CFB51 College Football Fan Community
The Power Five => Big Ten => Topic started by: medinabuckeye1 on October 28, 2021, 04:10:41 PM
-
Over in the Week 8 Power Rankings thread we have an extensive debate about the appropriate ranking for Cincinnati and what it will and should take for them to be included in the CFP.
Within that discussion I pointed to the deficiencies of Cincinnati's schedule including their OOC schedule. Their OOC opponents this year were (rankings from this site (http://www.mikedesimone.com/top25.htm)):
- #8 Notre Dame
- #57 Indiana
- #95 Miami, OH
- FCS MurraySt (note that MurraySt is not even a good FCS team, they suck. They are currently 3-4 overall and 0-2 in the FCS OVC).
This wouldn't be a bad OOC for a P5 team and in a normal year it would be fine for Cincy but if we are being asked to treat UC like a legitimate NC contender this schedule is horrible because unlike a P5 team that plays legitimate opponents in conference, Cincy's best conference opponents are #36 SMU, #44 UCF, #71 Tulsa, and #92 Tulane. With the arguable exceptions of SMU and UCF everybody else on Cincy's league schedule is the equivalent to a payday game for an actual, legitimate NC contender. For example, tOSU actually did play Tulsa, won by 3TD's and I believe that is generally viewed as a bad mark on tOSU's resume.
I pointed out the example of FSU. Back when FSU was an emerging contender they REALLY took an "anyone, anywhere" approach to scheduling. In 1981 the Seminoles took a five game road trip to play Nebraska, Ohio State, Notre Dame, Pitt (this was when Pitt was good), and LSU. My contention has always been that if a G5 school wants to be considered for the CFP they need to copy what FSU did and play enough high-end P5 teams such that going undefeated would be a significant accomplishment. Ie, they need to be more than just the tallest midget. @FearlessF (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=10) similarly argued that Cincy's OOC should have been four P5's including at least a couple that end up reasonably highly ranked.
@betarhoalphadelta (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=19) pointed out several problems with Fearless and my argument:
- Schedules are made years or a decade or more in advance so Cincy's AD making this schedule in say 2010 had no idea how good or bad Cincy would be in 2021.
- Bowl eligibility is important and scheduling four good P5 opponents in most situations would simply put a team like Cincy in an 0-4 hole thus necessitating that they go at least 6-2 in their league to go bowling.
My proposed solution is that the G5 should form a scheduling alliance in which the last two games for all G5 teams (it has to be an even number for this to work) are set by some committee very late in the season. If deemed necessary, each team could be told in advance which week they were home and which week they were away (this would cut your potential match-ups in half but should still result in a pretty good arrangement).
If you look at the current AP Poll there are 6 G5 teams:
- #2 Cincy 7-0 AAC
- #19 SMU 7-0 AAC
- #21 SDSU 7-0 MWC
- #23 UTSA 8-0 CUSA
- #24 CCU 6-1 SBelt
- #25 BYU 6-2 Independent
None of these teams will finish with an SoS comparable to the top P5 teams. Their SoS rankings range from a high of #75 for SMU to a low of #126 for UTSA. For comparison, the 19 P5 teams in the current AP top-25 have SoS rankings that range from a high of #3 for Auburn to a low of #70 for Kentucky. Additionally, this gap will grow substantially once the CG's are played because while the SECCG will be something like #1 UGA vs #3 Bama and the B1GCG will be something like #5 tOSU vs #9 Iowa the only G5 league with two ranked teams is the AAC with #2 and #19. Ie, the AACCG is the only G5 CG with a plausible chance to match two ranked teams and even there one of the two is likely to be somewhere around #20.
So in CG weekend the P5 CG winners are all going to pick up an extra high-end quality win while the G5 CG winners simply aren't.
So my solution is for the G5 teams to all agree to set aside the last two weekends for match-ups set by a G5 Committee that would be designed to give each G5 team two roughly equivalent match-ups. In a year like this when Cincinnati is the highest ranked G5 and angling for a CFP spot, they'd get something like SDSU at home and UTSA on the road. Under the same arrangement, in a year when Cincy sucks they'd get a home and a road game against equivalently crappy G5 teams such that they should always be getting two competitive games that could go either way.
IMHO this would be a rankings bonanza because the high-end games would essentially be CFP showcases. This would also massively improve Cincy's argument for a CFP spot because replacing FCS MurraySt and #95 MiamiOH with #19 SDSU and #24UTSA (going back to the 1-130 rankings here) would be an enormous improvement. Cincy's schedule still wouldn't be as good as most P5 Champions but at least they'd be getting into the same ballpark.
Going back to the comparison of tOSU's and Cincy's schedules assuming that both make their respective CG where they play Iowa and SMU respectively, here are tOSU's schedule and Cincy's actual and theoretical schedules under that model:
(https://i.imgur.com/hJDg7Ag.png)
I think this is a good way to illustrate just how woefully deficient Cincy's schedule is compared to tOSU's. Their marquee game against ND is roughly comparable to tOSU's top few games but after that they fall woefully short at each step. Their second best opponent is ranked 29 spots behind tOSU's, their third best is 26 spots behind tOSU's, etc.
My proposal wouldn't completely fix the problem for Cincy but it would help a LOT. Their second and third best opponents would only be 12 and 14 spots behind tOSU's 2nd and third best opponents. SMU isn't really comparable to Iowa and PSU but they are a heck of a lot closer than UCF and IU.
With their current schedule it would be ridiculous to put Cincy in over a 2-loss B1G or SEC Champion but with this proposal at least they'd have an argument.
-
Problems with this...
1. This means that G5 have to sacrifice 2 OOC matchups, which means fewer paycheck games AND fewer chances to play P5 teams and actually bolster their SOS.
- I think this one is slightly mitigated by the fact that they may rarely schedule more than 2 P5 teams OOC to begin with. If they do so, and they start 2-0, then they probably secure bowl eligibility by week 6 anyway so the chance of losing their marquee G5 matchup is not a big thing. If they do so, and they start 0-2, then they probably get matched up with less problematic G5 teams in the last two weeks so they still have chances at wins there. But it does basically remove two guaranteed [or close to] wins from the schedule.
2. How far does this get you? Let's say the G5 does this, and it's this year. Cincinnati has scheduled and beaten a ranked "P5" Notre Dame and a mediocre P5 Indiana. They then go and beat #21 SDSU and #23 UTSA, knocking both out of the rankings for losing to Cincy.
Do you really think that beating Notre Dame, Indiana, UTSA, and SDSU, and going 13-0, is going to move the needle to the extent that they're going to get in over a 12-1 CC Ohio State or Alabama? Or do they STILL need to hope that there aren't more than three 1-loss P5 helmets and that this just barely gets them in over an 11-2 or 10-2 Alabama.
-
Problems with this...
1. This means that G5 have to sacrifice 2 OOC matchups, which means fewer paycheck games AND fewer chances to play P5 teams and actually bolster their SOS.
- I think this one is slightly mitigated by the fact that they may rarely schedule more than 2 P5 teams OOC to begin with. If they do so, and they start 2-0, then they probably secure bowl eligibility by week 6 anyway so the chance of losing their marquee G5 matchup is not a big thing. If they do so, and they start 0-2, then they probably get matched up with less problematic G5 teams in the last two weeks so they still have chances at wins there. But it does basically remove two guaranteed [or close to] wins from the schedule.
Your own answer is basically what I would say. Yes, it removes two OOC matchups that they otherwise could set themselves but it replaces them with two OOC matchups that will ALWAYS be roughly equivalent teams. If they get to the last two weeks at 5-5 they'll have a home and a road game against roughly 5-5 G5 opponents so win the home game and go bowling. If they get there at 10-0 they'll have two games against the best the G5 has to offer to help boost their SoS. If they get there at 2-8 they'll play two similarly bad G5 opponents but in that case who cares since they can't do anything anyway.
Problems with this...
2. How far does this get you? Let's say the G5 does this, and it's this year. Cincinnati has scheduled and beaten a ranked "P5" Notre Dame and a mediocre P5 Indiana. They then go and beat #21 SDSU and #23 UTSA, knocking both out of the rankings for losing to Cincy.
