Author
Topic: 5+1+2
(Read 16730 times)

Cincydawg · « **Reply #196 on:** December 06, 2018, 08:15:13 AM »

I think it is natural that fans find fault with whatever is extant, and want to propose improvements. I'm probably the rare fan who thinks we're at optimum design right now, though I could see a 6 team playoff personally as being OK also.

I personally am against 8, but whatever, my preference is not really relevant. And I am pretty sure we stay at four for years while fans design ever more intricate alternatives and argue about them, while we stay put.

I think everyone would agree that an 8 team playoff would generate more MONEY, which usually drives decisions, and in this case it does not apparently. So, we can infer there are significant negatives perceived by the PTBs about going to 8 to offset the positive of more money.

medinabuckeye1 · « **Reply #197 on:** December 06, 2018, 10:44:22 AM »

Quote from: OrangeAfroMan on December 05, 2018, 09:14:42 PM

You believe this, even with the avalance of SEC hatred/bias on here? Why do you think you guys call it ESecPN??? Of course AU would've been ranked over Wisconsin.

I think we all agree that Auburn would have been ranked higher, I think the distinction that @bwarbiany was making was that Auburn would not have gotten in at the expense of leaving Wisconsin out.
Thus, I think you are both right. Sure, Auburn would have been higher ranked but the only distinction that REALLY matters is:

Top-4 and IN the CFP, or
not top-4 and OUT of the CFP

Looking at it that way, both would have been in category #1.

medinabuckeye1 · « **Reply #198 on:** December 06, 2018, 10:49:30 AM »

Quote from: OrangeAfroMan on December 05, 2018, 09:15:29 PM

I call BS, unless it was your Buckeyes. People always poo-poo the SoS argument when it's not their team.

LoL. I get what you are saying but the more important point to me is that I don't want to discourage that kind of scheduling.
Even the proposals above to eliminate FCS games or eliminate all non-P5 games would only marginally help. There are P5 teams out there that are worse than most G5 teams and a fair number of FCS teams so even within the P5 universe there are still easy and tough games.
If Ohio State played an all P5 schedule with OOC opponents from the ACC, SEC, and P12 that sounds REALLY tough and it is if the ACC, SEC, and P12 opponents are Clemson, Bama, and Washington. It isn't so tough if the ACC, SEC, and P12 opponents are Louisville, Arkansas, and Oregon State.

Roaddawg · « **Reply #199 on:** December 06, 2018, 11:11:11 AM »

Quote from: OrangeAfroMan on December 05, 2018, 06:06:56 PM

Georgia went 1-1 in their 2 biggest games. They also lost to LSU.
UCF overcame the loss of Milton vs Memphis. Look at UGA's schedule. Depending on your opinion of certain sub-.500 SEC teams, Memphis would be about the 7th-10th-biggest game for the Bulldogs. They were the biggest game of UCF's season. Let that sink in.
People are high on UGA because they showed they can go toe-to-toe with the best team in the nation. Michigan pooped the bed against OSU late in the season. Their close loss to ND to open the season happened, of course, but from that peak, they've shown regression (OSU game). UGA's loss to LSU and their showing vs Bama suggest improvement. Different trajectories.

0-2 not 1-1. Lost to both LSU and Alabama. They showed they could go toe to toe and that makes them special? Bullcrap. That is the one of the biggest issues I have with all the SEC love affairs. We played a good game against blah blah blah, still lost, but hey we deserve a trophy. It is like all the love for a 9-3 LSU. We they a solid football team-yes, but they still lost. Not buying it, and no I am not an upset Buckeye Fan. They fall into that same catagory-they can go toe to toe with any team, but the consistent performance is not there week in and week out, lost the game they needed to win and thus not in the dance.

betarhoalphadelta · « **Reply #200 on:** December 06, 2018, 11:48:44 AM »

Quote from: medinabuckeye1 on December 06, 2018, 10:49:30 AM

LoL. I get what you are saying but the more important point to me is that I don't want to discourage that kind of scheduling.
Even the proposals above to eliminate FCS games or eliminate all non-P5 games would only marginally help. There are P5 teams out there that are worse than most G5 teams and a fair number of FCS teams so even within the P5 universe there are still easy and tough games.
If Ohio State played an all P5 schedule with OOC opponents from the ACC, SEC, and P12 that sounds REALLY tough and it is if the ACC, SEC, and P12 opponents are Clemson, Bama, and Washington. It isn't so tough if the ACC, SEC, and P12 opponents are Louisville, Arkansas, and Oregon State.

