Thought it would be an interesting exercise to reset the NY6 bids assuming it was a Rose-Sugar year or a Fiesta-Peach year. Because of the automatic tie ins, there is a bit of shifting around. My analysis of the Fiesta-Peach year pairings would be guaranteed based on the CFP rules and automatic tie ins. My pairings for the Rose-Sugar year are more speculative beyond the semis and the Orange Bowl. The schools that would be invited are locked, but the pairings would not be.

Rose-Sugar Semifinals
Sugar: Alabama-Oklahoma
Rose: Clemson-Notre Dame
Orange: Syracuse-Georgia
Cotton: Ohio State-LSU
Fiesta: Washington-UCF
Peach: Florida-Michigan
(In: Syracuse; Out: Texas)

Fiesta-Peach Semifinals
Peach: Alabama-Oklahoma
Fiesta: Clemson-Notre Dame
Rose: Ohio State-Washington
Sugar: Georgia-Texas
Orange: Syracuse-Michigan
Cotton: Florida-UCF
(In: Syracuse; Out: LSU)

Just think if this was the Rose-Sugar year and Ohio St had been matched up with.... Florida. And then today's Urban Meyer news.

(12-04-2018 09:53 AM)orangefan Wrote:  Thought it would be an interesting exercise to reset the NY6 bids assuming it was a Rose-Sugar year or a Fiesta-Peach year. Because of the automatic tie ins, there is a bit of shifting around. My analysis of the Fiesta-Peach year pairings would be guaranteed based on the CFP rules and automatic tie ins. My pairings for the Rose-Sugar year are more speculative beyond the semis and the Orange Bowl. The schools that would be invited are locked, but the pairings would not be.

Rose-Sugar Semifinals
Sugar: Alabama-Oklahoma
Rose: Clemson-Notre Dame
Orange: Syracuse-Georgia
Cotton: Ohio State-LSU
Fiesta: Washington-UCF
Peach: Florida-Michigan
(In: Syracuse; Out: Texas)

Fiesta-Peach Semifinals
Peach: Alabama-Oklahoma
Fiesta: Clemson-Notre Dame
Rose: Ohio State-Washington
Sugar: Georgia-Texas
Orange: Syracuse-Michigan
Cotton: Florida-UCF
(In: Syracuse; Out: LSU)

So the upshot is, Syracuse had the bad luck of having this season in a year where the Orange Bowl is a playoff game and thus not available as that ACC tie-in for Syracuse?

I think that would easily make Syracuse the lowest-ranked team to play in an NY6 bowl during the CFP.

(12-04-2018 10:06 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-04-2018 09:53 AM)orangefan Wrote:  Thought it would be an interesting exercise to reset the NY6 bids assuming it was a Rose-Sugar year or a Fiesta-Peach year. Because of the automatic tie ins, there is a bit of shifting around. My analysis of the Fiesta-Peach year pairings would be guaranteed based on the CFP rules and automatic tie ins. My pairings for the Rose-Sugar year are more speculative beyond the semis and the Orange Bowl. The schools that would be invited are locked, but the pairings would not be.

Rose-Sugar Semifinals
Sugar: Alabama-Oklahoma
Rose: Clemson-Notre Dame
Orange: Syracuse-Georgia
Cotton: Ohio State-LSU
Fiesta: Washington-UCF
Peach: Florida-Michigan
(In: Syracuse; Out: Texas)

Fiesta-Peach Semifinals
Peach: Alabama-Oklahoma
Fiesta: Clemson-Notre Dame
Rose: Ohio State-Washington
Sugar: Georgia-Texas
Orange: Syracuse-Michigan
Cotton: Florida-UCF
(In: Syracuse; Out: LSU)

So the upshot is, Syracuse had the bad luck of having this season in a year where the Orange Bowl is a playoff game and thus not available as that ACC tie-in for Syracuse?

I think that would easily make Syracuse the lowest-ranked team to play in an NY6 bowl during the CFP.

it would have tied with Boise in 2014.

