Love the SEC excuse for Auburns loss to UCF...that Auburn didn’t care and went into that game with apathy. If anybody didn’t care and went in that game with apathy it would’ve been UCF, they were the undefeated team left out of the playoffs.

(11-01-2018 09:38 AM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(10-31-2018 09:55 PM)Jjoey52 Wrote:  

(10-31-2018 08:19 PM)Tigersmoke4 Wrote:  

(10-31-2018 08:01 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-31-2018 07:43 PM)vick mike Wrote:  Best article on this topic ever. Don’t have any faith that things will change but great to see a national publication expose the obvious bs.

The more this is talked about openly---the sooner the current system will be undermined and forced to change. This kind of piece is why I do think the next version of the CFP will have a slot reserved for the top G5 champ.

To be fair--comparing G5's and P5's really is difficult because schedule differences absolutely do make it like comparing apples to pears. There are too many differences between the conferences to use a one size fits all templet. Unfortunately, thats what the committee has done---deciding to simply toss aside half of college football as playing an inadequate schedule to qualify. Its fast. Its easy. But its also flawed. The Committee is supposed to be comparing teams---not schedules. You cant eliminate half the teams for something they have little control over (2/3rds of every schedule is completely out their control due to the conference season---and the remaining 4 games are only marginally under their control because they require another party to agree before they can be scheduled).

In the final analysis--(assuming they really tried at all)---the Committee failed horribly at constructing a methodology for comparing teams from very different conferences. I suspect this was primarily due to the massive bias built into the original composition of the membership.

The only way to overcome the massive structural failure within the CFP selection system is to simply require that the Committee place the top G5 champ into the CFP playoff field (because the Committee's built-in bias is such that they are simply incapable of believing a G5 could be worthy---and built a selection model that accurately reflects that bias).
That will likley happen when it expands to 8. The only other way to correct the bias is to make the committee accurately reflectthe membership of FBS. Make the Committee a 10 member panel with one representative coming from each conference. That should help balance the bias that produces such a flawed dismissive selection model.

Please don't stop getting caught up in "A g5" bid. That doesn't help us. We haven't been investing in that as fans or a conference. It's the AAC p6 or bust, or we'll continue to be arguing with the g4 every year about why their win over UCLA is better than our win over UCLA.

Basically your goal is bust, because if the rankings mean anything you are not or probably won’t for an awful long time be a P6, just battling for scraps like the rest of the G5.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Why does a Sycamore fan care what's going on in FBS football?

Also no one here thought that the AAC was just going to have the door opened for them and invited in. Its ok, we're still crashing the party.

He's a MWC guy--- the ISU is actually for Idaho State.

(11-01-2018 10:12 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(11-01-2018 09:38 AM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(10-31-2018 09:55 PM)Jjoey52 Wrote:  

(10-31-2018 08:19 PM)Tigersmoke4 Wrote:  

(10-31-2018 08:01 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The more this is talked about openly---the sooner the current system will be undermined and forced to change. This kind of piece is why I do think the next version of the CFP will have a slot reserved for the top G5 champ.

To be fair--comparing G5's and P5's really is difficult because schedule differences absolutely do make it like comparing apples to pears. There are too many differences between the conferences to use a one size fits all templet. Unfortunately, thats what the committee has done---deciding to simply toss aside half of college football as playing an inadequate schedule to qualify. Its fast. Its easy. But its also flawed. The Committee is supposed to be comparing teams---not schedules. You cant eliminate half the teams for something they have little control over (2/3rds of every schedule is completely out their control due to the conference season---and the remaining 4 games are only marginally under their control because they require another party to agree before they can be scheduled).

In the final analysis--(assuming they really tried at all)---the Committee failed horribly at constructing a methodology for comparing teams from very different conferences. I suspect this was primarily due to the massive bias built into the original composition of the membership.

The only way to overcome the massive structural failure within the CFP selection system is to simply require that the Committee place the top G5 champ into the CFP playoff field (because the Committee's built-in bias is such that they are simply incapable of believing a G5 could be worthy---and built a selection model that accurately reflects that bias).
That will likley happen when it expands to 8. The only other way to correct the bias is to make the committee accurately reflectthe membership of FBS. Make the Committee a 10 member panel with one representative coming from each conference. That should help balance the bias that produces such a flawed dismissive selection model.

Please don't stop getting caught up in "A g5" bid. That doesn't help us. We haven't been investing in that as fans or a conference. It's the AAC p6 or bust, or we'll continue to be arguing with the g4 every year about why their win over UCLA is better than our win over UCLA.

