Was the CFP a success? An analysis

[HailToPitt725]

Yesterday was the tenth and final edition of the four-team CFP semifinals that were adopted after a big push in the years leading up to 2014. However, how often was the result different from the BCS, where only the No. 1 and 2 teams had access to the national championship? Here’s a breakdown by year:

2014: #2 Oregon vs #4 Ohio State (winner)
2015: #1 Clemson vs #2 Alabama (winner)
2016: #1 Alabama vs #2 Clemson (winner)
2017: #3 Georgia vs #4 Alabama (winner)
2018: #1 Alabama vs #2 Clemson (winner)
2019: #1 LSU (winner) vs #3 Clemson
2020: #1 Alabama (winner) vs #3 Ohio State
2021: #1 Alabama vs #3 Georgia (winner)
2022: #1 Georgia (winner) vs #3 TCU
2023: #1 Michigan vs #2 Washington

Of the ten seasons, only four of them featured the top two teams. In fact, there was only a 50% higher probability of the top two teams making the national championship than neither of them. Meanwhile, last night’s results guaranteed that 70% of the national champions were either the #1 or #2-ranked teams.

Is it “right” that the 2014 Buckeyes won the national championship despite there being three undefeated teams who arguably were more “deserving?” Is it fair that twice a team who didn’t win their own conference (2017 Alabama, 2021 Georgia) still made the CFP and ultimately won it? Does that take away from the regular season if the new system rewarded teams who got hot at the right time?

Just some food for thought.

 

[pittdan77]

Yesterday was the tenth and final edition of the four-team CFP semifinals that were adopted after a big push in the years leading up to 2014. However, how often was the result different from the BCS, where only the No. 1 and 2 teams had access to the national championship? Here’s a breakdown by year:

2014: #2 Oregon vs #4 Ohio State (winner)
2015: #1 Clemson vs #2 Alabama (winner)
2016: #1 Alabama vs #2 Clemson (winner)
2017: #3 Georgia vs #4 Alabama (winner)
2018: #1 Alabama vs #2 Clemson (winner)
2019: #1 LSU (winner) vs #3 Clemson
2020: #1 Alabama (winner) vs #3 Ohio State
2021: #1 Alabama vs #3 Georgia (winner)
2022: #1 Georgia (winner) vs #3 TCU
2023: #1 Michigan vs #2 Washington

Of the ten seasons, only four of them featured the top two teams. In fact, there was only a 50% higher probability of the top two teams making the national championship than neither of them. Meanwhile, last night’s results guaranteed that 70% of the national champions were either the #1 or #2-ranked teams.

Is it “right” that the 2014 Buckeyes won the national championship despite there being three undefeated teams who arguably were more “deserving?” Is it fair that twice a team who didn’t win their own conference (2017 Alabama, 2021 Georgia) still made the CFP and ultimately won it? Does that take away from the regular season if the new system rewarded teams who got hot at the right time?

Just some food for thought.

You really can't make an argument that anyone was ever left out who would have been favored or had a realistic chance that deserved to be in. Even Georgia this year. They lost two games. Maybe they had the steam to win but other teams had better records. There were a few teams that made the semis that didn't have a realistic chance but that's how it goes. Most years, there are only one or two teams that are legitimate contenders.

So far as rewarding teams that "get hot at the right time", that's kind of how playoffs in sports work. Don't really see this as any argument against any system.

 

[Pitt2006]

So no 4 seed has won it all in 6 years not, suggesting more conglomeration of top talent. This year should have an asterisk for leaving out undefeated FSU. Who knows how they would have handled Michigan. I mean Louisville lost to unranked USC, but you never know if they didn’t have so many opt outs. JK. But it does make one wonder why we really need an expanded playoff. 4 seems to be the right number before you end up with more 60 point routs.

 

[cashisking884]

You really can't make an argument that anyone was ever left out who would have been favored or had a realistic chance that deserved to be in. Even Georgia this year. They lost two games.

UGA lost once

 

[Zeldas Open Roof]

So no 4 seed has won it all in 6 years not, suggesting more conglomeration of top talent. This year should have an asterisk for leaving out undefeated FSU. Who knows how they would have handled Michigan. I mean Louisville lost to unranked USC, but you never know if they didn’t have so many opt outs. JK. But it does make one wonder why we really need an expanded playoff. 4 seems to be the right number before you end up with more 60 point routs.

well more money for one. but to identify the best teams, yes, 4 is enough. Actually i think 8 is perfect and am still baffled why they didnt try an 8 team playoff, it's perfect..

