CFB51 College Football Fan Community
The Power Five => Big Ten => Topic started by: medinabuckeye1 on December 06, 2021, 05:06:22 PM
-
I'm really not in favor of Playoff Expansion but I see it as inevitable and if it IS going to happen then I think the best model is a 5+1+2 with:
- The five P5 Champions
- The highest ranked G5 Champion
- The two highest ranked remaining teams
With the caveats that:
- The four highest ranked league champions host the first round, and
- Reseed after round one such that if #8 knocks off #1 they don't take over the easiest path.
This years' first round match-ups would be:
- #12 Pitt (ACC) at #1 Alabama (SEC)
- #11 Utah (P12) at #2 Michigan (B1G)
- #5 Notre Dame at #4 Cincy (G5)
- #3 UGA at #7 Baylor (B12)
Prior year first round match-ups would have been, 2020:
- #25 Oregon (P12) at #1 Bama (SEC)
- #8 Cincy (G5) at #2 Clemson (ACC)
- #5 aTm at #3 tOSU (B1G)
- #4 Notre Dame at #6 Oklahoma (B12)
2019:
- #17 Memphis (G5) at #1 LSU (SEC)
- #7 Oklahoma (B12) at #2 Clemson (ACC)
- #6 UF at #3 tOSU (B1G)
- #4 UGA at #5 Oregon (P12)
2018:
- #13 Washington (P12) at #1 Clemson (ACC)
- #11 UCF (G5) at #2 Bama (SEC)
- #6 LSU at #3 tOSU (B1G)
- #5 Notre Dame at #4 Oklahoma (B12)
2017:
- #12 UCF (G5) at #1 Clemson (ACC)
- #8 USC (P12) at #2 Oklahoma (B12)
- #6 Wisconsin at #3 UGA (SEC)
- #4 Bama at #5 tOSU (B1G)
2016:
- #15 WMU (G5) at #1 Bama (SEC)
- #7 Oklahoma (B12) at #2 Clemson (ACC)
- #6 Michigan at #4 Washington (P12)
- #3 tOSU at #5 Penn State (B1G)
2015:
- #18 Houston (G5) at #1 Clemson (ACC)
- #7 tOSU at #2 Bama (SEC)
- #6 Stanford (P12) at #3 MSU (B1G)
- #5 Iowa at #4 OU (B12)
2014:
- #20 BoiseSt at #1 Bama (SEC)
- #7 MissSt at #2 Oregon (P12)
- #6 TCU at #3 FSU (ACC)
- #5 Baylor (B12) at #4 tOSU (B1G)
-
they are going to 12. Dan Patrick reported that a few months back, believe it's already been approved and will go into effect either 2023 or 2025.
-
Agree, although I prefer to call it 5+2+1.
-
they are going to 12. Dan Patrick reported that a few months back, believe it's already been approved and will go into effect either 2023 or 2025.
That was the word several months back, but once the SEC announced the additions of TX and OU, the other conferences all put a hold on it.
So now, there is no timeline for expansion, and I think at this point, something with fewer than 12 teams could be back on the table.
-
Will it still be 5+1+2 when the Big 12 becomes a G6 conference?
-
Will it still be 5+1+2 when the Big 12 becomes a G6 conference?
I'd be surprised if the B12 loses its P5 status, with respect to official voting capability and whatnot.
Fans might consider it a G5, but fans are stupid and already consider it a G5, despite it being significantly better than both the ACC and the PAC for most of the past decade.
-
Will it still be 5+1+2 when the Big 12 becomes a G6 conference?
This, I think is the most interesting question.
I wouldn’t mind 4-2-2. Though is all kind of semantics at this point.
-
any chance Texas/OU go-back on their transition to the SEC?
-
any chance Texas/OU go-back on their transition to the SEC?
No.
-
well, they should.
-
ok
-
ok
so you like the move to the SEC?
-
Sure. We'll get two of our old rivals back on the schedule regularly.
-
I liked the proposed 12 team model.
-
I liked the proposed 12 team model.
It might still happen, I'm definitely not saying it won't. But I think that this "pause" has left everyone the chance to go back, take a breath, and re-think it, so I think we might end up with fewer than 12, when back in July, 12 was the sure thing.
-
I don't think we need 12. It introduces byes and an extra week of games relative to 8. If it's a 6 auto and 6 at-large, that's too many at large teams IMHO and devalues the regular season. If it's 10+2 it's too many tall midgets.
8 (5+1+2 or 6+2) is the right compromise. It maintains the importance of conference championships, it's still exclusive, but the at large selections allow worthy non-champs a seat at the table.
-
It might still happen, I'm definitely not saying it won't. But I think that this "pause" has left everyone the chance to go back, take a breath, and re-think it, so I think we might end up with fewer than 12, when back in July, 12 was the sure thing.
I think 12 is probably the right number. 4 is just not enough. There are 130 FBS teams. Right now only 3% get in. Going to 12 is still only 9% of the teams getting into the post-season. In the NFL are 32 teams, and 14 make the post-season- so nearly 44% of that league gets in the playoffs.
12 seems like the magic number to me, and it ensures more parity and equality in the sport, and prevents one team from overloading and stacking the deck. Lot of kids pick Bama just because they want to play in the playoff and they know that's basically the only school they are guaranteed to do so at. You open it up to 12- that won't happen as much.
-
I'm just going to try and enjoy the game and not worry about changes. Much.
-
this is a few months old and I don't really care for him, but I think he's got some great points here, think maybe even 14 teams might be the way to go. 100% would be down with byes and home playoff games for the top seeds- would be nice to get rid of these neutral site games where fans cannot get tickets to the semi-finals unless they drop $500+ to even thousands for a ticket. National championship OK yeah- that makes sense- but the prices for this M-UGA match-up in Miami is absurd. Would be great if Michigan got to host them in Ann Arbor as a reward for earning the higher seed and winning it's conference. Should be rewarded for winning your conference and having a higher seed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1q5wvctgFH8
-
I think 12 is terrible because byes are terrible.
8 is the most I'd ever like to see. 5+2+1 seems like the best mix, as well.
But like CD, I know I don't have any say in it so I'll do my best to enjoy what we get.
-
I think 12 is terrible because byes are terrible.
8 is the most I'd ever like to see. 5+2+1 seems like the best mix, as well.
But like CD, I know I don't have any say in it so I'll do my best to enjoy what we get.
Ditto
-
The different parties may have to compromise. The SEC and ND want a plan that keeps at least 4 at large teams. The Big Alliance and B12 want all P5 conferences to get an automatic bid. The G5 wants the top 6 conference champions to get in.
The minimum to achieve all that is 10 total teams. 6 conference champions + 4 at large teams.
They could set it up so that the top 4 conference champs get the top 4 seeds, a first round bye and get to host the 2nd round games at home. Conference champs 5-6 get a first round bye and then play the 2nd round on the road..
The first round would be the 4 at larges with seeds 7-8 hosting seeds 9-10 at home.
After the first round, seeds 5-8 get re-seeded for the 2nd round.
-
I think 12 is probably the right number. 4 is just not enough. There are 130 FBS teams. Right now only 3% get in. Going to 12 is still only 9% of the teams getting into the post-season. In the NFL are 32 teams, and 14 make the post-season- so nearly 44% of that league gets in the playoffs.
You're citing a system in which a 9-7 and 10-6 teams win the Super Bowl. That's a 7-8 win team in a 12 game season.
I'll never understand people who want their postseason to be inclusive in one breath and then makes fun of the 'everyone gets a trophy' in the next.
-
Two 8-10 teams have won the Grey Cup.
-
And that's why it's as popular as it is.
-
Yep. That, and that alone, is the reason.
-
Eight is the ideal number. P5 champs receive automatic bids, 3 at large bids based on final rankings. Top four teams in final rankings receive 1st round home field. I'd prefer to just take the top 8 teams, but would be ok with conference champs receiving automatic bids. There are years where there are no good candidates from G5 so I would not be in favor of an auto bid. If they're that good, they shouldn't have any problem finishing in the top 8 in the final rankings.
-
i still don't like auto qualifiers for conf champs, unless there's a caveat of must be top 10 or 12 or something. as recently as 2017 there was a not unrealistic chance of 2 p5 conf champs having 4 losses before the bowls. utah this year has 3 losses, though in their defense this was a crazy year and they'd almost meet (or do for 12) criteria above anyway. point being, this year there's a decent argument they wouldn't pass anyone clearly more deserving. but in 2017, a lot of teams would have been.
-
Will it still be 5+1+2 when the Big 12 becomes a G6 conference?
This, I think, is a really good question. Once that happens I think there are several options within an 8-team playoff:
- Keep considering the diluted B12 a Power conference and just stick with 5+1+2
- Consider them a non-power league and add a second G5 to go to 4+2+2 (four P4 champs, top-2 G6 champs, 2 at-large)
- Consider them a non-power league and add a third at-large to go to 4+1+3 (four P4 champs, top G6 champ, 3 at-large)
I'd be surprised if the B12 loses its P5 status, with respect to official voting capability and whatnot.