(12-04-2018 10:14 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(12-04-2018 10:06 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-04-2018 09:53 AM)orangefan Wrote:  Thought it would be an interesting exercise to reset the NY6 bids assuming it was a Rose-Sugar year or a Fiesta-Peach year. Because of the automatic tie ins, there is a bit of shifting around. My analysis of the Fiesta-Peach year pairings would be guaranteed based on the CFP rules and automatic tie ins. My pairings for the Rose-Sugar year are more speculative beyond the semis and the Orange Bowl. The schools that would be invited are locked, but the pairings would not be.

Rose-Sugar Semifinals
Sugar: Alabama-Oklahoma
Rose: Clemson-Notre Dame
Orange: Syracuse-Georgia
Cotton: Ohio State-LSU
Fiesta: Washington-UCF
Peach: Florida-Michigan
(In: Syracuse; Out: Texas)

Fiesta-Peach Semifinals
Peach: Alabama-Oklahoma
Fiesta: Clemson-Notre Dame
Rose: Ohio State-Washington
Sugar: Georgia-Texas
Orange: Syracuse-Michigan
Cotton: Florida-UCF
(In: Syracuse; Out: LSU)

So the upshot is, Syracuse had the bad luck of having this season in a year where the Orange Bowl is a playoff game and thus not available as that ACC tie-in for Syracuse?

I think that would easily make Syracuse the lowest-ranked team to play in an NY6 bowl during the CFP.

it would have tied with Boise in 2014.

That's what people who favor auto-bids should be mindful of, as both of those were (or would, in Syracuse's case) be the result of auto-bids allowing a team to jump over much better ones.

(12-04-2018 10:28 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-04-2018 10:14 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(12-04-2018 10:06 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-04-2018 09:53 AM)orangefan Wrote:  Thought it would be an interesting exercise to reset the NY6 bids assuming it was a Rose-Sugar year or a Fiesta-Peach year. Because of the automatic tie ins, there is a bit of shifting around. My analysis of the Fiesta-Peach year pairings would be guaranteed based on the CFP rules and automatic tie ins. My pairings for the Rose-Sugar year are more speculative beyond the semis and the Orange Bowl. The schools that would be invited are locked, but the pairings would not be.

Rose-Sugar Semifinals
Sugar: Alabama-Oklahoma
Rose: Clemson-Notre Dame
Orange: Syracuse-Georgia
Cotton: Ohio State-LSU
Fiesta: Washington-UCF
Peach: Florida-Michigan
(In: Syracuse; Out: Texas)

Fiesta-Peach Semifinals
Peach: Alabama-Oklahoma
Fiesta: Clemson-Notre Dame
Rose: Ohio State-Washington
Sugar: Georgia-Texas
Orange: Syracuse-Michigan
Cotton: Florida-UCF
(In: Syracuse; Out: LSU)

So the upshot is, Syracuse had the bad luck of having this season in a year where the Orange Bowl is a playoff game and thus not available as that ACC tie-in for Syracuse?

I think that would easily make Syracuse the lowest-ranked team to play in an NY6 bowl during the CFP.

it would have tied with Boise in 2014.

That's what people who favor auto-bids should be mindful of, as both of those were (or would, in Syracuse's case) be the result of auto-bids allowing a team to jump over much better ones.

Going to 8 with autobids doesn’t really get it right. Basically you’d be taking 3 loss Washington over unbeaten UCF if we used the committee rankings.

In 2008 you’d see one out of unbeaten Utah/Boise or the 3 main one loss teams (#2 Texas, #4 Bama, #7 Texas Tech) kicked out for VT who lost 4 times. Ridiculous

-Go to 8
- Protect any unbeaten
- Conference titles are tiebreakers for teams with the same number of losses. So if you are in the discussion already and win your league you get in.

This fixes all of the past 30 seasons IMO.

(12-04-2018 11:42 AM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(12-04-2018 10:28 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-04-2018 10:14 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(12-04-2018 10:06 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-04-2018 09:53 AM)orangefan Wrote:  Thought it would be an interesting exercise to reset the NY6 bids assuming it was a Rose-Sugar year or a Fiesta-Peach year. Because of the automatic tie ins, there is a bit of shifting around. My analysis of the Fiesta-Peach year pairings would be guaranteed based on the CFP rules and automatic tie ins. My pairings for the Rose-Sugar year are more speculative beyond the semis and the Orange Bowl. The schools that would be invited are locked, but the pairings would not be.

