https://cbssportsradio.radio.com/article...s-overhaul

(10-31-2018 05:25 PM)First Mate Wrote:  https://cbssportsradio.radio.com/article...s-overhaul

This was actually a very good read!


Sent from my Necronomicon using DemonTalk

Wow!! One of the best pieces I’ve ever read on how big a sham the CFP Selection Committee process really is for half of football. Frankly, based on the rankings we have seen to this point, I have a feeling the rumors that the Committee doesnt even watch any G5 football and spends about 2 minutes discussing it are probably true. I'd love for that to start being a major talking point by the G5 leagues (because if true---it explains an awful lot).

Best article on this topic ever. Don’t have any faith that things will change but great to see a national publication expose the obvious bs.

Great piece. As a somewhat young WSU fan in 1982 I saw an interview when Al McGuire was talking about WSU being one of the best teams for 1982 and they were. WSU was coming off an Elite 8 performance, losing to LSU in NOLA. Virtually everyone was coming back along with future first round picks Greg Dreiling and Xavier McDaniel. WSU was returning three NBA players Antoine Carr, Cliff Levingston and Ozell Jones. Basically Packer said no way - no way can a team like WSU win the national championship. Packer was such a douche.

And in 2006 he complained about the MVC getting four teams into the NCAA and two (WSU and Bradley) made the Sweet sixteen.

He is clearly not a good analyst. And thus, he was retired.

(10-31-2018 07:43 PM)vick mike Wrote:  Best article on this topic ever. Don’t have any faith that things will change but great to see a national publication expose the obvious bs.

The more this is talked about openly---the sooner the current system will be undermined and forced to change. This kind of piece is why I do think the next version of the CFP will have a slot reserved for the top G5 champ.

To be fair--comparing G5's and P5's really is difficult because schedule differences absolutely do make it like comparing apples to pears. There are too many differences between the conferences to use a one size fits all templet. Unfortunately, thats what the committee has done---deciding to simply toss aside half of college football as playing an inadequate schedule to qualify. Its fast. Its easy. But its also flawed. The Committee is supposed to be comparing teams---not schedules. You cant eliminate half the teams for something they have little control over (2/3rds of every schedule is completely out their control due to the conference season---and the remaining 4 games are only marginally under their control because they require another party to agree before they can be scheduled).

In the final analysis--(assuming they really tried at all)---the Committee failed horribly at constructing a methodology for comparing teams from very different conferences. I suspect this was primarily due to the massive bias built into the original composition of the membership.

The only way to overcome the massive structural failure within the CFP selection system is to simply require that the Committee place the top G5 champ into the CFP playoff field (because the Committee's built-in bias is such that they are simply incapable of believing a G5 could be worthy---and built a selection model that accurately reflects that bias).
That will likley happen when it expands to 8. The only other way to correct the bias is to make the committee accurately reflectthe membership of FBS. Make the Committee a 10 member panel with one representative coming from each conference. That should help balance the bias that produces such a flawed dismissive selection model.

(10-31-2018 08:01 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-31-2018 07:43 PM)vick mike Wrote:  Best article on this topic ever. Don’t have any faith that things will change but great to see a national publication expose the obvious bs.

The more this is talked about openly---the sooner the current system will be undermined and forced to change. This kind of piece is why I do think the next version of the CFP will have a slot reserved for the top G5 champ.

To be fair--comparing G5's and P5's really is difficult because schedule differences absolutely do make it like comparing apples to pears. There are too many differences between the conferences to use a one size fits all templet. Unfortunately, thats what the committee has done---deciding to simply toss aside half of college football as playing an inadequate schedule to qualify. Its fast. Its easy. But its also flawed. The Committee is supposed to be comparing teams---not schedules. You cant eliminate half the teams for something they have little control over (2/3rds of every schedule is completely out their control due to the conference season---and the remaining 4 games are only marginally under their control because they require another party to agree before they can be scheduled).

In the final analysis--(assuming they really tried at all)---the Committee failed horribly at constructing a methodology for comparing teams from very different conferences. I suspect this was primarily due to the massive bias built into the original composition of the membership.

