(05-15-2019 11:35 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-15-2019 11:23 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-15-2019 11:14 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-15-2019 11:11 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-15-2019 11:02 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  I don't know if UCF was really the "best" team that year, but they absolutely deserve some recognition as undefeated national champions. The fact that they beat the team that beat both Alabama and Georgia only adds weight to an already strong argument.

Their argument has zero strength before we talk about their win over Auburn.

And beating Auburn isn't worth mentioning either: LSU, Georgia, and Clemson all beat Auburn (who beat Alabama and Georgia!) too, and guess what?

Alabama beat all of them.

That reads to me like a fantastic well honed argument for why Bama and UCF SHOULD have played rather than a defense of the current system.

It's a good argument for the old pre-Alliance/BCS system. There's no way to play enough games in a CFB season to resolve every team's "We should have had a chance to beat School X" argument. Might as well just let the bowls be played, forget about a pretend playoff, and let everyone argue about who is or isn't #1. There was never anything wrong about disputes at the end of the season; the BCS/CFP is a solution to something that wasn't a problem.

I get what your saying (hey, we have arguments over the 64th best team in the country is during basketball selection sunday). That said, I do think they can get to a reasonable compromise on the playoff with the 5-1-2 system. That would at least allow every team to map out a legitimate path to the playoff going into the first snap of the season. I think thats all anyone can really ask for in a sport that has 130 teams, can reasonably only play one game a week, and must conclude the season by early Jan. I think we will eventually get there---though Ive been thinking that since the 1990's.

8 is probably the best they can ever do. But if the idea of a playoff is to extinguish all arguments, it doesn't work -- can't eliminate the possibility of an undefeated team with an argument not settled by the system, 2017 UCF or 2010 TCU or 2008 Utah or 1975 Arizona State or several others. And there's nothing wrong with different teams claiming to be #1 anyway, whether it's one of those teams, or a split AP/coaches poll, or a computer ranking.

There's a major thing that has been overlooked just because UCF beat Auburn.

Auburn was severely banged up after playing Georgia twice and Alabama. I think Auburn's best RB barely played in the SEC title game before being done for the year. I can't remember how the rest of their team was doing. Auburn went from playing for the National Title to losing in the SEC title game and then not in the playoff. The players were mentally checked out and not interested in playing in that game. UCF would have been beated by Alabama and Georgia.

(05-15-2019 11:55 AM)kevinwmsn Wrote:  There's a major thing that has been overlooked just because UCF beat Auburn.

Auburn was severely banged up after playing Georgia twice and Alabama. I think Auburn's best RB barely played in the SEC title game before being done for the year. I can't remember how the rest of their team was doing. Auburn went from playing for the National Title to losing in the SEC title game and then not in the playoff. The players were mentally checked out and not interested in playing in that game. UCF would have been beated by Alabama and Georgia.

Oh here we go...

(05-15-2019 11:10 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-15-2019 11:04 AM)loki_the_bubba Wrote:  

(05-15-2019 10:56 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-15-2019 10:33 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-14-2019 11:45 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  It's not a 'pretend'. It's just that in other sports, if you go undefeated, you have completed a process agreed to by yourself and the other competitors as determining the championship and thus have grounds to claim that you are their champion.

But in college football (FBS) you can go undefeated without completing such a process, and thus have no claim to a title. See UCF in 2017, Tulane in 1998, etc.

Its still kind of a pretend title. Until the 1990's they literally prefaced the words "national championship" with the word "mythical". Now we have something thats less mythical---but it clearly excludes any possible access by half the teams in the division---so its still an imperfect vestige of the old bowl system that may or may not have #1 and #2 play each other in the final game of the year. Until every team begins the year with a realistic path to the playoff, it wont really be totally legit. Instead of having polls and bowl committees create the playoff---we now have largely eliminated the public sector national polls and gone to a selection committee made up of the same kind of guys that make up bowl committees. Its kinda more of the same. Right now its a bit like the early Bowl Coalition where the Rose Bowl didnt participate (meaning the system could never match #1 and #2 if either were in the Big10 or Pac12). Now, all the power conferences are included, but that still excludes over half the teams in the division. As long has a huge portion of the division is completely frozen out, its cant be considered completely legit FBS champion--regardless of what its defenders say. Virtually every national sports writer alive knows that no G5 has a chance to get into the playoff. It is what it is. Are we really going to use an "agreement" signed with essentially a gun to their head as proof of legitimacy? C'mon. It is what it is.

Until the 1990s, the title was called "mythical" by the media, because it was mythical - the schools themselves did not recognize any process or entity as conferring a national title, even though informally, schools did recognize the AP and Coaches polls as conferring a title, and celebrated them as such.

Since then, a formal agreed-on system has been put in place by all the FBS conferences to crown a champion.

I mean, the CFP agreement is a fact.

