REALIGNMENT MOCK DRAFT .:. ON THE CLOCK: Big South (R2, #12), AAC (R1, #8) [pending trade approval], Big12 (R1, #11)

Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
The College Football Playoff’s 4-team format isn’t going anywhere
Author Message
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 33,161
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 890
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #201
RE: The College Football Playoff’s 4-team format isn’t going anywhere
(05-20-2019 07:50 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(05-19-2019 12:18 PM)bullet Wrote:  What is not meaningful is to look only at 4 or 5 years. It is too small a sample to have any significance. Whereas, 23 years is significant.

Yes, five years is not a long period of time. Unfortunately, that's what we have to go on to make a valid, apples-apples comparison.

Extending to 23 years is more distorting than helfpul, because as I've explained, those additional 18 years were under circumstances that make them non-comparable with the current situation. To think otherwise, you have to believe that P5 champs missing the top 8, which was quite common before 2013 but extremely rare after, is just coincidental with the dissolution of the Big East and the advent of the CFP.

More to the point, I think the CFP era experience will be what the conferences go on when making decisions about the new system when 2024 rolls around. By then, they will have 5 more years of data. But we shall see.

The changes do impact the 5-1-2 model, but you can factor that in as I discussed. There is some impact from scheduling on the straight 8, but it is limited, especially since 2004 when the ACC expanded from 9. There are only 3 schools who have moved who made it in more than one conference-Boise of the G5, TCU-now P5 and Virginia Tech in Big East and ACC, so the top teams haven't been the ones moving.

ACC not missing the top 8 now is due to Dabo. Nothing about the changes in conferences alignment since 2004 impacts that. The SEC champ missing the top 8 only once in 23 years is due to the strength they have at the top-Alabama, LSU, Auburn, Florida and Tennessee have all won titles in that period. Georgia was separated from 2 titles by Nick Saban.

Of course that also makes it difficult for the SEC also rans to win the conference. Arkansas has twice made top 8, but never won the SEC.
Conference members making the playoff under one of the 4 methods:

Pac 12 83% (100% of current members have made it including in other conferences)
Big 12 85% (12 of 14 members during the period-90% of current including other)
Big 10 57% (71% of current members including in other conferences)
SEC 57% (71% of current members including in other conferences)
ACC 50% (71% of current members including in other conferences)
05-20-2019 09:12 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 30,013
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 724
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #202
RE: The College Football Playoff’s 4-team format isn’t going anywhere
(05-20-2019 09:12 AM)bullet Wrote:  
(05-20-2019 07:50 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(05-19-2019 12:18 PM)bullet Wrote:  What is not meaningful is to look only at 4 or 5 years. It is too small a sample to have any significance. Whereas, 23 years is significant.

Yes, five years is not a long period of time. Unfortunately, that's what we have to go on to make a valid, apples-apples comparison.

Extending to 23 years is more distorting than helfpul, because as I've explained, those additional 18 years were under circumstances that make them non-comparable with the current situation. To think otherwise, you have to believe that P5 champs missing the top 8, which was quite common before 2013 but extremely rare after, is just coincidental with the dissolution of the Big East and the advent of the CFP.

More to the point, I think the CFP era experience will be what the conferences go on when making decisions about the new system when 2024 rolls around. By then, they will have 5 more years of data. But we shall see.

The changes do impact the 5-1-2 model, but you can factor that in as I discussed.

I don't think so. The changes aren't merely 'technical' in the sense of school A now moving to conference B from conference C, etc. I suspect that new conferences, and new playoff systems, provide new incentives and expectations and change behaviors in a lot of ways.

I suspect that in 2024, the conferences are going to develop their opinion about what to do about the CFP based on the previous 11 years of the CFP, they won't care at all about data from before then.
05-20-2019 09:40 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 33,161
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 890
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #203
RE: The College Football Playoff’s 4-team format isn’t going anywhere
Operating on the assumption that the playoff goes to 8 in 2022 or 2025 (and figures are based on conference members at the time):

ACC would favor guaranteed slots. They would have only 15 slots in 23 years in a "best 8" and have 9 champs left out. They would have 24 in either 5-1-2 or 5-0-3.

