(10-31-2018 05:25 PM)First Mate Wrote:  https://cbssportsradio.radio.com/articles/john-feinstein-college-football-playoff-needs-overhaul

(10-31-2018 07:43 PM)vick mike Wrote:  Best article on this topic ever. Don’t have any faith that things will change but great to see a national publication expose the obvious bs.

(10-31-2018 08:01 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-31-2018 07:43 PM)vick mike Wrote:  Best article on this topic ever. Don’t have any faith that things will change but great to see a national publication expose the obvious bs.

The more this is talked about openly---the sooner the current system will be undermined and forced to change. This kind of piece is why I do think the next version of the CFP will have a slot reserved for the top G5 champ.

To be fair--comparing G5's and P5's really is difficult because schedule differences absolutely do make it like comparing apples to pears. There are too many differences between the conferences to use a one size fits all templet. Unfortunately, thats what the committee has done---deciding to simply toss aside half of college football as playing an inadequate schedule to qualify. Its fast. Its easy. But its also flawed. The Committee is supposed to be comparing teams---not schedules. You cant eliminate half the teams for something they have little control over (2/3rds of every schedule is completely out their control due to the conference season---and the remaining 4 games are only marginally under their control because they require another party to agree before they can be scheduled).

In the final analysis--(assuming they really tried at all)---the Committee failed horribly at constructing a methodology for comparing teams from very different conferences. I suspect this was primarily due to the massive bias built into the original composition of the membership.

The only way to overcome the massive structural failure within the CFP selection system is to simply require that the Committee place the top G5 champ into the CFP playoff field (because the Committee's built-in bias is such that they are simply incapable of believing a G5 could be worthy---and built a selection model that accurately reflects that bias).
That will likley happen when it expands to 8. The only other way to correct the bias is to make the committee accurately reflectthe membership of FBS. Make the Committee a 10 member panel with one representative coming from each conference. That should help balance the bias that produces such a flawed dismissive selection model.

(10-31-2018 08:01 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-31-2018 07:43 PM)vick mike Wrote:  Best article on this topic ever. Don’t have any faith that things will change but great to see a national publication expose the obvious bs.

The more this is talked about openly---the sooner the current system will be undermined and forced to change. This kind of piece is why I do think the next version of the CFP will have a slot reserved for the top G5 champ.

To be fair--comparing G5's and P5's really is difficult because schedule differences absolutely do make it like comparing apples to pears. There are too many differences between the conferences to use a one size fits all templet. Unfortunately, thats what the committee has done---deciding to simply toss aside half of college football as playing an inadequate schedule to qualify. Its fast. Its easy. But its also flawed. The Committee is supposed to be comparing teams---not schedules. You cant eliminate half the teams for something they have little control over (2/3rds of every schedule is completely out their control due to the conference season---and the remaining 4 games are only marginally under their control because they require another party to agree before they can be scheduled).

In the final analysis--(assuming they really tried at all)---the Committee failed horribly at constructing a methodology for comparing teams from very different conferences. I suspect this was primarily due to the massive bias built into the original composition of the membership.

The only way to overcome the massive structural failure within the CFP selection system is to simply require that the Committee place the top G5 champ into the CFP playoff field (because the Committee's built-in bias is such that they are simply incapable of believing a G5 could be worthy---and built a selection model that accurately reflects that bias).
That will likley happen when it expands to 8. The only other way to correct the bias is to make the committee accurately reflectthe membership of FBS. Make the Committee a 10 member panel with one representative coming from each conference. That should help balance the bias that produces such a flawed dismissive selection model.

(10-31-2018 08:01 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The only other way to correct the bias is to make the committee accurately reflectthe membership of FBS. Make the Committee a 10 member panel with one representative coming from each conference. That should help balance the bias that produces such a flawed dismissive selection model.

(10-31-2018 08:19 PM)Tigersmoke4 Wrote:  

(10-31-2018 08:01 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-31-2018 07:43 PM)vick mike Wrote:  Best article on this topic ever. Don’t have any faith that things will change but great to see a national publication expose the obvious bs.

The more this is talked about openly---the sooner the current system will be undermined and forced to change. This kind of piece is why I do think the next version of the CFP will have a slot reserved for the top G5 champ.

To be fair--comparing G5's and P5's really is difficult because schedule differences absolutely do make it like comparing apples to pears. There are too many differences between the conferences to use a one size fits all templet. Unfortunately, thats what the committee has done---deciding to simply toss aside half of college football as playing an inadequate schedule to qualify. Its fast. Its easy. But its also flawed. The Committee is supposed to be comparing teams---not schedules. You cant eliminate half the teams for something they have little control over (2/3rds of every schedule is completely out their control due to the conference season---and the remaining 4 games are only marginally under their control because they require another party to agree before they can be scheduled).

In the final analysis--(assuming they really tried at all)---the Committee failed horribly at constructing a methodology for comparing teams from very different conferences. I suspect this was primarily due to the massive bias built into the original composition of the membership.

