Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Expansion of College Football Playoffs
Author Message
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 44,738
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 2860
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #61
RE: Expansion of College Football Playoffs
(11-16-2018 08:39 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(11-15-2018 02:58 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(11-15-2018 02:20 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(12-01-2017 10:07 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  
(12-01-2017 08:17 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Its a brilliant move until enough data exists to prove a G5 can never make the playoff. After this year, with multiple undefeated G5's unable to even get out of the mid-teens---it woould be seen as fairly conclusive evidence by most any judge or jury that the playoff is effectively closed to the G5. Its basically like defending racisim in employment practices by saying "we just did not have any minority candidates that were good enough". In a 4 year period? When multiple candidates offered up a 4.0 grade point average and a 100% record of success? Considering the plantiff will likely file in friendly venue of their own choosing--that's going to be a pretty tough case to defend. We have more than enough information from the field of play indicating that the top G5 champion is more than a match for the typical top 10 P5. The current glass ceiling that blocks the top G5's from both the top 10 and the playoff is just simply arbitrary at this point.

That said, legal action is the last option. Nobody wants to do that--mainly, because if you lose--you'll probably be in an even worse position and it likely poisons the well of future cooperation (not that the current behavior of the committee isn't doing plenty of well poisoning on its own).

Wow, G5 compared to racism. I know some posters that would not surprise me but from you AC, that is really surprising. G5 willingly entered into this CFP agreement. Non D1 football schools don't want to lose the P5 money and have them create their own conference. Again, the NCAA does not control college football and they would lose Basketball if the P5 bolt. AC remember the golden rule, "He who has the gold, rules" 04-cheers

Remember, under the BCS, we had 15 years of data that showed an unbeaten G5 wouldn't make the BCS title game and there was no legal action. The only ruckus was over access to the BCS bowls, which was then made easier. But even Orrin Hatch never tried to push for G5 in to the BCS title game.

The CFP actually guarantees a major bowl slot for G5 so that issue was solved. There literally never has been an issue with access to the two team BCS or 4 team CFP playoffs, because nobody is guaranteed access to them and never were.

That is the big point you are missing: the BCS problem was that every AQ conference was guaranteed a major bowl slot while non-AQ were effectively shut out. But like the BCS title game, no P5 conference is guaranteed a spot in the CFP playoffs.

The decision as to who was in that playoff was also on public vote of 100's of ballots (which everyone could see) as well as computer models. It wasnt based on 13 guys--basically hand picked by the Power conferences.

Thing is, though, all the simulations that substitute the old BCS process for the CFP result in basically the same thing the CFP committee arrives at. E.g., last year, the final BCS formula would have selected #1 Clemson, #2 Georgia, #3 Oklahoma, and #4 Alabama. True, UCF was #7 in that simulation, considerably better than in the CFP rankings, but the final result would have been the same - no playoffs.

Bottom line is, despite the fact that the selection committee is unjustifiably stacked with members with P5 backgrounds, it has made choices that are completely within the mainstream of what the computers and the AP/Coaches polls would have selected had they been used instead.

Really, no selection method, whether human or computer, whether stacked with P5 or G5 or neither, is likely to ever put a G5 team in a four-team playoff. There just isn't a rational basis for doing so. The resume of a UCF just doesn't stack up with the resume of at least 7-8 teams, all P5.

For a G5 to deserve to make the playoffs, the playoffs will have to be expanded large enough so that their resume falls within that range of slots available.

Ive also said the Committee unduly influences voting in the polls. We have seen that with UCF continuing to win---but falling out of the top AP/Coaches top 10 since the committee began publishing its rankings. As for the G5 rep always playing a P5 thats not in the top 4 in the access bowl---thats true. Its also true that P5 rep has always been in the top 10 while the G5 rep has not. The argument for the descrepency has always been SOS. However, at some point, I think the Committee needs to acknowledge that at the very least---an undefeated G5 has clearly shown itself to be fairly similar to a top 10 P5 in actual game play. There just isnt much argument anymore for creating a glass ceiling for an undefeated G5 at the #11-#12 range while jumping them with 1-loss, 2-loss, and even 3-loss P5 teams. While I havent made the argument an undefeated G5 absolutely deserves a playoff berth in the current system---I do believe undefeated G5's are seeing an undeserved glass ceiling and absolutely should be ranked inside the top-10.
(This post was last modified: 11-16-2018 11:35 AM by Attackcoog.)
11-16-2018 11:26 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Online
Legend
*