Fans might consider it a G5, but fans are stupid and already consider it a G5, despite it being significantly better than both the ACC and the PAC for most of the past decade.
I think you are right to an extent. The B12 even without Texas and Oklahoma is much stronger (at least for now) than any of the current G5 but it would also be much weaker than any of the other current P5 so I think it would exist as a sort-of hybrid and I have no idea how the powers that be would address that. The expanded SEC would DEFINITELY want more at-large slots because with that many helmets they'd have a good chance of getting multiple at-large teams and limiting them to a maximum of three teams (their champ and the two at-large slots) would be something they would strongly oppose.
-
I liked the proposed 12 team model.
Really, I'm surprised. I thought it was pretty roundly disliked around here.
-
Will it still be 5+1+2 when the Big 12 becomes a G6 conference?
Where do you think that Purdue would finish in the new Big 12?
-
I don't think we need 12. It introduces byes and an extra week of games relative to 8. If it's a 6 auto and 6 at-large, that's too many at large teams IMHO and devalues the regular season. If it's 10+2 it's too many tall midgets.
8 (5+1+2 or 6+2) is the right compromise. It maintains the importance of conference championships, it's still exclusive, but the at large selections allow worthy non-champs a seat at the table.
I agree with all of this. Auto-bids for every league would let in comically bad tall midgets like the Miami of Ohio team that won the MAC in 2019 but lost by 70 to Ohio State and also had multiple other blowout losses to power teams. We don't need to see them on the field with a legitimate NC contender to know they don't belong.
At the same time, six at-large would diminish the regular season to a ridiculous extent. In this year's rankings if we had 12 under a 5+1+6 model the playoff teams would be:
- 12-1 Bama, SEC Champion
- 12-1 Michigan, B1G Champion
- 12-1 Georgia at-large
- 13-0 Cincy, G5
- 11-1 Notre Dame, at-large
- 10-2 Ohio State, at-large
- 11-2 Baylor, B12
- 10-2 Ole Miss, at-large
- 11-2 OkSU, at-large
- 10-2 Michigan State, at-large
- 10-3 Utah, PAC
- 11-2 Pitt, ACC
That lets in four two-loss P5 non-champions out of five total (the other is 10-2 Oklahoma). Ie, P5 teams would have a MUCH better than 50/50 chance with two losses and no championship.
-
This, I think, is a really good question. Once that happens I think there are several options within an 8-team playoff:
- Keep considering the diluted B12 a Power conference and just stick with 5+1+2
- Consider them a non-power league and add a second G5 to go to 4+2+2 (four P4 champs, top-2 G6 champs, 2 at-large)
- Consider them a non-power league and add a third at-large to go to 4+1+3 (four P4 champs, top G6 champ, 3 at-large)
I think you are right to an extent. The B12 even without Texas and Oklahoma is much stronger (at least for now) than any of the current G5 but it would also be much weaker than any of the other current P5 so I think it would exist as a sort-of hybrid and I have no idea how the powers that be would address that. The expanded SEC would DEFINITELY want more at-large slots because with that many helmets they'd have a good chance of getting multiple at-large teams and limiting them to a maximum of three teams (their champ and the two at-large slots) would be something they would strongly oppose.
I don't think that's true. I think Baylor and Oklahoma State would be at the top of either the PAC or the ACC right now. And BYU will be added in a couple of years, and they've just completed a 5-0 sweep of the PAC teams on their 2021 schedule, including beating PAC champ Utah.
-
Really, I'm surprised. I thought it was pretty roundly disliked around here.
The top 6 Conference Champions (instead of the 5 P5 Champions plus the top G5 team) is what I am referencing here.
Say the AAC and MWC champions are both undefeated, while a 5 loss Northwestern emerged from the B1G West and somehow knocked off an undefeated Penn St or whoever else, then Northwestern doesn't automatically get in over an undefeated G5 Conference Champion just because they won the Big Ten.
You could argue that 6 is too many at large, but 2 is probably too few.
I also don't find the bye weeks objectionable because it rewards the best teams. My only gripe was that the top four didn't get home games in the quarterfinals, but apparently the Big Ten schools are too cheap to install year round plumbing according to Gene Smith.
-
I think 12 is probably the right number. 4 is just not enough. There are 130 FBS teams. Right now only 3% get in. Going to 12 is still only 9% of the teams getting into the post-season. In the NFL are 32 teams, and 14 make the post-season- so nearly 44% of that league gets in the playoffs.
12 seems like the magic number to me, and it ensures more parity and equality in the sport, and prevents one team from overloading and stacking the deck. Lot of kids pick Bama just because they want to play in the playoff and they know that's basically the only school they are guaranteed to do so at. You open it up to 12- that won't happen as much.
I disagree all over the place. First, I think four is too many rather than not enough. Looking at this year I'd be perfectly happy with the old BCS and Michigan playing Alabama for the title. Here is what I'd say to the teams thus excluded:
- To Georgia: Beat Bama sometime then get back to us
- To Cincy: Try playing a schedule that includes more than one or two competent opponents.
- To Notre Dame: Try playing a MUCH tougher schedule or going undefeated.
- To Ohio State (and everybody below them): Try not losing TWICE.
Yes the NFL lets 44% of their teams in the playoffs and for that matter it is over 50% in the NBA but there are some major differences:
- NFL teams are MUCH more tightly grouped talent-wise than CFB teams. Even bad NFL teams are REALLY good at football they just aren't quite as good as the better NFL teams. In the NFL this year only three games total have been decided by 40 or more points. By comparison half of Ohio State's 10 victories this year were by 40 or more points (by 52 over Akron, by 49 over UMD, by 47 over IU, by 49 over MSU).
- The regular season just doesn't have the intensity that we love in CFB. The Browns lost to the Steelers a few weeks ago, it sucks but hey we get another crack at them and we can make the playoffs regardless. That is nothing like the pain of my Buckeyes losing to Michigan, getting knocked out of the CFP, and having no chance for redemption until next year. The intensity isn't even close.
-
I think 12 is terrible because byes are terrible.
8 is the most I'd ever like to see. 5+2+1 seems like the best mix, as well.
But like CD, I know I don't have any say in it so I'll do my best to enjoy what we get.
Ditto
I agree and I'll add another reason. Really, byes serve no function except to prepare the landscape for yet another expansion. If we go to 12 then at least some of them will be playing up to three post-season games. Why not go to 16 and have all of them play up to three post-season games? I think if we went to 12 the expansion from there to 16 would be completely inevitable but if we stop at eight we MIGHT actually stay at eight to avoid an extra game. Once you add that extra game for some teams there really isn't anything to keep you from adding it for the rest.
-
I agree and I'll add another reason. Really, byes serve no function except to prepare the landscape for yet another expansion. If we go to 12 then at least some of them will be playing up to three post-season games. Why not go to 16 and have all of them play up to three post-season games? I think if we went to 12 the expansion from there to 16 would be completely inevitable but if we stop at eight we MIGHT actually stay at eight to avoid an extra game. Once you add that extra game for some teams there really isn't anything to keep you from adding it for the rest.
Yup. And I'd still be in favor of playing the first-round game at the home stadium of the higher seed for two reasons. First, as a reward, and second, to have a better chance at filling up post-season stadiums and avoiding fan-travel-fatigue.
-
The different parties may have to compromise. The SEC and ND want a plan that keeps at least 4 at large teams. The Big Alliance and B12 want all P5 conferences to get an automatic bid. The G5 wants the top 6 conference champions to get in.
The minimum to achieve all that is 10 total teams. 6 conference champions + 4 at large teams.
They could set it up so that the top 4 conference champs get the top 4 seeds, a first round bye and get to host the 2nd round games at home. Conference champs 5-6 get a first round bye and then play the 2nd round on the road..
The first round would be the 4 at larges with seeds 7-8 hosting seeds 9-10 at home.
After the first round, seeds 5-8 get re-seeded for the 2nd round.
There are definitely compromises that will have to be made. Personally I don't want the top G5 or I'd at least like a minimum ranking requirement to avoid having to take a really weak G5 champion in a year when none of the G5 Champs are all that good but the G5 are going to WAIL if they aren't included so I think you have to throw them a bone.
The P5, particularly the P12, ACC, and what is left of the B12 are going to want auto-bids. That is less of an issue for the B1G and pretty much a non-issue for the SEC.
I would just hate to compromise so much that we end up with four at-large because, to me, that just waters down the regular season way too much. You'd have WAY too many games like tOSU/M this year where with four at-large teams both would already be locked in regardless.
I also don't think that second round games at home are probably feasible. I wrote it as having first round games at home with the expectation that the first round games would be a week (or maybe two weeks) after the CG's so this year that would be either December 11 or December 18, then second round games at bowl sites close to NYD, then a CG in January. Maybe, I don't know.
-
Eight is the ideal number. P5 champs receive automatic bids, 3 at large bids based on final rankings. Top four teams in final rankings receive 1st round home field. I'd prefer to just take the top 8 teams, but would be ok with conference champs receiving automatic bids. There are years where there are no good candidates from G5 so I would not be in favor of an auto bid. If they're that good, they shouldn't have any problem finishing in the top 8 in the final rankings.
