CFB51 College Football Fan Community
The Power Five => Big Ten => Topic started by: betarhoalphadelta on December 02, 2018, 11:38:09 AM
-
Bama
Clemson
ND
OU
OSU
UGA
UCF
UW
In that seeding order.
Why is this so effing hard?
-
You're wanting to take a good thing and make it less exclusive.
-
You're wanting to take a good thing and make it less exclusive.
I want to make sure the teams that have a legitimate argument are included. This year is difficult because we have 4 undefeated teams (one G5 that was won 25 straight), and two one-loss conference champions. Essentially you have 6 teams with a legitimate argument, and a lot of pundits suggesting that 2-loss GA should be included over some of the above.
But no, we have to keep it at 4 or else Washington could win it all and spoil everything.
-
I generally object to making *any* Playoff larger (or existent in the first place), but I also think that 4 is worse for the regular season than 2 or 6. I strongly reject 8+, but a 5+1 model (every champ, one at-large) is attractive to me in terms of (a) valuing all big conference races as the backbone of the sport and (b) removing the incentive for crap OOC games**
**(I understand that this is not the same as actually incentivizing good OOC games, but removing the disincentive is a start)
-
I'm ok with the idea of 5+1, but I think you are going to have backlash from the SEC and the G5. The G5 knows you'll take an SEC non-champion over even an undefeated UCF. And the SEC will worry too much that someone will keep them from getting two teams in.
Can you imagine a 5+1 this year if UGA had beaten Bama? ND, UCF, and Bama trying to fight over that last slot? And Bama, "the consensus best team in history", getting left out for ND?
-
we are going to have backlash every year with every selection process of every number of participants
-
Let the G5 complain. I'm expecting we permanently separate anyway. Financial support, recruiting et al. is imbalanced across the sport (to an extent even within P5), but is so severely imbalanced between P5 and G5 that they really have no business sharing a stage. More yet, the P5 can't kowtow to the G5 without embracing an anticompetitive philosophy. That's because, to date, the G5 hasn't been excluded from the playoff on bias; it's been shut out on merit. Saving a G5 seat would always make for at least one P5 sacrificial lamb. Which is unfair (wah-wah, I get it), but this time it's unfair in an anticompetitive way. And a permanent schism is an easy -- and also overdue -- fix for that.
-
we are going to have backlash every year with every selection process of every number of participants
Guaranteed. But which fraction will be contested? That matters.
Right now, we contest one-forth of the selections every year, and that one-forth always comes in place of another conference champion. In 5+1, we'd be contesting one-sixth of the selection, and that one-sixth would NEVER come in the place of another champion. More yet, whoever missed out would be guaranteed to have made their bed (which is not necessarily a guarantee now, when one-loss conference champs can be excluded).
-
agreed
-
Of course, if we went to 8, Michigan would have gotten in both in 2016 (#5) and 2018 (#7), and I can't really say whether I prefer the system I think is best on its own or the one that is best for Michigan.
-
Bama
Clemson
ND
OU
OSU
UGA
UCF
UW
In that seeding order.
Why is this so effing hard?
I have to admit, this seems better than what we got.
There would probably need to be a rule that 2 teams from the same conference need to be in opposite brackets. So in Georgia's case, they would drop to #6 seed even though they were ranked #5 in the rankings.
-
why not take what we have in the top 4 this season and simply add the other conference champs that were left out?
Bama and Clemson get a week off
Washington plays Notre Dame, OSU plays OU
UCF can schedule better competition like Notre Dame
UCF's non-con schedule this season?
South Carolina St.
@ North Carolina (nice try, game was cancelled)
FAU
Pitt (Pitt in Orlando, 45-14, good win) need 4 of these, not one or two.
-
Let the G5 complain. I'm expecting we permanently separate anyway. Financial support, recruiting et al. is imbalanced across the sport (to an extent even within P5), but is so severely imbalanced between P5 and G5 that they really have no business sharing a stage. More yet, the P5 can't kowtow to the G5 without embracing an anticompetitive philosophy. That's because, to date, the G5 hasn't been excluded from the playoff on bias; it's been shut out on merit. Saving a G5 seat would always make for at least one P5 sacrificial lamb. Which is unfair (wah-wah, I get it), but this time it's unfair in an anticompetitive way. And a permanent schism is an easy -- and also overdue -- fix for that.
Listen, I'm full on board with the idea that allowing the top G5 team is probably fodder. They might win a game. But they're not going to win 3 in a row. The talent differential is just too high.
But so what? We allow one-bid leagues into the NCAAT. Can't we open one spot to the team just so we SAY they've got a chance?
We either need to give them a seat at the table or we need to permanently separate. This half-arsed "separate but equal" status is no good for anyone.
-
In addition to the above, I also dislike the symbolic gesture. On another plane: Complete separation is also more conducive to ultimately paying the players. There are avenues (like "Go forth and collect your own market value, Son") where it won't matter, but complete separation removes more barriers (e.g., should we end up on the heightened stipend track).
-
Again, I'm not opposed to true separation. We have a de facto separation now. I'd rather make it explicit than continue paying lip service to the idea that the the G5 actually has a chance. If UCF can go on a 25-game winning streak across two years and still not be close to getting into the CFP, then we might as well all agree that equality is a lie.
-
I'd rather make it explicit.
Agreed with the entire post. And this part is all I'm asking for, too.
-
I truly believe 4 is the worst case scenario. I like 5-1-2 the best, but I would even prefer 10-2 over the current setup. 2, 6, 8, 12. All IMO are better than 4.
-
2 is the best for me
Just put Bama and Clemson on the field
-
I've said this before, but I could care less about having an undisputed national champion, but if it has to happen, I'd rather go just have the traditional bowl match-ups and then have the top 2 ranked teams play each other after that. For instance, this year the 6 top bowls would look more like this:
Rose - Ohio State v Washington
Sugar - Alabama v Oklahoma
Orange - Clemson v Georgia
Fiesta - LSU v UCF
Cotton - Notre Dame v Texas
Peach - Michigan v Florida
I assuming the favorites (listed first in each match-up), then Alabama still plays Clemson in the national championship game, though I suspect at least one would lose their bowl game, in which case Notre Dame, Oklahoma, and Ohio State would all potentially have a shot if they won their bowl game.
-
Count me as a huge no vote on any playoff expansion. Four teams has already devalued the bowls but at least we have mainted the high stakes through thr regular season. Six would diminish that and 8 would kill it (confernce champs games would be interesting, but most regular season far far less).
Best regular season in sports in my view and playoff expansion will do a lot to end that for me.
-
I actually do believe the Group of 5 can get in the playoff but schedule has to be right. Houston would have done it a few years ago wheb they beat Louiville and Oklahoma if they didnt blow it on 2 bads teams in the middle of their schedule.
Regardless, there is no official separation because the Group of 5 conferences dont want it and the power 5 conferences get enough they are willing to let there to officially be no difference even though everyone knows there is.
-
yup, if UCF wants to earn a spot. Schedule 4 great non con games
go on the road if you want it bad enough
-
They pointed out during the MAC Championship game that NIU scheduled like a team that wanted to go to the playoff. I think it was Iowa, BYU, Florida State and Boston College. That's what UCF has to do. Four P5 teams.
-
there is a path
it's not a secret
-
A non-power conference school would have to be really fortunate to make the playoff. Look at the 2004 and 2008 Utah teams, which were arguably the two best non-power conference teams that I can recall, and neither of those teams finished in the top 4, even after the bowl games. The MWC was pretty good in those years, and those teams also had some power conference non-con games, including Michigan in 2008 (obviously that was Michigan's worst year in a long time but that's besides the point).
The fact that UCF has a 25 game winning streak and still can't get above 6th (and that was only after last year's bowl win), is telling. Part of that is bad luck that cancelled their games against Georgia Tech and North Carolina the past 2 years, though, not that either of those teams were good.
2010 TCU (before they joined the Big 12) did make the top 4 before the bowl games, but that was after going 11-2 and 12-1 the previous two years, and (not that this should matter) they had more historical credibility being a long-time SWC program with some great teams....
-
I am definitely a proponent of an 8 team playoff with autobids and at large components. Autobids keep interest in the season and the conference championships by making them meaningful. The current format makes the games lack meaning, which is a death knell. Just look at the attendance for the Pac 12 game - it was a joke. However, an at large component is necessary to make nonconference games mean something, and to keep lower tier schools included in the process.
-
Again, I'm not opposed to true separation. We have a de facto separation now. I'd rather make it explicit than continue paying lip service to the idea that the the G5 actually has a chance. If UCF can go on a 25-game winning streak across two years and still not be close to getting into the CFP, then we might as well all agree that equality is a lie.
I feel like you're the only one thinking anyone suggested there was equality. This was predictable, I said so over a month ago. UCF can win 25 games AND not warrant a playoff spot. Why do you think they have the monikers Power5 and Group of 5? Because they're unequal !!!
-
I liked 2. Be in the top 2. Go undefeated. Win the beauty contest. Schedule difficult teams OOC. Earn it.
If it was still top 2, ND would be looking good and hard at joining a conference right about now.
-
Also now, at 4 teams, we already have both as double-digit favorites. Imagine what the 1 vs 8 line would be. It'd be a joke.
-
Also now, at 4 teams, we already have both as double-digit favorites. Imagine what the 1 vs 8 line would be. It'd be a joke.
Because #1 and #2 get Byes, a 6-team Playoff doesn't exacerbate those spreads. This year Alabama and Clemson would be favored (~)equally in their semifinals whether the playoff had 4 or 6.
-
With the Big Ten Champion getting left out of the playoffs 3 years running now, I think I would prefer to have a 5+1 model, with the caveat along the lines of, if the lowest ranked conference champion is ranked lower than the highest ranked non-P5 team they get replaced by them.
At least until P5 and G5 are completely separate, then having an some arbitrary cut off line, maybe like "if the lowest ranked champion is ranked lower than 12th" they get replaced by an "At Large"
Oh and Notre Dame join a conference or GTFO. With ND and the ACC flirting with membership add a caveat of Who ever is ranked the highest the ACC Champ or Notre Dame gets the auto bid.
I want Conference Championships to matter for something, but also understand that not all champions are created equal, I noticed in the last rankings that UCF was one spot ahead of Washington, I'm curious if under my model they would have remained there?
My playoff Bracket this year would have been:
1) Alabama
2) Clemson
3v6) ND (At Large) vs. UCF (replacing Washington)
4v5) OU vs. OSU
Just my two cents.
-
They pointed out during the MAC Championship game that NIU scheduled like a team that wanted to go to the playoff. I think it was Iowa, BYU, Florida State and Boston College. That's what UCF has to do. Four P5 teams.
I'm in the camp of separating the two groupings. And I agree that if a G5 wants to play schedule four P5 teams. A counter point though is schedules are done so far in advance, would UCF at the end of last year (getting left out of playoff) have a realistic shot of saying "we think we have a championship caliber team, let's redo our OCC schedule to make it consideration worthy."?
-
Because #1 and #2 get Byes, a 6-team Playoff doesn't exacerbate those spreads. This year Alabama and Clemson would be favored (~)equally in their semifinals whether the playoff had 4 or 6.
Just make sure you and OFM are talking about the same thing.
He said 1v8 (Alabama vs. UCF) which would have a huge spread.
Compared to 1v4/5 (Alabama vs. OU/Georgia or OSU depending how the pie gets made.) all would have a closer spread; Georgia ~9, OU ~11.5, and OSU ~13.
-
I don't think we're anywhere near having an expanded playoff, so I'm not going to spend much thought about what it might be.
A lot of things might seem to be better until put into action, of course. I think we're a decade away from anything different, at least.
Had UGA held on with Bama, I think both get in the four team system, and THAT would have caused consternation obviously with Bama at #4 again, and very possibly winning it again.
-
All of this 'conference champs only' business is just too late to the party. Back when everyone had 10 schools and played everyone else, it makes sense. But you can have a big-boy team go 11-1 and not make their CCG. You're tossing them out, on the assumption 2 of the top 4 or 6 teams in the country can't come from the same conference. That's bogus. Nowadays, when nobody plays everyone else, when it's luck of the draw of who you play across divisions, a non-conference champ has a legitimate gripe.
-
The conference champs thing only pertains if the teams are otherwise "close". If they aren't, it doesn't matter.
-
I have to admit, this seems better than what we got.
There would probably need to be a rule that 2 teams from the same conference need to be in opposite brackets. So in Georgia's case, they would drop to #6 seed even though they were ranked #5 in the rankings.
When they expand (and they will), I think this should be strongly considered. Brackets would be:
Thus you would only have to move a team one line. The big problem would be if both at-large teams were from the same conference because then you would have three teams from one conference.
-
UCF can schedule better competition like Notre Dame
UCF's non-con schedule this season?
South Carolina St.
@ North Carolina (nice try, game was cancelled)
FAU
Pitt (Pitt in Orlando, 45-14, good win) need 4 of these, not one or two.
This has been my answer to those advocating for UCF for a while. It is ridiculous that they scheduled an FCS team. They played a rinky-dink conference schedule AND an FCS team? You have no right to complain when you make that schedule. They have ZERO wins over ranked teams and their best win was over a Cincinnati team that is near the bottom of "Others receiving votes" in the AP Poll. Sorry, but if you want to be seriously considered for a CFP spot you are going to have to have some decent wins.
-
But so what? We allow one-bid leagues into the NCAAT.
The difference, IMHO, is who we are excluding to let them in.
It is pretty obvious that the last few auto-bids in the NCAAT are taking places that would otherwise go to vastly superior teams from leagues like ours. However, the excluded teams are ~.500 teams. Excluding them isn't THAT big of a deal to me.
In football we have a MUCH smaller pool so the excluded teams from leagues like ours would be 12-1, 11-1, and 10-2 type teams.
-
I've said this before, but I could care less about having an undisputed national champion, but if it has to happen, I'd rather go just have the traditional bowl match-ups and then have the top 2 ranked teams play each other after that. For instance, this year the 6 top bowls would look more like this:
Rose - Ohio State v Washington
Sugar - Alabama v Oklahoma
Orange - Clemson v Georgia
Fiesta - LSU v UCF
Cotton - Notre Dame v Texas
Peach - Michigan v Florida
I assuming the favorites (listed first in each match-up), then Alabama still plays Clemson in the national championship game, though I suspect at least one would lose their bowl game, in which case Notre Dame, Oklahoma, and Ohio State would all potentially have a shot if they won their bowl game.
FWIW: I think that Ohio State's chances in this scenario would be nill. The Buckeyes would obviously need one of the top-2 to lose but the problem is that if Oklahoma beat Alabama the Sooners would obviously get in over the Buckeyes and if Clemson lost to Georgia the Dawgs would probably get in ahead of the Buckeyes. Even if the Buckeyes managed to stay ahead of the Dawgs, undefeated Notre Dame would only have to beat Texas to be the obvious #2 anyway.
-
I'm ok with the idea of 5+1,
Before they started this play off format that's what many including myself were hoping for.And once in place tough no more expansion or it would be "Participation Trophy" Territory
-
I think that 5+1+2 will be the next playoff. I'm also a fan of a team that would have gotten in every year if this had been established starting in 2014 instead of the current 4-team CFP:
- 2014: tOSU got in but in a 5+1+2 it wouldn't have even been a question.
- 2015: tOSU was #7 but they were the second highest ranked non-Champion (behind #5 Iowa) so they would have been in.
- 2016: tOSU got in but in a 5+1+2 it wouldn't have even been a question, they'd have been the highest ranked non-Champion.
- 2017: tOSU was #5 but they were B1G Champs so they would have been an auto-bid in a 5+1+2.
- 2018: tOSU was #6 but they were B1G Champs so they would have been an auto-bid in a 5+1+2.
That said, I still prefer the current system. In a 5+1+2 the OOC games and at least one non-divisional game each year would effectively be mulligans. They would matter, but only for seeding and for the possibility of one of the at-large spots.
Ohio State missed this year because they had one bad Saturday. It isn't even that. Ohio State missed because they had one bad Saturday at the wrong time. If Ohio State had had their "bad day" against Rutgers the Buckeyes would have beaten the Scarlet Knights anyway and they would be EASILY in at 13-0. Instead, the Buckeyes had their bad day against a decent team that happened to have a good day at the same time and that is that. As a Buckeye fan, it sucks. OTOH, if one game wasn't enough to knock the Buckeyes out of the CFP then the games wouldn't matter as much.
-
I’m torn, on one hand my teams finished 5th in back to back years and there’s no doubt the BIG was a better conference than the ACC, PAC and I think better than BIG 12 and on par with SEC. argue all u want on that
But in the other hand I’m watching games from these other conferences trying to compare who might get in, and I think that debate is fun.
But hypothetically if OU would have lost and UGA got in I would be completely done with this.
When your best resume point is “we almost beat Alabama”, I’m over it. I think bama is really good, but their best reg season win is at a 3 loss LSU, and next best is be a 4 loss miss st? Other than that there’s a lot of teams that world avg 20 point victories against what bama played.
And I saw UGA get run off the field against LSU, so if you would have kept out OSU in that scenario, scrap this farce. I’m fine with OU getting in, their defense sucks , but they were at least way more consistent than the bucks. Although I think both OU or OSU would put points on bama, and that’s one reason why I tend to lean getting the conference champs in, perception is not always reality
-
How many different playoff schemes have folks seen proposed by now?
Ain't happenin'.
-
I think that 5+1+2 will be the next playoff.
