Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
What would an expanded playoff mean for the AAC?
Author Message
4xGrad Offline
Water Engineer
*

Posts: 67
Joined: Apr 2021
Reputation: 17
I Root For: Boise State
Location:
Post: #41
RE: What would an expanded playoff mean for the AAC?
(05-01-2021 06:44 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  
(05-01-2021 05:19 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  ... if the playoff were expanded to 12, I would certainly be displeased (as a Cincy and Memphis fan) if the model were not 5-1-6.

5-1-6 model applied to 2020 CFP rankings:

1st round bye: Alabama, Clemson, OSU, ND

1st round games:

#5 TAMU vs. #12 Coastal Carolina
#6 Oklahoma vs. #11 Indiana
#7 Florida vs. #10 Iowa State
#8 Cincinnati vs. #9 Georgia

.

But as you yourself have argued, If that 5-1-6 were in place.... p5 bias would have dropped the two G5's in ranking and Cincy probably would have had the hardest path to the top.

If a G5 has a really good year they can raise to a ranking that will make it just barely into the mix as the season winds down while the committee hopes a last minute toe stub drops them out of contention.

So cincy would have made it but been ranked a little lower and coastal would have been just outside the ranking.

That guaranteed spot is the only thing allowing 1 G5 into the rankings at all.
05-01-2021 07:29 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Atlanta Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 9,365
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 526
I Root For: Memphis Tigers
Location: Metro Atlanta
Post: #42
RE: What would an expanded playoff mean for the AAC?
You guys are just drinking the P-5 koolaid. We've had a team in the AAC deserving of a top 8 or 12 position virtually every year. UH, UCF, Memphis & Cincy have all had deserving years. Memphis is probably the weakest of those listed & they still put as many points on Penn St as all but one opponent.
(This post was last modified: 05-02-2021 06:18 AM by Atlanta.)
05-01-2021 08:12 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
jedclampett Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,321
Joined: Jul 2019
Reputation: 145
I Root For: Temple
Location:
Post: #43
RE: What would an expanded playoff mean for the AAC?
(05-01-2021 07:29 PM)4xGrad Wrote:  
(05-01-2021 06:44 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  
(05-01-2021 05:19 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  ... if the playoff were expanded to 12, I would certainly be displeased (as a Cincy and Memphis fan) if the model were not 5-1-6.

5-1-6 model applied to 2020 CFP rankings:

1st round bye: Alabama, Clemson, OSU, ND

1st round games:

#5 TAMU vs. #12 Coastal Carolina
#6 Oklahoma vs. #11 Indiana
#7 Florida vs. #10 Iowa State
#8 Cincinnati vs. #9 Georgia

.

But as you yourself have argued, If that 5-1-6 were in place.... p5 bias would have dropped the two G5's in ranking and Cincy probably would have had the hardest path to the top.

True.

I posted what the match-ups would have been, but offered no comment.

Cincy would have had the roughest path, and it doesn't seem fair, considering that they were undefeated and #6 in the AP polls. The CFP moved a couple of teams ahead of them despite the fact that unlike Cincy, they had lost at least one game.[/quote]


(05-01-2021 07:29 PM)4xGrad Wrote:  If a G5 has a really good year they can raise to a ranking that will make it just barely into the mix as the season winds down while the committee hopes a last minute toe stub drops them out of contention.

That guaranteed spot is the only thing allowing 1 G5 into the rankings at all.

Right, but frankly, it would do them little good if they would end up as the #8 seed, playing the #1 team every year.

That's why I'm starting to wonder if the G5 and FBS independents might be better off if they were to organize an alternative to the abysmal CFP.

.
05-01-2021 08:44 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
4xGrad Offline
Water Engineer
*

Posts: 67
Joined: Apr 2021
Reputation: 17
I Root For: Boise State
Location:
Post: #44
RE: What would an expanded playoff mean for the AAC?
(05-01-2021 08:12 PM)Atlanta Wrote:  You guys are just drinking the P-5 koolaid. We've had a team in the AAC deserving of a top 8 or 12 position virtually every year. UH, UCF, Memphis & Cincy have all had deserving years. Memphis is probably the weakest of those listed & they still put as many points on Penn St as all but one opponent.

Atlanta, Please understand, I am bitching about he "committee" and the glass ceilings. Damn right I think they earned that rank, I would argue they deserved a higher rank.

I am just being pessimistic about the glass ceiling being lowered if their was a 5-1-6 implemented. I hope I am wrong.
05-02-2021 04:43 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
4xGrad Offline
Water Engineer
*

Posts: 67
Joined: Apr 2021
Reputation: 17
I Root For: Boise State
Location:
Post: #45
RE: What would an expanded playoff mean for the AAC?
(05-01-2021 08:44 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  
(05-01-2021 07:29 PM)4xGrad Wrote:  
(05-01-2021 06:44 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  
(05-01-2021 05:19 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  ... if the playoff were expanded to 12, I would certainly be displeased (as a Cincy and Memphis fan) if the model were not 5-1-6.

5-1-6 model applied to 2020 CFP rankings:

1st round bye: Alabama, Clemson, OSU, ND

1st round games:

#5 TAMU vs. #12 Coastal Carolina
#6 Oklahoma vs. #11 Indiana
#7 Florida vs. #10 Iowa State
#8 Cincinnati vs. #9 Georgia

.

