If you have an 8 team playoff, then you need to get rid of the conf champ. games. or start paying the players. (which should be done anyways)
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
I like 8 also as where to start with playoff brackets. Ohio State should be insane next year, they are graduating only a few. [/quote]
TCU brings back 10 on offense(the 1 graduating isn’t important either), and 6 on defense(4 of the 5 graduating are pretty important, but that said Patterson is known as a defensive mastermind so if you’re going to give up players you’d rather it be on defense so his offensive machine can keep running without need for tinkering).
They’re #1/2 in whatever order, doesn’t matter.
My ‘way too early’ top 5 with note that I haven’t looked at schedules or anything so it’s less of a prediction of where everyone will finish and more of a talent evaluation:
1/2: TCU/OSU - Obvious
3: USC - Cody Kessler quietly had a MONSTER season(like 38 TDs to only 5 INTs, tons of yardage), and basically their only really key loss is Leonard Williams(not to downplay losing the best DE in football). I think they’re finally back to full scholarships as well?
4: Bama - I have them higher than most of these way early polls out of respect for Saban, I just have too much confidence in his ability to ‘reload’ rather than ‘rebuild;’ I don’t care what they lost.
5: UCLA - Going out on a limb(although a kind of short one) here. They lose Hundley, which is huge. That said, he’s almost literally the only guy they lose. If the QB that wins the job is at all decent, they are STACKED. Their biggest problem is going to be that the Pac-12 looks to be stacked as well, and someone has to lose all those games(same could be said for USC above).
Had to think a bit on that 5 spot, I like quite a few teams there, decided to take a little risk on UCLA. Other teams are in a similar situation(losing pretty much just the QB) like Oregon(that Pac-12 tho) and Baylor.
[quote]strungoutboy21 wrote:
I think the Big 12 screwed themselves by not having a championship game. Ohio State had that championship game in the Big 10 and that is where they basically impressed the committee to jump to the number 4 spot. The Big 12 needs to have a title game instead of do something stupid again like make them co champions.
I’m not saying TCU would have beat Ohio State, but they would have made some noise. TCU will be really good again next year too. A lot of their main guys will still be there. They should be a preseason top 5 along with Ohio State.[/quote]
It would have made no difference if the Big 12 had a title game. The committee wanted the big names in the playoff. The lack of a title game just gave them a convenient out. We all know it would have been a very different story if it was Oklahoma or Texas instead of TCU.
Even if they did have a title game, if you take the old North/South lines we would have had KSU against Baylor.
That was the last game of the year for both teams anyways…
[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
And to all you guys saying TCU should have been let in, no they shouldn’t have. If you were going to let one Big12 school in it would have had to have been Baylor (although I think TCU is the better team) because they earned it on the field and that should matter more than anything else. It is even in the Big 12 bylaws (as Briles pointed out) that in the event of a tie the head to head is the tiebreaker. Big 12 just tried to hedge their bets with the co-champion thing and it bit them in the ass. [/quote]
This is incorrect.
The bylaws say they will be co-champions. The tiebreaker is only used for the automatic berth to a New Years Bowl. Baylor did technically get the automatic berth and TCU was an at large team.
Co-champions actually make a lot of sense in a round-robin league. The game was at Baylor, the result very likely would have been different at TCU or if they would play that game in Dallas. Besides, you can’t just ignore the losses. Baylor lost to WVU. Whose loss looks worse?
[quote]Derek542 wrote:
[quote]treco wrote:
[quote]Derek542 wrote:
[quote]treco wrote:
8 team playoff has been my choice for years if playoff ever came to be.
For clarification 12 teams (Big 12 has 10 teams currently) are required for a conference championship, and each Big 12 team plays the other nine teams already.
Really if you wanted equality then you would disband all conferences and revamp them into same number of schools, same type of intra-conference scheduling, etc. Kind of like high school is here in Texas.
Who thinks that will happen? Anyone? [/quote]
I say 4 super conferences with East and West, take top 6 teams and 2 teams that are not conference as wild cards spots. [/quote]
Big 12 looking weak from a population and TV revenue standpoint. I wonder how long it will last. U of Texas shits on the rest of the conference with the UT network (which doesn’t really seem to broadcast anything but women volleyball), and then lays an egg from a competitive sense also.
