8 team playoff, 6 autobids for SEC, ACC, Big 10, Big 12, Pac 12 & AAC conf champs, 2 at large. 1-6 seeding done by the conferences total OOC record.

Go to the FCS model. 16 teams. 10 conference champions and 6 at large. This is the only format where everyone has a chance before any games are played at the beginning of the season. Every sport in the world lets conference champions make it into the playoffs.

(02-01-2021 10:58 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-31-2021 07:33 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-31-2021 03:39 PM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  

(01-31-2021 03:37 PM)WhoseHouse? Wrote:  P5 champ auto bid and three at larges, but with the stipulation that we go back to the BCS rankings. If a G5 team isn't good enough to sneak into that then we probably don't need to see them in a likely 1st round game against Bama. It would likely be a blood letting.

BCS formula approach won't work anymore because the poll voters have been conditioned into all the strength of schedule, quality loss bull****. Look at how UCF was ranked in the polls in 2017/2018, when we would have been Top 5 in the AP in years past.

Here's the problem with that line of attack. Regarding computers, in 2017, UCF was ranked #9 in the Massey Composite before their bowl game. In 2018, UCF was ranked #8 at the same point.

In contrast, in 2009, "G5" TCU was ranked #4 in the MC before their bowl while Boise was #7. In 2010, TCU, still in the non-AQ camp, was #3 while Boise was #5 going in to the bowls.

So according to the computers alone, non-AQ teams like TCU and Boise were regarded as significantly better than UCF was in 2017 and 2018, or Cincy in 2019. The best G5 teams of today just are not as good as the best G5 teams of a decade ago, and that explains the lower human poll rankings, not some mystical influence of the CFP.

Different time my man. How you cant see that is simply ignoring the basic facts of how the worst biases of the Committee have bled into the polls and computer models.

In 2009 TCU's best P5 win that season was a 14-10 squeaker over a 5 loss Clemson team. TCU only played two ranked teams in 2009---both G5's. TCU went 1-1 in those top 25 games (lost to Boise, beat Utah)---yet still finished at #6. Anyone think a one loss AAC team would finish at #6 today? Give me a freaking break.

Boise went undefeated in 2009 beating #16 Oregon (P5) in the first game of the season. Boise would not play another P5 or ranked team all year and would rise to #6 prior to the bowls. They defeated TCU (G5 at the time) to finish #4 at 14-0.

Now---contrast that to the CFP era. In 2017 UCF went undefeated, had 2 top 25 wins (both G5), and had a P5 win over Maryland. They entered bowl season ranked 10th. They defeated #7 Auburn (a P5) and finished the year at #7.

So--just to review, TCU lost a game, played a weaker schedule---and still finished ahead of UCF. Boise went undefeated and played a ranked G5 in their bowl (squeaking by the the aforementioned TCU) and was given the #4 rank at the end of the year. Meanwhile an undefeated UCF with 3 top 25 wins, 2 P5 wins--the best of which is a solid win over #7 Auburn in their bowl game---and yet UCF finished lower than a one-loss TCU in 2009?

Dont tell me its not different today because, objectively---its quite different. Today, that 2009 TCU team would finish more around where the 2018 UCF finished (#12--at best). That Boise team would be lucky to finish where UCF did in 2017 (#7).

Great post! The climate is much different now than it was a decade ago. TCU, Utah and Boise St had a tremendous amount of media and public momentum back then and it was reflected in the polls. Boise State's win over Oregon (and the "Blunt Hit") to start the 2009 season created 15 months (beyond their '06 Fiesta Bowl win) of incredible hype for the Broncos. They were preseason #3 to start the 2010 season. ESPN hyped the hell out of their season opener against Virginia Tech (in DC). That loss to Nevada was beyond catastrophic. Hopefully the kicker has been able to put it past him to some extent.

TCU and Boise State were really joined at the hip at that time. They were paired up twice in bowl games (Holiday and Fiesta) as highly ranked teams. When Boise State lost to Nevada TCU immediately picked a lot of the momentum that Boise State had built up. Ultimately that mojo landed the Horned Frogs a final #2 ranking in both major polls.

For those that believe an expanded playoff will disperse the talent more equally why is there so little parity in FCS, D2 and D3? I know home field advantage matters (especially for NDSU) but ultimately in a game like football, where you need a tremendous amount of resources, no matter how you try to "anti-trust it", the elites rule the world. It's been like that from the very beginning when Harvard, Yale and Princeton ruled the gridiron world.

