McLoofus 35,182 Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 Which would all be resolved by a 5 team conf champ + 3 at large bid playoff. Win your conference and your in. End up second best and have a bad game against the eventual winner of your conference and still have a shot. Everybody wanted a playoff instead of the BCS, which did a pretty good job, year after year, of matching the two best teams. Now there is a playoff and before the first season is over people and griping about the playoff not being big enough! There is no need to expand. If CFB goes to an 8-team setup, the howls will be that eight is not enough, we really, really needed 16! Because, you know, that 11-1 team from the MAC got shut out of the 8 team playoff..... It looks like the committee and their method of ranking is doing a good job so far. Let's give it a few years before we go scrapping this setup for something that's equally questionable. I'm with Mikey. I'd love for one of the playoff expansion proponents to tell me of a year where the 5th-ranked team going into bowl season deserved a shot at the title. I'd also like for them to explain the logistics of staging a 3+-round playoff. Finally, I'd like them to tell me right now which 8 teams will be deserving of a title shot at the end of this season. I mean, if you already know that 8 teams will deserve a shot at the end of this season, then you must also know which ones they are, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FootballFanatic 4 Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 Which would all be resolved by a 5 team conf champ + 3 at large bid playoff. Win your conference and your in. End up second best and have a bad game against the eventual winner of your conference and still have a shot. Everybody wanted a playoff instead of the BCS, which did a pretty good job, year after year, of matching the two best teams. Now there is a playoff and before the first season is over people and griping about the playoff not being big enough! There is no need to expand. If CFB goes to an 8-team setup, the howls will be that eight is not enough, we really, really needed 16! Because, you know, that 11-1 team from the MAC got shut out of the 8 team playoff..... It looks like the committee and their method of ranking is doing a good job so far. Let's give it a few years before we go scrapping this setup for something that's equally questionable. Giving people a bad version of the thing their asking for is not the answer. Its an answer and it is still missing some validity. You will have 5 conference champs and no chance for them to all play to win the big dance. So someone has to DECIDE who they think is better and pick them. We haven't changed the method much at all for determining a champ other than adding some games on to the pick em list. Seriously. If you asked for a working car and they gave you a golf cart with a flat tire you would complain as well. Even if its better than the bicycle with two flat tires and no chain you have today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AU64 10,122 Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 Which would all be resolved by a 5 team conf champ + 3 at large bid playoff. Win your conference and your in. End up second best and have a bad game against the eventual winner of your conference and still have a shot. Everybody wanted a playoff instead of the BCS, which did a pretty good job, year after year, of matching the two best teams. Now there is a playoff and before the first season is over people and griping about the playoff not being big enough! There is no need to expand. If CFB goes to an 8-team setup, the howls will be that eight is not enough, we really, really needed 16! Because, you know, that 11-1 team from the MAC got shut out of the 8 team playoff..... It looks like the committee and their method of ranking is doing a good job so far. Let's give it a few years before we go scrapping this setup for something that's equally questionable. Giving people a bad version of the thing their asking for is not the answer. Its an answer and it is still missing some validity. You will have 5 conference champs and no chance for them to all play to win the big dance. So someone has to DECIDE who they think is better and pick them. We haven't changed the method much at all for determining a champ other than adding some games on to the pick em list. Seriously. If you asked for a working car and they gave you a golf cart with a flat tire you would complain as well. Even if its better than the bicycle with two flat tires and no chain you have today. I think that by the first week of Dec they won't have to decide too much.....the winners will emerge and the selection will be self-evident like in most years. JMO but the difficulty of the committee's task is over rated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUsince72 11,084 Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 Which would all be resolved by a 5 team conf champ + 3 at large bid playoff. Win your conference and your in. End up second best and have a bad game against the eventual winner of your conference and still have a shot. Everybody wanted a playoff instead of the BCS, which did a pretty good job, year after year, of matching the two best teams. Now there is a playoff and before the first season is over people and griping about the playoff not being big enough! There is no need to expand. If CFB goes to an 8-team setup, the howls will be that eight is not enough, we really, really needed 16! Because, you know, that 11-1 team from the MAC got shut out of the 8 team playoff..... It looks like the committee and their method of ranking is doing a good job so far. Let's give it a few years before we go scrapping this setup for something that's equally questionable. That part of your post, right there, is basically my position. Personally, I never cared about having a playoff (UNLESS THEY DID IT RIGHT). Well, in this case, they did not do it right. A 4 team playoff is frankly no better than the BCS plus-one... It could actually be worse, should a scenario such as I mentioned occur. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
