How many complaints were they when Nova won the NCAA' s in 1985? Cinderella story.
And, in any case, note the "three at large" comment. You could still make an argument to get in, in that case.
CFB playoff- best articulated by Mike Leach
- Thread starter PSU95alum
- Start date
And, in any case, note the "three at large" comment. You could still make an argument to get in, in that case.
There were 48 teams that were in the NCAA, out of 120 D-1 teams. That is 40% of the teams that play, get in. That leaves plenty of available slots for others.
Big difference than an 8-5 Iowa team getting one of - how many did we decided - 4? 6? 8? Whatever that number, it's a hell of a lot less than 40%.
Three at large becomes problematic if the decision is left to a committee. Even 13 at large becomes problematic if the decision is left to a committee.
Frankly, I'm not convinced that OU is better than tOSU--or worse.
Agree. OU is atrocious on defense, but there O could put up points on tOSU. UGa is possibly better than both so I'm not going to say the playoff committee got it right. Nobody can say that as it cannot be proven.
Penn State wasn't undefeated that year--they were 6-4. There also were only nine bowl games that year, one of which, the Tangerine Bowl (now Citrus, where we are going this year), was actually a DII game at the time. There's a good reason Penn State was left out.
I am clearly in a minority but if Best Group Of 5 gets in this set up would
UDub at Bama - blowout
UCF at Clemson - blowout
tOSU at ND - good game
Georgia at OU - good game but huge advantage for OU
Michigan out
For those who say it isn’t decided on the field what is a 4 game playoff? Also unless you limit it conference champion only the at large will ALWAYS be a beauty contest.
Finally when has the current system or the last one got it wrong?
Just the fact you seem to think advantage OU, let alone a huge one makes me question your entire post. Anything can happen on any given day. There is no reason for it to be decided on the field everywhere but 1a. Wildcard teams win the Superbowl and upsets will occur in the college playoffs in time when they finally do expand it. Expansion is coming sooner rather than later.
Well you kinda make my point. Yes upsets do happen and would happen but if you tried to tell me that helps identify the “best team” in college football I would disagree.
Is Purdue better than tOSU ?
Was the team that upset UVA last year in hoops a better team?
“Got it wrong” = did not identify the best team in college football based on the entire seasons results.Every time
(Of course, one would have to define "got it wrong"Which kinda' leads to the entire FUBAR)
If you win all the way to the end in any playoffs in any sport, you are the champion. Game over.
Looks enticing. But I firmly believe that under a 16 game playoff system you would have no choice but to reduce the number of regular season games to 10. Maybe do away with all the conference championships as well. Under the current 12 game season and conference championship game a National Champion would have played 15 games. Too too much for a college kid.
I used to feel a 8 team with p5s in and best non p5 and 2 atlarge was best - but now feel a better system.
'16 team' playoff using 8 team format
5 P5 champions guaranteed in.
System works this way.
Conference title games occur. Winner is in
5 spots (10 teams)
You have to then get 3 other teams
The week after the title game the following games take place
Best 2 non p5 champs play - winner gets in
Best 4 teams not in the playoff (ND/2nd place teams in division, CCG losers) get seeded and play.
Take this year for example
1) OSU/Bama/Clemson/OU/Washington are in
2) This weekend - UCF would Fresno State
UGA would play Michigan and ND would play Florida - winners get in (*I am basing on CFB rankings).
3) Lets assume UGA/ND/UCF wins
the playoff field would be OSU/BAMA/Clemson/OU/UW/ND/UGA/UCF
They would be seeded 1-8 and the higher team hosts the 1st round (Say 12/22). The winners go to the semis in bowls.
I would add the caveat that you can't host round one unless you win conference (with ND/BYU/Army as exceptions if they rank high enough - as the point of hosting is to reward winning conferences and they don't have a conference therefore can't be 2nd place).
I feel this is better because
a) it forces you to win a big game with everything on the line to get into the playoffs (no more OSU/Bama missing the CCG and sneaking in or ND not having the extra data point against a top team).
b) It prevents a fluke upset in the CCG (say pitt over clemson from knocking out a top team - because if Clemson lost flukily to Pitt would the be less deserving than OSU who lost earlier?)
