(01-30-2015 04:25 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  No. Because it ignores the fact that Navy beat a top ten Notre Dame.

Construct whatever arbitrary hypothetical you please, so long as it satisfies that Boise would be selected instead of Navy if Navy loses to Army.

(01-30-2015 04:27 PM)goofus Wrote:  As long as there is only 1 game after the CCG Saturday, all invites for Army or Navy can be conditional. Whether its a playoff invite, committee bowl invite or just a regular bowl.

They get the invite on the condition that they win the Army-Navy game, otherwise this other team gets the invite instead. It makes things more complicated, but not too complicated.

I'm sure that is what Navy will argue.

But actually it does make things more complicated. For example, don't you think the bowls will want to know if the G5 champion is from Annapolis, MD vs. Boise, ID vs. Houston, TX? That might make a difference in which bowl games want to invite them.

So that decision would have to be held off for an extra week, for potentially three bowl games, since we won't know if it's the Fiesta, Cotton or Peach bowl that is taking the G5 team.

(01-30-2015 03:58 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(01-30-2015 03:56 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  Everyone does know they did have this game earlier not to long ago the same Saturday of the CCG's of other conferences right?
Its not the date that is traditional and they played the game before all other CCG's so they had the game all to themselves. The only started play after the CCG in 2009.

But that's probably because there was a tradition where Army and Navy played after everyone else was done playing.

In other words, regardless of whatever regular season conditions exist - Army and Navy always want to have a special spotlight on them for their game.

No...The game was played before everyone else started playing that same Saturday. They were the only game on at the timeslot. All other CCG started later in the afternoon and evening.
The ACC, SEC, Big 12 have been playing the CCG for many, many years...nothing to do with Army and Navy being the only game...not until 2009.

(01-30-2015 04:49 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  No...The game was played before everyone else started playing that same Saturday. They were the only game on at the timeslot. All other CCG started later in the afternoon and evening.
The ACC, SEC, Big 12 have been playing the CCG for many, many years...nothing to do with Army and Navy being the only game...not until 2009.

I don't doubt you. Thanks for the correction and info.

Well, at the least I doubt their television contract is going to allow them to return to having the game played on CCG Saturday, where they'll certainly not be alone in a time slot. CBS probably airs the SEC championship game that day as well.

Like I said, I think Navy will just have to live with their choice for those years.

Perhaps if Army/Navy up for another contract with CBS the game can be moved?

Sucks for the AAC but they haven't had a good week anyway.

(01-30-2015 04:27 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(01-30-2015 04:25 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  No. Because it ignores the fact that Navy beat a top ten Notre Dame.

Construct whatever arbitrary hypothetical you please, so long as it satisfies that Boise would be selected instead of Navy if Navy loses to Army.

Here is the solution, the committee ranks Navy as if Navy will lose the game to Army. If they are still ranked higher based on a loss to Army then by all means they deserve to go.

(01-30-2015 05:04 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(01-30-2015 04:27 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(01-30-2015 04:25 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  No. Because it ignores the fact that Navy beat a top ten Notre Dame.

Construct whatever arbitrary hypothetical you please, so long as it satisfies that Boise would be selected instead of Navy if Navy loses to Army.

Here is the solution, the committee ranks Navy as if Navy will lose the game to Army. If they are still ranked higher based on a loss to Army then by all means they deserve to go.

Hey, perhaps the Big 12 could do this instead of actually playing a CCG!

(01-30-2015 05:04 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(01-30-2015 04:27 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(01-30-2015 04:25 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  No. Because it ignores the fact that Navy beat a top ten Notre Dame.

Construct whatever arbitrary hypothetical you please, so long as it satisfies that Boise would be selected instead of Navy if Navy loses to Army.

Here is the solution, the committee ranks Navy as if Navy will lose the game to Army. If they are still ranked higher based on a loss to Army then by all means they deserve to go.

The problem with that is the fact that the selection has effects that reach all the way down to the lowest bowls, some of which are played two weeks later. Whoever gets selected determines the rest of the bowl selections down the food chain.

(01-30-2015 04:27 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(01-30-2015 04:25 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  No. Because it ignores the fact that Navy beat a top ten Notre Dame.

Construct whatever arbitrary hypothetical you please, so long as it satisfies that Boise would be selected instead of Navy if Navy loses to Army.