No sorry IMO more than 6 is a disaster on a couple of fronts.Fan bases picking up and traipsing all over creation isn't going to happen.1-2 games perhaps after that the ranks will thin - the travel and expense too much.Then when they start bringing the games on campus the visiting teams will cry foul.There will be no end to it.NFL bound talent will just be sitting it out as they should.All that just to satisfy the morbid craving for an amatuer No1. and to make the networks more coin.They'd be killing the goose that laid the golden egg
-
The problem here is that the entire process is subjective to a group of 13 individuals opinions. There are no clear cut guidelines of what it takes to get into the playoffs. Sure, win all of your games as a P5 and you are probably in, but lose one and you are depending upon a group of people determining your fate.
While I would be just as happy to go back to the old bowl system and just enjoy the season, ESPN and the rest of the sports media have made MNC the only thing that matters in life if you are a college football program with being selected to play in their tournament the goal of your season. Gone are the days of having goals of beat your rival, win your conference and then your bowl game. Now it is win all of your games and get to the playoffs. Anything other than that is failure.
So if we are going to play in that model, we need to set up some clear cut, non subjective criteria that everyone knows and is available to all of the teams involved. (I am excluding the G5 as until they play better schedules, they are excluding themselves).
The obvious answer is win your conference. If you can't win your conference, you don't belong in the playoffs. I have not seen anyone complain that Michigan didn't get to play in the B1G Championship game due to their loss to tOSU and being that technically, they were tied for the lead in the B1G East. No one complained because everyone knew the criteria to get to the game going in. There were clearly defined rules that determined who would represent the East and did not take a vote of 13 people in a room to decide it.
If we want a system that rewards the regular season and takes the subjectiveness out of the process, go to a 5 game tournament and be done with it. Number 1, 2 and 3 get a bye and 4 & 5 play a play in game. If you really want to make it interesting, make the play in game and the next round home games for the higher ranked teams with the championship game played at a predetermined site.
You are still going to need a way to determine the pecking order, so just go by the AP poll with the coaches poll as a tiebreaker. Sure, the tournament seeding is subjective, but at least everyone gets a shot. As for ND, they would be forced to join a conference or be left out. I have no problem either way.
-
All of this 'conference champs only' business is just too late to the party. Back when everyone had 10 schools and played everyone else, it makes sense. But you can have a big-boy team go 11-1 and not make their CCG. You're tossing them out, on the assumption 2 of the top 4 or 6 teams in the country can't come from the same conference. That's bogus. Nowadays, when nobody plays everyone else, when it's luck of the draw of who you play across divisions, a non-conference champ has a legitimate gripe.
we've talked past each other so much on this point it's disgusting. The only people who continually harp that the SEC deserves more is the people that pay them a billion dollars.
There are not enough games played to make a concrete assertion that the 2nd place team in one conference is better than the champion of another. In the BCS it was an absolute farce that 'bama got a shot when Oklahoma State had a very comparable resume but doesn't get to participate because "opinion".
Ohio State got left out this year even though they had a very comparable resume compared to the #4 team so "opinion" kept them out; it's not right.
Vegas came out and said Georgia would be 2.5 point favorite over OSU, that doesn't make them a definitive better team, in my mind it actually confirms they are similarly good teams, but if OU got upset last week and Georgia made the playoff over OSU, I would have been disgusted. We know Alabama is better than Georgia, but we don't know that they are defiantly better than OSU.
I'm mildly disappointed, no one has commented on my proposed 5+1 model, where if there is a conference champ that hasn't performed to elite status (too many warts) they can be removed. But unless with get more cross games against top teams the best in each region deserves a shot before the 2nd best in a same region.
It's your opinion, that doesn't make it factual or right.
-
we've talked past each other so much on this point it's disgusting. The only people who continually harp that the SEC deserves more is the people that pay them a billion dollars.
There are not enough games played to make a concrete assertion that the 2nd place team in one conference is better than the champion of another. In the BCS it was an absolute farce that 'bama got a shot when Oklahoma State had a very comparable resume but doesn't get to participate because "opinion".
Ohio State got left out this year even though they had a very comparable resume compared to the #4 team so "opinion" kept them out; it's not right.
Vegas came out and said Georgia would be 2.5 point favorite over OSU, that doesn't make them a definitive better team, in my mind it actually confirms they are similarly good teams, but if OU got upset last week and Georgia made the playoff over OSU, I would have been disgusted. We know Alabama is better than Georgia, but we don't know that they are defiantly better than OSU.
I'm mildly disappointed, no one has commented on my proposed 5+1 model, where if there is a conference champ that hasn't performed to elite status (too many warts) they can be removed. But unless with get more cross games against top teams the best in each region deserves a shot before the 2nd best in a same region.
It's your opinion, that doesn't make it factual or right.
I looked at your model and could get behind it. However, my goal would be to completely remove the subjective nature of selecting any team to be in the conference. Simply win your conference and you're in. Everyone would know the criteria before the first kickoff of the season. You control your own destiny and are not at the mercy of a group of people that are not with you day in and day out at practice.
-
The conference champs thing only pertains if the teams are otherwise "close". If they aren't, it doesn't matter.
it doesn't matter
a tall
-
[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]Sam McKewon says the Big Ten’s formula for getting its champion into the College Football Playoff is [/color]backfiring (https://www.omaha.com/huskers/football/mckewon-big-ten-s-formula-for-success-with-college-football/article_89d23993-9b29-5eaf-9add-f01af4e01767.html)
https://www.omaha.com/huskers/football/mckewon-big-ten-s-formula-for-success-with-college-football/article_89d23993-9b29-5eaf-9add-f01af4e01767.html (https://www.omaha.com/huskers/football/mckewon-big-ten-s-formula-for-success-with-college-football/article_89d23993-9b29-5eaf-9add-f01af4e01767.html)
The Big Ten bet wrong on nine conference games. The two leagues that play eight conference games — the ACC and SEC — are the only two leagues to qualify for each CFP. Those leagues happily and prominently play FCS opponents, as well.
The committee doesn’t care, nor see how an extra conference game — Alabama playing at Florida, for example, or Clemson traveling to Miami — might be significantly harder, for several reasons, than a random game against, say, Colorado State or Tulsa.
-
[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]Sam McKewon says the Big Ten’s formula for getting its champion into the College Football Playoff is [/color]backfiring (https://www.omaha.com/huskers/football/mckewon-big-ten-s-formula-for-success-with-college-football/article_89d23993-9b29-5eaf-9add-f01af4e01767.html)
https://www.omaha.com/huskers/football/mckewon-big-ten-s-formula-for-success-with-college-football/article_89d23993-9b29-5eaf-9add-f01af4e01767.html (https://www.omaha.com/huskers/football/mckewon-big-ten-s-formula-for-success-with-college-football/article_89d23993-9b29-5eaf-9add-f01af4e01767.html)
The Big Ten bet wrong on nine conference games. The two leagues that play eight conference games — the ACC and SEC — are the only two leagues to qualify for each CFP. Those leagues happily and prominently play FCS opponents, as well.
The committee doesn’t care, nor see how an extra conference game — Alabama playing at Florida, for example, or Clemson traveling to Miami — might be significantly harder, for several reasons, than a random game against, say, Colorado State or Tulsa.
Yeah, this makes sense. The question is what direction you go from here:
- Water down the B1G schedule, go back to 8 conference games, relax the FCS rules further to allow FCS games every year.
- Actually fix the damn playoff so that conference championships matter.
The truth is that as fans, we WANT to see good games against good opponents. Nobody wants to see the Buckeyes or the Wolverines destroy some FCS patsy... Or in the Wolverines' case, lose to an FCS team :57:
The current playoff rewards scheduling OOC wins, not scheduling OOC good games. The committee says it cares about SOS, but it's subjective so they care about SOS when it supports the team they want to place into the CFP and don't seem to care about SOS when it doesn't support it.
The revealed preference of the committee is that the only thing that TRULY matters is having as few losses on your record as possible, not the quality of the wins. Hence why Notre Dame is double-digit dogs but there's no way they'd be excluded from the playoff. [I'm leaving out Alabama here, because although OU is a double-digit dog, I think the Cleveland Browns would be double-digit dogs to Bama this year.]
I want a system that doesn't punish a team for strong OOC scheduling. The current system rewards quality OOC wins, but punishes quality OOC losses without punishing non-quality OOC wins. So there's no incentive to schedule that strong OOC.
-
When they put a 12-1 Washington team in they pretty much destroyed any argument they had about caring about SOS.
-
The truth is that as fans, we WANT to see good games against good opponents. Nobody wants to see the Buckeyes or the Wolverines destroy some FCS patsy... Or in the Wolverines' case, lose to an FCS team :57:
Hey tOSU lost to Purdue - isn't that the same? ;D
-
i don't like conf champs getting auto bids, unless it comes with a caveat that they have to be ranked in top 10-12 or something. i don't want a 4-5 loss team getting lucky being in the right side of the divisions and having the game of their lives getting them in the playoffs. if you're 1 w/l swap away from being .500, you don't deserve a shot, i don't care what conf you won.
if you're a p5 champ with 0-2 losses, you'll almost always be in top 10. and those are the limits i'd put on a team deserving a title shot.
-
we've talked past each other so much on this point it's disgusting. The only people who continually harp that the SEC deserves more is the people that pay them a billion dollars.
There are not enough games played to make a concrete assertion that the 2nd place team in one conference is better than the champion of another. In the BCS it was an absolute farce that 'bama got a shot when Oklahoma State had a very comparable resume but doesn't get to participate because "opinion".
Ohio State got left out this year even though they had a very comparable resume compared to the #4 team so "opinion" kept them out; it's not right.
Vegas came out and said Georgia would be 2.5 point favorite over OSU, that doesn't make them a definitive better team, in my mind it actually confirms they are similarly good teams, but if OU got upset last week and Georgia made the playoff over OSU, I would have been disgusted. We know Alabama is better than Georgia, but we don't know that they are defiantly better than OSU.
I'm mildly disappointed, no one has commented on my proposed 5+1 model, where if there is a conference champ that hasn't performed to elite status (too many warts) they can be removed. But unless with get more cross games against top teams the best in each region deserves a shot before the 2nd best in a same region.
It's your opinion, that doesn't make it factual or right.
1 - I haven't harped that the SEC deserves more. I'm merely saying that 2 of the top 4 or 6 teams may very well come from the same conference (any conference).
2 - If UGA had gotten in over OSU, I would've thought it was messed up, like you.
3 - All of this is merely opinion...why would anyone (myself included) think otherwise?
-
The folks that were clamoring for Georgia are the same ones that howl that the playoffs devalue the regular season.
-
Hey tOSU lost to Purdue - isn't that the same? ;D
Purdue is easily better than 94% of FCS. It's Not the same at all.
-
I looked at your model and could get behind it. However, my goal would be to completely remove the subjective nature of selecting any team to be in the conference. Simply win your conference and you're in. Everyone would know the criteria before the first kickoff of the season. You control your own destiny and are not at the mercy of a group of people that are not with you day in and day out at practice.
Thank you. You do acknowledge that a fair amount of time there is going to be teams in that setting that is obviously a step or 2 below other champions?
-
1 - I haven't harped that the SEC deserves more. I'm merely saying that 2 of the top 4 or 6 teams may very well come from the same conference (any conference).
2 - If UGA had gotten in over OSU, I would've thought it was messed up, like you.
3 - All of this is merely opinion...why would anyone (myself included) think otherwise?
1- But you typically state that it's the SEC deserving that 2nd, or 3rd bid. Even when presented with evidence that another team is just as deserving. And we have have already seen the SEC offering.
2 - But the committee ranked them higher??? And perhaps I misread your previous post I thought you where campaigning Georgia inclusion due to Virtual Vegas odds makers?
3 - Perhaps it writing style? You leave out those qualifying words like "I think" or "In my Opinion" so when you take a hard line stance I (and others) often read as an OAM fact. and you are right, these are merely our opinions.
-
1. The playoff is not going to change any time soon, probably >10 years.
2. The committee approach isn't going to change either.
3. The fourth selection will almost always be controversial. So would the 6th and the 8th.
4. I bet if we had 12 or so "representatives" of CFB with no obvious bias, they'd choose the same as the committee does most of the time.
5. If the committee were all Ohio State fans, they wouldn't.
-
I disagree that the sixth or eighth would be "as" controversial as "win your conference" would Trump any argument that a scorned team might offer up.
-
“Every combination was vetted looking at their full bodies of work, their resumes side by side," Playoff chair Rob Mullens said on Sunday (https://247sports.com/Article/College-football-playoff-rankings-Oklahoma-Georgia-Ohio-State-Rob-Mullens-125758447/). "In the end, what we decided was amongst the group of three, Oklahoma, Georgia, and Ohio State that the committee voted that no one was unequivocally better than the other. So we then leaned on the protocol. And as we leaned on the protocol, you know what those are — head-to-head, conference champions, strength of schedule, and common opponents — the vote came out that Oklahoma was No. 4, Oklahoma was No. 5, and Ohio State was No. 6.”
They leaned on protocol, and conference championships.
-
I disagree that the sixth or eighth would be "as" controversial as "win your conference" would Trump any argument that a scorned team might offer up.
" The fourth selection will almost always be controversial. So would the 6th and the 8th."
-
Thank you. You do acknowledge that a fair amount of time there is going to be teams in that setting that is obviously a step or 2 below other champions?
Not to answer for @NorthernOhioBuckeye (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=40) -- but I acknowledge that if you auto-bid conference champions, you're probably going to get at least one CFP participant per year that isn't one of the 6 or 8 best teams in the country, yes.
I think objectivity and valuing conference championships is worth it.
-
" The fourth selection will almost always be controversial. So would the 6th and the 8th."
Yep. That's the comment that I'm disagreeing with.
Leaving out conference champions is more controversial than leaving out non-conference champions. Expanding to six or eight would be inclusive of all P5 conference champions instead of leaving out at least one.
-
“Every combination was vetted looking at their full bodies of work, their resumes side by side," Playoff chair Rob Mullens said on Sunday (https://247sports.com/Article/College-football-playoff-rankings-Oklahoma-Georgia-Ohio-State-Rob-Mullens-125758447/). "In the end, what we decided was amongst the group of three, Oklahoma, Georgia, and Ohio State that the committee voted that no one was unequivocally better than the other. So we then leaned on the protocol. And as we leaned on the protocol, you know what those are — head-to-head, conference champions, strength of schedule, and common opponents — the vote came out that Oklahoma was No. 4, GEORGIA was No. 5, and Ohio State was No. 6.”
They leaned on protocol, and conference championships.
yup, complete BS
conference champs and SOS have nothing to do with their ranking. Rarely does head to head or common opponents come into play, SO in the end............ there is no protocol. It's an eye test at best and SEC bias at worst
I'm talking solely about Georgia ranked #5 over #6 Ohio St.
-
yup, complete BS
conference champs and SOS have nothing to do with their ranking. Rarely does head to head or common opponents come into play, SO in the end............ there is no protocol. It's an eye test at best and SEC bias at worst
I'm talking solely about Georgia ranked #5 over #6 Ohio St.
So on which metric does Notre Dame outscore OU, UGA, or OSU? S&P favors OU, UGA, and Michigan over ND with OSU closely behind. Obviously ND has no conference championship, they don't have a head-to-head with OSU (although OSU destroyed UM while ND narrowly beat them, so at least there's a common opponent).
Yet ND is firmly in the CFP, even though pretty much everyone knows they're a paper tiger.
Because "0" in the loss column matters more than how good of a team you are--unless you're G5.
-
I don't like ESPN so much, but you look at their "advanced" rankings.
Football Power Index has ND at 7th, behind all of the teams mentioned above.
Team Efficiency ratings has ND at 6th, behind OU, UGA, UM, just ahead of LSU at 7th and OSU at 8th.
So other than the "damn that helmet is shiny" ranking, I don't see why ND should be in the CFP. I don't think they have a case that they're one of the best 4 teams in the country.
-
1. The playoff is not going to change any time soon, probably >10 years.
2. The committee approach isn't going to change either.
3. The fourth selection will almost always be controversial. So would the 6th and the 8th.
4. I bet if we had 12 or so "representatives" of CFB with no obvious bias, they'd choose the same as the committee does most of the time.
5. If the committee were all Ohio State fans, they wouldn't.
aww. did your team get left out of the playoffs? so instead of being sad, you decided to poke the fan base that has an actual complaint about getting left out. how quaint.
Actually, I think enough of the power people don't like how this iteration of the playoffs is playing out, and I think if the next three years have this much controversy there will be a change.
-
No sorry IMO more than 6 is a disaster on a couple of fronts.Fan bases picking up and traipsing all over creation isn't going to happen.1-2 games perhaps after that the ranks will thin - the travel and expense too much.Then when they start bringing the games on campus the visiting teams will cry foul.There will be no end to it.NFL bound talent will just be sitting it out as they should.All that just to satisfy the morbid craving for an amatuer No1. and to make the networks more coin.They'd be killing the goose that laid the golden egg
First, I'm saying that I think 5+1+2 will be the next iteration of the playoff, not that I want it to be.
Second, I fail to see why eight is substantially worse than six. Either way, some teams will potentially have three playoff games. With eight the four quarter-final winners would have a second game and the two semi-final winners would have a third. With six the two quarter-final winners would have a second game and the two semi-final winners would have a second (if they were top-4) or third (if they were 5/6). I don't see it as THAT big of a difference.
At least in theory I like the idea of letting the top-4 host the first round for two reasons:
- It puts more emphasis on otherwise meaningless regular season games because the difference between being #4 and hosting Georgia as opposed to being #7 and travelling to Clemson is pretty significant.
