Re: CFB Playoff rankings

by **Travis of the Cosmos** 2022-01-01, 15:15

The point is that the comment I was replying to said there was an argument for putting Ohio state in the playoffs and there simply was not. Zero, zilch, none. No argument whatsoever. I don’t think even a buckeye fan would suggest that there was.

by **NigelUno** 2022-01-01, 15:21

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:The point is that the comment I was replying to said there was an argument for putting Ohio state in the playoffs and there simply was not. Zero, zilch, none. No argument whatsoever. I don’t think even a buckeye fan would suggest that there was.

Sure you're not putting words in someone's mouth?

by **Travis of the Cosmos** 2022-01-01, 15:23

NigelUno wrote:
Travis of the Cosmos wrote:The point is that the comment I was replying to said there was an argument for putting Ohio state in the playoffs and there simply was not. Zero, zilch, none. No argument whatsoever. I don’t think even a buckeye fan would suggest that there was.

Sure you're not putting words in someone's mouth?

I don’t know man you’ll have to ask him instead of fighting a different posters internet battles for him

by **tGreenWay** 2022-01-01, 15:40

Turtleneck wrote:Something has to change. This is not enjoyable.

According to tSwill Research Department, in the 16 semi-final games played thus far, only 3 have been decided within 10 points, and in 15-16, 16-17, and 21-22, the semi-final losers combined for less than 20 points

Either the CFP committee routinely gets it wrong, or college football is extremely top heavy. If it's the latter not much can be done, but an expanded playoff would help if it's the former.

It's worth noting what we already know: college football is governed by greed and big brands. Almost every aspect of college football has been corrupted. For example, Hutchinson had no business being a Heisman finalist, but one game against OSU propelled him all the way to the runner-up. No reform will happen that doesn't make the greedy overseers and big brands happy.

Okay, boomer.

by **tGreenWay** 2022-01-01, 15:42

To address another part of Turtleneck’s point, I can’t imagine bowl cities are too happy about how irrelevant so many of their games have become.

by aualum06 2022-01-01, 15:43

Back in the day I always liked the plus 1 idea some too, play all the bowl games like old then pick the last two teams to play for a title. I don't love it as much anymore because it's clear the committee can not be trusted

by **MiamiSpartan** 2022-01-01, 15:57

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:
NigelUno wrote:

Sure you're not putting words in someone's mouth?

I don’t know man you’ll have to ask him instead of fighting a different posters internet battles for him

Give him a break, Travis. The poster's internet battles that he would usually fight for them isn't around here any longer. He's having withdrawls.

by **Trapper Gus** 2022-01-01, 16:10

MiamiSpartan wrote:The fact that the other major bowls have been rendered pretty pointless with players opting out, is the argument for expansion in my mind.

Granted, most won't have a shot at going all the way. But on the other hand, you may get a lower ranked team that had some things go against them (injuries, a bounce here or there) and lost a couple. I think of that Bama team we played in the Capital One Bowl that destroyed us. They were a very different team by that bowl than they were during the season that saw them lose 3 games. They could have competed with anyone by late Dec/Jan.

It is also a better argument for the complete elimination of the "playoff" system and a return to the time honored and fairest way of having all the bowls have meaning and a vote at the end of the bowls for the NC.

by **Trapper Gus** 2022-01-01, 16:14

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:I dunno, I mean the playoffs replaced the BCS where this year you would have had alabama destroying Michigan in the championship game. So in that way it’s functional. It’s not like the playoff championship is always 1 vs 2 even if those first two games are blowouts. I think that expanding the playoffs though only gives more games to watch blowouts as there really aren’t very many times where there are more than 2-3 teams that can compete on that elite level

As I said, get rid of the idea of a "National Championship Game" and return to NC by voting.

Makes all the bowl games relevant and more interesting plus internet arguments become more fun.

by **Trapper Gus** 2022-01-01, 16:16

MiamiSpartan wrote:
Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

I don’t know man you’ll have to ask him instead of fighting a different posters internet battles for him

Give him a break, Travis. The poster's internet battles that he would usually fight for them isn't around here any longer. He's having withdrawls.

Oh please, do you guys really think Michigan is better than OSU just because of one game?

MSU proved that Michigan isn't all that good, and OSU showed MSU for what we are, a very good team but not at the NC level.

by **MiamiSpartan** 2022-01-01, 16:19

kingstonlake wrote:
MiamiSpartan wrote:The fact that the other major bowls have been rendered pretty pointless with players opting out, is the argument for expansion in my mind.

