Did last night strenghten the case for an 8-team playoff?

Submitted by Coach Nero on January 9th, 2018 at 10:56 AM

Because Alabama was a non-conference champion, does that strengthen the call for an 8-team playoff?  I believe they were the best team, and if Wisconsin had beaten Ohio State, Bama wouldn't have even made the final four.  

Also, most people here are anti-Saban, but I get a little satisfaction each time they win because I know deep down it kills some Sparty fans to know he was their coach at one time and left for greener pastures.

Comments

wolverine1987

January 9th, 2018 at 11:02 AM ^

It's an unsolvable argument, but on these rare occassions when a G5 team beats a P5 team in a bowl we hear the same argument. But one thing that we know from watching non-playoff bowls and choosing winners is that often the winner is the team that actually wants to be there and is motivated to play. Not the team that had a disappointing end to their season and then is supposed to get up for a G5 team in a meaninless bowl game. I just described Auburn and Oklahoma (vs. Boise) and that is why those games were lost, not because Boise or UCF were actually as good IMO. 

HarbaughsLeftElbow

January 9th, 2018 at 11:10 AM ^

I think in the WAC/MWC undefeated BSU/TCU days this was a valid argument but the AAC was actually pretty good this year with UCF, USF, Memphis (though they played poorly in the bowl). 

How many games did Alabama have to get up for? A fringe top-25 MSU team (which probably has a comparable recruiting pull as a top AAC team)? Auburn (who they did not "get up" for)? LSU (a mediocre team coached by a hapless fool). 

wildbackdunesman

January 9th, 2018 at 6:17 PM ^

Boise State's famous 2007 Fiesta Bowl win over Oklahoma saw Oklahoma play without Adrian Peterson and Rhett Bomar...Oklahoma's QB was a player that was a WR the previous season and turned the ball over 4 times himself in the game.

corundum

January 9th, 2018 at 4:02 PM ^

Lmao you consistently have some of the worst takes on the board. Did you watch the UCF Auburn game? Auburn clearly wanted to win that game and both teams were playing hard. Kerryon Johnson toted the ball 23 times despite already deciding on heading to the draft.

What about when Houston beat FSU in the 2015 Peach Bowl? Houston then ended Oklahoma's playoff chances to open the 2016 season. UCF over Baylor in the 2014 Fiesta Bowl? TCU over Wisconsin in the 2011 Rose Bowl? G5 teams beat P5 teams in high profile games every year, and in many bowl games even before there was a playoff. Did all those P5 teams just 'not want to be there'?

This is the lizard-brain thinking that keeps teams like 2017 UCF from getting a fair shake when it comes to the playoffs.

wolverine1987

January 9th, 2018 at 4:44 PM ^

Yes let's give teams that are factually, objectively, less talented and play a lower level of football a "fair shake" in a 4/8 team playoff. Question: do you think App State beat Michigan because that's what happens when lower level teams get a fair shake, or because Michigan underestimated App State? Oklahoma underestimated Boise, and that's a fact that any google search of the time will tell you, right from Oklahoma's players. FSU's coaches described how difficult it was to get their players to take Houston seriously despite their repeated warnings. This happens all the time, and more often than not, for the reasons I stated. 

corundum

January 9th, 2018 at 4:54 PM ^

MSU has beaten Michigan in 5 of the last 7 matchups with a less talented roster. OSU won a natty with a 3rd string QB. Did Michigan or the other teams from the first playoff not want to be in those games?

It's easy for a losing team to say they overlooked an opponent after the fact. Doesn't change how stupid your argument is. Less talented teams use coaching and schematic strategies to beat more talented teams all the time, that's why they play the games. We can take your logic a step farther and just do a playoff based on which four schools have the highest rated recruits filling their rosters.

wolverine1987

January 9th, 2018 at 7:57 PM ^

The one that starts with the premise that the best teams are all in the P5 and that the best four of them belong in the playoff. Why do they do that? Why do they exclude G5. You'd likely say stereotyping, ignorance, tradition, lizard brain or other such nonsense. But the serious people that know college football know that as long as we have a 4, 6, or 8 team playoff, there is no place for a G5 team (despite the fact that yes, every so often there might be an upset). Do you honestly think UCF could have come within two scores of any of this year's top four? If you do, you aren't a serious person.

Max Power

January 9th, 2018 at 11:05 AM ^

I dont think any team that plays the 56th ranked SOS should be considered as the best team in college football. 

 

UCF getting in to the playoffs would strenghthen the case for Power 6 schools to schedule nothing but FCS teams in Non conference. 

 

Mount Union went 15-0. Maybe they should be the best team in college football.

Max Power

January 9th, 2018 at 12:06 PM ^

I completley understand. Football is a horse of a different color with limited data. But that data is all we have. How else do we judge teams? We are trying to avoid the old "Eye Test". 

