Author
Topic: 5+1+2 Model
(Read 5586 times)

ELA · « **Reply #84 on:** December 08, 2021, 10:59:20 AM »

Quote from: utee94 on December 08, 2021, 10:50:56 AM

I hear ya, but Stillwater, Oklahoma and Waco, TX aren't exactly massive media markets, either.

Not so much media market wise, but fan base size. I think it's also noteworthy that the Pac 12, Big XII and SEC all ran unopposed by other P5 CCGs. The only ones in the same time slot were Big Ten/ACC. Not sure what the solution is for the ACC to solve that though. Once Texas and Oklahoma go to the SEC, I'd grab that noon slot. The viewership numbers this year showed people want to watch meaningful games at noon.

utee94 · « **Reply #85 on:** December 08, 2021, 11:04:14 AM »

Quote from: ELA on December 08, 2021, 10:59:20 AM

Not so much media market wise, but fan base size. I think it's also noteworthy that the Pac 12, Big XII and SEC all ran unopposed by other P5 CCGs. The only ones in the same time slot were Big Ten/ACC. Not sure what the solution is for the ACC to solve that though. Once Texas and Oklahoma go to the SEC, I'd grab that noon slot. The viewership numbers this year showed people want to watch meaningful games at noon.

Yeah, I wasn't going to mention that the ACC went up against the B1G, because it didn't suit my agenda.

As for the time slots, they tend to move around. Last year the B1G had the noon/11 AM game and ran against the B12 CCG in the same slot. ACC took 4/3 o'clock and SEC took took the primetime 8/7 PM kickoff.

Of course, last year was also a weird COVID year and there were tons of other games on the same day, ones that had been postponed due to COVID, or just scheduled later than usual because of the weirdness.

ELA · « **Reply #86 on:** December 08, 2021, 11:07:46 AM »

Quote from: utee94 on December 08, 2021, 11:04:14 AM

Last year the B1G had the noon/11 AM game and ran against the B12 CCG in the same slot. ACC took 4/3 o'clock and SEC took took the primetime 8/7 PM kickoff.

Last year was I believe the only time it was at Noon. I do wonder if that will continue to rotate going forward

utee94 · « **Reply #87 on:** December 08, 2021, 11:20:35 AM »

I'm not sure that for CCGs, the time slots matter all that much. It's pretty clear that the eyeballs will follow CCGs that could impact the CFP, and they don't care much about the others.

rolltidefan · « **Reply #88 on:** December 08, 2021, 11:41:34 AM »

Quote from: utee94 on December 08, 2021, 11:04:14 AM

Yeah, I wasn't going to mention that the ACC went up against the B1G, because it didn't suit my agenda.

As for the time slots, they tend to move around. Last year the B1G had the noon/11 AM game and ran against the B12 CCG in the same slot. ACC took 4/3 o'clock and SEC took took the primetime 8/7 PM kickoff.

Of course, last year was also a weird COVID year and there were tons of other games on the same day, ones that had been postponed due to COVID, or just scheduled later than usual because of the weirdness.

was seccg at night last year? if so that's unusual. they're typically @ 3pm ct. they usually just drop back :30 from the normal cbs game time slot.

medinabuckeye1 · « **Reply #89 on:** December 08, 2021, 11:41:54 AM »

Quote from: betarhoalphadelta on December 07, 2021, 05:27:10 PM

So sure, you can point to "almost", but close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades.

This is 100% my view. Sure, hypothetically Bama could lose just once on a crazy kick-6 to Auburn but miss the SECCG because they lose the H2H tiebreaker with the Tigers AND Notre Dame could go undefeated, AND tOSU could do basically the same thing as Bama but substitute PSU or M for Auburn. If all that happens in the same year then one of the three isn't getting in and, realistically it would be tOSU left out. As an OSU fan, that would suck but I'm ok with that hypothetical possibility because I showed the last eight years' history and it isn't something that would happen frequently and might not happen at all.

Furthermore, the alternative is to let in more at-large teams every year and if we do that some of them are going to be teams that I consider to be seriously undeserving EVERY YEAR not just once every few decades (maybe) when a whole bunch of weird all happens in the same year.

ELA · « **Reply #90 on:** December 08, 2021, 12:08:20 PM »

Quote from: utee94 on December 08, 2021, 11:20:35 AM

I'm not sure that for CCGs, the time slots matter all that much. It's pretty clear that the eyeballs will follow CCGs that could impact the CFP, and they don't care much about the others.

I agree, I just think it matters having a whole time slot to yourselves if you don't.

medinabuckeye1 · « **Reply #91 on:** December 08, 2021, 12:13:52 PM »

Quote from: utee94 on December 08, 2021, 10:33:56 AM

Well, yes. It happened 4 times in 25 years. And not once in the past 16 years. And never more than one of those in any given year. And three of the teams that did it were Texas, LSU, and Florida State-- not exactly Johnny Nobody, all teams that many fans would be happy to watch in the playoffs.

