header pic

Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

The 'Old' CFN/Scout Crowd- Enjoy Civil discussion, game analytics, in depth player and coaching 'takes' and discussing topics surrounding the game. You can even have your own free board, all you have to do is ask!!!

Anyone is welcomed and encouraged to join our FREE site and to take part in our community- a community with you- the user, the fan, -and the person- will be protected from intrusive actions and with a clean place to interact.


« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 17   Go Down
Author

Topic: 5+1+2

 (Read 16667 times)

betarhoalphadelta

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 12185
  • Liked:
5+1+2
« on: December 02, 2018, 11:38:09 AM »
Bama
Clemson
ND
OU
OSU
UGA
UCF
UW

In that seeding order. 

Why is this so effing hard? 
Logged

OrangeAfroMan

  • Stats Porn
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 18841
  • Liked:
Re: 5+1+2
« Reply #1 on: December 02, 2018, 11:40:03 AM »
You're wanting to take a good thing and make it less exclusive.  
Logged
“The Swamp is where Gators live.  We feel comfortable there, but we hope our opponents feel tentative. A swamp is hot and sticky and can be dangerous." - Steve Spurrier

betarhoalphadelta

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 12185
  • Liked:
Re: 5+1+2
« Reply #2 on: December 02, 2018, 01:21:16 PM »
Quote from: OrangeAfroMan on December 02, 2018, 11:40:03 AM
You're wanting to take a good thing and make it less exclusive.  
I want to make sure the teams that have a legitimate argument are included. This year is difficult because we have 4 undefeated teams (one G5 that was won 25 straight), and two one-loss conference champions. Essentially you have 6 teams with a legitimate argument, and a lot of pundits suggesting that 2-loss GA should be included over some of the above.
But no, we have to keep it at 4 or else Washington could win it all and spoil everything. 
Logged

Anonymous Coward

  • All Star
  • ******
  • Posts: 3187
  • Liked:
Re: 5+1+2
« Reply #3 on: December 02, 2018, 01:29:43 PM »
I generally object to making *any* Playoff larger (or existent in the first place), but I also think that 4 is worse for the regular season than 2 or 6. I strongly reject 8+, but a 5+1 model (every champ, one at-large) is attractive to me in terms of (a) valuing all big conference races as the backbone of the sport and (b) removing the incentive for crap OOC games**

**(I understand that this is not the same as actually incentivizing good OOC games, but removing the disincentive is a start)
Logged

betarhoalphadelta

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 12185
  • Liked:
Re: 5+1+2
« Reply #4 on: December 02, 2018, 01:39:14 PM »
I'm ok with the idea of 5+1, but I think you are going to have backlash from the SEC and the G5. The G5 knows you'll take an SEC non-champion over even an undefeated UCF. And the SEC will worry too much that someone will keep them from getting two teams in.

Can you imagine a 5+1 this year if UGA had beaten Bama? ND, UCF, and Bama trying to fight over that last slot? And Bama, "the consensus best team in history", getting left out for ND? 
Logged

FearlessF

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 37520
  • Liked:
Re: 5+1+2
« Reply #5 on: December 02, 2018, 01:43:08 PM »
we are going to have backlash every year with every selection process of every number of participants 
Logged
"Courage; Generosity; Fairness; Honor; In these are the true awards of manly sport."

Anonymous Coward

  • All Star
  • ******
  • Posts: 3187
  • Liked:
Re: 5+1+2
« Reply #6 on: December 02, 2018, 02:10:11 PM »
Let the G5 complain. I'm expecting we permanently separate anyway. Financial support, recruiting et al. is imbalanced across the sport (to an extent even within P5), but is so severely imbalanced between P5 and G5 that they really have no business sharing a stage. More yet, the P5 can't kowtow to the G5 without embracing an anticompetitive philosophy. That's because, to date, the G5 hasn't been excluded from the playoff on bias; it's been shut out on merit. Saving a G5 seat would always make for at least one P5 sacrificial lamb. Which is unfair (wah-wah, I get it), but this time it's unfair in an anticompetitive way. And a permanent schism is an easy -- and also overdue -- fix for that.
« Last Edit: December 02, 2018, 02:16:11 PM by Anonymous Coward »
Logged

Anonymous Coward

  • All Star
  • ******
  • Posts: 3187
  • Liked:
Re: 5+1+2
« Reply #7 on: December 02, 2018, 02:12:41 PM »
Quote from: FearlessF on December 02, 2018, 01:43:08 PM
we are going to have backlash every year with every selection process of every number of participants
Guaranteed. But which fraction will be contested? That matters. 

