CFB51 College Football Fan Community
The Power Five => Big Ten => Topic started by: medinabuckeye1 on December 07, 2022, 04:08:14 PM
-
I'll start with the groundrules. First, here are the league champions in order of ranking. For those that ARE ranked in the CFP top-25 I've used that. For the others I've used Sagrin:
- #1 SEC Champion, 13-0 Georgia
- #2 B1G Champion, 13-0 Michigan
- #7 ACC Champion, 11-2 Clemson
- #8 PAC Champion, 10-3 Utah
- #9 B12 Champion, 10-3 KSU
- #16 AAC Champion, 11-2 Tulane
- #24 SBT Champion, 11-2 Troy
- #25 CUSA Champion, 11-2 UTSA
- #49 MWC Champion, 9-4 Fresno St
- #79 MAC Champion, 8-5 Toledo
Next are the at-large possibilities (all from CFP rankings):
- #3 12-1 TCU
- #4 11-1 tOSU
- #5 10-2 Bama
- #6 10-2 Tennessee
- #10 11-2 USC
- #11 10-2 PSU
- #12 10-2 Washington
- #13 9-3 FSU
- #14 9-3 OrSU
- #15 9-3 Oregon
- #17 9-4 LSU
- #18 9-3 UCLA
- #19 8-4 USCe
- #20 8-4 Texas
- #21 8-4 Notre Dame
- #22 8-4 MsSt
- #23 8-4 NCST
So first, old school, pre-BCS:
- #1 Georgia would be in the Sugar Bowl
- #2 Michigan would be in the Rose Bowl against #8 10-3 Utah
- #3 TCU would be in the Fiesta Bowl?
- #4 tOSU would be in the Citrus Bowl likely against #5 10-2 Bama
Obviously Georgia wins the NC if they win. Michigan is in the unenviable position of needing someone to take out Georgia and Georgia's opponent isn't necessarily going to be all that good.
If Georgia and Michigan were to both lose it would at least theoretically open the door for TCU or Ohio State. Both of them have a problem though in that they already have a loss and in Ohio State's case that loss is H2H to Michigan so even if Georgia and Michigan lose and Ohio State wins, would the Buckeyes really leapfrog both the Wolverines and the Bulldogs? It is doubtful but maybe if Ohio State just flat obliterated Bama? IMHO Bama would have no chance because even if they obliterated Ohio State they'd still be an 11-2 team from the same conference as SEC Champion 13-1 Georgia. They don't have a H2H loss to UGA like tOSU does to M, but they have an extra loss and both losses were to teams that UGA beat. TCU probably would have a better chance than either tOSU or Bama but it would likely depend who they played and how badly they beat them.
BCS era, 1998-2013:
- #1 13-0 Georgia would play #2 13-0 Michigan in the BCSNCG for the NC.
Current 4-team CFP:
- #1 13-0 Georgia plays #4 11-1 Ohio State
- #2 13-0 Michigan plays #3 12-1 TCU
- Winners play for the NC
Soon-to-be 12 team format:
- #1 13-0 Georgia gets a bye
- #2 13-0 Michigan gets a bye
- #7 11-2 Clemson gets a bye
- #8 10-3 Utah gets a bye
First round games:
- #16 Tulane at #3 TCU
- #11 Penn State at #4 Ohio State
- #10 USC at #5 Bama
- #9 KSU at #8 Utah
Second Round games:
- KSU/Utah vs Georgia
- USC/Bama vs Michigan
- PSU/tOSU vs Clemson
- Tulane/TCU vs Utah
Semi-finals:
- KSU/Utah/UGA vs Tulane/TCU/Utah
- USC/Bama/Michigan vs PSU/tOSU/Clemson
- Winners play for NC
ELA's proposed 10+2:
First round games (I'm assuming top-4 league champs get a bye just like the soon-to-be scheme):
- #79 Toledo at #3 TCU
- #49 Fresno St at #4 Ohio State
- #25 UTSA at #9 KSU
- #24 Troy at #16 Tulane
Second round games:
- Troy/Tulane vs Georgia
- UTSA/KSU vs Michigan
- FresnoSt/tOSU vs Clemson
- Toledo/TCU vs Utah
Semi-finals:
- Troy/Tulane/UGA vs Toledo/TCU/Utah
- UTSA/KSU/M vs FresnoSt/tOSU/Clemson
- Winners play for NC
The 8-team model that I had hoped we would expand to:
First round games:
- #16 Tulane at #1 Georgia
- #9 KSU at #2 Michigan
- #4 Ohio State at #7 Clemson
- #3 TCU at #8 Utah
Semi-finals:
- Tulane/UGA vs TCU/Utah
- KSU/M vs tOSU/Clemson
- Winners play for NC
A 10+6 combination of ELA's 10+2 and the soon-to-be 12-team format that eliminates the first round byes and replaces them with home games against tall midgets:
First round games:
- #79 Toledo at #1 Georgia
