College Football Off Topic

[canes21]

Re: College Football Off Topic

And any undefeated P5 team is in. So the majority of teams are getting in undefeated or with 1 loss way more often than not.



I'm kind of surprised people really believe the committee would leave a 13-0 or 12-1 P5 team out in a normal year because their uniform said Sun Devils and not Clemson or Alabama or Ohio State.

[mercalnd]

Re: College Football Off Topic

And any undefeated P5 team is in. So the majority of teams are getting in undefeated or with 1 loss way more often than not.



I'm kind of surprised people really believe the committee would leave a 13-0 or 12-1 P5 team out in a normal year because their uniform said Sun Devils and not Clemson or Alabama or Ohio State.

No one has said a 13-0 P5 team would ever be left out. A 12-1 conference champ may very well be left out in favor of a 11-2 team from another "tougher" conference.

Edit: Just to be clear, I'm not trying to pick on you. Your opinion/points are quite valid on their own merit. You just seem hellbent on countering an argument that no one has made.

[canes21]

Re: College Football Off Topic

The guy said that only the top 1% have a chance at making the playoffs as 1 loss conference champs which is false. That's all I'm trying to counter. We've already seem that isn't since the very beginning of the current system.

[WaitTilNextYear]

Re: College Football Off Topic

I enjoyed this article on the late Bill Fralic. Some of you might be old enough to recognize that he played OL for Pitt and then the Falcons.

https://deadspin.com/bill-fralic-was-a-real-life-incredible-hulk-1831102565

[NYJets]

Re: College Football Off Topic

EDIT: I also don't think the NFL is a good model for CFB. The NFL has been explicitly designed to favor parity. From how the draft works to how revenue sharing and the salary cap works. On the other hand, CFB is a very unfair system by design. There is no leveling of the playing field. Some schools are brand names with carte blanche to spend and recruit (sometimes doing both at the same time...). Other schools lose money, go undefeated, and nobody really cares. I actually don't mind CFB being less egalitarian because it sets up more underdogs vs favorites and the excitement that comes from upsets. If anyone can appreciate a good upset, it's a Michigan fan.

Look I don't think anyone thinks cfb should move anywhere close to the nfl model of having almost 40% of the teams make the playoffs. Its never going to be a completely even playing field for everyone, and I don't think it should be. That said, it's easy to say "I don't mind the inequality of it" when you're a Michigan fan. I think we just need a system that if you manage to do everything right, overcome all the obstacles and build a great team or program without having all the advantages the p5 teams do, than you should get a chance to prove yourself against them.

[NYJets]

Re: College Football Off Topic

Any P5 team that runs the table is making the playoffs. Any P5 team that wins their conference with 1 loss has as good a shot as any other. That is half the NCAA right there, not the top 1%. You really think that if UNC went 12-1 they'd be left out of the playoffs in a normal year? Not likely. If Purdue goes 12-1 they get in.



If the G5 teams want in they can have a schedule similar to Houston's a few years ago, but actually finish the job unlike Houston.



The fact that you're trying to say only the top 1% of programs would get in with 1 loss is laughable. Is Michigan State a top 1% program? Not even close. TCU and Baylor both had shots to get in if the Big 12 wasn't dumb in year one. They are far from top 1% programs. If a P5 school goes 12-1 and we don't have an odd year like this one with 3 undefeated teams then they are more than likely getting in regardless of their name.



Also, you are still missing my point. It wasn't hyperbole to mention professional sports. I decide what my point is, not you. Allowing more and more teams into the playoffs lets more teams that aren't really deserving into the postseason. That is my point. That is a true statement. If we expand to 8 then a 3 loss team is bound to get in. A 3 loss team should never play for a title. If we expand to 16 teams a 4 loss team is likely to get in. A 4 loss team should never play for a title.



