(11-22-2017 02:46 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  First, as i said, those Utah and Boise wins are mentioned. But as i also correctly said, nobody seriously argues that they were screwed out of a shot at the title - the issue here.

But they did drive "tweaks" to the BCS formula, guaranteeing a spot to a top 14 champ. (There were a couple of iterations, I can't remember details.)

Quote:Second, you mentioned that the BCS had human polls, but still claimed there was "not much subjectivity" in the process, when in fact the human polls were always 50% to 75% of the BCS process, meaning there was a whole lot of subjectivity in it. That's what i was correcting you about.

People's opinions are subjective, but a decision by a dozen people in a committee "feels" more subjective than a decision by a hundred or a few hundred people in a poll (even if we know that the people voting in those polls often don't care and hand it off to a 25-year-old barely out of grad school).

And long term, it will be a rallying point for the claim that the G5 Access Bowl should convert to a G5 autobid when the playoff expands from 4-8 (at the end of the 12-year contract).

(11-22-2017 03:26 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(11-22-2017 02:46 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  First, as i said, those Utah and Boise wins are mentioned. But as i also correctly said, nobody seriously argues that they were screwed out of a shot at the title - the issue here.

But they did drive "tweaks" to the BCS formula, guaranteeing a spot to a top 14 champ. (There were a couple of iterations, I can't remember details.)

Quote:Second, you mentioned that the BCS had human polls, but still claimed there was "not much subjectivity" in the process, when in fact the human polls were always 50% to 75% of the BCS process, meaning there was a whole lot of subjectivity in it. That's what i was correcting you about.

People's opinions are subjective, but a decision by a dozen people in a committee "feels" more subjective than a decision by a hundred or a few hundred people in a poll (even if we know that the people voting in those polls often don't care and hand it off to a 25-year-old barely out of grad school).

And long term, it will be a rallying point for the claim that the G5 Access Bowl should convert to a G5 autobid when the playoff expands from 4-8 (at the end of the 12-year contract).

My recollection is that the tweaks to the BCS formula were driven more by external politics - sabre rattling by influential congressmen - than organically from within the BCS conferences themselves.

As for long term, i don't think there will be an auto-bid for the G5 in an 8 team playoff. Too few slots to make that a guarantee. And that's on a sound basis, as most years, the 8th best P5 team is going to be considerably better than the best G5 team.

Quote:My recollection is that the tweaks to the BCS formula were driven more by external politics - sabre rattling by influential congressmen - than organically from within the BCS conferences themselves.

The pressure was not from within the BCS conferences, true. But Senator Foghorn Leghorn had a lot more to work with when he could wave around an undefeated lower-FBS team that didn't sniff the big-boy postseason and use that to raise hell. Senator Rubio has ties to Florida and Miami, but I don't think those alumni bases would hold it against him if he went to bat for UCF.

Quote:As for long term, i don't think there will be an auto-bid for the G5 in an 8 team playoff. Too few slots to make that a guarantee.

By the end of the 12 year cycle, most every P5 conference is going to remember the sting of that year(those years) where they got left out of the playoff. P5 autobids are going to be built in.

I don't see the Division I Board of Directors (10 P5, 5 G5, 10 I-AA, 10 I-AAA) approving an 8-team playoff if the G5 is screaming bloody murder about not being included on basically the same terms as the CFP.

Quote:And that's on a sound basis, as most years, the 8th best P5 team is going to be considerably better than the best G5 team.

That is undoubtedly true, but is beside the point. IF the bracket were based on the CFP rankings as of today, #11 USC and #14 UCF would be in while #7 Georgia and #8 Notre Dame would be out.

One other thing: A G5 autobid gives a built-in advantage most years to the No. 1 seed. Going by the CFP rankings, Alabama would get #14 UCF rather than #11 USC or #8 Notre Dame. That helps make the end of the regular season count for something, unlike the college basketball conference tournaments.

The Powers That Be worry about undermining the importance (and the TV ratings) for the regular season. They don't want college football to end up like college basketball, where there isn't a ton of urgency for the top 25 in the home stretch of the conference season and in the conference tournaments--they're going to the NCAAs no matter what, their seed is pretty well set (maybe they play themselves up or down a seed line based on their last five games, but it's not life or death.)

In a pure 8 team field, the No. 1 team in the country about now is pretty much guaranteed a spot--there's really no set of circumstances where the Auburn game and the SEC title game drop Alabama below No. 8. Miami and Clemson are in a similar situation, but not quite as secure.

That's not ideal for college football or for the TV networks. They want the Iron Bowl and the SEC and ACC title games to be life-or-death for the players and for the fans at home, not just playing for who gets a home game and who goes on the road in the quarterfinals. (Or if they're played at traditional bowl sites, not even that.)

But if you have 5 automatic bids, then if Alabama loses a game they could have problems. Alabama and the Miami-Clemson loser *probably* get one of the three at-large bids, but it's not a lock because you never know. With a G5 autobid, and only 2 at-large bids, a one-loss Alabama and the Miami-Clemson loser are really taking their chances. Maybe Ohio State or TCU beats Wisconsin or Oklahoma in an overtime nail-biter. Same with Auburn and Georgia, if Alabama lost to Auburn.

That's going to be something that The Powers That Be Take into account.

(11-22-2017 03:25 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-22-2017 06:49 AM)otown Wrote:  

(11-21-2017 10:28 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-21-2017 08:01 PM)otown Wrote:  So my question is, why on GOD's green Earth did they jump UCF? If the committee thought that MS State's resume as a 3 loss team is better than UCF factoring in the close loss to Alabama and the win against LSU...... then why were they not ranked ahead of UCF last week?

