I see their obliteration of Michigan this weekend as the 2014 Wisconsin equivalent. OU's chance is they blow out Texas, but a late November blowout over a top 4 Michigan with that defense will buy you a lot of credit, I think.
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!
College Playoff hypothetical
- Thread starter Buffnik
- Start date
I see their obliteration of Michigan this weekend as the 2014 Wisconsin equivalent. OU's chance is they blow out Texas, but a late November blowout over a top 4 Michigan with that defense will buy you a lot of credit, I think.
jizzrag85
Well-Known Member
I struggled with this earlier in my picks. Assuming all the favorites win can you move OSU from 10 to 4 for 2 wins? I think Oklahoma has a awful defense going against them and they’re going to look long and hard at that. But if Oklahoma wins out it would be a sham if they were left out. They would have won a game over #13 WVU and Texas, who this week should move up to somewhere between 10-12. That would be 2 straight wins over top 15 competition in back to back weeks and a conference championship. OSU hasn’t earned that right because they blasted Michigan. At least I don’t think so.
im not sure if they put much emphasis on the current rankings and rather look at the overall resumes when its all said and done although i guess some recency bias will always be at play. when they compile their final ranking im really not sure how much the previous week's figures or if this isnt some outdated bcs thinking.
how do their overall resumes compare and how much credit do we give a team for a win against a team earlier this season that might have since tailed off?
jizzrag85
Well-Known Member
To be completely honest I don’t know haha. I’m glad it’s not me picking them! If I was going by what I found fair it would be Alabama, Clemson, ND and Oklahoma. If it was who I personally thought was the best teams? It would be OSU, they are more rounded it seems. But you can’t flat out say, OSU is better than Oklahoma either, they’re both crazy good. Even if Alabama lost I’d have them in and I would put Georgia in over OSU and Oklahoma and it pains me to say that. Can we just go to 8 teams already? This year would be so fun if Oklahoma, Georgia, OSU, Michigan and UCF joined ND, Alabama and Clemson. We would truly know who was the best and nobody could argue any team wasn’t worthy. Plus UCF could get blasted and we could end the debate.
Last edited:
As long as you have a bunch of guys sitting in a room somewhere deciding who is in and who is out, and whatever they decide is debatable, it is a flawed system. P5 Conference championships essentially become the first round of the national championship, 8 teams in the final rounds, and strict criteria to get in makes it a real championship. If the “best team” gets knocked out, they get knocked out. It happens that way in every other sport.
hawg1
Well-Known Member
Auto bids will never happen. Pitt, Utah, Northwestern.
ScottyBuff
Well-Known Member
Unless every conference drops the divisional format and simply plays their #1 and #2 teams in a championship game like the BIG XII does now. This would also end the imbalanced rotational scheduling that is difficult in nearly every league.
Medford M.
Well-Known Member
Why do you have such an affinity for Vegas people?
jizzrag85
Well-Known Member
I was thinking about this last night. 8 teams sounds great in theory but it would make the season very long for these kids. You’re going from kids playing 12, conference championships and a bowl game to the current format of 12, conf game and 2 games. To playing 12, conference championship, 1st round, 2nd round and possible championship game. That’s a 16 game season, do they want to do that?
hawg1
Well-Known Member
Because their Power Rankings have been shown to be among the best - if not THE best - predictive tools for CFB outcomes.
As long as CFP charter remains “best”, the the Committee should have the best info possible, no?
hawg1
Well-Known Member
Safety would be an issue. On the other hand, it would only be for an extra four games.
You could drop CCG, drop divisions, play 10 Conf games, 1 other P5 and a freebie.
Pick best 8. Or 6.
Nothing happening for a while.
16 games only for 2 teams though - and it will rarely be the same two teams multiple years in a row.
16 games for 2 teams.
15 games for 2 teams.
14 games for 14 to 17 teams.
13 games for around 40 teams.
VS today:
15 games for 2 teams
14 games for 18-20 teams
13 games for around 40 teams.
The number of games played impact is really pretty low.
