(06-02-2020 12:01 AM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(06-01-2020 10:11 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(06-01-2020 10:04 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(06-01-2020 09:54 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(06-01-2020 08:07 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  Ok - didn't realize that.

Still, going with a divisional arrangement for FB might be better than a tiebreaker system that nobody is satisfied with.

Then we are stuck hoping that both divisions produce good teams. Using no divisions and the rankings to break multiple ties we ensure we have the best two teams playing regardless. This vastly improves the NY6 chance.

I follow your logic, but if your logic were to prevail, then wouldn't it also apply to the Big Ten or "B1G" Conference?

Would you argue that the Big Ten should base its championship on rankings, rather than on Divisional Championships, and would you argue that the Big Ten abandon their divisional arrangement?

If we had an even number of teams, we would still have divisions. I don't understand your argument. We could have gone with uneven divisions, but we decided not to, for good reasons.

The Big Ten analogy isn't appropriate, b/c they have an even number of teams. Like we did until now.

Also:

First that is what the rule change we are seeking will allow.

Second the Big 1G is not in the same situation, a 7-6 Northwestern team winning their championship game doesn't cost them money, still sends NW to the Rose and likely the losing team or next highest ranked team will get a NY6 game too.

The issue is our champion must then be compared to four other champions, as long as that is the case we should put our best foot forward. Being able to choose the two highest ranked teams of a three or four team tie, to play in our championship is a huge advantage that the other conferences clearly don't have.

Boise could end up having to play a 8-4 Fresno team instead of a ranked Utah St hurting its opportunity to make a splash because they have divisions.

Ok, but riddle me this:

Should a FB team that can't even win its own Division be allowed to compete in a national championship game?

(06-02-2020 12:30 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(06-02-2020 12:01 AM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(06-01-2020 10:11 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(06-01-2020 10:04 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(06-01-2020 09:54 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  Then we are stuck hoping that both divisions produce good teams. Using no divisions and the rankings to break multiple ties we ensure we have the best two teams playing regardless. This vastly improves the NY6 chance.

I follow your logic, but if your logic were to prevail, then wouldn't it also apply to the Big Ten or "B1G" Conference?

Would you argue that the Big Ten should base its championship on rankings, rather than on Divisional Championships, and would you argue that the Big Ten abandon their divisional arrangement?

If we had an even number of teams, we would still have divisions. I don't understand your argument. We could have gone with uneven divisions, but we decided not to, for good reasons.

The Big Ten analogy isn't appropriate, b/c they have an even number of teams. Like we did until now.

Also:

First that is what the rule change we are seeking will allow.

Second the Big 1G is not in the same situation, a 7-6 Northwestern team winning their championship game doesn't cost them money, still sends NW to the Rose and likely the losing team or next highest ranked team will get a NY6 game too.

The issue is our champion must then be compared to four other champions, as long as that is the case we should put our best foot forward. Being able to choose the two highest ranked teams of a three or four team tie, to play in our championship is a huge advantage that the other conferences clearly don't have.

Boise could end up having to play a 8-4 Fresno team instead of a ranked Utah St hurting its opportunity to make a splash because they have divisions.

Ok, but riddle me this:

Should a FB team that can't even win its own Division be allowed to compete in a national championship game?

Didn't we have that situation a few years back. Alabama didn't participate in the SEC championship game, yet was chosen to be 1 of 4 teams to be in the playoff.

(06-02-2020 01:25 AM)Edgebrookjeff Wrote:  

(06-02-2020 12:30 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(06-02-2020 12:01 AM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(06-01-2020 10:11 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(06-01-2020 10:04 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  I follow your logic, but if your logic were to prevail, then wouldn't it also apply to the Big Ten or "B1G" Conference?

Would you argue that the Big Ten should base its championship on rankings, rather than on Divisional Championships, and would you argue that the Big Ten abandon their divisional arrangement?

If we had an even number of teams, we would still have divisions. I don't understand your argument. We could have gone with uneven divisions, but we decided not to, for good reasons.

The Big Ten analogy isn't appropriate, b/c they have an even number of teams. Like we did until now.

Also:

First that is what the rule change we are seeking will allow.

Second the Big 1G is not in the same situation, a 7-6 Northwestern team winning their championship game doesn't cost them money, still sends NW to the Rose and likely the losing team or next highest ranked team will get a NY6 game too.

The issue is our champion must then be compared to four other champions, as long as that is the case we should put our best foot forward. Being able to choose the two highest ranked teams of a three or four team tie, to play in our championship is a huge advantage that the other conferences clearly don't have.

Boise could end up having to play a 8-4 Fresno team instead of a ranked Utah St hurting its opportunity to make a splash because they have divisions.