- #49 FresnoSt at #2 Michigan
- #11 PSU at #7 Clemson
- #10 USC at #8 Utah
- #6 Tennessee at #9 KSU
- #5 Bama at #16 Tulane
- #4 tOSU at #24 Troy
- #3 TCU at #25 UTSA
Second Round games:
My preference would be to do it based on the rankings of the first-round winners. Ie, if #3 TCU beats #25 UTSA (as expected), then #1 Georgia shouldn't have to play #3 in the second round. Thus, I'd reseed as highest remaining vs lowest remaining, etc. However, if you didn't then it would be:
- Toledo/UGA vs TCU/UTSA
- FresnoSt/M vs tOSU/Troy
- PSU/Clemson vs Bama/Tulane
- USC/Utah vs TN/KSU
Semi-finals:
Again, I'd reseed but if you didn't then:
- Toledo/UGA/TCU/UTSA vs USC/Utah/TN/KSU
- FresnoSt/M/tOSU/Troy vs PSU/Clemson/Bama/Tulane
- Winners play for NC
-
My takes:
A lot of people here push for "Champions Only". Some, such as @OrangeAfroMan (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=58) push for "best teams" regardless of championships.
Personally, I take a middle road. I think we SHOULD reward Championships but I do see a need for at least some at-large slots. That said, I think six is WAY too many at-large slots. Looking at it applied to this year that would include four 2-loss teams (Bama, TN, USC, PSU). That is all but one 2-loss P5 (Washington is the odd-one out). That effectively gives the helmets TWO mulligans. To me, that is too many. I'd rather we had two at-large slots such that getting one would be difficult and no assured thing.
Second, I just don't like byes. I don't see the purpose. If we are playing games why not have everyone play? Thus, I see 12 as a silly number of teams because you end up with byes. I'd much rather be at 8 with the top six league champions and two at-large teams. If we insist on having six at-large slots then I think we should go to 16 and include all 10 league champions and let the top-8 league champions host. That why there is a reward for winning your league and a hierarchy even among league champions:
- The best league Champions: Georgia and Michigan get EASY home games in the first round.
- The next tier of league Champions: Clemson, Utah, and KSU get tough games but at least they get to host.
- The best at-large teams: TCU, Ohio State, and Bama get weak opponents but have to face them on the road.
- The last at-large teams: TN, USC, PSU get tough games on the road.
- The tall midgets: Tulane, Troy, UTSA get tough games but at least they get to host.
- The least-tall midgets: Toledo and FresnoSt get tough games on the road.
If we must have an expanded (beyond 4) playoff, my favorite remains the 6+2 model with the top-6 league champions (top-4 host) and two at-large teams. I think that it:
- Rewards league Champions
- Includes the non-P5 but without letting in too many tall midgets (Toledo and FresnoSt have no business in a playoff).
- Creates a path for a team that has an off day and loses one game thus falling out of their league title but makes that path difficult enough that a single loss still *COULD* eliminate you
-
BCS era, 1998-2013:
#1 13-0 Georgia would play #2 13-0 Michigan in the BCSNCG for the NC.
_________________________________________________ ____
done
-
BCS era, 1998-2013:
#1 13-0 Georgia would play #2 13-0 Michigan in the BCSNCG for the NC.
_________________________________________________ ____
done
The first person I saw suggest this was @ELA (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=55) , his idea was a flexible, "as needed" setup. In theory I agree completely. This year you have two undefeated P5 Champions, let them play and be done with it. However, if TCU had won you'd have three undefeated P5 Champions so you'd need a 4-team CFP, add in tOSU (as the next highest ranked team just to get to 4) and play. Etc. In theory that would be ideal but it has zero practical chance to be implemented.
