(11-15-2018 12:46 PM)joeben69 Wrote:  Here's one chaotic scenario that could lead to College Football Playoff expansion
https://sports.yahoo.com/heres-one-chaot...45969.html

That win/loss scenario could play out, but there's no way the committee puts Alabama in over Michigan.

Assuming that holds true, Clemson would move to #1, ND #2. Even if you put Georgia at #3, Michigan would have 1 loss against the #2 team vs. Bama's 1 loss against #3.

Michigan is in.

I know some folks have talked about this Bama team perhaps being the best college team ever, but from my perspective, the "best ever" doesn't lose to Georgia in the SEC championship game.

(12-01-2017 10:07 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  

(12-01-2017 08:17 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-01-2017 06:53 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  

(12-01-2017 06:38 PM)BlueBird10 Wrote:  

(12-01-2017 06:00 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  They have to earn it.

So a 12-0 team (if UCF wins the AAC) wouldn't have earned a spot in a 12 team playoff mentioned above? Sounds pretty ridiculous...the College Football Playoff consists of 10 conferences. When five of those conferences don't have a path to the playoff you are talking about an invitational, not a playoff.

Again, that was the lesson learned from the BCS. To avoid anti-trust you have to provide the opportunity even it is not very likely. Why the CFP commercials show all 10 conferences but only the P5 will likely get in. Conference Champs are not assured a playoff slot. This is what made the CFP a brilliant move by allowing to keep them money for the power 5.

Its a brilliant move until enough data exists to prove a G5 can never make the playoff. After this year, with multiple undefeated G5's unable to even get out of the mid-teens---it woould be seen as fairly conclusive evidence by most any judge or jury that the playoff is effectively closed to the G5. Its basically like defending racisim in employment practices by saying "we just did not have any minority candidates that were good enough". In a 4 year period? When multiple candidates offered up a 4.0 grade point average and a 100% record of success? Considering the plantiff will likely file in friendly venue of their own choosing--that's going to be a pretty tough case to defend. We have more than enough information from the field of play indicating that the top G5 champion is more than a match for the typical top 10 P5. The current glass ceiling that blocks the top G5's from both the top 10 and the playoff is just simply arbitrary at this point.

That said, legal action is the last option. Nobody wants to do that--mainly, because if you lose--you'll probably be in an even worse position and it likely poisons the well of future cooperation (not that the current behavior of the committee isn't doing plenty of well poisoning on its own).

Wow, G5 compared to racism. I know some posters that would not surprise me but from you AC, that is really surprising. G5 willingly entered into this CFP agreement. Non D1 football schools don't want to lose the P5 money and have them create their own conference. Again, the NCAA does not control college football and they would lose Basketball if the P5 bolt. AC remember the golden rule, "He who has the gold, rules"

Remember, under the BCS, we had 15 years of data that showed an unbeaten G5 wouldn't make the BCS title game and there was no legal action. The only ruckus was over access to the BCS bowls, which was then made easier. But even Orrin Hatch never tried to push for G5 in to the BCS title game.

The CFP actually guarantees a major bowl slot for G5 so that issue was solved. There literally never has been an issue with access to the two team BCS or 4 team CFP playoffs, because nobody is guaranteed access to them and never were.

That is the big point you are missing: the BCS problem was that every AQ conference was guaranteed a major bowl slot while non-AQ were effectively shut out. But like the BCS title game, no P5 conference is guaranteed a spot in the CFP playoffs.

(11-15-2018 02:20 PM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  

(11-15-2018 12:46 PM)joeben69 Wrote:  Here's one chaotic scenario that could lead to College Football Playoff expansion
https://sports.yahoo.com/heres-one-chaot...45969.html

That win/loss scenario could play out, but there's no way the committee puts Alabama in over Michigan.

Assuming that holds true, Clemson would move to #1, ND #2. Even if you put Georgia at #3, Michigan would have 1 loss against the #2 team vs. Bama's 1 loss against #3.

Michigan is in.

I know some folks have talked about this Bama team perhaps being the best college team ever, but from my perspective, the "best ever" doesn't lose to Georgia in the SEC championship game.

You might be right- but then all it would take would be 1 pretty reasonable thing- Ohio St beating Michigan.

Ohio St would not get in over Alabama.

