I'd like to see the two highest rated G5 champs play for the Access Bowl. It's only a matter of time before we have a controversy over whether a 1 or 2 loss AAC champ should get the NY6 bid over some undefeated "G4" team. Georgia Southern prevented that last season but it could've easily happened.
(This post was last modified: 09-11-2020 10:02 AM by EigenEagle.)
(09-11-2020 08:17 AM)EigenEagle Wrote: Six seasons into the CFP, and the only real controversies might be over who is the #4 seed. No one can really argue the teams that got the G5 Access Bowl each year deserved it.
That, plus the money the G5 is getting is much better than from the BCS. I don't see an upside of the BCS over the CFP TBH.
Yes, complaints about the CFP selection process miss how basically perfectly the four teams chosen have tracked what the old system, or just relying on the AP/Coaches polls, would have produced.
Yes, but it should still revert back to the BCS selection process regardless. That felt legitimate because you can't manipulate a computer week-to-week.
A committee feels artificial and manufactured. They can draw up whatever conclusion they feel like, and then come up with BS reasons after-the-fact.
I have in past years taken a composite of five rankings (the combined AP and Coaches Polls , Massey Composite and major computer rankings). In every year, this composite picked all four CFP teams and at least 11 of the 12 NY6 teams correctly. This shows two things:
1) that the selection committee rankings are as good as anybody's, and
2) the committee is totally unnecessary.
For all we know, the committee might be using that same composite or something quite like it in private, and then pretending to have their own secret process when the cameras are rolling. The only reason to have the committee is to create a highly rated weeknight show for ESPN, and it has served that purpose well. It's no different from Survivor, Big Brother or Dancing With the Stars. Each has its own audience. This is, after all, the entertainment industry.
(09-11-2020 08:17 AM)EigenEagle Wrote: Six seasons into the CFP, and the only real controversies might be over who is the #4 seed. No one can really argue the teams that got the G5 Access Bowl each year deserved it.
That, plus the money the G5 is getting is much better than from the BCS. I don't see an upside of the BCS over the CFP TBH.
Yes, complaints about the CFP selection process miss how basically perfectly the four teams chosen have tracked what the old system, or just relying on the AP/Coaches polls, would have produced.
Yes, but it should still revert back to the BCS selection process regardless. That felt legitimate because you can't manipulate a computer week-to-week.
A committee feels artificial and manufactured. They can draw up whatever conclusion they feel like, and then come up with BS reasons after-the-fact.
I have in past years taken a composite of five rankings (the combined AP and Coaches Polls , Massey Composite and major computer rankings). In every year, this composite picked all four CFP teams and at least 11 of the 12 NY6 teams correctly. This shows two things:
1) that the selection committee rankings are as good as anybody's, and
2) the committee is totally unnecessary.
For all we know, the committee might be using that same composite or something quite like it in private, and then pretending to have their own secret process when the cameras are rolling. The only reason to have the committee is to create a highly rated weeknight show for ESPN, and it has served that purpose well. It's no different from Survivor, Big Brother or Dancing With the Stars. Each has its own audience. This is, after all, the entertainment industry.
Good point.
Also, the current Big Brother All-Stars season is terrible.
(09-11-2020 08:17 AM)EigenEagle Wrote: Six seasons into the CFP, and the only real controversies might be over who is the #4 seed. No one can really argue the teams that got the G5 Access Bowl each year deserved it.
That, plus the money the G5 is getting is much better than from the BCS. I don't see an upside of the BCS over the CFP TBH.
Yes, complaints about the CFP selection process miss how basically perfectly the four teams chosen have tracked what the old system, or just relying on the AP/Coaches polls, would have produced.
Yes, but it should still revert back to the BCS selection process regardless. That felt legitimate because you can't manipulate a computer week-to-week.
A committee feels artificial and manufactured. They can draw up whatever conclusion they feel like, and then come up with BS reasons after-the-fact.
Problem is, when computers don't produce the result people "feel" or "eye test" think is correct - like in 2003 when the computers put Oklahoma into the BCS title game over #1 (in the polls) USC even though Oklahoma just got cold-cocked in the Big 12 title game - then people howl about how computers can produced ****-eyed results.
