|
|
Post by EvilVodka on Jan 2, 2018 19:41:42 GMT
[Quick Disclaimer: I am not faulting the SEC, Georgia, or Alabama. They played within the parameters of the current system, and the winner deserves to be crowned National Champions of 2017.]
That said, I believe we have fallen into a disatisfying end to the season, and the playoff seems shakier than it has ever been IMO.
There are several problems with it:
Conference Championships
You MUST value conference championships, or you are undermining the regular season. The committee has strayed away from valuing them, and it has ruined the importance of them. In fact, it is almost penalizing to have teams risk losing their standing to go play a 13th game, while you can still get in without playing it. Basically, the message is "if you look strong enough, you don't need a 13th data point."
Further more, it was highly irresponsible of the committee to convince the Big XII that they needed a championship game...it's absurd.
Number of teams for playoff
College Football will always be flawed if you have teams still standing. This happens almost every year in college football, more often than not.
This year you have UCF. They are undefeated, beating the team that beat both NC contenders. You also have the champion of the strongest conference absent. This will ALWAYS be an issue until you have a system where there is no one left standing. That is most likely an 8 team playoff. That captures (and should reward) all major conference champions, the strongest G5 champ (there is always one that can play), and teams that had excellent regular seasons but didn't win their conferences.
This is fair, and this is what we all want, which is all the conferences playing each other, and all the top teams playing for a championship. I think 8 is all you need. This year, if we had Ohio State-UCF winner play the Alabama-Georgia winner, the playoff would be perfect.
The Committee
I think the committee is awful and detracts from the sport. There is no logic, no rhyme or reason. Literally, no one had a clue who would get in after the conference championship games. I still don't understand much of the reasoning that takes place. It sucks....really, really sucks. It is plain awful. Compare with the NFL, where you have a clear picture of what needs to happen for a team to make the post-season.
We need some kind of rankings back, so that teams know exactly where they stand. The system needs to be transparent and highly visible to fans, players, coaches, programs, etc.
I would rather have rankings back
Overall, I think the Playoff is a success and highly better than the BCS. I know the major bowls are trying to stay relevant as well within this new landscape, but I believe the NY6 system could accomodate an 8 team playoff.
If you take the top 8 teams, and have the top 4 conference champs host seeds #5-#8, you'd have an excellent, fair, transparent, and lucrative playoff...
This year, you could have had:
#8 Penn State @ #1 Clemson
#7 UCF @ #2 Georgia
#6 Alabama @ #3 Oklahoma
#5 USC @ #4 Ohio State
*conference champs in bold
Then the winners are matched in the current NY6 format. This is the direction the sport needs to have...this is the natural, organic way the sport is evolving. It needs to happen!
|
|
|
|
Post by ajbuckeye on Jan 2, 2018 20:44:04 GMT
Well stated Evil. Like everyone on this board I have a lot of passion for college football but the lack of clarity to who is in and who is out can certainly leave a bad taste at the end of the season. If we had a predetermined ranking system that was used then at least we know what we need to do to get in besides winning the beauty contest.
The P5 were the ones who put this system together. It will be interesting to see what tweaks they make moving forward and how long it will take to get to 8.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Jan 2, 2018 21:10:57 GMT
winner deserves to be crowned National Champions of 2017. Somewhere in the world, Herd just threw up a little... You MUST value conference championships, or you are undermining the regular season. The committee has strayed away from valuing them, and it has ruined the importance of them. I disagree. The conferences themselves have undermined the value of their Championships by having GROSSLY UNFAIR, unbalanced scheduling. The Committee system was designed as a way around this. As a final check on potential "glitches"... like having the CONSENSUS BEST TEAM IN THE COUNTRY (Bama) being left out of the CCG. Further more, it was highly irresponsible of the committee to convince the Big XII that they needed a championship game...it's absurd. 