How this season changed my mind on a 12 team playoff

[DB1995]

Doesn’t matter to me, just gonna be more football to watch and the best team will still win, imo it would lead to tougher ooc scheduling because a loss wouldn’t cripple you for the whole season. Plus you get the opportunity to host a playoff game and I can’t think of anything cooler than that. On the other hand, I’m perfectly fine with a 4 team playoff, hell I was fine with the BCS, I feel like we have gotten a deserving champion every year pretty much

 

[VolsSportsFan]

I'm for expanding for the very reason that it just makes the most sense. I get the argument that the playoffs don't need to grow too big and I would have rather it been capped at 8 but 12 is fine.

I love major college football and it's probably the best sport in the country but it also has had the absolute dumbest way of determining a national champion for the longest time.

 

[Rocky Top T]

8 team playoff would be perfect!

 

[JoAllan]

Did GA deserve it last year?
They lost their 13th game.....badly.

Can you badly lose your 13th game yet still be deserving?
"Deserving" is certainly subjective.
I personally feel that their are easily 12 teams deserving of a final shot.

Georgia lost 1 game last year. A game in which they were competitive in for the first half. I also know the teams behind Georgia last year. I never said about about 1 game making someone undeserving. OSU is the only 1 loss team I feel is undeserving because they have only beaten 1 good team, they didn’t play an extremely tough schedule, they had Michigan at home, Michigan was without their best player and still lost.

I simply fee if you lose multiple games and 1 was to a 3-9 team you don’t belong. If you lose 3 games and 1 was to a 5-7 team you don’t belong. So on and so on……yet these teams would be in if it were a 12 team playoff.

Really other than “being Alabama” Bama has made zero case for being in the playoff this season. The best team they beat all year was Mississippi State.

 

[volfan102455]

All conferences are not created equal - this is not high school where teams are classified by size. Some of the schools that are not part of the power 5 conferences have more students.
Some teams if placed in a different conference would win a lot more games and have a good chance at winning a division or conference championship. That still doesn't imply they are the best of the best.

I am all for expanding but no team should receive special treatment - all should have to play their way through to the championship game. And it should be the BEST not the ones that won their conference championship. If all conferences were created equal maybe that would work. But there is too much money tied up within the conference structure as it is so you will not see any alignment to bring parity within the conferences.

Case in point if you had 12 and you said the conference champs get in - assuming no upsets along with taking a team from the 10 conferences plus an independent. Below is the 11 as of right now. If you say only the champs from the power 5 conferences are automatic qualifiers, how is that fair to the other 5 conferences and the independents because it's not. So you either have to say you are including the 12 BEST teams using some criteria or you connect each championship game into the mix knowing you will have 1 at large team along with a lot of blowouts in the early games.

Be careful what you wish for - because this is football and not basketball where the underdog can rise up and win.

- UGA
- UM
- TCU
- USC
- Clemson or NC
- Tulane or UCF
- UTSA
- Ohio
- Boise State
- Troy
- Liberty or Notre Dame

That leaves one opening for an at large team.

 

[malinoisvol]

And when we had the bcs everyone complained because it eliminated the "eyeball test" only humans can give. Lol.

You are correct. However, what those folks failed to realize is that the polls were/are made up of human voters that gave it the human element, albeit slight.

I'd love to see the old BCS input mixed with the playoffs. Just not the playoff committee.

 

[luthervol]

Georgia lost 1 game last year. A game in which they were competitive in for the first half. I also know the teams behind Georgia last year. I never said about about 1 game making someone undeserving. OSU is the only 1 loss team I feel is undeserving because they have only beaten 1 good team, they didn’t play an extremely tough schedule, they had Michigan at home, Michigan was without their best player and still lost.

I simply fee if you lose multiple games and 1 was to a 3-9 team you don’t belong. If you lose 3 games and 1 was to a 5-7 team you don’t belong. So on and so on……yet these teams would be in if it were a 12 team playoff.

Really other than “being Alabama” Bama has made zero case for being in the playoff this season. The best team they beat all year was Mississippi State.