Rose-Sugar Semifinals
Sugar: Alabama-Oklahoma
Rose: Clemson-Notre Dame
Orange: Syracuse-Georgia
Cotton: Ohio State-LSU
Fiesta: Washington-UCF
Peach: Florida-Michigan
(In: Syracuse; Out: Texas)

Fiesta-Peach Semifinals
Peach: Alabama-Oklahoma
Fiesta: Clemson-Notre Dame
Rose: Ohio State-Washington
Sugar: Georgia-Texas
Orange: Syracuse-Michigan
Cotton: Florida-UCF
(In: Syracuse; Out: LSU)

So the upshot is, Syracuse had the bad luck of having this season in a year where the Orange Bowl is a playoff game and thus not available as that ACC tie-in for Syracuse?

I think that would easily make Syracuse the lowest-ranked team to play in an NY6 bowl during the CFP.

it would have tied with Boise in 2014.

That's what people who favor auto-bids should be mindful of, as both of those were (or would, in Syracuse's case) be the result of auto-bids allowing a team to jump over much better ones.

Going to 8 with autobids doesn’t really get it right. Basically you’d be taking 3 loss Washington over unbeaten UCF if we used the committee rankings.

-Go to 8
- Protect any unbeaten
- Conference titles are tiebreakers for teams with the same number of losses.

This fixes all of the past 30 seasons IMO.

UCF finished #8 in the CFP rankings, so if we had an 8-team playoff based on committee rankings UCF would have gotten in.

I disagree with protecting "unbeatens". There is nothing magical about being unbeaten, that is a function of who you play.

No team should be able to play a soft schedule, avoiding all top teams, and get auto-entry because they navigated that soft schedule with no losses.

(12-04-2018 11:47 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-04-2018 11:42 AM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(12-04-2018 10:28 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-04-2018 10:14 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(12-04-2018 10:06 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  So the upshot is, Syracuse had the bad luck of having this season in a year where the Orange Bowl is a playoff game and thus not available as that ACC tie-in for Syracuse?

I think that would easily make Syracuse the lowest-ranked team to play in an NY6 bowl during the CFP.

it would have tied with Boise in 2014.

That's what people who favor auto-bids should be mindful of, as both of those were (or would, in Syracuse's case) be the result of auto-bids allowing a team to jump over much better ones.

Going to 8 with autobids doesn’t really get it right. Basically you’d be taking 3 loss Washington over unbeaten UCF if we used the committee rankings.

-Go to 8
- Protect any unbeaten
- Conference titles are tiebreakers for teams with the same number of losses.

This fixes all of the past 30 seasons IMO.

UCF finished #8 in the CFP rankings, so if we had an 8-team playoff based on committee rankings UCF would have gotten in.

My argument was against P5 conference title autobids. Providing an autobid to 3 loss Washington ranked #9 would push #8 UCF out.

Quote:I disagree with protecting "unbeatens". There is nothing magical about being unbeaten, that is a function of who you play.

No team should be able to play a soft schedule, avoiding all top teams, and get auto-entry because they navigated that soft schedule with no losses.

In a 4 team field I agree.

8? Completely disagree. Virtually every year you’ve got 2+ loss teams or a one loss team who got annihilated while not winning their league that doesn’t deserve a shot more than an unbeaten.

For example-
2017 Auburn lost 3 times including a blowout. UCF deserves a spot more.

2016 WMU was unbeaten and spot 8 would be between them and a bunch of 3 & 4 loss teams.

Win it on the field

(12-04-2018 11:53 AM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(12-04-2018 11:47 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-04-2018 11:42 AM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(12-04-2018 10:28 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-04-2018 10:14 AM)stever20 Wrote:  it would have tied with Boise in 2014.

That's what people who favor auto-bids should be mindful of, as both of those were (or would, in Syracuse's case) be the result of auto-bids allowing a team to jump over much better ones.