In theory I'd prefer to add a minimum ranking requirement for the top G5 to avoid having to take a ridiculously weak G5 Champ in a year when none of them are any good but in practice I just don't see they flying.
I specified that the top-4 Champs host rather than the top-4 teams as a reward for winning a league. I'd say to #3 UGA that if they want to host a CFP game they need to figure out a way to beat Bama.
-
i still don't like auto qualifiers for conf champs, unless there's a caveat of must be top 10 or 12 or something. as recently as 2017 there was a not unrealistic chance of 2 p5 conf champs having 4 losses before the bowls. utah this year has 3 losses, though in their defense this was a crazy year and they'd almost meet (or do for 12) criteria above anyway. point being, this year there's a decent argument they wouldn't pass anyone clearly more deserving. but in 2017, a lot of teams would have been.
I get that and in theory I agree but in practice I think compromises will have to be made. Additionally, even within the P5 there is so little high-end inter-league play that we don't really KNOW much. We are making assumptions based on statistics that are pretty far removed.
I do realize that there will eventually be a 4-loss B1G-W Champion or a 4-loss ACC-whatever Champion that has a great day in their CG and gets in but I guess I'm ok with that.
-
Where do you think that Purdue would finish in the new Big 12?
In the B1G it's clear that Purdue will never recruit on the level of the three helmets (M, OSU, PSU). So I feel any chance they have at a conference championship will be an extreme outlier year.
I don't fear anyone in the new Big 12. When Purdue is good (by Purdue standards) they'd contend. When they're not, well obviously they'd still be trying to beat Kansas like they try to beat IU today...
-
Yup. And I'd still be in favor of playing the first-round game at the home stadium of the higher seed for two reasons. First, as a reward, and second, to have a better chance at filling up post-season stadiums and avoiding fan-travel-fatigue.
With the minor quibble that I'd prefer the hosts to be the top-4 Champions rather than the top-4 teams I agree.
I think your point about post-season fan-travel-fatigue is IMPORTANT and it is one of the reasons that I proposed home games in the first round. I went to the BCSNCG at the Fiesta Bowl in 2003 when tOSU won the 2002 National Championship. Back then the game before the Fiesta Bowl was the Michigan game in Ohio Stadium which I also attended because I had season tickets back then. To see all the same things happen in the current set-up I'd have to attend:
- The Game against Michigan.
- The B1GCG in Indianapolis.
- The CFP Semi-Final.
- The CFP Championship.
We've already doubled it and tripled the number of games NOT at home. It isn't just fan-travel-fatigue, it is also fan-spending-fatigue.
-
I agree and I'll add another reason. Really, byes serve no function except to prepare the landscape for yet another expansion. If we go to 12 then at least some of them will be playing up to three post-season games. Why not go to 16 and have all of them play up to three post-season games? I think if we went to 12 the expansion from there to 16 would be completely inevitable but if we stop at eight we MIGHT actually stay at eight to avoid an extra game. Once you add that extra game for some teams there really isn't anything to keep you from adding it for the rest.
With 16, they'd all be playing up to 4 post season games. Not 3.
-
With the minor quibble that I'd prefer the hosts to be the top-4 Champions rather than the top-4 teams I agree.
I think your point about post-season fan-travel-fatigue is IMPORTANT and it is one of the reasons that I proposed home games in the first round. I went to the BCSNCG at the Fiesta Bowl in 2003 when tOSU won the 2002 National Championship. Back then the game before the Fiesta Bowl was the Michigan game in Ohio Stadium which I also attended because I had season tickets back then. To see all the same things happen in the current set-up I'd have to attend:
- The Game against Michigan.
- The B1GCG in Indianapolis.
- The CFP Semi-Final.
- The CFP Championship.
We've already doubled it and tripled the number of games NOT at home. It isn't just fan-travel-fatigue, it is also fan-spending-fatigue.
For sure.
-
I get that and in theory I agree but in practice I think compromises will have to be made. Additionally, even within the P5 there is so little high-end inter-league play that we don't really KNOW much. We are making assumptions based on statistics that are pretty far removed.
I do realize that there will eventually be a 4-loss B1G-W Champion or a 4-loss ACC-whatever Champion that has a great day in their CG and gets in but I guess I'm ok with that.
i think that is a compromise. conf champs auto qualify, IF they are ranked respectably. im not ok with a 4 loss whoever in just cause they lucked up. especially if it's over a team like uga who's had a phenomenal season but lost to another top team in the one game that guarantees them a spot.
in 2018 we could have had 7-5 pitt, 9-4 nw, 10-3 texas, 10-3 utah/wash, 12-1/13-0 uga/bama, 13-0 ucf as the auto qualifiers. that leaves 2 picks from:
12-1 bama or 11-2 uga
12-1 clemson
11-2 osu
10-2 mich
11-2 oklahoma
10-2 wazzu
12-0 notre dame
all of which are more deserving than at least 3 of the 6 above, probably 4.
-
i think that is a compromise. conf champs auto qualify, IF they are ranked respectably. im not ok with a 4 loss whoever in just cause they lucked up. especially if it's over a team like uga who's had a phenomenal season but lost to another top team in the one game that guarantees them a spot.
in 2018 we could have had 7-5 pitt, 9-4 nw, 10-3 texas, 10-3 utah/wash, 12-1/13-0 uga/bama, 13-0 ucf as the auto qualifiers. that leaves 2 picks from:
12-1 bama or 11-2 uga
12-1 clemson
11-2 osu
10-2 mich
11-2 oklahoma
10-2 wazzu
12-0 notre dame
all of which are more deserving than at least 3 of the 6 above, probably 4.
So win your conference. You had your chance.
I don't have any problem with the scenario you outlined.
Edit: And that's really an extreme case, there's pretty much zero chance that the underdog is going to win every single CCG.
-
So win your conference. You had your chance.
I don't have any problem with the scenario you outlined.
Edit: And that's really an extreme case, there's pretty much zero chance that the underdog is going to win every single CCG.
that's true, very extreme.
and some chances are less challenging than others.
we'll just agree to disagree i guess. i just don't want to see crappy teams in over good ones. and we will.
-
I don't think that's true. I think Baylor and Oklahoma State would be at the top of either the PAC or the ACC right now. And BYU will be added in a couple of years, and they've just completed a 5-0 sweep of the PAC teams on their 2021 schedule, including beating PAC champ Utah.
I was curious so I looked, here are each P5 conferences' teams by ranking from the CBS 1-130 rankings and then I also included the top-16 G5's. For purpose of this exercise I included OU and TX as SEC teams and BYU as a B12 team:
(https://i.imgur.com/YpNFTyA.png)
I'm not sure what to do with Notre Dame. They aren't a G5 but they also aren't fully IN the ACC. They do have a scheduling deal with the ACC so maybe it would be fair to include them there, I don't know.
Top third of the league (three for the B12, four for P12, five for everybody else) average ranking:
- 8.67 B12
- 9.8 SEC
- 12.2 B1G
- 22.6 ACC
- 26.25 P12
Middle third of the league (three for B12, four for P12, ACC, and B1G, six for SEC):
- 37.67 SEC
- 39 B1G
- 45.33 B12
- 55 ACC
- 63.25 P12
Bottom third of the league (three for B12, four for the P12, five for everybody else) average ranking:
- 76.4 SEC
- 80.66 B12
- 84.6 B1G
- 85.4 ACC
- 99 P12
Ok, you are right.
-
that's true, very extreme.
and some chances are less challenging than others.
we'll just agree to disagree i guess. i just don't want to see crappy teams in over good ones. and we will.
I fundamentally disagree that a team that beats a higher-ranked team is "crappy." If that other team really was better, they had the chance to prove it on the field, and failed. If they can lose to a crappy 4-loss suckbutt in their own conference, then my assumption then becomes they were going to lose to any of the "better" 0-loss and 1-loss teams that actually did make it into the CFP. Why put a team into the CFP that didn't beat the 4-loss suckbutt from the other division? The logic doesn't follow.
Everyone says "decide it on the field" right up until their preconceived notions of who is "better" are challenged. That's total shite.
-
I was curious so I looked, here are each P5 conferences' teams by ranking from the CBS 1-130 rankings and then I also included the top-16 G5's. For purpose of this exercise I included OU and TX as SEC teams and BYU as a B12 team:
(https://i.imgur.com/YpNFTyA.png)
I'm not sure what to do with Notre Dame. They aren't a G5 but they also aren't fully IN the ACC. They do have a scheduling deal with the ACC so maybe it would be fair to include them there, I don't know.
Top third of the league (three for the B12, four for P12, five for everybody else) average ranking:
- 8.67 B12
- 9.8 SEC
- 12.2 B1G
- 22.6 ACC
- 26.25 P12
Middle third of the league (three for B12, four for P12, ACC, and B1G, six for SEC):
- 37.67 SEC
- 39 B1G
- 45.33 B12
- 55 ACC
- 63.25 P12
Bottom third of the league (three for B12, four for the P12, five for everybody else) average ranking:
- 76.4 SEC
- 80.66 B12
- 84.6 B1G
- 85.4 ACC
- 99 P12
Ok, you are right.
