College football isn't fair for all teams in Division 1 unless there's an 8 team playoff with a G5 autobid.

(04-30-2019 03:44 AM)AuzGrams Wrote:  College football isn't fair for all teams in Division 1 unless there's an 8 team playoff with a G5 autobid.

How can you justify picking one G5 over another if they have identical records, yet have not played? Is that fair? How can you ensure a team is the “G5 champ”? Are Notre Dame and BYU considered G5? Surely a Notre Dame team ranked higher than a “G5 champ” should be included instead?

The only way FBS would be “fair” is if every conference was awarded an auto-bid and there were ample enough at-large spots for independent teams to gain entry. That would require a 16 team playoff. That ship sailed long ago when the SEC decided to expand in the late 80’s and create another game. There were still movements at the time to replicate the then 1-AA model, but that revolution was squelched. Then the big schools pushed to have a 12th regular season game so they could have more home games.

Unfortunately, the playoffs at the FBS level will never be “fair”, just like the bowl system was never “fair”. The major complaint these idiots have is “oh, the poor students are playing all these games already”. How laughable when those old misers were the very people that voted in favor of a 12th regular season game and conference championships!

(04-30-2019 03:44 AM)AuzGrams Wrote:  College football isn't fair for all teams in Division 1 unless there's an 8 team playoff with a G5 autobid.

Straight 8 with a NY10 and all conference champs in an access bowl.

(04-30-2019 03:44 AM)AuzGrams Wrote:  College football isn't fair for all teams in Division 1 unless there's an 8 team playoff with a G5 autobid.

FAIR?

(04-29-2019 02:19 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(04-29-2019 02:10 PM)goofus Wrote:  If they are sticking with 4 teams, the selection criteria needs to be tweaked to re-emphasize conference championships over selecting the 4 best teams. If you did not win your conference, you had your shot and don't "deserve" another one. 4 conference champions "deserve" the shot to play for the national championship. Runner-up do not.

Disagree. If the four best teams aren't the ones playing for the national title then the championship is a sham.

Quote:2nd the rules for CCG need to be tweaked to allow conferences to get rid of its divisions if they want and let the conferences pick which 2 teams make the CCG however they want.

I do agree with this.

It's already a sham when a team that did not even win it's division gets in.

I think it's perfectly intellectually consistent to want a 4-team playoff without any restrictions on creating the field and an 8-team playoff with auto-bids for the P5 and a slot for the G5. It's simple math: a 4-team playoff is too small to start putting in qualifiers, while the 8-team playoff is large enough to accommodate auto-bids along with a couple of at-large slots.

In an 8-team scenario, it boggles my mind how much college football fans get so ornery about the thought of an "unworthy" conference or division champ getting into the playoff. That happens in every other sport quite frequently (*especially* in the NCAA Tournament), but everyone understands it because that is an objective on-the-field determination where everyone knows the rules and it's not based on the eye test or some other subjective criteria based on the whims of some old dudes sitting in a conference room in Dallas. You can have auto-bids in an 8-team playoff without bringing in any subjectivity for those slots while still having at-large bids for those schools that might have been the 2nd best team in the country but just happened to be stuck in a division with the best team in the country. That can all be quite easily accommodated and every other major sport in America has already shown that it can be done.

That being said, putting in conference champ requirements for a 4-team playoff doesn't remove subjectivity. All it does is reduce the amount of teams available for the old dudes sitting in a conference room in Dallas to apply their subjective criteria to, which is the worst of both worlds. Pretty much the only good thing about a subjective system is its flexibility, so taking away that flexibility in a 4-team scenario (where you can't mathematically have auto-bids) makes that particular playoff format worse. At the end of the day, 2016 Ohio State or 2017 Alabama (neither of which won its division) shouldn't be treated any differently than 2018 Notre Dame (as an independent). None of those teams should be advantaged or disadvantaged simply because it's an independent or came in 2nd in its division when it comes to the 4-team playoff analysis - they all ultimately played 12 games with 12 data points.

It's almost weird that a lot of the arguments here seem to put too much importance on conference championships in a 4-team playoff while not putting enough importance on conference championships in an 8-team playoff. It really should be the other way around! The simple size of the field (where an 8-team playoff is large enough to P5 auto-bids plus at-large bids while a 4-team playoff obviously can't) changes everything drastically with respect to the optimal structure. What's optimal in a 4-team playoff is not necessarily optimal in an 8-team playoff and vice versa.

