Talk:College Football Playoff

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 13 January 2022 and 29 April 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): GAPARKER4 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Bradleywstewart.

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move to College Football Playoff. Nathan Johnson (talk) 15:52, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


NCAA Division I FBS playoffs → College Football Playoff – Official name for the new playoff system was announced today per this source. Dcheagle • talk • contribs 04:02, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose it should be NCAA College Football Playoff. The proposed title should be a diambiguation page, since there are other college football playoffs out there, including BCS. NAIA has one, and then there's all the non-USA playoffs for football (such as CIS/CIAU), then there's all the ones for soccer. -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 09:13, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
modified -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 11:57, 24 April 2013 (UTC) [reply]
How about College Football Playoff (FBS) instead as there's a number of the NCAA football divisions that have playoffs.--Dcheagle • talk • contribs 11:14, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as WP:COMMONNAME takes precedent over officials names. Additionally, does the official name address the different divisions? Tiggerjay (talk) 11:18, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Common name gets thrown out the window here as this system has yet to be implemented so a common name really doesn't exist for it yet and No the official names is just College Football Playoff. Also a side note to the IP NCAA College Football Playoff cant be used by the simple fact that the NCAA dose not sanction a championship for the FBS level of Division I.--Dcheagle • talk • contribs 12:05, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A completely illogical argument. We are discussing this future system, so of course it already has a name. And you yourself say that an official name already exists and imply that it is in use. The question then becomes, is this official name already commonly used? There are other considerations than COMMONNAME but there is no reason for it to be thrown out the window (agree that you seem to have done so). Andrewa (talk) 19:41, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support College Football Playoff is the officially trademarked name for the event. See http://www.collegefootballplayoff.com. The current title is a general description of the event. It is not even a commonly used phrase relating to the event. It is the equivalent of naming the article about President Obama "that black guy who is President." Further, the description is not even accurate, as it is not an NCAA event. Search Google for "NCAA Division I FBS playoffs" and you will find that it does not exist except for this Wiki page. Search for "College Football Playoff" and you'll find dozens if not hundreds of news articles and websites.Drewinmaine (talk) 12:51, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"It is the equivalent of naming the article about President Obama 'that black guy who is President.'"—best Wikipedia discussion comment ever. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:41, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This is the official name and will be the common name going forward. Moreover, NCAA is misleading in the title because the College Football Playoff is independent of the NCAA. The move in inevitable, IMHO. CrazyPaco (talk) 17:03, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural note: There shouldn't be two RMs active on the same page, much less identical requests. I've consolidated the newer request into the older one, converting the second request into a support vote. Apologies if this has resulted in a misrepresentation of anyone's position. --BDD (talk) 21:30, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Official names aren't necessarily the best choice for a title, but they often are. The current title is a descriptive title (WP:NDESC), which is generally not the best choice when there are official or common names available. This is the actual name of the entity described in the article. Only under extraordinary circumstances would a descriptive title be appropriate here. If I proposed a move of Premier League to Top-flight English football league, you'd think I was crazy. --BDD (talk) 21:31, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as per WP:UCN. Red Slash 22:11, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support since only one "College Football Playoff", others have other names. Ucla90024 (talk) 23:37, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move. This is now the official name of the subject. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:42, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It is the trademarked name of the system. Why is this even a discussion? LibertarianGuy (talk) 03:23, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - It is the official name of the system. Also, as far as I can tell, the College Football Playoff page was blank before this week. If it never caused enough confusion to need a DAB page or redirect when it was blank, why should it suddenly start to do so now? - BilCat (talk) 09:25, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - College Football Playoff is the official name, the NCAA does not officially sanction the playoff and having NCAA in the title implies such. Name of the article should be the official name. Zaqwert (talk) 23:32, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - College Football Playoff is officially the name of the playoff system, and will, if not already, become the common name. Also, has it ever been actually referenced in official releases or sources as "NCAA Division I FBS Playoff"? Everything I have ever seen before the official naming was along the lines of "4 team playoff" or "the new college football playoff". - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:25, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. "College Football Playoff" is the official name, will rapidly become the common name in the aftermath of April 23's announcement, and since the NCAA will not supervise it, adding "NCAA" would be inaccurate. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:28, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Neither the rationale nor any of the above support votes address the issues in terms of article naming policy. The official name is barely relevant. The proposed name is not recognizable to anyone outside of the USA. Andrewa (talk) 19:33, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per the article naming policy page, first line: "An article title is the large Level 1 heading displayed above each article's contents. The title indicates what the article is about and distinguishes it from other articles." The proposed name clearly satisfies both counts, especially as the proposed name was blank until last week. If the policy on avoiding ambiguity is enforced in this situation, it will result in a name which isn't likely to ever be a common name. As such, IAR for common snece needs to apply here. The "The proposed name is not recognizable to anyone outside of the USA" argument is irrelevant, as the policy just states it should be recognizable to "readers". I would be interested in seeing how often the therm "college football playoff" is used outside the US to refer to a non-American football event. My guess is such usgae would be few, if not nil. - BilCat (talk) 07:45, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
BilCat is absolutely on-point. Andrewa's argument, particularly that the official name is barely relevant, defies common sense. This subject is perfectly accessible to anyone in or outside of the US who cares to spend a minute familiarizing himself with the topic. If and when another entity called "College Football Playoff" emerges, we can certainly address any needed disambiguation then. As of now, there is none. Time for an admin to step in and close this. Jweiss11 (talk) 15:36, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also per the article naming policy page: "Naturalness – The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such titles usually convey what the subject is actually called in English." Nobody calls this event or the organizating that runs the "NCAA Division I FBS playoffs." Search for this on Google and it will redirect you to hundreds of articles on the FCS playoffs. Search for "College Football Playoff" and you will get hundreds of articles about the new playoff system that this article is about. I concede that "College Football Playoff" is generic sounding. Several news articles have pointed this out, and even the official announcement alludes to it being concise and direct. However, "NCAA Division I FBS playoffs" is simply wrong in multiple regards.Drewinmaine (talk) 16:21, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
h 2604:2800:FFF9:97F:388A:FCDC:1AF9:4223 (talk) 04:50, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Merge with College football playoff debate[edit]

