(04-09-2020 11:26 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-09-2020 11:12 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-09-2020 10:12 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-09-2020 09:18 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-09-2020 03:55 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  It's nice that you believe that but there is zero objective evidence for it. If Alabama had played TCU in the playoffs they probably would have been a 14 point favorite, nobody would favor TCU except someone with a very small brain.

What do we have to go on? Talent and coaching. In 2014 and 2015, the two most relevant years for this hypothetical matchup, Alabama had 15 NFL draft picks. TCU had 3. And two of TCU's draft picks never actually played in an NFL game while the third has played in a total of 28. All three are currently out of the league. In contrast, at least 4 of the Alabama picks have made multiple pro bowls and at least 5 are still in the league. Top to bottom, starters and depth, Alabama just had way more talent than TCU.

And then you have the coaching. Saban doesn't usually lose bowl games to just anyone. The past decade, he's lost bowl games to Stoops, Dabo, and Urban. They have won 6 national titles among them. Gary Patterson is a very good coach, but he's not at that level.

Could TCU possibly beat Alabama? Sure. Is it likely? Not at all. If we all had a gun to our head to pick a winner, we'd all pick Alabama, and with very good reason.

Ole Miss 23 Alabama 17
TCU 42 Ole Miss 3

Alabama was also a huge favorite over Ohio St. EVERYBODY was picking Alabama. IMO Patterson does more with his talent than any coach in college football with Bill Snyder (now retired) a close second. Saban does the best acquiring talent and keeping them focused.

Arkansas 30 ... Ole Miss ... 0

Does that feel any better?

Patterson does a nice job with talent, but Saban does a nice job with talent too and he had WAY more of it than TCU.

Remember, everyone loved Oregon in 2014, and Ohio State clocked them by 22.

Alabama did lose to Ohio State. But Ohio State had plenty of talent as well. They had 16 NFL draft picks in the immediate two years, including several pro bowl players, one more pick than even Alabama had. And they had Urban at coach, the second-best coach of the past 40 years after Saban.

I mean, that Ohio State team had Ezekiel Elliot and Joey Bosa on it, for starters. Good Lord. And Ohio State beat Alabama 42-35, trailed at halftime.

Losing to Urban and 16 draft picks is a fair distance from losing to Patterson and 3 draft picks.

That's my point: Saban doesn't lose big post-season games to just anybody. He loses them to teams with gobs of talent like his own, and with an all-time great coach, like himself. TCU 2014 fit neither bill.

Kyle Whittingham was an all time great? Utah had gobs of talent?
How about Ole Miss in 2014? Or are you going to explain it away as not a big game like Bama fans do every time they lose a bowl?

How about Virginia Tech 35, Ohio St. 21 in COLUMBUS! VT lost to ECU, Georgia Tech, Pitt, Miami FL, Boston College and Wake Forest (6-3 in 2 OT, yet scored 35 vs. Ohio St.). They went 6-6 and Ohio St. was the only ranked team they played all year.

TCU was 3rd ranked before winning 55-3 the last week. Even the committee knew they were good until it was inconvenient.

You have to reach back to 2008, Saban's second season when he was still building Alabama up?

Alabama lost to Ole Miss that year. Good Heavens. Everyone else but FSU lost a game en route to the bowl games too. And VT beat Ohio State about four months before the playoffs. I mean almost literally, it was like the first week of September.

Nobody would say TCU had no chance to beat an Alabama. Of course they did. It's just an unlikely outcome given the facts at hand.

Alabama had a better coach and way better players. That usually means a win.

TCU-Alabama that season would have been an almost identical matchup to the Sugar Bowl game in which Utah beat Alabama. Whittingham and Patterson are about equal in coaching ability and accomplishment, Utah and TCU each had a team in their respective seasons that was having one of its best years, and each had pretty good talent though not on Bama's level.

(04-09-2020 11:58 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(04-09-2020 11:26 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-09-2020 11:12 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-09-2020 10:12 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-09-2020 09:18 PM)bullet Wrote:  Ole Miss 23 Alabama 17
TCU 42 Ole Miss 3

Alabama was also a huge favorite over Ohio St. EVERYBODY was picking Alabama. IMO Patterson does more with his talent than any coach in college football with Bill Snyder (now retired) a close second. Saban does the best acquiring talent and keeping them focused.

Arkansas 30 ... Ole Miss ... 0

Does that feel any better?