And USC lost to the number 12 team and their best win is against a 3 loss 17th ranked UCLA team.....deserving?....subjective.
TCU: 8 wins of 10 points or less against a marginal schedule.....deserving?.........subjective.

 

[kmkemp11]

Not for the reason you may be thinking.

How some of these voters vote is pure insanity. I get that the CFP committee doesn’t have Lou Holtz and that Midwest troll that had us ranked behind LSU the day after we spanked them in Death Valley. But just watching this weekly, I don’t trust human beings to pick the 4 best teams to play for the title.

Yes. I know they are going to pick the 12 best teams in our next version of the playoffs. The difference is the teams that are left out of those playoffs most likely have 3 losses or more. That’s on them!

Point is, because our Vols have been so active in the polls this year, I’ve seen with fresh eyes just how ridiculous some of these voters and committee members can be. Let the kids decide it on the field. I’m all in for a 12 team playoff.

The problem is that as time goes on, people forget what the original intent was. The reason that we landed on 4 teams is so that we would not possibly leave out a team that had an argument as "the very best team". It would be hard to argue that the current system has failed based on its intent. That said, tournaments are fun. I'd rather see more teams included.

also: agreed, the rankings should be 100% driven by a variety of algorithms that don't involve human input

 

[UTvols#1]

I honestly think an algorithmic approach like the BCS but in a playoff context instead of just one game might be the fairest approach. Even so, I wonder if the drama that results from controversial decisions by human voters is actually good for the sport in terms of all of the discussion it just generates. All of the articles, tweets, bar discussions, forum posts and so on have to get people super engaged and has to be worth a lot of money. It doesn’t go away with a non-human approach but it may or may not end up being less profitable.

Or maybe the controversial decisions are made on purpose to push us to want a 12 playoff ...They want a 12 team playoff don't let them fool you ...It's all about money ..It's all a Hussle ...Shouldn't be bigger than 6 team really ...

 

[JoeMiltonsAgent]

If there were a 16 team playoff right now, here's what the matchups would be this weekend based on ranking...

#16 Oregon State vs #1 Georgia

#15 Oregon vs #2 Michigan

#14 Florida State vs #3 TCU

#13 Kansas State vs #4 USC

#12 Utah vs #5 Ohio State

#11 LSU vs #6 Alabama

#10 Clemson vs #7 Tennessee

#9 Washington vs #8 Penn State

Now, I don't know about you guys but those are some pretty damn good matchups. Yes, there would possibly be some blowouts but there would also be some great games too.

Thanks for posting this.

Those would be some excellent matchups and the ratings would go through the roof.

It would beat the 43 bowl games and inevitable crap games that are gonna get scattered throughout the matchups.

 

[JoAllan]

And USC lost to the number 12 team and their best win is against a 3 loss 17th ranked UCLA team.....deserving?....subjective.
TCU: 8 wins of 10 points or less against a marginal schedule.....deserving?.........subjective.

All those other teams had chances and blew then badly or multiple times.

None of the others have

USC lost on the road by 1 point to the #12 team……..not very subjective. USC has 2 wins vs current top 17 teams and has the chance to gain another win vs a top 12 team……Michigan can’t say that, nor can OSU, nor can Bama

seriously almost anything like this can be subjective…….however we’re not really splitting hairs here. TCU literally has the #1 SOR and a better SOS than Michigan, Georgia, or USC.

literally 4 teams as of now have not blew their own chance. And literally everyone else did BAD.

 

[orangemadam]

Make it a conference champioms only tournament. Then its truly decided on the field. If you arent good enough to win your conference, how the hell can you be the best in the nation for that season?


Anything else and its still just a bunch of nerds deciding who gets a chance to get hot and win an end of the season tournament.

So if LSU beats Georgia, then they would be in? No thanks.

 

[luthervol]

All those other teams had chances and blew then badly or multiple times.

