(02-17-2021 07:31 PM)NoQuarterBrigade Wrote:  

(02-17-2021 05:20 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-17-2021 04:23 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  Commissioner Aresco seems to believe that a 5-1-2 type of arrangement, with 6 auto-qualifiers would be likely if the CFP is expanded.

A decision to select the top 8-ranked teams in the CFP ratings would be considered both problematic and controversial for two reasons:

1) It would be too likely that 1 or 2 P5 conferences would be over-represented in the CFP field.

--Four Big Ten teams would have qualified in 2016.

--Three SEC teams would have qualified in 2013, 2017 and 2020.

--Three Big Ten teams would have qualified in 2015.

2) It would be too likely that 1 or more of the P5 conferences wouldn't be represented.

--No PAC-12 team would have qualified in 2018 or 2020.

3) The top non-P5 team would rarely qualify.

--No non-P5 team would have qualified in 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, or 2019.

Well, Commissioner Aresco might be right about 5-1-2 being most likely if the CFP expanded, or he might not be. Time will tell.

As for what is problematic, about the three points you make:

(1) Does not seem to be a problem unless one thinks that conference socialism is the way to go. If one conference has four of the eight best teams, then it should get four teams in to the playoffs. A better team should not be admitted in favor of a worse team just because of conference affiliation.

(2) Does not strike me as a problem either, because if PAC team isn't one of the eight best, there's no good reason for a PAC team to make the field. This is a corollary to point (1).

(3) Again, if the top non-P team is not among the eight best, it's no loss not to have them included, any more than it is a loss to have any other team not amongst the eight best included.

So for my part, I do like the "straight 8" approach if we must have expanded playoffs (which I do not favor).

But we shall see what happens.

Again, again, again, disagree. The so called teams you are suggesting that are better than the others, are being ranked in that manner because of overwhelming biases and perceptions. There are a number of examples out there such as Iowa State from this past season. This is a big problem with college football. You don’t want it to be an SEC invitational. It’s not healthy for the sport. What he has suggested is a good model if it is going to be an 8 team playoff.

This straight 8 stuff is going to get 3 conferences and Notre Dame in the playoff almost every year. Since you are in favor of a smaller playoff because you don’t think these other teams are worthy, then you would want the model he suggested. If they went straight 8, everyone would be crying foul until they expanded again to 12 or 16 because of the biases. If you have a 5-2-1 it enhances regular season football because these other teams not being included every year would now know if they obtain that goal, winning conference title, or being the best of the G5 would get them in the playoff. More would be on the line with the 5-2-1 model.

Who cares about the 3rd or 4th best team in the SEC being left out? Should win their conference championship and eliminate any disputes. Quit their whining. At least they have a shot because of their affiliation.

I have some problems with your approach. First, I don't think college football fundamentally needs "more on the line" in lots of conferences. College football has worked fine for 130 years. It would actually bother me if say a game between two 8-3 PAC teams that are no good in a national sense is a "big game" because the winner will win the PAC and get its auto-bid to the playoffs while a clearly better 9-1 B1G teams next game is not so big because an 11-0 team has won their conference so they are out. That's not merit, that's artificially creating a big game with an arbitrary autobid rule. I don't think you can fool savvy college football fans in to buying that.

So I want to see the best teams play. If three of the best happen to be from the SEC then fine, just like if 8 of the best hoops teams are from the B1G, fine. Also, the 5-1-2 model only provides a "path" to the playoff for P5 teams. For the G5 teams, it would be the same old beauty contest approach with biases and perceptions determining if a the CUSA or AAC or MW champ was best. I suspect AAC fans are big supporters of 5-1-2 because they figure these overwhelming biases will work in favor of the AAC champ more years than not.

Finally, If you are concerned about biases, then I would be happy to let a BCS-type configuration of multiple computers make the eight choices in a straight 8 rather than humans in a smoke-filled room.

(02-17-2021 07:31 PM)NoQuarterBrigade Wrote:  This straight 8 stuff is going to get 3 conferences and Notre Dame in the playoff almost every year. Since you are in favor of a smaller playoff because you don’t think these other teams are worthy, then you would want the model he suggested. If they went straight 8, everyone would be crying foul until they expanded again to 12 or 16 because of the biases. If you have a 5-2-1 it enhances regular season football because these other teams not being included every year would now know if they obtain that goal, winning conference title, or being the best of the G5 would get them in the playoff. More would be on the line with the 5-2-1 model.

