• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

College Football Week 13 - Sparty ain't worried 'bout no clock

Balphon

Member
no one will have a bye in a bracket of 8. top 4 seeds will get home field for the quarter final, then the winners will play in the new years semi final bowls.

I think he's saying that the second "best" teams in a conference will essentially benefit from not playing in the CCG.
 
The only thing I'll cite the FCS for is to discount the people saying "we can't do playoffs because they'll play too many games." Like the FCS doesn't have a 37 round playoff disproving the point.

But I'd never want more than 8 in a college football playoff. And I won't necessarily argue for 8. But if it's not 4, it's 8. I don't want any part of first round bye nonsense.

If it were up to me and it went to 8, I say play the CCGs, take a week off, then start the playoff. This year, it would be 12/19 first round, then play the semis and championship game as presently scheduled.
 

greepoman

Member
No it doesn't because there is a layoff between the conference championship games and the playoffs. Not playing the last week of the season has no effect on what happens during bowl season.

It's still a first round bye because the conference championships are effectively the first round layoff or not. Why should it be more favorable to not win your conference as long as you get in to the playoff?

no one will have a bye in a bracket of 8. top 4 seeds will get home field for the quarter final, then the winners will play in the new years semi final bowls. top 4 seeds will be heavily favored to win since they are at home, but at least it adds 4 probably deserving teams a chance to move on in the playoffs. 1 loss Ohio State won't get in this year, but would anyone want to play them in the playoffs? Same thing with 1 loss TCU last year.

See what I mentioned above...a lot of the time the conference championships are the real first round anyway.
 

squicken

Member
Joe Schad @schadjoe

Decision to retain Les Miles was made in meeting of LSU decision makers during 3rd quarter of tonight’s game, per source


LSU decision makers felt media had swayed public and if Les Miles was fired school would have apoeared mean-spirited, per source

lol
 
I think that if you expand to 8 teams, every P5 champ should get in (barring some insane scenario where a champ has 4+ losses) and then you sort the other three spots among the rest of the teams.
 

mre

Golden Domers are chickenshit!!
So much discussion on the world wide leader on Les Miles coming back. It's a non-story, now. Why not spend 30 minutes talking about how Harbaugh is coming back to Michigan next year.
Joe Schad is such a chode.
 
So much discussion on the world wide leader on Les Miles coming back. It's a non-story, now. Why not spend 30 minutes talking about how Harbaugh is coming back to Michigan next year.

Joe Schad is such a chode.

I mean, it's clear LSU was firing him until the last second, though.
 

Lonestar

I joined for Erin Brockovich discussion
Kiffin must really hate Coker. He's got no confidence in the kid, but damn if Coker didn't show off his arm strength with that bullet to Stewart for a TD.

Yep. He constantly makes him do the thing he appears to be the least capable of (Throwing bubble/WR screens) and rarely lets him do what he's appeared decent at (10-20 yard intermediate throws and bootleg). He's so fucking horrible at throwing to the sideline, I can't believe those passes haven't been picked off and returned for TD's.
 
I think that if you expand to 8 teams, every P5 champ should get in (barring some insane scenario where a champ has 4+ losses) and then you sort the other three spots among the rest of the teams.

It's either an auto-bid or it isn't.

I agree with those against automatic bids. Take the top teams, and if a conference is left out, so be it. That's the best thing about the 4 team format now, there can't be automatic bids.
 
It's either an auto-bid or it isn't.

I agree with those against automatic bids. Take the top teams, and if a conference is left out, so be it. That's the best thing about the 4 team format now, there can't be automatic bids.

I don't think it should be auto-bid because anything could happen, but I think winning your conference should mean something. Does in every other sport with a playoff system.
 
I think he's saying that the second "best" teams in a conference will essentially benefit from not playing in the CCG.

In some years, yes. But on average maybe only one team would be in that position. Ohio State is the only team that would be in no matter how the CCG's end up for this year. Keep in mind one of those 4 extra spots would go to the Pac 12 champ this year so there are only 3 at large spots. And if Notre Dame didn't screw up the last minute against Stanford, they would get another spot. That only leaves 2 at large spaces
 

Alcibiades

Member
I don't get why 8 is such a travesty. The only reason people aren't more up in arms about this is because they system "worked itself out." It's year 2. If people think it's going to magically work itself out every year, you're being delusional. There'll always being some non-power 5 1-loss team that should have a shot but they won't because they're not B1G or SEC.