Seriously, why do you care? How on earth does it matter whether UCF is ranked #14 or #15?

I could see this mattering to a P5 team, like say Oklahoma State, because a P5 team ranked around #15 needs to get into the top 12 or so to get in to an NY6 bowl, so in that case, #14 or #15 could make all the difference.

But UCF? Thanks to the CFP version of Affirmative Action, the G5 set-aside game, it doesn't matter. All you need to do is win the AAC and you will get an NY6 slot no matter what your ranking.

So ... why the whining?

The whining is because it does have implications. I know you are very narrow minded, kind of like lights on and lights off. Every little bit matters because where they finish the year will translate into preseason polls next year. A team ranked top 10 mid season by the human polls will aid in perception when the CFP comes out.

Secondly, let's say they are ranked high during the season and drop one game, it gives them a cushion against other G5s battling for position. Doesn't matter at this point since you need to be a conference champ, but will in future seasons if it happens. Seriously, if you won a million bucks on powerball, you would pout about not winning the half billion jackpot. Try not to be so narrow minded sometimes, you may appreciate life better.

Wow, you spill some verbiage without explaining how it matters at all whether UCF is #14 or #15. At most, it's the tiniest kind of nit-pick, evidence of a pedantic mindset.

And yet I'm allegedly the 'narrow-minded' one?

I wouldn't expect a narrow mind to look at the big picture. Surprise surprise

Those small bumps week after week make a difference, and it sure of a hell makes a difference if you drop one mid season and fall back with regards to the G5 Access bowl. You want as much room as possible for error, but keeping a proverbial ceiling in the mid teens makes it unfair to that team because once they hit that ceiling, other G5 teams catch them from behind despite winning.....then all it takes is one loss mid season to lose all that ground.

All I ask is consistency from the committee and the whole aspect of them liking UCF's resume over MS State last week and then gushing over MS State after a nail biter win over a horrible Arkansas shows just the opposite. If one examines the committee over the season, these inconsistencies will appear quite frequently. Also, please don't think these inconsistencies do not take place within the P5 rankings as well, because they do.

However, continue to ignore the facts. I know it must be tough when you view things through a tunnel and miss the entire mountain that the tunnel is going through.

(11-22-2017 03:26 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(11-22-2017 02:46 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  First, as i said, those Utah and Boise wins are mentioned. But as i also correctly said, nobody seriously argues that they were screwed out of a shot at the title - the issue here.

But they did drive "tweaks" to the BCS formula, guaranteeing a spot to a top 14 champ. (There were a couple of iterations, I can't remember details.)

Quote:Second, you mentioned that the BCS had human polls, but still claimed there was "not much subjectivity" in the process, when in fact the human polls were always 50% to 75% of the BCS process, meaning there was a whole lot of subjectivity in it. That's what i was correcting you about.

People's opinions are subjective, but a decision by a dozen people in a committee "feels" more subjective than a decision by a hundred or a few hundred people in a poll (even if we know that the people voting in those polls often don't care and hand it off to a 25-year-old barely out of grad school).

And long term, it will be a rallying point for the claim that the G5 Access Bowl should convert to a G5 autobid when the playoff expands from 4-8 (at the end of the 12-year contract).

Exactly. We made the CFP MUCH easier to control. It was essentially impossible to extert full control over 100's or thousands of poll voters. Very easy to seat a dozen monolithic hive minded drones designed to limit the outcome to 20 or so key brand names every year. If you think a 3-loss team jumping UCF is jumping the shark, wait till the dreaded 4-loss team jumps UCF. Thats what happened last year to WMU (lol...so, maybe the AAC is getting more respect?).

Here's where Im at. By thier own definition---the committee is tasked with ranking the "best" 25 teams. Not the "most deserving"--but the "best". Does anyonre really think UCF isnt likley a top 10 team? Does anyone really think they cant and likely wouldn't beat most of the current top 10?

The truth is the polls have not had a G5 in the top 10 at the end of the regular season since 2013. Yet, in 75% of the cases the top G5 champ (ranked well out of the top 10) beat its P5 top 10 opponent in the BCS/access bowl. Even more interesting--none of those G5 teams that won those games were undefeated. Hell, one had 2 losses. So that is a MASSIVELY STRONG indication that in REAL LIFE there are likely "1-loss" G5 teams that probably should be ranked ahead of "1-loss" (and certainly 2-loss) P5 teams. Of course, I have a life size picture of that happening with the current stacked committee.

Sorry--the CFP Selection Committee has finally jumped the shark with this last poll with respect to the G5 vs P5 issue. Keep it up, and there is going to be a lawsuit. The G5 was told they would have access to the playoff.
If a imaginary screen called the "eye test" and the SOS argument are going to underpin the CFP Committee stacked with virtually all P5 representatives to the extent that 3-loss P5 teams are judged superior to an undefeated G5 team---then the G5 effectively does not have access to the playoff.

(11-22-2017 05:04 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-22-2017 03:26 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(11-22-2017 02:46 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  First, as i said, those Utah and Boise wins are mentioned. But as i also correctly said, nobody seriously argues that they were screwed out of a shot at the title - the issue here.

But they did drive "tweaks" to the BCS formula, guaranteeing a spot to a top 14 champ. (There were a couple of iterations, I can't remember details.)

Quote:Second, you mentioned that the BCS had human polls, but still claimed there was "not much subjectivity" in the process, when in fact the human polls were always 50% to 75% of the BCS process, meaning there was a whole lot of subjectivity in it. That's what i was correcting you about.