Going to 8 with autobids doesn’t really get it right. Basically you’d be taking 3 loss Washington over unbeaten UCF if we used the committee rankings.

-Go to 8
- Protect any unbeaten
- Conference titles are tiebreakers for teams with the same number of losses.

This fixes all of the past 30 seasons IMO.

UCF finished #8 in the CFP rankings, so if we had an 8-team playoff based on committee rankings UCF would have gotten in.

My argument was against P5 conference title autobids. Providing an autobid to 3 loss Washington ranked #9 would push #8 UCF out.

Quote:I disagree with protecting "unbeatens". There is nothing magical about being unbeaten, that is a function of who you play.

No team should be able to play a soft schedule, avoiding all top teams, and get auto-entry because they navigated that soft schedule with no losses.

In a 4 team field I agree.

8? Completely disagree. Virtually every year you’ve got 2+ loss teams or a one loss team who got annihilated while not winning their league that doesn’t deserve a shot more than an unbeaten.

I'm trying to think of a time when this would apply? Practically speaking, any unbeaten P5 will always be ranked in the top 8 so it would never affect them.

You're basically saying an unbeaten G5 should always be in the top 8 regardless of how soft their schedule. I can't agree. It should be if they are one of the top 8 teams or not. Othwerwise we could have G5 teams that never played anyone of quality in the top 8.

(12-04-2018 11:57 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-04-2018 11:53 AM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(12-04-2018 11:47 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-04-2018 11:42 AM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(12-04-2018 10:28 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  That's what people who favor auto-bids should be mindful of, as both of those were (or would, in Syracuse's case) be the result of auto-bids allowing a team to jump over much better ones.

Going to 8 with autobids doesn’t really get it right. Basically you’d be taking 3 loss Washington over unbeaten UCF if we used the committee rankings.

-Go to 8
- Protect any unbeaten
- Conference titles are tiebreakers for teams with the same number of losses.

This fixes all of the past 30 seasons IMO.

UCF finished #8 in the CFP rankings, so if we had an 8-team playoff based on committee rankings UCF would have gotten in.

My argument was against P5 conference title autobids. Providing an autobid to 3 loss Washington ranked #9 would push #8 UCF out.

Quote:I disagree with protecting "unbeatens". There is nothing magical about being unbeaten, that is a function of who you play.

No team should be able to play a soft schedule, avoiding all top teams, and get auto-entry because they navigated that soft schedule with no losses.

In a 4 team field I agree.

8? Completely disagree. Virtually every year you’ve got 2+ loss teams or a one loss team who got annihilated while not winning their league that doesn’t deserve a shot more than an unbeaten.

I'm trying to think of a time when this would apply? Practically speaking, any unbeaten P5 will always be ranked in the top 8 so it would never affect them.

You're basically saying an unbeaten G5 should always be in the top 8 regardless of how soft their schedule. I can't agree. It should be if they are one of the top 8 teams or not. Othwerwise we could have G5 teams that never played anyone of quality in the top 8.

1- If they do then let’s see if they can play. Boise, TCU, UCF, and Utah all showed we were wrong.


2- If more than one emerge maybe do a play in game if sos criteria isn’t met.


3- Flip that around- you can have G5’s who DID try to schedule up get shafted by a process that can and will use any moving goalpost criteria to do so.

(12-04-2018 10:28 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-04-2018 10:14 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(12-04-2018 10:06 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-04-2018 09:53 AM)orangefan Wrote:  Thought it would be an interesting exercise to reset the NY6 bids assuming it was a Rose-Sugar year or a Fiesta-Peach year. Because of the automatic tie ins, there is a bit of shifting around. My analysis of the Fiesta-Peach year pairings would be guaranteed based on the CFP rules and automatic tie ins. My pairings for the Rose-Sugar year are more speculative beyond the semis and the Orange Bowl. The schools that would be invited are locked, but the pairings would not be.