looney 794 Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 When LSU replayed alabama it was a joke because LSU already won the SEC now they needed to beat another conference to prove they were the best. It was pure stupid incest to see that rematch. That would seem to be the most glaring argument against your premise instead of a good one to support it. Winning a conference championship in no way demonstrates that you are any better than any team other than the ones in your conference. What if Auburn, Miss State and Kansas State win out? That would mean that both KSU and MSU are conference champions and Auburn is not, but it would also mean that Auburn is better than KSU, because we beat them. But KSU still deserves to go and not Auburn? This is the precise scenario that I'm assuming will happen; not because I'm confident we'll win out, but because it seems SO typically Auburn to get that sort of bad postseason mojo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cooltigger21 0 Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 We go through this angst every year. All but one, maybe two years it worked itself out. It may be this year is the doomsday scenario we've all looked for all these many years. It could be that, like pretty much every year in the BCS, it works itself out and there is really no discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarEagle84 0 Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 I'm with Mikey. I'd love for one of the playoff expansion proponents to tell me of a year where the 5th-ranked team going into bowl season deserved a shot at the title. I'd also like for them to explain the logistics of staging a 3+-round playoff. Finally, I'd like them to tell me right now which 8 teams will be deserving of a title shot at the end of this season. I mean, if you already know that 8 teams will deserve a shot at the end of this season, then you must also know which ones they are, right? There are plenty of examples of lower ranked teams beating top 4 teams in their bowl games. I would argue that most years #8 would stand a fair chance of upsetting #1. If (when) we get an 8-team playoff, I would be willing to bet it wouldn't take 5 years before we saw the 8th seed win it all. As for the logistics, that's easy. The 4 highest seeded teams get a home playoff game. The rest stays as it currently is. I can tell you that there will be 5 conference champions, and probably a second SEC team, maybe a Notre Dame worthy of being in the playoffs. I'm sure there will be somebody else who wants a chance. If you seriously want me to name the 8 teams, I guess you'd also be OK with just forgoing the season and staging the playoffs based on preseason rankings. You're just being intentionally ridiculous. 8 works better than 4. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aubfaninga 16 Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 I'm with Mikey. I'd love for one of the playoff expansion proponents to tell me of a year where the 5th-ranked team going into bowl season deserved a shot at the title. I'd also like for them to explain the logistics of staging a 3+-round playoff. Finally, I'd like them to tell me right now which 8 teams will be deserving of a title shot at the end of this season. I mean, if you already know that 8 teams will deserve a shot at the end of this season, then you must also know which ones they are, right? There are plenty of examples of lower ranked teams beating top 4 teams in their bowl games. I would argue that most years #8 would stand a fair chance of upsetting #1. If (when) we get an 8-team playoff, I would be willing to bet it wouldn't take 5 years before we saw the 8th seed win it all. As for the logistics, that's easy. The 4 highest seeded teams get a home playoff game. The rest stays as it currently is. I can tell you that there will be 5 conference champions, and probably a second SEC team, maybe a Notre Dame worthy of being in the playoffs. I'm sure there will be somebody else who wants a chance. If you seriously want me to name the 8 teams, I guess you'd also be OK with just forgoing the season and staging the playoffs based on preseason rankings. You're just being intentionally ridiculous. 8 works better than 4. I agree that 8 works better than 4 (then 16 then 32 etc...). I am fine with a playoff but it only proves the best team, at that time, won the tournament. Just a long debate not worth arguing over. You are completely correct that with an 8 team playoff, the 8th seed could and will eventually upset the #1 seed. Using last years BCS standings this would be like Florida State having a horrible game and Missouri having their best game all year. Missouri upsetting Florida State would have done nothing to prove who the best team for the 2013 season was. With all of that being said I am still saying that if we are gonna do this thing lets do it with 6 teams. Reward the top 2 teams with a bye for the first round and go from there. Let the 6th seed knock out the 3rd seed and then we can get to nitty gritty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tigermac 11 Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 To me it's always been clear that 4 isn't enough and 16 is too many. 5+3 is the cleanest way to do it. Top 4 get homefield in the first round then follow the same format. Cut down on all the downtime between the end of the reg season and bowls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McLoofus 35,182 Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 I'm with Mikey. I'd love for one of the playoff expansion proponents to tell me of a year where the 5th-ranked team going into bowl season deserved a shot at the title. I'd also like for them to explain the logistics of staging a 3+-round playoff. Finally, I'd like them to tell me right now which 8 teams will be deserving