My stance has always been for a lot of these schools, invest in basketball. I love Villanova's, Butler's, Georgetown's, Gonzaga's, Xavier's and Wichita State's stance on focusing on what you can be truly great at given the institution's position and resources. When Utah football was trying to find its way in the late 90's Rick Majerus made them a hoops powerhouse. The money the school received from the 2002 SLC Olympics (rebuilt their stadium for the opening/closing ceremonies) really propelled them into to Urban Era and onward into the PAC 12.

I've spent a bunch of time in North Dakota so I know what football means in Fargo and hockey the folks in Grand Forks (U of North Dakota). Schools need to know where to invest their money for the best ROI.

(02-01-2021 12:49 PM)TUowl06 Wrote:  For those that believe and expanded playoff will disperse the talent more equally why is there so little parity in FCS, D2 and D3? I know home field advantage matters (especially for NDSU) but ultimately in a game like football, where you need a tremendous amount of resources, no matter how you try to "anti-trust it", the elites rule the world. It's been like that from the very beginning when Harvard, Yale and Princeton ruled the gridiron world.

My stance has always been for a lot of these schools, invest in basketball. I love Villanova's, Butler's, Georgetown's, Gonzaga's, Xavier's and Wichita State's stance on focusing on what you can be truly great at given the institution's position and resources. When Utah football was trying to find its way in the late 90's Rick Majerus made them a hoops powerhouse. The money the school received from the 2002 SLC Olympics (rebuilt their stadium for the opening/closing ceremonies) really propelled them into to Urban Era and onward into the PAC 12.

I've spent a bunch of time in North Dakota so I know what football means in Fargo and hockey the folks in Grand Forks (U of North Dakota). Schools need to know where to invest their money for the best ROI.

An expanded playoff isn't going to turn the MAC into the Big Ten; talent will still be unevenly distributed. But it will reverse the clustering onto 8 or so teams that is happening right now. Some of that talent will disperse to other P5 teams and some of it will disperse to G5 teams. That's also not to say that suddenly 5* talent will pick UCF over Ohio State. But guys who are presently choosing to go to loser P5 programs like Kentucky and Syracuse over UCF or Cincinnati will reconsider that and realize that their better shot to make the playoff and win an NC is at UCF or Cincy. Right now, they know UCF and Cincy are locked out, so as minimal as Kentucky's chances are, at least they will play the best teams in conference play. But G5 autobids change that calculus.

I'm not overly familiar with FCS, but what I do know suggests to me that there is a big difference in terms of fan support, financial investment, institutional profiles, and demography that would explain a lot of why some program are dominant. But let's also note that Kennesaw State started football 5 years ago and has already become a major player - something that very much cannot happen in FBS due to the P5/G5 split and the CFP system that denies half of the teams an opportunity to compete.

I like 6 top ranked conference champs (regardless of conference affiliation) and 2 at large

It won't happen but the only correct way is 16, 10 conf champs, 6 at-large. Roll as many bowls into the playoff as possible as well as launch a secondary CFI (College Football Invitational) for the 8-12 programs that had a good season but didn't win their conf or land one of the 6 at large bids. One of the biggest issues hurting a move to a real CFP is worry about what it will do to the bowls. You deal with that by rolling them into the new system as much as possible like we've already seen with the NY6.

(02-01-2021 05:06 PM)AztecEmpire Wrote:  It won't happen but the only correct way is 16, 10 conf champs, 6 at-large. Roll as many bowls into the playoff as possible as well as launch a secondary CFI (College Football Invitational) for the 8-12 programs that had a good season but didn't win their conf or land one of the 6 at large bids. One of the biggest issues hurting a move to a real CFP is worry about what it will do to the bowls. You deal with that by rolling them into the new system as much as possible like we've already seen with the NY6.

The bowls are dead with a real playoff. The only ones that will survive will be the CFP Bowls that host the semifinals and final.

No doubt this is a major impediment to a real playoff happening.