Ok, but riddle me this:

Should a FB team that can't even win its own Division be allowed to compete in a national championship game?

Didn't we have that situation a few years back. Alabama didn't participate in the SEC championship game, yet was chosen to be 1 of 4 teams to be in the playoff.

Yeah, just what everybody needed - yet another championship game with Alabama in it. (nauseating repetition)

(06-01-2020 11:09 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(06-01-2020 10:11 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(06-01-2020 10:04 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(06-01-2020 09:54 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(06-01-2020 08:07 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  Ok - didn't realize that.

Still, going with a divisional arrangement for FB might be better than a tiebreaker system that nobody is satisfied with.

Then we are stuck hoping that both divisions produce good teams. Using no divisions and the rankings to break multiple ties we ensure we have the best two teams playing regardless. This vastly improves the NY6 chance.

I follow your logic, but if your logic were to prevail, then wouldn't it also apply to the Big Ten or "B1G" Conference?

Would you argue that the Big Ten should base its championship on rankings, rather than on Divisional Championships, and would you argue that the Big Ten abandon their divisional arrangement?

If we had an even number of teams, we would still have divisions. I don't understand your argument. We could have gone with uneven divisions, but we decided not to, for good reasons.

The Big Ten analogy isn't appropriate, b/c they have an even number of teams. Like we did until now.

Yes, if there were an even number of teams, there would still be AAC FB divisions. Most of us agree on that, but it appears possible that some might prefer never having divisions.

My question was to those who argue that the best thing to do is to use rankings to determine the conference finalists (because their argument was that the whole point is to put the best team in the conference into the CFP playoffs).

To be clear, my question is a rhetorical question. It is this:

Q: If it's best to use rankings to determine finalists, then why shouldn't all the conferences that have playoffs between division champions dissolve their divisions and just have the top two ranked teams play each other for their conference championship games?

I believe the answer is self-evident: Most conferences prefer a divisional arrangement for a number of reasons, including regional rivalries and to cut travel expenses.

It is a rhetorical question because it asks the respondent to consider the central issue, as to whether there is any point at all in having FB divisions, as opposed to the more trivial issue about whether the divisions have the same # of teams.

.

There are a number of reasons why it makes sense to have FB divisions, regardless of whether the two divisions have the same number of teams, and to have the division champions play in the conference championship game.

I can't see any reason why the fact that one division has 5, rather than 6 teams, should have anything to do with it.

Yes, I can fathom why some people would like to see the top two ranked teams face each other for the championship, but as I see it, a team shouldn't be able to compete in a conference championship game if it wasn't even able to win its own division.

Similarly, if the top ranked team in a conference can't even manage to finish first in its division, there's no reason why it should be able to compete for the national championship.

Here's the thing...or things. You can have divisionless football and still lock in regional teams, as we've discussed before. UCF and USF would still play every year.

I don't see the tiebreaker situation as being such a big mess. We likely already have a tiered list of tiebreaker scenarios. You just remove the step(s) that include division games.

Assuming an odd number of teams that can have permanent scheduling arrangements, divisions only serve to create situations where potentially one of the CCG participants isn't as strong a team as the second best team in the other division.

For the other conferences, that might not necessarily be what you'd want. I was originally thinking that it would improve their CFP chances, but consider this. The Big 10 would likely have two teams from the current East playing in their CCG, and the SEC would probably have two teams from the West more often. Not having a relative "cupcake" in your CCG can potentially ruin your flawless team's shot. Best example of this is the ACC. Who over there wants Clemson to have an Atlantic opponent at the end of the year.

For us, we need as many competitive games as possible. Best two teams regardless of geography would accomplish that.

Tried 25 simulations. Here are the results of tie-breakers not resolved by head-to-head sweep. Of note is that 7/25 went to these yet-to-be-released tie breakers. So, it is a piece of information we will likely need.

Sim 10: #7 UCF (11-1, 7-1), #16 Memphis (10-2, 7-1), #21 Cincy (10-2, 7-1)
Cincy likely lost out because of their late season loss to UCF; they also lost to Nebraska (24-33). Memphis lost to Purdue (17-21) and Cincy (14-28) but scored 2 victories over the Golden Knights (15-13 and 21-14). Despite being in a stronger conference, Memphis was 1 rank behind Boise, who had a single loss to Air Force (who lost 2 in conference).

Sim 14: #14 UCF (11-1, 7-1), #17 Memphis (10-2, 7-1), #18 Cincy (10-2, 7-1)
Cincy's late loss to UCF likely doomed them in the polls; often it is more about when you lose than who you lose to. The Bearcats also lost to Nebraska (10-29) and Memphis lost to Purdue (24-29). Central Florida won the CCG (40-28), but finished 3 spots behind Boise State, who demolished SDSU 78-7 in their CCG.

