(12-04-2018 12:04 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(12-04-2018 11:57 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-04-2018 11:53 AM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(12-04-2018 11:47 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-04-2018 11:42 AM)1845 Bear Wrote:  Going to 8 with autobids doesn’t really get it right. Basically you’d be taking 3 loss Washington over unbeaten UCF if we used the committee rankings.

-Go to 8
- Protect any unbeaten
- Conference titles are tiebreakers for teams with the same number of losses.

This fixes all of the past 30 seasons IMO.

UCF finished #8 in the CFP rankings, so if we had an 8-team playoff based on committee rankings UCF would have gotten in.

My argument was against P5 conference title autobids. Providing an autobid to 3 loss Washington ranked #9 would push #8 UCF out.

Quote:I disagree with protecting "unbeatens". There is nothing magical about being unbeaten, that is a function of who you play.

No team should be able to play a soft schedule, avoiding all top teams, and get auto-entry because they navigated that soft schedule with no losses.

In a 4 team field I agree.

8? Completely disagree. Virtually every year you’ve got 2+ loss teams or a one loss team who got annihilated while not winning their league that doesn’t deserve a shot more than an unbeaten.

I'm trying to think of a time when this would apply? Practically speaking, any unbeaten P5 will always be ranked in the top 8 so it would never affect them.

You're basically saying an unbeaten G5 should always be in the top 8 regardless of how soft their schedule. I can't agree. It should be if they are one of the top 8 teams or not. Othwerwise we could have G5 teams that never played anyone of quality in the top 8.

1- If they do then let’s see if they can play. Boise, TCU, UCF, and Utah all showed we were wrong.

First, putting in an unbeaten G5 isn't cost-free. You have to take someone else out. Like this year - I hear some talk that UCF should be in the playoffs, but not much about WHY they should be in instead of Clemson, Alabama, Notre Dame, and Oklahoma. Who should we boot out to include UCF?

The same would apply in an 8-team playoff. If Troy and San Diego State both go undefeated but are ranked behind some P5 teams, which P5 teams do we kick out to make room for them?

Second, in the CFP era at least, no G5 has 'shown' that the playoffs were wrong. Beating an also-ran P5 like Houston, Boise, and UCF did does not mean you were as good as the top 4 teams, and again, that's what we'd be talking about, kicking out a top 4 team. Plus, a lot of us predicted these games. I predicted UCF would beat Auburn, and I predict they will beat LSU. Those SEC teams have no motivation, and in LSU's case, will have key draft choices sitting out.

But the bottom line is: You have to justify kicking someone out to include someone else, so be sure to do that.

(12-04-2018 12:08 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-04-2018 10:28 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-04-2018 10:14 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(12-04-2018 10:06 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-04-2018 09:53 AM)orangefan Wrote:  Thought it would be an interesting exercise to reset the NY6 bids assuming it was a Rose-Sugar year or a Fiesta-Peach year. Because of the automatic tie ins, there is a bit of shifting around. My analysis of the Fiesta-Peach year pairings would be guaranteed based on the CFP rules and automatic tie ins. My pairings for the Rose-Sugar year are more speculative beyond the semis and the Orange Bowl. The schools that would be invited are locked, but the pairings would not be.

Rose-Sugar Semifinals
Sugar: Alabama-Oklahoma
Rose: Clemson-Notre Dame
Orange: Syracuse-Georgia
Cotton: Ohio State-LSU
Fiesta: Washington-UCF
Peach: Florida-Michigan
(In: Syracuse; Out: Texas)

Fiesta-Peach Semifinals
Peach: Alabama-Oklahoma
Fiesta: Clemson-Notre Dame
Rose: Ohio State-Washington
Sugar: Georgia-Texas
Orange: Syracuse-Michigan
Cotton: Florida-UCF
(In: Syracuse; Out: LSU)

So the upshot is, Syracuse had the bad luck of having this season in a year where the Orange Bowl is a playoff game and thus not available as that ACC tie-in for Syracuse?

I think that would easily make Syracuse the lowest-ranked team to play in an NY6 bowl during the CFP.

it would have tied with Boise in 2014.

That's what people who favor auto-bids should be mindful of, as both of those were (or would, in Syracuse's case) be the result of auto-bids allowing a team to jump over much better ones.

Better is a matter of opinion. Championships are a matter of fact. Ohio St. almost didn't get in during 2014. TCU didn't. Ohio St. won the title.