[/quote]
Agreed and as UT fan this upsets me honestly. Mack made it like looking down on everyone else and that will not have good outcomes. But the cat is out of the bag so dont know how to put that fucker back in. [/quote]
This is the real story. If it’s not OU or Texas no one cares. There was never a question that a one-loss SEC team would be in, but unfortunately Alabama may have been the fifth best team this year.
I agree with all that there should be 8 teams. Big 12, Big 10, Pac 12, SEC, and ACC champions get automatic berths. Let the conferences decide how they want to name a Champion. The top 3 conference champions from the remaining conferences and independents also get in. Let a committee seed them. It will typically work out that the #1 and #2 seeds have an easy path to the semifinals. It would be like the 1 vs 16 games in NCAAB. #3 may have a challenge at times. 4 vs 5 would be a great matchup (on paper) every year.
There’s no reason a conference should ever have two teams in the playoff. If you didn’t win your conference, you’re not the best team in the country. If you feel you got left out, you can take it up with your conference and not the playoff system.
Drop one of the out of conference games to account for the extra round of playoffs and go back to 11 game seasons. Everybody has a putz game on their schedule they could drop.
[quote]tedro wrote:
I agree with all that there should be 8 teams. Big 12, Big 10, Pac 12, SEC, and ACC champions get automatic berths. Let the conferences decide how they want to name a Champion. The top 3 conference champions from the remaining conferences and independents also get in. Let a committee seed them. It will typically work out that the #1 and #2 seeds have an easy path to the semifinals. It would be like the 1 vs 16 games in NCAAB. #3 may have a challenge at times. 4 vs 5 would be a great matchup (on paper) every year.
There’s no reason a conference should ever have two teams in the playoff. If you didn’t win your conference, you’re not the best team in the country. If you feel you got left out, you can take it up with your conference and not the playoff system.
Drop one of the out of conference games to account for the extra round of playoffs and go back to 11 game seasons. Everybody has a putz game on their schedule they could drop.[/quote]
Exactly what I was thinking
[quote]tedro wrote:
[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
And to all you guys saying TCU should have been let in, no they shouldn’t have. If you were going to let one Big12 school in it would have had to have been Baylor (although I think TCU is the better team) because they earned it on the field and that should matter more than anything else. It is even in the Big 12 bylaws (as Briles pointed out) that in the event of a tie the head to head is the tiebreaker. Big 12 just tried to hedge their bets with the co-champion thing and it bit them in the ass. [/quote]
This is incorrect.
The bylaws say they will be co-champions. The tiebreaker is only used for the automatic berth to a New Years Bowl. Baylor did technically get the automatic berth and TCU was an at large team.
Co-champions actually make a lot of sense in a round-robin league. The game was at Baylor, the result very likely would have been different at TCU or if they would play that game in Dallas. Besides, you can’t just ignore the losses. Baylor lost to WVU. Whose loss looks worse? [/quote]
You are correct, I went back and reread it. Basically its pussyfooting bullshit on the part of the AD. Declare a champion. If those rules are good enough to decide who the “representative of our conference should be” then its basically what you should use to declare a champion.
Baylor beat TCU on the field. End of story. Their is no lets use our best judgment based off of who played who and all that. Baylor won the game and any time you devalue head to head you lose all legitimacy in any system.
[quote]Aggv wrote:
If you have an 8 team playoff, then you need to get rid of the conf champ. games. or start paying the players. (which should be done anyways) [/quote]
I would say more along the lines of keeping the conf championship games, no co-champions, and drop it back to 10 games. Most schools play at least two cupcake games that could go away and no one would notice.
[quote]tedro wrote:
There’s no reason a conference should ever have two teams in the playoff. If you didn’t win your conference, you’re not the best team in the country. If you feel you got left out, you can take it up with your conference and not the playoff system.