None of the others have

USC lost on the road by 1 point to the #12 team……..not very subjective. USC has 2 wins vs current top 17 teams and has the chance to gain another win vs a top 12 team……Michigan can’t say that, nor can OSU, nor can Bama

seriously almost anything like this can be subjective…….however we’re not really splitting hairs here. TCU literally has the #1 SOR and a better SOS than Michigan, Georgia, or USC.

literally 4 teams as of now have not blew their own chance. And literally everyone else did BAD.

If it was still a two team playoff, then USC would have blown their own chance. It seems like the more spots available, the fewer the number of teams who have blown their own chance.....and that's a good thing.

 

[Daniel_Lincolns_Foot]

So if LSU beats Georgia, then they would be in? No thanks.

Then the conference championships should be eliminated. If they are going to bear no weight, then they're just a meaningless game.

 

[JoAllan]

If it was still a two team playoff, then USC would have blown their own chance. It seems like the more spots available, the fewer the number of teams who have blown their own chance.....and that's a good thing.

Now your just making up crap. I totally understand how a straw man works.

I’ve never mentioned “fewer” and you have never refuted those teams actually had their opportunities and blew them. Some terribly, some multiple times badly.

But keep trying.

Your free to think any way you want. However you can’t use fallacies to bolster and argument…….it doesn’t work that way. If you don’t like mine……just refute them.

 

[VolPack22]

8 teams max.

I was a supporter for the 8 team playoff. That seemed like the perfect number. You get all Power 5 representatives, the best Group of 5, and 2 at-large bids. But there’s not a huge difference between 8 and 12 for me now so I have no issues either way. There are too many FBS teams to only have a 4 team playoff. All the other NCAA sports have a much higher percentage of teams participating in playoffs so it’s only roughly 9% of college football makes the playoff. It’s not a big deal in the grand scheme of things. Compare that to basketball (~19%) and baseball (~21%).

 

[tango]

1. UGA loses SECCG -- becomes 12-1
2. Michigan loses Big10CG -- becomes 12-1
3. TCU loses Big12CG -- becomes 12-1
4. USC wins Pac10CG -- becomes 12-1
5. OSU -- 11-1
6. Bama -- 10-2
7. Tenn -- 10-2

Surely the top 4 remain in the top 4 based on record alone?
And if that's true, then 3 of the 4 conference championship games were utterly meaningless... and the SEC champ, Big10 champ, and Big12 champ are all shut out of the playoff.

There's something inherently wrong with all of that, but damned if I know the solution.

Even with USC at 11-1, losing the Pac10CG, going to 11-2 ... It still seems inherently wrong that OSU could/would jump USC to take the #4 spot.
Seems like there just ought to be a rule about not being able to create your own windfall.. that you cannot back into the playoff like that.

Because it's one thing to lose the conf championship and not get in the playoff, but it's something else entirely NOT to play in the conf championship and get in.

... sure does give the PAC10 some credit for not having 2 divisions... top 2 are in the conf championship game, period.

 

[Brave Volunteer]

Thanks for posting this.

Those would be some excellent matchups and the ratings would go through the roof.

It would beat the 43 bowl games and inevitable crap games that are gonna get scattered throughout the matchups.

Not only that, you could use the playoffs to incorporate ALL of the major bowls, bringing meaning back to them! Have the top 8 seeds host the bottom 8 seeds in round 1. Then use rounds 2 and 3 for the major bowls and then have a seperate championship game in the final round. Or you could "upgrade" one of the upper mid tier bowls like the citrus or the music city bowl and that way all of the major bowls could be in constant rotation for that coveted championship game.

 

[JoeMiltonsAgent]

Not only that, you could use the playoffs to incorporate ALL of the major bowls, bringing meaning back to them! Have the top 8 seeds host the bottom 8 seeds in round 1. Then use rounds 2 and 3 for the major bowls and then have a seperate championship game in the final round.

Agree totally.

I am and have firmly been in the expansion camp.

When they hit the point of over half the programs making bowls, they already cheapened the regular season so I dont buy the argument of lessening the importance of it.

And if Alabama finishes ahead of TN due to recency bias, they are cheapening the regular season as well in ignoring H2H results.

