That's not to say that a playoff system isn't worth it; at this point, I've come to believe that it's the best way to crown a champion. But it does teach us a couple of things, I think. The first is that sticking to a rigid set of rankings is probably a bad idea.
I'm a little bit different than Year2 on this , but not much. There should be a selection committee of people who follow the game, and they should have access to all the polls and the computer data, and they should take into account who won their conference and who didn't and who had the tougher schedules. There should probably be some standards to keep the committee from doing something insane, but those rules should be as general and as few as possible.
The second is that setting up a playoff system to try to reduce uncertainty in selecting a champion is a pointless exercise. There will be uncertainty if there are four teams in the playoffs or eight or College basketball has almost 70 teams in its tournament and there are still arguments about whether the selection committee passed over a deserving team for an undeserving one.
Those establishing the college football playoffs have to walk a fine line here -- creating the best postseason for the sport while still preserving one of the most important regular seasons in the world. There are a lot of advantages to the four team format, including a series of high-caliber games that will be played among truly elite teams that deserve a championship.
But one of those advantages is not to stamp out controversy, because no championship system is ever going to do that -- all a large tournament can do is begin to erode the regular season that makes the sport so popular in a never-ending quest for a perfect system that is nothing more than a mirage.
Cookie banner We use cookies and other tracking technologies to improve your browsing experience on our site, show personalized content and targeted ads, analyze site traffic, and understand where our audiences come from. By choosing I Accept , you consent to our use of cookies and other tracking technologies. Filed under: SEC Football. Reddit Pocket Flipboard Email. Getty Images. This is not a panacea for the schools formerly known as non-AQ Despite the fact that much of the agitation for a playoff has come from non-AQ fans and supporters like Tim Brando, a four-team playoff doesn't appear to do much to fix the fact that those teams -- which will not be "non-AQ" schools after the current contract ends because those classifications won't exist -- haven't won a national championship since the BCS was put in place.
You didn't like the rematch? Just wait for the playoffs The likely trigger for the surge in the popularity of the playoff idea was the meeting of No. What would it have meant for the SEC?
If this team doesn't get picked, would a mid-major ever get picked? Opening the field up to four again makes things messy. One-loss Big Ten champion Penn State gets in, but who gets the fourth spot? Ohio State, which lost only to No. Oregon, which lost only to USC? And what about Georgia, coming off a point pasting of LSU?
The most interesting aspect comes, obviously, with the presence of Notre Dame. Like it or not, a smoking hot, two-loss Notre Dame is going to get serious consideration.
The main problem is the thought of a committee of old college football folks passing over Ohio State and Notre Dame. Ask any Baylor or TCU fan, who'll tell you that might be hard for the committee. Like , this appears to be a year where only one team has established an entirely deserving resume. Again, we've got an undefeated mid-major, wondering why they shouldn't automatically get a bid. I struggle to see the committee picking LSU, which had two losses and fell to Florida.
For basically the fifth or sixth consecutive season, you've got a big mess at No. Louisville, the Big East champion, was not a mid-major but was still somewhat viewed as such, thanks to the ACC's picking apart of the Big East. And would the committee even give one second of consideration to Boise State?
The answer to that might depend on whether Utah gets blown out by USC the year prior. Ah, yes. The Season , the most glorious disaster flick of all.
After countless upsets, countless No. What happens with a four-team Playoff? Does Oklahoma get credit for the fact that one of its losses took place with Sam Bradford concussed? Does Georgia get bonus points for catching fire late?
Does Missouri get credited or punished for going versus teams not named Oklahoma? Does Kansas get credit for losing just once albeit to Missouri? And what of undefeated Hawaii? This season either had more candidates deserving of a Playoff spot, or it had the fewest ever.
I lean latter. Hawaii was far from dominant against a weak schedule and doesn't get much consideration. I say that leaves the next two conference champions on the list. After that, there is once again a messy pile. Alabama ranked No. USC hadn't lost since September and had outscored its last five opponents, Texas Tech beat Texas and lost only to Oklahoma. Penn State was a conference champion with only a one-point loss to nine-win Iowa. And Boise State was still undefeated. In the real , we had a huge Oklahoma-or-Texas debate.
With a Playoff, the debate is even larger. Boise State is eliminated because Utah is also undefeated and has better wins. Texas Tech is eliminated because of the magnitude of its loss to Oklahoma If you like computers and we know the committee does not , USC gets the easy nod. And if Utah had a good reputation after its Playoff appearance, maybe that carries weight. I wonder if the committee goes with Penn State.
Meanwhile, USC had only one road win over a team with a winning record Arizona. USC crushed Ohio State and passed the eyeball test and we know that matters. Get all kinds of college football stories, rumors, game coverage, and Jim Harbaugh oddity in your inbox every day. In comparison, is downright clean. You've got three undefeated power-conference champions, you've got two undefeated mid-majors, and you've got a Florida that was undefeated until the SEC Championship.
The Broncos had the famous falcon-punch win over win Oregon and would go on to beat TCU in the Fiesta Bowl but had beaten just one team with a pulse since September: Nevada.
TCU's early win -- especially the win at eventual ACC title game participant Clemson -- is probably enough to give the Frogs the nod over a Florida that had just gotten thumped by Alabama. But again, that might be naive on my part.
The committee's view on mid-majors, whatever that actually is, completely colors And if TCU doesn't get in, who does? Assuming Wisconsin -- viewed by many as the hottest team in the country -- is in, what about Michigan State which beat Wisconsin? Ohio State which lost only at Wisconsin? Stanford which lost only at Oregon? Technically, Michigan State would have won the Big Ten tie-breaker.
Does that carry weight? Because I'm struggling to grasp the alternative, we'll say the committee goes with TCU. And that's good because the Horned Frogs were awesome.
Don't pretend they wouldn't have had an excellent shot against Auburn. Perhaps the most jarring aspect of this offseason Playoff debate is the impact that a single season -- -- had on the process. As we have seen through this exercise, different factors and obstacles arise in different seasons. But we saw a push for a "conference champions" qualification because Alabama made the BCS Championship, and we saw a push for a selection committee, in part, because people were scared of the thought of Stanford making it in over Pac champion Oregon, which won at Stanford.
In terms of standings and tie-breakers, head-to-head results matter. And yes, Oregon beat Stanford head-to-head and took the Pac title. Most people absolutely hated the Bowl Championship Series. Maybe it was the fact that only two teams got to play for the national title each year. Perhaps some people just really hated the computers that were baked into the BCS formula. Whatever the reason, few if any actually liked the BCS in its entirety.
After six years of watching the College Football Playoff selection committee pick their top four behind closed doors, with only retroactive explanations for their selections, a little more transparency might honestly be nice. For all the flaws of the BCS, a person could at least project how it was going to look from week to week with a simple spreadsheet and a few rudimentary formulas.
In the opening segment, we wax nostalgic about the BCS days and imagine how the BCS rankings would deal with a wacky season that puts even to shame for the sheer level of chaos. In a week where more and more football games are being canceled even since this podcast was recorded, things just keep getting weirder and riskier.
After the BCS discussion and a short break, we return for our weekly look at five key games and offer up our picks against the spread.
0コメント