Posts: 50,013
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2372
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #62
RE: Expansion of College Football Playoffs
(11-16-2018 11:26 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(11-16-2018 08:39 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(11-15-2018 02:58 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(11-15-2018 02:20 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(12-01-2017 10:07 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  Wow, G5 compared to racism. I know some posters that would not surprise me but from you AC, that is really surprising. G5 willingly entered into this CFP agreement. Non D1 football schools don't want to lose the P5 money and have them create their own conference. Again, the NCAA does not control college football and they would lose Basketball if the P5 bolt. AC remember the golden rule, "He who has the gold, rules" 04-cheers

Remember, under the BCS, we had 15 years of data that showed an unbeaten G5 wouldn't make the BCS title game and there was no legal action. The only ruckus was over access to the BCS bowls, which was then made easier. But even Orrin Hatch never tried to push for G5 in to the BCS title game.

The CFP actually guarantees a major bowl slot for G5 so that issue was solved. There literally never has been an issue with access to the two team BCS or 4 team CFP playoffs, because nobody is guaranteed access to them and never were.

That is the big point you are missing: the BCS problem was that every AQ conference was guaranteed a major bowl slot while non-AQ were effectively shut out. But like the BCS title game, no P5 conference is guaranteed a spot in the CFP playoffs.

The decision as to who was in that playoff was also on public vote of 100's of ballots (which everyone could see) as well as computer models. It wasnt based on 13 guys--basically hand picked by the Power conferences.

Thing is, though, all the simulations that substitute the old BCS process for the CFP result in basically the same thing the CFP committee arrives at. E.g., last year, the final BCS formula would have selected #1 Clemson, #2 Georgia, #3 Oklahoma, and #4 Alabama. True, UCF was #7 in that simulation, considerably better than in the CFP rankings, but the final result would have been the same - no playoffs.

Bottom line is, despite the fact that the selection committee is unjustifiably stacked with members with P5 backgrounds, it has made choices that are completely within the mainstream of what the computers and the AP/Coaches polls would have selected had they been used instead.

Really, no selection method, whether human or computer, whether stacked with P5 or G5 or neither, is likely to ever put a G5 team in a four-team playoff. There just isn't a rational basis for doing so. The resume of a UCF just doesn't stack up with the resume of at least 7-8 teams, all P5.

For a G5 to deserve to make the playoffs, the playoffs will have to be expanded large enough so that their resume falls within that range of slots available.

Ive also said the Committee unduly influences voting in the polls. We have seen that with UCF continuing to win---but falling out of the top AP/Coaches top 10 since the committee began publishing its rankings.

If anything, the polls are influencing the committee - which makes a lot more sense, because the polls come out before the committee votes, and, once the committee publishes its rankings, another game is played before the AP and coaches vote again. We've seen it the last few weeks, as the AP and Coaches respect for Utah State has dragged them in to the CFP top 25. We also saw the CFP dramatically move Syracuse up, after the AP and Coaches had done the same. In constrast, UCF was already in that group of teams clustered around #10 that had stalled out. The last week before the CFP, they had moved up from #10 to #9 and in the AP had been jumped by Ohio State.
(This post was last modified: 11-16-2018 11:47 AM by quo vadis.)
11-16-2018 11:46 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
stever20 Online
Legend
*

Posts: 46,232
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation: 725
I Root For: Sports
Location:
Post: #63
RE: Expansion of College Football Playoffs
(11-16-2018 11:46 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(11-16-2018 11:26 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(11-16-2018 08:39 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(11-15-2018 02:58 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(11-15-2018 02:20 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Remember, under the BCS, we had 15 years of data that showed an unbeaten G5 wouldn't make the BCS title game and there was no legal action. The only ruckus was over access to the BCS bowls, which was then made easier. But even Orrin Hatch never tried to push for G5 in to the BCS title game.