Rose-Sugar Semifinals
Sugar: Alabama-Oklahoma
Rose: Clemson-Notre Dame
Orange: Syracuse-Georgia
Cotton: Ohio State-LSU
Fiesta: Washington-UCF
Peach: Florida-Michigan
(In: Syracuse; Out: Texas)

Fiesta-Peach Semifinals
Peach: Alabama-Oklahoma
Fiesta: Clemson-Notre Dame
Rose: Ohio State-Washington
Sugar: Georgia-Texas
Orange: Syracuse-Michigan
Cotton: Florida-UCF
(In: Syracuse; Out: LSU)

So the upshot is, Syracuse had the bad luck of having this season in a year where the Orange Bowl is a playoff game and thus not available as that ACC tie-in for Syracuse?

I think that would easily make Syracuse the lowest-ranked team to play in an NY6 bowl during the CFP.

it would have tied with Boise in 2014.

That's what people who favor auto-bids should be mindful of, as both of those were (or would, in Syracuse's case) be the result of auto-bids allowing a team to jump over much better ones.

Better is a matter of opinion. Championships are a matter of fact. Ohio St. almost didn't get in during 2014. TCU didn't. Ohio St. won the title.

That’s even worse than the current situation. Florida over Wazzu is a letdown but Syracuse over Texas/LSU worse.

(12-04-2018 11:42 AM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(12-04-2018 10:28 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-04-2018 10:14 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(12-04-2018 10:06 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-04-2018 09:53 AM)orangefan Wrote:  Thought it would be an interesting exercise to reset the NY6 bids assuming it was a Rose-Sugar year or a Fiesta-Peach year. Because of the automatic tie ins, there is a bit of shifting around. My analysis of the Fiesta-Peach year pairings would be guaranteed based on the CFP rules and automatic tie ins. My pairings for the Rose-Sugar year are more speculative beyond the semis and the Orange Bowl. The schools that would be invited are locked, but the pairings would not be.

Rose-Sugar Semifinals
Sugar: Alabama-Oklahoma
Rose: Clemson-Notre Dame
Orange: Syracuse-Georgia
Cotton: Ohio State-LSU
Fiesta: Washington-UCF
Peach: Florida-Michigan
(In: Syracuse; Out: Texas)

Fiesta-Peach Semifinals
Peach: Alabama-Oklahoma
Fiesta: Clemson-Notre Dame
Rose: Ohio State-Washington
Sugar: Georgia-Texas
Orange: Syracuse-Michigan
Cotton: Florida-UCF
(In: Syracuse; Out: LSU)

So the upshot is, Syracuse had the bad luck of having this season in a year where the Orange Bowl is a playoff game and thus not available as that ACC tie-in for Syracuse?

I think that would easily make Syracuse the lowest-ranked team to play in an NY6 bowl during the CFP.

it would have tied with Boise in 2014.

That's what people who favor auto-bids should be mindful of, as both of those were (or would, in Syracuse's case) be the result of auto-bids allowing a team to jump over much better ones.

Going to 8 with autobids doesn’t really get it right. Basically you’d be taking 3 loss Washington over unbeaten UCF if we used the committee rankings.

In 2008 you’d see one out of unbeaten Utah/Boise or the 3 main one loss teams (#2 Texas, #4 Bama, #7 Texas Tech) kicked out for VT who lost 4 times. Ridiculous

-Go to 8
- Protect any unbeaten
- Conference titles are tiebreakers for teams with the same number of losses. So if you are in the discussion already and win your league you get in.

This fixes all of the past 30 seasons IMO.

The main reason for 8 isn't to get the "best teams." Its to give the true "best" team a shot on the field instead of getting eliminated in a back room as TCU did in 2010 and 2014 and Oklahoma St. did in 2011 and Baylor did in 2014.

VT won their title. Fine. They earned a spot, just as happens in every other NCAA sport.

The only modification on 8 I would be ok with would be a "best 6 champs." So maybe a 6-7 UCLA winning the Pac 12 gets displaced by a 12-1 Boise St. That would be rare enough that maybe the P5 would be ok with it.

You should have a slot for best of the G5 champs so that a team like UCF that doesn't have a chance to play as tough a schedule gets a shot.