'16 team' playoff using 8 team format
5 P5 champions guaranteed in.
System works this way.
Conference title games occur. Winner is in
5 spots (10 teams)
You have to then get 3 other teams
The week after the title game the following games take place
Best 2 non p5 champs play - winner gets in
Best 4 teams not in the playoff (ND/2nd place teams in division, CCG losers) get seeded and play.
Take this year for example
1) OSU/Bama/Clemson/OU/Washington are in
2) This weekend - UCF would Fresno State
UGA would play Michigan and ND would play Florida - winners get in (*I am basing on CFB rankings).
3) Lets assume UGA/ND/UCF wins
the playoff field would be OSU/BAMA/Clemson/OU/UW/ND/UGA/UCF
They would be seeded 1-8 and the higher team hosts the 1st round (Say 12/22). The winners go to the semis in bowls.
I would add the caveat that you can't host round one unless you win conference (with ND/BYU/Army as exceptions if they rank high enough - as the point of hosting is to reward winning conferences and they don't have a conference therefore can't be 2nd place).
I feel this is better because
a) it forces you to win a big game with everything on the line to get into the playoffs (no more OSU/Bama missing the CCG and sneaking in or ND not having the extra data point against a top team).
b) It prevents a fluke upset in the CCG (say pitt over clemson from knocking out a top team - because if Clemson lost flukily to Pitt would the be less deserving than OSU who lost earlier?)
Purdue was not in the conference championship game, so not sure why you are asking about a regular season upset (that happens somewhere every week -- "that's why they play the games"). If NW beat OSU, then yes, they should be in the playoff. No idea why you would ask about UVA -- they lost in the tournament to a lower seed (happens several times every year).
Only college football picks "the best team". No other sport does this. Mike Leach is right. There is such a normalcy bias that exists in college football due to the decades of the rankings and the stupid bowl system. Conferences define their winners and they go on to a playoff. EasyPeasy like every other sport on the planet.
A
anon_1eeb2b426hv3y
Guest
It
would cost a lot of money to fly those teams all over. But they could use a lot of the same bowls and venues. Let’s be honest, the Toilet Bowl sponsored by American Standard would be at the level of a first round game anyway regardless of format. Would be quite a gauntlet for the players to run prior to making any money though. And might even have to consider shortening the regular season (boo-less tickets sold at oversized stadiums), but the big money corporations might end up happier as more might care about the toilet bowl in a playoff format. Except then how to get the fans to do all that traveling around the country? And what about competition for TV air time with NFL and whatever. Oh yeah, and study time. That matters! Yeah, a real playoff won’t ever work. Even with 8 teams (the most sensible option). No sense in trying.
That's why you have to work the conference championship in somehow as part of the 16 team playoff. First round is that game for the power 5 and maybe two other conferences. Last two teams are at large/non conference.
Take out WVU, Texas, Kentucky and Washington State and replace the with the G5 winners and you have the perfect system.
16 NIU, 15 UAB, 14 App State & 13 Fresno State
No, part of the deal would be that no more than two teams from any one conference could be included. 5 Power 5 champs, one non-Power 5 and two at-large with not more than two schools from any one conference.
How can you put a max on a conference? 8 doesn't work no matter how hard we try.
Not when there's 10 conferences. 8 is ideal if FBS is split into 2 levels.
8 out of 130 teams is a ridiculously low percentage when compared to every other sport. 24 is ideal. Just like FCS but I'll settle for 16.
My point was a simple one
. upsets happen [all the time] BUT that doesn't help ID THE BEST TEAM
. I would argue college football has done a remarkable job of ending up with a worthy champion.
Further my beef with a larger playoff and for those folks advocating "win it on the field" until you include all conferences and have no beauty contest at large you will always have debate.
The larger the play off the less important the regular season.
if you include all conf champions how do you exclude the top 2-3 from the top conferences. Who deserves it more UGA or the All American conference winner. etc etc
All the other college divisions do it thought, so must be a way.
FCS - 24 team playoff with 11 week regular season
Div 2 - 28 team playoff with 10 game regular season
no problem for FBS to do the same with at least 8 teams after the conf. championship games.
