Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Gus Malzahn wants 8-team playoff
Author Message
JHS55 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,668
Joined: Jan 2016
Reputation: 54
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #51
RE: Gus Malzahn wants 8-team playoff
(01-11-2018 07:26 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(01-11-2018 06:36 PM)JHS55 Wrote:  Gosh, this is all hogwash
College football is much bigger than just 5 conferences that have most everything and they want to eliminate all who is not p5 and have their own champion, this much we know is true
So, what happens with the other 5 conferences?
It seems most g5 people are ok with only one team to represent all 63 teams in this p5 league playoffs, how demeaning!
If the g5 completely split off from the NCAA and just create their own division with a real playoff and hope to god NBC or whoever puts up enough money to make a real go at it and mybe some day both FBS D1 divisions will play a collegiate “ super bowl” for all sports really and what about the Olympic sports ?
It would no longer be “ g5”, it would be “G power”
This is my dream and I approve of my dream
Ok, how many of ya think this is stupid ?

26 of those 63 have only been in the top division 25 years or less, with 15 of those 15 years or less. 42 of those 63 have been in Division I for a shorter time than every member of the P5. UL was the most recent, in 1962. FSU is the next most recent at 1955. All the rest of the P5 are WWII or earlier. Only SMU, Rice, Navy (and Army and BYU who aren't technically G5), Colorado St., New Mexico, Wyoming, Utah St., Tulane, UTEP and Tulsa have been around that long from outside the P5. The G5 generally do not have the fan support or investment in the game the P5 do.
So you seem to be saying that there is no room for growth in the g power because these teams haven’t been around long enough to have a fan base and not enough money ?, well then I say it’s time to start a new division and let nature take its course, I think it’s better to start something new than to continue being held down by the current powers to be, there is power out there for the g power to go and get it
(This post was last modified: 01-11-2018 07:51 PM by JHS55.)
01-11-2018 07:45 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 25,618
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 535
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #52
RE: Gus Malzahn wants 8-team playoff
(01-11-2018 07:30 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(01-11-2018 07:16 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-11-2018 07:07 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(01-11-2018 12:43 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(01-11-2018 10:10 AM)eltigre Wrote:  If we had 8 this year, the committee would have ranked UCF at # 9. It's rigged now and will be rigged at 8.

Except I dont think we go to 8 without a guarantee that each P5 champ is an automatic entry. That leaves the door open for the automatic inclusion of the top G5 champ (the access bowl success, the P5 champs being AQ, and the UCF story--in conjuction with anti-trust concerns--probably makes this very likely). I think the 8 team format is one that is going to be small enough, yet inclusive enough--to be remarkably durable for years to come.

I think that is a key part of going to 8, making sure all the best teams have a shot, not just who a small group thinks. Auto bids for the champion is part of that. Reducing the impact of a small group and replacing with objective criteria is a part of that.

We can have objective criteria - an RPI type formula -that doesn't include auto bids for conference champions. Conference champs often aren't deserving of a top 8 ranking. An auto-bid for a conference privileges conference games over OOC games, when if anything we should favor the latter.

That also puts everyone - independents included - on an even keel.

Its very subjective in determining what factors are included in an RPI formula. And it can be gamed. See what the MWC has done in recent years in basketball. They have gotten RPIs much higher than their performance in the tourney because they have worked their schedule around the formula.

Garbage in, garbage out. All of you who love computer formulas need to remember that. Look at the divergence among the computers in the Massey composite.

It's very subjective what factors determine a conference champion. E.g., does a conference have a CCG or not? Does it have separate divisions or not? What are the tie-breakers when teams have the same record? Do all games count or just conference games?

Lots of different ways to structure how to determine a conference champ, and they can be gamed too.

Formulas aren't necessarily any less objective. 07-coffee3
01-12-2018 08:02 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,732
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 394
I Root For: Common Sense
Location: Nunnayadamnbusiness
Post: #53
RE: Gus Malzahn wants 8-team playoff
I don’t think some of you guys are getting this. There’s absolutely no reason to expand if you’re not going to go to automatic bids. You would have the same controversies at 8/9 as you do at 4/5, and as we had previously at 2/3. To be honest, the controversies would probably worsen because as you go further down the list, the resumes become weaker and more similar to each other than those at the top of the rankings.

From where I sit, the whole idea is to make this process as objective and transparent as possible. THAT is the core problem, not the sheer number of teams involved.

I think it’s the most absurd thing in sports that we go into the final weekend of every season having no idea what criteria is being used to determine the playoff participants?

You can argue that the controversies that invariably ensue are somehow “good for the sport” until you are blue in the face but that just defies common sense.

It’s never good for your sport whenever your hard-core fans don’t even know what it takes to make a playoff. If that’s good for the sport, then they should change the scoring rules in football where the officials get to determine how many points each touchdown is worth. Just imagine the controversies that would ensue. It would be incredible!