No one with a loss should have a shot unless there is a clear consensus that they have risen above 2nd-tier status (and even then, they should only have a shot if there are less than four undefeated teams).

That is one of the beauties of college football - EVERY GAME MATTERS. Teams can't afford to take weeks off, rest their starters, lay an egg on rivalry week, etc... That is why individual matchups get so much hype. Look at the Clemson-South Carolina game - it wouldn't have nearly the same impact if Clemson was guaranteed a spot by winning the ACC. If they had lost to South Carolina, that would have opened up the possibility to falling out of the Top 4 and maybe not making it back in even with a win next week.

That is the beauty of not rewarding teams simply for winning their conference and one reason I would oppose moving to 8 teams. Too many undeserving teams would make it in at that point. Take the undefeated Power 5 and anyone else that wants a shot can give themselves a chance by scheduling tough OOC, not losing again, and crossing their fingers that the stars align in their favor.
 
I don't think it should be auto-bid because anything could happen, but I think winning your conference should mean something. Does in every other sport with a playoff system.

Other sports should revisit that (in fact, the NBA has -- winning your division means nothing this year). There's no glory in winning a bad division in pro sports or a bad conference in college football. Winning means something, but being the least bad team does not.
 
It's still a first round bye because the conference championships are effectively the first round layoff or not. Why should it be more favorable to not win your conference as long as you get in to the playoff?



See what I mentioned above...a lot of the time the conference championships are the real first round anyway.

There's only one conference where that is true this year (BIG). BIG XII doesn't even have a championship game but they're a P5 conference. I also would have no problem saying that Ohio State is the second best team in the BIG if Iowa loses. Conference divisions are rarely evenly divided.
 
I don't think it should be auto-bid because anything could happen, but I think winning your conference should mean something. Does in every other sport with a playoff system.

It generally does as part of a larger body of work. But let's say if UF beats Bama next week. They can go on to the Peach bowl or whatever isn't in the semifinal that they're contracted to. No way should they sniff a CFP game.
 

MIMIC

Banned
IF UNC gets into the playoff, we should just cancel College Football, as it would have become a nonsense game. They PLAYED 2 FCS TEAMS! THEY LOST TO SOUTH CAROLINA, WHO CAN'T BEAT A BAD FCS TEAM.

Well I think the committee values big wins over bad losses (which makes sense).

It's all moot anyway, since UNC isn't going to win. Wouldn't put it past them to get blown out either.
 

JCX

Member
8 is perfect. #5 has a better argument for being in than #9, which would probably have 2+ . Also wouldn't support a limit on teams per conference (at least not initially), just go with the top 8 as is.
 
Other sports should revisit that (in fact, the NBA has -- winning your division means nothing this year). There's no glory in winning a bad division in pro sports or a bad conference in college football. Winning means something, but being the least bad team does not.

That's why I said no auto-bids. Bad teams shouldn't make it, I agree. But more often than not I think a conference champ with two losses should get the benefit of the doubt over a one-loss team who didn't even make their CCG.

For example, if Stanford wins next week, I would think they deserve a playoff spot more than OSU.
 
8 is perfect. #5 has a better argument for being in than #9, which would probably have 2+ . Also wouldn't support a limit on teams per conference (at least not initially), just go with the top 8 as is.

The 5 P5 conference winners + 3 at large teams chosen by the committee or BCS or whatever. Committee/BCS also chooses seedings and therefor homefields for the first round so they feel important. It just makes sense.

That's why I said no auto-bids. Bad teams shouldn't make it, I agree. But more often than not I think a conference champ with two losses should get the benefit of the doubt over a one-loss team who didn't even make their CCG.

I'm okay with conference winner auto bids because we shouldn't punish the winner of a deep conference. This year, the Pac-12 is being punished for being deep. Next year it could be the SEC or B1G.
 
