(12-18-2018 05:24 PM)the1sttransport Wrote:  

(12-18-2018 04:20 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-18-2018 04:12 PM)the1sttransport Wrote:  

(12-18-2018 04:06 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-18-2018 03:42 PM)the1sttransport Wrote:  Auto-bids to the ten conference champions and six at large bids.

Why are you evaluating the status of the conference? FBS has ten conference champions. These teams get auto bids regardless of ups and downs of the conference. This allows every team in FBS to have a clear path to the national championship without humans and computers ranking anything. Luckily for the conferences with multiple strong teams size at large bids can Be utilized by teams of any conference. (Indy teams have an added clause that I’ll get to later)

Because there are no "ups and downs of the conference" between the G5 and P5. Yes, it makes sense to have the ACC and B1G on an equal playoff footing, and the MAC and MWC, because between those pairs, there are "ups and downs" - sometimes the MAC is better than the MWC and vice-versa, sometimes the ACC is better than the B1G, and vice-versa.

But, the MAC is NEVER better than the B1G. Ever. So it makes sense to treat them differently.

My plan does provide a path to the title for every single team in FBS. But it also recognizes that reality, so the path should be longer for the G5 team.

Strength of conference as nothing to do with this. If eleven cusa teams are trash but FAU is excellent FAU gets the conference champion bid into the playoffs. I don’t care area if teams 2-12 of the mac isn’t as good as teams 2-12 of the b1g. The season would start with every team knowing exactly what metric their on field performance would need to meet to gain entry into playoffs. And if the b1g had the top five teams in the country because they are so excellent as an conference they still get one autobid and up to six at large bids.

If you are going to organize a playoff based on bids for conferences, then of course conference strength should have something to do with it. We can't just assume that FAU is "excellent" because they beat a bunch of bad teams in CUSA, that doesn't prove anything.

So we make sure they and whoever else wins the G5 leagues proves it by playing amongst themselves to crown a G5 champ, who then advances to the QFs.

In my system, every team knows exactly what they'd have to do to win the FBS title. In the case of CUSA, it would be win CUSA, then win the G5 semifinal, then the G5 final, then the QFs, Semis, and Finals.

Remember, those G5 playoff games would be real playoff games, they feed right in all the way to the title.

Points for at least creating a path. However again, if UCF as AAC champ has already beaten the ACC champ, why on earth should UCF have to jump through hoops? My 16 team process eliminates biases and feelings regarding who is probably better and who provably faced teams that were tougher. Stop with regulating this magical distinction between P5 and G5 and instead focus on ten teams in FBS with equal paths

I've already explained that to you - beating the ACC champ doesn't necessarily mean anything. That ACC champ may have lost to other teams as well.

And remember, there are two wild-card sports, two at-large. We could have a provision that if a G5 team is ranked in the top 8, like UCF this year, then they get one of the two at-large spots and do not have to go through the hoops. The G5 playoffs would be canceled for that year and they would be automatically entered into the Final 8.

That would handle your "Mighty G5 Who Could Beat Alabama" team, while making sure most years the run of the mill G5 best does have to earn their way in with more playoff games.

(12-18-2018 06:24 PM)colohank Wrote:  I'm old enough to remember when the NFL and the fledgling AFL were two separate and distinct entities, and the NFL looked down its nose at the AFL and refused to play AFL teams. The two leagues had their own championships. Then folks began wondering how the NFL and AFL champions would stack up against one another, and Joe Namath and his NY Jets answered that question.

Just because some network has determined that some conferences are more marketable than others doesn't mean that they play better football. There are G5 teams that could beat the socks off many P5 teams without breaking a sweat. And just maybe, a few could beat the socks off the best of the P5.

Folks will always wonder...

Same thing happened when the NBA took in the four ABA teams. (For you whippersnappers they were Denver, Indiana, New York, and San Antonio).

No doubt the G5 would fare much better than the P5 crowd would like to admit.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(12-18-2018 07:23 PM)ODU1986 Wrote:  

(12-18-2018 06:24 PM)colohank Wrote:  I'm old enough to remember when the NFL and the fledgling AFL were two separate and distinct entities, and the NFL looked down its nose at the AFL and refused to play AFL teams. The two leagues had their own championships. Then folks began wondering how the NFL and AFL champions would stack up against one another, and Joe Namath and his NY Jets answered that question.

