(08-13-2019 04:41 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-13-2019 04:14 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-13-2019 10:44 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-13-2019 10:29 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-12-2019 11:03 AM)esayem Wrote:  The conference championship game pits the winner of each division against one another. Their divisional body of work got them there and the CCG victory seals them as the hotter of the two teams.

If you want to complain about unbalanced divisions, well that's up to the conference, now isn't it?

That's a big aspect of my problem with auto-bids for playoffs: Yes, a conference should be able to decide its champion any way it wants. If it wants to just randomly draw a name out of a hat at the end of the year, that should be its prerogative. That's the conference's business.

But, it should become everyone else's business if that same conference claims that its champ should be automatically included in a national playoff. Because then you are making a claim over teams from other conferences. You're saying "our 8-5 Big 12 champ should have a spot over your runner-up 11-2 PAC team, or your 11-2 runner-up ACC team", etc.

That's why I don't like auto-bids for any conferences, P5 or G5. The way college football is structured, winning a conference just doesn't prove you are one of the 8 best teams worthy of a playoff spot.

Frankly, there are only 12 games played by each team. Only a handful against other conferences. Hell, there are not even enough OOC games for each team to play one game each against the other 4 P5 conferences (much less any G5's). So, stack all the stats and opinions up in a corner that you want to---the reality is they dont mean anything because the sample size is tiny. 9 (or 8) of 12 games are played against ones own conference. We spend about 75% of the season determining the best two teams in a conference---then we play those teams head to head to see which is better in a 13th game for each.

Thats the way the college football season is set up. Any system using stats or committee's is essentially ignoring the vast majority of the season and is devaluing the regular conference season. Anyone pushing a Committee system or a stat based metric is ignoring the realities of how college football is actually organized. With such limited games---it just seems absolutely flat out foolish to ignore what the vast majority of the season is spent to determine----the best teams in each conference. The one data set we know is best determined---is the one set of data we routinely ignore. lol....its ridiculous when you think about it. Once you know the best teams in a conference---all you have to do is let those champs play and you have a legit national champ. Eazy peazy.

Arguing, as I do, that conference champs should not automatically make the playoffs is in no way shape or form arguing that conference games are to be ignored. To the contrary, since any committee or computer system is going to rely on the results of games, and as you say for all teams conference games are either 66% or 75% of all games, those conference games will count massively.

No, the only people in this discussion who actually favor disregarding games played on the field are those who favor auto-bids for conference champs, because that means a team can literally lose its 3 or 4 OOC games and that not count against them at all, should they win their conference.

Also, the small sample size cuts against your view as well, because beating out the 10 or 12 or 14 teams in your conference doesn't tell us much about how good you stack up to the other 100+ teams out there. It just means you beat out your group of clowns, and because of the screwiness of how conference champs are determined, you may not even have done that.

In contrast, if a committee or computer is deciding, then losing 3 or 4 games of any kind, conference or OOC, will surely count heavily against them.

And yet---thats exactly what happens. So yes---its EXACTLY what you are arguing for---the ability to override the one thing 75% of the regular season was designed to determine. Again, the 5-1-2 provides an access point for that team that developed some sort of absolutely "amazing resume" with a exceptional "eye test" result who clearly had the highest quality "body of work" while somehow not being able to win their conference or division. lol...I think I got all the BS committee phrases in there which are all code for "OMG---ESPN told us we cant let that brand name get left out!".

"What" is exactly what happens? I have NEVER argued that conference games should be ignored. That is absurd.

Conference champs get left out in the CFP not because of committee bias but because it's a mathematical certainty - with only 4 slots, a P5 champ has to be left out every year, and at least 6 of 10 FBS champs have to. Has nothing to do with a committee making the decisions, has to do with the # of teams in the playoffs.

But FWIW, the committee hasn't shown any strong tendency to disregard conference champions - of the 20 teams that have made the playoffs so far, 17 have been conference champs, an 85% hit rate. And really, it's more fair to say 17/19, about a 90% hit rate, because one of the three non-champs to get in was Notre Dame, which has to be allowed to happen unless you think independents should be banned from the playoffs.

So in only 2 of 19 times has the committee "disregarded" a conference title to put a non-champ in over a champ. And in neither case was that very controversial, because in 2016, Ohio State clearly had a better season than champ Penn State, and in 2017, Alabama clearly had a better resume than champ Ohio State. The polls and computers agreed with that so nobody saw those as terrible miscarriages of justice. And given that by your own admission, determining a conference champ isn't the point of 100% of a team's schedule, but only 66% (if they play 4 OOC games, like AAC teams do) or 75% (if 3 OOC games), that's actually a pretty favorable selection rate.

No, it makes little sense to give conference champs an *auto* spot in the playoffs. If you win a championship, CFP selection history shows that this clearly gives you a HUGE leg up over teams that don't win their conference, and it should. But it shouldn't be 100% automatic.

(08-14-2019 07:19 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-13-2019 07:46 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(08-13-2019 10:29 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-12-2019 11:03 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(08-12-2019 10:40 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Only if we decide to ignore the results of OOC games played on the field. Which to me makes very little sense - playoffs are predominantly a national competition between members of difference conferences, so if anything OOC games tell us more about who deserves a playoff spot than a conference game does.

And no pro sports league does it this way. E.g., in the NFC South, if New Orleans is 7-1 in divisional games and Carolina is 5-3, but Carolina is 12-4 overall and New Orleans is 11-5, Carolina not New Orleans is the division champ and gets the automatic bid to the playoffs. All the games count, not just divisional/conference games.

College conferences are too ramshackle to use winning a conference as the standard for *automatic* entry into a playoff. We need a human judgment, or computer, element to adjust for these flaws.

The conference championship game pits the winner of each division against one another. Their divisional body of work got them there and the CCG victory seals them as the hotter of the two teams.

If you want to complain about unbalanced divisions, well that's up to the conference, now isn't it?

That's a big aspect of my problem with auto-bids for playoffs: Yes, a conference should be able to decide its champion any way it wants. If it wants to just randomly draw a name out of a hat at the end of the year, that should be its prerogative. That's the conference's business.

But, it should become everyone else's business if that same conference claims that its champ should be automatically included in a national playoff. Because then you are making a claim over teams from other conferences. You're saying "our 8-5 Big 12 champ should have a spot over your runner-up 11-2 PAC team, or your 11-2 runner-up ACC team", etc.