In a 5+1+1 this year the teams would be (ranked by seed):
- #1 Alabama SEC Champion
- #2 Clemson ACC Champion
- #3 Notre Dame first at-large
- #4 Oklahoma B12 Champion
- #5 Georgia second at-large
- #6 Ohio State B1G Champion
- #8 UCF AAC/highest ranked G5 Champion
- #9 Washington
Well, Michigan fans wouldn't like that. Quarter-final match-ups with top-4 hosting would be:
- #9 Washington at #1 Alabama
- #8 UCF at #2 Clemson
- #6 Ohio State at Notre Dame
- #5 Georgia at #4 Oklahoma
Then the semi-finals would be:
- Bama/Washington vs UGA/OU
- Clemson/UCF vs tOSU/ND
If you reseeded to keep the two SEC teams in opposite divisions (this would suck for tOSU) the quarter-finals would be:
- #9 Washington at #1 Alabama
- #8 UCF at #2 Clemson
- #5 Georiga (moved down one seed to avoid Bama's bracket) at #3 Notre Dame
- #6 Ohio State (moved up one seed to replace UGA) at #4 Oklahoma
Then the semi-finals would be:
- Bama/UW vs OU/tOSU
- Clemson/UCF vs ND/UGA
The second reason I would like the top-4 to host is that in that case I think we could hold the quarter-finals in mid-December to avoid spreading out the season any further. The semi-finals would still be around NYD and the CG would still be about a week into January.
-
I don't like ESPN so much, but you look at their "advanced" rankings.
Football Power Index has ND at 7th, behind all of the teams mentioned above.
Team Efficiency ratings has ND at 6th, behind OU, UGA, UM, just ahead of LSU at 7th and OSU at 8th.
So other than the "damn that helmet is shiny" ranking, I don't see why ND should be in the CFP. I don't think they have a case that they're one of the best 4 teams in the country.
I absolutely despise Notre Dame so this is not easy for me but I'll defend the committee here:
Notre Dame has wins over #7 Michigan, #20 Syracuse, and #22 Northwestern. That isn't a bad schedule. They do have a lot of close wins and some of those raise questions (all wins by 8 points or less listed chronologically):
- Over #7 Michigan by 7
- Over Ball State by 8
- Over Vanderbilt by 5
- Over Pitt by 5
- Over USC by 7
The close wins over BSU, Vandy, Pitt, and USC definitely raise questions but when a team is undefeated and did it against a decent schedule I'm willing to let that slide. I draw the line with UCF because they don't even have a single win over a ranked team. If UCF had one then I think they might have an argument and if they had 2+ with at least one being top-15 then I'd include them.
-
The other option would to get rid of the 5th p5 conference, and take the 4 champs.
-
aww. did your team get left out of the playoffs? so instead of being sad, you decided to poke the fan base that has an actual complaint about getting left out. how quaint.
Actually, I think enough of the power people don't like how this iteration of the playoffs is playing out, and I think if the next three years have this much controversy there will be a change.
what controversy? this is one of the most controversy choices we've seen them or the bcs have to make.
i think at this point we're getting bent out of shape looking for any reason to hate the system.
-
Just make sure you and OFM are talking about the same thing.
He said 1v8 (Alabama vs. UCF) which would have a huge spread.
Compared to 1v4/5 (Alabama vs. OU/Georgia or OSU depending how the pie gets made.) all would have a closer spread; Georgia ~9, OU ~11.5, and OSU ~13.
That's right. My comment was just clarifying that crappier playoff games aren't a guarantee of all larger formats but of specific larger formats (those without first round byes for the regular season).
-
aww. did your team get left out of the playoffs? so instead of being sad, you decided to poke the fan base that has an actual complaint about getting left out. how quaint.
Actually, I think enough of the power people don't like how this iteration of the playoffs is playing out, and I think if the next three years have this much controversy there will be a change.
UGA, as I stated clearly, should not be in the playoffs, so you post has nothing to do with what I posted, not a thing.
The playoffs are not going to change in a decade in my opinion. Very few people in power want that, almost no one, including university presidents.
-
The other option would to get rid of the 5th p5 conference, and take the 4 champs.
Also not remotely likely.
Let's try to stay in reality here.
-
I absolutely despise Notre Dame so this is not easy for me but I'll defend the committee here:
Notre Dame has wins over #7 Michigan, #20 Syracuse, and #22 Northwestern. That isn't a bad schedule. They do have a lot of close wins and some of those raise questions (all wins by 8 points or less listed chronologically):
- Over #7 Michigan by 7
- Over Ball State by 8
- Over Vanderbilt by 5
- Over Pitt by 5
- Over USC by 7
The close wins over BSU, Vandy, Pitt, and USC definitely raise questions but when a team is undefeated and did it against a decent schedule I'm willing to let that slide. I draw the line with UCF because they don't even have a single win over a ranked team. If UCF had one then I think they might have an argument and if they had 2+ with at least one being top-15 then I'd include them.
i'm with you. i'm no nd apologist, but just because they didn't obliterate teams doesn't mean they aren't a good team themselves.
advanced metrics are good info to use, but i would hesitate to rely on them 100%. some of them tend highly overvalue teams with big point spreads and undervalue teams that just know how to win. until last couple years, bama is usually one of those undervalued teams that just won, but didn't always look great in the advance metrics because they didn't run up the score. but reality is bama has been one of if not the best team each season for over a decade now.
-
I absolutely despise Notre Dame so this is not easy for me but I'll defend the committee here:
Notre Dame has wins over #7 Michigan, #20 Syracuse, and #22 Northwestern. That isn't a bad schedule. They do have a lot of close wins and some of those raise questions (all wins by 8 points or less listed chronologically):
- Over #7 Michigan by 7
- Over Ball State by 8
- Over Vanderbilt by 5
- Over Pitt by 5
- Over USC by 7
The close wins over BSU, Vandy, Pitt, and USC definitely raise questions but when a team is undefeated and did it against a decent schedule I'm willing to let that slide. I draw the line with UCF because they don't even have a single win over a ranked team. If UCF had one then I think they might have an argument and if they had 2+ with at least one being top-15 then I'd include them.
So, wait...
Are we including teams based on the best resume, or are we selecting the 4 best teams in college football?
Are you saying that you legitimately think that Notre Dame is better than OU, UGA, UM, and OSU? Or are you just rewarding them because in all those close games, they managed to not actually suffer a loss. And that by avoiding a conference championship game against Clemson, because they're "independent", they should be rewarded?
I assume that had Iowa been "independent" and not have to play a conference championship game, they'd have been included in the CFP. But did anyone actually believe they were one of the 4 best teams at the end of the 2015 regular season?
-
i don't like conf champs getting auto bids, unless it comes with a caveat that they have to be ranked in top 10-12 or something. i don't want a 4-5 loss team getting lucky being in the right side of the divisions and having the game of their lives getting them in the playoffs. if you're 1 w/l swap away from being .500, you don't deserve a shot, i don't care what conf you won.
if you're a p5 champ with 0-2 losses, you'll almost always be in top 10. and those are the limits i'd put on a team deserving a title shot.
I go back-and-forth on this. Like you, I don't think that 7-5 Pitt and 8-4 Northwestern were legitimate contenders and to give them a one game and you are in shot last weekend would have been pretty silly. That said, including all P5 Champions does have a certain fundamental fairness. Suppose both had won this year. I'm guessing that the final rankings would have been:
- 13-0 Bama
- 12-0 Notre Dame
- 12-1 Oklahoma
- 11-2 Georgia
- 12-1 Clemson
- 11-2 Ohio State
- 10-2 Michigan
- 12-0 UCF
- 10-3 Washington
So the two at-large teams in a 5+1+1 would have been Notre Dame and Georgia and the first two out would have been Clemson and Ohio State. I would still believe that Clemson and Ohio State were better than Pitt and Northwestern but I'd have a hard time feeling sorry for Clemson and Ohio State losing their CFP spots to the teams that they lost to in the CG's.
-
Watering down the schedule is not the answer. If the Big Ten misses the playoffs, so be it.
The real key is when they do get in, don't lose 38-0 in the semi-finals.
-
1- But you typically state that it's the SEC deserving that 2nd, or 3rd bid. Even when presented with evidence that another team is just as deserving. And we have have already seen the SEC offering. If I'm suggesting Georgia is that good, it's because of their team, not because of their conference.
2 - But the committee ranked them higher??? And perhaps I misread your previous post I thought you where campaigning Georgia inclusion due to Virtual Vegas odds makers? This was just an observation.
3 - Perhaps it writing style? You leave out those qualifying words like "I think" or "In my Opinion" so when you take a hard line stance I (and others) often read as an OAM fact. and you are right, these are merely our opinions.
On UGA and SEC/UGA/OSU:
I do think Georgia is one of the best 4 teams this year.
I would have OSU #4 on my playoff ranking.
I've just made note of the committee's BS...if UGA is one of the 4 best, they should be in, according to what the committee, itself, has said.
At the end of the day, pfffft….let's just go back to the old traditional bowl tie-ins, then play a +1 between #1 and #2 after the bowls.
-
I don't put "I think" because I'm the one typing it, you know it's what I think. Something a writer once told me to stop doing.
-
I go back-and-forth on this. Like you, I don't think that 7-5 Pitt and 8-4 Northwestern were legitimate contenders and to give them a one game and you are in shot last weekend would have been pretty silly. That said, including all P5 Champions does have a certain fundamental fairness. Suppose both had won this year. I'm guessing that the final rankings would have been:
- 13-0 Bama
- 12-0 Notre Dame
- 12-1 Oklahoma
- 11-2 Georgia
- 12-1 Clemson
- 11-2 Ohio State
- 10-2 Michigan
- 12-0 UCF
- 10-3 Washington
So the two at-large teams in a 5+1+1 would have been Notre Dame and Georgia and the first two out would have been Clemson and Ohio State. I would still believe that Clemson and Ohio State were better than Pitt and Northwestern but I'd have a hard time feeling sorry for Clemson and Ohio State losing their CFP spots to the teams that they lost to in the CG's.
i'd have a hard time feeling sorry for them if they got passed by someone somewhat deserving. pitt and nw would not fit that criteria.
it's less about feeling sorry for clemson/osu and them getting a second chance and more about not wanting to give nw and pitt their 5th and 6th chance to not f it up.
look at those likely rankings you posted. just take those and run with it. only one with possible complaint is washington, and they have 3 losses (1 4-loss team, 2 5-loss teams) with 1 decent win. between them and ucf, both need to fix their schedules (either in result or in strength) to complain to much.
-
So, wait...
Are we including teams based on the best resume, or are we selecting the 4 best teams in college football?
Are you saying that you legitimately think that Notre Dame is better than OU, UGA, UM, and OSU? Or are you just rewarding them because in all those close games, they managed to not actually suffer a loss. And that by avoiding a conference championship game against Clemson, because they're "independent", they should be rewarded?
I assume that had Iowa been "independent" and not have to play a conference championship game, they'd have been included in the CFP. But did anyone actually believe they were one of the 4 best teams at the end of the 2015 regular season?
Speaking only for myself, it is a combination of the two things.
I've said this in response to @OrangeAfroMan (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=58) several times so you may have read it before.
In theory, I think we should take the best 2/4/6/8/whatever teams. However, in practice there isn't enough interleague play to be able to adequately compare a 12-0 record in one of them to a 12-0 record in another. Back in 2011 I believed that 11-1 Alabama was a better team than 11-1 Oklahoma State but I wasn't sure. I would have taken 11-1 OkSU over 11-1 Bama not because I thought they were better but because I thought it was close enough that I couldn't be sure.
It is different when you compare any 10-2 or better P5 team to UCF because UCF's schedule wasn't just somewhat worse, it was a complete joke.
Back in 2015 Iowa went into the CG at 12-0 and #4. They played a weak schedule for a P5 team but they did have a win over #13 Northwestern so that is a LOT better than UCF's schedule this year. Then of course they had to play #5 MSU in the CG. That made this a non-issue because either way Iowa was going to be:
- A 13-0 P5 Champion with wins over two highly ranked teams (#13 NU and ~#7 MSU), or
- A 12-1 non-factor in the CFP discussion.
-
Watering down the schedule is not the answer. If the Big Ten misses the playoffs, so be it.
The real key is when they do get in, don't lose 38-0 in the semi-finals.
These two videos show all of the points ever scored by the B1G in the CFP:
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwwdM-RwdfQ
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_rxv53l6pU
It was a great start but since then, not so good:
- 2015: MSU lost 38-0 to Bama
- 2016: tOSU lost 31-0 to Clemson
- 2017: left out completely
- 2018: left out completely
-
I think the topic of byes is interesting. Ela has previously wondered whether they are actual rewards (noting that in the NFL, byes may weakly correlate with playoff success).
Not to be a skeptic just for skepticism's sake but because I haven't seen the graphs/data to prove that (let alone whether it would extend to CFB), I can't say I'm persuaded by it yet. But if true, of course that submarines the 5+1 or 12-team deals.
If untrue and 5+1 remains, I also like how (in addition to emphasizing the regular season and the conference championship races as the backbone of the sport) it would reward #1 and #2 even more for the regular season. And in many cases perhaps reward their superior SOS and OOC schedule as well.
-
One thing that kills some lower tier schools is when they talk about bama, Clemson, osu , Georgia etc the talking heads say “they look bthe part, ie they got 5 stars and 1st round picks. So it’s completely unfair if say Iowa was 12–1 this year, they’d prob be ranked 7th, 8th? And that’s BS
Also if BIG wants in playoff they gotta cut to 8 conference games and let people play cupcakes, because the committe is really giving the SEC a lot of credit to teams going 8-4 (4-4 sec) and 7-5 (3-5 sec) in terms of SOS, so BIG needs to do the same. I think it sucks, I’d rather see good games but that’s what committe values
-
Speaking only for myself, it is a combination of the two things.
I've said this in response to @OrangeAfroMan (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=58) several times so you may have read it before.
In theory, I think we should take the best 2/4/6/8/whatever teams. However, in practice there isn't enough interleague play to be able to adequately compare a 12-0 record in one of them to a 12-0 record in another. Back in 2011 I believed that 11-1 Alabama was a better team than 11-1 Oklahoma State but I wasn't sure. I would have taken 11-1 OkSU over 11-1 Bama not because I thought they were better but because I thought it was close enough that I couldn't be sure.
It is different when you compare any 10-2 or better P5 team to UCF because UCF's schedule wasn't just somewhat worse, it was a complete joke.
Back in 2015 Iowa went into the CG at 12-0 and #4. They played a weak schedule for a P5 team but they did have a win over #13 Northwestern so that is a LOT better than UCF's schedule this year. Then of course they had to play #5 MSU in the CG. That made this a non-issue because either way Iowa was going to be:
- A 13-0 P5 Champion with wins over two highly ranked teams (#13 NU and ~#7 MSU), or
- A 12-1 non-factor in the CFP discussion.
And that year, MSU narrowly edged out Iowa. At which point MSU got the honor of being utterly destroyed by Alabama and Iowa got the honor of being utterly destroyed by Stanford.
Maybe Stanford should have been in the CFP. But the always-accurate transitive property, clearly they would have put up more of a fight for Bama than MSU or Iowa would have... But we can't allow that because clearly a 1-loss Iowa (ranked #5 after CCG) and a 1-loss MSU (ranked #3) must be better than a 2-loss Stanford (ranked #6).
-
To clarify why I prefer 5+1 to 4:
It has precious little to do with what is or feels fair at the end of the season. I also very minimally care about putting on the best playoff show.
All I care about is the playoff hurting the feel and significance of the regular season the least and boosting it the most.
4 hurts the regular season a lot. 5+1 and 2 (but especially the now-impossible pre-BCS) do the best job of valuing the regular season.
On this, I don't have any nuanced opinions about 8 or 12. Because I also dislike playoffs in general (for their increased risk of eliminating the best team), and those are too big for me to even give a chance.
-
I'd REALLY like to see B1G commish Jim get up to the podium and address the issue/issues
First of all, he should state that the B1G is not going to change it's scheduling to water down it's contests for it's players, programs, and fans just to try to sneak into the playoff to grab a few dollars.
Then he should call out the SEC commish for that very thing and also call him out for whining and begging to get in a second team that did not win the conference, scheduled Austin Peay, Middle Tennessee, & UMass
-
I'd REALLY like to see B1G commish Jim get up to the podium and address the issue/issues
First of all, he should state that the B1G is not going to change it's scheduling to water down it's contests for it's players, programs, and fans just to try to sneak into the playoff to grab a few dollars.
Then he should call out the SEC commish for that very thing and also call him out for whining and begging to get in a second team that did not win the conference, scheduled Austin Peay, Middle Tennessee, & UMass
Fewer individuals have been worse for our sport the last twenty years than Jim Delany. Expansion, bloated administrations, redefining our core around television, insufficient diplomacy. He didn't invent these but he sold and amplified each.
He's been a parasite.
-
To be clear, I'm not hating him as a person. Almost anyone in that position would have done the same. And the proportion of his negative impact is less about him personally than the Heavyweight status of the Midwest population. So this is more about me projecting my disappointment that human nature (although it can have a high ceiling), in this case brought us closer to its stinky basement.
And it never strictly *had* to be inevitable that we'd invite blemishes to CFB. We picked this. Guys like Delany saw to and accelerated it.
-
Also not remotely likely.
Let's try to stay in reality here.
hah, you do realize who you're dealing with?
-
Georgia did have a weak slate this year OOC. That might have made some difference had they played ND and won. They have pretty solid schedules from here on.
-
And that year, MSU narrowly edged out Iowa. At which point MSU got the honor of being utterly destroyed by Alabama and Iowa got the honor of being utterly destroyed by Stanford.
Maybe Stanford should have been in the CFP. But the always-accurate transitive property, clearly they would have put up more of a fight for Bama than MSU or Iowa would have... But we can't allow that because clearly a 1-loss Iowa (ranked #5 after CCG) and a 1-loss MSU (ranked #3) must be better than a 2-loss Stanford (ranked #6).
I'm certainly not arguing in favor of ranking based on # of losses alone.