Patterson does a nice job with talent, but Saban does a nice job with talent too and he had WAY more of it than TCU.

Remember, everyone loved Oregon in 2014, and Ohio State clocked them by 22.

Alabama did lose to Ohio State. But Ohio State had plenty of talent as well. They had 16 NFL draft picks in the immediate two years, including several pro bowl players, one more pick than even Alabama had. And they had Urban at coach, the second-best coach of the past 40 years after Saban.

I mean, that Ohio State team had Ezekiel Elliot and Joey Bosa on it, for starters. Good Lord. And Ohio State beat Alabama 42-35, trailed at halftime.

Losing to Urban and 16 draft picks is a fair distance from losing to Patterson and 3 draft picks.

That's my point: Saban doesn't lose big post-season games to just anybody. He loses them to teams with gobs of talent like his own, and with an all-time great coach, like himself. TCU 2014 fit neither bill.

Kyle Whittingham was an all time great? Utah had gobs of talent?
How about Ole Miss in 2014? Or are you going to explain it away as not a big game like Bama fans do every time they lose a bowl?

How about Virginia Tech 35, Ohio St. 21 in COLUMBUS! VT lost to ECU, Georgia Tech, Pitt, Miami FL, Boston College and Wake Forest (6-3 in 2 OT, yet scored 35 vs. Ohio St.). They went 6-6 and Ohio St. was the only ranked team they played all year.

TCU was 3rd ranked before winning 55-3 the last week. Even the committee knew they were good until it was inconvenient.

You have to reach back to 2008, Saban's second season when he was still building Alabama up?

Alabama lost to Ole Miss that year. Good Heavens. Everyone else but FSU lost a game en route to the bowl games too. And VT beat Ohio State about four months before the playoffs. I mean almost literally, it was like the first week of September.

Nobody would say TCU had no chance to beat an Alabama. Of course they did. It's just an unlikely outcome given the facts at hand.

Alabama had a better coach and way better players. That usually means a win.

TCU-Alabama that season would have been an almost identical matchup to the Sugar Bowl game in which Utah beat Alabama. Whittingham and Patterson are about equal in coaching ability and accomplishment, Utah and TCU each had a team in their respective seasons that was having one of its best years, and each had pretty good talent though not on Bama's level.

Looking at the past decade, a loss by Alabama to TCU would stick out like a major Sore Thumb on their record. There's nothing but losses to all-time great coaches with big talent. TCU was just nothing like that.

And the Utah/Alabama talent gap wasn't as large. In the 2009 and 2010 drafts, Alabama had 11 players drafted, Utah had 10. In contrast, with Alabama vs TCU, it was 15 to 3.

(04-10-2020 12:12 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-09-2020 11:58 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(04-09-2020 11:26 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-09-2020 11:12 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-09-2020 10:12 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Arkansas 30 ... Ole Miss ... 0

Does that feel any better?

Patterson does a nice job with talent, but Saban does a nice job with talent too and he had WAY more of it than TCU.

Remember, everyone loved Oregon in 2014, and Ohio State clocked them by 22.

Alabama did lose to Ohio State. But Ohio State had plenty of talent as well. They had 16 NFL draft picks in the immediate two years, including several pro bowl players, one more pick than even Alabama had. And they had Urban at coach, the second-best coach of the past 40 years after Saban.

I mean, that Ohio State team had Ezekiel Elliot and Joey Bosa on it, for starters. Good Lord. And Ohio State beat Alabama 42-35, trailed at halftime.

Losing to Urban and 16 draft picks is a fair distance from losing to Patterson and 3 draft picks.

That's my point: Saban doesn't lose big post-season games to just anybody. He loses them to teams with gobs of talent like his own, and with an all-time great coach, like himself. TCU 2014 fit neither bill.

Kyle Whittingham was an all time great? Utah had gobs of talent?
How about Ole Miss in 2014? Or are you going to explain it away as not a big game like Bama fans do every time they lose a bowl?

How about Virginia Tech 35, Ohio St. 21 in COLUMBUS! VT lost to ECU, Georgia Tech, Pitt, Miami FL, Boston College and Wake Forest (6-3 in 2 OT, yet scored 35 vs. Ohio St.). They went 6-6 and Ohio St. was the only ranked team they played all year.

TCU was 3rd ranked before winning 55-3 the last week. Even the committee knew they were good until it was inconvenient.

You have to reach back to 2008, Saban's second season when he was still building Alabama up?