Sim 16: #23 C Florida (10-2, 6-2), #26 Memphis (9-3, 6-2), #28 Navy (9-3, 6-2), #48 Cincy (8-4, 6-2)
Memphis split their games against Navy and Cincy and stumbled in the season-finale to Tulane. But, Navy's earlier season loss to Tulane and Notre Dame (and Memphis themselves) kept them below Memphis in the rankings. Tulane was #55 and no danger of reaching the CCG. Despite a 22-17 CCG win, UCF ascended only to #20 while App St and Boise St finished ahead.

Sim 18: #19 Memphis (10-2, 7-1), #25 C Florida (10-2, 6-2), #35 Cincy (9-3, 6-2), #47 Navy (8-4, 6-2)
Memphis's lone conference loss was to Navy (0-20 shutout), but UCF takes the #2 spot in the CCG by virtue of their Top 25 ranking. UCF defeats the Tigers (23-20), but App St (12-1) goes to the NY6.

Sim 19: #19 Cincy (10-2, 7-1), #22 C Florida (10-2, 6-2), #44 Navy (8-4, 6-2)
UCF lost to Cincy (27-29) 2 weeks earlier and redeems themselves (37-35), taking the NY6 spot.

Sim 22: #7 Memphis (11-1, 7-1), #18 UCF (10-2, 6-2), #19 Cincy (10-2, 6-2), #25 Navy (9-3, 6-2)
UCF had beaten Cincinnati and still advanced despite a season-ending loss to USF (20-21). UCF redeemed their earlier loss to Memphis (17-49) by winning the CCG (21-20). FAU (13-0) took the NY6 spot.

Sim 24: #14 UCF (11-1, 7-1), #20 Memphis (10-2, 7-1), #24 Cincy (10-2, 7-1)
UCF and Memphis advance by virtue of higher rank. Memphis and Cincy both lost OOC to Purdue and WMU respectively. Boise took the NY6 spot, finishing undefeated.

In all the above scenarios, the Army-Navy game was simmed before the CCG. Navy lost none of these where they tied for 1st or 2nd. Will have to reprogram that part.

(06-02-2020 09:26 AM)Crayton Wrote:  Tried 25 simulations. Here are the results of tie-breakers not resolved by head-to-head sweep. Of note is that 7/25 went to these yet-to-be-released tie breakers. So, it is a piece of information we will likely need.

Sim 10: #7 UCF (11-1, 7-1), #16 Memphis (10-2, 7-1), #21 Cincy (10-2, 7-1)
Cincy likely lost out because of their late season loss to UCF; they also lost to Nebraska (24-33). Memphis lost to Purdue (17-21) and Cincy (14-28) but scored 2 victories over the Golden Knights (15-13 and 21-14). Despite being in a stronger conference, Memphis was 1 rank behind Boise, who had a single loss to Air Force (who lost 2 in conference).

Sim 14: #14 UCF (11-1, 7-1), #17 Memphis (10-2, 7-1), #18 Cincy (10-2, 7-1)
Cincy's late loss to UCF likely doomed them in the polls; often it is more about when you lose than who you lose to. The Bearcats also lost to Nebraska (10-29) and Memphis lost to Purdue (24-29). Central Florida won the CCG (40-28), but finished 3 spots behind Boise State, who demolished SDSU 78-7 in their CCG.

Sim 16: #23 C Florida (10-2, 6-2), #26 Memphis (9-3, 6-2), #28 Navy (9-3, 6-2), #48 Cincy (8-4, 6-2)
Memphis split their games against Navy and Cincy and stumbled in the season-finale to Tulane. But, Navy's earlier season loss to Tulane and Notre Dame (and Memphis themselves) kept them below Memphis in the rankings. Tulane was #55 and no danger of reaching the CCG. Despite a 22-17 CCG win, UCF ascended only to #20 while App St and Boise St finished ahead.

Sim 18: #19 Memphis (10-2, 7-1), #25 C Florida (10-2, 6-2), #35 Cincy (9-3, 6-2), #47 Navy (8-4, 6-2)
Memphis's lone conference loss was to Navy (0-20 shutout), but UCF takes the #2 spot in the CCG by virtue of their Top 25 ranking. UCF defeats the Tigers (23-20), but App St (12-1) goes to the NY6.

Sim 19: #19 Cincy (10-2, 7-1), #22 C Florida (10-2, 6-2), #44 Navy (8-4, 6-2)
UCF lost to Cincy (27-29) 2 weeks earlier and redeems themselves (37-35), taking the NY6 spot.

