https://247sports.com/Article/Its-official-NCAA-record-books-acknowledge...
The plus mark refers to this section: "Beginning in 2014, the College Football Playoff was used to determine national champions in FBS. All 'major selectors' not otherwise listed also selected the CFP champion as its higest ranked team in those seasons. In years where a 'major selector' had a team other than the CFP champion as highest ranked team in its final poll that team is listed below the CFP Champion."
Heard about this on the radio on the way to work this morning, decided to look it up to make sure this was real.
My quick take? Expand the damn thing. Either:
* 8 teams -- all P5 champs, highest ranked Go5 champ, three at-large by CFP committee ranking
* 16 teams (my ideal) -- all conference champs, six at-large by CFP committee ranking
Comments
Good for them. I agree - expand the damn playoff. I fail to see why it would be as difficult as everyone says it will be. All other levels of football have a large pool of top teams in a playoff format to declare a champion. The additional games required shouldn't be that difficult and fall in line with most high school leagues and the NFL. To me it just makes sense.
Same principal as pharmaceuticals, the cure is there but the big dogs have to make all the $$$ they can before handing over the antidote.
A bigger pool of contestants means a smaller share of $$ to the chosen few, i.e. Bamy, Suckeyes, _____sec team.
More games means more money overall. And there are ways to ensure that the P5 still gets the lions' share of it. If you go to 16, and give the top 8 a bye and the top 4 a double-bye, and then set payouts so they increase dramatically as you progress through the rounds, most of the G5 teams will be eliminated in the first round and therefore will end up with very little.
Expand the playoffs and kill of 1-2 cheesecake games.
The 8 game league with all P5 Champs, G5 highest ranking and 2 at large is the best solution.
No, that's merely the next solution. I honestly feel that the end result will be a 16-team tournament, bringing it in line with literally every other level of college football and every level of each other college sport, where each team has an opportunity to make the championships by virtue of winning their conference championship, with a handful of exceptions (the Ivy League and HBCUs choosing to keep out of the FCS playoffs, for example).
I'm perfectly OK with the 8-team playoff idea. Also OK with the 16 team idea, if they can work it out, but I'd settle for 8.
8 is the perfect amount that gives every team that "deserves" a shot a real shot. You can point to dozens of years where teams that finished in the 5-8 range (and before recently, the 3-8 range) had a legitimate gripe at not having a shot at the championship. There's really not many years at all where you can point to teams from 9-16 and say the same.
I'm always going to be in favor of more teams having a real path to it so 16 wouldn't bother me, but 8 is the sweet spot where I look at it and say if a team doesn't make it in, it's almost certainly because they didn't take care of business on their end and not because of the system.
This is my issue with 16 the top 5 or so teams are always the standouts. There's generally a pretty decent gap between them and the rest of the field. 8 captures all of those teams and a few on the edge that might be picking up steam late.
The top 16 guarantees that if you win your conference, you move on. That's the standard in all other college sports.
It also gives the top couple of teams implied byes; by allowing them to play significantly weaker teams in the first round (the Sun Belt/ MAC champs).
An 8 team tournaments requires voters and computers to determine the field.
A 16-team tournament lets every FBS team legitimately compete for the title
Independents are the only teams counting on subjectivity.
Independents used to make up a significant portion of NCAA programs; now only stubborn ND and a handful of purgatorial stragglers are in that category.
8 teams would most likely satisfy the vast majority of us P5 fans; 16 teams is the only acceptable format for the other half of the FBS (G5).
If Boise State and Houston both go undefeated, who's to say which one gets to compete? Probably neither by today's standard; flip a coin in an 8-team tournament.
A 16 team tournament should be the end goal in an 11 conference league.
That's a good argument and my only real counter-argument is that the proposed "Top-Ranked G5" spot in the 8-team format does give those teams a chance, and even then they would still have a shot with the two at-large picks. Would the committee/voters opt for some SEC team over Boise State/Houston? Probably, but I think at that point the problem is more bad luck on Boise/Houston's part for having a monster season the same time as another similar school than it is the system being rigged against them. I would wager that a vast majority of the time a school like that goes undefeated they would make it in on either the G5 berth or the at-large berth.
