Northwestern Is Case Study On Why We DO NOT Expand Playoff
- Thread starter IowaHawkeyeFBnBB4Life
- Start date
It's my opinion that only the two best teams deserve to play for the national championship and no one else. The 3rd and 4th team have just earned the right to play in the CFP and help decide who those two best teams in the country are.
If the BCS were still around, then there really wouldn't be any question on who the two best teams are, Clemson and Alabama. But you could make a pretty good argument that ND should be playing for the title as well; which is why there is now a 4 team playoff.
If the BCS were still around, then there really wouldn't be any question on who the two best teams are, Clemson and Alabama. But you could make a pretty good argument that ND should be playing for the title as well; which is why there is now a 4 team playoff.
If this is what you advocate, then you are implicitly open to Northwestern being in the playoffs with a win over OSU.
You went the wrong way. You are now saying that teams who don't win the tournament aren't deserving, which would fit with me theory. I'm saying the opposite, that winning a tournament, especially this type, doesn't prove they are the "rightful" or "best" team.
Like the other guy, you went the other way. I'm not saying that NOT having a tournament creates a "rightful" or "best" team or champion. I'm pointing out that there is really no "rightful" way of determining it. If people could just accept that not everything can be immediately and exactly pinpointed and determined, we'd all be a helluva lot better off. Surely we all agree the Giants were the best and "rightful" team, not those undefeated Patriots, right?
I would argue that keeping at 4 is terrible for college football. Kids will continue to flock to the 5-6 blue blood programs as only way to make playoffs. Thus making the skill differential even greater than Ii has become over past 10yrs.
You allow 8 teams in you see a wider variety of programs in the hunt. Alabama dominance is terrible for CFB as a whole imo.
You allow 8 teams in you see a wider variety of programs in the hunt. Alabama dominance is terrible for CFB as a whole imo.
Awful, Awful article.
Instead of having a team win it on the field you rather have a “committe” decide who goes based on a subjective “eye test”?
You don’t think America is getting sick of the same matchups each and every year between blue bloods? Let Northwestern get a crack at Alabama. Why the hell not?
Instead of having a team win it on the field you rather have a “committe” decide who goes based on a subjective “eye test”?
You don’t think America is getting sick of the same matchups each and every year between blue bloods? Let Northwestern get a crack at Alabama. Why the hell not?
It’s a stale system that lacks imagination.
Ohio State and Oklahoma should be playing each other this weekend to decide who advances. Instead their fate is going to be determined by something called the “eye test”.
Since when did football become a beauty pageant?
Because they didn’t get it done all season, why let one game give them a shot? UCF is more deserving than a NW win or lose this weekend.
I don't like the current system as it rewards conferences to be very top heavy...because if they arent, then they wont get a team in.
For example, if the Pac12 or Big 10 has 3-4 very good teams, they might split. That could mean the conference winner has 2 losses and is out.
For example, if the Pac12 or Big 10 has 3-4 very good teams, they might split. That could mean the conference winner has 2 losses and is out.
If they go to eight you would have three at large bids and UCF would probably get in.
The goal here is to reduce the power of the committee by providing tangible ways to qualify.
Northwestern is an unusual case. If they made it in an 8 team playoff...so be it. People wanted conference Championship games..this is part of the deal. Upsets happen.
8 teams is perfect. P5 Champs + 3 at large. Nobody who's undefeated gets left out. Every conference has an entrant.
8 teams is perfect. P5 Champs + 3 at large. Nobody who's undefeated gets left out. Every conference has an entrant.
I completely agree. I was challenging the poster's claim about a tournament crowning something undisputed. Tournaments are fun.
Kind of the same back in 2014. OSU was a 51/2 point underdog to Wisconsin in the BIG CG, 10 1/2 to Alabama, and a 7 1/2 to Oregon in the playoffs. I think the key is playing your best ball at the end of the season. Would I bet against Alabama - no. But they are not unbeatable especially by teams with HCs that have been there before.