If you want to talk informally, there's also no basis for calling the title "pretend", because even if one agrees that the G5 is excluded (I don't, but if), it only excludes those schools and conferences from which the actual national champion *never* comes. I mean, if you look back over the history of college football, the only time a non-P5 has been the best team was BYU, 35 years ago. Before that, you have to go back basically forever, because e.g. when teams like Army won the title in the 1940s, they were a power program of that era.

It's like if the NCAA tournament suddenly excluded the Sun Belt, MAC, MWC, etc. from the tournament. That wouldn't make the tournament a "pretend" title because schools from those schools literally never are the best anyway. No "non-power" school has ever won the NCAA hoops tournament. Ever.

So there's nothing worth mentioning being excluded. Proof of this is your claim that the G5 signed the CFP "with a gun to their head". How on earth could that happen, if the G5 were in fact a legitimate contender for the national title? E.g., the P5 know that Notre Dame is a valid threat and are viewed as such by the public, so they can't hold a gun to ND's head in these negotiations. They know their playoffs would be regarded as invalid by large swathes of the public if ND was somehow excluded.

But the G5 aren't, and thus have no sway in the matter.

So saying the CFP winner is 'pretend' would be like me claiming that the Warriors were a "pretend" basketball world champion because my local club team was excluded from the NBA playoffs. Absurd.

Plus, look at the results of the processes: Is there more doubt in your mind that Clemson was the 'real' best football team last year or UVA was the 'real' best hoops team?

I'm a lot more confident about Clemson, the product of the CFP. I think if we look back, we would see that the CFP produces a champ that passes the smell test at least as often as the NCAA tournament does.

No, it's like proclaiming the Warriors champions after the WCF because a committee of western conference teams declared the East unworthy years before.

That's a very poor analogy, because teams from the East are obviously on an equal footing competitive-wise and every other way with teams from the West. Teams from the Eastern conference have won about as many NBA titles, etc.

The same is totally untrue of the G5 conferences vs the P5 conferences. There's never been a year, ever, where a G5 team has been the best team in the country.

Ever. So you're not excluding anything worth mentioning.

So let's go with a different analogy if you don't like that one. A bunch of teams are in the same grouping. They play by the same rules. They get players the same way. But even if the Marlins go 162-0 they aren't worthy to play in the post-season because the Yankees have more money. That's the system we've set up in FBS.

(05-15-2019 01:11 PM)loki_the_bubba Wrote:  

(05-15-2019 11:10 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-15-2019 11:04 AM)loki_the_bubba Wrote:  

(05-15-2019 10:56 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-15-2019 10:33 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Its still kind of a pretend title. Until the 1990's they literally prefaced the words "national championship" with the word "mythical". Now we have something thats less mythical---but it clearly excludes any possible access by half the teams in the division---so its still an imperfect vestige of the old bowl system that may or may not have #1 and #2 play each other in the final game of the year. Until every team begins the year with a realistic path to the playoff, it wont really be totally legit. Instead of having polls and bowl committees create the playoff---we now have largely eliminated the public sector national polls and gone to a selection committee made up of the same kind of guys that make up bowl committees. Its kinda more of the same. Right now its a bit like the early Bowl Coalition where the Rose Bowl didnt participate (meaning the system could never match #1 and #2 if either were in the Big10 or Pac12). Now, all the power conferences are included, but that still excludes over half the teams in the division. As long has a huge portion of the division is completely frozen out, its cant be considered completely legit FBS champion--regardless of what its defenders say. Virtually every national sports writer alive knows that no G5 has a chance to get into the playoff. It is what it is. Are we really going to use an "agreement" signed with essentially a gun to their head as proof of legitimacy? C'mon. It is what it is.

Until the 1990s, the title was called "mythical" by the media, because it was mythical - the schools themselves did not recognize any process or entity as conferring a national title, even though informally, schools did recognize the AP and Coaches polls as conferring a title, and celebrated them as such.

Since then, a formal agreed-on system has been put in place by all the FBS conferences to crown a champion.

I mean, the CFP agreement is a fact.

If you want to talk informally, there's also no basis for calling the title "pretend", because even if one agrees that the G5 is excluded (I don't, but if), it only excludes those schools and conferences from which the actual national champion *never* comes. I mean, if you look back over the history of college football, the only time a non-P5 has been the best team was BYU, 35 years ago. Before that, you have to go back basically forever, because e.g. when teams like Army won the title in the 1940s, they were a power program of that era.

It's like if the NCAA tournament suddenly excluded the Sun Belt, MAC, MWC, etc. from the tournament. That wouldn't make the tournament a "pretend" title because schools from those schools literally never are the best anyway. No "non-power" school has ever won the NCAA hoops tournament. Ever.

So there's nothing worth mentioning being excluded. Proof of this is your claim that the G5 signed the CFP "with a gun to their head". How on earth could that happen, if the G5 were in fact a legitimate contender for the national title? E.g., the P5 know that Notre Dame is a valid threat and are viewed as such by the public, so they can't hold a gun to ND's head in these negotiations. They know their playoffs would be regarded as invalid by large swathes of the public if ND was somehow excluded.