But as you yourself have argued, If that 5-1-6 were in place.... p5 bias would have dropped the two G5's in ranking and Cincy probably would have had the hardest path to the top.

True.

I posted what the match-ups would have been, but offered no comment.

Cincy would have had the roughest path, and it doesn't seem fair, considering that they were undefeated and #6 in the AP polls. The CFP moved a couple of teams ahead of them despite the fact that unlike Cincy, they had lost at least one game.


(05-01-2021 07:29 PM)4xGrad Wrote:  If a G5 has a really good year they can raise to a ranking that will make it just barely into the mix as the season winds down while the committee hopes a last minute toe stub drops them out of contention.

That guaranteed spot is the only thing allowing 1 G5 into the rankings at all.

Right, but frankly, it would do them little good if they would end up as the #8 seed, playing the #1 team every year.

That's why I'm starting to wonder if the G5 and FBS independents might be better off if they were to organize an alternative to the abysmal CFP.

.
[/quote]

I get it. I just really think that (as the G5) going our own way will be detrimental. I really think our common best interest is to outplay them at their own game. For our teams to become more relevant than theirs. That is going to be a long hard path but we have all been taking a long walk down it already. Look at what these teams have done over the last 20 years. 40 years ago which of these teams ever entered the national conversation at all?

Okay... Navy.... but who else?
05-02-2021 04:52 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Atlanta Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 9,365
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 526
I Root For: Memphis Tigers
Location: Metro Atlanta
Post: #46
RE: What would an expanded playoff mean for the AAC?
(05-02-2021 04:52 PM)4xGrad Wrote:  
(05-01-2021 08:44 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  
(05-01-2021 07:29 PM)4xGrad Wrote:  
(05-01-2021 06:44 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  
(05-01-2021 05:19 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  ... if the playoff were expanded to 12, I would certainly be displeased (as a Cincy and Memphis fan) if the model were not 5-1-6.

5-1-6 model applied to 2020 CFP rankings:

1st round bye: Alabama, Clemson, OSU, ND

1st round games:

#5 TAMU vs. #12 Coastal Carolina
#6 Oklahoma vs. #11 Indiana
#7 Florida vs. #10 Iowa State
#8 Cincinnati vs. #9 Georgia

.

But as you yourself have argued, If that 5-1-6 were in place.... p5 bias would have dropped the two G5's in ranking and Cincy probably would have had the hardest path to the top.

True.

I posted what the match-ups would have been, but offered no comment.

Cincy would have had the roughest path, and it doesn't seem fair, considering that they were undefeated and #6 in the AP polls. The CFP moved a couple of teams ahead of them despite the fact that unlike Cincy, they had lost at least one game.


(05-01-2021 07:29 PM)4xGrad Wrote:  If a G5 has a really good year they can raise to a ranking that will make it just barely into the mix as the season winds down while the committee hopes a last minute toe stub drops them out of contention.

That guaranteed spot is the only thing allowing 1 G5 into the rankings at all.

Right, but frankly, it would do them little good if they would end up as the #8 seed, playing the #1 team every year.

That's why I'm starting to wonder if the G5 and FBS independents might be better off if they were to organize an alternative to the abysmal CFP.

.

I get it. I just really think that (as the G5) going our own way will be detrimental. I really think our common best interest is to outplay them at their own game. For our teams to become more relevant than theirs. That is going to be a long hard path but we have all been taking a long walk down it already. Look at what these teams have done over the last 20 years. 40 years ago which of these teams ever entered the national conversation at all?

Okay... Navy.... but who else?
[/quote]

Memphis tied #2 Ole Miss in 1963, beat #11 Ms St, So Carolina, Louisville & UH & finished undefeated 9-0-1 & UPI ranked #14.That's probably our best ranking, our only undefeated season.
05-02-2021 06:37 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
jedclampett Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,321
Joined: Jul 2019
Reputation: 145
I Root For: Temple
Location:
Post: #47
RE: What would an expanded playoff mean for the AAC?
(05-02-2021 06:37 PM)Atlanta Wrote:  
(05-02-2021 04:52 PM)4xGrad Wrote:  
(05-01-2021 08:44 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  [quote='4xGrad' pid='17407020' dateline='1619915350']
[quote='jedclampett' pid='17406989' dateline='1619912658']

5-1-6 model applied to 2020 CFP rankings:

1st round bye: Alabama, Clemson, OSU, ND

1st round games:

#5 TAMU vs. #12 Coastal Carolina
#6 Oklahoma vs. #11 Indiana
#7 Florida vs. #10 Iowa State
#8 Cincinnati vs. #9 Georgia

.

But as you yourself have argued, If that 5-1-6 were in place.... p5 bias would have dropped the two G5's in ranking and Cincy probably would have had the hardest path to the top.

True.

I posted what the match-ups would have been, but offered no comment.

Cincy would have had the roughest path, and it doesn't seem fair, considering that they were undefeated and #6 in the AP polls. The CFP moved a couple of teams ahead of them despite the fact that unlike Cincy, they had lost at least one game.


(05-01-2021 07:29 PM)4xGrad Wrote:  
If a G5 has a really good year they can raise to a ranking that will make it just barely into the mix as the season winds down while the committee hopes a last minute toe stub drops them out of contention.