Drop one of the out of conference games to account for the extra round of playoffs and go back to 11 game seasons. Everybody has a putz game on their schedule they could drop.[/quote]
So who would have went for the Big 12 in your system then? Which one team? And you are aware that what your advocating means admitting Memphis (lost to Ole Miss, UCLA, and Houston), Marshall (lost to Western Kentucky and did not play a single power 5 team) and Boise State (lost to Ole Miss and Air Force). Maybe Notre Dame who lost 5 games and did not beat a single team that finished ranked? How does that make the playoff better?
I don’t mind 2 teams from the same conference for the reason that the conferences are not going to be equal even if a ‘power conference’. Also there might be an opportunity to avenge an earlier season loss - which is a common occurrence in sports. After 10 games, the voters seem to have a pretty good fix on the top 8 teams IMO and I doubt any worthy teams would miss out.
But I like no rankings until conference games begin, realizing that it is human nature to rate teams early, as in the posts above lol.
[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
So who would have went for the Big 12 in your system then? Which one team?
[/quote]
My system would require the Big 12 to name one champion, so whomever that would have been. If you went with the old North/South lines then it likely would have been Baylor, but this is irrelevant to this year. The current system does not require champions, and the entire Big 12 schedule would have been different so don’t use this to infer anything else. Kansas State may have been undefeated in Big 12 play heading into a championship game under the old Big 12 system, or TCU may have been placed in the North leading to a TCU/Baylor matchup.
[quote]And you are aware that what your advocating means admitting Memphis (lost to Ole Miss, UCLA, and Houston), Marshall (lost to Western Kentucky and did not play a single power 5 team) and Boise State (lost to Ole Miss and Air Force). Maybe Notre Dame who lost 5 games and did not beat a single team that finished ranked? How does that make the playoff better?
[/quote]
Of course I’m aware of this. It makes it better because everybody has a chance, and keeps the entire season relevant. The Big 12 could have named Baylor Champions this year. It wouldn’t have mattered. Baylor and TCU can never compete with OSU, Alabama, or FSU in the current system.
In my system it’s easy and nobody can have a gripe. Win your conference and you’re in. In every other sport the goal isn’t to make sure that only the best teams make the playoff, but to guarantee the best team is in. Hence why division champions are always in. See this years Carolina Panthers over any of the other teams with better records. It’s not about finding out who is second best, but who is the best. You don’t need two SEC teams in a playoff to determine the best team. They should have already done so in conference play.
So this year, if we use the committee’s seedings, we would have had:
-
Alabama vs. 8. Memphis - Should be an easy win for Alabama, but just like the 1-16 matchups in Men’s Basketball, you can bet there will be a lot of Memphis fans that weekend.
-
Oregon vs. 7. Marshall - Marshall was nearly undefeated. I doubt they could compete with Oregon, but as a one loss team there would still be some intrigue to this matchup.
The first two games probably wouldn’t be competetive most years, but as the top two seeds Oregon and Alabama would get the easiest route to the next round. Now it get’s interesting:
-
FSU vs. 6. BSU - I’m not sure Boise State wouldn’t win this game.
-
OSU vs. 5. Baylor (Or TCU) - This would have been a very interesting matchup. You likely would have seen a different Baylor team than the one that showed up against MSU. Art Briles did not handle the situation well and I have no doubt his attitude was reflected by his team in their bowl game.
So really, assuming the Big 12 named a single champion, who would have any serious complaint about getting left out in this scenario?
[quote]tedro wrote:
[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
So who would have went for the Big 12 in your system then? Which one team?
[/quote]
My system would require the Big 12 to name one champion, so whomever that would have been. If you went with the old North/South lines then it likely would have been Baylor, but this is irrelevant to this year. The current system does not require champions, and the entire Big 12 schedule would have been different so don’t use this to infer anything else. Kansas State may have been undefeated in Big 12 play heading into a championship game under the old Big 12 system, or TCU may have been placed in the North leading to a TCU/Baylor matchup.
[quote]And you are aware that what your advocating means admitting Memphis (lost to Ole Miss, UCLA, and Houston), Marshall (lost to Western Kentucky and did not play a single power 5 team) and Boise State (lost to Ole Miss and Air Force). Maybe Notre Dame who lost 5 games and did not beat a single team that finished ranked? How does that make the playoff better?