The only way to overcome the massive structural failure within the CFP selection system is to simply require that the Committee place the top G5 champ into the CFP playoff field (because the Committee's built-in bias is such that they are simply incapable of believing a G5 could be worthy---and built a selection model that accurately reflects that bias).
That will likley happen when it expands to 8. The only other way to correct the bias is to make the committee accurately reflectthe membership of FBS. Make the Committee a 10 member panel with one representative coming from each conference. That should help balance the bias that produces such a flawed dismissive selection model.

Please don't stop getting caught up in "A g5" bid. That doesn't help us. We haven't been investing in that as fans or a conference. It's the AAC p6 or bust, or we'll continue to be arguing with the g4 every year about why their win over UCLA is better than our win over UCLA.

(10-31-2018 05:25 PM)First Mate Wrote:  https://cbssportsradio.radio.com/articles/john-feinstein-college-football-playoff-needs-overhaul

(10-31-2018 10:24 PM)sfink16 Wrote:  

(10-31-2018 05:25 PM)First Mate Wrote:  https://cbssportsradio.radio.com/articles/john-feinstein-college-football-playoff-needs-overhaul

I like the idea of eliminating the conference championship game. Instead of having the potential of a 4 or 5 loss team beating the undefeated team in the other division, you can settle on the teams that truly deserve the honor.

The 0 to 2 loss team should never be sitting at home because a lessor team beat them in a winner take all. Why play an entire schedule if the the last game is the only one that really matters.

(11-01-2018 12:33 AM)Nittany_Bearcat Wrote:  I honestly think that we have gone BACKWARDS with the college football playoff.

At least with the BCS --- there was a formula. The formula may have not been perfect. But it was fairly transparent and there was an algorithm that determined the teams that played in the National Championship Game.

Now things are decided by a committee of 13 folk that sit behind closed doors, don't have to provide any sort of logical rationale for their decisions, and are accountable to absolutely nobody.

That's not progress.

(10-31-2018 10:45 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(10-31-2018 10:24 PM)sfink16 Wrote:  

(10-31-2018 05:25 PM)First Mate Wrote:  https://cbssportsradio.radio.com/articles/john-feinstein-college-football-playoff-needs-overhaul

I like the idea of eliminating the conference championship game. Instead of having the potential of a 4 or 5 loss team beating the undefeated team in the other division, you can settle on the teams that truly deserve the honor.

The 0 to 2 loss team should never be sitting at home because a lessor team beat them in a winner take all. Why play an entire schedule if the the last game is the only one that really matters.

So now the divisions and ooc schedules are the same?

Nothing needs to be done to the championship games. We decide the auto bid in college basketball on conference tourneys. If there at larges, and there will be, a upset Alabama will just get in on one of those.

(11-01-2018 12:33 AM)Nittany_Bearcat Wrote:  I honestly think that we have gone BACKWARDS with the college football playoff.

At least with the BCS --- there was a formula. The formula may have not been perfect. But it was fairly transparent and there was an algorithm that determined the teams that played in the National Championship Game.

Now things are decided by a committee of 13 folk that sit behind closed doors, don't have to provide any sort of logical rationale for their decisions, and are accountable to absolutely nobody.

That's not progress.

(10-31-2018 09:55 PM)Jjoey52 Wrote:  

(10-31-2018 08:19 PM)Tigersmoke4 Wrote:  

(10-31-2018 08:01 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-31-2018 07:43 PM)vick mike Wrote:  Best article on this topic ever. Don’t have any faith that things will change but great to see a national publication expose the obvious bs.

The more this is talked about openly---the sooner the current system will be undermined and forced to change. This kind of piece is why I do think the next version of the CFP will have a slot reserved for the top G5 champ.

To be fair--comparing G5's and P5's really is difficult because schedule differences absolutely do make it like comparing apples to pears. There are too many differences between the conferences to use a one size fits all templet. Unfortunately, thats what the committee has done---deciding to simply toss aside half of college football as playing an inadequate schedule to qualify. Its fast. Its easy. But its also flawed. The Committee is supposed to be comparing teams---not schedules. You cant eliminate half the teams for something they have little control over (2/3rds of every schedule is completely out their control due to the conference season---and the remaining 4 games are only marginally under their control because they require another party to agree before they can be scheduled).

In the final analysis--(assuming they really tried at all)---the Committee failed horribly at constructing a methodology for comparing teams from very different conferences. I suspect this was primarily due to the massive bias built into the original composition of the membership.

The only way to overcome the massive structural failure within the CFP selection system is to simply require that the Committee place the top G5 champ into the CFP playoff field (because the Committee's built-in bias is such that they are simply incapable of believing a G5 could be worthy---and built a selection model that accurately reflects that bias).
That will likley happen when it expands to 8. The only other way to correct the bias is to make the committee accurately reflectthe membership of FBS. Make the Committee a 10 member panel with one representative coming from each conference. That should help balance the bias that produces such a flawed dismissive selection model.

Please don't stop getting caught up in "A g5" bid. That doesn't help us. We haven't been investing in that as fans or a conference. It's the AAC p6 or bust, or we'll continue to be arguing with the g4 every year about why their win over UCLA is better than our win over UCLA.

Basically your goal is bust, because if the rankings mean anything you are not or probably won’t for an awful long time be a P6, just battling for scraps like the rest of the G5.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk