CFP embarrassment

[18IsTheMan]

But even if they keep non-P4 teams in, going to 16 gives us a better chance. So, I am all in to go to 16.

Why wouldn't you rather be an Indiana who just got better as a program? Why do we just want them to keep lowering the bar and lowering the bar until we basically get in by default? IU has an exceedingly far worse football history than we do. No advantages as a football program. But they PLAYED themselves to the #1 overall seed.

I guess I just don't get the fear of competition. On the one had, it's a sport, which entails competing, but on the other hand, people want all competition eliminated. Just hand out "success".

 

[18IsTheMan]

The horse has left the barn.

The retarded horse.

 

[Lurker123]

No matter how you slice it, it was three completely crappy football games featuring teams that presumably are the best of the best.

I would agree that two games were crappy.

I cant call the third game crappy just because it was low scoring.

 

[Go Gamecocks]

No matter how you slice it, it was three completely crappy football games featuring teams that presumably are the best of the best.

Ever watch any NFL playoffs? It's amazing how crappy some of those teams can play.

 

[Harvard Gamecock]

Miami beat them early. Teams progress or digress as the seasons play out. Take out Texas and insert another team. Bottom line, the best 12 best teams didn’t. make the playoffs.

Miami beat them. Fixed it for you

 

[KingWard]

Blowouts will happen regardless of how many teams. Happened in bowls, BCS title games, 4 team playoff. Two happened today in FCS semifinals.
IF JMU and/or Tulane would have won today that still wouldn’t have justified their inclusion. The regular season didn’t prove for either to be a top 12 team. Ole Miss had already bounced Tulane once in the regular season.

No need to massage it with hypotheticals when it is readily possible to get the measurably best teams in the CFP.

 

[Viennacock]

Miami beat them. Fixed it for you

You need to explain it to the basketball committee, the NFL etc. If you beat a team that made it to the tournament / playoffs, you should have made it before them, regardless of how the season played out. Makes perfect sense!

 

[gamecock stock]

Why wouldn't you rather be an Indiana who just got better as a program? Why do we just want them to keep lowering the bar and lowering the bar until we basically get in by default? IU has an exceedingly far worse football history than we do. No advantages as a football program. But they PLAYED themselves to the #1 overall seed.

I guess I just don't get the fear of competition. On the one had, it's a sport, which entails competing, but on the other hand, people want all competition eliminated. Just hand out "success".

This is your 2nd thread you started on this topic. I summed up my reasoning on your "Miami\A&M.....CFP expansion" thread at 6:35 pm yesterday. I don't feel like repeating myself. This horse has been pulverized. I'm all for going to 16 teams and excluding all non P4 schools. They can have their own playoffs for their level. There will be no more byes. The 16 would be selected and seeded by computers, not humans. And reading the responses on both threads, it looks like the overwhelming majority of Gamecock fans agree with all that. I have been consistent in my support for 16 going back years. It has NOTHING to do with "fearing competition". And, by the way, I enjoyed the Miami-TAM close, low scoring game yesterday, just like I enjoyed the Indiana-Ohio State close, low scoring game last week. And BOTH those games were won by the LOWER seed. I did not care to watch the JMU and Tulane games. No matter how much we want to go back to the past (and I sometimes wish I could go back and be young again), it's not going to happen. We are not going to go back to the time when only the polls decided the national champion. We are not going to go back to the time when there was BCS nor to the time when there were only 4 playoff participants. We can complain about old age, how football champions are picked, etc. But it won't change anything. We just have to adapt if we are willing. I'm not trying to be argumentative with you. I respect you. I really do. You are a good guy, a good Gamecock fan, and from what I can tell, a good family man. Maybe me and the rest of us are "retarded" and "fools" due to our point of view on the playoffs. And since I suspect most of us are graduates of USC, that does not speak highly of our beloved university.

