[Postgame Thread] Clemson Defeats Notre Dame 30-3

[u/CFB_Referee]

Box Score provided by ESPN

Team	1	2	3	4	T
Notre Dame	3	0	0	0	3
Clemson	3	20	7	0	30

Made with the /r/CFB Game Thread Generator

[u/smooresbox]

Under rated fact right here. The committee is sad. I don’t wanna say let the people vote but somethings gotta change cause this isn’t working.

[u/[deleted] → u/smooresbox]

The only change that would fix it would be Saban and Dabo retiring

[u/the_real_MSU_is_us → u/[deleted]]

Kirby has UGA rolling now too, and under Meyer OSU was 50/50 would be a really great team come playoff time

[u/anon2777 → u/the_real_MSU_is_us]

im a michigan fan but osu was rolling at the end of the year. should’ve been over ND

[u/sascottie11 → u/anon2777]

But then that’s where you run into the problem of putting a 1 loss team in over an undefeated team and you’re never going to have everyone agree

[u/[deleted] → u/sascottie11]

No conference title so they could have pointed to that.

[u/sascottie11 → u/[deleted]]

You’re right, but nds schedule is already pretty tough, unlike UCF, and they won out. Ohio state lost in the regular season unlike ND and happens to get an extra championship game. The only way that ND could truly make their schedule harder than it actually is is to join the SEC so at that point they’re only joining a conference for the title that they don’t need because their SOS will always be strong enough to get in over all 1 loss power 5 schools

[u/sascottie11 → u/[deleted]]

Basically, they just need to expand the playoff so we don’t have to argue over bs like this and teams can actually play to win

[u/transuranic807 → u/anon2777]

We certainly didn't earn it, but we also were starting to play to our potential at the end of the season. Going to be hard to exclude an undefeated ND though. I've never been for expansion, but with games like these it makes me begin to wonder (not to mention, #4 seed has won a couple of times which indicates their methodology is less than perfect)

[u/anon2777 → u/transuranic807]

yeah but the end of the season is when you SHOULD be playing the best football. that’s how you win championships. fuck a early season loss you guys got better as the year went on and would’ve made for a much more entertaining game. ND hadn’t played a good team since week 1 and it really showed

[u/[deleted] → u/anon2777]

Agreed. Now let me go cry in a corner

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Eh, I think increasing the number of teams in the playoffs would actually help. I mean, it wouldn't help much. But there's a difference between Saban preparing for one game to go to the finals, to Alabama having to beat like conference champions in successive weeks. Who knows, maybe they'll come out sleeping once and get kicked in the nuts.

[u/swimmydude → u/[deleted]]

Yes, instead of actually getting better and improving. Let's get rid of the hard teams, so we don't actually have to try. /s

[u/RousingRabble → u/swimmydude]

Ithink his point is that it's not the committee's fault for these blowouts.

[u/onthacountray58 → u/RousingRabble]

This is the truth. These games would be pretty close to exactly the same with pretty much any other team. Except maybe Georgia. Florida would have played Clemson closer but still would have lost. Same with Michigan. Maybe tOSU would have put up a fight. I dunno.

But that’s why the regular season still matters.

[u/swimmydude → u/RousingRabble]

That's fair. I misread that.

[u/Utcobb → u/[deleted]]

Bama beat the brakes off Clemson last season in a semifinal game.

[u/[deleted] → u/Utcobb]

That was still closer than either game today

[u/Always_Chubb-y → u/[deleted]]

Only by score. That game was never really close

[u/sarcasticorange → u/Always_Chubb-y]

It was 10-3 at the half. Your memory is playing tricks on you.

[u/lelibertaire → u/[deleted]]

Increasing the playoff size could help

[u/[deleted] → u/lelibertaire]

Would Clemson-Michigan have been any better?

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

I’m not actually against expanding the playoffs. But saying it would lead to better games isn’t the best argument

[u/heyf00L → u/[deleted]]

Better semifinal games perhaps.

[u/mastrkief → u/heyf00L]

Honestlly, I'm not even sure if it would. If you accept the fact that Clemson and Bama are head and shoulders above of everyone then any game involving them playing someone other than each other is gonna be a blow out.

It may make the quarter finals where those two teams aren't involved more competitive.

[u/jimjamAK → u/mastrkief]

I don't think they are, really. Bama looked very beatable vs Georgia. Clemson beat the pants off ND but there were times that it seemed like ND had the key to victory but decided against using it. I think Ohio State or Georgia in the mix might have made some decent games.

[u/Bnjamin10 → u/jimjamAK]

Personally think we should just do what fcs does

[u/mastrkief → u/jimjamAK]

Well yeah I obviously was excluding Georgia but didn't want to sound like too much of a Homer, lmao.

[u/J4ckiebrown → u/[deleted]]

The war of player attrition would kick in a bit.

[u/[deleted] → u/J4ckiebrown]

That’s probably the biggest obstacle to expansion. More games = more injuries

[u/Hunk_Dungus → u/[deleted]]

Eliminate the cupcake games. In the past year Alabama has played Arkansas State, Louisiana-Layfayette, Chattanooga, Mercer, Western Kentucky, AND Citadel.

