Is the CFP ranking process flawed?

[4merper4mer]

10 minutes ago, Cynical said:

 

The NFL is not college football, and the comparison is weak.

 

The NFL has 32 teams split across 2 conferences in 8 total divisions. Everybody plays the exact same number of games.

There is no way to expand the league unless a vote is taken by owners of the current NFL teams.

The NFL controls everything: scheduling, creation of conferences/divisions, etc...

College football at the FBS level has 130 teams across 10 conferences and some independents. About 3 years ago, there were 128.

Not everybody plays the same number of games. (ND only played 12 games, but everybody else in the playoffs played 13).

Any college program can be classified as an FBS level team, as long as the meet the NCAA requirements. The other schools have ZERO say in this.

This year there are 130 FBS teams. Theoretically, there could be 135 next year, 140 the year after, etc....

At any point, independents could come together to create another conference.

Current conferences can shift, as we saw this past decade.

Other than player eligibility,  all control is handled by the individual schools and/conferences until the post season. Independents have to generate their own schedule.

Conferences dictate inter-conference play, and get to decide if the conference will even have a championship game. There is no requirement to have one.

 

There is no way to make a "fair" playoff system in the FBS when the system itself is fluid and chaotic to begin with.

 

The actual truth is that college football at the FBS level has about 40 or 50 teams.  Teams outside of those 40 or 50 are simply not considered and they are being lied to about being part of the system at all.  

 

In addition, 20 of those 40 teams suck out loud most years but will still be considered if they turn things around.  In reality, at the beginning of each and every year it is pretty simple to say that the 4 playoff teams will come from a group of about 10.  This year, the Pac 12 was realistically eliminated before the season started.  The UCF's and Boise's of the world could go undefeated for 5 straight years, and never sniff a bid.  Georgia, with two losses was discussed heavily.  UCF with zero.  They are not in the FBS.

[Bill from NYC]

2 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said:

The actual truth is that college football at the FBS level has about 40 or 50 teams.  Teams outside of those 40 or 50 are simply not considered and they are being lied to about being part of the system at all.  

 

In addition, 20 of those 40 teams suck out loud most years but will still be considered if they turn things around.  In reality, at the beginning of each and every year it is pretty simple to say that the 4 playoff teams will come from a group of about 10.  This year, the Pac 12 was realistically eliminated before the season started.  The UCF's and Boise's of the world could go undefeated for 5 straight years, and never sniff a bid.  Georgia, with two losses was discussed heavily.  UCF with zero.  They are not in the FBS.

No sane college football fan would deny that you raise legitimate points. There are however other things to consider....

 

Not that you called for it in the post above but expanded playoffs would seem on paper to make things more fair, however this is football, not basketball. Just how many games do you think these kids can or should play. If 3 of 4 playoffs teams go to the title game, they will have played 15 games. Notre Dame will have played 14.

 

Personally, I think that conference championship games should be eliminated. How many fans actually give a crap about conference championships?

 

 Alabama was the 4th seed last year and we know what happened. Should UCF have been put in that 4 slot instead of them? Seriously? College Football teams don't play equal schedules. I'm not sure that UCF would have 7 wins against Alabama's opponents. They might, but I'm not so sure.

 

Also, who do you think is a better team, Notre Dame or Georgia? I would go with Georgia but they got beat up by LSU and lost to Alabama. Notre Dame was undefeated and does deserve to be in there imo, and I don't think they were given much of a shot before the season.

 

I am NOT trying to be combative with this, but it is hard for me to understand exactly what you think would be a fair system.

 

18 hours ago, KD in CA said:

 

The idea that a team can lose their last game and make a 4 team playoff is absurd.  The only reason for it is money;  the only fan justification of it is either homerism or idiocy.

 

I guess all the people here arguing for teams who didn't earn it on the field would be happy if the NFL let Roger Goodell just announce who the playoff teams would be based on which ones were 'the best' and not which ones earned it by winning games.