But the G5 aren't, and thus have no sway in the matter.

So saying the CFP winner is 'pretend' would be like me claiming that the Warriors were a "pretend" basketball world champion because my local club team was excluded from the NBA playoffs. Absurd.

Plus, look at the results of the processes: Is there more doubt in your mind that Clemson was the 'real' best football team last year or UVA was the 'real' best hoops team?

I'm a lot more confident about Clemson, the product of the CFP. I think if we look back, we would see that the CFP produces a champ that passes the smell test at least as often as the NCAA tournament does.

No, it's like proclaiming the Warriors champions after the WCF because a committee of western conference teams declared the East unworthy years before.

That's a very poor analogy, because teams from the East are obviously on an equal footing competitive-wise and every other way with teams from the West. Teams from the Eastern conference have won about as many NBA titles, etc.

The same is totally untrue of the G5 conferences vs the P5 conferences. There's never been a year, ever, where a G5 team has been the best team in the country.

Ever. So you're not excluding anything worth mentioning.

So let's go with a different analogy if you don't like that one. A bunch of teams are in the same grouping. They play by the same rules. They get players the same way. But even if the Marlins go 162-0 they aren't worthy to play in the post-season because the Yankees have more money. That's the system we've set up in FBS.

MLB (or NBA, etc.) isn't an analog to college football. A pro sports league is an analog to a single college sports conference. Any "playoff" in a college sport is much more like the European soccer Champions League; it's a competition that is arranged between teams from different leagues.

(05-15-2019 10:56 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  if you look back over the history of college football, the only time a non-P5 has been the best team was BYU, 35 years ago. Before that, you have to go back basically forever, because e.g. when teams like Army won the title in the 1940s, they were a power program of that era.

Actually, very few people considered BYU the "best" team when they were voted #1 by one of the polls. They probably weren't even Final Four material that year. They just happened to finish unbeaten by virtue of beating a 6-6 Michigan team in a bowl game. Poll voters threw them a bone since their "title" was mythical anyway.

When Army won their titles in the 40's they had a slight advantage - there was a world war going on, draining all the talent from schools other than the service academies.

So "never" would be more descriptive than "rarely" when it comes to G5 level programs being legitimately competitive.

(05-15-2019 11:11 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The G5 has fewer fans and their content is less profitable to the networks. That has not one thing to do with whether or not UCF or any other undefeated past or future G5 might could actually win a title on the field of play. It was a business decision. Always has been....which is ironic in that collegiate athletics is an arena that was never supposed to be about money. Like I said, it is what it is.

Actually, I'd say it does, as the two seem to be closely linked. E.g., Division III, Division II, and FCS all have fewer fans and their content is less profitable for the networks than the P5 as well. And like the G5, they have never produced the best team on the field.

I seriously doubt that is coincidence.

Generally speaking, the leagues that have the highest TV appeal and most fans tend to be the leagues that produce the best teams. E.g., MLB has the most fans and TV appeal of all baseball leagues, the NBA has the most fans and TV appeal of all basketball leagues, the NHL has more fans and more TV appeal than any other hockey league, etc.

Even in soccer, where it is more fragmented, we see the same thing. E.g., our MLS has fewer fans and less TV appeal (on a global basis) than does the Bundesliga or the English Premier League - and the latter two leagues have better teams too.

It's almost a universal truth.

(05-15-2019 01:11 PM)loki_the_bubba Wrote:  

(05-15-2019 11:10 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-15-2019 11:04 AM)loki_the_bubba Wrote:  

(05-15-2019 10:56 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-15-2019 10:33 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Its still kind of a pretend title. Until the 1990's they literally prefaced the words "national championship" with the word "mythical". Now we have something thats less mythical---but it clearly excludes any possible access by half the teams in the division---so its still an imperfect vestige of the old bowl system that may or may not have #1 and #2 play each other in the final game of the year. Until every team begins the year with a realistic path to the playoff, it wont really be totally legit. Instead of having polls and bowl committees create the playoff---we now have largely eliminated the public sector national polls and gone to a selection committee made up of the same kind of guys that make up bowl committees. Its kinda more of the same. Right now its a bit like the early Bowl Coalition where the Rose Bowl didnt participate (meaning the system could never match #1 and #2 if either were in the Big10 or Pac12). Now, all the power conferences are included, but that still excludes over half the teams in the division. As long has a huge portion of the division is completely frozen out, its cant be considered completely legit FBS champion--regardless of what its defenders say. Virtually every national sports writer alive knows that no G5 has a chance to get into the playoff. It is what it is. Are we really going to use an "agreement" signed with essentially a gun to their head as proof of legitimacy? C'mon. It is what it is.