I think the bolded part of @utee94 's response is really the key point. One upset doesn't screw things up too bad because you have two at-large slots. It only gets screwy if you have two CG upsets and/or if ND goes undefeated.

Quote from: rolltidefan on December 07, 2021, 04:58:31 PM

1996 4 loss texas upsets 11-1 nebraska.
2001 3 loss lsu upsets 11-1 tenn
2003 3 loss ksu upsets 12-0 ou
2005 4 loss fsu upsets va tech

I'm not taking on the "almosts" because:

Quote from: betarhoalphadelta on December 07, 2021, 05:27:10 PM

So sure, you can point to "almost", but close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades.

I will, however, give the playoff teams and the best team out for each of the years that you cited based on the 5+1+2 model. I'm using AP Poll here for consistency:
1996:

#20 Texas at #1 FSU (ACC)
#7 PSU at #2 ASU (P10)
#6 UNL at #3 UF (SEC)
#5 BYU (G5) at #4 tOSU (Big11Ten)

Left out:

9-2 #8 Colorado: They lost by a TD at home to Michigan and by five on the road to UNL who got in.

2001:

#12 LSU at #1 Miami (G5 - not sure what to call them since the BigE does't exist anymore)
#7 IL (Big11Ten) at #2 Oregon (Pac10)
#5 UF at #3 Colorado (B12)
#4 UNL at #6 UMD (ACC)

Left out:

10-2 #8 Tennessee: They lost by two points at home to Georgia and by 11 in the SECCG to LSU.

2003:

#14 Miami, OH (G5) at #1 USC (Pac10)
#9 FSU (ACC) at #2 LSU (SEC)
#5 TX at #4 M (Big11Ten)
#3 OU at #8 KSU (B12)

Left out:

10-2 #6 Tennessee: They lost by a TD at Auburn and got blown out at home by Georgia.

2005:

#22 FSU (ACC) at #1 USC (Pac10)
#14 TCU (G5) at #2 TX (B12)
#5 ND at #3 PSU (Big11Ten)
#4 tOSU at #8 UGA (SEC)

Left out:

10-1 #6 Oregon

So going all the way back to 1996 and perhaps beyond, I don't know how much beyond that you went, we have a grand total of exactly ONE one-loss P5 teams left out. That 10-1 Oregon team that finished #6 in 2005 got drilled at home by USC and in the actual season they lost their bowl to Oklahoma so I'm just not seeing it even for them.

The 5+1+2 model would preserve some exclusivity and thus some of the regular season's intensity while possibly never and definitely no more than VERY infrequently excluding deserving legitimate contenders.

betarhoalphadelta · « **Reply #92 on:** December 08, 2021, 12:52:57 PM »

Quote from: utee94 on December 08, 2021, 10:33:56 AM

Yeesh. Even without Texas or OU in the CCG, the B12 numbers doubled the PAC and tripled the ACC. That's telling.

It's telling because neither the PAC nor ACC winner had ANY shot at the CFP this year. The B12 did, if it was OkSU.

Hell, *I* was watching the B12 CCG, purely because it had relevance to the CFP. Not because it was the B12.

betarhoalphadelta · « **Reply #93 on:** December 08, 2021, 12:54:14 PM »

Quote from: rolltidefan on December 08, 2021, 09:19:17 AM

just proving it's not hypothetical. it has happened and will happen again. if you guys are fine with that then cool. i'm not gonna change your mind and i doubt you'll be able to change mine.

it's probably moot anyway because they'll likely go to 12.

Agreed. If it happened all the time, I'd probably have a problem with it. Given that it is a rare occurrence, I view it as acceptable if not ideal.

betarhoalphadelta · « **Reply #94 on:** December 08, 2021, 12:59:48 PM »

Quote from: utee94 on December 08, 2021, 11:20:35 AM

I'm not sure that for CCGs, the time slots matter all that much. It's pretty clear that the eyeballs will follow CCGs that could impact the CFP, and they don't care much about the others.

Yep. If the PAC had been 11-1 USC vs 11-1 Oregon, it would have gotten eyeballs. If the ACC had been 11-1 Clemson vs 11-1 FSU (I don't know if they're in the same division, but assume somehow it was the CCG) it would have gotten eyeballs.