of a title shot at the end of this season. I mean, if you already know that 8 teams will deserve a shot at the end of this season, then you must also know which ones they are, right? There are plenty of examples of lower ranked teams beating top 4 teams in their bowl games. I would argue that most years #8 would stand a fair chance of upsetting #1. If (when) we get an 8-team playoff, I would be willing to bet it wouldn't take 5 years before we saw the 8th seed win it all. As for the logistics, that's easy. The 4 highest seeded teams get a home playoff game. The rest stays as it currently is. I can tell you that there will be 5 conference champions, and probably a second SEC team, maybe a Notre Dame worthy of being in the playoffs. I'm sure there will be somebody else who wants a chance. If you seriously want me to name the 8 teams, I guess you'd also be OK with just forgoing the season and staging the playoffs based on preseason rankings. You're just being intentionally ridiculous. 8 works better than 4. No, not really. At least not any more than you are being unintentionally so. -You still haven't named an 8 seed who got screwed out of a title (or a 7th, or a 6th...). -Logistics means a lot more than saying where something will happen. A lot of money and a lot of planning goes into actually making it happen. Ask any AD how easy it would be to plan 3 road games in January without knowing where they'll be until December, or if the last 2 will even happen at all. -You seem to fall in the camp that all power conferences are equal and winning a conference championship makes you deserving of a shot at a national title, yet you also suggest that there would "probably" also be a 2nd SEC team in the playoffs, as well as "maybe a Notre Dame" and "somebody else". The importance of conference titles would seem to be a matter of convenience for you, highly malleable based on your desire for an 8-team playoff. If you really believe that all the power conference champions deserve a shot, but not other conferences, then why don't we just let the lowest and second-lowest ranked power conference champions have a play-in for the 4th spot and then go on with the rest of the proceedings? That would have the collateral benefit of making all the "a Notre Dame"s join a conference. -I'm not assuming that there will be 8 teams worthy of a title shot at the end of the regular season, so no, I'm not interested in forgoing anything. EDIT: One additional nugget. In the history of the NCAA basketball tournament, there was one time that an 8 seed won. Once, 30 years ago. The next lowest seed to win is 6th. That's in a 64-team tournament for a league that currently has 351 members. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexava 6,973 Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 There are 4 #8 seeds in the hoops tournament . That is like a 29-32 seed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'viewTiger 242 Posted November 1, 2014 Share Posted November 1, 2014 There are 4 #8 seeds in the hoops tournament . That is like a 29-32 seed. Please educate me as I don't usually follow BB until late in the tourney. In the BB tourney, are the teams asssigned a seed based on the conference. In other words, does eachconference have a 1-8 see or arethey assigned a seed according to there ranking prior to the tournament. (Could the 2,3,& 4 teams also be 1 seeds? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikey 16,579 Posted November 1, 2014 Share Posted November 1, 2014 There are 4 #8 seeds in the hoops tournament . That is like a 29-32 seed. Please educate me as I don't usually follow BB until late in the tourney. In the BB tourney, are the teams asssigned a seed based on the conference. In other words, does eachconference have a 1-8 see or arethey assigned a seed according to there ranking prior to the tournament. (Could the 2,3,& 4 teams also be 1 seeds? A committee seeds the teams, 1 through 65. There are four brackets of 16 teams each, with one "playin" game for two poorly regarded teams to fill spot #64. Major conference champions are guaranteed a berth in the tournament, but being a conference champion does not affect the team's seeding. For instance a conference champ with a 16-14 record and a guaranteed slot could be seeded way down near the bottom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FHeal 4 Posted November 1, 2014 Share Posted November 1, 2014 It's obvious the benefits of a way hard schedule on this selection committee. All summer long it was the moan on this board. Until now it's turned into a blessing. For if the deck wasn't stacked against AU (SOS wise), then they would be in the same place as most one loss teams. Having a tremendous SOS is something you have no control over, not 5-6-7 years out. And shorting a team because they didn't have an opportunity to show themselves schedule wise is just another way of robbing the better team. Without a meaningful head to head contest the result will always be tainted by the mechanism prohibiting an actual contest from taking place. JMHO - but AU is going to get a shot (if they win) because of being in the SEC-West or because of having a recognizably hard schedule, and this could very well be to the determent of another more deserving team. And we will never know for sure and the count of erroneous title will continue because of non-competition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikey 16,579 Posted November 1, 2014 Share Posted November 1, 2014 It's obvious the benefits of a way hard schedule on this selection committee. All summer long it was the moan on this board. Until now it's turned into a blessing. For if the deck wasn't stacked against AU (SOS wise), then they would be in the same place as most one loss teams. Having a tremendous SOS is something you have no control over, not 5-6-7 years out. And shorting a team because they didn't have an opportunity to show themselves schedule wise is just another way of robbing the better team. Without a meaningful