(11-15-2018 01:41 PM)stever20 Wrote:  dude, they are NEVER and I mean NEVER assigning teams into their historical Bowls. This year is a PRIME reason why.... Why should what would be in a 8 team playoff
1 Alabama
2 Clemson
3 Notre Dame
4 Michigan
5 WVU or Oklahoma
6 Georgia or LSU
7 Washington St
8 UCF

why should Michigan get to play Washington St?

It would be Alabama/UCF, Clemson/Washington St, Notre Dame/Georgia-LSU, and Michigan/WVU-Oklahoma. Period.

I wouldn't say never because you're only looking at it from a pure competitive/seeding aspect as opposed to the legal aspect.

The reason to use bowls is because it's the legal mechanism for the P5 conferences to have "auto-bids" (in the form of contractual tie-ins) that the G5 wouldn't have. Essentially, it has to be set up as the "first round" really being a set of contract bowls and then the winners are contractually obligated to participate in the semifinal round.

The P5 collectively getting together and stating that they get 5 auto-bids to an 8-team playoff system while no one else does brings up an illegal collusion argument. However, the P5 "separately" agreeing to contractual tie-ins to separate bowls gives them the argument that they're simply using the free market to freely contract with different entities and that any G5 conference could do the same if it could find its own contract bowl partner.

The legal mechanism is quite important here if the P5 wants to have auto-bids for themselves while not having them for the G5 (which is what the P5 would want out of an 8-team playoff system). The "pure seeding" 1 vs. 4/2 vs. 3 setup of the 4-team playoff system works because there aren't any auto-bids involved, but that would likely not be the case for an 8-team playoff (where I believe the entire push for that expansion would come *from* a desire for P5 auto-bids).

Two tweaks I would consider to the current system to improve the postseason.

#1 - 8-team playoff with autobids for the highest 6 ranked conference champions. Round 1 before Christmas at home sites. Spills into current CFP bowl and championship game structure.

#2 - two "wild card" games played on Conference Championship weekend for the highest ranked teams not involved in a CCG. Wild card games give the top non-division winners the 13th data point...as well as another data point to compare the top-ranked teams and conferences to determine the two wild cards at large bids for the CFP and for the NY6 bowls.

2018 would be more interesting because most of the CCG matchups are pretty weak (other than Alabama-Georgia). #2 Clemson is likely to play an unranked opponent. Oklahoma-West Virginia is likely to be an immediate rematch. The Michigan-Ohio St. winner and Washington-WSU winner will be lucky to face a top-20 opponent. AAC and MWC championship games are likely to only have one ranked team.

To that mix, you could add a couple of big-time wild card games like Notre Dame-Florida and LSU-Ohio St.

Last year, CCG weekend would have featured:

ACC Championship - #1 Clemson v. #7 Miami (Clemson won)
SEC Championship - #2 Auburn v. #6 Georgia (Georgia won)
B12 Championship - #3 Oklahoma v. #11 TCU (Oklahoma won)
B1G Championship - #4 Wisconsin v. #8 Ohio St. (Ohio St. won)
PAC Championship - #10 USC v. #12 Stanford (USC won)
AAC Championship - #14 UCF v. #20 Memphis (UCF won)
MWC Championship - #25 Fresno St. v. NR Boise St. (Boise won)

Wild Card games
#5 Alabama v. #15 Notre Dame
#9 Penn St. v. #13 Washington

The 8-team CFP would have featured the following autobids:

#1 Clemson (ACC)
#2 Oklahoma (B12)
#3 Georgia (SEC)
#5 Ohio St. (B1G)
#8 USC (PAC)
#12 UCF (AAC)

The 2 wild card at large selections would have come from:
Alabama (wild card win over ranked Notre Dame?)
Wisconsin (loss to #5 Ohio St. in B1G final)
Auburn (lost to #3 Georgia in SEC final)
Penn St. (wild card win over ranked Washington?)

The wild card games would really help to determine the last 2 wild card teams. May be Penn St. gets in ahead of Wisconsin and Auburn?

(11-15-2018 02:24 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(11-15-2018 01:41 PM)stever20 Wrote:  dude, they are NEVER and I mean NEVER assigning teams into their historical Bowls. This year is a PRIME reason why.... Why should what would be in a 8 team playoff
1 Alabama
2 Clemson
3 Notre Dame
4 Michigan
5 WVU or Oklahoma
6 Georgia or LSU
7 Washington St
8 UCF

why should Michigan get to play Washington St?