Big 10 would favor guaranteed slots. They would have 36 in a "best 8" and the same in a 5-1-2, but 39 in a 5-0-3 model. They would have 4 champs left out, notably, Barry Alvarez's Wisconsin twice. They have been vocal about expansion after having their champ left out 3 years in a row.

Pac 12 would favor guaranteed slots just because they would be guaranteed, not that there is an indication they would significantly benefit, but there would be no upside to a "best 8." They would have had 2 champs left out, but there results were similar-30 for "best 8," 29 for 5-1-2 and 31 for 5-0-3. Of course 1 of those 2 years left out would have been 2018.

SEC would benefit more from a "best 8." They would have 44 under that method vs. 36 in 5-1-2 and 39 in 5-0-3. And as difficult as it is for the SEC middle class to win the title, they have a better chance to get a top 8 than a conference title.

Big 12 had similar results to the SEC with 38 under "best 8," 31 under 5-1-2 and 34 under 5-0-3. However with the difficulty in getting ranked that TCU, Baylor, Oklahoma St. and Kansas St. have had in the past 10 years, they might prefer guaranteed slots. In addition, the history of ccg upsets could also lead the Big 12 to favor guaranteed slots for the champ. And most of the detriment under "best 8" was 2008 and prior when Nebraska, and previously KSU and Colorado were consistent national powers. All 3 declined and NU and CU also left. So the Big 12 no longer has a similar profile at the top as the SEC.

That would make the P5 4-1 for guaranteed slots, either 5-1-2 or 5-0-3.

G5 would obviously want a guaranteed slot. 9 current G5 teams ranked in the top 12 (8 of them unbeaten) would be left out without a guaranteed slot (I'm not counting TCU or Utah in the MWC who would add to that total). Also unbeaten #15 WMU would have been left out in 2016. And in 11 of those 23 years, the top G5 champ was ranked higher than the bottom P5. Those years were 1996, 1999, 2004, 2005 (TCU-only year where the school is not still G5), 2006, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2018.

A 5-0-3 can't be justified when higher ranking G5 champs regularly get shut out. And a minimum rating defeats the purposes of a guaranteed P5 slot.

So an expansion is very highly likely to be 5-1-2. "Best 8" is possible, but not likely. A 5-0-3 can't be justified.
05-21-2019 08:12 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 30,013
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 724
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #204
RE: The College Football Playoff’s 4-team format isn’t going anywhere
(05-21-2019 08:12 PM)bullet Wrote:  Operating on the assumption that the playoff goes to 8 in 2022 or 2025 (and figures are based on conference members at the time):

ACC would favor guaranteed slots. They would have only 15 slots in 23 years in a "best 8" and have 9 champs left out. They would have 24 in either 5-1-2 or 5-0-3.

Big 10 would favor guaranteed slots. They would have 36 in a "best 8" and the same in a 5-1-2, but 39 in a 5-0-3 model. They would have 4 champs left out, notably, Barry Alvarez's Wisconsin twice. They have been vocal about expansion after having their champ left out 3 years in a row.

Pac 12 would favor guaranteed slots just because they would be guaranteed, not that there is an indication they would significantly benefit, but there would be no upside to a "best 8." They would have had 2 champs left out, but there results were similar-30 for "best 8," 29 for 5-1-2 and 31 for 5-0-3. Of course 1 of those 2 years left out would have been 2018.

SEC would benefit more from a "best 8." They would have 44 under that method vs. 36 in 5-1-2 and 39 in 5-0-3. And as difficult as it is for the SEC middle class to win the title, they have a better chance to get a top 8 than a conference title.