That, along with 9 conference games, would still be a tougher SoS than just about any team in the country. It doesn't matter that they're low-P5. Almost zero teams in the country play more than 10 P5-level opponents, much less 11 or 12.
And I disagree that there are a lot of low-tier P5 teams worse than a lot of the high-tier G5 teams. I recall when we were talking about recruiting rankings and saying Purdue under Hazell recruited like a MAC team. In 4 years, the only MAC team that ever out-recruited Hazell was Fleck's WMU, ONCE, and just by a hair. In general Purdue was 15-20 spots in the ranking above the best MAC teams, despite being 14 of 14 in the B1G.

Anonymous Coward · « **Reply #201 on:** December 06, 2018, 12:09:38 PM »

Bwar: that's also consistent with that Paterno quote about hurting all week even after playing 1990s Indiana unlike playing lower level teams.
P5 teams arent all good (coaching isn't even) but they are still categorically separate in terms of being a load (I guess that's size/strength and enough speed to make the collisions count) -- not in pockets but completely across the trenches and defensive front.
Im sure exceptions to this can be found. But the point is that the P5 basement in terms of "physical toughness" is quite high.

OrangeAfroMan · « **Reply #202 on:** December 06, 2018, 12:57:44 PM »

Quote from: Roaddawg on December 06, 2018, 11:11:11 AM

0-2 not 1-1. Lost to both LSU and Alabama. They showed they could go toe to toe and that makes them special? Bullcrap. That is the one of the biggest issues I have with all the SEC love affairs. We played a good game against blah blah blah, still lost, but hey we deserve a trophy. It is like all the love for a 9-3 LSU. We they a solid football team-yes, but they still lost. Not buying it, and no I am not an upset Buckeye Fan. They fall into that same catagory-they can go toe to toe with any team, but the consistent performance is not there week in and week out, lost the game they needed to win and thus not in the dance.

1 - LSU and Alabama aren't the 2 highest-ranked teams they played. Florida and Alabama are. They beat Florida.
2 - No one has said they're special. Going toe-to-toe with Alabama showed their ceiling. That's a high ceiling.
3 - Not sure why you're going on an SEC rant. It's a UGA vs OU vs OSU thing, not an SEC thing.
4 - OSU showed a high ceiling, too, but their floor is much lower than Georgia's.

TyphonInc · « **Reply #203 on:** December 06, 2018, 01:05:22 PM »

Quote from: Cincydawg on December 06, 2018, 08:15:13 AM

I think it is natural that fans find fault with whatever is extant, and want to propose improvements. I'm probably the rare fan who thinks we're at optimum design right now, though I could see a 6 team playoff personally as being OK also.

I personally am against 8, but whatever, my preference is not really relevant. And I am pretty sure we stay at four for years while fans design ever more intricate alternatives and argue about them, while we stay put.

I think everyone would agree that an 8 team playoff would generate more MONEY, which usually drives decisions, and in this case it does not apparently. So, we can infer there are significant negatives perceived by the PTBs about going to 8 to offset the positive of more money.

Just heard on the radio the current playoff contract goes through 2026, with an out clause for 2022, so it realistically can get changed or 3 to 7 years.

medinabuckeye1 · « **Reply #204 on:** December 06, 2018, 04:16:52 PM »

Quote from: bwarbiany on December 06, 2018, 11:48:44 AM

That, along with 9 conference games, would still be a tougher SoS than just about any team in the country. It doesn't matter that they're low-P5. Almost zero teams in the country play more than 10 P5-level opponents, much less 11 or 12.
And I disagree that there are a lot of low-tier P5 teams worse than a lot of the high-tier G5 teams. I recall when we were talking about recruiting rankings and saying Purdue under Hazell recruited like a MAC team. In 4 years, the only MAC team that ever out-recruited Hazell was Fleck's WMU, ONCE, and just by a hair. In general Purdue was 15-20 spots in the ranking above the best MAC teams, despite being 14 of 14 in the B1G.

I get that and I don't disagree but I still think that for a legitimate NC contender there is a floor beneath which it simply doesn't matter who you play. Generally when we talk about SoS for CFP contenders we talk about either:

Record vs Ranked teams, and/or
Record against .500+ teams

Ohio State this year illustrates this pretty well. I think the Buckeyes are a borderline legitimate NC contender. Their ceiling is high enough to be obviously legitimate but they were inconsistent and their floor was well below the normal for a legitimate NC contender.

Then I think that Purdue was a good-for-their record .500 team. I say that for a few reasons. One is that they played a pretty good schedule with two P5 OOC games. Another is that they went 2-4 in games decided by one possession or less.

