I am officially in the camp that in an 8 team playoff, the G5 should not have an autobid.
What the G5 should do is trade away an autobid for for the guarantee that ANY undefeated G5 champion will be included in the playoff.
From a recruiting perspective that would be the equivalent of autobids for the AAC, MWC, MAC, CUSA, SBC since any team on any given season could theoretically be in a position to run the table and go to the playoff.
This one autobid for the the G5 helps somewhat for the UCF's, Boise's, App St, FAUs that as G5 conference champions are challengers for the highest ranked G5 spot. For others making the access bowl seems like a remote prospect unless they'v regularly been close to winning their CCG (e.g. Houston, Memphis). Guaranteeing a playoff to an undefeated G5 would open things up.
It would also prevent the playoff from getting saddled with a 2 loss G5 champion.
Kittonhead,
It's easier with the autobid. Undefeated is really not the test. Why punish a Houston or Fresno State or Cincy for scheduling a couple really hard P5 schools and losing one of those? You would just encourage strong G5 schools to never schedule OOC games against top 30 P5 schools. So undefeated is a very bad idea.
The other alternative, setting some arbitrary threshold of ranking or some other criteria, is very hard to judge, because a school running off victories against the likes of Charlotte, ODU, USM, UAB, FIU, simply cannot be measured against a school having to slog through WSU, Stanford, UW, USC and Colorado in the same stretch. So are you relying on a bunch of sports writers and their bias? Or are you relying on some computer program ranking? Or just squinting your eye and making a WAG that they are or are not good enough?
The simpler thing is to just let them in.Boise State their really strong 2004 year probably would have been a 4 seed, this year's UCF team probably a 6 seed, and all other G5 in the Playoff era 8 seeds. It's far better to just limit the committee to seeding the 8 teams, and picking the best two at-large .
(01-11-2018 10:55 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote: [ -> ] (01-11-2018 10:14 AM)CliftonAve 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.
This. There needs to be a G5 guarantee* if they go to 8.
* with condition that undefeated G5 gets an automatic bid. If they have one loss or more can still gain bid if they are ranked in the top 8 by the playoff committee.
Absolutely not.
If you think the weeping and gnashing of teeth is bad now, just wait until you have a couple of the little 5 "champs" all laying claim to being the best of the rest. It might have been clear cut THIS YEAR, but not so much in others.
I love this board because it gives me insight into the many, many G5 school fans' thoughts.
Was there wide debate among G5 fans about UCF (this year), WMU (last year), Houston (2015), or Boise State (2016)? That "auto bid" was awarded via the CFP poll...but was there a lot of debate.
As I ask this, I also have to assume that the "debate" wouldn't be that violent if the G5 got an auto-bid, mostly because the average sports fan wouldn't be as abreast of the G5 teams and conference races. But also because the two at-large spots (this year...Alabama vs. PSU vs. Auburn vs. Wisconsin) would be of more national interest.
(01-12-2018 07:04 PM)Kittonhead Wrote: [ -> ]It would also prevent the playoff from getting saddled with a 2 loss G5 champion.
It wouldn't be a big deal. Every year, the G5 team will be the 8-seed and have to play against #1 (and in my proposal, on the #1 seed's home field!). Boise State was a 2-loss team in 2014...Houston had 1 in 2015...and both WMU and UCF were undefeated.
I think that as long as the G5 are considered in the same "division" as the P5...this is the fairest thing out there. And the "Cinderella" aspect would actually be fun, I believe.
(01-13-2018 08:19 AM)micahandme Wrote: [ -> ] (01-11-2018 10:55 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote: [ -> ] (01-11-2018 10:14 AM)CliftonAve 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.
This. There needs to be a G5 guarantee* if they go to 8.
* with condition that undefeated G5 gets an automatic bid. If they have one loss or more can still gain bid if they are ranked in the top 8 by the playoff committee.
Absolutely not.
If you think the weeping and gnashing of teeth is bad now, just wait until you have a couple of the little 5 "champs" all laying claim to being the best of the rest. It might have been clear cut THIS YEAR, but not so much in others.
I love this board because it gives me insight into the many, many G5 school fans' thoughts.
Was there wide debate among G5 fans about UCF (this year), WMU (last year), Houston (2015), or Boise State (2016)? That "auto bid" was awarded via the CFP poll...but was there a lot of debate.
Maybe surprisingly, the answer is "no". Each of the four years of the CFP, the top G5 team has been readily apparent at the time the selection was made and so there has been no within-G5 complaining over who got the auto-bid.
Earlier in these seasons, like in week 9 or 10, there was jawboning, but by the end, it was settled with no dissension.
I want to see a complete split between the 10 conferences 100%, in all sports not just football
(01-13-2018 03:12 AM)Stugray2 Wrote: [ -> ]Kittonhead,
It's easier with the autobid. Undefeated is really not the test. Why punish a Houston or Fresno State or Cincy for scheduling a couple really hard P5 schools and losing one of those? You would just encourage strong G5 schools to never schedule OOC games against top 30 P5 schools. So undefeated is a very bad idea.
The other alternative, setting some arbitrary threshold of ranking or some other criteria, is very hard to judge, because a school running off victories against the likes of Charlotte, ODU, USM, UAB, FIU, simply cannot be measured against a school having to slog through WSU, Stanford, UW, USC and Colorado in the same stretch. So are you relying on a bunch of sports writers and their bias? Or are you relying on some computer program ranking? Or just squinting your eye and making a WAG that they are or are not good enough?
The simpler thing is to just let them in.Boise State their really strong 2004 year probably would have been a 4 seed, this year's UCF team probably a 6 seed, and all other G5 in the Playoff era 8 seeds. It's far better to just limit the committee to seeding the 8 teams, and picking the best two at-large .
I think its not well understood how difficult it is to go undefeated.
How many undefeated regular seasons has the G5 produced since 2000? I'd say at most probably about 8 undefeated seasons.
If the schedules of the G5 are going to 95% of the time say they don't belong in an 8 team playoff, then maybe they don't belong in the playoff.
Its not like you'll have 5 undefeated G5 champs represented in the playoff, even if its a theoretical possibility. At best I believe is 2 undefeated teams from the G5 ranks.
But from a recruiting standpoint anyone in the G5 could say if they run the table they could make the playoff. That to me is better than an annual autobid for the "highest ranked champion" something the AAC can exploit as the deepest conference in the G5 for recruiting purposes but hurts the others.
(01-13-2018 09:57 AM)JHS55 Wrote: [ -> ]I want to see a complete split between the 10 conferences 100%, in all sports not just football
I agree.
The basketball schools who do not like it will have to pick a conference OR add enough FBS schools to form a conference.
(01-13-2018 11:44 AM)Kittonhead Wrote: [ -> ] (01-13-2018 09:57 AM)JHS55 Wrote: [ -> ]I want to see a complete split between the 10 conferences 100%, in all sports not just football
I agree.
The basketball schools who do not like it will have to pick a conference OR add enough FBS schools to form a conference.
Iam glad you agree kittonhead, that makes I think three of us on here that agree with a complete split, if it did happen then we would hope that the fans would fill up the stadiums