why do y’all A5 folks put up with this committee
What are the chances this committee is still around after 2025
i hope y’all keep this bullish!t committee because when us G5ers start our own championship league without a committee and have a real playoff decided on the field, TV viewers will come to watch us more...
cheers

BCS was perfect. The only flaw was it deciding 2 teams instead of 4 or 8.

Idc if the results are the same. BCS feels legitimate. Committee feels like fat, smelly old men arbitrarily deciding something.

What is this A5 Committee of which you speak?

(09-10-2020 08:33 PM)ken d Wrote:  What is this A5 Committee of which you speak?

it is a communist take over of the autonomous 5 leagues

(09-10-2020 08:57 PM)JHS55 Wrote:  

(09-10-2020 08:33 PM)ken d Wrote:  What is this A5 Committee of which you speak?

it is a communist take over of the autonomous 5 leagues

Is that like a college football CHAZ?

(09-10-2020 09:28 PM)Pervis_Griffith Wrote:  

(09-10-2020 08:57 PM)JHS55 Wrote:  

(09-10-2020 08:33 PM)ken d Wrote:  What is this A5 Committee of which you speak?

it is a communist take over of the autonomous 5 leagues

Is that like a college football CHAZ?

it’s simple really, it’s called democracy

(09-10-2020 08:24 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  BCS was perfect. The only flaw was it deciding 2 teams instead of 4 or 8.

Idc if the results are the same. BCS feels legitimate. Committee feels like fat, smelly old men arbitrarily deciding something.

Yep. The BCS wasn't perfect, but it did have these attributes:

(1) A degree of transparency. You knew what the formula was. The computer rankings that went into the formula, the algorithms were open-source.

(2) Every team from Alabama to Louisiana-Monroe and in between had relatively equal access to be ranked.

(3) People with a vested interest (e.g., Conference ADs who would benefit financially if a member of their Conference got an at-large bid) in the process were nearly all absent from the process.

(4) There were clear benchmarks. Kirk Herbstreit cried to the high heavens when Northern Illinois gained a spot into the 2013 Orange Bowl. Kirk needed to shut up. Northern Illinois cleared the benchmark (they were a champion from a non-automatic qualifying conference, they were ranked in the Top 16, and they were ahead of a champion of an automatic qualifying conference). NIU 100% EARNED their bid to the Orange Bowl, and it couldn't be taken away from them.

Compare that today:

(1) There is almost NO transparency. The committee meets behind closed doors, and basically never talks about their delibrations.

(2) The level of inequal access has increased since the BCS days. The committee will always discount a team that has "Sun Belt" as their conference affiliation. The computers never did such a thing, they saw teams agnostic of their conference affiliation.

(3) Nearly everybody on the committee has a vested interest of some sort in the results.

(4) There are no clear benchmarks, and ranking manipulation is fairly easy to do. If, for instance, Utah State and Memphis both go 13-0 with both being ranked in the Top 5 of all the computer polls --- well, only one of them is guaranteed a NYD Bowl bid. It's highly unlikely they're both getting in in any circumstance. They could keep Utah State ranked at just a low-enough level to prevent them getting a bid. They could manipulate things in a way they couldn't do with NIU in 2012.

(09-10-2020 08:57 PM)JHS55 Wrote:  

(09-10-2020 08:33 PM)ken d Wrote:  What is this A5 Committee of which you speak?

it is a communist take over of the autonomous 5 leagues

I am FASCINATED to hear how a group of entrenched, moneyed interests protecting a market against outside competitors is “communist.”

Sounds just like a natural monopolistic outcome stemming from when early and successful adopters of capitalism seek to protect their market share against younger competitors. Which would be the natural result in all industries if not for government intervention.

Could it be that you are just conditioned to call anything you don’t like “communist” or “socialist” without any consideration of what those words actually mean?

(09-10-2020 10:31 PM)Nittany_Bearcat Wrote:  

(09-10-2020 08:24 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  BCS was perfect. The only flaw was it deciding 2 teams instead of 4 or 8.

Idc if the results are the same. BCS feels legitimate. Committee feels like fat, smelly old men arbitrarily deciding something.

Yep. The BCS wasn't perfect, but it did have these attributes:

(1) A degree of transparency. You knew what the formula was. The computer rankings that went into the formula, the algorithms were open-source.

(2) Every team from Alabama to Louisiana-Monroe and in between had relatively equal access to be ranked.

(3) People with a vested interest (e.g., Conference ADs who would benefit financially if a member of their Conference got an at-large bid) in the process were nearly all absent from the process.