Basically your goal is bust, because if the rankings mean anything you are not or probably won’t for an awful long time be a P6, just battling for scraps like the rest of the G5.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Why does a Sycamore fan care what's going on in FBS football?

Also no one here thought that the AAC was just going to have the door opened for them and invited in. Its ok, we're still crashing the party.

He's a MVC guy--- the ISU is actually for Illinois State.

FIFY

Optimal -- 12 team playoff, each conference champion, top rated independent, one at-larg.

I hate to point this out, but he contradicts himself pretty big (although not detracting from his overall point). He talked about how UCF defeated Auburn, "the team that beat both Alabama and Georgia, the two teams in the final CG", and then later in the article states that the G5 rep is always pitted against the weakest of the P5 teams in the NY6. "That's why the G5 rep always wins the matchup".

He also brings up the whole "every other division in sports has a path" argument, which I do not like to see in print. It is just begging for the NCAA to declare the G5 a separate division from the FBS P5. I would rather focus on the AAC joining the "Contract Conferences" than worrying about the G4. If that makes me selfish/elitist, so be it.

(11-01-2018 10:12 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(11-01-2018 09:38 AM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(10-31-2018 09:55 PM)Jjoey52 Wrote:  

(10-31-2018 08:19 PM)Tigersmoke4 Wrote:  

(10-31-2018 08:01 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The more this is talked about openly---the sooner the current system will be undermined and forced to change. This kind of piece is why I do think the next version of the CFP will have a slot reserved for the top G5 champ.

To be fair--comparing G5's and P5's really is difficult because schedule differences absolutely do make it like comparing apples to pears. There are too many differences between the conferences to use a one size fits all templet. Unfortunately, thats what the committee has done---deciding to simply toss aside half of college football as playing an inadequate schedule to qualify. Its fast. Its easy. But its also flawed. The Committee is supposed to be comparing teams---not schedules. You cant eliminate half the teams for something they have little control over (2/3rds of every schedule is completely out their control due to the conference season---and the remaining 4 games are only marginally under their control because they require another party to agree before they can be scheduled).

In the final analysis--(assuming they really tried at all)---the Committee failed horribly at constructing a methodology for comparing teams from very different conferences. I suspect this was primarily due to the massive bias built into the original composition of the membership.

The only way to overcome the massive structural failure within the CFP selection system is to simply require that the Committee place the top G5 champ into the CFP playoff field (because the Committee's built-in bias is such that they are simply incapable of believing a G5 could be worthy---and built a selection model that accurately reflects that bias).
That will likley happen when it expands to 8. The only other way to correct the bias is to make the committee accurately reflectthe membership of FBS. Make the Committee a 10 member panel with one representative coming from each conference. That should help balance the bias that produces such a flawed dismissive selection model.

Please don't stop getting caught up in "A g5" bid. That doesn't help us. We haven't been investing in that as fans or a conference. It's the AAC p6 or bust, or we'll continue to be arguing with the g4 every year about why their win over UCLA is better than our win over UCLA.

Basically your goal is bust, because if the rankings mean anything you are not or probably won’t for an awful long time be a P6, just battling for scraps like the rest of the G5.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Why does a Sycamore fan care what's going on in FBS football?

Also no one here thought that the AAC was just going to have the door opened for them and invited in. Its ok, we're still crashing the party.

He's a MWC guy--- the ISU is actually for Idaho State.

Idaho State.....bwhahahahaha!!!!!!

(11-01-2018 01:38 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  I hate to point this out, but he contradicts himself pretty big (although not detracting from his overall point). He talked about how UCF defeated Auburn, "the team that beat both Alabama and Georgia, the two teams in the final CG", and then later in the article states that the G5 rep is always pitted against the weakest of the P5 teams in the NY6. "That's why the G5 rep always wins the matchup".

He also brings up the whole "every other division in sports has a path" argument, which I do not like to see in print. It is just begging for the NCAA to declare the G5 a separate division from the FBS P5. I would rather focus on the AAC joining the "Contract Conferences" than worrying about the G4. If that makes me selfish/elitist, so be it.

That would pretty much require the G5 to vote to leave their current division--which they wouldnt do. Or--it would require the P5 to vote to leave---which is unlikely since they just signed a new CFP a few years ago that included the G5 (I use the word "included" pretty loosely here).

(11-01-2018 01:57 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-01-2018 01:38 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  I hate to point this out, but he contradicts himself pretty big (although not detracting from his overall point). He talked about how UCF defeated Auburn, "the team that beat both Alabama and Georgia, the two teams in the final CG", and then later in the article states that the G5 rep is always pitted against the weakest of the P5 teams in the NY6. "That's why the G5 rep always wins the matchup".

