Is today "make a poor retort" day??
The argument is G5 should get a shot.
The data says they are not on the same plane as the P5.
So to pull Purdue's 2000 season out from the ether, okay.....the argument would be Purdue should get a shot? But they already do because they're in the same conference as teams they're not on the same plane on (OSU, UM, etc). The data (as you note) backs that up.
Not sure how there's a parallel here. It's not about success being worthless.
I swear to god, I haven't the slightest how some of you make these leaps from my posts. It's truly bizarre.
Purdue earned their way to the RB that season. I don't understand how a team like Cincinnati can earn their way into the playoff with 9 G5 opponents + an FCS team.
Their 2-game season became 1, with IU falling off a cliff.
They won their 1-game season.
Get 'em a plastic trophy.
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.
