Most wide open college football season ever?

[Alsacs]

Auburn is in the playoff right now. Four teams is perfect.

Yeah but according to your 2 loss theory if they lose another game they shouldn't be a playoff team because they might be 5th or 6th.
8 teams is a fair playoff. It makes conference championships in the P5 matter more and gives the committee ample space to add the 3 best non-conference champions. How do D-1AA teams have a 16 team playoff with travel all across the country and the FBS level having 8 teams playoff wear their bodies out more?

I mean the bowl people are all about greed.

 

[Pat Kelly]

Yeah but according to your 2 loss theory if they lose another game they shouldn't be a playoff team because they might be 5th or 6th.
8 teams is a fair playoff. It makes conference championships in the P5 matter more and gives the committee ample space to add the 3 best non-conference champions. How do D-1AA teams have a 16 team playoff with travel all across the country and the FBS level having 8 teams playoff wear their bodies out more?

I mean the bowl people are all about greed.

I personally like the simplicity of college football, and think adding more and more playoff games is oversaturation. If you want every conference champion to get a spot in w big game, then go back to BCS bowls with automatic qualifiers. We can agree to disagree.

 

[Alsacs]

I personally like the simplicity of college football, and think adding more and more playoff games is oversaturation. If you want every conference champion to get a spot in w big game, then go back to BCS bowls with automatic qualifiers. We can agree to disagree.

The SEC/B12 are contracted with the Sugar Bowl, The Big Ten/Pac-12 are contracted with the Rose Bowl, The ACC/SEC/Big Ten/Notre Dame are contracted with the Orange Bowl.

All of those conferences will feed teams to those bowls when they don't host playoff games. The committee will now slot Cotton Bowl, Fiesta Bowl,Peach Bowl games with the highest available teams with no cap on conference selections with 1 slot going to the highest ranked G5(MAC,MWC,American,Sun Belt, CUSA) team. Conference champs are going to still get big games the point I am making is expanding the playoff to 8 will eventually and it won't diluate the regular season. We can agree to disagree, but the playing extra game argument isn't legit when every level of NCAA football except Division 1 has a 16 team playoff.

 

[SWC75]

From my post "The Undefeated", (with a little proof reading added):

"We are now down, ironically, to two undefeated teams, which would be prefect for the old BCS system if they both ran the table, although I don’t think either will. We haven’t ended the regular season with four undefeated teams since 2009- but we had 5 then. Fans of the old BCS are probably rooting for there to be two unbeatens so they can ask: “What we need these two other teams for?” Fans of an eight team playoff, (like me) will be rooting for there to be enough one loss teams that the combined total of them and the undefeated teams will exceed 5. Here are the total undefeated and one loss teams, year by year for the last decade:2004 4-3, 2005 2-4, 2006 2-4, 2007 1-2, 2008 2-7, 2009 5-1, 2010 3-6, 2011 1-5, 2012 2-5 and 2013 1-9, (yes, 9). That’s an average of 2- 5. There’s been more than four every year but one and in that season, we’d have had to dip into the two loss teams to fill out a top four. And there’d be a lot more than one of them."

All but four of the teams that have been recognized as national champions by the writers, the coaches or the BCS since 1936 have won all their games or all their games but one. Three of those four had a loss and a tie so today they'd have one loss and be in it or two and likely out of it. Any national championship playoff should include all the logical contenders and all the teams, (at least from power conferences) with an undefeated or one loss record should be in the tournament. If you have to have a few teams to fill out a field of pre-determined size, OK. But the sin its to exclude someone who obviously belongs there. And, yes, the bigger the playoff, (up to a point that we haven't reached yet), the greater the number of meaningful regular season games. We presently have two undefeated teams and 16 one loss teams. That will be paired down by the now more meaningful regular season games but it won't reach four, that's for sure.

 

[JoeSU]

I feel like Bama found their stride and they will continue to destroy teams.

Me too.

 

[BlazeOrange]

Some teams having three extra games is a little excessive with conference title games and everything.

All of these teams would've played in bowl games if they weren't in the playoffs, so you can deduct one of the extra games as a wash. That leaves only four schools with one (for semi-final losers) or two (for national champion participants) more games than the non-playoff bowl teams.

 

[ImperialOrange]

Curious where a 2 loss SEC West team would land in the rankings vs all the one loss teams. Would a 2 loss Alabama for example still be seeded over a 1 loss Notre Dame, B1G, or PAC team? I feel like the BEVO is strong enough that their 1 loss team would be safe but would 2 loss Bama be left out if they lose the SEC championship in favor of 1 loss Sparty?

 

[Quazzum69]

I think three SEC teams is a possibility. Four would not be impossible either like if FSU loses (very unlikely) or Oregon, MSU get another loss.

It is very possible that all four of Alabama, Auburn, Mississippi State and Ole Miss get in since they will all only have losses against top 5 teams and several wins against top 5 teams. Hell, Georgia could get in if the beat Auburn and win the SEC championship game.

I think the committee would put at least one non-SEC school even if they didn't deserve it to avoid backlash.