[/quote]
Of course I’m aware of this. It makes it better because everybody has a chance, and keeps the entire season relevant. The Big 12 could have named Baylor Champions this year. It wouldn’t have mattered. Baylor and TCU can never compete with OSU, Alabama, or FSU in the current system.
In my system it’s easy and nobody can have a gripe. Win your conference and you’re in. In every other sport the goal isn’t to make sure that only the best teams make the playoff, but to guarantee the best team is in. Hence why division champions are always in. See this years Carolina Panthers over any of the other teams with better records. It’s not about finding out who is second best, but who is the best. You don’t need two SEC teams in a playoff to determine the best team. They should have already done so in conference play.
So this year, if we use the committee’s seedings, we would have had:
-
Alabama vs. 8. Memphis - Should be an easy win for Alabama, but just like the 1-16 matchups in Men’s Basketball, you can bet there will be a lot of Memphis fans that weekend.
-
Oregon vs. 7. Marshall - Marshall was nearly undefeated. I doubt they could compete with Oregon, but as a one loss team there would still be some intrigue to this matchup.
The first two games probably wouldn’t be competetive most years, but as the top two seeds Oregon and Alabama would get the easiest route to the next round. Now it get’s interesting:
-
FSU vs. 6. BSU - I’m not sure Boise State wouldn’t win this game.
-
OSU vs. 5. Baylor (Or TCU) - This would have been a very interesting matchup. You likely would have seen a different Baylor team than the one that showed up against MSU. Art Briles did not handle the situation well and I have no doubt his attitude was reflected by his team in their bowl game.
So really, assuming the Big 12 named a single champion, who would have any serious complaint about getting left out in this scenario?
[/quote]
See here’s the problem I have with that. What if you ended up with a situation like the Big 12 had in 2003 where K-state who had lost to Marshall plus two other games and whose OOC games were Cal, Troy, McNeese St, and UMass (basically an ok season) but they happened to catch Oklahoma on a bad night or they just matched up well with them and beat them in the Big 12 championship. Then you put them in a playoff over a team like Oklahoma who had beaten Bama and UCLA OOC plus had beaten Texas and OK St who gave K-State two of its losses.
That would be an instance where a wildcard game would have been a good thing because the K-state thing was just one of those games where shit happens and the best team doesn’t always win. Same with TCU/Baylor this year, or if Arizona had upset Oregon again. Matchups and familiarity make conference games far more unpredictable and this conference champs only system breeds the thing that everyone hates. A totally cupcake OOC schedule.
You better believe if all I can do to get in is win my conf then I am not risking getting hurt in pointless OOC games. Just schedule me up a UT-Martin, SW Missouri St, Eastern Illinois, or Jackson St and cruise through those games because they are completely irrelevant anyway.
[quote]tedro wrote:
[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
See here’s the problem I have with that. What if you ended up with a situation like the Big 12 had in 2003 where K-state who had lost to Marshall plus two other games and whose OOC games were Cal, Troy, McNeese St, and UMass (basically an ok season) but they happened to catch Oklahoma on a bad night or they just matched up well with them and beat them in the Big 12 championship. Then you put them in a playoff over a team like Oklahoma who had beaten Bama and UCLA OOC plus had beaten Texas and OK St who gave K-State two of its losses.
[/quote]
Two points:
- KSU lost those games with a backup quarterback. For the second half of the season, they WERE the best team in the Big 12. It had nothing to do with OU being off.
- The conference championship becomes a de facto playoff game. Whether it was an upset or not, OU lost and should have had no justification to advance. Remember, they lost in the NC game that year. It was AP #1 USC that got screwed that year.
[quote]
That would be an instance where a wildcard game would have been a good thing because the K-state thing was just one of those games where shit happens and the best team doesn’t always win. Same with TCU/Baylor this year, or if Arizona had upset Oregon again. Matchups and familiarity make conference games far more unpredictable and this conference champs only system breeds the thing that everyone hates. A totally cupcake OOC schedule. [/quote]
Those were close games. Let TCU/Baylor play ten times and I don’t think one team wins more than 6. KSU was a better team than OU at the end of the 2003 season. That game wasn’t even close.