LOVE that your laser-focused mind performed this exercise. Seriously, that's great.
I've actually seen similar performed on B12 forums, which is why I was confident in my assertion.
In general, people really don't understand how bad the ACC and PAC have been over the past decade or so. And we used to be able to sort of excuse the ACC because Clemson was performing so well, but now even that is gone.
Oh, and Cincy is also joining the New B12, right? Wonder what it looks like with them in the mix?
-
i think that is a compromise. conf champs auto qualify, IF they are ranked respectably. im not ok with a 4 loss whoever in just cause they lucked up. especially if it's over a team like uga who's had a phenomenal season but lost to another top team in the one game that guarantees them a spot.
in 2018 we could have had 7-5 pitt, 9-4 nw, 10-3 texas, 10-3 utah/wash, 12-1/13-0 uga/bama, 13-0 ucf as the auto qualifiers. that leaves 2 picks from:
12-1 bama or 11-2 uga
12-1 clemson
11-2 osu
10-2 mich
11-2 oklahoma
10-2 wazzu
12-0 notre dame
all of which are more deserving than at least 3 of the 6 above, probably 4.
Honestly I think the fundamental answer to your point is this:
Edit: And that's really an extreme case, there's pretty much zero chance that the underdog is going to win every single CCG.
It is a REALLY extreme hypothetical that DIDN'T ACTUALLY happen.
In fact, Clemson beat Pitt, Ohio State beat Northwestern, and Oklahoma beat Texas. With the 5+1+2 the actual teams in would have been:
- #1 Bama, SEC Champ
- #2 Clemson, ACC Champ
- #3 Notre Dame, at-large
- #4 Oklahoma, B12 Champ
- #5 UGA, at-large
- #6 tOSU, B1G Champ
- #8 UCF, G5
- #9 Washington, P12 Champ
The highest ranked team left out would have been #7 Michigan and I'm totally fine with that, LoL.
-
I fundamentally disagree that a team that beats a higher-ranked team is "crappy." If that other team really was better, they had the chance to prove it on the field, and failed. If they can lose to a crappy 4-loss suckbutt in their own conference, then my assumption then becomes they were going to lose to any of the "better" 0-loss and 1-loss teams that actually did make it into the CFP. Why put a team into the CFP that didn't beat the 4-loss suckbutt from the other division? The logic doesn't follow.
Everyone says "decide it on the field" right up until their preconceived notions of who is "better" are challenged. That's total shite.
that's just demonstratively false. transitive property doesn't work in sports, especially cfb, and you know it. you're turning a whole season into 1 game. why put a team with 1 loss in the playoff over over one with 5? i'd rather reward a whole season's worth of good play and wins and 1 devastating loss, vs a whole season worth of bad losses and 1 miraculous win.
Honestly I think the fundamental answer to your point is this:It is a REALLY extreme hypothetical that DIDN'T ACTUALLY happen.
In fact, Clemson beat Pitt, Ohio State beat Northwestern, and Oklahoma beat Texas. With the 5+1+2 the actual teams in would have been:
- #1 Bama, SEC Champ
- #2 Clemson, ACC Champ
- #3 Notre Dame, at-large
- #4 Oklahoma, B12 Champ
- #5 UGA, at-large
- #6 tOSU, B1G Champ
- #8 UCF, G5
- #9 Washington, P12 Champ
The highest ranked team left out would have been #7 Michigan and I'm totally fine with that, LoL.
right, it didn't happen then and it'll be an extreme outlier. but it will happen. very, very likely not to the extent in my post ,but it will happen.
even if it was just 7-5 pitt, that still puts in them instead of at least 1 of 12-1 clemson, 12-1 bama of 11-2 uga, 12-0 notre dame. even 10-2 mich and wazzu would be better.
-
that's just demonstratively false. transitive property doesn't work in sports, especially cfb, and you know it. you're turning a whole season into 1 game. why put a team with 1 loss in the playoff over over one with 5? i'd rather reward a whole season's worth of good play and wins and 1 devastating loss, vs a whole season worth of bad losses and 1 miraculous win.
right, it didn't happen then and it'll be an extreme outlier. but it will happen. very, very likely not to the extent in my post ,but it will happen.
even if it was just 7-5 pitt, that still puts in them instead of at least 1 of 12-1 clemson, 12-1 bama of 11-2 uga, 12-0 notre dame. even 10-2 mich and wazzu would be better.
I'm not talking about the transitive property at all. Quite the opposite, I'm talking about on-field results directly between two competitors.
You're the one looking at hypotheticals, the teams you just "believe" must be better.
I have no interest in that. If you can't win your CCG, you don't deserve to be in the playoff.
And even so, the at-large picks could still be used to put in, say, an undeserving Alabama team that didn't win its conference championship, yet everyone is just certain still needs to be in the playoff. That case is still covered for a couple of teams. It's just not covered for ALL teams.
-
I'm not talking about the transitive property at all. Quite the opposite, I'm talking about on-field results directly between two competitors.
cool, so we're only concerned about a single competition, not the 12 others during the season?
-
cool, so we're only concerned about a single competition, not the 12 others during the season?
8-9 of those 12 others determine who gets into the conference championship game.
And the CCGs are just another level of playoff.
It baffles me that people who are okay with the idea of a playoff in general-- where we know the preconceived "best" team doesn't always win-- balk and scream bloody murder at the thought of a team that wins its CCG (which is just another playoff game) should then advance to the next level of competition. It's remarkably inconsistent.
So yeah, I'm absolutely good with the position I continue to hold. 100% golden.
-
FTR, Cincy, Houston and UCF are all joining the Big 12 along with BYU
-
FTR, Cincy, Houston and UCF are all joining the Big 12 along with BYU
Oh. Well that changes everything.
The Big 12 will be the P1, and everyone else will be the G9, with those additions :57:
-
cool, so we're only concerned about a single competition, not the 12 others during the season?
No, that isn't what we are saying.
Let me just clarify that I generally agree with you and I'm a fan of a helmet team like yours that has in the past (like yours) gotten a CFP bid in spite of not winning their conference because most people (or at least most of the committee) believe that they were the best team from their league despite not winning it. I firmly believe that Bama in the kick-6 year and tOSU in the loss to PSU year WERE the best teams from their conferences.
What I am saying, and I believe @utee94 (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=15) and others as well is that winning your (P5) league gets you a guaranteed berth. If you DO NOT win your league then you leave yourself at the mercy of the committee. The committee is going to be faced with differing circumstances. Sometimes there will be an extreme dearth of quality non-champions in which case your very good non-champion (Bama kick-6, tOSU loss to PSU) team will easily get in. Other years Notre Dame will go undefeated or 11-1 and/or there will be a CG upset or two and/or there will be teams like the aforementioned Bama and tOSU squads that miss their CG due to a close loss but end up 11-1. In those years your team *MIGHT* not get in. I'm ok with that because once you don't win your championship well, whatever happens happens and sometimes you will not like it and sometimes I will not like it. That is ok with me.
By having two at-large spots the absolute highest ranked team that could POSSIBLY be left out is #3 and a few years ago #3 was automatically left out as a matter of course. Even that would take a ridiculous outlier year where the top-3 teams were non-champions.
To put this in perspective, the highest ranked teams left out over the eight years of the CFP would have been:
- #8, 10-2 MSU in 2014: They lost to tOSU at home by two scores and to Oregon on the road by three scores. Both tOSU and Oregon would have been included and we already saw MSU against playoff caliber teams, they lost both times.
- #8, 10-2 Notre Dame in 2015: They lost at Clemson and at Stanford by two points each. Both Clemson and Stanford would have been included and we already saw ND against playoff caliber teams, they lost both times. To be fair, both were close losses on the road but the flip side of that is Notre Dame's best win was . . . Temple? In reality they got slated into the Fiesta Bowl against an Ohio State team that would have been in the hypothetical 8-team playoff and the Irish got drilled.
- #8 10-3 Wisconsin in 2016: They lost at Michigan by a TD, at home to Ohio State by a TD, and in the B1GCG to PSU by a TD. All three of those teams would have made the playoff and we already saw Wisconsin against playoff caliber teams, they lost all three times.
- #7, 10-3 Auburn in 2017: They lost at Clemson by eight, at LSU by four, and to UGA in the SECCG by 21. Clemson, Georgia, and Bama would all have been in the hypothetical 8-team playoff that year and Auburn went 1-2 against them. That and the extra loss to a good but not great LSU team simply isn't enough. If they'd have gone 2-1 against playoff caliber teams or beaten LSU they'd have been in.
- #7 10-2 Michigan in 2018: They lost at Notre Dame by a TD and got drilled in Columbus 62-39. Both ND and tOSU would have been in the 8-team playoff that year and we already saw Michigan against playoff caliber teams, they lost both times. Medinabuckeye is fine with this exclusion, LoL.