If the conferences don't like who represents them in the playoffs, they will make the change. Conferences should decide that, not some committee. Who cares if a Pitt makes it by beating Clemson. If Clemson was destined to win the NC they should have won their game, but maybe they get lucky and get one of the at large bids. This idea of a "bad" team might get included is stupid and ridiculous. Bad teams don't consistently beat good teams. If a bad team gets in they are likely eliminated in the 1st round, if not, then by definition they can't be a bad team because they would have beaten two good teams in a row. The best team always wins in the end in a tournament, and that isn't necessarily the team everyone thinks should win or who they thought was the "best" team.
We go through this stupidity every year. Why not just go to 64 teams and make everybody happy?
The question is always going to exist about should the first team out have been included. The argument is never going to be that the first out was as deserving as the highest seed, it will be a comparison with the last team in.
Right now whoever is #5 argues that they were as good as #4, go to 6 teams and it will be #7 comparing themselves to #6.
I don't want to see some 3 loss team or even a 2 loss team getting hot at the end and winning a title over a P5 team that went undefeated right to the end.
The question is always going to exist about should the first team out have been included. The argument is never going to be that the first out was as deserving as the highest seed, it will be a comparison with the last team in.
Right now whoever is #5 argues that they were as good as #4, go to 6 teams and it will be #7 comparing themselves to #6.
I don't want to see some 3 loss team or even a 2 loss team getting hot at the end and winning a title over a P5 team that went undefeated right to the end.
I get that power ranking paint a good picture of how good a team really is and normalize results for strength of schedule and luck. But why would that matter for picking teams for the playoff? I get you could have a 10-2 or even and unlucky 9-3 team that might be one of the top 4 in the country, but why should they get in the playoff? College football has always been "every game matters". You can use advanced stats to try and determine which 11-1 conference champ deserves to be in, but I have no interest in allowing a team with more losses and no conference championship in just because some metric says they're slightly better than a conference champ.
Yep. And the biggest benefit of 8 teams is that it's much better if a committee has some controversy and gets #8 or maybe even #7 wrong versus a committee getting #4 and maybe #3 wrong.
If you play Hawaii, you could play that many games now.
Heck, I'd even take it 1 step further and eliminate games against FCS teams but allow a preseason home game or 2 against FCS to get ready for the season. I'm also in favor of a 2-round conference playoff with 16-team conferences that lead into a 4-team playoff decided by those winners. But those are probably discussions for another day.
BlackNGold
Club Member
Even if Alabama loses in the SEC championship game they have to be in, IMO. In that scenario it would be Alabama, Clemson, Georgia, and ND. Assuming Clemson wins the ACC game.
hawg1
Well-Known Member
You are describing a model of most deserving. The CFP charter says best, not most deserving.
And thus all the arguing. The charter says best but does not define "best." Is best the top computer rated teams, the teams with the best records, the teams that win their conferences. That is why it is a cluster and we have a stupid committee. Need to change the charter to define what qualifies as best and take out the ambiguity, make a defined criteria. One thing that pisses me off each year is that they keep changing the criteria they use to fit the teams that they picked, instead of having the same criteria each year and letting the teams fall where they may, they do the opposite and pick the teams and then come up with the criteria as to why they picked the way they picked.
hawg1
Well-Known Member
There are parameters.
Ralfie
Well-Known Member
How do you differentiate between "best" and "most deserving"? Give me a real world scenario.
I think I'd define "best" as the 4 teams that Vegas and other experts would favor over anyone else.
"Most deserving" would be if a team like CU in 2016 had held on to beat Michigan or come back to beat USC and then finished it off by getting the win against Washington. Not a team that anyone thought was the most talented or would favor against any other team in the Top 10 of the rankings but would have been one of the 4 teams that had the season that was most deserving of a playoff berth.
That's fair. An undefeated or 1 loss conference champ of a very mediocre conference could be most deserving but not one of the best. I'm trying to think of a specific example as things stand this year that would apply. Assuming chalk in the CCGs, I have a hard time distinguishing between who are the "best" 4 and who are the most "deserving" 4 between OU, ND, Clemson, Bama, and tOSU.
What if Alabama loses in OT to Georgia and doesn't get in? Or even that they are seeded lower than a ND team you think they'd beat by at least 2 scores?
I don't really care much about seeding when we're talking about a top 4 (top 8 would make it a bigger deal), but if there was any scenario where Bama didn't get in the CFP would need to be blown up and started over.