Yes, but even in auto-bid situations, playoffs, the right to play for a championship, are determined by opinion. Why do some think that conference champs should automatically make the playoffs? Because in their opinion, winning a conference means you've proven you are more deserving (i.e., 'better') than teams that did not. Same with people who think it should be based on rankings of some kind.

Ultimately, the right to play for championships in any playoff system is based on opinions about what it means to deserve to be in the playoffs.

(12-04-2018 01:08 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-04-2018 12:04 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(12-04-2018 11:57 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-04-2018 11:53 AM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(12-04-2018 11:47 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  UCF finished #8 in the CFP rankings, so if we had an 8-team playoff based on committee rankings UCF would have gotten in.

My argument was against P5 conference title autobids. Providing an autobid to 3 loss Washington ranked #9 would push #8 UCF out.

Quote:I disagree with protecting "unbeatens". There is nothing magical about being unbeaten, that is a function of who you play.

No team should be able to play a soft schedule, avoiding all top teams, and get auto-entry because they navigated that soft schedule with no losses.

In a 4 team field I agree.

8? Completely disagree. Virtually every year you’ve got 2+ loss teams or a one loss team who got annihilated while not winning their league that doesn’t deserve a shot more than an unbeaten.

I'm trying to think of a time when this would apply? Practically speaking, any unbeaten P5 will always be ranked in the top 8 so it would never affect them.

You're basically saying an unbeaten G5 should always be in the top 8 regardless of how soft their schedule. I can't agree. It should be if they are one of the top 8 teams or not. Othwerwise we could have G5 teams that never played anyone of quality in the top 8.

1- If they do then let’s see if they can play. Boise, TCU, UCF, and Utah all showed we were wrong.

First, putting in an unbeaten G5 isn't cost-free. You have to take someone else out. Like this year - I hear some talk that UCF should be in the playoffs, but not much about WHY they should be in instead of Clemson, Alabama, Notre Dame, and Oklahoma. Who should we boot out to include UCF?

The same would apply in an 8-team playoff. If Troy and San Diego State both go undefeated but are ranked behind some P5 teams, which P5 teams do we kick out to make room for them?

Depends on the year and who’s up against them. In an 8 team field you’ll almost certainly kick out a multi loss runner up and not a deserving champion. If the past 15 years the only 1 loss P5 who’s getting pushed out is 2007 KU who has plenty of SOS issues. So it’s an extreme rarity that the team left out would be a team who largely took care of business.

I’d rather have the problems of excluding a 2+ loss team that failed to win than excluding an unbeaten that did everything they could.

If you are worried about multiple G5 unbeatens clogging up spots then maybe a play-in game if 2+ emerge to take the 8th spot. Either way let them decide it on the field.

Quote:Second, in the CFP era at least, no G5 has 'shown' that the playoffs were wrong. Beating an also-ran P5 like Houston, Boise, and UCF did does not mean you were as good as the top 4 teams, and again, that's what we'd be talking about, kicking out a top 4 team.

I’m arguing in an 8 team scenario.

Quote:Plus, a lot of us predicted these games. I predicted UCF would beat Auburn, and I predict they will beat LSU. Those SEC teams have no motivation, and in LSU's case, will have key draft choices sitting out.

Anecdotal and Vegas disagrees. Still they proved they can beat teams that would be in 8 team fields. 2017 Auburn, 2010 Wisconsin, 2008 Bama, etc are all teams that make a hypothetical 8 team bracket.

Quote:But the bottom line is: You have to justify kicking someone out to include someone else, so be sure to do that.

Bottom line: Decide it on the field- not in a selection room.

Expand it, don’t force bad 4 loss “champs” in, and protect unbeaten G5’s. This allows those who’ve won to go play.

(12-04-2018 01:14 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-04-2018 12:08 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-04-2018 10:28 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-04-2018 10:14 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(12-04-2018 10:06 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  So the upshot is, Syracuse had the bad luck of having this season in a year where the Orange Bowl is a playoff game and thus not available as that ACC tie-in for Syracuse?

I think that would easily make Syracuse the lowest-ranked team to play in an NY6 bowl during the CFP.

it would have tied with Boise in 2014.

That's what people who favor auto-bids should be mindful of, as both of those were (or would, in Syracuse's case) be the result of auto-bids allowing a team to jump over much better ones.

Better is a matter of opinion. Championships are a matter of fact. Ohio St. almost didn't get in during 2014. TCU didn't. Ohio St. won the title.

Yes, but even in auto-bid situations, playoffs, the right to play for a championship, are determined by opinion. Why do some think that conference champs should automatically make the playoffs? Because in their opinion, winning a conference means you've proven you are more deserving (i.e., 'better') than teams that did not. Same with people who think it should be based on rankings of some kind.