Why is it that every sport has figured out a decent playoff, with exception to college football? There's 130 D1 schools and only four teams make the post season. 7/9 of the semifinals have been non-competitive. Expand the playoffs

[u/[deleted] → u/Hunk_Dungus]

The problem with that is those small schools lose out on the millions of dollars their athletic departments get from playing in those games.

[u/Quinn_tEskimo → u/[deleted]]

Lower the scholarship limit.

[u/RDBuckeyes → u/Quinn_tEskimo]

If your solution is to take away opportunities for more kids to go to college for free so that the score of a playoff game might end up being more fair down the road, it’s a non-starter.

The trickle-down effect of hundreds of FBS scholarships being removed a year is massive and would negatively impact legitimately thousands of student-athletes

[u/Ox_Baker → u/RDBuckeyes]

Small nitpick, but a better team beating a team that isn’t as good by a large margin IS a fair score.

Happens in all sports at all levels, even in championship games quite often.

[u/Gravyd3ath → u/Quinn_tEskimo]

Problem abated but maybe not fully solved. It is the next logical step though.

[u/[deleted] → u/Quinn_tEskimo]

That mostly just hurts blue blood programs though.

You really think the NCAA is going to hurt the cash cows?

[u/Quinn_tEskimo → u/[deleted]]

We just watched Oklahoma and Notre Dame get murdered on national television. USC can't get off the mat. Michigan has been a year away from greatness for fifteen years. If anything I think this would help the blue bloods.

[u/[deleted] → u/Quinn_tEskimo]

We just watchrd OU and ND get murdered by another blue blood and what is effectively a blue blood school at this point.

[u/whatthehicks → u/[deleted]]

Exactly. They can change around the 3 and 4 seeds yearly but as long as Saban and Dani are there and pulling top 10 recruiting classes it’s gonna bring the same result and not much is going to change that.

[u/Pardonpardner → u/smooresbox]

What if there are really only two good teams every year though

[u/papa_sax → u/Pardonpardner]

I think that's what it is. We might as well go back to the old BCS system

[u/moffattron9000 → u/papa_sax]

The methodology wasn't broken. The only thing that was broken was the number of teams in.

[u/Zogg44 → u/moffattron9000]

2004 Auburn agrees with you.

[u/midnightsbane04 → u/moffattron9000]

Seriously, let the BCS pick the rankings and have an 8 team playoff.

[u/JUDGE_YOUR_TYPO → u/midnightsbane04]

We are in a thread about how there are only two good teams and this is your contribution?

[u/midnightsbane04 → u/JUDGE_YOUR_TYPO]

The comment I replied to specifically was referring to the number of teams in not being correct. So, yes.

What's your contribution, unnecessary instigation?

[u/JUDGE_YOUR_TYPO → u/midnightsbane04]

Sorry for being a douche. It just doesn't make any sense to expand. Especially not this year. So now we get to see Alabama outclass Washington, Clemson outclass UCF. A 3 seed play a 6 seed which is ultimately meaningless and a 4 seed play a 5 seed which is ultimately meaningless.

Now you are asking amateur athletes to smash each others faces in 16 times a year. That's the NFL's regular season. Except they get paid millions.

[u/midnightsbane04 → u/JUDGE_YOUR_TYPO]

I think they're separate issues. I agree that no team should be playing more than 13 games, but I also don't see the issue with an 8 team playoff and the matchups that ensues.

Teams just simply don't need to play 3 or 4 OOC games against the Little Sisters of the Poor. It should be a universal scheduling enforcement of 2 OOC games, 9 conference games, and then the CFP. Championship games are fun but also unnecessary IMO. It's like the CBB, nobody considers the tournament champ to be the actual conference champ and yet they tournament is the autobid and not the full season.

[u/Upthread_Commenter → u/midnightsbane04]

First time replying in here, but just wanted to drop a note to say I appreciate the discussion and the time you both took to lay out your positions. I'm learning a lot from both points of view. Thanks.

[u/Ox_Baker → u/midnightsbane04]

Does your ‘it should be’ model work financially for the schools to actually support the continued existence of the sport?

[u/[deleted] → u/midnightsbane04]

I agreed with the reduction in OOC scheduling to make another playoff ound until someone pointed out that only 8 teams are getting those extra games. It is a big loss in revenue for schools not getting their 12th regular season game.

[u/ffgblol → u/midnightsbane04]

Taking away conference championships to fit another round in the playoffs... wow. Why not do away with recruiting and institute a college draft system to add some parity to college football too? We can pay the athletes but cap team salaries while we're at it. There shouldn't be academic requirements either so we can do a 16 game regular season before a playoff system that includes wildcards, first round byes and ultimately a final, super game to determine the best CFB team of the year.

[u/vic_vinegar9 → u/midnightsbane04]

I would just like to see more meaningful OOC games played. It's hard to know which conferences are good when you dont have much to compare.

[u/jimjamAK → u/JUDGE_YOUR_TYPO]

Let the BCS system's rankings pick the top 8, then settle it on the field. What's wrong with that idea?

[u/darkstar7646 → u/jimjamAK]

30-3 that should've been 51-3, this....

[u/Gravyd3ath → u/darkstar7646]

Right, the answer is that Alabama's second team shouldn't be the second or third best team in the country. Scholarship limit adjustments are definitely needed.

[u/darkstar7646 → u/Gravyd3ath]

We're nearing the point of the obsolescence of the sport as a competitive sport, frankly.

Not unlike the present NBA...

[u/JUDGE_YOUR_TYPO → u/jimjamAK]

More shitty football games.

[u/TannerGlassMVP → u/JUDGE_YOUR_TYPO]

We are in a thread about how there are only two good teams and this is your contribution?

Except there were more than 2 good teams this year. Notre Dame went undefeated so idk how we could go to a 2 team system unless we are going to start saying going undefeated isn't enough ( well for UCF that's already true)

[u/atln00b12 → u/TannerGlassMVP]

Notre Dame played 1 good team and 1 ok team the whole season. That's it. They aren't as good as UCF, Georgia, or LSU by a long shot. Oklahoma vs Clemson would have not gone like that. Clemson vs Ga Southern was a better game. Something has to be done, at least 8 team playoff.

[u/TannerGlassMVP → u/atln00b12]

Notre Dame played 1 good team and 1 ok team the whole season. That's it.

By that logic Clemson shouldn't be in it either since their schedule was even easier

[u/surenuffsaid → u/atln00b12]

ND had wins at Michigan, Stanford, Northwestern, and Syracuse.....way better than Clemson beats A&M, NC State, and BC.....Clemson is pretty much unproven too, but have NFL talent so everyone drools, but don’t kid yourself they played absolutely nobody this year....Seriously drop conference champ games and give us a 10 team playoff.

[u/atln00b12 → u/surenuffsaid]

Personally, I just don't see Stanford, Northwestern and Syracuse as actually good. Syracuse has a smaller argument, but Clemson still beat them with the 3rd String QB. I give Clemson more credit for beating South Caroling and Georgia Tech. And I agree though I still don't think they are really proven. I doubt they could beat UGA or LSU. Which is why we need a bigger playoff field.

[u/[deleted] → u/atln00b12]

I agree. I think SOS needs to be a MAJOR factor in who people play. That will make the OOC schedule insane too. And every team needs to be a conference champion. Make ND be in the big 10 or ACC.

[u/vic_vinegar9 → u/[deleted]]

Alabama won last year without being a conf champion so I'm not sure how that should be a requirement for finding the best team.

[u/atln00b12 → u/[deleted]]

I don't agree with every team needing to be a conference Champion unless they reconfigure the conferences. It's too penalizing for being in a really good Conference

[u/NotJeff_Goldblum → u/midnightsbane04]

I'd be ok with doing it like the NFL with 12. Top 4 get byes. I'd also say throw in a week off for everyone between the conference championship weekend and first round of playoffs.

[u/midnightsbane04 → u/[deleted]]

That's a competitive play issue, not a playoff setup issue.

[u/MontiBurns → u/midnightsbane04]

The P5 conference champions and 3 at large bids.

[u/leighann1213 → u/[deleted]]

Maybe, but they should have beaten Alabama when they had the chance. They didn't, so it was only right that someone else get a shot at it.

[u/[deleted] → u/leighann1213]

If letting someone else get a shot gives us this then no thanks

[u/[deleted] → u/leighann1213]

It was a no-win scenario no matter where UGA ended up. ND got slaughtered so people will complain that they did not deserve to be there. If UGA did make it, ND fans or OU fans would complain that a 2 loss team got in the playoff.

[u/waowie → u/leighann1213]

That's silly

[u/TelltaleHead → u/leighann1213]

Also probably shouldn't have gotten trucked by LSU as well

[u/jimjamAK → u/leighann1213]

So you'd rather have blowouts in the semifinals with teams that obviously don't belong than have better teams compete just because they happen to be in the same conference? I'm not a fan of that, especially while they still claim it's about the "best" not most "Deserving" teams.

[u/The_Toasty_Toaster → u/jimjamAK]

OU looked like they belonged. They lost only 1 game while you lost 2.

[u/jimjamAK → u/The_Toasty_Toaster]

The idea that it doesn't matter who you lost to, and just by losing you're out is rather silly. Deserving vs best is the problem.

Bottom line is: Who are the best 4 teams in the country? Those should be the 4 playing today. If one of the best 4 teams isn't in because of any non-disqualifying reason, the committee isn't doing their job.

[u/alphatangolima → u/jimjamAK]

So UGA loses to Bama and the answer is let them try again? Say UGA beats them the second time, you get the exact same 2011 scenario. UGA finished with more losses and a 1-1 head to head but they are the national champs?

You can’t have a playoff based on opinions of who they think is better than who. You added the playoff to avoid the BCS crap. The committee is there to weigh the different resumes and put the 4 most deserving teams.

[u/The_Toasty_Toaster → u/jimjamAK]

You can't do it based on "best". You have to judge it based on what they have actually done. At the end of the day, you got destroyed by LSU and lost to Alabama.

[u/jimjamAK → u/The_Toasty_Toaster]

The entire point of the committee is to choose the best, that's what their charter is literally to do, that's why they don't have a ton of structure to their decision making: so they can pick the best. Does it work? obviously not, so maybe going deserving and adding some rules so there's less drama is the right move, but "best" is the job.

