CFB51 College Football Fan Community
The Power Five => Big Ten => Topic started by: Kris60 on July 23, 2024, 12:17:50 AM
-
I was on the WVU board and someone made a point I hadn’t heard raised or thought of myself.
Being the 5th seed and not getting a top 4 bye could be a good thing. Now, obviously, the big disadvantage is having to play an extra game, take a chance on losing, and expose key players to injuries. Despite that, being the 5th seed might not be that bad.
The 5th seed, at least under the current format, will almost be guaranteed to host the G5 representative every year in the first round. If you have to play an extra game that’s about as good a draw as you can get. If they win that one they then move on to play the 4 seed at a neutral site.
The 4 seed, most years, will be the lowest rated P4 conference champion (it could occasionally be the G5 champion). With the conference realignment I think a lot of us could see the 4 seed many times being the Big 12 champion. And while they might be the 4 seed in the playoffs there is a good chance they would actually finish 10-15 in the final CFP poll and be an underdog to the 5 seed on a neutral field.
There will probably be years the 5 seed is a bigger favorite with an easier matchup in its QF game than the 1, 2, or 3 seeds are in theirs. Just something I thought was interesting.
-
I was on the WVU board and someone made a point I hadn’t heard raised or thought of myself.
Being the 5th seed and not getting a top 4 bye could be a good thing. Now, obviously, the big disadvantage is having to play an extra game, take a chance on losing, and expose key players to injuries. Despite that, being the 5th seed might not be that bad.
The 5th seed, at least under the current format, will almost be guaranteed to host the G5 representative every year in the first round. If you have to play an extra game that’s about as good a draw as you can get. If they win that one they then move on to play the 4 seed at a neutral site.
The 4 seed, most years, will be the lowest rated P4 conference champion (it could occasionally be the G5 champion). With the conference realignment I think a lot of us could see the 4 seed many times being the Big 12 champion. And while they might be the 4 seed in the playoffs there is a good chance they would actually finish 10-15 in the final CFP poll and be an underdog to the 5 seed on a neutral field.
There will probably be years the 5 seed is a bigger favorite with an easier matchup in its QF game than the 1, 2, or 3 seeds are in theirs. Just something I thought was interesting.
I conditionally agree, but it depends on how they handle seeding.
In addition to what you said, #5 is going to be the #1 ranked non-champion and that is usually going to be a REALLY good team. Bama in the kick-6 year, for example.
Seeding, IMHO, should be reset after each round.
-
I conditionally agree, but it depends on how they handle seeding.
In addition to what you said, #5 is going to be the #1 ranked non-champion and that is usually going to be a REALLY good team. Bama in the kick-6 year, for example.
Seeding, IMHO, should be reset after each round.
Yeah, most years the 5 seed is going to be a big boy. Like a really big boy. Bama, UGA, Michigan, Ohio St. Those kind of names.
-
Yeah, most years the 5 seed is going to be a big boy. Like a really big boy. Bama, UGA, Michigan, Ohio St. Those kind of names.
Nah Connor Stallions and Jeem are gone...we gonna suck now without knowing every play before it happens and without psycho autistic Jeem pushing the team forward with his weirdness. At least that's what all the Ohio State peeps tell me.
-
I was on the WVU board and someone made a point I hadn’t heard raised or thought of myself.
Being the 5th seed and not getting a top 4 bye could be a good thing. Now, obviously, the big disadvantage is having to play an extra game, take a chance on losing, and expose key players to injuries. Despite that, being the 5th seed might not be that bad.
If it's not better than being a top-4 seed, then what are we talking about here? That it's better than being the 6th seed?
Very well, I agree.
-
If it's not better than being a top-4 seed, then what are we talking about here? That it's better than being the 6th seed?
Very well, I agree.
I think you could see situations where the 1, 2, and 3 seeds are pretty envious of the Quarterfinal draw of the 5 seed and think playing an extra game at home against a G5 team to get that QF opponent might not be such a bad deal.
-
I agree with the potential advantages and disadvantages. Take last year, FSU or UGA would have been a five seed, playing Podunk U at home. UGA or an unwounded FSU would have their starters out early in the third probably. Nice tune up with some possibility of a key injury. Then you go to a "neutral site" to play #4 who could well be some 10-3 Big 12 champion who perhaps is a "TCU" kind of program. If you win that one of course it gets real.
-
the only better spot is to be the #4 seed or #1 seed
-
Yeah, it’s an interesting quirk. Sort of similar to the 2017 Bama team that was really, really good, but via schedule quirks was better than its seed and caught a first rounder much worse than its seed.
-
I agree with the potential advantages and disadvantages. Take last year, FSU or UGA would have been a five seed, playing Podunk U at home. UGA or an unwounded FSU would have their starters out early in the third probably. Nice tune up with some possibility of a key injury. Then you go to a "neutral site" to play #4 who could well be some 10-3 Big 12 champion who perhaps is a "TCU" kind of program. If you win that one of course it gets real.
It’s hard to go back at previous years to prove the point because the conferences were constructed differently. You have to project forward. But it isn’t hard to imagine a scenario like this.
1. Georgia 13-0 (CFP rank #1)
2. Michigan 12-1 (CFP rank #2)
3. Clemson 13-0 (CFP rank #3)
4. Ok St 10-3 (CFP rank #15)
5. Alabama 12-1 (CFP rank #4)
6. Ohio St 12-1 (CFP rank #5)
7. Oklahoma 11-1 (CFP rank #6)
8. Oregon 11-1 (CFP rank #7)
.
.
.
12. James Madison 12-1 (CFP rank #23)
You think there is a possibility Georgia, Michigan, and Clemson are looking at Bama’s draw and thinking playing an extra game AT HOME against JMU might not be a bad trade off to get Ok St in the Quarters? Maybe, maybe not, but it’s an interesting thought.
-
That's a good example. Interesting possibility, and perhaps they change it up again. Perhaps. Ha.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/nMegTc8.png)
-
Note the "NO RESEEDING" comment they felt they needed to add.
-
I'd rather NOT play the extra game, but....... if ya can't get in the top 4, #5 is the best spot
-
The 5 team fairly often will be the "best team" overall, like UGA may have been past season. Or it could be a killer ND team.
Take UGA this year, they lose by a couple point at Alabama and Texas, but whomp everyone else. They could miss the CG entirely.