People's opinions are subjective, but a decision by a dozen people in a committee "feels" more subjective than a decision by a hundred or a few hundred people in a poll (even if we know that the people voting in those polls often don't care and hand it off to a 25-year-old barely out of grad school).

And long term, it will be a rallying point for the claim that the G5 Access Bowl should convert to a G5 autobid when the playoff expands from 4-8 (at the end of the 12-year contract).

Exactly. We made the CFP MUCH easier to control. It was essentially impossible to extert full control over 100's or thousands of poll voters. Very easy to seat a dozen monolithic hive minded drones designed to limit the outcome to 20 or so key brand names every year. If you think a 3-loss team jumping UCF is jumping the shark, wait till the dreaded 4-loss team jumps UCF. Thats what happened last year to WMU (lol...so, maybe the AAC is getting more respect?).

I don't think that's exactly *true*, but the fact that it's not automatically out-of-the-question insane is the strongest argument that the old BCS ranking system was better for college football than the CFP committee system. Even if the outcomes are exactly the same, the CFP is open to charges of bias of various kinds in a way that the BCS formula wasn't.

(11-22-2017 05:13 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(11-22-2017 05:04 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-22-2017 03:26 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(11-22-2017 02:46 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  First, as i said, those Utah and Boise wins are mentioned. But as i also correctly said, nobody seriously argues that they were screwed out of a shot at the title - the issue here.

But they did drive "tweaks" to the BCS formula, guaranteeing a spot to a top 14 champ. (There were a couple of iterations, I can't remember details.)

Quote:Second, you mentioned that the BCS had human polls, but still claimed there was "not much subjectivity" in the process, when in fact the human polls were always 50% to 75% of the BCS process, meaning there was a whole lot of subjectivity in it. That's what i was correcting you about.

People's opinions are subjective, but a decision by a dozen people in a committee "feels" more subjective than a decision by a hundred or a few hundred people in a poll (even if we know that the people voting in those polls often don't care and hand it off to a 25-year-old barely out of grad school).

And long term, it will be a rallying point for the claim that the G5 Access Bowl should convert to a G5 autobid when the playoff expands from 4-8 (at the end of the 12-year contract).

Exactly. We made the CFP MUCH easier to control. It was essentially impossible to extert full control over 100's or thousands of poll voters. Very easy to seat a dozen monolithic hive minded drones designed to limit the outcome to 20 or so key brand names every year. If you think a 3-loss team jumping UCF is jumping the shark, wait till the dreaded 4-loss team jumps UCF. Thats what happened last year to WMU (lol...so, maybe the AAC is getting more respect?).

I don't think that's exactly *true*, but the fact that it's not automatically out-of-the-question insane is the strongest argument that the old BCS ranking system was better for college football than the CFP committee system. Even if the outcomes are exactly the same, the CFP is open to charges of bias of various kinds in a way that the BCS formula wasn't.

Well...the first year Baylor/TCU experience would be my support for that argument. I mean, if TCU is undefeated they will get in (lol...begrudgingly so, I imagine). But that bias pales in comparison to the G5/P5 bias being exhibited by the committee.

(11-22-2017 05:22 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-22-2017 05:13 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  I don't think that's exactly *true*, but the fact that it's not automatically out-of-the-question insane is the strongest argument that the old BCS ranking system was better for college football than the CFP committee system. Even if the outcomes are exactly the same, the CFP is open to charges of bias of various kinds in a way that the BCS formula wasn't.

Well...the first year Baylor/TCU experience would be my support for that argument. I mean, if TCU is undefeated they will get in (lol...begrudgingly so, I imagine). But that bias pales in comparison to the G5/P5 bias being exhibited by the committee.

True. Ohio State saved the committee a lot of grief by winning the title. If they had laid an egg, the squawking from Big 12 country would have been deafening, not just loud and persistent. On the other hand, Ohio STate *did* win the national championship, so their inclusion was retroactively justified. (I still wonder if the committee was happy to lay down a marker that an early-season out-of-conference loss wasn't the end of your season in the CFP era).

Last year, even with Ohio State getting blanked against Clemson, the committee caught a break when Penn State couldn't handle USC. (I'm not convinced that Ohio STate's blood is bluer than Penn STate's though.)

(11-22-2017 03:36 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-22-2017 03:26 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(11-22-2017 02:46 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  First, as i said, those Utah and Boise wins are mentioned. But as i also correctly said, nobody seriously argues that they were screwed out of a shot at the title - the issue here.

But they did drive "tweaks" to the BCS formula, guaranteeing a spot to a top 14 champ. (There were a couple of iterations, I can't remember details.)

Quote:Second, you mentioned that the BCS had human polls, but still claimed there was "not much subjectivity" in the process, when in fact the human polls were always 50% to 75% of the BCS process, meaning there was a whole lot of subjectivity in it. That's what i was correcting you about.

People's opinions are subjective, but a decision by a dozen people in a committee "feels" more subjective than a decision by a hundred or a few hundred people in a poll (even if we know that the people voting in those polls often don't care and hand it off to a 25-year-old barely out of grad school).

And long term, it will be a rallying point for the claim that the G5 Access Bowl should convert to a G5 autobid when the playoff expands from 4-8 (at the end of the 12-year contract).

And that's on a sound basis, as most years, the 8th best P5 team is going to be considerably better than the best G5 team.

2004 Utah ranked #6. CFP with their "subjectivity" will no way have them at 6. Just look at their schedule that year. Nevertheless, they played a Big East special that year lol.

2006 Boise State Football team was #8 going into the bowl while Oklahoma was #10. You remember the outcome. Putting their season into the CFP, they would probably be 20-25. If you don't believe me, take a look at their schedule that year.