Big 12 had similar results to the SEC with 38 under "best 8," 31 under 5-1-2 and 34 under 5-0-3. However with the difficulty in getting ranked that TCU, Baylor, Oklahoma St. and Kansas St. have had in the past 10 years, they might prefer guaranteed slots. In addition, the history of ccg upsets could also lead the Big 12 to favor guaranteed slots for the champ. And most of the detriment under "best 8" was 2008 and prior when Nebraska, and previously KSU and Colorado were consistent national powers. All 3 declined and NU and CU also left. So the Big 12 no longer has a similar profile at the top as the SEC.

That would make the P5 4-1 for guaranteed slots, either 5-1-2 or 5-0-3.

G5 would obviously want a guaranteed slot. 9 current G5 teams ranked in the top 12 (8 of them unbeaten) would be left out without a guaranteed slot (I'm not counting TCU or Utah in the MWC who would add to that total). Also unbeaten #15 WMU would have been left out in 2016. And in 11 of those 23 years, the top G5 champ was ranked higher than the bottom P5. Those years were 1996, 1999, 2004, 2005 (TCU-only year where the school is not still G5), 2006, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2018.

A 5-0-3 can't be justified when higher ranking G5 champs regularly get shut out. And a minimum rating defeats the purposes of a guaranteed P5 slot.

So an expansion is very highly likely to be 5-1-2. "Best 8" is possible, but not likely. A 5-0-3 can't be justified.

This makes little sense to me on at least two counts. First, even if the FBS conferences had to decide about the next format *today*, they would only look at the five years of the CFP to make their decisions, because they would rightly know that what happened under the BCS is null and void due to different formats and different conference configurations.

But by 2024, when they actually will be making those decisions, they will have 11 years of CFP data to go on, meaning it is a sure thing they won't care about anything that happened before 2013.

Second, how can you say that 5-0-3 can't be justified when by your account, going back to 1996, 5-0-3 would be better than 5-1-2 for 4 of the 5 Power conferences, and the same for the fifth? It's clearly better than 5-1-2 for the P5, meaning the conferences that matter most, and it avoids the legal problems that 5-1-2 could conjure.

Probably the main evidence you have for a G5 auto-spot is that the top G5 champ beat out at least one of the Power champs in 11 of 23 years. That does suggest that it would be wrong to give auto-spots to P5 conferences while leaving out a better G5 team.

But, again, you fail to recognize the major differences between pre-CFP and post-CFP. That's evidenced by the fact that 10 of those times when the top G5 team was better than the worst P5 champ occurred before the CFP.

Think about it: Before the CFP, the top non-power champ beat out at least one of the power champs in 10 of 18 years. That's over 50%. But during the CFP era, it's happened just ONE time, last year. Again, you have to assume blind coincidence, but that severely undercuts the moral need for a G5 auto-bid.

I say that if we go to 8, then straight 8 is most likely, then 5-0-3, with 5-1-2 least likely. But that's based on the 5 years of CFP data we currently have. With 5 more years, that could change - but almost surely not in the direction of 5-1-2.
(This post was last modified: 05-22-2019 08:17 AM by quo vadis.)
05-22-2019 08:08 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 33,161
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 890
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #205
RE: The College Football Playoff’s 4-team format isn’t going anywhere
(05-22-2019 08:08 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(05-21-2019 08:12 PM)bullet Wrote:  Operating on the assumption that the playoff goes to 8 in 2022 or 2025 (and figures are based on conference members at the time):

ACC would favor guaranteed slots. They would have only 15 slots in 23 years in a "best 8" and have 9 champs left out. They would have 24 in either 5-1-2 or 5-0-3.

Big 10 would favor guaranteed slots. They would have 36 in a "best 8" and the same in a 5-1-2, but 39 in a 5-0-3 model. They would have 4 champs left out, notably, Barry Alvarez's Wisconsin twice. They have been vocal about expansion after having their champ left out 3 years in a row.

