(12-13-2019 01:00 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(12-13-2019 12:30 PM)Tigersmoke4 Wrote:  

(12-13-2019 12:08 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-13-2019 10:14 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  The logical step forward is an auto to the playoff for the G5.

I think what you are missing is that a G5 auto-bid would be put the G5 teams *ahead* of the P5 teams.

Just look at Memphis this year. Could any P5 team make the playoffs with their resume? Losing to Temple and beating nobody better than #21 Cincinnati, twice at home? No way.

So 5-1-2 would create a situation in which a G5 team could achieve far less than many P5 teams, yet still make the playoffs over them.

I don't think the P5 will allow that.

I promise I'm not trying to trigger you but Memphis actually has beaten 4 top25 teams which is a better resume than Clemson. Before you AAC haters get worked up I AM NOT SAYING THAT MEMPHIS IS BETTER THAN CLEMSON. I'm just answering your question about resumes using the known facts.

Actually, Memphis beat 2 Top 25 teams. Cincinnati they beat twice at home, in very close contests. They also beat Navy at home, also in a relatively close game. Clemson only got to face one Top 25 team, Virginia, which is comparable in strength to both Cincy and Navy. IIRC, that game was anything but close. I believe the word "annihilate" was tossed around by more than a few sportswriters and pundits.

There is absolutely nothing in Memphis' resume to suggest that they belong in a playoff - even one with 8 teams. They would be marginal in a tourney with 16 teams.

The Tigers had a very good season. Getting to play in an NY6 game this year is an appropriate reward for that. So let's not go overboard.

Hmm. What I stated was facts and what you stated was pure opinion. What I stated is verifiable and what you stated is chit chat. Can you see the difference? We'll just agree to disagree knowing I'm right.

(12-13-2019 02:28 PM)Tigersmoke4 Wrote:  

(12-13-2019 01:00 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(12-13-2019 12:30 PM)Tigersmoke4 Wrote:  I promise I'm not trying to trigger you but Memphis actually has beaten 4 top25 teams which is a better resume than Clemson. Before you AAC haters get worked up I AM NOT SAYING THAT MEMPHIS IS BETTER THAN CLEMSON. I'm just answering your question about resumes using the known facts.

Actually, Memphis beat 2 Top 25 teams. Cincinnati they beat twice at home, in very close contests. They also beat Navy at home, also in a relatively close game. Clemson only got to face one Top 25 team, Virginia, which is comparable in strength to both Cincy and Navy. IIRC, that game was anything but close. I believe the word "annihilate" was tossed around by more than a few sportswriters and pundits.

There is absolutely nothing in Memphis' resume to suggest that they belong in a playoff - even one with 8 teams. They would be marginal in a tourney with 16 teams.

The Tigers had a very good season. Getting to play in an NY6 game this year is an appropriate reward for that. So let's not go overboard.

Hmm. What I stated was facts and what you stated was pure opinion. What I stated is verifiable and what you stated is chit chat. Can you see the difference? We'll just agree to disagree knowing I'm right.

No, that is not what happened.

Bolded is the facts used.

Red is a half-truth, as it indicates top-25 teams at kickoff team, but not top-25 teams at the expiration of the season.

Blue is chit chat.

(12-13-2019 02:59 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  

(12-13-2019 02:28 PM)Tigersmoke4 Wrote:  

(12-13-2019 01:00 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(12-13-2019 12:30 PM)Tigersmoke4 Wrote:  I promise I'm not trying to trigger you but Memphis actually has beaten 4 top25 teams which is a better resume than Clemson. Before you AAC haters get worked up I AM NOT SAYING THAT MEMPHIS IS BETTER THAN CLEMSON. I'm just answering your question about resumes using the known facts.

Actually, Memphis beat 2 Top 25 teams. Cincinnati they beat twice at home, in very close contests. They also beat Navy at home, also in a relatively close game. Clemson only got to face one Top 25 team, Virginia, which is comparable in strength to both Cincy and Navy. IIRC, that game was anything but close. I believe the word "annihilate" was tossed around by more than a few sportswriters and pundits.

There is absolutely nothing in Memphis' resume to suggest that they belong in a playoff - even one with 8 teams. They would be marginal in a tourney with 16 teams.

The Tigers had a very good season. Getting to play in an NY6 game this year is an appropriate reward for that. So let's not go overboard.

Hmm. What I stated was facts and what you stated was pure opinion. What I stated is verifiable and what you stated is chit chat. Can you see the difference? We'll just agree to disagree knowing I'm right.

No, that is not what happened.

Bolded is the facts used.