What are others' thoughts on possibly merging the page, College football playoff debate, into a "History" section on this page? The page has a lot of outdated information, and I think what ever is salvageable, would be able to fit in a nice section on this page. Just a though I had when looking over that page and knowing that this one exists and a playoff is actually happening. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:01, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another outdated page that could be merged here is Plus-One system, which is basically what the new playoff is. - BilCat (talk) 07:21, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm working on rewriting and expanding the page in a subpage and I'm about to create a history section that will most likely use a lot of info pulled in from the above pages.--Dcheagle • talk • contribs 11:50, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The rewrite looks quite nice, all we need now is the history section. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:32, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yea I'm about to start doing that just took a few days off. Others are welcome to join in on the rewrite if they would like to just edit my sub page at the link above.

Dcheagle, have you made any progress to add the info from College football playoff debate to this page, or any other additions? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:21, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not yet had a death in the family so I've been away for a bit. Planing on starting that in the next day or two. If any one wants to they can start the work, I'm doing this at the Subpage listed above anyone is welcome join me in the work.--Dcheagle • talk • contribs 23:34, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So sorry for you loss. Just came to the page the other day and just remembered I had posted this. I'll take a look to see if I can help out! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:11, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peach Bowl[edit]

Would it be okay to just put the Peach Bowl as the Peach Bowl. All the other bowls don't have their sponsors. Insert90 (talk) 00:48, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes. Ucla90024 (talk) 01:33, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, it wouldn't. It is officially called the Chick-fil-A Peach Bowl, as noted by the sources. While it is the sponsor's name, it is also part of the official name. The others, Fiesta, Rose, Orange, Cotton, and Sugar, have individual sponsors as well, but are commonly know as the Fiesta, Rose, etc. without the sponsor's name attached (also the sponsors are changing). Since the former Chick-fil-A Bowl used to be the Peach Bowl, the committee wanted to bring that name back, but in order to do so, they had to keep Chick-fil-A in the name, and presumably it will stay the official name. I hope that is clear. It is a situation that is hard to put into words and convey. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:36, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Favre1fan93 is absolutely correct here. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:01, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I reverted it back to "Chick-fil-A Bowl" because the April ESPN article appears to be the ONLY source claiming the name change; I consider it to be pure speculation until a name change is announced. As of today, both the bowl's own website and, more notably (since ESPN claimed they demanded it), the CFP website refer to it by its present name. I left the ESPN article in both the hidden notes and the one reference using it (with an explanatory note that NO name change has been announced) just in case a name change is announced. (Edit: Since without the name change this bowl has *ONLY* its sponsor's name, that makes its sponsor inclusion even more appropriate vis-a-vis the other CFP bowls.) --RBBrittain (talk) 21:09, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's an AJC article from around the same time that says the same thing [4]; and here's a follow-up from May 2013[5] that notes "soon to be again named the Chick-fil-A Peach Bowl", so I've gone ahead and re-reverted back to what the previous consensus of editors had decided. (N.B.: The fact that the current bowl website doesn't use "Chick-fil-A Peach Bowl" isn't surprising — this season's game is still called the "Chick-fil-A Bowl".) Woodshed (talk) 04:58, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as I'm concerned, all the April articles are from an off-the-cuff remark; the May article simply reprinted the April mistake. I might buy your excuse if it were *JUST* the bowl's OWN website, but *NOT* when CFP -- who supposedly wanted it changed -- still calls it the Chick-Fil-A Bowl. Until you have MORE than just those articles saying the name will change, I'm changing it back. --RBBrittain (talk) 03:40, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, but I will still go ahead and mention the fact that Chick-fil-A is a politically controversial sponsor. There doubtless will be some push-back if they are still the sponsor of the former Peach Bowl when Atlanta's turn to host a semifinal game comes around. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 21:06, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Add it if and when there is significant pushback - mentioning it preemptively is Crystal balling. - BilCat (talk) 22:11, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, if and when there is a controversy, I am expecting an edit war, similar to the one which has been raging on Megyn Kelly's and Phil Robertson's pages. But that's a few years away. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 23:02, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing to discuss unless you have some improvements to the article to discuss. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:22, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How has this not been changed yet? 1) Peach Bowl is common vernacular 2) There is a requirement to change the name to be inline with the other bowls. One of the few times you can say "go google it... but ignore Wikipedia". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.37.2.18 (talk) 07:51, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How many bowls/teams?[edit]

