CFB Playoff rankings

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 playoff we have now is still dictated by polls, and would be if they were expanded.  The only way to truly make it “fair” is to break up the conferences and have divisions like the NFL.  The only thing that has changed from the old days is we have a four team playoff between teams that people think are the best.

PennSpartan 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 playoff we have now is still dictated by polls, and would if they were expanded.  The only way to truly make it “fair” is to break up the conferences and have divisions like the NFL.  The only thing that has changed from the old days is we have a four team playoff between teams that people think are the best.  

You could have 5 Power Five Conference Champs and then 3 "wild card" teams to make 8 (somewhat similar to the NFL).

Or 5 and 1 wild card (with 2 byes in the First Round).

NigelUno wrote:

PennSpartan wrote:
The playoff we have now is still dictated by polls, and would if they were expanded.  The only way to truly make it “fair” is to break up the conferences and have divisions like the NFL.  The only thing that has changed from the old days is we have a four team playoff between teams that people think are the best.  

You could have 5 Power Five Conference Champs and then 3 "wild card" teams to make 8 (somewhat similar to the NFL).

Or 5 and 1 wild card (with 2 byes in the First Round).

Who decides the wild card teams? That still seems like a judgment call. The SEC would demand they get three teams in, especially after Texas and Oklahoma join.

PennSpartan wrote:

NigelUno wrote:

You could have 5 Power Five Conference Champs and then 3 "wild card" teams to make 8 (somewhat similar to the NFL).

Or 5 and 1 wild card (with 2 byes in the First Round).

Who decides the wild card teams? That still seems like a judgment call. The SEC would demand they get three teams in, especially after Texas and Oklahoma join.

The SEC is killing playoff expansion talk now. They're not in favor of (all) Power 5 Conference Champs getting automatic berths.

Trapper Gus wrote:

MSU addict wrote:
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.

Ahh ... but you see I think that would be fine ... since any NC game is an arbitrary judgement as to its participants then every NC game result is created by an arbitrary judgement, just like using the polls was, it just moves where the arbitrary judgement is made in time.

Since it is just decided by the polls earlier in the process, I think it is more fun to use the polls and to be able to argue about it every after, rather than believing that the winner of a game between arbitrarily chosen participants is truly the "national champion".

edit - as for UofM, if UGA and UofM played 10 games in a row my guess is that UofM would win at least 2 or 3, so is it because UGA really is the better team, or just on one night?

You use the term arbitrary three times in the same sentence to drive home a point and clearly you have no idea what that term actually means. The teams are not chosen arbitrarily.

The answer to your question is that UGA beat Michigan. End of discussion. Yet you want to continue to "argue" about who is the better team.

I get it - you like to argue inane points. Yay you.

You guys are arguing with a a guy who thinks only white people can be racist based on some bullshit semantic argument. And he's using the same logic.

PennSpartan 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 playoff we have now is still dictated by polls, and would be if they were expanded.  The only way to truly make it “fair” is to break up the conferences and have divisions like the NFL.  The only thing that has changed from the old days is we have a four team playoff between teams that people think are the best.

As I said earlier it is not a perfect system. There will never be a perfect system. There will never a system that makes everyone happy. But you don't throw the baby out with the bath water.

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

Trapper Gus wrote:

MSU addict wrote:
You use the term arbitrary three times in the same sentence to drive home a point and clearly you have no idea what that term actually means.  The teams are not chosen arbitrarily.

The answer to your question is that UGA beat Michigan.  End of discussion.  Yet you want to continue to "argue" about who is the better team.

I get it - you like to argue inane points.  Yay you.  

I am arguing that the pre national championship game era was better.

Many bowl games had some impact on who was selected as the NC, so they were more interesting.

Also, arguing the current system is just as arbitrary as just using polls, since it just uses polls to select the teams in the NC games, so arbitrary, just at a different point in the selection process.  