Do you really think that beating Notre Dame, Indiana, UTSA, and SDSU, and going 13-0, is going to move the needle to the extent that they're going to get in over a 12-1 CC Ohio State or Alabama? Or do they STILL need to hope that there aren't more than three 1-loss P5 helmets and that this just barely gets them in over an 11-2 or 10-2 Alabama.
It depends on what the other two OOC games are. Using the example of Cincy this year it STILL doesn't get them an SoS anywhere close to tOSU (especially if tOSU makes the B1GCG) but at least the gap isn't as ridiculous as it is now.
You are likely right that SDSU and UTSA would get knocked out of the rankings for losing to Cincy but where they would end up would also depend on how they did in their other Schedule Alliance game and how they did in their CCG's.
I don't think it would be enough to get a 13-0 Cincy this year in over a 12-1 B1G Champion tOSU or 12-1 SEC Champion Bama because Cincy's schedule wouldn't be nearly as good. That hypothetical 12-1 tOSU would have a loss to Oregon but they'd also have four wins over top-15 teams. Cincinnati wouldn't have any losses but they'd only have one win over a top-35 team and in my view 4-1 against the top-15 is MUCH better than 1-0 against the top-35 for the simple reason that upsets happen. One game will never be enough to convince me because I KNOW that the best team doesn't always win.
What it would do, at least if the decision were up to me, is get them in over almost any non-Champion P5 team and most 2-loss P5 Champions. Both would be dependent on the relative SoS of the non-Champion or 2-loss P5 Champion. I mean, if tOSU scheduled (this year) Georgia, Bama, and Oregon as their OOC and UGA/Bama played in the SECCG while Oregon won the P12 that is a RIDICULOUSLY tough schedule. I'd definitely take a 2-loss B1G Champion tOSU over 13-0 Cincy in that case but I've never actually seen a P5 team play a schedule like that so it is probably a moot point.
Bottom line, it doesn't completely solve Cincy's (and basically all G5 Teams') SoS deficiency but it goes a LONG way toward closing the gap.
-
An easier solution is to have a a playoff that gives every conference champ a bid, plus a few at large bids to help out the also rans. Far less worry about computer rankings and poindexters that way.
-
Easiest solution is to back to bowl games and arguments. It was more fun.
-
Easiest solution is to back to bowl games and arguments. It was more fun.
Word.
Also, eliminate all ESPN commentary. They're allowed to broadcast games and that's it.
-
Word.
Also, eliminate all ESPN commentary. They're allowed to broadcast games and that's it.
Speak for yourself. If there were no ESPN commentary, who would tell me what to think?
-
Speak for yourself. If there were no ESPN commentary, who would tell me what to think?
Come to Florida for a visit and I'll teach ya.
Mrs. 847 says hello, by the way. Been a while.
-
What in the world are y'all doing in Florida, anyway? There's no Great Lakes for your boat, muggy as hell, and hurricanes to boot.
Actually, that makes me wonder what I'm doing here.
Tell Mrs. 847 hello. I may or may not have grown up a little bit since y'all saw me last.
-
An easier solution is to have a a playoff that gives every conference champ a bid, plus a few at large bids to help out the also rans. Far less worry about computer rankings and poindexters that way.
It should be enough to go with the proposed 12-team playoff with the top 6 conference champions. Even in a year with 2 unbeaten G5 champs, all you would have to do is be better than the worst P5 champ or else be in the top 7-12 overall.
This would work even better if CUSA ends up folding then you are down to just 9 FBS conferences total, and the G5 becomes the G4.
AND of course Cincy's problem will partially be solved in the future when they move to the Big 12, which will still sort of be P5 in the future.
-
It should be enough to go with the proposed 12-team playoff with the top 6 conference champions. Even in a year with 2 unbeaten G5 champs, all you would have to do is be better than the worst P5 champ or else be in the top 7-12 overall.
This would work even better if CUSA ends up folding then you are down to just 9 FBS conferences total, and the G5 becomes the G4.
AND of course Cincy's problem will partially be solved in the future when they move to the Big 12, which will still sort of be P5 in the future.
Or the P5 becomes the P4, because the B12 no longer rates.
-
An easier solution is to have a a playoff that gives every conference champ a bid, plus a few at large bids to help out the also rans. Far less worry about computer rankings and poindexters that way.
Could we try to be a little more fair than that?
This is outrageously unfair to legitimate power teams because you'd be giving a slew of playoff spots to crappy tallest midgets and depriving legitimately good teams of those spots.
My high school went undefeated and won their league why don't they get a slot?
-
yup, computer rankings and poindexters on the selection committee have no clue, conference champs rule
-
Could we try to be a little more fair than that?
This is outrageously unfair to legitimate power teams because you'd be giving a slew of playoff spots to crappy tallest midgets and depriving legitimately good teams of those spots.
My high school went undefeated and won their league why don't they get a slot?
It's not unfair at all. Every single team in a conference can play their way into a championship. While this clearly favors conferences, there are like 7 teams not in a conference, so something should be done about that.
Compare to the present system - how many teams can realistically play their way in? Maybe a third to a half? On fairness, my way wins.
-
Word.
Also, eliminate all ESPN commentary. They're allowed to broadcast games and that's it.
I remember when winning the one bowl bid the MAC had was a big deal.
5-1-2 still makes more sense to me than anything I've heard.
-
To add on, I continue to propose my ideal scenario being a 20 bowl postseason, with 5 tiers of 4 bowls each, each with a 5-1-2 setup. Then the top tier serving as an 8 team, unseeded playoff, with Big 10-Pac 12 in the Rose; Big 12 in the Fiesta, ACC in the Orange and SEC in the Sugar, and the Go5 and 2 At large seeded against those 3.
Then you actually take teams from the conference in the order they deserve, building up to the bigger bowls, so even once you are out of the playoff discussion, you are actually fighting for a better bowl bid.
-
It's not unfair at all. Every single team in a conference can play their way into a championship. While this clearly favors conferences, there are like 7 teams not in a conference, so something should be done about that.
Compare to the present system - how many teams can realistically play their way in? Maybe a third to a half? On fairness, my way wins.
It rewards being a member of a weak conference. Unfair.
-
ELA's idea is good because at least it would be something. An effort. Something better than 'woe is me.'
The FSU way was best, but they were an independent and could schedule that way. It's not feasible now.
-
It rewards being a member of a weak conference. Unfair.
Nothing preventing say, TAMU, from joining the Sun Belt.
-
Nothing preventing say, TAMU, from joining the Sun Belt.
Read what you just typed.
Apologize to yourself.
Move on.
-
Read what you just typed.
Apologize to yourself.
Move on.
Oh, you are one of those people who want all the benefits of a choice, and think costs are wrong. Sorry about that.
-
There's something to be said for maintaining tradition as best we can, as way to many classic rivalries have been nixed.
With the Cincinnati example, they've been playing Miami regularly since 1888, and annually since 1909. Kind of a big deal in the greater Cincy area (Hamilton and Butler Co).
-
There's something to be said for maintaining tradition as best we can, as way to many classic rivalries have been nixed.
With the Cincinnati example, they've been playing Miami regularly since 1888, and annually since 1909. Kind of a big deal in the greater Cincy area (Hamilton and Butler Co).
Only top 10 programs are allowed to have things like rivalries.
-
Oh, you are one of those people who want all the benefits of a choice, and think costs are wrong. Sorry about that.
Your idea is something that's never happened, would decrease money for the school in question, and has zero possibility of actually happening.
Did I miss anything?
-
It rewards being a member of a weak conference. Unfair.
Ding ding ding! People have to intentionally blind themselves to reality to not see this.
-
It's not unfair at all. Every single team in a conference can play their way into a championship. While this clearly favors conferences, there are like 7 teams not in a conference, so something should be done about that.
Compare to the present system - how many teams can realistically play their way in? Maybe a third to a half? On fairness, my way wins.
Everybody gets a chance is pretend fair.
Best teams in is actually fair.
There is a difference.
It is bad enough that schools from big boy leagues get passed over for vastly lesser tallest midgets in CBB but at least there the excluded big boy league teams have no realistic chance anyway. In CFB under your proposal of a 12 team playoff with auto-bids for all league champions you'd be excluding legitimate contenders to make room for ridiculously outclassed tallest midgets.