Until the 1990s, the title was called "mythical" by the media, because it was mythical - the schools themselves did not recognize any process or entity as conferring a national title, even though informally, schools did recognize the AP and Coaches polls as conferring a title, and celebrated them as such.

Since then, a formal agreed-on system has been put in place by all the FBS conferences to crown a champion.

I mean, the CFP agreement is a fact.

If you want to talk informally, there's also no basis for calling the title "pretend", because even if one agrees that the G5 is excluded (I don't, but if), it only excludes those schools and conferences from which the actual national champion *never* comes. I mean, if you look back over the history of college football, the only time a non-P5 has been the best team was BYU, 35 years ago. Before that, you have to go back basically forever, because e.g. when teams like Army won the title in the 1940s, they were a power program of that era.

It's like if the NCAA tournament suddenly excluded the Sun Belt, MAC, MWC, etc. from the tournament. That wouldn't make the tournament a "pretend" title because schools from those schools literally never are the best anyway. No "non-power" school has ever won the NCAA hoops tournament. Ever.

So there's nothing worth mentioning being excluded. Proof of this is your claim that the G5 signed the CFP "with a gun to their head". How on earth could that happen, if the G5 were in fact a legitimate contender for the national title? E.g., the P5 know that Notre Dame is a valid threat and are viewed as such by the public, so they can't hold a gun to ND's head in these negotiations. They know their playoffs would be regarded as invalid by large swathes of the public if ND was somehow excluded.

But the G5 aren't, and thus have no sway in the matter.

So saying the CFP winner is 'pretend' would be like me claiming that the Warriors were a "pretend" basketball world champion because my local club team was excluded from the NBA playoffs. Absurd.

Plus, look at the results of the processes: Is there more doubt in your mind that Clemson was the 'real' best football team last year or UVA was the 'real' best hoops team?

I'm a lot more confident about Clemson, the product of the CFP. I think if we look back, we would see that the CFP produces a champ that passes the smell test at least as often as the NCAA tournament does.

No, it's like proclaiming the Warriors champions after the WCF because a committee of western conference teams declared the East unworthy years before.

That's a very poor analogy, because teams from the East are obviously on an equal footing competitive-wise and every other way with teams from the West. Teams from the Eastern conference have won about as many NBA titles, etc.

The same is totally untrue of the G5 conferences vs the P5 conferences. There's never been a year, ever, where a G5 team has been the best team in the country.

Ever. So you're not excluding anything worth mentioning.

So let's go with a different analogy if you don't like that one. A bunch of teams are in the same grouping. They play by the same rules. They get players the same way. But even if the Marlins go 162-0 they aren't worthy to play in the post-season because the Yankees have more money. That's the system we've set up in FBS.

#FireJeter

(sorry, reflex)

Well the BCS was an MNC as much as the bowl coalition that preceded it. There were only a handful of years where the two clearly best teams played. Usually it was muddled. The CFP is better, but its not quite there.

(05-15-2019 11:14 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-15-2019 11:11 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-15-2019 11:02 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  I don't know if UCF was really the "best" team that year, but they absolutely deserve some recognition as undefeated national champions. The fact that they beat the team that beat both Alabama and Georgia only adds weight to an already strong argument.

Their argument has zero strength before we talk about their win over Auburn.

And beating Auburn isn't worth mentioning either: LSU, Georgia, and Clemson all beat Auburn (who beat Alabama and Georgia!) too, and guess what?

Alabama beat all of them.

That reads to me like a fantastic well honed argument for why Bama and UCF SHOULD have played rather than a defense of the current system.

As Ive long held, its almost impossible to make a very good argument for excluding an undefeated team in the playoff. You can talk about schedule strength---but that doesnt prove that the team wouldnt be undefeated against a better schedule. That can only be KNOWN by putting the team in the playoff to face the best. Otherwise, your simply assuming a team is NOT a top quality team because of the conference emblem on their jersey. You said before that a team could play Rice 12 times and be undefeated. Sure. And when an undefeaed G5 plays Rice 12 times to stay undefeated---you'll have a great argument. Unfortunately, that wasnt the case with UCF. They played a normal schedule with some good teams. In fact, 2 of them were vs ranked team (#22 and #16) PRIOR to playing Auburn. Its also worth noting that they played #16 Memphis TWICE that year.

There's a smidge of truth in what you say: E.g., the 2017 Philadelphia Eagles, the best football team in the world that year, couldn't have done anything more vs UCF's schedule than what UCF did, namely win all the games. Though they probably wouldn't have needed miracles to beat the likes of USF or Memphis, giving up 700 yards or something to each.

But, the problem is, the FCS winner, North Dakota State, could say the same thing - hey we went undefeated vs our schedule too, who is to say we wouldn't beat Alabama if given the chance?

And no, the "but UCF and Alabama are both in FBS" claim doesn't hold water, because FBS was never organized as a league of that kind. If it was, most of the teams in FBS would never have been allowed in to begin with. E.g., do you think the NFL would ever have a rule that says anyone can organize a football team, and if you manage to draw 15,000 paying fans three straight years, you are automatically in the NFL? No league does that.