The 5 P5 conference winners + 3 at large teams chosen by the committee or BCS or whatever. Committee/BCS also chooses seedings and therefor homefields for the first round so they feel important. It just makes sense.
Nah, should just be a straight top 4,6, or 8. No autobid for any conference. No limit on conference appearances.
 

mre

Golden Domers are chickenshit!!
And the winner for this week's "I'm a Lying Motherfucker" Award goes to an "Unnamed Auburn Spokesman" with this gem:
An Auburn spokesman said the grounds crew last watered the field on Thursday.
 

greepoman

Member
The 5 P5 conference winners + 3 at large teams chosen by the committee or BCS or whatever. Committee/BCS also chooses seedings and therefor homefields for the first round so they feel important. It just makes sense.

I'm not saying I'm against 8 just that I don't think teams should be able to play one less game and get in. So I'd want Ohio state to at least have to play another team to get in this year if there were 8.

And yes this means a big 12 championship game too.
 

chaosblade

Unconfirmed Member
The 5 P5 conference winners + 3 at large teams chosen by the committee or BCS or whatever. Committee/BCS also chooses seedings and therefor homefields for the first round so they feel important. It just makes sense.



I'm okay with conference winner auto bids because we shouldn't punish the winner of a deep conference. This year, the Pac-12 is being punished for being deep. Next year it could be the SEC or B1G.

Too much possibility for a conference winner to be a 4+ loss team or otherwise clearly not one of the best teams in the country.

I don't really like the idea of expanding the playoff because the more you do it the more impact it removes from events during the regular season. I'd be fine expanding it to 6 with byes, but more than that and I'll grumble.


And that field looked like they soaked it before the game or something.
 
I'm okay with conference winner auto bids because we shouldn't punish the winner of a deep conference. This year, the Pac-12 is being punished for being deep. Next year it could be the SEC or B1G.

The selection committee is not full of automatons, their process should be free to determine between deep versus bad. Two-loss Stanford will be top 8 this year -- assuming they win next week -- so they don't need an automatic bid in a hypothetical 8 team playoff, they'll get in on their own merits.
 
The selection committee is not full of automatons, their process should be free to determine between deep versus bad. Two-loss Stanford will be top 8 this year -- assuming they win next week -- so they don't need an automatic bid in a hypothetical 8 team playoff, they'll get in on their own merits.

The only reason a two-loss Stanford will be in the top 8 is the timing of their losses. Had tonight been their second loss in three games, there's no way they'd be top eight, but they would still be in the CCG. Just because the situation didn't present itself this year doesn't mean in never has or never will.

I think the damage has already been done. There were decommitments last week, but now that he's safe we shouldn't see many more.

To be fair the Feleipe Franks decommit, probably the most high profile one, was known for a little while before it became public. It was happening with or without the Les drama.
 
The selection committee is not full of automatons, their process should be free to determine between deep versus bad. Two-loss Stanford will be top 8 this year -- assuming they win next week -- so they don't need an automatic bid in a hypothetical 8 team playoff, they'll get in on their own merits.

I'm not sure this can be said definitively. They could also possibly be Reptilians.
 
If you expand to 8 are you comfortable giving the teams that didn't win their conference a first round bye? Cause that's basically what happens since the conference championships are the first round effectively.


This isn't discussed enough... If you let teams in that didn't make it to the conference championship, it becomes silly. That extra game is going penalize teams that actually won their division.

So Ohio State in my book is out. Michigan State should be in over them even if they lose that game.
 

Lonestar

I joined for Erin Brockovich discussion
Well I think the committee values big wins over bad losses (which makes sense).

It's all moot anyway, since UNC isn't going to win. Wouldn't put it past them to get blown out either.

Their opponent records are 54-66, with 2 FCS teams that I'm not going to bother looking up for wins and loss records, while Clemson's is 67-64, with Appy State being included (9-2).

For giggles, Alabama's are 80-50, counting a bad 1-10 La Monroe team.

ACC surks
 
Too much possibility for a conference winner to be a 4+ loss team or otherwise clearly not one of the best teams in the country.

I don't really like the idea of expanding the playoff because the more you do it the more impact it removes from events during the regular season. I'd be fine expanding it to 6 with byes, but more than that and I'll grumble.


And that field looked like they soaked it before the game or something.