For 2019 (last pre-pandemic year) you'd have taken:
- #1 LSU, SEC Champ
- #2 tOSU, B1G Champ
- #3 Clemson, ACC Champ
- #4 Oklahoma, B12 Champ
- #5 UGA, At-Large #1
- #6 Oregon, P12 Champ
- #7 Baylor, At-Large #2
- #17 Memphis AAC Champ
- #19 BoiseSt, MWC Champ
- #20 ApSt, SBelt Champ
- 10-3 FAU, CUSA Champ: Lost to tOSU by 24
- 8-5 MiamiOH, MAC Champ: Lost to Iowa by 24, lost to Cincy by 22, lost to tOSU by 71
If you honestly believe that fairness necessitates including a MiamiOh team that was obviously and demonstrably unable to hang with the big boys AT ALL at the expense of competitive teams like Wisconsin, Florida, and Penn State then you just aren't smart enough to be a part of this conversation.
Miami of Ohio trailed tOSU 49-5 at halftime. That the Buckeyes only scored 27 points in the second half was only because they were playing waterboys, cheerleaders, and mascots while resting their starters. Wisconsin, by comparison, played Ohio State twice. In the first game:
- Wisconsin was within a FG deep in the third quarter
- Wisconsin entered the fourth quarter within 17 points.
In the Second game:
- Wisconsin led by 14 at halftime
- Wisconsin led deep in the third quarter
- Wisconsin entered the fourth quarter within a FG
- Wisconsin was within 10 deep in the fourth quarter
- Wisconsin lost by 13, two scores.
Wisconsin was a legitimately good team, MiamiOH was complete crap. If you can't see that, I can't help you.
-
Everybody gets a chance is pretend fair.
Best teams in is actually fair.
There is a difference.
It is bad enough that schools from big boy leagues get passed over for vastly lesser tallest midgets in CBB but at least there the excluded big boy league teams have no realistic chance anyway. In CFB under your proposal of a 12 team playoff with auto-bids for all league champions you'd be excluding legitimate contenders to make room for ridiculously outclassed tallest midgets.
For 2019 (last pre-pandemic year) you'd have taken:
- #1 LSU, SEC Champ
- #2 tOSU, B1G Champ
- #3 Clemson, ACC Champ
- #4 Oklahoma, B12 Champ
- #5 UGA, At-Large #1
- #6 Oregon, P12 Champ
- #7 Baylor, At-Large #2
- #17 Memphis AAC Champ
- #19 BoiseSt, MWC Champ
- #20 ApSt, SBelt Champ
- 10-3 FAU, CUSA Champ: Lost to tOSU by 24
- 8-5 MiamiOH, MAC Champ: Lost to Iowa by 24, lost to Cincy by 22, lost to tOSU by 71
If you honestly believe that fairness necessitates including a MiamiOh team that was obviously and demonstrably unable to hang with the big boys AT ALL at the expense of competitive teams like Wisconsin, Florida, and Penn State then you just aren't smart enough to be a part of this conversation.
Miami of Ohio trailed tOSU 49-5 at halftime. That the Buckeyes only scored 27 points in the second half was only because they were playing waterboys, cheerleaders, and mascots while resting their starters. Wisconsin, by comparison, played Ohio State twice. In the first game:
- Wisconsin was within a FG deep in the third quarter
- Wisconsin entered the fourth quarter within 17 points.
In the Second game:
- Wisconsin led by 14 at halftime
- Wisconsin led deep in the third quarter
- Wisconsin entered the fourth quarter within a FG
- Wisconsin was within 10 deep in the fourth quarter
- Wisconsin lost by 13, two scores.
Wisconsin was a legitimately good team, MiamiOH was complete crap. If you can't see that, I can't help you.
8 team playoff, no automatic bids, no first round byes, no special favors for Notre Dame or G5. Just the eight best teams would do wonders for this sport.
-
Could we try to be a little more fair than that?
This is outrageously unfair to legitimate power teams because you'd be giving a slew of playoff spots to crappy tallest midgets and depriving legitimately good teams of those spots.
My high school went undefeated and won their league why don't they get a slot?
Medina, I respect you greatly, but with this sport and especially with the particular outlook you have on the sport, there will be no fairness. That's how it ends.
If half the sport can't have a chance of competing on day one, there's no need to talk about fairness at all. None. And that's fine. It's unfair to the core. Nature of the beast.
-
8 team playoff, no automatic bids, no first round byes, no special favors for Notre Dame or G5. Just the eight best teams would do wonders for this sport.
Expanding the playoffs,extending the season just encourages more Sunday bound kids to beg off and get ready for the League.Why risk it to satisfy greedy networks/athletic departments and the occasional wild card might win but the present alignment is fine
-
Medina, I respect you greatly, but with this sport and especially with the particular outlook you have on the sport, there will be no fairness. That's how it ends.
If half the sport can't have a chance of competing on day one, there's no need to talk about fairness at all. None. And that's fine. It's unfair to the core. Nature of the beast.
But letting the Sun Belt champ into a playoff is no different than it is now - they have no chance. They have no chance if you're selective/exclusive and they have no chance if you're inclusive.
The point is that now they can't win a NC in the abstract and letting them in a playoff will simply transform that into reality. It will expose it from an opinion now to a fact in a playoff. Why put a spotlight on it?
.
Right now, they're choosing to be in purgatory. That's their choice. They are choosing to value the money they make in FBS over the championship opportunities of FCS. They know a NC is impossible in FBS, and they've accepted that in order to bring in more money.
Who made them do this? NO ONE.
So sorry if altering the entire postseason system to cater to them doesn't make any sense to most poeple.
-
Your idea is something that's never happened, would decrease money for the school in question, and has zero possibility of actually happening.
Did I miss anything?
Ah yes. Why push ideas that make the sport better for everyone when it may have financial costs for the very top programs? How unlike me.
-
Best teams in is actually fair.
There is a difference.
Sure, whatever. The problem you have is you have no actual system to ensure the best teams are in. You have a lot of fancystats and computer comparisons and hypotheticals and poindexters. My way has results on the field. Which is fairer? Is it the system where every team gets a chance to prove they are the best by playing the game of football, or is it the system where teams play and then we run it through a bunch of algorithms and "eye tests" to decide who was actually best. I know which I think is better. Plus my way makes more games way more meaningful, meaning it's a lot more fun, to boot.
-
The point is that now they can't win a NC in the abstract and letting them in a playoff will simply transform that into reality. It will expose it from an opinion now to a fact in a playoff. Why put a spotlight on it?
Again, your way depends on these hypothetical future matchups that haven't happened and to which only you know the result. It's a joke. Why play football at all? By your logic only about 6 teams should even play college football in a given season. Everyone else is just putting a spotlight on the fact that they aren't national championship contenders. Great system you have.
-
What in the world are y'all doing in Florida, anyway? There's no Great Lakes for your boat, muggy as hell, and hurricanes to boot.
Actually, that makes me wonder what I'm doing here.
Tell Mrs. 847 hello. I may or may not have grown up a little bit since y'all saw me last.
Lots of water for the boat. I think we've grown up too, but I don't remember.
-
Ah yes. Why push ideas that make the sport better for everyone when it may have financial costs for the very top programs? How unlike me.
Name a situation in which the powers that be - the ones who benefit most from the current paradigm - simply volunteered their position away.
***and your idea making the sport better for everyone would have to be demonstrated before anyone should believe it.
-
"Poindexters" know stuff.
747s aren't cruising at 35,000' because Boeing hired every aeronautical engineer to give them a shot....probably just the top handful.
-
***and your idea making the sport better for everyone would have to be demonstrated before anyone should believe it.
You can't possibly believe that Tuesday night MACtion would have *less* juice when the teams are competing for a playoff spot.
-
"Poindexters" know stuff.
747s aren't cruising at 35,000' because Boeing hired every aeronautical engineer to give them a shot....probably just the top handful.
Sure. And people who travel know stuff. You are advocating for the Total Recall experience, where we simulate the games and then enjoy that.
-
We are headed to NFL-lite - probably already there.
Free agency, NIL, 24/7/365 recruiting/retaining.
