One loss Bama, LSU or PSU would be favored significantly over Undefeated Baylor, especially if OU would tank against say ISU this weekend.
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!
Official CFB Playoff discussion thread
- Thread starter Buffnik
- Start date
Clemson, Bama, tOSU and Baylor go undefeated. LSU loses to Bama by a small margin this weekend and ends with 1 loss. Probably the only scenario I envision being OK with a 1 loss team making the 4 team playoff over an undefeated P5 team, and honestly, it would be extremely controversial, IMO.
Oh and by the way, I don't think I would think the same thing if Bama loses close to LSU and ends with 1 loss. Their schedule has been worse to this point than Baylors.
BerkeleyBuff
Well-Known Member
8 playoff teams. All 5 P5 champs, 2 at large, highest rated G5 champ.
Never. Most deserving model should never trump the best teams approach.
I don't agree. "Best team" is subjective, and we've all seen that play out the wrong way. It's why we have the playoff model now, because teams like nebraska shouldn't be playing for a NC when they cannot win their conference. Berkley's suggested model still allows for 2 of the "best teams" to be included, plus one of the G5 schools....so it should leave little room for complaints.
The risk is that you could end up with a (for example) 9-3 Wisconsin team in the bracket because they won the BIG by upsetting an undefeated tOSU team...but I think it's better because the upside is that it makes conference games matter big time. This would foster the importance of every game, would still keep fan bases engaged in the NC discussion so long as their team has a chance at the CCG, and rivalries would flourish.
Kuratz
Well-Known Member
My argument is that the decision tree doesn't rest on who beat/lost to a common opponent. It's that both have the same number of losses but one theoretically would have won their P5 conference, while the other did not. By their own stated parameters the conference champion should get the nod, when otherwise mostly equal.
And for the record I think the loser of LSU-Alabama is still one of the best 4 teams and would stomp Oregon or Utah
ahoelsken
Well-Known Member
I don't think we're ever going to have a year where we have sixteen teams who deserve the right to compete for a national championship-and I think the last four in your original tweet that started this exchange (Baylor, Notre Dame, KjSU, and Wisconsin) prove that point. Notre Dame needs to be at worse 11-1 to me to get in. Didn't have an issue with the committee taking the Irish last year because a) they were undefeated and b) the Pac 12 and Big 10 didn't produce better options. Ohio State's one loss was a blowout at the hands of a Purdue team who went 6-7. Kansas State has two losses already-One can't fault them for losing to Oklahoma State on the road and a pretty good Baylor (I think Baylor is a good football team, but I don't think they're a playoff contender) team at home. At the end of the day, every game in the regular season is supposed to matter. That's why this sport is so fun IMO-because they all do matter. Wisconsin's got two losses, too-No harm in getting whipped by tOSU, but that loss to Illinois is a deal breaker. Baylor's schedule is a ****ing joke. You let a team like that into a playoff regardless of the size with that OOC and everybody's going to start playing that type of OOC.
Frankly, I think the same logic I'm using on Baylor could apply for an 11-1 Alabama if they lose Saturday-Ignore the brand and focus on the resume. They have no wins over teams in this set of rankings, and in that hypothetical would have a win over Auburn only. They played Duke (middling team in the ACC-which is the weakest of the 5 P5 leagues this year), New Mexico State (lol), Southern Miss (5-3 in C-USA-you can give them a cookie for beating a team that will probably go bowling by 42 points, but I won't), and they've got a bye week cleverly disguised as a football game against Western Carolina or somebody like that coming up.
I hear ya. I can argue either side. I just prefer current system and 4. I think in very large part they got it right each year using charter that mandates best 4.
ahoelsken
Well-Known Member
Depends on how Alabama-LSU plays out and what happens in the Big 10. LSU and Penn State have earned more grace than Alabama has because of what they've already done (LSU's got wins over Florida and Auburn-both ranked. They've also got a road win at Texas-who could easily work their way back into these rankings. Penn State's got wins over Iowa and Michigan. If they escape Minnesota with a win Saturday, we can't forget about them even if they lose to Ohio State. Alabama has not if you're ignoring the brand and focusing only on the resume. Frankly, Saturday's an elimination game for Alabama because of their schedule.
BerkeleyBuff
Well-Known Member
Disagreed. "Best teams" arguments is too subjective and biased. And the 2 at large spots accommodate any of those "best teams" that couldn't even win their conference anyways.
Agree. Bama out if lose this weekend. LSU might not be.
Resume, advanced analytics, mixed membership, Delphi-like process, eyeball test + Committee charter provide, IMO, a very robust system of selecting the best 4. As mentioned, I can only quibble with one, maybe two, choices over the history of the CFP Committee.
Fair points. It also could result in a Baylor, Wake, UCLA, Georgia, Minnesota conference reps. That’s a tournament approach, not a championship approach in my opinion.
BerkeleyBuff
Well-Known Member
If Baylor, Minnesota, or UCLA go undefeated and win their conference, they should be in the playoff. If they get an upset over a clearly better team - say, Baylor over Oklahoma this year - then there's still those 2 (or 3, if you eliminate the G5 having any auto-bid) spots to accommodate those other top teams.
I also think that giving auto-bids to P5 conference champs would be good for the sport, because it would bring the conversation of college football back to talking about the conference races, placing the importance there again that's been missing since people starting arguing who might be playoff worthy and what conferences will be left out by the end of September. Plus, it encourages better OOC scheduling: if winning the conference gets you in, you'll be more incentivized to schedule big name OOC games, as a loss won't preclude you from the conference auto-bid, a win helps your odds at an at-large, and obviously the money is nice.
steph
Well-Known Member
This is the kind of thing that I dislike about the current system. The committee has determined that LSU and Alabama are the #2 and #3 teams in the country. When they play each other, one of them is going to loose. So if they truly believe the ranking is correct, the outcome of their game should at most swap the order they are ranked, when in reality it will likely just push the looser out of the top 4 and slide Clemson in. So regardless of all their talk about SOS, teams are far better off playing the weakest schedule possible.
