(12-25-2018 08:57 PM)toddjnsn Wrote:  

Quote:If history is a guide, straight 8 would do that. In the five years of the CFP, here's how many times each P5 champ would have made the playoffs:

ACC ... 5/5
B1G ... 5/5
Big 12 ... 5/5
SEC ....... 5/5
PAC ....... 4/5

First, aside from the P5s, it would still disclude an undefeated team from last year: #12 UCF. And they are #7 this year, but arguably not quite as good, but ranked notably higher because of last year going undefeated. So they'd be left out if applied to last year, and even among those who are heavy-P5, it would take the "umph" out of applying an 8-team Playoff as 8-straight. It's not JUST about P5 Champs getting in, but also about undefeated G5s near enough to it. That leaves about as big a hole as a #9 Washington left out of an 8-team playoff after winning the P12, if not a little more (as far as national CFB fans go; notably when beating Auburn right after).

That aside, that's only 5 years. CFB 4-team Playoff scheme didn't change teams and predictions -- it just ditched the BCS Computer using the Harris Poll+Coaches Poll too, and put on a Human Committee for rankings instead.

The main key is, the P5s strongly do not want their conference champ to even be occasionally nixed out if they're remotely close to the 8th spot.

In 2018: P12 Champ Wash didn't make it, at #9
In 2017: P12 Champ USC Barely Made it, at #8

Here's the other 5 years laid out by year of all 5 P5s (2013-2009):

2013: 5/5 [Bottom: #6 Baylor]
2012: 3/5 [Bottom: Unranked Wisc* + #12 Florida State; #15 for MAC winner NIU; #22 Louisville for P6 Winner who is now ACC]
2011: 3/5 [Bottom: #11 VA-Tech + #10 Wisconsin; Boise was #7 winning WAC]
2010: 4/5 [Bottom: #13 VA-Tech; Boise was #10 winning WAC; TCU was #3 winning MW but later joined B12]
2009: 4/5 [Bottom: #9 GA-Tech; Cinci who is now G5 was #3; TCU who was G5 was #4; Boise winning WAC was #6]

So out of the previous 5 years beforehand -- even willing to count future-ACC teams for the ACC, and future B12 TCU for B12 if needed (not) -- it falls short 4 out of 5 years. I think that's more than enough misfires.

First, IMO the P5 will determine if changes are made, so it will be P5 concerns that drive this bus. And I very much doubt that undefeated G5 missing the playoffs is one of them. People on this forum, who are disproportionately fans of G5 schools, may find that apopletic, but most college fans couldn't care less and the P5 conferences don't.

There just isn't anything magical about being undefeated, as that is purely a product of who you play. ANY team in college football could go undefeated, against a soft enough schedule. If we're talking about 2017, the team with the most gripe about missing out wasn't #12 UCF, it was #5 Ohio State. Likewise, the team with the biggest gripe this year isn't #8 UCF, it's #5 Georgia. Georgia and Ohio State were ranked above undefeated UCF not just in the CFP but in any ranking you can think of - BCS simulation, AP/Coaches polls, Massey computers, etc. That's because their accomplishments versus their schedules was greater than UCF's versus theirs. Again, there is nothing magical about being undefeated, and there never has been. The occasional undefeated G5 can bay at the moon on Twitter or hold national championship parades if they want, but nobody who matters cares.

Second, while certainly the issue of P5 champs getting is an issue of P5 concern, I wonder how much they really care. First, it seems to me that what the P5s care about isn't necessarily getting their champ in, but getting a team in. And Ipso Fatso, an 8-team playoff gives all P5 conferences a much better chance to get a team in the playoffs, because it is 8 spots compared to 4. The past 5 years show that: With straight 8, all P5 would have gotten at least one team in every year save for the PAC this year, but the PAC also would have gotten two in another year. So no P5 would have gotten fewer than 5 teams in the playoffs.

Importantly, I also don't think that pre-CFP data you present is particularly relevant to this projection. IMO it isn't by accident that the rate at which the P5 conferences have gotten teams ranked higher has risen in the CFP era, because the CFP changed the metrics. In the BCS era, the big prize was getting into the top two, and so a team ranked around #8 in mid-november would know it was basically out of that so have less motivation. But a team ranked #8 in mid-november is still alive for the CFP. Top two was just a much higher bar than top 4, so fewer teams were motivated in November to keep pushing, so to speak. With straight 8, we'd see a similar effect.

To me, straight 8 makes the most sense. If a G5 is good, one of the best 8 teams, like UCF this year, they get in, if not they don't. There's no sense in an Affirmative Action type Quota spot for the G5 that takes a better team out, and the same is true regarding Affirmative Action for the P5 too. It's fairest for everyone.