If this is what is wanted, the P5 should just break off and go its separate way.
-
8 team playoff, no automatic bids, no first round byes, no special favors for Notre Dame or G5. Just the eight best teams would do wonders for this sport.
That's even worse.
What I hear around here is that people want individual games to matter. They want the regular season to matter. [Some of them] want conference championships to matter.
Going to 8 without any auto-bids tears all of that down, and all you get in return is some more money for the TV networks.
If you have 8, a conference championship doesn't matter. With 4, the committee has proven that it doesn't mean everything, but it still means something, in the selection process. You have to be special to get in without a conference championship.
If you have 8, you'll be getting teams with multiple mulligans. You'll get a 10-2 SEC team that didn't even qualify for its championship game, that has won nothing of note, that has earned nothing.
If you have 8, you'll have even more teams "scheduling wins" OOC than they currently do, because a team will KNOW that being 11-1 and not going to their conference championship game is enough. Ohio State couldn't survive a pasting by Purdue in 2018. They would with 8 teams.
The ONLY point of going to 8 (or 12) is to allow auto-bids. That's the only reason I'm in favor of it, actually, because then P5 conference championships are always meaningful. If you're not going to go auto-bids, might as well stay at 4.
-
4 hasn't seemed to solve any problems
let's go back to two
-
Nothing preventing say, TAMU, from joining the Sun Belt.
What did I just read
-
perhaps the Longhorns and Sooners will go with them?
-
That's even worse.
What I hear around here is that people want individual games to matter. They want the regular season to matter. [Some of them] want conference championships to matter.
Going to 8 without any auto-bids tears all of that down, and all you get in return is some more money for the TV networks.
If you have 8, a conference championship doesn't matter. With 4, the committee has proven that it doesn't mean everything, but it still means something, in the selection process. You have to be special to get in without a conference championship.
If you have 8, you'll be getting teams with multiple mulligans. You'll get a 10-2 SEC team that didn't even qualify for its championship game, that has won nothing of note, that has earned nothing.
If you have 8, you'll have even more teams "scheduling wins" OOC than they currently do, because a team will KNOW that being 11-1 and not going to their conference championship game is enough. Ohio State couldn't survive a pasting by Purdue in 2018. They would with 8 teams.
The ONLY point of going to 8 (or 12) is to allow auto-bids. That's the only reason I'm in favor of it, actually, because then P5 conference championships are always meaningful. If you're not going to go auto-bids, might as well stay at 4.
I find winning a conference or conference championship to be a poor indicator of whether a team is actually one of the best teams in the nation. Anyone really that impressed when Clemson runs the table in the ACC year after year? Oklahoma owns the Big 12.
Schedule strength varies from team to team and conference strength varies from conference to conference. Automatic bids just set arbitrary rules that ultimately end up weakening the playing field of teams that receive a playoff spot.
You're advocating to weaken the playoffs to preserve the importance of conference champions, but that just makes it easier for Bama, Clemson and OSU to dominate the playoffs in the end.
-
I just want to stop the charade. Student athletes my ass. TV doesn't care about the student part. As a result, most people don't.
Call it what it is - NFL Lite. NFL minor league. Whatever. Then I can do other things on Saturdays - just like Sundays.
-
Sure, whatever. The problem you have is you have no actual system to ensure the best teams are in. You have a lot of fancystats and computer comparisons and hypotheticals and poindexters. My way has results on the field. Which is fairer? Is it the system where every team gets a chance to prove they are the best by playing the game of football, or is it the system where teams play and then we run it through a bunch of algorithms and "eye tests" to decide who was actually best. I know which I think is better. Plus my way makes more games way more meaningful, meaning it's a lot more fun, to boot.
As I showed above, the MAC Champion two years ago lost to Ohio State by 71 freaking points. You act like @OrangeAfroMan (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=58) and I are the only ones who think that the tallest midgets can't compete. We aren't. Everyone with eyes can see that they can't compete. In 2019 8-5 MAC Champion MiamiOH lost to Ohio State by 71, Iowa by 24, and Cincy by 22. In your ridiculous system Iowa and Cincy would be out because they play in better leagues than MiamiOH but we'd get to see Georgia beat the snot out of MiamiOH in a joke of a first round game. Your first round games would be:
- #5 UGA vs #12 MiamiOH: Georgia would be favored by 40+
- #6 Oregon vs #11 FAU: Oregon would be favored by 20+
- #7 Baylor vs #10 ApSt: This might actually be close but that says more about Baylor and the B12 than it does about ApSt and the SBelt. It is irrelevant because the winner would get tOSU where they'd be a 20+ point dog.
- #8 Memphis vs #9 BoiseSt: This would actually be a pretty good game but also a complete waste of time since the winner would be absolute cannon fodder for #1 LSU in the second round.
Why should MiamiOH be included while two teams that completely thumped them are excluded. Didn't you say that results on the field should matter?
-
I guess it is a matter of priority.
Do we want the best playoff field imaginable, at the expense of the regular season.
Or do we want the regular season to mean something, by rewarding Conference Champions, which promotes better OOC match ups.
-
I'm not sure how much it promotes better OOC matchups, but I want the reg season to mean something and a conference championship to be of value
-
I'm not sure how much it promotes better OOC matchups, but I want the reg season to mean something and a conference championship to be of value
Which better prepares you for a run at a Conference Title? Some challenging opponents? Or a bunch of easy Ws?
-
Hayden Fry, then Bill Snyder learned to "never" schedule a loss
of course neither of them won too many conference titles
-
I find winning a conference or conference championship to be a poor indicator of whether a team is actually one of the best teams in the nation. Anyone really that impressed when Clemson runs the table in the ACC year after year? Oklahoma owns the Big 12.
Schedule strength varies from team to team and conference strength varies from conference to conference. Automatic bids just set arbitrary rules that ultimately end up weakening the playing field of teams that receive a playoff spot.
You're advocating to weaken the playoffs to preserve the importance of conference champions, but that just makes it easier for Bama, Clemson and OSU to dominate the playoffs in the end.
I'm not saying a conference championship proves a team is the best team in the nation. I think it's a more fair way to determine playoff inclusion than some beauty pageant in a closed room with a "committee".
If that means that some years, you'll have a team in there that probably "doesn't belong"? Maybe. In some years, will a team that "doesn't belong" get hot and win three games in a row to become the champ? Maybe.
But at least all P5 teams know, going into the season, that winning the conference championship gets them a seat at the table. Their ability to make the CFP is within their own control, not up to some beauty pageant committee.
I guess it is a matter of priority.
Do we want the best playoff field imaginable, at the expense of the regular season.
Or do we want the regular season to mean something, by rewarding Conference Champions, which promotes better OOC match ups.
This is another benefit.
Right now teams have an incentive to schedule wins OOC. In a 5+1+2 (or 6+2) scenario, teams have an incentive to schedule tougher OOC.
- If you schedule tough OOC but lose a game, you still make the CFP if you win your conference. So a strong team can schedule tough OOC without worrying that a loss eliminates them.
- If you schedule tough OOC and win them all, but drop a game in conference that eliminates you from your CCG, you have a much better chance getting an at-large selection due to marquee wins OOC.
Right now OOC SOS matters for P5 schools, but it matters FAR less than avoiding OOC losses. Because you already have decent SOS in-conference.
-
Medina, I respect you greatly, but with this sport and especially with the particular outlook you have on the sport, there will be no fairness. That's how it ends.
If half the sport can't have a chance of competing on day one, there's no need to talk about fairness at all. None. And that's fine. It's unfair to the core. Nature of the beast.
Of course the sport isn't fair.
In the NFL the worst teams get the earliest draft picks and the best teams get the latest draft picks which at least helps to level the playing field eventually.
In CFB the players get to choose where to play and even before the NIL issue the great players generally wanted to play for great programs which contributed to a 'rich-get-richer' system. Now with NIL the great players have not only the desire to win to motivate them to go to the best programs but they also have a serious financial incentive. If you are a great QB and you go to Rutgers and get them to 6-6 you'll maybe get some NIL money in the NJ area but if you go to tOSU and get them a NC you'll be a nationally known and nationally marketable celebrity worth millions.
There is no practical way to square this circle. The sport is always going to be uneven.
