But I don’t agree with automatic bids for G5 teams, I don’t agree with conference champions automatically getting first round byes, and I agree Indiana should be top 12 but not 5th, more like 12th. Idk how you reward a team that paid Louisville to take them off their schedule. If we are giving automatic bids to conference champions then FSU should’ve gotten in last season. Also, if the playoffs started today then Boise State would get a first round bye and they didn’t beat a single top 25 team all season. We need to fix this system. My rant for today.
I might sound SEC bias
- Thread starter Maccmaine12
- Start date
Putting on my "non SEC" hat, it's probably a stipulation other conferences insisted on so we wouldn't have an all B10/SEC top 4 every year. Because with the bye, those teams have a huge advantage.
We will say that those teams earned those rankings, of course.
Imho, playing a 16 seed should be all the advantage a 1 seed gets. ( i suppose home field too) I don't like the bye advantage.
Yes, I'm just seeing if anyone has an justification for why a G5 team gets included.
I have the (unpopular)opinion that there should be ZERO automatic bids. Fill the bracket with the top 12 teams. Period. I don't care if you won your conference. I don't care if you're P5, P4, G5, G4..... Top 12 get seeded. Are we trying to find the best team of the best, or the best of a group who got participation trophies?
Never liked the idea of auto bids for any conference champions unless there were some qualifiers. The 2011 Clemson team is the poster child for this and probably along with whoever wins both the Big 12 and ACC this season. Boise St could win either of those leagues this year but won't get an auto bid as is. Auto bids assume all conferences are created equally and they simply aren't.
Exactly. A 2 loss Colorado might win the Big12 and they’re not a playoff quality team imo. We saw Clemson get their head beat in twice this season when they played a team with a pulse and they have a chance to win the ACC championship.
I agree. Winning your conference will give you bonus points but I’m not sold that a 2/3 loss Big12 championship is better than a 3 loss SEC team that losses came from top 10 teams.
Bring back the BCS system to determine the top 4 or 5 teams....
I'll send Nick Saban another hand written letter. I'm 100% positive that once he received my letter about rules changes for "faking injuries" --- that's when we saw a letter from the SEC commish telling all teams to knock it off. I'll get started........
I'll send Nick Saban another hand written letter. I'm 100% positive that once he received my letter about rules changes for "faking injuries" --- that's when we saw a letter from the SEC commish telling all teams to knock it off. I'll get started........
I've said it before but I'll say it again in a different way at the risk of sounding repetitive. If you have two choices in brackets with one being 16 teams and the other with 12 teams and a week off for four of them, you go with 16 teams.
Don't remember if I said this somewhere here or in a text thread, but use the BCS rankings to determine the 12 participants. Most people disliked the BCS which I found to be part of the entertainment. It was imperfect as any process is, but was also the least subjective. The 4 team playoff wound up providing what the BCS title game would have been most seasons so who needs a committee.
People complained about how the national champion was determined before the BCS.
People complained about how the national champion was determined with the BCS.
People complained about how the national champion was determined with the 4-team playoff.
People are already complaining about how the national champion will be determined with the 12-team playoff.
Are you noticing a trend?
People complained about how the national champion was determined with the BCS.
People complained about how the national champion was determined with the 4-team playoff.
People are already complaining about how the national champion will be determined with the 12-team playoff.
Are you noticing a trend?
I didn’t care for the BCS bowls being tied to conferences. It was a shame that SC beat two of the teams that won a BCS Bowl in 2013 and didn’t get in a BCS Bowl
I'm one of the very few who actually could have lived with the BCS. I was just jaded from a couple split championships.
I was certainly happy with 4 team playoffs.
We'll see if the 12/16 team playoffs grow on me.
My theory is that after decades of discussion that the powers that be finally broke down and decided a playoff would be the way to go after the Bama-LSU title game.
Then Ohio St got one, Clemson got a couple but the SEC still ruled the NC scene including another all SEC title game. So they went to 12 hoping to break the stranglehold again.