Plans for an expansion will be announced at some point before Jan 1, 2025. I feel pretty confident in that.

8 teams would be awesome.

5-2-1? That wouldn’t just add 4 teams to the playoff

Right now with the 4 team playoffs like 4-6 teams feel like they have a shot to get in it as the season winds down.

With 5-2-1 as the season winds down you’d have like 20+ teams still with realistic routes to the playoff. I could see that being a ratings game changer.

(04-30-2019 06:17 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(04-30-2019 03:44 AM)AuzGrams Wrote:  College football isn't fair for all teams in Division 1 unless there's an 8 team playoff with a G5 autobid.

How can you justify picking one G5 over another if they have identical records, yet have not played? Is that fair? How can you ensure a team is the “G5 champ”?

The only way FBS would be “fair” is if every conference was awarded an auto-bid and there were ample enough at-large spots for independent teams to gain entry. That would require a 16 team playoff.

You make a great point - so many fans of 5-1-2 claim that it gives everyone a "path" to the playoffs when in fact for the G5 it does no such thing. Yes, it is better for the G5 than the current system, but the G5 champ will still be a beauty contest.

The only way to make it not-so, without expanding to a 16-team main playoff, is to have the G5 champs play-in. For example, in a given year:

Sun Belt and CUSA champs are lowest-rated so play first, AAC champ is highest rated so plays winner:

December 7 .... Sun Belt Champ vs CUSA champ

December 14 ... SBC/CUSA winner vs AAC champ, MWC champ vs MAC champ

December 21 ... Winners of 12/14 games for G5 championship

December 28 ... G5 champ vs PAC champ, at-large vs at-large**, SEC vs B1G champs, ACC vs Big 12 champs

January 4 ........ National Semifinals

Jamuary 11 ...... National Championship game

** two at-large to accommodate independents or top non-conference winners.

There you go - everyone has a path.

Of course, the notion that FBS has no "fair" path to the title is itself of no concern, because FBS was created by schools that didn't want a playoff to begin with. A playoff has never been part of the FBS mission.

yeah, might stay at 4 if B10,SEC get teams in the next 5 years. Otherwise, 100% sayonara.

(04-30-2019 08:10 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I think it's perfectly intellectually consistent to want a 4-team playoff without any restrictions on creating the field and an 8-team playoff with auto-bids for the P5 and a slot for the G5. It's simple math: a 4-team playoff is too small to start putting in qualifiers, while the 8-team playoff is large enough to accommodate auto-bids along with a couple of at-large slots.

In an 8-team scenario, it boggles my mind how much college football fans get so ornery about the thought of an "unworthy" conference or division champ getting into the playoff. That happens in every other sport quite frequently (*especially* in the NCAA Tournament), but everyone understands it because that is an objective on-the-field determination where everyone knows the rules and it's not based on the eye test or some other subjective criteria based on the whims of some old dudes sitting in a conference room in Dallas. You can have auto-bids in an 8-team playoff without bringing in any subjectivity for those slots while still having at-large bids for those schools that might have been the 2nd best team in the country but just happened to be stuck in a division with the best team in the country. That can all be quite easily accommodated and every other major sport in America has already shown that it can be done.

Two points about the bolded parts:

1) I disagree about the frequency with which perceived "unworthy" division champs make the playoffs in other sports. I think it's extremely rare, and the reason for that is because of how the champs are determined: Crucially, in the NFL, or NBA, or NHL, or MLB, the division champ is the team with the best OVERALL record, not division record. E.g., if the Giants go 8-0 in the NFC East and the Redskins go 6-2, but the Giants overall record is 10-6 while the Skins are 12-4, the Skins win the division, and everyone agrees they deserved to.

But in college football, only conference records count. So it's possible for e.g., Iowa to finish 10-2, with a H2H win over Penn State, while Penn State goes 9-4, but because of how the divisions shake out, Penn State wins the B1G. That is an awful look.

2) Now yes, in college hoops, sometimes a team that had a bad regular season, and say finished 6th in the ACC, goes on a run and wins the ACC tournament, thus claiming an automatic spot. But, that isn't a problem either, because the NCAA tournament is so large that all the ACC teams that had better seasons than them will make the tournament anyway as at-larges.