No matter what you do somebody is going to be on the outside looking in. What is worse; a non-P5 team having a great season and getting left out for an even better non-P5 team, or a pretty good P5 team getting left out while a bunch of undeserving non-P5 teams get in on token berths? I think that answer will differ a lot from person-to-person, personally I think it needs to be more inclusive but not to that extent.
I agree that an 8-team will probably catch the best possible field most years. As far as the "someone on the outside looking in", it's important to take into account who those teams are:
4: All G5 teams most years. At least one P5 team that won it's conference.
8: All but one G5 teams most years.
16: Random teams that lose their conference on a tie/ tiebreak technicality. Non-dominant Independents.
The 16 team format is first non-discriminatory layout for teams in conferences. And it's the first format that's relaxed enough in both fairness and its efficiency enough to give the top earned seeds an "implied" bye. (No offense, Troy & Toledo)
With four teams the maximum number of games a college team plays is up to 15. At 8 it goes to 16 and at 16 it goes to 17. That's a lot of games. If FBS were to follow the FCS model that would mean either fewer regular season games or starting the playoffs almost immediately.
That raises a couple of questions/concerns. Are we now facing a player safety issue? Does this actually put the teams we are trying to "help" at a bigger disadvantage? The teams that would benefit from a 16 team playoff don't have the staff to turn around game plans every week for ever stronger competition. VT played OSU pretty well and still lost after almost a month of preparation!
I agree the 4 team format and the committee stinks: Oh look! Another all SEC National Championship! Who would have thought?
Maybe 8 is the balancing point?
Player safety has always been the issue limiting the duration of the championship. In the past, these issues have been worked out through gameplay strategy (limiting the plays in the game through clock management rules). Now we have four teams instead of two.
I imagine going forward, dropping a regular season game could get the NCAA up to the 8 team tournament. It remains to be seen how getting the (power of 2) # seeds in the tournament >= the number of conferences (16 team tournament). Would the Sun Belt/MAC/MWC teams simply agree that playing an extra game lies to the benefit of their composition and agree to play one more game (should they actually make it any further)?
The fact remains that at most 4 (12-14) team conferences play for the championship. Only ~50 teams actually compete to determine the winner out of ~130 team league.
That's a problem.
One solution (that I've already introduced in this thread) is making it similar to many of the conference basketball tournaments, with single and double byes. With 16 teams, you could have 8 teams (#9-#16) play in the first round, with the four winners playing the #5-#8 teams in the second round, and the winners of those games playing the #1-#4 teams in the third round. This way, if everything goes chalk, the only teams playing more than 2 extra games would be the two teams that make the finals.
Obviously, if #9 goes on a tear and beats the #16, the #8, and the #1 team, they'd end up playing the #4/5/12/13 team in the semis in their 4th game for a chance at a 5th game (the finals), but that feels pretty unlikely to me, and I bet if you asked the players on that team they'd relish the opportunity.
Byes don't solve the primary issue- some teams will still be prone to playing "extra" games. This is already the deciding factor (excuse) for how big the tournament can get; this is why the cfb postseason is already lacking and flawed.
I don't think the players decide this. Players on most any team in any sport would probably be fully in favor of playing more games than anybody else if it meant they got a chance. College football just doesn't have the same luxury as baseball or basketball to get creative in the postseason.
If we're talking about expanding the postseason in football, the limiting factor is the maximum amount a single team could possibly have to play.
The CUSA champion will already be at quite a disadvantage, as they will be seeded against the OSUs and UGAs in the first round of a fully-seeded tournament (a bracket including a power of two teams). Solve the "4 game problem" and you're looking at a bracket of 16 teams.
Making those weaker teams play extra games every year; risking more injuries (where their depth is already likely a primary weakness entering the tournament) is decidedly unfair and I don't think the NCAA would ever consider a number that's not 2/4/8/16 in football.
My thoughts are, the P5 isn't going to go with any system that gives the G5 an advantage over where they are now. The most likely way they'd do that is by forcing the G5 champions to play an extra game or two before having a chance to compete for a title, a concession the G5 teams would likely be more than willing to make in exchange for an actual chance.