That guaranteed spot is the only thing allowing 1 G5 into the rankings at all.

(05-01-2021 06:44 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  
Right, but frankly, it would do them little good if they would end up as the #8 seed, playing the #1 team every year.

That's why I'm starting to wonder if the G5 and FBS independents might be better off if they were to organize an alternative to the abysmal CFP.

.

(05-01-2021 07:29 PM)4xGrad Wrote:  I get it. I just really think that (as the G5) going our own way will be detrimental. I really think our common best interest is to outplay them at their own game. For our teams to become more relevant than theirs. That is going to be a long hard path but we have all been taking a long walk down it already. Look at what these teams have done over the last 20 years. 40 years ago which of these teams ever entered the national conversation at all?

Okay... Navy.... but who else?

(05-02-2021 06:37 PM)Atlanta Wrote:  Memphis tied #2 Ole Miss in 1963, beat #11 Ms St, So Carolina, Louisville & UH & finished undefeated 9-0-1 & UPI ranked #14.That's probably our best ranking, our only undefeated season.

.

It may be helpful, in this regard, to examine the AAC's track record in more detail. These have been the highest-ranked AAC teams in the penultimate (second to last) AP and Coaches Poll (CP) Top 25 since 2014:

........Team (AP) (CFP rank)

2013 UCF (#15) (pre-CFP)
2014 No ranked AAC teams (Memphis was #25 in Final AP)
2015 Houston (#14 AP) (#16 CP) (CFP #18)
2016 AP: Temple (#22)^ (CFP #24)
2016 CP: USF (#22)* (CFP: unranked)
2017 UCF (#10) (CFP #12)
2018 UCF (#7) (Coaches: #6) (CFP #8)

2019 Memphis (#15) (CFP #17)
2020 Cincy (#6) (CFP #8)

^ Temple was also ranked in the CP (average AP/CP rank: #23)
* USF was also ranked in the AP (average AP/CP rank: #23.5)

https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/con.../2015.html

Summary:

The AAC has had two top-ten CFP teams in the eight years of its existence (both were ranked #8).

Both of those top-ten CFP teams achieved top ten status in the past three seasons (in 2018 and 2020).

The AAC has had 3 teams with a final CFP ranking of #12 or higher. All three received those rankings in the past four seasons (2017, 2018, and 2020).

After getting off to a somewhat rough start, with Boise State and WMU representing the G5 in the NY6 bowls, the AAC has had the highest-ranked CFP team for the past four years in a row, a promising indicator of the potential that future AAC teams may have to make the CFP in the years ahead.

However, it should be considered a matter of significant concern that the CFP rankings of the most highly-ranked AAC teams have been consistently lower (2 ranks lower, on average) than the teams' rankings were in the AP and Coaches polls that were conducted at the same point in time.


Implications:

The CFP rankings of the top AAC teams have trended upward over the past 7 years.

The top AAC teams have been consistently (every year in the history of the CFP rankings) been under-ranked by an average of 2 ranks relative to their rankings in the AP and Coaches' polls (e.g., Cincy was ranked #6 in the AP and Coaches Polls, but only #8 in the CFP rankings).

--This is strong evidence of systematic pro-P5 bias in the CFP rankings.

--The probability of a consistent under-estimate of the top AAC team's ranking - relative to the estimates of the sports writers and coaches happening by chance alone is .0078125 (less than 1 in 100):

...................................................................................................
........................................................................Multiplicative
..........Probability of CFP under-ranking...............l Probability of
........the top AAC team by chance alone:.............l under-ranking top
......................................................................l AAC team seven
AP/CP...(AP)....(CP)..AP/CP..AP/CP..AP/CP..AP/CP l times in seven:
.2015...2016...2016..2017...2018....2019...2020..l comparisons
......................................................................l by chance alone:

. .50..* .50... * .50..* .50..* .50...* .50....* .50 = .0078125 (p<.01)

...................................................................................................

Note: A p-level below 0.01 (i.e., a finding that would less than once in 100 trials is considered to be statistically (i.e., scientifically) significant.

Scientifically, such a finding would result in a rejection of the "null hypothesis" that there is no pro-P5/anti-AAC bias in the CFP.


But let's remember that we're not just speaking hypothetically in this case - - the data that we are discussing here are, in fact, valid quasi-experimental data.

--The data were obtained from official records and archives that were reported by organizations and entities that had no prior knowledge of the fact that there would be research conducted with the data they reported.

--The rankings that were obtained are highly valid, due to the fact that they were conducted by the highly experienced professionals who are tasked with their rankings each season and recognize that their rankings are taken very seriously.

--Their rankings were 100% blind with respect to the present study, since they had no way of knowing that anyone would be doing research with the data (rankings) that they provided.

--While ranking data are, by nature, somewhat subjective and are influenced by many different factors, this is a study of precisely that - - their judgements.

----Human judgments can be studied scientifically, just as any other type of human behavior can be investigated. Polls that assess political preferences and marketing research that assess product preferences are other examples.

--Moreover, while AP, CP, and CFP rankings are subjective, it is considered an honor to be asked to report their rankings, and those who provide their rankings recognize that if their rankings depart too far from reality, they might lose the privilege of submitting their rankings. While the possibility of bias cannot be ruled out, that type of discipline instills a certain degree of self-discipline and rigor.

.

Given that the data we're dealing with are well documented, valid, and blind to the purpose of the study, this is in fact, an example of an appropriate quasi-experimental data set.

Thus, the following assertions based on this small quasi-experimental study may be considered scientifically justifiable:

a) The null hypothesis that there was no pro-P5/anti-AAC bias in the CFP rankings - relative to the contemporaneous AP and Coaches Poll rankings - between 2015 and 2020, was rejected.

b) The findings indicate that the CFP rankings between 2015 and 2020 have demonstrated a significant (p<.01) tendency to under-rank the top AAC teams .

c) the extent of the bias has been relatively modest, averaging only 2 ranks, but not small enough to preclude the possibility of a significantly adverse effect on CFP access.

d) It was the consistency of the pro-P5/anti-AAC discrepancies in the rankings, and not the magnitude of the differences that provided empirical evidence of pro-P5 bias vis a vis the top AAC teams between 2015 and 2020.

e) If the discrepancies had been much less consistent than they were, the findings would not have been statistically significant.


.

Q: But the CFP has only been under-ranking the top AAC teams by only 2 ranks. What possible difference could that make, going forward?

A: It could easily make the difference between qualifying and not qualifying for the CFP, for example, if the top AAC team were to be ranked #4 by the AP and Coaches polls, but only #6 in the CFP rankings.

--Cincinnati was #6 in the AP and Coaches polls in 2020 in mid-December. If the Bearcats had been #4, the average 2 point under-ranking in the CFP rankings would have kept them out of the playoffs.

--The CFP rankings don't have to under-rank the top G5 by much (only 1 or 2 ranks in order to keep the G5 teams out of the CFP.

Q: But this can't be considered scientifically valid evidence can it, since a formal experiment wasn't conducted?

A: It can be and is considered scientifically valid. Scientific papers based on quasi-experimental data have been published in the most highly esteemed journals, including both Science and Nature.

Evidence of this kind (data resulting from what scientists refer to as a quasi-experiment, a.k.a. a "natural experiment") may be considered scientifically valid if it is the best kind of evidence that can be obtained in circumstances that would not permit a controlled double-blind experiment with random assignment of subjects to experimental conditions to examine - for example - whether the CFP rankings have been biased (a valid double-blind study couldn't be conducted because those who do the rankings would know - and would not be blind to the fact - that it was a study about how they rank teams).

In addition, quasi-experimental studies are very often the only ethically impermissible way to study the effects of adverse events, such as nuclear detonations or pandemics, since the only way to do an experiment such as this would be to cause an epidemic so that the effects could be studied scientifically.

Fortunately, in such cases, the quasi-experimental method makes it possible to conduct scientific tests - for example - to investigate the effects of pandemics on cities that have been infected.

--Notably, such quasi-experimental research has been extremely beneficial during the Covid pandemic. It has not only (a) provided researchers with a tremendous amount of information about the pandemic, but has also (b) led to important advancements in the treatment and prevention of Covid-19 possible.

----This shows that quasi-experimental research isn't merely an abstruse field of academic interest. It is a highly important type of research with very practical applications.

.

If anyone would like to learn more about quasi-experimental research and its unique scientific importance, this is the classic text on the topic:

Amazon.com: Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research (9780395307878): Campbell, Donald T., Stanley, Julian

https://www.amazon.com/Experimental-Quas...0395307872
.
(This post was last modified: 05-03-2021 12:36 AM by jedclampett.)
05-02-2021 08:14 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CoastalJuan Offline
Business Drunk
*

Posts: 4,476
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation: 199
I Root For: ECU
Location: Right near da beeech
Post: #48
RE: What would an expanded playoff mean for the AAC?
(04-30-2021 08:20 PM)Rob3338 Wrote:  
(04-28-2021 05:12 PM)Edgebrookjeff Wrote:  So an expanded playoff without a G5 autobid means more of the same BS.

I don't understand why folks on this board think any G5 conference deserves an auto bid. Cincy had a 8th ranked team last year and UCF had one 3 years ago but few if any others have had a team ranked that high.

Let's be honest, in most seasons NO G5 team deserves to be in a 4 or 8 team playoff. That may change in 20 or more years but it is true today. The playoff would need to be 16 teams before G5 teams would appear with some regularity. The concept of a G5 auto bid is a nonstarter.

Right, but I think it's a cycle. The current format, which created a glass ceiling for the Big East/AAC is at least partially to blame for the AAC being artificially under-ranked. There is a widespread understanding at this point that we're not invited to matter the performance, which leads the AP to not rank any of us in the top 4 or first/second team out.
05-03-2021 07:14 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Atlanta Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 9,365
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 526
I Root For: Memphis Tigers
Location: Metro Atlanta
Post: #49
RE: What would an expanded playoff mean for the AAC?
(04-30-2021 08:20 PM)Rob3338 Wrote:  
(04-28-2021 05:12 PM)Edgebrookjeff Wrote:  So an expanded playoff without a G5 autobid means more of the same BS.

I don't understand why folks on this board think any G5 conference deserves an auto bid. Cincy had a 8th ranked team last year and UCF had one 3 years ago but few if any others have had a team ranked that high.