Just because some network has determined that some conferences are more marketable than others doesn't mean that they play better football. There are G5 teams that could beat the socks off many P5 teams without breaking a sweat. And just maybe, a few could beat the socks off the best of the P5.

Folks will always wonder...

Same thing happened when the NBA took in the four ABA teams. (For you whippersnappers they were Denver, Indiana, New York, and San Antonio).

No doubt the G5 would fare much better than the P5 crowd would like to admit.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Those are silly comparisons. The AFL and ABA were professional leagues that had money with which to buy players. By 1965, it was clear that the AFL was able to compete with the NFL because they were signing players just as good as the NFL was signing.

There is no such situation in college football. Look at the recruiting rankings, all the good players go to the P5. Every blue moon, a blue-chipper signs with the G5 because his mom wants him near home (Ed Oliver at Houston) or a guy who was a 2-star when he was recruited and ignored by all the big programs goes on a growth spurt at a G5 and suddenly has an NFL body (Khalil Mack at Buffalo). But those are the tiny exceptions that prove the rule.

There is no reason to think that in an 8-team playoff, there has *ever* been a G5 that could beat three straight top P5 teams to win the title.

(12-18-2018 07:20 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-18-2018 05:24 PM)the1sttransport Wrote:  

(12-18-2018 04:20 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-18-2018 04:12 PM)the1sttransport Wrote:  

(12-18-2018 04:06 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Because there are no "ups and downs of the conference" between the G5 and P5. Yes, it makes sense to have the ACC and B1G on an equal playoff footing, and the MAC and MWC, because between those pairs, there are "ups and downs" - sometimes the MAC is better than the MWC and vice-versa, sometimes the ACC is better than the B1G, and vice-versa.

But, the MAC is NEVER better than the B1G. Ever. So it makes sense to treat them differently.

My plan does provide a path to the title for every single team in FBS. But it also recognizes that reality, so the path should be longer for the G5 team.

Strength of conference as nothing to do with this. If eleven cusa teams are trash but FAU is excellent FAU gets the conference champion bid into the playoffs. I don’t care area if teams 2-12 of the mac isn’t as good as teams 2-12 of the b1g. The season would start with every team knowing exactly what metric their on field performance would need to meet to gain entry into playoffs. And if the b1g had the top five teams in the country because they are so excellent as an conference they still get one autobid and up to six at large bids.

If you are going to organize a playoff based on bids for conferences, then of course conference strength should have something to do with it. We can't just assume that FAU is "excellent" because they beat a bunch of bad teams in CUSA, that doesn't prove anything.

So we make sure they and whoever else wins the G5 leagues proves it by playing amongst themselves to crown a G5 champ, who then advances to the QFs.

In my system, every team knows exactly what they'd have to do to win the FBS title. In the case of CUSA, it would be win CUSA, then win the G5 semifinal, then the G5 final, then the QFs, Semis, and Finals.

Remember, those G5 playoff games would be real playoff games, they feed right in all the way to the title.

Points for at least creating a path. However again, if UCF as AAC champ has already beaten the ACC champ, why on earth should UCF have to jump through hoops? My 16 team process eliminates biases and feelings regarding who is probably better and who provably faced teams that were tougher. Stop with regulating this magical distinction between P5 and G5 and instead focus on ten teams in FBS with equal paths

I've already explained that to you - beating the ACC champ doesn't necessarily mean anything. That ACC champ may have lost to other teams as well.

And remember, there are two wild-card sports, two at-large. We could have a provision that if a G5 team is ranked in the top 8, like UCF this year, then they get one of the two at-large spots and do not have to go through the hoops. The G5 playoffs would be canceled for that year and they would be automatically entered into the Final 8.

That would handle your "Mighty G5 Who Could Beat Alabama" team, while making sure most years the run of the mill G5 best does have to earn their way in with more playoff games.

The closed door office of P5-representative committee members would never rank a G5 in the top 8 in that scenario. And just typing that sentence is reminding me how insane it is that THIS is our reality.

Why are you making team A jump through more hoops than team B if team A won a head to head? I don’t care who else beat who, you have decided that due to a preconceived and inherently biased principle of conference affiliation that one team suffer through an extension of tests than a team it already demonstrated on field superiority to.

