(01-05-2018 12:02 PM)Zombiewoof Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 11:35 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  And they maintain those advantages by having a cartel that freezes those advantages in place and limits others from following and acheving the same level of success.

This is patently untrue. I don't know how old you are, but in my lifetime, the ACC was not considered on the same level as the Big 10 or SEC, but it certainly is now. Penn State and Florida State had to win their way to respectability, but they weren't given "top program" status because someone gave it to them to achieve "fairness."

The advantages aren't "frozen in place" if there is upward mobility. The schools that have been added to the P5 conferences over the years proves that nothing has been static and that programs that commit to their athletics programs have eventually been rewarded with membership to the big boy club. Certainly you can see that nothing is frozen in place if schools like Louisville and Utah get invitations to P5 conferences, as well as returners like TCU. The only thing holding Houston back is demographics or they would already have returned to the club. There is upward mobility, so all of the chest beating about the lack of fairness is just untrue.

Promoting a new member to a cartel does not make it...not a cartel. Those who remain in G5 still have no access to a NC and are still competitively stunted by that fact. They have no control over any upward movement, it is rare, and entirely at the whim of the cartel. Your idea that nobody can claim its not a fair system...is absurd.



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

(01-05-2018 11:54 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  I'm proposing that FBS post-season operate like any other rational and legitimate sports league on the face of the earth and not have half of its divisional title holders excluded prior to any games being played.

If you think you are too rich and too branded to have a real legitimate sports league with current membership then by all means break away and only play each other.

Just stop lording it over members of your league for being "lesser" when you actively rig the system to keep them that way.



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

And it's not like the current powers only built it up. Many others helped build it all up as well. Some have been playing for 100+ years.

(01-05-2018 11:53 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 11:35 AM)Zombiewoof Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 10:57 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  All relevant points. But you also cannot ignore the institutionalized advantages that an Alabama has over a UCF.

Due to the system Alabama has a recruiting advantage over UCF because it has playoff access and UCF does not.

Due to the system Alabama generally has additional home games against ranked foes built-in that UCF does not enjoy.

There are others.

So yes, Alabama is a much better team than UCF is, there is no denying it. But the system is set up to make it easy for Alabama to be a much better team than UCF...in fact almost certain to be a much better team than UCF...every year...no matter what UCF does.

So you have to take that into account when you judge their relative accomplishments.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

So, if I understand you correctly, you believe UCF should be judged on some sort of sliding scale because of inherent disadvantages created by "the system?"

Yes, Alabama has advantages over G5 schools. Do you believe that began with the advent of the playoff structure? Do you sincerely believe the Arkansas State would magically recruit as well as Arkansas if ASU had a legitimate path to the playoffs?

Alabama does not have a recruiting advantage over UCF because it has playoff access and UCF does not. It has a recruiting advantage because of many factors, including having played big boy championship football long before UCF started competing in Division I in 1996. Gifting the G5 schools a playoff spot doesn't change the fact that most highly recruited players are going to want to play in the SEC, Big 10, or ACC instead of the Sun Belt, AAC, or CUSA.

The notion that Western Michigan would somehow begin to recruit on the same level as Michigan if they only had a path to the national championship is patently absurd.

Your assertion about home games against ranked opponents is another straw man. That is a direct result of conference membership. Why do you think any G5 school would jump at the chance to move up to a P5 conference? It isn't because they would have a shot at the national title.

By virtue of their time as major conference football programs (as well as things like flagship status), most P5 schools will maintain recruiting advantages over G5 schools and "the system" won't have anything to do with it. Even when UCF and or USF join a P5 conference (which I expect within the next 7-8 years), they will still have Florida, Florida State and Miami to recruit against, plus all of the other P5 schools that recruit Florida. I would guess that they would still be years away from recruiting at the same level as those schools.

I think very highly of the things that UCF and USF have accomplished in their short time in Division I football. IMO, they will one day be national forces to contend with and "the system" will work in their favor. These schools have played DI football for around 20 years or less, so a little patience seems to be in order.

There's only so many rooms at the inn. Not everyone can be a national power. There's only about 5 who can outside the club, BYU and pretty much anyone that's already been on the inside, like UConn.

People continue to conflate "being a national power" with "playoff access".

No, not everyone can be a national power. But everyone CAN have the same playoff access like every other sports league.

People try to broaden the argument because it is so difficult to defend the absurdity of eliminating half of your members from post-season before a game is played.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

The problem is that it is next to impossible for G5 teams to "earn" the advantages enjoyed by Alabama, LSU, etc. Short of an invitation by the Big 12 or other P5 conference, there is virtually no way for any G5 team to make a 4 team playoff, especially one whose teams are selected by representatives of P5 schools.

It's a caste system. Keep in mind, Houston would have made the playoffs last year had they gone undefeated.

(01-05-2018 12:24 PM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  The problem is that it is next to impossible for G5 teams to "earn" the advantages enjoyed by Alabama, LSU, etc. Short of an invitation by the Big 12 or other P5 conference, there is virtually no way for any G5 team to make a 4 team playoff, especially one whose teams are selected by representatives of P5 schools.