The only way to overcome the massive structural failure within the CFP selection system is to simply require that the Committee place the top G5 champ into the CFP playoff field (because the Committee's built-in bias is such that they are simply incapable of believing a G5 could be worthy---and built a selection model that accurately reflects that bias).
That will likley happen when it expands to 8. The only other way to correct the bias is to make the committee accurately reflectthe membership of FBS. Make the Committee a 10 member panel with one representative coming from each conference. That should help balance the bias that produces such a flawed dismissive selection model.

Please don't stop getting caught up in "A g5" bid. That doesn't help us. We haven't been investing in that as fans or a conference. It's the AAC p6 or bust, or we'll continue to be arguing with the g4 every year about why their win over UCLA is better than our win over UCLA.

(10-31-2018 08:01 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-31-2018 07:43 PM)vick mike Wrote:  Best article on this topic ever. Don’t have any faith that things will change but great to see a national publication expose the obvious bs.

The more this is talked about openly---the sooner the current system will be undermined and forced to change. This kind of piece is why I do think the next version of the CFP will have a slot reserved for the top G5 champ.

To be fair--comparing G5's and P5's really is difficult because schedule differences absolutely do make it like comparing apples to pears. There are too many differences between the conferences to use a one size fits all templet. Unfortunately, thats what the committee has done---deciding to simply toss aside half of college football as playing an inadequate schedule to qualify. Its fast. Its easy. But its also flawed. The Committee is supposed to be comparing teams---not schedules. You cant eliminate half the teams for something they have little control over (2/3rds of every schedule is completely out their control due to the conference season---and the remaining 4 games are only marginally under their control because they require another party to agree before they can be scheduled).

In the final analysis--(assuming they really tried at all)---the Committee failed horribly at constructing a methodology for comparing teams from very different conferences. I suspect this was primarily due to the massive bias built into the original composition of the membership.

The only way to overcome the massive structural failure within the CFP selection system is to simply require that the Committee place the top G5 champ into the CFP playoff field (because the Committee's built-in bias is such that they are simply incapable of believing a G5 could be worthy---and built a selection model that accurately reflects that bias).
That will likley happen when it expands to 8. The only other way to correct the bias is to make the committee accurately reflectthe membership of FBS. Make the Committee a 10 member panel with one representative coming from each conference. That should help balance the bias that produces such a flawed dismissive selection model.

It’s very simple. You don’t have to compare G5 conf to P5 and worry about who is playing a better schedule. Give all the P5 champs an auto bid and the best G5 team. UCF would be that team last year and this year. Then go with 2 wild cards and you are done with an 8 team playoff.

I prefer 16 teams- 10 D1 conference champs plus 6 wild cards. Every team in D1 has a shot then. The P5s would still get the most teams in but everyone would be in the game.

What we have now is a complete sham and goes against everything college sports should be about.

https://www.reddit.com/r/CFB/comments/9t...h=04e18c40

I posted this article on reddit. Please upvote for visibility if you have an account. It’s getting lots of discussion but is being downvoted by P5ers. Just trying to change perception of the average fan.

(10-31-2018 08:01 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The only other way to correct the bias is to make the committee accurately reflectthe membership of FBS. Make the Committee a 10 member panel with one representative coming from each conference. That should help balance the bias that produces such a flawed dismissive selection model.

You would think there would be some kind of conference parity within the CFP organization. The CFP claims, "Every FBS team has equal access to the playoff based on its performance." The reality is the Board of Managers controls the whole shebang and is represented by 5 presidents and chancellors from the P5 and 5 from the G5, plus 1 from Notre Dame.
https://collegefootballplayoff.com/sport...25311.aspx

In exchange for paying Notre Dame $2.65 million per year as a special case, the P5 can build their own Selection Committee by a vote of 6-5. Notre Dame's special status is what throws the playoff picture out of balance. Hence, the 13 member Selection Committee is made up of 11 P5 reps and 2 outsiders.
https://collegefootballplayoff.com/sport...ittee.aspx

P5s Only Beyond This Point
G5s Use Rear Entrance

Another reason to hate Rudy.

(10-31-2018 08:19 PM)Tigersmoke4 Wrote:  

(10-31-2018 08:01 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-31-2018 07:43 PM)vick mike Wrote:  Best article on this topic ever. Don’t have any faith that things will change but great to see a national publication expose the obvious bs.