All these asterisks and “if this, then this. But if this, then this” insanity is exactly why every team deserves a clear path to the national championship. Ten conference champions and six at large

(12-18-2018 07:27 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-18-2018 07:23 PM)ODU1986 Wrote:  

(12-18-2018 06:24 PM)colohank Wrote:  I'm old enough to remember when the NFL and the fledgling AFL were two separate and distinct entities, and the NFL looked down its nose at the AFL and refused to play AFL teams. The two leagues had their own championships. Then folks began wondering how the NFL and AFL champions would stack up against one another, and Joe Namath and his NY Jets answered that question.

Just because some network has determined that some conferences are more marketable than others doesn't mean that they play better football. There are G5 teams that could beat the socks off many P5 teams without breaking a sweat. And just maybe, a few could beat the socks off the best of the P5.

Folks will always wonder...

Same thing happened when the NBA took in the four ABA teams. (For you whippersnappers they were Denver, Indiana, New York, and San Antonio).

No doubt the G5 would fare much better than the P5 crowd would like to admit.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There is no reason to think that in an 8-team playoff, there has *ever* been a G5 that could beat three straight top P5 teams to win the title.

The fact you have to base that on your assumptions and what feels right instead of the actual games being played is exactly the problem.

And while we’re at, there’s plenty of P5 football programs that couldn’t carry the jock straps of half the G5.

UNC (hahaha), Louisville (they suck too), Rutgers (they really suck), UCLA (how did they get so crappy?), Arkansas (didn’t know Southern boys could be that bad), etc, etc.

With all the built in privileges at these schools they really are a joke. Heck, my school ODU sent Va. Tech to the woodshed and we play in an 88 year old stadium with porta-johns, and locker rooms that aren’t even attached to the stadium.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(12-18-2018 07:28 PM)the1sttransport Wrote:  

(12-18-2018 07:20 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-18-2018 05:24 PM)the1sttransport Wrote:  

(12-18-2018 04:20 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-18-2018 04:12 PM)the1sttransport Wrote:  Strength of conference as nothing to do with this. If eleven cusa teams are trash but FAU is excellent FAU gets the conference champion bid into the playoffs. I don’t care area if teams 2-12 of the mac isn’t as good as teams 2-12 of the b1g. The season would start with every team knowing exactly what metric their on field performance would need to meet to gain entry into playoffs. And if the b1g had the top five teams in the country because they are so excellent as an conference they still get one autobid and up to six at large bids.

If you are going to organize a playoff based on bids for conferences, then of course conference strength should have something to do with it. We can't just assume that FAU is "excellent" because they beat a bunch of bad teams in CUSA, that doesn't prove anything.

So we make sure they and whoever else wins the G5 leagues proves it by playing amongst themselves to crown a G5 champ, who then advances to the QFs.

In my system, every team knows exactly what they'd have to do to win the FBS title. In the case of CUSA, it would be win CUSA, then win the G5 semifinal, then the G5 final, then the QFs, Semis, and Finals.

Remember, those G5 playoff games would be real playoff games, they feed right in all the way to the title.

Points for at least creating a path. However again, if UCF as AAC champ has already beaten the ACC champ, why on earth should UCF have to jump through hoops? My 16 team process eliminates biases and feelings regarding who is probably better and who provably faced teams that were tougher. Stop with regulating this magical distinction between P5 and G5 and instead focus on ten teams in FBS with equal paths

I've already explained that to you - beating the ACC champ doesn't necessarily mean anything. That ACC champ may have lost to other teams as well.

And remember, there are two wild-card sports, two at-large. We could have a provision that if a G5 team is ranked in the top 8, like UCF this year, then they get one of the two at-large spots and do not have to go through the hoops. The G5 playoffs would be canceled for that year and they would be automatically entered into the Final 8.

That would handle your "Mighty G5 Who Could Beat Alabama" team, while making sure most years the run of the mill G5 best does have to earn their way in with more playoff games.

The closed door office of P5-representative committee members would never rank a G5 in the top 8 in that scenario. And just typing that sentence is reminding me how insane it is that THIS is our reality.

Why are you making team A jump through more hoops than team B if team A won a head to head?

I've explained why, but OK, we could make an exception - If the highest ranked G5 team has a win over any P5 champ, they automatically go in to the top 8, no need to fight through the G5 playoffs.

So there we go: If the top rated G5 team is (a) ranked by the Committee in the top 8, or (b) has a win over a P5 champ, then the G5 playoffs are canceled and that team is directly in to the Final 8.

