Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
The Unauthorized, Semi-Official 5-1-2 Mega Thread
Author Message
Eldonabe Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,643
Joined: Aug 2016
Reputation: 373
I Root For: All but Uconn
Location: Van by the River
Post: #21
RE: The Unauthorized, Semi-Official 5-1-2 Mega Thread
(01-04-2021 12:53 PM)bullet Wrote:  Who cares? If they don't deserve it, they will lose.

The expansion is about making sure everyone who deserves a shot gets in and that its not decided in a smoke filled room. Its not about weeding out teams. Reality is that its pretty rare that #8 teams would win it, so its not a big deal if you have a #18 Big 10 champ in place of them. And maybe that #18 Big 10 champ found their QB after starting off 1-4. They won something on the field, not just in a board room.

"Who cares" is the exact point.... Who wants to see Oregon get killed when they should not be there in the first place? I don't like any blowouts, but it should at least be a team that earned the right to receive it. If you are going to run out 8 teams for a shot at the NC, you want the 8 best teams possible. I have no skin in this game as far as personal rooting interests, I just want to watch the best possible matchups. I am the prototypical fan that College Football wants to keep because I am watching regardless of who is playing - you start tossing unqualified teams in to the tournament, I am losing interest real quick - because "Who Cares".

The last thing Saban wants to have happen is get one of his star players banged up because he has to play some throw in team that otherwise should not be on the same field in the first place.


Auto-bid = everyone gets a trophy mentality.


The image of the "smoke filled room" wreaks of conspiracy and fraud. Are these committees susceptible to bias - absolutely, but in the end there have not been any egregious omissions or egregious inclusions in the 4 team field since going to 4 teams. As I noted earlier ND should not have been in this year IMO but it is not like they kept an undefeated conference champ out of the final 4. A&M was pretty good this year but still flawed.



I think subconsciously most that argue for bigger tournaments and auto-bids are comparing this to the NCAA Basketball tournament (again subconsciously). The reality is that in any given year there are at least 10-12 teams with a legit shot at winning in basketball. The time and nature of the sport easily support that format. Football probably only has 3-4 legitimate contenders each year - at most - and it is such a physically grueling sport that you can only play once a week, you just cannot have a 5-6 week long playoff tournament. Then you ahve to shorten the season and take away games to fit all that in and NOBODY wants to play less games...
(This post was last modified: 01-04-2021 01:25 PM by Eldonabe.)
01-04-2021 01:24 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CoastalJuan Offline
Business Drunk
*

Posts: 4,342
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation: 196
I Root For: ECU
Location: Right near da beeech
Post: #22
RE: The Unauthorized, Semi-Official 5-1-2 Mega Thread
(01-04-2021 12:00 PM)Eldonabe Wrote:  
(01-03-2021 04:39 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  5-1-2 and other variations of enlarged playoff formats get talked about a lot on here so I think it’s time to concentrate conversations about them into a mega thread.

Here’s my modest proposal:

Autobids for the P5 champs and the highest rated G5 plus 2 at larges.

Dump the ESPN hand selected committee for the old BCS formula to determine (one tweak though—no more coaches poll. None of them actually have time to put much thought in their votes and I don’t like the idea of coaches who have a stake in the outcome having influence in the final rankings—assemble a large group of ex coaches to be voters)

Who is the top G5 champ
Who the top 2 at larges are
Seeding for the field of 8

Use the Rose, Fiesta, Sugar, and Orange Bowls as quarter final sites.

Bid out the semi final and final sites each year.

Seeds 1-3 get to pick their quarter final sites in order: 1-2-3. The remaining bowl gets the 4 v 5 match up.

Semi finals played around the 10th-14th of Jan. Final the Saturday of the weekend before the Super Bowl (Pro Bowl Weekend).


NO NO NO.... to auto bids. This year is EXACTLY why auto bids should not be allowed.

The PAC-12's highest ranked team (USC) was 17 and THEY LOST in their conference championship game to #25 Oregon.

This auto bid BS is only about finding a way to get a G5 in the tournament and that is it. These auto bid proposals are merely a way to get the P5 to agree to it. Frankly if I was any of the P5 except the Pac12 - I would vote against it too (the auto bid). The current 4 team event works - you are always getting 4 of the 5 best teams in the country (IMO they pandered to ND who should not have gotten in this year).