The more this is talked about openly---the sooner the current system will be undermined and forced to change. This kind of piece is why I do think the next version of the CFP will have a slot reserved for the top G5 champ.

To be fair--comparing G5's and P5's really is difficult because schedule differences absolutely do make it like comparing apples to pears. There are too many differences between the conferences to use a one size fits all templet. Unfortunately, thats what the committee has done---deciding to simply toss aside half of college football as playing an inadequate schedule to qualify. Its fast. Its easy. But its also flawed. The Committee is supposed to be comparing teams---not schedules. You cant eliminate half the teams for something they have little control over (2/3rds of every schedule is completely out their control due to the conference season---and the remaining 4 games are only marginally under their control because they require another party to agree before they can be scheduled).

In the final analysis--(assuming they really tried at all)---the Committee failed horribly at constructing a methodology for comparing teams from very different conferences. I suspect this was primarily due to the massive bias built into the original composition of the membership.

The only way to overcome the massive structural failure within the CFP selection system is to simply require that the Committee place the top G5 champ into the CFP playoff field (because the Committee's built-in bias is such that they are simply incapable of believing a G5 could be worthy---and built a selection model that accurately reflects that bias).
That will likley happen when it expands to 8. The only other way to correct the bias is to make the committee accurately reflectthe membership of FBS. Make the Committee a 10 member panel with one representative coming from each conference. That should help balance the bias that produces such a flawed dismissive selection model.

Please don't stop getting caught up in "A g5" bid. That doesn't help us. We haven't been investing in that as fans or a conference. It's the AAC p6 or bust, or we'll continue to be arguing with the g4 every year about why their win over UCLA is better than our win over UCLA.

Basically your goal is bust, because if the rankings mean anything you are not or probably won’t for an awful long time be a P6, just battling for scraps like the rest of the G5.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

(10-31-2018 05:25 PM)First Mate Wrote:  https://cbssportsradio.radio.com/article...s-overhaul

I like the idea of eliminating the conference championship game. Instead of having the potential of a 4 or 5 loss team beating the undefeated team in the other division, you can settle on the teams that truly deserve the honor.

The 0 to 2 loss team should never be sitting at home because a lessor team beat them in a winner take all. Why play an entire schedule if the the last game is the only one that really matters.

(10-31-2018 10:24 PM)sfink16 Wrote:  

(10-31-2018 05:25 PM)First Mate Wrote:  https://cbssportsradio.radio.com/article...s-overhaul

I like the idea of eliminating the conference championship game. Instead of having the potential of a 4 or 5 loss team beating the undefeated team in the other division, you can settle on the teams that truly deserve the honor.

The 0 to 2 loss team should never be sitting at home because a lessor team beat them in a winner take all. Why play an entire schedule if the the last game is the only one that really matters.

So now the divisions and ooc schedules are the same?

Nothing needs to be done to the championship games. We decide the auto bid in college basketball on conference tourneys. If there at larges, and there will be, a upset Alabama will just get in on one of those.

I honestly think that we have gone BACKWARDS with the college football playoff.

At least with the BCS --- there was a formula. The formula may have not been perfect. But it was fairly transparent and there was an algorithm that determined the teams that played in the National Championship Game.

Now things are decided by a committee of 13 folk that sit behind closed doors, don't have to provide any sort of logical rationale for their decisions, and are accountable to absolutely nobody.

That's not progress.

(11-01-2018 12:33 AM)Nittany_Bearcat Wrote:  I honestly think that we have gone BACKWARDS with the college football playoff.

At least with the BCS --- there was a formula. The formula may have not been perfect. But it was fairly transparent and there was an algorithm that determined the teams that played in the National Championship Game.

Now things are decided by a committee of 13 folk that sit behind closed doors, don't have to provide any sort of logical rationale for their decisions, and are accountable to absolutely nobody.

That's not progress.

That's the problem with committees. They have specific guidelines, but notice the final bullet point is always "Other Factors," which basically gives them free reign to do whatever they want to prop up their country club member schools. Look at the AAC on Selection Sunday: In our 5 short years, we've been screwed over multiple times by MBB and Baseball selection committees (both in bids and seeding).