It would be Alabama/UCF, Clemson/Washington St, Notre Dame/Georgia-LSU, and Michigan/WVU-Oklahoma. Period.

I wouldn't say never because you're only looking at it from a pure competitive/seeding aspect as opposed to the legal aspect.

The reason to use bowls is because it's the legal mechanism for the P5 conferences to have "auto-bids" (in the form of contractual tie-ins) that the G5 wouldn't have. Essentially, it has to be set up as the "first round" really being a set of contract bowls and then the winners are contractually obligated to participate in the semifinal round.

The P5 collectively getting together and stating that they get 5 auto-bids to an 8-team playoff system while no one else does brings up an illegal collusion argument. However, the P5 "separately" agreeing to contractual tie-ins to separate bowls gives them the argument that they're simply using the free market to freely contract with different entities and that any G5 conference could do the same if it could find its own contract bowl partner.

The legal mechanism is quite important here if the P5 wants to have auto-bids for themselves while not having them for the G5 (which is what the P5 would want out of an 8-team playoff system). The "pure seeding" 1 vs. 4/2 vs. 3 setup of the 4-team playoff system works because there aren't any auto-bids involved, but that would likely not be the case for an 8-team playoff (where I believe the entire push for that expansion would come *from* a desire for P5 auto-bids).

Easy solution is that the autobids are for the top 6 conference champions. It would take a really weird scenario for two G5 champions to earn autobids ahead of any P5 champion (like post-season bans and big upsets, etc.).

(11-15-2018 02:24 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(11-15-2018 01:41 PM)stever20 Wrote:  dude, they are NEVER and I mean NEVER assigning teams into their historical Bowls. This year is a PRIME reason why.... Why should what would be in a 8 team playoff
1 Alabama
2 Clemson
3 Notre Dame
4 Michigan
5 WVU or Oklahoma
6 Georgia or LSU
7 Washington St
8 UCF

why should Michigan get to play Washington St?

It would be Alabama/UCF, Clemson/Washington St, Notre Dame/Georgia-LSU, and Michigan/WVU-Oklahoma. Period.

I wouldn't say never because you're only looking at it from a pure competitive/seeding aspect as opposed to the legal aspect.

The reason to use bowls is because it's the legal mechanism for the P5 conferences to have "auto-bids" (in the form of contractual tie-ins) that the G5 wouldn't have. Essentially, it has to be set up as the "first round" really being a set of contract bowls and then the winners are contractually obligated to participate in the semifinal round.

The P5 collectively getting together and stating that they get 5 auto-bids to an 8-team playoff system while no one else does brings up an illegal collusion argument. However, the P5 "separately" agreeing to contractual tie-ins to separate bowls gives them the argument that they're simply using the free market to freely contract with different entities and that any G5 conference could do the same if it could find its own contract bowl partner.

The legal mechanism is quite important here if the P5 wants to have auto-bids for themselves while not having them for the G5 (which is what the P5 would want out of an 8-team playoff system). The "pure seeding" 1 vs. 4/2 vs. 3 setup of the 4-team playoff system works because there aren't any auto-bids involved, but that would likely not be the case for an 8-team playoff (where I believe the entire push for that expansion would come *from* a desire for P5 auto-bids).

TV, and the conferences like the SEC and ACC are all about the competitive/seeding aspect of things. They pushed in the creation of the CFP to have seedings and not protect the Rose Bowl...... Prime Example was in 2014, you know folks were seething about not having an Ohio St/Oregon Rose Bowl.....

You see- as we're going along- tradition matters less and less. More and more people don't give a **** about tradition and aren't going to screw themselves to help the Rose Bowl...... TV wants a bracket pure and pure.

(12-01-2017 09:18 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  Think 4 is right and do not want to see any bigger. If my Buckeyes or Alabama or whomever doesn't make it, so what, we have only ourselves to blame. I love the fact I need to care about every game and we have high stakes games every week. Go to 6 or 8 and beyond further de-emphasizing thr bowls, I will care far less about events around the country as Big Ten champ likely always in.

If I'm running the Big Ten, I don't *want* Big Ten fans caring about events around the country. I want Ohio State and Michigan fans to care more about what's happening in the Big Ten West because that is what's relevant for the Big Ten Championship (and in turn, the playoff under an auto-bid system). Same thing if I'm running the SEC - I don't want Alabama fans caring more about what Clemson is doing compared to what other SEC teams might be doing.