(4) There were clear benchmarks. Kirk Herbstreit cried to the high heavens when Northern Illinois gained a spot into the 2013 Orange Bowl. Kirk needed to shut up. Northern Illinois cleared the benchmark (they were a champion from a non-automatic qualifying conference, they were ranked in the Top 16, and they were ahead of a champion of an automatic qualifying conference). NIU 100% EARNED their bid to the Orange Bowl, and it couldn't be taken away from them.

Compare that today:

(1) There is almost NO transparency. The committee meets behind closed doors, and basically never talks about their delibrations.

(2) The level of inequal access has increased since the BCS days.

I take issue with the bolded part. In the CFP, a non-AQ is guaranteed a spot in a major bowl. That wasn't the case in the BCS, so access to major bowls has increased.

Also, despite all of these points you make - and I admit they are basically accurate - the outcome of the CFP process has been pretty much the same as what the BCS or the human voters would have produced just about every year. So that suggests that things like a lack of transparency and some CFP members with interests in who makes the playoffs isn't having a negative impact on the process.

E.g., last year, the BCS simulation had LSU, Ohio State, Clemson, and Oklahoma in the playoffs, and in that exact same seeding order as the CFP.

I mean, sometimes a person with an obvious pre-existing bias about something is nevertheless honest when making the evaluation.

(09-10-2020 07:05 PM)JHS55 Wrote:  why do y’all A5 folks put up with this committee
What are the chances this committee is still around after 2025
i hope y’all keep this bullish!t committee because when us G5ers start our own championship league without a committee and have a real playoff decided on the field, TV viewers will come to watch us more...
cheers

Speak for yourself. I fully realize that my team, even if it goes on a 50-game winning streak, will likely never make the four-team playoff, but I still don't want the G5 to wave the white flag and do it's own playoff. Of all 5 of the non-P5 leagues, I would expect the AAC to feel the same.

(09-11-2020 07:03 AM)ccd494 Wrote:  

(09-10-2020 08:57 PM)JHS55 Wrote:  

(09-10-2020 08:33 PM)ken d Wrote:  What is this A5 Committee of which you speak?

it is a communist take over of the autonomous 5 leagues

I am FASCINATED to hear how a group of entrenched, moneyed interests protecting a market against outside competitors is “communist.”

Sounds just like a natural monopolistic outcome stemming from when early and successful adopters of capitalism seek to protect their market share against younger competitors. Which would be the natural result in all industries if not for government intervention.

Could it be that you are just conditioned to call anything you don’t like “communist” or “socialist” without any consideration of what those words actually mean?

Monopolies are not capitalist. That is a trope socialists use. Competition is an essential part of capitalism.

At the same time, private sector monopolies are not communist either. Communism uses government-run monopolies to dominate the economy.

In practice, however, a private sector monopoly operates almost identically to a government-run monopoly. This is why countries (like Argentina and Italy) who go back-and-forth between socialist politicians and crony "capitalist" politicians never end up any better under either system: they are really choosing between two sides of the same coin.

Six seasons into the CFP, and the only real controversies might be over who is the #4 seed. No one can really argue the teams that got the G5 Access Bowl each year deserved it.

That, plus the money the G5 is getting is much better than from the BCS. I don't see an upside of the BCS over the CFP TBH.

Obviously, I would love to see Cincinnati or Memphis in the four-team playoff. But I realize that is not likely to ever happen. Either would have to had pounded a very good (and ideally ranked) P5 foe in a non-conference game and then beaten two to three other ranked AAC teams. On top of that, one (or even two or three) of the A5 teams in consideration for the four berths in the playoff would have to have one or more losses and not be as strong (on paper) as is typically the case. In short, the season would have to have yielded fewer strong teams from the P5 than is normal and the strongest ever (on paper) G5 team (in this case, UC or UM). In that scenario, a, say, No. 9 ranked Cincy or Memphis could perhaps sneak in.

Now, whether either UC or UM could win a game (much less two) is a vastly different situation.

My more realistic dream scenario is this:

The four A5 participants in the playoff are, collectively, "not as good" has would typically be the case. The two teams that play for the title both have one loss. The team that wins does so in ugly fashion.

Then, a VERY strong 13-0 Memphis or Cincinnati rolls over, say, a No. 5 or 6 ranked P5 opponent — one that many felt was deserving of a playoff spot — in the New Year's Six Bowl. UC or UM finishes 14-0 and lands multiple No. 1 votes in one or more of the various end-of-year polls for which the voters are not required to vote for the winner of the playoff title game.

So there is my national championship for the Bearcats or Tigers. I would boast on this board like a pompous ass, noting how great my team was and prompting many of you to hammer me with nasty posts. Yet, I would smugly sit back and smile, knowing my team is the true "champ."

Alas, this is not going to ever happen. Thus, I shall return this morning to consuming my oatmeal so as to stay regular.

Good day, gents.