Red is a half-truth, as it indicates top-25 teams at kickoff team, but not top-25 teams at the expiration of the season.

Blue is chit chat.

Sorry pal but verifiable facts are verifiable facts. Memphis has beaten top25 Cincy twice and top25 Navy once. SMDH. However the other guy stated that Memphis only beat 2 ranked teams not currently ranked. SMU was #15 and undefeated until they played Memphis and interestingly enough are literally sitting right outside of the top 25 and will likely finish ranked if they win their bowl game

(12-13-2019 03:11 PM)Tigersmoke4 Wrote:  

(12-13-2019 02:59 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  

(12-13-2019 02:28 PM)Tigersmoke4 Wrote:  

(12-13-2019 01:00 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(12-13-2019 12:30 PM)Tigersmoke4 Wrote:  I promise I'm not trying to trigger you but Memphis actually has beaten 4 top25 teams which is a better resume than Clemson. Before you AAC haters get worked up I AM NOT SAYING THAT MEMPHIS IS BETTER THAN CLEMSON. I'm just answering your question about resumes using the known facts.

Actually, Memphis beat 2 Top 25 teams. Cincinnati they beat twice at home, in very close contests. They also beat Navy at home, also in a relatively close game. Clemson only got to face one Top 25 team, Virginia, which is comparable in strength to both Cincy and Navy. IIRC, that game was anything but close. I believe the word "annihilate" was tossed around by more than a few sportswriters and pundits.

There is absolutely nothing in Memphis' resume to suggest that they belong in a playoff - even one with 8 teams. They would be marginal in a tourney with 16 teams.

The Tigers had a very good season. Getting to play in an NY6 game this year is an appropriate reward for that. So let's not go overboard.

Hmm. What I stated was facts and what you stated was pure opinion. What I stated is verifiable and what you stated is chit chat. Can you see the difference? We'll just agree to disagree knowing I'm right.

No, that is not what happened.

Bolded is the facts used.

Red is a half-truth, as it indicates top-25 teams at kickoff team, but not top-25 teams at the expiration of the season.

Blue is chit chat.

Sorry pal but verifiable facts are verifiable facts. Memphis has beaten top25 Cincy twice and top25 Navy once. SMDH. However the other guy stated that Memphis only beat 2 ranked teams not currently ranked. SMU was #15 and undefeated until they played Memphis and interestingly enough are literally sitting right outside of the top 25 and will likely finish ranked if they win their bowl game

Yes, they are. And you just confirmed/agreed that what I posted were verified facts. You are just arguing that things which by themselves are true, but which in no way contradict the facts I stated, should also be considered.

That doesn't change the argument that Memphis' record does not support an argument that are as good as any team actually in the CFP, or who would be if the playoff had 8 teams instead of 4. So I'm not sure exactly what it is you are trying to argue here.

(12-13-2019 09:56 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(12-13-2019 08:38 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I've argued that if there is going to be a 5-1-2 model, that to be fair to the G5, the "1" has to be proved 'on the field' the same way the "5" is, so that would mean a series of playoff games among the G5 champs to get the main playoff spot.

If there is going to be a 5-1-2 model, it is not important that it be "fair" to the G5. It should only matter that it is fair to the non-champion P5s who may often be demonstrably better and more deserving than whoever might emerge from a playoff of inferior teams.

I would argue that no poll is going to be able to reliably distinguish between the #8 team and the #12 team. We could argue that neither of those are as good as the Top Four (in no particular order). But the likelihood that #8 could win a three game tournament isn't significantly better than the likelihood that the #12 team could.

For that reason, I would include [b]any G5 champion ranked in the top 12 as an automatic qualifier in an 8 team playoff. But if there is no such G5 team in a given year, they would be left out, not just from the CFP but also the NY6.
[/b]

Then the committee will rank the "G5" team #13. The committee has shown a propensity for ranking non power teams 2-4 spots lower than they rank in the AP and coaches polls. Can we really trust a bunch of "power" conference bigwigs, shrouded in secrecy and a hazy room to correctly rank these programs, with all their biases and preconceived notions.

(12-13-2019 11:59 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-13-2019 09:04 AM)Tigersmoke4 Wrote:  

(12-13-2019 08:38 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-12-2019 09:07 AM)Tigersmoke4 Wrote:  

(12-12-2019 09:00 AM)ken d Wrote:  The AAC is not going to participate in anything that makes them acknowledge that they are not a "power conference". And, at least for now, they will probably have enough good teams that their CCG would produce a strong candidate for the NY6 slot in most years.