That's why I don't like auto-bids for any conferences, P5 or G5. The way college football is structured, winning a conference just doesn't prove you are one of the 8 best teams worthy of a playoff spot.

It gives teams a concrete path. Win your division and then win your CCG. Don’t do that? Better make sure you won all your OOC games. Otherwise, we’re giving a group of pundits the decision.

It's a 'concrete' path, but for the reasons I've given, IMO it's a nonsensical path. It's like if the NFL decided that only the even-numbered games count towards a division title and making the playoffs. Everyone would know what their path was - win the even numbered games - but it would be absurd.

I'm not willing to trade-off absurdity for concreteness.

And FWIW, the pundits have done a pretty good job. IIRC, if we looked at who the CFP ranked as the top 8 teams each of the past 5 years, they agreed with the Massey computer composite 38/40 times, and similarly with the AP poll.

Hhhwhat? NFL? Even numbered games? No ma’am, we’re talking college division games. This isn’t the NFL, so take that comparison out to the curb. It’s the NCAA, which allows the conferences a championship game.

What’s to stop the clear #1 team from forfeiting or playing a bunch of backups in a CCG if humans are picking the playoffs? The humans know the situation, they knew the best team chose not to play their starters or play the game because they are already considered the best in the country.

IMO, there needs to be MORE emphasis on winning a division and a conference because that is a control group. BTW, I used to be a straight 8 proponent, but I have seen the light! Follow me down the path of enlightenment!

Straight eight will simply exclude the G5 unless they are up against a lesser P5. They’ll arbitrarily justify it even with unbeaten teams who deserve a shot and we end up with subjective standards instead of objective ones.

I like the 5-1-2 but would prefer you nullify an autobid if the champ in question has 3+ losses.

Example: Wazzu wins the P12 with 4 losses and the system is then a 4-1-3.

You aren’t the champ if you spend 20+% of your season losing.

(08-09-2019 04:34 PM)JHS55 Wrote:  A5 action playoffs
A5 moves to 32 teams and has their own and separate playoffs set up any way they want too

32 teams is too small. Some schools just have a bad decade or two. Even top schools don't like 32. The more realistic number should be 56 or 64. First is to cut off all G5 schools. Then cut a few real bad schools in current P5 like Washington State and Oregon State. The exception are BYU and Cincinnati. BYU is a traditional football power. Cincinnati is the second best team in a big state (Ohio). They are more deserving than small state No.1 like Minnesota, Missouri, Arkansas or big state No. 4/5 like Baylor, Texas Tech, Wake Forest. California can have four. Florida and Texas can have three. It is a stretch but I also give North Carolina three. All other states cannot have more than two.

5 Highest Ranked Conference Champions + 3 Highest Ranked At-Larges

New Year's Day Quarterfinals
Cotton Bowl 11e/10c
Orange Bowl 230e/230e
Rose Bowl 6e/3p (B1G vs PAC if both qualify & aren't both top-3)
Sugar Bowl 930e/830c

Saturday Semifinals
Peach Bowl 5e/5e
Fiesta Bowl 9e/7m

National Championship
Played at Rose Bowl every year -- the sport's ultimate game belongs in the sport's ultimate stadium (ie. 05 USC/Texas)

---------

New Year's Eve becomes a "best of the rest" extravaganza of traditional bowls

New Year's Eve
Outback 11e/11e
Gator 12e/12e
Sun 1e/11m
Citrus 2e/2e
Liberty 3e/2c
Independence 4e/3c
Cactus 5e/3m
Alamo 6e/5c
Vegas 7e/5m
Holiday 8e/5p

(08-14-2019 10:57 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(08-14-2019 07:19 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-13-2019 07:46 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(08-13-2019 10:29 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-12-2019 11:03 AM)esayem Wrote:  The conference championship game pits the winner of each division against one another. Their divisional body of work got them there and the CCG victory seals them as the hotter of the two teams.

If you want to complain about unbalanced divisions, well that's up to the conference, now isn't it?

That's a big aspect of my problem with auto-bids for playoffs: Yes, a conference should be able to decide its champion any way it wants. If it wants to just randomly draw a name out of a hat at the end of the year, that should be its prerogative. That's the conference's business.

But, it should become everyone else's business if that same conference claims that its champ should be automatically included in a national playoff. Because then you are making a claim over teams from other conferences. You're saying "our 8-5 Big 12 champ should have a spot over your runner-up 11-2 PAC team, or your 11-2 runner-up ACC team", etc.

That's why I don't like auto-bids for any conferences, P5 or G5. The way college football is structured, winning a conference just doesn't prove you are one of the 8 best teams worthy of a playoff spot.

It gives teams a concrete path. Win your division and then win your CCG. Don’t do that? Better make sure you won all your OOC games. Otherwise, we’re giving a group of pundits the decision.

It's a 'concrete' path, but for the reasons I've given, IMO it's a nonsensical path. It's like if the NFL decided that only the even-numbered games count towards a division title and making the playoffs. Everyone would know what their path was - win the even numbered games - but it would be absurd.

I'm not willing to trade-off absurdity for concreteness.

And FWIW, the pundits have done a pretty good job. IIRC, if we looked at who the CFP ranked as the top 8 teams each of the past 5 years, they agreed with the Massey computer composite 38/40 times, and similarly with the AP poll.

Hhhwhat? NFL? Even numbered games? No ma’am, we’re talking college division games. This isn’t the NFL, so take that comparison out to the curb. It’s the NCAA, which allows the conferences a championship game.

What’s to stop the clear #1 team from forfeiting or playing a bunch of backups in a CCG if humans are picking the playoffs? The humans know the situation, they knew the best team chose not to play their starters or play the game because they are already considered the best in the country.

IMO, there needs to be MORE emphasis on winning a division and a conference because that is a control group. BTW, I used to be a straight 8 proponent, but I have seen the light! Follow me down the path of enlightenment!

The NFL comparison was just to highlight the silliness of how conferences choose their champs - in a conference, you can lose all your OOC games and still be the champ. That's nice for the conference but is not worthy of national respect.

Conference championship games don't mean much nationally. It's just a team A that won the round-robin against 5 other teams vs a team B that also won a round-robin against 5 other teams. A round-robin in which only conference games counted, a silly situation. Means very little in terms of whether you deserve to be in a tiny 8-team playoff.

(08-14-2019 11:23 AM)1845 Bear Wrote:  Straight eight will simply exclude the G5 unless they are up against a lesser P5. They’ll arbitrarily justify it even with unbeaten teams who deserve a shot and we end up with subjective standards instead of objective ones.

