• The KillerFrogs

Playoff Expansion seems inevitable, my money was not on 12 teams

Wexahu

Full Member
I completely disagree. The reality is that TCU, under the BCS system and the 4-team Invitational, has a very very very very very very very very slim chance of ever becoming eligible to play for a NC; essentially amounting to no chance whatsoever. As the past 25 years have proven. Any chance at all is better than the no chance whatsoever we've had to deal with for the past quarter of a century.

Agreed on your 2nd paragraph.

And on your prior post, the Big 12 should consider having only 8 conference games if they want to game the possibility of more teams in the proposed system. The 8-game thing is why the SEC looks arbitrarily better each year and the Big 12 and Pac 12 arguably worse.

Your 2nd sentence is total BS, and I think you know it. But it’s true to form to play the martyr, and makes everyone feel better I guess.
 

Zubaz

Member
Your 2nd sentence is total BS, and I think you know it.
It's not BS at all, we have two decades of data to show for it. Despite ending the regular season undefeated twice and 1-loss twice (to say nothing of how the 2-loss teams of '08, '11, & '15 may have gotten bids), at the end of every single regular season of the Gary Patterson tenure, TCU has had a 0.0% chance of winning a national title. Not "really difficult", not "if they get hot and get some bracket luck". ZERO. They weren't eligible. In 3 of those 4 seasons it was even worse, as they were almost entirely eliminated before the regular season even started simply because they were members of a non-AQ conference.

Saying "winning three or four games in a row against elite level teams is really, really hard for a team like TCU" is a fair enough point, but we can absolutely say that it's not as impossible as "winning a national title when you aren't even allowed to play for one".
 

Jared7

Active Member
It's not BS at all, we have two decades of data to show for it. Despite ending the regular season undefeated twice and 1-loss twice (to say nothing of how the 2-loss teams of '08, '11, & '15 may have gotten bids), at the end of every single regular season of the Gary Patterson tenure, TCU has had a 0.0% chance of winning a national title. Not "really difficult", not "if they get hot and get some bracket luck". ZERO. They weren't eligible. In 3 of those 4 seasons it was even worse, as they were almost entirely eliminated before the regular season even started simply because they were members of a non-AQ conference.

Saying "winning three or four games in a row against elite level teams is really, really hard for a team like TCU" is a fair enough point, but we can absolutely say that it's not as impossible as "winning a national title when you aren't even allowed to play for one".
Indeed. Wexahu's argument - that a team that finished 2nd in the Final AP Poll following the 2010 season and 3rd in the Final AP Poll following the 2014 season - would have a very very slim chance of finishing #1 had they been given a chance to prove it on the field, is ludicrous. And our argument - that in both the BCS era and the CFP era, TCU was never given a chance to play for a national championship, is provable by demonstrable fact and actual history.

Here's how it would have turned out in the proposed system:

2000 - TCU would have been the 12th seed and would have played Virginia Tech in the opening round.

2005 - TCU would have been seeded 12th and would have played Ohio State in the first round.

2008 - TCU would have been the 11th seed and would have opened up at Alabama.

2009 - TCU would have been the 4th seed and would have gotten a bye in the first round and then played the winner between Florida and LSU.

2010 - TCU would have been been the 3rd seed, gotten a bye and would have faced the winner of Ohio State v. LSU.

2011 - TCU would have been the 12th seed and would have opened up at Bama.

2014 - TCU would have been the 6th seed and hosted KState in the first round and would then have played Florida State if we won.

2015 - TCU would have been the 11th seed and opened up at Stanford.

Because we were never given a chance, it's entirely speculative as to how we would have done, but I like our chances in 2010 and 2014, and the 2008-2009 teams were also pretty formidable.
 

satis1103

DAOTONPYH EHT LIAH LLA
Indeed. Wexahu's argument - that a team that finished 2nd in the Final AP Poll following the 2010 season and 3rd in the Final AP Poll following the 2014 season - would have a very very slim chance of finishing #1 had they been given a chance to prove it on the field, is ludicrous. And our argument - that in both the BCS era and the CFP era, TCU was never given a chance to play for a national championship, is provable by demonstrable fact and actual history.

Here's how it would have turned out in the proposed system:

2000 - TCU would have been the 12th seed and would have played Virginia Tech in the opening round.

2005 - TCU would have been seeded 12th and would have played Ohio State in the first round.

2008 - TCU would have been the 11th seed and would have opened up at Alabama.

2009 - TCU would have been the 4th seed and would have gotten a bye in the first round and then played the winner between Florida and LSU.

2010 - TCU would have been been the 3rd seed, gotten a bye and would have faced the winner of Ohio State v. LSU.

2011 - TCU would have been the 12th seed and would have opened up at Bama.

2014 - TCU would have been the 6th seed and hosted KState in the first round and would then have played Florida State if we won.

2015 - TCU would have been the 11th seed and opened up at Stanford.

Because we were never given a chance, it's entirely speculative as to how we would have done, but I like our chances in 2010 and 2014, and the 2008-2009 teams were also pretty formidable.
Way to bring receipts. I still contend 2014 team would have been just as likely to win it as to not do so. Maybe even more likely.
 

Jared7

Active Member
Way to bring receipts. I still contend 2014 team would have been just as likely to win it as to not do so. Maybe even more likely.
Because it's just speculation, it's hard to project outcomes. In 2000, I think we probably would have lost in the first round because of all the Fran leaving angst and due to the fact that it would have been our first rodeo. 2005 is a bit of an enigma - our only loss was to an unranked SMU early (something that didn't afflict Ohio State in 2014 because of *reasons*) and we won some really clutch games (controversially over BYU and in 2-OT against Utah). I think we might have pulled off a 1st round upset but might not have gone further. 2008 looks difficult (against the Tide), but that was the year we had undefeated Utah on the ropes on the road for .58 minutes, and Utah handily beat them in the Sugar Bowl, so I think we might have gone deep that year. In 2009, form says we would have lost in the semis and that's probably about right (although our only L was to Boise and having to play them (again) was a very deflating experience after thinking we were going to finally get a shot at the "big boys.") We might have gone further then. In 2010, we finished 2nd in the AP, which says we make the finals, where anything could happen - as I said, I like our chances that year. 2011 seems like a first round loss to me. I agree on 2014 - I like our chances to beat both KState and Florida State to make the semis and I like our chances thereafter as well. I think we could have beaten Stanford in 2015, but probably not gone further.

(And on edit, I'll add that 2014 would have been a season when the Big 12 had 3 participants; TCU, Baylor and KState).
 
Last edited:

Froglaw

Full Member
Let me understand…they want to guarantee a G5 cannot win the title, so the system they’re changing to guarantees their inclusion? That’s what you’re saying?

The Nazis needed Belgian country side and the Netherlands to defeat Britain and France in 1940.

Do you really think the SEC gives one rat hair about any team in the G5?
 

froglash88

Full Member
It’s the same ol’ same ol’. If they keep the corrupt committee in the mix, the 4 byes will go to Blue Bloods (nearly 100% of the time). Then the talking heads will be spewing “This just proves the previous systems got it right. Team X and Team Y had their chances to prove it on the field and clearly don’t have the depth and firepower.”

It’s still better than anything we’ve had up until this point. I would prefer 8 with no byes.
 

Jared7

Active Member
It’s the same ol’ same ol’. If they keep the corrupt committee in the mix, the 4 byes will go to Blue Bloods (nearly 100% of the time). Then the talking heads will be spewing “This just proves the previous systems got it right. Team X and Team Y had their chances to prove it on the field and clearly don’t have the depth and firepower.”

It’s still better than anything we’ve had up until this point. I would prefer 8 with no byes.
Under the proposed system, the 4 byes will go to the Top 4 ranked conference champions, which will be determined by the conferences' rules - all of which have CCG's at present. So, the byes will go to the winners of the CCG's who emerge as the Top 4 ranked by the Committee. If you're arguing that these are likely to be 4 P5 champs rather than G5 champs, I agree - the proposal most certainly does not establish G5 parity. But if you're arguing that it favors "bluebloods," - that's not really accurate. If Washington State, TCU, Northwestern, Wake Forest and Kentucky are the P5 champs (none of which are football "bluebloods"), then 4 of those will get the byes. The proposed system values championships (for the byes); blueblood status is likely to be helpful only for the at large slots and the seeding.

This will be presented to the CFP Board of Managers on Tuesday by the task force; if approved, it will start going to the other stakeholders. At this point, it looks like it is on the fast track for approval. According to various articles, it was actually approved over a year ago by the task force (before COVID) but it was kept secret as the task force worked through the details. The revenue shortfalls due to COVID only accelerated the process - it did not cause it.
 

satis1103

DAOTONPYH EHT LIAH LLA
It’s the same ol’ same ol’. If they keep the corrupt committee in the mix, the 4 byes will go to Blue Bloods (nearly 100% of the time). Then the talking heads will be spewing “This just proves the previous systems got it right. Team X and Team Y had their chances to prove it on the field and clearly don’t have the depth and firepower.”