In the end, UCF had about the 10th best regular season in 2017, so they'd have to get in line behind Ohio State, Wisconsin, maybe one or two others before getting a crack at Alabama.

Personally, I think if we're going to have a G5 autobid, it has to be from a rational process - have the G5 champs play each other in play-in games between say 12/7 and 12/21 before one of them advances to the P5 playoffs.

That's fair, given the schedule disparities. And it also gives each G5 school a real formal path to the title. No beauty contests.

(05-15-2019 11:35 AM)AntiG Wrote:  UCF is still co-national champs regardless. No one beat them that year and the NCAA arbitrarily prevented them from competing for the title.

That's wrong on at least three counts. First, UCF isn't a "co-champ", because they like all the FBS schools agreed to the CFP process for picking a champ, and they didn't win the CFP championship. Alabama is the only champion of all the CFP members teams, including UCF.

And even informally, the two unofficial traditional arbiters of who is a "national champion", the AP and Coaches polls, didn't pick them either. They got nothing.

Second, the NCAA didn't prevent UCF from competing for anything, as the NCAA has nothing to do with the CFP selection process. The only way the NCAA could have prevented UCF would be if the NCAA had put them on probation banning them from bowl or post-season play, and they didn't.

Third, UCF wasn't 'arbitrarily' kept from competing for the CFP title. They were ranked and judged and assessed as part of that process just like everyone else was. Like 126 other teams, they didn't make the playoffs.

Good Grief.

(05-15-2019 04:06 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-15-2019 11:14 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-15-2019 11:11 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-15-2019 11:02 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  I don't know if UCF was really the "best" team that year, but they absolutely deserve some recognition as undefeated national champions. The fact that they beat the team that beat both Alabama and Georgia only adds weight to an already strong argument.

Their argument has zero strength before we talk about their win over Auburn.

And beating Auburn isn't worth mentioning either: LSU, Georgia, and Clemson all beat Auburn (who beat Alabama and Georgia!) too, and guess what?

Alabama beat all of them.

That reads to me like a fantastic well honed argument for why Bama and UCF SHOULD have played rather than a defense of the current system.

As Ive long held, its almost impossible to make a very good argument for excluding an undefeated team in the playoff. You can talk about schedule strength---but that doesnt prove that the team wouldnt be undefeated against a better schedule. That can only be KNOWN by putting the team in the playoff to face the best. Otherwise, your simply assuming a team is NOT a top quality team because of the conference emblem on their jersey. You said before that a team could play Rice 12 times and be undefeated. Sure. And when an undefeaed G5 plays Rice 12 times to stay undefeated---you'll have a great argument. Unfortunately, that wasnt the case with UCF. They played a normal schedule with some good teams. In fact, 2 of them were vs ranked team (#22 and #16) PRIOR to playing Auburn. Its also worth noting that they played #16 Memphis TWICE that year.

There's a smidge of truth in what you say: E.g., the 2017 Philadelphia Eagles, the best football team in the world that year, couldn't have done anything more vs UCF's schedule than what UCF did, namely win all the games. Though they probably wouldn't have needed miracles to beat the likes of USF or Memphis, giving up 700 yards or something to each.

But, the problem is, the FCS winner, North Dakota State, could say the same thing - hey we went undefeated vs our schedule too, who is to say we wouldn't beat Alabama if given the chance?

And no, the "but UCF and Alabama are both in FBS" claim doesn't hold water, because FBS was never organized as a league of that kind. If it was, most of the teams in FBS would never have been allowed in to begin with. E.g., do you think the NFL would ever have a rule that says anyone can organize a football team, and if you manage to draw 15,000 paying fans three straight years, you are automatically in the NFL? No league does that.

In the end, UCF had about the 10th best regular season in 2017, so they'd have to get in line behind Ohio State, Wisconsin, maybe one or two others before getting a crack at Alabama.

Personally, I think if we're going to have a G5 autobid, it has to be from a rational process - have the G5 champs play each other in play-in games between say 12/7 and 12/21 before one of them advances to the P5 playoffs.

That's fair, given the schedule disparities. And it also gives each G5 school a real formal path to the title. No beauty contests.

You're suggesting something larger than an 8 team playoff.

If they really wanted to go that route, they could go to an 11 team playoff. P5 champs direct to quarterfinals. Then 2-4 of the G5 along with 2-4 wildcards meeting at the home field of the higher seed in mid-December.

But I don't see a jump beyond 8 right away. They will move incrementally.