(02-01-2021 05:06 PM)AztecEmpire Wrote:  It won't happen but the only correct way is 16, 10 conf champs, 6 at-large. Roll as many bowls into the playoff as possible as well as launch a secondary CFI (College Football Invitational) for the 8-12 programs that had a good season but didn't win their conf or land one of the 6 at large bids. One of the biggest issues hurting a move to a real CFP is worry about what it will do to the bowls. You deal with that by rolling them into the new system as much as possible like we've already seen with the NY6.

I agree. It’s doable too. Why wouldn’t any of these bowls want to be apart of a playoff, even it was like a semifinal to NY6 Bowl? More interest, and more revenue. And go further, take some of these under performing sponsor bowls and ask if they want to host a conference championship game as a bowl. A lot of these bowls can be saved with some thought. Some definitely need to go. A draw down is definitely needed.

(02-01-2021 05:09 PM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  

(02-01-2021 05:06 PM)AztecEmpire Wrote:  It won't happen but the only correct way is 16, 10 conf champs, 6 at-large. Roll as many bowls into the playoff as possible as well as launch a secondary CFI (College Football Invitational) for the 8-12 programs that had a good season but didn't win their conf or land one of the 6 at large bids. One of the biggest issues hurting a move to a real CFP is worry about what it will do to the bowls. You deal with that by rolling them into the new system as much as possible like we've already seen with the NY6.

The bowls are dead with a real playoff. The only ones that will survive will be the CFP Bowls that host the semifinals and final.

No doubt this is a major impediment to a real playoff happening.

I'm sure this true but the bowls are already dead. The sport will be dead soon to without an expanded playoff.

(02-01-2021 06:47 PM)WhoseHouse? Wrote:  

(02-01-2021 05:09 PM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  

(02-01-2021 05:06 PM)AztecEmpire Wrote:  It won't happen but the only correct way is 16, 10 conf champs, 6 at-large. Roll as many bowls into the playoff as possible as well as launch a secondary CFI (College Football Invitational) for the 8-12 programs that had a good season but didn't win their conf or land one of the 6 at large bids. One of the biggest issues hurting a move to a real CFP is worry about what it will do to the bowls. You deal with that by rolling them into the new system as much as possible like we've already seen with the NY6.

The bowls are dead with a real playoff. The only ones that will survive will be the CFP Bowls that host the semifinals and final.

No doubt this is a major impediment to a real playoff happening.

I'm sure this true but the bowls are already dead. The sport will be dead soon to without an expanded playoff.

Agree the bowls are dead. Look at the number of players who "opt-out" of bowl games to start training for the NFL Draft. You notice players don't do that when their team is in the CFP? Among a number of things that have been discussed in this thread (more geographic diversity, more fans interested in the game, etc.), an expanded playoff would mean fewer players opting out.

I would like to see a 16 team playoff with auto bid for each conference and 6 at large teams but an 8-1-2 will do for now.

(02-01-2021 10:58 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-31-2021 07:33 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-31-2021 03:39 PM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  

(01-31-2021 03:37 PM)WhoseHouse? Wrote:  P5 champ auto bid and three at larges, but with the stipulation that we go back to the BCS rankings. If a G5 team isn't good enough to sneak into that then we probably don't need to see them in a likely 1st round game against Bama. It would likely be a blood letting.

BCS formula approach won't work anymore because the poll voters have been conditioned into all the strength of schedule, quality loss bull****. Look at how UCF was ranked in the polls in 2017/2018, when we would have been Top 5 in the AP in years past.

Here's the problem with that line of attack. Regarding computers, in 2017, UCF was ranked #9 in the Massey Composite before their bowl game. In 2018, UCF was ranked #8 at the same point.

In contrast, in 2009, "G5" TCU was ranked #4 in the MC before their bowl while Boise was #7. In 2010, TCU, still in the non-AQ camp, was #3 while Boise was #5 going in to the bowls.

So according to the computers alone, non-AQ teams like TCU and Boise were regarded as significantly better than UCF was in 2017 and 2018, or Cincy in 2019. The best G5 teams of today just are not as good as the best G5 teams of a decade ago, and that explains the lower human poll rankings, not some mystical influence of the CFP.

Different time my man. How you cant see that is simply ignoring the basic facts of how the worst biases of the Committee have bled into the polls and computer models.

In 2009 TCU's best P5 win that season was a 14-10 squeaker over a 5 loss Clemson team. TCU only played two ranked teams in 2009---both G5's. TCU went 1-1 in those top 25 games (lost to Boise, beat Utah)---yet still finished at #6. Anyone think a one loss AAC team would finish at #6 today? Give me a freaking break.