That's not the point. The point is you don't arbitrarily disqualify Navy by rule. Let the committee sort it out. That's what they are there for. If Boise and Navy are so close that a loss to Army makes a difference---then the committee will make a decision with that knowledge. There is no point making a hard and fast rule without the benefit of literally thousands of unknown facts that might make a real life difference in the future. The new CFP system was designed to use a real life human selection committee rather than computers and polls for just this reason.

(01-30-2015 05:18 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(01-30-2015 05:04 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(01-30-2015 04:27 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(01-30-2015 04:25 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  No. Because it ignores the fact that Navy beat a top ten Notre Dame.

Construct whatever arbitrary hypothetical you please, so long as it satisfies that Boise would be selected instead of Navy if Navy loses to Army.

Here is the solution, the committee ranks Navy as if Navy will lose the game to Army. If they are still ranked higher based on a loss to Army then by all means they deserve to go.

The problem with that is the fact that the selection has effects that reach all the way down to the lowest bowls, some of which are played two weeks later. Whoever gets selected determines the rest of the bowl selections down the food chain.

No it wouldn't effect the other bowls because Navy would be the designated G5 rep with the loss taken into account as the AAC champ on Selection Sunday. If the loss to Army is already in the rankings then everything is A-OK and all of the bowls can be fulfilled as if the game isn't taking place.

(01-30-2015 12:54 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(01-30-2015 12:52 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-30-2015 12:47 PM)prp Wrote:  

(01-30-2015 12:40 PM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  Everyone is worried about how this ruling will affect Navy. The Army's football renaissance is coming. This will be a problem for the Cadets.

It will only be a problem if Army is near the top 4. It won't be a problem with regards to the G5 spot in the accesss bowls since Army is ineligible.

That right there is a much bigger fairness issue than anything having to do with the Army-Navy game.

The whole point of the access bowl berth should be to give access to every team not in a P5 conference, because those P5 teams already have "access" to CFP bowl autobids. That's how it should work, but the G5 conferences got the rule written so that they have "access", but Army and BYU don't.

Then join a conference.

Why should any team have to join a conference?

Not everyone believes in conformity.

(01-30-2015 02:08 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Why would we disqualify Navy when the reality is the other G5 champs get the advantage of having one more victory than Navy on selection day. That's an advantage is it not?

If it is any advantage at all, it's trivial. E.g., if in week 7 of the season, Alabama is 6-0 and FSU 7-0, that tells us nothing about who will be ranked ahead of who. What will matter is who each team has played.

In contrast, not having a loss count on your record is a massive advantage, of far greater consequence, as nothing predicts rankings better than losses. So they don't balance out in any way. Navy comes out way ahead here.

And that's why it's going to be discussed by the full 11-member CFP.

(01-30-2015 02:58 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(01-30-2015 02:01 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Point is, they shouldn't have to. The Access bowl should be open to all FBS schools not in the P5, conference or not.

With all due respect to FBS independents, I disagree.

For the most part, the major college football offseason has always been based on contracts between groups who own & operate bowl games and conferences. The CFP is absolutely no different. It's a contract between six bowl game organizations and ten conferences.

If you're outside of that structure, I don't see why you have a claim to access it.

I get all that, but still, IMO, merit should matter more than structure.

(01-30-2015 05:47 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  In contrast, not having a loss count on your record is a massive advantage, of far greater consequence, as nothing predicts rankings better than losses. So they don't balance out in any way. Navy comes out way ahead here.

Navy would theoretically come out ahead if their recent track record looked like that of Boise State. But it doesn't. Far from it. In the last 50 years, Navy has had only two seasons with fewer than four losses -- 9-3 in 1978 and 10-2 in 2004. They should be even less likely to have two losses or fewer going forward, because any schedule with ND plus 8 AAC games (9 if they make it to the conference title game) will be more difficult than Navy's recent indy schedules unless the AAC as a whole has a very bad year.

(01-30-2015 06:25 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-30-2015 05:47 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  In contrast, not having a loss count on your record is a massive advantage, of far greater consequence, as nothing predicts rankings better than losses. So they don't balance out in any way. Navy comes out way ahead here.

Navy would theoretically come out ahead if their recent track record looked like that of Boise State. But it doesn't. Far from it. In the last 50 years, Navy has had only two seasons with fewer than four losses -- 9-3 in 1978 and 10-2 in 2004. They should be even less likely to have two losses or fewer going forward, because any schedule with ND plus 8 AAC games (9 if they make it to the conference title game) will be more difficult than Navy's recent indy schedules unless the AAC as a whole has another year like 2014.