I frankly don’t care about cupcake OOC schedules, but I’d also like to see them minimized. I don’t see any difference between playing a mid-major and one of the lower tier teams for the major conferences. Too much emphasis is place on this. Unfortunately everyone still wants to focus on OOC opponents and forgets that the Big 12 is playing one more regular season conference game than everyone else.
I agree, but I don’t see an issue with this. First, drop one of these games as I mentioned. Then remember that these games are a huge source of revenue for the smaller schools programs. It keeps them relevant and maintains some degree of parity in college football. Depending on what conference you are in and what your name is, OOC games are completely irrelevant regardless of who you play. Just look at OSU/VaTech. If TCU or Baylor lost to VaTech in a one loss season, they never even would have been in the conversation.[/quote]
People are obsessed with this VT game holy fuck.
A) Go check out the injuries VT suffered after that game, their offense was destroyed.
B) Go check out their defensive efficiency ranking, they were a legit defense
C) They still finished 7-6. Baylor and TCU both had near disasters against Texas Tech and Kansas respectively. Yes they won, but those are downright garbage teams.
D) Obviously the circumstance involved played into it along with the OSU name. Week 2, fresh QB, fresh offensive line.
If TCU has a similar situation this year, and then recovers to beat a top 10 team soundly in their place(MSU), absolutely obliterates a respected team with a good defense in their conference championship game(tough luck there I guess) on their 3rd QB, they’ll get the same lee-way and forgiveness for the loss.
Get over it.
How bad of a beating would tcu/baylor have taken from bama/oregon with their 3rd string qb?
[quote]red04 wrote:
People are obsessed with this VT game holy fuck.
A) Go check out the injuries VT suffered after that game, their offense was destroyed.
B) Go check out their defensive efficiency ranking, they were a legit defense
C) They still finished 7-6. Baylor and TCU both had near disasters against Texas Tech and Kansas respectively. Yes they won, but those are downright garbage teams.
D) Obviously the circumstance involved played into it along with the OSU name. Week 2, fresh QB, fresh offensive line.
If TCU has a similar situation this year, and then recovers to beat a top 10 team soundly in their place(MSU), absolutely obliterates a respected team with a good defense in their conference championship game(tough luck there I guess) on their 3rd QB, they’ll get the same lee-way and forgiveness for the loss.
Get over it.[/quote]
Should we talk about the close call at Penn State instead?
Nobody is saying OSU wasn’t deserving. They proved that over the last three games.
The entire point is that they were given a benefit of the doubt that would never be granted to TCU or Baylor, which you admit in point D.
And what difference does it make what QB you are playing with? The entire premise of this system is that it is about your “body of work”, but when you look at the losses of the top teams it clearly isn’t true.
The real discussion shouldn’t even be about OSU vs. TCU/Baylor. It just happens to be that way because they were on the bubble. The real question should be why did Alabama, Oregon, and FSU get a free pass? Everybody has a hiccup during the season, some manage to still win and some don’t. Baylor had hiccups against TTU and WVU. They managed to win at TTU but not WVU. TCU did against KU, but still won. FSU barely be beat nearly everyone. Oklahoma State would have beat them if not for a horrible call. Alabama barely beat West Virginia themselves. I understand FSU was undefeated and therefore the close calls were begrudgingly overlooked, but Alabama? I’m really not sure they were even a top 5 team.
TCU was the only one-loss team who lost to a fellow team in the CFP conversation. Why is a loss to VaTech/Arizona/Ole Miss overlooked but a loss to an undisputed top 10 team not?
[quote]Aggv wrote:
How bad of a beating would tcu/baylor have taken from bama/oregon with their 3rd string qb? [/quote]
Why is that relevant? OSU had tremendous depth at one position, we all get that.
How bad of a beating would Alabama/Oregon/FSU have taken with their 3rd QB against any of the teams we are talking about?
[quote]tedro wrote:
[quote]red04 wrote:
People are obsessed with this VT game holy fuck.
A) Go check out the injuries VT suffered after that game, their offense was destroyed.