Again my friend, Alabama got in last year after a loss but they have a small fan base compared to many, many other teams.

 

Also, UGA is better than ND imo and I'm not sure that its close. Still, Notre Dame is rightfully in the playoffs, no?

[Cynical]

30 minutes ago, Bill from NYC said:

No sane college football fan would deny that you raise legitimate points. There are however other things to consider....

 

Not that you called for it in the post above but expanded playoffs would seem on paper to make things more fair, however this is football, not basketball. Just how many games do you think these kids can or should play. If 3 of 4 playoffs teams go to the title game, they will have played 15 games. Notre Dame will have played 14.

 

Expanding the playoffs will solve nothing. It will just add even more weaker teams, and create even more chaos.

There are more 2-3 loss teams as opposed to 0-1 loss teams.

You will still end up trying to answer the same questions:

- Who deserves to get in.

- And what criteria is used to determine that.

 

The NFL has a very specific process for tie breakers, but even the NFL uses strength of schedule and strength of victory as criteria at some point.

When there are 32 teams, in a very controlled environment, with the parity of talent from top to bottom, that criteria is piece of cake when compared to college football.

 

 

30 minutes ago, Bill from NYC said:

 

Personally, I think that conference championship games should be eliminated. How many fans actually give a crap about conference championships?

 

 Alabama was the 4th seed last year and we know what happened. Should UCF have been put in that 4 slot instead of them? Seriously? College Football teams don't play equal schedules. I'm not sure that UCF would have 7 wins against Alabama's opponents. They might, but I'm not so sure.

 

Also, who do you think is a better team, Notre Dame or Georgia? I would go with Georgia but they got beat up by LSU and lost to Alabama. Notre Dame was undefeated and does deserve to be in there imo, and I don't think they were given much of a shot before the season.

 

I am NOT trying to be combative with this, but it is hard for me to understand exactly what you think would be a fair system.

 

 

In order to create a fair playoff system, we are going to have to go outside the box.

At the very least, a simple solution would be the G5 teams band together and create their own playoff and national championship.

And the trophy could be a giant golden cupcake.

 

[4merper4mer]

1 hour ago, Bill from NYC said:

No sane college football fan would deny that you raise legitimate points. There are however other things to consider....

 

Not that you called for it in the post above but expanded playoffs would seem on paper to make things more fair, however this is football, not basketball. Just how many games do you think these kids can or should play. If 3 of 4 playoffs teams go to the title game, they will have played 15 games. Notre Dame will have played 14.

 

Personally, I think that conference championship games should be eliminated. How many fans actually give a crap about conference championships?

 

 Alabama was the 4th seed last year and we know what happened. Should UCF have been put in that 4 slot instead of them? Seriously? College Football teams don't play equal schedules. I'm not sure that UCF would have 7 wins against Alabama's opponents. They might, but I'm not so sure.

 

Also, who do you think is a better team, Notre Dame or Georgia? I would go with Georgia but they got beat up by LSU and lost to Alabama. Notre Dame was undefeated and does deserve to be in there imo, and I don't think they were given much of a shot before the season.

 

I am NOT trying to be combative with this, but it is hard for me to understand exactly what you think would be a fair system.

 

Again my friend, Alabama got in last year after a loss but they have a small fan base compared to many, many other teams.

 

Also, UGA is better than ND imo and I'm not sure that its close. Still, Notre Dame is rightfully in the playoffs, no?

I agree with the too many games aspect of your post.  I see 2 potential solutions:

 

1. Stop lying to the UCF's of the world.  Just tell them the truth that they are not in any way eligible for the playoff, because they aren't.  Leave the rest the same.

 

2. If a team goes undefeated they should get consideration beyond the norm.  In this year's case it would be an undefeated UCF team being considered to participate in a 4/5 play in game versus Oklahoma.  If the committee actually considered Georgia better than ND but had no nerve then we are at 6 teams with Bama and Clemson receiving byes.  An undefeated team should be afforded a written explanation when passed over and they should get to write a rebuttal which is reviewed before final denial.  This ivory tower crap has to go.  In years where no undefeated team is left out, leave it the way it is now.