Alabama lost to Ole Miss that year. Good Heavens. Everyone else but FSU lost a game en route to the bowl games too. And VT beat Ohio State about four months before the playoffs. I mean almost literally, it was like the first week of September.

Nobody would say TCU had no chance to beat an Alabama. Of course they did. It's just an unlikely outcome given the facts at hand.

Alabama had a better coach and way better players. That usually means a win.

TCU-Alabama that season would have been an almost identical matchup to the Sugar Bowl game in which Utah beat Alabama. Whittingham and Patterson are about equal in coaching ability and accomplishment, Utah and TCU each had a team in their respective seasons that was having one of its best years, and each had pretty good talent though not on Bama's level.

Looking at the past decade, a loss by Alabama to TCU would stick out like a major Sore Thumb on their record. There's nothing but losses to all-time great coaches with big talent. TCU was just nothing like that.

And the Utah/Alabama talent gap wasn't as large. In the 2009 and 2010 drafts, Alabama had 11 players drafted, Utah had 10. In contrast, with Alabama vs TCU, it was 15 to 3.

Give it up Quo. T.C.U. got hosed by the committee plain and simple. It was one of the most revealing moments as to how big a charade the selection process was going to be and ever since the moving scale of what is to be emphasized has been practiced to achieve the predetermined ends.

It's what happens anytime an August body is selected to judge. You only need an August body when you need cover for screwing somebody severely. Their reputations become the perfume to cover the stench of manipulation.

You know I hate Baylor and feel TCU got screwed in the Big 12. But that season Baylor won the head to head. Yes, the game was at Baylor. Many seasons a divisional tiebreaker comes down to a head to head or one team's undefeated and the other has one loss with the home team winning. Home field advantage often determines who wins a conference or division. It's hard for me to believe TCU got screwed when by the normal standard Baylor was the Big 12 champion. The only reason the Big 12 decided to say "co champions" was thinking they would have two chances to get a team in.

Someone really wants to use draft picks of the 2015 NFL draft to say TCU had no shot vs Bama? LOL.. And yes I agree that Baylor should have been the sole champions that season due to the head to head win. Big 12, again, not very smart when it comes to this stuff..see 2008 rules that put ou as the Big 12 south champions over Texas.

(04-10-2020 12:21 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-10-2020 12:12 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-09-2020 11:58 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(04-09-2020 11:26 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-09-2020 11:12 PM)bullet Wrote:  Kyle Whittingham was an all time great? Utah had gobs of talent?
How about Ole Miss in 2014? Or are you going to explain it away as not a big game like Bama fans do every time they lose a bowl?

How about Virginia Tech 35, Ohio St. 21 in COLUMBUS! VT lost to ECU, Georgia Tech, Pitt, Miami FL, Boston College and Wake Forest (6-3 in 2 OT, yet scored 35 vs. Ohio St.). They went 6-6 and Ohio St. was the only ranked team they played all year.

TCU was 3rd ranked before winning 55-3 the last week. Even the committee knew they were good until it was inconvenient.

You have to reach back to 2008, Saban's second season when he was still building Alabama up?

Alabama lost to Ole Miss that year. Good Heavens. Everyone else but FSU lost a game en route to the bowl games too. And VT beat Ohio State about four months before the playoffs. I mean almost literally, it was like the first week of September.

Nobody would say TCU had no chance to beat an Alabama. Of course they did. It's just an unlikely outcome given the facts at hand.

Alabama had a better coach and way better players. That usually means a win.

TCU-Alabama that season would have been an almost identical matchup to the Sugar Bowl game in which Utah beat Alabama. Whittingham and Patterson are about equal in coaching ability and accomplishment, Utah and TCU each had a team in their respective seasons that was having one of its best years, and each had pretty good talent though not on Bama's level.

Looking at the past decade, a loss by Alabama to TCU would stick out like a major Sore Thumb on their record. There's nothing but losses to all-time great coaches with big talent. TCU was just nothing like that.

And the Utah/Alabama talent gap wasn't as large. In the 2009 and 2010 drafts, Alabama had 11 players drafted, Utah had 10. In contrast, with Alabama vs TCU, it was 15 to 3.

Give it up Quo. T.C.U. got hosed by the committee plain and simple. It was one of the most revealing moments as to how big a charade the selection process was going to be and ever since the moving scale of what is to be emphasized has been practiced to achieve the predetermined ends.