- #8, 10-3 Wisconsin in 2019: They lost at Ohio State by 31 points then lost to tOSU again in the B1GCG by two scores and they also lost on the road to a bad Illinois team by a point. Thus they were 0-2 against playoff caliber teams with an additional bad loss.
- #7, 8-3 Florida in 2020: They lost at aTm by a FG, at home to a .500 LSU team by a FG, and in the SECCG to Bama by six points. aTm and Bama both would have been in the playoff so again, we already saw how UF did against playoff caliber teams, they went 0-2 with an additional bad loss.
- #6, 10-2 Ohio State in 2021: They lost at home to Oregon by a TD and on the road to Michigan by 15. Oregon wouldn't be a playoff team so these Buckeyes were 0-1 against 8-team playoff teams with an additional loss. As an Ohio State fan I don't like it and I would feel unlucky that Notre Dame happened to have a good record this year AND the SEC produced two 1-loss teams but this record isn't good enough that I'd have much of a complaint. If the Buckeyes had won either of the games that they lost they'd easily be ranked ahead of Notre Dame (and possibly Georgia also) and in the 8-team playoff) but they didn't so they are out.
If the 8-team model as I outlined it had been in effect for the last eight years the top teams left out would have been:
- one team ranked #6 (21 tOSU)
- three teams ranked #7 (20 UF, 18 M, 17 Auburn)
- four teams ranked #8 (19 UW, 16 UW, 15 ND, 14 MSU)
- four two-loss teams (21 tOSU, 18 M, 15 ND, 14 MSU
- four three-loss teams (20 UF, 19 UW, 17 Auburn, 16 UW)
We are talking about leaving out two and three loss teams that are barely in the top-10 not 1-loss juggernauts that happened to have a bad day.
I realize that there is a hypothetical possibility that Notre Dame could go undefeated AND we could have two or three CG upsets all in the same year such that a really good 1-loss team could find themselves left out but that is simply the risk you take when you don't win all your games and as a fan I'd rather have a high quality 1-loss team get left out once in a while than have a bunch of two and three-loss teams get in almost EVERY year.
-
Oh. Well that changes everything.
The Big 12 will be the P1, and everyone else will be the G9, with those additions :57:
You sure do like to dunk on the new Big 12.
Medina's chart clearly shows that the new Big 12 is in better shape than the ACC and Pac 12.
Yes, adding in the number 3 and 18 teams would widen the gap.
-
Let me just clarify that I generally agree with you and I'm a fan of a helmet team like yours that has in the past (like yours) gotten a CFP bid in spite of not winning their conference because most people (or at least most of the committee) believe that they were the best team from their league despite not winning it. I firmly believe that Bama in the kick-6 year and tOSU in the loss to PSU year WERE the best teams from their conferences.
I appreciate the acknowledgement of [potential] motivated reasoning.
I also can't rule out the same, for the opposite reason, as a Purdue fan. I'm a fan of a team that, should we actually win a B1G CCG at some point, is more likely to finish 10-3 or 11-2, with perhaps an OOC loss and getting into the CCG based on a divisional tiebreaker. Hell, the only conference championship Purdue has managed in my lifetime is a co-championship in a 3-way tie at 6-2 in conference (finished 9-3 with OOC loss) where we got the Rose Bowl due to a 2-0 H2H2H record over the other two co-champs.
So as a fan of a non-helmet, I see that Purdue at 13-0 and B1G champs would be in, undeniably. Purdue at 12-1 and B1G champs would probably depend on who the other conference champs are, and their record, and what ND did that year, as well as who that loss was to and by how much, and who they defeated in the CCG.
So maybe I'm just arguing for an auto-bid so that I can someday root for an 11-2 Purdue team that wins the B1G getting a shot at getting trounced by a real helmet in the CPF quarterfinals :96:
-
8-9 of those 12 others determine who gets into the conference championship game.
And the CCGs are just another level of playoff.
It baffles me that people who are okay with the idea of a playoff in general-- where we know the preconceived "best" team doesn't always win-- balk and scream bloody murder at the thought of a team that wins its CCG (which is just another playoff game) should then advance to the next level of competition. It's remarkably inconsistent.
So yeah, I'm absolutely good with the position I continue to hold. 100% golden.
5-6 of those other 12, not 8-9, sans the bigxii. divisions.
and the ccg are absolutely not playoffs games.
i'm fine with the cfp when the best team might not win because there's no way to actually know who is the best team with the extremely limited crossover games. even with a ton of crossover, it's near impossible if not actually impossible.
but those that are in the playoff should actually be in consideration of being the best that season.
what i find baffling is people that bitch and moan about a team not winning their conference getting a "second chance", but have no qualms with a team who only won barely half their games over the course of the season.
again, i'm fine with (prefer actually) a guarantee for conf champs, provided the meet some other criteria as well. something like be in top 10/12, have won at least >75 or 80? of games. doesn't have to be those, but something similar to keep out teams that are completely undeserving. they're barely deserving of a bowl game and 25 years ago probably wouldn't have got one. but now they're in the cfp? no thanks.
-
You sure do like to dunk on the new Big 12.
Medina's chart clearly shows that the new Big 12 is in better shape than the ACC and Pac 12.
Yes, adding in the number 3 and 18 teams would widen the gap.
It's not about liking it. It's about objectively looking at the stability of their situation and responding to their legitimate issues.
Six members have now departed in the last decade for greener pastures at other "P5" conferences, which in no case were really considered lateral moves.
Three of those six members were undoubtedly "helmet" teams, much higher in national perception than anyone who remained.
Six schools are being [or have been] brought in to replace those who left. Arguably the only of those six schools that have any national relevance are West Virginia and BYU. You can make an argument that those schools might be similar in stature to Colorado/Mizzou, and probably below A&M. The remaining 4 schools, TCU, UCF, Cincinnati, and Houston are purely to add numbers.
The Big 12 now has, probably, 3 desirable properties for other conferences. Kansas, BYU, and West Virginia. West Virginia would leave in an instant if they got an ACC invite to pair with ND and go to 16. Kansas I'm sure would come to the B1G in an instant if they got an invite, to pair with ND or someone else and go to 16. BYU is in a weird situation where they'd probably only fit in the PAC otherwise, and I don't think they want to be there, so it's questionable.
My view of the new B12 is that it's a temporary holding pen until the next round of conference realignment. The conference may argue it's in great shape, but what do you think the schools who remain would do if they got invites to one of the four other P5 conferences?
I think if half your conference--the best half--departs in a decade for other "P" conferences, can you really continue considering yourself anything other than a "G" at that point?
-
I appreciate the acknowledgement of [potential] motivated reasoning.
I also can't rule out the same, for the opposite reason, as a Purdue fan. I'm a fan of a team that, should we actually win a B1G CCG at some point, is more likely to finish 10-3 or 11-2, with perhaps an OOC loss and getting into the CCG based on a divisional tiebreaker. Hell, the only conference championship Purdue has managed in my lifetime is a co-championship in a 3-way tie at 6-2 in conference (finished 9-3 with OOC loss) where we got the Rose Bowl due to a 2-0 H2H2H record over the other two co-champs.
So as a fan of a non-helmet, I see that Purdue at 13-0 and B1G champs would be in, undeniably. Purdue at 12-1 and B1G champs would probably depend on who the other conference champs are, and their record, and what ND did that year, as well as who that loss was to and by how much, and who they defeated in the CCG.
So maybe I'm just arguing for an auto-bid so that I can someday root for an 11-2 Purdue team that wins the B1G getting a shot at getting trounced by a real helmet in the CPF quarterfinals :96:
Upthread you mentioned that you felt like if PU were in the new (without OU/TX) B12 you would think they would be able to contend in a good year unlike in the B1G where they just aren't realistically going to have the athletes that tOSU, M, and PSU have.
Basically in the B1G what PU needs to win a title is all of the following to happen in the same year:
- To have a REALLY good year themselves, and
- For at least one and probably two of tOSU/M/PSU to have an off year, and
- To pull off the upset against the remaining helmet team(s).
Looking at their 2000 Championship:
- PU had a really good year. They went 8-3 in the regular season with a close road loss to ND and league losses to PSU and MSU (both under .500 teams but both on the road) and the Boilermakers got wins over Michigan and Ohio State.
- PSU was sub .500. They did still beat the Boilermakers but it didn't hurt PU's league title ambitions because PSU wasn't close enough for that to be a tiebreaker. Ohio State was just 8-3 with losses to MN and M in addition to PU. Michigan wasn't exactly a juggernaut with losses to a .500 UCLA team and Northwester in addition to PU.
- Purdue did beat both tOSU and M which one could argue were better teams.
Looking at their 1967 Championship:
- PU had a really good year (much better than 2000). They beat a good ND team OOC, beat aTm OOC, and drilled tOSU in Columbus.
- PSU wasn't in the league yet, Michigan was in their pre-Bo not very goodness (and PU missed them on the schedule) and tOSU had an off year (by tOSU standards).
- PU did beat tOSU and it really wasn't even an upset. Actually, the next year tOSU beating PU was an upset at gametime.