Houston had an actual chance and blew it. San Diego State has a strong enough schedule but hasn't sniffed being undefeated. The upper echelon of G5 teams can make it if they beat at least one good P5 team.
It would take a perfect storm of public perception, strength of schedule, and attrition among P5 programs for a G5 team to make a 4-team playoff. San Diego State won't make it because they don't have the perception, unless they have a couple 11-1 seasons first.
They have been pretty hyped the last few years with some running backs getting national recognition and the win over Stanford last year. They have Stanford and Arizona State on the schedule this year. If they get through those games undefeated they will get some hype.
This was the angle I was coming from. I can see the benefit of the 16 team and every conference champ gets in but you're not putting the best teams in the tournament. I would wager that the conference runner up P5 teams beat the conference champ G5 teams significantly more times than not. Again there's going to be a flaw in every system.
New proposal 130 team single elimination playoff starts week 0. Fixes: scheduling FCS teams, complaints of not making the tournament. /s
I'd be willing to bet the top half of each P5 conference beats the average G5 conference champion more often than not. I have no interest in that version of the playoff. I want a playoff with the best teams.
I also think it's pretty futile to discuss so many 16 team playoff scenarios, I don't think it will ever happen. I think the highest you can hope for is 8.
... and probably all we need.
Except until the NCAA sanctions it, and it won't if all conferences aren't participants, you'll continue to have this "major selector" conundrum that's existed pretty much since the inception of college football.
Why should the I-A football playoff run by a different set of rules than the I-AA tournament? Or any other NCAA sanctioned sport?
Not to break out a new can of worms here, but I'm surprised nobody has brought up relegation yet. There are way too many teams competing within two distinct tiers of competition for the same title.
Dividing the FBS population in half would fix most of the issues we've been discussing.
Nobody has brought it up because literally no P5 schools will agree to it. And even if the G5 through D3 programs decided to implement it, it would take either an unprecedented level of inter-conference regulation to regulate it (with finances being the biggest one) or said conferences handing a ton of control over to the NCAA, which almost certainly wouldn't be a good thing.
That's what I was going to write but I didn't want someone to start some argument about the 1 off G5 team that comes up once every other year that can actually compete in the P5 so I just went with the safe bet lol
FTFY. The WAC dropped football years ago. That's why it's called the P5 (SEC, B1G, ACC, B12, P12) and the G5 (AAC, MWC, MAC, SB, CUSA), instead of the G6.
I wish they would do some force alignments for conferences. I have wanted to see 16 team conferences and do it like the NFL. Divide 16 into four divisions. Play everyone in your division, every team in another division and then the two teams that were ranked the same in their respective divisions. This gives 9 potential ACC games, you see every ACC team within three years some more frequent than others.
Then I would reduce the regular season from 12 to 11 games, possibly, with the option of scheduling 1-2 legitimate pre season games starting mid to late august that won't affect record. All that combines to allow for an expanded 16 team playoff to start at least a week earlier.
For 8 or 16--doesn't matter. I would take each conference champion. Then I would take the remaining at large highest ranked teams to fill the rest of the gaps. I hate that losing a 'meaningless' game can ruin a team's chances of entering the play-offs or not warrant enough reward for other teams to really take it seriously. I want them to give it some meaning. Heck, they could replace the big-4 bowls with conference championship games to give it some more oomph.
I've thought about half of this for quite a while, the rest of it is a bit of shooting from the hip. I know it won't all be agreed upon, but the college football landscape needs some help.
I have to disagree. There are some things that could make college football better, like limiting games against FCS schools, or not allowing those games after a certain date (calling out the SEC here), but to go to a schedule like that would make college football to much like the NFL. Part of the fun of the current system are the debates. The only tweak I might make is to go to 6, 5 conference champs and 1 at large with the top 2 seeds getting a bye.
Its almost unrealistic right now anyway. The SEC and Big 10 get so much TV money they aren't going to voluntarily do anything and would kill a realignment proposal.