Straight 8 will simply exclude ... teams that aren't ranked in the top 8, whether they are P5 or G5, and since there are 130 teams, that means a whole lot from both.

Going unbeaten versus a soft schedule absolutely does not mean you have earned/deserve a playoff spot. It should be obvious that going 9-3 vs a tough schedule can be much more of an achievement than 12-0 vs a soft one. If my USF has played Alabama 12 times last year, we'd have gone 0-12. If we'd played the Citadel 12 times, we'd have gone 12-0. Same team, dramatically different records based on who we played. Schedule really is everything.

The CFP has actually been very good at picking teams. Their picks have basically comported with the subjective views of the AP voters and the dispassionate views of the computers.

(08-14-2019 05:58 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-14-2019 11:23 AM)1845 Bear Wrote:  Straight eight will simply exclude the G5 unless they are up against a lesser P5. They’ll arbitrarily justify it even with unbeaten teams who deserve a shot and we end up with subjective standards instead of objective ones.

Straight 8 will simply exclude ... teams that aren't ranked in the top 8, whether they are P5 or G5, and since there are 130 teams, that means a whole lot from both.

Going unbeaten versus a soft schedule absolutely does not mean you have earned/deserve a playoff spot. It should be obvious that going 9-3 vs a tough schedule can be much more of an achievement than 12-0 vs a soft one.

Is it a tougher SOS? Yes. But one team did everything hey could and the other lost more than 20% of their games. Only one earned a right to be there and only subjective criteria could elevate the other one.

Quote: If my USF has played Alabama 12 times last year, we'd have gone 0-12. If we'd played the Citadel 12 times, we'd have gone 12-0. Same team, dramatically different records based on who we played. Schedule really is everything.

Nobody is playing 12 top 25 games. Absurd example to prop up a weak argument for subjective criteria. If you beat everyone you play you should have the right to play for a title. Maybe youll get your head kicked in or maybe you win. A 3 loss team didn’t earn that shot- they had it and failed three times.

Quote:The CFP has actually been very good at picking teams. Their picks have basically comported with the subjective views of the AP voters and the dispassionate views of the computers.

It doesn’t allow for years like 2014 where six teams earned a shot. It needs to expand and the less subjective the criteria the better.

(08-14-2019 06:31 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(08-14-2019 05:58 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-14-2019 11:23 AM)1845 Bear Wrote:  Straight eight will simply exclude the G5 unless they are up against a lesser P5. They’ll arbitrarily justify it even with unbeaten teams who deserve a shot and we end up with subjective standards instead of objective ones.

Straight 8 will simply exclude ... teams that aren't ranked in the top 8, whether they are P5 or G5, and since there are 130 teams, that means a whole lot from both.

Going unbeaten versus a soft schedule absolutely does not mean you have earned/deserve a playoff spot. It should be obvious that going 9-3 vs a tough schedule can be much more of an achievement than 12-0 vs a soft one.

Is it a tougher SOS? Yes. But one team did everything hey could and the other lost more than 20% of their games. Only one earned a right to be there and only subjective criteria could elevate the other one.

First, the problem of 2014 isn't a problem with the method used to select the teams - a committee - it was a problem of the number of teams in the playoffs, four. Even a totally objective "must be a conference champ to make the playoffs" method with no human committee involvement would have left out two of the six teams you think were worthy of playing for the title, because you can't put six teams in a four team playoff. So 2014 is an argument for expanding to 8 teams, but it isn't an argument for using conference champ criteria over a committee.

Second, I don't think your thinking on criteria is very clear. My Alabama/Citadel example was extreme, but it made the point - SOS isn't just a little thing, its *everything*. A record is meaningless unless we look at who was played.

Going 12-0 vs a soft schedule is not necessarily deserving of a playoff berth in a system where there is just 8 spots for 130 teams. Doing "everything you can" doesn't cut it, when "everything you can" was just not very much because the games were soft. It's like me solving 12 straight easy addition problems and thinking I deserve to advance in a math tournament over someone who solved 10 out of 12 far tougher calculus problems. That's just dumb, IMO.

IMO, the problem with advocating "objective" criteria for college football playoffs is that there is no objective criteria that are any good. Winning your conference isn't, because conferences vary in strength, and also conference champs are chosen based just on conference games, throwing out OOC games.

Better to have a human element that can adjust for those obvious factors, and so far, based on comparisons with independent sources like the AP poll and computers, the CFP has done a great job.

(08-14-2019 01:59 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  5 Highest Ranked Conference Champions + 3 Highest Ranked At-Larges

New Year's Day Quarterfinals
Cotton Bowl 11e/10c
Orange Bowl 230e/230e
Rose Bowl 6e/3p (B1G vs PAC if both qualify & aren't both top-3)
Sugar Bowl 930e/830c

Saturday Semifinals
Peach Bowl 5e/5e
Fiesta Bowl 9e/7m

National Championship
Played at Rose Bowl every year -- the sport's ultimate game belongs in the sport's ultimate stadium (ie. 05 USC/Texas)

---------

New Year's Eve becomes a "best of the rest" extravaganza of traditional bowls

New Year's Eve
Outback 11e/11e
Gator 12e/12e
Sun 1e/11m
Citrus 2e/2e
Liberty 3e/2c
Independence 4e/3c
Cactus 5e/3m
Alamo 6e/5c
Vegas 7e/5m
Holiday 8e/5p

I like most of that except the two semi games should not be bowls; make the Fiesta and Peach either NYE or rotate with the quarterfinals. No team should play in two bowl games the same season. The semis and the NC should be at neutral sites. Would be cool to have the semis back to back days at the same stadium (obviously turf). Have four fan bases in the same city.

(08-15-2019 06:46 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-14-2019 06:31 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(08-14-2019 05:58 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-14-2019 11:23 AM)1845 Bear Wrote:  Straight eight will simply exclude the G5 unless they are up against a lesser P5. They’ll arbitrarily justify it even with unbeaten teams who deserve a shot and we end up with subjective standards instead of objective ones.

Straight 8 will simply exclude ... teams that aren't ranked in the top 8, whether they are P5 or G5, and since there are 130 teams, that means a whole lot from both.

Going unbeaten versus a soft schedule absolutely does not mean you have earned/deserve a playoff spot. It should be obvious that going 9-3 vs a tough schedule can be much more of an achievement than 12-0 vs a soft one.