Even then, the NFL shows that both local and national interest isn't mutually exclusive. NFL fans care a ton about what happens in their own teams' division because that most directly impacts their playoff chances, but also care quite a bit about the big picture national games outside of their division, too. If we're talking about an 8-team playoff with 5 P5 auto-bids and 3 at-large slots, that's still a *very* limited field compared to every single other major American spectator sport.

Most importantly, it means every team that is still in contention to win its *division* is still in the playoff race. It extends the mathematical chances (however small they might be) for *my* team (at least if you're a P5 fan) to make it to the playoff as opposed to being cut off immediately in the first or second week of season. Once again, that's why the NFL is so successful - many more fans feel that their *own* teams are still in the playoff race well into the season, which draws both interest to their own teams' games as well as other games nationally. It's always easy for fans of the superpowers of the sport like Alabama and Ohio State to talk about caring about national games because they're the only ones that have any playoff stakes in those national games. This is about the other 95% of schools that want to have playoff stakes in their *own* games but can't experience that in the current system.

(11-15-2018 02:33 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(11-15-2018 02:24 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(11-15-2018 01:41 PM)stever20 Wrote:  dude, they are NEVER and I mean NEVER assigning teams into their historical Bowls. This year is a PRIME reason why.... Why should what would be in a 8 team playoff
1 Alabama
2 Clemson
3 Notre Dame
4 Michigan
5 WVU or Oklahoma
6 Georgia or LSU
7 Washington St
8 UCF

why should Michigan get to play Washington St?

It would be Alabama/UCF, Clemson/Washington St, Notre Dame/Georgia-LSU, and Michigan/WVU-Oklahoma. Period.

I wouldn't say never because you're only looking at it from a pure competitive/seeding aspect as opposed to the legal aspect.

The reason to use bowls is because it's the legal mechanism for the P5 conferences to have "auto-bids" (in the form of contractual tie-ins) that the G5 wouldn't have. Essentially, it has to be set up as the "first round" really being a set of contract bowls and then the winners are contractually obligated to participate in the semifinal round.

The P5 collectively getting together and stating that they get 5 auto-bids to an 8-team playoff system while no one else does brings up an illegal collusion argument. However, the P5 "separately" agreeing to contractual tie-ins to separate bowls gives them the argument that they're simply using the free market to freely contract with different entities and that any G5 conference could do the same if it could find its own contract bowl partner.

The legal mechanism is quite important here if the P5 wants to have auto-bids for themselves while not having them for the G5 (which is what the P5 would want out of an 8-team playoff system). The "pure seeding" 1 vs. 4/2 vs. 3 setup of the 4-team playoff system works because there aren't any auto-bids involved, but that would likely not be the case for an 8-team playoff (where I believe the entire push for that expansion would come *from* a desire for P5 auto-bids).

TV, and the conferences like the SEC and ACC are all about the competitive/seeding aspect of things. They pushed in the creation of the CFP to have seedings and not protect the Rose Bowl...... Prime Example was in 2014, you know folks were seething about not having an Ohio St/Oregon Rose Bowl.....

You see- as we're going along- tradition matters less and less. More and more people don't give a **** about tradition and aren't going to screw themselves to help the Rose Bowl...... TV wants a bracket pure and pure.

That's because the SEC and ACC weren't giving anything up to get that competitive/seeding aspect in a 4-team playoff. If a contract bowl setup is what is required to have "auto-bids" in an 8-team playoff, though, then that's what they'll do because legal and financial considerations will matter more in that scenario.

(11-15-2018 02:23 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(11-15-2018 02:20 PM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  

(11-15-2018 12:46 PM)joeben69 Wrote:  Here's one chaotic scenario that could lead to College Football Playoff expansion
https://sports.yahoo.com/heres-one-chaot...45969.html

That win/loss scenario could play out, but there's no way the committee puts Alabama in over Michigan.

Assuming that holds true, Clemson would move to #1, ND #2. Even if you put Georgia at #3, Michigan would have 1 loss against the #2 team vs. Bama's 1 loss against #3.

Michigan is in.

I know some folks have talked about this Bama team perhaps being the best college team ever, but from my perspective, the "best ever" doesn't lose to Georgia in the SEC championship game.

You might be right- but then all it would take would be 1 pretty reasonable thing- Ohio St beating Michigan.

Ohio St would not get in over Alabama.

THAT would turn the whole thing into a literal Sh!t show.