It’s still better than anything we’ve had up until this point. I would prefer 8 with no byes.
Bottom line, it at least gives us and teams like/below us a chance to win it on the field more frequently. Which is far better than winning a beauty contest first, then possibly getting to play for it.

Honestly, if we get in and can't beat a Bama, bye or no bye, well then we shouldn't be the national champs. It makes sense. And the NFL playoffs show that a bye helps, but it doesn't guarantee anything.
 

Jared7

Active Member
The Committee will continue to have a lot of sway. And if they continue to behave the way they have up til now, Froggish is right to be somewhat cynical. They will decide all the at larges and I'm guessing that means blueblood SEC and Big 10 teams mostly will get their usual advantages (because of *reasons*). They will also do the seeding which probably means home games for the bluebloods and road trips for the Cinderellas whenever and however that would be possible. I'm in favor of the proposal because it would be a LOT better than anything we've ever seen since 1998, but let's not delude ourselves into thinking it will eliminate all the drawbacks that have screwed TCU (and teams like us) so many times since then. Criticisms from endless purple and others are validly made and will loom larger if and when the proposed system is ever implemented (looking to be 2023 at present).
 

CountryFrog

Active Member
The reality is TCU has a very, very slim chance of ever winning a NC with a 4-team playoff. At 12 teams, that very, very slim chance goes to essentially no chance.

Had a much better chance of winning a title before there ever was a playoff at all, like BYU, Colorado and Georgia Tech did.
To say that getting into the playoff is now roughly 3X more likely for any given team and that therefore provides FEWER opportunities to win the playoff seems like the type of math that a Bill Gates model might use.
 

YA

Active Member
To say that getting into the playoff is now roughly 3X more likely for any given team and that therefore provides FEWER opportunities to win the playoff seems like the type of math that a Bill Gates model might use.
This wex dude is flat out a hater and doesn't like to admit when he is wrong and just doubles down on the BS.
 
The playoffs will be more open but the paying players and NIL crap will tip the scales back to the bluebloods and any program that can keep up with that spending. They will have all star teams and depth which will result in the same teams winning with addition of new teams like Oregon and Texas A&M joining the few because they have the alumni foundations and partners like Nike that can help them buy a national title.
 

CountryFrog

Active Member
This wex dude is flat out a hater and doesn't like to admit when he is wrong and just doubles down on the BS.
I don't know that he's a hater but he certainly has a very strange love for the current CFP format. I think TCU could win 3 national championships this decade and he'd probably say "We would've won at least 5 under the old 4 team playoff format."
 

Froggish

Active Member
It's not BS at all, we have two decades of data to show for it. Despite ending the regular season undefeated twice and 1-loss twice (to say nothing of how the 2-loss teams of '08, '11, & '15 may have gotten bids), at the end of every single regular season of the Gary Patterson tenure, TCU has had a 0.0% chance of winning a national title. Not "really difficult", not "if they get hot and get some bracket luck". ZERO. They weren't eligible. In 3 of those 4 seasons it was even worse, as they were almost entirely eliminated before the regular season even started simply because they were members of a non-AQ conference.

Saying "winning three or four games in a row against elite level teams is really, really hard for a team like TCU" is a fair enough point, but we can absolutely say that it's not as impossible as "winning a national title when you aren't even allowed to play for one".

Curious, Do you believe that TCU would have been left out of the playoff in 2014 had they gone undefeated?
 

Froggish

Active Member
No chance. Undefeated Big 12 champ TCU is in 10 times out of 10.

Got you..So Jared’s statement that TCU essentially had no chance at the 4 team playoff is incorrect. What’s true is that most people just thought there was a double standard in regard to how margin of error has been applied to non BlueBloods vs the BBs. What people seem to believe is that 12 team playoff is better because it allows imperfect teams a chance to play more high stakes football. Conference championship games were already serving as the first round of a 12 team playoffs but nobody likes that because we didn’t use the playoff word. At the end of the day people should admit they just really want more high stakes football. I don’t think anyone really believes that 2-3 loss football team who’s recruited in the 30-50 range is really capable of winning 4 straight games against more talented teams. People just want access that what this is about. It’s not really about trying to crown the best football team.

Also nobody should be foolish enough to believe the double standard is going to go away because more teams are involved.
There will be plenty of moaning and complaining with those at large bids
 
Last edited:
Top