Any one of those three happening isn't terribly unlikely in any given year but all three in the same year, well PU has won one title in the last 54 years (1968-2021), two in the last 69 years (1953-2021), three in the last 78 years (1944-2021), and four in the last 89 years (1933-2021). Prior to that they won three in the four years from 1929-1932. That works out to one title every roughly 26-54 years so it is basically a generational thing. I guess that is why I'm not overly worried about letting in a bad P5 Champion. If Purdue has a great year in 2022 and two out of tOSU/M/PSU are down and PU knocks off the other one in the CG but finishes 10-3 with a couple conference losses and an OOC loss to ND, I'd let them in and if it cost a REALLY good 11-1 tOSU or M squad a spot well, don't get upset in the CG.
-
I pray to god the B1G never adds Kansas. Would be a stupid move and disgusting addition to what is still and always will be primarily a football conference.
-
BYU is in a weird situation where they'd probably only fit in the PAC otherwise, and I don't think they want to be there, so it's questionable.
Geographically yes, culturally/politically, NO.
-
No, that isn't what we are saying.
deleted most to save space
it's cool that you're ok with that. i'm just not. but boiling it down to ccg win and you're in, it's essentially ignoring the remainder of the season.
and, again, using the updated 2018 hypothetical, we were 1 pitt upset away from not having to choose from 2 11-1 clemson, 12-0 notre dame, and seccg runner up. plus a couple others with good seasons that didn't make the ccg.
-
I appreciate the acknowledgement of [potential] motivated reasoning.
I also can't rule out the same, for the opposite reason, as a Purdue fan. I'm a fan of a team that, should we actually win a B1G CCG at some point, is more likely to finish 10-3 or 11-2, with perhaps an OOC loss and getting into the CCG based on a divisional tiebreaker. Hell, the only conference championship Purdue has managed in my lifetime is a co-championship in a 3-way tie at 6-2 in conference (finished 9-3 with OOC loss) where we got the Rose Bowl due to a 2-0 H2H2H record over the other two co-champs.
So as a fan of a non-helmet, I see that Purdue at 13-0 and B1G champs would be in, undeniably. Purdue at 12-1 and B1G champs would probably depend on who the other conference champs are, and their record, and what ND did that year, as well as who that loss was to and by how much, and who they defeated in the CCG.
So maybe I'm just arguing for an auto-bid so that I can someday root for an 11-2 Purdue team that wins the B1G getting a shot at getting trounced by a real helmet in the CPF quarterfinals :96:
based on my preferred method (conf champs guaranteed if in top 10/12) an 11-2 purdue b1g champ will certainly be in guaranteed. 10-3 is a decent chance as well. or guaranteed if the caveat is win% >.75 or something. i'm good with that too.
-
Geographically yes, culturally/politically, NO.
they are a bunch of weird ass mormons. they don't fit in culturally/politically anywhere.
-
5-6 of those other 12, not 8-9, sans the bigxii. divisions.
Overall record matters, not just divisional record. It's counted into tie-breakers in numerous different ways, depending on conference.
I think if half your conference--the best half--departs in a decade for other "P" conferences, can you really continue considering yourself anything other than a "G" at that point?
If you're still better than both the ACC and the PAC, then, yes. Of course. Quite obviously.
Why would you be looking at history rather than current level of play? The B12 has been significantly better than both the PAC and the ACC over the past decade, and the new B12 will still be better than both the PAC and the ACC. I think you're considering oddly irrelevant criteria for establishing the relative quality or importance of conferences. Not sure why you'd do that. It seems oddly illogical of you, when you're reasonable on most other issues.
-
it's cool that you're ok with that. i'm just not. but boiling it down to ccg win and you're in, it's essentially ignoring the remainder of the season.
and, again, using the updated 2018 hypothetical, we were 1 pitt upset away from not having to choose from 2 11-1 clemson, 12-0 notre dame, and seccg runner up. plus a couple others with good seasons that didn't make the ccg.
Yeah, but you keep bringing up hypotheticals based on past divisional winners who, predictably, got beat in the CCG.
Having a CCG makes it much less likely that any of these teams will actually pull off that hypothetical upset. It can happen, sure... But will it happen often enough to be anything more than a once every half-decade outlier?
they are a bunch of weird ass mormons. they don't fit in culturally/politically anywhere.
Probably not, but I'd argue they fit better culturally/politically in Texas, Oklahoma, Iowa and Kansas than they do in Washington, Oregon, Colorado and California. (I leave out Arizona because they're their own particularly brand of weird, unlike the rest of the PAC or B12).
I mean, say what you will about the tenets of Brigham Young, Dude, at least it's an ethos.
-
based on my preferred method (conf champs guaranteed if in top 10/12) an 11-2 purdue b1g champ will certainly be in guaranteed. 10-3 is a decent chance as well. or guaranteed if the caveat is win% >.75 or something. i'm good with that too.
In theory I like the idea of a floor but in practice I'm not able to come up with anything that I like:
- I don't like top 10/12 because I think that is too high of a floor. If we are taking eight teams then it should be more like top 15 because if they WON the league that should be a bonus of more than a couple spots, I think.
- I don't like win 75% of games because I don't like ANYTHING that discourages tough schedules. Look, if Purdue goes out and schedules Bama, Clemson, and Notre Dame as their OOC with two of the three on the road and goes 0-3 OOC against three top-5 teams then loses a couple B1G games (say tOSU and PSU) but wins the B1GCG by avenging one of their B1G losses they'd finish 8-5 overall but all five losses could be to top-10 teams. That is under 75% by almost two games but those are all REALLY good losses and they'd have some REALLY good wins as well. Hypothetically Bama, Clemson, and ND could all be undefeated while tOSU could be 12-1 (loss to PU in the CG) and Michigan could be 10-2 (losses to PU and tOSU) and PSU could be 10-2 (losses to tOSU and M). I know it is a crazy hypothetical but for Purdue that would be:
Purdue's hypothetical record against quality opponents here:
- 0-3 against undefeated teams, the top-three teams in the country: Bama, Clemson, Notre Dame.
- 1-1 against 12-1 teams (split with tOSU)
- 1-1 against 10-2 teams (beat M, lost to PSU)
- 6-0 against everybody else which would almost have to include at least SOME decent teams.
That is a crazy hypothetical but I don't want any AD at Purdue to ever think "We better stop scheduling Notre Dame because if we ever do manage to win the B1G we don't want an OOC loss to Notre Dame to keep us out of the playoff so we're going to replace them with directional Michigan."
-
I mean, say what you will about the tenets of Brigham Young, Dude, at least it's an ethos.
LoL.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_29yvYpf4w
-
Yeah, but you keep bringing up hypotheticals based on past divisional winners who, predictably, got beat in the CCG.
Having a CCG makes it much less likely that any of these teams will actually pull off that hypothetical upset. It can happen, sure... But will it happen often enough to be anything more than a once every half-decade outlier?
1996 4 loss texas upsets 11-1 nebraska.
2001 3 loss lsu upsets 11-1 tenn
2003 3 loss ksu upsets 12-0 ou
2005 4 loss fsu upsets va tech
for almost upsets
2018 3 loss utah 7pt game
2017 3 loss stan 3pt game
2016 3 loss va tech 7 pt game
2012 6 loss ga tech 6 pt game
2012 3 loss ucla 3 pt game
2009 4 loss clemson 3pt game
2007 3 loss tenn 7pt game
it's within 1 score from being every other year almost.
it's an odd data set. go back more than 10 years, there's only 2 confs with ccg. go back 25 years, and only 1. go back 30, and none. the "almost" is happening a lot more often, while the "actuals" go back pretty far. more frequency makes sense with increase in confs with ccg in last decade, but it's curious that the actual results didn't also follow that increased pattern.
-
In theory I like the idea of a floor but in practice I'm not able to come up with anything that I like:
- I don't like top 10/12 because I think that is too high of a floor. If we are taking eight teams then it should be more like top 15 because if they WON the league that should be a bonus of more than a couple spots, I think.
- I don't like win 75% of games because I don't like ANYTHING that discourages tough schedules. Look, if Purdue goes out and schedules Bama, Clemson, and Notre Dame as their OOC with two of the three on the road and goes 0-3 OOC against three top-5 teams then loses a couple B1G games (say tOSU and PSU) but wins the B1GCG by avenging one of their B1G losses they'd finish 8-5 overall but all five losses could be to top-10 teams. That is under 75% by almost two games but those are all REALLY good losses and they'd have some REALLY good wins as well. Hypothetically Bama, Clemson, and ND could all be undefeated while tOSU could be 12-1 (loss to PU in the CG) and Michigan could be 10-2 (losses to PU and tOSU) and PSU could be 10-2 (losses to tOSU and M). I know it is a crazy hypothetical but for Purdue that would be:
Purdue's hypothetical record against quality opponents here:
- 0-3 against undefeated teams, the top-three teams in the country: Bama, Clemson, Notre Dame.
- 1-1 against 12-1 teams (split with tOSU)
- 1-1 against 10-2 teams (beat M, lost to PSU)
- 6-0 against everybody else which would almost have to include at least SOME decent teams.