If it happens, grab the popcorn and as Hawk Harrelson would say "sit back, relax, and strap it down!"

(11-15-2018 02:36 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(11-15-2018 02:33 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(11-15-2018 02:24 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(11-15-2018 01:41 PM)stever20 Wrote:  dude, they are NEVER and I mean NEVER assigning teams into their historical Bowls. This year is a PRIME reason why.... Why should what would be in a 8 team playoff
1 Alabama
2 Clemson
3 Notre Dame
4 Michigan
5 WVU or Oklahoma
6 Georgia or LSU
7 Washington St
8 UCF

why should Michigan get to play Washington St?

It would be Alabama/UCF, Clemson/Washington St, Notre Dame/Georgia-LSU, and Michigan/WVU-Oklahoma. Period.

I wouldn't say never because you're only looking at it from a pure competitive/seeding aspect as opposed to the legal aspect.

The reason to use bowls is because it's the legal mechanism for the P5 conferences to have "auto-bids" (in the form of contractual tie-ins) that the G5 wouldn't have. Essentially, it has to be set up as the "first round" really being a set of contract bowls and then the winners are contractually obligated to participate in the semifinal round.

The P5 collectively getting together and stating that they get 5 auto-bids to an 8-team playoff system while no one else does brings up an illegal collusion argument. However, the P5 "separately" agreeing to contractual tie-ins to separate bowls gives them the argument that they're simply using the free market to freely contract with different entities and that any G5 conference could do the same if it could find its own contract bowl partner.

The legal mechanism is quite important here if the P5 wants to have auto-bids for themselves while not having them for the G5 (which is what the P5 would want out of an 8-team playoff system). The "pure seeding" 1 vs. 4/2 vs. 3 setup of the 4-team playoff system works because there aren't any auto-bids involved, but that would likely not be the case for an 8-team playoff (where I believe the entire push for that expansion would come *from* a desire for P5 auto-bids).

TV, and the conferences like the SEC and ACC are all about the competitive/seeding aspect of things. They pushed in the creation of the CFP to have seedings and not protect the Rose Bowl...... Prime Example was in 2014, you know folks were seething about not having an Ohio St/Oregon Rose Bowl.....

You see- as we're going along- tradition matters less and less. More and more people don't give a **** about tradition and aren't going to screw themselves to help the Rose Bowl...... TV wants a bracket pure and pure.

That's because the SEC and ACC weren't giving anything up to get that competitive/seeding aspect in a 4-team playoff. If a contract bowl setup is what is required to have "auto-bids" in an 8-team playoff, though, then that's what they'll do because legal and financial considerations will matter more in that scenario.

The SEC and ACC aren't going to put their champions at a competitive disadvantage to help the Rose Bowl...... PERIOD.

And we've not even touched on how ******* bogus it would be should Northwestern upset the east champ. Northwestern vs Washington St. 2 worst teams. Sorry that **** don't fly. TV Would say that's DOA. ACC and SEC would say that's DOA. Big 12 as well....

Also, you can have contract bowls, but with the caveat that those assignments can change.....

Any playoff format will be seeded. Period. Just like I said when they were creating the playoff that we have now(some folks said that it would absolutely 100% be unseeded where the committee could like in 2014 have Ohio St/Oregon). TV doesn't want any part of that. they want it where the final can be 1 vs 2 and the semi's can be 1 vs 4 and 2 vs 3.

(11-15-2018 02:20 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-01-2017 10:07 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  

(12-01-2017 08:17 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-01-2017 06:53 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  

(12-01-2017 06:38 PM)BlueBird10 Wrote:  So a 12-0 team (if UCF wins the AAC) wouldn't have earned a spot in a 12 team playoff mentioned above? Sounds pretty ridiculous...the College Football Playoff consists of 10 conferences. When five of those conferences don't have a path to the playoff you are talking about an invitational, not a playoff.

Again, that was the lesson learned from the BCS. To avoid anti-trust you have to provide the opportunity even it is not very likely. Why the CFP commercials show all 10 conferences but only the P5 will likely get in. Conference Champs are not assured a playoff slot. This is what made the CFP a brilliant move by allowing to keep them money for the power 5.