IMO Cincy would have earned a berth in an 8 team tourney without auto bids this year. They put up a decent performance against an uninspired A&M team this year which was great, but if they lined up against Alabama in the 1-8 game instead, the odds of it being ugly are high. I still say they earned the right in that scenario but it would have likely proven the (arguing) points on a few levels against teams that should not be in this tourney.


This auto bid stuff is setting 1 if not 2 teams up annually for getting decimated in the first round game most years. I can't imagine how bad of an arse whoopin' Bama would have put on Oregon. I don't want to see that and most of the pure CBF fans don't either.

You will never get 100% concensus agreement on the 4 or 8 teams that get into a BCS tournament (no matter the system), but auto bids virtually guarantee that a team that does not deserve to be there gets the chance to.... If the top 8 are "voted in" the only one who may have an argument is #9 and maybe #10.

I was previously of the mindset that there should be no handicap auto-bids, for the G5 or the P5. The problem with going 100% at-large, however, it that division(where applicable) and conference championships stop mattering as much.

Similar to how the 4-team CFP killed interest in the vast majority of bowls, so goes the conference races if they aren't a meaningful factor.

Yes, it's a little artificial, but look at the NFL's system, which we can agree is as close to perfect as you can get. No one is watching Eagles-Skins yesterday if a playoff spot isn't on the line. We are after intrigue and ratings after all.
01-04-2021 01:31 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 46,368
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 1707
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #23
RE: The Unauthorized, Semi-Official 5-1-2 Mega Thread
(01-04-2021 01:24 PM)Crayton Wrote:  
(01-04-2021 11:50 AM)bullet Wrote:  
(01-04-2021 01:30 AM)Crayton Wrote:  I’ll bite on the mega thread. My twist to the above vanilla is a Wild Card Game on Championship Saturday between the two best teams not in a CCG; winner gets 1 of the at large spots; fans get great TV. The 2nd and final at large likely then goes to a CCG runner-up (Notre Dame this year).

Can’t argue against Muskie’s postseason format... but it does take us deep into January, doesn’t it. I still think there is a possibility of a mid-December round.

I would say if you do that, the idea would be to have it the week after the CCGs, so there isn't TV competition. And you could still do the CFP show after the CCGs. In your scenario, it has to be the week before for the wildcards.

One twist on that would be to have a game between the top 2 G5 champs instead. Of course, that could lead to a less than optimal 8th team, but it also expands access.

You wouldn’t have to do it the week before the wildcard. The wildcard would be between 2 non-CCG teams (A&M vs. Indiana this year). It would serve as a 6th play-in game (alongside the 5 Power CCGs). There’d still be an 8th spot for a team upset in their CCG, the type of safety net the SEC would want to keep.

I think the G5 would keep the current beauty pageant aspect of their shared bid. It keeps more teams in play in case there is an upset. Again, if you are asking 2 teams to play in mid-December you might as well ask 8.

It gets pretty convoluted if you have the official CFP ratings before the CCGs to determine the top wild card and then redo everything after the CCGs to determine the other wild card. Maybe the team who won the play-in game is no longer even the top wild card. Maybe the team who beat them out got stomped in the CCG and somebody who didn't make the wild card game now looks better. You really do have to have one official final CFP rating.
01-04-2021 01:32 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BullsFanInTX Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 9,405
Joined: May 2008
Reputation: 238
I Root For: USF
Location:
Post: #24
RE: The Unauthorized, Semi-Official 5-1-2 Mega Thread
It we are not going to go with all 10 conferences getting auto bids (the best way to do a playoff), then I believe the best a fairest way to do 6 autobids and 2 at-larges, is to go with the top 6 ranked conference champs. Most years that will be 5 P5 champs and one G5 champ, but some years it will be 4 P5 champs and 2 G5 champs.

Why should a #25 ranked Pac 12 champ get a bid over a #8 ranked AAC champ and #12 ranked Sun Belt champ? If someone can honestly answer as to why that would be fair, by all means, please indicate the fairness in that.