We're not talking about the same thing here. I am not commenting on whether TCU got hosed by the committee or not, just about who likely would have won an Alabama vs TCU playoff game that year.

FWIW though, I've always thought the following about that "hosing":

1) Alabama and Oregon were deserving of the Final 4, no questions. So the playoffs boiled down to which two teams among TCU, Baylor, FSU, and Ohio State deserved the two other spots.

2) FSU was the weakest of those teams, but due to circumstances, HAD to be in the playoffs. You can't leave the only undefeated P5 team, a P5 champ and defending undefeated national champ, out of the playoffs, you just can't. So that's three spots gone.

3) So regarding Baylor, TCU, and Ohio State, I thought ....

...... If Ohio State had been in TCU's position and vice-versa the week before the playoffs, no way would the committee have dropped Ohio State out the way they dropped TCU out and elevated TCU in to the playoffs. The CFP showed clear "brand bias". TCU had a much better loss than did Ohio State. And Ohio State never won a big enough game to overcome that.

..... but, TCU had a major Baylor problem, and if someone wants to argue that Baylor was more deserving of the Final 4 than TCU, that's a tough argument to rebut. Same record, won H2H. Baylor, not TCU, had the best claim to being the Big 12 champ.

.... but, Baylor was not as deserving as Ohio State. Same record, weaker schedule, not clear-cut champ like tOSU was.

So ultimately we had a 3-way wheel of TCU > Ohio State > Baylor > TCU.

In that situation, the solution I would have reached was "Ohio State", because they better met the criteria of being P5 champs and having slightly better SOS. And they won the better conference.

IOWs, the CFP made the right decision for the wrong reason.

(04-10-2020 07:48 AM)Thiefery Wrote:  Someone really wants to use draft picks of the 2015 NFL draft to say TCU had no shot vs Bama? LOL..

LOL ... I didn't say TCU had no shot vs Alabama, I just refuted the silly claim that TCU would have beaten Alabama.

Talent obviously matters greatly, and Alabama had way more than TCU. No, the most talented team doesn't always win. TCU might have won. But the facts suggest against it.

(04-09-2020 07:26 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-09-2020 07:17 AM)JMaddy Wrote:  Fans would love it and it would make the game stronger across all the college football landscape, but the P5 ADs and coaches would hate it because they would lose one big recruiting advantage over the G5, "relevancy" because now you'd be able to get into the playoffs from the Sunbelt just as easily as the SEC. It could lead to more parity between the leagues over time, which is why the powers that be would never support it.

I think this is an important point that is being overlooked. If there had been an 8-team playoff with auto-bid for the G5 champ, since 2014 UCF would have made the playoffs more often than FSU or Florida or Miami, Houston would have made the playoffs more often than Texas or Texas AM, and Memphis would have made the playoffs more often than Tennessee or Ole Miss, and Western Michigan would have made the playoffs more often than Michigan or Nebraska. That's going to boost those "little brother" schools tremendously vs the established powers.

You've made this argument before, and it has an internal logic. But I don't think it maps to the political reality as perceived by The Powers That Be.

Wouldn't your argument apply just as strongly to the 12 New Years Day/Eve bids? UCF has been to 2 major bowls in the CFP era, as many as Florida. Memphis has been to a major bowl and Tennessee hasn't. In any given year lately, Houston has had as good a shot at a major bowl game as Texas.

So the specter haunting you (or haunting the P5 "big brother schools") has absolutely come to pass. And nobody seems to be grumbling about it.

I don't think the picture changes much if it's 1-of-8 vs 1-of-12. I mean, it changes--12.5% of the spotlight is more than 8.3% of the pie. But, based on reading the tea leaves in the amateur cross-tab-ing of McMurphy's poll, somewhere around half of the P5 ADs are in favor of 5-1-2.

Quote:And since more times than not, the school will come from the AAC, this would be a big boon for their P6 campaign.

I'm not sure the powerful schools/conferences are willing to have that, or for other G5 to boost the AAC. But hey, who knows?

Well, the fact that the AAC would be hogging the "Cinderella spot", the #8 seed that gets fed to the No. 1 team in the country, takes some shine off of the "P6" narrative.

