Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Never thought I ever agree with Dennis Dodd
Author Message
Attackcoog Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 22,787
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 852
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #31
RE: Never thought I ever agree with Dennis Dodd
(12-06-2017 12:43 AM)ThreeDogKnight Wrote:  You can't base the G5 qualification on CFP rankings. Not with this committee, anyway. I don't have the answers, but in order for CFP rankings to work for the G5, either the committee would need to be reformed to be more balanced in G5 and P5 representation, or some kind of metric would need to be used to provide accountability in some way. I'm not one of those who wildly throws the words "committee bias" around, but at the very least (IMO) there is some unintentional bias there that naturally reflects the P5-heavy makeup of the committee.

Let's face it, it's not like I wouldn't do the same. If I were on the committee and was presented with a choice between an undefeated G5 who had a SoS of 100 and a P5 with better SoS but three losses, I would choose the G5 every single time. This is not only because I'm a G5 homer, but it's also because I'm much more interested in the NCAA's when a George Mason, Butler or VCU is in the Final Four, and I really want bowl games like Boise State-OU to happen more often than once every couple of generations.

TL;DR You can't expand the CFP and simply have a minimum ranking requirement with this committee. They'll just rank the G5 lower.

As far as the G5/P5 ranking issue goes---there is no good answer. The truth is, there isnt enough interaction between the G5 and P5 (especially top P5's vs top G5's) to really tell anything. Computer models are just guessing becasue they dont have enough data to be statistically meaningful.

We know from the BCS busters and the CFP access bowl--that more times than not--the top G5 is capable of playing with a top 10 P5. We also know the committee is generally competent at comparing P5 to P5 and G5 to G5. It seems to have little ability to compare G5 to P5 and the default ceiling for a top undefeated G5 is somewhere between 10-15. The committee (under the current defeault composition) is always going to say a G5 cant be a top 10 team.

Given what we know, I think the only 2 solutions to the issue are---

1) Make the committee a balanced body that is one rep per FBS conference.

or

2) Make the G5 slot a playoff slot as the committee seems perfectly competent at determining the top G5 champ.

That said, barring a violent takeover of the streets of Washington DC by crazed G5 fans, G5 teams should gird themselves for 9 more years of the access bowl being the pinnacle of non-power conference football. I do think the G5 will get a legitimate path to the playoff in the next version of the CFP--but until then...I dont see much changing.
(This post was last modified: 12-06-2017 01:06 AM by Attackcoog.)
12-06-2017 01:04 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
goodknightfl Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 16,331
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 219
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #32
RE: Never thought I ever agree with Dennis Dodd
health concerns issue is totally bogus. 4 of the 8 play just one game just like now. 4 play 2 games like 2 do now. Only 2 teams play 1 extra game. Bottom line is nothing changes for 126 of the 130 BCS schools.
12-06-2017 08:35 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 24,964
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 518
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #33
RE: Never thought I ever agree with Dennis Dodd
(12-06-2017 08:35 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  health concerns issue is totally bogus. 4 of the 8 play just one game just like now. 4 play 2 games like 2 do now. Only 2 teams play 1 extra game. Bottom line is nothing changes for 126 of the 130 BCS schools.

I guess there should be data on whether there are more injuries in FBS or FCS? If, because FBS athletes are bigger/faster/stronger than FCS athletes, injuries are more frequent in FBS, then that would support the notion that a 16 or 24 team playoff isn't a good idea from a health POV for FBS.

If not, then not.
(This post was last modified: 12-06-2017 09:37 AM by quo vadis.)
12-06-2017 09:35 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 22,787
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 852
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #34
RE: Never thought I ever agree with Dennis Dodd
(12-06-2017 09:35 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(12-06-2017 08:35 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  health concerns issue is totally bogus. 4 of the 8 play just one game just like now. 4 play 2 games like 2 do now. Only 2 teams play 1 extra game. Bottom line is nothing changes for 126 of the 130 BCS schools.