After all, fairness is what makes a playoff, a playoff. Heck, a 7-9 Washington Football Team made the NFL playoffs, but you know what, they got there fair and square by winning their division. It wasn't their fault the NFC East sucked.
(This post was last modified: 01-04-2021 01:37 PM by BullsFanInTX.)
01-04-2021 01:34 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 46,368
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 1707
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #25
RE: The Unauthorized, Semi-Official 5-1-2 Mega Thread
(01-04-2021 01:24 PM)Eldonabe Wrote:  
(01-04-2021 12:53 PM)bullet Wrote:  Who cares? If they don't deserve it, they will lose.

The expansion is about making sure everyone who deserves a shot gets in and that its not decided in a smoke filled room. Its not about weeding out teams. Reality is that its pretty rare that #8 teams would win it, so its not a big deal if you have a #18 Big 10 champ in place of them. And maybe that #18 Big 10 champ found their QB after starting off 1-4. They won something on the field, not just in a board room.

"Who cares" is the exact point.... Who wants to see Oregon get killed when they should not be there in the first place? I don't like any blowouts, but it should at least be a team that earned the right to receive it. If you are going to run out 8 teams for a shot at the NC, you want the 8 best teams possible. I have no skin in this game as far as personal rooting interests, I just want to watch the best possible matchups. I am the prototypical fan that College Football wants to keep because I am watching regardless of who is playing - you start tossing unqualified teams in to the tournament, I am losing interest real quick - because "Who Cares".

The last thing Saban wants to have happen is get one of his star players banged up because he has to play some throw in team that otherwise should not be on the same field in the first place.


Auto-bid = everyone gets a trophy mentality.


The image of the "smoke filled room" wreaks of conspiracy and fraud. Are these committees susceptible to bias - absolutely, but in the end there have not been any egregious omissions or egregious inclusions in the 4 team field since going to 4 teams. As I noted earlier ND should not have been in this year IMO but it is not like they kept an undefeated conference champ out of the final 4. A&M was pretty good this year but still flawed.



I think subconsciously most that argue for bigger tournaments and auto-bids are comparing this to the NCAA Basketball tournament (again subconsciously). The reality is that in any given year there are at least 10-12 teams with a legit shot at winning in basketball. The time and nature of the sport easily support that format. Football probably only has 3-4 legitimate contenders each year - at most - and it is such a physically grueling sport that you can only play once a week, you just cannot have a 5-6 week long playoff tournament. Then you ahve to shorten the season and take away games to fit all that in and NOBODY wants to play less games...

If you win a beauty contest, you did NOT earn it. The wild cards are the ones who got participation trophies. The team who won a conference title DID earn it. We don't know who the best teams are until they play. Polls and committees and ratings systems have repeatedly proven that they really don't know.

TCU was probably the best team in the nation in 2014 and got left out. 2008 you could have made an argument for anyone in the top 8. 2007 you probably could have gone 9 deep and #10 Hawaii was unbeaten. 2004 Utah #6 was unbeaten. 2001 #s2 to #10 were interchangeable. 2000 it was #2s through #7 interchangeable. 1998 it wsa #s 2 through #9 and #10 Tulane was unbeaten.
01-04-2021 01:41 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Eldonabe Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,643
Joined: Aug 2016
Reputation: 373
I Root For: All but Uconn
Location: Van by the River
Post: #26
RE: The Unauthorized, Semi-Official 5-1-2 Mega Thread
(01-04-2021 01:31 PM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  I was previously of the mindset that there should be no handicap auto-bids, for the G5 or the P5. The problem with going 100% at-large, however, it that division(where applicable) and conference championships stop mattering as much.

Similar to how the 4-team CFP killed interest in the vast majority of bowls, so goes the conference races if they aren't a meaningful factor.

Yes, it's a little artificial, but look at the NFL's system, which we can agree is as close to perfect as you can get. No one is watching Eagles-Skins yesterday if a playoff spot isn't on the line. We are after intrigue and ratings after all.

95% of the time the P5 Conference Championship is meaningful because it is usually 2 of the best 3 teams in the conference playing for it at worst. That is a final resume builder before the committee has to pick.

It also should weed out a paper champion - Like USC this year. They win that championship game and maybe they are ranked in the 8-9 range and in consideration of the final playoff spot in an 8 team tourney?
01-04-2021 01:42 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 46,368
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 1707
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #27
RE: The Unauthorized, Semi-Official 5-1-2 Mega Thread
Don't try to read people's minds. You aren't good at it.

I think the basketball tournament is too big. It is 68 out of 350 schools. Nearly 20%.

An 8 team football tourney is 8 out of 130. 6.1%. I think 16 would be too big unless you include all 10 conference champs. And I really don't think all conferences really belong in it.
01-04-2021 01:44 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Online
Legend
*

Posts: 37,825
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 1163
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #28
RE: The Unauthorized, Semi-Official 5-1-2 Mega Thread
(01-04-2021 12:37 PM)bullet Wrote:  The main point of expansion is to make sure all deserving teams make it. If you determine that by poll, you defeat part of the purpose.

If that's the main point, than it doesn't seem to be much of a point. The CFP, with its many blowouts in the semifinals, has shown that, if anything, there are typically fewer than four deserving teams, there never have been eight.

Plus, "conference champ" is a very poor indicator of deserving. Why should a team get in merely because they beat out 11 or 12 other teams, none of whom may have been any good? That's not merit, that's "affirmative action" for conferences.

If you are worried about "smoke filled rooms" deciding the eight, then just let an aggregation of computers do it.
(This post was last modified: 01-04-2021 01:56 PM by quo vadis.)
01-04-2021 01:53 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 46,368
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 1707
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #29
RE: The Unauthorized, Semi-Official 5-1-2 Mega Thread
(01-04-2021 01:53 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-04-2021 12:37 PM)bullet Wrote:  The main point of expansion is to make sure all deserving teams make it. If you determine that by poll, you defeat part of the purpose.

If that's the main point, than it doesn't seem to be much of a point. The CFP, with its many blowouts in the semifinals, has shown that, if anything, there are typically fewer than four deserving teams, there never have been eight.

Plus, "conference champ" is a very poor indicator of deserving. Why should a team get in merely because they beat out 11 or 12 other teams, none of whom may have been any good? That's not merit, that's "affirmative action" for conferences.

If you are worried about "smoke filled rooms" deciding the eight, then just let an aggregation of computers do it.

Computers are stupid. They simply spit out whatever is programmed in. Which may be meaningless. Do you include margin of victory? If so, how do you account for a team that passes 50 times a game vs. one that passes 10 times a game and so has a lot fewer plays. Plus with only 12-13 games, there simply isn't enough data for them to be statistically valid. Basic statistics, you have to make adjustments if you don't have a sample of at least 21 and your margin of error gets really big.

One of the most popular ratings system is Sagarin. I'll just give one example. I could give you a dozen or more. In 1968 Texas went 10-1-1 and was the top team in Sagarin. Ohio St. was 12-0 that year and the consensus national champion. (Texas isn't in the SEC or Orlando so they don't claim that as a national championship).

Note that Sagarin in the BCS used his ELO based system. That is a system used in rating chess players. Ratings are considered provisional until you have played 21 games. There simply isn't enough data to be valid. And with conferences, the 12 or 13 games provides even less data because they aren't randomly playing the other 129 teams. They are mostly playing those in their conference.
01-04-2021 02:08 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Online
Legend
*

Posts: 37,825
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 1163
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #30
RE: The Unauthorized, Semi-Official 5-1-2 Mega Thread
(01-04-2021 02:08 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(01-04-2021 01:53 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-04-2021 12:37 PM)bullet Wrote:  The main point of expansion is to make sure all deserving teams make it. If you determine that by poll, you defeat part of the purpose.

If that's the main point, than it doesn't seem to be much of a point. The CFP, with its many blowouts in the semifinals, has shown that, if anything, there are typically fewer than four deserving teams, there never have been eight.

Plus, "conference champ" is a very poor indicator of deserving. Why should a team get in merely because they beat out 11 or 12 other teams, none of whom may have been any good? That's not merit, that's "affirmative action" for conferences.

If you are worried about "smoke filled rooms" deciding the eight, then just let an aggregation of computers do it.

