(10-29-2017 07:17 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  Several of these computer polls were previously used in the BCS poll. The human committee is superfluous, and biased. It needs to go.

The computers are not a cure for human bias. The computers are also biased, because their programs are written by biased human beings just like the CFP committee members are biased human beings.

Even worse, nearly all of the computer rankings hide their biases, and for all we know could even change their ranking formulas mid-season, because they refuse to make their formulas and software code public. The committee's biases are closer to being transparent to the public. We can all make a reasonably good guess at the biases of CFP committee members like, for example, Ohio State AD Gene Smith or Texas Tech AD Kirby Hocutt. But the biases of the secret computer ranking formulas and the guys who write the software code are unknown to the public.

Forget about using computer rankings to determine playoff bids until and unless the formulas and software are public and the identities and backgrounds of the software developers are also public.

Once again, Power confernces learned from the BCS to prevent the antitrust issue. If they go to 8, it will be the CFP Committee picking the top 8. It will always happen that Power confernces will get at least one team in. Conference champs will not get an autobid. Only way champs get an autobid is if the Power teams break off.

(10-29-2017 10:28 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  Once again, Power confernces learned from the BCS to prevent the antitrust issue. If they go to 8, it will be the CFP Committee picking the top 8. It will always happen that Power confernces will get at least one team in. Conference champs will not get an autobid. Only way champs get an autobid is if the Power teams break off.

Except, the Pac Commissioner stated if there is expansion it will have to have an autobid. I don't think he was the only one to say so.

PAC 12 can say it all they want but they need the ACC, B10 and SEC will need to go along. I imagine the P12 goes after TX, TT, OU and OSU to decimate the B12.

(10-29-2017 09:45 PM)shizzle787 Wrote:  

(10-29-2017 09:40 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-29-2017 09:15 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(10-29-2017 09:00 PM)shizzle787 Wrote:  Honestly, if this is shot down by the other P5 leagues, the Texahoma 4 will soon be in the new Pac-16, but I don't believe the four conference winners will automatically be the semifinalists. That would render the OOC portion of the schedule meaningless, leave out a somewhat strong remaining Big 12, and could result in the occasional 9-4 or 10-3 team in the CFP.

The Big 12 will probably go to 12 or 14 in order to have 20 conference basketball games and get as big as the P4 leagues by adding
UConn, Cincy, BYU (if they get over the P thing), Houston, UCF, USF, SMU, and Memphis.
That would leave the American with just Temple, ECU, Tulane, Tulsa and Navy in football and WSU in basketball. Ouch.

You are definitely thinking this out, and if there were only 4 teams in the playoffs I would have to agree with you. However, an 8-team field with 3 at-large bids would give value back to those OOC games, IMO.

Nobody wants a 16 game schedule. Nobody wants to extend the season another week. What have the players to gain by it? Injuries? We were lucky to get the plus 1. If there is further expansion there will naturally be fewer OOC games and the only way to create a situation where the players can win it on the field without having their fate decided by a danged committee is to make the conference champions their representative (earned on the field) for a slot in the CFP.

Expansion to 6 or 8 playoff slots is a non starter. If we go back to conferences of 10 and play a round robin and eschew the money of the CCG, which the conferences love, then we could have an 8 team playoff with 8 conferences of 10 schools each with no CCG and we could do so without extending the season.

But we aren't going back in time. There will be further consolidation for a number of reasons not the least of which is better collective bargaining as the cash bubble pops for sports rights.

The notion that it can be other is not reflective of thought at all. It is reflective of wishes.

Or you could still have a P4 and a four-team CFP. This doesn't mean that all four teams have to be the four P4 champs. Anti-trust and ND will have a say with your theory.

Anti trust will play no part in it. Parameters that are permeable are all you need. As to N.D. that's their choice. And it's not a theory. It's my opinion based on experience, the academic scheduling issues of longer seasons and the issues that the presidents are trying to avoid, and the fact that added injury risk to players without compensating them is untenable as a position. College football is not conducted in a vacuum. Extending to 15 games impacted the service academies, although it is not their biggest reason for eschewing P5 options.

The parameters are easily established: number of required sports, standard requirements for facilities, levels of athletic endowment, levels of revenue production, levels of investment in athletics, and of course actual attendance. If those who fail to maintain those standards drop out, and those who attain those standards are added then there is no anti trust claim to be made.

(10-29-2017 10:34 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  PAC 12 can say it all they want but they need the ACC, B10 and SEC will need to go along. I imagine the P12 goes after TX, TT, OU and OSU to decimate the B12.

Bingo.

(10-29-2017 09:40 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-29-2017 09:15 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(10-29-2017 09:00 PM)shizzle787 Wrote:  Honestly, if this is shot down by the other P5 leagues, the Texahoma 4 will soon be in the new Pac-16, but I don't believe the four conference winners will automatically be the semifinalists. That would render the OOC portion of the schedule meaningless, leave out a somewhat strong remaining Big 12, and could result in the occasional 9-4 or 10-3 team in the CFP.