Not so in an 8-team playoff. In that Iowa/PSU scenario, with 6 of 8 spots guaranteed to champs and just two at-large, it is very likely that the Unworthy champ is the only team from the conference that makes the playoffs.

IMO, that's a big problem: The college system of choosing its conference champs is too flawed, and there are too few at-large spots, to give guaranteed spots to conference champs in an 8 team playoff.

Those who talk about how "all the other major sports" manage to give their division/conference champs a guaranteed spot in playoffs overlook the fact that there are key differences in how those sports choose their division champs which give them far more legitimacy than college conference champs for claiming a guaranteed slot.

It would be 5 and 3 at large, and yeah it matters to us, but not B10, SEC. In that Iowa scenario, without autobid, neither get in and B10 gets shut out. Again, that's all they care about. Hope B10,SEC get mutliples in the next 4-5 years or is back to bcs autobid land.

8 is about the max it can be without autobids.

Go to 16 and it almost has to be autobids and first round home games at the higher seeds.

Then its evolving into another version of the FCS playoff.

(04-30-2019 12:37 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  if the Giants go 8-0 in the NFC East and the Redskins go 6-2, but the Giants overall record is 10-6 while the Skins are 12-4, the Skins win the division, and everyone agrees they deserved to.

HAIL TO THE REDSKINS!!!

(04-30-2019 03:44 AM)AuzGrams Wrote:  College football isn't fair for all teams in Division 1 unless there's an 8 team playoff with a G5 autobid.

Screw the G5. If they have a school among the top three at large, then fine. Otherwise the top one still gets the NY6 consolation game.

Fair by what standard? If you invest 1/3rd less than P5, and most G5 schools invest less than 1/2 of the typical P5, never mind the elite 20 programs seriously in the hunt for a playoff berth, then you deserve no better than a 2/3 shot at best.

You may be winning poker at the $20 minimum table, but that doesn't get you an invite to $500 minimum table.

(04-30-2019 07:29 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  

(04-30-2019 03:44 AM)AuzGrams Wrote:  College football isn't fair for all teams in Division 1 unless there's an 8 team playoff with a G5 autobid.

Screw the G5. If they have a school among the top three at large, then fine. Otherwise the top one still gets the NY6 consolation game.

Fair by what standard? If you invest 1/3rd less than P5, and most G5 schools invest less than 1/2 of the typical P5, never mind the elite 20 programs seriously in the hunt for a playoff berth, then you deserve no better than a 2/3 shot at best.

You may be winning poker at the $20 minimum table, but that doesn't get you an invite to $500 minimum table.

Keep it at 4, the G5 should have their own playoff, except team that gets Access Bowl. The AAC can decline the invite to the playoff, but if they do they cannot qualify for Access Bowl, can’t have it both ways.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

(04-30-2019 12:37 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-30-2019 08:10 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I think it's perfectly intellectually consistent to want a 4-team playoff without any restrictions on creating the field and an 8-team playoff with auto-bids for the P5 and a slot for the G5. It's simple math: a 4-team playoff is too small to start putting in qualifiers, while the 8-team playoff is large enough to accommodate auto-bids along with a couple of at-large slots.

In an 8-team scenario, it boggles my mind how much college football fans get so ornery about the thought of an "unworthy" conference or division champ getting into the playoff. That happens in every other sport quite frequently (*especially* in the NCAA Tournament), but everyone understands it because that is an objective on-the-field determination where everyone knows the rules and it's not based on the eye test or some other subjective criteria based on the whims of some old dudes sitting in a conference room in Dallas. You can have auto-bids in an 8-team playoff without bringing in any subjectivity for those slots while still having at-large bids for those schools that might have been the 2nd best team in the country but just happened to be stuck in a division with the best team in the country. That can all be quite easily accommodated and every other major sport in America has already shown that it can be done.

Two points about the bolded parts:

1) I disagree about the frequency with which perceived "unworthy" division champs make the playoffs in other sports. I think it's extremely rare, and the reason for that is because of how the champs are determined: Crucially, in the NFL, or NBA, or NHL, or MLB, the division champ is the team with the best OVERALL record, not division record. E.g., if the Giants go 8-0 in the NFC East and the Redskins go 6-2, but the Giants overall record is 10-6 while the Skins are 12-4, the Skins win the division, and everyone agrees they deserved to.