He also brings up the whole "every other division in sports has a path" argument, which I do not like to see in print. It is just begging for the NCAA to declare the G5 a separate division from the FBS P5. I would rather focus on the AAC joining the "Contract Conferences" than worrying about the G4. If that makes me selfish/elitist, so be it.

That would pretty much require the G5 to vote to leave their current division--which they wouldnt do. Or--it would require the P5 to vote to leave---which is unlikely since they just signed a new CFP a few years ago that included the G5 (I use the word "included" pretty loosely here).

As you may or may not know, the NCAA is nothing more than a coalition of all NCAA members. IOW, it is tantamount to self-government. All it takes is a majority of "member institutions" to feel that it would be for the best.

(11-01-2018 10:26 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  

(11-01-2018 01:57 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-01-2018 01:38 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  I hate to point this out, but he contradicts himself pretty big (although not detracting from his overall point). He talked about how UCF defeated Auburn, "the team that beat both Alabama and Georgia, the two teams in the final CG", and then later in the article states that the G5 rep is always pitted against the weakest of the P5 teams in the NY6. "That's why the G5 rep always wins the matchup".

He also brings up the whole "every other division in sports has a path" argument, which I do not like to see in print. It is just begging for the NCAA to declare the G5 a separate division from the FBS P5. I would rather focus on the AAC joining the "Contract Conferences" than worrying about the G4. If that makes me selfish/elitist, so be it.

That would pretty much require the G5 to vote to leave their current division--which they wouldnt do. Or--it would require the P5 to vote to leave---which is unlikely since they just signed a new CFP a few years ago that included the G5 (I use the word "included" pretty loosely here).

As you may or may not know, the NCAA is nothing more than a coalition of all NCAA members. IOW, it is tantamount to self-government. All it takes is a majority of "member institutions" to feel that it would be for the best.

Correct—-and my point is simply that if neither the G5 or P5 want it—it’s not going to happen.

I love how ESPN announcers (Herbstreit) say that UCF couldn't handle the weekly grind of a P5 conference schedule. Let's look at Ohio State's schedule:

Oregon State 2-6
Rutgers 1-7
TCU 3-5
Tulane 3-5
Penn State 6-2 (only team with a winning record)
Indiana 4-5
Minnesota 4-4
Purdue 4-4 (Got crushed by Purdue)
Nebraska 2-6 (Up next)

Where is the weekly grind Herbstreit is talking about? What is this resume gives them a 10th spot in the CFP, with the bad loss?

(11-01-2018 10:39 PM)sfink16 Wrote:  I love how ESPN announcers (Herbstreit) say that UCF couldn't handle the weekly grind of a P5 conference schedule. Let's look at Ohio State's schedule:

Oregon State 2-6
Rutgers 1-7
TCU 3-5
Tulane 3-5
Penn State 6-2 (only team with a winning record)
Indiana 4-5
Minnesota 4-4
Purdue 4-4 (Got crushed by Purdue)
Nebraska 2-6 (Up next)

Where is the weekly grind Herbstreit is talking about? What is this resume gives them a 10th spot in the CFP, with the bad loss?

They probably got a messenge in their head set letting them know that saying the G5 had no legit chance at the playoff under the current system might be a “problem”. They needed to make excluding the G5 sound “reasonable”. What they really did was expose what it sounds like inside the Selection Conmittee echo chamber.

There will never be a true Playoff until all TEN conference champs are represented. Win your conference and you are in. You can have 6 ar-large teams.

When UCF, Houston, UC, Memphis, SDSU, BSU, Fresno, Troy, LaTech, Buffalo or any G5 team can tell recruits that they can be in the Playoffs for the National Championship will VASTLY help their recruiting.

It will take some time for the most current G5 to get more competitive. But being in the playoffs, making some of the playoff money, and getting big time exposure (especially when they upset some big names) will create a leveling effect.

Any exclusion is just keeping conferences down.

(11-01-2018 11:06 PM)UHRedcat96 Wrote:  There will never be a true Playoff until all TEN conference champs are represented. Win your conference and you are in. You can have 6 ar-large teams.

When UCF, Houston, UC, Memphis, SDSU, BSU, Fresno, Troy, LaTech, Buffalo or any G5 team can tell recruits that they can be in the Playoffs for the National Championship will VASTLY help their recruiting.

It will take some time for the most current G5 to get more competitive. But being in the playoffs, making some of the playoff money, and getting big time exposure (especially when they upset some big names) will create a leveling effect.

Any exclusion is just keeping conferences down.

Would help keep some coaches as well. We'd still some of these guys to the elite programs, but more coaches would pass unless it was absolutely the right situation where they could walk in and win right away.