For the rest of the G5, however, not so much. And for those conferences, their CCGs are hardly lucrative ventures, especially when divided among 12 or more schools. Maybe they should consider forgoing their CCGs, and instead match the two highest ranked champions among them on that weekend to give each a legitimate chance of outranking the AAC champ. They could shoot for a 2:30 start on Saturday on a major OTA network.

This year, if Boise and Appalachian State had a chance to play each other they might have had a better chance against the Memphis - Cincy winner than they did by playing Hawaii and Louisiana. That game might have produced enough revenue to offset the loss of the CCG's.

What do they have to lose to offset the potential gain?

That's actually a good idea seriously. With the chatter about the big10 starting to warm towards an 8 team playoff system that may be a no-brainer.
5 p5 champs
1 AAC champ
Two best g4 champs play for a chance at an at large if the winner can crack the 10 ten for one of the two at large bids against the p5.

I've argued that if there is going to be a 5-1-2 model, that to be fair to the G5, the "1" has to be proved 'on the field' the same way the "5" is, so that would mean a series of playoff games among the G5 champs to get the main playoff spot. For example:

December 10 .... #5 SB champ vs #4 CUSA champ

December 17 .... #5/#4 winner vs #1 AAC champ ... #2 MW champ vs #3 MAC champ

December 24 .... winners play for G5 championship

December 31 ..... QFs of playoffs ... G5 champ as #8 seed.

January 7 .......... semifinals

January 14 ........ finals

That way, every FBS school has a "path". It's not the same path, but it is a path. The idea being G5 have to play their way in as that compensates for the weaker schedule. And to make it even fairer, we can have a rule that if the top G5 team is ranked in the top 8, then that year there are no G5 playoffs, and that team is immediately in the regular QFs, like UCF in 2018.

That's a no go for two reasons.
1) there's nothing fair about college football.
)2 that's to many games and would take to big of a toll on the g5 teams. Heck the AAC has been proving it on the field since its creation.

It's only a ton of games if you keep winning, which since it's a tournament by definition only one team will. For three of the G5 teams its the same number of games as if they go to a bowl, and for one of them it is one more game than that.

Only for the G5 champ does it mean more games, but hey that's the price of winning.

Also, the AAC champ has not been proving worthiness to be in an 8-team playoff on the field. E.g., it would be absurd if Memphis were in an 8-team playoff this year, they have done nothing at all to show they are one of the 8 best teams, and that's the way it typically is for whoever the best team is.

5-1-2 would be very unjust in that it would give the best G5 team a "protected lane" to qualify for a the QFs of a playoff, a lane that is easier than any lane any P5 team has.

Now, if a G5 team does in fact prove its one of the best 8 during the season, like UCF did last year, then they should get in just like any P5 champ should. But no special treatment that ushers in a G5 ahead of more worthy P5.

They've done nothing? They won a conference that several metrics show are ahead of 1-2 "power" conferences. You can agree or disagree with those computers and metrics, but they are definitely out there.

(12-13-2019 03:53 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(12-13-2019 03:11 PM)Tigersmoke4 Wrote:  

(12-13-2019 02:59 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  

(12-13-2019 02:28 PM)Tigersmoke4 Wrote:  

(12-13-2019 01:00 PM)ken d Wrote:  Actually, Memphis beat 2 Top 25 teams. Cincinnati they beat twice at home, in very close contests. They also beat Navy at home, also in a relatively close game. Clemson only got to face one Top 25 team, Virginia, which is comparable in strength to both Cincy and Navy. IIRC, that game was anything but close. I believe the word "annihilate" was tossed around by more than a few sportswriters and pundits.

There is absolutely nothing in Memphis' resume to suggest that they belong in a playoff - even one with 8 teams. They would be marginal in a tourney with 16 teams.

The Tigers had a very good season. Getting to play in an NY6 game this year is an appropriate reward for that. So let's not go overboard.

Hmm. What I stated was facts and what you stated was pure opinion. What I stated is verifiable and what you stated is chit chat. Can you see the difference? We'll just agree to disagree knowing I'm right.

No, that is not what happened.

Bolded is the facts used.

Red is a half-truth, as it indicates top-25 teams at kickoff team, but not top-25 teams at the expiration of the season.

Blue is chit chat.

Sorry pal but verifiable facts are verifiable facts. Memphis has beaten top25 Cincy twice and top25 Navy once. SMDH. However the other guy stated that Memphis only beat 2 ranked teams not currently ranked. SMU was #15 and undefeated until they played Memphis and interestingly enough are literally sitting right outside of the top 25 and will likely finish ranked if they win their bowl game

Yes, they are. And you just confirmed/agreed that what I posted were verified facts. You are just arguing that things which by themselves are true, but which in no way contradict the facts I stated, should also be considered.