The Big 12 will probably go to 12 or 14 in order to have 20 conference basketball games and get as big as the P4 leagues by adding
UConn, Cincy, BYU (if they get over the P thing), Houston, UCF, USF, SMU, and Memphis.
That would leave the American with just Temple, ECU, Tulane, Tulsa and Navy in football and WSU in basketball. Ouch.

You are definitely thinking this out, and if there were only 4 teams in the playoffs I would have to agree with you. However, an 8-team field with 3 at-large bids would give value back to those OOC games, IMO.

Nobody wants a 16 game schedule. Nobody wants to extend the season another week. What have the players to gain by it? Injuries? We were lucky to get the plus 1. If there is further expansion there will naturally be fewer OOC games and the only way to create a situation where the players can win it on the field without having their fate decided by a danged committee is to make the conference champions their representative (earned on the field) for a slot in the CFP.

Expansion to 6 or 8 playoff slots is a non starter. If we go back to conferences of 10 and play a round robin and eschew the money of the CCG, which the conferences love, then we could have an 8 team playoff with 8 conferences of 10 schools each with no CCG and we could do so without extending the season.

But we aren't going back in time. There will be further consolidation for a number of reasons not the least of which is better collective bargaining as the cash bubble pops for sports rights.

The notion that it can be other is not reflective of thought at all. It is reflective of wishes.

Well there is talk of starting the season a week earlier.....which would wipe out the Hawaii bonus.
Also, It's not like the playoffs start right away like the FCS (which the teams in the Championship game would have played 15 games).
There is a few weeks off from the CCG to the first playoff games.

Guys, I am almost certain that McMurphy is simply taking a not-so-veiled pot shot at the Big 12 and Pac 12 for possibly getting shut out of the CFP this year.

He is not being serious. Two conferences can't petition for the playoffs to be extended to eight teams THIS year. The season is over in 4 weeks, lol.

The current contract runs for like 9 more years, or whatever. There would have to be some process, a conference, meetings, media back and forth, a vote, etc.

His tweet says they are asking to change it to 8 THIS SEASON. He tweeted it right after TCU lost.

(10-29-2017 10:26 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(10-29-2017 07:17 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  Several of these computer polls were previously used in the BCS poll. The human committee is superfluous, and biased. It needs to go.

The computers are not a cure for human bias. The computers are also biased, because their programs are written by biased human beings just like the CFP committee members are biased human beings.

Even worse, nearly all of the computer rankings hide their biases, and for all we know could even change their ranking formulas mid-season, because they refuse to make their formulas and software code public. The committee's biases are closer to being transparent to the public. We can all make a reasonably good guess at the biases of CFP committee members like, for example, Ohio State AD Gene Smith or Texas Tech AD Kirby Hocutt. But the biases of the secret computer ranking formulas and the guys who write the software code are unknown to the public.

Forget about using computer rankings to determine playoff bids until and unless the formulas and software are public and the identities and backgrounds of the software developers are also public.

Its easy to fix the bias. Ten man committee made up of one rep from each conference. One conference--one vote. Eliminates bias (or at least balances it) and is unarguably fair. Problem solved.

Uh, guys. At the risk of stating the obvious, I’m pretty sure McMurphy was just joking. It’s definitely a lame joke but I don’t think he’s being serious here.

(10-30-2017 01:05 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  Uh, guys. At the risk of stating the obvious, I’m pretty sure McMurphy was just joking. It’s definitely a lame joke but I don’t think he’s being serious here.

You’re probably right Dr.… but this topic seems to always spark interesting discussions regarding the inevitable formation of a P4. When Scott got “cold feet” and didn’t pull the trigger with OU and OSU as ammo—which would have severely wounded the B12, the networks were able to send in a tv trauma team and stabilize the B12. Unfortunately, we have to continue to deal with its unnecessary suffering….

(10-30-2017 01:05 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  Uh, guys. At the risk of stating the obvious, I’m pretty sure McMurphy was just joking. It’s definitely a lame joke but I don’t think he’s being serious here.

Yep. Deadpan humor.

(10-29-2017 11:11 PM)TripleA Wrote:  Guys, I am almost certain that McMurphy is simply taking a not-so-veiled pot shot at the Big 12 and Pac 12 for possibly getting shut out of the CFP this year.

He is not being serious. Two conferences can't petition for the playoffs to be extended to eight teams THIS year. The season is over in 4 weeks, lol.

The current contract runs for like 9 more years, or whatever. There would have to be some process, a conference, meetings, media back and forth, a vote, etc.

His tweet says they are asking to change it to 8 THIS SEASON. He tweeted it right after TCU lost.

