Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
In the CFP, how does 5-8 have a chance
Author Message
stever20 Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 28,597
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation: 266
I Root For: College Sports
Location:
Post: #11
RE: In the CFP, how does 5-8 have a chance
one reason why the name schools do so well is they're so much more likely to have the good OOC schedule. I mean Ohio St has Oklahoma on their schedule. Next year they get..... TCU(think there may be some venom in that game if Ohio St makes it in over TCU)? After a bad 2019 year(Florida Atlantic, Cincy, Miami Ohio), they get Oregon in 20 and 21, then Notre Dame and Texas in 22 and 23.

Meanwhile TCU gets Purdue in 2019, but then Cal in 20 and 21 and Colorado in 22 and 23.

Oklahoma gets UCLA next 2 years, then Tennessee in 20, and then Nebraska in 21 and 22.
11-29-2017 12:24 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
NewTimes Offline
Back in the Sunshine State
*

Posts: 2,350
Joined: May 2012
Reputation: 47
I Root For: 'Canes & Flames
Location: Daytona Beach
Post: #12
RE: In the CFP, how does 5-8 have a chance
(11-29-2017 11:47 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  
(11-29-2017 11:10 AM)NewTimes Wrote:  If 1-4 wins out, the field is set. It's safe to say 1 or 2 teams may lose. How does the 5-8 stack up?

#5 Alabama - idle and likely out, unfamiliar territory, weaker schedule
#6 GA vs, #2 Auburn - May swap places with GA win, Auburn gone with 3 loses
#7 Miami vs. #1 Clemson - Clemson with 2 loses on bubble, Miami to #4 with win
#8 Ohio St vs. #3 Wisconsin - Ohio St replaces Wisconsin with win
#9 Penn St and #10 SoCal out of picture

5-8 in the mix if 1 or 2 1-4's lose.

If any of the top 4 falter, Bama is in, not necessarily because they're better, but because they're Bama.

Like it or not, if it comes down to it, the NAMES are going to get the benefit of the doubt. Why? Because one, they have proven track records, and two the committee knows who butters their bread.... The networks.

They know there's NO WAY all that money keeps rolling in if ratings are down. Networks don't pay hundreds of millions so Southwest Tech can be in the playoffs. Blue Bloods appeal to the casual fan and even to the non-sports fan who might tune in to see the "big game".

All things being equal, if it comes down to a Bama, tOSU or a TCU (for example), you can let it ride that Bama or tOSU will be the ones with their name called.
Valid point. As much as I dislike the current system, it seems better than the previous pick'em choice or having the writers solely determine national champs. With that premise, money which equates to viewership, will determine the questionable remaining slot if there is one. And their is one guarantee, one deserving team or possibly two, is going to get big-time hosed. It happens every year. And until we create an more valid method, the P5 teams will dominate.
11-29-2017 12:28 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BadgerMJ Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 401
Joined: Mar 2017
Reputation: 19
I Root For: Wisconsin / ND
Location: Wisconsin
Post: #13
RE: In the CFP, how does 5-8 have a chance
(11-29-2017 12:13 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  
(11-29-2017 11:47 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  
(11-29-2017 11:10 AM)NewTimes Wrote:  If 1-4 wins out, the field is set. It's safe to say 1 or 2 teams may lose. How does the 5-8 stack up?

#5 Alabama - idle and likely out, unfamiliar territory, weaker schedule
#6 GA vs, #2 Auburn - May swap places with GA win, Auburn gone with 3 loses
#7 Miami vs. #1 Clemson - Clemson with 2 loses on bubble, Miami to #4 with win
#8 Ohio St vs. #3 Wisconsin - Ohio St replaces Wisconsin with win
#9 Penn St and #10 SoCal out of picture

5-8 in the mix if 1 or 2 1-4's lose.

If any of the top 4 falter, Bama is in, not necessarily because they're better, but because they're Bama.