-
I'd rather NOT play the extra game, but....... if ya can't get in the top 4, #5 is the best spot
Uhh, yeah. That's why it's #5 and not #6. LOL
-
At the end of a 12 or 13-game season, no, you do not want to play an extra game. C'mon, people.
-
The point is the extra game is against "JMU" or the like, basically a tuneup game, while other teams might get rusty. It's debateable either way, which is why we're discussing it. If someone thinks it's clearcut either way, fine with me, I don't.
-
Okay, then it's weird that so many here insisted on including a G5 program in the playoff only to now refer to it as a layup or tune-up game.
Why include them, if that's the case?
-
people here didn't insist on it
the G5 was gonna sue for inclusion
I don't think BYU should have received a shot vs Michigan in 84
-
I'd rather NOT play the extra game, but....... if ya can't get in the top 4, #5 is the best spot
I get that but I also think it’s one of those things you almost have to be in the moment to see how you feel. If you watch Jalen Milroe go down with an injury against JMU you’re saying , “Yeah, that’s why you never want to play any more games than necessary.”
If Bama is up 42-3 in the 3rd and the starters are yucking it up on the sideline you might be saying, “Damn, I wouldn’t mind trading places with them right now.”
-
One issue here... Everyone is assuming the 12 seed will be a G5 conference champ. But if argue in some years the highest G5 champ will be ranked higher than the weakest P4 champ. If a 3 loss team from one of those conferences sneaks into the CFP by improbably getting into and winning their CCG, and there's a 13-0 G5 champ, the G5 champ probably gets the 4 seed.
-
true
-
people here didn't insist on it
LOL
-
One issue here... Everyone is assuming the 12 seed will be a G5 conference champ. But if argue in some years the highest G5 champ will be ranked higher than the weakest P4 champ. If a 3 loss team from one of those conferences sneaks into the CFP by improbably getting into and winning their CCG, and there's a 13-0 G5 champ, the G5 champ probably gets the 4 seed.
Yeah, in my original post I said there could be some years the 4 seed is the G5 champ. In that case, the 5 seed probably gets a tougher first round draw but still gets the easiest QF draw.
-
One issue here... Everyone is assuming the 12 seed will be a G5 conference champ. But if argue in some years the highest G5 champ will be ranked higher than the weakest P4 champ. If a 3 loss team from one of those conferences sneaks into the CFP by improbably getting into and winning their CCG, and there's a 13-0 G5 champ, the G5 champ probably gets the 4 seed.
So then the 5 seed gets to still play the two weakest teams in the tournament. Just switched so the weakest P5 champ is a home game and the G5 champ is a neutral game.
It really comes down to do you think it's better/easier to play the two weakest champs teams, or the best at large team?
If I were to rank the seeding in this format:
#1 is the best spot, they get a buy then are on the same path as #5
#5 is the next best, you get the two easiest games before facing the the 1.
#2 then #3 are pretty interchangeable with supposably a slightly weaker opponent facing the 2.
Here is where I would place the #4 seed. Yes you get the buy, but we're the weakest champ and rewarded with facing the toughest at large.
-
There could be other examples of course where #12 is a tough out, some 9-3 team that lost 3 tough games along the way, or had injuries early. I don't know if they'd get seeded that low if so, but maybe. Playing a "tuneup" could be OK, playing a real team that is worthy of a #12 ranking, not so much.
-
Okay, so 2,3,6,and 7 don't have to face the #1 team until the championship game. Easiest path.
This is silly.
-
Okay, so 2,3,6,and 7 don't have to face the #1 team until the championship game. Easiest path.
This is silly.
lol. Dude, all we are discussing is an anomaly in the setup of this particular format. There is a really good chance that every season the 5 seed could be quite a bit better than the 4 seed (and maybe even the 3 seed). There is also a pretty good chance the 4 seed could be worse than several teams seeded below them.
It’s just unusual when it comes to tournaments. It’s worthy of a discussion. So far, your opinion that it isn’t puts you on an island.
-
It's an interesting anomaly, to me. Otherwise, I would post on the thread.
We all know we'll have "unusual" situations arise due to the way 1-4 and 5-12 get selected. Team 4 may well be pretty weak fairly often. Team 12 may be a real pastry at times.
-
I agree with the potential advantages and disadvantages. Take last year, FSU or UGA would have been a five seed, playing Podunk U at home. UGA or an unwounded FSU would have their starters out early in the third probably. Nice tune up with some possibility of a key injury. Then you go to a "neutral site" to play #4 who could well be some 10-3 Big 12 champion who perhaps is a "TCU" kind of program. If you win that one of course it gets real.
IMHO, if there had been a 12-team playoff last year, FSU would have been #3 followed by Texas at #4 and Bama at #5.
-
It’s hard to go back at previous years to prove the point because the conferences were constructed differently. You have to project forward. But it isn’t hard to imagine a scenario like this.
1. Georgia 13-0 (CFP rank #1)
2. Michigan 12-1 (CFP rank #2)
3. Clemson 13-0 (CFP rank #3)
4. Ok St 10-3 (CFP rank #15)
5. Alabama 12-1 (CFP rank #4)
6. Ohio St 12-1 (CFP rank #5)
7. Oklahoma 11-1 (CFP rank #6)
8. Oregon 11-1 (CFP rank #7)
.
.
.
12. James Madison 12-1 (CFP rank #23)
You think there is a possibility Georgia, Michigan, and Clemson are looking at Bama’s draw and thinking playing an extra game AT HOME against JMU might not be a bad trade off to get Ok St in the Quarters? Maybe, maybe not, but it’s an interesting thought.
This, exactly!
#5 Bama's draw is the weakest two teams then #1 in the semi-final.
-
Note the "NO RESEEDING" comment they felt they needed to add.
That is key
-
yes, the #5 seed might be at an advantage over the #4 and maybe the #3 seed, but............ it's because they were a top 5 team, maybe top 3.
They earned it on the field, so I'm good with it.
I'm also good with giving a conference champ the #4 seed with a couple losses
as long as that conference is the Big Ten or the SEC.
-
At the end of a 12 or 13-game season, no, you do not want to play an extra game. C'mon, people.
You of all people should understand that if that extra game is at home against JMU it isn't a problem, it is a scrimmage.
-
Okay, then it's weird that so many here insisted on including a G5 program in the playoff only to now refer to it as a layup or tune-up game.