Granted, most won't have a shot at going all the way. But on the other hand, you may get a lower ranked team that had some things go against them (injuries, a bounce here or there) and lost a couple. I think of that Bama team we played in the Capital One Bowl that destroyed us. They were a very different team by that bowl than they were during the season that saw them lose 3 games. They could have competed with anyone by late Dec/Jan.

I hear ya. But just for arguments sake….

What was more entertaining? The cfp semi finals or msu/Pitt and pur/tenn? I don’t see how expanding as a stand alone makes it better. Not without some sort of talent balancing. Right now the ncaa is the nfl without a draft, unrestricted free agency signing, no salary cap, and no schedule balancing. It’s a talent hoard.

It isn't like every other playoff game in an expanded format would be as uncompetitive as the two yesterday. Using this year as an example, there are two teams clearly above the rest. But how much difference is there really between the next 10? The talent is pretty balanced. UM and Cincy wouldn't walk to the Final Four by any means. So basically every game not involving Bama and UGA would be competitive (at least on paper). And even their games can always have upsets.

by **MiamiSpartan** 2022-01-01, 16:21

Trapper Gus wrote:
MiamiSpartan wrote:

Give him a break, Travis. The poster's internet battles that he would usually fight for them isn't around here any longer. He's having withdrawls.

Oh please, do you guys really think Michigan is better than OSU just because of one game?

MSU proved that Michigan isn't all that good, and OSU showed MSU for what we are, a very good team but not at the NC level.

What does this have to do with what I posted?

by **MiamiSpartan** 2022-01-01, 16:24

Trapper Gus wrote:
Travis of the Cosmos wrote:I dunno, I mean the playoffs replaced the BCS where this year you would have had alabama destroying Michigan in the championship game. So in that way it’s functional. It’s not like the playoff championship is always 1 vs 2 even if those first two games are blowouts. I think that expanding the playoffs though only gives more games to watch blowouts as there really aren’t very many times where there are more than 2-3 teams that can compete on that elite level

As I said, get rid of the idea of a "National Championship Game" and return to NC by voting.

Makes all the bowl games relevant and more interesting plus internet arguments become more fun.

Are you in favor of voting for the basketball national champion, too? The Super Bowl Champion? NBA?

There's a reason that there was an outcry for a championship game for college football. It was the only major sport where a champion was not decided on the field. Traditional, yes. Logical, no.

by MSU addict 2022-01-01, 16:27

Trapper Gus wrote:
Travis of the Cosmos wrote:I dunno, I mean the playoffs replaced the BCS where this year you would have had alabama destroying Michigan in the championship game. So in that way it’s functional. It’s not like the playoff championship is always 1 vs 2 even if those first two games are blowouts. I think that expanding the playoffs though only gives more games to watch blowouts as there really aren’t very many times where there are more than 2-3 teams that can compete on that elite level

As I said, get rid of the idea of a "National Championship Game" and return to NC by voting.

Makes all the bowl games relevant and more interesting plus internet arguments become more fun.

Only a couple of bowl games would be relevant, likely fewer than the number of relevant post season games now.

Internet arguments are only fun for trolls.

by **Trapper Gus** 2022-01-01, 16:37

MiamiSpartan wrote:
Trapper Gus wrote:

As I said, get rid of the idea of a "National Championship Game" and return to NC by voting.

Makes all the bowl games relevant and more interesting plus internet arguments become more fun.

Are you in favor of voting for the basketball national champion, too? The Super Bowl Champion? NBA?

There's a reason that there was an outcry for a championship game for college football. It was the only major sport where a champion was not decided on the field. Traditional, yes. Logical, no.

Football, due to the issue that sport is too "demanding" to allow a statistically significant number of games to be played, is not the same as basketball. The Superbowl is a joke, too. A way of making more money, but there are several NFL teams each year that are nearly equal.

March Madness is also a joke if you really want to know which is the best team. Double round robin or some other non-single loss format is more honest.

As for the championship being decided on the field, have them play 7 games and the winner of 4 is the champion. One game does not determine the best team.

Sorry, this is not trolling. Football is not a game when the best team is decided by on the field play in a championship game, because a single data point is not statistically relevant.

by **kingstonlake** 2022-01-01, 16:49

Trapper Gus wrote:
MiamiSpartan wrote:

Are you in favor of voting for the basketball national champion, too? The Super Bowl Champion? NBA?