 

[Pat Kelly]

Curious where a 2 loss SEC West team would land in the rankings vs all the one loss teams. Would a 2 loss Alabama for example still be seeded over a 1 loss Notre Dame, B1G, or PAC team? I feel like the BEVO is strong enough that their 1 loss team would be safe but would 2 loss Bama be left out if they lose the SEC championship in favor of 1 loss Sparty?

Notre Dame ranked 10th is ridiculous. Only loss was due to a flag on the final play against the playoff's #2 team on the road.

 

[ImperialOrange]

Notre Dame ranked 10th is ridiculous. Only loss was due to a flag on the final play against the playoff's #2 team on the road.

BUT everyone ahead of them and the team behind them have all beaten someone in the top 25 of the same rankings. ND's best win is vs 5-3 Stanford.

They need to join the ACC in full so they have a conference championship game to potentially bump their rankings and/or strongly reconsider ending their series with Purdue who add nothing to their resume ever and not scheduling Rice. Plenty of other schools in Texas that would look much better on their schedule.

 

[SmilinBob]

BUT everyone ahead of them and the team behind them have all beaten someone in the top 25 of the same rankings. ND's best win is vs 5-3 Stanford.

They need to join the ACC in full so they have a conference championship game to potentially bump their rankings and/or strongly reconsider ending their series with Purdue who add nothing to their resume ever and not scheduling Rice. Plenty of other schools in Texas that would look much better on their schedule.

Depends on what Louisville and Arizona St do but it doesn't help them strength wise to not play a top 10 team from here unless all the other schools lose that are ahead of them.

As for ND getting disrespected, I suppose they are officially in ACC in some peoples eyes.

 

[SmilinBob]

One other thing I'd like to find out is how much injury (Ohio St qb) or newer players (Watson/Clemson) are figured into the committee's equation. Clemson played Georgia without Watson I believe and OSU lost to Virginia Tech right after their qb got hurt. Oregon lost with I believe 2 or 3 starting linemen out.

 

[TheCusian]

Expanding the playoffs isn't about giving #7 or #8 a chance at the national title. It would be almost completely about money.

But it does cast a large enough net to make sure that the best teams are in, no matter what.

In the BCS system, the argument was based unfairly at #2 and #3. People said that this was okay because it mostly got it right. Except it didn't. #3 didn't get a shot based on eye tests and polls and computers and lobbying. It was dumb.

The 4-team playoff alleviates this by moving the argument back to #4 or #5. It's now in the hands of biased, imperfect people - but at least the argument is moved back and there is a wider net. But it still isn't perfect. There could theoretically be a #5 team capable of winning it all.

By making the net wider, it alleviates some of the risk/stupidity of using biased, imperfect people to decide who gets a shot. It also increases the amount of fans invested in the season rabidly by x10 (as opposed to x5).

The devaluing the regular season argument is honestly stupid. More fans invested. More interest. And seeding will be important. There is a point where their are too many teams and it begins to lessen the importance (and shorten the regular season) - but 8 is not that number.

 

[SmilinBob]

4 spots and 5 P5 conferences. What I don't like is I see the ACC getting the shaft on this way more often than not. It'll be just like being in the Big East when no team is allowed a mulligan. 8 is the right number, I agree.

 

[ImperialOrange]

Depends on what Louisville and Arizona St do but it doesn't help them strength wise to not play a top 10 team from here unless all the other schools lose that are ahead of them.

As for ND getting disrespected, I suppose they are officially in ACC in some peoples eyes.

The fact that UM is so bad and USC are mediocre hurt them badly. Those games looked a lot better when they were scheduled.

Lville and ASU don't really have an effect on things. Every other team in the mix have at least 2 potentially tougher games or have beaten ND (FSU) or have a better resume (Oregon). FWIW I kind expect Oregon to get jumped in the standings as well.

 

[SmilinBob]

The fact that UM is so bad and USC are mediocre hurt them badly. Those games looked a lot better when they were scheduled.

Lville and ASU don't really have an effect on things. Every other team in the mix have at least 2 potentially tougher games or have beaten ND (FSU) or have a better resume (Oregon). FWIW I kind expect Oregon to get jumped in the standings as well.

ASU has a chance to win the PAC 14 and have only 1 loss (well 2 if they lose to ND). I agree with you IO that those traditional powers being down has hurt the Irish big time. If Louisville beats FSU (yes I know only the SEC can have a 2 loss team win and it looks good) that will also add to the Irish resume. Irony would be them (ND) jumping FSU after losing to them if they both have one loss.

 

[Alsacs]

Curious where a 2 loss SEC West team would land in the rankings vs all the one loss teams. Would a 2 loss Alabama for example still be seeded over a 1 loss Notre Dame, B1G, or PAC team? I feel like the BEVO is strong enough that their 1 loss team would be safe but would 2 loss Bama be left out if they lose the SEC championship in favor of 1 loss Sparty?

Auburn at 10-2 should be ahead of Michigan State, but not sure Alabama at 10-2 should be if Michigan State is 12-1 and beaten Nebraska 2x.

You nailed Notre Dame while they look legit they haven't beaten anyone yet if they beat Arizona State, USC, and Louisville then at 11-1 they would be top 4 most likely.