One of my biggest disappointments in the CFP so far is that the committee has ALWAYS done that when it counted. They do have 2-loss UGA ahead of 1-loss tOSU this year but that is for 5/6 and I honestly do NOT think they would have done that if it had been for 4/5 instead. Now in THIS case I don't think they should anyway because while UGA's losses are clearly better their wins aren't. They have wins over ranked teams:
- Over #10 Florida by 19
- Over #14 Kentucky by 17
- Over #23 Mizzou by 14
Then they have a 20 point loss to #11 LSU and a TD loss to #1 Bama
Ohio State has wins:
- Over #7 Michigan by 23
- Over #12 PSU by 1
- Over #22 NU by 21
IMHO, tOSU's wins are slightly better while tOSU's loss is obviously worse than either of UGA's losses the Buckeyes still only have one vs UGA's two.
I think you can reasonably argue this one either way but what I really don't like is their ridiculous overrating of UCF. UCF has ZERO wins over ranked teams. They shouldn't be in the top-15. If you want CFP consideration, schedule a real opponent now and then.
-
Georgia did have a weak slate this year OOC. That might have made some difference had they played ND and won. They have pretty solid schedules from here on.
Georgia schedules better than most of the SEC. Not hating on them, it's just they are in the spot light and did have a weal schedule this particular season.
-
I'm certainly not arguing in favor of ranking based on # of losses alone.
One of my biggest disappointments in the CFP so far is that the committee has ALWAYS done that when it counted. They do have 2-loss UGA ahead of 1-loss tOSU this year but that is for 5/6 and I honestly do NOT think they would have done that if it had been for 4/5 instead.
But that's my point. It's easier to do it when it's an 11-2 Stanford [that won its CCG] or an 11-2 Georgia [that didn't], but it's not whether or not this is the best team.
Likewise, I don't think Notre Dame is one of the best 4 teams in the nation, but there was NO way they weren't getting in.
I'm not arguing against Notre Dame based on resume. They deserve to be in. But I don't believe they're one of the best 4 teams, and I think Clemson is going to show that convincingly.
I keep highlighting these points because, as I've consistently said, the BCS or the CFP puts us in the question of whether you want the "most deserving teams" or the "best teams". Most deserving is based on resume. "Best" is based on a subjective evaluation by the experts.
The committee is inconsistent. Georgia might be better than OSU, but they're not as deserving when you consider resume. Yet the committee puts them 5th to insulate themselves from the argument of whether it should be OU or OSU in the playoff. OU/UGA/OSU are probably better than Notre Dame. But Notre Dame gets the benefit of the doubt based on resume; I'm not convinced it's based on quality.
5+1+2 gives you the best of both worlds. It gives you six teams who deserve to be there because of what they've accomplished ON the field--they won their conference. And it gives you two at-large teams so that teams who legitimately are some of the best in the nation are not excluded.
-
To be clear, I'm not hating him as a person.
It's OK anyone who implements Leaders/Legends deserves all the grief you can muster
-
But that's my point. It's easier to do it when it's an 11-2 Stanford [that won its CCG] or an 11-2 Georgia [that didn't], but it's not whether or not this is the best team.
Likewise, I don't think Notre Dame is one of the best 4 teams in the nation, but there was NO way they weren't getting in.
I'm not arguing against Notre Dame based on resume. They deserve to be in. But I don't believe they're one of the best 4 teams, and I think Clemson is going to show that convincingly.
I keep highlighting these points because, as I've consistently said, the BCS or the CFP puts us in the question of whether you want the "most deserving teams" or the "best teams". Most deserving is based on resume. "Best" is based on a subjective evaluation by the experts.
The committee is inconsistent. Georgia might be better than OSU, but they're not as deserving when you consider resume. Yet the committee puts them 5th to insulate themselves from the argument of whether it should be OU or OSU in the playoff. OU/UGA/OSU are probably better than Notre Dame. But Notre Dame gets the benefit of the doubt based on resume; I'm not convinced it's based on quality.
5+1+2 gives you the best of both worlds. It gives you six teams who deserve to be there because of what they've accomplished ON the field--they won their conference. And it gives you two at-large teams so that teams who legitimately are some of the best in the nation are not excluded.
I'm not for it per se, but I agree with what you said here. With two at-large teams the best team that could possibly be excluded would be #3 and that would be EXTREMELY unlikely to ever happen because in most years AT LEAST two of the top four will be P5 Champs.
Best team that would have been left out each year with a 5+1+2:
- 2018: #7, 10-2 Michigan: Sucks for them but don't lose two games and not win your conference.
- 2017: #7, 10-3 Auburn: Sucks for them but don't lose THREE games and not win your conference.
- 2016: #8, 10-3 Wisconsin: Sucks for them but don't lose THREE games and not win your conference.
- 2015: #8, 10-2 Notre Dame: Sucks for them but don't lose two games and choose not to play in a CG.
- 2014: #8, 10-2 Michigan State: Sucks for them but don't lose two games and not win your conference.
Most years would be like this. The best team left out would be ranked ~ 7-9. Once in a while all six auto-bids would be in the top eight and the best team left out would be #9. Once in a while you'd have three weak Champions and #5 or #6 would get left out.
A one-loss P5 team would basically never be left out. I view that as a blessing and a curse. It is a blessing because there would be a REALLY good answer anytime somebody started whining about their team not getting in "don't lose twice". It is a curse because it would effectively give EVERY P5 team a mulligan and substantially detract from the "every game matters" feel of the sport.
My team's experience this season really reinforces that feeling. They had only one loss and they are not in the CFP. Each game is (or at least can be) a REALLY big deal.
-
It's OK anyone who implements Leaders/Legends deserves all the grief you can muster
I really do NOT think that this season after we just witnessed an 11-1 borderline CFP contender playing a mediocre 8-4 team is the best time to complain about the vastly superior competitive balance of the Leaders/Legends.
-
it's the name, not the alignment
-
It's funny the extent to which I used to rail against the Leaders/Legends *alignment*. It offended my M/OSU pride (hated the idea of a rematch even being theoretically possible "because tradition") and I couldn't overcome that. And yet it was actually a far better division for Michigan in terms of self-interest.
Not that I'm conflating myself with "Big Ten decision maker." Just pointing out another example of pride correlating with a self-defeating opinion. Pssssh. Brains are overrated.
-
I'd REALLY like to see B1G commish Jim get up to the podium and address the issue/issues
First of all, he should state that the B1G is not going to change it's scheduling to water down it's contests for it's players, programs, and fans just to try to sneak into the playoff to grab a few dollars.
Then he should call out the SEC commish for that very thing and also call him out for whining and begging to get in a second team that did not win the conference, scheduled Austin Peay, Middle Tennessee, & UMass
Had the B1G still been playing 8 games like the Southern Conferences, maybe OSU doesn't play Purdue and instead plays Bowling Green. Hmm.
-
Nice to see some of your nobility giving way to reality.
-
Had the B1G still been playing 8 games like the Southern Conferences, maybe OSU doesn't play Purdue and instead plays Bowling Green. Hmm.
And Michigan fans would be busting our chops for losing to a team from the MAC
-
i don't like conf champs getting auto bids, unless it comes with a caveat that they have to be ranked in top 10-12 or something. i don't want a 4-5 loss team getting lucky being in the right side of the divisions and having the game of their lives getting them in the playoffs. if you're 1 w/l swap away from being .500, you don't deserve a shot, i don't care what conf you won.
if you're a p5 champ with 0-2 losses, you'll almost always be in top 10. and those are the limits i'd put on a team deserving a title shot.
Why not? What if an undefeated G5 team gets in and has to play Alabama? Wouldn't that be just as bad?
You're talking about a 1 in 1000 chance of something that may never happen. You had 2 cases this year of a team with 4 or 5 losses playing in a P5 CCG and neither came close to winning. But if they did, so what? Let them have their shot. I'm personally tired of a group of people deciding who is in the top 4 or top 12 with some subjective, ever changing criteria. Establish a clearly defined criteria for making it to the playoff and make sure everyone is aware. And if some 4 or 5 loss team, defies the odds and makes it, good for them.
-
Thank you. You do acknowledge that a fair amount of time there is going to be teams in that setting that is obviously a step or 2 below other champions?
Yes, that is a possibility. But I would much prefer that to what we have now where the goal posts for making the top 4 are constantly moving to appease the talking heads at ESPN.
-
I'd REALLY like to see B1G commish Jim get up to the podium and address the issue/issues
First of all, he should state that the B1G is not going to change it's scheduling to water down it's contests for it's players, programs, and fans just to try to sneak into the playoff to grab a few dollars.
Then he should call out the SEC commish for that very thing and also call him out for whining and begging to get in a second team that did not win the conference, scheduled Austin Peay, Middle Tennessee, & UMass
If I was the commish I would do it.
I hate the straw-man argument of "NFL-lite" when comments are brought up about making the schedules more balanced. Again only 8 conference games + plus an FCS team on the schedule has shown the formula for making the playoffs each year. (ACC and SEC.) 9 conference games and no FCS (Pac and B1G) in theory produces a better regular season, but after 5 years appears to cripples the chance of making a the playoffs. I actually like the B12's everyone plays everyone he most, but I don't think we can cut multiple teams from each conference to get there.
So, can anything be done to get ACC, SEC, Pac and B1G to try and line up the style of scheduling?
-
My constant suggestion for an NCAA "rule" would be to schedule 10 P5 teams on your slate each year, however you want to go about it.
Two pastries and ten P5 teams (which would include ND and perhaps a few other indies). Navy might make some money off this scheme.
-
If we separate from the G5, I don't hate the idea of 12 conference games for each P5 conference. No OOC. It'd breathe old life into interdivisional matchups like Minnesota or Iowa versus Michigan, eliminate concern about 4-5 loss teams squeaking into the playoff (because without OOC points of comparison, maybe that conference really is that good), and would make the bowls suddenly fascinating, because that and the CFP are the only interconference measuring sticks.
/unrealistic but cool
-
Why not? What if an undefeated G5 team gets in and has to play Alabama? Wouldn't that be just as bad?
You're talking about a 1 in 1000 chance of something that may never happen. You had 2 cases this year of a team with 4 or 5 losses playing in a P5 CCG and neither came close to winning. But if they did, so what? Let them have their shot. I'm personally tired of a group of people deciding who is in the top 4 or top 12 with some subjective, ever changing criteria. Establish a clearly defined criteria for making it to the playoff and make sure everyone is aware. And if some 4 or 5 loss team, defies the odds and makes it, good for them.
i think we're being blinded by how lucky we've been during the actual playoffs to not have crazy upsets. it's worked out really well. but that's not true for most of cfb history. it's very unusual, actually.
since 2000, these conf champs would have muddied the cfp by winning conf titles (record are pre-bowl games):
2000 - 8-3 purdue (either 1 loss oregon st or va tech would have been left out, both won their bowls over top ranked teams)
2001 - 9-3 lsu (but this works out decent as no 1 loss or better gets left out, though the final rank #3 (uf) and 4 (tenn) teams both get left out, but had 2 losses pre-bowl)
2002 - 9-4 fsu (again, works out as no 1-loss pre bowl get left out, but final rank #4 (usc), #5 (ou), #6 (tex) and #7 (k st) all get left out)
2003 - 11-3 k st (works out again, but #4 osu gets left out with 2 losses)
2004 - 8-3 pitt (1 loss cal, 1 loss #6 louisville (not a p5 at time, but lone loss was by 3 to #3 miami), and undefeated boise st
2005 - 8-4 fsu (no 1 loss, but #4, 5 and 7 all get left out)
2006 - no one really, maybe 2 loss wake? but either 1-loss mich or wiscsonsin plus #3 lsu (2 losses) get left out.
2007 - lots of 2-loss teams in, but none egregious, but 2 of #2 uga, 1 loss kansas, and #4 mizz get left out.
2008 - 9-4 vt (this is the real fustercluck, choose 2 of 0-loss utah and boise, 1 loss bama, texas, and texas tech)
2009 - really clean, but still gotta pick between undefeated tcu or boise
2010 - 4 loss uconn (leave out either 1 loss mich st or stanford)
2011 - 3-loss clemson and wvu (leaving out either 1 loss bama or stanford)
2012 - 5 loss wisk (1 loss uf and oregon both get left out) (undefeated osu not eligible, stupid ncaa)
2013 - finally one works out perfect, no bad admissions and no bad omissions either.
2014 - another really clean year with no real arguments.
2015 - 3 in a row!
2016 - 4! crazy.
2017 - 5 - this can't be, but it is
2018 - 3-loss washington, leave out 2 of 2-loss uga, wash st, and mich. some snub, but not huge.
the last 5 or so years would have worked out really good for a 5+1+2, but going back any further and it gets disastrous most seasons with bad omissions.
point is it's not a 1 in 1000 chance. in fact, it's probably a >50% chance, we've just been really lucky the last few years that it would have worked out nicely.
-
If we separate from the G5, I don't hate the idea of 12 conference games for each P5 conference. No OOC. It'd breathe old life into interdivisional matchups like Minnesota or Iowa versus Michigan, eliminate concern about 4-5 loss teams squeaking into the playoff (because without OOC points of comparison, maybe that conference really is that good), and would make the bowls suddenly fascinating, because that and the CFP are the only interconference measuring sticks.
/unrealistic but cool
that would be interesting but i'd miss the interconf matchups.
-
If an 8-team playoff is going to include a non-P5 team, then I'm all for keeping it at 4.
-
that would be interesting but i'd miss the interconf matchups.
I can live without the 5 good ones a year, most of which occur in Week 1, in some bland NFL stadium. I used to be in that camp, but the interconference home and home matchups that exist now aren't that great anyway. So get rid of the couple of decent ones, because 95% of the game you are eliminating have zero interest to neutral fanbases, and replace them with 2 conference games.
-
My constant suggestion for an NCAA "rule" would be to schedule 10 P5 teams on your slate each year, however you want to go about it.
Two pastries and ten P5 teams (which would include ND and perhaps a few other indies). Navy might make some money off this scheme.
Well, Navy is in the Group of 5. Army and BYU would certainly benefit though.
-
If I was the commish I would do it.
So, can anything be done to get ACC, SEC, Pac and B1G to try and line up the style of scheduling?
yes, the B1G, PAC, and B12 can stoop to the lowest common denominator
-
I can live without the 5 good ones a year, most of which occur in Week 1, in some bland NFL stadium. I used to be in that camp, but the interconference home and home matchups that exist now aren't that great anyway. So get rid of the couple of decent ones, because 95% of the game you are eliminating have zero interest to neutral fanbases, and replace them with 2 conference games.
i disagree. we had au/wash, nd/mich, bama/l'ville, wvu/tenn, lsu/miami, tex/maryland, osu/or st, clem/aTm, ucla/ou, miss st/k st, osu/tcu, usc/tex, ok st/boise. and this season didn't even feel like a loaded one. some of those ended in not great games, but the story lines leading into them were good.
i'd really miss those. though i do agree with wishing they'd mostly be on campus. hopefully bama's most recent additions to the schedule is a trend for us (both texas and nd scheduled for h and h series in 2020s).
-
i think we're being blinded by how lucky we've been during the actual playoffs to not have crazy upsets. it's worked out really well. but that's not true for most of cfb history. it's very unusual, actually.
since 2000, these conf champs would have muddied the cfp by winning conf titles (record are pre-bowl games):
2000 - 8-3 purdue (either 1 loss oregon st or va tech would have been left out, both won their bowls over top ranked teams)
2001 - 9-3 lsu (but this works out decent as no 1 loss or better gets left out, though the final rank #3 (uf) and 4 (tenn) teams both get left out, but had 2 losses pre-bowl)
2002 - 9-4 fsu (again, works out as no 1-loss pre bowl get left out, but final rank #4 (usc), #5 (ou), #6 (tex) and #7 (k st) all get left out)
2003 - 11-3 k st (works out again, but #4 osu gets left out with 2 losses)
2004 - 8-3 pitt (1 loss cal, 1 loss #6 louisville (not a p5 at time, but lone loss was by 3 to #3 miami), and undefeated boise st
2005 - 8-4 fsu (no 1 loss, but #4, 5 and 7 all get left out)
2006 - no one really, maybe 2 loss wake? but either 1-loss mich or wiscsonsin plus #3 lsu (2 losses) get left out.
2007 - lots of 2-loss teams in, but none egregious, but 2 of #2 uga, 1 loss kansas, and #4 mizz get left out.
2008 - 9-4 vt (this is the real fustercluck, choose 2 of 0-loss utah and boise, 1 loss bama, texas, and texas tech)
2009 - really clean, but still gotta pick between undefeated tcu or boise
2010 - 4 loss uconn (leave out either 1 loss mich st or stanford)
2011 - 3-loss clemson and wvu (leaving out either 1 loss bama or stanford)
2012 - 5 loss wisk (1 loss uf and oregon both get left out) (undefeated osu not eligible, stupid ncaa)
2013 - finally one works out perfect, no bad admissions and no bad omissions either.
2014 - another really clean year with no real arguments.
2015 - 3 in a row!
2016 - 4! crazy.
2017 - 5 - this can't be, but it is
2018 - 3-loss washington, leave out 2 of 2-loss uga, wash st, and mich. some snub, but not huge.
the last 5 or so years would have worked out really good for a 5+1+2, but going back any further and it gets disastrous most seasons with bad omissions.
point is it's not a 1 in 1000 chance. in fact, it's probably a >50% chance, we've just been really lucky the last few years that it would have worked out nicely.
Well compared to what we have now, I would prefer it. Now it is Bama and Clemson's club and a few others are occasionally invited. I don't care if a 4 or 5 loss team upsets a undefeated or 1 loss team. If they do, they deserve a shot.
I'm not proposing the 5+1 model, I'm proposing a 5 team tournament based only on conf champs with the committee seeding the teams. 4 & 5 would play a "play in" game, and then run the tournament from there with the higher seeded team having a home game in the play in and the next round.