Let's be honest, in most seasons NO G5 team deserves to be in a 4 or 8 team playoff. That may change in 20 or more years but it is true today. The playoff would need to be 16 teams before G5 teams would appear with some regularity. The concept of a G5 auto bid is a nonstarter.

That's BS. You've been listening to the P-5 bias from the media too long. Why do you think it's so hard to schedule P-5 schools? It's because they don't want an objective measurement. The P-5 can count on the media bias in their favor, they don't want game results to influence the accepted narrative. Memphis beats an Ole Miss team two weeks after OM beat mighty Alabama. The media simply went to a narrative of OM shouldn't schedule schools like Memphis since they play in the rough SEC-W. UH beats OU, same crap, OU must be down this season (although they won the B-12). UCF beats Auburn two weeks after Auburn beat Alabama (the eventual natl champ). And the media narrative is Auburn had no motivation. It's the same media crap every time a supposed high level P-5 loses to one of us. So you believe the bias & the P-5 schedules us less & less to keep the narrative alive - and all the $$ coming their way.
05-03-2021 07:50 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
UHCougar08 Offline
Water Engineer
*

Posts: 29
Joined: Mar 2020
Reputation: 2
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #50
RE: What would an expanded playoff mean for the AAC?
Without an AQ for the AAC it doesn't change nearly as much as we would all hope IMO. Just look at some other threads about how many teams the P5 will get annually. Instead of 4 teams a year they will get 15 to 1. That is completely unacceptable. I am surprised there is not more support for a 12 team model with the top 8 conferences represented. I think that is better than some of the 5-1-6 models proposed.
05-03-2021 01:11 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 35,513
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 1897
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #51
RE: What would an expanded playoff mean for the AAC?
Thought this was worthy of attention-- This is an article by SI that was written after actually speaking with all but one of the 1 member of the CFP Management Committee about playoff expansion. The CFP Manage Committee is the body that controls the College Football Playoff and consists of the 10 FBS conference commissioners + Notre Dame's AD.

Three interesting things---

1) MOST CFP Management members were for expansion. NONE were definitely against expansion.

2) This exploration of expansion has been going on for 27 months. So---we are much closer to end of the process than the beginning.

3) Of great interest here---the concept of auto bids for the P5 champs and the top G5 champ apparently has pretty broad support among the committee members.

https://www.si.com/.amp/college/2021/05/...ssion=true
(This post was last modified: 05-03-2021 02:11 PM by Attackcoog.)
05-03-2021 02:06 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CoastalJuan Offline
Business Drunk
*

Posts: 4,476
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation: 199
I Root For: ECU
Location: Right near da beeech
Post: #52
RE: What would an expanded playoff mean for the AAC?
(05-03-2021 02:06 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Thought this was worthy of attention-- This is an article by SI that was written after actually speaking with all but one of the 1 member of the CFP Management Committee about playoff expansion. The CFP Manage Committee is the body that controls the College Football Playoff and consists of the 10 FBS conference commissioners + Notre Dame's AD.

Three interesting things---

1) MOST CFP Management members were for expansion. NONE were definitely against expansion.

2) This exploration of expansion has been going on for 27 months. So---we are much closer to end of the process than the beginning.

3) Of great interest here---the concept of auto bids for the P5 champs and the top G5 champ apparently has pretty broad support among the committee members.

https://www.si.com/.amp/college/2021/05/...ssion=true

I would actually like to see if formatted less as P5 + G5 and more as the Top 6 ranked conference champs. Seems like a small distinction. In that model, however, an AAC team like Cincinnati would have a higher seed than USC vs. automatically being the 8 or 12(or whatever the bottom is) seed every year.
(This post was last modified: 05-03-2021 02:35 PM by CoastalJuan.)
05-03-2021 02:35 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Cubanbull1 Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 155
Joined: Jul 2005
Reputation: 13
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #53
RE: What would an expanded playoff mean for the AAC?
(05-03-2021 02:35 PM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  
(05-03-2021 02:06 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Thought this was worthy of attention-- This is an article by SI that was written after actually speaking with all but one of the 1 member of the CFP Management Committee about playoff expansion. The CFP Manage Committee is the body that controls the College Football Playoff and consists of the 10 FBS conference commissioners + Notre Dame's AD.

Three interesting things---

1) MOST CFP Management members were for expansion. NONE were definitely against expansion.

2) This exploration of expansion has been going on for 27 months. So---we are much closer to end of the process than the beginning.

3) Of great interest here---the concept of auto bids for the P5 champs and the top G5 champ apparently has pretty broad support among the committee members.

https://www.si.com/.amp/college/2021/05/...ssion=true

I would actually like to see if formatted less as P5 + G5 and more as the Top 6 ranked conference champs. Seems like a small distinction. In that model, however, an AAC team like Cincinnati would have a higher seed than USC vs. automatically being the 8 or 12(or whatever the bottom is) seed every year.

Actually if they go to 8 with the 5-1-2 model. Those 8 teams would then be seeded 1-8 and thus the AAC champ might not be last
Under those conditions UC as the AAC champ would had been #7 seed and USC as PAC champ would had been #8
05-03-2021 07:39 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Frank the Tank Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 11,827
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 659
I Root For: Illinois/DePaul
Location: Chicago
Post: #54
RE: What would an expanded playoff mean for the AAC?
(05-03-2021 02:35 PM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  
(05-03-2021 02:06 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Thought this was worthy of attention-- This is an article by SI that was written after actually speaking with all but one of the 1 member of the CFP Management Committee about playoff expansion. The CFP Manage Committee is the body that controls the College Football Playoff and consists of the 10 FBS conference commissioners + Notre Dame's AD.