100% agree on this. This happens almost every year in college football, more often than not. I don't agree with this. It USED to be true, back before the BCS. It was STILL true all too often during the BCS era. With 4 teams, in the current CFP format, I think this is the first year that we don't have a clear, legitimate Champion. UCF has a rightful beef. This system is SUPPOSED to prevent that. But, I think this will have to happen more than once to force any change. Once every 15-20 years? They'll live with that with no further changes... IMO. this is what we all want, LOL that is pretty naïve. Clearly, this is NOT what "everone wants", or we'd have it already. I think the committee is awful and detracts from the sport. I agree, but... I think we're stuck with it for quite awhile longer. Too many people in decision-making positions, like it the way it is. They BENEFIT from it, or hope to in the future. I would rather have rankings back I guess I'm probably the ONLY one, but...I like the committee better than the complex BCS rankings. I would prefer they issue NO RANKINGS until the final one. But, so far.... the committee has been consistent. I disagreed with their decision to ignore PSU's Conference Championship AND Head to Head win over OSU last year. But, they were consistent in ignoring the Conference Championship this year. Personally, I'd like to see 8 teams, and use a system like CJ's to pick (and seed) the 8. Conference Champs be damned. With the current format, they are crap anyway. Can you imagine? If they used CJ's system, Top P5 schools would be burning up the phone lines to schedule teams like UCF... (ie: Good G5 teams that are likely to win a lot of games). Heck, I bet UCF would even get offers for Home vs Home matchups. It would solve a LOT of problems. But, I don't see it ever happening. Also imagine YOU had one of the high paid, cushy committee jobs. Would you be pushing to do away with it, in favor of a ranking system? I doubt it. I sure wouldn't. |
|
|
|
Post by doc on Jan 2, 2018 21:30:04 GMT
A couple arguments I've heard are an 8 team playoff would ruin the bowl system. To that I say, there were a lot of empty seats at most of the bowls I watched - how could it get any worse? I would think using the New Year 6 bowls as playoff sites would actually help attendance - no ones going to the minor bowls anyway.
But if you have to keep the bowls as they are, I think you could have the higher seeded teams host first round games in mid-December - this would actually help keep the teams 'game sharp' as I think you can lose some momentum with a 4 week layoff. Plus the games would be during break so it would not interfere with classes.
Another argument I hear is that fans would support the potential 3 game playoff. that's a bunch of crap. I'd much rather support my team in a playoff than go to one of the bowl games and I have. College football fans would love to see their team play an extra week or 2. It just makes too much sense.
|
|
|
|
Post by bluehen on Jan 3, 2018 0:04:41 GMT
Well stated Evil. Like everyone on this board I have a lot of passion for college football but the lack of clarity to who is in and who is out can certainly leave a bad taste at the end of the season. If we had a predetermined ranking system that was used then at least we know what we need to do to get in besides winning the beauty contest. The P5 were the ones who put this system together. It will be interesting to see what tweaks they make moving forward and how long it will take to get to 8. That's all up to Disney which runs college football....especially the post season |
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Jan 3, 2018 0:09:47 GMT
Well stated Evil. Like everyone on this board I have a lot of passion for college football but the lack of clarity to who is in and who is out can certainly leave a bad taste at the end of the season. If we had a predetermined ranking system that was used then at least we know what we need to do to get in besides winning the beauty contest. The P5 were the ones who put this system together. It will be interesting to see what tweaks they make moving forward and how long it will take to get to 8. That's all up to Disney which runs college football....especially the post season Well, they ARE the people writing the checks... so, in the absence of any NCAA leadership, why shouldn't they have some say? That said, Disney would be the #1 supporter of an expanded playoff. It's the University leadership that stands in the way. |
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Jan 3, 2018 0:14:30 GMT
A couple arguments I've heard are an 8 team playoff would ruin the bowl system. To that I say, there were a lot of empty seats at most of the bowls I watched - how could it get any worse? I would think using the New Year 6 bowls as playoff sites would actually help attendance - no ones going to the minor bowls anyway. But if you have to keep the bowls as they are, I think you could have the higher seeded teams host first round games in mid-December - this would actually help keep the teams 'game sharp' as I think you can lose some momentum with a 4 week layoff. Plus the games would be during break so it would not interfere with classes. Another argument I hear is that fans would support the potential 3 game playoff. that's a bunch of crap. I'd much rather support my team in a playoff than go to one of the bowl games and I have. College football fans would love to see their team play an extra week or 2. It just makes too much sense. I didn't watch many bowls this year, but in most of the ones I saw (pre-New Years) there was NO ONE there. They're surviving, I guess, on TV money alone. I agree with you.. an 8 team playoff wouldn't affect them at all.... no more than as it is now anyway. I do think there is something to not having fans travel for THREE games. It's expensive, and some of the travel is pretty far away. That's why I've always like GG's idea of having the first round games played on-campus. It would help, a LOT, to also do away with the CCG's and use that week for the first round. I do think the TV money from an expanded playoff would bring in WAY more money than any lost ticket revenue. |