Not when the away team is better all around, that is since when. Do you think OU would be -10 or more against UGa? There is a difference between slight and huge. This is coming sooner or later and it should as it's not fair to have the media and coaches have a popularity contest based on the past history of a program. 23 ships a year for everyone no matter who comes or goes and an 8 or 16 team playoff. Make the game even across all conferences and stop with this blue blood ancient history bowl BS.
Look at Gonzaga in B-ball. Akron won a MNC in mens soccer a few years back IIRC. Smaller schools make it to Omaha every now and then. A sport should be settled on the field and the rules in place shouldn't vary by conference when it's a billion dollar a year industry.
Last edited:
I’m not sure you could do home games as many college stadiums can’t handle the traffic and parking if they get pounded by snow. I think it would be better to have a regional game in a city that can accommodate traffic and parking if it snows. So instead of a game at PSU, you have it in NY or Philly. Instead of UM, you have it in Detroit. Instead of Columbus, you have it in CLE or CIN.
But there is a significant difference in football vs. those other sports- the players at the top levels are bigger, faster and more skilled than the players who are not at the top levels- plus there are more of them. You can't force a high school recruit to pick a team. Even if you reduce scholarships, the best players will be significantly better than the ones at the next level. You can argue recruiting is important and it is, but the bigger schools have the better facilities, and that will attract the better players. There is a greater monetary investment in football than basketball, soccer or baseball. Facilities, training, travel, etc. simply cost more. And the bigger schools have the money.
It's not fair, but it is what it is.
23 a year isn't a reduction, make it 25 if you have to. You just have to enforce it. You don't get to backfill ships. Asking for one set of "enforced" rules isn't unfair to anyone.
It wouldn't matter what the number is. The better players are going to go to the better teams. Scholarship numbers have been reduced many years ago, but look at the successful teams - they are still the same as they were before.
And you still have the issue with facilities that are not equitable. And opportunity to play in front of National TV audiences. There is a reason we get Tuesday MACtion - because they need the exposure. The SEC, et al does not. And there is a reason they play in 20,000 seat stadiums and Big Ten et al does not. And there is a reason Power 5 teams pay MAC, CUSA, Sunbelt, etc. to come to their stadiums, and those programs willingly do - those programs need the money.
It's a built in inequity that cannot be ignored for the sake of trying to get D-1 football to look like pro sports.
So oversigning didn't lead to a decade long dominance by the SEC? BS it didn't and they had to try and alter the rules but they still don't play by them. The SEC actually made a one year rules as the 25 limit rule was being torched by everyone in that conference. I'm not saying that a MAC team will rise up, but there is no reason not to play by the same rules and actually enforce them. I'm not sure why people actually argue against a real set of enforced standards in a team sport...it's odd.
OK - so let's set the standard at 23.
Alabama, Clemson, Ohio State, Notre Dame, Michigan, Georgia, Penn State, USC, Texas get 23 players. What happens to number 24-30 that they were pursuing? Those kids go to Tennessee, Auburn, Michigan State, Texas A&M, Florida, Washington, Oklahoma, etc. They are NOT going to Temple, North Texas, Akron, UMass, Utah State, Fresno State or Central Michigan. The history of successful college football teams will tell you why.
You haven't done the math apparently which is fine.
PSU took 89 over the last 4 years. Average 22.75
OSU took 99 over the last 4 years. Average 24.75
Bama took 98 over the last 4 years Average 24.5
Hmmm, that comes to about 23.8 a year so apparently you think that .8 will be a deal breaker somehow.
Now you can imagine Bama and tOSU may be slightly higher due to NFL early entrees. The rest of the country will be right around the 22-24 mark so where are all of these ships are lost? You get the same amount every year just like everyone else. If you have injuries, transfers, early entries you still have have 115 ships over 5 years to include red shirts and other various issues that pop up. You may have some leaner years where you are down to 80 somehow, but you still get 23 that next year. I think you are imagining some issue here when there isn't one other than everyone will play by the same set of rules....oh heaven forbid that occurs.