Is it a tougher SOS? Yes. But one team did everything hey could and the other lost more than 20% of their games. Only one earned a right to be there and only subjective criteria could elevate the other one.

First, the problem of 2014 isn't a problem with the method used to select the teams - a committee - it was a problem of the number of teams in the playoffs, four. Even a totally objective "must be a conference champ to make the playoffs" method with no human committee involvement would have left out two of the six teams you think were worthy of playing for the title, because you can't put six teams in a four team playoff. So 2014 is an argument for expanding to 8 teams, but it isn't an argument for using conference champ criteria over a committee.

Second, I don't think your thinking on criteria is very clear. My Alabama/Citadel example was extreme, but it made the point - SOS isn't just a little thing, its *everything*. A record is meaningless unless we look at who was played.

Going 12-0 vs a soft schedule is not necessarily deserving of a playoff berth in a system where there is just 8 spots for 130 teams. Doing "everything you can" doesn't cut it, when "everything you can" was just not very much because the games were soft. It's like me solving 12 straight easy addition problems and thinking I deserve to advance in a math tournament over someone who solved 10 out of 12 far tougher calculus problems. That's just dumb, IMO.

Sigh... there you go again throwing out the only objective criteria we have here.

At the end of the day the way the playoff is settled isn’t “who could win more if they played 10 times?”- it’s who ACTUALLY WON.

You are arguing strength of record.
I am arguing who played their way in.

Quote:IMO, the problem with advocating "objective" criteria for college football playoffs is that there is no objective criteria that are any good. Winning your conference isn't, because conferences vary in strength, and also conference champs are chosen based just on conference games, throwing out OOC games.

Better to have a human element that can adjust for those obvious factors, and so far, based on comparisons with independent sources like the AP poll and computers, the CFP has done a great job.

Completely disagree. If you play your way in by winning every time out you should be in if your schedule is even close to mediocre.

Losing three times against the #1 SOS is an impressive season but it’s obvious you didn’t earn the right to be national champs since 20% of your year was spent losing. You had your shot and blew it three times. Most years a national champ can’t lose once and rarely can lose twice.

At the end of the day you are arguing that actually winning should only selectively matter to qualify for a playoff where you have to win or go home. All that means is if enough people subjectively like you or your league/brand you get a get out of jail free card and the team that took care of business gets the shaft and arbitrarily denied.

(08-14-2019 12:53 PM)ArQ Wrote:  

(08-09-2019 04:34 PM)JHS55 Wrote:  A5 action playoffs
A5 moves to 32 teams and has their own and separate playoffs set up any way they want too

32 teams is too small. Some schools just have a bad decade or two. Even top schools don't like 32. The more realistic number should be 56 or 64. First is to cut off all G5 schools. Then cut a few real bad schools in current P5 like Washington State and Oregon State. The exception are BYU and Cincinnati. BYU is a traditional football power. Cincinnati is the second best team in a big state (Ohio). They are more deserving than small state No.1 like Minnesota, Missouri, Arkansas or big state No. 4/5 like Baylor, Texas Tech, Wake Forest. California can have four. Florida and Texas can have three. It is a stretch but I also give North Carolina three. All other states cannot have more than two.

Most will disagree with you on this forum, but I like the way you think.

(08-15-2019 08:57 AM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(08-15-2019 06:46 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-14-2019 06:31 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(08-14-2019 05:58 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-14-2019 11:23 AM)1845 Bear Wrote:  Straight eight will simply exclude the G5 unless they are up against a lesser P5. They’ll arbitrarily justify it even with unbeaten teams who deserve a shot and we end up with subjective standards instead of objective ones.

Straight 8 will simply exclude ... teams that aren't ranked in the top 8, whether they are P5 or G5, and since there are 130 teams, that means a whole lot from both.

Going unbeaten versus a soft schedule absolutely does not mean you have earned/deserve a playoff spot. It should be obvious that going 9-3 vs a tough schedule can be much more of an achievement than 12-0 vs a soft one.

Is it a tougher SOS? Yes. But one team did everything hey could and the other lost more than 20% of their games. Only one earned a right to be there and only subjective criteria could elevate the other one.

First, the problem of 2014 isn't a problem with the method used to select the teams - a committee - it was a problem of the number of teams in the playoffs, four. Even a totally objective "must be a conference champ to make the playoffs" method with no human committee involvement would have left out two of the six teams you think were worthy of playing for the title, because you can't put six teams in a four team playoff. So 2014 is an argument for expanding to 8 teams, but it isn't an argument for using conference champ criteria over a committee.

Second, I don't think your thinking on criteria is very clear. My Alabama/Citadel example was extreme, but it made the point - SOS isn't just a little thing, its *everything*. A record is meaningless unless we look at who was played.

Going 12-0 vs a soft schedule is not necessarily deserving of a playoff berth in a system where there is just 8 spots for 130 teams. Doing "everything you can" doesn't cut it, when "everything you can" was just not very much because the games were soft. It's like me solving 12 straight easy addition problems and thinking I deserve to advance in a math tournament over someone who solved 10 out of 12 far tougher calculus problems. That's just dumb, IMO.

Sigh... there you go again throwing out the only objective criteria we have here.

At the end of the day the way the playoff is settled isn’t “who could win more if they played 10 times?”- it’s who ACTUALLY WON.

You are arguing strength of record.
I am arguing who played their way in.

Quote:IMO, the problem with advocating "objective" criteria for college football playoffs is that there is no objective criteria that are any good. Winning your conference isn't, because conferences vary in strength, and also conference champs are chosen based just on conference games, throwing out OOC games.

Better to have a human element that can adjust for those obvious factors, and so far, based on comparisons with independent sources like the AP poll and computers, the CFP has done a great job.

Completely disagree. If you play your way in by winning every time out you should be in if your schedule is even close to mediocre.

Losing three times against the #1 SOS is an impressive season but it’s obvious you didn’t earn the right to be national champs since 20% of your year was spent losing. You had your shot and blew it three times. Most years a national champ can’t lose once and rarely can lose twice.

At the end of the day you are arguing that actually winning should only selectively matter to qualify for a playoff where you have to win or go home. All that means is if enough people subjectively like you or your league/brand you get a get out of jail free card and the team that took care of business gets the shaft and arbitrarily denied.

Very well said. Thats why I tend to lean toward a system like the 5-1-2 that actually provides two paths into the the playoff. One path is clearly---win your way in. If you win all your games--your going to get in. The second path---via the wild cards, offers a second chance path to the team with a sparkling resume that lost perhaps a key game and failed to win their conference (or provides a path for the exceptional indy team with no conference to win). Its not perfect---but its the best option for balancing the issues of fair access to every team with insuring we get the field of participants needed to make the playoff a legitimate national champion.