|
|
|
Post by GatorGrad on Jan 3, 2018 1:06:06 GMT
Eliminate CCG's and go to eight. Four quarter-final games played on campus of the higher seed. Amazing. With an eight team playoff, there is little need for CCG's. They served a purpose back when we needed more data points to whittle it down to just two teams playing in the BCS Title Game but time for them to go in favor of an eight team playoff.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hero on Jan 3, 2018 10:50:12 GMT
Eliminate CCG's and go to eight. Four quarter-final games played on campus of the higher seed. Amazing. With an eight team playoff, there is little need for CCG's. They served a purpose back when we needed more data points to whittle it down to just two teams playing in the BCS Title Game but time for them to go in favor of an eight team playoff. Agree |
|
|
|
Post by jameshowell on Jan 3, 2018 13:32:40 GMT
No. Go to 4-team conference championships and have the champions of the top 4 conferences in the playoff.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Jan 3, 2018 13:48:40 GMT
No. Go to 4-team conference championships and have the champions of the top 4 conferences in the playoff. No... not unless the mega-conferences change their structure. They need to eliminate Divisions and either do away with CCG's. or have them played between the top two teams overall. the current conference structures, with unbalanced scheduling and balance, doesn't work as a playoff lead in |
|
|
|
Post by tigercpa on Jan 3, 2018 14:46:53 GMT
Well stated Evil. Like everyone on this board I have a lot of passion for college football but the lack of clarity to who is in and who is out can certainly leave a bad taste at the end of the season. If we had a predetermined ranking system that was used then at least we know what we need to do to get in besides winning the beauty contest. The P5 were the ones who put this system together. It will be interesting to see what tweaks they make moving forward and how long it will take to get to 8. That's all up to Disney which runs college football....especially the post season With the NCAA's covert blessing.
|
|
|
|
Post by GatorGrad on Jan 4, 2018 18:26:58 GMT
No. Go to 4-team conference championships and have the champions of the top 4 conferences in the playoff. Would be nice and neat but not at all realistic given the current landscape. |
|
|
|
Post by redwood on Jan 8, 2018 13:04:42 GMT
You contradicted yourself by saying
"you MUST value conference championships, or you are undermining the regular season. The committee has strayed away from valuing them, and it has ruined the importance of them. In fact, it is almost penalizing to have teams risk losing their standing to go play a 13th game, while you can still get in without playing it. Basically, the message is "if you look strong enough, you don't need a 13th data point."
then you say
"That is most likely an 8 team playoff. That captures (and should reward) all major conference champions, the strongest G5 champ (there is always one that can play), and teams that had excellent regular seasons but didn't win their conferences.
UNDERMINING the whole regular season would be admitting UCF which only played one P5 team which Ohio State and Penn State both defeated twice as bad as UCF did.
If G5 teams want so badly to play in the playoff then they should play FOUR P5 non conference games. You want me to take the Sun Belt seriously? Then play FOUR Power Five temas for you OOC games. Then I might listen. The same old Boise State argument that UCF beat Maryland and that means they should go to the playoff. That makes me laugh out loud.
|
|
|
|
Post by EvilVodka on Jan 8, 2018 13:32:34 GMT
You contradicted yourself by saying "you MUST value conference championships, or you are undermining the regular season. The committee has strayed away from valuing them, and it has ruined the importance of them. In fact, it is almost penalizing to have teams risk losing their standing to go play a 13th game, while you can still get in without playing it. Basically, the message is "if you look strong enough, you don't need a 13th data point." then you say "That is most likely an 8 team playoff. That captures (and should reward) all major conference champions, the strongest G5 champ (there is always one that can play), and teams that had excellent regular seasons but didn't win their conferences. UNDERMINING the whole regular season would be admitting UCF which only played one P5 team which Ohio State and Penn State both defeated twice as bad as UCF did. If G5 teams want so badly to play in the playoff then they should play FOUR P5 non conference games. You want me to take the Sun Belt seriously? Then play FOUR Power Five temas for you OOC games. Then I might listen. The same old Boise State argument that UCF beat Maryland and that means they should go to the playoff. That makes me laugh out loud. The SOS argument/excuse is such a cop out in college football. If you want UCF to play a stronger schedule, add them to the SEC.....what, you don't want to do that? Well UCF can't really control the strength of their schedule. Alabama had a pretty weak schedule as well, even when scheduling FSU. The bottomline is accessibilty to competing for a National Championship. Right now, there is no pathway for a team like UCF. It is an incomplete postseason. The idea that the problem is UCF 's OOC scheduling is laughable |
|