2008 #7 Utah hands #4 Alabama a loss. No way in hell they are #7 with the CFP.

In 2009 both Boise and TCU would be ranked in the teens, you and I both know in this current CFP climate. Look at their schedules.

2010 TCU, look at their schedule. there is no way in hell they are ranked #3 based on this committee's performance and "subjectivity". They beat a #4 Wisconsin who would probably be in a playoff scenario this year (hell, the beat #1 Ohio State that year).

2014, finally the era of the CFP. In BCS years, Boise would have probably been top 15 going into the game vs #11 Arizona. However, the entered the game as #21 and won.

2015 Houston up to #14 going into the Peach bowl and hands #9 FSU a loss.

Any one of those 8 teams would perform better and I would say were better than any #8 P5 the past 13 years. So that contradicts your statement.

However, something I just realized, you can clearly see that with the current CFP committee in place, we will never see G5 teams get anywhere close the top 4, even though the BCS had it happen and more times than not they were at least in the hunt for a top 4.

So the G5 really sold their soul with this system. However, this does not change the fact that your utter bias about "more times than not the top G5 would be a lesser candidate than the #8 P5 school" is inherently wrong. Every one of those G5 teams dating back to 2004 would have been nowhere near top 8 in this current system.

Lastly, lets not pretend the #8 seed in a playoff is a cakewalk. Why don't you put your bias to good use and just say its a deserved bye for the #1 team to play them. If you are afraid of the G5 team actually winning the whole damn thing, then you are part of the problem.

Oh, and GO knights this Friday because the cows only know how to do one thing.......that is to choke and keep a clean and empty trophy case.

(11-22-2017 04:55 PM)otown Wrote:  

(11-22-2017 03:25 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-22-2017 06:49 AM)otown Wrote:  

(11-21-2017 10:28 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-21-2017 08:01 PM)otown Wrote:  So my question is, why on GOD's green Earth did they jump UCF? If the committee thought that MS State's resume as a 3 loss team is better than UCF factoring in the close loss to Alabama and the win against LSU...... then why were they not ranked ahead of UCF last week?

Seriously, why do you care? How on earth does it matter whether UCF is ranked #14 or #15?

I could see this mattering to a P5 team, like say Oklahoma State, because a P5 team ranked around #15 needs to get into the top 12 or so to get in to an NY6 bowl, so in that case, #14 or #15 could make all the difference.

But UCF? Thanks to the CFP version of Affirmative Action, the G5 set-aside game, it doesn't matter. All you need to do is win the AAC and you will get an NY6 slot no matter what your ranking.

So ... why the whining?

The whining is because it does have implications. I know you are very narrow minded, kind of like lights on and lights off. Every little bit matters because where they finish the year will translate into preseason polls next year. A team ranked top 10 mid season by the human polls will aid in perception when the CFP comes out.

Secondly, let's say they are ranked high during the season and drop one game, it gives them a cushion against other G5s battling for position. Doesn't matter at this point since you need to be a conference champ, but will in future seasons if it happens. Seriously, if you won a million bucks on powerball, you would pout about not winning the half billion jackpot. Try not to be so narrow minded sometimes, you may appreciate life better.

Wow, you spill some verbiage without explaining how it matters at all whether UCF is #14 or #15. At most, it's the tiniest kind of nit-pick, evidence of a pedantic mindset.

And yet I'm allegedly the 'narrow-minded' one?

I wouldn't expect a narrow mind to look at the big picture. Surprise surprise

Those small bumps week after week make a difference, and it sure of a hell makes a difference if you drop one mid season and fall back with regards to the G5 Access bowl. You want as much room as possible for error, but keeping a proverbial ceiling in the mid teens makes it unfair to that team because once they hit that ceiling, other G5 teams catch them from behind despite winning.....then all it takes is one loss mid season to lose all that ground.

All I ask is consistency from the committee and the whole aspect of them liking UCF's resume over MS State last week and then gushing over MS State after a nail biter win over a horrible Arkansas shows just the opposite. If one examines the committee over the season, these inconsistencies will appear quite frequently. Also, please don't think these inconsistencies do not take place within the P5 rankings as well, because they do.

However, continue to ignore the facts. I know it must be tough when you view things through a tunnel and miss the entire mountain that the tunnel is going through.

I haven't ignored the most important fact: That your arse-hurt over MSST jumping UCF hasn't changed the fact that whether UCF is #14 or #15 doesn't make an iota of difference to anything, this year or next. It's pedantic.

(11-22-2017 06:27 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-22-2017 04:55 PM)otown Wrote:  

(11-22-2017 03:25 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-22-2017 06:49 AM)otown Wrote:  

(11-21-2017 10:28 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Seriously, why do you care? How on earth does it matter whether UCF is ranked #14 or #15?

I could see this mattering to a P5 team, like say Oklahoma State, because a P5 team ranked around #15 needs to get into the top 12 or so to get in to an NY6 bowl, so in that case, #14 or #15 could make all the difference.

But UCF? Thanks to the CFP version of Affirmative Action, the G5 set-aside game, it doesn't matter. All you need to do is win the AAC and you will get an NY6 slot no matter what your ranking.

So ... why the whining?

The whining is because it does have implications. I know you are very narrow minded, kind of like lights on and lights off. Every little bit matters because where they finish the year will translate into preseason polls next year. A team ranked top 10 mid season by the human polls will aid in perception when the CFP comes out.

Secondly, let's say they are ranked high during the season and drop one game, it gives them a cushion against other G5s battling for position. Doesn't matter at this point since you need to be a conference champ, but will in future seasons if it happens. Seriously, if you won a million bucks on powerball, you would pout about not winning the half billion jackpot. Try not to be so narrow minded sometimes, you may appreciate life better.