I'm not really changing who gets what, but holding teams to the SAME EXACT standard. A flat ship rate that is actually enforced scares you for some reason....but the math shows it doesn't change much. It keeps everyone on a level playing field. It's not just the #'s that keep the big boys healthy, it's actually who they recruit and that won't change.
Politely disagree. Most would agree, based on play and wins and losses that the 7-9th ranked teams are not the best teams in the country. Most would even agree that the 5-6 ranked teams are not the best. Therefore, if the goal is to crown a champion from the best teams, a pool of 6 or 8 should include the best handful of teams. It's only problematic if you worry about the 8 vs 9 whatever bubble team is affected, which everyone agrees is not the best team and therefore is irrelevant to finding a champion.
ANOTHER amazingly simple change (that could be accomplished in 5 minutes) if the powers-that-be actually cared about those things they say (ad infinitum) that they care about.
A set number, "X", of initial offers for each team every year.
Accomplishes:
- No more "processing"
- Encourages, rather than discourages, red-shirting kids who aren't ready to play (or deal with the demands of college) right away
- Puts programs that do things "the right way" (at least according to all those NCAA commercials we get inundated with
- More time in school for "student-athletes"
Etc, etc, etc.
And yet - - - - - - NO ONE among the power brokers will even discuss the abundantly simple change.
Kinda' makes you
How does that help? The number of offers is based on the coaching staff's determination of need for their team.
IMHO, the scholarship games that go on can be remedied very simply. It's a flat annual schollie limit. End of story.
The smart people of the CFB world can determine if the number is 23 or 25, etc, but for the sake of round numbers, let's say it's 25 annually.
Players have 5 years to play 4 - same as today.
If a team redshirts every player, has no transfers/injuries/academic/character issues and no early departures for the NFL, a team would have 125 scholarship players(100 that aren't redshirted). If a team recruits kids with questionable academics and character, and kids that will depart early, they will have some number less than 125. This scenario takes away all incentives to "process" kids, eliminates oversigning, and will make teams more cautious about the types of kids they recruit.
So, generally speaking, Stanford would have more scholarship players on the roster than LSU or Alabama, but on the whole, the total scholarship roster totals probably wouldn't change much from today.
Exactly. Make coaches manage ships and keep everyone in check with the same numbers. What the number is irrelevant really, 23-25...whatever...just make sure there are no more 29-30 kid classes. If you had a ton leave early, so be it, it may be thin for a year. Earn your keep as a coach. There is yet to be a valid counter point to this to be honest, but maybe someone will come up with one yet.
Getting deep here, but I do think the number ultimately matters. If coaches/universities agree that 85 is a good number, then there will need to be some modeling to keep the average right around there. Impacts are financial to the university, safety for the players, and from a PR perspective, societally, some will complain if there is a real or perceived reduction in the number of opportunities for kids to attend college. Also, if the change allowed the Top tier to take more players, there would be 75-100 other programs against it.
Last edited:
Excellent post although I would say you are arguing to keep it 4 (which is my preference ) not 6-8. As you say very few would argue 5-8 or 9 are the best team even though occasionally they would pop through and win.
Going to 8 and not including a team like UCF is really silly but you are good at that it seems.It is "split into two levels".... in case you hadn't noticed
They call them the P5 and the ….. whatever the hell one calls the non-P5.
Whether there is a nice clean line drawn between the two - - - - or whether there is some formal distinct verbiage difference - - - - they are, most certainly, two different levels.
Ignoring the obvious - for the purpose of CREATING FUBAR - is just stoopid.
Of course, you seem to be capable of doing such things at least 78 times a day
Agree mostly, but don't agree that "8 or 9" is not deserving -- should not matter if a pre-determined champion (e.g. if NW would have beaten tOSU). This is where I think the main difference lies in most of these discussions. Normalcy bias of decades of polls leads some to think the goal is to "find the best team". If the goal is to "crown a champion" (like most sports -- through a pre-determined definition, by winning on the field), then 8, or even 16, is fine. Who cares about polls and rankings in any other sport? They have become meaningless in NCAA basketball, except in thinking about seeding.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
FB Recruiting 2025 LB target scheduled for Penn State OV in June- Latest: Dylan Callaghan-Croley
-
-