As for the rest-of-the-G5, that will effect how hard they fight for a G5 playoff spot. But they'll still vote "yes"

(04-10-2020 08:40 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(04-09-2020 07:26 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-09-2020 07:17 AM)JMaddy Wrote:  Fans would love it and it would make the game stronger across all the college football landscape, but the P5 ADs and coaches would hate it because they would lose one big recruiting advantage over the G5, "relevancy" because now you'd be able to get into the playoffs from the Sunbelt just as easily as the SEC. It could lead to more parity between the leagues over time, which is why the powers that be would never support it.

I think this is an important point that is being overlooked. If there had been an 8-team playoff with auto-bid for the G5 champ, since 2014 UCF would have made the playoffs more often than FSU or Florida or Miami, Houston would have made the playoffs more often than Texas or Texas AM, and Memphis would have made the playoffs more often than Tennessee or Ole Miss, and Western Michigan would have made the playoffs more often than Michigan or Nebraska. That's going to boost those "little brother" schools tremendously vs the established powers.

You've made this argument before, and it has an internal logic. But I don't think it maps to the political reality as perceived by The Powers That Be.

Wouldn't your argument apply just as strongly to the 12 New Years Day/Eve bids? UCF has been to 2 major bowls in the CFP era, as many as Florida. Memphis has been to a major bowl and Tennessee hasn't. In any given year lately, Houston has had as good a shot at a major bowl game as Texas.

So the specter haunting you (or haunting the P5 "big brother schools") has absolutely come to pass. And nobody seems to be grumbling about it.

I don't think the picture changes much if it's 1-of-8 vs 1-of-12. I mean, it changes--12.5% of the spotlight is more than 8.3% of the pie. But, based on reading the tea leaves in the amateur cross-tab-ing of McMurphy's poll, somewhere around half of the P5 ADs are in favor of 5-1-2.

Quote:And since more times than not, the school will come from the AAC, this would be a big boon for their P6 campaign.

I'm not sure the powerful schools/conferences are willing to have that, or for other G5 to boost the AAC. But hey, who knows?

Well, the fact that the AAC would be hogging the "Cinderella spot", the #8 seed that gets fed to the No. 1 team in the country, takes some shine off of the "P6" narrative.

As for the rest-of-the-G5, that will effect how hard they fight for a G5 playoff spot. But they'll still vote "yes"

Agree and disagree. I agree that so far, if the surveys like this AD poll is right, the P5 and other G5 are not seeing it my way. But I think they are mistaken. IMO there is a perception in the public and media that making the playoffs carries a lot more weight than the NY6. The ACC has been bad most of the last five years but because Clemson makes the playoffs every year, nobody questions them, whereas the PAC has been better overall but they miss the playoffs so everyone says "what's wrong with the PAC"? The B1G even had that happen to them when they missed the playoffs a couple years in a row, Delany complained about it. The Big 12 seemed on the verge of falling apart, or adding more teams, until getting the CCG game back proved to Oklahoma that the conference wasn't "disadvantaged" in the CFP hunt, and all that talk quieted down.

So I think there's a big difference between Memphis making the Access Bowl more times than Tennessee, etc. than making the playoffs. The playoffs have, in the public and media mind, become much more of the prestige yardstick so would have a much bigger perception impact.

I also don't think the "ghettoization" argument would apply. Yes, with the NY6 under the current regime, a bit of the shine is taken off of a Memphis going to the Cotton Bowl by the fact that they got in under the special G5 Access program. Heck those bowls are even called the "Access Bowls" and they have a bit less prestige than the "Contract Bowls". But there would be no "access" and "contract" designations for playoffs. Playoffs would be playoffs. A Memphis or a UCF really would be standing toe-to-toe in the arena with a Clemson or Alabama or Ohio State, P5 champs, the best of the best, not in some consolation-prize NY6 game for conference runner-ups. IMO, there would be no demerit with that.

I do think that if the a 5-1-2 model is adopted, this will be a big boon to the upper-strivers, the Houstons, UCFs, USFs (if we ever get our shite back together), Boises, Memphises, Cincys. And since most of those are in the AAC, to the AAC as well.

IOWs, if I am a P5 *or* a G5 other than the AAC, I would be very suspicious of this. But so far, nobody seems to be. The evidence is suggesting that you are right, they haven't woken up to how pro-AAC this would be.

Since 12 is just a better version of 8 (2 at larges, same as a P5 auto-bids, G5 champ scenario), why not just do that? Top 6 get a bye, 7-12 duke it out on campus in December. The student athletes will be making some scratch here in the future so surely they can handle a few extra games. Use the six major bowls for the Elite 8 round and cycle through them. Who cares about the rest of the ESPN bowls, let them figure out the NIT.