(12-18-2018 07:37 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-18-2018 07:28 PM)the1sttransport Wrote:  

(12-18-2018 07:20 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-18-2018 05:24 PM)the1sttransport Wrote:  

(12-18-2018 04:20 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  If you are going to organize a playoff based on bids for conferences, then of course conference strength should have something to do with it. We can't just assume that FAU is "excellent" because they beat a bunch of bad teams in CUSA, that doesn't prove anything.

So we make sure they and whoever else wins the G5 leagues proves it by playing amongst themselves to crown a G5 champ, who then advances to the QFs.

In my system, every team knows exactly what they'd have to do to win the FBS title. In the case of CUSA, it would be win CUSA, then win the G5 semifinal, then the G5 final, then the QFs, Semis, and Finals.

Remember, those G5 playoff games would be real playoff games, they feed right in all the way to the title.

Points for at least creating a path. However again, if UCF as AAC champ has already beaten the ACC champ, why on earth should UCF have to jump through hoops? My 16 team process eliminates biases and feelings regarding who is probably better and who provably faced teams that were tougher. Stop with regulating this magical distinction between P5 and G5 and instead focus on ten teams in FBS with equal paths

I've already explained that to you - beating the ACC champ doesn't necessarily mean anything. That ACC champ may have lost to other teams as well.

And remember, there are two wild-card sports, two at-large. We could have a provision that if a G5 team is ranked in the top 8, like UCF this year, then they get one of the two at-large spots and do not have to go through the hoops. The G5 playoffs would be canceled for that year and they would be automatically entered into the Final 8.

That would handle your "Mighty G5 Who Could Beat Alabama" team, while making sure most years the run of the mill G5 best does have to earn their way in with more playoff games.

The closed door office of P5-representative committee members would never rank a G5 in the top 8 in that scenario. And just typing that sentence is reminding me how insane it is that THIS is our reality.

Why are you making team A jump through more hoops than team B if team A won a head to head?

I've explained why, but OK, we could make an exception - If the highest ranked G5 team has a win over any P5 champ, they automatically go in to the top 8, no need to fight through the G5 playoffs.

So there we go: If the top rated G5 team is (a) ranked by the Committee in the top 8, or (b) has a win over a P5 champ, then the G5 playoffs are canceled and that team is directly in to the Final 8.

I respect your flexibility but come on, read that sentence. Do you honestly believe that bloated set of if’s and buts is more sensible that giving the ten FBS conferences a champion spot and six at large? How hard are people having to stretch the dribble ESPN keeps parading about P5/G5 that this makes any sense in regard to the spirit of sports and competition in general?

(12-18-2018 07:41 PM)the1sttransport Wrote:  

(12-18-2018 07:37 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-18-2018 07:28 PM)the1sttransport Wrote:  

(12-18-2018 07:20 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-18-2018 05:24 PM)the1sttransport Wrote:  Points for at least creating a path. However again, if UCF as AAC champ has already beaten the ACC champ, why on earth should UCF have to jump through hoops? My 16 team process eliminates biases and feelings regarding who is probably better and who provably faced teams that were tougher. Stop with regulating this magical distinction between P5 and G5 and instead focus on ten teams in FBS with equal paths

I've already explained that to you - beating the ACC champ doesn't necessarily mean anything. That ACC champ may have lost to other teams as well.

And remember, there are two wild-card sports, two at-large. We could have a provision that if a G5 team is ranked in the top 8, like UCF this year, then they get one of the two at-large spots and do not have to go through the hoops. The G5 playoffs would be canceled for that year and they would be automatically entered into the Final 8.

That would handle your "Mighty G5 Who Could Beat Alabama" team, while making sure most years the run of the mill G5 best does have to earn their way in with more playoff games.

The closed door office of P5-representative committee members would never rank a G5 in the top 8 in that scenario. And just typing that sentence is reminding me how insane it is that THIS is our reality.

Why are you making team A jump through more hoops than team B if team A won a head to head?

I've explained why, but OK, we could make an exception - If the highest ranked G5 team has a win over any P5 champ, they automatically go in to the top 8, no need to fight through the G5 playoffs.

So there we go: If the top rated G5 team is (a) ranked by the Committee in the top 8, or (b) has a win over a P5 champ, then the G5 playoffs are canceled and that team is directly in to the Final 8.

I respect your flexibility but come on, read that sentence. Do you honestly believe that bloated set of if’s and buts is more sensible that giving the ten FBS conferences a champion spot and six at large?