I could forsee questions/debate arising about whether the "College Football Playoff" consists of:

  • three bowl games (among four teams), in a bracket tournament that results in a national champion
  • seven bowl games (among 12 teams), where a committee selectes four teams to bracket, and the other eight teams are selected by a combination of AQ berths, contract tie-ins, and at-large bids (dictated by the CFP system, presumably, and not "invites" by the bowls themselves)

Just something to think about. Woodshed (talk) 04:00, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The meaning of the word "champion"[edit]

Many articles I read about the CFP will assert that the League X "champion" is guaranteed a in the tie-in scenarios. But as far as I understand it, this isn't a "champion" in the sense of "whoever won the conference title", which in most leagues means "whoever won the championship game" (in other leagues, it's "whoever had the best conference record, subject to tiebreakers"). One need look no further than Stanford last year, or Kansas State in 2003. Those teams were their league champions, and if a game's selection criteria called for a league "champion", they would've been awarded the slot, over the higher-ranked teams from their leagues (Oregon and Oklahoma).

But under the CFP, "champion"-ness means nothing. It's all up to the committee to order the teams and select the pairings. In theory, a six-loss team can be seeded to the playoff and an undefeated team can go to an at-large bowl and play the winner of the Sun Belt.

So when you see a sportswriter or talking heads say a "champion" gets a certain bid, make sure you know he/she means "top-ranked team". (This may be different in the lower bowls — if the MAC champion gets the auto-bid to the Famous Idaho GalleryFurniture.com County Credit Union Bowl presented by Northrop Grumman, then I sincerely apologize.)

This is my best understanding. Please contradict me if you think I'm wrong. And be careful out there. Woodshed (talk) 02:14, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • They call it Champions, and that's the way it is. Why make a big deal of it, unless you want to go back to the mythical Champions? It's impossible to have a 64-team playoff system. That's why no NCAA Division I Championship. Ucla90024 (talk) 06:03, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you're reading too much into the system by arguing over the word "champion". I'm sure they mean whatever the conference considers its champion (whether by conference record, championship game or otherwise); if the champion goes into the playoff the bowls will deal with its replacement then. According to the published criteria on this fact sheet, "(c)onference championships won" will be a CFP ranking criteria; but it will NOT be the EXCLUSIVE one. And it's likely the top playoff teams will also be conference champions unless one of the four independents (Army, BYU, Navy, Notre Dame) goes undefeated, the last undefeated team loses its conference championship, or all the runners-up are in the same conference as the champion (i.e., SEC). --RBBrittain (talk) 21:25, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Plus-One[edit]

My understanding of a "plus one" system is that it adds a title game after all the bowl games, but not involving a bracket or "semifinals"; it just takes the top two teams after all bowls are played, taking those performances into account (obviously). That seems to be confirmed by this AP article[6], though here's one from ESPN[7] that calls a four-team playoff a plus-one; here's another one[8] that calls it a post-bowl selection; here's an SI article[9] in support of the playoff. This guy[10] is very explicit about a plus-one containing "no actual semi-finals" and says it "provides all of the benefits of a playoff ... with almost none of the drawbacks." (On the other hand, he's a filmmaker.) There seems to be inconsistent usage out there. (And here's[11] a really confusing usage of it.)