-
I'm ready to go back to the old bowls +1 as needed.
In terms of champions vs quality, I have no problem teams achieving in, based on resume. BUT, I don't automatically deem the champion of a weaker conference "more deserving" than the runner-up of the strongest conference.
I may see "resume" different than others.
-
In old poll era, assuming we take that era and 2022 conference alignment, nothing keeps TCU from playing in the Sugar Bowl vs UGA or Ohio St. They aren't forced to the OB, that's KSU. Nebraska often ended up in the Sugar (and Fiesta) when finishing behind OU or CU.
a highly ranked Michigan once played Auburn in Sugar. Heck USC could be there too. It need not be some 3 or 4 loss total also ran. tOSU would love to get to Sugar to try to claim the MNC by upsetting UGA and watching Michigan lose to Utah.
Check 1985 for reference. OU 11-1 loss to Miami 27-14 in Norman. Miami 11-0, loses 35-7 in Sugar to Tennessee. Iowa 11-0 loses to UCLA 45-28 in Rose. OU beats 11-0 Penn St 25-10 in Orange. OU wins AP and UPI, despite h2h loss to Miami at Norman. Keep playing this game with 1983, 1989, 1990 sort of, and 1993. Losing first wins in these Mexican standoffs.
-
In old poll era, assuming we take that era and 2022 conference alignment, nothing keeps TCU from playing in the Sugar Bowl vs UGA or Ohio St. They aren't forced to the OB, that's KSU. Nebraska often ended up in the Sugar (and Fiesta) when finishing behind OU or CU.
a highly ranked Michigan once played Auburn in Sugar. Heck USC could be there too. It need not be some 3 or 4 loss total also ran. tOSU would love to get to Sugar to try to claim the MNC by upsetting UGA and watching Michigan lose to Utah.
Check 1985 for reference. OU 11-1 loss to Miami 27-14 in Norman. Miami 11-0, loses 35-7 in Sugar to Tennessee. Iowa 11-0 loses to UCLA 45-28 in Rose. OU beats 11-0 Penn St 25-10 in Orange. OU wins AP and UPI, despite h2h loss to Miami at Norman. Keep playing this game with 1983, 1989, 1990 sort of, and 1993. Losing first wins in these Mexican standoffs.
Sure but in the old poll era, Georgia is automatically tied to the Sugar Bowl. After losing to KSU, TCU would certainly have been dropped to at best #4 and possibly lower depending on how much the poll voters wanted to punish them. Remember that in the poll era, it's ALWAYS better to lose early than to lose late. And Helmetosity also factors heavily.
So Michigan plays Utah in the Rose, and it's almost guaranteed that the Sugar takes Ohio State to match up against SEC conference champion Georgia. At that point there is no path for TCU to win the MNC because even if Michigan loses in the Rose, the winner of the Ohio State - Georgia Sugar Bowl becomes the de facto champion.
-
In old poll era, assuming we take that era and 2022 conference alignment, nothing keeps TCU from playing in the Sugar Bowl vs UGA or Ohio St. They aren't forced to the OB, that's KSU. Nebraska often ended up in the Sugar (and Fiesta) when finishing behind OU or CU.
a highly ranked Michigan once played Auburn in Sugar. Heck USC could be there too. It need not be some 3 or 4 loss total also ran. tOSU would love to get to Sugar to try to claim the MNC by upsetting UGA and watching Michigan lose to Utah.
Check 1985 for reference. OU 11-1 loss to Miami 27-14 in Norman. Miami 11-0, loses 35-7 in Sugar to Tennessee. Iowa 11-0 loses to UCLA 45-28 in Rose. OU beats 11-0 Penn St 25-10 in Orange. OU wins AP and UPI, despite h2h loss to Miami at Norman. Keep playing this game with 1983, 1989, 1990 sort of, and 1993. Losing first wins in these Mexican standoffs.
I was assuming that the Citrus contract would give them the first picks after the SEC and B1G Champions went to the Sugar and Rose.