Clemson did this last season, playing the Citadel 2nd to last game, a week before USCjr.
They do that most years. FSU does the same the week before UF. Several teams do it. That's why the week before rivalry week is usually the shittiest week of the year to watch football
Except this year we play Miami
That is because we don't have a real rivalry to prepare for.
I didnt include VT. I dont think we've ever scheduled a slack ass team before UVA. It seems the be an $EC and other "blue blood" program thing
Just saying it doesn't matter that the rest of the college football world has a dull slate that day since we have a likely top-10 opponent coming to town, and due to the otherwise dull schedule we're likely to get Gameday as long as we've had a decent season up to that point.
We should play UVA...then Miami.
We did that in 2004. Inaugural year in the ACC and they didn't have BC yet so not enough teams for a championship game. So Miami and us made sure that the winner of our game could claim it on record (though if we had lost, we'd still be co-champs).
And what a glorious day in Pritchard Hall that was.
5th floor Pritchard, don't remember much else, must have done something right
Totally fair. I know everyone is going to have opinions on this--that was just mine. I just like things a bit more structured and black and white.
I honestly think this is the best way to go...and on top of this allow the higher seeds in the 3v6 and 4v5 games to host the games as a reward for an outstanding season. Then the winners play in the playoff as it currently is
Did they recognize Alabama for the 2016 Championship and Notre Dame for the 2012 Championship, who both finished #1 in the Colley Matrix after losing the title game?
Actually they did. Along with 2011 Oklahoma State.
Oh boy, why would they do this shit...
Because it's the way it's already been done. Bama retroactively claimed a championship (maybe 1948?) in a season where they lost 3 games and finished #20 in the AP poll, because some other "major selector" had them #1.
I don't give a damn about anything that happened that long ago in regards to college football, I know Alabama and many other schools claim wonky titles. I'm asking why would they open this can of worms back up, after it had been largely stopped by the BCS and now the CFP? It's just unnecessary, and I can't think of one good reason to let one of the former BCS computer systems get to recognize a national champion, especially one that had Notre Dame #1 after getting beat like 42-14 in a national title game against Alabama.
Pretty sure most of the former BCS computers are considered "major selectors", most of them just happen to align with the CFP champion.
They showed them when I looked yesterday. Not sure why that screenshot doesn't mention Bama for 2016.
I agree that they should expand to an 8 or 16 team playoffs and have for years (even before the plus 1), but not because of this.
The point of the playoffs is to eliminate the possibility of multiple national champions and to settle it on the field. That said, anyone with a any knowledge of football knows that Bama would straight up boat race UCF. Those that question it underestimate what a freight train Bama is. They are just more physical than everyone else.
I feel like for 2017: mission accomplished.
Be careful suggesting the obvious that Bama would slaughter UCF around here. Some people get really upset in their delusional Bama hate-bubble.
Appreciate the notice. I'll say this, I tend to hate on the Patriots, but the proof is in the pudding. Those boys are winners. Through my hate is an undeniable and earned respect for their accomplishments.
Reggie Jackson said it best, "Fans don't boo nobodies."
I hate UVa for very very different reasons obviously ;)
I have to admit that I'm not a Bama fan. However, every year for the last decade or so you could say almost without question that they are the best team in the NCAA. They have the best players, the best coaches, the biggest fanbase, and the most money. Most of that is not really debatable. Look at the Vegas odds to win the CFP. This will change one day, but for now this is reality.
My argument is what do they have to lose by expanding the playoff? If they are undoubtedly the best, they will win. They may have steamrolled UCF, but I think UCF has a point to be on the stage regardless of the outcome. It sucks because the G5 simply will not have a seat at the table, and even most P5 teams know that a playoff appearance is likely never going to happen. I favor a system where more teams have a chance. To me it makes things more interesting and a lot more fun to watch. It fits with every other football championship path that exists on almost any level. Plus it gives the team that I love a lot better chance of making the big game, which is something I'd like to see again before I die.
I think that UCF, even when compared to previous great G5 teams like Utah, TCU, and Boise had an alarmingly easy schedule.