As someone who hates the playoff system entirely, this is the best set of arguments I've seen for an expanded playoff.
Placing renewed emphasis on conference championships, and by extension conference games/standings = good.
Creating incentives to scheduling quality OOC = good.
Removing disincentives to scheduling quality OOC = good.
Right now you have to weigh the risks of a tough conference schedule: taking 2 losses virtually eliminates your shot at the playoff, and merely making a bowl game is harder if you're not actually competing for championships vs the gains: if you do well against a tough OOC, you have a better chance of making it in the playoff vs a team who played creampuffs.
If you're guaranteed in the playoff if you win the conference, then that 2-1, 2-2 or even 1-2 OOC record isn't a complete disaster.
And it would make a nice delineation between programs' goals: teams that schedule real OOC schedules are trying to win championships; teams with ****ty OOC schedules are trying to get bowl eligible.
Only based on information available at the time of the poll. They will have new info next week after game.
I guess I don't see why there's such a large contingent of people across the country that don't like the conference auto-bids. Winning your conference, division, region, group whatever it may be is the standard in ALL sports. It allows for different styles of play and different conferences to match up in a playoff without any subjective bias aside from the at-large. The 1 vs 4 and 2 vs 3 seeds have mostly been blowouts anyways (70% if you count at least 17 points as a "blowout"). Whether it's a 6-team or 8 team the first round will be more likely to have competitive games in it.
Odds of a 5-8 team running the table with three wins?
Just looking at the closest thing I can think of, in the NFL from 1990-2012 there has been 1 five seed and 2 six seeds that have won the super bowl. That means a 13% chance by those numbers. But the college game is different from the NFL. Realistically, the chances are probably not much higher but right now, without knowing how the end of the season shakes out, I see no reason why Clemson, Utah/Oregon winner, and OU (if they win out) don't deserve a shot at the playoff for potentially winning their conference.
ahoelsken
Well-Known Member
Here's why I don't think we don't need to expand this thing-One, Alabama and Clemson (if they're engaged-I don't think they were when they played UNC) are on a whole different level from the rest of the sport. They don't have recruit-they basically pick the kids they want. Georgia's the only program in the country that you can argue is close to the two of them. You get 3-4 others who get to that level and then it makes sense to.
Two, I don't think we've had the issue with this system yet that we've had with the BCS where you have a team who got left out but had a compelling argument to get in over one of the four who did make it in:
2014 TCU/Baylor-Baylor won the H2H, so you can't take TCU over Baylor IMO. Ohio State played a P5 opponent in the OOC. Baylor didn't. tOSU also beat a Wisconsin team that finished in the top 15 that year by 59 points for the Big 10 title.
2015-didn't really produce anything worth mentioning here. Michigan State won at Ohio State and the Pac 12 produced a 2 loss champion.
2016-Again, nothing worth mentioning. Some debate over Washington's cupcake feast in the OOC, but no viable alternative. Oklahoma had two losses.
2017-2 loss Ohio State beats undefeated Wisconsin, which opens the door for 11-1 Alabama to go in as the 4th team.
2018-Oklahoma goes over Ohio State because OU's loss came on a last second FG to Texas (who they would beat for the Big 12 title) while Ohio State got nuked by a .500 Purdue team.
Here's the scenario I want if I want this thing to expand-Let's assume the SEC and Big 10 champs both get in. Let's also assume Clemson wins out (they'll get a shot to boost their resume when they get Wake at home and Virginia in their CCG). Then let's say Utah wins the Pac 12 and OU doesn't lose again. There's where you can really have some fun.
That’s fair I see where you’re coming from. I guess in years past I would agree that Alabama and Clemson are on their own level. This year though I think Alabama, Clemson, tOSU, LSU are all on the same level and then Oklahoma and Georgia are just BARELY below. Might even throw PSU in with those two. That’s 6 or 7 teams I think can compete right now. I don’t think you can take the last 2 years of two team dominance and use it as precedence for not expanding you know?
Baylor has Stephen F. Austin, Texas -San Antonio, and Rice OOC. SF Austin is not only FCS but one of the worst at 1-9, UTSA was FCS up till a couple years ago and is 3-5 including wins against Incarnate Word and Rice, Rice is 0-9. No P5 schools and a combined record 4-23 including a win against themselves.
OU did play FCS South Dakota who is 3-6. They also played UCLA which is P5 and 4-5, Houston is G5 and has had a rough season at 3-6 but they have some talent.
No the Baylor OOC isn't close to OU.
And no I have zero interest in a 12 team or 16 team playoff. Your bracket includes teams that are no better than fourth in their league. A pathetic joke. You would end up with teams that have 3 and even 4 losses in.
College football is special because every game could mean a team is eliminated, every game matters.
This idea of stick around, have a decent season, and get hot at the end with a lucky draw and you get the title. No, does nothing for me.
College football is special because every game could mean a team is eliminated, every game matters.
This idea of stick around, have a decent season, and get hot at the end with a lucky draw and you get the title. No, does nothing for me.
ahoelsken
Well-Known Member
Yeah-but I think you add not having a team who can got left out and can make a compelling case for it-we're fine at 4 teams until we see somebody get screwed.
Move to 6? Top two get byes? First round played on campus? Prevents good 5-6 team from sitting as could happen this year.
I repeat...8, 12, or 16. I don't care if it's fair, or if it's right. All I care is that I'm entertained and have a high degree of anticipation. Those #'s would do it. I'm not entertained with 4, that is unless the Buffs were one of the 4.