 

[Harvard Gamecock]

You need to explain it to the basketball committee, the NFL etc. If you beat a team that made it to the tournament / playoffs, you should have made it before them, regardless of how the season played out. Makes perfect sense!

So as the season played out, both ND and Miami ended up 10-2, so in this case head to head should and did matter.

 

[Viennacock]

So as the season played out, both ND and Miami ended up 10-2, so in this case head to head should and did matter.

As long as you're consistent. A mid-major in basketball upsets a blue blood early in the basketball season. They end with the same records. One is in a crappy conference and one in the a major conference. Mid-major should make it, right?

 

[Dabo's Weenie]

Ever watch any NFL playoffs? It's amazing how crappy some of those teams can play.

And almost half the teams make the NFL playoffs. If you applied the same percentage to CFB D1-A, the field would be almost as large as the basketball tourney. I can only imagine what that would do to people having a stroke at the thought of a 16-team field.
And if it were the same percentage as men's D1 basketball, you're looking at the odd number of about 26 schools.

Sounds like it's already more exclusive than most.

 

[Lurker123]

As long as you're consistent. A mid-major in basketball upsets a blue blood early in the basketball season. They end with the same records. One is in a crappy conference and one in the a major conference. Mid-major should make it, right?

Did ND's schedule really outrank Miami's to that degree? Or at all?

 

[Harvard Gamecock]

As long as you're consistent. A mid-major in basketball upsets a blue blood early in the basketball season. They end with the same records. One is in a crappy conference and one in the a major conference. Mid-major should make it, right?

First of all neither Miami or ND can be considered a mid-major, and both are in a major conference.
Now if you are willing to give ND a pass (and it certainly seems you are) for losing to an opponent with same record because it was "early", than conversely, it would be only fair to award the team that won because they did it "early"

 

[KingWard]

But even if they keep non-P4 teams in, going to 16 gives us a better chance. So, I am all in to go to 16.

Regardless of the number, get the very best of that number and set the seedings by using the means which already exist but are not being utilized. And make no provisions for byes. It really shouldn't go beyond 16. This is football. No use killing them.

 

[Skuddy]

Today’s games a total joke and indictment of expansion

Not an indictment of expansion. An indictment on selection.

If selection is going to be done the DEI way, then the system needs to go back to 4 teams. If the selection is going to be the best teams in the country, then go to 16.

 

[Viennacock]

First of all neither Miami or ND can be considered a mid-major, and both are in a major conference.
Now if you are willing to give ND a pass (and it certainly seems you are) for losing to an opponent with same record because it was "early", than conversely, it would be only fair to award the team that won because they did it "early"

Miami was playing in a mid-major football conference this year. Your argument doesn't hold water.

Many are arguing for computer rankings. Computers had ND in font of Miami. I'm simply arguing for the 12 beat teams. Miami may be one of them, but so is ND and Vandy (or Texas).

 

[Go Gamecocks]

If you applied the same percentage to CFB D1-A, the field would be almost as large as the basketball tourney.

And we'd be inudated with "crappy" games. Crappy games happen!

 

[Dabo's Weenie]

And we'd be inudated with "crappy" games. Crappy games happen!

No doubt, even in championship games. Anyone remember the titanic UGA/TCU battle that went 7 overtimes for the NC a few years ago?

Me neither.

But hey, I'd rather have the option of watching potentially crappy CFB than none at all this time of year - that's even crappier.

 

[gamecock stock]

Why wouldn't you rather be an Indiana who just got better as a program? Why do we just want them to keep lowering the bar and lowering the bar until we basically get in by default? IU has an exceedingly far worse football history than we do. No advantages as a football program. But they PLAYED themselves to the #1 overall seed.

I guess I just don't get the fear of competition. On the one had, it's a sport, which entails competing, but on the other hand, people want all competition eliminated. Just hand out "success".

I will add one other thing. I, not only have been calling for them to expand to 16, but I have argued AGAINST going to 32, from the get go and have said so on this forum. I draw the line at 16. If I was interested in getting in by "default" and "feared competition" and wanting "just hand out 'success'", why would I oppose going to 32? That is inconsistent with your comment there.