Now we have a whole bunch of totally meaningless bowls and an NC game which does not determine the best team, only the one that is playing well on one day.  It is a boring, meaningless system, IMO.

BTW don't think that adding more games makes the current system better, probably makes it even worse.

As you said earlier - you feel the Superbowl is a joke.  March Madness is a joke.  

I get it - you like to argue and you dislike things that provide clarity and limits your ability to do so.  Unfortunately, I do not feel the same way.  

I do hope there are some clouds outside where you live - because a little bird told me they hate it when you yell at them.

Old bowl system felt like Olympic gymnastics or diving or some shit... the "winner" was judged to be the winner... while they can't feasibly have a 5 game series for each level, a single game tournament is the closest to something regarding competition.

AvgMSUJoe wrote:Old bowl system felt like Olympic gymnastics or diving or some shit... the "winner" was judged to be the winner... while they can't feasibly have a 5 game series for each level, a single game tournament is the closest to something regarding competition.

And the new system determined that Michigan was the #2 team in the country, which they clearly were not. It’s flawed.

PennSpartan wrote:

AvgMSUJoe wrote:Old bowl system felt like Olympic gymnastics or diving or some shit... the "winner" was judged to be the winner... while they can't feasibly have a 5 game series for each level, a single game tournament is the closest to something regarding competition.

And the new system determined that Michigan was the #2 team in the country, which they clearly were not. It’s flawed.

And that is why they are not one of the two in the championship game. The playoff allowed that to be shown on the field.

MiamiSpartan wrote:

PennSpartan wrote:
And the new system determined that Michigan was the #2 team in the country, which they clearly were not. It’s flawed.

And that is why they are not one of the two in the championship game. The playoff allowed that to be shown on the field.

Except based on the result, they shouldn’t have been in the playoff.

Isn't it fun arguing with people that have already decided that they will not see your point of view?

PennSpartan is a BLUE!!!

Motown Spartan wrote:Isn't it fun arguing with people that have already decided that they will not see your point of view?

PennSpartan is a BLUE!!!

When your point of view is wrong, I love arguing with you!

PennSpartan wrote:

MiamiSpartan wrote:

And that is why they are not one of the two in the championship game. The playoff allowed that to be shown on the field.

Except based on the result, they shouldn’t have been in the playoff.

You can be a Top 4 team, even if you lose to a Top 2 team.

NigelUno wrote:

PennSpartan wrote:
Except based on the result, they shouldn’t have been in the playoff.

You can be a Top 4 team, even if you lose to a Top 2 team.

My point is that they keep trying to rank teams, and aren’t very good at it. Go with a pro model and select the teams based on conference championships and records. And there should never be two teams from the same conference in the championship. Even if you think they are the two best teams. Georgia-Alabama was already settled a couple of weeks ago. Don’t do it again.

Cameron wrote:

PennSpartan wrote:
My point is that they keep trying to rank teams, and aren’t very good at it. Go with a pro model and select the teams based on conference championships and records. And there should never be two teams from the same conference in the championship. Even if you think they are the two best teams. Georgia-Alabama was already settled a couple of weeks ago. Don’t do it again.

Michigan won the B1G...

And Georgia lost the SEC

Cameron wrote:You stated repeatedly that Michigan shouldn't have been in the playoff, while at the same time stating that the best method would involve conference championships and records. Michigan was 11-1 and a conference champ. Georgia has no bearing on the blatant contradiction in your stance.

They selected Michigan based on their rankings, not because they won the BIG Championship. Do you think they would have selected Iowa if they won that game?

PennSpartan wrote:

MiamiSpartan wrote:

And that is why they are not one of the two in the championship game. The playoff allowed that to be shown on the field.

Except based on the result, they shouldn’t have been in the playoff.

Would anyone else have been better? Maybe a matchup here or there would favor someone to do better, but I tend to think that after Georgia and Bama there isn't a lot of difference between the next 10 or so teams.

tRCMB……. the gift you can’t return.