Once you get below approximately bowl teams, it just doesn't matter that much whether you played Indiana, Rutgers, or Akron. Indiana is a lot better, obviously, but if you are a legitimate NC contender you are going to beat either of them.

medinabuckeye1 · « **Reply #205 on:** December 06, 2018, 04:41:11 PM »

Quote from: Brutus Buckeye on December 05, 2018, 09:40:31 AM

How do auto bids for conference champions diminish the regular season?

Well it depends on what part of the regular season we are talking about. If we are talking about just the divisional games then they don't. If we are talking about OOC and non-divisional games then those are clearly diminished by auto-bids for conference champions because they are effectively nothing more than exhibitions.
FWIW:
I would have been happy to stay with the old two-team playoff that we had from 1998-2013. The only times I believe it failed were 2004 (no fault of the BCS, just there were three undefeated teams and only two slots) and 2011.
Now that we have a four-team playoff one of the things that I like about it is that the "every game matters" aspect of the sport is kept alive. Ohio State has been a victim of this more than any other team (2015, 2017, 2018) and I don't like that, but I still like the concept. When (because I assume that it WILL happen) we go to eight teams there will be auto-bids for conference champions. Then OOC games and at least one non-divisional game will be irrelevant to a team's playoff chances. Those games won't really matter anymore.

OrangeAfroMan · « **Reply #206 on:** December 06, 2018, 05:01:02 PM »

I know most aren't advocating for it, but if it's ever a conference champs-only playoff, say goodbye to ANY good OOC games.

medinabuckeye1 · « **Reply #207 on:** December 06, 2018, 05:43:06 PM »

Quote from: OrangeAfroMan on December 06, 2018, 05:01:02 PM

I know most aren't advocating for it, but if it's ever a conference champs-only playoff, say goodbye to ANY good OOC games.

I'm generally on your side in this debate but I don't understand why you think this would be. I actually think it would be the opposite. Right now the major risk in playing a quality team OOC is that you might lose and then miss the playoff even if you win your conference. If you create a Champs-only playoff then that risk disappears, no?
I actually think that a Champs-only playoff might actually increase the number of high-end OOC games because coaches/AD's would see them as a good way to prepare for the conference season and AD's would see them as a HUMONGOUS money-maker without the downside risk.
The problem, as I see it, isn't that good OOC games would go away if we had a Champs-only playoff. As I see it, the problem is that if we had a Champs-only playoff those good OOC games wouldn't matter.
Ie, in the current system if Ohio State played Alabama in an early OOC game next year it would be HUGE. Assuming that both teams end up in the CFP discussion the result of that game could knock a team out or get a team in. If the playoff was Champs-only then the hypothetical Bama/tOSU game wouldn't matter a lick. Even if Ohio State beat Bama, if they ended up 11-1 with a tiebreaking loss to MSU/PSU/M in the B1G-E, they'd be out. Conversely, even if Ohio State lost to Bama it wouldn't keep the Buckeyes out of the CFP because all they have to do is win their division and the CG. Nothing else matters.

betarhoalphadelta · « **Reply #208 on:** December 06, 2018, 05:59:27 PM »

And that's why I like 5+1+2... In that scenario where OSU beats Bama but misses out on their CCG due to a single tiebreaker loss in their division, they are probably in.

If it's conference champs ONLY, then they don't. Which is why I don't support conference champs only.

5+1+2 can give you an incentive to schedule tough OOC because it gives you a shot at that "signature win" that puts you into the CFP even if you don't win your conference. And it removes the disincentive of scheduling tough OOC because that loss won't keep you out of the CFP if you do win your conference.

Kris60 · « **Reply #209 on:** December 06, 2018, 09:39:14 PM »

Quote from: OrangeAfroMan on December 06, 2018, 05:01:02 PM

I know most aren't advocating for it, but if it's ever a conference champs-only playoff, say goodbye to ANY good OOC games.

If you still had at-large berths then the strength of the OOC games would still matter. I know a lot of people hate the subjectivity and beauty contest part of it but it has its benefits too.
I’m fine with conference champions getting auto bids as long as they are within a certain rankings threshold. I’ve always sort of thrown out top 12 as and idea.

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.

Topic: 5+1+2

Cincydawg

Re: 5+1+2

medinabuckeye1

Re: 5+1+2

medinabuckeye1

Re: 5+1+2

Roaddawg

Re: 5+1+2

betarhoalphadelta

Re: 5+1+2

Anonymous Coward

Re: 5+1+2

OrangeAfroMan

Re: 5+1+2

TyphonInc

Re: 5+1+2

medinabuckeye1

Re: 5+1+2

medinabuckeye1

Re: 5+1+2

OrangeAfroMan

Re: 5+1+2

medinabuckeye1

Re: 5+1+2

betarhoalphadelta

Re: 5+1+2

Kris60

Re: 5+1+2