Three interesting things---

1) MOST CFP Management members were for expansion. NONE were definitely against expansion.

2) This exploration of expansion has been going on for 27 months. So---we are much closer to end of the process than the beginning.

3) Of great interest here---the concept of auto bids for the P5 champs and the top G5 champ apparently has pretty broad support among the committee members.

https://www.si.com/.amp/college/2021/05/...ssion=true

I would actually like to see if formatted less as P5 + G5 and more as the Top 6 ranked conference champs. Seems like a small distinction. In that model, however, an AAC team like Cincinnati would have a higher seed than USC vs. automatically being the 8 or 12(or whatever the bottom is) seed every year.

It’s not a small distinction at all for the P5. I know many G5 fans want to believe otherwise, but it’s simply not the case. The P5 have the power, so they are going to insist upon 100% guarantees for their champs. A 99% chance isn’t good enough - that last 1% guarantee is where the power comes from. Last year’s Oregon team that won the Pac-12 but wouldn’t have made a top 6 (or even top 7) conference champ playoff is *exactly* why the P5 will insist upon auto-bids for them as baseline requirement for an expanded playoff. To them, Oregon getting a guaranteed spot (as opposed to Coastal Carolina or San Jose State) is a feature as opposed to a bug.

That being said, I think the G5 spot is the compromise in exchange for the P5 to get their auto-bids. The G5 have enough traction at this point to get that spot, but asking for anything further isn’t going to fly realistically.
05-03-2021 08:28 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CoastalJuan Offline
Business Drunk
*

Posts: 4,476
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation: 199
I Root For: ECU
Location: Right near da beeech
Post: #55
RE: What would an expanded playoff mean for the AAC?
(05-03-2021 08:28 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(05-03-2021 02:35 PM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  
(05-03-2021 02:06 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Thought this was worthy of attention-- This is an article by SI that was written after actually speaking with all but one of the 1 member of the CFP Management Committee about playoff expansion. The CFP Manage Committee is the body that controls the College Football Playoff and consists of the 10 FBS conference commissioners + Notre Dame's AD.

Three interesting things---

1) MOST CFP Management members were for expansion. NONE were definitely against expansion.

2) This exploration of expansion has been going on for 27 months. So---we are much closer to end of the process than the beginning.

3) Of great interest here---the concept of auto bids for the P5 champs and the top G5 champ apparently has pretty broad support among the committee members.

https://www.si.com/.amp/college/2021/05/...ssion=true

I would actually like to see if formatted less as P5 + G5 and more as the Top 6 ranked conference champs. Seems like a small distinction. In that model, however, an AAC team like Cincinnati would have a higher seed than USC vs. automatically being the 8 or 12(or whatever the bottom is) seed every year.

It’s not a small distinction at all for the P5. I know many G5 fans want to believe otherwise, but it’s simply not the case. The P5 have the power, so they are going to insist upon 100% guarantees for their champs. A 99% chance isn’t good enough - that last 1% guarantee is where the power comes from. Last year’s Oregon team that won the Pac-12 but wouldn’t have made a top 6 (or even top 7) conference champ playoff is *exactly* why the P5 will insist upon auto-bids for them as baseline requirement for an expanded playoff. To them, Oregon getting a guaranteed spot (as opposed to Coastal Carolina or San Jose State) is a feature as opposed to a bug.

That being said, I think the G5 spot is the compromise in exchange for the P5 to get their auto-bids. The G5 have enough traction at this point to get that spot, but asking for anything further isn’t going to fly realistically.

That's what was gathered from the SI interviews:

"Several commissioners, even one from the Group of Five, believe that each Power 5 champion and the highest ranked team from the Group of Five should receive an automatic berth. An automatic spot for a G5 team is viewed as an essential compromise, as five of the 11 members represent G5 leagues."
05-04-2021 07:49 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
geosnooker2000 Offline
I got Cleopatra in the basement
*

Posts: 22,218
Joined: Aug 2006
Reputation: 950
I Root For: Tiger Football
Location: Somerville, TN
Post: #56
RE: What would an expanded playoff mean for the AAC?
(04-29-2021 03:55 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  
(04-29-2021 03:02 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(04-29-2021 02:31 PM)hammannja Wrote:  
(04-29-2021 05:35 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  
(04-28-2021 11:25 PM)Attackcoog
The members of the CFP Management Committee are 11 University Presidents - - 5 of which represent G5 schools/conferences, and 1 of which represents a PAC-12 school.
[b' Wrote:  
If the PAC-12 Presidents were to vote alongside the G5 committee members, a vote in favor of an expanded CFP could pass by a 6-5 vote.[/b]

Unfortunately, it would not be a 6-5 vote. As someone correctly pointed out in another message stream, the autonomy conferences each have 2 votes, the non-autonomy conferences each have 1 vote, and Notre Dame has 1 vote.