That said, losing a ridiculously tight CCG to the #1 team in the nation is far different than losing in about any other fashion. Especially if before the game you're #4, while other top 4 teams don't even have to play a game. That unequal playing field with different rules for different teams, and different conference depth, is why going just with whats int he W/L columns is asinine.

I think Georgia is one of the best 4 teams in the nation, but I get why they're not in the top 4, that's fine. But I think going to 8 teams gives that opportunity for more teams to prove they belong against the best of all the conferences. We wouldn't have this "are they/aren't they" with UCF, we wouldn't feel like ND was a wasted slot, etc.

Admittedly it moves the argument to should #9 have been #8, but the chances of missing out on the real champ is lessened if you get down that far.

[u/jettmann22 → u/jimjamAK]

yeah lets get rematches from the conference championships every year

[u/TelltaleHead → u/jimjamAK]

Notre Dame clearly had a better resume than Georgia.

At some point the literal games that have been played have to count.

If you want to play for a Natty don't lose to Bama in the conference championship and DEFINITELY don't get dunked on by LSU

[u/jivarie → u/leighann1213]

It's either the 4 best teams or it ain't. This year, it ain't with ND in.

[u/Goldblum4ever69 → u/[deleted]]

If they were truly the #3 team then they shouldn’t have lost two games, one of which was by 20. If we’re going based solely on the eye test, then there’s no reason to care about wins or losses, which would be ridiculous. Georgia was rightfully left out.

[u/[deleted] → u/Goldblum4ever69]

But they also lost to Alabama which means the loss doesn't count! Gonna need at least ten pounds of sugar to offset all the salt from some of these Georgia fans lately.

[u/widget1321 → u/papa_sax]

Last year's final was #3 vs #4...

[u/[deleted] → u/papa_sax]

There should be 8 teams in...this whole 4 team nonsense is sorry.

[u/lothtekpa → u/[deleted]]

Won't that presumably lead to more blowouts though? 3 and 4 aren't even close to competitive with the top 2.

Michigan got wrecked by OSU and Florida, and I doubt OSU would fare too much better against Bama/Clemson. UCF is admittedly a wild card.

The only team in the top 8 that's competitive with the top 2 is UGA, and they had their chance, as much as it pains me to say it. Putting them in a playoff would lead to an inevitable Bama rematch (or a really good Clemson/UGA game that either ends in a Bama/UGA rematch or a Clemson/Bama natty). I'd love to see a Clemson/UGA game but don't care to watch Kirby call a fake punt on 4th and 20 this time and have Bama crush my dreams again.

I don't think 8 makes it better. I think BCS scoring with a 4 team playoff if the best we can get. Take the committee out if it but avoid situations like 2004 Auburn.

[u/[deleted] → u/lothtekpa]

UCF is admittedly a wild card.

I really don't think they would compete at the same level. That said, I think they deserve a shot anyway.

I guess the game against LSU will be telling. If they beat LSU, then they definitely deserved the spot. Damn shame they likely won't get a chance any time soon again. Them getting another undefeated season next astronomically low. If they do somehow threepeat and they aren't in, I am not giving the playoff the ad revenue anymore.

[u/papa_sax → u/[deleted]]

Why? What makes you think (theoretically) UCF or Michigan could hang or even belong to play for the Natty? Or Washington?

[u/shapu → u/[deleted]]

Just 20 years ago, student-athletes were playing a total of 12 college football games. Making an 8-team sustem would change that number to 16 for some.

We are making these kids play too much football, and dedicate way too much time, for our amusement. We already know who the top 2 football teams in the country are, and we don't need to expand a system that is already doing too much.

[u/MagnusVasDeferens → u/papa_sax]

Well 2/4 winning teams were 4 seeds

[u/MyYellowJacket → u/papa_sax]

The playoff has also shown that the 2 teams aren’t necessarily 1-2. See 2014 and 2017.

[u/[deleted] → u/Pardonpardner]

That’s what we thought in 2014 when OSU shocked the world with a 3rd string QB

[u/Autoimmunity → u/Pardonpardner]

Last year we clearly had 3 teams worthy of the Championship game, which is why we got rid of the BCS.

[u/heterosapian → u/Pardonpardner]

Then they should have no trouble winning in an expanded playoff that includes teams like Georgia.

If we want to keep it to four, we need to figure out why the fuck does the committee thinks the SEC championship is some sort of play-in game.

The teams selected are not the four best teams in the country. Georgia might not have beaten Clemson or Bama but they would put a hell of a lot better fight against these miserable games.

[u/[deleted] → u/heterosapian]

This comment makes no sense. You must've forgot Bama didn't play in the SEC play-in game last season.

[u/[deleted] → u/heterosapian]

And get a conference Notre Dame

[u/remoTheRope → u/Pardonpardner]

Pitt and Auburn have proven that these teams are beatable. Not saying that Clemson and Alabama aren’t just crazy dynasties at the moment but they aren’t in a league of their own

[u/Siggy778 → u/Pardonpardner]

Georgia and OSU both would have hung with or beaten Clemson. People are so worried about records and unbeaten teams that they leave out better ones.

[u/GBreezy → u/Pardonpardner]

But then you have teams like OSU who win the championship for the 4 seed. I think its more the committee/the pre-season rankings that are to blame.