(09-10-2020 08:57 PM)JHS55 Wrote:  

(09-10-2020 08:33 PM)ken d Wrote:  What is this A5 Committee of which you speak?

it is a communist take over of the autonomous 5 leagues

Well, that explains why I never heard of it. I would need a tinfoil hat to discover it, and I left mine on the plane last time I flew. Just as well. I prefer reality to fantasy anyway.

(09-11-2020 08:17 AM)EigenEagle Wrote:  Six seasons into the CFP, and the only real controversies might be over who is the #4 seed. No one can really argue the teams that got the G5 Access Bowl each year deserved it.

That, plus the money the G5 is getting is much better than from the BCS. I don't see an upside of the BCS over the CFP TBH.

Yes, complaints about the CFP selection process miss how basically perfectly the four teams chosen have tracked what the old system, or just relying on the AP/Coaches polls, would have produced.

The only slight discrepancy i can think of was in the first year, 2014. That year, the BCS simulation had the exact same four teams as the CFP chose, and so did the Coaches poll alone. The AP, however, would have had Baylor at #4 instead of Ohio State. But when you combined the AP and Coaches polls, Ohio State would have been selected.

FWIW, TCU, the school many think the CFP committee shafted, was NOT selected in the final pre-bowl top 4 by the AP, the Coaches, or the overall BCS. They were 6th in both polls and 5th in the BCS.

(09-11-2020 08:24 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  Obviously, I would love to see Cincinnati or Memphis in the four-team playoff. But I realize that is not likely to ever happen. Either would have to had pounded a very good (and ideally ranked) P5 foe in a non-conference game and then beaten two to three other ranked AAC teams. On top of that, one (or even two or three) of the A5 teams in consideration for the four berths in the playoff would have to have one or more losses and not be as strong (on paper) as is typically the case. In short, the season would have to have yielded fewer strong teams from the P5 than is normal and the strongest ever (on paper) G5 team (in this case, UC or UM). In that scenario, a, say, No. 9 ranked Cincy or Memphis could perhaps sneak in.

Now, whether either UC or UM could win a game (much less two) is a vastly different situation.

My more realistic dream scenario is this:

The four A5 participants in the playoff are, collectively, "not as good" has would typically be the case. The two teams that play for the title both have one loss. The team that wins does so in ugly fashion.

Then, a VERY strong 13-0 Memphis or Cincinnati rolls over, say, a No. 5 or 6 ranked P5 opponent — one that many felt was deserving of a playoff spot — in the New Year's Six Bowl. UC or UM finishes 14-0 and lands multiple No. 1 votes in one or more of the various end-of-year polls for which the voters are not required to vote for the winner of the playoff title game.

So there is my national championship for the Bearcats or Tigers. I would boast on this board like a pompous ass, noting how great my team was and prompting many of you to hammer me with nasty posts. Yet, I would smugly sit back and smile, knowing my team is the true "champ."

Alas, this is not going to ever happen. Thus, I shall return this morning to consuming my oatmeal so as to stay regular.

Good day, gents.

If you didn't spit out your drink reading that, there's something wrong with you.

(09-11-2020 09:10 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-11-2020 08:17 AM)EigenEagle Wrote:  Six seasons into the CFP, and the only real controversies might be over who is the #4 seed. No one can really argue the teams that got the G5 Access Bowl each year deserved it.

That, plus the money the G5 is getting is much better than from the BCS. I don't see an upside of the BCS over the CFP TBH.

Yes, complaints about the CFP selection process miss how basically perfectly the four teams chosen have tracked what the old system, or just relying on the AP/Coaches polls, would have produced.

Yes, but it should still revert back to the BCS selection process regardless. That felt legitimate because you can't manipulate a computer week-to-week.

A committee feels artificial and manufactured. They can draw up whatever conclusion they feel like, and then come up with BS reasons after-the-fact.

What will be really interesting will be the year when there are three or fewer P5 teams with one or zero losses AND an undefeated G5 team. The committee would then have to choose between a two loss team for sport #4 and, perhaps and undefeated G5 champion... That would cause some real contoversy.

USFFan

(09-10-2020 07:05 PM)JHS55 Wrote:  why do y’all A5 folks put up with this committee
What are the chances this committee is still around after 2025
i hope y’all keep this bullish!t committee because when us G5ers start our own championship league without a committee and have a real playoff decided on the field, TV viewers will come to watch us more...
cheers

Interest in a G5 playoff would be little different than FCS. You’d basically be asking America to tune in and find out who the 66th best team in the country is. I think a better alternative is a NIT type set up that includes the 5 G5 champs and the best P5 teams outside of the CFP sponsored bowls. I think that would be far more interesting to watch and far more intriguing to casual (and rabid) college football fans.