WIth 12, just going to have 3 loss teams in there but hey, as a college football fan, another week or two of playoffs will be fun to watch. And throw in home venues for playoffs at a college stadium in january, and not just the same old "neutral sites" like orange or sugar bowls, it should be really good..

 

[thebadby2]

You really can't make an argument that anyone was ever left out who would have been favored or had a realistic chance that deserved to be in. Even Georgia this year. They lost two games. Maybe they had the steam to win but other teams had better records. There were a few teams that made the semis that didn't have a realistic chance but that's how it goes. Most years, there are only one or two teams that are legitimate contenders.

So far as rewarding teams that "get hot at the right time", that's kind of how playoffs in sports work. Don't really see this as any argument against any system.

Georgia lost one game, the SEC champ game to Alabama, and was the consensus #1 team in the country all year until that point.

 

[cashisking884]

So no 4 seed has won it all in 6 years not, suggesting more conglomeration of top talent. This year should have an asterisk for leaving out undefeated FSU. Who knows how they would have handled Michigan. I mean Louisville lost to unranked USC, but you never know if they didn’t have so many opt outs. JK. But it does make one wonder why we really need an expanded playoff. 4 seems to be the right number before you end up with more 60 point routs.

The only thing I would say is NIL seems to be spreading talent out more.

If FSU is fully healthy, there probably were 6 legit NC contenders this year. And not because so many teams were elite.

You have teams like Ole Miss buying up the best transfer talent.

You had more 5* diversity than any other year on the recruiting trail.

There are signals that, going forward, more Tier I teams are going to be NC contenders.

Does that mean we need a 12 team playoff? Probably not.

But something beyond 4.

 

[cashisking884]

You really can't make an argument that anyone was ever left out who would have been favored or had a realistic chance that deserved to be in. Even Georgia this year. They lost two games. Maybe they had the steam to win but other teams had better records. There were a few teams that made the semis that didn't have a realistic chance but that's how it goes. Most years, there are only one or two teams that are legitimate contenders.

So far as rewarding teams that "get hot at the right time", that's kind of how playoffs in sports work. Don't really see this as any argument against any system.

This year being the exception, I think this is right.

The discussion most years was, “who deserved to be the number 4 team and get blown out.”

Most people don’t care that maybe one other team deserved to be sacrificial lamb over another.

 

[thebadby2]

So no 4 seed has won it all in 6 years not, suggesting more conglomeration of top talent. This year should have an asterisk for leaving out undefeated FSU. Who knows how they would have handled Michigan. I mean Louisville lost to unranked USC, but you never know if they didn’t have so many opt outs. JK. But it does make one wonder why we really need an expanded playoff. 4 seems to be the right number before you end up with more 60 point routs.

I think everyone knows what would have happened to QB-less FSU if they had played Michigan. It’s laughable to suggest they had a chance in hell.

 

[pittdan77]

This year being the exception, I think this is right.

The discussion most years was, “who deserved to be the number 4 team and get blown out.”

Most people don’t care that maybe one other team deserved to be sacrificial lamb over another.

My bad on Georgia but I don't think we're going to see any sort of underdog run with an expanded playoff. The deck is going to be stacked against that in so many ways.

 

[Zeldas Open Roof]

speaking of fsu, did that Tate Rodeymeyer (Sp?) dude announce where he's going yet?

 

[cashisking884]

I think everyone knows what would have happened to QB-less FSU if they had played Michigan. It’s laughable to suggest that had a chance in hell.

FSU’s offense would have struggled, but so would Michigan’s.

Michigan held Alabama to 288 yards, 22 of which came in overtime.

Even with that dominate of a defensive performance. Meaning you’re constantly getting the ball because of three and outs. And you’re constantly getting good field position.

Michigan scored 3 TDs in regulation.

You think they would have scored more on FSU’s higher rated defense? Why?

The thing about Michigan’s style of offense, is it isn’t intended to create a high scoring game. It plays into the hands of a team that might struggle offensively.

 

[cashisking884]

My bad on Georgia but I don't think we're going to see any sort of underdog run with an expanded playoff. The deck is going to be stacked against that in so many ways.

that’s right.

But I do think we are seeing signs that NIL has thinned talent out some.

And so while Iowa or Arizona or Syracuse won’t be making NC runs, you will see more Tier I teams legit having a chance.

That’s been the problem largely with college football. It isn’t that Rutgers no longer has a national championship shot. They never did.