I guess there should be data on whether there are more injuries in FBS or FCS? If, because FBS athletes are bigger/faster/stronger than FCS athletes, injuries are more frequent in FBS, then that would support the notion that a 16 or 24 team playoff isn't a good idea from a health POV for FBS.

If not, then not.

I think 8 is more than enough. The 5 P5 champs and the top G5 would be acceptable. When you add in the top two non-champs, you then eliminate any chance that the top 2 schools could possibly be left out of the playoffs. I think that model is not too big—not too small—and minimizes the subjective influence of the committee while guaranteeing that the top two teams can’t be left out due to a CCG upset. It may not be the perfect model, but it’s darn close, 04-cheers
(This post was last modified: 12-06-2017 10:17 AM by Attackcoog.)
12-06-2017 10:16 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
billybobby777 Offline
Fighting the cartel 5
*

Posts: 8,221
Joined: May 2013
Reputation: 317
I Root For: ECU, Army
Location: Houston dont sleepon
Post: #35
RE: Never thought I ever agree with Dennis Dodd
Denise Dodd is unusual. She’s the queen of straw men arguments. She seems to be loyal to ESPN. She hates the AAC almost as much as McMurphy.
12-06-2017 10:34 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 24,964
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 518
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #36
RE: Never thought I ever agree with Dennis Dodd
(12-06-2017 10:16 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(12-06-2017 09:35 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(12-06-2017 08:35 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  health concerns issue is totally bogus. 4 of the 8 play just one game just like now. 4 play 2 games like 2 do now. Only 2 teams play 1 extra game. Bottom line is nothing changes for 126 of the 130 BCS schools.

I guess there should be data on whether there are more injuries in FBS or FCS? If, because FBS athletes are bigger/faster/stronger than FCS athletes, injuries are more frequent in FBS, then that would support the notion that a 16 or 24 team playoff isn't a good idea from a health POV for FBS.

If not, then not.

I think 8 is more than enough. The 5 P5 champs and the top G5 would be acceptable. When you add in the top two non-champs, you then eliminate any chance that the top 2 schools could possibly be left out of the playoffs. I think that model is not too big—not too small—and minimizes the subjective influence of the committee while guaranteeing that the top two teams can’t be left out due to a CCG upset. It may not be the perfect model, but it’s darn close, 04-cheers

I disagree with that. We've seen both in the NFL playoffs and the NCAA hoops tourney that in recent years, teams that were ranked/seeded outside the top 8 have won the title.

So if we have 8 teams, we can't have a G5 auto-bid, that trades off too much predictive power for diversity/inclusion.
12-06-2017 10:41 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
billybobby777 Offline
Fighting the cartel 5
*

Posts: 8,221
Joined: May 2013
Reputation: 317
I Root For: ECU, Army
Location: Houston dont sleepon
Post: #37
RE: Never thought I ever agree with Dennis Dodd
(12-06-2017 10:41 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(12-06-2017 10:16 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(12-06-2017 09:35 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(12-06-2017 08:35 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  health concerns issue is totally bogus. 4 of the 8 play just one game just like now. 4 play 2 games like 2 do now. Only 2 teams play 1 extra game. Bottom line is nothing changes for 126 of the 130 BCS schools.

I guess there should be data on whether there are more injuries in FBS or FCS? If, because FBS athletes are bigger/faster/stronger than FCS athletes, injuries are more frequent in FBS, then that would support the notion that a 16 or 24 team playoff isn't a good idea from a health POV for FBS.

If not, then not.

I think 8 is more than enough. The 5 P5 champs and the top G5 would be acceptable. When you add in the top two non-champs, you then eliminate any chance that the top 2 schools could possibly be left out of the playoffs. I think that model is not too big—not too small—and minimizes the subjective influence of the committee while guaranteeing that the top two teams can’t be left out due to a CCG upset. It may not be the perfect model, but it’s darn close, 04-cheers

I disagree with that. We've seen both in the NFL playoffs and the NCAA hoops tourney that in recent years, teams that were ranked/seeded outside the top 8 have won the title.