Like it or not, if it comes down to it, the NAMES are going to get the benefit of the doubt. Why? Because one, they have proven track records, and two the committee knows who butters their bread.... The networks.

They know there's NO WAY all that money keeps rolling in if ratings are down. Networks don't pay hundreds of millions so Southwest Tech can be in the playoffs. Blue Bloods appeal to the casual fan and even to the non-sports fan who might tune in to see the "big game".

All things being equal, if it comes down to a Bama, tOSU or a TCU (for example), you can let it ride that Bama or tOSU will be the ones with their name called.

It's a popular theory (especially among TCU fans!), but don't buy it for a couple of reasons. First, the computer averages and old BCS formula so far have come up with the same 4 participants the first three years as the committee. Second, there are examples of name schools being behind lesser name schools with similar profiles in the weekly and even final rankings. The reality is that name schools typically have had better profiles/arguments to date. We see what we want to see. We see them get in and say "see! Name school!", when it really is their strength of their overall profile.

Which is why I'm NOT a big fan of expanding to 8 teams.

Until there's a system that is completely impartial and takes into account "numbers only", there will be people's opinions and biases involved in the decision.

Perfect example is March Madness. When the NCAA took over, they expanded to 16 teams and the 17th teams griped. On and on till it went to 64 and the 65th team complained. Then they went to 68 and now the 69th team hollers "unfair". Unless the playoffs include every team, someone left out will feel slighted.

The CFP is actually a pretty fair and decent system IMO. It takes into consideration record, SOS, etc, but also gives credit to purely subjective things like the "eye test" and, to be frank, names.

You are right about the "names" though, most times the Blue Bloods got to that position BECAUSE they have better profiles and have won the big games.

The same thing goes for conferences as far as I'm concerned.
11-29-2017 12:30 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Frog in the Kitchen Sink Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,507
Joined: Jan 2006
Reputation: 128
I Root For: TCU
Location:
Post: #14
RE: In the CFP, how does 5-8 have a chance
(11-29-2017 12:30 PM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  
(11-29-2017 12:13 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  
(11-29-2017 11:47 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  
(11-29-2017 11:10 AM)NewTimes Wrote:  If 1-4 wins out, the field is set. It's safe to say 1 or 2 teams may lose. How does the 5-8 stack up?

#5 Alabama - idle and likely out, unfamiliar territory, weaker schedule
#6 GA vs, #2 Auburn - May swap places with GA win, Auburn gone with 3 loses
#7 Miami vs. #1 Clemson - Clemson with 2 loses on bubble, Miami to #4 with win
#8 Ohio St vs. #3 Wisconsin - Ohio St replaces Wisconsin with win
#9 Penn St and #10 SoCal out of picture

5-8 in the mix if 1 or 2 1-4's lose.

If any of the top 4 falter, Bama is in, not necessarily because they're better, but because they're Bama.

Like it or not, if it comes down to it, the NAMES are going to get the benefit of the doubt. Why? Because one, they have proven track records, and two the committee knows who butters their bread.... The networks.

They know there's NO WAY all that money keeps rolling in if ratings are down. Networks don't pay hundreds of millions so Southwest Tech can be in the playoffs. Blue Bloods appeal to the casual fan and even to the non-sports fan who might tune in to see the "big game".

All things being equal, if it comes down to a Bama, tOSU or a TCU (for example), you can let it ride that Bama or tOSU will be the ones with their name called.

It's a popular theory (especially among TCU fans!), but don't buy it for a couple of reasons. First, the computer averages and old BCS formula so far have come up with the same 4 participants the first three years as the committee. Second, there are examples of name schools being behind lesser name schools with similar profiles in the weekly and even final rankings. The reality is that name schools typically have had better profiles/arguments to date. We see what we want to see. We see them get in and say "see! Name school!", when it really is their strength of their overall profile.

Which is why I'm NOT a big fan of expanding to 8 teams.