Far more sensible. What makes no sense is to pretend that winning the MAC is the same as winning the SEC. The MAC champ may have played nobody in the top 30, as that Akron schedule showed. Nobody should get to skate in to the playoffs with that kind of schedule.

So ordinarily, the G5 conferences should have to prove themselves while the P5 champs get a bye - unless we have an exceptional G5 that is a top 8 team or has beaten a P5 champ.

(12-18-2018 07:50 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-18-2018 07:41 PM)the1sttransport Wrote:  

(12-18-2018 07:37 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-18-2018 07:28 PM)the1sttransport Wrote:  

(12-18-2018 07:20 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  I've already explained that to you - beating the ACC champ doesn't necessarily mean anything. That ACC champ may have lost to other teams as well.

And remember, there are two wild-card sports, two at-large. We could have a provision that if a G5 team is ranked in the top 8, like UCF this year, then they get one of the two at-large spots and do not have to go through the hoops. The G5 playoffs would be canceled for that year and they would be automatically entered into the Final 8.

That would handle your "Mighty G5 Who Could Beat Alabama" team, while making sure most years the run of the mill G5 best does have to earn their way in with more playoff games.

The closed door office of P5-representative committee members would never rank a G5 in the top 8 in that scenario. And just typing that sentence is reminding me how insane it is that THIS is our reality.

Why are you making team A jump through more hoops than team B if team A won a head to head?

I've explained why, but OK, we could make an exception - If the highest ranked G5 team has a win over any P5 champ, they automatically go in to the top 8, no need to fight through the G5 playoffs.

So there we go: If the top rated G5 team is (a) ranked by the Committee in the top 8, or (b) has a win over a P5 champ, then the G5 playoffs are canceled and that team is directly in to the Final 8.

I respect your flexibility but come on, read that sentence. Do you honestly believe that bloated set of if’s and buts is more sensible that giving the ten FBS conferences a champion spot and six at large?

Far more sensible. What makes no sense is to pretend that winning the MAC is the same as winning the SEC. The MAC champ may have played nobody in the top 30, as that Akron schedule showed. Nobody should get to skate in to the playoffs with that kind of schedule.

So ordinarily, the G5 conferences should have to prove themselves while the P5 champs get a bye - unless we have an exceptional G5 that is a top 8 team or has beaten a P5 champ.

If Akron the MAC champ enters the first round of the playoff against b1g champ Ohio State and gets destroyed, you’re absolutely allowed to suggest that of course Ohio State has the commits with higher stars, higher paid coaches, better facilities. Of course it would be no surprise Ohio State wins. But guess what? This is a sport. Teams play for a national championship. Akron had their chance for one. And if March Madness has taught us anything it’s that Cinderellas do happen in spite of differences of athletic budget.

Every team should have a clear path to a national championship that exists detached from beauty contest style points and whether or not men and women in a hotel room feel as though they have proved themselves. Like every other division of college football I might add.

(12-18-2018 06:13 PM)72Tiger Wrote:  

(12-18-2018 02:59 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  5+1+2 solves this, honestly.

I guess theoretically two or more G5 teams could go undefeated, but we rarely ever see that and the last two instances I can remember were when the WAC was in existence.

Why limit the G5 to one bid?

I think 10 team playoff - one bid per conference. Top 6 teams get a bye. Anything else is silly.

The G5 is not LIMITED to one bid. They are only GUARANTEED one bid. Those are not one and the same---though in practice it will likely work out that way. Look, there are those that say the G5 should hove no access and no guaranteed bid. As Ive stated before--the 5-1-2 system is a compromise.

Any 8 team playoff with a 130 team field, from 10 distinctly unique conferences, with little overlapping play, and a short 12 game schedule---is going to be a compromise. The 5-1-2 is the best at addressing all the major issues while limiting the field to just 8. Everybody gets most of what they want--nobody gets royally screwed---and the fans are huge winners.

(12-18-2018 08:00 PM)the1sttransport Wrote:  

(12-18-2018 07:50 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-18-2018 07:41 PM)the1sttransport Wrote:  

(12-18-2018 07:37 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-18-2018 07:28 PM)the1sttransport Wrote:  The closed door office of P5-representative committee members would never rank a G5 in the top 8 in that scenario. And just typing that sentence is reminding me how insane it is that THIS is our reality.

Why are you making team A jump through more hoops than team B if team A won a head to head?

I've explained why, but OK, we could make an exception - If the highest ranked G5 team has a win over any P5 champ, they automatically go in to the top 8, no need to fight through the G5 playoffs.