-
No doubt, TCU would likely be odd man out on getting the most attractive bowl bid in poll era. I was framing my poll era scenario response as a counter to Medina's suggestion that UGA would likely play a donkey in the Sugar. There are 3 relatively attractive teams for the Sugar to want to pull in to play undefeated Georgia. They would likely rank 1. tOSU 2. TCU and 3. USC. I suppose USC may be #2, though interestingly never in the history of the Sugar Bowl has an active Pac 12 team played in the game. '08 Utah was MWC. Of course Hawaii did, and years ago Santa Clara and St. Mary's. TCU's two claimed MNC's both ended with wins in the Sugar Bowl.
If memory serves the Citrus' only contractual pull for a time (late 80s until only '91 was as the ACC champ, but that got blown up by Bowl Alliance, move to SEC/BIG and frankly FSU move to ACC in '92 . The Big/SEC Citrus deal began in '92 season, so our fantasy exercise here is partly contingent on which era of the Poll era are we talking about? Fiesta was a great mercenary bowl host for years, thus I'd be convinced TCU ends there, and you're right with very little shot at the MNC based on the likely matchups. Had they won the XII CCG, its a no brainer, but still not a lock IMO that we get
UGA v TCU
Mich v Utah, and we'd have a '94 or '97 outcome on our hands.
-
The problem for auto-bids for all conferences is that the number of conferences is fluid. Conferences split and fold and level jump. Then you wind up in situations like March Madness, when the Mountain West split off of the WAC and the other conferences were unwilling to relinquish an at-large bid in order to accommodate the new conference, so they had to expand the field to 65, and the dreaded play-in game was born.
Since 2000, the Big West stopped sponsoring football, the Sunbelt started, the Wac stopped sponsoring football, now it does again but at the FCS level, and the Big East split, but only one of the resulting conferences sponsors football.
Then in the 90s The Big East launched football, the SWC and Big 8 folded, the Big 12 was born from the ashes, and the Mountain West split off of the WAC.
It never stops.
-
The problem for auto-bids for all conferences is that the number of conferences is fluid. Conferences split and fold and level jump. Then you wind up in situations like March Madness, when the Mountain West split off of the WAC and the other conferences were unwilling to relinquish an at-large bid in order to accommodate the new conference, so they had to expand the field to 65, and the dreaded play-in game was born.
Since 2000, the Big West stopped sponsoring football, the Sunbelt started, the Wac stopped sponsoring football, now it does again but at the FCS level, and the Big East split, but only one of the resulting conferences sponsors football.
Then in the 90s The Big East launched football, the SWC and Big 8 folded, the Big 12 was born from the ashes, and the Mountain West split off of the WAC.
It never stops.
This is a good point but I think it has a fairly easy solution. However many league Champions are going to get auto bids, I'd word it as that many. Ie, if we used @ELA (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=55) 's 10+2 or the above 10+6 model where all 10 league Champions get auto bids, I would say "top-10" rather than "all". That way if another league is created it doesn't create an extra auto bid.
-
You left off my 6 team model... Any league champs ranked in the top 8 and fill in at large for the rest.
#1 SEC Champion, 13-0 Georgia
#2 B1G Champion, 13-0 Michigan
#7 ACC Champion, 11-2 Clemson
#8 PAC Champion, 10-3 Utah
#3 12-1 TCU
#4 11-1 tOSU
Lowest seeded champs host the at larges, to get to current playoff structure.
(My model would also push to have 4 Super Conferences, not the current "P5" or the mega 2 we are moving towards.)
-
I'm not sure why everyone is bending over backwards to get 12-1 TCU a possible NC. They lost to 3-loss KSU. Tough shit.
Win next time.
-
agreed
-
I'm not trying a single thing. Just participating in a fantasy what if scenario based on prior formats.
-
I'm not sure why everyone is bending over backwards to get 12-1 TCU a possible NC. They lost to 3-loss KSU. Tough shit.
Win next time.
Hell, I'd rather punish the Big XII extra, because they have a full round robin, and then still play this unnecessary game as a money grab
-
You left off my 6 team model... Any league champs ranked in the top 8 and fill in at large for the rest.
#1 SEC Champion, 13-0 Georgia
#2 B1G Champion, 13-0 Michigan
#7 ACC Champion, 11-2 Clemson
#8 PAC Champion, 10-3 Utah
#3 12-1 TCU
#4 11-1 tOSU
Lowest seeded champs host the at larges, to get to current playoff structure.