What was good about the BCS system is that it combined human eyeballs with dispassionate computers. What seems to work about the CFP committee is that they seem to rely a lot on these same computers when making their judgments.
(This post was last modified: 09-11-2020 01:21 PM by quo vadis.)
(09-10-2020 08:24 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote: BCS was perfect. The only flaw was it deciding 2 teams instead of 4 or 8.
Idc if the results are the same. BCS feels legitimate. Committee feels like fat, smelly old men arbitrarily deciding something.
Yep. The BCS wasn't perfect, but it did have these attributes:
(1) A degree of transparency. You knew what the formula was. The computer rankings that went into the formula, the algorithms were open-source.
(2) Every team from Alabama to Louisiana-Monroe and in between had relatively equal access to be ranked.
(3) People with a vested interest (e.g., Conference ADs who would benefit financially if a member of their Conference got an at-large bid) in the process were nearly all absent from the process.
(4) There were clear benchmarks. Kirk Herbstreit cried to the high heavens when Northern Illinois gained a spot into the 2013 Orange Bowl. Kirk needed to shut up. Northern Illinois cleared the benchmark (they were a champion from a non-automatic qualifying conference, they were ranked in the Top 16, and they were ahead of a champion of an automatic qualifying conference). NIU 100% EARNED their bid to the Orange Bowl, and it couldn't be taken away from them.
Compare that today:
(1) There is almost NO transparency. The committee meets behind closed doors, and basically never talks about their delibrations.
(2) The level of inequal access has increased since the BCS days. The committee will always discount a team that has "Sun Belt" as their conference affiliation. The computers never did such a thing, they saw teams agnostic of their conference affiliation.
(3) Nearly everybody on the committee has a vested interest of some sort in the results.
(4) There are no clear benchmarks, and ranking manipulation is fairly easy to do. If, for instance, Utah State and Memphis both go 13-0 with both being ranked in the Top 5 of all the computer polls --- well, only one of them is guaranteed a NYD Bowl bid. It's highly unlikely they're both getting in in any circumstance. They could keep Utah State ranked at just a low-enough level to prevent them getting a bid. They could manipulate things in a way they couldn't do with NIU in 2012.
(09-11-2020 01:51 PM)MidknightWhiskey Wrote: 0% chance the AAC goes for a G5 playoff and if they somehow did the top teams would leave and refuse to be part of it.
Then we need to find a way to a have a G5 playoff.
(This post was last modified: 09-11-2020 01:56 PM by Scoochpooch1.)
(09-11-2020 08:17 AM)EigenEagle Wrote: Six seasons into the CFP, and the only real controversies might be over who is the #4 seed. No one can really argue the teams that got the G5 Access Bowl each year deserved it.
That, plus the money the G5 is getting is much better than from the BCS. I don't see an upside of the BCS over the CFP TBH.
Yes, complaints about the CFP selection process miss how basically perfectly the four teams chosen have tracked what the old system, or just relying on the AP/Coaches polls, would have produced.
Yes, but it should still revert back to the BCS selection process regardless. That felt legitimate because you can't manipulate a computer week-to-week.
A committee feels artificial and manufactured. They can draw up whatever conclusion they feel like, and then come up with BS reasons after-the-fact.
I have in past years taken a composite of five rankings (the combined AP and Coaches Polls , Massey Composite and major computer rankings). In every year, this composite picked all four CFP teams and at least 11 of the 12 NY6 teams correctly. This shows two things:
1) that the selection committee rankings are as good as anybody's, and
2) the committee is totally unnecessary.
For all we know, the committee might be using that same composite or something quite like it in private, and then pretending to have their own secret process when the cameras are rolling. The only reason to have the committee is to create a highly rated weeknight show for ESPN, and it has served that purpose well. It's no different from Survivor, Big Brother or Dancing With the Stars. Each has its own audience. This is, after all, the entertainment industry.
Good point.
Also, the current Big Brother All-Stars season is terrible.