Five non-autonomy conferences plus the Pac-12 equals 7 votes. There would still be 9 votes undetermined at that point. Therefore, the non-autonomy five plus two autonomy conferences is the minimum passing configuration assuming the non-autonomy conferences vote as a block.

Plus, I'm not sure where anyone is getting that the Pac-12 would vote with the G5. The Pac-12 has an ironclad alliance with the Big Ten. They're more likely to be concerned about how the Rose Bowl is integrated into the new playoff system than these other issues.

That being said, I think whatever playoff system we end up with (8 teams or 12 teams) will have P5 champ auto-bids and 1 slot for the top G5 champ. The G5 slot is the bargain for allowing guaranteed P5 champ auto-bids (or else they'll just keep the current system or go to a straight rankings system even in an expanded format).

This kind of thing makes me so sick of the patronizing b@$t@rd$ who run the P5 - and their network minion$ - that I'm starting to not even give a damn about the CFP playoffs any more.

Oh, dude. I haven't watched a SINGLE game of that evil crap. I will never watch a playoff game until we have a legit door into it.
05-04-2021 11:16 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
geosnooker2000 Offline
I got Cleopatra in the basement
*

Posts: 22,218
Joined: Aug 2006
Reputation: 950
I Root For: Tiger Football
Location: Somerville, TN
Post: #57
RE: What would an expanded playoff mean for the AAC?
(05-04-2021 07:49 AM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  
(05-03-2021 08:28 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(05-03-2021 02:35 PM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  
(05-03-2021 02:06 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Thought this was worthy of attention-- This is an article by SI that was written after actually speaking with all but one of the 1 member of the CFP Management Committee about playoff expansion. The CFP Manage Committee is the body that controls the College Football Playoff and consists of the 10 FBS conference commissioners + Notre Dame's AD.

Three interesting things---

1) MOST CFP Management members were for expansion. NONE were definitely against expansion.

2) This exploration of expansion has been going on for 27 months. So---we are much closer to end of the process than the beginning.

3) Of great interest here---the concept of auto bids for the P5 champs and the top G5 champ apparently has pretty broad support among the committee members.

https://www.si.com/.amp/college/2021/05/...ssion=true

I would actually like to see if formatted less as P5 + G5 and more as the Top 6 ranked conference champs. Seems like a small distinction. In that model, however, an AAC team like Cincinnati would have a higher seed than USC vs. automatically being the 8 or 12(or whatever the bottom is) seed every year.

It’s not a small distinction at all for the P5. I know many G5 fans want to believe otherwise, but it’s simply not the case. The P5 have the power, so they are going to insist upon 100% guarantees for their champs. A 99% chance isn’t good enough - that last 1% guarantee is where the power comes from. Last year’s Oregon team that won the Pac-12 but wouldn’t have made a top 6 (or even top 7) conference champ playoff is *exactly* why the P5 will insist upon auto-bids for them as baseline requirement for an expanded playoff. To them, Oregon getting a guaranteed spot (as opposed to Coastal Carolina or San Jose State) is a feature as opposed to a bug.

That being said, I think the G5 spot is the compromise in exchange for the P5 to get their auto-bids. The G5 have enough traction at this point to get that spot, but asking for anything further isn’t going to fly realistically.

That's what was gathered from the SI interviews:

"Several commissioners, even one from the Group of Five, believe that each Power 5 champion and the highest ranked team from the Group of Five should receive an automatic berth. An automatic spot for a G5 team is viewed as an essential compromise, as five of the 11 members represent G5 leagues."

Well, looky there.... That does NOT say highest ranked champion. Hmmm.....
05-04-2021 11:19 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CoastalJuan Offline
Business Drunk
*

Posts: 4,476
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation: 199
I Root For: ECU
Location: Right near da beeech
Post: #58
RE: What would an expanded playoff mean for the AAC?
(05-04-2021 11:19 AM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  
(05-04-2021 07:49 AM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  
(05-03-2021 08:28 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(05-03-2021 02:35 PM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  
(05-03-2021 02:06 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Thought this was worthy of attention-- This is an article by SI that was written after actually speaking with all but one of the 1 member of the CFP Management Committee about playoff expansion. The CFP Manage Committee is the body that controls the College Football Playoff and consists of the 10 FBS conference commissioners + Notre Dame's AD.

Three interesting things---

1) MOST CFP Management members were for expansion. NONE were definitely against expansion.

2) This exploration of expansion has been going on for 27 months. So---we are much closer to end of the process than the beginning.

3) Of great interest here---the concept of auto bids for the P5 champs and the top G5 champ apparently has pretty broad support among the committee members.

https://www.si.com/.amp/college/2021/05/...ssion=true

I would actually like to see if formatted less as P5 + G5 and more as the Top 6 ranked conference champs. Seems like a small distinction. In that model, however, an AAC team like Cincinnati would have a higher seed than USC vs. automatically being the 8 or 12(or whatever the bottom is) seed every year.

It’s not a small distinction at all for the P5. I know many G5 fans want to believe otherwise, but it’s simply not the case. The P5 have the power, so they are going to insist upon 100% guarantees for their champs. A 99% chance isn’t good enough - that last 1% guarantee is where the power comes from. Last year’s Oregon team that won the Pac-12 but wouldn’t have made a top 6 (or even top 7) conference champ playoff is *exactly* why the P5 will insist upon auto-bids for them as baseline requirement for an expanded playoff. To them, Oregon getting a guaranteed spot (as opposed to Coastal Carolina or San Jose State) is a feature as opposed to a bug.

