(08-20-2019 12:17 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-20-2019 11:52 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-20-2019 08:16 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-20-2019 12:46 AM)micahandme Wrote:  But the "objective" data point ("CCG winners are IN no matter what") would legitimize the sport in a lot of casual fans' eyes.

IMO, this would de-legitimize the sport in many fan's eyes, because you could have situations where a 8-4 CCG upset winner is now in the playoffs over teams that won more games not just in their conference but others as well. IOW's, they obviously aren't a top-8 team, but are in the playoffs.

Also, giving an auto-bid to a G5 team would do the same, because in many years its also a consensus belief that the top G5 team isn't top-8 either.

IMO, straight 8 does the best job of addressing the various issues that arise. Not perfectly, and there will surely be lots of arguments, but better than 5-1-2, 5-3, or anything else.

It doesnt "de-legitimize" anything. "The people" are fine with it because they watch the game play out right in front of their faces on live nationwide TV. I think its odd that you seem determined to set up a system that "corrects" what actually happens on the field to fit with the outcome your opinion based system predicts. If they dont win their division or conference---maybe the ranking are just wrong. The fact is---the #1-#8 ranked teams in week one are often not the #1-#8 at the end of the season. Why is that? Well, its because real life games didnt turn out like the way rankings predicted---thus, they recognize their error and change. The general public will be just fine with a system that relies on actual game results.

The idea that a system relying on action playing out on the field in key games in front of millions of nationwide viewers would be seen as "illegitimate" is absolutely preposterous.

Not really. E.g., "VT" just posted numbers showing a very high correlation between initial AP poll ranking - which comes out way before the first CFP rankings, and making the CFP. And that's in part because yes, the rankings do change, as they ought to, when more data comes in. Nobody is suggesting using an AP poll in August to pick playoff teams in December.

You don't often see huge differences in rankings - whether it be CFP, AP, Coaches, computers, etc. because this isn't rocket science. You don't need a PhD in Advanced Calculus to know that Clemson was more deserving of a playoff spot last year than was Washington State.

And as I've explained, your method actually does much more violence to "what happens on the field" than mine, because yours throws out OOC games. Mine doesn't throw out anything, everything is considered, it's just that no one thing is allowed to automatically override everything else.

Which, in a sport with as many vagaries as college football has, IMO easily makes the most sense.

And heck, in terms of practical realities, a S8 system would have been very kind to champs of major conferences - the only ones with an actual path to the title under your proposed system. S8 would have put 24/25 P5 champs in the playoffs the past 5 seasons. That's a very high percentage, not much being 'disregarded' there. And let's face it, the one team that would not have made it, Washington this past year, had no claim to a playoff spot. Their missing the top 8 was utterly uncontroversial.

Doesn't throw out OOC games. OOC games are still important in seeding and selecting the two wild card participants. The automatic bids for conference champs gets rid of the stink that comes from the beauty-contest structure. Win and you're in.