It seems to me if you get every P5 champion, the best of the G5 champs, and you add in the 2 highest ranked teams outside of that auto-qualifier group from a selection committee (that means there is no possible way the #1 and #2 committee ranked teams are every left out)---then you have the basis for a very sound, reasonable, and legitimate playoff field that would be accepted by most any reasonable fan. Basically, it would be following a model that is strikingly similar to the NCAA tournament and the NFL playoff models---modified slightly to reflect the realities of being limited to just 8 slots and recognizing the unique difficulties of comparing differing conferences with differing levels of scheduling within the same FBS division.

(08-15-2019 08:57 AM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(08-15-2019 06:46 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-14-2019 06:31 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(08-14-2019 05:58 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-14-2019 11:23 AM)1845 Bear Wrote:  Straight eight will simply exclude the G5 unless they are up against a lesser P5. They’ll arbitrarily justify it even with unbeaten teams who deserve a shot and we end up with subjective standards instead of objective ones.

Straight 8 will simply exclude ... teams that aren't ranked in the top 8, whether they are P5 or G5, and since there are 130 teams, that means a whole lot from both.

Going unbeaten versus a soft schedule absolutely does not mean you have earned/deserve a playoff spot. It should be obvious that going 9-3 vs a tough schedule can be much more of an achievement than 12-0 vs a soft one.

Is it a tougher SOS? Yes. But one team did everything hey could and the other lost more than 20% of their games. Only one earned a right to be there and only subjective criteria could elevate the other one.

First, the problem of 2014 isn't a problem with the method used to select the teams - a committee - it was a problem of the number of teams in the playoffs, four. Even a totally objective "must be a conference champ to make the playoffs" method with no human committee involvement would have left out two of the six teams you think were worthy of playing for the title, because you can't put six teams in a four team playoff. So 2014 is an argument for expanding to 8 teams, but it isn't an argument for using conference champ criteria over a committee.

Second, I don't think your thinking on criteria is very clear. My Alabama/Citadel example was extreme, but it made the point - SOS isn't just a little thing, its *everything*. A record is meaningless unless we look at who was played.

Going 12-0 vs a soft schedule is not necessarily deserving of a playoff berth in a system where there is just 8 spots for 130 teams. Doing "everything you can" doesn't cut it, when "everything you can" was just not very much because the games were soft. It's like me solving 12 straight easy addition problems and thinking I deserve to advance in a math tournament over someone who solved 10 out of 12 far tougher calculus problems. That's just dumb, IMO.

Sigh... there you go again throwing out the only objective criteria we have here.

At the end of the day the way the playoff is settled isn’t “who could win more if they played 10 times?”- it’s who ACTUALLY WON.

You are arguing strength of record.
I am arguing who played their way in.

Quote:IMO, the problem with advocating "objective" criteria for college football playoffs is that there is no objective criteria that are any good. Winning your conference isn't, because conferences vary in strength, and also conference champs are chosen based just on conference games, throwing out OOC games.

Better to have a human element that can adjust for those obvious factors, and so far, based on comparisons with independent sources like the AP poll and computers, the CFP has done a great job.

Completely disagree. If you play your way in by winning every time out you should be in if your schedule is even close to mediocre.

Losing three times against the #1 SOS is an impressive season but it’s obvious you didn’t earn the right to be national champs since 20% of your year was spent losing. You had your shot and blew it three times. Most years a national champ can’t lose once and rarely can lose twice.

At the end of the day you are arguing that actually winning should only selectively matter to qualify for a playoff where you have to win or go home. All that means is if enough people subjectively like you or your league/brand you get a get out of jail free card and the team that took care of business gets the shaft and arbitrarily denied.

IMO, it is just silly to argue that someone "played their way in" by winning all their games without looking at who they played. As I've explained, a record means nothing, literally nothing, absent an evaluation of who was played.

The only time you can reasonably say that say a 12-0 record is better than a 9-3 record is if the schedules are reasonably similar. Not exactly so, but reasonably. In the NFL, straight record decides the division title and advancement to the playoffs, because even though teams do not play identical schedules, the schedules are pretty darn close, there isn't much of a gap between the #1 schedule and the #32 schedule.

But college football isn't like that. Schedules vary tremendously, so 12-0 just cannot be reasonably regarded as a basis for automatic playoff inclusion.

Bottom line is: P5 and G5 often play *categorically* different schedules, so comparing 12-0 G5 to a 9-3 P5 is an apples/oranges comparison. It's like saying an FCS team that goes 12-0 deserves to be in a playoff over a G5 team that goes 10-2, when the FCS team played a categorically weaker schedule.

Heck, according to Sagarin, last year, UCF's schedule was *closer* in strength to FCS champ North Dakota State's than it was to Stanford's. So NDS had as much right to claim to be in a playoff vs UCF as UCF did vs a Stanford.

IMO, makes no sense.

(08-15-2019 10:50 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-15-2019 08:57 AM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(08-15-2019 06:46 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-14-2019 06:31 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(08-14-2019 05:58 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Straight 8 will simply exclude ... teams that aren't ranked in the top 8, whether they are P5 or G5, and since there are 130 teams, that means a whole lot from both.

Going unbeaten versus a soft schedule absolutely does not mean you have earned/deserve a playoff spot. It should be obvious that going 9-3 vs a tough schedule can be much more of an achievement than 12-0 vs a soft one.

Is it a tougher SOS? Yes. But one team did everything hey could and the other lost more than 20% of their games. Only one earned a right to be there and only subjective criteria could elevate the other one.

First, the problem of 2014 isn't a problem with the method used to select the teams - a committee - it was a problem of the number of teams in the playoffs, four. Even a totally objective "must be a conference champ to make the playoffs" method with no human committee involvement would have left out two of the six teams you think were worthy of playing for the title, because you can't put six teams in a four team playoff. So 2014 is an argument for expanding to 8 teams, but it isn't an argument for using conference champ criteria over a committee.

Second, I don't think your thinking on criteria is very clear. My Alabama/Citadel example was extreme, but it made the point - SOS isn't just a little thing, its *everything*. A record is meaningless unless we look at who was played.