Computers are stupid. They simply spit out whatever is programmed in. Which may be meaningless. Do you include margin of victory? If so, how do you account for a team that passes 50 times a game vs. one that passes 10 times a game and so has a lot fewer plays. Plus with only 12-13 games, there simply isn't enough data for them to be statistically valid. Basic statistics, you have to make adjustments if you don't have a sample of at least 21 and your margin of error gets really big.

One of the most popular ratings system is Sagarin. I'll just give one example. I could give you a dozen or more. In 1968 Texas went 10-1-1 and was the top team in Sagarin. Ohio St. was 12-0 that year and the consensus national champion. (Texas isn't in the SEC or Orlando so they don't claim that as a national championship).

That's why we don't use just one computer. You use an agglomeration of computers that balance out idiosyncrasies in the various formula.

Conference champs is likely to be far worse. There, you are deciding playoffs based on a small sample size of games played in the closed universe of your conference. The most valuable games to determine national worthiness are OOC games, and they are disregarded in determining conference champs. That is just nonsensical, IMO.
01-04-2021 02:11 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Stugray2 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,528
Joined: Jan 2017
Reputation: 268
I Root For: tOSU SJSU Stan'
Location: South Bay Area CA
Post: #31
RE: The Unauthorized, Semi-Official 5-1-2 Mega Thread
I think they may go to 8, but it will not include any guarantees for conference champions or G5. In reality, they emphasis they place of conference champions will still be there, so you'll get at least 4 CCG winners in, most years all 5 (a 9-4 CCG winner is not getting through ... this might well encourage divisionless football to have the highest two ranked teams in a conference playing). G5 is problematic. Sometimes one might get in, sometimes not. There will be no desire to formalize that from the P5.

I think they stick with the NY6, but 4 instead of 2 will be playoff games, with one a consolation for the first two out, and one will be the G5 access or at-large if a G5 makes the top 8. Semi-finals will be played at a site of the higher seeds stadium or a designated NFL stadium provided by their conference. The NCG gets pushed back one week, but otherwise the same.

In this package 7 playoff games for sale instead of 3, so potentially more money.

This is the easiest, minimum change. Only happens if more money on the table. But 5-2-1 won't actually happen, although it will look like it most years.
01-04-2021 02:11 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 46,368
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 1707
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #32
RE: The Unauthorized, Semi-Official 5-1-2 Mega Thread
(01-04-2021 02:11 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-04-2021 02:08 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(01-04-2021 01:53 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-04-2021 12:37 PM)bullet Wrote:  The main point of expansion is to make sure all deserving teams make it. If you determine that by poll, you defeat part of the purpose.

If that's the main point, than it doesn't seem to be much of a point. The CFP, with its many blowouts in the semifinals, has shown that, if anything, there are typically fewer than four deserving teams, there never have been eight.

Plus, "conference champ" is a very poor indicator of deserving. Why should a team get in merely because they beat out 11 or 12 other teams, none of whom may have been any good? That's not merit, that's "affirmative action" for conferences.

If you are worried about "smoke filled rooms" deciding the eight, then just let an aggregation of computers do it.

Computers are stupid. They simply spit out whatever is programmed in. Which may be meaningless. Do you include margin of victory? If so, how do you account for a team that passes 50 times a game vs. one that passes 10 times a game and so has a lot fewer plays. Plus with only 12-13 games, there simply isn't enough data for them to be statistically valid. Basic statistics, you have to make adjustments if you don't have a sample of at least 21 and your margin of error gets really big.

One of the most popular ratings system is Sagarin. I'll just give one example. I could give you a dozen or more. In 1968 Texas went 10-1-1 and was the top team in Sagarin. Ohio St. was 12-0 that year and the consensus national champion. (Texas isn't in the SEC or Orlando so they don't claim that as a national championship).

That's why we don't use just one computer. You use an agglomeration of computers that balance out idiosyncrasies in the various formula.

Conference champs is likely to be far worse. There, you are deciding playoffs based on a small sample size of games played in the closed universe of your conference. The most valuable games to determine national worthiness are OOC games, and they are disregarded in determining conference champs. That is just nonsensical, IMO.

