OT: Why I HATE the CF Playoff Committee & How I'd Fix It

OT: Why I HATE the CF Playoff Committee & How I'd Fix It - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: OT: Why I HATE the CF Playoff Committee & How I'd Fix It (/thread-21231.html)

OT: Why I HATE the CF Playoff Committee & How I'd Fix It - Snorlax94 - 12-20-2020

It is that time of year again that makes me bristle as the College Football Playoff Committee -- people in a room talking -- decide who will play for the College Football Championship.

The crux is my view is that experts and committees should not determine the national championship teams -- football games should, and specifically, Conference Championship Games should determine who plays.

When the CFP Committee selects a team that loses a conference championship but eventually wins the championship, to me, that is not proof that the CFP Committee works, to me, it is the perfect case of why it is broken.

Yes, the CFP committee knows a lot about football, maybe they, better than anyone else in world, know who, on paper, is the best team, and who would have the best chance of winning a championship. They are so wise, why even play football games? Just let them watch teams practice, and they can tell us who the best team is. Why even keep score? The committee should watch games, then give us their scorecards telling us who the champion is.

Because to me, conference championship games are part of the playoffs. Every conference championship game is a play-in game. What if somehow, an underdog wins a conference championship? That isn't an error that needs to be corrected, that is, in fact, what makes football, and sports in general, great. The whole point, is you hold a contest, people face off, and the winner of that contest is the champion. A terrible, short basketball player might play the game of his life and shoot 90% of his 3 pointers one day. After the fact, you shouldn't say, well, he's short and normally doesn't do that, so let's ignore the results of the game. It is as if a 16 seed beat a 1 seed in March Madness, and a Basketball Tournament Committee decided that was a fluke, so they re-inserted the defeated 1 seed back into the bracket. Even if that 1 seed eventually wins the championship, that wouldn't make re-inserting a team that lost "right" and "proof that the system works."

Conference Championship Games are part of the post-season -- they should be viewed as the first bracket of the playoffs. And if you lose in the bracket, you are out, even if you were the best team. Even if you were the greatest team ever. Again, this is what, to me, makes sport great.

If you feel the rules determining your conference champion lead to flukes, then the problem is not a cosmic one that some committee needs to decide, that is a problem with how your conference determines its conference champion. For example, in some conferences, if there is a tie, the team who hasn't played for the championship in the longest time is a division champion. If they don't like the results, maybe they should change their conference rules. Or if they're going to go whining to the CFP Playoff Committee seeking an intervention (Texas A&M, Notre Dame), maybe conferences should just ask an expert committee which team would have the best chance of winning the national championship, and assign that team the title of "Conference Champion." [fixed after initial post trying to remember historical examples]

Here's how I would fix it:
1) Reduce the college football regular season to 10 games. There are too many games and it is unfair to the students. (optional, I know this is impossible due to $$money$$).
2) Have an 8 team College Football Playoff bracket
3) REQUIRE that AT LEAST 6 teams are conference champions, and that the top 6 seeds must be conference champions. You can decide by average ranking. This year, maybe San Jose State would be in the Playoffs, and many UCF teams would have qualified.
4) For the last two slots, if there is a team that is ranked in the top 4 in the nation, and they did not lose their final game (and definitely no losers of the conference championship games!), they can take a 7 or 8 seed. So some past 1 loss Alabama or Ohio State teams that tied within their division and didn't have the opportunity to play in their conference championship game might still qualify, just as a 7 or 8 seed.
5) Otherwise, all teams should be conference champions, seeded by college rank.

Just imagine if they did this? The weekend of the conference championship games would determine most of who would get into the playoffs. If Alabama or Clemson lost, even if they were the greatest team ever, they'd be out. There'd be incredible stakes all across the country -- people across the West would be riveted by San Jose State - Boise State thinking that possible a birth was on the line. Every Power 5 conference championship would be must-see viewing.

Aside from this obviously being the right thing to, and being most in line in the spirit of sport, it would also have the benefit of being ratings gold. If Clemson-Alabama-Ohio-State are 3 of the 4 teams every year, and so many conference champions like UCF, Boise State, SD State, and San Jose State are told it is basically pointless and they will never be permitted in, you are just killing the sport and slowly killing the ratings.