That being said, I think the G5 spot is the compromise in exchange for the P5 to get their auto-bids. The G5 have enough traction at this point to get that spot, but asking for anything further isn’t going to fly realistically.

That's what was gathered from the SI interviews:

"Several commissioners, even one from the Group of Five, believe that each Power 5 champion and the highest ranked team from the Group of Five should receive an automatic berth. An automatic spot for a G5 team is viewed as an essential compromise, as five of the 11 members represent G5 leagues."

Well, looky there.... That does NOT say highest ranked champion. Hmmm.....

I wouldn't read toooo much into that.

1) It's not a direct quote, more just commentary

2) There hasn't been a situation yet where the committee ranked any non-champion group of 5 team with the highest ranking.

3) If anything, and if that statement was deliberate(vs. just writing off the fact that the G5 has championships), it opens the door for BYU to get in as the G5 rep.
(This post was last modified: 05-04-2021 11:43 AM by CoastalJuan.)
05-04-2021 11:43 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 35,513
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 1897
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #59
RE: What would an expanded playoff mean for the AAC?
(05-04-2021 11:43 AM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  
(05-04-2021 11:19 AM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  
(05-04-2021 07:49 AM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  
(05-03-2021 08:28 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(05-03-2021 02:35 PM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  I would actually like to see if formatted less as P5 + G5 and more as the Top 6 ranked conference champs. Seems like a small distinction. In that model, however, an AAC team like Cincinnati would have a higher seed than USC vs. automatically being the 8 or 12(or whatever the bottom is) seed every year.

It’s not a small distinction at all for the P5. I know many G5 fans want to believe otherwise, but it’s simply not the case. The P5 have the power, so they are going to insist upon 100% guarantees for their champs. A 99% chance isn’t good enough - that last 1% guarantee is where the power comes from. Last year’s Oregon team that won the Pac-12 but wouldn’t have made a top 6 (or even top 7) conference champ playoff is *exactly* why the P5 will insist upon auto-bids for them as baseline requirement for an expanded playoff. To them, Oregon getting a guaranteed spot (as opposed to Coastal Carolina or San Jose State) is a feature as opposed to a bug.

That being said, I think the G5 spot is the compromise in exchange for the P5 to get their auto-bids. The G5 have enough traction at this point to get that spot, but asking for anything further isn’t going to fly realistically.

That's what was gathered from the SI interviews:

"Several commissioners, even one from the Group of Five, believe that each Power 5 champion and the highest ranked team from the Group of Five should receive an automatic berth. An automatic spot for a G5 team is viewed as an essential compromise, as five of the 11 members represent G5 leagues."

Well, looky there.... That does NOT say highest ranked champion. Hmmm.....

I wouldn't read toooo much into that.

1) It's not a direct quote, more just commentary

2) There hasn't been a situation yet where the committee ranked any non-champion group of 5 team with the highest ranking.

3) If anything, and if that statement was deliberate(vs. just writing off the fact that the G5 has championships), it opens the door for BYU to get in as the G5 rep.

I think it was just shorthand for what we have now. Remember---the term "G5" isnt in the CFP contract. When the G5 access slot is discussed in the CFP, the conferences are actually identified by name (as in the highest ranked champion from the AAC, CUSA, MAC, MW and SB will play in the access bowl). Look---the ENTIRE point of the G5 bid is to give the P5 AQ bids. To avoid antitrust issues---the P5 cant have AQ for its champions without making some sort of a similar path for the 5 conference champions. So yes---the G5 slot will be reserved for a G5 champ. Besides, BYU isnt a member of the G5---nor is any other indy team.

That said, my guess is providing more open "indy" playoff access and the SEC wanting to have the clear ability to do better under the new system that its currently doing in the 4-team set up---may be the drivers pushing all this talk of an expansion of the CFP all the way to 12. With 6 wildcards---its a lot easier for Notre Dame to get in (in fact, any indy has a much better chance) and the SEC is going to get 3 or more in on a regular basis. It may be that you need to go to 12 to make everyone happy and get that unanimous vote needed to expand the CFP prior to its end date.
(This post was last modified: 05-04-2021 12:16 PM by Attackcoog.)
05-04-2021 12:07 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Greenwavedrownsacat Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 333
Joined: Oct 2018
Reputation: 11
I Root For: Tulane
Location:
Post: #60
RE: What would an expanded playoff mean for the AAC?
An element that is rarely talk about is the CFP committees look at record, look at SOS but also look at RECRUITING. It is rarely discussed but has infact been said publicly. They look at how good the team is on paper via their recruiting ranking from the last 4 years, the thought being obviously the team with all 4 and 5 star recruits is better then a G5 with 99% 3 star recruits. This is pretty absurd to think about as essentially they’re saying the ranking have been decided before the games are played and the season begins.

Access to the CFP is huge to help recruiting, however shrinking roster sizes also will lead to P5’s having a hard time hoarding the best recruits (minimizes this). Additional funds to narrow the gap for coaches, facilities and access to the CFP will also all help.
05-04-2021 07:58 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.