Until there's a system that is completely impartial and takes into account "numbers only", there will be people's opinions and biases involved in the decision.

Perfect example is March Madness. When the NCAA took over, they expanded to 16 teams and the 17th teams griped. On and on till it went to 64 and the 65th team complained. Then they went to 68 and now the 69th team hollers "unfair". Unless the playoffs include every team, someone left out will feel slighted.

The CFP is actually a pretty fair and decent system IMO. It takes into consideration record, SOS, etc, but also gives credit to purely subjective things like the "eye test" and, to be frank, names.

You are right about the "names" though, most times the Blue Bloods got to that position BECAUSE they have better profiles and have won the big games.

The same thing goes for conferences as far as I'm concerned.

Although I think the committee does a decent job, I am in favor of expanding to 8 with conference champs, one G5 and 2 at larges. Let the committee pick the at larges and the G5 champ based on their current criteria and rank all eight teams. Then you have a combination of subjective opinion and "settling it on the field".
(This post was last modified: 11-29-2017 12:35 PM by Frog in the Kitchen Sink.)
11-29-2017 12:35 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
NewTimes Offline
Back in the Sunshine State
*

Posts: 2,350
Joined: May 2012
Reputation: 47
I Root For: 'Canes & Flames
Location: Daytona Beach
Post: #15
RE: In the CFP, how does 5-8 have a chance
(11-29-2017 12:30 PM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  
(11-29-2017 12:13 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  
(11-29-2017 11:47 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  
(11-29-2017 11:10 AM)NewTimes Wrote:  If 1-4 wins out, the field is set. It's safe to say 1 or 2 teams may lose. How does the 5-8 stack up?

#5 Alabama - idle and likely out, unfamiliar territory, weaker schedule
#6 GA vs, #2 Auburn - May swap places with GA win, Auburn gone with 3 loses
#7 Miami vs. #1 Clemson - Clemson with 2 loses on bubble, Miami to #4 with win
#8 Ohio St vs. #3 Wisconsin - Ohio St replaces Wisconsin with win
#9 Penn St and #10 SoCal out of picture

5-8 in the mix if 1 or 2 1-4's lose.

If any of the top 4 falter, Bama is in, not necessarily because they're better, but because they're Bama.

Like it or not, if it comes down to it, the NAMES are going to get the benefit of the doubt. Why? Because one, they have proven track records, and two the committee knows who butters their bread.... The networks.

They know there's NO WAY all that money keeps rolling in if ratings are down. Networks don't pay hundreds of millions so Southwest Tech can be in the playoffs. Blue Bloods appeal to the casual fan and even to the non-sports fan who might tune in to see the "big game".

All things being equal, if it comes down to a Bama, tOSU or a TCU (for example), you can let it ride that Bama or tOSU will be the ones with their name called.

It's a popular theory (especially among TCU fans!), but don't buy it for a couple of reasons. First, the computer averages and old BCS formula so far have come up with the same 4 participants the first three years as the committee. Second, there are examples of name schools being behind lesser name schools with similar profiles in the weekly and even final rankings. The reality is that name schools typically have had better profiles/arguments to date. We see what we want to see. We see them get in and say "see! Name school!", when it really is their strength of their overall profile.

Which is why I'm NOT a big fan of expanding to 8 teams.

Until there's a system that is completely impartial and takes into account "numbers only", there will be people's opinions and biases involved in the decision.

Perfect example is March Madness. When the NCAA took over, they expanded to 16 teams and the 17th teams griped. On and on till it went to 64 and the 65th team complained. Then they went to 68 and now the 69th team hollers "unfair". Unless the playoffs include every team, someone left out will feel slighted.

The CFP is actually a pretty fair and decent system IMO. It takes into consideration record, SOS, etc, but also gives credit to purely subjective things like the "eye test" and, to be frank, names.

You are right about the "names" though, most times the Blue Bloods got to that position BECAUSE they have better profiles and have won the big games.