Going 12-0 vs a soft schedule is not necessarily deserving of a playoff berth in a system where there is just 8 spots for 130 teams. Doing "everything you can" doesn't cut it, when "everything you can" was just not very much because the games were soft. It's like me solving 12 straight easy addition problems and thinking I deserve to advance in a math tournament over someone who solved 10 out of 12 far tougher calculus problems. That's just dumb, IMO.

Sigh... there you go again throwing out the only objective criteria we have here.

At the end of the day the way the playoff is settled isn’t “who could win more if they played 10 times?”- it’s who ACTUALLY WON.

You are arguing strength of record.
I am arguing who played their way in.

Quote:IMO, the problem with advocating "objective" criteria for college football playoffs is that there is no objective criteria that are any good. Winning your conference isn't, because conferences vary in strength, and also conference champs are chosen based just on conference games, throwing out OOC games.

Better to have a human element that can adjust for those obvious factors, and so far, based on comparisons with independent sources like the AP poll and computers, the CFP has done a great job.

Completely disagree. If you play your way in by winning every time out you should be in if your schedule is even close to mediocre.

Losing three times against the #1 SOS is an impressive season but it’s obvious you didn’t earn the right to be national champs since 20% of your year was spent losing. You had your shot and blew it three times. Most years a national champ can’t lose once and rarely can lose twice.

At the end of the day you are arguing that actually winning should only selectively matter to qualify for a playoff where you have to win or go home. All that means is if enough people subjectively like you or your league/brand you get a get out of jail free card and the team that took care of business gets the shaft and arbitrarily denied.

IMO, it is just silly to argue that someone "played their way in" by winning all their games without looking at who they played. As I've explained, a record means nothing, literally nothing, absent an evaluation of who was played.

The only time you can reasonably say that say a 12-0 record is better than a 9-3 record is if the schedules are reasonably similar. Not exactly so, but reasonably. In the NFL, straight record decides the division title and advancement to the playoffs, because even though teams do not play identical schedules, the schedules are pretty darn close, there isn't much of a gap between the #1 schedule and the #32 schedule.

But college football isn't like that. Schedules vary tremendously, so 12-0 just cannot be reasonably regarded as a basis for automatic playoff inclusion.

Bottom line is: P5 and G5 often play *categorically* different schedules, so comparing 12-0 G5 to a 9-3 P5 is an apples/oranges comparison. It's like saying an FCS team that goes 12-0 deserves to be in a playoff over a G5 team that goes 10-2, when the FCS team played a categorically weaker schedule.

Heck, according to Sagarin, last year, UCF's schedule was *closer* in strength to FCS champ North Dakota State's than it was to Stanford's. So NDS had as much right to claim to be in a playoff vs UCF as UCF did vs a Stanford.

IMO, makes no sense.

So your argument is they should have no path even if they win every game? That some overrated helmet school should have THREE fails and still get a shot?

Sounds like it as the SOS will never be the same. That isn’t a fair system- it’s a joke.


SOS isn’t and has never been equal. FSU in the 90s didn’t play a comparable SOS to the other power leagues but they deserved to play for titles because they WON.

We aren’t talking about denying a P5 champ who in most years is a playoff title contender with zero up to maybe two losses.

We are talking about teams that lose 3+ games that don’t even sniff a title shot now. Name the last three loss team to be in contention for a BCS title or playoff spot? Name the last two loss team to win one other than 2007 LSU?

One slot for non P5 leagues to get a potential unbeaten isn’t usually taking a legit contender out.

You'll never convince Quo on this issue. He's like Juror #3 from Twelve Angry men, holding out despite the evidence based on old prejudices, biases, and nostalgia for the ways things were in the old days.

(08-15-2019 10:50 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-15-2019 08:57 AM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(08-15-2019 06:46 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-14-2019 06:31 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(08-14-2019 05:58 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Straight 8 will simply exclude ... teams that aren't ranked in the top 8, whether they are P5 or G5, and since there are 130 teams, that means a whole lot from both.

Going unbeaten versus a soft schedule absolutely does not mean you have earned/deserve a playoff spot. It should be obvious that going 9-3 vs a tough schedule can be much more of an achievement than 12-0 vs a soft one.

Is it a tougher SOS? Yes. But one team did everything hey could and the other lost more than 20% of their games. Only one earned a right to be there and only subjective criteria could elevate the other one.

First, the problem of 2014 isn't a problem with the method used to select the teams - a committee - it was a problem of the number of teams in the playoffs, four. Even a totally objective "must be a conference champ to make the playoffs" method with no human committee involvement would have left out two of the six teams you think were worthy of playing for the title, because you can't put six teams in a four team playoff. So 2014 is an argument for expanding to 8 teams, but it isn't an argument for using conference champ criteria over a committee.

Second, I don't think your thinking on criteria is very clear. My Alabama/Citadel example was extreme, but it made the point - SOS isn't just a little thing, its *everything*. A record is meaningless unless we look at who was played.

Going 12-0 vs a soft schedule is not necessarily deserving of a playoff berth in a system where there is just 8 spots for 130 teams. Doing "everything you can" doesn't cut it, when "everything you can" was just not very much because the games were soft. It's like me solving 12 straight easy addition problems and thinking I deserve to advance in a math tournament over someone who solved 10 out of 12 far tougher calculus problems. That's just dumb, IMO.

Sigh... there you go again throwing out the only objective criteria we have here.

At the end of the day the way the playoff is settled isn’t “who could win more if they played 10 times?”- it’s who ACTUALLY WON.

You are arguing strength of record.
I am arguing who played their way in.

Quote:IMO, the problem with advocating "objective" criteria for college football playoffs is that there is no objective criteria that are any good. Winning your conference isn't, because conferences vary in strength, and also conference champs are chosen based just on conference games, throwing out OOC games.

Better to have a human element that can adjust for those obvious factors, and so far, based on comparisons with independent sources like the AP poll and computers, the CFP has done a great job.

Completely disagree. If you play your way in by winning every time out you should be in if your schedule is even close to mediocre.

Losing three times against the #1 SOS is an impressive season but it’s obvious you didn’t earn the right to be national champs since 20% of your year was spent losing. You had your shot and blew it three times. Most years a national champ can’t lose once and rarely can lose twice.

At the end of the day you are arguing that actually winning should only selectively matter to qualify for a playoff where you have to win or go home. All that means is if enough people subjectively like you or your league/brand you get a get out of jail free card and the team that took care of business gets the shaft and arbitrarily denied.

IMO, it is just silly to argue that someone "played their way in" by winning all their games without looking at who they played. As I've explained, a record means nothing, literally nothing, absent an evaluation of who was played.