But you still hint at the issue, the "key" being playing best at the end. Why? Because that is when the playoff is. Wouldn't a totality-look at record, performance, etc. of an OSU beating Bama championship show Bama only losing to a top-5 team, while OSU lost horribly to Purdue? Again, it is fun, but why is winning at the end more "worthy" than losing in the middle to a worse program?
To me this is correct, reduce the power of the committee and play the games.
In NCAA Tourney Butler made the title game 2 years in a row but had it been the football system probably would not have even been given a shot in the tourney
If there was an 8 team playoff and 9-4 NU made it, I would have absolutely no problem with that
Oh really? What if a couple star players just got of the injured list for the #9 team?
Money is going to screw up college football. The 4 team system creates interest and anger. It's better than what we had. But football is not a game of perfect.
I'm for things staying as they are. But I get your point.
I think "crowning a champion" is a futile and objectively-silly proposition. Nobody is ever happy. OSU will be pissed off, UCF if they manage to win again, Georgia, several others.
If you take the position that a "champion" must be "crowned," and that it is possible, then of course you think my comments aren't constructive. If you actually want to discuss the issue of college football, supremacy, and the underlying reason for it, then yes I've provided constructive input.
As other posters have pointed out, playoffs are there to play directly off emotion and to generate money, not to actually determine an objective winner. It is entirely plausible that even in an 8-team playoff that two undefeated conference champions could lose, and the eventual winner be a two-loss non-conference champion who didn't beat either team. See the NFL playoffs. This year, the most obvious is Alabama. Should they lose to Oklahoma, OK lose to Notre Dame, are we really subjectively determining that ND is "rightfully" champion over Bama? That is why, in other sports, there is then further matchups between those teams to settle that dispute, or in MLB/NBA several games between to try and ensure it wasn't a "one-off."
Is there an answer? Sure, NCAA and its affiliates want to make money by exploiting you, and your emotion. It appears to be working.
If Notre Dame wins the 8 team playoffs, objectively they are the champions. If Alabama wanted to be champs, they shouldn't have lost the game prior. I can also say with certainty that Alabama are not the champions.
The regular season is to determine who gets into the playoffs and the seeding placed on the teams. Once placed, the regular season has no baring on what happens in the playoffs. I really can't think of any sports that is not like this.
I am very confused on your argument
You don't want Northwestern in? Don't let them win your conference. Every team should have the ability to play their way into a playoff outside of a committee's decision. The committee should always be able to respond to complaints about their work with "Win your conference".
If we went to a system where every division 1 conference winner gets a spot, then there are still at large births so teams that lose the fluke CCG can still get in and be seeded appropriately. The only way to know if a team "deserves to win" is to play the games.
If we went to a system where every division 1 conference winner gets a spot, then there are still at large births so teams that lose the fluke CCG can still get in and be seeded appropriately. The only way to know if a team "deserves to win" is to play the games.
An 8 game playoff would make the Champion game participants play 4 extra games after their regular season ends.
I am up for 8, with 8 teams I believe we could get at least 6 out of 8 of the best teams in the country in the playoffs, right now with 4, we get 3 maybe 2 of the best.
I can't see going to 16, I think that is asking to much from the kids.
Maybe have p5 champs with 1 at large getting to 6 then maybe the next two spots from 2 play in games from 4 at large teams? These 4 teams would be long shot for the NC so they will probably not play more than 1 or 2 games but they have a shot
I am up for 8, with 8 teams I believe we could get at least 6 out of 8 of the best teams in the country in the playoffs, right now with 4, we get 3 maybe 2 of the best.
I can't see going to 16, I think that is asking to much from the kids.
Maybe have p5 champs with 1 at large getting to 6 then maybe the next two spots from 2 play in games from 4 at large teams? These 4 teams would be long shot for the NC so they will probably not play more than 1 or 2 games but they have a shot
8 team playoff is three extra games of postseason football.
16 team playoff would take four games to crown a champion.
With unbalanced schedules within conference play and unbalanced conferences in general, I am not in favor of automatic bids with anything less than a 12 team playoff.
Last edited:
Similar threads