Why include them, if that's the case?
Because if you don't include them, then you have a bifurcated system where the G5 have no legitimate opportunity to EVER play for the national championship.
So you have to either find a way to at least give them a long shot opportunity, or you have to split the big boy conferences off officially and not keep this system where we pretend they're all in the same group. What you shouldn't do is lie and say they're all have the same opportunity when you have a structural impediment to half of the teams ever having any opportunity at all.
-
This is just a temporary thing until the CFP expands to 14 or 16 teams some day.
If the CFP expands to 14, you could just have the top 2 conference champions get byes. Then seed #3 through #14 based on CFP ranking. At that point, there is a clear advantage to being the #1 seed.
-
Because if you don't include them, then you have a bifurcated system where the G5 have no legitimate opportunity to EVER play for the national championship.
So you have to either find a way to at least give them a long shot opportunity, or you have to split the big boy conferences off officially and not keep this system where we pretend they're all in the same group. What you shouldn't do is lie and say they're all have the same opportunity when you have a structural impediment to half of the teams ever having any opportunity at all.
And if you leave them out you get anti-trust actions and Congressional interference.
@OrangeAfroMan (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=58) , I'm completely in agreement with you on the facts but as a practical matter they cannot be excluded.
-
yes, the #5 seed might be at an advantage over the #4 and maybe the #3 seed, but............ it's because they were a top 5 team, maybe top 3.
They earned it on the field, so I'm good with it.
I'm also good with giving a conference champ the #4 seed with a couple losses
as long as that conference is the Big Ten or the SEC.
Yeah, but the 1 and 2 seeds earned it on the field too but in my scenario they are clearly getting tougher draws in the QF.
-
Okay, then it's weird that so many here insisted on including a G5 program in the playoff only to now refer to it as a layup or tune-up game.
Why include them, if that's the case?
The nature of sport, mostly.
Access is good and healthy and at a low cost.
-
them's the breaks
it's a scenario. It could happen.
I don't think Georgia wants to throw the game vs Bama to give themselves another game and a shot at Okie St.
if you're good enuff to beat #5 seed Bama, yer probably not too worried about #8 Oregon
-
I’d actually like to see them go to on campus sites until the championship game.
-
me too
-
I’d actually like to see them go to on campus sites until the championship game.
This.
-
me too
Oh no! did Harvey Weinstein or Bill Clinton touch ya in the naughty place?
-
You of all people should understand that if that extra game is at home against JMU it isn't a problem, it is a scrimmage.
I also understand that it's a simple math problem. Even if you have a 90% chance of beating the 12 seed and a 70% chance of beating the "worse" 4 seed, you're down to a 63% chance of winning both.
Because if you don't include them, then you have a bifurcated system where the G5 have no legitimate opportunity to EVER play for the national championship.
So you have to either find a way to at least give them a long shot opportunity, or you have to split the big boy conferences off officially and not keep this system where we pretend they're all in the same group. What you shouldn't do is lie and say they're all have the same opportunity when you have a structural impediment to half of the teams ever having any opportunity at all.
We've had a bifurcated system since 1985.
Giving them a longshot opportunity is the same as pretending they're all in the same group. The big, fat lie has not changed, even with inclusion.
Give me Liberty's path to the NC from last year. 13-0. Top G5 champ. 12 seed.
They played 8th-ranked Oregon and had a 10% chance of winning, based on the spread. I don't care that they were utterly destroyed, that's not important right now.
They had a 10% chance of winning. Let's say they win. They're very likely to play 2 teams better than Oregon after that, if they win.
Lets be SUPER conservative and give them a 7% chance of beating an Alabama team and a 5% chance at beating someone like Michigan.
Congratulations, G5 programs! Welcome to the party. You are IN the dance!
Your NC chances are......0.035%! Get after it, guys!!!! Way better than no chance if you were left out!
.
It's a sick joke. It's honestly insulting. It's like allowing an insistent toddler into a hurdles race. It's mean. It's allowing them in just to say you allowed them in. There is no universe in which a G5 team wins the NC now, which is the same as with the 4-team playoff. The outcome is no different, and so the big, fat lie may persist.
-
it's a sick joke
they KNOW they'll NEVER win it
they simply want a share of the $$$
it's always about the $$$
-
I thought most here were against a welfare state....
-
I thought most here were against a welfare state....
It's not a welfare state. It's a mutually beneficial arrangement. If they didn't want to be FBS, it's not like they'd have to shutter their football programs. They could drop down to FCS. They remain FBS because there's an advantage to them.
And no, they're never going to win it. They were never going to win it in the past either.
But the situation when this was all just a beauty pageant was, well, all just a beauty pageant. Kent State was never going to win the national championship, but nobody was excluding them from it. They just never would have gotten any votes.
But instead, we had to have an "objective" and "settle it on the field" national champion. And so we constructed a system which structurally excluded half the sport from the ability to play for the championship and "settle it on the field".
Letting G5 into the game at least gives them a path, however hopeless it might be, to play for the championship.
-
I thought most here were against a welfare state....
The threat of congressional intervention (which is bullshit) makes it no choice.
-
I also understand that it's a simple math problem. Even if you have a 90% chance of beating the 12 seed and a 70% chance of beating the "worse" 4 seed, you're down to a 63% chance of winning both.
We've had a bifurcated system since 1985.
Giving them a longshot opportunity is the same as pretending they're all in the same group. The big, fat lie has not changed, even with inclusion.
Give me Liberty's path to the NC from last year. 13-0. Top G5 champ. 12 seed.
They played 8th-ranked Oregon and had a 10% chance of winning, based on the spread. I don't care that they were utterly destroyed, that's not important right now.
They had a 10% chance of winning. Let's say they win. They're very likely to play 2 teams better than Oregon after that, if they win.
Lets be SUPER conservative and give them a 7% chance of beating an Alabama team and a 5% chance at beating someone like Michigan.
Congratulations, G5 programs! Welcome to the party. You are IN the dance!
Your NC chances are......0.035%! Get after it, guys!!!! Way better than no chance if you were left out!
.
It's a sick joke. It's honestly insulting. It's like allowing an insistent toddler into a hurdles race. It's mean. It's allowing them in just to say you allowed them in. There is no universe in which a G5 team wins the NC now, which is the same as with the 4-team playoff. The outcome is no different, and so the big, fat lie may persist.