I guess the confusion is that both systems add one game for the top two teams. Maybe "plus one" is an umbrella term for this.

It's worth noting that current CFP coverage basically does not refer to it as a plus-one. Many/most of the top search results for "plus one" predate the CFP by a year or two. Woodshed (talk) 20:38, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After viewing a bunch of old articles[12][13], I think I was wrong. Seems like "plus-one" has been a common-enough name for the four-team playoff (though some sources may use it to mean the "add one game" thing). Woodshed (talk) 22:03, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think "Plus-One" can refer to a number of different systems that incorporate one more level of games (playoff or not) to get to the final game. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 22:12, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Future sites[edit]

  • The information not useful to article: "Other possible future hosts include Atlanta, Houston, Nashville, San Diego, and Washington, D.C. Officials in New York City said they would like to host the game at Yankee Stadium, but it falls short of the attendance limit." It serves no purpose. Who knows what other cities are thinking? Ucla90024 (talk) 22:01, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not useful to know where future title games may be held? The cited article includes this line: "Houston, Nashville, Tenn., San Francisco, San Diego and Washington, D.C., are other cities that have shown interest in pursuing future College Football Playoff championship games." Here are independent cites for Houston, Atlanta and San Diego, at least. Probably not hard to find the others, if you think it's an issue.
On another topic, we may want to consider keeping the info in this article about the championship game to a bare minimum, and putting all the future hosting details, speculation, etc. into the College Football Championship Game article. Woodshed (talk) 22:37, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speculation was done before the actual submittal of bids. Now the bids are in, no need to list them. There are many other possible sites. Tournament of Roses is not interested because is money losing for organizer. Ucla90024 (talk) 23:29, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:CRYSTAL, we really don't need speculation here, even if it is cited, now tht actiul bids have been submitted. - BilCat (talk) 23:39, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The material in question relates to all future bids, not just 2016-2017 bids (and, by the way, it's sourced). "Need" is a pretty subjective standard, too. Nevertheless, in the spirit of cooperation and per my comment above about limiting title game details in the CFP article, I've taken your cue and removed more information about the after-2017 games. Those details can be more appropriately fleshed out at the College Football Championship Game article. Woodshed (talk) 23:42, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Selection Committee[edit]

  • The committee has not been announced. Any leaked reports are just speculation. They are subject to changes and do not belong here. Ucla90024 (talk) 15:05, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe this qualifies as "speculation". Reliable sources are reporting that these people have been named to the group. Speculation would be a writer saying "this group may include football luminaries like Archie Manning". This, on the other hand, is "sources tell <media entity> that Archie Manning will be on the panel". There's a difference. And besides, per WP:SPECULATION: "Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included..." These are recognized, reliable sources. This isn't fly-by-night speculation. It's being widely reported. Woodshed (talk) 20:21, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But the fact is that it is still not official, so even though it is getting reliable source coverage, it is still a rumor. So I believe Ucla has a point here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:48, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Kevin Feige giving an interview doesn't make something "official" either. Yet... Woodshed (talk) 20:50, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what situation you are referencing to make a connection to this situation. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:02, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speculation not always correct. CFP Media director reported 3 weeks ago (Sept. 19), "the committee (12-18 persons) includes sitting athletic directors, former coaches, former players, former administrators [including presidents] and former journalists." CBSSports.com and LA Times also mentioned "The committee will include 12 to 18 members". Ucla90024 (talk) 21:34, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there actually a rule forbidding other bowl games at the 6 stadiums?[edit]

The article currently says "As part of their playoff contracts, the six bowl sites cannot hold any other postseason college football games at their stadiums." That claim was backed up with a citation; i.e., a newspaper article about how the City of Orlando opted not to be one of the six playoff sites because the managers of the Citrus Bowl stadium wanted to continue holding two bowl games per year at the city-owned facility. This sounds like a reasonable decision on the face of it— but if such a rule exists, how come there seem to be no plans to discontinue the New Orleans Bowl which is held at the same stadium (the Mercedes-Benz Superdome) as the Sugar Bowl? That seems like a silly rule, especially given that some of the other five bowls in the rotation are held in metropolitan areas where other bowls are held. It is unclear, for example, why New Orleans or Orlando should be treated differently from Dallas-Fort Worth, which hosts three bowl games at three different stadiums. It is also unclear if this rule applies to post-season playoff games in lower divisions. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 21:06, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What apparently happened was, the four BCS bowls were added first by the committee which created the system. That would include the Sugar Bowl which has shared its stadium with another bowl for a number of years. Next, the committee invited other bowls to bid for the last two spots— and for those two spots, the committee specified that the playoff-system bowl had to be the only bowl at its stadium. The Cotton Bowl Classic and the Capital One Bowl were considered the "best of the rest" but the Capital One Bowl organizers didn't want to (or were unable to) get rid of the Russell Athletic Bowl. So, the sixth spot went to the Chick-Fil-A Bowl in Atlanta instead. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 15:41, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Calling for some help.[edit]

