https://a.espncdn.com/combiner/i?im...96x729_16-9.jpg&w=1140&cquality=40&format=jpg
The College Football Playoff survey: 62 coaches' opinions and Jim Harbaugh's plan
https://www.espn.com/college-footba...-survey-62-coaches-opinions-jim-harbaugh-plan
The Harbaugh Playoff Plan
- Thread starter WVUALLEN
- Start date
https://a.espncdn.com/combiner/i?im...96x729_16-9.jpg&w=1140&cquality=40&format=jpg
The College Football Playoff survey: 62 coaches' opinions and Jim Harbaugh's plan
https://www.espn.com/college-footba...-survey-62-coaches-opinions-jim-harbaugh-plan
I dont know what the harbaugh plan is, although I will say as a human being I am not a fan of his being one, but as far as the playoff goes, ever since espn officially took over the college football national championship, and make no mistake, I hjn io state jumping 2 spots for no reason and you dropping 2 spots.for no reason even though they claimed head to head mattered most which there wasnt, followed by common opponent which was Minnesota which tcu beat by more, tcu had a MUCH better loss. Better wins, a better conference and they ckanged the rules to they had no conference championship game. Then o$u lost to state Penn who won the conf title game but still got in over them anyways, and every year parity has gone away more and more in college football to where it's worse than it was before big money and before scholarship limits. And if you think for one second espn doesnt run it all, you're a brain dead idiot and nobody is talking to you
Out at Ohio St at #4. They should be #1. Harbaugh is such a doooooosh.
LOL at UCF in his brackets
LOL at UCF in his brackets
That was something he put together in the Spring of 2018, which they stated as such in the article. UCF was pretty stout that year, and the year in-which they self proclaimed themselves national champs.
I think it needs to go to 8. I don’t think it needs to go any further. I don’t buy the argument that going past 4 dilutes the playoffs, because the same argument can be made about going past 2. Last year Alabama and Clemson were clearly the two best teams in the country, yet we allowed Oklahoma and Notre Dame in the playoffs.
There needs to be a metric that says, if you want to make the playoffs, here is what you are going to have to do... One year, the 13th data point matter and then it didn’t. One year winning your conference mattered, and then it didn’t, etc... There needs to be a set metric or criteria that a school can follow for trying to get into the playoffs.
I think the P5 conference champions should get in. If you win your conference, that is a qualifying accomplishment. The likelihood that a 5, 6, 7 or 8 win team wins their conference and gets in is very very low. It could happen, but it is unlikely. Still, even a 7-win team that wins its conference could mean there were several strong teams they faced within their conference and everyone beat up on each other.
As far as watering down the playoffs by taking conference champions, last year the P5 conference champions were:
SEC 13-0 Alabama
ACC 13-0 Clemson
B12 12-1 Oklahoma
B10 12-1 Ohio State
P12 10-3 Washington
Those 5 would get in the field of 8 automatically, and no one can say any of them was not a good team and be taken seriously.
For the 6th spot, you take the highest rated G5 school if they are ranked in the top 12 at the final playoff rankings. I say top 12 because there would be some that would rank them low on purpose to benefit their own conference if they had to make the top 8. It could happen with 12, too, but it would be harder to justify ranking a 13-0 G5 school outside the top 12 if they had a couple wins over P5 schools. If they do not finish ranked in the top 12, the G5 spot becomes an at large team offered up to the highest ranked remaining schools that did not get into the playoffs automatically by winning their conference.
In 2018, UCF finished ranked #8 and would have made the playoffs in my format. Had they failed to finish ranked in the top 12, the G5 spot would have gone to 10-2 Michigan as the next highest rated team.
The remaining three playoff spots last year would have been filled by:
#6 12-1 Ohio State
#7 11-2 Georgia
#8 13-0 UCF
Again, no one can say the playoffs would not have had compelling participants competing. It even provides for the Cinderella angle with UCF.
As far as the bowls go, they can utilize the BCS bowls like Harbaugh mentioned above, or in similar fashion to the old BCS system.
Expanding to 8 would add only one additional game (16) for only the two teams that make the playoffs past what the final two teams are expected to perform now (15). For teams that play in their conference title games and then a bowl, they are already playing 14 games.
Expanding the playoffs also means more teams can have meaningful seasons and they aren’t necessarily eliminated from playoff contention after a weak 2 loss in the early part of the season.
There needs to be a metric that says, if you want to make the playoffs, here is what you are going to have to do... One year, the 13th data point matter and then it didn’t. One year winning your conference mattered, and then it didn’t, etc... There needs to be a set metric or criteria that a school can follow for trying to get into the playoffs.