There's a reason that there was an outcry for a championship game for college football. It was the only major sport where a champion was not decided on the field. Traditional, yes. Logical, no.

Football, due to the issue that sport is too "demanding" to allow a statistically significant number of games to be played, is not the same as basketball. The Superbowl is a joke, too. A way of making more money, but there are several NFL teams each year that are nearly equal.

March Madness is also a joke if you really want to know which is the best team. Double round robin or some other non-single loss format is more honest.

As for the championship being decided on the field, have them play 7 games and the winner of 4 is the champion. One game does not determine the best team.

Sorry, this is not trolling. Football is not a game when the best team is decided by on the field play in a championship game, because a single data point is not statistically relevant.

Why is this single data point correct? …… For the record the UM semifinal game wasn’t a single data point. Over 100 plays were ran.

by **Trapper Gus** 2022-01-01, 16:54

kingstonlake wrote:
Trapper Gus wrote:

Football, due to the issue that sport is too "demanding" to allow a statistically significant number of games to be played, is not the same as basketball. The Superbowl is a joke, too. A way of making more money, but there are several NFL teams each year that are nearly equal.

March Madness is also a joke if you really want to know which is the best team. Double round robin or some other non-single loss format is more honest.

As for the championship being decided on the field, have them play 7 games and the winner of 4 is the champion. One game does not determine the best team.

Sorry, this is not trolling. Football is not a game when the best team is decided by on the field play in a championship game, because a single data point is not statistically relevant.

Why is this single data point correct? …… For the record the UM semi final game wasn’t a single data point. Over 100 plays were ran.

The point is that it is silly to argue about how to determine the NC "on the field" for football, because it really cannot be done.

TeeVee has eaten the former bowl organizer's lunch by creating a mythical NC game.

IMO the former, before any NC game, bowl system was more fun. It didn't create the lie that the best team was the one which won the NC game.

by **kingstonlake** 2022-01-01, 17:00

Ok dude…..

by MSU addict 2022-01-01, 17:15

The fallacy of your argument is your belief that we are trying to determine the best team. That is subjective and can never be done with certainty.

The goal is to determine a national champion - that should never be subjective and should be decided in a competition.

by **NigelUno** 2022-01-01, 17:36

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:
NigelUno wrote:

Sure you're not putting words in someone's mouth?

I don’t know man you’ll have to ask him instead of fighting a different posters internet battles for him

Why would I have to ask him if you're putting words in his mouth?

Kind of seems like you're admitting you are with your deflection.

by **NigelUno** 2022-01-01, 17:38

MiamiSpartan wrote:
Trapper Gus wrote:

Oh please, do you guys really think Michigan is better than OSU just because of one game?

MSU proved that Michigan isn't all that good, and OSU showed MSU for what we are, a very good team but not at the NC level.

What does this have to do with what I posted?

I know, right?

You were just trying to highjack the thread. How dare anyone try to stay on topic.

by **Motown Spartan** 2022-01-01, 17:39

MSU addict wrote:The goal is to determine a national champion - that should never be subjective and should be decided in a competition.

Or a sword fight.

by **Death Roe** 2022-01-01, 17:41

Nigel trying to accuse others of hijacking threads???

by AvgMSUJoe 2022-01-01, 17:44

We should just go back to the olden days when we assumed Notre Dame was NC until the newspaper told us different.

by **Trapper Gus** 2022-01-01, 17:58

MSU addict wrote:The fallacy of your argument is your belief that we are trying to determine the best team. That is subjective and can never be done with certainty.

The goal is to determine a national champion - that should never be subjective and should be decided in a competition.

?

So, the national champion isn't the best team?

Okay, put all the teams who play football, including Albion, in a hat. pull out 2, have them play. The winner is the NC. Yes /s, but really that is what is being said here.

So instead of blowing up the bowls as money makers for the local communities that started them just stick with them and vote, same difference, as we agree the winner of the NC game is not the best team.

by **NigelUno** 2022-01-01, 18:01

Death Roe wrote:Nigel trying to accuse others of hijacking threads???

Pantry is probably crying.

by **kingstonlake** 2022-01-01, 18:02

Death Roe wrote:Nigel trying to accuse others of hijacking threads???