Using 6 statistically invalid systems doesn't give you a statistically valid result. Its just simply not as prone to error as a single system. And it doesn't account for the fact that computers are just stupid black boxes, totally dependent on what one programmer decides is important.
01-04-2021 02:21 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 46,368
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 1707
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #33
RE: The Unauthorized, Semi-Official 5-1-2 Mega Thread
(01-04-2021 02:11 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  I think they may go to 8, but it will not include any guarantees for conference champions or G5. In reality, they emphasis they place of conference champions will still be there, so you'll get at least 4 CCG winners in, most years all 5 (a 9-4 CCG winner is not getting through ... this might well encourage divisionless football to have the highest two ranked teams in a conference playing). G5 is problematic. Sometimes one might get in, sometimes not. There will be no desire to formalize that from the P5.

I think they stick with the NY6, but 4 instead of 2 will be playoff games, with one a consolation for the first two out, and one will be the G5 access or at-large if a G5 makes the top 8. Semi-finals will be played at a site of the higher seeds stadium or a designated NFL stadium provided by their conference. The NCG gets pushed back one week, but otherwise the same.

In this package 7 playoff games for sale instead of 3, so potentially more money.

This is the easiest, minimum change. Only happens if more money on the table. But 5-2-1 won't actually happen, although it will look like it most years.

The chance of going to 8 without guaranteeing the conference champs is statistically insignificant. The commissioners simply won't agree to it. The ACC, Pac 12, Big 10 and Big 12 know that they could get left out a lot if FSU & Clemson, USC & Oregon, Ohio St. & Michigan and Texas and OU get in a slump at the same time. The SEC even failed to have a top 12 team one time in the BCS era.
01-04-2021 02:26 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Online
Legend
*

Posts: 37,825
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 1163
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #34
RE: The Unauthorized, Semi-Official 5-1-2 Mega Thread
(01-04-2021 02:21 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(01-04-2021 02:11 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-04-2021 02:08 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(01-04-2021 01:53 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-04-2021 12:37 PM)bullet Wrote:  The main point of expansion is to make sure all deserving teams make it. If you determine that by poll, you defeat part of the purpose.

If that's the main point, than it doesn't seem to be much of a point. The CFP, with its many blowouts in the semifinals, has shown that, if anything, there are typically fewer than four deserving teams, there never have been eight.

Plus, "conference champ" is a very poor indicator of deserving. Why should a team get in merely because they beat out 11 or 12 other teams, none of whom may have been any good? That's not merit, that's "affirmative action" for conferences.

If you are worried about "smoke filled rooms" deciding the eight, then just let an aggregation of computers do it.

Computers are stupid. They simply spit out whatever is programmed in. Which may be meaningless. Do you include margin of victory? If so, how do you account for a team that passes 50 times a game vs. one that passes 10 times a game and so has a lot fewer plays. Plus with only 12-13 games, there simply isn't enough data for them to be statistically valid. Basic statistics, you have to make adjustments if you don't have a sample of at least 21 and your margin of error gets really big.

One of the most popular ratings system is Sagarin. I'll just give one example. I could give you a dozen or more. In 1968 Texas went 10-1-1 and was the top team in Sagarin. Ohio St. was 12-0 that year and the consensus national champion. (Texas isn't in the SEC or Orlando so they don't claim that as a national championship).

That's why we don't use just one computer. You use an agglomeration of computers that balance out idiosyncrasies in the various formula.

Conference champs is likely to be far worse. There, you are deciding playoffs based on a small sample size of games played in the closed universe of your conference. The most valuable games to determine national worthiness are OOC games, and they are disregarded in determining conference champs. That is just nonsensical, IMO.

Using 6 statistically invalid systems doesn't give you a statistically valid result. Its just simply not as prone to error as a single system. And it doesn't account for the fact that computers are just stupid black boxes, totally dependent on what one programmer decides is important.

Well, the thing is, the computers do seem to do a pretty good job. I mean, look at last year's final (after bowls) computer top 10:

LSU
Ohio State
Clemson
Georgia
Penn State
Alabama
Oregon
Florida
Notre Dame
Oklahoma

Sure, we can argue about this or that, but it seems pretty reasonable.

Most computer formulas are not created by partisans with axes to grind. They are computer geeks first and they try to be as objective/accurate as possible. They are like baseball Sabermetric nerds. They are dedicated to the mathematics of modeling performance. That's what motivates them.