Boise went undefeated in 2009 beating #16 Oregon (P5) in the first game of the season. Boise would not play another P5 or ranked team all year and would rise to #6 prior to the bowls. They defeated TCU (G5 at the time) to finish #4 at 14-0.

Now---contrast that to the CFP era. In 2017 UCF went undefeated, had 2 top 25 wins (both G5), and had a P5 win over Maryland. They entered bowl season ranked 10th. They defeated #7 Auburn (a P5) and finished the year at #7.

So--just to review, TCU lost a game, played a weaker schedule---and still finished ahead of UCF. Boise went undefeated and played a ranked G5 in their bowl (squeaking by the the aforementioned TCU) and was given the #4 rank at the end of the year. Meanwhile an undefeated UCF with 3 top 25 wins, 2 P5 wins--the best of which is a solid win over #7 Auburn in their bowl game---and yet UCF finished lower than a one-loss TCU in 2009?

Dont tell me its not different today because, objectively---its quite different. Today, that 2009 TCU team would finish more around where the 2018 UCF finished (#12--at best). That Boise team would be lucky to finish where UCF did in 2017 (#7).

Just when we thought we were on the doorstep in the era of BCS Busters, the evil empire carefully conceived a plan, and introduced us to the CFP Committee, a panel of 13. They led us to our doom with the promise of “playoff”, and we were quickly relegated off the doorstep with powerful words and phrases such as “eye test”, and “strength of schedule”. We’ve been had.

(02-01-2021 11:21 PM)NoQuarterBrigade Wrote:  

(02-01-2021 10:58 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-31-2021 07:33 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-31-2021 03:39 PM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  

(01-31-2021 03:37 PM)WhoseHouse? Wrote:  P5 champ auto bid and three at larges, but with the stipulation that we go back to the BCS rankings. If a G5 team isn't good enough to sneak into that then we probably don't need to see them in a likely 1st round game against Bama. It would likely be a blood letting.

BCS formula approach won't work anymore because the poll voters have been conditioned into all the strength of schedule, quality loss bull****. Look at how UCF was ranked in the polls in 2017/2018, when we would have been Top 5 in the AP in years past.

Here's the problem with that line of attack. Regarding computers, in 2017, UCF was ranked #9 in the Massey Composite before their bowl game. In 2018, UCF was ranked #8 at the same point.

In contrast, in 2009, "G5" TCU was ranked #4 in the MC before their bowl while Boise was #7. In 2010, TCU, still in the non-AQ camp, was #3 while Boise was #5 going in to the bowls.

So according to the computers alone, non-AQ teams like TCU and Boise were regarded as significantly better than UCF was in 2017 and 2018, or Cincy in 2019. The best G5 teams of today just are not as good as the best G5 teams of a decade ago, and that explains the lower human poll rankings, not some mystical influence of the CFP.

Different time my man. How you cant see that is simply ignoring the basic facts of how the worst biases of the Committee have bled into the polls and computer models.

In 2009 TCU's best P5 win that season was a 14-10 squeaker over a 5 loss Clemson team. TCU only played two ranked teams in 2009---both G5's. TCU went 1-1 in those top 25 games (lost to Boise, beat Utah)---yet still finished at #6. Anyone think a one loss AAC team would finish at #6 today? Give me a freaking break.

Boise went undefeated in 2009 beating #16 Oregon (P5) in the first game of the season. Boise would not play another P5 or ranked team all year and would rise to #6 prior to the bowls. They defeated TCU (G5 at the time) to finish #4 at 14-0.

Now---contrast that to the CFP era. In 2017 UCF went undefeated, had 2 top 25 wins (both G5), and had a P5 win over Maryland. They entered bowl season ranked 10th. They defeated #7 Auburn (a P5) and finished the year at #7.

So--just to review, TCU lost a game, played a weaker schedule---and still finished ahead of UCF. Boise went undefeated and played a ranked G5 in their bowl (squeaking by the the aforementioned TCU) and was given the #4 rank at the end of the year. Meanwhile an undefeated UCF with 3 top 25 wins, 2 P5 wins--the best of which is a solid win over #7 Auburn in their bowl game---and yet UCF finished lower than a one-loss TCU in 2009?