The CFP actually guarantees a major bowl slot for G5 so that issue was solved. There literally never has been an issue with access to the two team BCS or 4 team CFP playoffs, because nobody is guaranteed access to them and never were.

That is the big point you are missing: the BCS problem was that every AQ conference was guaranteed a major bowl slot while non-AQ were effectively shut out. But like the BCS title game, no P5 conference is guaranteed a spot in the CFP playoffs.

The decision as to who was in that playoff was also on public vote of 100's of ballots (which everyone could see) as well as computer models. It wasnt based on 13 guys--basically hand picked by the Power conferences.

Thing is, though, all the simulations that substitute the old BCS process for the CFP result in basically the same thing the CFP committee arrives at. E.g., last year, the final BCS formula would have selected #1 Clemson, #2 Georgia, #3 Oklahoma, and #4 Alabama. True, UCF was #7 in that simulation, considerably better than in the CFP rankings, but the final result would have been the same - no playoffs.

Bottom line is, despite the fact that the selection committee is unjustifiably stacked with members with P5 backgrounds, it has made choices that are completely within the mainstream of what the computers and the AP/Coaches polls would have selected had they been used instead.

Really, no selection method, whether human or computer, whether stacked with P5 or G5 or neither, is likely to ever put a G5 team in a four-team playoff. There just isn't a rational basis for doing so. The resume of a UCF just doesn't stack up with the resume of at least 7-8 teams, all P5.

For a G5 to deserve to make the playoffs, the playoffs will have to be expanded large enough so that their resume falls within that range of slots available.

Ive also said the Committee unduly influences voting in the polls. We have seen that with UCF continuing to win---but falling out of the top AP/Coaches top 10 since the committee began publishing its rankings.

If anything, the polls are influencing the committee - which makes a lot more sense, because the polls come out before the committee votes, and, once the committee publishes its rankings, another game is played before the AP and coaches vote again. We've seen it the last few weeks, as the AP and Coaches respect for Utah State has dragged them in to the CFP top 25. We also saw the CFP dramatically move Syracuse up, after the AP and Coaches had done the same. In constrast, UCF was already in that group of teams clustered around #10 that had stalled out. The last week before the CFP, they had moved up from #10 to #9 and in the AP had been jumped by Ohio State.
A lot of times the movements are because so many teams have lost- someone had to move up and lo and behold it's the same team...

The polls definitely were influenced a few years ago by the CFP committee with regards to Florida State.
11-16-2018 11:48 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
joeben69 Online
Special Teams
*

Posts: 997
Joined: Nov 2017
Reputation: 45
I Root For: sdsu, ucsd, usd
Location:
Post: #64
RE: Expansion of College Football Playoffs
Sadly, it's going to take more than chaos to spark expansion of College Football Playoff
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/co...012919002/
11-16-2018 11:50 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 19,862
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 964
I Root For: California
Location: IV, V, VI, IX
Post: #65
RE: Expansion of College Football Playoffs
(11-16-2018 11:50 AM)joeben69 Wrote:  Sadly, it's going to take more than chaos to spark expansion of College Football Playoff
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/co...012919002/

The key is one sentence in that article, which is something that Dan Wetzel has been saying for at least 10 years:

Quote:All of these issues could be worked out if the commissioners actually wanted to take control of their postseason rather than outsourcing a good portion of it to bowl game organizers.
11-16-2018 12:07 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 44,738
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 2860
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #66
RE: Expansion of College Football Playoffs
(11-16-2018 12:07 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(11-16-2018 11:50 AM)joeben69 Wrote:  Sadly, it's going to take more than chaos to spark expansion of College Football Playoff
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/co...012919002/

The key is one sentence in that article, which is something that Dan Wetzel has been saying for at least 10 years:

Quote:All of these issues could be worked out if the commissioners actually wanted to take control of their postseason rather than outsourcing a good portion of it to bowl game organizers.

I still believe the CFP will eventually expand to 8 with AQ for the P5 champs and the top G5. It just makes too much sense and seems to be the most suggested format by talking heads and columnist. Its not perfect--but it resolves most of the issues and is a viable fit to the realatively tight college sports calendar.
(This post was last modified: 11-16-2018 12:13 PM by Attackcoog.)
11-16-2018 12:12 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 66,299
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 3285
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #67
RE: Expansion of College Football Playoffs
(11-15-2018 02:20 PM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  
(11-15-2018 12:46 PM)joeben69 Wrote:  Here's one chaotic scenario that could lead to College Football Playoff expansion
https://sports.yahoo.com/heres-one-chaot...45969.html

That win/loss scenario could play out, but there's no way the committee puts Alabama in over Michigan.

Assuming that holds true, Clemson would move to #1, ND #2. Even if you put Georgia at #3, Michigan would have 1 loss against the #2 team vs. Bama's 1 loss against #3.

Michigan is in.

I know some folks have talked about this Bama team perhaps being the best college team ever, but from my perspective, the "best ever" doesn't lose to Georgia in the SEC championship game.

You don't seem to realize how much they rely on the eyeball test.
11-16-2018 12:24 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 19,862
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 964
I Root For: California
Location: IV, V, VI, IX
Post: #68
RE: Expansion of College Football Playoffs
(11-16-2018 12:12 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(11-16-2018 12:07 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(11-16-2018 11:50 AM)joeben69 Wrote:  Sadly, it's going to take more than chaos to spark expansion of College Football Playoff
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/co...012919002/

The key is one sentence in that article, which is something that Dan Wetzel has been saying for at least 10 years:

Quote:All of these issues could be worked out if the commissioners actually wanted to take control of their postseason rather than outsourcing a good portion of it to bowl game organizers.

I still believe the CFP will eventually expand to 8 with AQ for the P5 champs and the top G5. It just makes too much sense and seems to be the most suggested format by talking heads and columnist. Its not perfect--but it resolves most of the issues and is a viable fit to the realatively tight college sports calendar.

Eventually, yeah.

The tension is that for all of the griping by fans like us, people who work in CFB for a living don't want to blow up the bowl games. Some of them are entrenched in the system because they've been wined and dined by bowl guys for 30 years. But most of the coaches and ADs, P5 and G5, love the bowls because bowl games increase their job security by giving them a pretty little "Good Job" ribbon even when they have mediocre 6-6 seasons that don't really deserve a pat on the back.
11-16-2018 12:27 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 66,299
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 3285
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #69
RE: Expansion of College Football Playoffs
(11-15-2018 02:27 PM)YNot Wrote:  Two tweaks I would consider to the current system to improve the postseason.

#1 - 8-team playoff with autobids for the highest 6 ranked conference champions. Round 1 before Christmas at home sites. Spills into current CFP bowl and championship game structure.

#2 - two "wild card" games played on Conference Championship weekend for the highest ranked teams not involved in a CCG. Wild card games give the top non-division winners the 13th data point...as well as another data point to compare the top-ranked teams and conferences to determine the two wild cards at large bids for the CFP and for the NY6 bowls.

2018 would be more interesting because most of the CCG matchups are pretty weak (other than Alabama-Georgia). #2 Clemson is likely to play an unranked opponent. Oklahoma-West Virginia is likely to be an immediate rematch. The Michigan-Ohio St. winner and Washington-WSU winner will be lucky to face a top-20 opponent. AAC and MWC championship games are likely to only have one ranked team.

To that mix, you could add a couple of big-time wild card games like Notre Dame-Florida and LSU-Ohio St.

Last year, CCG weekend would have featured:

ACC Championship - #1 Clemson v. #7 Miami (Clemson won)
SEC Championship - #2 Auburn v. #6 Georgia (Georgia won)
B12 Championship - #3 Oklahoma v. #11 TCU (Oklahoma won)
B1G Championship - #4 Wisconsin v. #8 Ohio St. (Ohio St. won)
PAC Championship - #10 USC v. #12 Stanford (USC won)
AAC Championship - #14 UCF v. #20 Memphis (UCF won)
MWC Championship - #25 Fresno St. v. NR Boise St. (Boise won)

Wild Card games
#5 Alabama v. #15 Notre Dame
#9 Penn St. v. #13 Washington

The 8-team CFP would have featured the following autobids:

#1 Clemson (ACC)
#2 Oklahoma (B12)
#3 Georgia (SEC)
#5 Ohio St. (B1G)
#8 USC (PAC)
#12 UCF (AAC)

The 2 wild card at large selections would have come from:
Alabama (wild card win over ranked Notre Dame?)
Wisconsin (loss to #5 Ohio St. in B1G final)
Auburn (lost to #3 Georgia in SEC final)
Penn St. (wild card win over ranked Washington?)

The wild card games would really help to determine the last 2 wild card teams. May be Penn St. gets in ahead of Wisconsin and Auburn?

This is a way to make it a defacto 15 team playoff. The ccgs become an elimination round, but all the revenue is controlled by the conferences for those 5 games.
11-16-2018 12:34 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 66,299
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 3285
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #70
RE: Expansion of College Football Playoffs
(11-15-2018 02:41 PM)stever20 Wrote:  
(11-15-2018 02:36 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(11-15-2018 02:33 PM)stever20 Wrote:  
(11-15-2018 02:24 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(11-15-2018 01:41 PM)stever20 Wrote:  dude, they are NEVER and I mean NEVER assigning teams into their historical Bowls. This year is a PRIME reason why.... Why should what would be in a 8 team playoff
1 Alabama
2 Clemson
3 Notre Dame
4 Michigan
5 WVU or Oklahoma
6 Georgia or LSU
7 Washington St
8 UCF

why should Michigan get to play Washington St?

It would be Alabama/UCF, Clemson/Washington St, Notre Dame/Georgia-LSU, and Michigan/WVU-Oklahoma. Period.

I wouldn't say never because you're only looking at it from a pure competitive/seeding aspect as opposed to the legal aspect.

The reason to use bowls is because it's the legal mechanism for the P5 conferences to have "auto-bids" (in the form of contractual tie-ins) that the G5 wouldn't have. Essentially, it has to be set up as the "first round" really being a set of contract bowls and then the winners are contractually obligated to participate in the semifinal round.

The P5 collectively getting together and stating that they get 5 auto-bids to an 8-team playoff system while no one else does brings up an illegal collusion argument. However, the P5 "separately" agreeing to contractual tie-ins to separate bowls gives them the argument that they're simply using the free market to freely contract with different entities and that any G5 conference could do the same if it could find its own contract bowl partner.

The legal mechanism is quite important here if the P5 wants to have auto-bids for themselves while not having them for the G5 (which is what the P5 would want out of an 8-team playoff system). The "pure seeding" 1 vs. 4/2 vs. 3 setup of the 4-team playoff system works because there aren't any auto-bids involved, but that would likely not be the case for an 8-team playoff (where I believe the entire push for that expansion would come *from* a desire for P5 auto-bids).

TV, and the conferences like the SEC and ACC are all about the competitive/seeding aspect of things. They pushed in the creation of the CFP to have seedings and not protect the Rose Bowl...... Prime Example was in 2014, you know folks were seething about not having an Ohio St/Oregon Rose Bowl.....

You see- as we're going along- tradition matters less and less. More and more people don't give a **** about tradition and aren't going to screw themselves to help the Rose Bowl...... TV wants a bracket pure and pure.

That's because the SEC and ACC weren't giving anything up to get that competitive/seeding aspect in a 4-team playoff. If a contract bowl setup is what is required to have "auto-bids" in an 8-team playoff, though, then that's what they'll do because legal and financial considerations will matter more in that scenario.

The SEC and ACC aren't going to put their champions at a competitive disadvantage to help the Rose Bowl...... PERIOD.

And we've not even touched on how ******* bogus it would be should Northwestern upset the east champ. Northwestern vs Washington St. 2 worst teams. Sorry that **** don't fly. TV Would say that's DOA. ACC and SEC would say that's DOA. Big 12 as well....

Also, you can have contract bowls, but with the caveat that those assignments can change.....

Any playoff format will be seeded. Period. Just like I said when they were creating the playoff that we have now(some folks said that it would absolutely 100% be unseeded where the committee could like in 2014 have Ohio St/Oregon). TV doesn't want any part of that. they want it where the final can be 1 vs 2 and the semi's can be 1 vs 4 and 2 vs 3.

You're making the assumption that the Big 10/Pac 12 champ are inferior to all the wildcards.
11-16-2018 12:37 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 66,299
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 3285
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #71
RE: Expansion of College Football Playoffs
(11-16-2018 08:28 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(11-15-2018 10:50 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  
(11-15-2018 12:48 PM)joeben69 Wrote:  AAC commissioner wouldn't mind open discussion to expanded playoff
http://www.espn.com/college-football/sto...ng-playoff

What makes the inclusion of a top G5 in an 8 team playoff so different than say including low major basketball DIII level conferences in the NCAA tournament is that a Top G5 is a legitimate threat to win.

1) Any G5 school strong enough to make the playoff can win there. That has been proven time again with all the G5 wins in a top bowl game.

2) Any program in the playoff can win the playoff. It truly is an anything can happen situation when you are taking the Top 8 teams against each other.

Remember, when G5 teams have played P5 teams in the top bowl games, it's always been a "second-tier" P5, that is, one that was already judged not to be good enough to make the playoffs. E.g., Boise > Arizona, Houston > FSU, and UCF > Auburn all were cases where the G5 team beat a P5 that clearly wasn't even the best team in its own conference that year, much less a national title contender.

Plus, winning an 8-team playoff wouldn't mean just beating a top P5 team one time, it would mean beating 3 of them in succession, a very different proposition.

To me, if we do go to an 8-team playoff, there still should be no guaranteed spots for anyone, G5 or P5. That doesn't necessarily mean a G5 wouldn't make it, e.g., in the early 2010s, teams like Boise and TCU (pre-Big 12) were ranked by the BCS formula within the top 8, and UCF could make the top 8 of the CFP rankings this year.

Winning 3 in a row in football is different than winning 3 in a row in basketball, where one hot player can make all the difference.
11-16-2018 12:38 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 66,299
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 3285
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #72
RE: Expansion of College Football Playoffs
(11-16-2018 08:46 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  A G5 is capable of putting in a weight program that develops bigger, faster, stronger lineman like TCU and Boise to the point where they can hold the line of scrimmage against the top lines in college football.

That equivalence just isn't possible with the G5 basketball programs to match the talent of Duke, Kentucky, UNC and Villanova. The G5 will ultimately run out of gas in the tournament even if playing great ball.

Putting a Boise or now Houston or UCF in and 8 team playoff there is absolutely no question they could knock off the #1 team and do more. You just can't say the same with a Murray St or Florida Gulf Coast which is why its a different threat.

How good were some of those Marshall teams like the one that beat Clemson? They never had a chance to test themselves in a playoff.

If you go into P5 conferences, upsets by programs with lower rated recruiting classes happen all the time. Think Syracuse over Clemson last year. In football they are the equivalent right now of a top G5 team.

You're wrong. One Larry Bird can make an inordinate difference in basketball.
11-16-2018 12:40 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
stever20 Online
Legend
*

Posts: 46,232
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation: 725
I Root For: Sports
Location:
Post: #73
RE: Expansion of College Football Playoffs
(11-16-2018 12:40 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(11-16-2018 08:46 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  A G5 is capable of putting in a weight program that develops bigger, faster, stronger lineman like TCU and Boise to the point where they can hold the line of scrimmage against the top lines in college football.

That equivalence just isn't possible with the G5 basketball programs to match the talent of Duke, Kentucky, UNC and Villanova. The G5 will ultimately run out of gas in the tournament even if playing great ball.

Putting a Boise or now Houston or UCF in and 8 team playoff there is absolutely no question they could knock off the #1 team and do more. You just can't say the same with a Murray St or Florida Gulf Coast which is why its a different threat.

How good were some of those Marshall teams like the one that beat Clemson? They never had a chance to test themselves in a playoff.

If you go into P5 conferences, upsets by programs with lower rated recruiting classes happen all the time. Think Syracuse over Clemson last year. In football they are the equivalent right now of a top G5 team.

You're wrong. One Larry Bird can make an inordinate difference in basketball.
Butler in 2010 says hi. 1/2 inch and they win the title over Duke....
11-16-2018 12:42 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 66,299
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 3285
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #74
RE: Expansion of College Football Playoffs
(11-16-2018 11:26 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(11-16-2018 08:39 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(11-15-2018 02:58 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(11-15-2018 02:20 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(12-01-2017 10:07 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  Wow, G5 compared to racism. I know some posters that would not surprise me but from you AC, that is really surprising. G5 willingly entered into this CFP agreement. Non D1 football schools don't want to lose the P5 money and have them create their own conference. Again, the NCAA does not control college football and they would lose Basketball if the P5 bolt. AC remember the golden rule, "He who has the gold, rules" 04-cheers

Remember, under the BCS, we had 15 years of data that showed an unbeaten G5 wouldn't make the BCS title game and there was no legal action. The only ruckus was over access to the BCS bowls, which was then made easier. But even Orrin Hatch never tried to push for G5 in to the BCS title game.

The CFP actually guarantees a major bowl slot for G5 so that issue was solved. There literally never has been an issue with access to the two team BCS or 4 team CFP playoffs, because nobody is guaranteed access to them and never were.

That is the big point you are missing: the BCS problem was that every AQ conference was guaranteed a major bowl slot while non-AQ were effectively shut out. But like the BCS title game, no P5 conference is guaranteed a spot in the CFP playoffs.

The decision as to who was in that playoff was also on public vote of 100's of ballots (which everyone could see) as well as computer models. It wasnt based on 13 guys--basically hand picked by the Power conferences.

Thing is, though, all the simulations that substitute the old BCS process for the CFP result in basically the same thing the CFP committee arrives at. E.g., last year, the final BCS formula would have selected #1 Clemson, #2 Georgia, #3 Oklahoma, and #4 Alabama. True, UCF was #7 in that simulation, considerably better than in the CFP rankings, but the final result would have been the same - no playoffs.

Bottom line is, despite the fact that the selection committee is unjustifiably stacked with members with P5 backgrounds, it has made choices that are completely within the mainstream of what the computers and the AP/Coaches polls would have selected had they been used instead.

Really, no selection method, whether human or computer, whether stacked with P5 or G5 or neither, is likely to ever put a G5 team in a four-team playoff. There just isn't a rational basis for doing so. The resume of a UCF just doesn't stack up with the resume of at least 7-8 teams, all P5.

For a G5 to deserve to make the playoffs, the playoffs will have to be expanded large enough so that their resume falls within that range of slots available.

Ive also said the Committee unduly influences voting in the polls. We have seen that with UCF continuing to win---but falling out of the top AP/Coaches top 10 since the committee began publishing its rankings. As for the G5 rep always playing a P5 thats not in the top 4 in the access bowl---thats true. Its also true that P5 rep has always been in the top 10 while the G5 rep has not. The argument for the descrepency has always been SOS. However, at some point, I think the Committee needs to acknowledge that at the very least---an undefeated G5 has clearly shown itself to be fairly similar to a top 10 P5 in actual game play. There just isnt much argument anymore for creating a glass ceiling for an undefeated G5 at the #11-#12 range while jumping them with 1-loss, 2-loss, and even 3-loss P5 teams. While I havent made the argument an undefeated G5 absolutely deserves a playoff berth in the current system---I do believe undefeated G5's are seeing an undeserved glass ceiling and absolutely should be ranked inside the top-10.

That happened long before the CFP. The top non power teams normally have a ceiling of 8 to 10. Tulane, Miami, Hawaii, Boise (until they did it so many years in a row they got some credibility). These teams get to around #8 and then they start getting passed despite continuing to win. I think it happened to UCF this year the week before the CFP rankings came out.
11-16-2018 12:44 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 66,299
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 3285
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #75
RE: Expansion of College Football Playoffs
(11-16-2018 12:07 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(11-16-2018 11:50 AM)joeben69 Wrote:  Sadly, it's going to take more than chaos to spark expansion of College Football Playoff
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/co...012919002/

The key is one sentence in that article, which is something that Dan Wetzel has been saying for at least 10 years:

Quote:All of these issues could be worked out if the commissioners actually wanted to take control of their postseason rather than outsourcing a good portion of it to bowl game organizers.