RE: OT: Why I HATE the CF Playoff Committee & How I'd Fix It - martyup - 12-20-2020

Snorlax,

Outside of the five Power 5 conferences, how do you determine the sixth conference champion that's in?

Here's my proposed CFP (which I also posted in another thread):

There should be 8 teams in the playoff. The eight should consist of the five Power 5 conference champions, the top two highest ranked Group of 5 teams, and the 8th slot would go to the highest ranked team not already in. Each of the two highest ranked Group of 5 teams would have to be ranked in the top 15 to get in. If there isn't a Group of 5 team to fill one or both of those slots, then the highest ranked team not already in would get that slot. Once the eight teams are established, seed them based on ranking. Losing your Power 5 CCG should cost you a spot in the playoff unless you're ranked high enough to snag that 8th spot.

With such a system, the eight teams this season would have been Alabama, Clemson, tOSU, Oklahoma, Oregon, Cincinnati, Coastal Carolina, and ND. That would be an exciting 3 weekend playoff with plenty of opportunity to root for an underdog. The end result would most likely be Alabama vs Clemson in the final, but at least other teams would have a shot.

RE: OT: Why I HATE the CF Playoff Committee & How I'd Fix It - Snorlax94 - 12-20-2020

(12-20-2020, 09:42 PM)martyup Wrote: Snorlax,

Outside of the five Power 5 conferences, how do you determine the sixth conference champion that's in?

Here's my proposed CFP (which I also posted in another thread):

There should be 8 teams in the playoff. The eight should consist of the five Power 5 conference champions, the top two highest ranked Group of 5 teams, and the 8th slot would go to the highest ranked team not already in. Each of the two highest ranked Group of 5 teams would have to be ranked in the top 15 to get in. If there isn't a Group of 5 team to fill one or both of those slots, then the highest ranked team not already in would get that slot. Once the eight teams are established, seed them based on ranking. Losing your Power 5 CCG should cost you a spot in the playoff unless you're ranked high enough to snag that 8th spot.

With such a system, the eight teams this season would have been Alabama, Clemson, tOSU, Oklahoma, Oregon, Cincinnati, Coastal Carolina, and ND. That would be an exciting 3 weekend playoff with plenty of opportunity to root for an underdog. The end result would most likely be Alabama vs Clemson in the final, but at least other teams would have a shot.

Martyup,
I think our wishes are very similar. I too would use rankings to determine which non-Power 5 champion(s) would go in.

I think I really have only 2 differences:
First, I’d make it flexible how many non-Champion power 5 teams could get in, but I’d have an exceptionally high bar — they must be tied with a division champion and they cannot have lost the conference championship game. It should be only for exceptional cases where a 1 loss team did not get the opportunity to play in their conference championship due to tie-breaking rules. And just to dissuade any bizarre scenario, at most 2 teams from one conference should get in. The title “conference champion” should mean something.

So Notre Dame shouldn’t get in this season. as far as I am concerned, they lost the first game of the playoff bracket to Clemson and should not be re-inserted.

Second, I think non-conference champions trying to get in without a conference championship game should be restricted to teams that played half their games at home, half away. Conference champions wouldn’t need to do so, but the wildcard teams should have that requirement.

There is so much tv lobbying for the committee to intervene and “choose” the candidates. I am sick of coaches going on tv trying to influence the public to make their case. every or almost every birth should be the result of a football game the final weekend.

Or heck, if Texas A&M didn’t get the chance to play last weekend, they should take a couple of non conference champion teams and make them play each other the final weekend of conference championships. As much as possible, I want everything decided on the field. That’d be awesome — a play-in bowl game the same weekend of conference championships (and only fair — everyone should play the same number of games). If texas a&m wanted in but weren’t in a conference championship game, they could play indiana and the winner would earn that right. Alabama should have had to earn its way into the bracket in 2017 and play as many games as everyone else.

So my first 7 would be the same as yours but I’d render Notre Dame eliminated and have the 8th spot settled with a game between texas a&m and indiana. Wouldn’t that be great?

RE: OT: Why I HATE the CF Playoff Committee & How I'd Fix It - Phogge - 12-21-2020

Or we could just say “F*** the Playoffs and concentrate on the regular season and the Rose Bowl in the years that it isn’t included in the system.”