So there we go: If the top rated G5 team is (a) ranked by the Committee in the top 8, or (b) has a win over a P5 champ, then the G5 playoffs are canceled and that team is directly in to the Final 8.

I respect your flexibility but come on, read that sentence. Do you honestly believe that bloated set of if’s and buts is more sensible that giving the ten FBS conferences a champion spot and six at large?

Far more sensible. What makes no sense is to pretend that winning the MAC is the same as winning the SEC. The MAC champ may have played nobody in the top 30, as that Akron schedule showed. Nobody should get to skate in to the playoffs with that kind of schedule.

So ordinarily, the G5 conferences should have to prove themselves while the P5 champs get a bye - unless we have an exceptional G5 that is a top 8 team or has beaten a P5 champ.

If Akron the MAC champ enters the first round of the playoff against b1g champ Ohio State and gets destroyed, you’re absolutely allowed to suggest that of course Ohio State has the commits with higher stars, higher paid coaches, better facilities. Of course it would be no surprise Ohio State wins. But guess what? This is a sport. Teams play for a national championship. Akron had their chance for one. And if March Madness has taught us anything it’s that Cinderellas do happen in spite of differences of athletic budget.

Every team should have a clear path to a national championship that exists detached from beauty contest style points and whether or not men and women in a hotel room feel as though they have proved themselves. Like every other division of college football I might add.

Totally disagree. Give Akron a path, but because its conference is weak, give them a longer path, unless they proved equality by beating a P5 champ or being ranked top 8.

(12-18-2018 08:08 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-18-2018 06:13 PM)72Tiger Wrote:  

(12-18-2018 02:59 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  5+1+2 solves this, honestly.

I guess theoretically two or more G5 teams could go undefeated, but we rarely ever see that and the last two instances I can remember were when the WAC was in existence.

Why limit the G5 to one bid?

I think 10 team playoff - one bid per conference. Top 6 teams get a bye. Anything else is silly.

The G5 is not LIMITED to one bid. They are only GUARANTEED one bid. Those are not one and the same---though in practice it will likely work out that way. Look, there are those that say the G5 should hove no access and no guaranteed bid. As Ive stated before--the 5-1-2 system is a compromise.

Any 8 team playoff with a 130 team field, from 10 distinctly unique conferences, with little overlapping play, and a short 12 game schedule---is going to be a compromise. The 5-1-2 is the best at addressing all the major issues while limiting the field to just 8. Everybody gets most of what they want--nobody gets royally screwed---and the fans are huge winners.

I can respect you supporting a compromise (and calling it as such) because I’m all reality that’s the most likely short term solution that seems plausible.

I still disagree with it. And I think it’s only a matter of time until others start seeing it this way - that every team should have a clear path. A path detached from beauty contests and back door dealings. Before week one every single team should believe that if they do a predetermined x, y, and z, then they will become national champion. Just like every other division

(12-18-2018 08:24 PM)the1sttransport Wrote:  

(12-18-2018 08:08 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-18-2018 06:13 PM)72Tiger Wrote:  

(12-18-2018 02:59 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  5+1+2 solves this, honestly.

I guess theoretically two or more G5 teams could go undefeated, but we rarely ever see that and the last two instances I can remember were when the WAC was in existence.

Why limit the G5 to one bid?

I think 10 team playoff - one bid per conference. Top 6 teams get a bye. Anything else is silly.

The G5 is not LIMITED to one bid. They are only GUARANTEED one bid. Those are not one and the same---though in practice it will likely work out that way. Look, there are those that say the G5 should hove no access and no guaranteed bid. As Ive stated before--the 5-1-2 system is a compromise.

Any 8 team playoff with a 130 team field, from 10 distinctly unique conferences, with little overlapping play, and a short 12 game schedule---is going to be a compromise. The 5-1-2 is the best at addressing all the major issues while limiting the field to just 8. Everybody gets most of what they want--nobody gets royally screwed---and the fans are huge winners.

I can respect you supporting a compromise (and calling it as such) because I’m all reality that’s the most likely short term solution that seems plausible.

I still disagree with it. And I think it’s only a matter of time until others start seeing it this way - that every team should have a clear path. A path detached from beauty contests and back door dealings. Before week one every single team should believe that if they do a predetermined x, y, and z, then they will become national champion. Just like every other division

Ideally, it would be nice if every conference champ could get in---but that would require a 12-16 team playoff and that simply doesn't fit into the available time window without doing something radical like going to an 11 game regular season or eliminating the CCG's. Thats not going to happen. Too many schools rely on the revenue from those games.