On the other hand, look what "conference champs" got us in the NY6 this year. A 4-2 Oregon team took a spot in the Fiesta Bowl over many better teams, just because ... conference champs.
(This post was last modified: 01-04-2021 02:28 PM by quo vadis.)
01-04-2021 02:26 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Fighting Muskie Online
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,326
Joined: Sep 2016
Reputation: 199
I Root For: Ohio St, UC,MAC
Location:
Post: #35
RE: The Unauthorized, Semi-Official 5-1-2 Mega Thread
Anti-Autobid/Pro-Straight 8 folks: 8 most deserving teams according to who? I don’t like the idea of a totally subjective means of choosing participants. Whether it’s the bias of the voters or a committee or whoever created the computer formula there is going to be huge biases present in that kind of system. Letting the CCGs be the path to the title for most of the participants gives a clear cut delineation of what teams need to do to make the field.

You have to remember that it’s the conferences who come to a joint agreement on the post season system (Bowl Alliance, Bowl Coalition, BCS, CFP). It is going to be incredibly hard to get the parties involved to agree to a system that doesn’t give all the major conferences guaranteed access and revenue. All of the multi-bowl post season plans to date have all had guaranteed access and guarantee revenue for all of the major conferences involved in the deal.

A conference title, even won in an upset, is an achievement. If it’s truly a fluke, then they simply won’t advance in the playoff.

Now, if we enact this system and say the PAC 12 repeatedly fails to produce champs in the top 10 and they consistently have their champs blown out then you tweak the system for the next cycle.
01-04-2021 02:44 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Fighting Muskie Online
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,326
Joined: Sep 2016
Reputation: 199
I Root For: Ohio St, UC,MAC
Location:
Post: #36
RE: The Unauthorized, Semi-Official 5-1-2 Mega Thread
One idea I do like is playing the semi’s and finals 6-7 days apart all in the same city.
01-04-2021 02:45 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Crayton Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 593
Joined: Feb 2019
Reputation: 51
I Root For: Florida
Location:
Post: #37
RE: The Unauthorized, Semi-Official 5-1-2 Mega Thread
(01-04-2021 01:32 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(01-04-2021 01:24 PM)Crayton Wrote:  
(01-04-2021 11:50 AM)bullet Wrote:  
(01-04-2021 01:30 AM)Crayton Wrote:  I’ll bite on the mega thread. My twist to the above vanilla is a Wild Card Game on Championship Saturday between the two best teams not in a CCG; winner gets 1 of the at large spots; fans get great TV. The 2nd and final at large likely then goes to a CCG runner-up (Notre Dame this year).

Can’t argue against Muskie’s postseason format... but it does take us deep into January, doesn’t it. I still think there is a possibility of a mid-December round.

I would say if you do that, the idea would be to have it the week after the CCGs, so there isn't TV competition. And you could still do the CFP show after the CCGs. In your scenario, it has to be the week before for the wildcards.

One twist on that would be to have a game between the top 2 G5 champs instead. Of course, that could lead to a less than optimal 8th team, but it also expands access.

You wouldn’t have to do it the week before the wildcard. The wildcard would be between 2 non-CCG teams (A&M vs. Indiana this year). It would serve as a 6th play-in game (alongside the 5 Power CCGs). There’d still be an 8th spot for a team upset in their CCG, the type of safety net the SEC would want to keep.

I think the G5 would keep the current beauty pageant aspect of their shared bid. It keeps more teams in play in case there is an upset. Again, if you are asking 2 teams to play in mid-December you might as well ask 8.

It gets pretty convoluted if you have the official CFP ratings before the CCGs to determine the top wild card and then redo everything after the CCGs to determine the other wild card. Maybe the team who won the play-in game is no longer even the top wild card. Maybe the team who beat them out got stomped in the CCG and somebody who didn't make the wild card game now looks better. You really do have to have one official final CFP rating.

Sorry, I am probably explaining myself poorly because I am not wholly following your point.

There are “official” rankings every week. You use the one before the CCGs to determine the WCG participants. Some conferences even use those rankings as a conference tie breaker. The final ranking after the CCGs then determine the last 2 spots (Top G5 and final at large) and potentially Quarterfinal seeding.