 

I have mixed feelings on conference championship games and think the traditional bowl games are sadly not viewed like they once were.

[Bill from NYC]

15 hours ago, 4merper4mer said:

 

I have mixed feelings on conference championship games and think the traditional bowl games are sadly not viewed like they once were.

Absolutely!!! Look at the DT from Houston! More and more players are going to do that and I am not going to judge them either because I don't know if I would be willing to risk a serious injury/25 million dollars or more.

I'll go as far as to say that if Alabama didn't make the playoffs, I am not 100% certain how Coach Saban would feel about a players suffering serious injuries in a bowl game. I am NOT saying that he wouldn't care about the game,  just that I don't know how happy he would be to risk a serious injury to say Jerry Jeudy in a game that meant nothing towards a national title.

Edited December 4, 2018 by Bill from NYC

[YoloinOhio]

This is priceless. Can’t really argue.

 

 

[row_33]

Kind of surprised at all the self-righteous finger-pointing by the media for not taking 2-loss Georgia

 

they are ***** kidding, right?

 

 

[YoloinOhio]

6 minutes ago, row_33 said:

Kind of surprised at all the self-righteous finger-pointing by the media for not taking 2-loss Georgia

 

they are ***** kidding, right?

 

 

Clickbait to get people to watch and be outraged 

[row_33]

18 minutes ago, YoloinOhio said:

Clickbait to get people to watch and be outraged 

 

clickbait is now defined as the legit lead story on all national sports pages?

 

(used to be "she can't believe all the men gave her a standing ovation at the tennis match...)

 

 

Edited December 4, 2018 by row_33

[YoloinOhio]

8 minutes ago, row_33 said:

 

clickbait is now defined as the legit lead story on all national sports pages?

 

(used to be "she can't believe all the men gave her a standing ovation at the tennis match...)

 

 

They had to add some kind of drama to it. It was the easiest top 4 ever after what occurred Saturday and they had a 4 hour show to fill, during the nfl games?? Also, sec and ESPN have a contract. People are still talking about uga but only on ESPN, no other networks. Because it makes no sense to anyone. They know that and like that people are outraged. 

Edited December 4, 2018 by YoloinOhio

[row_33]

13 minutes ago, YoloinOhio said:

They had to add some kind of drama to it. It was the easiest top 4 ever after what occurred Saturday and they had a 4 hour show to fill, during the nfl games?? Also, sec and ESPN have a contract. People are still talking about uga but only on ESPN, no other networks. Because it makes no sense to anyone. They know that and like that people are outraged. 

 

the only question was Oklahoma or Ohio State, i had no problems with the choice made

 

 

 

 

[YoloinOhio]

5 minutes ago, row_33 said:

 

the only question was Oklahoma or Ohio State, i had no problems with the choice made

 

 

 

 

I just don’t know how you could leave Oklahoma out. They beat every team on their schedule and the one loss to Texas was by 3 in a rivalry game.  I think Ohio state could have won a game or two, i believe their ceiling is higher than the Sooners because of Haskins. but i also think their basement is lower because of their flaws

[row_33]

43 minutes ago, YoloinOhio said:

I just don’t know how you could leave Oklahoma out. They beat every team on their schedule and the one loss to Texas was by 3 in a rivalry game.  I think Ohio state could have won a game or two, i believe their ceiling is higher than the Sooners because of Haskins. but i also think their basement is lower because of their flaws

 

that's big of you to say that, noted.

 

probably just as well not to reward tOSU after the suspension and all..... just sayin

 

 

[YoloinOhio]

22 minutes ago, row_33 said:

 

that's big of you to say that, noted.