Wow, you spill some verbiage without explaining how it matters at all whether UCF is #14 or #15. At most, it's the tiniest kind of nit-pick, evidence of a pedantic mindset.

And yet I'm allegedly the 'narrow-minded' one?

I wouldn't expect a narrow mind to look at the big picture. Surprise surprise

Those small bumps week after week make a difference, and it sure of a hell makes a difference if you drop one mid season and fall back with regards to the G5 Access bowl. You want as much room as possible for error, but keeping a proverbial ceiling in the mid teens makes it unfair to that team because once they hit that ceiling, other G5 teams catch them from behind despite winning.....then all it takes is one loss mid season to lose all that ground.

All I ask is consistency from the committee and the whole aspect of them liking UCF's resume over MS State last week and then gushing over MS State after a nail biter win over a horrible Arkansas shows just the opposite. If one examines the committee over the season, these inconsistencies will appear quite frequently. Also, please don't think these inconsistencies do not take place within the P5 rankings as well, because they do.

However, continue to ignore the facts. I know it must be tough when you view things through a tunnel and miss the entire mountain that the tunnel is going through.

I haven't ignored the most important fact: That your arse-hurt over MSST jumping UCF hasn't changed the fact that whether UCF is #14 or #15 doesn't make an iota of difference to anything, this year or next. It's pedantic.

Exactly what I expected from a narrow minded individual. No answer, only tangential diatribes. Not butt hurt since UCF doesn't deserve the playoffs this year, so more than content adding to the trophy case at the expense of the cows.

(11-22-2017 03:51 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

Quote:My recollection is that the tweaks to the BCS formula were driven more by external politics - sabre rattling by influential congressmen - than organically from within the BCS conferences themselves.

The pressure was not from within the BCS conferences, true. But Senator Foghorn Leghorn had a lot more to work with when he could wave around an undefeated lower-FBS team that didn't sniff the big-boy postseason and use that to raise hell. Senator Rubio has ties to Florida and Miami, but I don't think those alumni bases would hold it against him if he went to bat for UCF.

I don't agree. The key driver of the process was Senator Hatch, and he had a unique situation in that he represented a state that had two good non-AQ schools, BYU and Utah, and no Power schools. So since basically his entire constituency was fans who thought the BCS was unfair, he was free to rail about the injustice of the system without fear of harming his Power school constituency, because he had none. But trust me, here in Louisiana, where LSU is King despite the presence of god knows how many G5 schools (maybe 6?), there's no way LSU fans would want anything that would equalize or lend more legitimacy to the G5.

Likewise, a Senator Rubio would have to contend with the fact that UF, FSU, and Miami fans in no way want USF and UCF or FAU and FIU to be brought up level in some way. So with that kind of split, he's not going to touch it with a 10 foot pole. Heck IIRC, he's a Florida and Miami graduate.

Quote:As for long term, i don't think there will be an auto-bid for the G5 in an 8 team playoff. Too few slots to make that a guarantee.

By the end of the 12 year cycle, most every P5 conference is going to remember the sting of that year(those years) where they got left out of the playoff. P5 autobids are going to be built in.


I don't think so, because every P5 will likely get a rep in anyway, champ or not, which is what matters, and if your champ isn't good enough to be #8 or better, heck, you don't deserve the playoffs. Enjoy the Rose Bowl.

I don't see the Division I Board of Directors (10 P5, 5 G5, 10 I-AA, 10 I-AAA) approving an 8-team playoff if the G5 is screaming bloody murder about not being included on basically the same terms as the CFP.

They will bow to whatever the P5 wants, because the P5 can always just threaten to leave them behind. There's no way the G5 could hold them hostage on that. The G5 will take solace with the fact that with 3 at large, they have a better chance at the playoffs than they had before.

Quote:And that's on a sound basis, as most years, the 8th best P5 team is going to be considerably better than the best G5 team.

That is undoubtedly true, but is beside the point. IF the bracket were based on the CFP rankings as of today, #11 USC and #14 UCF would be in while #7 Georgia and #8 Notre Dame would be out.

Yes, but I don't think many want that. The idea is to get the best teams in, not conference champs in. I think most would consider this scenario to be a step backwards to the old BCS, where a #12 champ gets a BCS bowl while a #5 non-champ doesn't. Sure, while the big bowls were the only game in town, the P5 liked their champs getting in to a major bowl regardless, and with an 8-team playoff they would still put them in a big bowl. But the playoffs should be about who is best. Nobody wants to see a worse team make the playoffs over a better one.

(11-22-2017 06:41 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  [quote='johnbragg' pid='14810772' dateline='1511383882']

Quote:I don't agree. The key driver of the process was Senator Hatch, and he had a unique situation in that he represented a state that had two good non-AQ schools, BYU and Utah, and no Power schools. So since basically his entire constituency was fans who thought the BCS was unfair, he was free to rail about the injustice of the system without fear of harming his Power school constituency, because he had none. But trust me, here in Louisiana, where LSU is King despite the presence of god knows how many G5 schools (maybe 6?), there's no way LSU fans would want anything that would equalize or lend more legitimacy to the G5.

You're right about Hatch. But I think Florida might be a little different than Louisiana--Louisiana is basically LSU and nothing else. Florida has long been split between UF, FSU, then Miami. UCF and USF have a ton of alumni (they may have been commuter students, and they may be Florida or Miami t-shirt fans, but they'll jump on their school's bandwagon if it's rolling). So I wouldn't be surprised to see Rubio pound his fist on the table a little bit.