IMHO, the CFP and accompanying "nationalization" of the sport along with the NIL change have accelerated this in ways that were not really expected. High-end recruits today have more motivation than ever to pick one of the VERY few programs that are consistently nationally competitive (basically Bama, Clemson, tOSU, OU, UGA and maybe LSU and Oregon).
Those seven schools have 23 out of 28 CFP appearances (the other five are ND2x, FSU, MSU, Washington), 14 out of 14 CFP semi-final wins (Bama5x, Clemson4x, tOSU2x, LSU, UGA, Ore), and all seven CFP Championships (Bama3x, Clemson2x, tOSU, LSU). Nobody else is even remotely close to that. The other four teams that have been to the CFP are a combined 0-5 with five blowout losses in the semi-finals:
- FSU by 39 in 2014
- MSU by 38 in 2015
- Notre Dame by 27 in 2018
- Washington by 17 in 2016
- Notre Dame by 17 in 2020
Even the 17 point losses by Washington-16 and Notre Dame-20 didn't actually feel that close.
Those seven have some semi-final losses to, even some bad ones:
- Bama lost a semi-final to tOSU in 2014, 42-35: 7 points
- tOSU lost a semi-final to Clemson in 2016, 31-0: 31 points
- Clemson lost a semi-final to Bama in 2017, 24-6: 18 points
- tOSU lost a semi-final to Clemson in 2019, 29-23: 6 points
- Clemson lost a semi-final to tOSU in 2020, 49-28: 21 points
The 18, 21, and 31 point losses were as bad as some of those losses by other teams but remember that these teams have offsetting semi-final and CG wins. Those other teams don't.
-
But letting the Sun Belt champ into a playoff is no different than it is now - they have no chance. They have no chance if you're selective/exclusive and they have no chance if you're inclusive.
The point is that now they can't win a NC in the abstract and letting them in a playoff will simply transform that into reality. It will expose it from an opinion now to a fact in a playoff. Why put a spotlight on it?
.
Right now, they're choosing to be in purgatory. That's their choice. They are choosing to value the money they make in FBS over the championship opportunities of FCS. They know a NC is impossible in FBS, and they've accepted that in order to bring in more money.
Who made them do this? NO ONE.
So sorry if altering the entire postseason system to cater to them doesn't make any sense to most poeple.
He spoke of fairness. I answered about fairness. If we want to split the division officially, I’m generally fine.
But this endless circularity is sort of dumb. A sport where half the sport is out unless there’s a Rube Goldberg-style set of things that happen really doesn’t need a deep yet incomplete analysis of they Rube Goldberg element. And explaining to me “duh, they’ll never win, so best to leave them out is likewise pointless.”
If a team goes to the playoff, via a static route, and loses, then the playoff is doing its job. And if the Sun Belt team loses from here to eternity, still the playoff doing its job. In fact, it’s the playoff doing its job well. If a mid-tier P5 is hurt by this, it can join the MAC. And if you don’t want to watch the functional bye games, go outside and get a milkshake or some chili, plus some fresh air. The rest of the games will be there next week.
-
Of course the sport isn't fair.
In the NFL the worst teams get the earliest draft picks and the best teams get the latest draft picks which at least helps to level the playing field eventually.
In CFB the players get to choose where to play and even before the NIL issue the great players generally wanted to play for great programs which contributed to a 'rich-get-richer' system. Now with NIL the great players have not only the desire to win to motivate them to go to the best programs but they also have a serious financial incentive. If you are a great QB and you go to Rutgers and get them to 6-6 you'll maybe get some NIL money in the NJ area but if you go to tOSU and get them a NC you'll be a nationally known and nationally marketable celebrity worth millions.
There is no practical way to square this circle. The sport is always going to be uneven.
IMHO, the CFP and accompanying "nationalization" of the sport along with the NIL change have accelerated this in ways that were not really expected. High-end recruits today have more motivation than ever to pick one of the VERY few programs that are consistently nationally competitive (basically Bama, Clemson, tOSU, OU, UGA and maybe LSU and Oregon).
Those seven schools have 23 out of 28 CFP appearances (the other five are ND2x, FSU, MSU, Washington), 14 out of 14 CFP semi-final wins (Bama5x, Clemson4x, tOSU2x, LSU, UGA, Ore), and all seven CFP Championships (Bama3x, Clemson2x, tOSU, LSU). Nobody else is even remotely close to that. The other four teams that have been to the CFP are a combined 0-5 with five blowout losses in the semi-finals:
- FSU by 39 in 2014
- MSU by 38 in 2015
- Notre Dame by 27 in 2018
- Washington by 17 in 2016
- Notre Dame by 17 in 2020
Even the 17 point losses by Washington-16 and Notre Dame-20 didn't actually feel that close.
Those seven have some semi-final losses to, even some bad ones:
- Bama lost a semi-final to tOSU in 2014, 42-35: 7 points
- tOSU lost a semi-final to Clemson in 2016, 31-0: 31 points
- Clemson lost a semi-final to Bama in 2017, 24-6: 18 points
- tOSU lost a semi-final to Clemson in 2019, 29-23: 6 points
- Clemson lost a semi-final to tOSU in 2020, 49-28: 21 points
The 18, 21, and 31 point losses were as bad as some of those losses by other teams but remember that these teams have offsetting semi-final and CG wins. Those other teams don't.
Good. So we agree it matters not at all if it’s “unfair” that a perfectly good Wisconsin team is left out of a playoff, even if a worse team is let in.
Got is some agreement there.
-
All good points Cincy lost by 3 in January to Georgia.That may be the fly in the ointment this year,just sayin'
-
Right now OOC SOS matters for P5 schools, but it matters FAR less than avoiding OOC losses. Because you already have decent SOS in-conference.
Does it?
Like, has any team in the playoff era really been punished for it or rewarded for it? Like, you just line up the P5 teams by losses and conference titles, and that makes most of, if not all the difference.
-
All good points Cincy lost by 3 in January to Georgia.That may be the fly in the ointment this year,just sayin'
last season or this season?
-
Last season,think it was Jan 1st,maybe the day before,but they got a foot in the door from this years perspective
-
If a team goes to the playoff, via a static route, and loses, then the playoff is doing its job. And if the Sun Belt team loses from here to eternity, still the playoff doing its job. In fact, it’s the playoff doing its job well. If a mid-tier P5 is hurt by this, it can join the MAC. And if you don’t want to watch the functional bye games, go outside and get a milkshake or some chili, plus some fresh air. The rest of the games will be there next week.
This is extraordinarily well-said BAB.
The arguments against it that I keep hearing are:
- We know the Sun Belt team (or a 3-loss P5 conference champ) can never win, so it's just a farce to include them!
- If a Sun Belt team (or a 3-loss P5 conference champ) actually wins, then a team not amongst the best teams wins, and that's horrible!
It's the argument that the deck is stacked against the non-helmets, so we need to keep stacking the deck against the non-helmets.
-
We all know Georgia just wasn't motivated.
If Georgia had actually played with some effort, they'd have beaten Cincy by 30.
-
Yeah, OSU would have made it the year they won the Conference Title but lost to Iowa, had they scheduled an easy W OOC instead of a L to the Sooners.
-
All good points Cincy lost by 3 in January to Georgia.That may be the fly in the ointment this year,just sayin'
My problem with Cincy THIS YEAR is that nothing in their resume is all that impressive. I'll rank their games here in order of what I consider to be most to least impressive taking strength of opponent and margin of victory (not just final margin but what the CFP Committee has called "game control") into account:
- 11 point win over ND - because ND is their best opponent
- 49 point win over Temple - Temple is horrible but beating them 52-3 is roughly what I would expect from a NC contender
- 35 point win over UCF - UCF is pretty weak but beating them 56-21 is pretty good, I would only be somewhat concerned if tOSU did that
- 35 point win over MiamiOH - MiamiOH is terrible this year but beating them 49-14 would only be somewhat concerning if tOSU did that
- 14 point win over Indiana - This game was closer than the final score indicates, it was a dogfight and legitimate high-end teams don't struggle with IU (see tOSU, IA, PSU)
- 7 point win over Navy - this is decidedly NOT impressive
- 35 point win over MurraySt - FCS wins just don't impress me period so it wouldn't matter if this was by 100 points it would still be #7
The first two are basically what I expect out of a NC contender.