Dont tell me its not different today because, objectively---its quite different. Today, that 2009 TCU team would finish more around where the 2018 UCF finished (#12--at best). That Boise team would be lucky to finish where UCF did in 2017 (#7).

Just when we thought we were on the doorstep in the era of BCS Busters, the evil empire carefully conceived a plan, and introduced us to the CFP Committee, a panel of 13. They led us to our doom with the promise of “playoff”, and we were quickly relegated off the doorstep with powerful words and phrases such as “eye test”, and “strength of schedule”. We’ve been had.

Ehhh. In some ways ways we got screwed. In some ways we are better off. No "non AQ" team ever played in the BCS playoff---so no difference there. Non-AQ's were more fairly treated in the BCS rankings, but---we still only ended up in the access bowl.

Where we are better off is the BCS only allowed G5 access if a G5 team cleared certain hurdles. There were several years where no "BCS Busters" existed. In those years the big BCS bowls had no participation from the G5. The CFP guarantees we always have a G5 participant in the access bowl. That does represent increased access. The next step is to make that guaranteed G5 access bowl slot a guaranteed berth in the actual expanded playoff. In my opinion, that will be a game changer for the AAC.

(02-01-2021 12:34 PM)TUowl06 Wrote:  

(02-01-2021 10:58 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-31-2021 07:33 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-31-2021 03:39 PM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  

(01-31-2021 03:37 PM)WhoseHouse? Wrote:  P5 champ auto bid and three at larges, but with the stipulation that we go back to the BCS rankings. If a G5 team isn't good enough to sneak into that then we probably don't need to see them in a likely 1st round game against Bama. It would likely be a blood letting.

BCS formula approach won't work anymore because the poll voters have been conditioned into all the strength of schedule, quality loss bull****. Look at how UCF was ranked in the polls in 2017/2018, when we would have been Top 5 in the AP in years past.

Here's the problem with that line of attack. Regarding computers, in 2017, UCF was ranked #9 in the Massey Composite before their bowl game. In 2018, UCF was ranked #8 at the same point.

In contrast, in 2009, "G5" TCU was ranked #4 in the MC before their bowl while Boise was #7. In 2010, TCU, still in the non-AQ camp, was #3 while Boise was #5 going in to the bowls.

So according to the computers alone, non-AQ teams like TCU and Boise were regarded as significantly better than UCF was in 2017 and 2018, or Cincy in 2019. The best G5 teams of today just are not as good as the best G5 teams of a decade ago, and that explains the lower human poll rankings, not some mystical influence of the CFP.

Different time my man. How you cant see that is simply ignoring the basic facts of how the worst biases of the Committee have bled into the polls and computer models.

In 2009 TCU's best P5 win that season was a 14-10 squeaker over a 5 loss Clemson team. TCU only played two ranked teams in 2009---both G5's. TCU went 1-1 in those top 25 games (lost to Boise, beat Utah)---yet still finished at #6. Anyone think a one loss AAC team would finish at #6 today? Give me a freaking break.

Boise went undefeated in 2009 beating #16 Oregon (P5) in the first game of the season. Boise would not play another P5 or ranked team all year and would rise to #6 prior to the bowls. They defeated TCU (G5 at the time) to finish #4 at 14-0.

Now---contrast that to the CFP era. In 2017 UCF went undefeated, had 2 top 25 wins (both G5), and had a P5 win over Maryland. They entered bowl season ranked 10th. They defeated #7 Auburn (a P5) and finished the year at #7.

So--just to review, TCU lost a game, played a weaker schedule---and still finished ahead of UCF. Boise went undefeated and played a ranked G5 in their bowl (squeaking by the the aforementioned TCU) and was given the #4 rank at the end of the year. Meanwhile an undefeated UCF with 3 top 25 wins, 2 P5 wins--the best of which is a solid win over #7 Auburn in their bowl game---and yet UCF finished lower than a one-loss TCU in 2009?

Dont tell me its not different today because, objectively---its quite different. Today, that 2009 TCU team would finish more around where the 2018 UCF finished (#12--at best). That Boise team would be lucky to finish where UCF did in 2017 (#7).