“Well, fans, this is what you all wanted. The Buckeyes scored four touchdowns and so did the Badgers. After some deliberation, the officials have determined that the Badgers touchdowns were more impressive and definitely passed the “looks test.” Therefore, the Badgers’ touchdowns are worth more than the Buckeyes’ touchdowns. Wisconsin wins, 28–26. I can’t wait to hear people argue about this one at the water cooler on Monday.”

That is exactly the same logic people are employing towards controversies this being good for playoff qualification and it’s flat out stupid. It doesn’t make sense. People would watch college football in GREATER numbers if they thought champions were being determined through legitimate, transparent means.

The original bowl system worked well for the period in which it was invented in the pre-Television era.

Eventually, after decades of cultural changes, they improved upon it with the BCS. That proved insufficient and they ultimately moved to this plus one model we have today (that they have re-branded as a “playoff.”)

All of those systems are insufficient for 2018 people really do want to see the best teams play each other like they do in every other sport. The next move will be towards an eight-team playoff with automatic qualifiers. There’s just no other way to do it. What we have now simply does not work.

Personally, I think it’s a lot easier to justify a 16-team playoff than it is a four-team playoff.
(This post was last modified: 01-12-2018 10:15 AM by Dr. Isaly von Yinzer.)
01-12-2018 09:47 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,732
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 394
I Root For: Common Sense
Location: Nunnayadamnbusiness
Post: #54
RE: Gus Malzahn wants 8-team playoff
So, to recap, I think you have two choices:
You can either have an eight-team playoff with automatic qualifiers for the five major conference champions and a spot for the highest ranked G5 team – provided it meets certain PRE-ESTABLISHED criteria. Fill in the remaining spots with wildcards and there you have it.

Or....

Go to a 16-team playoff with no automatic bids for anyone – just the top 16 teams as determined by the committee . If you want to keep the clandestine/corrupt way of doing it, that’s the only acceptable way to do it. It would still be insufficient, but it would be less controversial than the way they are currently doing it.
01-12-2018 10:20 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BadgerMJ Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 487
Joined: Mar 2017
Reputation: 28
I Root For: Wisconsin / ND
Location: Wisconsin
Post: #55
RE: Gus Malzahn wants 8-team playoff
(01-12-2018 09:47 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  I don’t think some of you guys are getting this. There’s absolutely no reason to expand if you’re not going to go to automatic bids. You would have the same controversies at 8/9 as you do at 4/5, and as we had previously at 2/3. To be honest, the controversies would probably worsen because as you go further down the list, the resumes become weaker and more similar to each other than those at the top of the rankings.

From where I sit, the whole idea is to make this process as objective and transparent as possible. THAT is the core problem, not the sheer number of teams involved.

I think it’s the most absurd thing in sports that we go into the final weekend of every season having no idea what criteria is being used to determine the playoff participants?

You can argue that the controversies that invariably ensue are somehow “good for the sport” until you are blue in the face but that just defies common sense.

It’s never good for your sport whenever your hard-core fans don’t even know what it takes to make a playoff. If that’s good for the sport, then they should change the scoring rules in football where the officials get to determine how many points each touchdown is worth. Just imagine the controversies that would ensue. It would be incredible!

“Well, fans, this is what you all wanted. The Buckeyes scored four touchdowns and so did the Badgers. After some deliberation, the officials have determined that the Badgers touchdowns were more impressive and definitely passed the “looks test.” Therefore, the Badgers’ touchdowns are worth more than the Buckeyes’ touchdowns. Wisconsin wins, 28–26. I can’t wait to hear people argue about this one at the water cooler on Monday.”

That is exactly the same logic people are employing towards controversies this being good for playoff qualification and it’s flat out stupid. It doesn’t make sense. People would watch college football in GREATER numbers if they thought champions were being determined through legitimate, transparent means.

The original bowl system worked well for the period in which it was invented in the pre-Television era.

Eventually, after decades of cultural changes, they improved upon it with the BCS. That proved insufficient and they ultimately moved to this plus one model we have today (that they have re-branded as a “playoff.”)

All of those systems are insufficient for 2018 people really do want to see the best teams play each other like they do in every other sport. The next move will be towards an eight-team playoff with automatic qualifiers. There’s just no other way to do it. What we have now simply does not work.

Personally, I think it’s a lot easier to justify a 16-team playoff than it is a four-team playoff.

I would agree, but I also think that there is a place for being subjective. The problem with going toward more objective "points" is that you've get the same level of arguments as to which points matter most. SOS, margin of victory, W-L. The last thing I want is to go back to the "good old days" when teams would run it up on purpose just to get those extra points from margin of victory. Even those objective points can be subjective as well. SOS is a perfect example. Since games are scheduled years in advance, it's not really fair to down grade a team who scheduled an opponent based on 5 years ago only to have play them in a down turn. Take Wisconsin/BYU. When Wisconsin scheduled them, BYU was a 9-11 win a year team. Is it really their fault they caught BYU on a bit of a downturn?

That's where some level of subjective comes in. Let's face it, a 4-8 SEC or B1G team has more talent and is tougher competition than a 6-6 AAC team. That's just the truth. Playing Rutgers or Arkansas is tougher than playing ECU or UConn. The committee should be allowed to take that into consideration.

