CSNbbs

Full Version: Interesting idea to count G5 games as only 1/2 win for P5
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3
Amy Daughters wrote and interesting article, making a suggestion to count G5 opponents as only half a P5. It had an interesting impact on how the Playoff standings would have looked

Oklahoma, Wisconsin, Clemson and Georgia would have been the 4. Ohio State and Alabama might not have qualified.

http://www.fbschedules.com/2018/06/what-...-full-win/

She admits it has flaws, but it could push for more schedule equity in P5, forcing the SEC and ACC to add an additional power opponent to be on par with the B1G , P12 and B12. Of course the ACC and SEC schools with built in P5 rivals like Georgia (GT) and Clemson (So Car) get that 10th P5 opponent.

While I believe Alabama is ridiculously loaded and hard to keep out of a Playoff, and would get in by any rules they have to play by, it's clear that Saban sets up the most minimum path to get there, so he has to be forced by rules to play on a level playing field. Unfortunately there are enough college coaches like him that some sort of weighting much worse non-power opponents, especially any scheduled after September.

Anyway I like Daughters' concept, although I think it's unworkable in anything like the method she laid out..
(06-27-2018 12:39 AM)Stugray2 Wrote: [ -> ]Amy Daughters wrote and interesting article, making a suggestion to count G5 opponents as only half a P5. It had an interesting impact on how the Playoff standings would have looked

Oklahoma, Wisconsin, Clemson and Georgia would have been the 4. Ohio State and Alabama might not have qualified.

http://www.fbschedules.com/2018/06/what-...-full-win/

She admits it has flaws, but it could push for more schedule equity in P5, forcing the SEC and ACC to add an additional power opponent to be on par with the B1G , P12 and B12. Of course the ACC and SEC schools with built in P5 rivals like Georgia (GT) and Clemson (So Car) get that 10th P5 opponent.

While I believe Alabama is ridiculously loaded and hard to keep out of a Playoff, and would get in by any rules they have to play by, it's clear that Saban sets up the most minimum path to get there, so he has to be forced by rules to play on a level playing field. Unfortunately there are enough college coaches like him that some sort of weighting much worse non-power opponents, especially any scheduled after September.

Anyway I like Daughters' concept, although I think it's unworkable in anything like the method she laid out..

Thats really just a back door way of advocating an effective P5-G5 split. It also officially would eliminate any G5 from the playoff as no G could ever finish with more than 10 wins (and that would require scheduling 4 P5s in OOC and going undefeated.

I think what this really brings out is the fact that every FBS conference is different. Some are generally weaker than others---but almost every conference is capable of producing a pretty decent team. Thats why you really need to come up with a system that creates a path to the playoffs that is entirely played out on the field. All 5 P5 champs are in---the top G5 champ is in---and 2 wild cards (just to give the stupid committee something to do). Let the post season games be the place where we find out whether a champion with an inferior resume is actually inferior---I'd rather do that than pretend like a bunch of know it alls in a smoke filled room are any more accurate at measuring these champions than a table full of college football fans in a Toledo sports bar on their 4th pitcher of beer.
Title is not quite right. Here's the quote:

Quote:Let’s say, perhaps, that programs are awarded ¾ of a win for a victory over a non-Power FBS foe (a Group of 5 member) and ½ of a win for an FCS opponent.
Could it transform the way teams approach scheduling?

I like it for the scheduling aspect - especially since the CFP has already shown that they are back to the "SoS doesn't matter as much as not losing" thinking which has plagued college football for decades.
Or we could just go to 5+1+2 playoff and eliminate virtually all of these debates
(06-27-2018 12:39 AM)Stugray2 Wrote: [ -> ]Amy Daughters wrote and interesting article, making a suggestion to count G5 opponents as only half a P5. It had an interesting impact on how the Playoff standings would have looked

Oklahoma, Wisconsin, Clemson and Georgia would have been the 4. Ohio State and Alabama might not have qualified.

http://www.fbschedules.com/2018/06/what-...-full-win/

She admits it has flaws, but it could push for more schedule equity in P5, forcing the SEC and ACC to add an additional power opponent to be on par with the B1G , P12 and B12. Of course the ACC and SEC schools with built in P5 rivals like Georgia (GT) and Clemson (So Car) get that 10th P5 opponent.

While I believe Alabama is ridiculously loaded and hard to keep out of a Playoff, and would get in by any rules they have to play by, it's clear that Saban sets up the most minimum path to get there, so he has to be forced by rules to play on a level playing field. Unfortunately there are enough college coaches like him that some sort of weighting much worse non-power opponents, especially any scheduled after September.

Anyway I like Daughters' concept, although I think it's unworkable in anything like the method she laid out..