What this proposal addresses most is that everyone knows what it takes to get to the playoff from the start of the season. Win your division and then your conference championship game. If you don't, you have no complaints. No ESPN influence, no committee getting to say who was better and so on. Win your conference and you're in. If you can't win your conference, you don't deserve a shot at the NC.
-
Well compared to what we have now, I would prefer it. Now it is Bama and Clemson's club and a few others are occasionally invited. I don't care if a 4 or 5 loss team upsets a undefeated or 1 loss team. If they do, they deserve a shot.
I'm not proposing the 5+1 model, I'm proposing a 5 team tournament based only on conf champs with the committee seeding the teams. 4 & 5 would play a "play in" game, and then run the tournament from there with the higher seeded team having a home game in the play in and the next round.
What this proposal addresses most is that everyone knows what it takes to get to the playoff from the start of the season. Win your division and then your conference championship game. If you don't, you have no complaints. No ESPN influence, no committee getting to say who was better and so on. Win your conference and you're in. If you can't win your conference, you don't deserve a shot at the NC.
i fully disagree, they don't deserve a shot.
-
I don't think a four loss conference champion should be considered, at all, ever.
-
i fully disagree, they don't deserve a shot.
We'll have to agree to disagree.
I grew up thinking that winning the Big Ten and going the Rose Bowl was the goal and if tOSU made it, it was a successful season. We value'd conf championships.
I guess that doesn't apply in the SEC. It appears that in the SEC, it's the playoffs for nothing. Oh well.
-
I don't think a four loss conference champion should be considered, at all, ever.
I don't think a 2-loss non-con champ should ever be cornsidered
-
In very unusual years, a 2 loss non-conference champ might be the only viable option.
-
because of these dastardly divisions and conference champ games
-
We'll have to agree to disagree.
I grew up thinking that winning the Big Ten and going the Rose Bowl was the goal and if tOSU made it, it was a successful season. We value'd conf championships.
I guess that doesn't apply in the SEC. It appears that in the SEC, it's the playoffs for nothing. Oh well.
no, it's goal #1, absolutely. and a sec title and sugar bowl birth was/is amazing.
but a 3-4 loss team, conf champ or not, should in no way be in consideration for a national title. at least not when much much better candidates exist.
-
i think we're being blinded by how lucky we've been during the actual playoffs to not have crazy upsets. it's worked out really well. but that's not true for most of cfb history. it's very unusual, actually.
since 2000, these conf champs would have muddied the cfp by winning conf titles (record are pre-bowl games):
2000 - 8-3 purdue (either 1 loss oregon st or va tech would have been left out, both won their bowls over top ranked teams)
2001 - 9-3 lsu (but this works out decent as no 1 loss or better gets left out, though the final rank #3 (uf) and 4 (tenn) teams both get left out, but had 2 losses pre-bowl)
2002 - 9-4 fsu (again, works out as no 1-loss pre bowl get left out, but final rank #4 (usc), #5 (ou), #6 (tex) and #7 (k st) all get left out)
2003 - 11-3 k st (works out again, but #4 osu gets left out with 2 losses)
2004 - 8-3 pitt (1 loss cal, 1 loss #6 louisville (not a p5 at time, but lone loss was by 3 to #3 miami), and undefeated boise st
2005 - 8-4 fsu (no 1 loss, but #4, 5 and 7 all get left out)
2006 - no one really, maybe 2 loss wake? but either 1-loss mich or wiscsonsin plus #3 lsu (2 losses) get left out.
2007 - lots of 2-loss teams in, but none egregious, but 2 of #2 uga, 1 loss kansas, and #4 mizz get left out.
2008 - 9-4 vt (this is the real fustercluck, choose 2 of 0-loss utah and boise, 1 loss bama, texas, and texas tech)
2009 - really clean, but still gotta pick between undefeated tcu or boise
2010 - 4 loss uconn (leave out either 1 loss mich st or stanford)
2011 - 3-loss clemson and wvu (leaving out either 1 loss bama or stanford)
2012 - 5 loss wisk (1 loss uf and oregon both get left out) (undefeated osu not eligible, stupid ncaa)
2013 - finally one works out perfect, no bad admissions and no bad omissions either.
2014 - another really clean year with no real arguments.
2015 - 3 in a row!
2016 - 4! crazy.
2017 - 5 - this can't be, but it is
2018 - 3-loss washington, leave out 2 of 2-loss uga, wash st, and mich. some snub, but not huge.
the last 5 or so years would have worked out really good for a 5+1+2, but going back any further and it gets disastrous most seasons with bad omissions.
point is it's not a 1 in 1000 chance. in fact, it's probably a >50% chance, we've just been really lucky the last few years that it would have worked out nicely.
I think you need to look at it differently. The SEC and B12 had conference championship games going back to the 90's, but of the other P5 conferences, the ACC started in 2005, PAC-12 in 2011, and B1G in 2011.
Then you can throw out UConn and WVU, because both were in the Big East which not only isn't a conference anymore, but also didn't have a CCG.
So 2000, 2002, and 2004 don't count as significantly. 2005, 2008 and 2011, the ACC had a weak champ get in who had won their CCG. 2012 was a weird year with both OSU and PSU ineligible, so you can sorta throw that out. Then you had 5 straight years before this year's Washington team.
Conference championship games GREATLY reduce the odds that an undeserving team will make it in.
-
I think you need to look at it differently. The SEC and B12 had conference championship games going back to the 90's, but of the other P5 conferences, the ACC started in 2005, PAC-12 in 2011, and B1G in 2011.
Then you can throw out UConn and WVU, because both were in the Big East which not only isn't a conference anymore, but also didn't have a CCG.
So 2000, 2002, and 2004 don't count as significantly. 2005, 2008 and 2011, the ACC had a weak champ get in who had won their CCG. 2012 was a weird year with both OSU and PSU ineligible, so you can sorta throw that out. Then you had 5 straight years before this year's Washington team.
Conference championship games GREATLY reduce the odds that an undeserving team will make it in.
that's a whole lot of spinning to discount all those years to where it doesn't matter.
imo it will greatly increase the likelihood.
in a round robin or best conf record wins, it's much less likely that a conf puts up a bad candidate cause those with bad record will already be eliminated. unless the whole conf is crap.
but in a title game scenario, it becomes a 1 game play-in season. all you have to do is be lucky on your side of the bracket.
in sec, last 8 years there's been 2 3-loss teams (pre-seccg) in it.
in the 8 years of b1gcg, there's been 1 4-loss and 1 5-loss teams in, and the 5 loss team won it.
in the acc last 8 years, they've had 1 3-loss team, 1 5-loss team, and 1 6-loss team.
in the pac it's only a handful of years that they don't have a 3+ loss team involved. and had multiple 4 and a 6 loss team involved. this year BOTH were 3 loss teams.
it's a minor miracle that none of those upsets happened in the last 5 years.
if we're going to do auto bids for conf champs, it has to be with the caveat that they're in top 10-12. and if a crazy season with ridiculous parity results in a 3-4 loss team being top 10, then so be it. it hasn't happened in the history of the game, but if it does, fine. but i have 0 problem leaving out any conf champ that's got 3-4-5 losses in favor of a non-conf champ with 1.
-
in sec, last 8 years there's been 2 3-loss teams (pre-seccg) in it.
in the 8 years of b1gcg, there's been 1 4-loss and 1 5-loss teams in, and the 5 loss team won it.
in the acc last 8 years, they've had 1 3-loss team, 1 5-loss team, and 1 6-loss team.
in the pac it's only a handful of years that they don't have a 3+ loss team involved. and had multiple 4 and a 6 loss team involved. this year BOTH were 3 loss teams.
I agree with you that it greatly increases the likelihood that an inferior conference champ makes it in. Still, I say "so what"?
For your B1G example, 2012 was screwy because of the postseason bans of OSU and PSU. Had undefeated OSU made it to the CCG, it changes things.
Same for the year that a 6-loss team made it in the PAC. UCLA only made it to the CCG because USC wasn't allowed.
So maybe if teams would stop cheating, that'd reduce the chances of the inferior teams getting in?
But even so. Let's say each year there is one team that wouldn't normally stand a chance of getting in, but they get lucky and make it to [and win] the CCG... Is it so wrong that they get rewarded for winning their CCG? Especially if no other P5 champion is excluded, and you have two at-large slots for P5 non-champions to get selected as well?
-
yes, it's wrong that they get rewarded for 5-6 losses, but were lucky they found themselves in a ridiculously fortuitous situation where only 1 game matters, instead of the previous 12.
-
yup, let the 5 loss suckbutt be a warmup game for Bama
-
Conference championship games GREATLY reduce the odds that an undeserving team will make it in.
I think you have this exactly backwards. Before the CG's you had a round-robin or most of a round robin so your champion was almost always a pretty good team. Outside of the B12 you now have divisions and obviously winning a division has as much to do with your competition as it does with your team. IMHO, NU was the 4th best team in the B1G this year but they played in a division opposite #1-#3 so they got into a situation where they were one game from being crowned B1G Champions. If they would have had the game of their lives last Saturday or if Ohio State would have simply played a crappy game that wouldn't have proven that Northwestern is elite team. It would simply have proven that sh*t happens.
-
yes, it's wrong that they get rewarded for 5-6 losses, but were lucky they found themselves in a ridiculously fortuitous situation where only 1 game matters, instead of the previous 12.
I think you have this exactly backwards. Before the CG's you had a round-robin or most of a round robin so your champion was almost always a pretty good team. Outside of the B12 you now have divisions and obviously winning a division has as much to do with your competition as it does with your team. IMHO, NU was the 4th best team in the B1G this year but they played in a division opposite #1-#3 so they got into a situation where they were one game from being crowned B1G Champions. If they would have had the game of their lives last Saturday or if Ohio State would have simply played a crappy game that wouldn't have proven that Northwestern is elite team. It would simply have proven that sh*t happens.
It's not the committee's job to figure out who the conference champion is.
If the conferences start figuring out that they're sending unworthy teams to the playoff and getting embarrassed, maybe they'll change how they crown their champion.
But I still want objectivity. If you allow it to be P5 conference champions, the teams know going into the year what bar they need to clear, and they control their own destiny.
-
I am fine with the current system, which is good for me as it shows no signs of changes being at all imminent.
A lot of people have multiple, myriad even, proposals for something different, which is fine with me, but I view them as abstractions, not concerns.
-
It's not the committee's job to figure out who the conference champion is.
If the conferences start figuring out that they're sending unworthy teams to the playoff and getting embarrassed, maybe they'll change how they crown their champion.
But I still want objectivity. If you allow it to be P5 conference champions, the teams know going into the year what bar they need to clear, and they control their own destiny.
At least for now, the system is objective enough for me.
2018 is only the second time since the BCS was established in 1998 that we have had more than two major undefeated teams at the end of the year. Back in 2004 Auburn, USC, and Oklahoma all finished undefeated and since we only had a 2-team playoff then, the Tigers got left out. This year we have a 4-team playoff so all three undefeated teams are in.
As you know, I don't count UCF because they played an absolute joke of a schedule and thus finished 12-0 without acquiring anything remotely resembling a quality win.
So, with the exception of a 2004 Auburn fan, to any fan complaining about their team being left out of the BCS/CFP over the past 21 years I would say either:
- "Schedule some decent opposition then we'll talk" (wrt to a G5 type team like UCF), or
- "You DID have control of your own destiny, don't lose any games and you'll get in" (wrt any other team).
I say this to Ohio State fans who complain about getting left out in 1998, ..., 2018 and fan of every other program with this complaint.
-
I can live without the 5 good ones a year, most of which occur in Week 1, in some bland NFL stadium. I used to be in that camp, but the interconference home and home matchups that exist now aren't that great anyway. So get rid of the couple of decent ones, because 95% of the game you are eliminating have zero interest to neutral fanbases, and replace them with 2 conference games.
I think the biggest issue with a 12-game conference schedule is the beat down. I recall some in-game analyst this year quoting an old interview with Paterno a few years after joining the Big Ten, reflecting on expectations. He said M and OSU were exactly who every PSUer expected. But what he didn't expect is how severely beaten up hos team was even after playing Indiana. That competitively there may be gimmes in a big conference, but in wear and tear, unlike the OOC cupcakes, there are no off weeks. They all have costs.
Again, I know my idea, if neat, is impossible but if it were to happen, we might have to go back to 11-game schedules for the safety of the P5 players.
-
I don't think a four loss conference champion should be considered, at all, ever.
Mixing others' ideas:
What about a 5-team default tourney with (a) "no 4-loss participants" and (b) "no substitutions" rules?
In this thread, we've acknowledged how nice ELA's idea of a telescoping playoff is -- large some years, small in others, depending on whether there are enough great teams to deserve a large or small format that year. We keep liking it but saying it's a logistical nightmare.
This would be objective and clean, though.
5 champs with fewer than 4 reg season losses?
4 such champs?
3 such champs?
2?
1?
- Hard to believe, but just give them the trophy
Side effect: This might lead conferences to rethink how (or whether) they do CCGs, which I'd like but others might not.
-
What is the primary objective of a modified playoff in your mind? Can you state one?
-
It's not the committee's job to figure out who the conference champion is.
If the conferences start figuring out that they're sending unworthy teams to the playoff and getting embarrassed, maybe they'll change how they crown their champion.
But I still want objectivity. If you allow it to be P5 conference champions, the teams know going into the year what bar they need to clear, and they control their own destiny.
you're right, it's not the committees job to figure out the conf champs. it's the committees job to figure out who the best teams are across the nation and put them in the playoffs (and other bowls). and a 4-5-6 loss team shouldn't factor into that, i don't care what conf champ t-shirt they're wearing.
and i'm on board making it objective as possible. but we also need to be reasonable about who should be considered. when's the last time a 0-1 loss p5 champ wasn't in the top 10-12? hell, even 2 loss p5 champs almost always are. go 5+1+2, with the caveat that you must be in top 12, and it's easy enough. and if we get some crazy 6-6 acc winner like we almost had with ga tech a few years back, then it becomes a 4+1+3.
much like the bowl games used to be, i want this to be a reward for an excellent whole season. not a "we finished the season with our heads barely above water" season.
-
What is the primary objective of a modified playoff in your mind? Can you state one?
To acknowledge that when we switched formats after 1997, the idea was to value unanimous NCs so much as to sacrifice bits of the sport. So the regular season suffered. And, though (outside of USC v LSU at least - 2003?) unanimity happened, because the selection system remained subjective, controversy never exited. My interest is to accept that others want a unanimous champ from an uncontroversial playoff ... and finally do that within a framework that maximizes the value of the regular season. Ever since 1997, we've made sacrifices (some smaller than others) to the regular season. And it doesn't have to be that way. We can technically have it all. Unanimity. Objectivity. Eliminate controversy. And maximally honor the P5 regular season.
A telescoping "P5 champs only ... but never with 4+ losses" playoff (astoundingly) checks off every one of those.
It's not exactly elegant. And if an alternative format could elegantly check off every one of those, I'll leap at it instead.
But I want it all and of the things I want, maximal value for the regular season and all conference races is runaway #1.
-
I meant an objective along the lines of:
To determine the best team each year.
To select the best teams for a playoff by the best method.
To create a playoff champion.
One can acknowledge whatever without changing anything.
-
Mixing others' ideas:
What about a 5-team default tourney with (a) "no 4-loss participants" and (b) "no substitutions" rules?
In this thread, we've acknowledged how nice ELA's idea of a telescoping playoff is -- large some years, small in others, depending on whether there are enough great teams to deserve a large or small format that year. We keep liking it but saying it's a logistical nightmare.
This would be objective and clean, though.
5 champs with fewer than 4 reg season losses?
4 such champs?
3 such champs?
2?
1?
- Hard to believe, but just give them the trophy
Side effect: This might lead conferences to rethink how (or whether) they do CCGs, which I'd like but others might not.
Yeah, I know my idea would never work, but even your there doesn't solve the problem of years like 2005 where we just needed USC-Texas. I have no idea, but I'm sure (particularly since the Big Ten and Pac 12 had no CCG back then) that there would other champs that would qualify under your model, but be unnecessary. I'm torn this year, but I think either 3, 5 or 7. I think you either leave it at undefeateds; or have an Oklahoma-OSU play in game, and leave it at that, or if you insist Georgia must be included, then I must insist that Michigan be included too, and you go to 7.
-
Because you asked a narrow question:
I tend to dislike playoffs for their risk to accidentally crown a hot team that is not the nation's best all season. So I guess I want to crown the nation's best team all season.
The pre-BCS system may have done this best. The BCS somewhat less. Each larger playoff will risk being worse.
-
Yeah, I know my idea would never work, but even your there doesn't solve the problem of years like 2005 where we just needed USC-Texas. I have no idea, but I'm sure (particularly since the Big Ten and Pac 12 had no CCG back then) that there would other champs that would qualify under your model, but be unnecessary. I'm torn this year, but I think either 3, 5 or 7. I think you either leave it at undefeateds; or have an Oklahoma-OSU play in game, and leave it at that, or if you insist Georgia must be included, then I must insist that Michigan be included too, and you go to 7.
I was thinking about that for this year as well and I don't know either. Then there is another problem. Even if this were plausible (which it probably isn't), it would almost certainly require an even number of teams. You could do four (as now), or six with two play-in games, or eight with three rounds but you would almost certainly never do 3, 5, or 7 which means that this year it really wouldn't work well anyway for the reasons that you stated:
- If you go to five to include all of the 1-loss P5 Champions then you have to go to six so you get Georgia.
- Once you go to six and include Georgia it seems ridiculous not to include Michigan since their losses were arguably better than Georgia's so now you have to go to seven.