The same thing goes for conferences as far as I'm concerned.
As a Wisconsin fan, and one making practical points, where do you feel Wisconsin should be ranked if there is a loss this weekend?
11-29-2017 12:37 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BadgerMJ Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 401
Joined: Mar 2017
Reputation: 19
I Root For: Wisconsin / ND
Location: Wisconsin
Post: #16
RE: In the CFP, how does 5-8 have a chance
(11-29-2017 12:37 PM)NewTimes Wrote:  
(11-29-2017 12:30 PM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  
(11-29-2017 12:13 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  
(11-29-2017 11:47 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  
(11-29-2017 11:10 AM)NewTimes Wrote:  If 1-4 wins out, the field is set. It's safe to say 1 or 2 teams may lose. How does the 5-8 stack up?

#5 Alabama - idle and likely out, unfamiliar territory, weaker schedule
#6 GA vs, #2 Auburn - May swap places with GA win, Auburn gone with 3 loses
#7 Miami vs. #1 Clemson - Clemson with 2 loses on bubble, Miami to #4 with win
#8 Ohio St vs. #3 Wisconsin - Ohio St replaces Wisconsin with win
#9 Penn St and #10 SoCal out of picture

5-8 in the mix if 1 or 2 1-4's lose.

If any of the top 4 falter, Bama is in, not necessarily because they're better, but because they're Bama.

Like it or not, if it comes down to it, the NAMES are going to get the benefit of the doubt. Why? Because one, they have proven track records, and two the committee knows who butters their bread.... The networks.

They know there's NO WAY all that money keeps rolling in if ratings are down. Networks don't pay hundreds of millions so Southwest Tech can be in the playoffs. Blue Bloods appeal to the casual fan and even to the non-sports fan who might tune in to see the "big game".

All things being equal, if it comes down to a Bama, tOSU or a TCU (for example), you can let it ride that Bama or tOSU will be the ones with their name called.

It's a popular theory (especially among TCU fans!), but don't buy it for a couple of reasons. First, the computer averages and old BCS formula so far have come up with the same 4 participants the first three years as the committee. Second, there are examples of name schools being behind lesser name schools with similar profiles in the weekly and even final rankings. The reality is that name schools typically have had better profiles/arguments to date. We see what we want to see. We see them get in and say "see! Name school!", when it really is their strength of their overall profile.

Which is why I'm NOT a big fan of expanding to 8 teams.

Until there's a system that is completely impartial and takes into account "numbers only", there will be people's opinions and biases involved in the decision.

Perfect example is March Madness. When the NCAA took over, they expanded to 16 teams and the 17th teams griped. On and on till it went to 64 and the 65th team complained. Then they went to 68 and now the 69th team hollers "unfair". Unless the playoffs include every team, someone left out will feel slighted.

The CFP is actually a pretty fair and decent system IMO. It takes into consideration record, SOS, etc, but also gives credit to purely subjective things like the "eye test" and, to be frank, names.

You are right about the "names" though, most times the Blue Bloods got to that position BECAUSE they have better profiles and have won the big games.

The same thing goes for conferences as far as I'm concerned.
As a Wisconsin fan, and one making practical points, where do you feel Wisconsin should be ranked if there is a loss this weekend?

That will depend on how bad the loss is.

If it's another 59-0 blowout then somewhere around 10-12 would be realistic. If it's a last second field goal from 55 yards out I'd think 7-10 would be about right.

Question is would a blow out loss in a championship game be a bigger obstacle than a regular season loss to a bad team?

Guess that's why they pay the committee the "big bucks"....
11-29-2017 01:49 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
micahandme Offline
Water Engineer
*

Posts: 72
Joined: May 2017
Reputation: 11
I Root For: PSU
Location:
Post: #17
RE: In the CFP, how does 5-8 have a chance
I really hope Wisconsin beats OSU. I think they will too.

