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.


Author

Topic: Ranking CFP era performance

 (Read 8270 times)

medinabuckeye1

  • Legend
  • ****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 8943
  • Liked:
Re: Ranking CFP era performance
« Reply #56 on: March 21, 2023, 03:16:45 PM »
Who indicated they thought any G5 team had any chance at winning the playoff?  (There is a chance, but it is obviously minimal.  They are being included for legal reasons clearly.)
Agreed. I've been saying this for a while. They have to give the G5 access for legal/political reasons. 

Brutus Buckeye

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 11253
  • Liked:
Re: Ranking CFP era performance
« Reply #57 on: March 21, 2023, 07:57:29 PM »
Who's been the worst team in each conference/division, during the CFP era?
1919, 20, 21, 28, 29, 31, 34, 35, 36, 37, 42, 44
WWH: 1952, 54, 55, 57, 58, 60, 61, 62, 63, 65, 67, 68, 70, 72, 74, 75
1979, 81, 82, 84, 87, 94, 98
2001, 02, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19

OrangeAfroMan

  • Stats Porn
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 18940
  • Liked:
Re: Ranking CFP era performance
« Reply #58 on: March 21, 2023, 08:38:49 PM »
Just beginning to research it, I see a lot of teams had a very strong regular season, only to lose their CCG and bowl game, sort of mulling their perceived strength.  So I think regular-season conference record will be more meaningful than their final record.  I'll look for teams with 3+ conf losses.
2015 we have a Utah team winning the PAC South at 6-3.
2017 Stanford went 9-5, with 2,000-yd rusher Bryce Love, but they allowed more total yards than they gained.  That's pretty bad.
2018 Pitt won some division of the ACC with a 7-7 record.  They got their asses beaten by Penn State, UCF, and Clemson.  Also outgained in total yardages for the season.
We may have a winner! 2019 Miami went 4-4 and won their division.  6-7 overall, and here are their final 3 losses:  FIU, Duke, and Louisiana Tech.  Yeeesh.
“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

ELA

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 20375
  • Liked:
Re: Ranking CFP era performance
« Reply #59 on: March 21, 2023, 09:42:33 PM »
Who indicated they thought any G5 team had any chance at winning the playoff?  (There is a chance, but it is obviously minimal.  They are being included for legal reasons clearly.)
The one team that made it didn't do any worse than any non helmet P5 schools, aside from TCU this year.  Hell, Cincinnati did better than Michigan in their same year, and MSU, Washington, FSU, Notre Dame, etc... from other years.

All the CFP has done is saved the teams who everyone knew were a top 2 team, but lost a stupid road game in October.  Everyone knows the teams that don't have a chance.  TCU over Michigan this year is probably the 2nd surprising result in a decade of these, after OSU over Alabama.  Because college football, played with high stakes, on a neutral field, is fairly predictable.  It was the fact that a random road game at Mississippi State, or Purdue, or Texas Tech, could ruin everything, made it interesting.  That led to some shitty NC games, and excluded some very good 12-1 teams, but it's what kept the sport from being fairly predictable

OrangeAfroMan

  • Stats Porn
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 18940
  • Liked:
Re: Ranking CFP era performance
« Reply #60 on: March 21, 2023, 11:42:10 PM »
TCU could have faced someone like USC or Penn St in the NCG and lost badly.  Rising up and actually beating a Michigan becomes their Super Bowl and they are not getting back up with the same intensity again.  0% chance.
.
A 12-team playoff requires them to win 3 straight Super Bowls.  It's silly.  
“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

MaximumSam

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 13130
  • Liked:
Re: Ranking CFP era performance
« Reply #61 on: March 22, 2023, 07:55:59 AM »
TCU could have faced someone like USC or Penn St in the NCG and lost badly.  Rising up and actually beating a Michigan becomes their Super Bowl and they are not getting back up with the same intensity again.  0% chance.
.
A 12-team playoff requires them to win 3 straight Super Bowls.  It's silly. 
But isn't that way more fun than the alternative? More teams playing their Super Bowls as opposed to random exhibitions? Seems like a no brainer to me. 