Ultimately, the right to play for championships in any playoff system is based on opinions about what it means to deserve to be in the playoffs.

A playoff is about deciding it on the field. Conference championships are decided on the field (except for tiebreaks-but we aren't limiting the field to only conference champs). There is little question a team that won it on the field is more deserving than a team that lost it on the field.

The only issue is "best" vs. "deserving." And "best" in a larger field is inconsistent with winning it on the field.

(12-04-2018 01:21 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  Bottom line: Decide it on the field- not in a selection room.

Expand it, don’t force bad 4 loss “champs” in, and protect unbeaten G5’s. This allows those who’ve won to go play.

I assume you are deciding it in a selection room, as in an 8-team playoff there will be 10 conference champs and you can't put them all in.

IMO, where your system errs is in protecting unbeatens. There is nothing about losing a game in the regular season that shows a team doesn't belong nor is there anything about winning all your games that shows you do - both depend almost entirely on who you play.

A special rule that protects unbeatens rewards scheduling down, and nobody should be rewarded for playing a soft schedule, heck, we should want teams to schedule up, as that helps us decide who is best.

It can easily be a much tougher on-the-field accomplishment to go 10-2 versus a very tough schedule than 12-0 versus a soft one. That fact should be obvious to anyone.

You mentioned Vegas, IIRC, LSU, despite having their two starting CBs missing the game and having three losses, is an 8 point favorite over unbeaten UCF. I think that's wrong, I think UCF will win, but that shows that losing 3 games can objectively be regarded as having indicated you are more deserving than an unbeaten.

(12-04-2018 01:55 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-04-2018 01:14 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-04-2018 12:08 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-04-2018 10:28 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-04-2018 10:14 AM)stever20 Wrote:  it would have tied with Boise in 2014.

That's what people who favor auto-bids should be mindful of, as both of those were (or would, in Syracuse's case) be the result of auto-bids allowing a team to jump over much better ones.

Better is a matter of opinion. Championships are a matter of fact. Ohio St. almost didn't get in during 2014. TCU didn't. Ohio St. won the title.

Yes, but even in auto-bid situations, playoffs, the right to play for a championship, are determined by opinion. Why do some think that conference champs should automatically make the playoffs? Because in their opinion, winning a conference means you've proven you are more deserving (i.e., 'better') than teams that did not. Same with people who think it should be based on rankings of some kind.

Ultimately, the right to play for championships in any playoff system is based on opinions about what it means to deserve to be in the playoffs.

A playoff is about deciding it on the field. Conference championships are decided on the field (except for tiebreaks-but we aren't limiting the field to only conference champs). There is little question a team that won it on the field is more deserving than a team that lost it on the field.

The only issue is "best" vs. "deserving." And "best" in a larger field is inconsistent with winning it on the field.

But, conference championships are determined by subjective criteria that reflects opinions about who is more deserving. E.g., when determining if a team wins their conference division, should overall record or just conference record be the standard? Or within a conference, should all conference games count or just divisional games?

If, e.g., only conference games count, the you are throwing out lots of results that happened on the field, the OOC games.

Point is, all systems for determining a champ are riddled with subjective opinions about what it means to deserve to play for the championship. A playoff system doesn't elude that issue.

In the case of college football, we would be assuming e.g. that winning the Sun Belt Conference makes a team more deserving of being in the playoffs than finishing 3rd in the SEC. And that is a very big assumption, probably unjustified.

Syracuse getting in would have been no bueno. The whole system dodged a bullet this year

(12-05-2018 11:53 AM)solohawks Wrote:  Syracuse getting in would have been no bueno. The whole system dodged a bullet this year

Yes, Syracuse just didn't have the look of an NY6 - quality team. The bowl they are playing in is the correct one for them.

The ACC was very weak this year, so it's not surprising that even its #2 team, Syracuse, was not NY6 worthy. It was basically Clemson and then a huge gap to everyone else.

Reminiscent of FSU vs the rest of the ACC during the 1990s.

(12-05-2018 11:55 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-05-2018 11:53 AM)solohawks Wrote:  Syracuse getting in would have been no bueno. The whole system dodged a bullet this year

Yes, Syracuse just didn't have the look of an NY6 - quality team. The bowl they are playing in is the correct one for them.

The ACC was very weak this year, so it's not surprising that even its #2 team, Syracuse, was not NY6 worthy. It was basically Clemson and then a huge gap to everyone else.