If you pair the top 2 at larges in a game, the winner won’t be passed by a 3rd team who is not playing. They may be passed by a team winning their CCG, but that doesn’t steal a spot from them.

Theoretically 2 top teams could be upset in their CCGs yet stay ranked above a Wild Card Champion. For example, many said if Alabama and Notre Dame lost their CCGs they would likely stay Top 4. My format would give the A&M-Indiana winner a playoff spot and force the polls/committee/computers to choose between Alabama and Norte Dame for the last spot.
01-04-2021 02:57 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
vandiver49 Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,321
Joined: Aug 2011
Reputation: 300
I Root For: USNA/UTK
Location: West GA
Post: #38
RE: The Unauthorized, Semi-Official 5-1-2 Mega Thread
(01-04-2021 12:53 PM)bullet Wrote:  Who cares? If they don't deserve it, they will lose.

The expansion is about making sure everyone who deserves a shot gets in and that its not decided in a smoke filled room. Its not about weeding out teams. Reality is that its pretty rare that #8 teams would win it, so its not a big deal if you have a #18 Big 10 champ in place of them. And maybe that #18 Big 10 champ found their QB after starting off 1-4. They won something on the field, not just in a board room.

C’mon bullet. The point of expansion is to make more money. The question is what system maximizes that goal for the P5. Which is why I Agree with you that auto bids are the way to go. It’s not like the committee goes away completely as they will still choose the wild card teams.
01-04-2021 03:08 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
schmolik Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,687
Joined: Sep 2019
Reputation: 56
I Root For: UIUC, PSU, Nova
Location: Philadelphia Suburbs
Post: #39
RE: The Unauthorized, Semi-Official 5-1-2 Mega Thread
The flip side is when we talk about conference champions getting automatic bids is in a field of 8 and 10 conferences who doesn't get in? Who is to say which two conferences don't get in (and this is assuming the second place SEC or Big Ten team is automatically out which opens up another can of worms)? Which conferences get automatic bids and which don't? If you want to give every FBS team a fair shot like men's (and women's) basketball, you'd have to have a field of at least 16 teams. If you have an 8 team field, you can't give every FBS conference champion an automatic bid. So is it more fair to say no automatic bids or some yes and some no? I say no automatic bids.
01-04-2021 03:19 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CoastalJuan Offline
Business Drunk
*

Posts: 4,342
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation: 196
I Root For: ECU
Location: Right near da beeech
Post: #40
RE: The Unauthorized, Semi-Official 5-1-2 Mega Thread
(01-04-2021 01:42 PM)Eldonabe Wrote:  
(01-04-2021 01:31 PM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  I was previously of the mindset that there should be no handicap auto-bids, for the G5 or the P5. The problem with going 100% at-large, however, it that division(where applicable) and conference championships stop mattering as much.

Similar to how the 4-team CFP killed interest in the vast majority of bowls, so goes the conference races if they aren't a meaningful factor.

Yes, it's a little artificial, but look at the NFL's system, which we can agree is as close to perfect as you can get. No one is watching Eagles-Skins yesterday if a playoff spot isn't on the line. We are after intrigue and ratings after all.

95% of the time the P5 Conference Championship is meaningful because it is usually 2 of the best 3 teams in the conference playing for it at worst. That is a final resume builder before the committee has to pick.

It also should weed out a paper champion - Like USC this year. They win that championship game and maybe they are ranked in the 8-9 range and in consideration of the final playoff spot in an 8 team tourney?

I would think so, especially this year. With a bunch of conferences not playing OOC games, it's impossible to know how good teams from different conferences are relative to each other.

This year, we know that the Sun Belt is better than the Big 12 because they played the games. Who's to say that Ball State isn't better than Ohio State if the Big 10 doesn't play anyone?

If they massively expanded the OOC slate's for everyone, like something systematic (everyone plays a round robin from 4 rotating conferences for instance), then it would be easier to see who is best. Without that, going with conference champions makes more sense than a room full of people just picking logos.
(This post was last modified: 01-05-2021 08:34 AM by CoastalJuan.)
01-04-2021 03:31 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2021 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2021 MyBB Group.