AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!
CFP Race 2024
- Thread starter Robert Sorell
- Start date
I’d argue it’s not. Indiana did not play a ranked team other than Ohio State and their non-con didn’t even make an attempt to be serious. Texas had the defending national champs and Oklahoma (who were both supposed to be good), beat a ranked Vandy, and blew the doors off CSU (MWC CCG participant) worse than we did.
What we learned in Week 13: Chaos strikes the SEC, midnight strikes for Cinderellas
The SEC was thrown into another whirlwind with Ole Miss, Bama and Texas A&M losing, plus more trends from Week 13.www.espn.com
That is incorrect in the ESPN article (Georgia), but the only test Texas has faced was Georgia and they were never in it despite the worst version of Carson Beck showing up that day.
If they lose next week, they should be sweating it out on the bubble, but they won't be.
Their resume is basically Indiana's.
I feel like Texas at least tried. And now they have aTm - we’ll see how that goes, but I’ve got a pretty good idea.
You can/should only go by how the teams play in that current season though. Props for scheduling Michigan, but it is a pretty average win.
I still think there needs to be some credit for at least trying.
???
Part of the issue is that you're mixing and matching OOC games with conference games.
Texas has faced one team that is currently ranked (Georgia) and got beat nearly as badly as Indiana did by OSU. Except Texas was at home, and Indiana was on the road.
Texas did go and play Michigan in OOC, BUT they also only play 8 conference games- so if you look at UM as their 9th game against a P5 opponent, their OOC schedule was CSU (who, by the way, is on the outside looking in on the MWC Championship game), ULM, and UTSA.
Plus, UT are a bunch of buttholes and Indiana gave us the glory of pantsing Nebraska on national TV.
I’m not mixing them. If you want to count Michigan as conf game, UT played at least 4 teams that were ranked at the time they played. And will play another this week. Indiana played one.
Last edited:
By that logic, both Georgia Tech and Boston College have a victory over a top 10 team because they beat FSU in week 0 and 1 respectively.
Sweet. Which is more than Indiana.
Indiana played the same defending champ and another playoff team from last year, and 9 B1G teams.
Vandy is mid, their upset of Bama was more able Bama not being Bama this year.
ESPN has their SOR's as #5 and #7
The resumes are very similar.
This mentality is so ****ty. Alabama loses to Vanderbilt and gets ****ing mudholed by a mediocre Oklahoma team when it matters the most (along with losing to a good, not great Tennessee team), but they would just automatically "rag doll" some of these other programs? Ole Miss loses to unranked Kentucky and LSU and still has everything in front of them but loses to a bad Florida team, despite multiple chances at the end, but they would just automatically "rag doll" some of these other programs? At some point, the games on the field have to matter and this was always going to be the downside of creating a mega conference. Taking their ball and leaving would be such an SEC thing to do.
I've always felt that reseeding is the right thing to do in postseason tournaments, outside of March Madness.
I've always been for not reseeding, set the bracket and let the chips falls as they may. Curious as to why you feel reseeding is good in this case but not in the NCAA tournament?
And yes the first change that needs to be made is the conference champs still get an auto bid but not an automatic top 4 seed. That will likely change as soon as next year.
Well, NCAA tournament is so much different in almost every way from the CFP "tournament" so comparing reasoning for reseeding in one but not the other is hard to do. I just think in a playoff format where lesser teams get higher seeds simply for winning their conference, it makes sense to reseed, just like the NFL playoffs do.
I agree that the automatic bye is misguided in the CFP., but there has to be more incentive to play in and win your CCG. Maybe get rid of the automatic bye for conference winners and have those just for the top 4 teams, but instead incentivize winning your conference by giving conference champs that don't end in the top 4, a home playoff game regardless of where they get seeded?
Not sure how to incentivize the CCGs, but those aren't going anywhere and they have to be heavily incentivized.
I think we could definitely reach a point where winning your CCG only gets you a guaranteed spot into the CFP and nothing else. But I also see the dilemma there. For conferences like the Big 12 and ACC the loser is likely not getting, but in the case of this year's B1G there wouldn't be much incentive because as of right now both are in the top 4.
Which leads to the question of how the committee treats CCG losers in the case of a game like Oregon-tOSU where the loser is still clearly a playoff team, but how far does the loser drop. In a year where there's no guaranteed bye and it's a close game then an argument could be made to keep the loser in the top 4. However this still doesn't solve the issue of an incentive for the winner of that game in situations where both CCG teams are highly ranked.
CarlB
Well-Known Member
I'm sure I'm missing something as to why this wouldn't work, but the following would seem to avoid the possibility that being the #5 seed is better than being the #1 seed in the current system:
After the first round, I would let the #1 seed pick its opponent, then the #2 seed picks, then the #3 seed, with the #4 seed playing whichever team is left. It would add even more juice to the playoff, as the three teams picked as opponents for the quarterfinals would all feel "disrespected". But it also in theory gives the #1, #2, and #3 seeds an advantage, as they can pick whatever opponent they want after the first round is played. So if the #12 seed beats the #5 seed in the first round, the #4 seed doesn't automatically get to play the #12 seed, while the #1 seed is locked into playing the #8 or #9 seed like the current system requires.