Its a brilliant move until enough data exists to prove a G5 can never make the playoff. After this year, with multiple undefeated G5's unable to even get out of the mid-teens---it woould be seen as fairly conclusive evidence by most any judge or jury that the playoff is effectively closed to the G5. Its basically like defending racisim in employment practices by saying "we just did not have any minority candidates that were good enough". In a 4 year period? When multiple candidates offered up a 4.0 grade point average and a 100% record of success? Considering the plantiff will likely file in friendly venue of their own choosing--that's going to be a pretty tough case to defend. We have more than enough information from the field of play indicating that the top G5 champion is more than a match for the typical top 10 P5. The current glass ceiling that blocks the top G5's from both the top 10 and the playoff is just simply arbitrary at this point.

That said, legal action is the last option. Nobody wants to do that--mainly, because if you lose--you'll probably be in an even worse position and it likely poisons the well of future cooperation (not that the current behavior of the committee isn't doing plenty of well poisoning on its own).

Wow, G5 compared to racism. I know some posters that would not surprise me but from you AC, that is really surprising. G5 willingly entered into this CFP agreement. Non D1 football schools don't want to lose the P5 money and have them create their own conference. Again, the NCAA does not control college football and they would lose Basketball if the P5 bolt. AC remember the golden rule, "He who has the gold, rules"

Remember, under the BCS, we had 15 years of data that showed an unbeaten G5 wouldn't make the BCS title game and there was no legal action. The only ruckus was over access to the BCS bowls, which was then made easier. But even Orrin Hatch never tried to push for G5 in to the BCS title game.

The CFP actually guarantees a major bowl slot for G5 so that issue was solved. There literally never has been an issue with access to the two team BCS or 4 team CFP playoffs, because nobody is guaranteed access to them and never were.

That is the big point you are missing: the BCS problem was that every AQ conference was guaranteed a major bowl slot while non-AQ were effectively shut out. But like the BCS title game, no P5 conference is guaranteed a spot in the CFP playoffs.

The decision as to who was in that playoff was also on public vote of 100's of ballots (which everyone could see) as well as computer models. It wasnt based on 13 guys--basically hand picked by the Power conferences. That said, there isnt going to be a law suit because the G5 still has a great deal to lose. The current deal, as flawed as it is---still, in most ways, represents a significant monetary and access improvement for the G5 over the BCS. A law suit would be the last option to be used when all else fails.

My feeling is we will eventually see expansion to 8---and with that---there will be a move made to give the G5 an actual legitimate pathway to a playoff berth.

(11-15-2018 12:48 PM)joeben69 Wrote:  AAC commissioner wouldn't mind open discussion to expanded playoff
http://www.espn.com/college-football/sto...ng-playoff

What makes the inclusion of a top G5 in an 8 team playoff so different than say including low major basketball DIII level conferences in the NCAA tournament is that a Top G5 is a legitimate threat to win.

1) Any G5 school strong enough to make the playoff can win there. That has been proven time again with all the G5 wins in a top bowl game.

2) Any program in the playoff can win the playoff. It truly is an anything can happen situation when you are taking the Top 8 teams against each other.

3) A G5 team has even chances to win an 8 team playoff.

Its so different than in basketball where a Loyola as an example just can't match the physical size of a Duke and Kentucky and kind of has a ceiling. The G5 representative might not have a stud wide out but they would be physical enough to mix it up with a top 8 team and come out on top.

(11-15-2018 10:50 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(11-15-2018 12:48 PM)joeben69 Wrote:  AAC commissioner wouldn't mind open discussion to expanded playoff
http://www.espn.com/college-football/sto...ng-playoff

What makes the inclusion of a top G5 in an 8 team playoff so different than say including low major basketball DIII level conferences in the NCAA tournament is that a Top G5 is a legitimate threat to win.

1) Any G5 school strong enough to make the playoff can win there. That has been proven time again with all the G5 wins in a top bowl game.

2) Any program in the playoff can win the playoff. It truly is an anything can happen situation when you are taking the Top 8 teams against each other.

Remember, when G5 teams have played P5 teams in the top bowl games, it's always been a "second-tier" P5, that is, one that was already judged not to be good enough to make the playoffs. E.g., Boise > Arizona, Houston > FSU, and UCF > Auburn all were cases where the G5 team beat a P5 that clearly wasn't even the best team in its own conference that year, much less a national title contender.

Plus, winning an 8-team playoff wouldn't mean just beating a top P5 team one time, it would mean beating 3 of them in succession, a very different proposition.