Great post! The climate is much different now than it was a decade ago. TCU, Utah and Boise St had a tremendous amount of media and public momentum back then and it was reflected in the polls. Boise State's win over Oregon (and the "Blunt Hit") to start the 2009 season created 15 months (beyond their '06 Fiesta Bowl win) of incredible hype for the Broncos. They were preseason #3 to start the 2010 season. ESPN hyped the hell out of their season opener against Virginia Tech (in DC). That loss to Nevada was beyond catastrophic. Hopefully the kicker has been able to put it past him to some extent.

TCU and Boise State were really joined at the hip at that time. They were paired up twice in bowl games (Holiday and Fiesta) as highly ranked teams. When Boise State lost to Nevada TCU immediately picked a lot of the momentum that Boise State had built up. Ultimately that mojo landed the Horned Frogs a final #2 ranking in both major polls.

The relative quality of the "non-power schools," such as Boise, TCU, and Utah 20 years ago vs. today (Boise, UCF, Cincy, etc.) is very interesting topic.

A closely related topic is the relative parity/status of "non-power" teams then and now.

One of the most straightforward "apples to apples" comparisons across the years is to examine how many of today's non-P5 FBS (D1-A) schools appeared in the AP Final Top 20 lists over the past two decades.

Reviewing the top 25 list dating back to 2000, it appears that there were never more than four teams from the 65 current non-P5 schools in any Final AP top 25 list in the years 2000 through 2017. However, that changed in 2018, when there were 6 non-P5 teams in the 2018 Final AP top 25 (and there were 7 in the 2019 and 2020 Final AP Top 25 polls).

There were two teams from current non-P5 schools in the 1980 Final AP Top 20 list and the 1990 Final AP Top 25 list, but there were five in the 1970 Final AP Top 20 list (Toledo, Dartmouth, Air Force, Tulane, and Houston (caveat: Houston was a member of the SWC, which was a power conference at the time)), and three in the 1960 Final AP Top 20 list.

There were 7 in 1950:

#2 Army
#5 Princeton (The Ivy League might have been considered a power conference in 1950)
#12 Wyomng
#16 Ohio
#18 Washington & Lee
#19 Tulsa
#20 Tulane (then, a member of the SEC)

NOTE: (#8) Michigan State and (#15) Miami (FL), also in the 1950 final AP Top 20, were football independents in 1950.

UPDATE: I've just learned that the AP polls went back before 1949, and as it turns out, there were seven or eight teams from current non-P5 schools in the Final AP Top 20 in 1936, 1937, 1938, 1940, 1942, 1943, 1945, 1946, 1947, 1948, 1949, and 1950!

Interestingly, the record number of teams from current non-P5 schools in any Final AP Top 20 list (NOTE "TOP 20" - - NOT "TOP 25") found so far in this survey (1950, 1960, 1970, etc.) was 8 in 1936 and 1940:

1936: First AP Top 20 poll.

(10 independents, 10 teams from major conferences)

#6 Santa Clara
#10 Penn
#12 Yale..............3 Top 20 Ivy League teams!
#13 Dartmouth
#14 Duquesne
#15 Fordham
#18 Navy
#20 Marquette

http://www.collegepollarchive.com/footba...sonid=1936

1940:

#11 Santa Clara
#12 Fordham
#13 Georgetown
#14 Penn
#15 Cornell
#16 SMU
#17 Hardin-Simmons
#19 Lafayette

http://www.collegepollarchive.com/footba...sonid=1940

It appears this group shares my thirst for a large playoff. One with 24 teams (FCS format), based on 2019-20 season. All conference champs represented. And playoff games being played at school campuses. That sounds extraordinary. Now, I get it. LSU was heads and shoulders above everyone last year. And Alabama was dominant this year. You can’t just look at it that way. Consider the impact on the regular season with all conference champs. A game in the MAC or CUSA would suddenly become more interesting and relevant. There are going to be blowouts. There are blowouts in every other postseason. That shouldn’t be a point of consideration.

(02-01-2021 07:02 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(02-01-2021 06:47 PM)WhoseHouse? Wrote:  

(02-01-2021 05:09 PM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  

(02-01-2021 05:06 PM)AztecEmpire Wrote:  It won't happen but the only correct way is 16, 10 conf champs, 6 at-large. Roll as many bowls into the playoff as possible as well as launch a secondary CFI (College Football Invitational) for the 8-12 programs that had a good season but didn't win their conf or land one of the 6 at large bids. One of the biggest issues hurting a move to a real CFP is worry about what it will see do to the bowls. You deal with that by rolling them into the new system as much as possible like we've already seen with the NY6.