No matter what they do, someone is going to be unhappy and think they have a better way to do it that would be more “fair.” Obviously when you get down to the 10,11, and 12 teams there may be some debate about who should be in, but that is unavoidable when the rankings are subjective. The best teams will be in the playoff. Win your games and you are the national champion. Lose and you go home. As long as we recognize 4 power conferences, winning your conference has to mean something. If the best teams in a conference are not getting into the conference championship game, that seems like a conference issue the conference needs to deal with.
unibuff
Well-Known Member
Agree
I've heard people say the point of the playoffs is pick the 12 best teams. But I say the point of the playoffs is to find out who the best team is.
The 12 teams that get in will all be very good and the winner can say they are the best team.
Just one other comment. People seem to be trying to engineer a format that will result in the two “best” teams playing in the national championship game every year. The formula to make that happen may change from year to year depending on how the best teams are spread out through the different conferences. How many times has the Super Bowl not had the 2 best nfl teams in it? It’s not uncommon. So just pick a format and go with it.
unibuff
Well-Known Member
YES - and even though the "2 best teams' may not be in the super bowl - i still enjoying whatching the NFL playoffs play out and I'm gonna enjoy the CFP play out too.
I disagree. Of the 12 teams that get in 3-4 won’t deserve it, and there will be better teams watching from the outside…and those teams shouldn’t have a shot either.
It's certainly an imperfect system, which if course fits in perfectly with how college football has always been. At least with the 12-team format every team that is considered a serious national title contender will get in, unlike a situation like last year where Georgia got squeezed out due to how the season went down.
In the end, does that really matter? Somebody, using one set of criteria, thought they did deserve to be in. Someone else, using other criteria think 3-4 other teams should have gotten in instead. There is no perfect way to quantify other than head to head competition, therefore somebody will always think they were left out. Maybe once in a while one will serve as a spoiler or even become a Cinderella team and win it all (which is good for ratings), but in the end they are just filler.
Last edited:
unibuff
Well-Known Member
Agree
No team will get in that " doesn't deserve to get in" - there will be teams that can site criteria that can support their claim they are more deserving than some of the 12 that got in.
But my point is that with a 12 team playoff we are all going to know FOR SURE the best 5,6, or 7 teams are in the playoffs and they are going to fight in out for the championship.
And I'm looking forward to watching it.
Hope is still alive for our Buffs. It requires that we win the Big 12 Championship.
We've secured a 1st place finish, but tiebreakers might decide things if 2 or more other teams also finish 7-2 in Big 12 play.
After today's win, here are our two scenarios:
Needs (Scenario 1): Losses by TWO of Arizona State, Iowa State, BYU
Needs (Scenario 2): Losses by BYU AND West Virginia
Saturday's broadcast schedule:
10:00, FS1: West Virginia (6-5) at Texas Tech (7-4)
1:30, Fox: Arizona State (9-2) at Arizona (4-7)
5:30, Fox: Kansas State (8-3) at Iowa State (9-2)
8:15, ESPN: Houston (4-7) at BYU (9-2)
We've secured a 1st place finish, but tiebreakers might decide things if 2 or more other teams also finish 7-2 in Big 12 play.
After today's win, here are our two scenarios:
Needs (Scenario 1): Losses by TWO of Arizona State, Iowa State, BYU
Needs (Scenario 2): Losses by BYU AND West Virginia
Saturday's broadcast schedule:
10:00, FS1: West Virginia (6-5) at Texas Tech (7-4)
1:30, Fox: Arizona State (9-2) at Arizona (4-7)
5:30, Fox: Kansas State (8-3) at Iowa State (9-2)
8:15, ESPN: Houston (4-7) at BYU (9-2)
Shorter: it's not happening
Ryan Day gonna get fired.
My wife (Michigan Grad) says PLEASE NO! Keep Ryan Day there FOREVER!
For basketball, you simply can't reseed from a logistics standpoint from round of 64 to round of 32 because some teams have to play Thu/Sat vs Fri/Sun and they're not at the same site. You could imagine some fixes, e.g. 2 nearby sites host a region on Thu/Sat and there's minimal travel after the reseeding, but it's just a headache.
For the CFP, there's a 10 day gap between games. The first round winners already know they're traveling to one of four sites, and the biggest delay from advancing to having a known destination would be the Friday night game waiting until the Saturday night game is finished; that could be solved by playing 5 v 12 on Friday night, if #5 wins they face #4 and if #12 wins they face #1.
To incentivize the CCG's I think the current system is as good as it gets. I'm not sold that the #1 seed has a tougher path to the Semis than the #5 seed. This year that probably works out to the #5 having to beat Arizona State and Boise in consecutive weeks, or having to win a single game against Ohio State or Tennessee. If you see ASU/Boise as 80% chance each to win, then that's 64% chance to win both, and for the #1 team >65% chance over Tennessee or tOSU sounds reasonable to me. All of which ignores the extra week of getting healthy, not facing additional injuries, etc.