Questions about the CFP

[DibbleDee]

Is the goal to identify the best team as the champion or is it to give more teams a shot at winning the title?

Of the 6 CFP champions so far, which of them was undeserving?

The primary gripe with the BCS was that the top 2 teams weren't always agreed upon. The #3 or #4 teams always felt they were more deserving. The CFP expanded it to the top 4. What are the odds, really, that the best team in the country won't be ranked in the top 4 by the end of the regular season and conference championships?

If the goal is to identify the best team in the country, where is the CFP falling short? Nobody actually thinks anyone outside of the top 4 is arguably the best team in the country. For sure, some believe an A&M is more deserving of a spot than ND or OSU, but nobody thinks they are a legitimate contender for the title.

What would be the point of expanding the playoffs to include teams who aren't championship caliber? I know Cincinnati feels slighted, but they would get trucked by any of the teams in the CFP.

 

[uscnoklahoma2]

Because Cinderella happens sometimes.

 

[DibbleDee]

Because Cinderella happens sometimes.

Is that the best argument for expanding the playoffs? To allow someone who's not the best a chance to win it if they get hot at the right time?

 

[GamecockWarrior]

I know Cincinnati feels slighted, but they would get trucked by any of the teams in the CFP.

That's just your opinion. I say expand it to give teams like them a chance and see what happens.

 

[DibbleDee]

That's just your opinion. I say expand it to give teams like them a chance and see what happens.

That's the opinion of many. But I guess it seems like the goalposts are being shifted. Pre-CFP, folks were complaining that the BCS wasn't accurate in identifying the best 2 teams. Now that it's been expanded to 4, folks are complaining that it needs to be expanded even further just to include long-shots.

I'm sure it will be expanded b/c the NCAA won't miss a chance to make a buck. But, yes, there is nobody who seriously believe Cincy could win the title. Yeah, I know, let 'em prove it on the field and all that, but they could play Bama, Clemson and OSU 5 times each and they would go 0-15.

 

[viennacocks]

Is the goal to identify the best team as the champion or is it to give more teams a shot at winning the title?

Of the 6 CFP champions so far, which of them was undeserving?

The primary gripe with the BCS was that the top 2 teams weren't always agreed upon. The #3 or #4 teams always felt they were more deserving. The CFP expanded it to the top 4. What are the odds, really, that the best team in the country won't be ranked in the top 4 by the end of the regular season and conference championships?

If the goal is to identify the best team in the country, where is the CFP falling short? Nobody actually thinks anyone outside of the top 4 is arguably the best team in the country. For sure, some believe an A&M is more deserving of a spot than ND or OSU, but nobody thinks they are a legitimate contender for the title.

What would be the point of expanding the playoffs to include teams who aren't championship caliber? I know Cincinnati feels slighted, but they would get trucked by any of the teams in the CFP.

There is only one goal! $$$$$

If Cincinnati was able to bring in more money than ND or OSU, they are in this year.

Sad but true. They may change the process but the goal won't change.

 

[DibbleDee]

There is only one goal! $$$$$

If Cincinnati was able to bring in more money than ND or OSU, they are in this year.

Sad but true. They may change the process but the goal won't change.

Yes, you are correct.

It's just funny to me to see how the sentiment changes. The argument was "we've got to get the 2 best teams in there" and not it's "we need to give long-shot teams a chance too"

 

[ShadowWeasel]

Is that the best argument for expanding the playoffs? To allow someone who's not the best a chance to win it if they get hot at the right time?

I would be interested is seeing the statistics from the FCS. How many times has the playoffs been won by a team outside of the top 4? Top 6? Etc

 

[DibbleDee]

I would be interested is seeing the statistics from the FCS. How many times has the playoffs been won by a team outside of the top 4? Top 6? Etc

Excellent question. Wiki to the rescue! These are the results from 2009 through 2019. Only once in 2010 did someone from outside the top 4 win the title, and that was the #5 team. You do have some Cinderella runs for lower seeded teams making it to the semis, but they generally get blasted in the semis if they make it that far. (Note: FCS has changed how they seed the teams over the years)

It appears that even though they have 16 teams, it rarely changes the outcome that one of the top 4 teams wins. 8 of the 11 titles went to either #1 or #2. So to what end are you expanding?