Reminiscent of FSU vs the rest of the ACC during the 1990s.

The other teams of the 90's were closer than what Syracuse was this year. FSU joined for the '92 season
at end of regular season
92- NC State #12
93- UNC #12
94- Virginia #18
95- Virginia #18
96- UNC #12
97- UNC #7
98- Ga Tech #12
99- Ga Tech #17

So no one as low as 20, and in 5 of the 8 years- the 2nd team was top 12......

(12-05-2018 12:20 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(12-05-2018 11:55 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-05-2018 11:53 AM)solohawks Wrote:  Syracuse getting in would have been no bueno. The whole system dodged a bullet this year

Yes, Syracuse just didn't have the look of an NY6 - quality team. The bowl they are playing in is the correct one for them.

The ACC was very weak this year, so it's not surprising that even its #2 team, Syracuse, was not NY6 worthy. It was basically Clemson and then a huge gap to everyone else.

Reminiscent of FSU vs the rest of the ACC during the 1990s.

The other teams of the 90's were closer than what Syracuse was this year. FSU joined for the '92 season
at end of regular season
92- NC State #12
93- UNC #12
94- Virginia #18
95- Virginia #18
96- UNC #12
97- UNC #7
98- Ga Tech #12
99- Ga Tech #17

So no one as low as 20, and in 5 of the 8 years- the 2nd team was top 12......

Good data. I recall UNC making a bit of noise in 96/97, but the rest of the decade was just FSU and the 7 dwarfs to my memory.

Then again, my memory isn't all bad. FSU did win the ACC every single year from 1992 - 2000, and on average, between 1992 - 2000 they outscored their ACC opponents by 239 points a year, well more than 20 points per game on average. So it really was the all-FSU show that decade.

(12-05-2018 12:32 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-05-2018 12:20 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(12-05-2018 11:55 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-05-2018 11:53 AM)solohawks Wrote:  Syracuse getting in would have been no bueno. The whole system dodged a bullet this year

Yes, Syracuse just didn't have the look of an NY6 - quality team. The bowl they are playing in is the correct one for them.

The ACC was very weak this year, so it's not surprising that even its #2 team, Syracuse, was not NY6 worthy. It was basically Clemson and then a huge gap to everyone else.

Reminiscent of FSU vs the rest of the ACC during the 1990s.

The other teams of the 90's were closer than what Syracuse was this year. FSU joined for the '92 season
at end of regular season
92- NC State #12
93- UNC #12
94- Virginia #18
95- Virginia #18
96- UNC #12
97- UNC #7
98- Ga Tech #12
99- Ga Tech #17

So no one as low as 20, and in 5 of the 8 years- the 2nd team was top 12......

Good data. I recall UNC making a bit of noise in 96/97, but the rest of the decade was just FSU and the 7 dwarfs to my memory.

Then again, my memory isn't all bad. FSU did win the ACC every single year from 1992 - 2000, and on average, between 1992 - 2000 they outscored their ACC opponents by 239 points a year, well more than 20 points per game on average. So it really was the all-FSU show that decade.

no doubt FSU dominated much like what Clemson has done here... But the others had teams similar to what FSU or Louisville has been here- no where near as bad as Syracuse this year.

(12-05-2018 01:03 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(12-05-2018 12:32 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-05-2018 12:20 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(12-05-2018 11:55 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-05-2018 11:53 AM)solohawks Wrote:  Syracuse getting in would have been no bueno. The whole system dodged a bullet this year

Yes, Syracuse just didn't have the look of an NY6 - quality team. The bowl they are playing in is the correct one for them.

The ACC was very weak this year, so it's not surprising that even its #2 team, Syracuse, was not NY6 worthy. It was basically Clemson and then a huge gap to everyone else.

Reminiscent of FSU vs the rest of the ACC during the 1990s.

The other teams of the 90's were closer than what Syracuse was this year. FSU joined for the '92 season
at end of regular season
92- NC State #12
93- UNC #12
94- Virginia #18
95- Virginia #18
96- UNC #12
97- UNC #7
98- Ga Tech #12
99- Ga Tech #17

So no one as low as 20, and in 5 of the 8 years- the 2nd team was top 12......

Good data. I recall UNC making a bit of noise in 96/97, but the rest of the decade was just FSU and the 7 dwarfs to my memory.

Then again, my memory isn't all bad. FSU did win the ACC every single year from 1992 - 2000, and on average, between 1992 - 2000 they outscored their ACC opponents by 239 points a year, well more than 20 points per game on average. So it really was the all-FSU show that decade.

no doubt FSU dominated much like what Clemson has done here... But the others had teams similar to what FSU or Louisville has been here- no where near as bad as Syracuse this year.