I know you are a major league baseball fan of the New York Yankees, as am I. 40% of major league baseball teams can make the playoffs. If FBS goes to 16 playoff teams, that is only 12% of FBS teams. By the way, 43% of NFL teams participate in playoffs. Thus, your objection to FBS playoff expansion looks absurd, in comparison.

And yes bowls are meaningless. Why do you think so many players opt out of bowls? They don't opt out of playoffs. The players actions says it all.

You have been obsessed with this topic for years. You have started 3 threads on this topic in the past couple of days. I don't understand your obsession. As I've said before, I am against expanding to 32 playoff teams. I said 16 is inevitable. Someone on this site says 32 is inevitable. If they go to 32, I won't agree and like it. But, I will accept it and move on because that is the sign of the times in just about ALL sports at ALL levels. But, that's me.

 

[SouthernBelly]

No need to massage it with hypotheticals when it is readily possible to get the measurably best teams in the CFP.

Well aware that it’s already possible, that is my point about the regular season. If one or either pull an upset then people would say “see they belong”. Just like it’s being said after their blowout loses that they didn’t belong. I’m saying you don’t need the results of those games one way or the other to justify or prove anything regarding who should have been in the playoffs. Regular season handles that, not the results of round 1.

 

[Harvard Gamecock]

Miami was playing in a mid-major football conference this year. Your argument doesn't hold water.

Many are arguing for computer rankings. Computers had ND in font of Miami. I'm simply arguing for the 12 beat teams. Miami may be one of them, but so is ND and Vandy (or Texas).

Sorry dude, regardless of your biased opinion Miami is a part of a P4 conference.
So your argument does not hold water, and you just admitted that Miami is one of 12 best teams.

I have no further interest in conversation.

 

[Viennacock]

Sorry dude, regardless of your biased opinion Miami is a part of a P4 conference.
So your argument does not hold water, and you just admitted that Miami is one of 12 best teams.

I have no further interest in conversation.

My only argument is that ND should have been selected before Miami. If you throw out Tulane and JMU, Miami would have a good argument to get in. If you keep Tulane and JMU, i firmly believe ND was the better team at the end of the year, as did the computers. Subjective, let's agree to disagree.

 

[Lurker123]

My only argument is that ND should have been selected before Miami. If you throw out Tulane and JMU, Miami would have a good argument to get in. If you keep Tulane and JMU, i firmly believe ND was the better team at the end of the year, as did the computers. Subjective, let's agree to disagree.

Count me in as disagreeing. If week one games dont count, why play them?

They had the same record, and ND's schedule had a lot to do with their looking good at the end of the year. Just lkle Miami's.

Head to head HAS to mean something or there is no point in playing games.

 

[KingWard]

Well aware that it’s already possible, that is my point about the regular season. If one or either pull an upset then people would say “see they belong”. Just like it’s being said after their blowout loses that they didn’t belong. I’m saying you don’t need the results of those games one way or the other to justify or prove anything regarding who should have been in the playoffs. Regular season handles that, not the results of round 1.

Computers with strength requisites applied equally to everyone would do that inerringly through the final pre-CFP game. Why do we mess around with anything else - UNLESS not getting the best teams in is ok with some people who matter?

 

[Viennacock]

Count me in as disagreeing. If week one games dont count, why play them?

They had the same record, and ND's schedule had a lot to do with their looking good at the end of the year. Just lkle Miami's.

Head to head HAS to mean something or there is no point in playing games.

I want the best 12 teams at the END of the year with all subjectivity gone. Computers say ND is one of the best 12 teams. Miami would have been in also but a lower seed than ND. Of course the computer algorithms can be adjusted, but I rarely disagree with the computer rankings.

Why does head to head not always matter in basketball? Tourney teams lose to teams that don't make the tourney relatively often. Let me guess, bigger sample size or basketball is different.