True.

(02-17-2021 07:54 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

Quote:Finally, If you are concerned about biases, then I would be happy to let a BCS-type configuration of multiple computers make the eight choices in a straight 8 rather than humans in a smoke-filled room.

Finally I agree with you Quo. I would take that in a heartbeat over what we have now. But not the straight 8.

My problem with the whole "computer rankings "thing is that that is where the biases start. If the SEC starts with 9 teams in the top 25 every year and 45 of the top 50 are in p5 conferences, there's no"legitimate"way an AAC team such as Cincy, Memphis can ever statically climb up into contention. I've often stated that no matter where the playoff line is set there's no way any g5 will ever get there. If they came up with an 8-12 team playoff based the top25, they pollsters would never let that happen and they would always have the stats to back them up.

(02-20-2021 07:55 PM)Tigersmoke4 Wrote:  My problem with the whole "computer rankings "thing is that that is where the biases start. If the SEC starts with 9 teams in the top 25 every year and 45 of the top 50 are in p5 conferences, there's no"legitimate"way an AAC team such as Cincy, Memphis can ever statically climb up into contention. I've often stated that no matter where the playoff line is set there's no way any g5 will ever get there. If they came up with an 8-12 team playoff based the top25, they pollsters would never let that happen and they would always have the stats to back them up.

That's not necessarily the case. It depends on the computer formula.

For example, Cincinnati was one of the top 8 teams in the final 2020 FB RPI:

1 Alabama
2 Ohio St.
3 Clemson
4 Texas A&M
5 Cincinnati
6 Notre Dame
7 Georgia
8 Oklahoma

My variation on the 5-1-2 theme is to pair the top two teams not in a CCG (maybe the SEC West or BT East runner-ups, or Notre Dame) in a Wild Card Game that same weekend for 1 of the 2 at large spots. That way 7 of the 8 spots are “won” on the field and no more than 1 spot can go to a potential “loser”.

This gets rid of the bad taste of having a team sit at home, secure of a playoff bid, while the team who beat them has to play an additional Championship game. It also “forces” independents (read: Notre Dame) to play a 13th game to get in. Of course, teams could decline to play in the Wild Card Game but the margins would be slim that they get the final playoff spot.

Any proposal that adds a “round” of games between the regular season and bowls will only be taken seriously if the top teams are playing in that round. FBS does not want to burden “student athletes” with an additional game if all they are getting is a few play-ins between second-tier teams.

While 6/8 champions is a good ratio, I’d set up metrics whereby a P5 could lose their AQ-status or a G5 could earn it. There’d still be a max of 5 AQs, but if there are fewer then the two remaining champion spots would be given to the top 2 non-AQ champs.

I would love to see a playoff system with 10 teams where top 2 seeds gets bye, includes 5-A5 champions, Top 3-G5 champions and 2 at large. That would give us 8 conference champions, top seeds gets rewarded with bye, and 2 at large spots for independents or non champs that are really good teams. keeps the importance on the regular season and keeps fan bases all over the country engaged feeling like they have a chance to be included all season long.

(02-21-2021 05:40 PM)balanced_view Wrote:  I would love to see a playoff system with 10 teams where top 2 seeds gets bye, includes 5-A5 champions, Top 3-G5 champions and 2 at large. That would give us 8 conference champions, top seeds gets rewarded with bye, and 2 at large spots for independents or non champs that are really good teams. keeps the importance on the regular season and keeps fan bases all over the country engaged feeling like they have a chance to be included all season long.

The main problem with anything but a 4, 8, or 16-team playoff is that a "bye" game provides an unfair advantage to the top-seeded teams, and an unfair disadvantage to the less highly-seeded teams

The top-seeded teams already start out with an extra advantage, as it is, since, the top-seed team plays the lowest-seeded team in round 1.

Giving a "bye" to the top two teams would make it harder than it already is for any team other than the top two to make its way to the championship game.