This is the basic problem with having automatic tie ins, but the conferences want contract bowls for obvious financial reasons and to ensure maximum television exposure. If the Orange was a contract bowl this year, Syracuse would be no different than Texas, which received a Sugar Bowl bid with a 9-4 record solely because of the B12's contract bowl. This has been an issue since the creation of automatic bowl tie ins. With two division CCGs, for instance, there's always a risk of a 6-6 or 7-5 division champ pulling of an upset to get an automatic bid.

(12-05-2018 02:20 PM)orangefan Wrote:  

(12-05-2018 01:03 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(12-05-2018 12:32 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-05-2018 12:20 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(12-05-2018 11:55 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Yes, Syracuse just didn't have the look of an NY6 - quality team. The bowl they are playing in is the correct one for them.

The ACC was very weak this year, so it's not surprising that even its #2 team, Syracuse, was not NY6 worthy. It was basically Clemson and then a huge gap to everyone else.

Reminiscent of FSU vs the rest of the ACC during the 1990s.

The other teams of the 90's were closer than what Syracuse was this year. FSU joined for the '92 season
at end of regular season
92- NC State #12
93- UNC #12
94- Virginia #18
95- Virginia #18
96- UNC #12
97- UNC #7
98- Ga Tech #12
99- Ga Tech #17

So no one as low as 20, and in 5 of the 8 years- the 2nd team was top 12......

Good data. I recall UNC making a bit of noise in 96/97, but the rest of the decade was just FSU and the 7 dwarfs to my memory.

Then again, my memory isn't all bad. FSU did win the ACC every single year from 1992 - 2000, and on average, between 1992 - 2000 they outscored their ACC opponents by 239 points a year, well more than 20 points per game on average. So it really was the all-FSU show that decade.

no doubt FSU dominated much like what Clemson has done here... But the others had teams similar to what FSU or Louisville has been here- no where near as bad as Syracuse this year.

This is the basic problem with having automatic tie ins, but the conferences want contract bowls for obvious financial reasons and to ensure maximum television exposure. If the Orange was a contract bowl this year, Syracuse would be no different than Texas, which received a Sugar Bowl bid with a 9-4 record solely because of the B12's contract bowl. This has been an issue since the creation of automatic bowl tie ins. With two division CCGs, for instance, there's always a risk of a 6-6 or 7-5 division champ pulling of an upset to get an automatic bid.

Texas may be 9-4, but they're ranked #15. Good bit better than being #20.....

(12-05-2018 02:34 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(12-05-2018 02:20 PM)orangefan Wrote:  

(12-05-2018 01:03 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(12-05-2018 12:32 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-05-2018 12:20 PM)stever20 Wrote:  The other teams of the 90's were closer than what Syracuse was this year. FSU joined for the '92 season
at end of regular season
92- NC State #12
93- UNC #12
94- Virginia #18
95- Virginia #18
96- UNC #12
97- UNC #7
98- Ga Tech #12
99- Ga Tech #17

So no one as low as 20, and in 5 of the 8 years- the 2nd team was top 12......

Good data. I recall UNC making a bit of noise in 96/97, but the rest of the decade was just FSU and the 7 dwarfs to my memory.

Then again, my memory isn't all bad. FSU did win the ACC every single year from 1992 - 2000, and on average, between 1992 - 2000 they outscored their ACC opponents by 239 points a year, well more than 20 points per game on average. So it really was the all-FSU show that decade.

no doubt FSU dominated much like what Clemson has done here... But the others had teams similar to what FSU or Louisville has been here- no where near as bad as Syracuse this year.

This is the basic problem with having automatic tie ins, but the conferences want contract bowls for obvious financial reasons and to ensure maximum television exposure. If the Orange was a contract bowl this year, Syracuse would be no different than Texas, which received a Sugar Bowl bid with a 9-4 record solely because of the B12's contract bowl. This has been an issue since the creation of automatic bowl tie ins. With two division CCGs, for instance, there's always a risk of a 6-6 or 7-5 division champ pulling of an upset to get an automatic bid.

Texas may be 9-4, but they're ranked #15. Good bit better than being #20.....

#14 vs. #17 in the AP. It's really not a substantial difference, and neither would be the worst example of a low ranked team earning an automatic bid to a major bowl.
1977 Washington and 1984 Houston come to mind as 7-4 schools that received automatic bids to major bowls, the Rose and Cotton respectively, but there are many other examples.