It’s that the gulf between the top team and the 5th ranked team seemed to be so wide.

It was Bama and UGA stacking these 94 average recruit ranked classes, and so even very good classes had no chance against it.

That seems to be changing.

 

[pittdan77]

that’s right.

But I do think we are seeing signs that NIL has thinned talent out some.

And so while Iowa or Arizona or Syracuse won’t be making NC runs, you will see more Tier I teams legit having a chance.

That’s been the problem largely with college football. It isn’t that Rutgers no longer has a national championship shot. They never did.

It’s that the gulf between the top team and the 5th ranked team seemed to be so wide.

It was Bama and UGA stacking these 94 average recruit ranked classes, and so even very good classes had no chance against it.

That seems to be changing.

There are a lot of variables but I've argued for a while that the transfer portal was a good thing for CFB just because big schools won't be able to hoard talent. The NIL levels things because schools that weren't cheating can at least do things to try to secure talent that they weren't able to, before. At the end of the day, you still have to have a decent coach who can recruit and still coach football.

 

[thebadby2]

FSU’s offense would have struggled, but so would Michigan’s.

Michigan held Alabama to 288 yards, 22 of which came in overtime.

Even with that dominate of a defensive performance. Meaning you’re constantly getting the ball because of three and outs. And you’re constantly getting good field position.

Michigan scored 3 TDs in regulation.

You think they would have scored more on FSU’s higher rated defense? Why?

The thing about Michigan’s style of offense, is it isn’t intended to create a high scoring game. It plays into the hands of a team that might struggle offensively.

you’re kidding yourself if you think that would even be a competitive game. Michigan doesn’t struggle offensively. They push you around and bully you then hit you downfield when you’re soft. They hane plenty of speed. They have elite line play on both sides. They have elite DBs. They have a playmaker at QB. If not for some awful special teams gaffes, that game last night wouldn't have even been close.

 

[Pitt79]

Of the ten seasons, only four of them featured the top two teams.

Is it “right” that the 2014 Buckeyes won the national championship despite there being three undefeated teams who arguably were more “deserving?”

That's among the few POSITIVES, because the top 2 teams should be kicked to the curb if they LOSE GAMES, and yeah, tOSU was highly deserving, because it won games ON THE FIELD, it's great when a lesser team takes it to the best teams, and the best don't become the champion, a lesser team ends up with the title, that's NORMAL SPORTS. I love when the best team is knocked out.

 

[cashisking884]

you’re kidding yourself if you think that would even be a competitive game. Michigan doesn’t struggle offensively. They push you around and bully you then hit you downfield when you’re soft. They hane plenty of speed. They have elite line play on both sides. They have elite DBs. They have a playmaker at QB. If not for some awful special teams gaffes, that game last night wouldn't have even been close.

But they don’t do that.

They had 3 TDs and about 330 total yards at the end of regulation.

If you look at Michigan games over the last 3 years against upper tier teams:

They are constantly HORRIBLE on third down.

The reason for that is because they load the box and run into, gaining little yards. Which then sets up a lot of third and longs, which they don’t convert.

And so what they are doing with that style of play is:

Wasting downs, and bleeding the clock.

Which keeps games close.

Michigan was by far the better team last night. And yet they were trailing at the end of the game.

And it’s because their offensive style didn’t really require a bad Alabama QB to have to do much.

That’s how it would have largely played out against an FSU defense that the analytics had ranked as the 5th best defense in all of college football.

Michigan wasn’t going to just run over FSU, as they didn’t Bama.

 

[Pitt79]

But they don’t do that.

They had 3 TDs and about 330 total yards at the end of regulation.

If you look at Michigan games over the last 3 years against upper tier teams:

They are constantly HORRIBLE on third down.

The reason for that is because they load the box and run into, gaining little yards. Which then sets up a lot of third and longs, which they don’t convert.

And so what they are doing with that style of play is:

Wasting downs, and bleeding the clock.

Which keeps games close.

Michigan was by far the better team last night. And yet they were trailing at the end of the game.

And it’s because their offensive style didn’t really require a bad Alabama QB to have to do much.

That’s how it would have largely played out against an FSU defense that the analytics had ranked as the 5th best defense in all of college football.

Michigan wasn’t going to just run over FSU, as they didn’t Bama.

So, they model themselves after the Steelers, weak and gutless, playing scared?