Right now, we contest one-forth of the selections every year, and that one-forth always comes in place of another conference champion. In 5+1, we'd be contesting one-sixth of the selection, and that one-sixth would NEVER come in the place of another champion. More yet, whoever missed out would be guaranteed to have made their bed (which is not necessarily a guarantee now, when one-loss conference champs can be excluded).

« Last Edit: December 02, 2018, 02:14:57 PM by Anonymous Coward »
Logged

FearlessF

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 37520
  • Liked:
Re: 5+1+2
« Reply #8 on: December 02, 2018, 02:24:05 PM »
agreed
Logged
"Courage; Generosity; Fairness; Honor; In these are the true awards of manly sport."

Anonymous Coward

  • All Star
  • ******
  • Posts: 3187
  • Liked:
Re: 5+1+2
« Reply #9 on: December 02, 2018, 02:47:57 PM »
Of course, if we went to 8, Michigan would have gotten in both in 2016 (#5) and 2018 (#7), and I can't really say whether I prefer the system I think is best on its own or the one that is best for Michigan.
Logged

LittlePig

  • Starter
  • *****
  • Posts: 1365
  • Liked:
Re: 5+1+2
« Reply #10 on: December 02, 2018, 03:01:38 PM »
Quote from: bwarbiany on December 02, 2018, 11:38:09 AM
Bama
Clemson
ND
OU
OSU
UGA
UCF
UW

In that seeding order.

Why is this so effing hard?
I have to admit, this seems better than what we got.
There would probably need to be a rule that 2 teams from the same conference need to be in opposite brackets.   So in Georgia's case, they would drop to #6 seed even though they were ranked #5 in the rankings.
Logged

FearlessF

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 37520
  • Liked:
Re: 5+1+2
« Reply #11 on: December 02, 2018, 03:12:31 PM »
why not take what we have in the top 4 this season and simply add the other conference champs that were left out?

Bama and Clemson get a week off

Washington plays Notre Dame, OSU plays OU

UCF can schedule better competition like Notre Dame

UCF's non-con schedule this season?
South Carolina St.
@ North Carolina (nice try, game was cancelled)
FAU
Pitt (Pitt in Orlando, 45-14, good win) need 4 of these, not one or two.
Logged
"Courage; Generosity; Fairness; Honor; In these are the true awards of manly sport."

betarhoalphadelta

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 12185
  • Liked:
Re: 5+1+2
« Reply #12 on: December 02, 2018, 03:35:36 PM »
Quote from: Anonymous Coward on December 02, 2018, 02:10:11 PM
Let the G5 complain. I'm expecting we permanently separate anyway. Financial support, recruiting et al. is imbalanced across the sport (to an extent even within P5), but is so severely imbalanced between P5 and G5 that they really have no business sharing a stage. More yet, the P5 can't kowtow to the G5 without embracing an anticompetitive philosophy. That's because, to date, the G5 hasn't been excluded from the playoff on bias; it's been shut out on merit. Saving a G5 seat would always make for at least one P5 sacrificial lamb. Which is unfair (wah-wah, I get it), but this time it's unfair in an anticompetitive way. And a permanent schism is an easy -- and also overdue -- fix for that.
Listen, I'm full on board with the idea that allowing the top G5 team is probably fodder. They might win a game. But they're not going to win 3 in a row. The talent differential is just too high.
But so what? We allow one-bid leagues into the NCAAT. Can't we open one spot to the team just so we SAY they've got a chance?
We either need to give them a seat at the table or we need to permanently separate. This half-arsed "separate but equal" status is no good for anyone. 
Logged

Anonymous Coward

  • All Star
  • ******
  • Posts: 3187
  • Liked:
Re: 5+1+2
« Reply #13 on: December 02, 2018, 03:51:48 PM »
In addition to the above, I also dislike the symbolic gesture. On another plane: Complete separation is also more conducive to ultimately paying the players. There are avenues (like "Go forth and collect your own market value, Son") where it won't matter, but complete separation removes more barriers (e.g., should we end up on the heightened stipend track).
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 17   Go Up
« previous next »
 
Support the Site!
Purchase of every item listed here DIRECTLY supports the site.
WeatherPROOF Sign Single Sided

WeatherPROOF Sign Single Sided