This is where the NCAA is leaving a TON of money on the table and they should have done this in the 80’s.

(04-10-2020 08:40 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(04-09-2020 07:26 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-09-2020 07:17 AM)JMaddy Wrote:  Fans would love it and it would make the game stronger across all the college football landscape, but the P5 ADs and coaches would hate it because they would lose one big recruiting advantage over the G5, "relevancy" because now you'd be able to get into the playoffs from the Sunbelt just as easily as the SEC. It could lead to more parity between the leagues over time, which is why the powers that be would never support it.

I think this is an important point that is being overlooked. If there had been an 8-team playoff with auto-bid for the G5 champ, since 2014 UCF would have made the playoffs more often than FSU or Florida or Miami, Houston would have made the playoffs more often than Texas or Texas AM, and Memphis would have made the playoffs more often than Tennessee or Ole Miss, and Western Michigan would have made the playoffs more often than Michigan or Nebraska. That's going to boost those "little brother" schools tremendously vs the established powers.

You've made this argument before, and it has an internal logic. But I don't think it maps to the political reality as perceived by The Powers That Be.

Wouldn't your argument apply just as strongly to the 12 New Years Day/Eve bids? UCF has been to 2 major bowls in the CFP era, as many as Florida. Memphis has been to a major bowl and Tennessee hasn't. In any given year lately, Houston has had as good a shot at a major bowl game as Texas.

So the specter haunting you (or haunting the P5 "big brother schools") has absolutely come to pass. And nobody seems to be grumbling about it.

I don't think the picture changes much if it's 1-of-8 vs 1-of-12. I mean, it changes--12.5% of the spotlight is more than 8.3% of the pie. But, based on reading the tea leaves in the amateur cross-tab-ing of McMurphy's poll, somewhere around half of the P5 ADs are in favor of 5-1-2.

Quote:And since more times than not, the school will come from the AAC, this would be a big boon for their P6 campaign.

I'm not sure the powerful schools/conferences are willing to have that, or for other G5 to boost the AAC. But hey, who knows?

Well, the fact that the AAC would be hogging the "Cinderella spot", the #8 seed that gets fed to the No. 1 team in the country, takes some shine off of the "P6" narrative.

As for the rest-of-the-G5, that will effect how hard they fight for a G5 playoff spot. But they'll still vote "yes"

This is not the same as in basketball where #1 Duke takes on #16 UMBC for what is projected to be a layup.

This is like #1 Alabama taking a test against a Top 10 or Top 15 team. The probably of winning is still above 90% but the G5 champ has a fighting chance at an upset.

As it is right now, there really is no advantage at being the #1 overall seed in the playoffs since you'll be playing #4 in the country. Under a 5-1-2 being a #1 or #2 seed would confer some advantage most likely in the first round against the Top G5 or a weak P5 champion (though both would have a puncher's chance and dangerous).

(04-09-2020 11:29 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  McMurphy article says the 16-team playoff actually has a decent shot and isnt unreasonable considering the post season participation rates of every other major sport.

https://watchstadium.com/the-case-for-a-...4-08-2020/

I'm a donor of a top program in one of those conferences consistently ranked #8-#10 and I don't even want an autobid to a playoff for my conference champion.

Too many years those conferences produce 8-10 win conference champions, many of which weren't the best team in the conference and backed their way in by a couple breaks in key games. I know this as my program is preseason #1 consensus in 2020 and was so in 2019, 2018, 2017 ect and didn't get it done when counted.

A Top 8 with the Top 6 conference champions and a provision for undefeated teams ranked in the Top 20 from the independents or smaller conference is the way to go. I know some balk at the idea of reserving space for undefeated teams but I think the public would like to see how an undefeated BYU or App St should they not get the G5 spot would perform. That would mean at least every FBS program controls its own fate at the beginning of the season.

I am against a guaranteed spot to the mid-majors (GO5). Let them earn their way in by being ranked in the top 10.

(04-10-2020 08:32 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-10-2020 07:48 AM)Thiefery Wrote:  Someone really wants to use draft picks of the 2015 NFL draft to say TCU had no shot vs Bama? LOL..

LOL ... I didn't say TCU had no shot vs Alabama, I just refuted the silly claim that TCU would have beaten Alabama.

Talent obviously matters greatly, and Alabama had way more than TCU. No, the most talented team doesn't always win. TCU might have won. But the facts suggest against it.