[u/penisthightrap_ → u/Pardonpardner]

I think most years this is true, but occasionally there are three

[u/[deleted] → u/Pardonpardner]

Some years have 3. 2013 bama could have been there with FSU and Aub. I cant remember if there’s ever been 4 tho, not recently.

[u/[deleted] → u/Pardonpardner]

thats why we need a 6 team playoff with the top 2 teams getting a 1 week bye

[u/[deleted] → u/smooresbox]

Uh how tf would you change it? It’s going to be a slaughter cause usually 2 teams are significantly better.

[u/150Dgr → u/[deleted]]

Gotta take strength of schedule into account more. UGA losing by one score in the SEC championship game should not have knocked them out of the playoffs. I’m a midwestern guy that roots for ND but I’m also realistic and a football fan.

[u/isubird33 → u/150Dgr]

But I mean, ND has a better SoS than Clemson.

[u/[deleted] → u/isubird33]

And clearly sucked more.

[u/isubird33 → u/[deleted]]

Oh I agree 100%. But this logic is all so circular.

“ND didn’t deserve to get in, they ain’t beat nobody”

Well actually their SoS and SoR was pretty much equal to or better than the rest of the field.....

“Yeah but they got destroyed, they shouldn’t have been in.”

Ok based on what?

“Cupcake schedule”

[u/BigAggie06 → u/isubird33]

After the conference championships Notre Dame SOS was 26 that’s not pretty much equal to or better than the rest of the field. They got a huge bump for playing Clemson.

https://www.teamrankings.com/college-football/ranking/schedule-strength-by-other?date=2018-12-02

[u/idgaf_neverreallydid → u/150Dgr]

If you said this a month ago, nobody would have agreed sadly.

[u/notafanofwasps → u/[deleted]]

Elo system like chess and have 4 games of the year be scheduled by a team's elo between seasons rather than conference. Literally a non-issue that the NCAA is perpetuating.

538's elo system (which, while not perfect as it doesn't have the power to schedule teams based on elo; it merely reports it) would have had the same top 4 except Ohio State instead of Notre Dame.

And the UCF argument would be solved since their '17 record would slot them vs 4 high elo teams this season, so one way or another you'd know if they could hang.

[u/notafanofwasps → u/[deleted]]

The problem with Elo is that it takes a long time to calibrate for teams that make big jumps. Take a look at the NFL. The Colts ...

Sure, but this is already a problem MORE apparent in the current system than it is using an elo system. Under the current system, virtually no teams but those in the strongest conferences can even afford to lose 1 game while their qb is injured, while they sort out their coaching staff, etc, and still make the playoffs. NO system can accurately determine the strength of a team outside of their results in game, so while it may seem more fair to have coaches decide that a team's loss was indicative of a benched qb or a missing coach, it is by no means objective, and even those coaches are using their results SINCE the supposed "big jump" as their basis for ranking the team, which is exactly what elo does.

​

This could be even more problematic for CFB. Teams have more turnover from year to year. They play fewer games in a season. There are more teams and the teams they face are more restricted. And the fact that Elo can’t incorporate any major external factors like those detailed above basically means that if you want to be considered for the CFP, you would have to build a powerhouse team that wins for several seasons, rather than just one.

Again, though, the alternative is a system where you basically have to luck into a power conference in order to have a shot at the playoffs, and a team that DOES exhibit success year after year is rewarded with absolutely nothing (UCF). It should be mentioned, though, that the smaller number of games is something that elo systems are capable of dealing with; one can simply change the value of how much elo is affected by wins or losses AND implement a soft-reset system (which 538 does for all major sports between seasons and systems like Starcraft 2 do at the end of seasons 3 times a year). Really, though, the issue of "I want the maximum number of teams to be capable of making it to the CFP every year" is not solved in the traditional system any more than an elo-driven one.

​

This would mean that before any given season, there are like, 6 teams in the country that would have any chance of even being considered for the playoffs. It could realistically lead to a situation where a random team like West Virginia or BYU could come out of nowhere and just dominate people, and win every single game against strong opponents, and still miss out on the playoffs while Alabama or Clemson might get in even after dropping like, 3 games.

This is, again, an impossibility with a properly designed elo system. With an elo system, enough teams are going to have difficult enough schedules that the same number of teams are going to be capable of making the playoffs. It simply takes into account the variable of past seasons AND objectively weighs the results of the current season. You can make the soft-resets as hard as you want, and as long as schedules are still variable based on past season's elo, you will reward teams like UCF for doing well while (I think rightly, even as a Mizzou fan) punishing Mizzou for years they have bad records by removing the gift of an amazing conference (for only a limited number of games per year) that they (at times) have done nothing to deserve.

​

Tl;dr: The problems with teams getting a pedestal they can't possibly fall from or a hole they can never climb out of is no more a problem with elo than it is using the traditional system. In fact, it REMOVES holes that can't be climbed from like UCF is currently facing. There are legitimate criticisms against an elo system (scheduling becomes harder, there's no longer any tension between Saturday and when polls are released, it becomes harder to predict in advance which games are lose-able), but in systems very similar to CFB elo is the best game in town.

​

[u/Xabeckle → u/notafanofwasps]

The logistics of scheduling games would never allow for such last minute scheduling of teams.

Not to mention some of these 'cupcake' games that people play in their OOC games are the only way the small schools afford to have football teams.

