(12-14-2017 02:43 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 12:33 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 12:15 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 12:08 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 12:03 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  Spoken like the loyal P5 apologist you are. Well done loyal P5 minion, well done.

Nice ad hominem rather than an argument. Do you always attack the messenger rather than the message?

Back to the argument at hand:
Do you think the team with two losses and the 85th ranked schedule deserves a bid over a potential one loss runner up from a P5 who played a top 30 schedule? Or what about a 2 loss non-champ that beat three top 15 teams?

When you trot out garbage prerequisites for keeping the G5 on the "plantation", then that's the response you'll get.

When you advocate for the top-rated G5 champ without prerequisites, such as being undefeated and only undefeated, making this possible 8-team playoff, then I'll have an actual substantive response.

Nice victim signalling though. Do they teach that at Baylor?

Another personal attack with no justification for it. Are you trying to look insecure?

1- I prefer unbeaten due to extreme differences in SOS. It's simply a different week to week grind injury wise and you can see it at Utah, TCU, and even BYU who is playing what amounts to a P5 schedule since going independent.

2- With that said I would be willing to adjust the G5 requirement to any in the top 12 or top 15 like I did for the P5 champs and keep whichever number even with the P5 champ req. A 1-Loss team from the G5 that scheduled up and got some quality wins would belong. A team that lost a game playing a 100+ ranked SOS likely wouldn't have that argument.

3- I want the best deserving teams in. If you lose twice as a G5 it's hard to argue you deserve it more than a 2 loss nonchamp who played a gauntlet of a schedule. It's also hard for a 3 loss champ to argue as well.

Still playing the victim card, I see.

Now, I get it, you desperately want those of us in the G5 to stay on the "plantation" and not raise a stink about our 2nd-class citizenship. Except we won't, and you know we won't. Which brings us to your prerequisite that the G5's only way to get in the "playoff" is to be undefeated and ONLY undefeated. Even then, under your ridiculous plan, the G5 isn't even guaranteed an automatic spot. Even you know the G5 would never go for that, hence your proposal.

You can drop the charade about wanting the best teams in, as well. We all know the "best teams" is code for the P5 and ONLY the P5.

1- I never want anyone to be denied a shot but realistically I think the politics at play will end up with a setup you won't ever be happy with. My ideal scenario is a flexible bracket that adjusts annually to teams with legit gripes based on set criteria. Won't ever happen. Just like I will be shocked if more than one G5 accommodation is made even if I personally want more than that.

Example: 2004 would have seen USC, OU, Auburn, Utah, and Boise in my preferred model. 2008 would have had eight teams that included Utah. 2005 and 2002 would have been a two team affair as you had a clear #1 and #2. 2010 Probably would have ended up with Oregon, Auburn, TCU.



2- I just made an accommodation for non-unbeatens. Nice reading comprehension bud.

3- All P5 champs and the top G5 champ if they are top 12 or 15, whichever ends up being the better number.

After that at-large with a strongly phrased bias in selection to help a second G5 that meets certain criteria get in. (unbeaten, 1 loss but scheduled up). The ideal case for this would be a 2010 Boise that lost once but had proven a lot in noncon but might be left out since TCU was unbeaten for example.

That may be as good as the political situation will allow. The networks and P5 execs will fight against going that far, and fight even harder going beyond that.

My preferred model is unlikely to ever happen or even be considered.

My realistic preference is what I outlined above.

What is YOUR preferred realistic option?