(01-11-2018 07:16 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-11-2018 07:07 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-11-2018 12:43 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-11-2018 10:10 AM)eltigre Wrote:  If we had 8 this year, the committee would have ranked UCF at # 9. It's rigged now and will be rigged at 8.

Except I dont think we go to 8 without a guarantee that each P5 champ is an automatic entry. That leaves the door open for the automatic inclusion of the top G5 champ (the access bowl success, the P5 champs being AQ, and the UCF story--in conjuction with anti-trust concerns--probably makes this very likely). I think the 8 team format is one that is going to be small enough, yet inclusive enough--to be remarkably durable for years to come.

I think that is a key part of going to 8, making sure all the best teams have a shot, not just who a small group thinks. Auto bids for the champion is part of that. Reducing the impact of a small group and replacing with objective criteria is a part of that.

We can have objective criteria - an RPI type formula -that doesn't include auto bids for conference champions. Conference champs often aren't deserving of a top 8 ranking. An auto-bid for a conference privileges conference games over OOC games, when if anything we should favor the latter.

That also puts everyone - independents included - on an even keel.

Its very subjective in determining what factors are included in an RPI formula. And it can be gamed. See what the MWC has done in recent years in basketball. They have gotten RPIs much higher than their performance in the tourney because they have worked their schedule around the formula.

Garbage in, garbage out. All of you who love computer formulas need to remember that. Look at the divergence among the computers in the Massey composite.