(08-23-2019 04:47 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I’d like to point out who all would have been frozen out of a Straight 8 if the BCS Formula/Playoff Committee would have been determining things:

2004: Big Ten
2005: ACC, G5
2006: ACC, Big 12
2007: G5
2008: ACC
2009: ACC
2010: ACC
2011: ACC
2012: Big Ten*, G5, ACC
2013: G5
2014: G5
2015: G5
2016: G5
2017: G5
2018: PAC 12

Anyone see a problem here? Notice that once you hand things over to 12 Demi-gods suddenly the G5 get frozen out.

That's not accurate. The committee's rankings are pretty much the same as BCS rankings, and have been every year of the CFP, as I noted earlier in this thread here.

Same 4 teams in the top 4, every season. Same 8 teams in the top 8, every season.

Want to see it all at once? Here you go. Final CFP rankings for each season, side by side with what the final BCS rankings would have been for the same season:

(08-23-2019 02:08 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(08-23-2019 12:26 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-23-2019 10:16 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(08-23-2019 10:04 AM)zoocrew Wrote:  

(08-23-2019 08:23 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  A 5-1-2 where the "1" included Notre Dame is something Notre Dame would jump right on, as it would be far more favorable to them than any other system.

ND could finish ranked, say, #12, and yet still make the playoffs as long as they beat out every other G5.

I daresay that's not likely to happen. Notre Dame is not in any way comparable to a G5. But for the same reason, because a 5-1-2 that does not include ND in the "1" would harm them, that is an unlikely system as well.

The most likely systems IMO are Straight 8, or 5-3. Because those don't overly favor, nor harm, Notre Dame.

nah

Like I've stated, I think a straight forward compromise is simply that all top 8 independents and G5 champs will get priority for the at-large slots over any P5 non-champ in the top 8. This way, ND (or any other independent) or G5 champ that would have otherwise made the playoff in a "straight 8" system would not get shut out. To me, that's a fair compromise in exchange for the P5 getting auto-bids for their champions. Essentially, if you're a P5 at-large candidate, then you had an opportunity to get an auto-bid to get into the playoff and, as a result, you shouldn't be jumping a top 8 team that didn't have any opportunity for an auto-bid.

That also provides further clarity for the field: if you're an independent or G5 champ that's in the top 8, then you're in the playoff and aren't either given an advantage or disadvantage compared to a straight 8 system. In contrast, the P5 get an advantage for their champs in an auto-bid system, so it's equitable that their at-large teams don't get the same benefit.

(If there are somehow 4 independents and G5 champs that are all in the top 8 in a particular season that causes one of those teams to be shut out, then that has meant that the apocalypse has come upon us. I'll take my chances on that one compared to the more problematic issue, at least from the perspective of the powers that be, that a P5 champ doesn't make it in a straight 8 playoff.)

The problem with this scenario is that IMO it could result in a *really good* P5 team being shut out, which could create legitimacy issues.

E.g., imagine these are the final CFP rankings:

1) Alabama 12-1
2) Clemson 12-1
3) USC 12-1
4) Oklahoma 12-1
5) Ohio State 11-2*
6) Notre Dame 10-2
7) TCU 11-2*
8) Houston 12-1

Where an "*" indicates a P5 champ.

The SEC, ACC, and PAC champs are all outside the top 8, they have 3+ losses and pulled upsets in their CCGs over Alabama, Clemson, and USC.

So in S8 we get .... those 8 teams.

In 5-1-2 we get .... Notre Dame, Oklahoma and USC, the #3, #4, and #6 teams booted out in favor of the three non-ranked P5 champs. That's a big hit to legitimacy, IMO.

In your system, if I understand it correctly, we'd lose #2 Clemson, #3 USC, and #4 Oklahoma, because we'd need to protect #6 ND and #8 Houston while ushering in the three outside-the-eight P5 champs.

Losing #2, #3, and #4 would really hurt the validity of the playoff, IMO.

Is this likely? Of course not. But it's another reason why IMO straight 8 is best. S8 just doesn't give us any screwy scenarios.

Quo—I want you to find me an example between 1992-2018 where 4 out of the 5 P leagues saw an upset in their conference title game. You can’t use a near impossible scenario to justify 5-1-2 being unfair or illegitimate.

It was just an example, and one that I said was unlikely.

In engineering and other disciplines, this called a "stress test", pushing a system to its limits to see where it becomes absurd or collapses.

The thing about Straight 8 is, it has no such absurd outcomes. You never have a situation where say a #7 team is booted out so a #15 team can get in, which is not only possible under 5-1-2, it would in fact have happened a few times if 5-1-2 had been in effect the last five years of the CFP.