(05-15-2019 01:11 PM)loki_the_bubba Wrote:  

(05-15-2019 11:10 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-15-2019 11:04 AM)loki_the_bubba Wrote:  

(05-15-2019 10:56 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-15-2019 10:33 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Its still kind of a pretend title. Until the 1990's they literally prefaced the words "national championship" with the word "mythical". Now we have something thats less mythical---but it clearly excludes any possible access by half the teams in the division---so its still an imperfect vestige of the old bowl system that may or may not have #1 and #2 play each other in the final game of the year. Until every team begins the year with a realistic path to the playoff, it wont really be totally legit. Instead of having polls and bowl committees create the playoff---we now have largely eliminated the public sector national polls and gone to a selection committee made up of the same kind of guys that make up bowl committees. Its kinda more of the same. Right now its a bit like the early Bowl Coalition where the Rose Bowl didnt participate (meaning the system could never match #1 and #2 if either were in the Big10 or Pac12). Now, all the power conferences are included, but that still excludes over half the teams in the division. As long has a huge portion of the division is completely frozen out, its cant be considered completely legit FBS champion--regardless of what its defenders say. Virtually every national sports writer alive knows that no G5 has a chance to get into the playoff. It is what it is. Are we really going to use an "agreement" signed with essentially a gun to their head as proof of legitimacy? C'mon. It is what it is.

Until the 1990s, the title was called "mythical" by the media, because it was mythical - the schools themselves did not recognize any process or entity as conferring a national title, even though informally, schools did recognize the AP and Coaches polls as conferring a title, and celebrated them as such.

Since then, a formal agreed-on system has been put in place by all the FBS conferences to crown a champion.

I mean, the CFP agreement is a fact.

If you want to talk informally, there's also no basis for calling the title "pretend", because even if one agrees that the G5 is excluded (I don't, but if), it only excludes those schools and conferences from which the actual national champion *never* comes. I mean, if you look back over the history of college football, the only time a non-P5 has been the best team was BYU, 35 years ago. Before that, you have to go back basically forever, because e.g. when teams like Army won the title in the 1940s, they were a power program of that era.

It's like if the NCAA tournament suddenly excluded the Sun Belt, MAC, MWC, etc. from the tournament. That wouldn't make the tournament a "pretend" title because schools from those schools literally never are the best anyway. No "non-power" school has ever won the NCAA hoops tournament. Ever.

So there's nothing worth mentioning being excluded. Proof of this is your claim that the G5 signed the CFP "with a gun to their head". How on earth could that happen, if the G5 were in fact a legitimate contender for the national title? E.g., the P5 know that Notre Dame is a valid threat and are viewed as such by the public, so they can't hold a gun to ND's head in these negotiations. They know their playoffs would be regarded as invalid by large swathes of the public if ND was somehow excluded.

But the G5 aren't, and thus have no sway in the matter.

So saying the CFP winner is 'pretend' would be like me claiming that the Warriors were a "pretend" basketball world champion because my local club team was excluded from the NBA playoffs. Absurd.

Plus, look at the results of the processes: Is there more doubt in your mind that Clemson was the 'real' best football team last year or UVA was the 'real' best hoops team?

I'm a lot more confident about Clemson, the product of the CFP. I think if we look back, we would see that the CFP produces a champ that passes the smell test at least as often as the NCAA tournament does.

No, it's like proclaiming the Warriors champions after the WCF because a committee of western conference teams declared the East unworthy years before.

That's a very poor analogy, because teams from the East are obviously on an equal footing competitive-wise and every other way with teams from the West. Teams from the Eastern conference have won about as many NBA titles, etc.

The same is totally untrue of the G5 conferences vs the P5 conferences. There's never been a year, ever, where a G5 team has been the best team in the country.

Ever. So you're not excluding anything worth mentioning.

So let's go with a different analogy if you don't like that one. A bunch of teams are in the same grouping. They play by the same rules. They get players the same way. But even if the Marlins go 162-0 they aren't worthy to play in the post-season because the Yankees have more money. That's the system we've set up in FBS.

That analogy fails as well. You have to remember that FBS was never set up to *have* a system to have playoffs that produce a champion. It was actually set up for the *opposite* reason, by conferences that did not want playoffs.

And importantly, if it had been, no way would a good half of the schools that are in FBS have been allowed to join. In leagues where there is big money and prestige involved, the leagues have extremely strict control over membership. In contrast, to be FBS, all you have to do is declare you want to be FBS and then average like 15,000 fans a year for three years, then voila, you are FBS!

Would the NFL or the NBA or MLB ever have that kind of membership situation?

But the reason FBS requirements are so low is precisely because it doesn't entitle you to anything more than merely existing as FBS. If it did - like an equal chance with Notre Dame at a playoff, equal money with Notre Dame, equal time on national TV with Notre Dame, etc. - then of course the entrance requirements would be FAR more stringent.

It is really absurd thinking that schools that never have contributed to the brand value of college football can meet the minimum requirements of being FBS and then say "Hey! We're here! We're FBS just like Alabama and Notre Dame! So we are entitled to everything they are".

I mean, is that nutso or what?

(05-15-2019 02:47 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-15-2019 11:11 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The G5 has fewer fans and their content is less profitable to the networks. That has not one thing to do with whether or not UCF or any other undefeated past or future G5 might could actually win a title on the field of play. It was a business decision. Always has been....which is ironic in that collegiate athletics is an arena that was never supposed to be about money. Like I said, it is what it is.

Actually, I'd say it does, as the two seem to be closely linked. E.g., Division III, Division II, and FCS all have fewer fans and their content is less profitable for the networks than the P5 as well. And like the G5, they have never produced the best team on the field.

I seriously doubt that is coincidence.

Generally speaking, the leagues that have the highest TV appeal and most fans tend to be the leagues that produce the best teams. E.g., MLB has the most fans and TV appeal of all baseball leagues, the NBA has the most fans and TV appeal of all basketball leagues, the NHL has more fans and more TV appeal than any other hockey league, etc.

Even in soccer, where it is more fragmented, we see the same thing. E.g., our MLS has fewer fans and less TV appeal (on a global basis) than does the Bundesliga or the English Premier League - and the latter two leagues have better teams too.

It's almost a universal truth.

The Cubs made more money than most any team and yet they still couldnt win crap.

If your honest with yourself—you’d admit that recruiting and team strength would largely level out if every league had legit access to the playoff. That’s also a near universal the truth.

(05-15-2019 10:52 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-15-2019 02:47 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-15-2019 11:11 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The G5 has fewer fans and their content is less profitable to the networks. That has not one thing to do with whether or not UCF or any other undefeated past or future G5 might could actually win a title on the field of play. It was a business decision. Always has been....which is ironic in that collegiate athletics is an arena that was never supposed to be about money. Like I said, it is what it is.

Actually, I'd say it does, as the two seem to be closely linked. E.g., Division III, Division II, and FCS all have fewer fans and their content is less profitable for the networks than the P5 as well. And like the G5, they have never produced the best team on the field.

I seriously doubt that is coincidence.

Generally speaking, the leagues that have the highest TV appeal and most fans tend to be the leagues that produce the best teams. E.g., MLB has the most fans and TV appeal of all baseball leagues, the NBA has the most fans and TV appeal of all basketball leagues, the NHL has more fans and more TV appeal than any other hockey league, etc.

Even in soccer, where it is more fragmented, we see the same thing. E.g., our MLS has fewer fans and less TV appeal (on a global basis) than does the Bundesliga or the English Premier League - and the latter two leagues have better teams too.

It's almost a universal truth.

The Cubs made more money than most any team and yet they still couldnt win crap.

If your honest with yourself—you’d admit that recruiting and team strength would largely level out if every league had legit access to the playoff. That’s also a near universal the truth.

It's media coverage too. Even in FBS, G5 teams are only covered after the P5 teams, when it's convenient. There's even less media access to FCS, Division II, etc. People pick up on that and determine that only certain teams/games are important to watch. They follow the crowd. Most importantly, recruits pick up on that and might go to a bottom-feeder Big 14 team instead of a G5 team that's actually better.

The Cubs had a lot of fans because they played on WGN so many years, and people across the country could watch the games. The White Sox had better teams but did not reach as many fans.

(05-15-2019 02:31 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-15-2019 10:56 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  if you look back over the history of college football, the only time a non-P5 has been the best team was BYU, 35 years ago. Before that, you have to go back basically forever, because e.g. when teams like Army won the title in the 1940s, they were a power program of that era.

Actually, very few people considered BYU the "best" team when they were voted #1 by one of the polls. They probably weren't even Final Four material that year. They just happened to finish unbeaten by virtue of beating a 6-6 Michigan team in a bowl game. Poll voters threw them a bone since their "title" was mythical anyway.

That's putting it too strongly, IMO. I remember the 1984 scenario well, and the controversy with BYU.

Problem was, 1984 was kind of like 2007, nobody had a real strong claim and somebody had to win. In the event, Washington was probably better than BYU but lost a game and didn't even win the PAC, Florida was probably the very best team in the country, but they got that way by cheating. Miami and Nebraska, who had been powerhouses in 1993, slipped up. Auburn and Pitt were supposed to be great but had terrible seasons.

In the end, while many did think BYU wasn't the best team, their #1 finish in both polls was NOT regarded as a travesty. It was merely somewhat controversial.

(05-15-2019 04:15 PM)bullet Wrote:  You're suggesting something larger than an 8 team playoff.

If they really wanted to go that route, they could go to an 11 team playoff. P5 champs direct to quarterfinals. Then 2-4 of the G5 along with 2-4 wildcards meeting at the home field of the higher seed in mid-December.

But I don't see a jump beyond 8 right away. They will move incrementally.

It would be a hybrid - for the P5 it would just be an 8-team playoff. Assuming a 5-1-2 system ....

For the G5, there would be something like this, based on seeding:

12/7 .... #5 MAC champ vs #4 CUSA champ

12/14 ... #1 AAC champ vs #5/#4 winner, #2 MWC champ vs #3 SB champ

12/21 ... G5 championship game

12/28 ... G5 champ vs #1 P5 team in playoff QFs

etc.

This process (a) guarantees a true, objective 'path' for the G5 teams to the playoffs, no beauty contests, and (b) forces them to play more games and earn their way in, which compensates for the fact that G5 play categorically weaker schedules than P5.

Exception ... any G5 team that finishes in the committee top 8 is immediately in the QFs as an at-large, does not have to fight its way through G5 playoffs. G5 playoffs canceled that year.

(05-15-2019 10:52 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-15-2019 02:47 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-15-2019 11:11 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The G5 has fewer fans and their content is less profitable to the networks. That has not one thing to do with whether or not UCF or any other undefeated past or future G5 might could actually win a title on the field of play. It was a business decision. Always has been....which is ironic in that collegiate athletics is an arena that was never supposed to be about money. Like I said, it is what it is.

Actually, I'd say it does, as the two seem to be closely linked. E.g., Division III, Division II, and FCS all have fewer fans and their content is less profitable for the networks than the P5 as well. And like the G5, they have never produced the best team on the field.

I seriously doubt that is coincidence.

Generally speaking, the leagues that have the highest TV appeal and most fans tend to be the leagues that produce the best teams. E.g., MLB has the most fans and TV appeal of all baseball leagues, the NBA has the most fans and TV appeal of all basketball leagues, the NHL has more fans and more TV appeal than any other hockey league, etc.

Even in soccer, where it is more fragmented, we see the same thing. E.g., our MLS has fewer fans and less TV appeal (on a global basis) than does the Bundesliga or the English Premier League - and the latter two leagues have better teams too.

It's almost a universal truth.

The Cubs made more money than most any team and yet they still couldnt win crap.

If your honest with yourself—you’d admit that recruiting and team strength would largely level out if every league had legit access to the playoff. That’s also a near universal the truth.

You invoke one team - the Cubs, a team that's been very good the last few years, btw - to counter the multiple leagues i mentioned to back my claim? Really?

As for your second point: I disagree. There would have to be socialistic revenue sharing as with the NFL, or else you would have what the British soccer league has - yes, their are 20 teams in the top league, but 5-6 of them always win as they have enormous advantages in fan support and money.

And even if you are right, why on earth would the P5 ever agree to a system that takes away their advantages? Do you seriously think the SEC wants to be "leveled out" with the Sun Belt? That would be absurd.

If you were being honest, you'd have to admit that a system that immediately puts P5 and G5 champs in a playoff on equal footing would be very unfair - to the P5. The P5 schools are the ones that, over 100+ years, built the brand value, fan interest, and national media appeal of college football, and yet some school manages to declare itself FBS by meeting the minimum NCAA requirements can immediately claim a full share of that as a birthright? That's absurd.

If the G5 want to push the point about a full, inclusive, rational playoffs. The "fair" thing to do is a reset - break up the P5 and G5 in to separate leagues, with separate playoffs. Because if FBS had been originally organized as a playoff league, that's how it would have been organized to begin with. No league that has high common monetary value has low barriers to entry.

That would allow the P5 to keep the brand value they earned.

(05-15-2019 10:52 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-15-2019 02:47 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-15-2019 11:11 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The G5 has fewer fans and their content is less profitable to the networks. That has not one thing to do with whether or not UCF or any other undefeated past or future G5 might could actually win a title on the field of play. It was a business decision. Always has been....which is ironic in that collegiate athletics is an arena that was never supposed to be about money. Like I said, it is what it is.

Actually, I'd say it does, as the two seem to be closely linked. E.g., Division III, Division II, and FCS all have fewer fans and their content is less profitable for the networks than the P5 as well. And like the G5, they have never produced the best team on the field.

I seriously doubt that is coincidence.

Generally speaking, the leagues that have the highest TV appeal and most fans tend to be the leagues that produce the best teams. E.g., MLB has the most fans and TV appeal of all baseball leagues, the NBA has the most fans and TV appeal of all basketball leagues, the NHL has more fans and more TV appeal than any other hockey league, etc.

Even in soccer, where it is more fragmented, we see the same thing. E.g., our MLS has fewer fans and less TV appeal (on a global basis) than does the Bundesliga or the English Premier League - and the latter two leagues have better teams too.

It's almost a universal truth.

The Cubs made more money than most any team and yet they still couldnt win crap.

If your honest with yourself—you’d admit that recruiting and team strength would largely level out if every league had legit access to the playoff. That’s also a near universal the truth.

That's not true. It isn't level within the P5 where they have the same access to TV $.

There's nobody in the G5 who would be a top 25 program if they were in the P5. Houston was in a power conference and has been as successful as anyone outside the P5 except BYU and Boise, but they weren't a top 25 when they were in the club. Top 40 definitely, but not top 25.

UCF claiming that title is one of the best things in college football the last ten years. Fantastic entertainment.