That doesn't change the argument that Memphis' record does not support an argument that are as good as any team actually in the CFP, or who would be if the playoff had 8 teams instead of 4. So I'm not sure exactly what it is you are trying to argue here.

I'll agree to disagree with you and woke. Whatever the power brokers decide to do there's not a dang thing that you or I can do about it. I just hope that the AAC can get its deserved auto-bid in the end. I long ago gave up on fighting AAC bias because they're proving it on the field year in and year out.

(12-09-2019 05:32 PM)ken d Wrote:  This would require that every G5 conference except the AAC declare that conference to be a de facto P6, and superior to all of them. I don't see that happening. I also don't see the AAC giving up a bowl matchup with a real P5 conference, or Boise State giving up a P5 bowl opponent if they don't get the NY6 invite.

If those 4 conferences decide they want to do this, then they should just ask the NCAA to put them in a third DI subdivision where they can have their own bowl playoff series.

+2.

(12-13-2019 12:30 PM)Tigersmoke4 Wrote:  

(12-13-2019 12:08 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-13-2019 10:14 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  The logical step forward is an auto to the playoff for the G5.

I think what you are missing is that a G5 auto-bid would be put the G5 teams *ahead* of the P5 teams.

Just look at Memphis this year. Could any P5 team make the playoffs with their resume? Losing to Temple and beating nobody better than #21 Cincinnati, twice at home? No way.

So 5-1-2 would create a situation in which a G5 team could achieve far less than many P5 teams, yet still make the playoffs over them.

I don't think the P5 will allow that.

I promise I'm not trying to trigger you but Memphis actually has beaten 4 top25 teams which is a better resume than Clemson. Before you AAC haters get worked up I AM NOT SAYING THAT MEMPHIS IS BETTER THAN CLEMSON. I'm just answering your question about resumes using the known facts.

I never made a claim about how many top 25 teams Memphis has beaten, I just said the top team was Cincy.

But FWIW, I count three top 25 wins for Memphis - twice over #21 Cincy and once over #23 Navy. Final CFP rankings, not some team that was ranked back in October or something, that doesn't mean anything.

Am I missing something?

(12-13-2019 04:24 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  

(12-13-2019 11:59 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-13-2019 09:04 AM)Tigersmoke4 Wrote:  

(12-13-2019 08:38 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-12-2019 09:07 AM)Tigersmoke4 Wrote:  That's actually a good idea seriously. With the chatter about the big10 starting to warm towards an 8 team playoff system that may be a no-brainer.
5 p5 champs
1 AAC champ
Two best g4 champs play for a chance at an at large if the winner can crack the 10 ten for one of the two at large bids against the p5.

I've argued that if there is going to be a 5-1-2 model, that to be fair to the G5, the "1" has to be proved 'on the field' the same way the "5" is, so that would mean a series of playoff games among the G5 champs to get the main playoff spot. For example:

December 10 .... #5 SB champ vs #4 CUSA champ

December 17 .... #5/#4 winner vs #1 AAC champ ... #2 MW champ vs #3 MAC champ

December 24 .... winners play for G5 championship

December 31 ..... QFs of playoffs ... G5 champ as #8 seed.

January 7 .......... semifinals

January 14 ........ finals

That way, every FBS school has a "path". It's not the same path, but it is a path. The idea being G5 have to play their way in as that compensates for the weaker schedule. And to make it even fairer, we can have a rule that if the top G5 team is ranked in the top 8, then that year there are no G5 playoffs, and that team is immediately in the regular QFs, like UCF in 2018.

That's a no go for two reasons.
1) there's nothing fair about college football.
)2 that's to many games and would take to big of a toll on the g5 teams. Heck the AAC has been proving it on the field since its creation.

It's only a ton of games if you keep winning, which since it's a tournament by definition only one team will. For three of the G5 teams its the same number of games as if they go to a bowl, and for one of them it is one more game than that.

Only for the G5 champ does it mean more games, but hey that's the price of winning.

Also, the AAC champ has not been proving worthiness to be in an 8-team playoff on the field. E.g., it would be absurd if Memphis were in an 8-team playoff this year, they have done nothing at all to show they are one of the 8 best teams, and that's the way it typically is for whoever the best team is.

5-1-2 would be very unjust in that it would give the best G5 team a "protected lane" to qualify for a the QFs of a playoff, a lane that is easier than any lane any P5 team has.

Now, if a G5 team does in fact prove its one of the best 8 during the season, like UCF did last year, then they should get in just like any P5 champ should. But no special treatment that ushers in a G5 ahead of more worthy P5.