That said, I am okay with them getting a shot in an 8 team playoff. I'm not against an 8 team playoff, I highly doubt it will ever expand beyond that, but I'm not saying they don't deserve a shot in the 8 team. I'm saying they didn't deserve a shot with the schedule they played given the current format we have, 4 teams, with an explicitly stated goal to pick the 4 best teams.
and the cowboys had all that going for them against the little giants too. but one time...... and that's why you play the game.
teams should have the opportunity to play there way in. if you don't have the chance to even play your way in. what are you playing for?
Dude. This is some ignorant shit right here.
The fact that they beat another top team in Auburn is enough to show that they would survive on the same field.
Also Im not saying they would win, just that it wouldnt be a complete blow out. Bama was probably the best team in the country, but UCF was deserving of showing their stuff as well.
EDIT: To make it slightly less provocative.
16 is too much. I can see maybe 8 but 16 is way to much. There will always be debate. number 17 will always claim they should have been in over number 16 or number 9 will always claim they got screwed by number 8. Just the like the NCAA Basketball tournament. There are school every year that believe they got screwed (including us a number of times).
The point with going to 16 is that you included all the conference champions, giving each team except Army and UMass a clear (if highly improbable) path to the championship. The 6 at-large teams are just along for the ride to give the P5 a large majority of the included teams (usually 11 compared to 5 G5 teams most seasons).
The further we get away from the top the better. Right now #5 feels gypt. Better #9 or #17 are feeling left out than #5. But I agree, 8 would be optimal right now: P5 winners, 1 G5 and 2 at-large as was mentioned in a post above.
Anyone with any knowledge of football expected Auburn to boatrace UCF in their bowl game, since Auburn had already beaten both teams that eventually played in the title game.
Anything can happen. Some things are just significantly less likely than others.
Then we're definitely hanging a National Champions banner for 1918.
Take your leg (and green box), you magnificent bastard.
Funnily enough, that's the same year America hung it's first World Champions banner
Why stop there, let's try and claim 1954 while we're at it
We got that one tie with Bill & Mary though. But hey, why not?
All I have to say on this is that they are opening a bunch of doors that didn't need to be open right now. You create a system to crown 1 National Champion. If you don't like it, fix it, but this is BS.
I'm pretty sure that's why they are doing all of this. They are trying to show that there should be an avenue for a worthy G5 team to be able to participate. Seriously think about if there is no way for a G5 team to ever be in the playoff, why do they exist in the FBS? They should just expand the FCS if that is the case.
And I'm fine with UCF's frustration, but you shouldn't be able to claim your own championship and then have it formally recognized. That is not the current system.
It is the same system that has always existed. The NCAA does not recognize the CFP as the "one true FBS championship" because the NCAA does not run the CFP.
If (and only if) the NCAA creates a 16+ team tournament including all 10 conference champions, the same way they created the basketball tournament to replace the NIT so many years ago, the NCAA will stop recognizing other champions from so-called "major selectors".
I get it and I am open to the idea of changing the format. Until then, let's not let teams decide when they are champs or not. I think 785% of the people will agree that Alabama was the National Champion last year and UCF didn't play a tough enough schedule to get in.
Yeah, but the other 15% is laughing along with UCF at this whole thing.
Also, the whole point of the NCAA "recognized champions" is making it so that teams can't just declare themselves on a whim. UCF knew up front that they were Colley Matrix champions when they hung their banner, and they knew they would eventually appear in the NCAA's list of recognized champions.
Actually that would be 1.85% according to TKP calculations.
I get the game they are playing and how they are mocking the system. It doesn't mean I have to agree with it.
No, 785 + 1.85 is 786.85, and that's much too messy.
Also, they aren't "mocking" the system. They are playing within the rules, and they honestly feel like they would have had a shot if given the chance. I mean, they beat the #5 team in the nation, a team that had already beaten both title game participants.
I don't think they would have won the playoff had they been given a shot, but I appreciate their right to claim a title. And besides, this whole sideshow points out the inadequacy of the current system, hopefully bringing about change sooner than we would see otherwise.
I'm okay with a change in the system. let's leave it there. Obviously you have made your point very clear throughout the entire thread.