I think the problem with college football isn't whether a committee, computer rankings, CSNBBS, or anyone else chooses who gets in. The problems are too few teams get in and if you expand the season you worry about lengthening the season, increasing the number and threat of injuries, making football into a two semester sport, etc. In 2018, I don't care who was picking, either Oklahoma or Ohio State was going to get left out when both were deserving of playing for the national championship. In practically any other NCAA sport, every team that wants to play for the national championship has a chance to play for it (I can't help Ivy League football). In FBS football, half of the conferences have practically no chance of playing for the national championship before the season starts (this COVID-19 season excluded when there's a decent chance a G5 could get in). The Big Ten conference champion didn't get in the CFP three consecutive years, the Big Ten didn't get any teams in the Playoff in back to back years, and the Pac-12 hasn't had a Playoff team since 2016. On the other hand, there isn't much you can do with the current system. If UCF goes 12-0 but doesn't have any significant out of conference wins but Georgia goes to SEC Championship Game and loses to an undefeated Alabama team, most of us would consider the one loss Georgia team to be a better team than UCF. Is it fair for UCF to go 12-0 and miss the Playoff? No. But is it fair for Georgia to miss the Playoff because they lost to Alabama when UCF didn't have to play them? No. These questions aren't asked in men's or women's basketball, baseball, women's volleyball, soccer, you name it. In most regular seasons men's basketball gets the Champions Classic between four of the biggest blue bloods in the sport as well as the Big Ten/ACC Challenge. Good luck getting Alabama and Clemson to play each other on an annual basis and good luck getting an SEC/Big Ten Challenge annually.
It's easier for the NCAA men's basketball Selection Committee than the CFP Committee. Not only do they get to choose more teams and the 69th best team (or 37th best at large team) has no chance of winning the NCAA Tournament and most likely wins 1-2 games beyond the Round of 64 but NCAA teams play approx. 30 game seasons vs. 12 game seasons to judge teams on. Ohio State and Penn State every year play just once and many years home field advantage determines who wins the game. Who's to say Penn State wasn't the better team in some of the years Ohio State won in Columbus or Ohio State wasn't better the years Penn State won in State College? Between Duke and North Carolina, they play twice in the regular season and if they split either they meet in the ACC Tournament or one gets upset earlier and the other would get to use that as a tiebreaker result (the ACC regular season can also be a tiebreaker). Also, even if the NCAA "gets it wrong" as to a #1 vs. a #2 seed, often the #2 seed still has a chance to win the tournament. If college football was college basketball, 2017 and 2018 Ohio State would have been a #2 seed. If college basketball was college football, 2016 Villanova doesn't even get a chance to play for the national championship.
I'm not saying I don't enjoy college football or football in general but it has a pretty big flaw that's hard to fix and adding more teams only adds more problems because of the nature of the sport.
(09-11-2020 09:10 AM)quo vadis Wrote: Yes, complaints about the CFP selection process miss how basically perfectly the four teams chosen have tracked what the old system, or just relying on the AP/Coaches polls, would have produced.
Yes, but it should still revert back to the BCS selection process regardless. That felt legitimate because you can't manipulate a computer week-to-week.
A committee feels artificial and manufactured. They can draw up whatever conclusion they feel like, and then come up with BS reasons after-the-fact.
I have in past years taken a composite of five rankings (the combined AP and Coaches Polls , Massey Composite and major computer rankings). In every year, this composite picked all four CFP teams and at least 11 of the 12 NY6 teams correctly. This shows two things:
1) that the selection committee rankings are as good as anybody's, and
2) the committee is totally unnecessary.
For all we know, the committee might be using that same composite or something quite like it in private, and then pretending to have their own secret process when the cameras are rolling. The only reason to have the committee is to create a highly rated weeknight show for ESPN, and it has served that purpose well. It's no different from Survivor, Big Brother or Dancing With the Stars. Each has its own audience. This is, after all, the entertainment industry.
Good point.
Also, the current Big Brother All-Stars season is terrible.
BB22 is awesome...so far.
If you're one of the two Nicole "coinslot nostrils" fans out there...it might be appealing.