OrangeAfroMan

  • Stats Porn
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 18940
  • Liked:
Re: Ranking CFP era performance
« Reply #62 on: March 22, 2023, 01:55:25 PM »
So we're arguing FOR 65-7 bloodbaths?  I guess?  If you're into that.
Kinda kinky.
“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

MaximumSam

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 13130
  • Liked:
Re: Ranking CFP era performance
« Reply #63 on: March 22, 2023, 04:10:57 PM »
So we're arguing FOR 65-7 bloodbaths?  I guess?  If you're into that.
Kinda kinky.
We get that no matter the system. The only question is whether you want some great games along the way.

Cincydawg

  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 72194
  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Liked:
Re: Ranking CFP era performance
« Reply #64 on: March 22, 2023, 05:56:00 PM »
I liked the recent bloodbath 

OrangeAfroMan

  • Stats Porn
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 18940
  • Liked:
Re: Ranking CFP era performance
« Reply #65 on: March 22, 2023, 10:05:21 PM »
I guess I just don't understand being inclusive when it comes to this.  
I know they're poorly and subjectively judged, but I consider college football to be a lot like diving or gymnastics or ice skating events.  Before the season even begins, we can generally tell who has a tough schedule, an average one, and a weak one.  Same as dives with certain elements have a ceiling on its score.....kinda like a G5 schedule.  Before the season begins, even if they go 12-0, they haven't REALLY earned a shot at the NC.  They maybe got 'up' for 2 games vs decent P5 teams, but the rest was a 3A Texas High School slate.  
Not enough triple axles, sorry.
Not enough spins and flips and shit.
Just not enough to warrant the equity.
“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

Brutus Buckeye

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 11253
  • Liked:
Re: Ranking CFP era performance
« Reply #66 on: March 22, 2023, 10:50:46 PM »
It's not a matter of including some underdog, it's a legal issue they can't traverse without a real split.

The future of the Pac and B12 are very much in the air and their status longer term is ... something which could impact how the playoff plays.

At some point, a "P5" conference can add so many G5 programs that ...

...the "Big East" becomes the "American." 

The Big 12 is up to five G5s, while the Pac 12 has only had to add one. So far. 

1919, 20, 21, 28, 29, 31, 34, 35, 36, 37, 42, 44
WWH: 1952, 54, 55, 57, 58, 60, 61, 62, 63, 65, 67, 68, 70, 72, 74, 75
1979, 81, 82, 84, 87, 94, 98
2001, 02, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19

MaximumSam

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 13130
  • Liked:
Re: Ranking CFP era performance
« Reply #67 on: March 23, 2023, 08:15:44 PM »
I guess I just don't understand being inclusive when it comes to this. 
I know they're poorly and subjectively judged, but I consider college football to be a lot like diving or gymnastics or ice skating events.  Before the season even begins, we can generally tell who has a tough schedule, an average one, and a weak one.  Same as dives with certain elements have a ceiling on its score.....kinda like a G5 schedule.  Before the season begins, even if they go 12-0, they haven't REALLY earned a shot at the NC.  They maybe got 'up' for 2 games vs decent P5 teams, but the rest was a 3A Texas High School slate. 
Not enough triple axles, sorry.
Not enough spins and flips and shit.
Just not enough to warrant the equity.
I guess it just comes down to whether you want good football or not. We could have had Michigan-Georgia, which probably would have been like a 35-17 win for Georgia and everyone could have gone down for a good nap. Instead, we got two classic games and one clunker. It's easy to turn off the clunker.

But, some people like boring.

OrangeAfroMan

  • Stats Porn
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 18940
  • Liked:
Re: Ranking CFP era performance
« Reply #68 on: March 24, 2023, 03:02:56 AM »
Sports have run at light speed away from boring/competition towards fun/entertainment for years now.  
College football is no different.
I can whine about it, as it continues.  We'll eventually have a nearly-meaningless regular season like college basketball.  
We'll get 1-3 weeks of excitement at the end of the year instead of an entire season's worth of excitement.
Hooray.
“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

Cincydawg

  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 72194
  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Liked:
Re: Ranking CFP era performance
« Reply #69 on: March 24, 2023, 07:03:19 AM »
I imagine most of "us" at least think the G5s should just be chopped off, maybe you get one game a year against them.  There would still be games against "Vandy" et al.  Every game can't be like Ohio State vs Michigan.  Granted, I don't watch Ohio State playing Akron, not many others do either, unless somehow I see the score close late.

The scheme seems to work overall, perhaps better than in other sports.  Baseball seems to have excitement even with 162 game seasons for some fans.  You're not going to attract many with a poor product.

 

Support the Site!
Purchase of every item listed here DIRECTLY supports the site.