A poster made an observation about the playoffs and the bowl season...

[Reality Man]

his/her viewpoint is that the playoffs are hurting the rest of the bowls.


I don't think this view is too far off. The bowls have basically sucked and for those who don't make the playoffs it may be a letdown. Far too many bowl games. It's a joke. I'd rather see 8 teams because you still reward the conference season. Let's use this year. Stanford and Iowa would have been in the playoff. Stanford would be a threat.

I would think the other teams would be ND and OSU? OSU is legit. So basically you would have 7 bowls becoming relevant and clearly expose the pretenders in this 8 game scenario (Iowa/MSU/Oklahoma).

This committee got it wrong this year. MSU should have been replaced with Stanford. OSU could have easily replaced Oklahoma. 8 teams in the playoffs says to the 9th team that they weren't going to have a shot anyways at the title (flawed team) and you still reward Alabama/Clemson by letting them play an Iowa or Notre Dame.

Thoughts?



RM

 

[DrCorona]

True is the fact that SOME teams just don't really show up for their Bowl Games (ie letdown). I think another truth is that the 4 week layoff can sometimes affect a team's sharpness, crispness & rhythm. This has been the case in Bowl Games for the last 40 years. There have been many embarrassing upsets & blowouts in Bowl Games, this season no different.

True, you bump up the playoff to 8 teams & you add 2 "Important" games, but that doesn't necessarily mean you're going to get 2 more quality games. Many of the quality games are lower tier Bowl games. Many of the high profile Major Bowl games have turned into routs. It's not always about the quality of the winning teams or the lack of quality by the losers, it's just on that day 1 team was more prepared to succeed than the other.

To bump MSU & Oklahoma would be foolish. You can't just pencil a team in the playoff if their regular season games don't merit it. And to merit it you must be UP for every game from day one of the season. That's the beauty of College Football. Stanford was not UP for the task to open the season vs. N'Western. They lost to Oregon at home. MSU WAS up to the task by taking their conference championship and getting the W's in the non-conference season necessary.

 

[ThatsMrSpartan2U]

Yes there are too many bowls. But, sigh.....there are so many teams and leagues......and.....there are a lot of cable channels with ads to sell and sponsors to sponsor games and alumni to travel to warmer weather sites and spend MONEY over.

If you're basically saying that OSU shoulda been in there and MSU not...or yes to Stanford and not to Oklahoma, then why have any playoffs? Why should an upset matter? Why not just have a computer pick 'em? Or had they already done that?

In the end, after all the games, the ups and downs, all the crazy finishes, you play and win, lose, blow it, luck out...whatever...Clemson meets Alabama. Sort of weird, but really, is it not ending sort of as it should?

 

[tarun262]

I am all for a 8 team playoff and I think it makes sense. I also think you should do it with the Power 5 conference winners getting an automatic bid and 3 others based on rankings versus anything else. Reward league winners.

Having said that, remember 2 years ago we did not even have 4 teams and quite frankly I think this year the committee got it right with their 4 teams. Last year you could have argued for TCU being in there instead of OSU but OSU won the NC so I guess they did get it right. You can not under any scenario replace MSU with OSU - both had 1 loss and MSU beat @OSU. MSU deserved to be there. Stanford lost to both Oregon and Northwestern and they did not deserve to be there either. Infact, both teams played Oregon and one lost and one won. Oklahoma beat TCU, Baylor, Oklahoma State - 3 Top 5 teams at one point - how can you not put them in there?

Hindsight is 20/20 - I am sure last year most thought TCU instead of OSU but OSU won the whole thing. Agree with Dr. C that you can't judge a bowl performance as a factor in who goes and plays where. 4 weeks off is a long time for kids especially sandwiched between holidays as well. The 4 best teams that deserved it were in there this year.

Coulda shoulda woulda for other teams. OSU should have taken care of business at home. Stanford should not have slept through NW or Oregon. Notre Dame should have beaten Clemson when they had the chance or Stanford for that matter. It's all about W's and L's not how close you were. Michigan State and Oklahoma deserved to be in the playoffs. Iowa deserved to be in the Rose Bowl. The fact that they lost badly is irrelevant because I believe what Coach Shaw said "any Top 25 team can beat any Top 25 team on any given Saturday". Anyone that thinks wrong teams were in the wrong place is full of nonsense.

 

[jemblue]

I don't buy it. We had essentially a 2-team playoff for 20 years and that didn't stop the other bowl games from being pretty good. Now we simply have four teams in the playoff instead of two.

It was just a weird year for bowls, with a lot of unusually lopsided matchups. Last year wasn't like this and next year most likely won't be.

