6 is hard If you make it conference champs + at large, the G5 goes nuts. If you make it conference champs + best G5, the SEC goes nuts because they can't have two teams. If you make it "best 6 teams", the people who worry about diluting the championship AND the people who want conference championships to matter go nuts.It's lose-lose-lose.
Not with the system I purposed; P5 Champs + At large, but if the Highest G5 team is ranked higher than the lowest P5 Champ, they replace them. Seems to check off all the bullet points.G5 has a clear path for inclusion. ✔️SEC can get 2 teams. ✔️Lessens the impact of a "non-deserving" Conference Champ making the playoff. ✔️Fans of Conference Champs get their teams in unless one of them has numerous warts. ✔️
If you want the however many best teams in any playoff, there would have to be a human judgment involved (or you rely on algorithms). If you want to eliminate the human element, you have to rely on something like conference champs.That would mean on occasion seeing a 10-3 kind of team get into the playoff and some 12-1 team not.
Do what FSU did 40 years ago. 9/19/81 @ 17 Nebraska10/3/81 @ 7 Ohio State10/10/81 @ ND10/17/81 @ 3 Pitt10/24/81 @ LSU
I'm glad you posted this because I've used this example many times myself. If UCF wants it then go earn it. Take UF's 2-for-1. Offer to go play in Ann Arbor, Columbus, or State College. Offer to go play at Clemson or Alabama. Offer to go play in Norman. Earn it. Don't sit back munching on conference cupcakes and the FCS team that you CHOSE to schedule OOC and then whine that you aren't taken seriously.
I personally prefer human subjectivity. I know from long experience that algorithms can produce unexpected and unwanted outcomes. They work fine for a bit and then up comes something really weird, and folks start wanting human interference.A way to test your premise if to go back in time and see how it would have done in years past. Did you find fairly often a year when the outcome was less than what you'd want?
I'm not sure this should be the deciding factor: every team with a potential gripe gets in? Are we married and caving into the wife when she nags us enough? The phrasing is icky to me.This is cutthroat competition, no? Fair? Are we whining that it's not fair? Do what FSU did 40 years ago. 9/19/81 @ 17 Nebraska10/3/81 @ 7 Ohio State10/10/81 @ ND10/17/81 @ 3 Pitt10/24/81 @ LSUSure, they were an independent, but they didn't whine. They played whoever, wherever, even on the road, and earned their way to the top of the ladder. If UCF has hit a ceiling, then go independent and load up on 2-for-1 deals and get after it.Here's UCF's record vs ranked teams since they won the Fiesta Bowl in 2013 (ranked at the time of the game):@ 20 Missouri - L by 2821 Houston - L by 49@ 5 Michigan - L by 3722 USF - W by 716 Memphis - W by 77 Auburn - W by 719 Cincinnati - W by 25In five years, they've played 7 ranked teams (at the time). Four of those were fellow mid-majors. Three others were blowout losses. To be honest, looking at everything, the 2017/18 UCF teams should get on their knees and kiss the feet of the 2013 squad. All they did was lose by three @ 12th ranked South Carolina, hand #8 Louisville it's only loss (led by Teddy Bridgewater), and beat #6 Baylor by 10. Oh, and they beat Penn State in Happy Valley. All in the same season. THAT team has a gripe, not last year's or this year's Knights. F- them.
I agree with the sentiment, but FSU was an independent, while UCF and Boise State both have conference schedules to worry about. Even without the conference schedule constraint, I also wonder if either one could find 5 major programs to schedule them in each season? Things are very different now, compared to 4 decades ago.
FSU's 1981 schedule is obviously extreme but I don't need to see THAT from UCF. I'd be happy with a two or three games against teams that finished ranked. Even one would be an improvement.
I voted yes, unless you're one of the top tear helmet schools you have little or no chance of getting to play in the NC with a two or four team playoff. You can't convince me that the committee is making an unbiased decision of pick between two teams with the same record and comparable wins for the season. They will always take Alabama or another SEC team over a Wisconsin, Washington or Oklahoma St. because of their past winning history. I remember when Wisconsin went to the Rose Bowl in 1994. I think they were tied with Ohio St but since they hadn't been their since 1963 they got to go to the Rose Bowl and play UCLA who just got knocked out of consideration for the NC with a last game lost. The Media was all over this saying that Wisconsin had no chance in hell beating the almighty UCLA. UCLA should be in the playoffs or matched with Ohio St. ( Badgers won 21 - 16 ) Now did Wisconsin have the better team in 1994? Probably not, but that day they did and I think they could have given Nebraska a competitive NC game.