FTFY

(01-30-2015 06:25 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-30-2015 05:47 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  In contrast, not having a loss count on your record is a massive advantage, of far greater consequence, as nothing predicts rankings better than losses. So they don't balance out in any way. Navy comes out way ahead here.

Navy would theoretically come out ahead if their recent track record looked like that of Boise State. But it doesn't. Far from it. In the last 50 years, Navy has had only two seasons with fewer than four losses -- 9-3 in 1978 and 10-2 in 2004. They should be even less likely to have two losses or fewer going forward, because any schedule with ND plus 8 AAC games (9 if they make it to the conference title game) will be more difficult than Navy's recent indy schedules unless the AAC as a whole has a very bad year.

I think it would take a down year for the entire G5 for this issue to be relevant. For example, all the G5 champs would need to have 4 losses and Navy would have 2-3. Then maybe it becomes an issue if they lose to Army. But even if they do---how big a deal is it really? Navy would still be as good as the other G5 champs, so there would be little real reason for anyone to cry. The reality is that in such a year NO G5 would really have any business playing in New Years Day.

I really don't see the problem. If there is a situation where Navy might be considered as the G5 access bowl rep, the committee can simply do what it has already done. Just announce that some other conference champion is the rep unless Navy is so much better that it doesn't matter if they lose to Army. The decision is theirs and theirs alone, and they don't have to explain their choice. That's not to say they won't be asked to, but they aren't going to jail if they blow smoke.

As for bowl eligibility, if either team has not yet qualified when the bowl decisions are made, then they can simply get passed over by another eligible team. That's the risk they take, knowingly.

(01-30-2015 05:29 PM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  

(01-30-2015 12:54 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(01-30-2015 12:52 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-30-2015 12:47 PM)prp Wrote:  

(01-30-2015 12:40 PM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  Everyone is worried about how this ruling will affect Navy. The Army's football renaissance is coming. This will be a problem for the Cadets.

It will only be a problem if Army is near the top 4. It won't be a problem with regards to the G5 spot in the accesss bowls since Army is ineligible.

That right there is a much bigger fairness issue than anything having to do with the Army-Navy game.

The whole point of the access bowl berth should be to give access to every team not in a P5 conference, because those P5 teams already have "access" to CFP bowl autobids. That's how it should work, but the G5 conferences got the rule written so that they have "access", but Army and BYU don't.

Then join a conference.

Why should any team have to join a conference?

Not everyone believes in conformity.

That's fine but then don't ***** when you don't get the same rewards for being in a conference.

(01-30-2015 06:55 PM)ken d Wrote:  I really don't see the problem. If there is a situation where Navy might be considered as the G5 access bowl rep, the committee can simply do what it has already done. Just announce that some other conference champion is the rep unless Navy is so much better that it doesn't matter if they lose to Army. The decision is theirs and theirs alone, and they don't have to explain their choice. That's not to say they won't be asked to, but they aren't going to jail if they blow smoke.

As for bowl eligibility, if either team has not yet qualified when the bowl decisions are made, then they can simply get passed over by another eligible team. That's the risk they take, knowingly.

on your 2nd point- you are wrong- especially for Army. If Army is 5-6 going into the Navy game, if they win that game, they get the bowl spot they're designated for that year. Period.

(01-30-2015 02:01 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-30-2015 12:54 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(01-30-2015 12:52 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-30-2015 12:47 PM)prp Wrote:  

(01-30-2015 12:40 PM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  Everyone is worried about how this ruling will affect Navy. The Army's football renaissance is coming. This will be a problem for the Cadets.

It will only be a problem if Army is near the top 4. It won't be a problem with regards to the G5 spot in the accesss bowls since Army is ineligible.

That right there is a much bigger fairness issue than anything having to do with the Army-Navy game.

The whole point of the access bowl berth should be to give access to every team not in a P5 conference, because those P5 teams already have "access" to CFP bowl autobids. That's how it should work, but the G5 conferences got the rule written so that they have "access", but Army and BYU don't.

Then join a conference.

Point is, they shouldn't have to. The Access bowl should be open to all FBS schools not in the P5, conference or not.

You are aware that the access bowl IS open to ALL FBS schools, right? What is not open to all is the automatic bid bat is reserved for the highest ranked G5 champion. Just like each P5 champion has a reserved spot in the access/contract bowls. How we ANY team is eligible to play in one, just like you are asking for.