That is a crazy hypothetical but I don't want any AD at Purdue to ever think "We better stop scheduling Notre Dame because if we ever do manage to win the B1G we don't want an OOC loss to Notre Dame to keep us out of the playoff so we're going to replace them with directional Michigan."
agree with 2nd bullet.
on first, i like 10, would be fine with 12, but would be begrudgingly ok with 15. I'm open to suggestions on the caveat, just want there to be one. and a reasonable one. not some bs like >.500 or no more than 1 loss. (i think i hit both extremes there).
and if purdue ever schedule bama, clemson and nd (or whatever future era's equivalent is), on top of the b1g schedule, then may God have mercy on their souls.
-
If you're still better than both the ACC and the PAC, then, yes. Of course. Quite obviously.
Why would you be looking at history rather than current level of play? The B12 has been significantly better than both the PAC and the ACC over the past decade, and the new B12 will still be better than both the PAC and the ACC. I think you're considering oddly irrelevant criteria for establishing the relative quality or importance of conferences. Not sure why you'd do that. It seems oddly illogical of you, when you're reasonable on most other issues.
Because I think history predicts the future more than the current level of play.
PAC: USC is a sleeping giant. Washington has been a traditional power and has made a CFP semi, as has Oregon [which is less traditional of a power]. Stanford has a good program, UCLA has potential in any given year, and Utah has been pretty solid in the conference. Colorado has sucked recently, but they have had national relevance in the past.
ACC: Clemson has been a CFP mainstay. Florida State won a BCSNC the year prior to the CFP. Miami is down but trying to get back up. Vtech is down, but they had a pretty solid 20-30 year run of relevance if not greatness. Their conference stability on the basketball side underpins their football side. They at least have an identity.
I know that I'm often derisive when it comes to helmets, but who is/are the new B12's helmet(s)? Who is going to be the standard-bearer for the conference going forward? Who is going to make it relevant? What is their history? What is their identity? What recruit is champing at the bit to go play for Oklahoma State so that they can play Houston and UCF? Why are they a conference that we need to care about?
I'm being harsh, but that's what it is. They'll be the best of the rest when it comes to conferences, but I strongly believe that both the PAC and the ACC will have more playoff appearances and a better chance at winning the whole damn thing in the next decade than the new B12.
-
Because I think history predicts the future more than the current level of play.
PAC: USC is a sleeping giant. Washington has been a traditional power and has made a CFP semi, as has Oregon [which is less traditional of a power]. Stanford has a good program, UCLA has potential in any given year, and Utah has been pretty solid in the conference. Colorado has sucked recently, but they have had national relevance in the past.
ACC: Clemson has been a CFP mainstay. Florida State won a BCSNC the year prior to the CFP. Miami is down but trying to get back up. Vtech is down, but they had a pretty solid 20-30 year run of relevance if not greatness. Their conference stability on the basketball side underpins their football side. They at least have an identity.
I know that I'm often derisive when it comes to helmets, but who is/are the new B12's helmet(s)? Who is going to be the standard-bearer for the conference going forward? Who is going to make it relevant? What is their history? What is their identity? What recruit is champing at the bit to go play for Oklahoma State so that they can play Houston and UCF? Why are they a conference that we need to care about?
I'm being harsh, but that's what it is. They'll be the best of the rest when it comes to conferences, but I strongly believe that both the PAC and the ACC will have more playoff appearances and a better chance at winning the whole damn thing in the next decade than the new B12.
If they're given the extra benefits and being advantaged in the way you're requesting, sure.
On an even playing field? Nah. The PAC has one helmet. The ACC has zero. And the New B12 is a better football conference top to bottom than both of them.
-
1996 4 loss texas upsets 11-1 nebraska.
2001 3 loss lsu upsets 11-1 tenn
2003 3 loss ksu upsets 12-0 ou
2005 4 loss fsu upsets va tech
for almost upsets
2018 3 loss utah 7pt game
2017 3 loss stan 3pt game
2016 3 loss va tech 7 pt game
2012 6 loss ga tech 6 pt game
2012 3 loss ucla 3 pt game
2009 4 loss clemson 3pt game
2007 3 loss tenn 7pt game
it's within 1 score from being every other year almost.
it's an odd data set. go back more than 10 years, there's only 2 confs with ccg. go back 25 years, and only 1. go back 30, and none. the "almost" is happening a lot more often, while the "actuals" go back pretty far. more frequency makes sense with increase in confs with ccg in last decade, but it's curious that the actual results didn't also follow that increased pattern.
Okay, so in 25 years you've pointed to 4 upsets by a team with 3 or more losses.
Hypothetically, it should happen more often now that more conferences have CCGs, but we haven't had a single 3-loss or worse record team pull the upset in the last 16 years.
So sure, you can point to "almost", but close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades.
-
ACC should just kill itself....pathetic...
https://twitter.com/ShehanJeyarajah/status/1468285617989689351?s=20
-
Okay, so in 25 years you've pointed to 4 upsets by a team with 3 or more losses.
Hypothetically, it should happen more often now that more conferences have CCGs, but we haven't had a single 3-loss or worse record team pull the upset in the last 16 years.
So sure, you can point to "almost", but close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades.
just proving it's not hypothetical. it has happened and will happen again. if you guys are fine with that then cool. i'm not gonna change your mind and i doubt you'll be able to change mine.
it's probably moot anyway because they'll likely go to 12.
-
just proving it's not hypothetical. it has happened and will happen again. if you guys are fine with that then cool. i'm not gonna change your mind and i doubt you'll be able to change mine.
it's probably moot anyway because they'll likely go to 12.
Well, yes. It happened 4 times in 25 years. And not once in the past 16 years. And never more than one of those in any given year. And three of the teams that did it were Texas, LSU, and Florida State-- not exactly Johnny Nobody, all teams that many fans would be happy to watch in the playoffs.
So yeah, I'm 100% golden with it. You don't have to be. But seeing that there are plenty of people okay with it, it's obviously not some doomsday scenario. Lots of folks would be just fine with it.
ACC should just kill itself....pathetic...
https://twitter.com/ShehanJeyarajah/status/1468285617989689351?s=20
Yeesh. Even without Texas or OU in the CCG, the B12 numbers doubled the PAC and tripled the ACC. That's telling.
-
Pitt vs. Wake Forest is pretty close to worse case scenario as far as viewership for the ACC. Wake-Duke is probably the only way it could be worse, because then you aren't even in two media markets.
-
Pitt vs. Wake Forest is pretty close to worse case scenario as far as viewership for the ACC. Wake-Duke is probably the only way it could be worse, because then you aren't even in two media markets.
I hear ya, but Stillwater, Oklahoma and Waco, TX aren't exactly massive media markets, either.
-
So yeah, I'm 100% golden with it. You don't have to be. But seeing that there are plenty of people okay with it, it's obviously not some doomsday scenario. Lots of folks would be just fine with it.
lots of folks are wrong, just like you. :86:
-
lots of folks are wrong, just like you. :86:
Moi???
NEVER!!!!!!!! ;)
-
I hear ya, but Stillwater, Oklahoma and Waco, TX aren't exactly massive media markets, either.
Not so much media market wise, but fan base size. I think it's also noteworthy that the Pac 12, Big XII and SEC all ran unopposed by other P5 CCGs. The only ones in the same time slot were Big Ten/ACC. Not sure what the solution is for the ACC to solve that though. Once Texas and Oklahoma go to the SEC, I'd grab that noon slot. The viewership numbers this year showed people want to watch meaningful games at noon.
-
Not so much media market wise, but fan base size. I think it's also noteworthy that the Pac 12, Big XII and SEC all ran unopposed by other P5 CCGs. The only ones in the same time slot were Big Ten/ACC. Not sure what the solution is for the ACC to solve that though. Once Texas and Oklahoma go to the SEC, I'd grab that noon slot. The viewership numbers this year showed people want to watch meaningful games at noon.
Yeah, I wasn't going to mention that the ACC went up against the B1G, because it didn't suit my agenda. ;)
As for the time slots, they tend to move around. Last year the B1G had the noon/11 AM game and ran against the B12 CCG in the same slot. ACC took 4/3 o'clock and SEC took took the primetime 8/7 PM kickoff.
Of course, last year was also a weird COVID year and there were tons of other games on the same day, ones that had been postponed due to COVID, or just scheduled later than usual because of the weirdness.
-
Last year the B1G had the noon/11 AM game and ran against the B12 CCG in the same slot. ACC took 4/3 o'clock and SEC took took the primetime 8/7 PM kickoff.
Last year was I believe the only time it was at Noon. I do wonder if that will continue to rotate going forward
-
I'm not sure that for CCGs, the time slots matter all that much. It's pretty clear that the eyeballs will follow CCGs that could impact the CFP, and they don't care much about the others.
-
Yeah, I wasn't going to mention that the ACC went up against the B1G, because it didn't suit my agenda. ;)
As for the time slots, they tend to move around. Last year the B1G had the noon/11 AM game and ran against the B12 CCG in the same slot. ACC took 4/3 o'clock and SEC took took the primetime 8/7 PM kickoff.
