|
|
Post by EvilVodka on Feb 3, 2016 21:27:10 GMT
I've often thought that if '89 had a playoff (4 team), FSU would have won the whole thing. They lost their first two games, to a Brett Favre-led Southern Miss squad, and to Clemson, but rolled the rest of the way, beating eventual Poll National Champ Miami 24-10.
So I started digging into final games and polls and what not, and I don't think they would have made the field with 2 losses....at least with the current 4 team playoff
Colorado rolled through their season and Big 8 schedule undefeated and would have secured the top spot at #1.
Notre Dame was #1 all season, but lost their last game to #7 Miami. Miami jumped to #2. Michigan's only loss all season was to Notre Dame in week 1.
So I'm thinking we would have gotten this playoff:
#1 Colorado vs. #4 Notre Dame
#2 Miami vs. #3 Michigan
We already know the results of the Colorado-Notre Dame game....the Irish win is what gave Miami the National Championship.
I'm not sure how good Michigan was in '89, but they lost their bowl game to #12 USC. I'm guessing Miami would probably have beaten them as well, so we'd end up with a rematch:
Miami vs. Notre Dame
Miami won the first time....could they have won a rematch? The 4 team playoff may have led to the same results: The Miami Hurricanes as your National Champions
|
|
|
|
Post by FLORIDA HERD FAN on Feb 3, 2016 21:39:19 GMT
Good analysis, EV. That is another good example why a 4-team CFP or national championship field is insufficient.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Feb 3, 2016 23:45:51 GMT
Good analysis, EV. That is another good example why a 4-team CFP or national championship field is insufficient.
LOL FSU lost their first two games... they didn't deserve a shot at the National Championship... not when there were at least five teams with 1 loss.
|
|
|
|
Post by FLORIDA HERD FAN on Feb 4, 2016 0:11:17 GMT
Good analysis, EV. That is another good example why a 4-team CFP or national championship field is insufficient.
LOL FSU lost their first two games... they didn't deserve a shot at the National Championship... not when there were at least five teams with 1 loss.
The standard of the CFP is to select the best teams -- which are not necessarily the teams with the best records. A team that lost its first 2 games could be very much improved by the end of the season. What if FSU had improved to the point where it was the best team by the end of the season? The playoff itself, whether CFP or national championship, determines the best team from among those teams that are allowed to compete. Season records go out the window from the get go. Doesn't it make sense that a playoff to determine the best team be composed of the best teams? That is what the CFP claims to do. |
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Feb 4, 2016 3:15:31 GMT
LOL FSU lost their first two games... they didn't deserve a shot at the National Championship... not when there were at least five teams with 1 loss.
The standard of the CFP is to select the best teams -- which are not necessarily the teams with the best records. A team that lost its first 2 games could be very much improved by the end of the season. What if FSU had improved to the point where it was the best team by the end of the season? The playoff itself, whether CFP or national championship, determines the best team from among those teams that are allowed to compete. Season records go out the window from the get go. Doesn't it make sense that a playoff to determine the best team be composed of the best teams? That is what the CFP claims to do. "Best Team", is a purely subjective term... trying to determine THAT from a bunch of teams that haven't played each other.. and, in many cases, haven't even played ANY common opponents, is impossible. If they are to remain fair, the committee has to look at records.
With a 4 team playoff? I can't EVER see a two loss team having shot. Not impossible, but... HIGHLY unlikely. As, Phil Steele proved with his analysis.
|
|
|
|
Post by bluehen on Feb 4, 2016 3:51:24 GMT
I've often thought that if '89 had a playoff (4 team), FSU would have won the whole thing. They lost their first two games, to a Brett Favre-led Southern Miss squad, and to Clemson, but rolled the rest of the way, beating eventual Poll National Champ Miami 24-10. So I started digging into final games and polls and what not, and I don't think they would have made the field with 2 losses....at least with the current 4 team playoff Colorado rolled through their season and Big 8 schedule undefeated and would have secured the top spot at #1. Notre Dame was #1 all season, but lost their last game to #7 Miami. Miami jumped to #2. Michigan's only loss all season was to Notre Dame in week 1. So I'm thinking we would have gotten this playoff: #1 Colorado vs. #4 Notre Dame
#2 Miami vs. #3 Michigan
We already know the results of the Colorado-Notre Dame game....the Irish win is what gave Miami the National Championship. I'm not sure how good Michigan was in '89, but they lost their bowl game to #12 USC. I'm guessing Miami would probably have beaten them as well, so we'd end up with a rematch: Miami vs. Notre Dame Miami won the first time....could they have won a rematch? The 4 team playoff may have led to the same results: The Miami Hurricanes as your National Champions There is little doubt in my mind that Florida State would have been the betting favorite to take a 1989 playoff if there was one. Miami and Notre Dame would have had the next best odds. |
|
|
|
Post by FLORIDA HERD FAN on Feb 4, 2016 7:04:15 GMT
Bevo:
"...to remain fair, the committee has to look at records."