(12-04-2018 12:16 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-04-2018 11:42 AM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(12-04-2018 10:28 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-04-2018 10:14 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(12-04-2018 10:06 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  So the upshot is, Syracuse had the bad luck of having this season in a year where the Orange Bowl is a playoff game and thus not available as that ACC tie-in for Syracuse?

I think that would easily make Syracuse the lowest-ranked team to play in an NY6 bowl during the CFP.

it would have tied with Boise in 2014.

That's what people who favor auto-bids should be mindful of, as both of those were (or would, in Syracuse's case) be the result of auto-bids allowing a team to jump over much better ones.

Going to 8 with autobids doesn’t really get it right. Basically you’d be taking 3 loss Washington over unbeaten UCF if we used the committee rankings.

In 2008 you’d see one out of unbeaten Utah/Boise or the 3 main one loss teams (#2 Texas, #4 Bama, #7 Texas Tech) kicked out for VT who lost 4 times. Ridiculous

-Go to 8
- Protect any unbeaten
- Conference titles are tiebreakers for teams with the same number of losses. So if you are in the discussion already and win your league you get in.

This fixes all of the past 30 seasons IMO.

The main reason for 8 isn't to get the "best teams." Its to give the true "best" team a shot on the field instead of getting eliminated in a back room as TCU did in 2010 and 2014 and Oklahoma St. did in 2011 and Baylor did in 2014.

Giving an autobid to a four loss champ prevents this goal from being accomplished.

Quote:VT won their title. Fine. They earned a spot, just as happens in every other NCAA sport.

Typically much bigger brackets and once again pushes out a team with a more legitimate argument for inclusion.

Quote:The only modification on 8 I would be ok with would be a "best 6 champs." So maybe a 6-7 UCLA winning the Pac 12 gets displaced by a 12-1 Boise St. That would be rare enough that maybe the P5 would be ok with it.

Haven’t considered that one yet.

To me the teams who deserve a shot usually fall into two groups-

- P5’s with the same or fewer losses to the #2 team

- Unbeaten teams

These teams didn’t do anything to DQ themselves. Others did.

(12-04-2018 12:24 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(12-04-2018 12:16 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-04-2018 11:42 AM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(12-04-2018 10:28 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-04-2018 10:14 AM)stever20 Wrote:  it would have tied with Boise in 2014.

That's what people who favor auto-bids should be mindful of, as both of those were (or would, in Syracuse's case) be the result of auto-bids allowing a team to jump over much better ones.

Going to 8 with autobids doesn’t really get it right. Basically you’d be taking 3 loss Washington over unbeaten UCF if we used the committee rankings.

In 2008 you’d see one out of unbeaten Utah/Boise or the 3 main one loss teams (#2 Texas, #4 Bama, #7 Texas Tech) kicked out for VT who lost 4 times. Ridiculous

-Go to 8
- Protect any unbeaten
- Conference titles are tiebreakers for teams with the same number of losses. So if you are in the discussion already and win your league you get in.

This fixes all of the past 30 seasons IMO.

The main reason for 8 isn't to get the "best teams." Its to give the true "best" team a shot on the field instead of getting eliminated in a back room as TCU did in 2010 and 2014 and Oklahoma St. did in 2011 and Baylor did in 2014.

Giving an autobid to a four loss champ prevents this goal from being accomplished.

Quote:VT won their title. Fine. They earned a spot, just as happens in every other NCAA sport.

Typically much bigger brackets and once again pushes out a team with a more legitimate argument for inclusion.

Quote:The only modification on 8 I would be ok with would be a "best 6 champs." So maybe a 6-7 UCLA winning the Pac 12 gets displaced by a 12-1 Boise St. That would be rare enough that maybe the P5 would be ok with it.

Haven’t considered that one yet.

To me the teams who deserve a shot usually fall into two groups-

- P5’s with the same or fewer losses to the #2 team

- Unbeaten teams

These teams didn’t do anything to DQ themselves. Others did.

How does VT, ACC champ getting in, hamper giving teams a shot when its a 3 loss 3rd place SEC team that doesn't get in? With respect to 2008, Utah and TCU have been drafted into the power conferences so you aren't likely to see that situation again.