Pac 12 would favor guaranteed slots just because they would be guaranteed, not that there is an indication they would significantly benefit, but there would be no upside to a "best 8." They would have had 2 champs left out, but there results were similar-30 for "best 8," 29 for 5-1-2 and 31 for 5-0-3. Of course 1 of those 2 years left out would have been 2018.

SEC would benefit more from a "best 8." They would have 44 under that method vs. 36 in 5-1-2 and 39 in 5-0-3. And as difficult as it is for the SEC middle class to win the title, they have a better chance to get a top 8 than a conference title.

Big 12 had similar results to the SEC with 38 under "best 8," 31 under 5-1-2 and 34 under 5-0-3. However with the difficulty in getting ranked that TCU, Baylor, Oklahoma St. and Kansas St. have had in the past 10 years, they might prefer guaranteed slots. In addition, the history of ccg upsets could also lead the Big 12 to favor guaranteed slots for the champ. And most of the detriment under "best 8" was 2008 and prior when Nebraska, and previously KSU and Colorado were consistent national powers. All 3 declined and NU and CU also left. So the Big 12 no longer has a similar profile at the top as the SEC.

That would make the P5 4-1 for guaranteed slots, either 5-1-2 or 5-0-3.

G5 would obviously want a guaranteed slot. 9 current G5 teams ranked in the top 12 (8 of them unbeaten) would be left out without a guaranteed slot (I'm not counting TCU or Utah in the MWC who would add to that total). Also unbeaten #15 WMU would have been left out in 2016. And in 11 of those 23 years, the top G5 champ was ranked higher than the bottom P5. Those years were 1996, 1999, 2004, 2005 (TCU-only year where the school is not still G5), 2006, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2018.

A 5-0-3 can't be justified when higher ranking G5 champs regularly get shut out. And a minimum rating defeats the purposes of a guaranteed P5 slot.

So an expansion is very highly likely to be 5-1-2. "Best 8" is possible, but not likely. A 5-0-3 can't be justified.

This makes little sense to me on at least two counts. First, even if the FBS conferences had to decide about the next format *today*, they would only look at the five years of the CFP to make their decisions, because they would rightly know that what happened under the BCS is null and void due to different formats and different conference configurations.

But by 2024, when they actually will be making those decisions, they will have 11 years of CFP data to go on, meaning it is a sure thing they won't care about anything that happened before 2013.

Second, how can you say that 5-0-3 can't be justified when by your account, going back to 1996, 5-0-3 would be better than 5-1-2 for 4 of the 5 Power conferences, and the same for the fifth? It's clearly better than 5-1-2 for the P5, meaning the conferences that matter most, and it avoids the legal problems that 5-1-2 could conjure.

Probably the main evidence you have for a G5 auto-spot is that the top G5 champ beat out at least one of the Power champs in 11 of 23 years. That does suggest that it would be wrong to give auto-spots to P5 conferences while leaving out a better G5 team.

But, again, you fail to recognize the major differences between pre-CFP and post-CFP. That's evidenced by the fact that 10 of those times when the top G5 team was better than the worst P5 champ occurred before the CFP.

Think about it: Before the CFP, the top non-power champ beat out at least one of the power champs in 10 of 18 years. That's over 50%. But during the CFP era, it's happened just ONE time, last year. Again, you have to assume blind coincidence, but that severely undercuts the moral need for a G5 auto-bid.

I say that if we go to 8, then straight 8 is most likely, then 5-0-3, with 5-1-2 least likely. But that's based on the 5 years of CFP data we currently have. With 5 more years, that could change - but almost surely not in the direction of 5-1-2.

The G5 is not going to pretend that history doesn't exist. A 5-0-3 can't be justified on fairness and has the biggest anti-trust risk. So the P5 cannot get away with doing a 5-0-3. If there were more G5 beating P5s in the past, it can be attributed to 2 schools-Boise and Clemson.
05-22-2019 09:36 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
zoocrew Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 360
Joined: Mar 2019
Reputation: 19
I Root For: PITT, NAVY, B12
Location:
Post: #206
RE: The College Football Playoff’s 4-team format isn’t going anywhere
Yup, objectively only trolls or clowns actually believe 5-0-3 is where it goes.