Three and four would be slightly concerning if tOSU or another legitimate NC contender did the same thing. These aren't major black marks on Cincy's resume but they aren't feathers in Cincy's cap either.
Five and six are concerning. If tOSU or another legitimate NC contender beat IU or Navy by only 7-14 points a LOT of people would wonder why and think that maybe tOSU wasn't all that good. I think the same thing about Cincy when they beat IU by 14 and Navy by 7.
Seven basically doesn't count.
So by my analysis that is:
- 2 games where they looked like a NC contender
- 2 games where they looked like *MAYBE* a NC contender
- 2 games where they definitely did NOT look like a NC contender
If I were on the CFP Committee, this would not be good enough for me. Cincy, or any G5 or for that matter a P5 with a ridiculously weak schedule would need to look like a NC contender pretty much every week.
-
This is extraordinarily well-said BAB.
The arguments against it that I keep hearing are:
- We know the Sun Belt team (or a 3-loss P5 conference champ) can never win, so it's just a farce to include them!
- If a Sun Belt team (or a 3-loss P5 conference champ) actually wins, then a team not amongst the best teams wins, and that's horrible!
It's the argument that the deck is stacked against the non-helmets, so we need to keep stacking the deck against the non-helmets.
Part 1 is obviously a big part of my argument. Nobody has addressed my point above that including all the tallest midgets would have meant including a 5-loss MiamiOH team in 2019 that lost by 71 freaking points to tOSU and by smaller but still large margins to both Iowa and Cincy. Why are we ignoring those on-field results? Why are we depriving Iowa and Cincy of spots to make room for a vastly inferior MiamiOH team?
Part 2 is moot because 2019 MiamiOH wouldn't win anyway. If 2021 Cincy gets there they wont either. They might get a miraculous upset in the first round but they obviously aren't going to win back-to-back games against legitimate NC contenders and if they did win the semi-final I wouldn't care.
The bigger part of my argument is that CFP slots are a finite resource. You can't just wish them into existence for Cincinnati-21 or MiamiOH-19, you have to deprive some other, better team in order to include MiamiOH-19 or Cincy-21.
Further, and this is important, unlike in BB where we DO deprive vastly superior power conference teams of bids to make room for vastly inferior tallest midgets, in this case the vastly superior power conference teams would actually have a plausible shot at winning the NC. In BB the vastly superior power conference teams deprived of bids are only middling teams so there was never a chance that they would win six straight games anyway. In FB the vastly superior power conference teams deprived of bids would be 11-2 CG losers or 10-2 teams that just missed their CG. These are GOOD teams. Unlike MiamiOH-19 or Cincy-21, some of them would actually be capable of winning two or three games against high-end opposition.
-
We all know Georgia just wasn't motivated.
If Georgia had actually played with some effort, they'd have beaten Cincy by 30.
Same as Auburn's performance vs UCF following the 2017 reg season
-
Five and six are concerning. If tOSU or another legitimate NC contender beat IU or Navy by only 7-14 points a LOT of people would wonder why and think that maybe tOSU wasn't all that good. I think the same thing about Cincy when they beat IU by 14 and Navy by 7.
Uh huh. https://www.espn.com/college-football/game/_/gameId/401247326
The bigger part of my argument is that CFP slots are a finite resource. You can't just wish them into existence for Cincinnati-21 or MiamiOH-19, you have to deprive some other, better team in order to include MiamiOH-19 or Cincy-21.
Further, and this is important, unlike in BB where we DO deprive vastly superior power conference teams of bids to make room for vastly inferior tallest midgets, in this case the vastly superior power conference teams would actually have a plausible shot at winning the NC. In BB the vastly superior power conference teams deprived of bids are only middling teams so there was never a chance that they would win six straight games anyway. In FB the vastly superior power conference teams deprived of bids would be 11-2 CG losers or 10-2 teams that just missed their CG. These are GOOD teams. Unlike MiamiOH-19 or Cincy-21, some of them would actually be capable of winning two or three games against high-end opposition.
Sure, they're a finite resource. But let's say OSU goes on to lose to PSU, wins out the rest of the way, and beats a West team that gets into the CCG on a tiebreaker with 2 losses.
So they finish 11-2 and Cincy finishes 13-0.
Assume those are the two best options for the 4th CFP slot. Are you putting OSU in over Cincy?
Same as Auburn's performance vs UCF following the 2017 reg season
Does seem to be an excellent way to excuse SEC losses.
It can't be, CAN'T BE, that a G5 is actually legitimately a good football team.
-
This is extraordinarily well-said BAB.
The arguments against it that I keep hearing are:
- We know the Sun Belt team (or a 3-loss P5 conference champ) can never win, so it's just a farce to include them!
- If a Sun Belt team (or a 3-loss P5 conference champ) actually wins, then a team not amongst the best teams wins, and that's horrible!
It's the argument that the deck is stacked against the non-helmets, so we need to keep stacking the deck against the non-helmets.
The major flaw I see with "a mid-tier P5 team can join the MAC" (and the guy's point earlier about TAMU can join the Sunbelt) is the assumption that a team's status remains static with a jump to a lesser conference, and I don't see any reason to think that is justified.
Back in the days of ftbobs, he had a ton of historical data supporting that the conference you play in matters. Even disregarding data, it's simply intuitive. If A&M did such a thing, they wouldn't be "A&M" for very long. They'd lose a metric ton of $$ brought in by being in the SEC. Recruits would not be so eager to sign up for playing Ga. Southern and Ark. St. as they might be to play Auburn and LSU. Now they no longer have "A&M quality" players. They're transitioning to the generally accepted category of teams who shouldn't be in the playoffs for all the known reasons, and they'd be doing it to themselves--while losing money. It's just a matter of time before there's little distinction between Texas A&M and the scrubs they tried to pave their easier road with, thereby negating the very reason they wanted to join in the first place. It's both self-defeating and impoverishing.
As far as the "playoff doing its job," that depends entirely on what one thinks the job of the playoff is.
Myself, I don't really need the playoff to give me the "best teams." If I wanted that I'd be an NFL fan, which is much more geared towards "who's the best by the end of the season" rather than "who had the best resume this season," and is one reason I consider it a completely different sport than cfb.
Or at least it used to be. Getting less and less by the minute.
-
Sure, they're a finite resource. But let's say OSU goes on to lose to PSU, wins out the rest of the way, and beats a West team that gets into the CCG on a tiebreaker with 2 losses.
So they finish 11-2 and Cincy finishes 13-0.
Assume those are the two best options for the 4th CFP slot. Are you putting OSU in over Cincy?
in this case, I'm giving the nod to Cincy. Give them a shot to prove themselves.
USO may be the better team and might be favored by 14 points by vegas in a head to head, but OSU blew it with the 2nd loss.
-
The major flaw I see with "a mid-tier P5 team can join the MAC" (and the guy's point earlier about TAMU can join the Sunbelt) is the assumption that a team's status remains static with a jump to a lesser conference, and I don't see any reason to think that is justified.
Back in the days of ftbobs, he had a ton of historical data supporting that the conference you play in matters. Even disregarding data, it's simply intuitive. If A&M did such a thing, they wouldn't be "A&M" for very long. They'd lose a metric ton of $$ brought in by being in the SEC. Recruits would not be so eager to sign up for playing Ga. Southern and Ark. St. as they might be to play Auburn and LSU. Now they no longer have "A&M quality" players. They're transitioning to the generally accepted category of teams who shouldn't be in the playoffs for all the known reasons, and they'd be doing it to themselves--while losing money. It's just a matter of time before there's little distinction between Texas A&M and the scrubs they tried to pave their easier road with, thereby negating the very reason they wanted to join in the first place. It's both self-defeating and impoverishing.
As far as the "playoff doing its job," that depends entirely on what one thinks the job of the playoff is.
Myself, I don't really need the playoff to give me the "best teams." If I wanted that I'd be an NFL fan, which is much more geared towards "who's the best by the end of the season" rather than "who had the best resume this season," and is one reason I consider it a completely different sport than cfb.
Or at least it used to be. Getting less and less by the minute.
This is also when I hear those who are protecting the current glass ceiling arguing that these G5 teams "should just be good enough, for long enough, to get an invite to a P5 conference!"
Yeah, that doesn't happen.
We used to be P6. When the Big East collapsed as a football conference, that didn't mean that we kept 6 power conferences. The few salvageable properties within the conference got pulled into the P5, and the worthless properties fell off.
Then you have the B12. They got raided, losing Mizzou, A&M, Colorado, and Nebraska to better conferences. They snagged TCU and WVU, so at the very least you can say that ONE mid-major in TCU got pulled up--but it was largely a desperation move to get to 10. They then looked a few years later at whether there were ANY G5 teams worth expanding back to 12... And there weren't.
Now they're dropping from 10 to 8 with the loss of Texas and OU. A lot of people are predicting that they'll pick up a few teams and remain a power conference, but I think that's utter crap. They can either snag some extra teams and remain a conference, at which time we got to P4/G6, or they're going to get further raided for the few salvageable properties and the rest will get discarded to current G5 conferences.
There's just no modern precedent for teams elevating from that level to the P5, except in desperation adds due to conference realignment.
Cincy could spend the next decade never losing more than one game per season, and it's not going to result in an invite from the B1G, ACC, or SEC.
And if the B12 picks up Cincy, it's further evidence that the B12 is a G league, not a P league, going forward.
-
I think that's mostly right. There may be some kind of blueprint for it, not sure.
I lived in San Marcos for several years, home of the Texas State Bobcats. At the time they were in the Southland, a battery conference with McNeese, Nicholls, Steven F. Austin, etc. While I was there they committed a lot of money to upgrading their stadium to seat enough to meet FBS requirements, and joined the Sunbelt. I don't know how it's going for them, and I don't know if FCS --> G5 is analogous to G5 --> P5.
If it is possible, that doesn't mean it's reasonable for a smaller school.
Still, as far as the playoffs are concerned, I don't think there is panacea that satisfies all valid opinions. I can only offer that I think mostly those teams don't belong anywhere near Ohio State, Alabama, etc. in the playoffs, and I'm okay with the current rules that get them there in an unlikely scenario.
-
IMHO, the CFP and accompanying "nationalization" of the sport along with the NIL change have accelerated this in ways that were not really expected. High-end recruits today have more motivation than ever to pick one of the VERY few programs that are consistently nationally competitive (basically Bama, Clemson, tOSU, OU, UGA and maybe LSU and Oregon).
Those seven schools have 23 out of 28 CFP appearances (the other five are ND2x, FSU, MSU, Washington), 14 out of 14 CFP semi-final wins (Bama5x, Clemson4x, tOSU2x, LSU, UGA, Ore), and all seven CFP Championships (Bama3x, Clemson2x, tOSU, LSU). Nobody else is even remotely close to that. The other four teams that have been to the CFP are a combined 0-5 with five blowout losses in the semi-finals:
- FSU by 39 in 2014
- MSU by 38 in 2015
- Notre Dame by 27 in 2018
- Washington by 17 in 2016
- Notre Dame by 17 in 2020
Even the 17 point losses by Washington-16 and Notre Dame-20 didn't actually feel that close.
Those seven have some semi-final losses to, even some bad ones:
- Bama lost a semi-final to tOSU in 2014, 42-35: 7 points
- tOSU lost a semi-final to Clemson in 2016, 31-0: 31 points
- Clemson lost a semi-final to Bama in 2017, 24-6: 18 points
- tOSU lost a semi-final to Clemson in 2019, 29-23: 6 points
- Clemson lost a semi-final to tOSU in 2020, 49-28: 21 points
The 18, 21, and 31 point losses were as bad as some of those losses by other teams but remember that these teams have offsetting semi-final and CG wins. Those other teams don't.
This is the problem. There are only a small handful of schools that have a prayer of winning the title, the talent gap is so massive. Most people just search for a reason to exclude them from the playoffs because they're tired of seeing them ignoring that they are head and shoulders more talented than everyone else. This is why I'm in favor of playoff expansion. The best teams get in and one of them eventually wins. A few teams with good seasons fill in the other playoff spots. Easiest way to make almost everyone happy and still have highly competitive playoff games.
-
I think that there are a number of one loss P5 teams that would be put in before the Bearcats. But once you get to two losses? Sorry.
-
I think that's mostly right. There may be some kind of blueprint for it, not sure.
I lived in San Marcos for several years, home of the Texas State Bobcats. At the time they were in the Southland, a battery conference with McNeese, Nicholls, Steven F. Austin, etc. While I was there they committed a lot of money to upgrading their stadium to seat enough to meet FBS requirements, and joined the Sunbelt. I don't know how it's going for them, and I don't know if FCS --> G5 is analogous to G5 --> P5.
If it is possible, that doesn't mean it's reasonable for a smaller school.
Still, as far as the playoffs are concerned, I don't think there is panacea that satisfies all valid opinions. I can only offer that I think mostly those teams don't belong anywhere near Ohio State, Alabama, etc. in the playoffs, and I'm okay with the current rules that get them there in an unlikely scenario.
FCS->FBS is completely different than G5->P5. Not even analogous.
You can invest the time, money, and resources and make yourself FBS from the FCS. Technically you need an sponsoring invitation from a conference (although Liberty apparently was granted a waiver to go independent). But if you look at the number of schools historically that have gone from FCS to FBS, apparently it's not THAT hard to come by that invitation.
To go G5 to P5, it requires an invitation first and foremost. And those don't really exist.
If you look since 2000, there are basically only two schools that can be said to have made the leap.
In 2005, Louisville jumped from CUSA to the Big East. This occurred when the Big East was raided by the ACC, losing Miami, BC, and VTech. So in a desperation move, the Big East picked up Louisville. They then got picked up by the ACC in 2014 the destruction of the Big East as a football conference.
In 2012, TCU jumped from the MWC to the Big 12. As mentioned, this again was a bit of a desperation add with the B12 losing MU/CU/UNL/A&M and them needing to keep numbers, but it was also a bit of a reconnection with their old SWC mates. So there was history there.
Interestingly, after the Big East had its reconfiguration, less then a decade later it ceased to be a football conference at all, and it was rapidly losing any cachet it had as a "power" conference. With the B12 now losing Texas/OU and appearing to add BYU/UCF/Cincy/UH, I think they will drop from P to G, if they aren't raided further.
Conference realignment has been about reshuffling power conference teams, NOT about adding G-conference teams.
That's why it's the glass ceiling.
-
The major flaw I see with "a mid-tier P5 team can join the MAC" (and the guy's point earlier about TAMU can join the Sunbelt) is the assumption that a team's status remains static with a jump to a lesser conference, and I don't see any reason to think that is justified.
Back in the days of ftbobs, he had a ton of historical data supporting that the conference you play in matters. Even disregarding data, it's simply intuitive. If A&M did such a thing, they wouldn't be "A&M" for very long. They'd lose a metric ton of $$ brought in by being in the SEC. Recruits would not be so eager to sign up for playing Ga. Southern and Ark. St. as they might be to play Auburn and LSU. Now they no longer have "A&M quality" players. They're transitioning to the generally accepted category of teams who shouldn't be in the playoffs for all the known reasons, and they'd be doing it to themselves--while losing money. It's just a matter of time before there's little distinction between Texas A&M and the scrubs they tried to pave their easier road with, thereby negating the very reason they wanted to join in the first place. It's both self-defeating and impoverishing.
As far as the "playoff doing its job," that depends entirely on what one thinks the job of the playoff is.
Myself, I don't really need the playoff to give me the "best teams." If I wanted that I'd be an NFL fan, which is much more geared towards "who's the best by the end of the season" rather than "who had the best resume this season," and is one reason I consider it a completely different sport than cfb.
Or at least it used to be. Getting less and less by the minute.
Mike, the leaving the big conferences thing was tongue in cheek. There was lamentation about the unfairness that would befall some big conference teams.
(I don’t mind the résumé element of it. I tend to like a bit more order, but there is a charm to the bar argument nature of it. Wild this sport relied on the opinions of the media and people with a stake in it for so long)
-
All good points Cincy lost by 3 in January to Georgia.That may be the fly in the ointment this year,just sayin'
It was kind of Georgia....but not really.