There is what, 130 some FBS teams? Realistically, about 5 or 6 have a chance at actually winning it all. It isn’t about if they can win it. It’s just about giving them a path. They could change it to the top 12 teams without autobids and you would still be including teams that can’t win it.
If it’s just about including teams that can realistically win it we can play the regular season, not worry about the results, and just throw those teams into the playoff.
Your argument about it being borderline cruel or insulting would hold more weight if they wait felt like that, but they feel the exact opposite. They want to be included and I don’t think the event suffers if they are. It’s actually enhanced. Most years the 5 is going to put out the 12, whether the 12 is a G5 or the 5th team from the SEC or Big Ten. And no one will really remember or care.
But if the 12 upsets the 5 that is a much bigger story for the sport if it’s Liberty than if it’s Florida (or Texas, or Wisconsin, etc.). If Florida would beat a 5 seed and then go on to lose in the QF or SF how big a deal is that to you as a Florida fan? How memorable is it nationally?
If a school like Liberty does that it instantly becomes the biggest win in school history and is recounted by generations of fans. It’s remembered nationally and highlights are shown every year a G5 plays a blue blood in the playoffs. It’s a huge story. In the end, what does it really hurt to include them?
-
yup, similar to 2018 Loyola Chicago getting to the final 4
Cinderella
-
Fuck Cinderella.
So under the old system they couldn't win a NC.
In this inclusion system, they can't win a NC.
How about they form their own division so that they CAN win a NC?!?
There's enough of them. No more $$$ games where you get destroyed for cash. You fill your schedule with teams on the same plane, the same universe as you.
Bad idea. Terrible. What am I thinking!?!
-
yup, similar to 2018 Loyola Chicago getting to the final 4
Cinderella
I'm not sure citing a sport with THE most irrelevant regular season is the way to go here.
-
Fuck Cinderella.
So under the old system they couldn't win a NC.
In this inclusion system, they can't win a NC.
How about they form their own division so that they CAN win a NC?!?
There's enough of them. No more $$$ games where you get destroyed for cash. You fill your schedule with teams on the same plane, the same universe as you.
Bad idea. Terrible. What am I thinking!?!
They were in a division where they had a better chance to win a NC. They voluntarily chose to make the jump to FBS. Why does that bother you?
-
Fuck Cinderella.
So under the old system they couldn't win a NC.
In this inclusion system, they can't win a NC.
How about they form their own division so that they CAN win a NC?!?
There's enough of them. No more $$$ games where you get destroyed for cash. You fill your schedule with teams on the same plane, the same universe as you.
Bad idea. Terrible. What am I thinking!?!
Hey. I'm with you. If they don't have a chance, go form some big-boy football division and FORMALLY exclude them.
But if we're all going to pretend they're on the same plane as the others, you have to actually have a system where they at least have a Cinderella shot to prove it.
They're hanging on for the same reason that Purdue is hanging on in the B1G... The checks keep cashing.
-
They were in a division where they had a better chance to win a NC. They voluntarily chose to make the jump to FBS. Why does that bother you?
A big lie that everyone is in on bothers me.
The 5 seed that worked hard and had a successful season, poised for a big, juggernaut challenge in the prestigious national championship playoff gets to face.......Memphis. Or Liberty. Or Tulane.
It sucks. Yeah, it's an easy game, but it's lame. Everyone else gets to play big-boy football and you don't.
Just not a big fan of lying to each other with a wink and some cash. I'm weird.
-
you hand me a big pile of cash and I'll wink and lie about it
-
A big lie that everyone is in on bothers me.
The 5 seed that worked hard and had a successful season, poised for a big, juggernaut challenge in the prestigious national championship playoff gets to face.......Memphis. Or Liberty. Or Tulane.
It sucks. Yeah, it's an easy game, but it's lame. Everyone else gets to play big-boy football and you don't.
Just not a big fan of lying to each other with a wink and some cash. I'm weird.
No, not really. Okay, yeah, you ARE a little bit weird. But not for this :57:
The truth is that we have a system that is the haves and the have-nots. It is what it is. Your talent level is based on recruiting, not some sort of parity like you'd get with a draft. You previously had recruiting that was based on helmet status and "facilities", and now it's based on NIL, but either way it's not conducive to parity. Now we have NIL, but we don't have any sort of salary cap or anything else to enforce parity. Now we have free transfers with no sit-out penalty, so NIL will turn everything into the highest bidders getting the most talent, even if that talent starts at a smaller school.
Yeah, it's a big effing lie.
So let's scrap all this playoff bullshit and just turn it back into bowls. There's no playoff. There's no "national championship game". There's no semblance of objectivity. 10 schools every year can care about whether voters will crown them at the end of the year, and 120 schools every year can play for the dignity of trying to go to a bowl which is a worthy thing that shouldn't be minimized.
We turned EVERYTHING in college football into being about the NC. That was the error, not letting some tallest pygmy into the proceedings to get slaughtered by a big boy football team.
-
A big lie that everyone is in on bothers me.
The 5 seed that worked hard and had a successful season, poised for a big, juggernaut challenge in the prestigious national championship playoff gets to face.......Memphis. Or Liberty. Or Tulane.
It sucks. Yeah, it's an easy game, but it's lame. Everyone else gets to play big-boy football and you don't.
Just not a big fan of lying to each other with a wink and some cash. I'm weird.
Sucks for who? The 5 seed? They don’t care. You keep taking up fights for people who don’t want or need you to. Liberty doesn’t feel insulted they are included in a playoff they can’t win. Blue bloods don’t care they might have to play a G5.
For whatever reason it bothers you and you keep projecting how you feel onto the teams involved, but they don’t feel that way.
-
yup, we all know that seeding has been a farce since the first playoff
so, the #5 seed might have a bit of an advantage - does that mean that the #5 seed will come from the SEC EVERY season?
seeds #1 - #12 are gonna be assigned by a group of folks sitting around one table
the haves will get the advantages while the have-nots will get the shaft
-
Sucks for who? The 5 seed? They don’t care. You keep taking up fights for people who don’t want or need you to. Liberty doesn’t feel insulted they are included in a playoff they can’t win. Blue bloods don’t care they might have to play a G5.
For whatever reason it bothers you and you keep projecting how you feel onto the teams involved, but they don’t feel that way.