- Once you go to seven then you have to go to eight and who is #8? According to the CFP it would be UCF but, as I have said numerous times in this thread, they have ZERO wins over ranked teams. Including them would be ridiculous and if they are in then at least all of the following (in addition to the seven already included) should be as well: Washington, Florida, LSU, PSU, WSU, Kentucky, Texas, WVU. So now you have a four-round, 16-team playoff. FWIW, even then I would still make UCF the #16 seed.
-
If I was the commish I would do it.
I hate the straw-man argument of "NFL-lite" when comments are brought up about making the schedules more balanced. Again only 8 conference games + plus an FCS team on the schedule has shown the formula for making the playoffs each year. (ACC and SEC.) 9 conference games and no FCS (Pac and B1G) in theory produces a better regular season, but after 5 years appears to cripples the chance of making a the playoffs. I actually like the B12's everyone plays everyone he most, but I don't think we can cut multiple teams from each conference to get there.
So, can anything be done to get ACC, SEC, Pac and B1G to try and line up the style of scheduling?
I hate it, too. If we want to crown a champion and be certain they deserve it, college football needs to mimic something rednecky - stock car racing.
The framework of college football should be stock for everyone. Get an equal, uniform infrastructure, and THEN we'll really see who's the best, year-in, year-out.
Every conference should have the same number of schools.
Every conference should play the same number of conference games.
Every school should have the same number of home games and away games.
Every conference should have the same tie-breaker rules.
Once all that is in place, just let 'em have at it and enjoy.
-
As long as players are attracted through recruiting, there's no such thing as uniform.
-
I don't want things uniform. That's part of the beauty of the sport and I still wish the Big Ten hadn't played follow the leader and put in the conference championship game. I vastly preferred the difficulty of winning an outright title (although going to 14 made it unavoidable).
Part of what has helped the ACC is simply having one dominant team at a time for awhile (Florida State and then Clemson). One team head and shoulders over everyone else stands a much better chance at winning out and making it. It was getting no where a decade ago when it had none (kind of like the PAC-12 now) and with a stronger middle (like the Big Ten now), more losses would happen. The SEC meanwhile has one of the biggest dynasties we have seen combined with a very strong top making losses a bit more acceptable. The Big Ten and Big 12 are a bit more between which hurts the top teams a bit in my view.
-
As long as players are attracted through recruiting, there's no such thing as uniform.
I don't want uniform fairness beyond the rules, just uniform fairness inside the rules. Put another way, uniform competitiveness is unrealistic. I'm not even convinced it's desirable.
Meanwhile, these two interpretations of "uniform" aren't mutually exclusive. We can easily have talent asymmetries in a sport with conferences adhering to the same membership numbers and ratio in terms of Con/Noncon scheduling.
-
if we're going to do auto bids for conf champs, it has to be with the caveat that they're in top 10-12. and if a crazy season with ridiculous parity results in a 3-4 loss team being top 10, then so be it. it hasn't happened in the history of the game, but if it does, fine. but i have 0 problem leaving out any conf champ that's got 3-4-5 losses in favor of a non-conf champ with 1.
I'm all for this caveat (ranked in the top 12) if it's what it takes for the playoff to include regional champs. I also through out the idea that if the highest ranked G5 team was ahead the lowest P5 Champion, the G5 team would take the that spot in the playoff. (At least until G5 splits off.)
-
I tend to dislike playoffs for their risk to accidentally crown a hot team that is not the nation's best all season. So I guess I want to crown the nation's best team all season.
I get what you're saying but in the lust to have to have an undisputed champion this is what the proletariat is getting.Remember when the 9-7 Giants but beat the Patriots to win the SB 21-17?It's gonna happen
-
The larger the number of teams allowed in the playoff, the less important regular season games become. It is a direct correlation. Some of these ideas are akin to making the college football regular season about as important as the college basketball regular season.
NO THANK YOU
-
I don't want uniform fairness beyond the rules, just uniform fairness inside the rules. Put another way, uniform competitiveness is unrealistic. I'm not even convinced it's desirable.
Meanwhile, these two interpretations of "uniform" aren't mutually exclusive. We can easily have talent asymmetries in a sport with conferences adhering to the same membership numbers and ratio in terms of Con/Noncon scheduling.
Yes please.
I'd argue as long as NCAA is an "amateur" sport, the kids/schools should be able to select the the dance partner they want. But yes, let's get schedules as symmetrical as possible. (I'd prefer 9 con, and no FCS. But if everyone does 8 con, and FCS so be it.)
And when are collective whimsical minds wonder back to conference expansion, trying to keep things balanced, is one of the reasons I don't want Texas and Oklahoma in the SEC.
-
Some of these ideas are akin to making the college football regular season about as important as the college basketball regular season.
NO THANK YOU
Yes it's really hard to draw comparisons to NCAA Hoops/ March Madness or the NFL play-offs.CFB presents a whole different set of factors/variables.IMO the answer isn't more
-
How do auto bids for conference champions diminish the regular season?
-
How do auto bids for conference champions diminish the regular season?
who had the better regular season, 11-2 non-champ uga, or (hypothetical) 8-5 acc champ pitt? or 12-1 non-champ clemson and pitt?
-
I'm all for this caveat (ranked in the top 12) if it's what it takes for the playoff to include regional champs. I also through out the idea that if the highest ranked G5 team was ahead the lowest P5 Champion, the G5 team would take the that spot in the playoff. (At least until G5 splits off.)
first, i've not been real clear, i'm not inherently for or against expanding the playoff. i haven't really said that yet and looking back through the thread looks like i'm a big proponent of expanding, which i'm not. not totally against it either, though.
having said that, i'm fine with g5 champs in top 10-12 being in as well. go ahead and throw in nd/independents in top 10 caveat too. if you're a 0-1 loss conf champ, i don't have issue with your spot being guaranteed. i don't even care to limit g5 to just 1 if there's more than 1 with an argument (like tcu and boise from ~2009-10).
i just don't want to see a totally undeserving teams (from both eye test and results based) get in just because they lucked up and won a fluke game that happened to be a conf title.
Yes please.
I'd argue as long as NCAA is an "amateur" sport, the kids/schools should be able to select the the dance partner they want. But yes, let's get schedules as symmetrical as possible. (I'd prefer 9 con, and no FCS. But if everyone does 8 con, and FCS so be it.)
And when are collective whimsical minds wonder back to conference expansion, trying to keep things balanced, is one of the reasons I don't want Texas and Oklahoma in the SEC.
i'm with you on that, though i doubt the sec ad's see it that way.
-
After reading the last couple pages.... I still think winning your conference has to matter. It makes the regular season important. If an 8-5 Pitt team wins it... so be it. Make them the 8th seed. If they upset an undefeated team in the championship game, then most likely they both would be in... so be it.
I also agree that the NCAA should mandate the format on FCS games and conference games. Level the field as much as possible.
-
After reading the last couple pages.... I still think winning your conference has to matter. It makes the regular season important. If an 8-5 Pitt team wins it... so be it. Make them the 8th seed. If they upset an undefeated team in the championship game, then most likely they both would be in... so be it.
should it matter? absolutely. should it matter to the point it totally diminishes the rest of the regular season? absolutely not.
IF you win your conf AND IF you had a great reg season (0-1 loss) then by all means, guarantee a spot (would have to expand to make this feasible). but if either of those are lacking, your spot should NOT be guaranteed.
-
I get what you're saying but in the lust to have to have an undisputed champion this is what the proletariat is getting.Remember when the 9-7 Giants but beat the Patriots to win the SB 21-17?It's gonna happen
The Giants were not the best team that year. You know what we call them, to this day?
"Super Bowl Champions"
Was it such a travesty?
-
yes, but since it was the NFL no one cared enough
this is college football - it's important!!!
-
The larger the number of teams allowed in the playoff, the less important regular season games become. It is a direct correlation. Some of these ideas are akin to making the college football regular season about as important as the college basketball regular season.
NO THANK YOU
If you make it conference champions, then winning your conference championship is the number one goal you have. A lot of us have lamented the fact that conference championships are devalued in the CFP world, as we've now seen 11-1 non-CCG participants chosen for the playoff OVER 12-1 conference champions.
I'll admit it makes OOC games less important. But it makes what you do in conference much more important.
Right now if you're the SEC, you get a mulligan. You don't even need to go to your CCG to get into a 4-team playoff, despite only playing 8 conference games and scheduling FCS. If you follow what the committee said they value [SOS] and play 9 conference games and no FCS, you don't get a mulligan.
In my mind, 5+1+2 makes the regular season better. You have more incentive to schedule tough OOC, even if it means you might lose a game. You have more incentive to play nine conference games, as it helps ensure that the conference champion will be a better team with larger sample size than 8 conference games. You don't schedule FCS just because you want an easy win, because the easy OOC win doesn't make as big of a difference.
-
If you make it conference champions, then winning your conference championship is the number one goal you have. A lot of us have lamented the fact that conference championships are devalued in the CFP world, as we've now seen 11-1 non-CCG participants chosen for the playoff OVER 12-1 conference champions.
I'll admit it makes OOC games less important. But it makes what you do in conference much more important.
Right now if you're the SEC, you get a mulligan. You don't even need to go to your CCG to get into a 4-team playoff, despite only playing 8 conference games and scheduling FCS. If you follow what the committee said they value [SOS] and play 9 conference games and no FCS, you don't get a mulligan.
In my mind, 5+1+2 makes the regular season better. You have more incentive to schedule tough OOC, even if it means you might lose a game. You have more incentive to play nine conference games, as it helps ensure that the conference champion will be a better team with larger sample size than 8 conference games. You don't schedule FCS just because you want an easy win, because the easy OOC win doesn't make as big of a difference.
this is not true. 2016 psu had 2 losses (when osu got in over them) and in 2017 osu had 2 losses (when bama got in over them).
an 11-1 non-champ has only gotten in over 2 loss champs. and both of those had losses to bad teams and a 30+ point loss.
unless you're counting nd, but they're 12-0 not 11-1.
-
Consider the "ultimate playoff", one involving 130 teams, single elimination and seeded (magically). Everyone has a shot. Of course, nearly always 1 will beat 130 and 2 beats 129 and so forth until you reach around 30 where you get "upsets" And then a second round and a third etc.
There are extremely low odds that 130 wins the whole thing, but decent odds that a team ranked (magically) 10-30 wins the whole thing, and the odds are decidedly against #1 (who we omnisciently KNOW if the best team).
That would be entertaining, which is what I like to see, but not really very useful in determining a "true" national champion.
-
who had the better regular season, 11-2 non-champ uga, or (hypothetical) 8-5 acc champ pitt? or 12-1 non-champ clemson and pitt?
Hard to say because they played a different set of teams. Without playing similar schedules, it's still subjective to who you think had the hardest road. From what I've read, nobody thinks that UCF is better than Florida because Florida was only 9-3 where UCF was 12-0.
-
UCF is ranked higher than Florida, so I surmise folks think they are better. I think they would likely beat Florida with their usual QB.
-
good question for Afro
he doesn't seem to think highly of either team
-
I watched UCF play a couple of times. They are deadly on offense, very uptempo, hard to organize your defense against that and you can't leverage depth on D.
-
I could live with expanding the playoffs to 8. Nothing beyond that. And the auto bids for champions wouid have to come with rankings parameter. No 8-5 Pitt teams allowed. If you aren’t in the top 12 you don’t get an auto bid.
We might not be able to guarantee we are getting the best teams in there but we can at least guarantee we put in teams who were consistent winners. I don’t want the playoffs to be too inclusive. I am much more intrigued by great team may get left out than what pretty good team might get in.
-
who had the better regular season, 11-2 non-champ uga, or (hypothetical) 8-5 acc champ pitt? or 12-1 non-champ clemson and pitt?
But if non-champ Georgia gets in, then simultaneously both the SEC and ACC regular seasons are tainted. The pressure of winning every game in the SEC is diminished and so is the value of playing in and winning the ACC. Neither of those are complete degradations, but they both steal something important.
Meanwhile: Georgia had its chance. When it mattered most (twice), Georgia lost. If you want to exclude Pitt, I am all for a solid, predetermined structure to do that**, but I absolutely oppose subbing a non-champ in for the excluded champ.
**("no 3+ or 4+ loss teams" or "no teams ranked lower than 12th" -- though I do prefer exclusionary terms that are not dependent on something as subjective as polls or committees)
-
The Giants were not the best team that year. You know what we call them, to this day?
"Super Bowl Champions"
Was it such a travesty?
If you think the obvious and only best way to determine a champion is to give the "best team from the whole season" the big trophy, then yes, it is. If you are biased towards the March Madness model or love the Giants/hate the Pats, then no it's not.
-
this is not true. 2016 psu had 2 losses (when osu got in over them) and in 2017 osu had 2 losses (when bama got in over them).
an 11-1 non-champ has only gotten in over 2 loss champs. and both of those had losses to bad teams and a 30+ point loss.
unless you're counting nd, but they're 12-0 not 11-1.
Correct. I was thinking that Bama got in over OSU, but forgot about the Oklahoma loss.
Again, you want to value the regular season, but OSU gets punished for scheduling a difficult game. I recognize they also had a bad loss on top of it, but had they been playing an FCS team that week like Mercer, for example, instead of a cross-division conference game, maybe they'd have avoided that Iowa loss.
-
The larger the number of teams allowed in the playoff, the less important regular season games become. It is a direct correlation. Some of these ideas are akin to making the college football regular season about as important as the college basketball regular season.
NO THANK YOU
I almost always subscribe to this theory, but I think for CFB that the graph of "respecting the regular season" versus "size of CFP" that 4 is linear overall but curvy when zoomed in. And 4 is a specific exception. For "respecting the regular season," for is a local mimimum. Both 2 and 6 are better.
Not that we have to be correct or that you have to agree, but @ELA (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=55) and I have been arguing this since July at the latest. I'm going to leave out the reasons for now because between this thread and all the others, I have a bit of "typing the same thing fifty ways" fatigue at the moment.
That probably means I shouldn't have responded in the first place, but your comment was important, something I allllmost agreed with (if it weren't for nuance that seems pivotal for the entire thread), so I wanted to jump is as a bookmark for later. If you seem curious and ask, and no one else has spoken up in between, I'll lay out some bullet points tonight or tomorrow.
-
Correct. I was thinking that Bama got in over OSU, but forgot about the Oklahoma loss.
Again, you want to value the regular season, but OSU gets punished for scheduling a difficult game. I recognize they also had a bad loss on top of it, but had they been playing an FCS team that week like Mercer, for example, instead of a cross-division conference game, maybe they'd have avoided that Iowa loss.
And they got rewarded the previous season for beating Oklahoma. It gave them an extra ranked win over Penn St they wouldn’t have had if it were Bowling Green. Those games are high risk/high reward. But you aren’t going to get credit for simply scheduling them. You get credit for winning them.
-
If you think the obvious and only best way to determine a champion is to give the "best team from the whole season" the big trophy, then yes, it is. If you are biased towards the March Madness model or love the Giants/hate the Pats, then no it's not.
I think the best way to determine a champion is to have a playoff with a predefined structure such that teams know before the season what the rules of inclusion are and thus control their destiny as to whether they are included.
If you want to give it to the "best team from the whole season", you don't need a playoff. But it's by nature subjective.
Let's look at 2017, because it's the most recent NFL season we have on record:
- Pats: 13-3
- Steelers: 13-3
- Eagles: 13-3
- Vikings: 13-3
Who's the best team? I mean sure, in 2007 when the Pats were 16-0, it's somewhat easy. But when you have 32 teams and only 16 games, and teams play the teams within their own division most often and across division and outside of their conference much less often, how do you decide?
The entire point of a playoff is that there isn't enough of a dataset to decide who the "best" team is on the field during the regular season. So the regular season is a play-in, and the champion is determined by a play-off.
Sometimes it results in a team that isn't the "best" team being declared the champion. But with fair and objective entry criteria, nobody can say their championship was unearned.
-
Hard to say because they played a different set of teams. Without playing similar schedules, it's still subjective to who you think had the hardest road. From what I've read, nobody thinks that UCF is better than Florida because Florida was only 9-3 where UCF was 12-0.
just looked it up and pitt played a really good schedule, so this might not be a good argument for me, lol. but i think it's close enough to merit the records as proof enough.
pitt played clemson and nd, while uga only played bama. that's really impressive for pitt (in this scenario, pitt is 1-1 here), whereas uga lost but was really tight in their 1 game.
but uga's has more of the next tier with #10 uf, 11 lsu and 14 uk, while pit had #8 ucf (undefeated) and #12 psu) in that range. uga went a pretty good 2-1 in that stretch (all 3 games back-2-back-2-back, btw), but lone loss was blowout. pitt lost both in blowout.
and last good opp for each were comparable (#20 'cuse and #23 mizzou). each won their game fairly comfortably.
both played a crap fcs team and won handily.
and both rounded out their schedule with meddling teams, pitt going 6-1, uga 7-0.
so in summary, both lost to elite teams close, but pitt has a win too while uga was a really close game. both played a couple good teams, but uga had a good showing and record, while pitt was abysmal. both played decent or crap games for the rest, but uga has no bad losses here, while pitt has 1.
i'd probably put pitt schedule as slightly tougher, but marginally. while uga's record vs their almost equal schedule is much better, even with pitt upsetting clemson (again, in this hypothetical setup). pitt's one luck up win would be enough to overwrite their pretty pathetic record vs every other good team they faced.
-
And they got rewarded the previous season for beating Oklahoma. It gave them an extra ranked win over Penn St they wouldn’t have had if it were Bowling Green. Those games are high risk/high reward. But you aren’t going to get credit for simply scheduling them. You get credit for winning them.
True, the but committee's actions reveal that they're less concerned about quality of wins or strength of schedule as they are number of losses. They've put multiple 1-loss non-CCG participants in the CFP. They've never put a 2-loss conference champion in.