 

[Lurker123]

I want the best 12 teams at the END of the year with all subjectivity gone. Computers say ND is one of the best 12 teams. Miami would have been in also but a lower seed than ND. Of course the computer algorithms can be adjusted, but I rarely disagree with the computer rankings.

Why does head to head not always matter in basketball? Tourney teams lose to teams that don't make the tourney relatively often. Let me guess, bigger sample size or basketball is different.

I would seriously question a computer that tells you team A is better than team B when they have the same record and one actually beat the other.

I would go so far as to question if H2H was even included in that analysis .

I also disagree in the notion of the 12 best teams at the end of the year. Why even play games in August and September if they dont count?

As for basketball, do you regularly have teams with the same record, and similar SOS where the H2H is ignored?

If it happens in basketball, is that a reason to make the same mistake in football? Or simply a bad situation in basketball?

I will end with this. People struggle to compare teams with dissimilar schedules and similar records all the time. But if the teams actually played a game against each other, that should be the very first tie breaker. And certainly not ignored.

I read where ND would have been favored over Miami if they met in the playoffs. But ND was also favored when they lost to Miami.

 

[Viennacock]

I would seriously question a computer that tells you team A is better than team B when they have the same record and one actually beat the other.

I would go so far as to question if H2H was even included in that analysis .

I also disagree in the notion of the 12 best teams at the end of the year. Why even play games in August and September if they dont count?

As for basketball, do you regularly have teams with the same record, and similar SOS where the H2H is ignored?

If it happens in basketball, is that a reason to make the same mistake in football? Or simply a bad situation in basketball?

I will end with this. People struggle to compare teams with dissimilar schedules and similar records all the time. But if the teams actually played a game against each other, that should be the very first tie breaker. And certainly not ignored.

I read where ND would have been favored over Miami if they met in the playoffs. But ND was also favored when they lost to Miami.

Yes to your basketball question. We can argue all night if the computer or experts should select. All I know is that Alabama meets the eye test almost every year- wonder why? Computers remove this subjectivity in which we complain about every year.

All I want is the best 12 teams. If you tell me it's by voters, i'm good with it. 12 best teams, regardless of the method is a good start.

 

[gamecockrev]

Think I would prefer the 16 best teams and doing away with league championship games, thus no byes. That way the two teams in the final would have played the exact same number of games to be there.

 

[Lurker123]

Yes to your basketball question. We can argue all night if the computer or experts should select. All I know is that Alabama meets the eye test almost every year- wonder why? Computers remove this subjectivity in which we complain about every year.

All I want is the best 12 teams. If you tell me it's by voters, i'm good with it. 12 best teams, regardless of the method is a good start.

I understand the "12 best" idea, and thats not what we have right now.

But I object strongly to "the eye test" too as it usually favors "name" programs with reputations. I like the computers myself, but have to question the programming if H2H is ignored. That seems like a huge blunder to me.

 

[SouthernBelly]

Computers with strength requisites applied equally to everyone would do that inerringly through the final pre-CFP game. Why do we mess around with anything else - UNLESS not getting the best teams in is ok with some people who matter?

That is precisely ok with those who matter. IMO the BCS provided, what you say above would happen if computers were used for playoff selections. It gave college football a title game and selection format that worked. Even though plenty of people hated it, it would still be method used if they didn’t get more TV $$ through the playoffs. Expanding the playoffs was never about more teams who “deserved it” it’s about more TV $$.

The top 5 champs thing was stupid from the start. Beginning next year ND essentially has an auto bid if ranked in the top 12. Best teams have never been the most important factor for the playoffs. If that was the point then a simple 12 team ranking regardless of conference champ status would be the method.

 

[Traildust57]

The system is flawed. As we are.

 

[Harvard Gamecock]

No doubt, even in championship games. Anyone remember the titanic UGA/TCU battle that went 7 overtimes for the NC a few years ago?

Me neither.