In a another section above (Merge with College football playoff debate) I started a rewrite of this page in a sup-page I had been working on the history section merging in information from both College football playoff debate and Plus-One system to give the page a nice back history leading up to the College Football Playoff formation. But I have been writers blocked since August and cant seem to come up with anything. So if anyone wants to take a look and see if they can help. I'm hoping to get the changes implemented so we can get this page up to FA status before the start the next football season.--Dcheagle • talk • contribs 22:19, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bowl games[edit]

  • Only three games (teams selected as No. 1 to No. 4) make up the "College Football Playoff" each year. Other bowl games are just regular bowl games which can be ranked or not ranked. Regular bowl games do not belong in this article. Ucla90024 (talk) 16:21, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The CFP system selects the matchups for "top" six bowl games. Woodshed (talk) 16:56, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't believe so; from the official site: "the members of the [selection] committee that will select the four teams to compete in the first playoff." On years the Rose Bowl doesn't host the semi-finals, the Tournament of Roses Association will go back to their contractual agreement with Pac-12 and Big Ten teams. The selection committee of the College Football Playoff system only select the 4 teams to be play in the semi-finals games. The Playoff factsheet. Ucla90024 (talk) 17:29, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure if that "factsheet" qualifies as a reliable source. However, it does say the committee will "rank the next group of teams to play in other New Year's bowls if berths are available". I'm still a little fuzzy on whether "conference champion" in this context means (a) the team that won the conference (say, Stanford in 2012) or (b) the highest-ranked team from that conference (say, Oregon in 2012). Woodshed (talk) 19:23, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • LOL. The governing body is not reliable? Then who is? This is like saying the US Treasury's one dollar bill is no good when it tells you it is good. The fact sheet is the latest information from the system. Obviously the body does not want to have any commercial tie to the games. Ucla90024 (talk) 19:38, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How do you know that the fact sheet is the latest information from the system? It's not dated, as far as I can tell. All other available published sources, including the main page of the CFP site, refer to Chick-fil-A Bowl, not "Atlanta Bowl". I see no reason to change that based on a single undated source. - BilCat (talk) 22:00, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just look at how unfair is to only allow Atlanta to use their sponsor's name. That factsheet has never been posted before. If you know when it was posted, say so. One thing for sure, the factsheet was not made before 12/16/13. Ucla90024 (talk) 06:05, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Saying not "proper name" is like saying the organization is disrespectful to the bowl when all other bowls are called by their original names. A mother doesn't call a child when the child has a proper name like all other names. Source from the organization is not a reliable and need to be independent source? Why not just throw everything out coming from College Football Playoff? They are not going to stage the games and there will not be any selection committee. Obviously, they are trying to take commercialism out of the playoff to meet NCAA's approval. Ucla90024 (talk) 07:10, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) :No independent, reliable sources have reported this name change. Please don't continue to make changes against consensus, or you could be blocked for edit warring. - BilCat (talk) 07:16, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Finally a decision has been made. It will be the Peach Bowl. They just can't be the only one with a sponsor's name. “If we had our druthers, we’d rather have remained the Chick-fil-A Bowl,” he admitted. “But the playoff group did not give us that option, so we’re willing to play by the rules. … We’re indelibly joined to the Peach name.” Playoff group [CFP and ESPN] rules. Ucla90024 (talk) 04:44, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell from the AJC story, the official name is "Chick-fil-A Peach Bowl", not "Peach Bowl". There's supposed to b a press conference tomorrow, so full details should be available after that. - BilCat (talk) 20:54, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's an eminently reasonable interpretation as well, but I don't think that article makes it particularly clear one way or the other. That bowl could still be considered an outlier in its "official" name vs. the other bowls. Hoping for clarity Monday. Woodshed (talk) 21:33, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Has anyone seen a definitive answer on this that now distinguishes it from the other major bowls? I notice that edits by User:BilCat on Template:Chick-fil-A Peach Bowl navbox are asserting that the CFAPB is its "official name", but are we sure about that? Woodshed (talk) 00:03, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Add controversy/criticism section?[edit]

Should a controversy/criticism section be added since there has been articles about whether or not certain members of the committee are "qualified"? Here's just one example. —  dainomite   11:28, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Archie Manning[edit]