(08-23-2019 02:10 PM)e-parade Wrote:  

(08-23-2019 12:26 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-23-2019 10:16 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(08-23-2019 10:04 AM)zoocrew Wrote:  

(08-23-2019 08:23 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  A 5-1-2 where the "1" included Notre Dame is something Notre Dame would jump right on, as it would be far more favorable to them than any other system.

ND could finish ranked, say, #12, and yet still make the playoffs as long as they beat out every other G5.

I daresay that's not likely to happen. Notre Dame is not in any way comparable to a G5. But for the same reason, because a 5-1-2 that does not include ND in the "1" would harm them, that is an unlikely system as well.

The most likely systems IMO are Straight 8, or 5-3. Because those don't overly favor, nor harm, Notre Dame.

nah

Like I've stated, I think a straight forward compromise is simply that all top 8 independents and G5 champs will get priority for the at-large slots over any P5 non-champ in the top 8. This way, ND (or any other independent) or G5 champ that would have otherwise made the playoff in a "straight 8" system would not get shut out. To me, that's a fair compromise in exchange for the P5 getting auto-bids for their champions. Essentially, if you're a P5 at-large candidate, then you had an opportunity to get an auto-bid to get into the playoff and, as a result, you shouldn't be jumping a top 8 team that didn't have any opportunity for an auto-bid.

That also provides further clarity for the field: if you're an independent or G5 champ that's in the top 8, then you're in the playoff and aren't either given an advantage or disadvantage compared to a straight 8 system. In contrast, the P5 get an advantage for their champs in an auto-bid system, so it's equitable that their at-large teams don't get the same benefit.

(If there are somehow 4 independents and G5 champs that are all in the top 8 in a particular season that causes one of those teams to be shut out, then that has meant that the apocalypse has come upon us. I'll take my chances on that one compared to the more problematic issue, at least from the perspective of the powers that be, that a P5 champ doesn't make it in a straight 8 playoff.)

The problem with this scenario is that IMO it could result in a *really good* P5 team being shut out, which could create legitimacy issues.

E.g., imagine these are the final CFP rankings:

1) Alabama 12-1
2) Clemson 12-1
3) USC 12-1
4) Oklahoma 12-1
5) Ohio State 11-2*
6) Notre Dame 10-2
7) TCU 11-2*
8) Houston 12-1

Where an "*" indicates a P5 champ.

The SEC, ACC, and PAC champs are all outside the top 8, they have 3+ losses and pulled upsets in their CCGs over Alabama, Clemson, and USC.

So in S8 we get .... those 8 teams.

In 5-1-2 we get .... Notre Dame, Oklahoma and USC, the #3, #4, and #6 teams booted out in favor of the three non-ranked P5 champs. That's a big hit to legitimacy, IMO.

In your system, if I understand it correctly, we'd lose #2 Clemson, #3 USC, and #4 Oklahoma, because we'd need to protect #6 ND and #8 Houston while ushering in the three outside-the-eight P5 champs.

Losing #2, #3, and #4 would really hurt the validity of the playoff, IMO.

Is this likely? Of course not. But it's another reason why IMO straight 8 is best. S8 just doesn't give us any screwy scenarios.

How in god's name are Alabama, Clemson, USC, and Oklahoma all going to lose their conference championship game and not end up dropping in the rankings there?

Those top three teams aren't going to drop behind teams with more losses in the final rankings. Yes, they might if they got blown out in their CCGs, but OK, I'm assuming they lose close games.

There isn't any way 2-loss Ohio State is moving past those 1-loss teams, and that goes for everyone further down as well.

(08-23-2019 05:13 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(08-23-2019 04:47 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I’d like to point out who all would have been frozen out of a Straight 8 if the BCS Formula/Playoff Committee would have been determining things:

2004: Big Ten
2005: ACC, G5
2006: ACC, Big 12
2007: G5
2008: ACC
2009: ACC
2010: ACC
2011: ACC
2012: Big Ten*, G5, ACC
2013: G5
2014: G5
2015: G5
2016: G5
2017: G5
2018: PAC 12

Anyone see a problem here? Notice that once you hand things over to 12 Demi-gods suddenly the G5 get frozen out. In 2018 with a playoff spot on the line they probably find a way to have 9 Washington jump 8 UCF.

Actually, that's more evidence for why the P5 would want auto-bids. 11 P5 conferences in the last 15 years (including everyone except for the SEC at one point) would have been shut out of a straight 8 playoff. That shows that it's a legitimate danger that the P5 would want a guarantee to counteract.

I don't think data from 2004 - 2012 is relevant, as that was under a system where we had 6 Power conferences, and also significantly different conference alignments.

