(08-02-2019 07:24 PM)Attackcoog Wrote: (08-02-2019 06:37 PM)quo vadis Wrote: (08-02-2019 06:32 PM)Wedge Wrote: (08-02-2019 03:56 PM)esayem Wrote: If you want to argue a 5-1-2, then you have to include Independents with the G5.
The playoff slot reserved for them should be a "non-P5" slot. Independents other than Notre Dame should be eligible to be chosen, along with any team in an G5 conference.
Does anyone seriously think a system will be adopted in which Notre Dame can compete for only two playoff spots, but UAB and San Jose State can compete for three?
That's what a 5-1-2 amounts to, folks.
Are you seriously suggesting Notre Dame would either
A) make the playoff less than UAB
or
B) Be left out of the playoff by the Selection Committee when they deserved to be in
However-----even if you believe both points are likely (which they are not)---Notre Dame can alleviate that issue by joining any conference it wishes. Nobody would tell them no.
You cannot continue to call a playoff a "playoff" when everyone acknowledges nearly half of the field has no chance at the playoff even if they win every game they play. The next playoff will have to do a better job of providing a legitimate pathway for every team to enter the playoff. I think the best model is the NCAA tournament where there are two pathways. With one pathway, any team can "win" their way into the playoff. This rewards play on the field and winning key games and key moments. It recognizes that there are differences in conferences and schedules and it is virtually impossible to accurately compare teams from the two groups playing different competition. It solves it by creating a path of accomplishment. Basically---either win a power conference---or be the best champ of the non-power conferences.
The other pathway is the Selection Committee's two wildcard slots--which offer a second chance for 2 deserving teams that excelled against a high quality schedule---but fell short of winning their conference (or have no conference to win). Im not saying its perfect or that it addresses every issue---but it addresses the vast majority of the issues and provides a structure that the vast majority of fans would view as reasonable and acceptable.
If your going to have a selection committee drive the whole thing---then we may as well just go back to the the poll driven mythical championship. If your just going to ignore half of college football, all the conference championships, and key head to head games----then why place so much importance on a few post season head-to-head games played in December and January just because we have slapped a CFP label on them?
First, very poor deflection about Notre Dame. I never implied that I think Notre Dame would make the playoffs in any 8-team system less than UAB would. I was talking about the *structure* of the system.
And 5-1-2 would, structurally, give UAB three paths to the playoffs and Notre Dame only two. That is IMO a non-starter, nobody will agree to that. Nobody in power wants that.
Second, IMO you are wrong about what most regard as the key flaw of the current 4-team playoff. It is emphatically NOT that "half the teams have no chance of being selected even if they win every game they play". Nobody cares if a team wins 12 games against soft opponents and doesn't make the playoffs, nor should they, as they didn't deserve to. The major complaint is P5 champs being left out, like Ohio State last year. I'm not saying the latter *should* be the major complaint, IMO it shouldn't, but it is. IMO you are fooling yourself if you think the powers that be or the public cares about what happens to the C-USA champion, they don't, to them it is obvious they aren't the best team in the country, nor is the AAC champ, the SB champ, etc.
Third, IMO the NCAA tournament is a poor analogy for a 5-1-2 playoff, because the key distinguishing factor of the NCAA tournament is that, among the power conferences, a LOT more power teams get in as at-large teams than as conference champions. If the ACC or B1G gets 6 or 7 or 8 teams in the tournament, which they often do, then only one of those teams is the conference champ and the other six are at-large teams. In contrast, in 5-1-2, or 5-3, conference champs would make up the great majority of playoff teams. The NCAA tournament moved away from that model 45 years ago.
Fourth, the emphasis on conference champs in college football is nonsensical. Simple examples make that clear - imagine if last year Pitt, with 5 losses, had beaten Clemson in the ACC title game. By your system, and by 5-3, Pitt would be in the playoffs. That would be an absurd outcome. It would mean that 5 losses did not matter because they followed the rules that made them conference champs. Talk about ignoring what happened on the field! And no, you can't say "well Clemson would have got in as an at-large anyway", because it's not just about Clemson, it's about all the other 1 or 2 loss or 3 loss teams in other conferences as well. With just two at-large, many of them would be booted out because of Pitt.
The systems conferences used to pick their champs is too arbitrary and invalid to rely on it as a means to picking playoff teams. Conferences manipulate their champ-selection procedures for all sorts of reasons unrelated to actually picking the best team - we're seeing that now with proposals to allow CCGs with 11 teams or 10 teams or with unbalanced schedules or no divisions or unbalanced divisions, etc. - and those proposals have to do with money, not validity.
A Selection Committee would never make the mistake of putting Pitt in the playoffs, it is more reliable and valid than a conference champs process for doing so. Conference champ procedures arbitrarily elevate some games above others - you can lose all your OOC games and still make the playoffs, a silly idea. In contrast, in the NFL, you can never have a situation where 8-8 Washington is the Division champ over 12-4 Philly. All the games count.
So really, if your concern is picking a valid champ where things are decided on the field, you should be very much against giving any conference champs an automatic bid, P5 or G5.