I think 16 is the optimal number though as it fits in the framework of the current major bowls for the playoffs.

 

[luthervol]

Now your just making up crap. I totally understand how a straw man works.

I’ve never mentioned “fewer” and you have never refuted those teams actually had their opportunities and blew them. Some terribly, some multiple times badly.

But keep trying.

Your free to think any way you want. However you can’t use fallacies to bolster and argument…….it doesn’t work that way. If you don’t like mine……just refute them.

What?????
Not making anything up. No straw man. Just some simple logic which I guess can be confused by some.
My point is simply:
If there was a 12 team playoff, a number of teams who have currently blown their chance would not have blown their chance yet.
If there was a two team playoff, a couple of teams who have not blown their chance would have blown their chance already.
A 12 team playoff keeps more teams in contention longer, and IMO that is a great thing.
Every team will ultimately blow their chance but one. It's just better if that blown chance is late in the season or in the playoffs....and leaves little room for claiming that one team's "chance" was unfairly more attainable than another's.

If you support the current system, you support a system where all but 4 teams blow their chance during the regular season and 3 teams blow their chance in the playoffs.

If you support a 12 team playoff, you support a system where all but 12 teams blow their chance during the regular season and 11 teams blow their chance in the playoffs.

Option 2 is better.

 

[BLUTickbusdriver]

Sweet 16 is the way to roll!

 

[luthervol]

Sweet 16 is the way to roll!

I think that is the best of all solutions.

 

[Brave Volunteer]

What?????
Not making anything up. No straw man. Just some simple logic which I guess can be confused by some.
My point is simply:
If there was a 12 team playoff, a number of teams who have currently blown their chance would not have blown their chance yet.
If there was a two team playoff, a couple of teams who have not blown their chance would have blown their chance already.
A 12 team playoff keeps more teams in contention longer, and IMO that is a great thing.
Every team will ultimately blow their chance but one. It's just better if that blown chance is late in the season or in the playoffs....and leaves little room for claiming that one team's "chance" was unfairly more attainable than another's.

If you support the current system, you support a system where all but 4 teams blow their chance during the regular season and 3 teams blow their chance in the playoffs.

If you support a 12 team playoff, you support a system where all but 12 teams blow their chance during the regular season and 11 teams blow their chance in the playoffs.

Option 2 is better.

12 team playoff sucks because it forces a bye for the top 4 teams and I don't agree with that. That artificially creates too much of an advantage IMO and those teams usually already have an advantage. Give them home field advantage in round 1, sure. But an extra week to rest and prepare? No thats bull$hit.

 

[volfan102455]

Because it's one thing to lose the conf championship and not get in the playoff, but it's something else entirely NOT to play in the conf championship and get in.

... sure does give the PAC10 some credit for not having 2 divisions... top 2 are in the conf championship game, period.

The problem is that the two best teams are not playing each other in the SEC and Big 10 championship games and very seldom do. The schedules also are a factor, especially in the SEC. This year, UGA played 2 of the top 5 teams (based on final standings - TN and SC) while TN played all of the other 4 teams (UGA, Bama, LSU and SC).

If those championship games were playing the best two - it would be UGA vs TN and a rematch of OSU and UM, but those teams are in the same division. And in the Big 10 you have the three best teams, year in and year out, in the same division.

The PAC 12 is really no better - there is USC then there are three teams with 7-2 conference records and the one with the second best record, Washington was not selected I guess due to tie breakers with three teams at 7-2. So Utah gets in. Washington did not play either USC or Utah - so we will never know if they by chance were the best team in the PAC 12. They did beat Oregon who beat Utah.

 

[volfan102455]

And some teams never blow their chances because of who they play and where.

And Bama blew their chance with losses to TN and LSU ..... yet they are back in the discussion. And if Clemson had beat SC, even though they supposedly blew their chance with ND, they would still be in the discussion.
And for all practical purposes, OSU should have blown its chance last week.

So why can some teams redeem themselves but some of you are all set on the team you support NOT being able to do the same thing??????????????