(My model would also push to have 4 Super Conferences, not the current "P5" or the mega 2 we are moving towards.)
i agree with this thought process. i'm all for rewarding conf champs, and if they're reasonably good then they deserve a shot. but with the way we currently decide conference champ, giving them an auto bid regardless of everything else is wrong, imo. a 4-5 loss team doesn't deserve to go over tcu or osu this year just because they won a conf. and a 4-5 loss team won't be top 10, or if they are it's an extremely unusual year that's never happened to date.
i'd do something like above. for a larger 12 team playoff, something like conf champs auto bid if in top 12 regardless of p5/g5 designation, then fill in with at large, limit of 3 teams from 1 conf. highest ranked conf champs get bye, remaining champs if any get home games rd 1, rest is based on seeding. and avoid all rematches until semis if possible, conf rematches take precedence if conflict.
so this year year we'd have:
sec champ #1 uga - bye
b1g champ #2 mich - bye
acc champ #7 clemson - bye
pac champ #8 utah - bye
bigxii champ #9 ksu - home rd1
no other champs in top 12, so at large:
#3 tcu - home rd 1
#4 osu - home rd 1
#5 bama - home rd 1
#6 tenn - road rd 1
#10 usc - road rd 1
#11 psu - road rd 1
#12 wash - road rd 1
(https://i.imgur.com/QQQ8inq.png)
other things of note:
- ALL games are on saturday or traditional bowl game dates (dec 31/jan 1). this is non-negotiable.
- if rose/sugar (or others) demand they be on jan 1, then they must be content with being a permanent quarter final. thems the deals.
- rose gets higher ranked/seeded team of pac/b1g champs. their opp is determined by seeding and results. tough shit.
- likewise, sugar gets sec champ unless not top 4, then bigxii champ. opp is determine by seed and results.
- similarly, orange goes acc.
- fiesta and cotton go bigxii then pac/sec, respectively.
- peach goes sec/acc, whoever is higher or left over.
- pecking order for those are as follows: rose/sugar, orange, fiesta, cotton/peach. jmo, but that's how i sees it. so in this case, suppose troy had ended up ranked ahead of utah, the fiesta gets troy instead, as troy would have qualified for a bye being the 4th highest ranked conf champ and fiesta is lowest in pecking order for that round this year.
- champ site is bid out. it must hit each region within a 5 year period (we will define regions). so it doesn't always end up in sec/bigxii country. sites must wait 5 years before bidding after hosting. host site is chosen 2 years in advance, meaning no site will have it more often than every 7 years. hopefully that gets some diversity among sites.
- a host site may not allocate more than 20% of stadium to corps. each school gets tickets for 30% of capacity. the remaining 20% goes to gen public. schools can decide how to divvy up their allotment between season ticket holders, but must provide a reasonable amount to students (no less than 5% or something) and priced at the normal student ticket price for the season.
this has been a public service announcement from the cfp tzar. respeck my authoritah! (i kinda went down rabbit hole there, lol)
-
You left off my 6 team model... Any league champs ranked in the top 8 and fill in at large for the rest.
#1 SEC Champion, 13-0 Georgia
#2 B1G Champion, 13-0 Michigan
#7 ACC Champion, 11-2 Clemson
#8 PAC Champion, 10-3 Utah
#3 12-1 TCU
#4 11-1 tOSU
Lowest seeded champs host the at larges, to get to current playoff structure.
(My model would also push to have 4 Super Conferences, not the current "P5" or the mega 2 we are moving towards.)
I kinda like the floor for auto-bids but I think making it the top-6 would accomplish roughly the same thing.
Either addresses my main objection to @ELA (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=55) 's 10+2 which is that it would include teams like Toledo and FresnoSt that have already shown us that they can't hang with a good P5.
The one advantage, as I see it, to using "top-6" is that it creates more buzz around CCG's because a LOT of teams would have at least a theoretical shot but they might need a multitude of CCG upsets.
-
It would be interesting perhaps to apply the 12 game scheme to years in the past, I know we did a few, and see whether some real obvious outages might have happened, e.g., where some team didn't win its conference but was pretty clearly an elite team, or teams tied (which can't happen now at least).
-
I'm not sure why everyone is bending over backwards to get 12-1 TCU a possible NC. They lost to 3-loss KSU. Tough shit.
Win next time.
What a weird and misplaced statement. I don't see anyone trying to hand TCU a theoretical AND mythical championship. People are just discussing the various what-if scenarios, which was the entire purpose of this thread.