  • He participated in 2014 until he took a leave of absence on Oct. 20, 2014 for his health issues. He was active participant until that date. Not true that "Will not participate in 2014" since much of 2014 is over and only 5 weeks remaining for 2014 season when the teams will be announced in the first week of Dec. Ucla90024 (talk) 00:01, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Voting Software[edit]

The official voting software that the committee and moderator use were developed by Code Authority Custom Software in Frisco, TX managed by John Anderson. The project was pitched blindly as a "voting system for the board of directors of a fortune 500 company" and Code Authority was selected. I am the actual project manager of the project. Contact me at janderson@codeauthority.com if you need any more information to add any details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbzlabrat (talk • contribs) 06:46, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Was this written by a non-native speaker or UGA grad?[edit]

"Six bowl games will rotate as hosts for the semifinal games." The bowl games aren't rotating as hosts for semifinal games. The bowls, i.e. the venues and NOT the games, rotate as hosts. Took me way too long to figure out what the hell the writer was trying to say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.250.55.190 (talk) 21:38, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The 2015 Sugar Bowl article suggests otherwise: it indicates that the bowl game is the national semifinal. —C.Fred (talk) 19:21, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Gotta concur with C.Fred. The bowl games haven't ceased to exist in the system; every three years, two bowl games are semifinals in the system. And five of the six games are not played at venues named "[Something] Bowl", so I'm not sure what "the bowls, i.e. the venues" even means. If it's confusing as stated, I'd welcome any rewrite that would make it clearer. Woodshed (talk) 10:39, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Non Playoff Bowl Apperances[edit]

I'm not sure listing the non-playoff bowl (the "New Year's 6" as they are often referred to) appearances fits this article, which is about the playoff itself. The bowls not hosting the playoff that year are really sort of their own thing that year. Zaqwert (talk) 04:35, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I kind of agree on this, we could create an article that would just be about the New Year's 6. However I don't know if we should do that. Thoughts?--Dcheagle • talk • contribs 05:31, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this as well. The additional "New Year's Six" games have no bearing on the playoffs and the additional tables are confusing; this isn't the BCS. I do think it would be appropriate to create a separate article if the New Years games are all packaged together.Duttler (talk) 23:49, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The section on Bowl games really confused me. Since it seems like people have been suggesting the removal of all the information relating to non-playoff bowl games since the start of the year, and noone has objected, I'm going to go ahead and do just that. Ciccom (talk) 09:21, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree as well. I propose deleting the "non-playoff bowl" information. It is irrelevant to the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.139.151.4 (talk) 19:07, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most Playoff wins in infobox[edit]

I noticed an edit by Bamacam2000 to the most game wins parameter in the infobox with the fallowing edit summary "I believe a typo was made. It said Ohio State had won 2 College Football Playoffs when there have only been two and they didn't make the second, therefore they could not have won it twice if they only made it once." which I take as the user believing that it lists playoff wins as a whole not as in how many of the playoff games they won to win the championship. The users edit was then reverted by C.Fred with the following edit summary "they had to win two games to win last year" which is true Ohio State won two games which leads to them having the most playoff wins. I believe this issue can be resolve by changing Most playoff wins to Most playoff game wins thoughts?--Dcheagle • talk • contribs 05:37, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's probably a good change. The second-best choice would be Most playoff games won; it's the same number of characters but slightly wider. —C.Fred (talk) 06:11, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ether one would be good.--Dcheagle • talk • contribs 06:30, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on College Football Playoff. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:36, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adding info in the Appearance section[edit]

I think you guys should add "playoff appearance by conference or independent" into the "Appearances" section. As someone who is not familiar with every single school in every conference, I can't tell how many times each conference (most likely only Power Five conferences) has been in the college football playoff unless I look through each individual team. This info is useful for curious readers like me, especially in 20 years where it would be harder to keep track of how many times each conference has been in the college football playoff. A table would be nice! 50.93.222.107 (talk) 07:06, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rose Bowl "Game"[edit]

Why is the Rose Bowl the only championship that is listed as a "bowl game" in the official name while the other 5 are just "bowl"? Shouldn't there be a standard naming convention or is the Rose Bowl special in some way? Skoot13 (talk) 07:03, 9 January 2018 (UTC) Skoot13 (talk) 07:03, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to the title of the bowl game article being "Rose Bowl Game"? It's because there is no Primary Topic for Rose Bowl, which is a disambiguation page. So yeah, it's special compared to the other bowl article titles, which are their respective primary topics. It may seem inconsistent, but that's how Wikipedia's Naming Conventions work. - BilCat (talk) 14:08, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The game is actually called the Rose Bowl Game. You see that name on official media. Compare to Cotton Bowl Classic (not just "Cotton Bowl"). This is distinct from other bowl games which have different names (i.e. the Peach Bowl, which is just the Peach Bowl). That's just the way it is. --Jayron32 14:18, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