The bowls are dead with a real playoff. The only ones that will survive will be the CFP Bowls that host the semifinals and final.

No doubt this is a major impediment to a real playoff happening.

I'm sure this true but the bowls are already dead. The sport will be dead soon to without an expanded playoff.

Agree the bowls are dead. Look at the number of players who "opt-out" of bowl games to start training for the NFL Draft. You notice players don't do that when their team is in the CFP? Among a number of things that have been discussed in this thread (more geographic diversity, more fans interested in the game, etc.), an expanded playoff would mean fewer players opting out.

Problem is ESPN hosts the CFP & ESPN owns most of the bowls. If the bowls die, there won't be a revenue source to help finance am expanded CFP or the seasonal content ESPN wants. Therefore ESPN needs to find a way to incorporate these bowls into the plays picture. It would make more bowls relevant & motivated players to not opt out.

(02-01-2021 10:58 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-31-2021 07:33 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-31-2021 03:39 PM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  

(01-31-2021 03:37 PM)WhoseHouse? Wrote:  P5 champ auto bid and three at larges, but with the stipulation that we go back to the BCS rankings. If a G5 team isn't good enough to sneak into that then we probably don't need to see them in a likely 1st round game against Bama. It would likely be a blood letting.

BCS formula approach won't work anymore because the poll voters have been conditioned into all the strength of schedule, quality loss bull****. Look at how UCF was ranked in the polls in 2017/2018, when we would have been Top 5 in the AP in years past.

Here's the problem with that line of attack. Regarding computers, in 2017, UCF was ranked #9 in the Massey Composite before their bowl game. In 2018, UCF was ranked #8 at the same point.

In contrast, in 2009, "G5" TCU was ranked #4 in the MC before their bowl while Boise was #7. In 2010, TCU, still in the non-AQ camp, was #3 while Boise was #5 going in to the bowls.

So according to the computers alone, non-AQ teams like TCU and Boise were regarded as significantly better than UCF was in 2017 and 2018, or Cincy in 2019. The best G5 teams of today just are not as good as the best G5 teams of a decade ago, and that explains the lower human poll rankings, not some mystical influence of the CFP.

Different time my man. How you cant see that is simply ignoring the basic facts of how the worst biases of the Committee have bled into the polls and computer models.

Wow, just when I thought I had put the "the CFP has caused biased in the human polls" unsupported notion to rest (if anything, the AP and Coaches polls influence the CFP, not vice-versa), now we have a claim that somehow CFP biases have "bled" in to the computers as well?

Pointing out who TCU and Boise and UCF and Cincy played or didn't play doesn't mean much, because it doesn't take in to account all the various factors these computers consider, nor does it consider that rankings are all relative to the competition you are being ranked against.

Just how on earth is CFP "bleeding" in to the computers supposed to have happened? You think Wolfe and Sagarin and all the other computer nerds have somehow tweeked their formulas to mimic CFP biases (if you can even model that kind of alleged bias to begin with)? Seriously?

Come on. This is grasping at grasping, IMO.

(02-02-2021 10:53 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-01-2021 10:58 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-31-2021 07:33 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-31-2021 03:39 PM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  

(01-31-2021 03:37 PM)WhoseHouse? Wrote:  P5 champ auto bid and three at larges, but with the stipulation that we go back to the BCS rankings. If a G5 team isn't good enough to sneak into that then we probably don't need to see them in a likely 1st round game against Bama. It would likely be a blood letting.

BCS formula approach won't work anymore because the poll voters have been conditioned into all the strength of schedule, quality loss bull****. Look at how UCF was ranked in the polls in 2017/2018, when we would have been Top 5 in the AP in years past.

Here's the problem with that line of attack. Regarding computers, in 2017, UCF was ranked #9 in the Massey Composite before their bowl game. In 2018, UCF was ranked #8 at the same point.

In contrast, in 2009, "G5" TCU was ranked #4 in the MC before their bowl while Boise was #7. In 2010, TCU, still in the non-AQ camp, was #3 while Boise was #5 going in to the bowls.

So according to the computers alone, non-AQ teams like TCU and Boise were regarded as significantly better than UCF was in 2017 and 2018, or Cincy in 2019. The best G5 teams of today just are not as good as the best G5 teams of a decade ago, and that explains the lower human poll rankings, not some mystical influence of the CFP.