I honestly don't have a problem the way things are being done now. Factors are going to change based on the year and the teams involved, let the committee decide what are the best 4 teams.
01-12-2018 10:34 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Big Frog II Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 838
Joined: Nov 2010
Reputation: 28
I Root For: TCU
Location:
Post: #56
RE: Gus Malzahn wants 8-team playoff
8 playoff spots are coming, and that is a good thing.
(This post was last modified: 01-12-2018 03:46 PM by Big Frog II.)
01-12-2018 10:52 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Stugray2 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,340
Joined: Jan 2017
Reputation: 53
I Root For: tOSU SJSU
Location:
Post: #57
RE: Gus Malzahn wants 8-team playoff
It will expand to 8, and probably pretty soon. Three of the 5 P5 conferences are now leaning in that direction, and the offer of an access slot to the G5 would get the AAC and MWC on board as well (MAC will vote with B1G). I think if they held a vote it would be 9-4 (2 votes per P5, 1 per G5) in favor with SBC and CUSA unknown but likely in favor.

The advantages are the following

1. for G5 they actually get their representative in the Playoff, a chance at title
2. for P5 the CCGs actually are for a bid, so have huge meaning, and thus will be worth more money in media, sponsors, tix
3. still doesn't keep a school like Alabama out, plus you add a 2nd P5 at-large
4. makes 4 of the NY6 part of the Playoff instead of just 2, increasing the value of these already rich Bowls
5. adds two semi-final games which will be sold for additional revenue, likely each higher than $20-30M of CCGs.
- these provide a home game for the schools that host; a gate that should yield as much as $10M to the host school

So what we are looking at is guaranteed inclusion of all P5 champions and the G5 rep, plus something over $50M more to be distributed, 75% to the P5 conferences. So more access, more Bowl game rotations in (4 per year instead of 2). Everyone wins something in this. And yes the media wins with more product.

It's going to happen, the only question is in two years of six.
01-12-2018 01:30 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
HeartOfDixie Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 23,089
Joined: Oct 2013
Reputation: 800
I Root For: Alabama
Location: Huntsville AL
Post: #58
RE: Gus Malzahn wants 8-team playoff
This argument will never end.

When we had the BCS #3 was upset. Now that we have 4 in #5 will be upset. If we go to 8 #9 will be upset and so forth and so on.
01-12-2018 03:08 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Stugray2 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,340
Joined: Jan 2017
Reputation: 53
I Root For: tOSU SJSU
Location:
Post: #59
RE: Gus Malzahn wants 8-team playoff
(01-12-2018 03:08 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  This argument will never end.

When we had the BCS #3 was upset. Now that we have 4 in #5 will be upset. If we go to 8 #9 will be upset and so forth and so on.

But the arguments of the 9th and 10th (Wisconsin, Auburn or Washington) will be weak. They will not have won a conference championship game, and are vying for an at-large against somebody with a resume like Alabama or last year Ohio State, and they wont be top 5 in the computer or poll numbers.

Right now the conference champions do not get a bid. The argument of conference champion denied is far stronger than a 2nd or 3rd choice from the SEC, B12, ACC, B1G or P12. Those schools get the consolation New Years Bowls. Auburn laid an egg, making their case extremely weak, and justified the committee taking Alabama as the wild card instead of them or Ohio State.

So I think you are fundamentally wrong on this. Including all the P5 conference champions, plus the top G5 will turn the whiners into the equivalent of the NIT teams who complain about not getting the 35th or 36th at-large bid for the NCAA tourney.
01-12-2018 03:32 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 25,618
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 535
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #60
RE: Gus Malzahn wants 8-team playoff
(01-12-2018 03:32 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  
(01-12-2018 03:08 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  This argument will never end.

When we had the BCS #3 was upset. Now that we have 4 in #5 will be upset. If we go to 8 #9 will be upset and so forth and so on.

But the arguments of the 9th and 10th (Wisconsin, Auburn or Washington) will be weak. They will not have won a conference championship game, and are vying for an at-large against somebody with a resume like Alabama or last year Ohio State, and they wont be top 5 in the computer or poll numbers.

Right now the conference champions do not get a bid. The argument of conference champion denied is far stronger than a 2nd or 3rd choice from the SEC, B12, ACC, B1G or P12. Those schools get the consolation New Years Bowls. Auburn laid an egg, making their case extremely weak, and justified the committee taking Alabama as the wild card instead of them or Ohio State.

So I think you are fundamentally wrong on this. Including all the P5 conference champions, plus the top G5 will turn the whiners into the equivalent of the NIT teams who complain about not getting the 35th or 36th at-large bid for the NCAA tourney.

Thing is, though, the whining from those whose bubble bursts and miss the big dance is at least as loud, arguably louder, than that of the 5th and 6th teams that miss the CFP playoffs.

Heck, Ohio State barely made a wimper this year.
(This post was last modified: 01-12-2018 04:47 PM by quo vadis.)
01-12-2018 04:47 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




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


Copyright © 2002-2018 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, © 2002-2018 MyBB Group.