I think the P5 conference champions should get in. If you win your conference, that is a qualifying accomplishment. The likelihood that a 5, 6, 7 or 8 win team wins their conference and gets in is very very low. It could happen, but it is unlikely. Still, even a 7-win team that wins its conference could mean there were several strong teams they faced within their conference and everyone beat up on each other.
As far as watering down the playoffs by taking conference champions, last year the P5 conference champions were:
SEC 13-0 Alabama
ACC 13-0 Clemson
B12 12-1 Oklahoma
B10 12-1 Ohio State
P12 10-3 Washington
Those 5 would get in the field of 8 automatically, and no one can say any of them was not a good team and be taken seriously.
For the 6th spot, you take the highest rated G5 school if they are ranked in the top 12 at the final playoff rankings. I say top 12 because there would be some that would rank them low on purpose to benefit their own conference if they had to make the top 8. It could happen with 12, too, but it would be harder to justify ranking a 13-0 G5 school outside the top 12 if they had a couple wins over P5 schools. If they do not finish ranked in the top 12, the G5 spot becomes an at large team offered up to the highest ranked remaining schools that did not get into the playoffs automatically by winning their conference.
In 2018, UCF finished ranked #8 and would have made the playoffs in my format. Had they failed to finish ranked in the top 12, the G5 spot would have gone to 10-2 Michigan as the next highest rated team.
The remaining three playoff spots last year would have been filled by:
#6 12-1 Ohio State
#7 11-2 Georgia
#8 13-0 UCF
Again, no one can say the playoffs would not have had compelling participants competing. It even provides for the Cinderella angle with UCF.
As far as the bowls go, they can utilize the BCS bowls like Harbaugh mentioned above, or in similar fashion to the old BCS system.
Expanding to 8 would add only one additional game (16) for only the two teams that make the playoffs past what the final two teams are expected to perform now (15). For teams that play in their conference title games and then a bowl, they are already playing 14 games.
Expanding the playoffs also means more teams can have meaningful seasons and they aren’t necessarily eliminated from playoff contention after a weak 2 loss in the early part of the season.
The First criteria should be quality true Road wins. If you have none, then you can’t say you deserve this, you deserve that.
South Carolina won AT Georgia. Can your team match that???
Then quality neutral site wins. Oregon outplayed Auburn almost the entire game and then let it slip away. Not sure any other team could have matched that win. Plus Oregon won AT Washington.
But if your team has zero quality true road wins and your only so called “big” wins came at Home, I really don’t think you have much to crow about.
South Carolina won AT Georgia. Can your team match that???
Then quality neutral site wins. Oregon outplayed Auburn almost the entire game and then let it slip away. Not sure any other team could have matched that win. Plus Oregon won AT Washington.
But if your team has zero quality true road wins and your only so called “big” wins came at Home, I really don’t think you have much to crow about.
South Carolina’s win doesn’t matter for South Carolina though because they are not having a good year.
I get what you are saying but you can have an all time great season for your school but due to how your conference schedule comes up that year, your best games against the best team you will face could all be home games for you through no fault of your own.
I agree you should get credit for playing a tough road game and winning, but when the games are scheduled 5-10 years in advance, you can’t know if a win will be a quality win when the game is booked versus the years later when it is actually played.
Yea, I don’t disagree with you that teams can’t control conference schedules. But don’t brag about the Home conference wins if you didn’t schedule any quality P5 true Road non-conference games.
PSU played Idaho, Buffalo and Pitt ALL at home. Don’t tell me how great beating Michigan was on your Home field. Especially after I saw Michigan outplay PSU the entire second half. This, after I watched Army out play Michigan on Michigan’s Home field.
At least Clemson did play A&M on a neutral field. Clemson can’t help their ACC conference SUCKS! Nevertheless it has to count against them.
PSU played Idaho, Buffalo and Pitt ALL at home. Don’t tell me how great beating Michigan was on your Home field. Especially after I saw Michigan outplay PSU the entire second half. This, after I watched Army out play Michigan on Michigan’s Home field.
At least Clemson did play A&M on a neutral field. Clemson can’t help their ACC conference SUCKS! Nevertheless it has to count against them.
I'd be fine with 8 and in fact I think the first round ought to be in place of the current conference title games, which wastes a week and doesn't narrow the field at all. What's that you say? You have a hard time determining a champion of a conference with 14 teams without a conference title game? Well then your conference is too damn big. Figure it out.