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

Yesterday was the tenth and final edition of the four-team CFP semifinals that were adopted after a big push in the years leading up to 2014. However, how often was the result different from the BCS, where only the No. 1 and 2 teams had access to the national championship? Here’s a breakdown by year:

2014: #2 Oregon vs #4 Ohio State (winner)
2015: #1 Clemson vs #2 Alabama (winner)
2016: #1 Alabama vs #2 Clemson (winner)
2017: #3 Georgia vs #4 Alabama (winner)
2018: #1 Alabama vs #2 Clemson (winner)
2019: #1 LSU (winner) vs #3 Clemson
2020: #1 Alabama (winner) vs #3 Ohio State
2021: #1 Alabama vs #3 Georgia (winner)
2022: #1 Georgia (winner) vs #3 TCU
2023: #1 Michigan vs #2 Washington

Of the ten seasons, only four of them featured the top two teams. In fact, there was only a 50% higher probability of the top two teams making the national championship than neither of them. Meanwhile, last night’s results guaranteed that 70% of the national champions were either the #1 or #2-ranked teams.

Is it “right” that the 2014 Buckeyes won the national championship despite there being three undefeated teams who arguably were more “deserving?” Is it fair that twice a team who didn’t win their own conference (2017 Alabama, 2021 Georgia) still made the CFP and ultimately won it? Does that take away from the regular season if the new system rewarded teams who got hot at the right time?

Just some food for thought.

Those were the best 2 games so despite FSU fans and players crying all over Twitter that they deserved it more than Bama since Bama lost, Bama proved they belong. An OT loss vs the #1 team proves they were better than FSU.

Had Georgia beaten Alabama, FSU would have gotten in over Texas because you don't have the Texas won at Alabama conundrum really, Texas only had that 1 good win. Would have been

1 UGa vs 4 FSU in the Sugar
2 Mich vs 3 Wash in the Rose

4 undefeated teams. No way you go Texas over FSU. Not even I would have done so.

 

[Burgh15]

I agree that's how it would've went and Georgia would've destroyed FSU even without all the opt outs. I still though the four best teams (not most deserving) to make the playoffs were Michigan, Washington, Alabama, and Georgia. Either way, we got a great semifinals and hopefully the championship game will be just as exciting.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

I agree that's how it would've went and Georgia would've destroyed FSU even without all the opt outs. I still though the four best teams (not most deserving) to make the playoffs were Michigan, Washington, Alabama, and Georgia. Either way, we got a great semifinals and hopefully the championship game will be just as exciting.

Georgia is the best team. They lost a close game to Bama and didnt "deserve" to go but they are still the best team in my opinion. Their non-con of Ball State, UT-Martin, UAB, and GT is why they didnt make it. Should have played someone.

 

[cashisking884]

So, they model themselves after the Steelers, weak and gutless, playing scared?

No, they just play their style, and I think Harbaugh is comfortable with close games and just doing what they do.

But to the poster’s point, and maybe kinda yours:

They aren’t going to put this offensive blitzkrieg on teams.

Their defense dominated Bama. And the offense still couldn’t run away from Bama, because the offense is not designed to run away.

It’s a methodical march downfield kind of offense.

 

[CJsE]

FSU’s offense would have struggled, but so would Michigan’s.

Michigan held Alabama to 288 yards, 22 of which came in overtime.

Even with that dominate of a defensive performance. Meaning you’re constantly getting the ball because of three and outs. And you’re constantly getting good field position.

Michigan scored 3 TDs in regulation.

You think they would have scored more on FSU’s higher rated defense? Why?

The thing about Michigan’s style of offense, is it isn’t intended to create a high scoring game. It plays into the hands of a team that might struggle offensively.

Michigan was the 14th highest scoring team in FBS. They ranked higher than FSU or Alabama.

Michigan averaged 6 yards per play this season. Again, higher than FSU or Alabama.

Michigan's offensive SP+ ranked 9th in efficiency. Also higher than FSU or Alabama.

Michigan's Team-Adjusted Offensive efficiency ranked 10th in the country. Slightly below FSU's 7th and Bama's 8th.

 

[cashisking884]

Michigan was the 14th highest scoring team in FBS. They ranked higher than FSU or Alabama.

Michigan averaged 6 yards per play this season. Again, higher than FSU or Alabama.

Michigan's offensive SP+ ranked 9th in efficiency. Also higher than FSU or Alabama.

Michigan's Team-Adjusted Offensive efficiency ranked 10th in the country. Slightly below FSU's 7th and Bama's 8th.

Yes, they do well doing what they do.

But it’s an offense that clogs up frequently against upper tier teams.