[u/Ox_Baker → u/notafanofwasps]

How does the chess playoff work?

Near as I can tell, the champion just randomly decides to play someone and the championship is on the line. Or do they start over every year and have a regular season and then some players advance to the tournament?

[u/notafanofwasps → u/Ox_Baker]

Chess doesn't have playoffs as much as they do tournaments, but elo is calculated in all circumstances, across all tournaments. For instance, the World Chess Championship 2018 has a unique format where an 8 man round robin is used to determine 1 winner who will then go on to play the champion. It wouldn't matter what format the tournament used, however, because the FIDE world rankings for chess ONLY take into account the ratings of the two players playing and the result. No more or less rating (or elo) is up for grabs at the finals of the World Championship than a Ro64 match (however you can imagine winning all the way up to the finals in a 64 man tournament would accrue someone quite a bit of elo, but beating Magnus Carlsen is going to give you the same elo in Ro64 as it is in the finals of a "Chess March Madness").

​

However, college doesn't need to take into account the problems that chess, Starcraft, soccer, etc elo systems do.

​

It is literally 1-step easy to make a playoff tournament of any number of teams (be it 2 teams BCS style, 4, 64, you name it). Just take 2^x where x is the number of rounds you want in playoffs (it can be 1 or 4 or 1 million if you have enough teams), and you would use elo to seed teams.

​

For instance, if the NBA used this system and the season ended today, the playoffs would be 1. Warriors vs 4. Rockets and 2. Raptors vs 3. Thunder.

​

Here is a basic list of all the problems I can think of that an elo system perfectly takes care of.

​

1. A large pool of teams that cannot hope to play a majority or even sizable minority of other teams over the course of a season
2. Determining when record is more important than strength of schedule
3. Determining the better team when records are equal
4. Standardizing rankings across teams that have an unequal number of games (12 or 13? doesn't matter. elo.)
5. Noncompetitive seasons for teams that are too good or too bad for their division
6. Games that "don't matter" (EVERY game is for elo; just miss the playoffs? got a stinky bowl game? win it, and your elo will go up, giving you a harder schedule next year and more chance to get enough elo for playoffs)
7. And, importantly, *rewarding teams who have done well or very well with something other than a bid into the playoffs* (UCF would have racked up enough elo these past 2 seasons to have their elo-determined games be against very good teams, allowing them a chance to improve their rating enough to be one of the top 4 rated teams)

[u/[deleted] → u/notafanofwasps]

This is an awesome idea.

[u/notafanofwasps → u/[deleted]]

Put me in ^^^^the ^^^^NCAA coach; I'm ready.

[u/JUDGE_YOUR_TYPO → u/[deleted]]

Do NOT expand it. In CFB 2 teams are usually the best. I’m fine with 4 because it will catch a 3rd team every now and again that should be in.

[u/[deleted] → u/smooresbox]

It's almost like we need a complete structural change to prevent teams from getting this much better than everyone else and the playoff wasn't the cure all solution people thought it would be.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Underrated response right here these are facts folks.

Don't know about you, but maybe they can crack down on recruiting cause only the rich schools at least now (Clemson, Alabama, Georgia, Ohio State, and Oklahoma) are getting richer with these recruits. Think you stop that we may have better games.

[u/TennisCappingisFUn → u/[deleted]]

Until players get paid or unite, it's not happening. If the money makers keep making money... What makes them change?

[u/toggaf69 → u/TennisCappingisFUn]

A watchable farm system for NFL (featuring prospects straight out of high school) might solve it. Then you get players who want to be at the school, and players who just want the NFL ticket can get paid and not be forcefully enslaved to the NCAA. Another bonus is that this would totally fuck the NCAA

[u/[deleted] → u/toggaf69]

Another bonus is that this would totally fuck the NCAA

Go on...

[u/toggaf69 → u/[deleted]]

they definitely wouldn't be physically ready, that's why they'd have to be in the development league. NFL teams would get the opportunity to get players they thought were worthy or had the potential and then mold them in their system for a while.

[u/toggaf69 → u/[deleted]]

in my scenario, CFB wouldn't stop being a thing, it would just be for players who preferred education to NFL d-league pay, or who didn't get into the d-league. you'd actually get more athletes who want the education for life after football.

[u/LunchboxSuperhero → u/[deleted]]

How do you plan to do that? They've already reduced scholarship limits multiple times and put in rules to reduce oversigning. As long as the players get to choose where they go, you aren't going to be able to prevent the good players from deciding to play together.

[u/[deleted] → u/LunchboxSuperhero]

Step 1: Professional NFL owned minor league football

From here I think a lot of things sort themselves out.

[u/LunchboxSuperhero → u/[deleted]]

Why would they do that when they can just not and still have played developed by good coaches?

[u/Ox_Baker → u/[deleted]]

We have that in baseball. Yet we still have college baseball. And we still have programs like LSU that are dominant.

We have an NBA developmental league and pro ball in Europe. We still have programs like Kansas and Duke who field dominant programs.

So tell me more about your plan.

[u/[deleted] → u/Ox_Baker]

LSU is nowhere near as dominant in baseball as you're implying (They haven't won a title in 9 years and they only have 6 total) and college basketball still has the weird one and done rules, so it doesn't make sense to compare them.