 

probably just as well not to reward tOSU after the suspension and all..... just sayin

 

 

Oh hell I know exactly what this team is. Good and bad, highs and lows. There is an argument to be made I suppose, but the problem is having 3 undefeated teams this year just left no margin of error and the truth is they only looked a complete dominant team vs three opponents this year. And two of them were Rutgers and Tulane. Style points are everything in a 4 team playoff. 

Edited December 4, 2018 by YoloinOhio

[row_33]

so this week's chinwagging is about the "strict definition" of a Final Four for college football

 

whether it "ought to mean" the 4 teams the committee "feels" is the best

or selecting the cream of the crop of the Big Conferences and Notre Dame

or other things

 

a few things I am left with:

 

the Big 10 is shut out 3 years in a row now?  I can mentally accept that ND is a "shadow" Big 10 rep from the Midwest and style of play

 

that taking ND as an Indy and 2 SEC teams and dissing all but one of the other majors would cause a titanic outrage, huge $$ is at stake

 

(I was fine with Oklahoma or tOSU getting the 4th spot, Georgia to me was an automatic goner with a 2nd loss)

 

that nobody is talking about expanding it

 

(f both semis turn out to be 55-0, and i expect at least one will be that much of a steamroll, they might reconsider... but whatever...)

 

 

 

[/dev/null]

1 hour ago, row_33 said:

 

the Big 10 is shut out 3 years in a row now?  I can mentally accept that ND is a "shadow" Big 10 rep from the Midwest and style of play

 

Two years in a row

Three years ago non-conf champion Ohio St was selected over B1G champ Penn St, setting the precedent for including a non-conference champion

 

Notre Dame is not a "shadow" B1G rep.  Notre Dame is an ACC representative in all but name.  Notre Dame is a member of the ACC for all other sports except for football and hockey.  Notre Dame's football schedule has included 5 ACC opponents for the last several years

[row_33]

15 minutes ago, /dev/null said:

 

Two years in a row

Three years ago non-conf champion Ohio St was selected over B1G champ Penn St, setting the precedent for including a non-conference champion

 

Notre Dame is not a "shadow" B1G rep.  Notre Dame is an ACC representative in all but name.  Notre Dame is a member of the ACC for all other sports except for football and hockey.  Notre Dame's football schedule has included 5 ACC opponents for the last several years

 

no.... ND is a Big Ten "never joined but shoulda" for us Big Ten football fans going back to the early 1970s...

 

on paper you have a solid point, but this is a midwest team and stadium and gameplan.. 

 

 

[Orlando Buffalo]

I jave read multiple people bash UCF who have never seen them play. UCF might have been 10-2 on Bamas schedule but anyone who says they are not a top level team last year and this year decided in the preseason that UCF did not belong and have looked for reasons to continue the thought. In college basketball Butler almost won titles from the horizon league. Anyone who will not give UCF credit for winning 25 in a row is ignorant of how football has changed since 2000.

[row_33]

12 minutes ago, Buffalo Timmy said:

I jave read multiple people bash UCF who have never seen them play. UCF might have been 10-2 on Bamas schedule but anyone who says they are not a top level team last year and this year decided in the preseason that UCF did not belong and have looked for reasons to continue the thought. In college basketball Butler almost won titles from the horizon league. Anyone who will not give UCF credit for winning 25 in a row is ignorant of how football has changed since 2000.

 

Hoops is nothing like football

 

all kinds of midmajors have done great in basketball

 

 

[Orlando Buffalo]

1 hour ago, row_33 said:

 

Hoops is nothing like football

 

all kinds of midmajors have done great in basketball

 

 

All kinds of mid majors win in football but they do not get credit. UB smoked a big 10 team this year. EMU won at Purdue where Purdue smoked OSU. UCF has not lost in 2 years- only someone trying to confirm their previous bias would not recognize that they are a truly great team. But let me ask you why is college basketball so much different besides larger sample size and larger tourney field? If anything basketball should be even more weighted to the big boys yet Butler in back to back years was able to make the finals.