They aren’t worth the time of day unfortunately.
05-22-2019 04:07 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 30,013
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 724
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #207
RE: The College Football Playoff’s 4-team format isn’t going anywhere
(05-22-2019 09:36 AM)bullet Wrote:  The G5 is not going to pretend that history doesn't exist. A 5-0-3 can't be justified on fairness and has the biggest anti-trust risk. So the P5 cannot get away with doing a 5-0-3. If there were more G5 beating P5s in the past, it can be attributed to 2 schools-Boise and Clemson.

The G5 has little say in the matter.

And your fixation on the BCS era is baffling. Nobody is going to care about that when the next system is devised. Nobody.

07-coffee3
Yesterday 08:49 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
esayem Offline
Hark The Sound!
*

Posts: 5,036
Joined: Feb 2007
Reputation: 154
I Root For: The Heels
Location: Tobacco Road
Post: #208
RE: The College Football Playoff’s 4-team format isn’t going anywhere
(05-22-2019 04:07 PM)zoocrew Wrote:  Yup, objectively only trolls or clowns actually believe 5-0-3 is where it goes.

They aren’t worth the time of day unfortunately.

It’s not an NCAA sponsored playoff, so the P5 can construct a tournament however they’d like. The bowls are independent entities as well. FBS football is unlike any other college sport.

Nobody that is gung-ho for a 5-1-2 can explain the Notre Dame sized elephant in the room. Will ND count for the non-P5 auto-bid? Can anyone justify a 15th ranked Western Michigan getting in over an 8th ranked Notre Dame?
Yesterday 09:04 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Fthechips Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 983
Joined: Jan 2018
Reputation: -13
I Root For: Western Mich
Location:
Post: #209
RE: The College Football Playoff’s 4-team format isn’t going anywhere
[/quote]
Can anyone justify a 15th ranked Western Michigan getting in over an 8th ranked Notre Dame?
[/quote]

yes 01-ncaabbs
Yesterday 09:16 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 30,013
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 724
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #210
RE: The College Football Playoff’s 4-team format isn’t going anywhere
(Yesterday 09:04 AM)esayem Wrote:  
(05-22-2019 04:07 PM)zoocrew Wrote:  Yup, objectively only trolls or clowns actually believe 5-0-3 is where it goes.

They aren’t worth the time of day unfortunately.

It’s not an NCAA sponsored playoff, so the P5 can construct a tournament however they’d like. The bowls are independent entities as well. FBS football is unlike any other college sport.

Nobody that is gung-ho for a 5-1-2 can explain the Notre Dame sized elephant in the room. Will ND count for the non-P5 auto-bid? Can anyone justify a 15th ranked Western Michigan getting in over an 8th ranked Notre Dame?

That's exactly right, and that's what 5-1-2 could lead to.

Of course, 5-0-3 could also lead to the same thing, if say a P5 champ is ranked #15 too. That's why i like S8.

And many here seem to forget that even the P5 doesn't craft a playoff system in a vacuum. Money is a hugely important factor, and TV provides most of that, so they have a say too. E.g., in 2012, Mike Aresco pushed for the creation of a "7th bowl" that would be a home for a G5 team, and the P5 was willing to do that, but the TV partners said they wouldn't fund that bowl at "major" level, so the idea was sunk.

And TV doesn't want Notre Dame squeezed that much. 5-1-2 basically gives Notre Dame just two slots to make the playoffs, whereas 5-0-3 gives them three slots, and when dealing with small numbers, that's a big difference.