 

If we say UCF is one of the best teams in the country and should have been in the playoffs with out using some sort of data to compare them to other teams then we should just go back to the coaches and AP poll deciding everything. 

lhglrkwg

January 9th, 2018 at 12:11 PM ^

then maybe March Madness should just be cut to the Sweet 16. Putting a floor on SOS rank effectively eliminates G5 teams from being eligible for the national title at all because they have no control over about 75% of their schedule. It's not UCF's fault that the AAC is largely junk

Now, they could try to schedule some harder opponents, but it's going to be hard to schedule a enough top 25ish non-con opponents a season to move the needle for them nationally

Red is Blue

January 9th, 2018 at 2:56 PM ^

Pretty sure you were just being snarky with the basketball comment, but the obvious difference between basketball and football is the ability to play games with much shorter turn around times, thus makings larger fields much more pratical.

The flip side of this is if you don't consider SoS rank, then there is every incentive to create as soft a schedule as possible.  

ST3

January 9th, 2018 at 11:09 AM ^

If UCF had played a P5-caliber schedule, they would have lost a game or two. A double OT win over Memphis and a bowl win over a dis-interested Auburn team doesn't impress me. The regular season matters in college football. I like that. Keep it at 4.

Baugh So Har

January 9th, 2018 at 3:42 PM ^

What you’re really saying is that you don't want to dilute the current slate of games by piling on additional weeks of football at the end of the year. You appreciate having less games that mean more rather than more games that mean less. And this is an important distinction because as it stands, the college football regular season is a playoff in it of itself. So, I don't believe you're as against a playoff system as much as you're in favor of preserving 12 games' importance. Most of those pushing a CFP expansion agree with your faction’s chief concern. Which is why the NCAA needs to completely restructure college football’s scheduling format before it touches the CFP.

3 things that need to happen:

1) Restrict conferences to 10-12 members and require all Power 5 schools to play (n-1) conference games.

2) Eliminate conference championship games.

3) Eliminate FBS matchups (at any point in the season).

This will allow the NCAA to expand the CFP without changing the length of the overall season. It will also move out-of-conference matchups to the end of the season, where their outcomes carry greater ramifications. No longer will neutral site games or home-and-home matchups played at the beginning of the season, and scheduled years in advance (with no guarantee of competitiveness), dictate the Selection Committee’s strength of schedule consideration.

This solution elevates the National Championship by crowning a champion who has strung together a run of victories to conclude the season, while restoring importance to the title of conference champion, as it would automatically qualify each team for the CFP.

Under the current system, the longest possible season is 15 games. With this solution, the NCAA could have an 8 or 12-team playoff and still cap the season at 14 or 15 games.

schreibee

January 9th, 2018 at 11:24 AM ^

UCF ended #12 precisely because it was a 4-team playoff. Had they been seeding 8 teams they wouldn't have left out an undefeated G5 team, imho. 

But your list wasn't accurate. Wiscy & Auburn were #6&7 in the final cfp, therefore would've been in an 8-team playoff. The teams I believe UCF would've jumped were usc, Mia, psu, Wash.

Then you can get into the argument would they have put in 3 $EC teams but NO Pac 12?

So then you might say usc moves up to 7 and UCF leaps over Auburn. Who they beat in a bowl game anyway - in fact, not in opinion!

Let's go to 8!

corundum

January 9th, 2018 at 11:00 AM ^

More games means more commercials, more tickets to sell, and more TV broadcast money. The incentive is always more money which means the incentive is already there. Just need agreement among the conferences.

M-Dog

January 9th, 2018 at 11:05 AM ^

Eight teams is the sweet spot.

It allows the five P5 champions in, two worthy at-larges, and the top G5 team for political correctness / anti-trust reasons.

There will still be plenty to argue about with the two at-larges and who the top G5 team is, so everybody is happy.

You would have added Ohio State, USC, probably Washington, and UCF to this year's CFP. 

That's a great mix of 8 teams for the CFP.

 

Moonlight Graham

January 9th, 2018 at 2:22 PM ^

1 Clemson vs. 8 UCF

2 Oklahoma vs. 7 USC

3 Georgia vs. 6 Wisconsin

4 Alabama vs. 5 Ohio State

 

That's pretty good except the B1G championship game would be played in this scenario (using the actual seeds) to see who gets the 5 or the 6 seed, and both are first-round road games I assume. I think in an 8-team case you might require a team to win their conference to get one of the top four seeds and a home game, thereby ensuring that at least four of the P5 championship games are for-sure "for" something. 

So round 1 is the week of Army-Navy on-campus of the top four? That's a shit-load of football for these guys to play. 

maizenbluenc

January 9th, 2018 at 2:32 PM ^

Bama essentially got a bye week for losing their Division.

Perhaps keep the conference championship games and winners, and the top six teams not playing on conference championship games play an extra "bowl" game to qualify in (the same week as the conference championship games).

kaz

January 9th, 2018 at 2:37 PM ^

I was thinking about that too.

The objection will be that the good conferences will feel their top two teams get a harder playoff game into the final eight than other teams do.

I'm not saying that is a veto, just it's the objection that will come up FWIW

Chaco

January 9th, 2018 at 11:38 AM ^

imagine getting to watch UM host USC or Oklahoma or whoever in a first-round playoff game (or vice versa where we played there....but dream big). 

And while MB Stadium and Jerryworld and these other places are nice stadiums - playing playoff games on college campuses (except for YTM) would reinforce what  makes college football so great.