(12-04-2018 12:39 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-04-2018 12:24 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(12-04-2018 12:16 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-04-2018 11:42 AM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(12-04-2018 10:28 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  That's what people who favor auto-bids should be mindful of, as both of those were (or would, in Syracuse's case) be the result of auto-bids allowing a team to jump over much better ones.

Going to 8 with autobids doesn’t really get it right. Basically you’d be taking 3 loss Washington over unbeaten UCF if we used the committee rankings.

In 2008 you’d see one out of unbeaten Utah/Boise or the 3 main one loss teams (#2 Texas, #4 Bama, #7 Texas Tech) kicked out for VT who lost 4 times. Ridiculous

-Go to 8
- Protect any unbeaten
- Conference titles are tiebreakers for teams with the same number of losses. So if you are in the discussion already and win your league you get in.

This fixes all of the past 30 seasons IMO.

The main reason for 8 isn't to get the "best teams." Its to give the true "best" team a shot on the field instead of getting eliminated in a back room as TCU did in 2010 and 2014 and Oklahoma St. did in 2011 and Baylor did in 2014.

Giving an autobid to a four loss champ prevents this goal from being accomplished.

Quote:VT won their title. Fine. They earned a spot, just as happens in every other NCAA sport.

Typically much bigger brackets and once again pushes out a team with a more legitimate argument for inclusion.

Quote:The only modification on 8 I would be ok with would be a "best 6 champs." So maybe a 6-7 UCLA winning the Pac 12 gets displaced by a 12-1 Boise St. That would be rare enough that maybe the P5 would be ok with it.

Haven’t considered that one yet.

To me the teams who deserve a shot usually fall into two groups-

- P5’s with the same or fewer losses to the #2 team

- Unbeaten teams

These teams didn’t do anything to DQ themselves. Others did.

How does VT, ACC champ getting in, hamper giving teams a shot when its a 3 loss 3rd place SEC team that doesn't get in?

The year I referenced had them kicking out one of UT, Bama, Boise, Texas Tech, or Utah. All unbeaten or one loss.

The years a 3 loss team might be top 8 are aberrations. Auburn last year was ranked above four 2 loss P5 teams and unbeaten UCF.

Quote:With respect to 2008, Utah and TCU have been drafted into the power conferences so you aren't likely to see that situation again.

There’s still 5 non-P5 leagues. You’ll see it again if I had to guess.

The primary reason that we might see an 8 team playoff is the frustration of P5 conferences not making the current 4 team playoff. In other words, an 8 team playoff would almost certainly have all P5 champions getting autobids. For political necessity, a sixth spot would have to be reserved for the highest ranked G5 champion, with the remaining two slots reserved for at large schools. That would make this year's seedings as follows:

1. Alabama (SEC champ)
2. Clemson (ACC champ)
3. Notre Dame (At Large)
4. Oklahoma (B12 champ)
5. Georgia (At Large)
6. Ohio State (B1G champ)
7. UCF (Highest Ranked G5 champ)
8. Washington (P12 champ)

The only difference from a straight 1-8 ranking is that Washington (CFP #9) would take the slot that Michigan (CFP #7) would get in a pure rankings scenario.

(12-04-2018 12:45 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(12-04-2018 12:39 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-04-2018 12:24 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(12-04-2018 12:16 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-04-2018 11:42 AM)1845 Bear Wrote:  Going to 8 with autobids doesn’t really get it right. Basically you’d be taking 3 loss Washington over unbeaten UCF if we used the committee rankings.

In 2008 you’d see one out of unbeaten Utah/Boise or the 3 main one loss teams (#2 Texas, #4 Bama, #7 Texas Tech) kicked out for VT who lost 4 times. Ridiculous

-Go to 8
- Protect any unbeaten
- Conference titles are tiebreakers for teams with the same number of losses. So if you are in the discussion already and win your league you get in.

This fixes all of the past 30 seasons IMO.