When there was an eight team AL and an eight team NL the most thrilling thing in baseball was the pennant race. More important to serious fans than the World Series. Exactly what Pop says in the penultimate scene in “The Natural.”

The ESPN “experts” plug the NC 365 days a year. The regular season pales in comparison. Unless you are a fan of the six or seven programs that regularly have a chance for the NC who cares.

RE: OT: Why I HATE the CF Playoff Committee & How I'd Fix It - cardcrimson - 12-21-2020

(12-21-2020, 07:53 AM)Phogge Wrote: When there was an eight team AL and an eight team NL the most thrilling thing in baseball was the pennant race. More important to serious fans than the World Series. Exactly what Pop says in the penultimate scene in “The Natural.”

Reminder of the same the same scene. . . .

RE: OT: Why I HATE the CF Playoff Committee & How I'd Fix It - Phogge - 12-21-2020

“My father wanted me to be a baseball player.”

“Well, you’re the best I ever had and you’re the best goddamn hitter I ever saw.”

RE: OT: Why I HATE the CF Playoff Committee & How I'd Fix It - JustAnotherFan - 12-21-2020

(12-20-2020, 09:42 PM)martyup Wrote: Snorlax,

Outside of the five Power 5 conferences, how do you determine the sixth conference champion that's in?

Here's my proposed CFP (which I also posted in another thread):

There should be 8 teams in the playoff. The eight should consist of the five Power 5 conference champions, the top two highest ranked Group of 5 teams, and the 8th slot would go to the highest ranked team not already in. Each of the two highest ranked Group of 5 teams would have to be ranked in the top 15 to get in. If there isn't a Group of 5 team to fill one or both of those slots, then the highest ranked team not already in would get that slot. Once the eight teams are established, seed them based on ranking. Losing your Power 5 CCG should cost you a spot in the playoff unless you're ranked high enough to snag that 8th spot.

With such a system, the eight teams this season would have been Alabama, Clemson, tOSU, Oklahoma, Oregon, Cincinnati, Coastal Carolina, and ND. That would be an exciting 3 weekend playoff with plenty of opportunity to root for an underdog. The end result would most likely be Alabama vs Clemson in the final, but at least other teams would have a shot.

What's the Power 5? It seems pretty clear that there are only four Power 5 conferences anymore. The Pac-12 is an afterthought in terms of the CFP. Pac-12 champ Oregon is ranked 25th by the CFP. The leaders of the other conferences and their rankings are: SEC #1, ACC #2, BigTen (LOL) #3, Big 12 #6, AAC #8, Sun Belt #12, Independent #16, Mountain West #22.

RE: OT: Why I HATE the CF Playoff Committee & How I'd Fix It - Phogge - 12-21-2020

All the more reason why the PAC 12 should table the angst over not reaching the NC.

RE: OT: Why I HATE the CF Playoff Committee & How I'd Fix It - BostonCard - 12-21-2020

I'm with Phogge. Why do we need to have a playoff?

BC

RE: OT: Why I HATE the CF Playoff Committee & How I'd Fix It - needle - 12-21-2020

(12-21-2020, 10:50 AM)BostonCard Wrote: I'm with Phogge. Why do we need to have a playoff?

BC

The committee should rank the top eight teams before the conference championship games. Conferences should agree that any two teams ranked in the top eight would meet in their conference title game. These games would serve as elimination games, so a loss would mean the team has no opportunity to play in the title game. In the case of an upset, where a team outside the top 8 beats a team in the top 8, the committee would meet again to select who should replace the team that lost in the conference title game.

This system would screw over any conference that has three teams among the top 8, but no system is perfect.

After the conference title games, the committee could then reseed teams 1 through 4.

RE: OT: Why I HATE the CF Playoff Committee & How I'd Fix It - Phogge - 12-21-2020

I'm sure that there are guys here who remember how anticipated was the SC game in 1970. Athletically it was Win or Die. It was like recapturing Helen and putting the torch to Troy.

I doubt if any future Stanford NC game would really mean more than what happened on that long ago day.