As far as the math goes, it was an 800% joke in which 800% actually means 100%.
I know, I made the 800% joke first by saying "the other 15%" in response to your 785% (785 + 15 = 800). It's all good.
Also sorry for hijacking the thread, it's the first thing I saw when I woke up this morning and it's a topic I have felt very strongly about for years, and I feel like it's finally starting to get some attention.
Hey man, you do you. Have a leg for keeping it civil.
To be fair, the NCAA doesn't crown a national champion for FBS, they just compile a list of champions that others have recognized.
This is so dumb. Everything about this self proclaimed UCF National Title is ridiculous. When Boise State and TCU went undefeated in 2006, 2009, and 2010 (Boise State being '06 and '09), we didn't hear any of their fans whining about not being national champs. Maybe a little from a small crowd that didn't catch the national media's attention, but no where to the extent of UCF.
I am willing to bet a lot of teams (not just P5) would have gone undefeated with their schedule they play. In no way, I don't think they were a good team, because they were, but if they played the schedule within the P5 conferences, my money is on them having around 3-4 losses at least.
Edit: I am 100% for 8 team playoff though, I think that is the perfect amount... 4 is too small and I think 16 is too many. Maybe 12, with top 4 teams getting byes.
I firmly believe those good TCU, Boise, and 2008 Utah teams would beat UCF handily.
Agreed
Boise and TCU didn't beat a top-5 P5 team in their bowl game, except 2010 TCU who finished #2 at 13-0 behind 14-0 Auburn and probably would have claimed a title if Gary Patterson weren't in charge. Not only that, but the Auburn team that UCF beat had already beaten each of the title game contestants once during the season.
Not saying UCF was the best team. Just saying that they have every right to claim a championship, given their resume and the history of FBS football.
Neither did UCF... Auburn was ranked #7
We have no clue if that would have happened or not.
No one is denying that they didn't beat a really good Auburn team. All I am saying is outside of the two Memphis games and Auburn, UCF's schedule was horrendous and a lot of other teams would have gone undefeated. IMO, No one should claim themselves as champions when one doesn't play in a championship game and/or go undefeated.
Right, thought they were first team out for some reason instead of OSU.
So, by your own restrictions they can still claim a title. They went undefeated, meaning the players on the team did everything within their control, so they can claim a championship and nobody can objectively say with absolute certainty that they do not deserve it.
They also played in the AAC championship game and beat Memphis.
No.... IMO one shouldn't just claim a Natty just because they are undefeated. Yes they did all they could, but so did all other teams who went undefeated, but they didn't raise hell about it, have parades around town, put "National Champions" on their stadium, etc. Whether they deserved it is relative from one person to another. If they want to claim it, fine, no one is going to stop them, but IMO it's dumb because they didn't play in a championship game.
I will give them this... It was a great move by them to draw more attention to their team. They certainly achieved that.
They aren't claiming it because they went undefeated.
They're claiming it because the Colley Matrix, which is recognized by the NCAA as a "major selector" for legitimately claiming a I-A College Football National Championship, ranked them as the #1 team in the country going into their bowl game with Auburn and they remained #1 after the CFP Championship Game was played.
Hell, Alabama is claiming a national championship for 1941 in a season where they finished 9-2 and ranked #20 in the final AP poll but a recognized major selector had them ranked #1. Further, they waited until 1980 to claim it!
lol... I am not saying this just because this Colley Matrix made newsheadlines recently officially recognizing them as National Champs. We heard about UCF claiming being National Champions a couple days after they beat Auburn and I had the same setiments then.
That's because they knew then that it was highly likely the Colley Matrix was going to name them their #1 team if they beat Auburn. It was even being reported in the sports media.
Exactly. The only "news" here is that UCF's championship appeared in the NCAA records book that was recently released, which was expected. By the way, it lists Bama as a national champion in 2016, also by the Colley Matrix.
lol ok well if you think that's why they were claiming themselves National Champions the day of and days after they beat Auburn, then you can run with that.
I am willing to bet most of the UCF players (and people on here) didn't even know what the Colley Matrix was until it came out recently. Most of the players were probably just claiming themselves National Champs because they were undefeated.