There are just SUCH an underrated program. Last year, they beat media darling LSU at Lambeau...and then beat up on the West. Yes, they lost to UM, OSU and then PSU in the Big Ten title game...but they made a New Year's Six Bowl (and won). And now they are undefeated again. I'd love for them to get their day in the sun. There isn't a team in the top 4 that I don't think they stand a chance against.
11-29-2017 02:55 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
micahandme Offline
Water Engineer
*

Posts: 72
Joined: May 2017
Reputation: 11
I Root For: PSU
Location:
Post: #18
RE: In the CFP, how does 5-8 have a chance
(11-29-2017 12:37 PM)NewTimes Wrote:  As a Wisconsin fan, and one making practical points, where do you feel Wisconsin should be ranked if there is a loss this weekend?

Although I just praised Wisconsin, if they lose this weekend (barring a last-minute heartbreaker), they should drop below PSU.

PSU led OSU at the shoe for 59 minutes. We lost at MSU on a walkoff field goal...the first time we trailed the entire game. We crushed NW (on their turf...not ours like UW did). We beat Iowa on their turf (not ours like UW did). We crushed Michigan at home (UW slipped past them at home).

Give Wiscy PSU's schedule and they'd be 10-2 (or worse). Give PSU Wiscy's schedule and we'd be 12-0.
11-29-2017 03:00 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
NewTimes Offline
Back in the Sunshine State
*

Posts: 2,350
Joined: May 2012
Reputation: 47
I Root For: 'Canes & Flames
Location: Daytona Beach
Post: #19
RE: In the CFP, how does 5-8 have a chance
(11-29-2017 01:49 PM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  
(11-29-2017 12:37 PM)NewTimes Wrote:  
(11-29-2017 12:30 PM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  
(11-29-2017 12:13 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  
(11-29-2017 11:47 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  If any of the top 4 falter, Bama is in, not necessarily because they're better, but because they're Bama.

Like it or not, if it comes down to it, the NAMES are going to get the benefit of the doubt. Why? Because one, they have proven track records, and two the committee knows who butters their bread.... The networks.

They know there's NO WAY all that money keeps rolling in if ratings are down. Networks don't pay hundreds of millions so Southwest Tech can be in the playoffs. Blue Bloods appeal to the casual fan and even to the non-sports fan who might tune in to see the "big game".

All things being equal, if it comes down to a Bama, tOSU or a TCU (for example), you can let it ride that Bama or tOSU will be the ones with their name called.

It's a popular theory (especially among TCU fans!), but don't buy it for a couple of reasons. First, the computer averages and old BCS formula so far have come up with the same 4 participants the first three years as the committee. Second, there are examples of name schools being behind lesser name schools with similar profiles in the weekly and even final rankings. The reality is that name schools typically have had better profiles/arguments to date. We see what we want to see. We see them get in and say "see! Name school!", when it really is their strength of their overall profile.

Which is why I'm NOT a big fan of expanding to 8 teams.

Until there's a system that is completely impartial and takes into account "numbers only", there will be people's opinions and biases involved in the decision.

Perfect example is March Madness. When the NCAA took over, they expanded to 16 teams and the 17th teams griped. On and on till it went to 64 and the 65th team complained. Then they went to 68 and now the 69th team hollers "unfair". Unless the playoffs include every team, someone left out will feel slighted.

The CFP is actually a pretty fair and decent system IMO. It takes into consideration record, SOS, etc, but also gives credit to purely subjective things like the "eye test" and, to be frank, names.

You are right about the "names" though, most times the Blue Bloods got to that position BECAUSE they have better profiles and have won the big games.

The same thing goes for conferences as far as I'm concerned.
As a Wisconsin fan, and one making practical points, where do you feel Wisconsin should be ranked if there is a loss this weekend?

That will depend on how bad the loss is.