Even an 8-team playoff is going to have some time window issues (its going to conflict with the start of NFL Saturday games and college fall semester finals week). Because of that narrow time window available, I suspect 8 is as about as big as the CFP is ever going to get in my lifetime. Everyone here knows I hate hate hate the idea of ice skating judges deciding who's in an who's out. But I dont know any other way of selecting the G5 rep in the short time frame available and/or without causing the G5 teams to grind through to 2 extra rounds of playoff games that the P5 teams dont have to endure. Like I said before in the other thread---any playoff system will have to accept and function within the existing college conference framework and calendar or its a DOA.

I still haven't heard anybody explain why football is any different than any other sport that the NCAA fields...? Why is it that only the P5 are top-notch programs that could even be considered for a national championship in football, but every other program is on the same footing? Why is P5 football unattainable, but P5 basketball/baseball/volleyball/track/etc. is not?

Here's one of the comments I read above: "There is no reason to think that in an 8-team playoff, there has *ever* been a G5 that could beat three straight top P5 teams to win the title."

So, if we were looking at that comment from a purely P5 vs. G5 program in terms of level of recruitment based off of program hierarchy, no G5 or FCS program should be competing in March Madness because those programs cannot recruit at the level of the P5 programs. But that's not how that game works. With the NCAA overseeing that tournament, they allow every program an equal shot at competing for a National Championship in basketball. Does a P5 often win? Sure, but every conference and sub-division of Division I athletics gets a go at it, with those non-P5 programs often providing us some of the most entertaining and Cinderella story-esque games.

But because the CFP is not NCAA, it's a different story and it's a story of the haves and the have nots, all written and narrated by the haves. I get it, the P5 programs compete at a higher level because of their strength of scheduling (but let's be real, there are quite a few P5 programs that would be whooped by a number of G5 programs, including UNC, Louisville, Rutgers, Illinois, Kansas, Arkansas, Tennessee, Oregon State, etc.), but why does that mean they should not play the have nots? Just to satisfy the SEC Commissioner and make him feel better than his peers? I am always hearing that we can never have enough bowl games, as it means it's an extension to football season and a chance for teams to prove themselves again, but people are humming a different tune when it comes to the CFP, as to continue this elitist scheme.

Will this ever change? Likely not. There is so much greed in college athletics today that will only grow in the decades to come. Is it right? I don't think so, but what do I know? I just believe that there should be a path to success for every program, regardless of history or clout surrounding ones name. Let's be real, we'll be watching Alabama and Clemson play for another national title in a few weeks and nobody will be surprised. But when will that get boring? When will we want that underdog to root for, just like we have one to root for in every other NCAA tournament?

(12-18-2018 07:27 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-18-2018 07:23 PM)ODU1986 Wrote:  

(12-18-2018 06:24 PM)colohank Wrote:  I'm old enough to remember when the NFL and the fledgling AFL were two separate and distinct entities, and the NFL looked down its nose at the AFL and refused to play AFL teams. The two leagues had their own championships. Then folks began wondering how the NFL and AFL champions would stack up against one another, and Joe Namath and his NY Jets answered that question.

Just because some network has determined that some conferences are more marketable than others doesn't mean that they play better football. There are G5 teams that could beat the socks off many P5 teams without breaking a sweat. And just maybe, a few could beat the socks off the best of the P5.

Folks will always wonder...

Same thing happened when the NBA took in the four ABA teams. (For you whippersnappers they were Denver, Indiana, New York, and San Antonio).

No doubt the G5 would fare much better than the P5 crowd would like to admit.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Those are silly comparisons. The AFL and ABA were professional leagues that had money with which to buy players. By 1965, it was clear that the AFL was able to compete with the NFL because they were signing players just as good as the NFL was signing.

There is no such situation in college football. Look at the recruiting rankings, all the good players go to the P5. Every blue moon, a blue-chipper signs with the G5 because his mom wants him near home (Ed Oliver at Houston) or a guy who was a 2-star when he was recruited and ignored by all the big programs goes on a growth spurt at a G5 and suddenly has an NFL body (Khalil Mack at Buffalo). But those are the tiny exceptions that prove the rule.