“Unofficial”.[edit]

Should it not mention that the College Football Playoff is an unofficial national championship as it is just one of many non-NCAA recognized selectors whom all independently determine the year’s national champion? I think the current wording may mislead readers into thinking that it is the only national championship selector and/or that it is sanctioned by the NCAA. 97.118.140.137 (talk) 23:46, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is the only official national championship selector for FBS schools. That it exists outside the usual NCAA tournament system is irrelevant. All the schools involved in the FBS have agreed to use this system, or they would not be in the FBS. - BilCat (talk) 23:51, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it’s one of 13 major selectors currently recognized by the NCAA. It is most certainly is relevant whether it is sanctioned by the NCAA, it’s a fact. Wikipedia reflects the truth, not opinions. The current wording is very misleading. 97.118.140.137 (talk) 00:01, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't make it unofficial. - BilCat (talk) 00:14, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that it’s not sanctioned by the NCAA is what makes its unofficial. If it was the only selector, that would be one thing, but it is just one of thirteen organizations which determine a college football national champion for any given year. By not saying this, this page is implying that the College Football Playoff is the sole official means of determining a national champion, which is incorrect. 97.118.140.137 (talk) 00:20, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/stats/football_records/2017/FBS.pdf#page108 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.118.140.137 (talk) 00:22, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The second paragraph explains the situation adequately, as does the wording in the first paragraph of it determining "a national champion", not "the national champion". If we were to add "unofficial" to the first paragraph, then we should also add "de facto". —C.Fred (talk) 00:25, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Saying “de facto” would it imply that it is the only selector with widespread acceptance, which is also incorrect. The AP Poll is the oldest and most respected national championship selector. This essential content being in the second paragraph is exactly why it is misleading. This article is trying its best to make it seem like the College Football Playoff is the only way a national champion is determined in college football. 97.118.140.137 (talk) 00:31, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The AP isn't even the oldest extant poll. It traditionally has been the most respected; UPI was second-banana to it back in its day. —C.Fred (talk) 00:37, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My point stands. The Dunkel System is the oldest national champion selector. The CFP is not the only, nor the most respected, nor the only that is widely accepted. The article should reflect this reality. 97.118.140.137 (talk) 00:45, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

“Misleading”.[edit]

The lead on this article is incorrect and misleading. The NCAA does not recognize a champion in football in the FBS. As it appears in 'talk' this point has been brought up several times, but for some reason is being dismissed. The fact is, the NCAA does not recognize a champion in the FBS and this point cannot be disputed.[1]

I would suggest the lead be rewritten to be accurate. Maybe something such as, "The College Football Playoff (CFP) is an organization that invites teams to determine a champion for The College Football Playoff. It is important to note that the NCAA does not recognize a champion due to the lack of a sanctioned playoff." The lead should be clear, concise and contain facts. Bigbrainbigfeet (talk) 10:48, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/stats/football_records/2017/FBS.pdf#page108

Or "Due to the lack of a sanctioned playoff in the FBS, the College Football Playoff is an organization that was created to oversee an invitational style tournament, pitting four teams against each other to determine the College Football Playoff champion." Bigbrainbigfeet (talk) 10:48, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a bit of a tangent; I should add the name of the organization itself, "The College Football Playoff" is misleading, which causes confusion for people. The chosen name sounds official and sanctioned, does it not? However, as we know, the organization is not sanctioned by the NCAA.Bigbrainbigfeet (talk) 10:56, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maps[edit]