The far more relevant data is from the past 5 years of the actual CFP. And that data shows that 24 out of 25 of the P5 champs would have made a straight 8 playoffs.

I know you think the conferences put great store in the notion of getting something automatically rather than 'merely' very likely. IMO, that really only applies to money, as they have never insisted on their champs getting a playoff spot ever.

Bottom line is, under S8, the only P5 champ of the past five years that would have missed the playoffs would have been Washington this past year. And IMO, had that happened there would have been ZERO outrage in the public, because Washington was obviously a soft champ not worthy of being in an elite playoff. In fact, the PAC would have looked silly had it screamed murder that its bad champ was left out.

That's another thing - under S8, the only time a P5 champ would get left out is when there was a pretty strong consensus - as reflected in their being ranked outside the top 8 - that they didn't belong anyway.

(08-23-2019 07:35 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(08-23-2019 04:47 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I’d like to point out who all would have been frozen out of a Straight 8 if the BCS Formula/Playoff Committee would have been determining things:

2004: Big Ten
2005: ACC, G5
2006: ACC, Big 12
2007: G5
2008: ACC
2009: ACC
2010: ACC
2011: ACC
2012: Big Ten*, G5, ACC
2013: G5
2014: G5
2015: G5
2016: G5
2017: G5
2018: PAC 12

Anyone see a problem here? Notice that once you hand things over to 12 Demi-gods suddenly the G5 get frozen out.

That's not accurate. The committee's rankings are pretty much the same as BCS rankings, and have been every year of the CFP, as I noted earlier in this thread here.

Same 4 teams in the top 4, every season. Same 8 teams in the top 8, every season.

Want to see it all at once? Here you go. Final CFP rankings for each season, side by side with what the final BCS rankings would have been for the same season:

I used the BCS standings the years that The BCS was in place and the CFP committee once they came into existence

(08-23-2019 08:19 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-23-2019 05:13 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(08-23-2019 04:47 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I’d like to point out who all would have been frozen out of a Straight 8 if the BCS Formula/Playoff Committee would have been determining things:

2004: Big Ten
2005: ACC, G5
2006: ACC, Big 12
2007: G5
2008: ACC
2009: ACC
2010: ACC
2011: ACC
2012: Big Ten*, G5, ACC
2013: G5
2014: G5
2015: G5
2016: G5
2017: G5
2018: PAC 12

Anyone see a problem here? Notice that once you hand things over to 12 Demi-gods suddenly the G5 get frozen out. In 2018 with a playoff spot on the line they probably find a way to have 9 Washington jump 8 UCF.

Actually, that's more evidence for why the P5 would want auto-bids. 11 P5 conferences in the last 15 years (including everyone except for the SEC at one point) would have been shut out of a straight 8 playoff. That shows that it's a legitimate danger that the P5 would want a guarantee to counteract.

I don't think data from 2004 - 2012 is relevant, as that was under a system where we had 6 Power conferences, and also significantly different conference alignments.

The far more relevant data is from the past 5 years of the actual CFP. And that data shows that 24 out of 25 of the P5 champs would have made a straight 8 playoffs.

I know you think the conferences put great store in the notion of getting something automatically rather than 'merely' very likely. IMO, that really only applies to money, as they have never insisted on their champs getting a playoff spot ever.

Bottom line is, under S8, the only P5 champ of the past five years that would have missed the playoffs would have been Washington this past year. And IMO, had that happened there would have been ZERO outrage in the public, because Washington was obviously a soft champ not worthy of being in an elite playoff. In fact, the PAC would have looked silly had it screamed murder that its bad champ was left out.

That's another thing - under S8, the only time a P5 champ would get left out is when there was a pretty strong consensus - as reflected in their being ranked outside the top 8 - that they didn't belong anyway.

You need to have a decent data set to draw any real conclusions and 5 years is too small a pool. It’s not a perfect system but the other BCS leagues hardly treated the post raid BE as an equal. You’re trying to skew the data pool to fit your views here.

If I had some advanced analytics at my disposal I’d run sims with schools in the conferences they are in now as opposed to where they were then but I don’t have anything that sophisticated built so I made do with what I had.

Even with that said, you can’t fix the fact that for a huge stretch of that span the ACC would be out in the cold. can’t change that no matter how fancy your analytics are.

(08-23-2019 10:38 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(08-23-2019 07:35 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(08-23-2019 04:47 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I’d like to point out who all would have been frozen out of a Straight 8 if the BCS Formula/Playoff Committee would have been determining things:

2004: Big Ten
2005: ACC, G5
2006: ACC, Big 12
2007: G5
2008: ACC
2009: ACC
2010: ACC
2011: ACC
2012: Big Ten*, G5, ACC
2013: G5
2014: G5
2015: G5
2016: G5
2017: G5
2018: PAC 12

Anyone see a problem here? Notice that once you hand things over to 12 Demi-gods suddenly the G5 get frozen out.