The main reason for 8 isn't to get the "best teams." Its to give the true "best" team a shot on the field instead of getting eliminated in a back room as TCU did in 2010 and 2014 and Oklahoma St. did in 2011 and Baylor did in 2014.

Giving an autobid to a four loss champ prevents this goal from being accomplished.

Quote:VT won their title. Fine. They earned a spot, just as happens in every other NCAA sport.

Typically much bigger brackets and once again pushes out a team with a more legitimate argument for inclusion.

Quote:The only modification on 8 I would be ok with would be a "best 6 champs." So maybe a 6-7 UCLA winning the Pac 12 gets displaced by a 12-1 Boise St. That would be rare enough that maybe the P5 would be ok with it.

Haven’t considered that one yet.

To me the teams who deserve a shot usually fall into two groups-

- P5’s with the same or fewer losses to the #2 team

- Unbeaten teams

These teams didn’t do anything to DQ themselves. Others did.

How does VT, ACC champ getting in, hamper giving teams a shot when its a 3 loss 3rd place SEC team that doesn't get in?

The year I referenced had them kicking out one of UT, Bama, Boise, Texas Tech, or Utah. All unbeaten or one loss.

The years a 3 loss team might be top 8 are aberrations. Auburn last year was ranked above four 2 loss P5 teams and unbeaten UCF.

Quote:With respect to 2008, Utah and TCU have been drafted into the power conferences so you aren't likely to see that situation again.

There’s still 5 non-P5 leagues. You’ll see it again if I had to guess.

Maybe 2 unbeatens, but not serious contenders. Ball St. didn't lose until the ccg in 2008.

2008 would be a difficult year. Texas Tech and Boise would be left out. But then Texas Tech lost their next to last game by 40 points.

(12-04-2018 12:50 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-04-2018 12:45 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(12-04-2018 12:39 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-04-2018 12:24 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(12-04-2018 12:16 PM)bullet Wrote:  The main reason for 8 isn't to get the "best teams." Its to give the true "best" team a shot on the field instead of getting eliminated in a back room as TCU did in 2010 and 2014 and Oklahoma St. did in 2011 and Baylor did in 2014.

Giving an autobid to a four loss champ prevents this goal from being accomplished.

Quote:VT won their title. Fine. They earned a spot, just as happens in every other NCAA sport.

Typically much bigger brackets and once again pushes out a team with a more legitimate argument for inclusion.

Quote:The only modification on 8 I would be ok with would be a "best 6 champs." So maybe a 6-7 UCLA winning the Pac 12 gets displaced by a 12-1 Boise St. That would be rare enough that maybe the P5 would be ok with it.

Haven’t considered that one yet.

To me the teams who deserve a shot usually fall into two groups-

- P5’s with the same or fewer losses to the #2 team

- Unbeaten teams

These teams didn’t do anything to DQ themselves. Others did.

How does VT, ACC champ getting in, hamper giving teams a shot when its a 3 loss 3rd place SEC team that doesn't get in?

The year I referenced had them kicking out one of UT, Bama, Boise, Texas Tech, or Utah. All unbeaten or one loss.

The years a 3 loss team might be top 8 are aberrations. Auburn last year was ranked above four 2 loss P5 teams and unbeaten UCF.

Quote:With respect to 2008, Utah and TCU have been drafted into the power conferences so you aren't likely to see that situation again.

There’s still 5 non-P5 leagues. You’ll see it again if I had to guess.

Maybe 2 unbeatens, but not serious contenders. Ball St. didn't lose until the ccg in 2008.

2008 would be a difficult year. Texas Tech and Boise would be left out. But then Texas Tech lost their next to last game by 40 points.

I’d rather keep VT out who lost four times instead of shafting an unbeaten who defeated several bowl teams and beat #17 Oregon at Autzen.

2008 would best be solved by:

OU Vs Boise
Florida Vs Utah
Texas vs PSU
Bama vs USC

-Texas Tech gets left out due to 40+ point loss and no league title.
-ACC Champ VT left out due to four losses as no four loss team has any argument for such a small bracket.

Why give a lifeline to #19?

Historically you win your league and you play in a big bowl game. That can still happen outside the playoff.