Quote:Likewise, a Senator Rubio would have to contend with the fact that UF, FSU, and Miami fans in no way want USF and UCF or FAU and FIU to be brought up level in some way. [/color]

IS it bringing them up a level, or is it keeping them where they already are with the Access Bowl?

[quote]I don't think so, because every P5 will likely get a rep in anyway, champ or not, which is what matters, and if your champ isn't good enough to be #8 or better, heck, you don't deserve the playoffs. Enjoy the Rose Bowl.

Right now, the PAC would be out in the cold. And for the rest of the 12-year CFP period, at least one P5 is going to get left out of the semi-finals, and every year #5 and #6 is going to feel like they got jobbed out of their rightful spot. Baylor and TCU in 2014, Penn State last year, etc etc.

Generally, every change is made with the motivation of fixing the problems with the old system. So I think that the conferences will demand autobids.

Quote:They will bow to whatever the P5 wants, because the P5 can always just threaten to leave them behind. There's no way the G5 could hold them hostage on that. The G5 will take solace with the fact that with 3 at large, they have a better chance at the playoffs than they had before.

You're right about the pure power politics. But looking at the record, there's a strong reluctance to take things away. The Utah/Boise rule got upgraded during one BCS cycle, and evolved into the Access Bowl. The division of CFP revenues was (to me and you) surprisingly generous to the G5.

I expect that to continue. The P5 likes having punching bags to pad their records.

Quote:And that's on a sound basis, as most years, the 8th best P5 team is going to be considerably better than the best G5 team.

That is undoubtedly true, but is beside the point. IF the bracket were based on the CFP rankings as of today, #11 USC and #14 UCF would be in while #7 Georgia and #8 Notre Dame would be out.

Yes, but I don't think many want that.

You're not being precise, Quo. Many college football fans and ESPN watchers want the 8 best teams. ESPN would prefer the 8 best teams.

But the people making the decisions are the 5 commissioners of the power conferences, with buy-in from the presidents and ADs and in partnership with the TV networks.

Quote:The idea is to get the best teams in, not conference champs in. I think most would consider this scenario to be a step backwards to the old BCS, where a #12 champ gets a BCS bowl while a #5 non-champ doesn't.

The general public will be too busy celebrating 8 teams instead of four to worry about it. Plus, generally the "First Out" of the 8-team field will have lost a CCG, so sympathy will be limited.

Quote:Sure, while the big bowls were the only game in town, the P5 liked their champs getting in to a major bowl regardless, and with an 8-team playoff they would still put them in a big bowl.

With an 8 team playoff, there are no "big non-playoff bowls."

Quote:But the playoffs should be about who is best. Nobody wants to see a worse team make the playoffs over a better one.

If you're talking about autobids in general, then you're wrong. Nobody wants to see their champ get left out just because there's a more deserving team from another conference.

If you're talking about the G5 autobid, you're right. But the hidden upside is it keeps the pressure on late in the regular season--even if you're #1 going into Thanksgiving weekend, if you lose your last game you could end up out of the playoff.

(11-22-2017 06:36 PM)otown Wrote:  

(11-22-2017 06:27 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-22-2017 04:55 PM)otown Wrote:  

(11-22-2017 03:25 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-22-2017 06:49 AM)otown Wrote:  The whining is because it does have implications. I know you are very narrow minded, kind of like lights on and lights off. Every little bit matters because where they finish the year will translate into preseason polls next year. A team ranked top 10 mid season by the human polls will aid in perception when the CFP comes out.

Secondly, let's say they are ranked high during the season and drop one game, it gives them a cushion against other G5s battling for position. Doesn't matter at this point since you need to be a conference champ, but will in future seasons if it happens. Seriously, if you won a million bucks on powerball, you would pout about not winning the half billion jackpot. Try not to be so narrow minded sometimes, you may appreciate life better.

Wow, you spill some verbiage without explaining how it matters at all whether UCF is #14 or #15. At most, it's the tiniest kind of nit-pick, evidence of a pedantic mindset.

And yet I'm allegedly the 'narrow-minded' one?

I wouldn't expect a narrow mind to look at the big picture. Surprise surprise

Those small bumps week after week make a difference, and it sure of a hell makes a difference if you drop one mid season and fall back with regards to the G5 Access bowl. You want as much room as possible for error, but keeping a proverbial ceiling in the mid teens makes it unfair to that team because once they hit that ceiling, other G5 teams catch them from behind despite winning.....then all it takes is one loss mid season to lose all that ground.

All I ask is consistency from the committee and the whole aspect of them liking UCF's resume over MS State last week and then gushing over MS State after a nail biter win over a horrible Arkansas shows just the opposite. If one examines the committee over the season, these inconsistencies will appear quite frequently. Also, please don't think these inconsistencies do not take place within the P5 rankings as well, because they do.

However, continue to ignore the facts. I know it must be tough when you view things through a tunnel and miss the entire mountain that the tunnel is going through.

I haven't ignored the most important fact: That your arse-hurt over MSST jumping UCF hasn't changed the fact that whether UCF is #14 or #15 doesn't make an iota of difference to anything, this year or next. It's pedantic.

Exactly what I expected from a narrow minded individual. No answer, only tangential diatribes.

I rebutted every one of your claims and exposed you as a pedant. That's enough for today.

(11-22-2017 08:55 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-22-2017 06:36 PM)otown Wrote:  

(11-22-2017 06:27 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-22-2017 04:55 PM)otown Wrote:  

(11-22-2017 03:25 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Wow, you spill some verbiage without explaining how it matters at all whether UCF is #14 or #15. At most, it's the tiniest kind of nit-pick, evidence of a pedantic mindset.