That's not accurate. The committee's rankings are pretty much the same as BCS rankings, and have been every year of the CFP, as I noted earlier in this thread here.

Same 4 teams in the top 4, every season. Same 8 teams in the top 8, every season.

Want to see it all at once? Here you go. Final CFP rankings for each season, side by side with what the final BCS rankings would have been for the same season:

I used the BCS standings the years that The BCS was in place and the CFP committee once they came into existence

What's shown above is a side by side comparison of the CFP committee's rankings with the rankings for the same season if the BCS system had been used. There's no difference in the teams that would have been selected, whether for a 4 or 8 team playoff. The CFP committee is choosing the same teams that the BCS system would have chosen.

(08-23-2019 10:51 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(08-23-2019 08:19 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-23-2019 05:13 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(08-23-2019 04:47 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I’d like to point out who all would have been frozen out of a Straight 8 if the BCS Formula/Playoff Committee would have been determining things:

2004: Big Ten
2005: ACC, G5
2006: ACC, Big 12
2007: G5
2008: ACC
2009: ACC
2010: ACC
2011: ACC
2012: Big Ten*, G5, ACC
2013: G5
2014: G5
2015: G5
2016: G5
2017: G5
2018: PAC 12

Anyone see a problem here? Notice that once you hand things over to 12 Demi-gods suddenly the G5 get frozen out. In 2018 with a playoff spot on the line they probably find a way to have 9 Washington jump 8 UCF.

Actually, that's more evidence for why the P5 would want auto-bids. 11 P5 conferences in the last 15 years (including everyone except for the SEC at one point) would have been shut out of a straight 8 playoff. That shows that it's a legitimate danger that the P5 would want a guarantee to counteract.

I don't think data from 2004 - 2012 is relevant, as that was under a system where we had 6 Power conferences, and also significantly different conference alignments.

The far more relevant data is from the past 5 years of the actual CFP. And that data shows that 24 out of 25 of the P5 champs would have made a straight 8 playoffs.

I know you think the conferences put great store in the notion of getting something automatically rather than 'merely' very likely. IMO, that really only applies to money, as they have never insisted on their champs getting a playoff spot ever.

Bottom line is, under S8, the only P5 champ of the past five years that would have missed the playoffs would have been Washington this past year. And IMO, had that happened there would have been ZERO outrage in the public, because Washington was obviously a soft champ not worthy of being in an elite playoff. In fact, the PAC would have looked silly had it screamed murder that its bad champ was left out.

That's another thing - under S8, the only time a P5 champ would get left out is when there was a pretty strong consensus - as reflected in their being ranked outside the top 8 - that they didn't belong anyway.

You need to have a decent data set to draw any real conclusions and 5 years is too small a pool.

Much better to have a small but valid pool than to make that pool larger by adding polluted water, which for the reasons I've given i think including BCS years is. That's garbage data, which i think you insist on adding only becsuse the more recent, and more valid CFP data does not support the point you want to male about champs getting left out.

But even if it wasn't, if a conference like the ACC has a few years where its champ is ranked outside the Top 8, then they do not belong. The solution is for them to get better, not to have their bad champ be gifted a spot above better teams.

(08-24-2019 09:33 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Much better to have a small but valid pool than to make that pool larger by adding polluted water, which for the reasons I've given i think including BCS years is. That's garbage data, which i think you insist on adding only becsuse the more recent, and more valid CFP data does not support the point you want to male about champs getting left out.

But even if it wasn't, if a conference like the ACC has a few years where its champ is ranked outside the Top 8, then they do not belong. The solution is for them to get better, not to have their bad champ be gifted a spot above better teams.

So G5 = Polluted Water?

and here I thought I had already heard all the reasons to exclude the G5

(08-24-2019 09:43 AM)zoocrew Wrote:  

(08-24-2019 09:33 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Much better to have a small but valid pool than to make that pool larger by adding polluted water, which for the reasons I've given i think including BCS years is. That's garbage data, which i think you insist on adding only becsuse the more recent, and more valid CFP data does not support the point you want to male about champs getting left out.

But even if it wasn't, if a conference like the ACC has a few years where its champ is ranked outside the Top 8, then they do not belong. The solution is for them to get better, not to have their bad champ be gifted a spot above better teams.

So G5 = Polluted Water?

and here I thought I had already heard all the reasons to exclude the G5

You totally misunderstood. By "polluted water" i was referring to Muskie including the 2004 - 2012 BCS data in his analysis.

Had nothing to do with the G5 at all.