There is no reason to think that in an 8-team playoff, there has *ever* been a G5 that could beat three straight top P5 teams to win the title.

Until it happens. That's precisely what terrifies the P5, that their lofty status will be exposed as a sham.

Make an even playing field and see how fast teams will equalize. The P5 aristocracy is afraid of that.

(12-18-2018 06:02 PM)Hilltop75 Wrote:  What nobody mentions is if everyone had a clear path to a championship. Recruiting would change.

You don't think its an advantage when recruiting a player "You don't want to go to that school they will never play for a championship.

The SEC can say win our league and you go play for a championship.

A totally rigged system. Just make it the Alabama Invitational.

Not only are none of the G5 conferences represented. The Pac 12 and Big 10 are not either.

Get it out of a bias committee hands. There is not one member on that committe from a G5 conference.

It would be like the NFL only inviting New England, New Orleans, Dallas and LA to the playoffs every year.

WKU doesn't compete for the same basketball players as Kentucky or Louisville.
Football would continue to have the same dichotomy.

There's a clear dichotomy that exists between that haves and have-nots in every college sport, but FBS football is the only one where the difference plays out in terms of the postseason. If you think all of them should have a committee that chooses the top couple of schools for the playoffs then good for you. In the meantime other levels of college football prove that a lengthy playoff is not too great of a toll on the players, college basketball proves that all games aren't played on paper, and college hockey proves that a sport can agree to cede the power of the at-large bids and seeding to an objective formula. No reason why college football shouldn't as well.

(12-18-2018 07:50 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-18-2018 07:41 PM)the1sttransport Wrote:  

(12-18-2018 07:37 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-18-2018 07:28 PM)the1sttransport Wrote:  

(12-18-2018 07:20 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  I've already explained that to you - beating the ACC champ doesn't necessarily mean anything. That ACC champ may have lost to other teams as well.

And remember, there are two wild-card sports, two at-large. We could have a provision that if a G5 team is ranked in the top 8, like UCF this year, then they get one of the two at-large spots and do not have to go through the hoops. The G5 playoffs would be canceled for that year and they would be automatically entered into the Final 8.

That would handle your "Mighty G5 Who Could Beat Alabama" team, while making sure most years the run of the mill G5 best does have to earn their way in with more playoff games.

The closed door office of P5-representative committee members would never rank a G5 in the top 8 in that scenario. And just typing that sentence is reminding me how insane it is that THIS is our reality.

Why are you making team A jump through more hoops than team B if team A won a head to head?

I've explained why, but OK, we could make an exception - If the highest ranked G5 team has a win over any P5 champ, they automatically go in to the top 8, no need to fight through the G5 playoffs.

So there we go: If the top rated G5 team is (a) ranked by the Committee in the top 8, or (b) has a win over a P5 champ, then the G5 playoffs are canceled and that team is directly in to the Final 8.

I respect your flexibility but come on, read that sentence. Do you honestly believe that bloated set of if’s and buts is more sensible that giving the ten FBS conferences a champion spot and six at large?

Far more sensible. What makes no sense is to pretend that winning the MAC is the same as winning the SEC. The MAC champ may have played nobody in the top 30, as that Akron schedule showed. Nobody should get to skate in to the playoffs with that kind of schedule.

So ordinarily, the G5 conferences should have to prove themselves while the P5 champs get a bye - unless we have an exceptional G5 that is a top 8 team or has beaten a P5 champ.

You could do 11 teams. 5 P5 champs to the quarterfinals. 4 G5 (sorry, no room for 5-they would need to expand and dissolve one of the 5) and 2 wildcards do a play-in game to get to the quarterfinals at home stadium of higher seed.
So this year:
1. Alabama
2. Clemson
3. Oklahoma
4. Ohio St.
5. Washington
6. Notre Dame
7. Georgia
8. UCF
9. Fresno St.
10.Appalachian St.
11.UAB

So it would be:
UAB at Notre Dame
Appalachian at Georgia
Fresno at UCF

Fresno/UCF vs. Alabama
Georgia/Appalachian vs. Clemson
ND/UAB vs. Oklahoma
Washington vs. Ohio St.

(alternatively you could keep the current seeding but ND would still have to play a 1st round game-only the 2nd round would be changed-it would be Washington vs. #2 Clemson, ND(#3)/UAB(#11) vs. Ohio St.(#6) and UGA(#5)/Appalachian(#10) vs. #4. Oklahoma; Fresno/UCF would still play Alabama)