Then, why isn't the standard the best records, rather than the best teams?
And, if the standard is the best records, why even bother to have a selection committee when a computer could sort it out in an instant?
|
|
|
|
Post by bluehen on Feb 4, 2016 13:01:12 GMT
I wish you guys would stop referring to this 4 team Invitational event as a "playoff"...just because ESPN and the cartel wants you to think it really is. In a team sport championship playoff teams do not get 'voted' directly into the semi-finals or the finals ( bcs ). They are required to 'play' their way into those positions by advancing through an all inclusive playoff field. FCS, DII and DIII have 'playoffs'. FBS ( and remember what the 'B' stands for ) has a 3 game highly hyped 'bowl' event.
Therefore I suggest that the collective astute posters on this discussion board refer to this cartel event as the CFI rather than the CFP. We can start a little movement to use the correct moniker.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Feb 4, 2016 13:52:25 GMT
Bevo: "...to remain fair, the committee has to look at records." Then, why isn't the standard the best records, rather than the best teams? And, if the standard is the best records, why even bother to have a selection committee when a computer could sort it out in an instant?
Computers could figure it out in a second. CJ's system could do it easily. But, that doesn't generate as much interest.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Feb 4, 2016 13:59:05 GMT
I wish you guys would stop referring to this 4 team Invitational event as a "playoff"...just because ESPN and the cartel wants you to think it really is. In a team sport championship playoff teams do not get 'voted' directly into the semi-finals or the finals ( bcs ). They are required to 'play' their way into those positions by advancing through an all inclusive playoff field. FCS, DII and DIII have 'playoffs'. FBS ( and remember what the 'B' stands for ) has a 3 game highly hyped 'bowl' event. Therefore I suggest that the collective astute posters on this discussion board refer to this cartel event as the CFI rather than the CFP. We can start a little movement to use the correct moniker.
Sorry Hen, but... whether YOU like it or not, it IS a "playoff". It just happens to have a smaller field. The teams involved have to earn their way into consideration with their PLAY, on the field.
Giant field playoffs are not the ONLY way to determine a Champion.
|
|
|
|
Post by FLORIDA HERD FAN on Feb 4, 2016 14:39:37 GMT
The problem is "Best Record", is a purely subjective term... trying to determine THAT from a bunch of teams that haven't played each other.. and, in many cases, haven't even played ANY common opponents, is impossible. If they are to remain fair, the committee has to determine the best teams, which is its mandate.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Feb 4, 2016 17:06:13 GMT
The problem is "Best Record", is a purely subjective term... trying to determine THAT from a bunch of teams that haven't played each other.. and, in many cases, haven't even played ANY common opponents, is impossible. If they are to remain fair, the committee has to determine the best teams, which is its mandate. Yes, and then they have to defend their decision, with evidence. |
|
|
|
Post by FLORIDA HERD FAN on Feb 4, 2016 18:19:06 GMT
The problem is "Best Record", is a purely subjective term... trying to determine THAT from a bunch of teams that haven't played each other.. and, in many cases, haven't even played ANY common opponents, is impossible. If they are to remain fair, the committee has to determine the best teams, which is its mandate. Yes, and then they have to defend their decision, with evidence. That would be fine with me, but: 1. The CFP hasn't and won't release how each member voted 2. There hasn't been a groundswell demanding that the committee justify its decisions |
|
|
|
Post by doc on Feb 4, 2016 18:50:50 GMT
I would have liked Ohio State's chances in 1996 and 1998 had there been a 4 team playoff. Florida and Tennessee won the titles but OSU finished #2 both years. They beat Arizona State (Rose) and Texas A+M (Cotton) in their bowl games. Of course losses to TTUM in '96 and MSU in '98 kept them from being unbeaten.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Feb 4, 2016 19:20:13 GMT
2. There hasn't been a groundswell demanding that the committee justify its decisions
There was last year, when Baylor was excluded. Not so much this year, as the selections were rather obvious.
There'll be PLENTY more in future years... whenever they actually have to make a difficult selection. They dodged some bullets this year.
|
|