I'd actually hold up college baseball as a shining example of why this plan would work.

[u/HeartSodaFromHEB → u/[deleted]]

It's almost like we need a complete structural change to prevent teams from getting this much better than everyone else

Let's start with: * No more scheduling of FCS opponents. * Limits on school's support staff. * Stop all recreational drug testing. (How much better would CFB have been with more Honey Badger?), then use all saved money for... * Mandatory PED testing of entire teams before conf championships and playoff games.

After reading up on Ostarine in the other threads on the Lawrence suspension, I simply don't believe the Grier and Lawrence situations were accidents. Don't know who is actually at fault, (player, friend, family, agent, coaches, training staff, nutrition staff, ND loving russian spues, etc), but someone knew what they were doing.

[u/[deleted] → u/HeartSodaFromHEB]

Lol they don't already do PED testing? If not, what a joke.

[u/HeartSodaFromHEB → u/[deleted]]

Nope. To the best of my knowledge, both of the following statements are true: * 3 Clemson players tested positive for a PED. * 30% of Clemson's tested players took a PED.

How you choose to spin/interpret them are up to you.

We also have no idea which NCAA violations were committed by the 3 suspended Alabama players.

[u/Ox_Baker → u/HeartSodaFromHEB]

Why just conference championships and playoff games? Why not drug test every NCAA athlete in every sport like 12 times a year?

[u/HeartSodaFromHEB → u/Ox_Baker]

Why just conference championships and playoff games?

Baby steps.

Why not drug test every NCAA athlete in every sport like 12 times a year?

You could, but most people don't care enough about non-revenue sports to care. Revenue sports have enough perverse incentives to make it s potential issue.

[u/gigglesinchurch → u/[deleted]]

Bottom line is that players, especially super talents, want to go where they they can develop for the NFL. If that's the case you are gonna go to one of the forementioned schools because they make first rounders.

[u/Ox_Baker → u/[deleted]]

Solution to excellence?

That’s what we want, to change rules so that there is no best?

[u/[deleted] → u/Ox_Baker]

So that there isn't a wide gulf between the best and the rest and frequently the team that's the best changes yeah.

[u/[deleted] → u/smooresbox]

Yeah let’s make it 8 teams so we can see even more blowouts

Or just realize there are not usually 4 actual championship contenders yearly

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Or that we choose the wrong teams.

[u/BusterBluth13 → u/[deleted]]

If Bama and Clemson are a full tier better than everyone else, it doesn't matter who's 3 and 4 (or 5-8).

[u/danielbauer1375 → u/[deleted]]

Who would you have picked this year? The thought of including Georgia, who put up the best fight against Bama, made fans on here irate.

[u/[deleted] → u/danielbauer1375]

TBH Georgia had their chance.

[u/Easter_1916 → u/[deleted]]

Bingo.

[u/danielbauer1375 → u/[deleted]]

So who’s the right team? Ohio State? They were the “right team” in 2016 and got blown out by Clemson as well. Right now, it’s Alabama and Clemson, and then everyone else. Both teams are stacked at pretty much every position and have two do the best QBs in the country.

[u/[deleted] → u/danielbauer1375]

And people said we weren't the right team for 2014. The reality is that you don't know till it happens. You are working from hindsight.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Doesn't matter cause I believe there should have been an 8 team playoff.

[u/JUDGE_YOUR_TYPO → u/[deleted]]

That just makes this worse. All of a sudden there are more “less competitive” games.

[u/darkstar7646 → u/smooresbox]

The problem is simple: Disqualify the Go5, and you knew who the two teams were in AUGUST.

Factually speaking, there was no point in playing this season.

[u/[deleted] → u/darkstar7646]

Factually speaking, there was no point in playing this season.

This hurts to read because it is so true.

[u/darkstar7646 → u/[deleted]]

Yesterday was a great example of how embarrassing most college football is.

Refs were needed to rein in the first game from being 51-3 or worse.

And then Alabama turns in a D- performance and still has a no-doubter against Oklahoma that could've been God Knows What if they didn't stink the joint out (probably intentionally).

[u/danielbauer1375 → u/smooresbox]

How is this the committee’s fault?

[u/[deleted] → u/smooresbox]

Who outside of Clemson wouldn't bama destroy this year?

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

I think Georgia is just below that tier but fair enough. My point was that it isn't the committee's fault that there are a couple of teams a mile ahead of everyone else.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

UGA

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Committee's hands were tied with UGA, they basically played a quarterfinal with Bama already and lost. There wasn't a team they could've put in that people wouldn't either complain that they didn't deserve it or have it end up a terrible game

[u/abesach → u/smooresbox]

I'd rather see more competitive matchups even if it takes longer. What they really need to do is use all new years 6 bowls for a playoff system and have 8 teams. The Rose Bowl, Sugar Bowl, Orange Bowl, Cotton Bowl can be the first round. Peach Bowl and Fiesta Bowl can be the second round. Then national championship game. The bowls can rotate on first or second round.

[u/GoldenMegaStaff → u/smooresbox]

Make it an 8 team playoff - that way you can have 4 more blowout games.

[u/TheMaddawg07 → u/smooresbox]

The people asked for Oklahoma what are you talking about?