The Colley Matrix is also ass, my dude.
16 team playoff would be chaos. Convincing teams to put their players through up to 4 extra games at the end of the season, not to mention they wouldn't be compensated in any way for it, would be terrible.
Only teams with a shot at winning it all should be in a playoff. No 16 seed would ever win the title, so why have them in? Sure they might win a game or two but not the whole thing. Keep it at 8 or less.
History has shown that teams get hot and make a run.
Is it likely that a #16 team would win it all? No.
Is it possible that a #16 could make it to the Natty? Yes.
This is more of a UMBC (#LOLUVA) thing. That #16 team can have everything come together perfectly for them and upset a #1 seed in a football playoff.
Personally, I am for expanding to 8 for the reasons everyone has already touched on. All conf. champs get in with a few at large bids sprinkled in.
Right, a UMBC-type team could beat the #1. But will they win the next 3 games against top seeds too? No. I'd rather keep that #1 in since they have a higher chance at winning the whole thing. Otherwise might as well make it a 64-team bracket.
The UMBC analogy doesn't really hold water. I think the vision of a 16 team play-off is basically power five champs, plus at large teams. So essentially all 16 teams would be top 25. UMBC was a the lowest 16 seed, AKA #64. In a 16 team CFB playoff you would have a #1 alabama vs. a very good school. Would the odds still be in Alabama's favor? Yes, greatly so. But it isn't as if Alabama would be paired with, say, Delaware or something along those lines.
It does, in fact. The anology is that the #64 team can beat the #1 in the NCAA tourney. With that said, it's also safe to conclude that the #16 team in an expanded CFP could, and with more regularity, take down the #1 seed in a football playoff scenario.
What I was trying to say is that UMBC (And I will admit to not really knowing a lot about how basketball rankings work) was as low as 259 in the RPI, and 188 in the predicted RPI. They ended the season 111 in RPI and 107 in predicted RPI.
They ended up in the NCAA tourney because they won the American East Championship. This is where the analogy can't hold water. The 2017 CFP rankings have Michigan State at 16. Michigan state would have much better odds to beat Alabama than UMBC did to UVA. Further, MSU would have much better odds to go further in the CFB play-offs after having beat the #1 than someone like UMBC beating UVA.
I am am arguing that a 16 seed in the possible CFB play-off picture (if they are at large bids based on CFB rankings) would be primed to be much more successful post #1 upset than the #16 in the NCAA tournament.
Except that my initial argument is the champion of each conference, so the #16 team last year would have actually been one of:
a 10-2 Troy team who ended the regular season unranked
an 11-2 Toledo team that ended the regular season unranked
a 10-3 Florida Atlantic team that ended the regular season unranked.
Add in Boise State and UCF, both of whom finished in the top-25, and you'd have the following teams left out last year:
#13 Stanford
#14 Notre Dame
#15 TCU
#16 Michigan State
This year, the 16 seed would have been either Toledo or Troy. Do you know how long it has been since Bama lost to an unranked team? It was 2007, in Saban's first season, when they went 7-6 including a loss to 6-6 ULM.
It took 34 years for a 16 seed to beat a 1 seed in basketball, and such games happened 4 times each year. Yes it would probably happen more often in football, but at the same time a likely compromise would be a bye system similar to the ACC basketball tournament, where the top 4 get a double bye, so by the 3rd round you've eliminated most of the bottom feeders anyway.
Maybe I am misunderstanding how we assume the NCAA would select the 16th ranked team. My opinion was always they would take conference champions and then take basically the rest of the top 16 teams that aren't conference champs. Give the champs a bye week or somthing as a reward. Obviously this is all conjecture, but if that was the case (which was the assumption that was the basis of my argument against the UMBC analogy), #16 would be michigan state by the CFB rankings.
And I am working under the assumption that you'd take all 10 conference champions and 6 at-large teams, similar to the basketball tournament (though it has something like 33 champions and 35 at-large, but whatever).