There is absolutely no valid reason to include the maps in the "appearances" section. All useful information in the maps (basically showing which teams have made it to the CFP or won the title and how many times) is also found in the accompanying charts. When restoring them to the page, User:Jhn31 claimed that they "illustrate the Southern dominance of CFP selections." This doesn't need illustration. The very small percentage of readers who may care what region dominated CFP selections would be able to determine this my the list of schools or conferences involved, without use of these maps. The maps were also not included on the CFP's prddicessor's page (BCS National Championship Game, which also showed an alleged "southern dominance"). Nor is it included on the New Years Six or Bowl Championship Series, so there is no reason to single this page out. Frank AnchorTalk 15:48, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to have to respectfully disagree. Not only are these maps common on other college championship pages (FCS football, D2 football, men's basketball, women's basketball, field hockey, etc.), they are conveying information graphically. Some people interpret information more efficiency from lists, and others do better with images/graphics. For example, if you're wondering if a particular team has made the playoffs, it may be hard to find them in a long list, but the map will let you know instantly if they've been in or not and how many times. I just don't see why your personal WIKI:IDONTLIKEIT justifies removing valid, sourced, and informative data from the page. Jhn31 (talk) 00:47, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wanted to add that maps are pretty standard across all kinds of sports articles in different contexts. They're good because they show the same informaiton in nearby tables in a different, more graphical way: NFL, MLB, Premier League, Big Ten, Summer Olympic Hosts, List of FIFA World Cup winners, etc. Jhn31 (talk) 02:18, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's a lot more than WP:IDONTLIKEIT, as you have clearly ignored my valid arguments of redundance. Although I was unaware that these maps were on other college sports pages and lower division football, thank you for pointing that out. Also, it is not "hard to find them in a long list" because the majority of these such lists (including the one on this page) are sortable. Frank AnchorTalk 15:00, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't ignore your argument, I addressed it and said I don't agree. Like if I were wondering "hmmm, has USC ever made the College Football Playoff?" I would find it a lot easier to just look at California on the map to see they haven't, rather than trying to find them on a list. You might not find that easier, and undoubtedly you're not alone, but I would, and I just don't think it's redundant at all, nor apparently do the people who've put maps up on basically every other sports page on Wikipedia. Jhn31 (talk) 05:02, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The maps should be kept. They provide useful geographic context and information that is not apparent from the tables alone. —Lowellian (reply) 23:02, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Map placement[edit]

There is a second issue with the maps. Right now, they're beside the appearance tables. The tables are thus compressed and have narrow column widths. Can we find a better place for the maps, so the tables can have the full screen width? —C.Fred (talk) 17:39, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What if we put them side-by-side above (or below) the charts? Jhn31 (talk) 05:02, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:36, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal: Plus-One system[edit]

I propose merging content of the article Plus-One system into this article. It has become a part of the history of the College Football Playoff, and is no longer a stand-alone topic. Content in the Plus-One page can be placed into a History section in this article. Input from other editors welcome. Dmoore5556 (talk) 06:59, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose; it is part of the history of College Football Playoff, but is sufficiently well-developed and referenced to be better kept as a stand-alone page; indeed, a merge would unbalance the main page. Klbrain (talk) 14:07, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Giving false/misleading info.[edit]

People have edited tbis article bacause they are mad because Florida state university didnt make the playoffs and the alabama crimson tide did. So first of all the playoff is not a invitational, it is a contest between the best and most capable teams in college football not just the SEC like someone put. FLORIDA STATE is without there main QB and did not play well compaired to Alabama who beat a number 1 team at the time. So some things is tbis article have been messed with to fit the tempers of a group of people who want to spread hate to the CFP Committee.

The facts are these Alabama earned the right to be in.

No other team has more ranked wins than Alabama, as the Seminoles only have half of what the Tide has achieved in that respect. It’s worth noting that Florida State’s best win is only Alabama’s third-best win. 68.191.109.241 (talk) 15:41, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 8 December 2023[edit]

Under the section "Criticism," the line "In 2023 saw Alabama (12-1) and Georgia (12-1) selected over Florida State (13-0)." is incorrect. Texas was selected over Florida State, not Georgia. Please change Georgia (12-1) to Texas (12-1). https://collegefootballplayoff.com/rankings.aspx142.190.81.18 (talk) 18:10, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. NotAGenious (talk) 18:26, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
https://collegefootballplayoff.com/rankings.aspx 142.190.81.18 (talk) 19:00, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done using this NCAA citation MacAddct1984 (talk | contribs) 20:48, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Undue bias against/toward teams edit request[edit]

In the section "Criticism" under "2023 exclusion of Florida State", the article refers to Georgia's 63-3 defeat of FSU in the Orange Bowl as a "romping", mentions that FSU "did not show up to play (let alone win)", calls Georgia "arguably the best team in the country" (source?) and neglects to mention the 23 players for Florida State who chose not to play in the game. (https://www.sportingnews.com/us/ncaa-football/news/fsu-players-skipping-orange-bowl-opt-out/abbadeee6ef4be0b6507dd89) Suggest that this be edited to use more neutral language and reflect the true nature of the situation. Adamjcourt1 (talk) 19:03, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • This language appears to be vandalism that was added by a biased individual but buried in the edit history by (legitimate) edits involving the 2023-24 championship game. It certainly can be removed. Frank Anchor 19:14, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:College_Football_Playoff&oldid=1201033014"