If it's another 59-0 blowout then somewhere around 10-12 would be realistic. If it's a last second field goal from 55 yards out I'd think 7-10 would be about right.

Question is would a blow out loss in a championship game be a bigger obstacle than a regular season loss to a bad team?

Guess that's why they pay the committee the "big bucks"....
I'm a Canes fan but I'll be pulling for Wisconsin. I'm still a little peeved about the OSU loss by Miami in the championship game.
11-29-2017 03:34 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 14,176
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 718
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #20
RE: In the CFP, how does 5-8 have a chance
(11-29-2017 12:30 PM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  
(11-29-2017 12:13 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  
(11-29-2017 11:47 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  [quote='NewTimes' pid='14836462' dateline='1511971848']
If 1-4 wins out, the field is set. It's safe to say 1 or 2 teams may lose. How does the 5-8 stack up?

#5 Alabama - idle and likely out, unfamiliar territory, weaker schedule
#6 GA vs, #2 Auburn - May swap places with GA win, Auburn gone with 3 loses
#7 Miami vs. #1 Clemson - Clemson with 2 loses on bubble, Miami to #4 with win
#8 Ohio St vs. #3 Wisconsin - Ohio St replaces Wisconsin with win
#9 Penn St and #10 SoCal out of picture

5-8 in the mix if 1 or 2 1-4's lose.

If any of the top 4 falter, Bama is in, not necessarily because they're better, but because they're Bama.

Like it or not, if it comes down to it, the NAMES are going to get the benefit of the doubt. Why? Because one, they have proven track records, and two the committee knows who butters their bread.... The networks.

They know there's NO WAY all that money keeps rolling in if ratings are down. Networks don't pay hundreds of millions so Southwest Tech can be in the playoffs. Blue Bloods appeal to the casual fan and even to the non-sports fan who might tune in to see the "big game".

All things being equal, if it comes down to a Bama, tOSU or a TCU (for example), you can let it ride that Bama or tOSU will be the ones with their name called.

It's a popular theory (especially among TCU fans!), but don't buy it for a couple of reasons. First, the computer averages and old BCS formula so far have come up with the same 4 participants the first three years as the committee. Second, there are examples of name schools being behind lesser name schools with similar profiles in the weekly and even final rankings. The reality is that name schools typically have had better profiles/arguments to date. We see what we want to see. We see them get in and say "see! Name school!", when it really is their strength of their overall profile.

Badger MJ said

Which is why I'm NOT a big fan of expanding to 8 teams.

Until there's a system that is completely impartial and takes into account championship only, there will be people's opinions and biases involved in the decision.

****************************************************************************************************************************

FIFY.

The only thing that would be satisfactory to the presidents who don't really want to expand the season further, and would be immune to polls, pundits, and stilted computer programs is a Champs Only model.

The key is to get to 4 conferences.

It keeps the regular season divisional races extremely relevant and your champions are determined on the field.

Nobody knows at any given time who the four best teams really are! But you do know who won their conference championship. That's your representative for the national title! That's your champ! Let them play it off and guess what you have a champion out of champions and it is decided on the field instead of in some committee room.

Every team from those 4 conferences starts the season with the same chance and the ultimate winner did it themselves.

The old AP which frequently never matched the champions together in the bowls was the ultimate beauty pageant and the champion frequently came from the areas with the most sports writers voting.

The BCS was just the intentional matching of the two prettiest conference champions until Alabama vs L.S.U. part II happened.

Now we've moved to the 4 prettiest but they don't have to be a conference champ which means some deserving schools are still left out.

The next system needs to be even simpler. 4 conferences, 4 champs, and play it off.

Anything else is just an excuse to keep the bias and crookedness baked in. You will never convince me that taking a school other than the conference champ is somehow magically deserved just because they make the networks more or are somehow more popular.
(This post was last modified: 11-29-2017 03:57 PM by JRsec.)
11-29-2017 03:53 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2017 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2017 MyBB Group.