Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
2 minutes ago, Codaxx said:

On the face of it that makes 100% sense, but there is also a major drawback. This is going to eliminate championship quality teams in the big 10 and SEC and elevate teams like ND and the other P4 conferences. Why should the SEC have a playoff, while ND sits back with a bowl of popcorn and watches? Perhaps the simplest answer is that there should be no automatic bids for conferences champions. Given the unbalanced schedules we cannot even guarantee the 2 best teams will play for the conference championship (this year the committee says 50% of the P4 will match the 2 best teams in the conference). This is not like 20-30 years ago when everyone played each other. We have diluted conference championships. 

What it boils down to me is I really wish we wouldn't keep overthinking this, posts like @El Hornarino's are just doing the thing where we keep treating FBS college football postseason as if it's some kind of special snowflake that needs a unique format. I'll keep saying it, but for the umpteenth time it just needs to be a normal playoff format like every other sport.

It would be great, no teams that are considered championship caliber would ever be left out, and everyone would get to prove it on the field. Automatic bids are fine as long as they don't push out deserving teams or teams that are obviously strong enough to compete.

Posted
4 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

What it boils down to me is I really wish we wouldn't keep overthinking this, posts like @El Hornarino's are just doing the thing where we keep treating FBS college football postseason as if it's some kind of special snowflake that needs a unique format. I'll keep saying it, but for the umpteenth time it just needs to be a normal playoff format like every other sport.

It would be great, no teams that are considered championship caliber would ever be left out, and everyone would get to prove it on the field. Automatic bids are fine as long as they don't push out deserving teams or teams that are obviously strong enough to compete.

College football is a bit different than other sports. Most sports have conferences where every team play each other and, in many cases, it is a home and home. In that world the conference championship is decided on the field. There is a lot more luck and nuance in CFB

  • Like 1
Posted
1 minute ago, Codaxx said:

College football is a bit different than other sports. Most sports have conferences where every team play each other and, in many cases, it is a home and home. In that world the conference championship is decided on the field. There is a lot more luck and nuance in CFB

That doesn't really matter nor does it mean we need a condensed, weird playoff format headed by a committee like we have now. 24 team playoff, 8 byes, top 20 or whatever automatically get in and you have some play-ins for the rest. It's not that complicated and doesn't need to be.

Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

That doesn't really matter nor does it mean we need a condensed, weird playoff format headed by a committee like we have now. 24 team playoff, 8 byes, top 20 or whatever automatically get in and you have some play-ins for the rest. It's not that complicated and doesn't need to be.

I wasnt complicating anything. I just said get rid of any guaranteed spots. That seems pretty simple to me, just end the athletic DEI nonsense

Edited by Codaxx
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

8 teams. All at large. Cancel CCG unless there are divisions and for those make championship weekend tournament style matchups for 1-2 3-4 5-6 etc for a competitive conference game to end the season. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
59 minutes ago, El Hornarino said:

P4 championships in the second round, after the first At Large round.  Could plausibly seed the conferences for quality and swap them around the bracket depending on the year.  But generally G5 champs and random independent freeloaders can compete for At Large spots along with whatever power teams are not in conference championship games.

toobigplayoff.png

I don't see ND in here ;)

Posted
29 minutes ago, Codaxx said:

On the face of it that makes 100% sense, but there is also a major drawback. This is going to eliminate championship quality teams in the big 10 and SEC and elevate teams like ND and the other P4 conferences. Why should the SEC have a playoff, while ND sits back with a bowl of popcorn and watches? Perhaps the simplest answer is that there should be no automatic bids for conferences champions. Given the unbalanced schedules we cannot even guarantee the 2 best teams will play for the conference championship (this year the committee says 50% of the P4 will match the 2 best teams in the conference). This is not like 20-30 years ago when everyone played each other. We have diluted conference championships. 

I don't care if Notre Dame is excluded while they are an independent.  They can be crowned AP champ if they want.

As far as conference tournaments, there is little difference between SEC and B1G teams eliminating themselves against conference foes or against other random teams.  Single elimination post season is never going to guarantee the "strongest" team is the last one standing anyway.

Actually the fun thing is that the probability the best team wins the tournament drops as the number of played games increases anyway, so expanding the field and number of rounds isn't really about finding the "best" team.  It's just about filling tv time with fun games.

Posted
18 minutes ago, immamac said:

8 teams. All at large. Cancel CCG unless there are divisions and for those make championship weekend tournament style matchups for 1-2 3-4 5-6 etc for a competitive conference game to end the season. 