Formally, App-State has the same path to the playoffs as Alabama: Play your season and convince the CFP committee that you are one of the four best teams.

That's it: Same path for Appalachian State and Alabama, Arkansas State and Ohio State.

Committee makeup? Let's be honest. You can complain that the committee has too many P5 reps on it, but any committee other than one consisting of only *G5* reps would put the same teams in. Forget about the CFP, the polls and computers would have had the same playoff teams.

It's not the committee system, it's that the best four teams almost always come from the power conferences.

(01-05-2018 11:35 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 11:30 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 10:44 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 10:29 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 09:48 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  Yes, there is. All conference champions get playoff spots like any real sport.

So if Ark-State wins its conference with a 7-5 record and makes the playoffs, while 12-1 Clemson doesn't win its conference so doesn't make the playoffs, that's "fair"?

In real sports you generally have division champions and a couple of wildcards. This is not unusual or "unfair".

What makes it seem "unfair" in college football is that the cartel structure has stunted any potential parity between conferences and widened the gap.

LSU, Bama, and the rest of the elites have extreme institutionalized recruiting advantages, one of which is the fact that they have playoff access and others do not.

How many wild cards? Not enough to cover the disparity. The NCAA hoops tourney works because there are enough "wild cards" to let all reasonably deserving non-champs in. Football can't do that so auto-bids for champs is a no-go.

Recruiting? LSU and Bama have massive recruiting advantages over Ark-State because they have built up huge fan bases over 120 years of playing football and thus have created an extremely attractive platform - in terms of home attendance, TV, and media attention - for players to play on.

And they maintain those advantages by having a cartel that freezes those advantages in place and limits others from following and acheving the same level of success.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

If LSU started their program now instead of 120 year ago they would never be allowed to grow into the program they have now due to current setup. As a fellow G5 fan that is the most frustrating thing about FBS football.

(01-05-2018 12:24 PM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  The problem is that it is next to impossible for G5 teams to "earn" the advantages enjoyed by Alabama, LSU, etc. Short of an invitation by the Big 12 or other P5 conference, there is virtually no way for any G5 team to make a 4 team playoff, especially one whose teams are selected by representatives of P5 schools.

It's true, but a whole lot of people rationalize it all. That's why CFB is more akin to WWE and ice dancing than it is other sports. You'll never get them to see it.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

@Quo, (66)

Right, is that why an UNDEFEATED UCF team was left out of the top ten, let alone top 5? What do they have to do, win all their games by 50? Or would you just assume none of the teams they played are good at all if they blew everyone out? Until bowl season, they were Memphis' only losses.

It's just a carnival game, rig it so you get the result you want. There's no way to convince the committee of anything, they're bought out.

(01-05-2018 12:20 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  People continue to conflate "being a national power" with "playoff access".

No, not everyone can be a national power. But everyone CAN have the same playoff access like every other sports league.

People try to broaden the argument because it is so difficult to defend the absurdity of eliminating half of your members from post-season before a game is played.

Explain how you create the "fairness" you seek without:

1) being unfair to the programs that invested the time and resources to be where they are
2) asking unfair commitments from the student athletes that would be required to perform to achieve your goals of fairness
3) this all access playoff structure is practical given the constraints of calendar and school years
4) creating a schism between those in the cartel and those seeking to be part of the cartel

By your own admission, not every school can be a national power. Why is that? Is access the determining factor? If not, why should any of the schools trying to ascend to the P5 level get involved in creating access for schools that wouldn't have a legitimate shot at a title anyway. Playing for the national championship isn't the only reason to play the games.

(01-05-2018 12:33 PM)JTApps1 Wrote:  If LSU started their program now instead of 120 year ago they would never be allowed to grow into the program they have now due to current setup. As a fellow G5 fan that is the most frustrating thing about FBS football.

I can't even begin to tell you what a silly argument this is.

(01-05-2018 12:48 PM)Zombiewoof Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 12:33 PM)JTApps1 Wrote:  If LSU started their program now instead of 120 year ago they would never be allowed to grow into the program they have now due to current setup. As a fellow G5 fan that is the most frustrating thing about FBS football.

I can't even begin to tell you what a silly argument this is.

I can begin to tell you why it isn't.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

You don't get to just show up and say "Hi we are here, let us in now"..... you have to earn it like everybody else did.

Just because we all exist in a give it to me now - instant gratification world, it doesn't mean everything works that way. You actually have to prove your worth, you cannot just declare it.

No to over simplify it, but if Arkansas Sate / Umass / Lafayette / Sisters of the Poor or any other school can prove that they can bring value to the table, the P5's would fall all over themselves to invite you.

NOT everybody gets a ******* trophy - GET OVER IT!

(01-05-2018 12:52 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 12:48 PM)Zombiewoof Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 12:33 PM)JTApps1 Wrote:  If LSU started their program now instead of 120 year ago they would never be allowed to grow into the program they have now due to current setup. As a fellow G5 fan that is the most frustrating thing about FBS football.