Drama girl club only has one member now. Cut him some slack.

by **Nordic** 2022-01-01, 18:05

kingstonlake wrote:
Death Roe wrote:Nigel trying to accuse others of hijacking threads???

Drama girl club only has one member now. Cut him some slack.

I'm on team Nigel in this thread afro

by MSU addict 2022-01-01, 19:05

Trapper Gus wrote:
MSU addict wrote:The fallacy of your argument is your belief that we are trying to determine the best team. That is subjective and can never be done with certainty.

The goal is to determine a national champion - that should never be subjective and should be decided in a competition.

?

So, the national champion isn't the best team?

Okay, put all the teams who play football, including Albion, in a hat. pull out 2, have them play. The winner is the NC. Yes /s, but really that is what is being said here.

So instead of blowing up the bowls as money makers for the local communities that started them just stick with them and vote, same difference, as we agree the winner of the NC game is not the best team.

The national champion may be the best team, it may not be. Which team is "best" is subjective, dependent on your definition of "best," subject to variables and will always be fluid.

Argumentum ad absurdum has its place in philosophical discussions but is just silly in the context you are attempting to use it. The relevant discussion is how to choose teams for a college football playoff and how many teams to choose.

If your suggestion is choosing two teams out of hat - feel free to defend that position.

by **Turtleneck** 2022-01-01, 19:45

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:I dunno, I mean the playoffs replaced the BCS where this year you would have had alabama destroying Michigan in the championship game. So in that way it’s functional. It’s not like the playoff championship is always 1 vs 2 even if those first two games are blowouts. I think that expanding the playoffs though only gives more games to watch blowouts as there really aren’t very many times where there are more than 2-3 teams that can compete on that elite level

Rocinante wrote:
Turtleneck wrote:
Either the CFP committee routinely gets it wrong, or college football is extremely top heavy. If it's the latter not much can be done, but an expanded playoff would help if it's the former.

It’s the latter.

I tend to agree with both of you. In a given year there are maybe three teams that are legitimate contenders. I don't think it was always this way, but it certainly is right now. I think an expanded playoff with conference champions is the most just system, but it would not make a difference. It is frustrating that 80% of the semi-final games are non-competitive. Of those 13 semi-final games decided by 10+ points, 9 were decided by 20+ points. It's boring.

by AvgMSUJoe 2022-01-01, 20:07

Btw, Everybody knows Zion Willianson will win the NC so why even bother with the tourny.

by **Trapper Gus** 2022-01-01, 21:31

MSU addict wrote:
Trapper Gus wrote:

?

So, the national champion isn't the best team?

Okay, put all the teams who play football, including Albion, in a hat. pull out 2, have them play. The winner is the NC. Yes /s, but really that is what is being said here.

So instead of blowing up the bowls as money makers for the local communities that started them just stick with them and vote, same difference, as we agree the winner of the NC game is not the best team.
The national champion may be the best team, it may not be. Which team is "best" is subjective, dependent on your definition of "best," subject to variables and will always be fluid.

Argumentum ad absurdum has its place in philosophical discussions but is just silly in the context you are attempting to use it. The relevant discussion is how to choose teams for a college football playoff and how many teams to choose.

If your suggestion is choosing two teams out of hat - feel free to defend that position.

Anointing some teams to play is a meaningless championship ...

It isn't a national championship; it is a game that will draw viewers to sell ad time.

The bowels and polls worked fine for a long, long time.

by **Turtleneck** 2022-01-01, 22:00

Actually they didn't work fine.

Between 1960-1980, you had nine years in which 2 or more teams shared the national championship. Then you had it in back-to-back years in 1990 and 1991, and again in 1997 and 2003.

We just tolerated that system, but it was as ridiculous as anything we have now.

by AvgMSUJoe 2022-01-01, 22:10

PennSpartan wrote:
AvgMSUJoe wrote:
No, shitty take.
As um proved this year even a blind squirrel finds a nut... that said, I bet with the playoff structure the recruiting advantages might even out a bit. More kids would consider more teams.
No. As the expanded basketball tournament has shown, it just means more teams that have no business getting in playing in half empty arenas.

And Cincinnati couldn't beat ND and um is going to get housed by osu...
You know nothing and hate football.

by **Motown Spartan** 2022-01-01, 22:29

AvgMSUJoe wrote:
PennSpartan wrote:
No. As the expanded basketball tournament has shown, it just means more teams that have no business getting in playing in half empty arenas.
And Cincinnati couldn't beat ND and um is going to get housed by osu...
You know nothing and hate football.