Of course, last year was also a weird COVID year and there were tons of other games on the same day, ones that had been postponed due to COVID, or just scheduled later than usual because of the weirdness.
was seccg at night last year? if so that's unusual. they're typically @ 3pm ct. they usually just drop back :30 from the normal cbs game time slot.
-
So sure, you can point to "almost", but close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades.
This is 100% my view. Sure, hypothetically Bama could lose just once on a crazy kick-6 to Auburn but miss the SECCG because they lose the H2H tiebreaker with the Tigers AND Notre Dame could go undefeated, AND tOSU could do basically the same thing as Bama but substitute PSU or M for Auburn. If all that happens in the same year then one of the three isn't getting in and, realistically it would be tOSU left out. As an OSU fan, that would suck but I'm ok with that hypothetical possibility because I showed the last eight years' history and it isn't something that would happen frequently and might not happen at all.
Furthermore, the alternative is to let in more at-large teams every year and if we do that some of them are going to be teams that I consider to be seriously undeserving EVERY YEAR not just once every few decades (maybe) when a whole bunch of weird all happens in the same year.
-
I'm not sure that for CCGs, the time slots matter all that much. It's pretty clear that the eyeballs will follow CCGs that could impact the CFP, and they don't care much about the others.
I agree, I just think it matters having a whole time slot to yourselves if you don't.
-
Well, yes. It happened 4 times in 25 years. And not once in the past 16 years. And never more than one of those in any given year. And three of the teams that did it were Texas, LSU, and Florida State-- not exactly Johnny Nobody, all teams that many fans would be happy to watch in the playoffs.
I think the bolded part of @utee94 (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=15) 's response is really the key point. One upset doesn't screw things up too bad because you have two at-large slots. It only gets screwy if you have two CG upsets and/or if ND goes undefeated.
1996 4 loss texas upsets 11-1 nebraska.
2001 3 loss lsu upsets 11-1 tenn
2003 3 loss ksu upsets 12-0 ou
2005 4 loss fsu upsets va tech
I'm not taking on the "almosts" because:
So sure, you can point to "almost", but close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades.
I will, however, give the playoff teams and the best team out for each of the years that you cited based on the 5+1+2 model. I'm using AP Poll here for consistency:
1996:
- #20 Texas at #1 FSU (ACC)
- #7 PSU at #2 ASU (P10)
- #6 UNL at #3 UF (SEC)
- #5 BYU (G5) at #4 tOSU (Big11Ten)
Left out:
- 9-2 #8 Colorado: They lost by a TD at home to Michigan and by five on the road to UNL who got in.
2001:
- #12 LSU at #1 Miami (G5 - not sure what to call them since the BigE does't exist anymore)
- #7 IL (Big11Ten) at #2 Oregon (Pac10)
- #5 UF at #3 Colorado (B12)
- #4 UNL at #6 UMD (ACC)
Left out:
- 10-2 #8 Tennessee: They lost by two points at home to Georgia and by 11 in the SECCG to LSU.
2003:
- #14 Miami, OH (G5) at #1 USC (Pac10)
- #9 FSU (ACC) at #2 LSU (SEC)
- #5 TX at #4 M (Big11Ten)
- #3 OU at #8 KSU (B12)
Left out:
- 10-2 #6 Tennessee: They lost by a TD at Auburn and got blown out at home by Georgia.
2005:
- #22 FSU (ACC) at #1 USC (Pac10)
- #14 TCU (G5) at #2 TX (B12)
- #5 ND at #3 PSU (Big11Ten)
- #4 tOSU at #8 UGA (SEC)
Left out:
So going all the way back to 1996 and perhaps beyond, I don't know how much beyond that you went, we have a grand total of exactly ONE one-loss P5 teams left out. That 10-1 Oregon team that finished #6 in 2005 got drilled at home by USC and in the actual season they lost their bowl to Oklahoma so I'm just not seeing it even for them.
The 5+1+2 model would preserve some exclusivity and thus some of the regular season's intensity while possibly never and definitely no more than VERY infrequently excluding deserving legitimate contenders.
-
Yeesh. Even without Texas or OU in the CCG, the B12 numbers doubled the PAC and tripled the ACC. That's telling.
It's telling because neither the PAC nor ACC winner had ANY shot at the CFP this year. The B12 did, if it was OkSU.
Hell, *I* was watching the B12 CCG, purely because it had relevance to the CFP. Not because it was the B12.
-
just proving it's not hypothetical. it has happened and will happen again. if you guys are fine with that then cool. i'm not gonna change your mind and i doubt you'll be able to change mine.
it's probably moot anyway because they'll likely go to 12.
Agreed. If it happened all the time, I'd probably have a problem with it. Given that it is a rare occurrence, I view it as acceptable if not ideal.
-
I'm not sure that for CCGs, the time slots matter all that much. It's pretty clear that the eyeballs will follow CCGs that could impact the CFP, and they don't care much about the others.
Yep. If the PAC had been 11-1 USC vs 11-1 Oregon, it would have gotten eyeballs. If the ACC had been 11-1 Clemson vs 11-1 FSU (I don't know if they're in the same division, but assume somehow it was the CCG) it would have gotten eyeballs.
If the SEC East beat the hell out of each other and had a multi-way tie was 6-2 in conference and the division winner was a 9-3 Auburn with an OOC loss, and the SEC East was a 10-2 Florida team that finished 7-1 in conference but lost OOC to FSU, it'd still get decent ratings, but NOWHERE near what it got when you had #1 12-0 Georgia up against #3 11-1 Bama with Bama basically playing for their CFP invitation.
-
It's telling because neither the PAC nor ACC winner had ANY shot at the CFP this year. The B12 did, if it was OkSU.
Hell, *I* was watching the B12 CCG, purely because it had relevance to the CFP. Not because it was the B12.
Eh, you can look at the regular season ratings and it generally follows the same pattern. SEC/B1G are 1 and 2, B12 is 3rd, and nobody watches the ACC or PAC.
-
Agreed. If it happened all the time, I'd probably have a problem with it. Given that it is a rare occurrence, I view it as acceptable if not ideal.
I think the theoretical ideal would be to have a flexible playoff where you invited the number of teams necessary such that all "deserving" teams got in then maybe filled in extra slots as necessary. Basically this:
- If one or two teams stand head-and-shoulders over the others, two-team playoff (like the old BCS).
- If three or four teams stand out, four team playoff (like now).
- If five or more teams stand out, eight team playoff.
That is all well and good in theory but in practice it would never be adopted and who knows how we'd decide what "deserving" was anyway:
- 2021: I'd have Bama and Michigan play for it. They are both 1-loss P5 Champs. Georgia didn't win their league. Cincy played a crap schedule, Notre Dame's schedule was almost as bad as Cincy's and they didn't win a league. Everybody else had at least two losses.
- 2020: I'd have had Bama and Ohio State play for it. They were both undefeated P5 Champs. Everybody else lost at least once even on the shortened schedule.
- 2019: LSU, tOSU, and Clemson stood out as undefeated P5 Champs so I'd have had a four-team playoff with those three and OU just like we did.
- 2018: Bama, Clemson, and ND stood out as undefeateds so I'd have had a four-team playoff with those three and OU just like we did.
- 2017: Clemson, OU, and UGA stood out as 1-loss P5 Champs so I'd have had a four-team playoff with those three and Bama just like we did.
- 2016: Bama stood alone as an undefeated P5 Champ so I'd either have simply given them the trophy or had them play Clemson for it. Behind Clemson the Buckeyes only had one loss but they didn't win their league and the Huskies won their league with one loss but it was a 2-score home loss and the PAC was crap. Behind that everybody had two losses.
- 2015: Clemson stood alone as an undefeated P5 Champ so I'd have had them play Bama for the title. MSU only had one loss but they looked like a paper tiger, same for OU and Iowa who didn't win their league. Stanford won the PAC but had two losses and tOSU only had one loss but didn't win the B1G.
- 2014: FSU was the only undefeated P5 Champ but they looked like crap. In all there were five undefeated or 1-loss P5 Champs (six if you count TCU) so this is a year when I would have had an eight-team playoff with Bama, Oregon, FSU, tOSU, Baylor, TCU, then two more to fill it out.
-
I think the theoretical ideal would be to have a flexible playoff where you invited the number of teams necessary such that all "deserving" teams got in then maybe filled in extra slots as necessary. Basically this:
- If one or two teams stand head-and-shoulders over the others, two-team playoff (like the old BCS).
- If three or four teams stand out, four team playoff (like now).
- If five or more teams stand out, eight team playoff.
That is all well and good in theory but in practice it would never be adopted and who knows how we'd decide what "deserving" was anyway:
Yeah. If for no other reason, the simple fact that a variable playoff like that would jeopardize revenue streams and pay out less in years when only two teams were selected.
Much like the European model of soccer relegation/promotion, it sounds like an interesting idea in theory, but in practice it would be far too disruptive on the financial side.