Sim 22: #7 Memphis (11-1, 7-1), #18 UCF (10-2, 6-2), #19 Cincy (10-2, 6-2), #25 Navy (9-3, 6-2)
UCF had beaten Cincinnati and still advanced despite a season-ending loss to USF (20-21). UCF redeemed their earlier loss to Memphis (17-49) by winning the CCG (21-20). FAU (13-0) took the NY6 spot.

Sim 24: #14 UCF (11-1, 7-1), #20 Memphis (10-2, 7-1), #24 Cincy (10-2, 7-1)
UCF and Memphis advance by virtue of higher rank. Memphis and Cincy both lost OOC to Purdue and WMU respectively. Boise took the NY6 spot, finishing undefeated.

In all the above scenarios, the Army-Navy game was simmed before the CCG. Navy lost none of these where they tied for 1st or 2nd. Will have to reprogram that part.

Puts on homer hat

Only four of these simulations look correct

(06-02-2020 10:53 AM)IamYourDad Wrote:  

(06-02-2020 09:26 AM)Crayton Wrote:  Tried 25 simulations. Here are the results of tie-breakers not resolved by head-to-head sweep. Of note is that 7/25 went to these yet-to-be-released tie breakers. So, it is a piece of information we will likely need.

Sim 10: #7 UCF (11-1, 7-1), #16 Memphis (10-2, 7-1), #21 Cincy (10-2, 7-1)
Cincy likely lost out because of their late season loss to UCF; they also lost to Nebraska (24-33). Memphis lost to Purdue (17-21) and Cincy (14-28) but scored 2 victories over the Golden Knights (15-13 and 21-14). Despite being in a stronger conference, Memphis was 1 rank behind Boise, who had a single loss to Air Force (who lost 2 in conference).

Sim 14: #14 UCF (11-1, 7-1), #17 Memphis (10-2, 7-1), #18 Cincy (10-2, 7-1)
Cincy's late loss to UCF likely doomed them in the polls; often it is more about when you lose than who you lose to. The Bearcats also lost to Nebraska (10-29) and Memphis lost to Purdue (24-29). Central Florida won the CCG (40-28), but finished 3 spots behind Boise State, who demolished SDSU 78-7 in their CCG.

Sim 16: #23 C Florida (10-2, 6-2), #26 Memphis (9-3, 6-2), #28 Navy (9-3, 6-2), #48 Cincy (8-4, 6-2)
Memphis split their games against Navy and Cincy and stumbled in the season-finale to Tulane. But, Navy's earlier season loss to Tulane and Notre Dame (and Memphis themselves) kept them below Memphis in the rankings. Tulane was #55 and no danger of reaching the CCG. Despite a 22-17 CCG win, UCF ascended only to #20 while App St and Boise St finished ahead.

Sim 18: #19 Memphis (10-2, 7-1), #25 C Florida (10-2, 6-2), #35 Cincy (9-3, 6-2), #47 Navy (8-4, 6-2)
Memphis's lone conference loss was to Navy (0-20 shutout), but UCF takes the #2 spot in the CCG by virtue of their Top 25 ranking. UCF defeats the Tigers (23-20), but App St (12-1) goes to the NY6.

Sim 19: #19 Cincy (10-2, 7-1), #22 C Florida (10-2, 6-2), #44 Navy (8-4, 6-2)
UCF lost to Cincy (27-29) 2 weeks earlier and redeems themselves (37-35), taking the NY6 spot.

Sim 22: #7 Memphis (11-1, 7-1), #18 UCF (10-2, 6-2), #19 Cincy (10-2, 6-2), #25 Navy (9-3, 6-2)
UCF had beaten Cincinnati and still advanced despite a season-ending loss to USF (20-21). UCF redeemed their earlier loss to Memphis (17-49) by winning the CCG (21-20). FAU (13-0) took the NY6 spot.

Sim 24: #14 UCF (11-1, 7-1), #20 Memphis (10-2, 7-1), #24 Cincy (10-2, 7-1)
UCF and Memphis advance by virtue of higher rank. Memphis and Cincy both lost OOC to Purdue and WMU respectively. Boise took the NY6 spot, finishing undefeated.

In all the above scenarios, the Army-Navy game was simmed before the CCG. Navy lost none of these where they tied for 1st or 2nd. Will have to reprogram that part.

Puts on homer hat

Only four of these simulations look correct

Another observation. 3 scenarios involved a 3-way tie at 7-1 between UCF/Cincy/Memphis, the other 4 involved Navy tied with Cincy and/or UCF at 6-2 for 2nd place.

I am in agreement that Top Ranking should be applied if there is no head-to-head sweep. As a substitute for Top Ranking, to keep things internal, point differential in conference games could be used to approximate it. Many conferences have listed external computer methods to break deep ties in recent years.

7 out of 25 is rather frequent.