They're not reading this, lol. I'm just sharing my thoughts, same as everyone else.
-
yup, we all know that seeding has been a farce since the first playoff
so, the #5 seed might have a bit of an advantage - does that mean that the #5 seed will come from the SEC EVERY season?
seeds #1 - #12 are gonna be assigned by a group of folks sitting around one table
the haves will get the advantages while the have-nots will get the shaft
The 5 seed will be the top team that wasn't their conference champ.
Over the past few years, that suggests it'll either be the loser of the Michigan/OSU game or the top SEC team that isn't conf champ. I'd say "Bama" but w/o Saban we don't know what's going to happen there.
And frankly we've seen more than a few seasons where the team who didn't win their conference due to a weird loss somewhere is stronger than the team that DID win their conference, so often the team seeded at #5 is going to be within the top 3 ranking-wise. I suspect they will be more often than not REALLY strong teams. Stronger than at least 1-2 of the conference champs who are seeded ahead of them.
-
The 5 seed will be the top team that wasn't their conference champ.
Over the past few years, that suggests it'll either be the loser of the Michigan/OSU game or the top SEC team that isn't conf champ. I'd say "Bama" but w/o Saban we don't know what's going to happen there.
And frankly we've seen more than a few seasons where the team who didn't win their conference due to a weird loss somewhere is stronger than the team that DID win their conference, so often the team seeded at #5 is going to be within the top 3 ranking-wise. I suspect they will be more often than not REALLY strong teams. Stronger than at least 1-2 of the conference champs who are seeded ahead of them.
so, an SEC team
that team would have been Georgia last season
-
With NIL it's not completely inconceivable that a G5 team could build a championship roster. Like if BYU hadn't joined the Big 12, and if their parent church or a bunch of rich donors decided to go all in and bankroll every good player in the country. Unlikely, but no longer unimaginable.
-
the SEC would never allow it
-
The G5 inclusion is entirely a legal issue, nothing else. The scheme used to have the top SIX conference champions included by fiat. I noted this a while back and expected them to change it. They did, now it's top five. Fine with me.
There will of course be years when the top G5 team isn't a 12 seed, but maybe a 10 seed, and the 12 seed will be some left over P5 (P4) team that still is better than 8 teams the 5 seed has played all year. And the 5 seed will lose that game every once in a while, maybe more often than folks expect.
-
the SEC would never allow it
SEC can't do anything about it. This is effectively the Oregon model. They're not a helmet, and until just this year they were in a conference that's been largely irrelevant in football for decades. Not really much different than a G5.
And yet through massive cash infusions from a single donor, they're out-rostering tons of the big boys.
The SEC hasn't been able to stop it so far, no reason to believe they could do anything going forward.
-
I really do think the NIL thing is going to change the landscape of CFB over the next decade. The top power teams of today would look entirely familiar to anyone in 2000, or 1980, maybe with the exception of Oregon (interesting exception). In a decade, the top ten "power teams" could well include a TCU or Baylor or Indiana or ... X, and 3-4 of them.
-
I really do think the NIL thing is going to change the landscape of CFB over the next decade. The top power teams of today would look entirely familiar to anyone in 2000, or 1980, maybe with the exception of Oregon (interesting exception). In a decade, the top ten "power teams" could well include a TCU or Baylor or Indiana or ... X, and 3-4 of them.
In all honesty, I wonder if it's more likely to happen in basketball than football. With roster sizes being so much smaller, a billionaire can more easily stack a roster than in CFB.
Think Mark Cuban as an example. Not that Indiana is a patsy in basketball, of course, but they haven't hung a banner since the 80's. Cuban is definitely a fan, and definitely can afford the NIL outlays. What will it take, $15-20M per year to simply outbid everyone else in the sport for both starters and backups?
You might need to spend an order of magnitude more to truly lock up all the top talent in football across a roster of 85+ guys.
-
Good point, though you have the NBA as a factor in bball.
-
too bad T. Boone Pickens isn't here with us
right, Okie St.?
-
Good point, though you have the NBA as a factor in bball.
That's true. You can only keep the best of the best around a year before they want to enter the draft, and that makes putting together a cohesive roster that can, and cares to, play together, difficult.
-
I'd simply rename the thread 5 > 4 or something like that. The 5 seed will very often be better than the 4 seed, sure. But there is absolutely no advantage to playing an extra game.
-
Give me Liberty's path to the NC from last year. 13-0. Top G5 champ. 12 seed.
They played 8th-ranked Oregon and had a 10% chance of winning, based on the spread. I don't care that they were utterly destroyed, that's not important right now.
They had a 10% chance of winning. Let's say they win. They're very likely to play 2 teams better than Oregon after that, if they win.
Lets be SUPER conservative and give them a 7% chance of beating an Alabama team and a 5% chance at beating someone like Michigan.
Congratulations, G5 programs! Welcome to the party. You are IN the dance!
Your NC chances are......0.035%! Get after it, guys!!!! Way better than no chance if you were left out!
.
It's a sick joke. It's honestly insulting. It's like allowing an insistent toddler into a hurdles race. It's mean. It's allowing them in just to say you allowed them in. There is no universe in which a G5 team wins the NC now, which is the same as with the 4-team playoff. The outcome is no different, and so the big, fat lie may persist.
I absolutely agree with everything you typed above but, as I've said about 10,000 times:
The threat of congressional intervention (which is bullshit) makes it no choice.
This is the problem.
No matter what any of us think from a football/competition standpoint, it makes no difference. If the G5 are not provided with an opportunity, the sport will face either anti-trust scrutiny or Congressional intervention, or both.
Every time you ( @OrangeAfroMan (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=58) ) address this, you give me "Football" reasons THAT I AGREE WITH. Those are irrelevant to the situation because the G5 isn't being included for "Football" reasons, they are being included for political/legal reasons.
-
They're hanging on for the same reason that Purdue is hanging on in the B1G... The checks keep cashing.
I LoL'ed at this. It is literally the only thing driving this.
-
With NIL it's not completely inconceivable that a G5 team could build a championship roster. Like if BYU hadn't joined the Big 12, and if their parent church or a bunch of rich donors decided to go all in and bankroll every good player in the country. Unlikely, but no longer unimaginable.