So it's more important to schedule OOC wins than it is to schedule high-profile games.
-
If you want to give it to the "best team from the whole season", you don't need a playoff. But it's by nature subjective.
THIS ^^^^
-
Bwar: If there are 4 NFL teams at the top and we dislike the idea of tiebreakers or voting one to the top, I never had a problem with the "Crown them all solution." Some seasons the championship gets shared. Other times, it's outright.
Many fans hate that. However, college football is now drunk on their hate. To the point that we're stuck on a How To Find The Unanimous Champ bender since the end of 1997. It's still not resolved. And shit's getting jaundiced. With a side of hepatomegaly.
-
just looked it up and pitt played a really good schedule, so this might not be a good argument for me, lol. but i think it's close enough to merit the records as proof enough.
pitt played clemson and nd, while uga only played bama. that's really impressive for pitt (in this scenario, pitt is 1-1 here), whereas uga lost but was really tight in their 1 game.
but uga's has more of the next tier with #10 uf, 11 lsu and 14 uk, while pit had #8 ucf (undefeated) and #12 psu) in that range. uga went a pretty good 2-1 in that stretch (all 3 games back-2-back-2-back, btw), but lone loss was blowout. pitt lost both in blowout.
and last good opp for each were comparable (#20 'cuse and #23 mizzou). each won their game fairly comfortably.
both played a crap fcs team and won handily.
and both rounded out their schedule with meddling teams, pitt going 6-1, uga 7-0.
so in summary, both lost to elite teams close, but pitt has a win too while uga was a really close game. both played a couple good teams, but uga had a good showing and record, while pitt was abysmal. both played decent or crap games for the rest, but uga has no bad losses here, while pitt has 1.
i'd probably put pitt schedule as slightly tougher, but marginally. while uga's record vs their almost equal schedule is much better, even with pitt upsetting clemson (again, in this hypothetical setup). pitt's one luck up win would be enough to overwrite their pretty pathetic record vs every other good team they faced.
I see what you are saying, but it is still ultimately subjective. If we want to subjectively crown champions, we should go back to the old system where teams went and played in the bowl games that were affiliated with their conferences and then vote on the champion afterwards.
But this notion that a group of people sit in a room and tell us who the best 4 are is just another way of doing that. Sure, it gives the top 4 a chance to prove it, but it leave everyone else out. And when you have ESPN talking heads telling us who the better teams/conferences are, they add too much unneeded influence into those discussions.
If there were clearly defined criteria going into the season that every team knew before the first kickoff of the season, they can then plan and play to achieve it. And in the end, there would be no complaining because they knew what it took going in. Just as my earlier example, Michigan is not complaining that Ohio State represented the B1G East in the B1G Championship game because they won based on the predefined criteria. It didn't depend on a group of people sitting in a room to decide it.
-
Bwar: If there are 4 NFL teams at the top and we dislike the idea of tiebreakers or voting one to the top, I never had a problem with the "Crown them all solution." Some seasons the championship gets shared. Other times, it's outright.
Many fans hate that. However, college football is now drunk on their hate. To the point that we're stuck on a How To Find The Unanimous Champ bender since the end of 1997. It's still not resolved. And shit's getting jaundiced. With a side of hepatomegaly.
Well at least you're consistent :)
IMHO the pre-BCS system was what it was. Yes, it was just a beauty pageant, but everyone knew that. That's why people came up with the acronym MNC - mythical national championship.
The problem is that once you go away from that, going "halfway" to a real playoff doesn't solve the problem. The people who had problems with it being an arbitrary beauty pageant up front still have just as much of a problem, because now instead of the choice of the champion being a beauty pageant, the choice of the BCSCG/CFP participants is still a beauty pageant, but it's masquerading as a "true" unanimous champion. It's trying to get to a real championship, but it's failing because the selection criteria are arbitrary and changing at the whims of whatever the committee wants at any given time.
So that's my problem. You either have an objective system or you don't. We still don't, but people are treating it like it's sacrosanct in inviolable.
-
**("no 3+ or 4+ loss teams" or "no teams ranked lower than 12th" -- though I do prefer exclusionary terms that are not dependent on something as subjective as polls or committees)
You know, in theory I like the "no 3+ or 4+ loss teams" as a solution, because a) that's objective and b) obviously those teams rarely have any real chance of winning the whole thing.
However, I think the downside to that is that it will cause teams to try to schedule as weak OOC as possible. In addition, I like the 9 conference games over 8 conference games, and once you cap the number of losses before being eligible for the CFP, conferences will try to avoid any semblance of SOS in order to ensure their champion doesn't get excluded from the playoff.
Purdue had a really hard schedule this year. Only one non-P5 opponent on the entire slate. Two P5 OOC. 9 [obviously] P5 in conference. And it hurt our final result. Although we lost to our MAC opponent, I'll bet that if we had one FCS team, two MAC teams, one P5 OOC, and only 8 conference games, we'd be a lot more likely to be 8-4 right now than 6-6.
Is that the incentive that we want to create?
-
True, the but committee's actions reveal that they're less concerned about quality of wins or strength of schedule as they are number of losses. They've put multiple 1-loss non-CCG participants in the CFP. They've never put a 2-loss conference champion in.
So it's more important to schedule OOC wins than it is to schedule high-profile games.
That isn’t true and again I’ll use Auburn last year as an example. They had two losses and were number 2 in the country and 2 full spots ahead of undefeated Wisconsin because of great wins and a tough schedule.
A big reason why Baylor found itself at 5 instead of 4 in 2014 was a Downy soft OOC schedule.
I think a big reason why the committee didn’t put a 10-2 Wazzu in a NY6 bowl is they played no one OOC. So they found themselves behind 3 loss LSU and Florida.
Scheduling light or scheduling hard can hurt or help you. Pros and cons to each.
-
Screw Georgia! They lost BOTH of the biggest games on the schedule this season. They should not be considered, if you are that damn good, win your games! UCF won without the most important player on their team when it mattered most, if UGA can not win the games it needs to, then sorry about your luck Kirby. The same could be said about Michigan this year. In my opinion, Michigan has just as much right be in the conversation if you are going to bring up UGA.
-
Well at least you're consistent :)
IMHO the pre-BCS system was what it was. Yes, it was just a beauty pageant, but everyone knew that. That's why people came up with the acronym MNC - mythical national championship.
The problem is that once you go away from that, going "halfway" to a real playoff doesn't solve the problem. The people who had problems with it being an arbitrary beauty pageant up front still have just as much of a problem, because now instead of the choice of the champion being a beauty pageant, the choice of the BCSCG/CFP participants is still a beauty pageant, but it's masquerading as a "true" unanimous champion. It's trying to get to a real championship, but it's failing because the selection criteria are arbitrary and changing at the whims of whatever the committee wants at any given time.
So that's my problem. You either have an objective system or you don't. We still don't, but people are treating it like it's sacrosanct in inviolable.
IMO, your and my logic agrees. It's just that our preferences for the sport are opposite.
-
You know, in theory I like the "no 3+ or 4+ loss teams" as a solution, because a) that's objective and b) obviously those teams rarely have any real chance of winning the whole thing.
However, I think the downside to that is that it will cause teams to try to schedule as weak OOC as possible. In addition, I like the 9 conference games over 8 conference games, and once you cap the number of losses before being eligible for the CFP, conferences will try to avoid any semblance of SOS in order to ensure their champion doesn't get excluded from the playoff.
Purdue had a really hard schedule this year. Only one non-P5 opponent on the entire slate. Two P5 OOC. 9 [obviously] P5 in conference. And it hurt our final result. Although we lost to our MAC opponent, I'll bet that if we had one FCS team, two MAC teams, one P5 OOC, and only 8 conference games, we'd be a lot more likely to be 8-4 right now than 6-6.
Is that the incentive that we want to create?
This came up earlier. Several ideas were bandied. Disallowing P5 teams from playing non-P5 teams is a partial one. Eliminating the OOC altogether is another. I feel like a third and fourth were mentioned, too.
-
Screw Georgia! They lost BOTH of the biggest games on the schedule this season. They should not be considered, if you are that damn good, win your games! UCF won without the most important player on their team when it mattered most, if UGA can not win the games it needs to, then sorry about your luck Kirby. The same could be said about Michigan this year. In my opinion, Michigan has just as much right be in the conversation if you are going to bring up UGA.
Georgia went 1-1 in their 2 biggest games. They also lost to LSU.
UCF overcame the loss of Milton vs Memphis. Look at UGA's schedule. Depending on your opinion of certain sub-.500 SEC teams, Memphis would be about the 7th-10th-biggest game for the Bulldogs. They were the biggest game of UCF's season. Let that sink in.
People are high on UGA because they showed they can go toe-to-toe with the best team in the nation. Michigan pooped the bed against OSU late in the season. Their close loss to ND to open the season happened, of course, but from that peak, they've shown regression (OSU game). UGA's loss to LSU and their showing vs Bama suggest improvement. Different trajectories.
-
After reading the last couple pages.... I still think winning your conference has to matter. It makes the regular season important. If an 8-5 Pitt team wins it... so be it. Make them the 8th seed. If they upset an undefeated team in the championship game, then most likely they both would be in... so be it.
I also agree that the NCAA should mandate the format on FCS games and conference games. Level the field as much as possible.
This is fine, as long as you acknowledge that on a long-enough timeline, we'll end up with a 5-loss national champion. It's a statistical certainty.
-
I don't want uniform fairness beyond the rules, just uniform fairness inside the rules. Put another way, uniform competitiveness is unrealistic. I'm not even convinced it's desirable.
Meanwhile, these two interpretations of "uniform" aren't mutually exclusive. We can easily have talent asymmetries in a sport with conferences adhering to the same membership numbers and ratio in terms of Con/Noncon scheduling.
I simply listed a uniform infrastructure. The helmet teams would still get all the talent and win big. Even with uniform rules for all, the cream will rise to the top. Alabama will still be Alabama if they play 6 road games, because everyone would be playing 6 road games, too. The Tide will will roll if they pay 9 conference games, because everyone else would have to as well.
-
That isn’t true and again I’ll use Auburn last year as an example. They had two losses and were number 2 in the country and 2 full spots ahead of undefeated Wisconsin because of great wins and a tough schedule.
A big reason why Baylor found itself at 5 instead of 4 in 2014 was a Downy soft OOC schedule.
I think a big reason why the committee didn’t put a 10-2 Wazzu in a NY6 bowl is they played no one OOC. So they found themselves behind 3 loss LSU and Florida.
Scheduling light or scheduling hard can hurt or help you. Pros and cons to each.
Only the final poll matters. If you think they'd have put an 11-2 Auburn that won the conference over a 13-0 Wisconsin, I don't know that we're speaking the same language.
-
You know, in theory I like the "no 3+ or 4+ loss teams" as a solution, because a) that's objective and b) obviously those teams rarely have any real chance of winning the whole thing.
However, I think the downside to that is that it will cause teams to try to schedule as weak OOC as possible. In addition, I like the 9 conference games over 8 conference games, and once you cap the number of losses before being eligible for the CFP, conferences will try to avoid any semblance of SOS in order to ensure their champion doesn't get excluded from the playoff.
Purdue had a really hard schedule this year. Only one non-P5 opponent on the entire slate. Two P5 OOC. 9 [obviously] P5 in conference. And it hurt our final result. Although we lost to our MAC opponent, I'll bet that if we had one FCS team, two MAC teams, one P5 OOC, and only 8 conference games, we'd be a lot more likely to be 8-4 right now than 6-6.
Is that the incentive that we want to create?
I was thinking the same thing. It is obviously unlikely, but what if a team ended up with a schedule of:
- three top-15 OOC (the team goes 1-2)
- the best three opposite division teams (the team goes 1-2)
- the other six members of their division (the team goes 6-0)
So the hypothetical team finishes 7-2/8-4 and wins their division (possibly by tiebreaker because they won all of their divisional games) to get to their CG where they beat one of the teams that beat them earlier in the season.
Then the hypothetical team ends up 9-4 on an INSANELY tough SoS where they are actually 6-4 against top-15 teams and 3-0 against everybody else. Four losses sounds terrible but on that schedule they are >.500 against playoff caliber teams with no bad losses. I wouldn't want to exclude them.
Now I know that the above example is not very realistic but the concept that a maximum number of losses would discourage scheduling tough games is very real nonetheless. The AD who made that schedule would be run out of town if it ended up excluding his team from the CFP.
-
Even after sleeping on it, I really like that "1+X/4" playoff where the tournament telescopes up or down to a maximum size of 5 teams, determined entirely by the quality of the field that year (the system would include some objective cut off for exclusion, like 3+ losses), only conference champions, no substitutions.
"3 or 4+ losses" are an imperfect cutoff as we've discussed, but it's the first cutoff we've mentioned that ignore committees and polls.
1+X/4 could easily incorporate a better cut off if we could come up with one.
-
Now I know that the above example is not very realistic but the concept that a maximum number of losses would discourage scheduling tough games is very real nonetheless.
[Note: this post isn't about responding realistically to your unrealistic scenario; it's about showing that "discouraging tough scheduling" doesn't have to be inevitable here]
That problem would not be eliminated but would be diminished to a tolerable level after a comprehensive P5/G5 split (preventing all inter-level games). And it really would be completely eliminated if we eliminated all OOCs and went for 12 conference game schedules.
Even more impractical, that second one, but in addition to maximizing the reg season, would make the bowls and CFP far more fascinating. Of course, in a 12-Con-game format, we may not want any cutoff for the CFP.
-
Only the final poll matters. If you think they'd have put an 11-2 Auburn that won the conference over a 13-0 Wisconsin, I don't know that we're speaking the same language.
They had Auburn 2 spots ahead of Wisconsin with one game to play. Auburn had #6 UGA left and Wisconsin had #8 Ohio St left. Are you saying you can’t envision the committee keeping AU ahead of them if they had both won?
-
Only the final poll matters. If you think they'd have put an 11-2 Auburn that won the conference over a 13-0 Wisconsin, I don't know that we're speaking the same language.
You believe this, even with the avalance of SEC hatred/bias on here? Why do you think you guys call it ESecPN??? Of course AU would've been ranked over Wisconsin.
-
I was thinking the same thing. It is obviously unlikely, but what if a team ended up with a schedule of:
- three top-15 OOC (the team goes 1-2)
- the best three opposite division teams (the team goes 1-2)
- the other six members of their division (the team goes 6-0)
So the hypothetical team finishes 7-2/8-4 and wins their division (possibly by tiebreaker because they won all of their divisional games) to get to their CG where they beat one of the teams that beat them earlier in the season.
Then the hypothetical team ends up 9-4 on an INSANELY tough SoS where they are actually 6-4 against top-15 teams and 3-0 against everybody else. Four losses sounds terrible but on that schedule they are >.500 against playoff caliber teams with no bad losses. I wouldn't want to exclude them.
I call BS, unless it was your Buckeyes. People always poo-poo the SoS argument when it's not their team.
-
Screw Georgia! They lost BOTH of the biggest games on the schedule this season. They should not be considered, if you are that damn good, win your games! UCF won without the most important player on their team when it mattered most, if UGA can not win the games it needs to, then sorry about your luck Kirby. The same could be said about Michigan this year. In my opinion, Michigan has just as much right be in the conversation if you are going to bring up UGA.
I’m fine with mich and ucf being in the discussion. I just don’t want pitt and nw in it.
-
I don't think the answer is to expand. Once expanded then there are others left out. Frankly the bowl system was fine. I liked the Rose Bowl being the granddaddy of them all, and no matter if one team was weak the other strong, it was still, the granddaddy.
-
I think it is natural that fans find fault with whatever is extant, and want to propose improvements. I'm probably the rare fan who thinks we're at optimum design right now, though I could see a 6 team playoff personally as being OK also.
I personally am against 8, but whatever, my preference is not really relevant. And I am pretty sure we stay at four for years while fans design ever more intricate alternatives and argue about them, while we stay put.
I think everyone would agree that an 8 team playoff would generate more MONEY, which usually drives decisions, and in this case it does not apparently. So, we can infer there are significant negatives perceived by the PTBs about going to 8 to offset the positive of more money.
-
You believe this, even with the avalance of SEC hatred/bias on here? Why do you think you guys call it ESecPN??? Of course AU would've been ranked over Wisconsin.
I think we all agree that Auburn would have been ranked higher, I think the distinction that @bwarbiany (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=19) was making was that Auburn would not have gotten in at the expense of leaving Wisconsin out.
Thus, I think you are both right. Sure, Auburn would have been higher ranked but the only distinction that REALLY matters is:
- Top-4 and IN the CFP, or
- not top-4 and OUT of the CFP
Looking at it that way, both would have been in category #1.
-
I call BS, unless it was your Buckeyes. People always poo-poo the SoS argument when it's not their team.
LoL. I get what you are saying but the more important point to me is that I don't want to discourage that kind of scheduling.
Even the proposals above to eliminate FCS games or eliminate all non-P5 games would only marginally help. There are P5 teams out there that are worse than most G5 teams and a fair number of FCS teams so even within the P5 universe there are still easy and tough games.
If Ohio State played an all P5 schedule with OOC opponents from the ACC, SEC, and P12 that sounds REALLY tough and it is if the ACC, SEC, and P12 opponents are Clemson, Bama, and Washington. It isn't so tough if the ACC, SEC, and P12 opponents are Louisville, Arkansas, and Oregon State.
-
Georgia went 1-1 in their 2 biggest games. They also lost to LSU.
UCF overcame the loss of Milton vs Memphis. Look at UGA's schedule. Depending on your opinion of certain sub-.500 SEC teams, Memphis would be about the 7th-10th-biggest game for the Bulldogs. They were the biggest game of UCF's season. Let that sink in.