If the SEC East beat the hell out of each other and had a multi-way tie was 6-2 in conference and the division winner was a 9-3 Auburn with an OOC loss, and the SEC East was a 10-2 Florida team that finished 7-1 in conference but lost OOC to FSU, it'd still get decent ratings, but NOWHERE near what it got when you had #1 12-0 Georgia up against #3 11-1 Bama with Bama basically playing for their CFP invitation.

utee94 · « **Reply #95 on:** December 08, 2021, 01:05:58 PM »

Quote from: betarhoalphadelta on December 08, 2021, 12:52:57 PM

It's telling because neither the PAC nor ACC winner had ANY shot at the CFP this year. The B12 did, if it was OkSU.

Hell, *I* was watching the B12 CCG, purely because it had relevance to the CFP. Not because it was the B12.

Eh, you can look at the regular season ratings and it generally follows the same pattern. SEC/B1G are 1 and 2, B12 is 3rd, and nobody watches the ACC or PAC.

medinabuckeye1 · « **Reply #96 on:** December 08, 2021, 02:26:59 PM »

Quote from: betarhoalphadelta on December 08, 2021, 12:54:14 PM

Agreed. If it happened all the time, I'd probably have a problem with it. Given that it is a rare occurrence, I view it as acceptable if not ideal.

I think the theoretical ideal would be to have a flexible playoff where you invited the number of teams necessary such that all "deserving" teams got in then maybe filled in extra slots as necessary. Basically this:

If one or two teams stand head-and-shoulders over the others, two-team playoff (like the old BCS).
If three or four teams stand out, four team playoff (like now).
If five or more teams stand out, eight team playoff.

That is all well and good in theory but in practice it would never be adopted and who knows how we'd decide what "deserving" was anyway:

2021: I'd have Bama and Michigan play for it. They are both 1-loss P5 Champs. Georgia didn't win their league. Cincy played a crap schedule, Notre Dame's schedule was almost as bad as Cincy's and they didn't win a league. Everybody else had at least two losses.
2020: I'd have had Bama and Ohio State play for it. They were both undefeated P5 Champs. Everybody else lost at least once even on the shortened schedule.
2019: LSU, tOSU, and Clemson stood out as undefeated P5 Champs so I'd have had a four-team playoff with those three and OU just like we did.
2018: Bama, Clemson, and ND stood out as undefeateds so I'd have had a four-team playoff with those three and OU just like we did.
2017: Clemson, OU, and UGA stood out as 1-loss P5 Champs so I'd have had a four-team playoff with those three and Bama just like we did.
2016: Bama stood alone as an undefeated P5 Champ so I'd either have simply given them the trophy or had them play Clemson for it. Behind Clemson the Buckeyes only had one loss but they didn't win their league and the Huskies won their league with one loss but it was a 2-score home loss and the PAC was crap. Behind that everybody had two losses.
2015: Clemson stood alone as an undefeated P5 Champ so I'd have had them play Bama for the title. MSU only had one loss but they looked like a paper tiger, same for OU and Iowa who didn't win their league. Stanford won the PAC but had two losses and tOSU only had one loss but didn't win the B1G.
2014: FSU was the only undefeated P5 Champ but they looked like crap. In all there were five undefeated or 1-loss P5 Champs (six if you count TCU) so this is a year when I would have had an eight-team playoff with Bama, Oregon, FSU, tOSU, Baylor, TCU, then two more to fill it out.

utee94 · « **Reply #97 on:** December 08, 2021, 03:17:11 PM »

Quote from: medinabuckeye1 on December 08, 2021, 02:26:59 PM

I think the theoretical ideal would be to have a flexible playoff where you invited the number of teams necessary such that all "deserving" teams got in then maybe filled in extra slots as necessary. Basically this:
If one or two teams stand head-and-shoulders over the others, two-team playoff (like the old BCS).
If three or four teams stand out, four team playoff (like now).
If five or more teams stand out, eight team playoff.

That is all well and good in theory but in practice it would never be adopted and who knows how we'd decide what "deserving" was anyway:

Yeah. If for no other reason, the simple fact that a variable playoff like that would jeopardize revenue streams and pay out less in years when only two teams were selected.

Much like the European model of soccer relegation/promotion, it sounds like an interesting idea in theory, but in practice it would be far too disruptive on the financial side.

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 Model

ELA

Re: 5+1+2 Model

utee94

Re: 5+1+2 Model

ELA

Re: 5+1+2 Model

utee94

Re: 5+1+2 Model

rolltidefan

Re: 5+1+2 Model

medinabuckeye1

Re: 5+1+2 Model

ELA

Re: 5+1+2 Model

medinabuckeye1

Re: 5+1+2 Model

betarhoalphadelta

Re: 5+1+2 Model

betarhoalphadelta

Re: 5+1+2 Model

betarhoalphadelta

Re: 5+1+2 Model

utee94

Re: 5+1+2 Model

medinabuckeye1

Re: 5+1+2 Model

utee94

Re: 5+1+2 Model