And yet I'm allegedly the 'narrow-minded' one?

I wouldn't expect a narrow mind to look at the big picture. Surprise surprise

Those small bumps week after week make a difference, and it sure of a hell makes a difference if you drop one mid season and fall back with regards to the G5 Access bowl. You want as much room as possible for error, but keeping a proverbial ceiling in the mid teens makes it unfair to that team because once they hit that ceiling, other G5 teams catch them from behind despite winning.....then all it takes is one loss mid season to lose all that ground.

All I ask is consistency from the committee and the whole aspect of them liking UCF's resume over MS State last week and then gushing over MS State after a nail biter win over a horrible Arkansas shows just the opposite. If one examines the committee over the season, these inconsistencies will appear quite frequently. Also, please don't think these inconsistencies do not take place within the P5 rankings as well, because they do.

However, continue to ignore the facts. I know it must be tough when you view things through a tunnel and miss the entire mountain that the tunnel is going through.

I haven't ignored the most important fact: That your arse-hurt over MSST jumping UCF hasn't changed the fact that whether UCF is #14 or #15 doesn't make an iota of difference to anything, this year or next. It's pedantic.

Exactly what I expected from a narrow minded individual. No answer, only tangential diatribes.

I rebutted every one of your claims and exposed you as a pedant. That's enough for today.

Sure you did lol. Keep telling yourself that while you drink cow plop laced coffee

(11-22-2017 06:27 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-22-2017 04:55 PM)otown Wrote:  

(11-22-2017 03:25 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-22-2017 06:49 AM)otown Wrote:  

(11-21-2017 10:28 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Seriously, why do you care? How on earth does it matter whether UCF is ranked #14 or #15?

I could see this mattering to a P5 team, like say Oklahoma State, because a P5 team ranked around #15 needs to get into the top 12 or so to get in to an NY6 bowl, so in that case, #14 or #15 could make all the difference.

But UCF? Thanks to the CFP version of Affirmative Action, the G5 set-aside game, it doesn't matter. All you need to do is win the AAC and you will get an NY6 slot no matter what your ranking.

So ... why the whining?

The whining is because it does have implications. I know you are very narrow minded, kind of like lights on and lights off. Every little bit matters because where they finish the year will translate into preseason polls next year. A team ranked top 10 mid season by the human polls will aid in perception when the CFP comes out.

Secondly, let's say they are ranked high during the season and drop one game, it gives them a cushion against other G5s battling for position. Doesn't matter at this point since you need to be a conference champ, but will in future seasons if it happens. Seriously, if you won a million bucks on powerball, you would pout about not winning the half billion jackpot. Try not to be so narrow minded sometimes, you may appreciate life better.

Wow, you spill some verbiage without explaining how it matters at all whether UCF is #14 or #15. At most, it's the tiniest kind of nit-pick, evidence of a pedantic mindset.

And yet I'm allegedly the 'narrow-minded' one?

I wouldn't expect a narrow mind to look at the big picture. Surprise surprise

Those small bumps week after week make a difference, and it sure of a hell makes a difference if you drop one mid season and fall back with regards to the G5 Access bowl. You want as much room as possible for error, but keeping a proverbial ceiling in the mid teens makes it unfair to that team because once they hit that ceiling, other G5 teams catch them from behind despite winning.....then all it takes is one loss mid season to lose all that ground.

All I ask is consistency from the committee and the whole aspect of them liking UCF's resume over MS State last week and then gushing over MS State after a nail biter win over a horrible Arkansas shows just the opposite. If one examines the committee over the season, these inconsistencies will appear quite frequently. Also, please don't think these inconsistencies do not take place within the P5 rankings as well, because they do.

However, continue to ignore the facts. I know it must be tough when you view things through a tunnel and miss the entire mountain that the tunnel is going through.

I haven't ignored the most important fact: That your arse-hurt over MSST jumping UCF hasn't changed the fact that whether UCF is #14 or #15 doesn't make an iota of difference to anything, this year or next. It's pedantic.

Its only significant for future seasons at it sets and artificial ceiling that will make it "appear" the committee is being fair and reasonable (and it will be given its past biased behavior) when it takes a true top 4 G5 and ranks them #10. BTW--thats what I think they would have done with Houston last year had they won out (well, maybe they might put them to #8--but nowhere near #4).

(11-21-2017 08:01 PM)otown Wrote:  Did I miss something? I surely did. Is this current Arkansas team some sort of a power to be reckoned with?

Their season so far includes wins against:
Fl A&M 49-7....currently a 3 win team
Coastal Carolina 39-38...... currently a 2 win team
NM State 42-24....currently a 4 win team
Ole Miss 38-37..... currently a 5 win team

We all know that there is P5 bias. I get it....... but at least make it believable and don't contradict yourself if your one single job is to do serious rankings and analyze all the games.

Last week's rankings, a 3 loss MS State is ranked behind an undefeated UCF. this weekend, both UCF and MS State win. UCF wins against Temple in Philly handily 45-19. MS State wins on a last second score against that Arkansas team whose horrific season is listed above.

So my question is, why on GOD's green Earth did they jump UCF? If the committee thought that MS State's resume as a 3 loss team is better than UCF factoring in the close loss to Alabama and the win against LSU...... then why were they not ranked ahead of UCF last week? What was the argument to jump UCF this week? What warranted the jump? MS State's close win against a horrible Arkansas and a blowout by UCF against Temple should do just the opposite.

