(08-02-2019 02:25 PM)Attackcoog Wrote: I dont like the idea of a cap for the G5 rep simply because it simply provides a motivation for the Selection Committee to continue to under rank the G5 rep to create an extra P5 slot. If they are getting in anyway---you've taken away that motivation (and even if they continue to under rank---its adverse effect is minimized). Furthermore---my whole bias is toward eliminating the "opinion" element as much as possible in the selection criteria. We cant avoid it completely with 10 conferences, 130 schools, and just 8 slots---but we can certainly minimize the role of opinion in the process of filling the playoff bracket.
Let's compare the CFP ranking of the highest G5 team with the Massey Composite ranking:
Year .............................. CFP .................... Massey
2018 .............................. 8 ....................... 8
2017 .............................. 12 ...................... 9
2016 .............................. 15 ...................... 12
2015 .............................. 18 ...................... 14
2014 .............................. 20 ...................... 22
Is there a tendency by the CFP to underrate the best G5? Yes. Is it significant enough to worry about? No. Massey says the average ranking of the best G5 team has been 13, the CFP has had them at 14.6. Not enough to matter.
Giving auto-bids to champions doesn't reduce opinion. It just codifies the opinion that if you win a conference you deserve to be in the playoffs. As I've explained, given the nature of college football and how conference champs are determined, that is a very questionable assumption to make.
Straight 8 allows for correction of obvious errors that a rigid rule can't, and in fact the CFP has done a very good job. Comparing the top 8 of Massey with the CFP the past five years in terms of teams that would have made the playoffs, we see .....
2014
Both the same, except the CFP would have Michigan State at #8, Massey would have Ole Miss (MSU at #9).
2015
Same teams.
2016
Same teams.
2017
Same, except CFP would have had USC #8, Massey had Penn State #8 (USC #9).
2018
Same teams.
That's remarkable, really. The CFP has only differed from the MC regarding two hypothetical 8-team playoff spots in 5 years, 38 out of 40 have been the same, and the two where they differ was by one spot, #8 vs #9.
Bottom line is that the CFP has actually done a very good job of ranking the top 8 teams.