Yes, it's pretty amazing that people actually believe that the PAC and Big 12 have actually made some kind of proposal to the other P5 conferences along these lines. It would logistically impossible, for starters.

This is just McMurph making a crack at their expense.

Definitely a joke.

However, what WILL be worth watching is the ratings for the CCGs if it's determined ahead of time that the winner will not affect the CFP.

If 10-2 OU plays 10-2 TCU AND 10-2 UW plays 9-3 Arizona, but the SEC champ, ACC champ, Big Ten champ, and ND are already guaranteed spots...that will make TV execs think twice when negotiating the next CCG deals. And if that money starts taking a hit (or even being endangered), I can guarantee that conferences will start re-thinking the system.

An 8-team playoff means that each conference essentially controls the money for round 1 of the playoffs. That's tempting, right there.

(10-30-2017 08:41 AM)allthatyoucantleavebehind Wrote:  Definitely a joke.

However, what WILL be worth watching is the ratings for the CCGs if it's determined ahead of time that the winner will not affect the CFP.

If 10-2 OU plays 10-2 TCU AND 10-2 UW plays 9-3 Arizona, but the SEC champ, ACC champ, Big Ten champ, and ND are already guaranteed spots...that will make TV execs think twice when negotiating the next CCG deals. And if that money starts taking a hit (or even being endangered), I can guarantee that conferences will start re-thinking the system.

An 8-team playoff means that each conference essentially controls the money for round 1 of the playoffs. That's tempting, right there.

SEC title game will do monster ratings, probably the best of the regular season. B1G title game will do well too.

8 is the perfect solution, for everyone.

(10-29-2017 08:16 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(10-29-2017 08:11 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-29-2017 06:39 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(10-29-2017 06:34 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-29-2017 06:33 PM)stever20 Wrote:  not to the NFL. They do not and will not accept a weekend day with only 1 slot.

You whiffed. They want 2 and 2. That means there is a 3rd available for the NCAA.

but need 2 slots. They want both games to be on the same day for competitive fairness.

They will have to compromise on that. Basketball doesn't have the same day.

Football is a LOT more grueling than basketball is. That's something that we've seen in the comments that they said expressly had to happen.

And they also expressly said there would be no playoff, months before they implemented one.

(10-29-2017 10:26 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(10-29-2017 07:17 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  Several of these computer polls were previously used in the BCS poll. The human committee is superfluous, and biased. It needs to go.

The computers are not a cure for human bias. The computers are also biased, because their programs are written by biased human beings just like the CFP committee members are biased human beings.

Even worse, nearly all of the computer rankings hide their biases, and for all we know could even change their ranking formulas mid-season, because they refuse to make their formulas and software code public. The committee's biases are closer to being transparent to the public. We can all make a reasonably good guess at the biases of CFP committee members like, for example, Ohio State AD Gene Smith or Texas Tech AD Kirby Hocutt. But the biases of the secret computer ranking formulas and the guys who write the software code are unknown to the public.

Forget about using computer rankings to determine playoff bids until and unless the formulas and software are public and the identities and backgrounds of the software developers are also public.

Computers have their biases on what is important. That is a different type of bias than you get with a Tom Osborne or Barry Alvarez.

(10-29-2017 11:11 PM)TripleA Wrote:  Guys, I am almost certain that McMurphy is simply taking a not-so-veiled pot shot at the Big 12 and Pac 12 for possibly getting shut out of the CFP this year.

He is not being serious. Two conferences can't petition for the playoffs to be extended to eight teams THIS year. The season is over in 4 weeks, lol.

The current contract runs for like 9 more years, or whatever. There would have to be some process, a conference, meetings, media back and forth, a vote, etc.

His tweet says they are asking to change it to 8 THIS SEASON. He tweeted it right after TCU lost.

Could be. I can't believe they would ask for a change THIS season.

(10-30-2017 09:47 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-29-2017 11:11 PM)TripleA Wrote:  Guys, I am almost certain that McMurphy is simply taking a not-so-veiled pot shot at the Big 12 and Pac 12 for possibly getting shut out of the CFP this year.

He is not being serious. Two conferences can't petition for the playoffs to be extended to eight teams THIS year. The season is over in 4 weeks, lol.

The current contract runs for like 9 more years, or whatever. There would have to be some process, a conference, meetings, media back and forth, a vote, etc.

His tweet says they are asking to change it to 8 THIS SEASON. He tweeted it right after TCU lost.

Could be. I can't believe they would ask for a change THIS season.

While there was absurdity to the premise, what better way to introduce a talking point for change than to get the timing right. Those who want more inclusion without further consolidation need to catch the public consciousness while the weekly CFP Committee meetings have their attention focused on the process. Talking about it in the Spring and early Summer just doesn't gain the traction they desire. So I found the remarks, especially considering the source, to have serious intentionality wrapped inside a whimsical yet attention grabbing headline.