I can't even begin to tell you what a silly argument this is.

I can begin to tell you why it isn't.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

Then do it. Explain why a school just beginning a football program should be granted equality with a school that has invested 120 years into theirs. This should be good.

The title of this thread is "College football doesn't fairly name a national champion". There is an extraneous, and very misleading, word in that sentence - "fairly".

Including that modifier suggests that college football actually names a national champion. It does not, at least at the FBS level, and it never has. Personally, I find that stance on the part of the NCAA to be philosophically very satisfying. I am quite content to have a season conclude without a definitive pronouncement that some "we" is (are?) Number 1!

We could all pick some arbitrary tournament format and claim that the winner is the national champion. But then, many fans would misinterpret that to mean that the winner is somehow the "best" team. Those would usually be fans of the winning team, while fans of other good teams would continue to make the case that theirs was actually the better team. I don't see how that is much different than what we have now.

I believe the need on the part of Americans (and truth be told, other countries as well) that there only be one winner, and everybody else be losers, is a serious character flaw that does no one any good. Keep things just the way they are.

I said this on another thread, but I'll say it here too...

If you don't like how the "Bowl Subdivision" names their champion; if it is "unfair" and "unjust," if it is not accurate, or whatever... If you think the "Championship Subdivision" does it more fairly or accurately or more justly... Nobody and nothing is stopping any school from reorienting their program to go and join the FCS ranks.

Go.
Do it.
Show us all how much more principled and just it is.

Of course nobody will. Because it would mean giving up $$$ and access to "big name TV games." It would mean giving up the chance a nice bowl destination. It would mean the possibility of having to play an additional four or five games past the season's end.

Without a P5 invitation, there is absolutely nothing UCF could do to make it into a four team playoff. They could build their program for 50 years, and the argument would remain, "Alabama's been around for 175 years. Why should UCF be allowed the same playoff access Alabama so over 100 years longer building?"

The other thing is that only some of the programs have "earned" playoff access, while others have piggybacked on conference mates' "work." UCF, App State, whoever, could move mountains attempting to earn the kind of access to a national championship--the same access Gonzaga and then-Horizon League member Butler had in basketball--but there is no way to get that access in football without a P5 invitation. Meanwhile, schools like Louisville get that access through ethically dubious means, and schools like Washington State and Wake Forest get access by marrying into a league that flourished as time passed.

It's the system and the way it is, fair or not.

(01-05-2018 01:04 PM)ken d Wrote:  The title of this thread is "College football doesn't fairly name a national champion". There is an extraneous, and very misleading, word in that sentence - "fairly".

Including that modifier suggests that college football actually names a national champion. It does not, at least at the FBS level, and it never has. Personally, I find that stance on the part of the NCAA to be philosophically very satisfying. I am quite content to have a season conclude without a definitive pronouncement that some "we" is (are?) Number 1!

We could all pick some arbitrary tournament format and claim that the winner is the national champion. But then, many fans would misinterpret that to mean that the winner is somehow the "best" team. Those would usually be fans of the winning team, while fans of other good teams would continue to make the case that theirs was actually the better team. I don't see how that is much different than what we have now.

I believe the need on the part of Americans (and truth be told, other countries as well) that there only be one winner, and everybody else be losers, is a serious character flaw that does no one any good. Keep things just the way they are.

Why is that always the answer? "If you don't like it, leave." Nobody wants to leave the FBS. They just want improvement.

(01-05-2018 01:00 PM)Zombiewoof Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 12:52 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 12:48 PM)Zombiewoof Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 12:33 PM)JTApps1 Wrote:  If LSU started their program now instead of 120 year ago they would never be allowed to grow into the program they have now due to current setup. As a fellow G5 fan that is the most frustrating thing about FBS football.

I can't even begin to tell you what a silly argument this is.

I can begin to tell you why it isn't.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

Then do it. Explain why a school just beginning a football program should be granted equality with a school that has invested 120 years into theirs. This should be good.

(01-05-2018 01:19 PM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 01:04 PM)ken d Wrote:  The title of this thread is "College football doesn't fairly name a national champion". There is an extraneous, and very misleading, word in that sentence - "fairly".

Including that modifier suggests that college football actually names a national champion. It does not, at least at the FBS level, and it never has. Personally, I find that stance on the part of the NCAA to be philosophically very satisfying. I am quite content to have a season conclude without a definitive pronouncement that some "we" is (are?) Number 1!

We could all pick some arbitrary tournament format and claim that the winner is the national champion. But then, many fans would misinterpret that to mean that the winner is somehow the "best" team. Those would usually be fans of the winning team, while fans of other good teams would continue to make the case that theirs was actually the better team. I don't see how that is much different than what we have now.

I believe the need on the part of Americans (and truth be told, other countries as well) that there only be one winner, and everybody else be losers, is a serious character flaw that does no one any good. Keep things just the way they are.

Why is that always the answer? "If you don't like it, leave." Nobody wants to leave the FBS. They just want improvement.

You say that as if I said or implied it. Maybe you meant to quote some other post that actually did say it.