 2014
- 78,497
- 110,970
Founding Member
- Aug 14, 2018
- 10,768
- 20,655
- Aug 29, 2015
- 1,805
- 3,236
- Aug 28, 2014
- 16,541
- 26,097
- Jan 14, 2016
- 1,430
- 3,719
Agreed. Including the G5 is absurd. Here's this years G5 darling's schedule.
Ole Miss
Southern
South Alabama
Navy
ULM
Temple
Tulane
Tulsa
SMU
Houston
USF
Cincinnati
Cincinnati
They played 1 P5 team, went 12-1 and lost to Temple. No way should a team that played a schedule like this get into a playoff.
Any G5 team that wants to be considered for the playoffs should go independent and try the Notre Dame route. The Irish played 9 P5 teams, went 10-2 and are in the Camping World Bowl. That seems about right. Putting Memphis in the Cotton Bowl after the season they just had makes no sense. Putting them in the playoff would be a travesty.
- Jun 12, 2014
- 12,925
- 32,565
Founding Member
It may be a travesty to put a team like Memphis into the playoff with that schedule, but it is also a travesty to include conferences in the FBS if they aren't going to be eligible to compete for titles. Half the teams in the FBS should really be in the FCS or make a new subdivision. That is step one to restructuring big time cfb. It makes no sense whatsoever to have 50- 60 teams in the FBS that could win every game they play and still not make the FBS playoff. F'n stupid is more like it.
- Aug 28, 2014
- 16,541
- 26,097
- Jul 18, 2018
- 5,655
- 8,554
- Sep 4, 2014
- 21,382
- 79,929
I also find irony in the fact that no one seems excited to play #24 Virginia, yet they were one 60 minute upset away from winning the ACC, and thus being a playoff team based on several models being projected in here.