I think one of the things that bothers us is that the goal posts move from year to year. Compare Ohio State this year to Michigan State in 2015 for a great example:In 2015 MSU looked shaky in a number of wins (by 3 over 9-4 Oregon, by 3 over 2-10 Purdue, by 7 over 4-8 RU) and they had a REALLY bad loss (to a sub .500 Nebraska team). OTOH, they had a win over Ohio State and they were B1G Champions and they get into the CFP with almost no debate. It is pretty hard to make a case that 2018 Ohio State was substantially worse than 2015 Michigan State. Ohio State's loss was worse but their signature win was better (MSU's win over tOSU in 2015 was by a FG at the buzzer, tOSU's win over M was much bigger). Both were B1G Champions with a group of alarming close-calls against mediocre and bad teams. Some people, I think, are troubled that two very similar teams (2015 MSU and 2018 tOSU) get very different results. 2015 MSU got the #3 seed and there was almost no argument to leave them out in favor of any of the top teams left out:#5 Iowa was not a Champion and lost H2H to MSU#6 Stanford had two losses#7 Ohio State was not a Champion and lost H2H to MSU2018 Ohio State was a very similar team but they finished ranked three spots lower at #6. That bothers some people but frankly I think it is what makes the sport exciting. This year was unusual with three major undefeated teams. Since the advent of the BCS in 1998 that has only happened twice in 21 years. Consider Ohio State's 2018 season over the five years of the CFP so far:In 2018 it wasn't enough, obviously. In 2017 it probably would have been enough. The 4th spot would have been between 11-1 non-Champion Bama and 12-1 B1G Champion Ohio State. In 2016 it clearly would have been enoughIn 2015 it clearly would have been enoughIn 2014 I'm not sure. The fourth spot would have been between tOSU, Baylor, and TCU just as it was and Ohio State's 2018 record might not have been enough. So over the five years Ohio State's 2018 record would have:Gotten the Buckeyes in easily twice (2015, 2016)Probably gotten the Buckeyes in once (2017)Left the Buckeyes just outside twice (2014, 2018)
Well with old age I guess my memory fades a little. LOL I stand corrected.
Yeah, I said all along, even leading into the OSU-UM game that 2015 MSU is who OSU most reminded me of. They were winning ugly, had one bad road loss (MSU's was a close loss to a bad team, OSU's was a blowout loss to a mediocre team), and ultimately wound up beating the team that probably was the best, and went on to win the conference title.There were two differences though. #1, as you pointed out, there was no realistic alternative to MSU. But #2, is the MSU beat an undefeated #4 Iowa in the Big Ten Championship Game, while OSU beat a 4 loss Northwestern team. If OSU had played a better CCG opponent, there's a chance they could have leaped Oklahoma.The other thing is that while MSU was #3, I think that was contrived to get an actual 1-4, 2-3 matchup. I think everyone thought Alabama was easily the best team, but Clemson was undefeated and Alabama had a loss. So it was tougher to justify putting Alabama #1 than putting MSU #3. So they moved MSU past Oklahoma to get what they felt were true 1-4 and 2-3 matchups, although the actual seedings were flipped.
Most of the helmets won't even take their calls. Their best bet would be looking to schedule solid teams from major conferences that often end up ranked, but of course even that's a crapshoot. This year if they had scheduled, say, Wisconsin, they'd have been screwed. And that's not a jab at Wisconsin, the Badgers are a team that has been consistently good and just had an unusually down year.But, had they scheduled Wisconsin, and the Badgers ended up having a tough season like this one, would they be given any credit in the post-season discussion? And, should they be given any credit? Ultimately we're still talking about resume' and not intent.
I voted yes, unless you're one of the top tear helmet schools you have little or no chance of getting to play in the NC with a two or four team playoff. You can't convince me that the committee is making an unbiased decision of pick between two teams with the same record and comparable wins for the season. They will always take Alabama or another SEC team over a Wisconsin, Washington or Oklahoma St. because of their past winning history.
But #2, is the MSU beat an undefeated #4 Iowa in the Big Ten Championship Game, while OSU beat a 4 loss Northwestern team. If OSU had played a better CCG opponent, there's a chance they could have leaped Oklahoma.The other thing is that while MSU was #3, I think that was contrived to get an actual 1-4, 2-3 matchup. I think everyone thought Alabama was easily the best team, but Clemson was undefeated and Alabama had a loss. So it was tougher to justify putting Alabama #1 than putting MSU #3. So they moved MSU past Oklahoma to get what they felt were true 1-4 and 2-3 matchups, although the actual seedings were flipped.
Most of the helmets won't even take their calls.
If they're not taking the call, and a 2-for-1 is on the board, they're idiots. It's a safe trip to fertile recruiting grounds.
Wasn't there a team just within the past few years that essentially did this? Tried to schedule hard OOC, but the OOC teams that normally would have been good all sucked that year, and ended up taking a reputational hit for playing weak teams?(Note: it may not have been G5. It might have been someone like an Iowa or Wisconsin.)