But in college football, only conference records count. So it's possible for e.g., Iowa to finish 10-2, with a H2H win over Penn State, while Penn State goes 9-4, but because of how the divisions shake out, Penn State wins the B1G. That is an awful look.

2) Now yes, in college hoops, sometimes a team that had a bad regular season, and say finished 6th in the ACC, goes on a run and wins the ACC tournament, thus claiming an automatic spot. But, that isn't a problem either, because the NCAA tournament is so large that all the ACC teams that had better seasons than them will make the tournament anyway as at-larges.

Not so in an 8-team playoff. In that Iowa/PSU scenario, with 6 of 8 spots guaranteed to champs and just two at-large, it is very likely that the Unworthy champ is the only team from the conference that makes the playoffs.

IMO, that's a big problem: The college system of choosing its conference champs is too flawed, and there are too few at-large spots, to give guaranteed spots to conference champs in an 8 team playoff.

Those who talk about how "all the other major sports" manage to give their division/conference champs a guaranteed spot in playoffs overlook the fact that there are key differences in how those sports choose their division champs which give them far more legitimacy than college conference champs for claiming a guaranteed slot.

You have 7-9 division champs making the playoffs. They won their division. Mets won the National League at 82-80. The teams in the division won their division and won the league/conference championship game. You are trying to split microscopic hairs.

And for that matter, the non-conference schedule in college football may not be anywhere comparable, unlike pro sports where it is at least similar.

(04-30-2019 07:29 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  

(04-30-2019 03:44 AM)AuzGrams Wrote:  College football isn't fair for all teams in Division 1 unless there's an 8 team playoff with a G5 autobid.

Screw the G5. If they have a school among the top three at large, then fine. Otherwise the top one still gets the NY6 consolation game.

Fair by what standard? If you invest 1/3rd less than P5, and most G5 schools invest less than 1/2 of the typical P5, never mind the elite 20 programs seriously in the hunt for a playoff berth, then you deserve no better than a 2/3 shot at best.

You may be winning poker at the $20 minimum table, but that doesn't get you an invite to $500 minimum table.

With that argument, the G5 schools are investing more of their own money than any of the P5. The P5 is investing donor and ESPN dollars.

(04-30-2019 07:58 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-30-2019 07:29 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  

(04-30-2019 03:44 AM)AuzGrams Wrote:  College football isn't fair for all teams in Division 1 unless there's an 8 team playoff with a G5 autobid.

Screw the G5. If they have a school among the top three at large, then fine. Otherwise the top one still gets the NY6 consolation game.

Fair by what standard? If you invest 1/3rd less than P5, and most G5 schools invest less than 1/2 of the typical P5, never mind the elite 20 programs seriously in the hunt for a playoff berth, then you deserve no better than a 2/3 shot at best.

You may be winning poker at the $20 minimum table, but that doesn't get you an invite to $500 minimum table.

With that argument, the G5 schools are investing more of their own money than any of the P5. The P5 is investing donor and ESPN dollars.

Hogwash! Every G5 school is subsidized by 25% or more for football. They aren't investing their own money. They are investing taxpayers money.

(04-30-2019 07:58 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-30-2019 07:29 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  

(04-30-2019 03:44 AM)AuzGrams Wrote:  College football isn't fair for all teams in Division 1 unless there's an 8 team playoff with a G5 autobid.

Screw the G5. If they have a school among the top three at large, then fine. Otherwise the top one still gets the NY6 consolation game.

Fair by what standard? If you invest 1/3rd less than P5, and most G5 schools invest less than 1/2 of the typical P5, never mind the elite 20 programs seriously in the hunt for a playoff berth, then you deserve no better than a 2/3 shot at best.

You may be winning poker at the $20 minimum table, but that doesn't get you an invite to $500 minimum table.

With that argument, the G5 schools are investing more of their own money than any of the P5. The P5 is investing donor and ESPN dollars.

G5 should just play as I-AA and have a seperate playoff with some of the arguments I've seen. Maybe less G5 vs P5 games too.

UCF has been the best story in college football the past few years.