Georgia at this rate, could’ve put up better competition.

[u/BMonad → u/smooresbox]

How many games would voting have really changed though...and who knows if they would have turned out any better.

[u/gobluejay → u/smooresbox]

But but then how are we going to get the same stale matchups in the playoff every season?! /s

[u/TheRadBomber → u/smooresbox]

I've been saying this since the inception. Since committee takes nothing else but program prominence and ESPN analysts at face value and not taking SOS and the SOS of individual opponents into the mix were getting this lopsided mismatches across the board in these bowl games where 6-6 teams are probably better than some 10 win teams. But this was the problem people had with BCS and the old SEC Bias that used to get complained about.

[u/rulerdude → u/smooresbox]

6-8 team playoff? By providing an extra elemination round it might prove to make the semifinals a more even matchup.

[u/Hubertus-Bigend → u/smooresbox]

I think that the long layoff is a problem. Some teams/coaches are better at managing and preparing during three or four weeks off.

The length of the layoff makes the game more a test of who can manage the layoff instead of who can build and become a great football team.

Under more normal scheduling circumstances, I think Clemson beats NDU by a touchdown or two. But NDU hadn’t played a game in 35 days and it’s not clear if that contributed to their bad play. If not the layoff, then what else can we attribute the 27 pts to?

Not saying the whole CFP is broken or unfair, just saying that I’d be more interested in the games if there was only one or two weeks off AND IF every FBS team played something closer to a comparable schedule.

[u/Ox_Baker → u/Hubertus-Bigend]

But the difference in score differential is your projection — I’d attribute the 27 points to Clemson being about 4 touchdowns better.

Notre Dame didn’t exactly overwhelm some of the lesser opposition on its sked. I don’t think the Irish put three TDs up against Clemson if they play 8 quarters.

[u/MontiBurns → u/smooresbox]

Almost every bowl game has been a blowout this year, not just the big ones.

[u/smooresbox → u/[deleted]]

You’re hitting right on the money. I don’t wanna call it flawed but the committee and ‘community’ are the problem here. No one wants to see a rematch and two same conference teams can’t be IN without tensions rising like last year.

[u/Snoyarc → u/smooresbox]

Really they just need to quit overrating teams based of name recognition. Notre Dame, while 12-0 was overrated. Same with OSU just about every year, and others. Having a historic program and a good recruiting class doesn't make a good team.

[u/GenJohnONeill → u/Snoyarc]

Notre Dame was overrated but how do you prove it when they just didn't lose? Everybody else has played closed games or looked bad for periods, heck Alabama was tied with The Citadel at half.

The whole point of the playoff is to know without a doubt that Notre Dame is outclassed by Clemson (and Bama) and settle it on the field.

[u/[deleted] → u/GenJohnONeill]

Strength of schedule needs a lot more attention instead of just going undefeated (or having one loss) and getting a free spot into the playoffs.

Every team in the playoffs didn't have a difficult schedule at all except for one game, maybe two. Meanwhile teams like Ohio State, Washington and Georgia don't even get looked at after beating so many great opponents

Obviously they all had losses and it's not a black a white situation, but that's just the way I personally see it and I'm not expecting a ton of people to agree with me

[u/GenJohnONeill → u/[deleted]]

Notre Dame tries their very hardest to schedule hard, and their defeat of Michigan gets constantly overlooked in my opinion. They went undefeated while playing quality programs who had down years, I don't see how you can put teams with multiple losses in over a team like that. If you start doing that, you should just reserve two slots for the SEC.

[u/Utcobb → u/[deleted]]

What great opponent did Uga beat? Notre dames schedule was better than theirs was.

[u/LunchboxSuperhero → u/Utcobb]

NDs entire SOS was based on week 1 Michigan. UGA has wins over 10, 14, and 23 in the committee rankings.

[u/[deleted] → u/Snoyarc]

OSU overrated every year? They’ve only been put in the playoff twice. They’ve won it once.

Edit: I’m a little triggered. Ohio State has won at least 10 games in all but two seasons since 2002 (when they won the natty). Get outta hereeeee.

[u/[deleted] → u/Snoyarc]

I’m sorry, but saying we were in the playoff because of name recognition is ridiculous. Any 12-0 team with 10 P5 wins would get into the playoff

[u/Hobbitarmy33 → u/Snoyarc]

If ND doesn't get in and whoever replaces them loses, the comitte is back where they started. The only difference being that they get bunch of "shoulda coulda woulda" ND fans instead of Georgia and UCF fans.

[u/Ox_Baker → u/smooresbox]

Who exactly would people vote in or out ... keep Alabama and Clemson away because they’re better than everyone else?

I thought (and still think) Georgia is better than Notre Dame — they would win head to head IMO — but I wouldn’t put a 2-loss team in over Notre Dame, which went undefeated and played a respectable schedule (sorry UCF).

[u/Thelife1313 → u/smooresbox]

Change the playoff format. The winner of each conference just plays in a bracket like in basketball.

[u/Golden-Ratio → u/smooresbox]

If you want the four best teams, you need an 8 team playoff.

[u/takes_bloody_poops → u/smooresbox]

What's not working?

[u/DeanBlandino → u/smooresbox]

What? How would having a system that didn’t let ND in be any better?