It is far from hyperbole to say that the more teams we expand to the more we are going to have teams that shouldn't be there be there. What is hyperbole is saying 99% of programs have no shot at the playoffs if they run the table when we all know good and well any P5 team that goes undefeated is in. We have 129 or 130 FBS teams, over half of them are in P5 conference. That is a far cry from 1%.

mercalnd already pretty much cleared things up, however your original quote said "Having 1 loss made every game after a must win." Which implies that under an 8 team playoff, teams with 1 loss would be playing games knowing that if they lost again they would still have a shot at the playoffs. That is true for only the smallest percentage of teams. No idea how you turned that into me saying only 1% of the teams have any shot at the playoffs.

As far as "expanding the playoffs will let more undeserving teams in" being a true statement, its not. Its your opinion what an "undeserving team" is. Everyone has a different one, there's no definition. Maybe you think undefeated g5 teams, p5 conference champions, and many 1 loss p5 teams that would be getting in if the playoffs were expanded are undeserving to be in the playoffs. That's a reasonable opinion for anyone to have. But its nowhere near the same thing as some of the 8th seeds in the NBA Eastern conference, or 7-9 NFL teams winning a weak division.

[WaitTilNextYear]

Re: College Football Off Topic

Look I don't think anyone thinks cfb should move anywhere close to the nfl model of having almost 40% of the teams make the playoffs. Its never going to be a completely even playing field for everyone, and I don't think it should be. That said, it's easy to say "I don't mind the inequality of it" when you're a Michigan fan. I think we just need a system that if you manage to do everything right, overcome all the obstacles and build a great team or program without having all the advantages the p5 teams do, than you should get a chance to prove yourself against them.

And what better chance would it be to prove yourself than to schedule some stiff OOC games...as we continue to go round and round on this issue.

For the record, my comment about inequality in CFB is more about enjoying the pageantry and the upsets than being an elitist and kicking the ladder off so no one else can climb up. That I'm a Michigan fan (and alum) is certainly a bias I have, but I don't think it's really responsible for my outlook on this issue. It's not like Michigan has been lighting the world on fire for the previous 15 years getting into all these championship games based on name value or anything. So I don't really have much to gain by saying it's basically ok for Bama to continue to rule the CFB world until Nick Saban retires/dies.

[Jr.]

Re: College Football Off Topic

And? You don't design a system like this for a 1 in 1,000,000 chance scenario. We have enough seasons of CFB under our belts to know we'll only have 1-3 undefeated teams per year, usually 1, 2 at most, then a few 1 loss teams also. No reason to expect that to change anytime soon, either.

I was just answering your question. There is a scenario where the committee would have to leave out an undefeated p5 conference champion

Sent from my SM-G920V using Operation Sports mobile app

[TripleCrown9]

Re: College Football Off Topic

Texas Tech is the latest school to approve the sale of alcohol at games.

Which is fantastic news for a non-drinker like me, because it's cutting the cost of other concessions by 50-75%

[canes21]

Re: College Football Off Topic

mercalnd already pretty much cleared things up, however your original quote said "Having 1 loss made every game after a must win." Which implies that under an 8 team playoff, teams with 1 loss would be playing games knowing that if they lost again they would still have a shot at the playoffs. That is true for only the smallest percentage of teams. No idea how you turned that into me saying only 1% of the teams have any shot at the playoffs.

As far as "expanding the playoffs will let more undeserving teams in" being a true statement, its not. Its your opinion what an "undeserving team" is. Everyone has a different one, there's no definition. Maybe you think undefeated g5 teams, p5 conference champions, and many 1 loss p5 teams that would be getting in if the playoffs were expanded are undeserving to be in the playoffs. That's a reasonable opinion for anyone to have. But its nowhere near the same thing as some of the 8th seeds in the NBA Eastern conference, or 7-9 NFL teams winning a weak division.

To the bold, I don't understand why you believe that only the very elite teams would get into the playoffs with 1 loss. If Purdue goes 12-1 they are getting into the playoffs in a normal year. If Duke goes 12-1 they are going to have great chance at getting in. Half of the FBS teams are in P5 conference and any of them that go 12-1 and win their conference are getting into the playoffs in a standard year.