Same as @FearlessF (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=10) , I immediately thought of T Boone Pickens when I read this. I think it IS a possibility. Maybe some mega-billionaire is a fan/alum of the University of Wyoming. We *COULD* see the Wyoming Cowboys (I think they are the Cowboys) competing with the blue bloods for talent.
-
Same as @FearlessF (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=10) , I immediately thought of T Boone Pickens when I read this. I think it IS a possibility. Maybe some mega-billionaire is a fan/alum of the University of Wyoming. We *COULD* see the Wyoming Cowboys (I think they are the Cowboys) competing with the blue bloods for talent.
I do have a quibble with this. People do things for money all the time. However, people often don't like being viewed as doing things for money.
If I'm a blue-chip recruit and I know I can get $1.5M in NIL money at Bama, or OSU, or USC, or Texas, that's pretty good. If I'm getting $1.6M to go to Wyoming? I'll be viewed as doing it for the money. Why would I do that? Is that $100K really willing to stake my reputation on? Even if I'm a dumb 18-year-old athlete?
I'm not sure. Wyoming in that scenario is going to have be offering stupid money, like $2.5M or $3M to get that athlete because the minute an athlete goes to Wyoming, everyone KNOWS it's for the money. So the money better be good enough to be worth it.
Not to switch streams here, but we've seen the same thing over the last couple of years in golf. A Saudi-financed upstart league called LIV appeared and tried to attract the PGA Tour's stars with higher prize money and large contracts. We're talking 9 figures for some of the big names. Mid 8 figures for guys who can't reasonably justify that value. They got some players, and those players all had to immediately start tap dancing around the fact that they were doing it for the money with platitudes about how it was "growing the game", or how the new team format was "exciting". But all the fans know it's the money. All the fans know they sold out. Doesn't necessarily mean we blame them for doing it, but we don't believe a WORD of their excuses. It was for the money, and nothing else.
It would be the same thing taking a big NIL check to go to Wyoming. Everyone knows it's about the money, so the money had BETTER be good enough to withstand the criticism you'll get for it.
-
But there is absolutely no advantage to playing an extra game.
This reminds me of many mbot posts. A declaration with extra emphasis by him, usually, that THIS is the TRUTH and any discussion is unwarranted.
-
Speaking of NIL, is it conceivable that elite players will eschew the draft as juniors because they can make more money in college than in the NFL? Carson Beck famously is staying another year, NIL is clearly a factor.
Could we see a time when a college player makes more than he would in the NFL? (Aside from players who are not NFL material for whatever reason.)
-
This reminds me of many mbot posts. A declaration with extra emphasis by him, usually, that THIS is the TRUTH and any discussion is unwarranted.
Again, it's simple math. I'm not sure what else you want here.
-
I prefer DISCUSSION over someone who just jumps in repeatedly with the same assertion of what is TRUTH, with zero discussion.
Of course, DISCUSSION, the exchange of ideas and thoughts, can be nuanced and difficult.
-
I prefer DISCUSSION over someone who just jumps in repeatedly with the same assertion of what is TRUTH, with zero discussion.
Of course, DISCUSSION, the exchange of ideas and thoughts, can be nuanced and difficult.
Agreed.
But this is not one of those times, lol.
Are you against math?
-
Last year's UGA was probably the best 5-seed....or possibly 83 Miami. I want to say 77 ND was a 5-seed. I'd have to look it up.
.
Ah shit, am I discussing this? With nuance and difficulty!??
-
I rather liked math in HS and college. I did pretty well at it. I took more in college than required, the next levels were titled things I couldn't understand, the name of the course, like "Number Theory". That sounded ominous.
I had another course later called "Bonding", the book had the same title. I don't think I understood anything the entire semester, but somehow I managed to pass. I later got quite interested in bonding of certain types.
As for 5 seed versus 4 seed. I think USUALLY being a 4 is better, but I can contrive scenarios where being a 5 is arguably better. It's not that hard the way things are constructed today.
-
Last year's UGA was probably the best 5-seed....or possibly 83 Miami. I want to say 77 ND was a 5-seed. I'd have to look it up.
What would 1993 Wisconsin look like as a seed?
-
1993
1 FSU (ACC Champs)
2 Nebraska (Big 8 Champs)
3 WV (Big East Champs)
4 Texas A&M (SWC Champs)
5 ND 10-1
6 Tennnessee 9-1-1 (5th ranked AU on probation)
7 Florida (SEC Champs)
8 Wisconsin (Big Ten Champs)
9 Miami 9-2
10 Ohio St 9-1-1
11 UNC 10-2
12 Fresno St? (WAC Co-Champs)
.
Fresno @ ND
UNC @ Tenn
OSU @ Florida
Miami @ Wisc
.
Funny season - no SEC or B1G in top 4 seeds.....very weak 3 and 4 seeds.....especially weak G5 champ
.
5 seed is the ND team that beat FSU in one of the 'Game of the Century's. Lost to BC the next week. BC misses the playoff. A 9-2 Penn St misses the playoff.
-
I guess the SEC and B1G were considered kinda weak back then?
Wisconsin was 10-1-1 (OSU tie).
No PAC teams at all.
-
Shit, that could have killed the PAC of sooner....failing to earn even one playoff spot out of 12.
Yeesh.
-
I guess the SEC and B1G were considered kinda weak back then?
The SEC was not viewed (by many) as some juggernaut back then. Folks had debates about the "best conference" thing as I recall, and the best would bounce around year over year.
Oddly enough, IF the SEC were dominated say by Missouri and Kentucky and South Carolina some year, it would be an argument they aren't very good overall because of the helmets. A conference looks stronger when the helmet teams are elite or very good, not the reverse, even if in reality it's the same.
-
Well it was Florida vs Bama in the SECCG for the first 3 years and 4 out of 5. The SEC probably looked like a 2-team league.
-
But there is absolutely no advantage to playing an extra game.
In a vacuum, I don’t think you would get an argument on that statement. By adding context, you might. The context I was adding was the quality of the opponent. If the 5 seed gets to play two pretty good teams instead of one great team to get to the semifinals is that an advantage? If the 5 seed plays two top 25 teams and two top 10 teams to win a NC is that an advantage over playing 3 top 10 teams?
That was basically the question I was asking. Does the potential quality of the opponents negate the disadvantage of the extra game?
-
He's already claimed several times that an extra game cannot ever be advantageous, discussion over, for him.