Yes, one can just discount it as P5 bias.......one can even say that all they care about is positioning the top 4........however, they still have a job to do and the positioning of the G5 champ is their second job........ they should at least act competent doing it...... its not that hard.

To answer the OP question: The committee is lazy beyond the top 4 and probably would have ranked Mississippi State in front of UCF last week but didn't get around to it.

Back in 2014, Mississippi State was ranked behind Michigan State (with the higher ranked team getting the Orange Bowl bid) the week before the final poll, and then the Committee flipped them in a week when neither played and nothing particularly shocking happened. Michigan State fans who'd already booked their Orange Bowl tickets were understandably pissed, and the Committee never gave an explanation.

Of course, looking at the schedules, the Committee got it right by putting Mississippi State in front of the Spartans - they were just didn't care enough to get it right every week. Similarly, I bet someone on the Committee just spoke up this past weekend and said "hey, we really should have Mississippi State ahead of UCF" and the rest of the Committee said OK.

(11-23-2017 01:13 AM)jhn31 Wrote:  

(11-21-2017 08:01 PM)otown Wrote:  Did I miss something? I surely did. Is this current Arkansas team some sort of a power to be reckoned with?

Their season so far includes wins against:
Fl A&M 49-7....currently a 3 win team
Coastal Carolina 39-38...... currently a 2 win team
NM State 42-24....currently a 4 win team
Ole Miss 38-37..... currently a 5 win team

We all know that there is P5 bias. I get it....... but at least make it believable and don't contradict yourself if your one single job is to do serious rankings and analyze all the games.

Last week's rankings, a 3 loss MS State is ranked behind an undefeated UCF. this weekend, both UCF and MS State win. UCF wins against Temple in Philly handily 45-19. MS State wins on a last second score against that Arkansas team whose horrific season is listed above.

So my question is, why on GOD's green Earth did they jump UCF? If the committee thought that MS State's resume as a 3 loss team is better than UCF factoring in the close loss to Alabama and the win against LSU...... then why were they not ranked ahead of UCF last week? What was the argument to jump UCF this week? What warranted the jump? MS State's close win against a horrible Arkansas and a blowout by UCF against Temple should do just the opposite.

Yes, one can just discount it as P5 bias.......one can even say that all they care about is positioning the top 4........however, they still have a job to do and the positioning of the G5 champ is their second job........ they should at least act competent doing it...... its not that hard.

To answer the OP question: The committee is lazy beyond the top 4 and probably would have ranked Mississippi State in front of UCF last week but didn't get around to it.

Back in 2014, Mississippi State was ranked behind Michigan State (with the higher ranked team getting the Orange Bowl bid) the week before the final poll, and then the Committee flipped them in a week when neither played and nothing particularly shocking happened. Michigan State fans who'd already booked their Orange Bowl tickets were understandably pissed, and the Committee never gave an explanation.

Of course, looking at the schedules, the Committee got it right by putting Mississippi State in front of the Spartans - they were just didn't care enough to get it right every week. Similarly, I bet someone on the Committee just spoke up this past weekend and said "hey, we really should have Mississippi State ahead of UCF" and the rest of the Committee said OK.

Correct. The committee is unreliable and inconsistent. There needs to be a more transparent process. Like I said, this crap happens in the P5 rankings as well.

(11-22-2017 09:36 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-22-2017 06:27 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-22-2017 04:55 PM)otown Wrote:  

(11-22-2017 03:25 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-22-2017 06:49 AM)otown Wrote:  The whining is because it does have implications. I know you are very narrow minded, kind of like lights on and lights off. Every little bit matters because where they finish the year will translate into preseason polls next year. A team ranked top 10 mid season by the human polls will aid in perception when the CFP comes out.

Secondly, let's say they are ranked high during the season and drop one game, it gives them a cushion against other G5s battling for position. Doesn't matter at this point since you need to be a conference champ, but will in future seasons if it happens. Seriously, if you won a million bucks on powerball, you would pout about not winning the half billion jackpot. Try not to be so narrow minded sometimes, you may appreciate life better.

Wow, you spill some verbiage without explaining how it matters at all whether UCF is #14 or #15. At most, it's the tiniest kind of nit-pick, evidence of a pedantic mindset.

And yet I'm allegedly the 'narrow-minded' one?

I wouldn't expect a narrow mind to look at the big picture. Surprise surprise

Those small bumps week after week make a difference, and it sure of a hell makes a difference if you drop one mid season and fall back with regards to the G5 Access bowl. You want as much room as possible for error, but keeping a proverbial ceiling in the mid teens makes it unfair to that team because once they hit that ceiling, other G5 teams catch them from behind despite winning.....then all it takes is one loss mid season to lose all that ground.

All I ask is consistency from the committee and the whole aspect of them liking UCF's resume over MS State last week and then gushing over MS State after a nail biter win over a horrible Arkansas shows just the opposite. If one examines the committee over the season, these inconsistencies will appear quite frequently. Also, please don't think these inconsistencies do not take place within the P5 rankings as well, because they do.

However, continue to ignore the facts. I know it must be tough when you view things through a tunnel and miss the entire mountain that the tunnel is going through.

I haven't ignored the most important fact: That your arse-hurt over MSST jumping UCF hasn't changed the fact that whether UCF is #14 or #15 doesn't make an iota of difference to anything, this year or next. It's pedantic.

Its only significant for future seasons at it sets and artificial ceiling that will make it "appear" the committee is being fair and reasonable (and it will be given its past biased behavior) when it takes a true top 4 G5 and ranks them #10. BTW--thats what I think they would have done with Houston last year had they won out (well, maybe they might put them to #8--but nowhere near #4).

Exactly
Its nice to see people that actually look at the big picture.