Results on the field suggest they would have. The AP poll suggests they would have (TCU ended up 3rd, Alabama 4th). Alabama DID lose in the playoffs. NFL draft picks tells you about talent at the NFL level, not how good they work as a team nor how good they are at the college level. They would take a good 6'4" QB with a strong arm over a 5'10" guy who lead his team to two MNCs. Its a different game.

You're basically arguing for the nonsensical eyeball test that the committee justifies all their decisions with, regardless of what happens on the field. You aren't going to convince anyone with that.

(04-10-2020 10:24 AM)westwolf Wrote:  I am against a guaranteed spot to the mid-majors (GO5). Let them earn their way in by being ranked in the top 10.

In which case they will never be ranked in the top 10. You can't "earn" something that is given in an eyeball test.

That spot is given to a conference champion who wins the eyeball test vs. 4 other conference champions. The alternative is to give it to a team who didn't win their conference and isn't even in the top 2 teams to not win their conference. They simply win the eyeball test vs. a bunch of other losers.

In my mind the reason for expansion to 8 is to make sure teams have a chance to win it on the field. As long as we keep it a beauty contest, we will continue to have years like 2014. The goal is not to create the best possible matchups and TV rating opportunities. And if we don't have at least one of the G5, we also run the risk, albeit slight, of not having the best team in there. And there will be a rash of #11 G5 champs if a top 10 rule is implemented.

(04-10-2020 10:24 AM)westwolf Wrote:  I am against a guaranteed spot to the mid-majors (GO5). Let them earn their way in by being ranked in the top 10.

Then there should also not be a guaranteed spot for a P5 team (not saying you are arguing for that).
However, it's definitely more fair and exciting if each FBS conference champ gets a spot. I think we should start there at least. Because having only 4 or 8 schools selected by a biased committee is laughable. The basketball tourney is biased too, but there is at least a path for just about every div 1 program.

If instead of a 5-1-2 you make it the Top 6 champions that protects against a possible lemon P5 champion with a 9-4 record showing up in the playoff.

Instead you would have two 11+ win champions from the G5 in that particular year.

I think you've got to strike a balance between access and quality when it comes to G5 programs participating. Last year's Memphis team would be fine as a Top 6 champion.

That would keep the pressure on everyone to improve their programs, particularly those in the PAC where sometimes they don't play like a P5 conference and the ACC is mostly second tier P5 football schools.

5-2-1 is the way to go. It gives everyone a chance.

(04-10-2020 10:24 AM)westwolf Wrote:  I am against a guaranteed spot to the mid-majors (GO5). Let them earn their way in by being ranked in the top 10.

I expect if there is a explicit Go5 path, it will be on working to bolster the anti-trust case for the system, in which case it will be not "Best of the Go5", but "Best among the Go5 champions and Independents" so that hypothetically every school is in the running for one "slot" of six slots and two spots are at-large.

ADs may not have the ultimate power, but they certainly have a lot of influence in the details in what is ultimately presented to their respective university presidents.

My motto regarding a playoff has always been this:

K.I.S.S.

Keep it Simple Stupid.

If you can't explain the playoff structure to an elementary school child, then it doesn't work.

The 5-1-2 model is simple. It's the model that I have long favored for reasons that I won't rehash again here. The 5-3 model is similarly simple.

The "straight 8" model is also simple. I don't favor that model at all (once again for reasons that I won't rehash here), but it at least meets the K.I.S.S. test.

Anything the involves byes, ranking requirements for a conference champ to get a bid, "top 6 conference champs", putting independents into a pool with G5 schools, being so worried to try to protect against the random "unworthy" auto-bid to the point that it makes the entire system convoluted, and other factors that force you to explain a system in multiple paragraphs as opposed to a single paragraph (or even just a sentence or two) simply won't work in practicality.

This debate really isn't that difficult, everyone. If/when the playoff expands to 8 teams, the driving force will almost certainly be because the Power 5 want all of their champs to get auto-bids. Obviously, this is a discussion board and (especially now) we have all of the time in the world to discuss permutations about how that's a good/bad/terrible idea, but the Power 5 wanting all of their champs unambiguously and *automatically* in the playoff (regardless of ranking) will be the one constant. The Power 5 have shown that they *hate* being left out of the 4-team playoff whenever that occurs. Everything in fills in after that and, frankly, the simpler structure is always going to be the preferred structure.

K.I.S.S.