-
Well, to be fair, I personally have been doing my best to get TCU to beat Michigan en route to their NC efforts.
-
The idea of having a "floor" of any Conference Champ is if they are reasonably close to the lowest seeded ranked teams then give them a bid for winning their conference. But don't take bad teams.
In a 6 team format where you take any conference champ in the top 6 and at large bids for the rest you are really just taking the top 6...
Same for the 12 team format (take conference champ in top 12, and at larges in the top 12)... right?
For a 12 team playoff I would take any Conference Champ in the top 16, and then back fill with At Larges. Because a top 16 ranked team is reasonably close to a top 12 team, and they have played and won an extra game. (ie. you get a bit of wiggle room for winning your conference.) But don't take any and every champ, because as others have pointed out, there are some not very good teams that stumble into a conference title.
Again if I had ultimate power... I would pare the system down to 4 reasonably equitable geographical conferences with 16 teams each. Then (since there are only 4 conferences) if they are in the top 8 they would get the auto bid, but if you have an outlier (for example an unranked Wisconsin from a few years back) you are not forced to take a bad conference champ.
-
What a weird and misplaced statement. I don't see anyone trying to hand TCU a theoretical AND mythical championship. People are just discussing the various what-if scenarios, which was the entire purpose of this thread.
I know no one was trying to do that, but in looking over the various posts, that was my takeaway. Sue me.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/JxqknJ6.png)
The 4th seed has won a few times, the 3rd seed only once (last year). Often the 4th seed gets waxed.
-
the PAC with only 2 appearances, and those a few seasons back with nothing by UCLA or USC
maybe better opportunity in the BIG?
-
the PAC with only 2 appearances, and those a few seasons back with nothing by UCLA or USC
maybe better opportunity in the BIG?
It's not like UCLA has traditionally been a good football school, and much like Texas, the CFP era has coincided with a terrible decade for USC football. I think that simply being a down program has much more to do with it, than conference affiliation.
-
I agree, being good enuff to be undefeated or only one loss is the recipe
of course one-loss in the Big or SEC almost assures a slot
-
I agree, being good enuff to be undefeated or only one loss is the recipe
of course one-loss in the Big or SEC almost assures a slot
Well sure, but only a handful of teams have done it in either conference, during the CFP era.
Anyway, it doesn't matter all that much because in a couple of years, pretty much anyone will be able to get into the 12-team CFP. Heck, maybe even Texas will finally get in.
-
Heck, maybe even Texas will finally get in.
Let's not get all wonky here, Texas will be lucky to win another game.
-
Let's not get all wonky here, Texas will be lucky to win another game.
Sad but true.
-
The idea of having a "floor" of any Conference Champ is if they are reasonably close to the lowest seeded ranked teams then give them a bid for winning their conference. But don't take bad teams.
In a 6 team format where you take any conference champ in the top 6 and at large bids for the rest you are really just taking the top 6...
Same for the 12 team format (take conference champ in top 12, and at larges in the top 12)... right?
For a 12 team playoff I would take any Conference Champ in the top 16, and then back fill with At Larges. Because a top 16 ranked team is reasonably close to a top 12 team, and they have played and won an extra game. (ie. you get a bit of wiggle room for winning your conference.) But don't take any and every champ, because as others have pointed out, there are some not very good teams that stumble into a conference title.
Again if I had ultimate power... I would pare the system down to 4 reasonably equitable geographical conferences with 16 teams each. Then (since there are only 4 conferences) if they are in the top 8 they would get the auto bid, but if you have an outlier (for example an unranked Wisconsin from a few years back) you are not forced to take a bad conference champ.
i'd be fine with top 16 or something. that would change my bracket to this:
(https://i.imgur.com/sUXPjvN.png)
washington is dropped for tulane. and because tulane is a conf champ, they get a home game, which drops bama from a home game to a road game.
had to reshuffle around to avoid rematches in quarters, and also to give uga, then mich, the "easiest" match-ups based on rankings.
doesn't really change my opinion about this scenario. i don't think wash is materially better than tulane. it does play with the match-ups some, but not a big deal.
bama @ osu in mid/late dec would be salty, though. would be awesome to see.