My original comment was based on final S&P+ rankings, not those at time of playoff selection. After this adjustment, the #16 seed in the CFP would have gone to either App State or Troy, whichever one was given the Sun Belt auto-bid since they tied for the championship without having played each other. Those two teams finished the regular season #35 and #37, respectively.
I figured it had to be something along those lines. In that case I 100% agree. I would personally rather see a CFP that featured mainly the top-16.
I have probably re-written my response because i keep going between "highest ranked should make it" to "it would slight the teams from inferior conferences"...I'm chasing my tail here. Have a leg, thanks for the discussion.
The lowest seeded team to ever win a natty - #8 1985 Villanova
You have also had the Cinderella teams that have made it to the final four:
LSU in 1986
George Mason in 2006
VCU in 2011
Loyola–Chicago in 2018
People love an underdog story and that is what is so popular about the NCAA Tourney.
Give the top 8 a bye and the top 4 a double bye. Most teams playing in the first round won't make it past the second, and the few that do will likely be eliminated in the 3rd. Teams that enter in the second likely won't make it to the championship game. Teams that enter in the 3rd round will have 3 games maximum. Most years nobody will play more than 3 playoff games, and at the very least a team playing 4 will happen much less often that if you used a simple bracket with no byes, where 2 teams would play 4 games every year. And if a team happens to play 5 once every couple decades, so what? I'm sure those players will enjoy the ride for the Cinderella story that it would be.
I've been thinking about this a lot, recently. Trying to come up with a system that compromises on most of the arguments against having such a large championship. I honestly think it'll happen within 20 years or so.
UCF played by the rules set forth by the NCAA and should be listed as champions based on those rules.
However, I am going to take a very unpopular stance, I liked the BCS better. If this is about STUDENT-athletes then the BCS taught the best life lesson, no matter how good you are, no matter how much better you are than everyone else some times you get screwed because you don't have the right name. You have to learn to pick yourself up and still play. We got screwed in 2000 because were not Notre Dame. TCU got screwed in 2014 because they aren't AN Ohio State. This is no different than when the CEOs idiot son gets promoted over you. It's not right, but it's reality.
Separation.
P5
G5
Each Division has its' own champion.
They beat the team that beat Georgia and Bama, I say legit just like we won the Natty a few years back when be beat * at the shoe. Its science.
The committee had a hard enough time picking 4 teams that were worth inviting last year, picking between a team that didn't play in the conference title game and a team that had two losses including an absolute drubbing. Expanding and giving G5 an automatic bid doesn't help.
Expanding and giving a G5 an auto-bid means you probably don't have a 13-0 (or 14-0) team at the end of the season claiming a national championship without having won the Playoff.
Does it really matter if everyone knows they didn't? The NCAA could fix it by just officially recognizing the playoff.
The NCAA won't officially recognize any championship system that doesn't give automatic access to each conference champion. Division 1 FBS Football is literally the only NCAA sport that doesn't meet that rule, and the bowl system is lucrative enough to enough teams, preventing these teams from advocating for an overhauled system that would bring it in line with everything else.
Put it on the field. Conference champs. AAC absorbs into the other conferences. 10 teams, bottom 4 play-in.
We need to get rid of the committee. If they want to do seeding, fine, but human subjectivity needs to go.
8 x 16 team super-conferences subdivided into 4x4 pods. Conference champions get in, unless an independent is in top 10. You'd essentially have a 16 team playoff.
That won't happen unless the NCAA collapses and the NFL somehow gets involved. In other words, not gonna happen.
I agree, but I'd love to see it like this and then have a bowl selection show, starting 8pm after the Army-Navy game. Start with the playoff bowls allow them select in a snaking draft live. Follow that up with the tier 1 bowls selecting in a snaking draft with conference runners up guaranteed no lower than this tier. Follow that up with tier 2 bowls selecting in a snaking draft with eligible pod winners guaranteed no lower than this tier. Follow that up with tier 3 bowls selecting in a snaking draft with all remaining eligible teams. At the start of each round, the bowls would be awarded pick positions in a random draw.
No commercial breaks during the draft, just the bowl sponsors themselves announcing the picks and commercial breaks between the tiers. It would finish by midnight.
Good.