Well, he is a BLUE!!

by **Cameron** 2022-01-01, 22:40

Nordic wrote:
kingstonlake wrote:

Drama girl club only has one member now. Cut him some slack.

I'm on team Nigel in this thread

CFB Playoff rankings - Page 5 200.gif?cid=ddb306a56nnxwl92pjunbqs8g2eucrdum1953up8j5cui84o&rid=200

by MSU addict 2022-01-01, 22:57

Trapper Gus wrote:
MSU addict wrote:
The national champion may be the best team, it may not be. Which team is "best" is subjective, dependent on your definition of "best," subject to variables and will always be fluid.

Argumentum ad absurdum has its place in philosophical discussions but is just silly in the context you are attempting to use it. The relevant discussion is how to choose teams for a college football playoff and how many teams to choose.

If your suggestion is choosing two teams out of hat - feel free to defend that position.

Anointing some teams to play is a meaningless championship ...

It isn't a national championship; it is a game that will draw viewers to sell ad time.

The bowels and polls worked fine for a long, long time.

It is not a perfect system, but it is better system. A team should be required to play what is believed to be the other top teams.

I believe it should be an 8 team playoff.

The bowls/polls did not work as well as you remember - there is a reason most people supported a change.

by **Trapper Gus** 2022-01-02, 08:25

MSU addict wrote:
Trapper Gus wrote:

Anointing some teams to play is a meaningless championship ...

It isn't a national championship; it is a game that will draw viewers to sell ad time.

The bowels and polls worked fine for a long, long time.
It is not a perfect system, but it is better system. A team should be required to play what is believed to be the other top teams.

I believe it should be an 8 team playoff.

The bowls/polls did not work as well as you remember - there is a reason most people supported a change.

The support was far less than you remember.

It always was about money.

If Saben wasn't coaching the best team would be harder to identify and there would be more questioning of the results.

And you are arguing for a system in which MSU was screwed out of playing the one year they were arguably good enough and did play when they really had no chance. Without this system MSU fans would have a much better argument that MSU was the NC that one year. but because the Rose Bowl result "doesn't count" due to the fraudulate NC game it is not something anyone will much argue.

by **Jake from State Farm** 2022-01-02, 09:36

Trapper Gus wrote:
MSU addict wrote:
It is not a perfect system, but it is better system. A team should be required to play what is believed to be the other top teams.

I believe it should be an 8 team playoff.

The bowls/polls did not work as well as you remember - there is a reason most people supported a change.

The support was far less than you remember.

It always was about money.

If Saben wasn't coaching the best team would be harder to identify and there would be more questioning of the results.

And you are arguing for a system in which MSU was screwed out of playing the one year they were arguably good enough and did play when they really had no chance. Without this system MSU fans would have a much better argument that MSU was the NC that one year. but because the Rose Bowl result "doesn't count" due to the fraudulate NC game it is not something anyone will much argue.

Why doesn't MSU just retroactively award themselves the NC for that year? It's worked pretty well for the fraudsters down the road.

by MSU addict 2022-01-02, 10:36

Trapper Gus wrote:
MSU addict wrote:
It is not a perfect system, but it is better system. A team should be required to play what is believed to be the other top teams.

I believe it should be an 8 team playoff.

The bowls/polls did not work as well as you remember - there is a reason most people supported a change.

The support was far less than you remember.

It always was about money.

If Saben wasn't coaching the best team would be harder to identify and there would be more questioning of the results.

And you are arguing for a system in which MSU was screwed out of playing the one year they were arguably good enough and did play when they really had no chance. Without this system MSU fans would have a much better argument that MSU was the NC that one year. but because the Rose Bowl result "doesn't count" due to the fraudulate NC game it is not something anyone will much argue.

No one questions the results of who won an actual game (except of course the smaller Big Ten school in the state). That is why a national champion should always be decided on the field.

2 teams is better than 0
4 is better than 2
8 is better than 4

Before you attempt to argue the absurd, there are of course practical limits. Personally, I would like to see a 16 team playoff coupled with the elimination of a regular season game/conference championship games. I doubt that idea would have wide support though.

I am sure you realize that in your scenario U of M would have played Utah in the Rose Bowl this year and had they won, would be claiming a share of the National Championship instead of crawling back to Ann Arbor with their tail between their legs.

by Sponsored content