 

[Alsacs]

If any Utah, Oregon, Arizona State, Arizona run the table to 12-1 they will be a top 4 playoff team. Pac-12 has too much respect.

Kansas State and TCU are the playoff contenders from the Big XII. Baylor's non-conference schedule will eliminate them if they went 11-1 and l

Notre Dame at 11-1 is going to be a playoff team, but one of Arizona State, USC, or Louisville will pop them and look for Notre Dame to be in the Orange Bowl against Clemson or Duke.

 

[ImperialOrange]

ASU has a chance to win the PAC 14 and have only 1 loss (well 2 if they lose to ND). I agree with you IO that those traditional powers being down has hurt the Irish big time. If Louisville beats FSU (yes I know only the SEC can have a 2 loss team win and it looks good) that will also add to the Irish resume. Irony would be them (ND) jumping FSU after losing to them if they both have one loss.

IF FSU loses, and ND passes them, FSU will still have the ACC championship game which (in they win) would likely put them back ahead of ND. It's certainly interesting at the very least.

As a part time UGA fan (family ties) it's fun to see them in 11th and know they can jump all the way to the playoff. In years past, they wouldn't have a chance of making the championship at this point even with 1 loss.

 

[SmilinBob]

IF FSU loses, and ND passes them, FSU will still have the ACC championship game which (in they win) would likely put them back ahead of ND. It's certainly interesting at the very least.

As a part time UGA fan (family ties) it's fun to see them in 11th and know they can jump all the way to the playoff. In years past, they wouldn't have a chance of making the championship at this point even with 1 loss.

I've always respected Georgia and their OOC scheduling. That said ...I would love to have Georgia lose to GT and then win the SEC championship game.

 

[SWC75]

One of the things I like about the new system is that under the BCS it was all about remaining unbeaten and teams scheduled accordingly. Now it's all about who you've beaten and teams will have to schedule according to that.

 

[Eric15]

If you're a college football purist like I am, next Saturday will have you downright giddy:

Oregon at Utah
Alabama at LSU
Kansas State at TCU
Ohio State at Michigan State
Notre Dame at Arizona State
Baylor at Oklahoma

For all intent and purposes, it's like a Sweet 16 weekend for the playoff.

 

[RandygoCuse]

The only reason to expand the playoffs is $$$. The NFL which has a great postseason structure is going to expand to 14 teams for money.

If college football went to an 8 team playoff and gave each P5 conference automatic berth and then had 3 at-large wild cards. How the hell would the regular season be devalued? You would need to win your conference to get a playoff berth and would still be encouraged to play a tough non-conference schedule to be able to show the committee you were worthy of an at-large bid.

You know what is devalued? Regular season college basketball, NBA, NHL games. Who the hell cares as you play a lot of games. Football games will never be devalued. The only people who like the current system are organizers/501 c(3) employees of bowl games that make 6 figures a year to do nothing, but host a bowl game.

I agree that teams would still have an incentive to schedule tough OOC games. But it's not just about incentives, it's also about results. If the playoffs was expanded to 8, you could get multiple 2 (or more)-loss teams in the playoffs. With only 4, it's less likely (although I admit not impossible) to happen. It comes down to which you want more. I actually like 4 in that it's only the absolute strongest teams that are going to play for the title. And yes, this is different than the NBA, NFL or college basketball. I'm ok with that.

But I also understand the other point of view that 8-team playoff would give teams a chance who had successful seasons overall but maybe suffered some tough losses.

 

[SWC75]

I agree that teams would still have an incentive to schedule tough OOC games. But it's not just about incentives, it's also about results. If the playoffs was expanded to 8, you could get multiple 2 (or more)-loss teams in the playoffs. With only 4, it's less likely (although I admit not impossible) to happen. It comes down to which you want more. I actually like 4 in that it's only the absolute strongest teams that are going to play for the title. And yes, this is different than the NBA, NFL or college basketball. I'm ok with that.

But I also understand the other point of view that 8-team playoff would give teams a chance who had successful seasons overall but maybe suffered some tough losses.

The difference between 3-4 teams and 5-6 teams is usually who lost most recently. The teams that lost earliest have had to to accumulate some wins and move back up finish 3-4. Those who lost recently haven't had the chance to do that and are 5-6.

 

[SmilinBob]

I agree that teams would still have an incentive to schedule tough OOC games. But it's not just about incentives, it's also about results. If the playoffs was expanded to 8, you could get multiple 2 (or more)-loss teams in the playoffs. With only 4, it's less likely (although I admit not impossible) to happen. It comes down to which you want more. I actually like 4 in that it's only the absolute strongest teams that are going to play for the title. And yes, this is different than the NBA, NFL or college basketball. I'm ok with that.

But I also understand the other point of view that 8-team playoff would give teams a chance who had successful seasons overall but maybe suffered some tough losses.

I get what you're saying Randy but what does a loss mean when 1 school schedules 4 patsies OOC and another plays 2 to 3 P5 schools? Granted the conference each school is in will play a part of the losses but still you HAVE to have the conference winners be involved in a playoff because of the small sample size that is college football due to patsy games and other variables such as perception/agenda/propaganda/politics/$.