(08-22-2019 12:50 PM)Once a Knight... Wrote:  With all of this said I COULD possibly entertain a Top 8 ranking regardless of conference/champions but would REQUIRE some amount of computer ranking input to offset human biases (maybe something similar to the BCS formula). The BCS allowed for non-AQ conferences to achieve a solid ranking under the formula (Utah, BYU, TCU, and Boise St) all had runs where they were in the Top 8 or even Top 5 at various points under the BCS model. The human anti-G5 bias is VERY apparent with the committee when you see teams like UCF, Houston, Boise St, Cincinnati and others have similar schedules/runs during the CFP era, but not even able to crack the Top 8 (barely even the Top 12). The committee has even swayed AP and Coaches polls as a result, as those teams too aren't ranked as high as the aforementioned MWC/WAC schools of a decade ago. If this 8 Team playoff were left completely up to the committee you would continue to see the G5 teams left out of the playoff entirely by ranking them no higher than #9 at best (#10-15 more likely).

Wow, that's a lot of pro-AAC propaganda in that bolded section, so let's dissect it. You counterpose the computers with the "very biased" humans, but:

1) The computers, such as the Massey Composite, have never put any G5 team anywhere near the top 4. They haven't differed much from the human committee. As for the top 8, there is one time in the past 5 years that the computers had a G5 team in the top 8, last year with UCF, and ... the CFP committee did too.

2) There's zero evidence that the CFP has influenced the AP or Coaches voters. In fact, since the AP and Coaches vote first, if anything, they sway the CFP committee. I think we maybe saw that twice in controversial rankings. In 2014, both the AP and Coaches polls moved Ohio State past TCU in their final polls, before the CFP did the same in their final rankings, and likewise, in 2017, the AP and Coaches both had Alabama in the #4 position, ahead of B1G champ Ohio State, again before the CFP did the same in its final rankings.

3) The reason that the pollsters used to have teams like TCU and Boise and Utah and Houston inside the top 8 back in the BCS era but not recent G5 teams wasn't because of some kind of bias, such as "well we can let them rise up but just not into the top to keep them out of the CFP". The reason they rose higher was that those teams were *better* than the best G5 teams of the past 5 years. At least that's what the computers say. All of those teams also rose in to the top 5 of the computers at that time as well.

For example, in the final pre-bowl Massey Composite in 2011. Boise was #6; in 2010, TCU was #3 and Boise #5. In 2009, TCU was #4, Boise #7. No G5 teams since have been ranked as high in the final pre-bowl composite.

Bottom line is, the AAC and MWC champs of the CFP era have just not been as good as the Boises and TCUs and Utahs were a decade ago. That's why they have hit a lower ceiling in the polls.