So if we have 8 teams, we can't have a G5 auto-bid, that trades off too much predictive power for diversity/inclusion.

Quo,
Can’t you throw a bone to the g5? One of your teams—SFU—is a member.
12-06-2017 10:43 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 14,172
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 718
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #38
RE: Never thought I ever agree with Dennis Dodd
(12-06-2017 09:35 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(12-06-2017 08:35 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  health concerns issue is totally bogus. 4 of the 8 play just one game just like now. 4 play 2 games like 2 do now. Only 2 teams play 1 extra game. Bottom line is nothing changes for 126 of the 130 BCS schools.

I guess there should be data on whether there are more injuries in FBS or FCS? If, because FBS athletes are bigger/faster/stronger than FCS athletes, injuries are more frequent in FBS, then that would support the notion that a 16 or 24 team playoff isn't a good idea from a health POV for FBS.

If not, then not.
There is. The three service academies have done their own homework and have concluded that playing against the larger players in the P5 and top G5 schools is not sustainable for their athletes if those schools comprise the majority of their annual schedules. The average 80lbs of weight they give up across the O & D lines has significantly raised their number of injuries.
12-06-2017 11:09 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
dbackjon Online
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,127
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 183
I Root For: NAU/Illini
Location:
Post: #39
RE: Never thought I ever agree with Dennis Dodd
(12-06-2017 11:09 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(12-06-2017 09:35 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(12-06-2017 08:35 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  health concerns issue is totally bogus. 4 of the 8 play just one game just like now. 4 play 2 games like 2 do now. Only 2 teams play 1 extra game. Bottom line is nothing changes for 126 of the 130 BCS schools.

I guess there should be data on whether there are more injuries in FBS or FCS? If, because FBS athletes are bigger/faster/stronger than FCS athletes, injuries are more frequent in FBS, then that would support the notion that a 16 or 24 team playoff isn't a good idea from a health POV for FBS.

If not, then not.
There is. The three service academies have done their own homework and have concluded that playing against the larger players in the P5 and top G5 schools is not sustainable for their athletes if those schools comprise the majority of their annual schedules. The average 80lbs of weight they give up across the O & D lines has significantly raised their number of injuries.

Then they should drop to FCS, or sit out the playoffs.
12-06-2017 11:31 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 14,172
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 718
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #40
RE: Never thought I ever agree with Dennis Dodd
(12-06-2017 11:31 AM)dbackjon Wrote:  
(12-06-2017 11:09 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(12-06-2017 09:35 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(12-06-2017 08:35 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  health concerns issue is totally bogus. 4 of the 8 play just one game just like now. 4 play 2 games like 2 do now. Only 2 teams play 1 extra game. Bottom line is nothing changes for 126 of the 130 BCS schools.

I guess there should be data on whether there are more injuries in FBS or FCS? If, because FBS athletes are bigger/faster/stronger than FCS athletes, injuries are more frequent in FBS, then that would support the notion that a 16 or 24 team playoff isn't a good idea from a health POV for FBS.

If not, then not.
There is. The three service academies have done their own homework and have concluded that playing against the larger players in the P5 and top G5 schools is not sustainable for their athletes if those schools comprise the majority of their annual schedules. The average 80lbs of weight they give up across the O & D lines has significantly raised their number of injuries.

Then they should drop to FCS, or sit out the playoffs.

I think they will be in the FCS some day. But it's probably a point of contention with the old guys and new commandants. The younger leadership sees it as counterproductive to the mission of the school to play in the G5/P5 in as much as they are heavily invested in the cadets who play and when they suffer a "career" ending injury that investment is lost. The objective remains producing career military officers. They see sports, especially football as being good for the development of character under pressure and leadership. But their height and weight restrictions put them at a severe disadvantage in the days of 6'7'' 350lb defensive ends.
12-06-2017 12:32 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 3 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.