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

Okay, let me square the circle for you.

The Rose Bowl tiebreakers are mechanical. The Rose Bowl is not a selection committee that can choose which team they invite. In this case, it was Purdue, Michigan, and Northwestern (apologies; I misspoke in the earlier post and thought OSU was part of that tie). All three teams finished 8-3, 6-2 in conference.

Purdue went to the Rose Bowl based on their H2H2H record, as they had beaten both Michigan and Northwestern head to head. Because it was a mechanical tiebreaker, that was the "earn" option.

For the CFP, we don't have any way that a team "earns" their way in. None. It's a beauty pageant. If the Rose Bowl selection in 2000 were the same, they'd look at resume. Purdue had a close loss to a ranked ND, a close loss to an unranked PSU, and a 20-point loss to an unranked MSU. Michigan also had three losses, but they were by a combined 7 points to a ranked UCLA team, ranked Northwestern team, and (unranked at the time but finished the regular season ranked) Purdue team. Their loss to Purdue was by 1 point.

In a "selection committee" scenario, how likely is it that a committee will look at Purdue and Michigan, with completely different program histories (one sucks, the other has a shiny blue and yellow helmet), with completely different recruiting rankings, and uses your logic... "Well, Purdue usually sucks, and while they're having a good year, FOR THEM, they're clearly not on the same level as Michigan, so we should have Michigan in the Rose Bowl."

That's where your logic leads.

What I honestly advocate for is the 5+1+2 or 6+2 system. That way, teams can actually "earn" their way in. Win your P5 conference or be the top rankes G5 conference champ, or simply win your conference (any league) and be one of the top 6 ranked conference champs.

Your system doesn't allow a team to have a playbook before the season comes to "earn" their way in. Cincinnati is trending towards 13-0. They beat a pretty good [ugh!] Notre Dame team, that has not lost to anyone except Cincinnati. They scheduled and beat another P5 team, one that everyone thought preseason was supposed to be good. It's not their fault IU Sucks. And it looks like they're going to TCOB with the rest of their schedule.

What Sam is pointing out is that based on the various football analytic metrics, they grade out as a top-10 team. Regardless of the actual teams they played, those analytics suggest they don't suck.

But that'll never be enough. Because they're G5. You won't let them earn it.

Your B1G Purdue example is so far removed from Cincinnati's situation - it's just a broken analogy.


It's not about fault or fairness.  And somehow, in your advocating for their inclusion into the playoff, you cite them as a top-10 team.  When did the playoff expand to 10 teams?

Cincinnati is hardly the first team in this situation where they win, they're good, but due to a shit schedule, we don't know how good they are.
You're saying they should be given the benefit of the doubt and I'm asking WHY!?!  

One might say that it's not fair to this year's team/players, but again - where is it written that it's going to be fair?!?  Why should this Cincinnati team get into the playoff and not last year's Coastal Carolina?  Or 2008 Utah?  Or 1998 Tulane?  
All of the players on all of these teams knew when they signed that they were forfeiting any chance to play for a NC.  They knew an undefeated season wouldn't garner anything but a shitty (now upgraded) bowl and a shiny, pretty record.  
And the reason it's not fair isn't because they were valued as 2nd-tier players or their teams are 2nd-tier programs, but because their schedules would not produce a good-enough resume.

So here, in 2021, some of you want to accept a still-not-good-enough resume and hire the team for the playoff.
I simply don't understand what changed.  This seems A LOT like the "give everyone a trophy" mindset so many here are against.

The whole system is based on opinion. It's a beauty pageant.

Right, and Cincinnati has a great, big fucking wart on their forehead!

You should get an award for the least-effective succession of posts in one day.  You've supported your position literally 0%.

Lol, you are completely unable to explain why Cincinnati shouldn't get in, and concede that "we don't know how good they are," yet you persist. I admire the dedication to the bit, even if at this point your arguments have failed.

It's not about fault or fairness.  And somehow, in your advocating for their inclusion into the playoff, you cite them as a top-10 team.  When did the playoff expand to 10 teams?

The point about their metrics was to show that on a measurement of football that isn't just "count the losses", they don't suck. And as I pointed out in the other thread, they're anywhere between 6th and 8th on those metrics. One of the team consistently ahead of them is Wisconsin, who isn't going to the CFP. Another pair ahead of them is OSU and Michigan, one of whom is going to basically be eliminated from CFP contention on Saturday. With two more wins, they could conceivably climb into the top 4 in those metrics.