Sankey read the tea leaves and tried to implement this same playoff format and all were on board until the TX to Oklahoma news broke. But then after the aforementioned all SECcg everyone got back on board.
If there continues to be 12 teams as soon as another all SECcg occurs, and it will, the playoff will expand to 16 if not 24.
Common denominator being all are subjective and committee driven.
Well, there was a UGA-Alabama National Championship game after that one, was there not?
Perhaps.
The real common denominator is that no matter what system you dream up, people are going to complain.
Don't waste so much time trying to devise something that seems fair to everyone.
As to the committee-driven part, if you went to a pure, unbiased computer-driven model, people would raise all kinds of stink over that as well for being purely data-driven and making no allowance for intangible factors.
People will complain. Just live with it. It's not like we're trying to solve world peace here. It's college football. As important as people make it out to be, how many fans could, off the top of their heads, list the last 10 national champions? Maybe 25% of fans, and that's probably generous.
It's only natural some people will complain in a national invitational tournament where they call the winner the national champion. The system itself screams second guessing. It's not like this is the National Champion of the 2024 college football season where you win and advance on the field. The committee clearly will never relinquish it's power and allow that to happen so tournament champion it is and we deal with decisions made by committee like it or not.
A true 2024 champion would be had by a bracket of conference champions. There is no denying that is a championship earned on the field. Instead we have what the fans would rather see... a production. IMO when you cater to the fans, you kinda get away from the purpose at hand but whatever.
Last edited:
The committee (human) element and the inherent human bias is the problem.
Sagarin has been around a long time and seems to factor in many of the intangibles if you study it.
I know there will be arguments that humans programed the computer, but this committee driven model is clearly humanly flawed and not independent of bias. Independent analysis free of ''talking heads'' needs to be the goal.
Reality is, there just is no perfect system. Back to my post, teams will ALWAYS complain. Reality also is, almost every year, the winner of the national title is legitimate. For all the fuss over the various systems, greater than 90% of the time, even pre-BCS, there was a clear national champion at season's end. People should understand by expanding the field of teams who have a shot at the title, you only increase the complexity and confusion. It doesn't simplify anything. The way folks carry on about it, you'd think college football history was littered with controversial and illegitimate national champions.
The first college football championship was awarded in 1869. In 155 years of champions, people probably couldn't up with more than 10 truly questionable national champions. Maybe some years we don't feel the winner was actually the best team, but that's not the same thing.
As noted in another thread, Indiana SOS is 106.
Undefeated, and they should be with that schedule, but playoff worthy?
They won't survive but a stronger schedule tested team may be the sleeper which doesn't get the opportunity to do so.
Undefeated, and they should be with that schedule, but playoff worthy?
They won't survive but a stronger schedule tested team may be the sleeper which doesn't get the opportunity to do so.
Ranking Strength of Schedule for College Football Playoff Top 25 from weakest to strongest
The College Football Playoff committee heavily weighs strength of schedule, and ESPN ranks the Top 25 from weakest to strongest.
12 team playoff wouldn’t have been approved without a G5 conference champion automatic bid.
As it currently stands, they have played 7 teams with a losing record, 1 team with a winning record and 2 teams with a .500 record. The one team with a winning record is 6-5 Washington. After they lose to Oregon, they will be .500. The beat Michigan who is currently 5-5 but they will lose to OSU and finish .500 at best. Nebraska is currently .500 but finishes with 2 pretty decent teams so they may finish .500 at best or with a losing record.
It's entirely likely that IU could finish the season having lost to the only team they played who finished with a winning record.
That's more of a "why is a G5 team be included" and not should, but I understand.
They'll be up the creek with the P4 teams or SEC/Big 10 break away from the NCAA.
What I'd like to see happen is the G5 be restructured into the G4 for comparitive reasons if nothing else. I mean they are all over the place down there with one conference having 10 teams, two with 12 and two with 14. That's pretty much four 16 team conferences and more in line with the rest of college football.
Get unlimited access today.