No.
Why on Earth should a team get more credit for a win over Kansas or Wake Forest than a win over UCF or Houston?
Hell, why should a team get more credit for a win over Rutgers or Purdue than a win over James Madison or North Dakota State?
(06-27-2018 05:49 AM)Gamecock Wrote: [ -> ]Or we could just go to 6+1+2 playoff and eliminate virtually all of these debates

6+1+2?
(06-27-2018 07:33 AM)Nerdlinger Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-27-2018 05:49 AM)Gamecock Wrote: [ -> ]Or we could just go to 6+1+2 playoff and eliminate virtually all of these debates

6+1+2?

Probably meant 5+1+2, P5+G5+2 at-large
(06-27-2018 07:33 AM)Nerdlinger Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-27-2018 05:49 AM)Gamecock Wrote: [ -> ]Or we could just go to 6+1+2 playoff and eliminate virtually all of these debates

6+1+2?

JohnBragg corrected me. 5 champs, 1 G5 champ, 2 at large
It's a dumb idea.

It's also oddly P5 centric. It belittles the value of the G5 team and players.
(06-27-2018 06:49 AM)Chappy Wrote: [ -> ]Why on Earth should a team get more credit for a win over Kansas or Wake Forest than a win over UCF or Houston?

Bingo!

Taking it a step further, some of the best G5 schools in a given year are as good as or better than 80-90% of the P5 (as evident by UCF beating Auburn last year).
WTF??
No.
(06-27-2018 08:08 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote: [ -> ]It's a dumb idea.

It's also oddly P5 centric. It belittles the value of the G5 team and players.

You mean teams like UCF? Seems like the polls did that already.
(06-27-2018 05:49 AM)Gamecock Wrote: [ -> ]Or we could just go to 5+1+2 playoff and eliminate virtually all of these debates

Well yeah!

Give me the P5 champs plus the top G5 conference champ and 2 at-large and let's see what shakes out!
(06-27-2018 06:51 AM)Chappy Wrote: [ -> ]Hell, why should a team get more credit for a win over Rutgers or Purdue than a win over James Madison or North Dakota State?

Agreed with this. Records and schedules should be determined in a game-by-game basis. Who did you play? What was the result? Where was the game? Etc. USC bearing Rutgers in Los Angeles shouldn’t mean nearly as much as Florida St beating Boise St in Boise.
It simply reflects the weirdness of American sports, especially in intercollegiate athletics.

We are nation that enshrined in our foundational law, the Constitution that there is to be no nobility or titles recognized. You don't get to be the Count of Chapel Hill based on winning the genetic lottery.

But in intercollegiate athletics the idea of royalty and bloodline is alive and well.

Merely holding membership in a P5 conference does not mean you are better than all of the G5 or even half of G5. Being a G5 does not confer upon you superiority over FCS schools and being FCS does not automatically mean you field better teams than Division II schools.

The idea of enshrining the superiority of a team simply because they were considered worthy of joining what became a power conference 80 years ago is about as damned un-American as it gets.

It is hard to climb a level in intercollegiate athletics but a school can certainly choose courses of action that put them on that path.

Imagine Utah, Louisville, and TCU having to climb up when they are 3/4ths of a "real" football program in addition to the other obstacles they had to overcome.

They got the chance to play high quality games because their opponents knew that those schools wouldn't hurt their reputation because of their established quality. Making them 3/4ths they would have played weaker schedules and not have been as highly regarded.

Damn stupid idea.
(06-27-2018 08:58 AM)arkstfan Wrote: [ -> ]It simply reflects the weirdness of American sports, especially in intercollegiate athletics.

We are nation that enshrined in our foundational law, the Constitution that there is to be no nobility or titles recognized. You don't get to be the Count of Chapel Hill based on winning the genetic lottery.

But in intercollegiate athletics the idea of royalty and bloodline is alive and well.

Merely holding membership in a P5 conference does not mean you are better than all of the G5 or even half of G5. Being a G5 does not confer upon you superiority over FCS schools and being FCS does not automatically mean you field better teams than Division II schools.

The idea of enshrining the superiority of a team simply because they were considered worthy of joining what became a power conference 80 years ago is about as damned un-American as it gets.

It is hard to climb a level in intercollegiate athletics but a school can certainly choose courses of action that put them on that path.

Imagine Utah, Louisville, and TCU having to climb up when they are 3/4ths of a "real" football program in addition to the other obstacles they had to overcome.

They got the chance to play high quality games because their opponents knew that those schools wouldn't hurt their reputation because of their established quality. Making them 3/4ths they would have played weaker schedules and not have been as highly regarded.

Damn stupid idea.


In TCU's case, they were already nobility, then pushed down and out, then had to come back.
I didn't like the notion that some Americans should count as 3/5 of a citizen, and I don't care for this.
Pages: 1 2 3
Reference URL's