-
It could, I guess, but remember, this is basically one end of the bell curve - the best teams. But sure, the inclusion of a less-talented team does skew things a bit.
But for the 4/5, they still likely have to face the 1 seed before even getting to the final, so neither has an easy road.
-
He's already claimed several times that an extra game cannot ever be advantageous, discussion over, for him.
Okay, I admit if your OC died in a car accident on Dec 1, yes, test-driving your new offense that you've had 3 weeks to implement would probably be a good thing vs a G5 defense.
You got me.
Ohh, 'test driving' was a bad phrase to use there. Too soon.
-
As for 5 seed versus 4 seed. I think USUALLY being a 4 is better, but I can contrive scenarios where being a 5 is arguably better. It's not that hard the way things are constructed today.
But I don't think you can really tease out the structure of the playoff and the understanding of exactly who that 5 seed might be.
That 5 seed might be squarely in the discussion of the #1 or #2 team in the country. Think of 2011 Alabama. Smoked literally everyone on their schedule except LSU, to whom they lost in a very narrow OT game. So close that despite the H2H loss, they ended up in the BCSCG.
They were not the #5 team in the country, but in this scenario they'd assuredly be the #5 seed. I could argue that facing the weakest P4 conf champ and the strongest G5 conference champ is an easier path to the semis than facing the #7 seed in the CFP (which arguably could also truly be a top 4/5 team in the country who just didn't win their conference). There's a good chance those two teams they face could be outside the top 10, when actual talent and rankings are considered.
And then you have to think about who that #4 seed would be in our structure. Most years, it will be the weakest P4 conference champion. It's tough to look back at 2011 as an example here, because we still had 6 power conferences, but it is still instructive because 3-4 of their conference champs were fairly weak. Sure, LSU and OkSU were locks. But who comes next?
You had #6 Oregon at 11-2 (behind #4 Stanford who didn't win the conference). You had #8 Boise State (11-1) who wasn't even P6 champ next up. Then #9 Wisconsin (11-2). Then #14 Clemson (11-2). Finally #23 WVU (9-3).
If we take the rankings at face value with the top 5 conference champs, you'd get the below CFP seeding:
- LSU
- Oklahoma State
- Oregon
- Boise State
- Alabama
- Stanford
- Arkansas (slots in where USC would be as they were ineligible)
- Wisconsin
- USCe
- KSU
- MSU
- Michigan
- Clemson
- Baylor
So completely ignoring structure, if I'm Boise State, I don't really want to be the 4 here and face Alabama. But as the 4, I can at least hope that somehow Baylor upsets Alabama, or Alabama loses key players to injury, or something else. If Boise and Alabama swap, then Boise has to first of all beat Baylor, and then they're guaranteed to face a healthy & rested Alabama.
I think the point stands. Even with the extra game, the team that will most likely be in the 5 seed position is going to have just about the best possible path to the quarterfinals of any seed in the playoff.
-
The 1 seed is laughing.
The 1 seed doesn't want to face Bama in the semis either.
The 1 seed would prefer that Bama slot it at 2 seed, OkSU at 3, and that they face the winner of Wisconsin/USCe in the quarters and the winner of Oregon/Boise in the semis.
But here we go... The structure makes the 1 seed's semifinal matchup arguably MUCH tougher than straight ranking driving the seed, because the 5 seed will often be on the same talent/ranking level as the 2/3 seed, so they want to avoid them as long as possible.
-
I think the point stands. Even with the extra game, the team that will most likely be in the 5 seed position is going to have just about the best possible path to the quarterfinals of any seed in the playoff.
Please clarify this. I'm worried it's the dumbest thing I've ever read.
4 teams don't have to play any games to get to the quarterfinal.
.
If you meant through the quarterfinals, the 1 seed, playing the 8/9 winner, had an easier path, and you don't even need to bother with any math for that.
-
The 1 seed doesn't want to face Bama in the semis either.
The 1 seed would prefer that Bama slot it at 2 seed, OkSU at 3, and that they face the winner of Wisconsin/USCe in the quarters and the winner of Oregon/Boise in the semis.
But here we go... The structure makes the 1 seed's semifinal matchup arguably MUCH tougher than straight ranking driving the seed, because the 5 seed will often be on the same talent/ranking level as the 2/3 seed, so they want to avoid them as long as possible.
I don't think many 1 seeds attain that by worrying about who to avoid.
-
Same as @FearlessF (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=10) , I immediately thought of T Boone Pickens when I read this. I think it IS a possibility. Maybe some mega-billionaire is a fan/alum of the University of Wyoming. We *COULD* see the Wyoming Cowboys (I think they are the Cowboys) competing with the blue bloods for talent.
Meet David Miller, SMU's billionaire alum who spearheaded the Mustangs' return to big-time college football
Miller led the charge in raising funds to ensure the SMU football program would be among the elite once again
https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/meet-david-miller-smus-billionaire-alum-who-spearheaded-the-mustangs-return-to-big-time-college-football/
(https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/meet-david-miller-smus-billionaire-alum-who-spearheaded-the-mustangs-return-to-big-time-college-football/)If not for Miller riding in on a Mustang to the rescue, SMU wouldn't be part of the anointed (the 68 Power Four conference schools that hold the key to whatever the sport looks like in the future).
All it took was $270 million. That's the cumulative amount SMU is raising to fund its athletic program for the next nine years in the ACC. Last year, the school agreed to join the conference for … nothing; no media rights revenue will be distributed to SMU. The Mustangs will get ACC bowl and NCAA Tournament payouts, but beyond that, they are basically playing on their dime.
Miller, 73, knows how to raise money. The billionaire founded EnCap Investments, a powerful oil and gas private equity firm. Twenty years ago, he was appointed to the National Petroleum Council and became an advisor to the Secretary of Energy. The 6-foot-8 Miller had been involved with the university almost from the time he picked up a basketball playing for Bob Prewitt in 1969. He was part of a Southwest Conference championship team in 1972.
-
SMU may have used a $270 million life raft just to find safety on the Titanic, lol.
-
Please clarify this. I'm worried it's the dumbest thing I've ever read.
4 teams don't have to play any games to get to the quarterfinal.
.
If you meant through the quarterfinals, the 1 seed, playing the 8/9 winner, had an easier path, and you don't even need to bother with any math for that.
Sorry. You're correct. I meant the best path to the semifinals. My mistake.