2009
Semis: #s 1, 2, unseeded, unseeded
Finals: #s 1 and 2
Champion: #2

2010
Semis: #s 5, unseeded, unseeded, #3
Finals: #s 5 and 3
Champion: #5

2011
Semis: #s 1, 2, 3, 4.
Finals: #s 1 and 2
Champion: #2

2012
Semis: #s 1, 5, 2 and unseeded.
Finals: #s 1 and 7
Champion: #1

2013
Semis: #s 1, unseeded, 7, 3. Unseeded team lost 52-14.
Finals: #s 1 and 7
Champion: #1 (35-7)

2014
Semis: #s 1, 5, 2, unseeded. Unseeded team lost 35-3
Finals: #s 5 and 2
Champion: #2

2015
Semis: 1, unseeded, 3, 7. #7 lost 33-7. Unseeded team lost 62-10
Finals: #s 1 and 3
Champion: #3

2016
Semis: #s 1, 2, 4, unseeded.
Finals: #4 and unseeded.
Champion: #4

2017
Semis: #s 1, 2, 5, 6. #5 lost 51-16. #6 lost 55-13.
Finals: #s 1 and 2.
Champion: #2

2018
Semis: #s 1, 5, 7, 3. #5 lost 44-21. #7 lost 50-19.
Finals: #s 1 and 3
Champion: #1

2019:
Semis: #s 1, 2, 3, 5. #5 lost in the semis 42-14.
Finals: #s 1 and 2
Champion: #1

 

[DibbleDee]

The FCS model clearly demonstrates that expanded playoffs does not result in any greater parity.

It's the strongest argument yet against expansion.

 

[viennacocks]

The FCS model clearly demonstrates that expanded playoffs does not result in any greater parity.

It's the strongest argument yet against expansion.

Not sure expansion will change the outcome but having a non-power 5 playoff would give the Cincinnati's, Coastal Carolina's something to play for. Telling non-power 5 teams that you are never going to play for a NC regardless of resume is a tough pill to swallow.

I think we need two playoff divisions (power 5 and non-power 5). I would very much like to watch Coastal vs Cincinnati for the non-power 5 NC.

 

[DibbleDee]

For the 7th time in its 7 seasons, the CFP has identified the 2 best teams to play for the title. This is what it's all about. And it's all that matters. It has a 100% success rate.

 

[Cackdiesel]

For the 7th time in its 7 seasons, the CFP has identified the 2 best teams to play for the title. This is what it's all about. And it's all that matters. It has a 100% success rate.

I don't agree that it should be about identifying the 2 best teams. I know that's the stated goal, but no other sport does that. I really don't see any point in playing past week 2 or 3 if that's all we're going to do.

 

[DibbleDee]

I don't agree that it should be about identifying the 2 best teams. I know that's the stated goal, but no other sport does that. I really don't see any point in playing past week 2 or 3 if that's all we're going to do.

I know people are tired of the blue bloods winning it all most of the time, but no matter the system that's tried, that's how it mostly shakes out. The FCS approach wouldn't provide any different results. See post #9 above.

 

[NMB Dave]

I know people are tired of the blue bloods winning it all most of the time, but no matter the system that's tried, that's how it mostly shakes out. The FCS approach wouldn't provide any different results. See post #9 above.

I think people are most tired of teams getting elevated because of their name and “history”. Notre Dame sucks. They have for a long time. ND hasn’t won a championship since the 80’s (you know that decade that was 40 years ago?), yet year in and year out they get ranked higher than they should or even make the playoff based on their name.
The same goes for the top 25 rankings. No matter how bad they suck, Texas, SoCal, Michigan, Nebraska, even Florida State will almost always be preseason ranked top 25. Then they immediately drop out when they lose the first couple weeks.
I don’t care that a blue blood wins the championship. I’m tired of seeing these teams get a boost for their name alone.

 

[DibbleDee]

I think people are most tired of teams getting elevated because of their name and “history”. Notre Dame sucks. They have for a long time. ND hasn’t won a championship since the 80’s (you know that decade that was 40 years ago?), yet year in and year out they get ranked higher than they should or even make the playoff based on their name.
The same goes for the top 25 rankings. No matter how bad they suck, Texas, SoCal, Michigan, Nebraska, even Florida State will almost always be preseason ranked top 25. Then they immediately drop out when they lose the first couple weeks.
I don’t care that a blue blood wins the championship. I’m tired of seeing these teams get a boost for their name alone.

Well, I agree that preseason polls should be a thing of the past. FWIW, the CFP poll doesn't come out until well into the season.