head to head contest the result will always be tainted by the mechanism prohibiting an actual contest from taking place. JMHO - but AU is going to get a shot (if they win) because of being in the SEC-West or because of having a recognizably hard schedule, and this could very well be to the determent of another more deserving team. And we will never know for sure and the count of erroneous title will continue because of non-competition. FSU has an easy schedule and if they don't lose, they are in. Period. If we lose two, we are out. Period. Whether an extremely hard schedule is desirable or not is very questionable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUloggerhead 2,229 Posted November 1, 2014 Share Posted November 1, 2014 I'm with Mikey. I'd love for one of the playoff expansion proponents to tell me of a year where the 5th-ranked team going into bowl season deserved a shot at the title. I'd also like for them to explain the logistics of staging a 3+-round playoff. Finally, I'd like them to tell me right now which 8 teams will be deserving of a title shot at the end of this season. I mean, if you already know that 8 teams will deserve a shot at the end of this season, then you must also know which ones they are, right? There are plenty of examples of lower ranked teams beating top 4 teams in their bowl games. I would argue that most years #8 would stand a fair chance of upsetting #1. If (when) we get an 8-team playoff, I would be willing to bet it wouldn't take 5 years before we saw the 8th seed win it all. As for the logistics, that's easy. The 4 highest seeded teams get a home playoff game. The rest stays as it currently is. I can tell you that there will be 5 conference champions, and probably a second SEC team, maybe a Notre Dame worthy of being in the playoffs. I'm sure there will be somebody else who wants a chance. If you seriously want me to name the 8 teams, I guess you'd also be OK with just forgoing the season and staging the playoffs based on preseason rankings. You're just being intentionally ridiculous. 8 works better than 4. No, not really. At least not any more than you are being unintentionally so. -You still haven't named an 8 seed who got screwed out of a title (or a 7th, or a 6th...). -Logistics means a lot more than saying where something will happen. A lot of money and a lot of planning goes into actually making it happen. Ask any AD how easy it would be to plan 3 road games in January without knowing where they'll be until December, or if the last 2 will even happen at all. -You seem to fall in the camp that all power conferences are equal and winning a conference championship makes you deserving of a shot at a national title, yet you also suggest that there would "probably" also be a 2nd SEC team in the playoffs, as well as "maybe a Notre Dame" and "somebody else". The importance of conference titles would seem to be a matter of convenience for you, highly malleable based on your desire for an 8-team playoff. If you really believe that all the power conference champions deserve a shot, but not other conferences, then why don't we just let the lowest and second-lowest ranked power conference champions have a play-in for the 4th spot and then go on with the rest of the proceedings? That would have the collateral benefit of making all the "a Notre Dame"s join a conference. -I'm not assuming that there will be 8 teams worthy of a title shot at the end of the regular season, so no, I'm not interested in forgoing anything. EDIT: One additional nugget. In the history of the NCAA basketball tournament, there was one time that an 8 seed won. Once, 30 years ago. The next lowest seed to win is 6th. That's in a 64-team tournament for a league that currently has 351 members. 1. Expanding the playoff to an 8-team, 3-round format is to ensure complete participation by the entire cfb population. Nobody ever said an 8th seed (or 7th/6th whatever) was denied a chance to play. However, I will point out that in 2004 that 5 teams ended the regular season undefeated: AU, OU, SC, Utah & Boise St. And, Louisville was just one play on the road against Miami from making it 6. Each one of those teams was a conference champ, btw. So, if it happened once it can surely happen again. The lesson of that year was the BCS was (glaringly) exposed for not being able to handle the possibility of more than 2 undefeated teams. Even a 4-team playoff wouldn't handle it. 2. The logistics of an additional round can be accommodated -- let the top 4 teams host the quarterfinal games in their home stadiums the weekend after the final conference championship games. This should be the 2nd weekend in Dec. Since the committee will be seeding teams every week, the 8 teams will be known and all possibilities will be endlessly analyzed by the mediots (as they are now.). Ask any AD if hosting an additional guaranteed sold out game would be acceptable. 3. Who knows which conference is "equal" from year to year? And who really knows if one conference will always remain on top (or bottom?) it's all cyclical. The point is, an 8-team playoff (5 power conf champs & 3 at-large bids) will ensure every school including non-conference teams has a chance to be fairly represented each year. The entire nation will tune in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cooltigger21 0 Posted November 3, 2014 Share Posted November 3, 2014 Nobody knows for certain how this is going to play out. The one aspect of this that cannot yet be part of the rankings is conference champions. Can a 1 loss non SEC champion get in ahead of a 1 loss PAC 12 champion, a 1 loss big 12 champion or a 1 loss Michigan State. We all think that if we win out we're in then but it is by no means a lock. We have to win out and have Moo State lose twice to ensure a spot. If by some chance FSU does lose or one of these other conferences produce a 2 loss champion then that would almost certainly open up a spot for two SEC teams to get in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.