Cincinnati is hardly the first team in this situation where they win, they're good, but due to a shit schedule, we don't know how good they are.

You're saying they should be given the benefit of the doubt and I'm asking WHY!?! 

You say we don't know how good they are, but everyone is absolutely incensed by the very suggestion that we find out. 

I'm not saying that we should give them the benefit of the doubt, but I find it a bit strange that we have a sport where half of the entire field is eliminated from championship contention before a single snap is played in a season. 

We've had people saying they'd rather see a 2-loss B1G or SEC team over Cincinnati, who also argue that the regular season should matter. I say Cincinnati deserves a spot over any 2-loss P5 team. They've forfeited their chance by losing two games.  

One might say that it's not fair to this year's team/players, but again - where is it written that it's going to be fair?!?  Why should this Cincinnati team get into the playoff and not last year's Coastal Carolina?  Or 2008 Utah?  Or 1998 Tulane? 
All of the players on all of these teams knew when they signed that they were forfeiting any chance to play for a NC.  They knew an undefeated season wouldn't garner anything but a shitty (now upgraded) bowl and a shiny, pretty record. 
And the reason it's not fair isn't because they were valued as 2nd-tier players or their teams are 2nd-tier programs, but because their schedules would not produce a good-enough resume.

They didn't sign with the intent of forfeiting a chance at a championship. They signed because these were the best offers they had.

Now, it's true they were valued as 2nd-tier players and they're playing for teams viewed as 2nd-tier programs. Of course, the reason you keep them in the 2nd tier is that by your own words, "we don't know how good they are", but you refuse to actually give them a shot and find out.  

In this case they scheduled a high-P5 program in Notre Dame and a low-P5 program in Indiana, and won both. They won their FCS OOC matchup (news flash, the SEC SEC SEC schedules annual FCS games too) and have a chance to go 9-0 in conference including the CCG. But in the end, it doesn't matter what they out of conference. Unless they're somehow able to schedule Alabama, OSU, Clemson and Oklahoma OOC and win all 4, people say it's not enough and "we don't know how good they are".

So here, in 2021, some of you want to accept a still-not-good-enough resume and hire the team for the playoff.
I simply don't understand what changed.  This seems A LOT like the "give everyone a trophy" mindset so many here are against.

Nothing has changed. The system was fundamentally a beauty pageant in the poll-driven days. The BCS and now the CFP are striving to give the national championship real legitimacy. We're just pointing out that it's still a hypocritical beauty pageant system and has no level of objectivity involved. 

Cincinnati is just the latest example. The most glaring example previously was 2009, when both TCU and Boise State finished the season and were included in the BCS bowl system--playing against each other. Literally we could have seen "how good they are" by pairing them up against two P5 teams, but I think the powers that be REALLY didn't want to see both of them knock off P5 teams, lest it give these teams any legitimacy. 

We have a system where the argument used against them is "we don't know how good they are" and it's a system where it will be impossible to ever find out "how good they are". 

6+2 fixes that problem. 

Can't we all just get along?  It's Thanksgiving for goodness' sake.

It's not Thanksgiving with a good blow-up family argument...

...and this website sometimes seems like a family, if perhaps a tremendously dysfunctional one. 

Heck, this place is way more functional than many families.

Note that none of those are in the top-4 nor do they have any realistic shot to finish in the top-4 of any of those.  So even taking your argument at face value they are a pretty good team that isn't good enough for the CFP. 

This reminds me of a point I like to come back to.

They don't put 11-0 teams in the playoff. Just a lot of, we'll see when we get there. Playoff teams have had statistical ranking far worse than that going in. It's the way of CFB with it's rather blocky resumes. 

And the other part of the idea of "good enough for the CFP" is that every field is different. At the moment, it's very possible a field coalesces where the No. 4 team simply has a better case. Also a decent chance it fall that we have a dearth of No. 4 options, and then they'll likely slot in Cincinnati. It'll have the problem that it didn't have access to certain resources, but if the bottom of the field is frayed enough, it'll happen.

And then it likely loses to the top seed, same as power teams with Heisman winners and NFL players do with regularity.