The SEC and Big 12 did that by taking over the Sugar Bowl. The Big 10 and Pac 12 are laggards.
11-16-2018 12:46 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Online
Legend
*

Posts: 50,013
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2372
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #76
RE: Expansion of College Football Playoffs
(11-16-2018 12:38 PM)bullet Wrote:  Winning 3 in a row in football is different than winning 3 in a row in basketball, where one hot player can make all the difference.

Yep, in hoops, because there are only 5 guys on the court and they play both ways, a single dominant player can take over a game and lead his team to beat a much better overall opponent. That just doesn't happen in football.

That happened to Georgetown in 2008, when we were better than Davidson in every way but had no answer for Steph Curry. Larry Bird carrying Indiana State to the 1979 finals, etc.
(This post was last modified: 11-16-2018 12:58 PM by quo vadis.)
11-16-2018 12:53 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Gamecock Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,979
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 182
I Root For: South Carolina
Location:
Post: #77
RE: Expansion of College Football Playoffs
(11-15-2018 12:46 PM)joeben69 Wrote:  Here's one chaotic scenario that could lead to College Football Playoff expansion
https://sports.yahoo.com/heres-one-chaot...45969.html

I hope it happens. Would be worth it seeing 12-1 Wash St, Michigan, and Oklahoma all sit home if that's what it takes to get us an 8 team playoff.
11-16-2018 01:44 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Kittonhead Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,000
Joined: Jun 2013
Reputation: 122
I Root For: Beat Matisse
Location:
Post: #78
RE: Expansion of College Football Playoffs
(11-16-2018 12:40 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(11-16-2018 08:46 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  A G5 is capable of putting in a weight program that develops bigger, faster, stronger lineman like TCU and Boise to the point where they can hold the line of scrimmage against the top lines in college football.

That equivalence just isn't possible with the G5 basketball programs to match the talent of Duke, Kentucky, UNC and Villanova. The G5 will ultimately run out of gas in the tournament even if playing great ball.

Putting a Boise or now Houston or UCF in and 8 team playoff there is absolutely no question they could knock off the #1 team and do more. You just can't say the same with a Murray St or Florida Gulf Coast which is why its a different threat.

How good were some of those Marshall teams like the one that beat Clemson? They never had a chance to test themselves in a playoff.

If you go into P5 conferences, upsets by programs with lower rated recruiting classes happen all the time. Think Syracuse over Clemson last year. In football they are the equivalent right now of a top G5 team.

You're wrong. One Larry Bird can make an inordinate difference in basketball.

But they aren't going to get no Larry Bird, ever again.

In football you can do it completely without the 4 and 5 star players if you can develop a great line.

The current system has 5-8 football programs monopolizing the 4 to 5 star guys because their the only programs that can realistically get into the playoff. Its a system that benefits Nick Saban and his quest to get Alabama more national championships.

An 8 team playoff opens the doors for the Syracuse and Washington St's which is dangerous from the Alabama perspective because maybe they would start getting more 4 and 5 star guys. Also could open it for UCF and Boise who start doing the same thing kicking butt in the trenches.

Its just dangerous in a way that 64 teams in the tournament is not. I know there are a couple of non-power programs like Gonzaga that are bonified power programs but as a whole the non-power programs cannot get the athletes to win a title.
11-16-2018 06:58 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BePcr07 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,900
Joined: Dec 2015
Reputation: 342
I Root For: Boise St & Zags
Location:
Post: #79
RE: Expansion of College Football Playoffs
What about dissolving the to 4 power conferences and having a 5 team playoff champs only. Each power conference gets their champion in and top non-power conference champion gets in. #4 plays a home game against the non-power champion 2 weeks after conference championships.
11-17-2018 01:15 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




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


Copyright © 2002-2024 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.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.