(05-12-2019 02:32 PM)Bull Wrote: (05-12-2019 01:33 PM)Scoochpooch1 Wrote: (05-12-2019 11:54 AM)Bull Wrote: It's quite simple... we don't have a legitimate NC. We had a 2, and now 4, team tournament. So long as 'selection' is involved, and not everyone has a pathway, it's ridiculously subjective. You can't 'select' in teams for a playoff. By definition, that is not what a playoff is...
If the P5 distill down to 4 and separate, it can be a playoff. If they expand it to all FBS conference champs, it's a playoff. Just look at how MLB, NFL, etc playoffs happen... the regular season is actually the first part of the playoff. You don't have that in NCAAFB, when a team can be undefeated for 2 seasons and still not be 'selected'.
Given we don't have a real playoff, leading to a situation where an undefeated UCF could beat Auburn in a NY6 bowl, and Auburn beat BOTH 'playoff' teams... yeah, you have a real strong argument that UCF was the best team in the country. Relying on the fact that some committee kept them off the field is a real weak argument.
And this is coming from a USF fan...
So you want a 130 team tournament? Makes sense to anyone who hasn't watched or played one second of football.
Don't put words in my mouth, I didn't say that. But everyone knows how to easily make this a real playoff, give everyone a pathway. Making the arbitrary selectees to the tourn from 2 to 4 schools did NOTHING to make it a real playoff. 5 'P5' champs, 1 bid for the G5, 2 at large. Done. Everyone has a pathway and no more nonsense. Didn't take 130 teams did it?
The G5 doesn't have a pathway in that 5-1-2 scenario, the top G5 will be chosen by what you would call beauty-contest standards like all the CFP teams are now. But, what makes that beauty contest peculiar, and appealing to the G5, is that it is a beauty contest in which all the prettiest girls have been prevented from competing, giving homely ones a chance to win!
That's the problem with it. Think about say the NFL playoffs: In that system, the NFC East teams are shielded from competition from everyone else. That is, if you are the Giants, you know that if you win your division vs the Redskins, Eagles, and Cowboys, you make the playoffs no matter what anyone in any other division does.
This makes sense, because on average and over time, the NFC east teams are structurally equal to the teams in all the other divisions. They draft the same players, have the same revenue, same fan interest, etc. They are fundamentally equals despite the vagaries of who happens to be winning or losing at any given time. That works in reverse as well, which is why it makes sense that the AFC West is similarly shielded from what happens in any other division - win the AFC West and you are in the playoffs.
But FBS isn't that way, precisely because it was never organized to BE that way, like the NFL was (and the NBA was and the NHL was, etc.). "FBS" is just a catch-all for the conferences that did NOT want a formal organized playoffs. Nothing else links the conferences.
Importantly, this means there are fundamental structural differences among them. Unlike say the AFC West and NFC East, the SEC and Sun Belt are in no way 'peers'. They don't have the same revenue, recruit the same players, have the same fan interest, etc.
Therefore, it makes NO sense to structure playoffs in a way that shields the Sun Belt from what happens in the SEC. To the contrary, Sun Belt teams should have to be compared to SEC teams to determine if they belong in the playoffs. The same is true of all the G5 conferences.
To me, the big mistake that those who clamor for a conference-champs playoffs is arguing that "FBS" means that all those schools and conferences are in some way "peers" such that they should all be competing for the same championship. But FBS was never designed to be that way, and in fact it is NOT that way, as the obvious differences among the conferences attests.
If that point keeps getting pushed, the only sensible way to accomodate it is by a split - the P5 have their own playoffs to determine their champ and the G5 have their own to determine their champ. We already have a formal NCAA basis for this split - the autonomy and non-autonomy subdivisions within FBS. Because the P5 and G5 conferences are, within themselves, "peers" in the sense that divisions within the NFL and NHL are peers.
As it stands, though, it is simply ludicrous for e.g. a fan of an MWC or Sun Belt team to claim that because their school didn't have a path to a playoff, that the CFP winner is not a "real" national champ. Alabama isn't competing with Arkansas State or San Jose State, so it doesn't need their approval to be champs. Neither does Clemson, Ohio State, etc.
That's like the FCS champ saying that because they didn't get a chance to play Clemson in the playoffs, that Clemson isn't the real champs either. It's just bonkers.