B) Go check out their defensive efficiency ranking, they were a legit defense
C) They still finished 7-6. Baylor and TCU both had near disasters against Texas Tech and Kansas respectively. Yes they won, but those are downright garbage teams.
D) Obviously the circumstance involved played into it along with the OSU name. Week 2, fresh QB, fresh offensive line.
If TCU has a similar situation this year, and then recovers to beat a top 10 team soundly in their place(MSU), absolutely obliterates a respected team with a good defense in their conference championship game(tough luck there I guess) on their 3rd QB, they’ll get the same lee-way and forgiveness for the loss.
Get over it.[/quote]
Should we talk about the close call at Penn State instead?
Nobody is saying OSU wasn’t deserving. They proved that over the last three games.
The entire point is that they were given a benefit of the doubt that would never be granted to TCU or Baylor, which you admit in point D.
And what difference does it make what QB you are playing with? The entire premise of this system is that it is about your “body of work”, but when you look at the losses of the top teams it clearly isn’t true.
The real discussion shouldn’t even be about OSU vs. TCU/Baylor. It just happens to be that way because they were on the bubble. The real question should be why did Alabama, Oregon, and FSU get a free pass? Everybody has a hiccup during the season, some manage to still win and some don’t. Baylor had hiccups against TTU and WVU. They managed to win at TTU but not WVU. TCU did against KU, but still won. FSU barely be beat nearly everyone. Oklahoma State would have beat them if not for a horrible call. Alabama barely beat West Virginia themselves. I understand FSU was undefeated and therefore the close calls were begrudgingly overlooked, but Alabama? I’m really not sure they were even a top 5 team.
TCU was the only one-loss team who lost to a fellow team in the CFP conversation. Why is a loss to VaTech/Arizona/Ole Miss overlooked but a loss to an undisputed top 10 team not?[/quote]
Bama was unassailable during the season. There’s absolutely no way they weren’t either #1 or #2, every person, even the staunch SEC haters, had them there. They lost to a 100% healthy Ole Miss team. A team that still finished #9(pre-TCU destruction, which we can’t really consider because the committee obviously didn’t have that information) after losing very key players.
You’re kind fixated on the whole 1-loss part, ignoring every other part of the season. TCU beat, relatively, nobody in comparison to their peers. They were living on the eye test, receiving credit for being up 21 late on Baylor, and a very good showing against KState.
They were ranked #3 until OSU obliterated Wisconsin and Baylor tied them in the Big12 standings. Had they played Baylor(or KState or something like that) in a Big12 conference final that weekend instead of Iowa State, they may have been able to hold off the Buckeyes. But they didn’t. That’s why they were out.
[quote]red04 wrote:
Bama was unassailable during the season. There’s absolutely no way they weren’t either #1 or #2, every person, even the staunch SEC haters, had them there. They lost to a 100% healthy Ole Miss team. A team that still finished #9(pre-TCU destruction, which we can’t really consider because the committee obviously didn’t have that information) after losing very key players.
[/quote]
What? Did you watch the opener? WVU beat themselves. Bama barely beat Arkansas and LSU, both unranked at season’s end. They had another close call against MSU. They were automatically in for no other reason than being the best SEC team, which I would support in my proposed system but not the current one.
You take the bowl games out and the schedules are pretty similar. Going into the season TCU looked liked they would have one of the toughest schedules. Are you going to hold it against them that Oklahoma and Oklahoma State underperformed? These factors are completely out of their control.
And I am fixated on the one-loss thing - because that one loss is what was used to keep both Big 12 teams out, even though Oregon, Alabama, and OSU all had a worse loss than TCU. I really don’t care about mid-level opponents. When it comes down to it nobody really had more than a couple big wins before bowl season.
[quote]
They were ranked #3 until OSU obliterated Wisconsin and Baylor tied them in the Big12 standings. Had they played Baylor(or KState or something like that) in a Big12 conference final that weekend instead of Iowa State, they may have been able to hold off the Buckeyes. But they didn’t. That’s why they were out.[/quote]
So now your “body of work” is also about making sure you play the right team at the right time? That sounds consistent.
This is why the playoff sucks. Put down some real rules to determine the participants, otherwise we all know that the big names will always have an edge. Just like in the BCS.