bullet
Legend
Posts: 66,287
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 3285
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
|
RE: The College Football Playoff’s 4-team format isn’t going anywhere
(05-22-2019 08:08 AM)quo vadis Wrote: (05-21-2019 08:12 PM)bullet Wrote: Operating on the assumption that the playoff goes to 8 in 2022 or 2025 (and figures are based on conference members at the time):
ACC would favor guaranteed slots. They would have only 15 slots in 23 years in a "best 8" and have 9 champs left out. They would have 24 in either 5-1-2 or 5-0-3.
Big 10 would favor guaranteed slots. They would have 36 in a "best 8" and the same in a 5-1-2, but 39 in a 5-0-3 model. They would have 4 champs left out, notably, Barry Alvarez's Wisconsin twice. They have been vocal about expansion after having their champ left out 3 years in a row.
Pac 12 would favor guaranteed slots just because they would be guaranteed, not that there is an indication they would significantly benefit, but there would be no upside to a "best 8." They would have had 2 champs left out, but there results were similar-30 for "best 8," 29 for 5-1-2 and 31 for 5-0-3. Of course 1 of those 2 years left out would have been 2018.
SEC would benefit more from a "best 8." They would have 44 under that method vs. 36 in 5-1-2 and 39 in 5-0-3. And as difficult as it is for the SEC middle class to win the title, they have a better chance to get a top 8 than a conference title.
Big 12 had similar results to the SEC with 38 under "best 8," 31 under 5-1-2 and 34 under 5-0-3. However with the difficulty in getting ranked that TCU, Baylor, Oklahoma St. and Kansas St. have had in the past 10 years, they might prefer guaranteed slots. In addition, the history of ccg upsets could also lead the Big 12 to favor guaranteed slots for the champ. And most of the detriment under "best 8" was 2008 and prior when Nebraska, and previously KSU and Colorado were consistent national powers. All 3 declined and NU and CU also left. So the Big 12 no longer has a similar profile at the top as the SEC.
That would make the P5 4-1 for guaranteed slots, either 5-1-2 or 5-0-3.
G5 would obviously want a guaranteed slot. 9 current G5 teams ranked in the top 12 (8 of them unbeaten) would be left out without a guaranteed slot (I'm not counting TCU or Utah in the MWC who would add to that total). Also unbeaten #15 WMU would have been left out in 2016. And in 11 of those 23 years, the top G5 champ was ranked higher than the bottom P5. Those years were 1996, 1999, 2004, 2005 (TCU-only year where the school is not still G5), 2006, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2018.
A 5-0-3 can't be justified when higher ranking G5 champs regularly get shut out. And a minimum rating defeats the purposes of a guaranteed P5 slot.
So an expansion is very highly likely to be 5-1-2. "Best 8" is possible, but not likely. A 5-0-3 can't be justified.
This makes little sense to me on at least two counts. First, even if the FBS conferences had to decide about the next format *today*, they would only look at the five years of the CFP to make their decisions, because they would rightly know that what happened under the BCS is null and void due to different formats and different conference configurations.
But by 2024, when they actually will be making those decisions, they will have 11 years of CFP data to go on, meaning it is a sure thing they won't care about anything that happened before 2013.
Second, how can you say that 5-0-3 can't be justified when by your account, going back to 1996, 5-0-3 would be better than 5-1-2 for 4 of the 5 Power conferences, and the same for the fifth? It's clearly better than 5-1-2 for the P5, meaning the conferences that matter most, and it avoids the legal problems that 5-1-2 could conjure.
Probably the main evidence you have for a G5 auto-spot is that the top G5 champ beat out at least one of the Power champs in 11 of 23 years. That does suggest that it would be wrong to give auto-spots to P5 conferences while leaving out a better G5 team.
But, again, you fail to recognize the major differences between pre-CFP and post-CFP. That's evidenced by the fact that 10 of those times when the top G5 team was better than the worst P5 champ occurred before the CFP.
Think about it: Before the CFP, the top non-power champ beat out at least one of the power champs in 10 of 18 years. That's over 50%. But during the CFP era, it's happened just ONE time, last year. Again, you have to assume blind coincidence, but that severely undercuts the moral need for a G5 auto-bid.
I say that if we go to 8, then straight 8 is most likely, then 5-0-3, with 5-1-2 least likely. But that's based on the 5 years of CFP data we currently have. With 5 more years, that could change - but almost surely not in the direction of 5-1-2.
The G5 is not going to pretend that history doesn't exist. A 5-0-3 can't be justified on fairness and has the biggest anti-trust risk. So the P5 cannot get away with doing a 5-0-3. If there were more G5 beating P5s in the past, it can be attributed to 2 schools-Boise and Clemson.
|
|