BTW ... this is my 30,000 post. Do I get a cookie?
(This post was last modified: Yesterday 01:19 PM by quo vadis.)
Yesterday 09:23 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
FloridaJag Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,200
Joined: Oct 2010
Reputation: 48
I Root For: USA/FSU/UWF/KSU
Location: Swamps
Post: #211
RE: The College Football Playoff’s 4-team format isn’t going anywhere
(05-14-2019 10:29 AM)esayem Wrote:  
(05-14-2019 07:32 AM)bullet Wrote:  
(05-14-2019 05:51 AM)esayem Wrote:  
(05-14-2019 12:43 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  
(05-13-2019 11:18 AM)esayem Wrote:  I consider them Major conferences, one step below Power conferences, but one step above Mid-Major (MAC, Sun Belt, CAA), and two steps above Small (Southland, Big Sky, Patriot, etc.).

Power: PAC, XII, B1G, SEC, ACC
Major: AAC, BE
Mid-Major: Everyone else

The upper crust of mid major is WCC, MWC, MVC, A10. Same principal applies as in lower tier conferences.

I was referring to ~05 to ~2012.

MVC is not on that level anymore.
They've had a couple of down years. So has the A10. The WCC has long been Gonzaga + 1 or 2 others without much at the bottom. MWC has also had a couple of down years. They were doing pretty well from 2005-2012.

When they restructured the Division I governing body in the mid-90s, they put the CUSA and pre-split WAC on the same level as the P5 and BE. Each got 3 votes. BW and MAC got 1.5 for 27 of the 51 total votes. The other conferences got 1. The AAC is basically CUSA 1.0.

I seem to remember reading that about C-USA and the WAC. They just got screwed out of the Bowl Coalition and Bowl Alliance.

The monster WAC actually had a tie-in with the Cotton Bowl, albeit briefly. The Cotton had the choice between either the WAC champ or the PAC 10 runner-up to pair with the Big XII runner-up. BYU went one year when they should have made an Alliance appearance.

The 90’s bowl picture is what broke the streak of SEC teams in the Sugar Bowl, Big 8 teams in the Orange, and SWC teams in the Cotton. Of course, the Rose came a little later.

Yep the Fiesta Bowl and the Independents with #1 vs #2 match ups.
Yesterday 02:42 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
FloridaJag Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,200
Joined: Oct 2010
Reputation: 48
I Root For: USA/FSU/UWF/KSU
Location: Swamps
Post: #212
RE: The College Football Playoff’s 4-team format isn’t going anywhere
(Yesterday 09:04 AM)esayem Wrote:  
(05-22-2019 04:07 PM)zoocrew Wrote:  Yup, objectively only trolls or clowns actually believe 5-0-3 is where it goes.

They aren’t worth the time of day unfortunately.

It’s not an NCAA sponsored playoff, so the P5 can construct a tournament however they’d like. The bowls are independent entities as well. FBS football is unlike any other college sport.

Nobody that is gung-ho for a 5-1-2 can explain the Notre Dame sized elephant in the room. Will ND count for the non-P5 auto-bid? Can anyone justify a 15th ranked Western Michigan getting in over an 8th ranked Notre Dame?

I trying to understand your point. If Notre Dame is undefeated, then the assumption is they would be the first wild card team; thereby leaving the final playoff spot to be selected by CFP Committee.
Yesterday 02:51 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 33,161
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 890
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #213
RE: The College Football Playoff’s 4-team format isn’t going anywhere
(Yesterday 08:49 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(05-22-2019 09:36 AM)bullet Wrote:  The G5 is not going to pretend that history doesn't exist. A 5-0-3 can't be justified on fairness and has the biggest anti-trust risk. So the P5 cannot get away with doing a 5-0-3. If there were more G5 beating P5s in the past, it can be attributed to 2 schools-Boise and Clemson.

The G5 has little say in the matter.

And your fixation on the BCS era is baffling. Nobody is going to care about that when the next system is devised. Nobody.

07-coffee3

They have to be appeased. That's why they went from no spot in the BCS to a guaranteed with a certain ranking to a guaranteed spot in the NY6.