 

[tarun262]

There were a lot of lopsided matchups but there were some very exciting games as well - last night's TCU/Oregon was one of the best ones I have seen in a long time.

 

[Reality Man]

Although it was at one point 31-0 plus a qb missing.

I think the point of the OP is the point of the playoff is to get the 4 best teams but stuff happens. Do you think Oklahoma is really better than OSU? Do you think MSU is really better than Stanford. I understand if you lose two games then that should probably disqualify the team from a 4 team playoff but 8 teams basically allows the system to reward the better records with a higher seed without eliminating OSU (deserved to be in the playoff).

No way around it...why does Oklahoma deserve to be in the playoff over OSU. Did the Big 12 show everyone how good they were this bowl season. I like the idea of the automatic berths for the Power 5 conference winners which would in this year given OSU a chance to play who lost a game in bad weather with some stupid coaching.



RM

 

[DrCorona]

Although it was at one point 31-0 plus a qb missing.

I think the point of the OP is the point of the playoff is to get the 4 best teams but stuff happens. Do you think Oklahoma is really better than OSU? Do you think MSU is really better than Stanford. I understand if you lose two games then that should probably disqualify the team from a 4 team playoff but 8 teams basically allows the system to reward the better records with a higher seed without eliminating OSU (deserved to be in the playoff).

No way around it...why does Oklahoma deserve to be in the playoff over OSU. Did the Big 12 show everyone how good they were this bowl season. I like the idea of the automatic berths for the Power 5 conference winners which would in this year given OSU a chance to play who lost a game in bad weather with some stupid coaching.



RM

The answer to your question regarding "why does Oklahoma deserve......", is because they won the crucial games which led them to the conference championship, something O$U did not do. Does that make Okie better than O$U? I'm not stupid enough to say that. In REALITY the committee is not putting the 4 best teams in the playoff, they are putting the 4 most deserving teams based upon, 1) Conference champion & 2) I have no frickin' idea!! lol.

In discussion who belonged in the playoff this year......think about this. Look how close Bama was to NOT being in the final 4. If Ole Miss doesn't let that crazy lateral play vs. Arkansas happen they beat them & would have relegated Alabama to NOT playing for the SEC title. Moral of the story, take care of business in the crucial games or your at risk of not making the final 4. Fair? Maybe not. Just the way it is? Seems that way.

 

[Mroad]

I agree that an 8 team playoff would be ideal. This year is a perfect example where the 4 playoff teams didn't represent a couple of the best teams. Going to 8 teams would have allowed Stanford, OSU and ND into the tournament, all which merited being included. MSU deserved to be in the 4 team playoff because they beat OSU but did anyone really think they were the better team? In most years the teams that just missed the top 4 have a pretty good argument to be in the playoffs but once you get beyond 8 teams the argument becomes much less compelling. It also makes the regular season just as important because it's certainly not easy being one of the top 8 teams in the country at the end of the season so every game is going to mean something...but a team can most certainly lose once and still have a good chance of making he playoffs.

 

[detroitjohn]

Phil Steele has been following this argument for 20 years and has shown, I think conclusively, that almost every year when you have the consensus top 4 teams in a hypothetical, now real, playoff, you get the best teams around. You cannot guarantee outcomes, and Ohio State blew their chance as did Stanford. Keep it four teams, make November games and losses really matter (hello ND and Stanford) and put all the marbles on conference championships so that the regular season doesn't become a diluted, ho-hum affair that OSU tried to make it this year.

There were definitely bowl games that blew and then there were games like TCU vs Oregon that had people scrambling to watch the ending. The CITRUS BOWL (let that sink in) was sold out for crying out loud. OSU v ND was an entertaining game. You won't get heaven-on-earth with every bowl, but they're still a good idea for teams wanting extra practice, rewarding rebound seasons (hello UM), wishing for trophies for the case, etc.

 

[detroitjohn]

I agree that an 8 team playoff would be ideal. This year is a perfect example where the 4 playoff teams didn't represent a couple of the best teams. Going to 8 teams would have allowed Stanford, OSU and ND into the tournament, all which merited being included. MSU deserved to be in the 4 team playoff because they beat OSU but did anyone really think they were the better team? In most years the teams that just missed the top 4 have a pretty good argument to be in the playoffs but once you get beyond 8 teams the argument becomes much less compelling. It also makes the regular season just as important because it's certainly not easy being one of the top 8 teams in the country at the end of the season so every game is going to mean something...but a team can most certainly lose once and still have a good chance of making he playoffs.

Michigan State got it done until they got their ass kicked. I think Stanford would have played Alabama better, but guess what, they didn't get it done vs Oregon and stunk vs Northwestern. Too bad, that's the way the world turns.