Also what that would do is create the possibility of playoff games in the North in late Nov or early Dec, which is why the southern teams won't go for it. But it's not fair that some teams have to contend with weather while others do not.
Also what that would do is create the possibility of playoff games in the North in late Nov or early Dec, which is why the southern teams won't go for it. But it's not fair that some teams have to contend with weather while others do not.
Its troubling when you have teams like Ohio State and Wisconsin and Alabama playing lightweight schedules OOC and being rewarded for relatively easy wins, but teams like OU playing a much more challenging schedule are screwed due to schedules that are tough.
Similarly Clemson is virtually unchallenged in or out of Conference, yet is being rewarded while a team like Baylor is ignored though undefeated and OU which plays in the conference with the best OOC record and toughest conference schedule is penalized for one loss.
OU particularly has a case as they beat Texas just like LSU yet probably wont catch them should LSU lose a game.
There needs to be a system rewarding schedules rather than a popularity contest.
Similarly Clemson is virtually unchallenged in or out of Conference, yet is being rewarded while a team like Baylor is ignored though undefeated and OU which plays in the conference with the best OOC record and toughest conference schedule is penalized for one loss.
OU particularly has a case as they beat Texas just like LSU yet probably wont catch them should LSU lose a game.
There needs to be a system rewarding schedules rather than a popularity contest.
Those happen in the north too. But generally, the south doesn't have to cope cold, ice and snow, like the north does sometimes.
Here is the weather forecast for Minneapolis. Check out what it's going to be like on Saturday. Both Penn State and Minnesota are undefeated and are playing outdoors there on Saturday. It's a requirement for these teams to be able to play well in this weather in order to go undefeated. And yet teams like Alabama will never have to play in it.
https://weather.com/weather/tenday/...35276a2b073711dc220e4944a75a2ab0f9b91e91472d0
Wisconsin played Central Michigan, a very mediocre South Florida and Kent State, yet were ranked in the top 5 as a result.
No one can criticize undefeated Baylor who has yet to break the top 10
No one can criticize undefeated Baylor who has yet to break the top 10
To be honest, each and every year, anybody can look at most team's schedules, and cherry pick it to the point to make somebody else appear to be better. The good news, is that all these teams tend to play one another within conference, allowing for a conference champion. All conference champions should get an automatic invite to the end of the season playoffs. I mean, let's say, for example, Utah were to go 11-2, winning the PAC 12. They won't make the field of four (most years), but who's to say the PAC 12 schedule wasn't 3x harder than Clemson's ACC schedule? Point being, you're able to win your conference on the playing field, and you should be able to win a national title on the playing field, as opposed to being the most popular guy on campus. College football is the only sport I can think of, where each and every year, you have this same ole controversy play itself out.
But those that decide use that schedule ranking as a portion of their choices. But I agree all conference champions should be in.
Baylor hasnt been in the top ten at all and Virtually all of the computer rankings show the BIG 12 as the top conference too.
No reason with a light schedule Wisconsin should have already reached # 5 while Baylor hasnt even reached to ten yet. The entire schedules are not that different ( weve seen how “ good” Michigan was...
No reason with a light schedule Wisconsin should have already reached # 5 while Baylor hasnt even reached to ten yet. The entire schedules are not that different ( weve seen how “ good” Michigan was...
And Wisconsin was ranked top five while Baylor was barely ranked
— and again Baylor plays in the conference with the best OOC record and top rating in most computer rankings— they STILL are not listed top ten— yet are undefeated
— and again Baylor plays in the conference with the best OOC record and top rating in most computer rankings— they STILL are not listed top ten— yet are undefeated
PWR conference champs auto bid. 3 at large bids.
ESPN can still pick 3 teams that align with their tv contracts.
1 and 2 have a bye.
Everyone wins
ESPN can still pick 3 teams that align with their tv contracts.
1 and 2 have a bye.
Everyone wins
Clemson's IN CONFERENCE 130/130.
Shouldn't Baylor be at least 6th using Clemson's metrics?
Bama's best OOC game - Texas AM.
Clemson's best OOC game - Texas AM.
Maybe we should schedule AM next year. Drop whoever to get them. Seemingly, just playing AM will get you into the top of the rankings!
Oops, my bad. Forgot about that. Thanks for the correction.
That makes it even worse for Bama then because their toughest OOC opponent would be Duke? Southern Miss?
A&M would probably be their TOUGHEST game so far is a better way of saying it. Still, the point of just playing them as your "toughest" game and getting into the playoffs remains.
But at least Bama has some tough games ahead. Can't say the same about Clemson.