But hey, I'd rather have the option of watching potentially crappy CFB than none at all this time of year - that's even crappier.

Anyone remember the NC title game between Bama and LSU 9-6.
Total bore

 

[Piscis]

Ever watch any NFL playoffs? It's amazing how crappy some of those teams can play.

The big difference is; NFL teams have to earn the right be in the playoff by winning on the field, college teams get put in the playoff by a beauty pageant type committee. Other than trying to assuage G5 feelings, there was no reason whatsoever for Tulane or JMU to be in the playoff.

 

[Go Gamecocks]

The big difference is; NFL teams have to earn the right be in the playoff by winning on the field...

U missed the point. NFL playoff games can be just as bad as the TAMU-Thug U.

Don't forget, some NFL teams get into the playoffs because of a weak division (e.g NFC South).

As far as JMU or Tulane, the first week of FCS is mostly blowouts. Too much disparity. WBB is even worse.

 

[Piscis]

U missed the point. NFL playoff games can be just as bad as the TAMU-Thug U.

Don't forget, some NFL teams get into the playoffs because of a weak division (e.g NFC South).

As far as JMU or Tulane, the first week of FCS is mostly blowouts. Too much disparity. WBB is even worse.

Yeah, I was addressing the fact that JMU and Tulane should never have been in the playoff. G5 inclusion in the playoff is affirmative action for G5 teams.

 

[Blues man]

Yeah, I was addressing the fact that JMU and Tulane should never have been in the playoff. G5 inclusion in the playoff is affirmative action for G5 teams.

Although I tend to agree, it doesn't help the argument that the ACC imo clearly blurs the line between P4 and G5 and this year is no exception. I mean their champion and runner up didn't even make the playoffs. And before the AAC was raided a few years ago, it was no surprise when they would end a season with more ranked teams than the ACC would... with no preseason gifts afforded to them like the ACC typically got. Truth is the ACC should be happy they are even considered an P4 conference. If there is ever a reason the G5 doesn't play for it's own separate national championship apart from the P4, again it's because the ACC has blurred the line imo.

 

[Dabo's Weenie]

The big difference is; NFL teams have to earn the right be in the playoff by winning on the field, college teams get put in the playoff by a beauty pageant type committee. Other than trying to assuage G5 feelings, there was no reason whatsoever for Tulane or JMU to be in the playoff.

More than hurt feelings, I believe the primary reason the G5 teams have a reserved spot was to avoid a lawsuit from accusations of being shut out and damaged financially.

Always follow the money. It may not be right every time but it seldom misleads you.

 

[Piscis]

More than hurt feelings, I believe the primary reason the G5 teams have a reserved spot was to avoid a lawsuit from accusations of being shut out and damaged financially.

Always follow the money. It may not be right every time but it seldom misleads you.

I'll repeat what I said in another thread, who would the G5 teams sue? The playoff is a postseason invitational college football tournament owned by Disney. Disney can invite whoever they want to their tournament. They can establish whatever criteria they decide gives them the best matchups and will attract the most viewers.

As to financial damage, why don't the G5 conferences sue the TV networks because they don't get the big money contracts the SEC and B1G get?

Professional golfers can't sue the Masters because they don't get invited to play in the tournament if they don't meet the requirements the Masters decides they want.

 

[KingWard]

The big difference is; NFL teams have to earn the right be in the playoff by winning on the field, college teams get put in the playoff by a beauty pageant type committee. Other than trying to assuage G5 feelings, there was no reason whatsoever for Tulane or JMU to be in the playoff.

Utterly no reason. Cincinnati for that matter in the previous interation.

 

[KingWard]

U missed the point. NFL playoff games can be just as bad as the TAMU-Thug U.

Don't forget, some NFL teams get into the playoffs because of a weak division (e.g NFC South).

As far as JMU or Tulane, the first week of FCS is mostly blowouts. Too much disparity. WBB is even worse.

Computers could wash out every incidental flaw.