To me, if we do go to an 8-team playoff, there still should be no guaranteed spots for anyone, G5 or P5. That doesn't necessarily mean a G5 wouldn't make it, e.g., in the early 2010s, teams like Boise and TCU (pre-Big 12) were ranked by the BCS formula within the top 8, and UCF could make the top 8 of the CFP rankings this year.

(11-15-2018 02:58 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-15-2018 02:20 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-01-2017 10:07 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  

(12-01-2017 08:17 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-01-2017 06:53 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  Again, that was the lesson learned from the BCS. To avoid anti-trust you have to provide the opportunity even it is not very likely. Why the CFP commercials show all 10 conferences but only the P5 will likely get in. Conference Champs are not assured a playoff slot. This is what made the CFP a brilliant move by allowing to keep them money for the power 5.

Its a brilliant move until enough data exists to prove a G5 can never make the playoff. After this year, with multiple undefeated G5's unable to even get out of the mid-teens---it woould be seen as fairly conclusive evidence by most any judge or jury that the playoff is effectively closed to the G5. Its basically like defending racisim in employment practices by saying "we just did not have any minority candidates that were good enough". In a 4 year period? When multiple candidates offered up a 4.0 grade point average and a 100% record of success? Considering the plantiff will likely file in friendly venue of their own choosing--that's going to be a pretty tough case to defend. We have more than enough information from the field of play indicating that the top G5 champion is more than a match for the typical top 10 P5. The current glass ceiling that blocks the top G5's from both the top 10 and the playoff is just simply arbitrary at this point.

That said, legal action is the last option. Nobody wants to do that--mainly, because if you lose--you'll probably be in an even worse position and it likely poisons the well of future cooperation (not that the current behavior of the committee isn't doing plenty of well poisoning on its own).

Wow, G5 compared to racism. I know some posters that would not surprise me but from you AC, that is really surprising. G5 willingly entered into this CFP agreement. Non D1 football schools don't want to lose the P5 money and have them create their own conference. Again, the NCAA does not control college football and they would lose Basketball if the P5 bolt. AC remember the golden rule, "He who has the gold, rules"

Remember, under the BCS, we had 15 years of data that showed an unbeaten G5 wouldn't make the BCS title game and there was no legal action. The only ruckus was over access to the BCS bowls, which was then made easier. But even Orrin Hatch never tried to push for G5 in to the BCS title game.

The CFP actually guarantees a major bowl slot for G5 so that issue was solved. There literally never has been an issue with access to the two team BCS or 4 team CFP playoffs, because nobody is guaranteed access to them and never were.

That is the big point you are missing: the BCS problem was that every AQ conference was guaranteed a major bowl slot while non-AQ were effectively shut out. But like the BCS title game, no P5 conference is guaranteed a spot in the CFP playoffs.

The decision as to who was in that playoff was also on public vote of 100's of ballots (which everyone could see) as well as computer models. It wasnt based on 13 guys--basically hand picked by the Power conferences.

Thing is, though, all the simulations that substitute the old BCS process for the CFP result in basically the same thing the CFP committee arrives at. E.g., last year, the final BCS formula would have selected #1 Clemson, #2 Georgia, #3 Oklahoma, and #4 Alabama. True, UCF was #7 in that simulation, considerably better than in the CFP rankings, but the final result would have been the same - no playoffs.

Bottom line is, despite the fact that the selection committee is unjustifiably stacked with members with P5 backgrounds, it has made choices that are completely within the mainstream of what the computers and the AP/Coaches polls would have selected had they been used instead.

Really, no selection method, whether human or computer, whether stacked with P5 or G5 or neither, is likely to ever put a G5 team in a four-team playoff. There just isn't a rational basis for doing so. The resume of a UCF just doesn't stack up with the resume of at least 7-8 teams, all P5.

For a G5 to deserve to make the playoffs, the playoffs will have to be expanded large enough so that their resume falls within that range of slots available.

A G5 is capable of putting in a weight program that develops bigger, faster, stronger lineman like TCU and Boise to the point where they can hold the line of scrimmage against the top lines in college football.

That equivalence just isn't possible with the G5 basketball programs to match the talent of Duke, Kentucky, UNC and Villanova. The G5 will ultimately run out of gas in the tournament even if playing great ball.

Putting a Boise or now Houston or UCF in and 8 team playoff there is absolutely no question they could knock off the #1 team and do more. You just can't say the same with a Murray St or Florida Gulf Coast which is why its a different threat.

How good were some of those Marshall teams like the one that beat Clemson? They never had a chance to test themselves in a playoff.