-
just let the rematches happen
-
The selection committee is also keenly aware of the format. Tulane is #16 now, because who cares. If being #16 vs. #17 determined whether they qualified, they'd put more thought into it.
I guarantee under the 2 team model, Ohio State would have jumped TCU to be #3. Likewise, 2006 Florida probably would have been #3 if it was a 4 team model
-
My playoff model gives Number 1 bye and has 2 play 6, 3 play 4, and then the next day the winners all play, and then the next day the winner plays number one.
At least this year anyway ....
-
My playoff model gives Number 1 bye and has 2 play 6, 3 play 4, and then the next day the winners all play, and then the next day the winner plays number one.
At least this year anyway ....
Tough break for #5. Should have dropped to #6
-
#5 stays home.
-
The selection committee is also keenly aware of the format. Tulane is #16 now, because who cares. If being #16 vs. #17 determined whether they qualified, they'd put more thought into it.
I guarantee under the 2 team model, Ohio State would have jumped TCU to be #3. Likewise, 2006 Florida probably would have been #3 if it was a 4 team model
I think this is all correct and the reason almost everyone feels a little gross about any and all playoff versions. I'm worried that we've replaced the sometimes genuine luck of the original bowl system/AP rankings with some degree of human shenanigan bullshit.
Fun.
-
avoiding rematches at all cost = human shenanigan bullshit
-
Better than becoming the NFL.
-
not a high bar
-
I think the bar is at scheduling rematches. The Big 12 did that. Going forward, conferences with no divisions does that. Once we crossed that line, I think there's no going back to the meaningful regular season that set college football apart.
-
not sure why there's a stigma regarding rematches in college football
-
not sure why there's a stigma regarding rematches in college football
I THINK for some it's because you can end up with the ambiguity of a 1-1 split ... I don't mind.
-
best 2 outta 3 would be better
-
Humans prefer, often, some level of certainty in athletic outcomes that really is not realistic.
Competitive games often hinge on the random and unpredictable.
-
well, if team A beats team B by 40 points, there's no need to see Team A beat team B, by 35 in a rematch, but if the games are good close contests that are entertaining, I see it as a good thing
-
well, if team A beats team B by 40 points, there's no need to see Team A beat team B, by 35 in a rematch, but if the games are good close contests that are entertaining, I see it as a good thing
The problem is, and it's not as often the case, that close game isn't an 'accurate' barometer of how that game would go a 2nd time. Same with the blowout game initially.....could be very close the 2nd time.
.
People need to understand that single-game outcomes are more like a trend and not a truth.
I feel like most people who hated the BCS computers didn't understand that. It's the reason a team could win big vs a shitty opponent and move down/lose to a top team and move up.
-
I can't think of a rematch that didn't involve competitive teams unlikely to have lost by 40. A rematch can only occur in post season so both teams should be roughly comparable with perhaps an odd exception where one side is from a very weak division in a conference. UGA could have played LSU this past year in the regular season and perhaps had a rematch. Maybe both games would have been 20+ point spreads.
-
I can't think of a rematch that didn't involve competitive teams unlikely to have lost by 40. A rematch can only occur in post season so both teams should be roughly comparable with perhaps an odd exception where one side is from a very weak division in a conference. UGA could have played LSU this past year in the regular season and perhaps had a rematch. Maybe both games would have been 20+ point spreads.
FSU 24
Fla 21
.
Rematch in Sugar (96)
FSU 20
Fla 52
-----------------
LSU 7
Miss 3
.
Rematch in Sugar (60)
LSU 0
Miss 21
-----------------
OSU 41
UCLA 20
.
Rematch in Rose (75)
OSU 10
UCLA 23
----------------
ND 24
LSU 6
.
Rematch in Independence (96)
ND 9
LSU 27
----------------
Md 31
WV 7
.
Rematch in Gator (03)
Md 41
WV 7
-
not sure why there's a stigma regarding rematches in college football
Uhhh, because there's a stigma regarding mulligans in high-stakes golf.
-
I can't think of a rematch that didn't involve competitive teams unlikely to have lost by 40. A rematch can only occur in post season so both teams should be roughly comparable with perhaps an odd exception where one side is from a very weak division in a conference. UGA could have played LSU this past year in the regular season and perhaps had a rematch. Maybe both games would have been 20+ point spreads.
You've gone down some strange tangent all by yourself into a dark wood.