Team adjusted efficiency and analytics don’t make as much sense when the point being concerns in part the pace of play.

My view is Michigan, against more upper tier teams, runs into condensed boxes and burns a lot of downs. And they also pay at a slow pace.

This shortens the score of their games and overall offensive production.

Michigan had one game in all of 2023 that F+ gave a 20 or more offensive value generated score.

For comparison purposes:

Kansas had 2.
Georgia had 5.

My point is, as efficient as Michigan’s offense is down to down, they lose that efficiency against upper tier teams. And there isn’t an explosive rate counter-balance.

So that slow, methodical style would play into FSU’s hands. It makes the game a defense vs defense, lower scoring matchup.

 

[Pitt79]

Georgia is the best team. They lost a close game to Bama and didnt "deserve" to go but they are still the best team in my opinion. Their non-con of Ball State, UT-Martin, UAB, and GT is why they didnt make it. Should have played someone.

That's how I like it, the best team sent packing and punished for losing, I too believe they can beat anybody, but I'm in the "most deserving" camp and I believe it's right that the best team loses their chance by losing actual games, if they're so best win every game. Because being champion has absolutely nothing to do with being the best team.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

That's how I like it, the best team sent packing and punished for losing, I too believe they can beat anybody, but I'm in the "most deserving" camp and I believe it's right that the best team loses their chance by losing actual games, if they're so best win every game. Because being champion has absolutely nothing to do with being the best team.

I was ok in leaving Georgia out. I didn't have them even though I thought they were the best team. They werent even close to "deserving" due to their weak schedule. Should have played somebody

 

[CJsE]

Yes, they do well doing what they do.

But it’s an offense that clogs up frequently against upper tier teams.

Team adjusted efficiency and analytics don’t make as much sense when the point being concerns in part the pace of play.

My view is Michigan, against more upper tier teams, runs into condensed boxes and burns a lot of downs. And they also pay at a slow pace.

This shortens the score of their games and overall offensive production.

Michigan had one game in all of 2023 that F+ gave a 20 or more offensive value generated score.

For comparison purposes:

Kansas had 2.
Georgia had 5.

My point is, as efficient as Michigan’s offense is down to down, they lose that efficiency against upper tier teams. And there isn’t an explosive rate counter-balance.

So that slow, methodical style would play into FSU’s hands. It makes the game a defense vs defense, lower scoring matchup.

How does counting the number of 20+ games matter the slightest to your argument that they fold against top teams? Did their 20+ come against a top team? Did Kansas' or Georgia's 20+ games come against top defenses?

-The only team that Kansas played with a top 25 defense was Texas and their OV in that game was -6.2.
-Georgia had an OV of 0.0 against Bama, Michigan had a 1.0. So what does that say about Georgia's offense and their abilities against good teams?
-Saying that their offense performs worse against good defenses could be the same for every single team. But when the results are adjusted against the other teams' opponents, Michigan has a top 10 offense in the country.

4 of Michigan's top 5 combined play totals were games against Alabama, Ohio State, Iowa, and Penn State. I can't make a completely accurate claim about their pace of play against upper-tier teams, but those numbers seem to indicate the exact opposite of what you are saying.

 

[cashisking884]

How does counting the number of 20+ games matter the slightest to your argument that they fold against top teams? Did their 20+ come against a top team? Did Kansas' or Georgia's 20+ games come against top defenses?

-The only team that Kansas played with a top 25 defense was Texas and their OV in that game was -6.2.
-Georgia had an OV of 0.0 against Bama, Michigan had a 1.0. So what does that say about Georgia's offense and their abilities against good teams?
-Saying that their offense performs worse against good defenses could be the same for every single team. But when the results are adjusted against the other teams' opponents, Michigan has a top 10 offense in the country.

4 of Michigan's top 5 combined play totals were games against Alabama, Ohio State, Iowa, and Penn State. I can't make a completely accurate claim about their pace of play against upper-tier teams, but those numbers seem to indicate the exact opposite of what you are saying.

Because it shows the lack of offensive explosion.

My entire point is that FSU’s defense was very good this year.

And that you would have a classic Big 10 style game against FSU, just as you did against Bama.

And people arguing that Michigan would blow out FSU are wrong, that’s not what their offense is even designed to do.

Look at the Penn State game. Michigan just ran the ball to bleed clock and limit plays, because they did not think PSU could score on them.

That’s what they do offensively. And all of a sudden they are going to turn the FSU game into a track meet and dare their backup to keep up? Nahhhh.