When was the last time a 4 loss team won a conference championship? I legitimately don't know.
 

cdyhybrid

Member
This isn't discussed enough... If you let teams in that didn't make it to the conference championship, it becomes silly. That extra game is going penalize teams that actually won their division.

So Ohio State in my book is out. Michigan State should be in over them even if they lose that game.

I mean...there's almost en entire month between Championship week and the playoff semifinals. I don't think an extra week is going to make much of a difference, even though they'd be starting a week earlier if they expanded. CCGs would be the weekend of Dec. 4th, and the playoff quarterfinals would be Christmas weekend. That's still three weeks off in the worst case scenario of playing a CCG and playing the first weekend of the playoffs, unless they wanted to move them back to avoid playing on Christmas or something.
 

mre

Golden Domers are chickenshit!!
When was the last time a 4 loss team won a conference championship? I legitimately don't know.
We certainly had that possibility a few years ago with an awful, awful UCLA team playing for it, if I recall correctly.

Edit: guess they only had 3 regular season losses.

Edit the 2nd: lol had the wrong season. As Cyan points out, they were even worse.
 
When was the last time a 4 loss team won a conference championship? I legitimately don't know.

Florida State had 4 losses entering the 2005 ACC CCG, won.
Virginia Tech had 4 losses entering the 2008 ACC CCG, won.
Clemson had 3 losses when they won the ACC in 2011, took a 4th loss in the bowl game.

USC (8-4) plays for the Pac-12 title this year.

The 3 aforementioned ACC champions and the possible USC as Pac-12 champion would have no business anywhere near an expanded CFP.
 
I think there are just enough exceptions to not have auto-bids, but not enough of them to say that conference champs shouldn't essentially always be in. Leave wiggle room, but not too much.
 
It's just weird to see the statements of "winning your conference is the most important thing" and the hand wringing over "what if a 4 loss team wins the conference" come into contact. So it's only important to win your conference if you have 1 or fewer losses, otherwise it doesn't matter?
 
I mean...there's almost en entire month between Championship week and the playoff semifinals. I don't think an extra week is going to make much of a difference, even though they'd be starting a week earlier if they expanded. CCGs would be the weekend of Dec. 4th, and the playoff quarterfinals would be Christmas weekend. That's still three weeks off in the worst case scenario of playing a CCG and playing the first weekend of the playoffs, unless they wanted to move them back to avoid playing on Christmas or something.

i'm not talking about the timing of the games (an extra week of no rest). I'm talking about the fact that ~if you lose the CCG that you could be out in favor of a team that didn't even make it. That you beat head to head to win your division. (E.G Michigan State & Ohio State this year and famously Alabama / LSU back in 2011).

It shouldn't be possible to benefit from you not playing in a CCG over a team that actually made it (assuming they're ranked higher than you going into a CCG).
 
It's just weird to see the statements of "winning your conference is the most important thing" and the hand wringing over "what if a 4 loss team wins the conference" come into contact. So it's only important to win your conference if you have 1 or fewer losses, otherwise it doesn't matter?

The only thing I think we can all agree on is that for Notre Dame to be in, they have to win a conference. For everyone else, it's optional.
 

chaosblade

Unconfirmed Member
Yeah but USC was on probation

If a better team is ineligible to be the conference champ that shouldn't override an inferior team winning the conference and getting an auto-bid into a playoff. Conference champ is the conference champ regardless of the circumstances that result in it.

The best teams don't always win their conference, auto-bids aren't an ideal solution for placement.

It's just weird to see the statements of "winning your conference is the most important thing" and the hand wringing over "what if a 4 loss team wins the conference" come into contact. So it's only important to win your conference if you have 1 or fewer losses, otherwise it doesn't matter?

I don't think winning a conference should be necessary, but it's added value for a team that does.
 
It's just weird to see the statements of "winning your conference is the most important thing" and the hand wringing over "what if a 4 loss team wins the conference" come into contact. So it's only important to win your conference if you have 1 or fewer losses, otherwise it doesn't matter?

If a team is clearly a bad team and wins a conference due the conference being terrible or because of a bowl ban on the superior teams, they should be left out because common sense. If a team is in a tough conference and wins a CCG with two or three losses, they should get in over a one-loss team that didn't win their conference. It's not that complicated.
 
Top Bottom