They've done nothing? They won a conference that several metrics show are ahead of 1-2 "power" conferences. You can agree or disagree with those computers and metrics, but they are definitely out there.

Eh, there are a billion computers out there so anyone can find one or two that says something. I just glanced at the massey and there are computers that have Michigan in the top 5 or 6. But the massey computers overall have the AAC at 59+ points right now, barely behind the ACC, and the bowl games could result in the AAC actually finishing ahead of the ACC, which would be something, major bragging rights, no doubt about it.

But the next-closest P5 is the PAC, at 49, so the ACC has kind of slipped down to tweener-land itself this year.

I don't think going 12-1 vs the Sagarin #70 schedule and no wins better than #21 Cincy is anything like 8-team playoff-worthy but I admit that's just my opinion.

I have been a Memphis fan since about 1970. The Tigers had a very strong season but would have no business in the four-team playoff this year.

Memphis beat two teams (Cincy twice and SMU) that were ranked at the time and playing well. Those were three very good wins. Looking back, the Navy win was very solid, as was, in some respects, the Ole Miss victory. I would rank the Tigers currently about 20th to 22nd if I had a vote in the polls. (I would rank Cincy, another team I root for) about 25th to 27th.

Too many Memphis fans are overrating the Tigers at this point.

Now IF Memphis beats a very fine Penn State team (a big IF), I can see the argument for ranking the Tigers about 10th in the final poll. Not so much because Memphis would be the 10th-best team in the nation (maybe it would be but maybe not). Rather, because Memphis would have had a fantastic season worthy of giving credit (and I believe there is something to be said for considering that when ranking teams in the final poll) with the No. 10 ranking.

(12-09-2019 05:32 PM)ken d Wrote:  This would require that every G5 conference except the AAC declare that conference to be a de facto P6, and superior to all of them. I don't see that happening. I also don't see the AAC giving up a bowl matchup with a real P5 conference, or Boise State giving up a P5 bowl opponent if they don't get the NY6 invite.

If those 4 conferences decide they want to do this, then they should just ask the NCAA to put them in a third DI subdivision where they can have their own bowl playoff series.

Exactly. The format which pencils out is Go5/P5 for #2 and #3 and Go5/Go5 for #4 and #5 with CFP money guaranteeing the payouts so that the P5 affiliations are not "we'll fill it when we have bad luck in placing schools in the NY6 at-large spots".

The AAC ought to view that as a back up mid-tier P5 opponent if it stumbles in the race to the Access Bowl spot ... or else if the AAC doesn't believe it will be in the top 3 of 5 Go5 spots every year, they should include a footnote in all of their A6* marketing, as in, {* Yeah, we actually think this is BS.}

(12-17-2019 08:24 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(12-09-2019 05:32 PM)ken d Wrote:  This would require that every G5 conference except the AAC declare that conference to be a de facto P6, and superior to all of them. I don't see that happening. I also don't see the AAC giving up a bowl matchup with a real P5 conference, or Boise State giving up a P5 bowl opponent if they don't get the NY6 invite.

If those 4 conferences decide they want to do this, then they should just ask the NCAA to put them in a third DI subdivision where they can have their own bowl playoff series.

Exactly. The format which pencils out is Go5/P5 for #2 and #3 and Go5/Go5 for #4 and #5 with CFP money guaranteeing the payouts so that the P5 affiliations are not "we'll fill it when we have bad luck in placing schools in the NY6 at-large spots".

The AAC ought to view that as a back up mid-tier P5 opponent if it stumbles in the race to the Access Bowl spot ... or else if the AAC doesn't believe it will be in the top 3 of 5 Go5 spots every year, they should include a footnote in all of their A6* marketing, as in, {* Yeah, we actually think this is BS.}

I’m having trouble following why the AAC ought to do any of that. It has nothing to do with that they “believe” and everything to do with what they can secure. Why give up guaranteed money (CFP distributions) for the possibility of a slightly better P5 opponent when they already have the most guaranteed P5 matchups plus the possibility of better ones already? Any bowl rotation higher than the Liberty Bowl probably isn’t realistic...and the AAC already has ties to that one anyway. It doesn’t make sense or cents.

If we look at this years trend with Boca Raton and Las Vegas bumped up to ABC coverage the answer might be to have a pre-Christmas bowl weekend, even move a couple lower tier P bowls to pre Christmas for better coverage.

(12-09-2019 03:28 PM)EvilVodka Wrote:  ...that matches the top 2 G5 champs (excluding the team selected to the NY6). Play it at 10am January 1

I would watch Boise St. vs. App State. These are good football teams

Yup. I would call it the Segregation Bowl!