But considering the ratings are free-falling and the show's receiving universal backlash on social media...it's clear the fans wanted legends Janelle/Kaysar/Keesha to go a bit further, instead of having to bare no-personality Nasal Nicole crying hourly about how “scary” Janelle or any other strong woman is.
(This post was last modified: 09-11-2020 03:16 PM by IWokeUpLikeThis.)
(09-11-2020 09:10 AM)quo vadis Wrote: Yes, complaints about the CFP selection process miss how basically perfectly the four teams chosen have tracked what the old system, or just relying on the AP/Coaches polls, would have produced.
Yes, but it should still revert back to the BCS selection process regardless. That felt legitimate because you can't manipulate a computer week-to-week.
A committee feels artificial and manufactured. They can draw up whatever conclusion they feel like, and then come up with BS reasons after-the-fact.
I have in past years taken a composite of five rankings (the combined AP and Coaches Polls , Massey Composite and major computer rankings). In every year, this composite picked all four CFP teams and at least 11 of the 12 NY6 teams correctly. This shows two things:
1) that the selection committee rankings are as good as anybody's, and
2) the committee is totally unnecessary.
For all we know, the committee might be using that same composite or something quite like it in private, and then pretending to have their own secret process when the cameras are rolling. The only reason to have the committee is to create a highly rated weeknight show for ESPN, and it has served that purpose well. It's no different from Survivor, Big Brother or Dancing With the Stars. Each has its own audience. This is, after all, the entertainment industry.
Good point.
Also, the current Big Brother All-Stars season is terrible.
BB22 is awesome...so far.
In the interest of full disclosure, anything I say about any of those shows is pure hearsay. I have never watched a single episode of any of them.
(09-11-2020 02:34 PM)schmolik Wrote: It's easier for the NCAA men's basketball Selection Committee than the CFP Committee.
In theory that makes sense, but ... I would say that most years there is more kvetching and angst over the final product of the NCAA hoops selection committee than over the work of CFP. Every year, we spend about 48 hours after selection Sunday arguing and debating about who the committee shafted, whose bubble burst unfairly, etc. That's basically the #1 sports story, who the selection committee "robbed", until the tournament tips off. That's true even though the 25-4 Colgate team with a 49 RPI that got left out after losing its conference tournament final but which legions of people think should have got in had essentially zero chance of winning the national title.
In contrast, the CFP choices don't usually generate nearly as much controversy. I would say the three years with a touch of controversy were 2014 (TCU left out), 2016 (Ohio State in over Penn State) and 2017 (Alabama in over Ohio State), but none of those controversies were very controversial. The clear consensus was that the right teams got in. The other three years there was no controversy at all.
(This post was last modified: 09-11-2020 06:45 PM by quo vadis.)
(09-11-2020 08:17 AM)EigenEagle Wrote: Six seasons into the CFP, and the only real controversies might be over who is the #4 seed. No one can really argue the teams that got the G5 Access Bowl each year deserved it.
That, plus the money the G5 is getting is much better than from the BCS. I don't see an upside of the BCS over the CFP TBH.
Yes, complaints about the CFP selection process miss how basically perfectly the four teams chosen have tracked what the old system, or just relying on the AP/Coaches polls, would have produced.
Yes, but it should still revert back to the BCS selection process regardless. That felt legitimate because you can't manipulate a computer week-to-week.
A committee feels artificial and manufactured. They can draw up whatever conclusion they feel like, and then come up with BS reasons after-the-fact.
Problem is, when computers don't produce the result people "feel" or "eye test" think is correct - like in 2003 when the computers put Oklahoma into the BCS title game over #1 (in the polls) USC even though Oklahoma just got cold-cocked in the Big 12 title game - then people howl about how computers can produced ****-eyed results.
What was good about the BCS system is that it combined human eyeballs with dispassionate computers. What seems to work about the CFP committee is that they seem to rely a lot on these same computers when making their judgments.
I’ll take exception to using the 2003 result as a knock against the BCS because it (A) would not have happened under any under BCS formula (particularly the post-2003 formula which was used in all subsequent years) and (B) forced the computers to ignore margin of victory. Similarly, 2001 should have seen Oregon not Nebraska play against Miami.
/
A5 committee is a joke