To the underlined part, expanding the playoffs is going to lead to more 2, 3, and even 4 loss teams making the playoffs. This is not a normal year. We have an unusual number of teams that are undefeated or have 1 loss. The playoffs expanding due to one outlier year is silly to me. In the average year, expanding to 8 teams is going to mean we have 2 and 3 loss teams included. It is a lot more common to have 2 and 3 loss teams inside the top 8 than it is to have this many 1 loss or less teams that we have this year.



That is why I say that letting in those teams would be letting in undeserving teams in in my opinion.



I still find it funny you said I was using extreme hyperbole to say that letting in 3 and 4 loss teams would be as bad as the NBA playoffs, yet then say only the top 1% of programs, which means the top 1.3 programs, would be the only ones that could lose and keep their playoff hopes alive. That is an extreme exaggeration compared to what I said.

[TripleCrown9]

Re: College Football Off Topic

Just have a P5 playoff and a G5 playoff and call it a day.

[canes21]

Re: College Football Off Topic

Just have a P5 playoff and a G5 playoff and call it a day.

That's a better idea than letting 3 and 4 loss P5 teams into the playoffs.

[Chip Douglass]

Re: College Football Off Topic

There's a serious lack of self-awareness going on with some members engaged in this discussion.

Saying you're not defending the comments, then following that by justifying them by saying things on the football field aren't G-rated is 100% defending the comments.

Saying that it's not okay to use homophobic language after calling someone "butthurt"? Where do you think the term "butthurt" comes from?

Y'all aren't very good at coming off as inclusive of others, so might as well stop trying and just be honest.

I'm not really seeing any justification for the tweets; just annoyance at the new game among journalists of digging deep into newly-famous-person's social media accounts to find offensive posts/tweets, and then "outing" them.

I'm sure glad social media didn't really exist when I was 14/15 years old so I couldn't leave an online paper trail of my immature ramblings.

[BigDofBA]

Re: College Football Off Topic

You really think the committee is leaving out UNC or Virginia Tech or Purdue or Arizona or any other similar schools if they are 12-1 conference champs? Not unless we have a year like this one where we have an unordinary amount of 1 loss or less teams.

Yes because It’s already happened 2 out of the 4 years we’ve had the playoffs...

TCU didn’t get in as a 1 loss Big 12 champ.

Ohio State didn’t get in as a 1 loss Big 10 champ. If Ohio State gets left out with one loss how do you ever expect Purdue to get in? Lol

We were really close to the committee taking a two loss SEC team over two power five champs that only had one loss this year.....

It’s pretty much a given that a one loss Bama gets in over a 1 loss Purdue, Arizona, etc. you can bank on that.

If Washington State had went 12-1, they had no shot to get in either.

At this point Bama and Clemson have to lose twice now to not be included and teams like Washington State and Washington must go undefeated to get in.

I would say under the current system teams getting screwed is the norm.

It’s still way better than the BCS but we’re still not there yet.

[WaitTilNextYear]

Re: College Football Off Topic

IMO when you have a system in place that determines who plays for a national championship and it can do what in did in 2016 (Penn St wins Big Ten Championship and beats Ohio State head to head but yet Ohio State gets in the playoffs and Penn State doesn’t) then something is terribly wrong with the system.

And, Penn State had one more loss than did Ohio State at the time the pick was made. Definitely leaving that part out here. The Nittany Lions had lost to Pitt and got totally destroyed 49-10 by Michigan. Meanwhile, Ohio State's only loss was a relatively fluky 3-point loss on the road at night to Penn State, where PSU had to score 17 4th quarter points including a 60-yard blocked FG return. A game in which Ohio State outgained Penn State 413-276.

I don't think this means anything is terribly wrong with the system. I wanted Ohio State to get left out at the time due to the head-to-head argument, but upon reflection I think I was just being partisan against OSU.

Besides, this led to 2 great postseason results: an epic PSU-USC Rose Bowl and a fantastic showing by the Buckeyes against Clemson.