Your refusal to acknowledge the past means anything is either baffling or trolling. If USF started football in the 60s, they might be in the ACC now.
Yesterday 03:36 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 33,161
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 890
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #214
RE: The College Football Playoff’s 4-team format isn’t going anywhere
Can anyone justify a 15th ranked Western Michigan getting in over an 8th ranked Notre Dame?
[/quote]

yes 01-ncaabbs
[/quote]

Western Michigan was unbeaten and won a conference. Notre Dame in that scenario still had 7 teams ranked ahead of them.

So yes.

And you can ask the teams that played lower ranked UCF, Houston and Boise St. squads if those schools had no business being there.
Yesterday 03:38 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 33,161
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 890
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #215
RE: The College Football Playoff’s 4-team format isn’t going anywhere
(Yesterday 02:51 PM)FloridaJag Wrote:  
(Yesterday 09:04 AM)esayem Wrote:  
(05-22-2019 04:07 PM)zoocrew Wrote:  Yup, objectively only trolls or clowns actually believe 5-0-3 is where it goes.

They aren’t worth the time of day unfortunately.

It’s not an NCAA sponsored playoff, so the P5 can construct a tournament however they’d like. The bowls are independent entities as well. FBS football is unlike any other college sport.

Nobody that is gung-ho for a 5-1-2 can explain the Notre Dame sized elephant in the room. Will ND count for the non-P5 auto-bid? Can anyone justify a 15th ranked Western Michigan getting in over an 8th ranked Notre Dame?

I trying to understand your point. If Notre Dame is undefeated, then the assumption is they would be the first wild card team; thereby leaving the final playoff spot to be selected by CFP Committee.

He is saying Notre Dame has a better chance to get in with 3 wildcards than 2.
He must have been reading my data that he said was meaningless.04-cheers
Notre Dame got in 4 times in a straight 8 and 5-0-3 and only 2 times in a 5-1-2.
Yesterday 03:42 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Jjoey52 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,988
Joined: Feb 2017
Reputation: 170
I Root For: ISU
Location:
Post: #216
The College Football Playoff’s 4-team format isn’t going anywhere
Forget anything but 4, which ensures only the best get in. The G5 will never get in if it is 8. They need to have their own playoff with the exception of Access team. IF THE AAC doesn’t like like G5 playoff they don’t have to be in it, but then they lose Access Bowl.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Yesterday 05:47 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
esayem Offline
Hark The Sound!
*

Posts: 5,036
Joined: Feb 2007
Reputation: 154
I Root For: The Heels
Location: Tobacco Road
Post: #217
RE: The College Football Playoff’s 4-team format isn’t going anywhere
I said it was meaningless? If I did, my bad, I don’t remember that.

I think there are a lot flaws with the idea of a G5 auto-bid that haven’t been exposed because the MWC has been dismal lately.
Yesterday 05:53 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 30,013
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 724
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #218
RE: The College Football Playoff’s 4-team format isn’t going anywhere
(Yesterday 03:36 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(Yesterday 08:49 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(05-22-2019 09:36 AM)bullet Wrote:  The G5 is not going to pretend that history doesn't exist. A 5-0-3 can't be justified on fairness and has the biggest anti-trust risk. So the P5 cannot get away with doing a 5-0-3. If there were more G5 beating P5s in the past, it can be attributed to 2 schools-Boise and Clemson.

The G5 has little say in the matter.

And your fixation on the BCS era is baffling. Nobody is going to care about that when the next system is devised. Nobody.

07-coffee3

They have to be appeased. That's why they went from no spot in the BCS to a guaranteed with a certain ranking to a guaranteed spot in the NY6.

Your refusal to acknowledge the past means anything is either baffling or trolling. If USF started football in the 60s, they might be in the ACC now.

They will not be appeased with a guaranteed playoff spot. Not one that harms them and Notre Dame.

Not IMO. 07-coffee3
Yesterday 07:40 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2019 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2019 MyBB Group.