People are high on UGA because they showed they can go toe-to-toe with the best team in the nation. Michigan pooped the bed against OSU late in the season. Their close loss to ND to open the season happened, of course, but from that peak, they've shown regression (OSU game). UGA's loss to LSU and their showing vs Bama suggest improvement. Different trajectories.
0-2 not 1-1. Lost to both LSU and Alabama. They showed they could go toe to toe and that makes them special? Bullcrap. That is the one of the biggest issues I have with all the SEC love affairs. We played a good game against blah blah blah, still lost, but hey we deserve a trophy. It is like all the love for a 9-3 LSU. We they a solid football team-yes, but they still lost. Not buying it, and no I am not an upset Buckeye Fan. They fall into that same catagory-they can go toe to toe with any team, but the consistent performance is not there week in and week out, lost the game they needed to win and thus not in the dance.
-
LoL. I get what you are saying but the more important point to me is that I don't want to discourage that kind of scheduling.
Even the proposals above to eliminate FCS games or eliminate all non-P5 games would only marginally help. There are P5 teams out there that are worse than most G5 teams and a fair number of FCS teams so even within the P5 universe there are still easy and tough games.
If Ohio State played an all P5 schedule with OOC opponents from the ACC, SEC, and P12 that sounds REALLY tough and it is if the ACC, SEC, and P12 opponents are Clemson, Bama, and Washington. It isn't so tough if the ACC, SEC, and P12 opponents are Louisville, Arkansas, and Oregon State.
That, along with 9 conference games, would still be a tougher SoS than just about any team in the country. It doesn't matter that they're low-P5. Almost zero teams in the country play more than 10 P5-level opponents, much less 11 or 12.
And I disagree that there are a lot of low-tier P5 teams worse than a lot of the high-tier G5 teams. I recall when we were talking about recruiting rankings and saying Purdue under Hazell recruited like a MAC team. In 4 years, the only MAC team that ever out-recruited Hazell was Fleck's WMU, ONCE, and just by a hair. In general Purdue was 15-20 spots in the ranking above the best MAC teams, despite being 14 of 14 in the B1G.
-
Bwar: that's also consistent with that Paterno quote about hurting all week even after playing 1990s Indiana unlike playing lower level teams.
P5 teams arent all good (coaching isn't even) but they are still categorically separate in terms of being a load (I guess that's size/strength and enough speed to make the collisions count) -- not in pockets but completely across the trenches and defensive front.
Im sure exceptions to this can be found. But the point is that the P5 basement in terms of "physical toughness" is quite high.
-
0-2 not 1-1. Lost to both LSU and Alabama. They showed they could go toe to toe and that makes them special? Bullcrap. That is the one of the biggest issues I have with all the SEC love affairs. We played a good game against blah blah blah, still lost, but hey we deserve a trophy. It is like all the love for a 9-3 LSU. We they a solid football team-yes, but they still lost. Not buying it, and no I am not an upset Buckeye Fan. They fall into that same catagory-they can go toe to toe with any team, but the consistent performance is not there week in and week out, lost the game they needed to win and thus not in the dance.
1 - LSU and Alabama aren't the 2 highest-ranked teams they played. Florida and Alabama are. They beat Florida.
2 - No one has said they're special. Going toe-to-toe with Alabama showed their ceiling. That's a high ceiling.
3 - Not sure why you're going on an SEC rant. It's a UGA vs OU vs OSU thing, not an SEC thing.
4 - OSU showed a high ceiling, too, but their floor is much lower than Georgia's.
-
I think it is natural that fans find fault with whatever is extant, and want to propose improvements. I'm probably the rare fan who thinks we're at optimum design right now, though I could see a 6 team playoff personally as being OK also.
I personally am against 8, but whatever, my preference is not really relevant. And I am pretty sure we stay at four for years while fans design ever more intricate alternatives and argue about them, while we stay put.
I think everyone would agree that an 8 team playoff would generate more MONEY, which usually drives decisions, and in this case it does not apparently. So, we can infer there are significant negatives perceived by the PTBs about going to 8 to offset the positive of more money.
Just heard on the radio the current playoff contract goes through 2026, with an out clause for 2022, so it realistically can get changed or 3 to 7 years.
-
That, along with 9 conference games, would still be a tougher SoS than just about any team in the country. It doesn't matter that they're low-P5. Almost zero teams in the country play more than 10 P5-level opponents, much less 11 or 12.
And I disagree that there are a lot of low-tier P5 teams worse than a lot of the high-tier G5 teams. I recall when we were talking about recruiting rankings and saying Purdue under Hazell recruited like a MAC team. In 4 years, the only MAC team that ever out-recruited Hazell was Fleck's WMU, ONCE, and just by a hair. In general Purdue was 15-20 spots in the ranking above the best MAC teams, despite being 14 of 14 in the B1G.
I get that and I don't disagree but I still think that for a legitimate NC contender there is a floor beneath which it simply doesn't matter who you play. Generally when we talk about SoS for CFP contenders we talk about either:
- Record vs Ranked teams, and/or
- Record against .500+ teams
Ohio State this year illustrates this pretty well. I think the Buckeyes are a borderline legitimate NC contender. Their ceiling is high enough to be obviously legitimate but they were inconsistent and their floor was well below the normal for a legitimate NC contender.
Then I think that Purdue was a good-for-their record .500 team. I say that for a few reasons. One is that they played a pretty good schedule with two P5 OOC games. Another is that they went 2-4 in games decided by one possession or less.
Once you get below approximately bowl teams, it just doesn't matter that much whether you played Indiana, Rutgers, or Akron. Indiana is a lot better, obviously, but if you are a legitimate NC contender you are going to beat either of them.
-
How do auto bids for conference champions diminish the regular season?
Well it depends on what part of the regular season we are talking about. If we are talking about just the divisional games then they don't. If we are talking about OOC and non-divisional games then those are clearly diminished by auto-bids for conference champions because they are effectively nothing more than exhibitions.
FWIW:
I would have been happy to stay with the old two-team playoff that we had from 1998-2013. The only times I believe it failed were 2004 (no fault of the BCS, just there were three undefeated teams and only two slots) and 2011.
Now that we have a four-team playoff one of the things that I like about it is that the "every game matters" aspect of the sport is kept alive. Ohio State has been a victim of this more than any other team (2015, 2017, 2018) and I don't like that, but I still like the concept. When (because I assume that it WILL happen) we go to eight teams there will be auto-bids for conference champions. Then OOC games and at least one non-divisional game will be irrelevant to a team's playoff chances. Those games won't really matter anymore.
-
I know most aren't advocating for it, but if it's ever a conference champs-only playoff, say goodbye to ANY good OOC games.
-
I know most aren't advocating for it, but if it's ever a conference champs-only playoff, say goodbye to ANY good OOC games.
I'm generally on your side in this debate but I don't understand why you think this would be. I actually think it would be the opposite. Right now the major risk in playing a quality team OOC is that you might lose and then miss the playoff even if you win your conference. If you create a Champs-only playoff then that risk disappears, no?
I actually think that a Champs-only playoff might actually increase the number of high-end OOC games because coaches/AD's would see them as a good way to prepare for the conference season and AD's would see them as a HUMONGOUS money-maker without the downside risk.
The problem, as I see it, isn't that good OOC games would go away if we had a Champs-only playoff. As I see it, the problem is that if we had a Champs-only playoff those good OOC games wouldn't matter.
Ie, in the current system if Ohio State played Alabama in an early OOC game next year it would be HUGE. Assuming that both teams end up in the CFP discussion the result of that game could knock a team out or get a team in. If the playoff was Champs-only then the hypothetical Bama/tOSU game wouldn't matter a lick. Even if Ohio State beat Bama, if they ended up 11-1 with a tiebreaking loss to MSU/PSU/M in the B1G-E, they'd be out. Conversely, even if Ohio State lost to Bama it wouldn't keep the Buckeyes out of the CFP because all they have to do is win their division and the CG. Nothing else matters.
-
And that's why I like 5+1+2... In that scenario where OSU beats Bama but misses out on their CCG due to a single tiebreaker loss in their division, they are probably in.
If it's conference champs ONLY, then they don't. Which is why I don't support conference champs only.
5+1+2 can give you an incentive to schedule tough OOC because it gives you a shot at that "signature win" that puts you into the CFP even if you don't win your conference. And it removes the disincentive of scheduling tough OOC because that loss won't keep you out of the CFP if you do win your conference.
-
I know most aren't advocating for it, but if it's ever a conference champs-only playoff, say goodbye to ANY good OOC games.
If you still had at-large berths then the strength of the OOC games would still matter. I know a lot of people hate the subjectivity and beauty contest part of it but it has its benefits too.
I’m fine with conference champions getting auto bids as long as they are within a certain rankings threshold. I’ve always sort of thrown out top 12 as and idea.
-
The good OOC games would dry up because the season is a marathon, and getting an easy W with no injuries, where you can build depth by playing backups, and even work on some things in play-calling is 100% better than trying to get battle-tested, risking a loss, and wearing out your team for the long haul.
-
https://247sports.com/college/oklahoma/Article/Big-Ten-targeting-Oklahoma-Sooners-Texas-Longhorns-125965141/
Big Ten / FOX rumored to be targeting the 2 big boys of the Big 12 at the end of their GOR in 2025.
-
I'll stop complaining about the 4-team playoff (but can't promise I'll stop complaining about missing the 1990s Big Ten) if
- the entire P5 reshapes into to FOUR conferences (would be best at 16ea., but then we'd have to shed one team from 65 total to get to 64**)
- the Big Ten goes to 16 with these two
**(even better if that's Rutgers so we add another team, preferably akin to UVa)
-
And that's why I like 5+1+2... In that scenario where OSU beats Bama but misses out on their CCG due to a single tiebreaker loss in their division, they are probably in.
If it's conference champs ONLY, then they don't. Which is why I don't support conference champs only.
5+1+2 can give you an incentive to schedule tough OOC because it gives you a shot at that "signature win" that puts you into the CFP even if you don't win your conference. And it removes the disincentive of scheduling tough OOC because that loss won't keep you out of the CFP if you do win your conference.
While I still would prefer a Champions only playoff, I could get behind this idea for the benefits that you mention. I think it does provide the best of both.
-
I'll stop complaining about the 4-team playoff (but can't promise I'll stop complaining about missing the 1990s Big Ten) if
- the entire P5 reshapes into to FOUR conferences (would be best at 16ea., but then we'd have to shed one team from 65 total to get to 64**)
- the Big Ten goes to 16 with these two
**(even better if that's Rutgers so we add another team, preferably akin to UVa)
Bye-bye, Baylor.
-
Bye-bye, Baylor.
I always wonder when I hear that scenario about WVU being the odd man out. We don’t have any big brother in-state school to ride on coattails. Small state, not a huge TV market. No long time affiliation with any one conference. Very little in-state talent to draw from so it isn’t a recruiting base someone would want to tap into. Solid football and basketball tradition but not blue blood in either where a conference is dying to add that brand. Doesn’t have the academic reputation of some other high level football playing schools. Not an AAU member. Carnegie does now classify WVU as a Tier I research institution but I don’t know in the grand scheme of things how relevant that is.
I have no idea if it will ever come to that but if it does I can WVU being one of the handful looking for a seat at the table.
-
Rutgers, Kansas, Baylor, and Utah were the first to come to mind to me. And, though it would absolutely not be based on merit, I kept focusing on how little tradition Utah has with the PAC. In a realistic conversation, if no one volunteers, those kinds of bonds would probably be the main driver of that one team's demotion. In an unrealistic conversation, I'll keep going to Rutgers. Either because they get the boot or volunteer.
Rutgers is TERRRIBLE at essentially every NCAA sport. Except basketball. Where it's merely average or somewhat below.
-
Rutgers is TERRRIBLE at essentially every NCAA sport. Except basketball. Where it's merely average or somewhat below.
I thought what was very note worthy, and got glossed over was when Delany was asked more or less regrets about Maryland/Rutgers because of their competitiveness level, and rather than even try to defend Rutgers. He basically said "don't lump them together, Maryland has been fine." He's right, Maryland has been very good in basketball and the Olympic sports. It's only a football-only view (which isn't totally irrational because football is the only SPORT driving any of these moves) but it's the wrong view.
I don't know where you pulled Rutgers being as good as average or slightly below average at basketball from. You mean women's basketball? I think they were ok at women's basketball for a little while. Because they have been awful at men's basketball. They haven't made the NCAA Tourney since 1991. They haven't won a tourney game since 1983. They haven't even been to the NIT since 2006. They have a 9-65 Big Ten record over their 4+ years in the league, and have never finished anywhere but 14th. I would argue their football program has actually been SLIGHTLY better than their men's basketball program. They at least have a (Big East) conference title as recently as 2012, and went to bowls 9 of 10 years from 2005 through 2014, which includes their first Big Ten season. Their 7-36 conference record (.163) is actually slightly better than it is in basketball (.122)
-
Even Temple would have been a better add than Rutgers.
NYC has always been a black hole when it comes to college athletics. Hell, it's not even that great of a pro city.
-
I can attest to having spent (wasted?) hours upon hours of what-if realignment scenarios over the course of my life. It's part of the reason I can draw out the lower 48 states free-hand really well. It's super nerdy.
But when it comes to the 16x4 model, WV is never left out. The "fringe" schools are always Baylor, TCU, Iowa State, or Kansas State.
Baylor - more so now, with the scandal(s)
TCU - what are they without Texas?
Iowa State - AAU member, but no nobody's radar
Kansas State - what are they without Snyder?
Other schools would be on the fringe, too, except they've been where they've been for awhile, or they have special non-football strengths.
Kansas - basketball
Wake Forest and Vanderbilt don't really belong, but they're grandfathered in. If it was all restarted from scratch today, they'd be FCS at best.
-
Bye-bye, Baylor.
(https://uproxx.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/kickerdead-0.gif?w=650)
-
Whether you're a fan of theirs or not, you have to give all respect to TCU. They were dropped like a bad habit in 1994 with Rice, Houston, and SMU. It took them nearly 20 years, but they clawed back up to be at the big-boy table once again. It's impressive.
They could be Rice today. But they're not.
-
(https://uproxx.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/kickerdead-0.gif?w=650)
Can we also blame Baylor the current UCF....issue? lol
-
I will say, if Texas and OU wait too long on their sinking ship, the SEC and B10 will go ahead and invite the Pitt/UNC/UVA/VT/NCST/OKST/KU's of the world and the Sooners/Horns are going to be left holding their d---ks in their hands.
-
This is going the opposite direction but I have always thought that the PAC should add Hawaii. It may sound silly but they are in the middle of the Pacific and, more importantly, everybody who plays there gets an extra game (per current NCAA rules). I think the extra game would make up for the added travel costs and this might make sense.
-
Hawai'i would need a Bill Gates-type donor to upgrade....everything.
-
I will say, if Texas and OU wait too long on their sinking ship, the SEC and B10 will go ahead and invite the Pitt/UNC/UVA/VT/NCST/OKST/KU's of the world and the Sooners/Horns are going to be left holding their d---ks in their hands.
I kinda doubt it. They are big enough and bring enough $$$ to the table that they'll almost certainly find a soft landing somewhere. It might be in the PAC or in the conference that we envision being created out of the remnants of the ACC and B12 after SEC/B1G raiding but they'll find something.
-
They at least have a (Big East) conference title as recently as 2012, and went to bowls 9 of 10 years from 2005 through 2014, which includes their first Big Ten season. Their 7-36 conference record (.163) is actually slightly better than it is in basketball (.122)
I just want to point out how comical this comparison is.
-
I will say, if Texas and OU wait too long on their sinking ship, the SEC and B10 will go ahead and invite the Pitt/UNC/UVA/VT/NCST/OKST/KU's of the world and the Sooners/Horns are going to be left holding their d---ks in their hands.
If those schools start going east, TX/OU can without any difficulty find a home in the PAC. Sure, it doesn't make quite the geographic sense that you'd like, but the PAC isn't going to turn them down.
-
Right, but they'd have none of their neighbors to play with anymore. Awkward.
-
Right, but they'd have none of their neighbors to play with anymore. Awkward.
WVU makes it work
-
I was on a flight back from Hawaii with the Mew Mexico State lady's soccer team. They were quite attractive, but I was thinking about that long flight to LA (about 6 hours) and the disruption to their "college work".
-
I was on a flight back from Hawaii with the Mew Mexico State lady's soccer team. They were quite attractive, but I was thinking about that long flight to LA (about 6 hours) and the disruption to their "college work".
That's what you were thinking about? :smiley_confused1:
-
My last flight had the ASU men’s wrestling team. Not the scenery you enjoyed, lol.
-
I thought what was very note worthy, and got glossed over was when Delany was asked more or less regrets about Maryland/Rutgers because of their competitiveness level, and rather than even try to defend Rutgers. He basically said "don't lump them together, Maryland has been fine." He's right, Maryland has been very good in basketball and the Olympic sports. It's only a football-only view (which isn't totally irrational because football is the only SPORT driving any of these moves) but it's the wrong view.
I don't know where you pulled Rutgers being as good as average or slightly below average at basketball from. You mean women's basketball? I think they were ok at women's basketball for a little while. Because they have been awful at men's basketball. They haven't made the NCAA Tourney since 1991. They haven't won a tourney game since 1983. They haven't even been to the NIT since 2006. They have a 9-65 Big Ten record over their 4+ years in the league, and have never finished anywhere but 14th. I would argue their football program has actually been SLIGHTLY better than their men's basketball program. They at least have a (Big East) conference title as recently as 2012, and went to bowls 9 of 10 years from 2005 through 2014, which includes their first Big Ten season. Their 7-36 conference record (.163) is actually slightly better than it is in basketball (.122)
Per Kenpom, Rutgers is currently 97th out of 353 in basketball. Doesn't that make them relative all-stars on campus?