The only time you can reasonably say that say a 12-0 record is better than a 9-3 record is if the schedules are reasonably similar. Not exactly so, but reasonably. In the NFL, straight record decides the division title and advancement to the playoffs, because even though teams do not play identical schedules, the schedules are pretty darn close, there isn't much of a gap between the #1 schedule and the #32 schedule.

But college football isn't like that. Schedules vary tremendously, so 12-0 just cannot be reasonably regarded as a basis for automatic playoff inclusion.

Bottom line is: P5 and G5 often play *categorically* different schedules, so comparing 12-0 G5 to a 9-3 P5 is an apples/oranges comparison. It's like saying an FCS team that goes 12-0 deserves to be in a playoff over a G5 team that goes 10-2, when the FCS team played a categorically weaker schedule.

Heck, according to Sagarin, last year, UCF's schedule was *closer* in strength to FCS champ North Dakota State's than it was to Stanford's. So NDS had as much right to claim to be in a playoff vs UCF as UCF did vs a Stanford.

IMO, makes no sense.

The problem you simply refuse to acknowledge is that the division of FBS has 5 conferences with no access to the playoff regardless of what they do. These conferences have absolutely no control over 75% of their schedule and on are a tiny minority of votes on the Committee (thus they have no real voice in the selection process). At best, any G5 is going to have no better than the 65th best SOS simply as a result of having 8 G5's on their schedule. SOS will always be an issue. Still---any system that routinely allows schools to go undefeated and be left out is essentially a flawed system for the get go.

You're going to have to figure out a system that allows everyone a legitimate path to the post season. Yes--schedules differ---welcome to the reality of the college football. Every division of the NFL is not equal nor is every conference in D1 basketball equal---yet we have figured out a way to make it work in a manner that gives reasonable access to all while providing a system that insures we see the best teams and crown a legit champion. My guess is a 2 path system like I describe in my previous post is the only real viable answer.

(08-15-2019 11:13 AM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(08-15-2019 10:50 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-15-2019 08:57 AM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(08-15-2019 06:46 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-14-2019 06:31 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  Is it a tougher SOS? Yes. But one team did everything hey could and the other lost more than 20% of their games. Only one earned a right to be there and only subjective criteria could elevate the other one.

First, the problem of 2014 isn't a problem with the method used to select the teams - a committee - it was a problem of the number of teams in the playoffs, four. Even a totally objective "must be a conference champ to make the playoffs" method with no human committee involvement would have left out two of the six teams you think were worthy of playing for the title, because you can't put six teams in a four team playoff. So 2014 is an argument for expanding to 8 teams, but it isn't an argument for using conference champ criteria over a committee.

Second, I don't think your thinking on criteria is very clear. My Alabama/Citadel example was extreme, but it made the point - SOS isn't just a little thing, its *everything*. A record is meaningless unless we look at who was played.

Going 12-0 vs a soft schedule is not necessarily deserving of a playoff berth in a system where there is just 8 spots for 130 teams. Doing "everything you can" doesn't cut it, when "everything you can" was just not very much because the games were soft. It's like me solving 12 straight easy addition problems and thinking I deserve to advance in a math tournament over someone who solved 10 out of 12 far tougher calculus problems. That's just dumb, IMO.

Sigh... there you go again throwing out the only objective criteria we have here.

At the end of the day the way the playoff is settled isn’t “who could win more if they played 10 times?”- it’s who ACTUALLY WON.

You are arguing strength of record.
I am arguing who played their way in.

Quote:IMO, the problem with advocating "objective" criteria for college football playoffs is that there is no objective criteria that are any good. Winning your conference isn't, because conferences vary in strength, and also conference champs are chosen based just on conference games, throwing out OOC games.

Better to have a human element that can adjust for those obvious factors, and so far, based on comparisons with independent sources like the AP poll and computers, the CFP has done a great job.

Completely disagree. If you play your way in by winning every time out you should be in if your schedule is even close to mediocre.

Losing three times against the #1 SOS is an impressive season but it’s obvious you didn’t earn the right to be national champs since 20% of your year was spent losing. You had your shot and blew it three times. Most years a national champ can’t lose once and rarely can lose twice.

At the end of the day you are arguing that actually winning should only selectively matter to qualify for a playoff where you have to win or go home. All that means is if enough people subjectively like you or your league/brand you get a get out of jail free card and the team that took care of business gets the shaft and arbitrarily denied.

IMO, it is just silly to argue that someone "played their way in" by winning all their games without looking at who they played. As I've explained, a record means nothing, literally nothing, absent an evaluation of who was played.

The only time you can reasonably say that say a 12-0 record is better than a 9-3 record is if the schedules are reasonably similar. Not exactly so, but reasonably. In the NFL, straight record decides the division title and advancement to the playoffs, because even though teams do not play identical schedules, the schedules are pretty darn close, there isn't much of a gap between the #1 schedule and the #32 schedule.

But college football isn't like that. Schedules vary tremendously, so 12-0 just cannot be reasonably regarded as a basis for automatic playoff inclusion.

Bottom line is: P5 and G5 often play *categorically* different schedules, so comparing 12-0 G5 to a 9-3 P5 is an apples/oranges comparison. It's like saying an FCS team that goes 12-0 deserves to be in a playoff over a G5 team that goes 10-2, when the FCS team played a categorically weaker schedule.

Heck, according to Sagarin, last year, UCF's schedule was *closer* in strength to FCS champ North Dakota State's than it was to Stanford's. So NDS had as much right to claim to be in a playoff vs UCF as UCF did vs a Stanford.

IMO, makes no sense.

So your argument is they should have no path even if they win every game? That some overrated helmet school should have THREE fails and still get a shot?

Sounds like it as the SOS will never be the same. That isn’t a fair system- it’s a joke.


SOS isn’t and has never been equal. FSU in the 90s didn’t play a comparable SOS to the other power leagues but they deserved to play for titles because they WON.

We aren’t talking about denying a P5 champ who in most years is a playoff title contender with zero up to maybe two losses.

We are talking about teams that lose 3+ games that don’t even sniff a title shot now. Name the last three loss team to be in contention for a BCS title or playoff spot? Name the last two loss team to win one other than 2007 LSU?

One slot for non P5 leagues to get a potential unbeaten isn’t usually taking a legit contender out.

No. I am saying that all teams, G5 or P5, should have the same "path", namely, being eligible to be selected by a committee. No automatic bids for anyone, P5 or G5, conference champ or not conference champ.