Different time my man. How you cant see that is simply ignoring the basic facts of how the worst biases of the Committee have bled into the polls and computer models.

Wow, just when I thought I had put the "the CFP has caused biased in the human polls" unsupported notion to rest (if anything, the AP and Coaches polls influence the CFP, not vice-versa), now we have a claim that somehow CFP biases have "bled" in to the computers as well?

Pointing out who TCU and Boise and UCF and Cincy played or didn't play doesn't mean much, because it doesn't take in to account all the various factors these computers consider, nor does it consider that rankings are all relative to the competition you are being ranked against.

Just how on earth is CFP "bleeding" in to the computers supposed to have happened? You think Wolfe and Sagarin and all the other computer nerds have somehow tweeked their formulas to mimic CFP biases (if you can even model that kind of alleged bias to begin with)? Seriously?

Come on. This is grasping at grasping, IMO.

You dont think the computer models get tweaked? Seriously? You think they are exactly the same as they have been since their inception? Is the car in your driveway the exact same as it was 10 years ago? How about your computer operating system? Is it the same? How about your phone operating system? We know for a fact that every single BCS computer model was tweaked to eliminate margin victory at some point. The idea that the models have been tweaked over the last 8 years to give slightly more weight to SOS than they used to is hardly "grasping". My guess is these models are always being honed by their caretakers.

The fact is no G5 that has a loss is getting anywhere near to #6 under the current system and everyone knows it. Thats simply undeniable. I'd take 2017 UCF vs 2009 Boise anyday.

(02-02-2021 12:19 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-02-2021 10:53 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-01-2021 10:58 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-31-2021 07:33 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-31-2021 03:39 PM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  BCS formula approach won't work anymore because the poll voters have been conditioned into all the strength of schedule, quality loss bull****. Look at how UCF was ranked in the polls in 2017/2018, when we would have been Top 5 in the AP in years past.

Here's the problem with that line of attack. Regarding computers, in 2017, UCF was ranked #9 in the Massey Composite before their bowl game. In 2018, UCF was ranked #8 at the same point.

In contrast, in 2009, "G5" TCU was ranked #4 in the MC before their bowl while Boise was #7. In 2010, TCU, still in the non-AQ camp, was #3 while Boise was #5 going in to the bowls.

So according to the computers alone, non-AQ teams like TCU and Boise were regarded as significantly better than UCF was in 2017 and 2018, or Cincy in 2019. The best G5 teams of today just are not as good as the best G5 teams of a decade ago, and that explains the lower human poll rankings, not some mystical influence of the CFP.

Different time my man. How you cant see that is simply ignoring the basic facts of how the worst biases of the Committee have bled into the polls and computer models.

Wow, just when I thought I had put the "the CFP has caused biased in the human polls" unsupported notion to rest (if anything, the AP and Coaches polls influence the CFP, not vice-versa), now we have a claim that somehow CFP biases have "bled" in to the computers as well?

Pointing out who TCU and Boise and UCF and Cincy played or didn't play doesn't mean much, because it doesn't take in to account all the various factors these computers consider, nor does it consider that rankings are all relative to the competition you are being ranked against.

Just how on earth is CFP "bleeding" in to the computers supposed to have happened? You think Wolfe and Sagarin and all the other computer nerds have somehow tweeked their formulas to mimic CFP biases (if you can even model that kind of alleged bias to begin with)? Seriously?

Come on. This is grasping at grasping, IMO.

You dont think the computer models get tweaked? Seriously? You think they are exactly the same as they have been since their inception?

LOL ... I didn't say computers don't get tweaked. I am sure Wolfe and Sagarin et all tweak them when their thinking leads them to believe other factors are more important or less important than they previously thought. These math and stat nerds are probably always thinking about different ways of modeling college football. I said "tweaked to mimic CFP biases" (whatever they are). What would their motivation be to mimic the CFP? Nothing. If anything, nerds tend to be contrarian, they like to show how the conventional wisdom is wrong, not echo it.

There is no evidence for this. Even less support then the notion that the AP and Coaches voters have changed to mimic the CFP.

It's poppycock to me, sorry. On the best evidence we have, teams like Boise and TCU a decade ago were just better - relative to the competition at least - than UCF was a couple years ago or Cincy this year.