RE: OT: Why I HATE the CF Playoff Committee & How I'd Fix It - winflop - 12-21-2020

I'm roughly on the same page, but here's mine:
- 11-game regular season
- All conferences play 8 conference games.
- OOC games: Maximum 1 FCS opponent. Maximum 1 G5 opponent for P5 teams
- 8-team playoff
- All P5 conference champions get an automatic bid
- Top two G5 conference champions get an automatic bid
- One at-large bid

I could go with just one G5 conference champion and two at-large bids

Based on this year, the teams would be Alabama, Clemson, Ohio State, Notre Dame, Oregon, Cincinnati, San Jose State, and (likely) Texas A&M

RE: OT: Why I HATE the CF Playoff Committee & How I'd Fix It - CowboyIndian - 12-21-2020

(12-20-2020, 11:01 PM)Snorlax94 Wrote: ...every or almost every birth should be the result of a football game the final weekend.

If Notre Dame plays Clemson for a third time, that will no doubt be the result.

I'm still trying to figure out what was wrong with arguing over who the best teams were all winter. I HATE the CFP! As others here have mentioned, it's the preponderance of what the announcers talk about during games, to the detriment of the spectacle of the games themselves. Plus...it makes great traditions - I'm thinking specifically about the Rose Bowl here - secondary and even worse during the years where it's part of the CFP.

RE: OT: Why I HATE the CF Playoff Committee & How I'd Fix It - Mick - 12-21-2020

My screwy alternative:

1. Six game regular season played between regular conference foes.
2. Those six games are used to seed the top 64 teams in the BCS for a six-week playoff, with a round of 64, round of 32, round of 16, 8, 4 then the championship game.
3. Losers of each game play against losers of similar games. That way, all 64 teams are stratified, and all will play every week during the six week playoffs. #1 plays #2, and ideally #3 plays #4 and so on in the final week's games.
4. There has to be some advantage for success in the first six games. So seed #1 plays seed #33, seed #2 plays seed #34 and so on all the way to #32 seed playing #64.
5. The final 32 games can be allocated amongst bowls, if desired.
6. The 66 remaining teams can either (a) create a "reverse playoff" race to the bottom or (b) continue to play against conference foes or © regional foes or (d) selected other teams or some combination thereof.

In this way, all 130 BCS teams play 12 games. No one plays 11, no one plays 13. One week break between first six and last six games. Determines national champion.

RE: OT: Why I HATE the CF Playoff Committee & How I'd Fix It - teejers1 - 12-21-2020

(12-21-2020, 09:17 AM)Phogge Wrote: “My father wanted me to be a baseball player.”

“Well, you’re the best I ever had and you’re the best goddamn hitter I ever saw.”

"Suit up!"

I loved that movie, despite the obvious lack of anyone who actually played ball in the editing room. There were many flaws in that movie, but the greatest was the "walk off" homer hit by Hobbs in Chicago - you know, when Glenn Close stood up because she didn't want to see Roy fail. I don't think I've ever seen a walk off dinger hit by the visiting team . . ..

And that reminds me: RIP Wilford Brimley.

RE: OT: Why I HATE the CF Playoff Committee & How I'd Fix It - BostonCard - 12-21-2020

(12-21-2020, 12:28 PM)CowboyIndian Wrote:
(12-20-2020, 11:01 PM)Snorlax94 Wrote: ...every or almost every birth should be the result of a football game the final weekend.
I'm still trying to figure out what was wrong with arguing over who the best teams were all winter. I HATE the CFP! As others here have mentioned, it's the preponderance of what the announcers talk about during games, to the detriment of the spectacle of the games themselves. Plus...it makes great traditions - I'm thinking specifically about the Rose Bowl here - secondary and even worse during the years where it's part of the CFP.

I completely agree with this. Nobody likes subjectivity, but then you are just substituting subjectivity over who goes to the playoffs instead of who is the national champion. Then, an "objective" scenario gets you an occasional 9-4 conference champion who upsets a division champ with a better reccord. And rules that exclude a conference champion loser mean that there is a perverse situation where it is better to go 11-1 in the regular season and miss the conference championship than go 12-0 and then get upset in the conference championship. Finally, this doesn't get rid of subjectivity, as teams will get into pissing matches over who are deserving of the at-large bids.

BC

RE: OT: Why I HATE the CF Playoff Committee & How I'd Fix It - Canalejas - 12-21-2020

I think I’d just like to see the postseason turned over to the NCAA and a big tournament held, just like FCS gets. I don’t need there to be a big official divide between P5 and G5. There can still be minimum requirements for autobids, but I’d like there to be paths that don’t require impressing voters or committees.