-
As baseball just showed us, playoffs are for entertainment.
I don't find anything entertaining about blowouts in a playoff.
Nothing entertaining about starters resting in the second half.
-
As baseball just showed us, playoffs are for entertainment.
What are sports?
-
Uh huh. https://www.espn.com/college-football/game/_/gameId/401247326
First, that was last year. Indiana finished 6-1 and ranked #11 and that was their ONLY loss. Ohio State's "only" seven point win over Indiana was better than ANY of Indiana's other opponents did. The 42 points scored by tOSU was more than any other team scored on IU. Others:
- 42 by tOSU
- 28 by PSU (35 total but 28 in regulation)
- 21 by Rutgers
- 21 by Michigan
- 11 by Maryland
- 6 by Wisconsin
- 0 by MSU
So in 2020 Ohio State scored 14 more points than any other team against the Hoosiers.
The 35 points given up to Indiana by Ohio State as good but it isn't all that bad. In their other games:
- 14 against Wisconsin
- 24 against MSU
- 27 against Maryland
- 28 against PSU (36 total but 28 in regulation)
- 35 against tOSU
- 37 against Rutgers
- 38 against Michigan
So in looking at games against IU-20 the Buckeyes had BY FAR the best offensive performance and a defensive performance that was not great.
Here is the same comparison for IU's opponents so far this year:
Offense against IU:
- 54 tOSU
- 38 Cincy
- 34 Iowa
- 31 WKY
- 24 PSU
- 20 MSU
- 14 Idaho
Defense against IU:
- 0 PSU
- 6 Iowa
- 7 tOSU
- 20 MSU
- 24 Cincy
- 33 WKY
- 56 Idaho
Cincy's offensive performance is second only to tOSU and their defensive performance is not great. Offensively the Bearcats were nowhere near as good as the Buckeyes and slightly better than the Hawkeyes. Defensively the Bearcats were better than WKY and Idaho but not quite as good as MSU and not even close to tOSU, Iowa, and PSU.
Cincy's performance against IU isn't NC Caliber on either side of the ball. At least tOSU's performance against IU in 2020 was NC Caliber on one side of the ball.
Finally, I just want to point out that one game does not make a resume either good or bad. All teams have good and bad games.
-
Sure, they're a finite resource. But let's say OSU goes on to lose to PSU, wins out the rest of the way, and beats a West team that gets into the CCG on a tiebreaker with 2 losses.
FWIW, tOSU would definitely go to the B1GCG with a loss to PSU and otherwise winning out because they'd be 8-1 in the B1G and the best any other team could do would be that the M/MSU winner could also be 8-1 but they'd lose the tiebreaker to tOSU based on H2H.
So they finish 11-2 and Cincy finishes 13-0.
Assume those are the two best options for the 4th CFP slot. Are you putting OSU in over Cincy?
If I am a one man committee this is not enough information for me to answer the question. I'm comparing resumes and it is complicated by the fact that SoS is vastly different. Based on current rankings (which would obviously change as all of the opponents lost to tOSU/Cincy) Ohio State would be 3-2 against AP top-25 opponents:
- beat #6 Michigan on the road
- lost to #7 Oregon at home
- beat #8 MSU at home
- beat #9 Iowa (assuming here) at a neutral site
- lost to #20 PSU at home
By comparison, Cincy would be 3-0 against the AP top-25:
- Beat #11 Notre Dame on the road
- Beat #19 SMU at home twice (I think because I think the AACCG is hosted by the higher seed).
3-0 is obviously better than 3-2 without context but with context it is a lot closer. Ohio State would have three wins over teams better than any team that Cincy played (#6 M, #8 MSU, #9 Iowa) and one of their two losses (#7 Oregon) would also be to a team better than any team that Cincy played.
I also happen to think that Notre Dame, SMU, and MSU are all overrated but my opinion right now isn't important. What would be important is how Notre Dame, SMU, MSU and all the rest of tOSU's and Cincy's opponent finished up their seasons. If Notre Dame wins out to finish 11-1 they'll be top-10 and that helps Cincy's argument. If they lose to UNC this weekend then also drop another one to stumble to 9-3 they'll barely be ranked (if at all) and that hurts Cincy's argument. Same concept applies to all other opponents of both but Ohio State has a lot more cushion here because their scheduled opponents and likely CG opponent are a LOT higher ranked so they have more room to drop and still be quality wins.
Finally I'd need to know what each teams' games looked like.
If tOSU looses to PSU on an extra point in the fourth OT then just flat obliterates UNL, PU, MSU, M, and IA (assumption) that looks a lot better than if they get run off the field by the Nittany Lions then eek out last second and OT wins over their last five opponents.
The same is true for Cincy. So far this year Cincy has looked good but not NC Caliber good. If they win six more games that look like the Navy game where they barely beat a horrible opponent that doesn't look so good. If they go out and obliterate their last six opponents that looks better.
If I were on the committee my position would be that if you play a crap schedule you need to dominate most of your opponents to even get consideration so if Cincy won their last six games by one score each I wouldn't even consider them for a CFP spot no matter who the alternative was. 13-0 against that schedule is NOT impressive for a NC Contender. If they were to dominate the rest of their schedule that would be enough for me to consider them and at that point, in this hypothetical it would depend where Ohio State fell on a continuum between the two extremes that I listed above (drilled by PSU and barely beat the other five vs barely lost to PSU and obliterated the other five).
-
What are sports?
Depends if you're watching or participating...
-
Depends if you're watching or participating...
I'm watching. It's entertainment. Otherwise it's like yelling at Back to the Future that time travel doesn't exist.
-
But we only watch because the players on the field are competing at 110%, balls-to-the-wall. If we get too cutesy with how we determine who the best is, you wind up with a bunch of non-scholarship 5'8" white kids trying really hard.
-
Different people watch sports for different reasons.
-
Yeah, NFL fans watch solely for gambling and fantasy football purposes.
-
What are sports?
Both life and death
-
much more important than that!
-
I think that the dueling factions in this thread should settle it via massive brawl.
-
I think that the dueling factions in this thread should settle it via massive brawl.
Haha, Well my side would win because we'd bring the best fighters. The other faction will form a distinguished, non partisan, diverse committee to make up some rules to be all inclusive and not hurt the feelings of weaker guys up for consideration. Half their group will be pansies as a result. Afterwards they'll say things like, "we gave it 110%", "it was a competitive loss" and "we showed a lot of courage today".
-
Haha, Well my side would win because we'd bring the best fighters. The other faction will form a distinguished, non partisan, diverse committee to make up some rules to be all inclusive and not hurt the feelings of weaker guys up for consideration. Half their group will be pansies as a result. Afterwards they'll say things like, "we gave it 110%", "it was a competitive loss" and "we showed a lot of courage today".
It's easy to win on paper and then argue the other side shouldn't even be allowed in the ring because you've already won on paper.
-
But we only watch because the players on the field are competing at 110%, balls-to-the-wall. If we get too cutesy with how we determine who the best is, you wind up with a bunch of non-scholarship 5'8" white kids trying really hard.
Why the hell you picking on me?
-
Because I'm a 5'9" white kid, lol. Probably the shortest left tackle in FL 5A HS football at the time, lol. But I was great at pass pro.
-
LT at 5-9? Jeez.
I played ILB at 5-8 160.
-
It's easy to win on paper and then argue the other side shouldn't even be allowed in the ring because you've already won on paper.
The past 10 years of college football would like to have a word with you.
-
LT at 5-9? Jeez.
I played ILB at 5-8 160.
I was 230. The rest of our OL was 6'2-6'4, 220-250. I had fun shutting down those gangly high school DEs.
-
(https://scontent.ffod1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.6435-9/p526x296/250311161_4577225912314782_1588894731919746201_n.jpg?_nc_cat=111&ccb=1-5&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=3YVLydHussoAX-7QuJc&_nc_ht=scontent.ffod1-1.fna&oh=e19cbee69629b7bb7bc1057e94192f7b&oe=61A3AB3D)
-
I'm hoping - Nebraska!
-
NO ONE is going to be headed to Tempe, AZ when sanctions come down.