MiamiSpartan wrote:

PennSpartan wrote:
Except based on the result, they shouldn’t have been in the playoff.

Would anyone else have been better? Maybe a matchup here or there would favor someone to do better, but I tend to think that after Georgia and Bama there isn't a lot of difference between the next 10 or so teams.

Selecting Georgia to be in the playoff shows they don’t care about conference championships. Why have them? I’m simply suggesting they have a system that is consistent. If winning the conference has no bearing, don’t play the game.

PennSpartan wrote:

MiamiSpartan wrote:

And that is why they are not one of the two in the championship game. The playoff allowed that to be shown on the field.

Except based on the result, they shouldn’t have been in the playoff.

Wait, so who should have been?

Penn just thinks college GameDay crew should set it up.

AvgMSUJoe wrote:

PennSpartan wrote:
Except based on the result, they shouldn’t have been in the playoff.

Wait, so who should have been?

In my opinion, it should be conference champions. With only 4 teams presently, there would probably have to be some weight give to strength of schedule. If they are going to base it on rankings only, go back to the BCS days and just pick two teams.

PennSpartan wrote:

AvgMSUJoe wrote:
Wait, so who should have been?

In my opinion, it should be conference champions. With only 4 teams presently, there would probably have to be some weight give to strength of schedule. If they are going to base it on rankings only, go back to the BCS days and just pick two teams.

So, your answer is michigan?

And why not just play it out with a tournament and take most subjectiveness out of it again?

AvgMSUJoe wrote:

PennSpartan wrote:
In my opinion, it should be conference champions. With only 4 teams presently, there would probably have to be some weight give to strength of schedule. If they are going to base it on rankings only, go back to the BCS days and just pick two teams.

So, your answer is michigan?

What part of Conference Champions confuses you?

Cameron wrote:

PennSpartan wrote:
What part of Conference Champions confuses you?

What part of "Michigan won the B1G" confuses you?

Nothing. They would be in this year, not every year monkey.

K, fuck this, a basketball game is on.

Cameron wrote:

PennSpartan wrote:
And the new system determined that Michigan was the #2 team in the country, which they clearly were not.  It’s flawed.  

PennSpartan wrote:
Except based on the result, they shouldn’t have been in the playoff.

PennSpartan wrote:
Nothing.  They would be in this year, not every year monkey.

If it helps you understand, go watch the NFL for a while. Get back to me if you find they have a selection committee that ranks the teams for the playoffs.

MSU addict wrote:
2 teams is better than 0
4 is better than 2
8 is better than 4

No, Maybe, No

The idea we must name a "National Champion" is just bullshit. The beauty of college football was that there was discussion. People could have legit arguments about 1997 Nebraska/Michigan or 1990 Colorado/Georgia Tech--okay maybe not the former. How many people remember any of the other New Years Six bowls since the playoffs expanded? We have several posters in this tread that admitted they can't recall who was even in these games. Before it was classic must see TV, we knew who the Orange, Cotton, Sugar and of course Rose Bowl would have because it was tied to conferences. There was pride tied to these and we knew which one was "better".

Adding more teams is NOT the solution. With expanded playoffs it is LESS likely that the best team will win it. Look at baseball, how many wild card teams win it now. They are talking about expanding that, and soon we will have a 0.500 baseball team win the World Series. It just devalues everything. Even in the NFL, the best team is not the Super Bowl champs.

I do not know if it is because I am older or the result of the playoff, but my interest in the sport outside MSU is way down. The idea of further expansion of the playoffs to be a major turnoff. Going back to the idea of 1990, the causal viewer watched BOTH the Orange and the Citrus bowls because they wanted to see the national champion and decide for themselves. So I don't see how expanded playoffs increases TV viewership.

Cameron wrote:The only thing I need help understanding is how one can be so stupid and so smarmy at the same time.

I’ll mark you down as saying the NFL is stupid.