This.  Shrinking the playoff might actually breathe some life back into bowl games as well.

And let computers choose the top 8.  Drop the human element or have the criteria strictly spelled out.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

I saw a reel come across my feed yesterday where some guy applied point value for wins and losses and came up with a season total.

I can’t find the link but his formula was something like this:

+50 pts - non top25 win 
+100 - top25 win
+25 - top10 win
+10 - top5 win

-100 - non top25 loss
-50 - top25 loss
-35 - top10 loss
-25 - top5 loss

Top25 rankings were based on current end of season rankings, not time of game rankings

Add up team totals and seed a playoff accordingly

Posted

I don't mind if they shrink the playoff, or let an algorithm decide.

But which system(s) does one use?  It isn't like they all spit out the same top 8.  And even if you aggregate a few, you don't want to pollute it with one or more junk rankings.

How much should MOV matter?

Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, BluTechsan said:

I saw a reel come across my feed yesterday where some guy applied point value for wins and losses and came up with a season total.

I can’t find the link but his formula was something like this:

+50 pts - non top25 win 
+100 - top25 win
+25 - top10 win
+10 - top5 win

-100 - non top25 loss
-50 - top25 loss
-35 - top10 loss
-25 - top5 loss

Top25 rankings were based on current end of season rankings, not time of game rankings

Add up team totals and seed a playoff accordingly

Apologies for quoting myself but here’s Tech’s season total:

50 Ark PB 
50 Kent St
50 Oregon St
100 Utah (15)
100 Houston (21)
50 Kansas 
-100 Az St
50 Ok St
50 K St
100 BYU (11) (should be 10)
50 UCF
50 WV
______

600

Edited by BluTechsan
Posted
1 hour ago, El Hornarino said:

P4 championships in the second round, after the first At Large round.  Could plausibly seed the conferences for quality and swap them around the bracket depending on the year.  But generally G5 champs and random independent freeloaders can compete for At Large spots along with whatever power teams are not in conference championship games.

toobigplayoff.png

this looks beautiful... and it only takes 5 rounds...  but the CCG losers are out and the b1g and sec won't go for that

Posted
2 minutes ago, Hagbard Celine said:

this looks beautiful... and it only takes 5 rounds...  but the CCG losers are out and the b1g and sec won't go for that

Yeah, CCG loser need a way back into the bracket vs the at-large teams

Posted

Its a fun problem to think about. I've always preferred a regional model that filters up into other nearby regions. I'm extremely happy with being in the SEC and playing OU, A&M, and Arkansas. However, in my dream scenario, we would also play LSU, TCU, Texas Tech, and SMU. Thats mostly due to my personal network of family and friends, my favorite part of cfb is the shit talking and bragging rights. In this scenario I think we would filter up into playing against the rest of the SEC in the first regional round of a larger playoff. 

Posted

Funny thing is, any level of football I have been involved with or watched has always struggled with the issue of unequal strength of schedules and the bitching that one school/team has faced a more difficult regular season schedule and another has benefitted from an easier schedule argument.

No league and level of sport does more to try to mitigate levels of competition be it through the draft process, hard salary cap, and weighted scheduling than the NFL and yet we still see the same arguments. Not to the same extreme as at the lower levels, but it is always going to be there so whatever system you employ stop trying to address this issue.

No one forced the SEC to load up on teams, they did it because of money and the perceived advantages and yet this time of year we hear the argument about how difficult it is playing in the SEC.  Deal with it.  

No guaranteed bids outside of conference winners simply because if you don't then why play the regular season.  

I do like the FCS model of playing most of the games on campus to award the better teams and truthfully I think any number outside of 16 is too many rounds.  

Whatever model is developed should only be implemented if there is no committee and there is no weekly fucking show that talks about the hypothetical rankings that really don't matter.  

Posted

The problem with the current format is there are too many AQs for only 12 spots. If you want that many then you need to expand. 

Just use the same AQ model and expand to 24-team format like FCS. 

Everyone will still bitch about the 24th team just like they do the 68th in the basketball tournament, but at least you don't have too many shitty teams blocking more worthy P4 teams.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 minute ago, The Dog said:

The problem with the current format is there are too many AQs for only 12 spots. If you want that many then you need to expand. 

Just use the same AQ model and expand to 24-team format like FCS. 

Everyone will still bitch about the 24th team just like they do the 68th in the basketball tournament, but at least you don't have too many shitty teams blocking more worthy P4 teams.

Yep. Every conference champ gets in and you still have 14 at large slots. First two rounds in campus. 

No I don't care if bowls die. 

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...