If you go into P5 conferences, upsets by programs with lower rated recruiting classes happen all the time. Think Syracuse over Clemson last year. In football they are the equivalent right now of a top G5 team.

(11-15-2018 02:20 PM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  That win/loss scenario could play out, but there's no way the committee puts Alabama in over Michigan.

Assuming that holds true, Clemson would move to #1, ND #2. Even if you put Georgia at #3, Michigan would have 1 loss against the #2 team vs. Bama's 1 loss against #3.

Michigan is in.

I know some folks have talked about this Bama team perhaps being the best college team ever, but from my perspective, the "best ever" doesn't lose to Georgia in the SEC championship game.

I think UM is in, because the Bama OOC is terrible, but so is UGA's... so if Bama loses a game where its OT or a bad call or some crazy thing, I think UM is out. I do think UM can secure it if they go out there and blow out those last two games, thereby putting Bama in a must win. But I still think there is a path for Bama with a loss in Atlanta.

(11-16-2018 08:46 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  A G5 is capable of putting in a weight program that develops bigger, faster, stronger lineman like TCU and Boise to the point where they can hold the line of scrimmage against the top lines in college football.

That equivalence just isn't possible with the G5 basketball programs to match the talent of Duke, Kentucky, UNC and Villanova. The G5 will ultimately run out of gas in the tournament even if playing great ball.

Putting a Boise or now Houston or UCF in and 8 team playoff there is absolutely no question they could knock off the #1 team and do more. You just can't say the same with a Murray St or Florida Gulf Coast which is why its a different threat.

How good were some of those Marshall teams like the one that beat Clemson? They never had a chance to test themselves in a playoff.

If you go into P5 conferences, upsets by programs with lower rated recruiting classes happen all the time. Think Syracuse over Clemson last year. In football they are the equivalent right now of a top G5 team.

You keep comparing top G5 football teams, like Boise and UCF, with the very-low level basketball teams like Murray State and Florida Gulf Coast. A team like Butler did make the NCAA hoops finals two years in a row in 2010 and 2011.

I'd say upsets of top teams are more likely in hoops, because the game is short and just one hot shooting half by the cinderella and one bad shooting half by the big power can win the game for the former.

You say there is "absolutely no question" a UCF or Houston or Boise could beat the #1 team? I think there is a lot of question about that, but even if so, remember, in an 8-team playoff you would have to beat 3 such teams. You'd have to beat say Notre Dame, Clemson, then Alabama.

No G5 we've ever seen could do that.

(11-16-2018 09:11 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(11-15-2018 02:20 PM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  That win/loss scenario could play out, but there's no way the committee puts Alabama in over Michigan.

Assuming that holds true, Clemson would move to #1, ND #2. Even if you put Georgia at #3, Michigan would have 1 loss against the #2 team vs. Bama's 1 loss against #3.

Michigan is in.

I know some folks have talked about this Bama team perhaps being the best college team ever, but from my perspective, the "best ever" doesn't lose to Georgia in the SEC championship game.

I think UM is in, because the Bama OOC is terrible, but so is UGA's... so if Bama loses a game where its OT or a bad call or some crazy thing, I think UM is out. I do think UM can secure it if they go out there and blow out those last two games, thereby putting Bama in a must win. But I still think there is a path for Bama with a loss in Atlanta.

This is a good point: the Alabama vs Michigan scenario is just too dependent on how it unfolds. If Alabama gets blown out by Georgia and Michigan dominates Ohio State and the B1G CCG, then Michigan likely gets the bid. Likewise, if Alabama loses in OT to Georgia while Michigan scrapes by in its games, then Alabama likely does.

Alabama getting blown out by anyone is IMO the least likely scenario. It just hasn't happened. Since Saban took over in 2007, the worse loss they've had has been by 14 points.

(11-15-2018 02:27 PM)YNot Wrote:  #2 - two "wild card" games played on Conference Championship weekend for the highest ranked teams not involved in a CCG. Wild card games give the top non-division winners the 13th data point...as well as another data point to compare the top-ranked teams and conferences to determine the two wild cards at large bids for the CFP and for the NY6 bowls.

Problem with the wild card games is that it would conflict with the existing TV slots. Is every game going to go in prime time? The sponsors would get killed and wouldn't sign off on that. Plus the logistical nightmare. Maybe you play them Friday night before Army Navy but that week is for exams.