-
I don't think many 1 seeds attain that by worrying about who to avoid.
Of course not. But if we had a 14-team playoff in 2011, I'm pretty sure LSU would rather face the Oregon/Boise winner than Bama in the semis.
Although, if it were straight seeding, it would [likely] be a matchup against the Stanford/Oregon winner in the semis, who were #4 and #6 in the rankings.
-
The PAC was weird, I believe Stanford/Oregon had 2 instances of one winning the PAC with one more loss than the other had.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/vsjBOw3.png)
-
(https://i.imgur.com/vsjBOw3.png)
The university? Pshhhhh.
-
It's his second offense, so I expect something fairly public to happen.
The other things I've heard resulted from NIL. The kids buy these Dodge Chargers and then feel the need for speed and get caught, or on one case killed.
-
I doubt the Big 12 champ will have 3 losses most years because
1. They won't have any losses to Texas or Oklahoma unless they play in Non-conference.
2. The CCG Wil contain the 2 best teams in a 16 team conference
3. They will be the winner of the Big 12 CCG.
So going forward I would guess the Big 12 champ will be at least 11-2 and in most years 12-1 or 13-0.
-
Well, this year there's like a 6-way favorite for the predicted conference champ this year. Imo, the champ is as likely to have 4 losses as 1 or 0.
Certain program(s) would rise to the top over time, if the college football landscape were to remain static, but that's not happening. The moment an Okie St or K-State strings together a couple of top seasons, FSU or Clemson or somebody will come in an wreck everything for them.
-
I doubt the Big 12 champ will have 3 losses most years because
1. They won't have any losses to Texas or Oklahoma unless they play in Non-conference.
2. The CCG Wil contain the 2 best teams in a 16 team conference
3. They will be the winner of the Big 12 CCG.
So going forward I would guess the Big 12 champ will be at least 11-2 and in most years 12-1 or 13-0.
Yeah, could be. But my larger point is under this current format the number 4 seed will rarely be considered a top 4 team. The 5 seed will be the beneficiary of that.
-
In addition, many years the 12 seed will not be considered a top 12 team (and possibly top 20 or 25). Again, the 5 seed benefits from that.
-
Why not the 12 seed?
-
In addition, many years the 12 seed will not be considered a top 12 team (and possibly top 20 or 25). Again, the 5 seed benefits from that.
Yes, I forgot to add that part myself. that could be true.
Much like the Big Ten West champion in the past could have an 10-2 or 11-1 record sometimes and still get blown out in the Big Ten CCG, the Big 12 champ could maybe be 12-1 in the future and still get blown out by the #5 seed.
I just don't know how that will work in the CFP ratings. Will a 12-1 Big 12 champion get rated highly or not? In the end it may not matter, they will still be the #4 seed. But is it possible they might actually be good?
-
Why not the 12 seed?
Because many years the expectation is the 12 seed will probably be the highest rated G5 champion. Occasionally, that team will land in the top 12 of the final CFP rankings but more often than not don’t.
-
I hear on occasion folks decrying a "long layoff" between playing games. I don't know to what extent that is true, maybe some, getting rusty etc. You contrast that with injury possibilities and simple wear and tear. I lean to thinking a "tune up" game after a month off could be net useful for most teams. We'll hear this excuse I bet when a % beats a 4.
The NFL has their preseason for some reason, I surmise they view it as a net benefit, it's not exactly the same thing.
-
NFL preseason sells tickets and concessions and even some TV revenue
I think any coach anywhere would rather have another week off at the end of the season to heal up and prepare for the next opponent
-
Yeah, the NFL now makes some money, but that wasn't the case decades ago. I dunno really, it just seems to me an easy tuneup game would be of value vs another week of practice. Practice itself can result in injuries.
-
well, even a #20 ranked undefeated or one-loss G5 team isn't a tuneup game
they are obviously well coached and have a huge chip on their shoulder
there is some real danger there
-
I think it is a tuneup game, to what may be the best team in the country playing at home who would be a 17+ point favorite.
I'm not talking about ALL the time, but some of the time, the 5 seed could be better positioned. And yes, on occasion said G5 team will put up a battle and this will not be the case.
-
you may be right and it might be a tuneup game, but I don't think any coach would ever agree
of course, coaches are special people
-
The other factor in all of this is that #5 then gets to face #4, which we generally agree will be the least competent of the conference champs, and often will be a team ranked say 10th or so. Menawhile, this 4 seed, who might be 10-3 and not a great team, gets to face what probably is a 12-1 CG loser who might be the best team in the country, at least in some years.
-
I hear on occasion folks decrying a "long layoff" between playing games. I don't know to what extent that is true, maybe some, getting rusty etc. You contrast that with injury possibilities and simple wear and tear. I lean to thinking a "tune up" game after a month off could be net useful for most teams. We'll hear this excuse I bet when a % beats a 4.
The NFL has their preseason for some reason, I surmise they view it as a net benefit, it's not exactly the same thing.
Pre means 'before' - as in before a full season when you're not beat up.
Post means 'after' - as in after a long, grueling season
An extra game POST is different than an extra game PRE, especially when those PRE games are just scrimmages.
-
you may be right and it might be a tuneup game, but I don't think any coach would ever agree
of course, coaches are special people
The minute they treat it as such, they'll lose.
-
Who were the worst 5 seeds in recorded history?
-
I'm OrangeAfroMan, not OrangeAfroGopher
-
UConn, from the Big East?
-
UConn, from the Big East?
Worst 5 seed = worst of the best non-champs.....still a great team.
I think you mean worst 4 seed.....but in the past, with more than 4 'in' conferences, it's a little hard to do that.
-
Worst 5 seed = worst of the best non-champs.....still a great team.
I think you mean worst 4 seed.....but in the past, with more than 4 'in' conferences, it's a little hard to do that.
Going forward that's the case, but my inquiry was of a historical nature; as in the antithesis to the thread title.
-
I recall the UConn BCS team. They were bad, for sure, but I don't think that conference would be included in today's landscape (i.e. no auto bid).
-
The Pitt team that Utah whipped 35-0 was pretty bad.
-
Yep, them too.
-
The Pitt team that Utah whipped 35-0 was pretty bad.
Had TWO NFL QBs!!
I didn’t realize quite how not good they were. Like, you can be a spicy 8-4. But they were not.