(10-31-2018 10:45 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(10-31-2018 10:24 PM)sfink16 Wrote:  

(10-31-2018 05:25 PM)First Mate Wrote:  https://cbssportsradio.radio.com/article...s-overhaul

I like the idea of eliminating the conference championship game. Instead of having the potential of a 4 or 5 loss team beating the undefeated team in the other division, you can settle on the teams that truly deserve the honor.

The 0 to 2 loss team should never be sitting at home because a lessor team beat them in a winner take all. Why play an entire schedule if the the last game is the only one that really matters.

So now the divisions and ooc schedules are the same?

Nothing needs to be done to the championship games. We decide the auto bid in college basketball on conference tourneys. If there at larges, and there will be, a upset Alabama will just get in on one of those.

If Temple wins out, the win the AAC but will mostly not go to the NY6 bowl representing to G5. As a Temple fan, I'm torn because I want Temple to win, but it's not best for the conference and it's future to lose out of the NY6 bowl game, as a 3 loss team. You're OK with that?

(11-01-2018 12:33 AM)Nittany_Bearcat Wrote:  I honestly think that we have gone BACKWARDS with the college football playoff.

At least with the BCS --- there was a formula. The formula may have not been perfect. But it was fairly transparent and there was an algorithm that determined the teams that played in the National Championship Game.

Now things are decided by a committee of 13 folk that sit behind closed doors, don't have to provide any sort of logical rationale for their decisions, and are accountable to absolutely nobody.

That's not progress.

Yup.

The whole system is like letting the foxes run the hen house. Good ole' boys sitting around in a room talking about how tough it is to win on the road in the SEC/Big 10 on the road and how scores of OOC games don't matter because teams "play up" when they play schools in their conference (as if they "play down" the rest of the year).

Its basically Figure Skating at this point--- and we have 6 judges from Russia down voting the American athlete because of politics.

Each time I ponder the unfair playoff selection process, my disgust and vexation renews.

We need a new book:
Death to the CFP

(10-31-2018 09:55 PM)Jjoey52 Wrote:  

(10-31-2018 08:19 PM)Tigersmoke4 Wrote:  

(10-31-2018 08:01 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-31-2018 07:43 PM)vick mike Wrote:  Best article on this topic ever. Don’t have any faith that things will change but great to see a national publication expose the obvious bs.

The more this is talked about openly---the sooner the current system will be undermined and forced to change. This kind of piece is why I do think the next version of the CFP will have a slot reserved for the top G5 champ.

To be fair--comparing G5's and P5's really is difficult because schedule differences absolutely do make it like comparing apples to pears. There are too many differences between the conferences to use a one size fits all templet. Unfortunately, thats what the committee has done---deciding to simply toss aside half of college football as playing an inadequate schedule to qualify. Its fast. Its easy. But its also flawed. The Committee is supposed to be comparing teams---not schedules. You cant eliminate half the teams for something they have little control over (2/3rds of every schedule is completely out their control due to the conference season---and the remaining 4 games are only marginally under their control because they require another party to agree before they can be scheduled).

In the final analysis--(assuming they really tried at all)---the Committee failed horribly at constructing a methodology for comparing teams from very different conferences. I suspect this was primarily due to the massive bias built into the original composition of the membership.

The only way to overcome the massive structural failure within the CFP selection system is to simply require that the Committee place the top G5 champ into the CFP playoff field (because the Committee's built-in bias is such that they are simply incapable of believing a G5 could be worthy---and built a selection model that accurately reflects that bias).
That will likley happen when it expands to 8. The only other way to correct the bias is to make the committee accurately reflectthe membership of FBS. Make the Committee a 10 member panel with one representative coming from each conference. That should help balance the bias that produces such a flawed dismissive selection model.

Please don't stop getting caught up in "A g5" bid. That doesn't help us. We haven't been investing in that as fans or a conference. It's the AAC p6 or bust, or we'll continue to be arguing with the g4 every year about why their win over UCLA is better than our win over UCLA.

Basically your goal is bust, because if the rankings mean anything you are not or probably won’t for an awful long time be a P6, just battling for scraps like the rest of the G5.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Why does a Sycamore fan care what's going on in FBS football?

Also no one here thought that the AAC was just going to have the door opened for them and invited in. Its ok, we're still crashing the party.