To me, there is no way to have a "fair system" of the kind that the NFL has. That's because FBS was never meant to be a unified competitive league. It was only a catch-all category for conferences that did not want to be in the NCAA playoffs. Nobody at Alabama ever regarded themselves as competing against Troy or South Alabama for anything in football. Nobody at Ohio State has ever thought of themselves as competing with Miami of Ohio, or Ohio University, or Cincinnati. Nobody at USC ever has regarded themselves as competing with San Jose State or Cal State Fullerton in football, and so on.

If you are at USC, historically your competition is the other PAC schools and Notre Dame. And you hope that if you win the PAC and beat Notre Dame, that is enough to play the B1G champ in the Rose Bowl and if you win get voted #1, or for the BCS formula to put you in the BCS title game, or CFP to select your for the CFP playoffs. What the Sun Belt or AAC or MWC is doing isn't on your radar. These schools have never been a part of the same competitive 'league', just the same NCAA category. And 130 members is just way too unwieldy, given the nature of the sport.

So really, to have a "fair system" that mirrors the NFL, we'd have to cut FBS down to size, reorganize it in to a true competitive league. That would probably mean a playoff just among the P5 conferences, or maybe a league even smaller, with fewer than 40 teams. There's a reason all the pro leagues have about 32 teams - anything bigger and it is hard to have competitive parity and a coherent playoffs among equals.

The only coherent playoff system among unequals that works is the NCAA hoops tournament, which combines the power leagues with the mid-major leagues and some truly minor leagues. And that's because of the nature of basketball, namely that you can accommodate everyone with a 70-team tournament, and it's no big deal to play 6 games in a 18 day period of time. Football cannot do that.

Intended or not Quo’s criteria would result in a moving goalpost that would exclude all G5’s and give teams with the right logos multiple chances. There needs to be a better setup than that.

(08-15-2019 11:25 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-15-2019 10:50 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-15-2019 08:57 AM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(08-15-2019 06:46 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-14-2019 06:31 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  Is it a tougher SOS? Yes. But one team did everything hey could and the other lost more than 20% of their games. Only one earned a right to be there and only subjective criteria could elevate the other one.

First, the problem of 2014 isn't a problem with the method used to select the teams - a committee - it was a problem of the number of teams in the playoffs, four. Even a totally objective "must be a conference champ to make the playoffs" method with no human committee involvement would have left out two of the six teams you think were worthy of playing for the title, because you can't put six teams in a four team playoff. So 2014 is an argument for expanding to 8 teams, but it isn't an argument for using conference champ criteria over a committee.

Second, I don't think your thinking on criteria is very clear. My Alabama/Citadel example was extreme, but it made the point - SOS isn't just a little thing, its *everything*. A record is meaningless unless we look at who was played.

Going 12-0 vs a soft schedule is not necessarily deserving of a playoff berth in a system where there is just 8 spots for 130 teams. Doing "everything you can" doesn't cut it, when "everything you can" was just not very much because the games were soft. It's like me solving 12 straight easy addition problems and thinking I deserve to advance in a math tournament over someone who solved 10 out of 12 far tougher calculus problems. That's just dumb, IMO.

Sigh... there you go again throwing out the only objective criteria we have here.

At the end of the day the way the playoff is settled isn’t “who could win more if they played 10 times?”- it’s who ACTUALLY WON.

You are arguing strength of record.
I am arguing who played their way in.

Quote:IMO, the problem with advocating "objective" criteria for college football playoffs is that there is no objective criteria that are any good. Winning your conference isn't, because conferences vary in strength, and also conference champs are chosen based just on conference games, throwing out OOC games.

Better to have a human element that can adjust for those obvious factors, and so far, based on comparisons with independent sources like the AP poll and computers, the CFP has done a great job.

Completely disagree. If you play your way in by winning every time out you should be in if your schedule is even close to mediocre.

Losing three times against the #1 SOS is an impressive season but it’s obvious you didn’t earn the right to be national champs since 20% of your year was spent losing. You had your shot and blew it three times. Most years a national champ can’t lose once and rarely can lose twice.

At the end of the day you are arguing that actually winning should only selectively matter to qualify for a playoff where you have to win or go home. All that means is if enough people subjectively like you or your league/brand you get a get out of jail free card and the team that took care of business gets the shaft and arbitrarily denied.

IMO, it is just silly to argue that someone "played their way in" by winning all their games without looking at who they played. As I've explained, a record means nothing, literally nothing, absent an evaluation of who was played.

The only time you can reasonably say that say a 12-0 record is better than a 9-3 record is if the schedules are reasonably similar. Not exactly so, but reasonably. In the NFL, straight record decides the division title and advancement to the playoffs, because even though teams do not play identical schedules, the schedules are pretty darn close, there isn't much of a gap between the #1 schedule and the #32 schedule.

But college football isn't like that. Schedules vary tremendously, so 12-0 just cannot be reasonably regarded as a basis for automatic playoff inclusion.

Bottom line is: P5 and G5 often play *categorically* different schedules, so comparing 12-0 G5 to a 9-3 P5 is an apples/oranges comparison. It's like saying an FCS team that goes 12-0 deserves to be in a playoff over a G5 team that goes 10-2, when the FCS team played a categorically weaker schedule.

Heck, according to Sagarin, last year, UCF's schedule was *closer* in strength to FCS champ North Dakota State's than it was to Stanford's. So NDS had as much right to claim to be in a playoff vs UCF as UCF did vs a Stanford.

IMO, makes no sense.

The problem you simply refuse to acknowledge is that the division of FBS has 5 conferences with no access to the playoff regardless of what they do. These conferences have absolutely no control over 75% of their schedule and on are a tiny minority of votes on the Committee (thus they have no real voice in the selection process). At best, any G5 is going to have no better than the 65th best SOS simply as a result of having 8 G5's on their schedule. SOS will always be an issue. Still---any system that routinely allows schools to go undefeated and be left out is essentially a flawed system for the get go.

You're going to have to figure out a system that allows everyone a legitimate path to the post season. Yes--schedules differ---welcome to the reality of the college football. Every division of the NFL is not equal nor is every conference in D1 basketball equal---yet we have figured out a way to make it work in a manner that gives reasonable access to all while providing a system that insures we see the best teams and crown a legit champion. My guess is a 2 path system like I describe in my previous post is the only real viable answer.

Too bad. Life isn’t fair. You aren’t entitled to play for titles if you play in a weak league.