(04-29-2021 10:03 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(04-29-2021 05:13 PM)hammannja Wrote:  Agree on both points. If an expanded play-off waters down the prestige of the Rose Bowl, which it very well may, both the Big Ten and the Pac-12 will have two competing internal agendas even among their own membership, but will almost certainly vote together when it comes to that.

Again, I grew up in the Big Ten. I know it inside and out. The idea that anything like an expanded CFP playoff is going to threaten the prestige of the Rose Bowl is even more absurd than the idea that the PAC-12 will defend the "prestige" of the Rose Bowl even if it has to sacrifice itself to do so.

The truth is that the prestige of the Rose Bowl doesn't have to be defended, and no one could possibly defend it if they tried to, either.

The Rose Bowl is like the Olympic Games. It stands head and shoulders above all these petty little disputes.

People try to pretend that the CFP Championship game is more important than the Rose Bowl, but they've got it completely backwards - - the Rose Bowl is real, and it always has been. In comparison, the CFP is phony and pathetic, and the PAC-12 schools know that.

Give me back the days when we had four major bowl games, and people argued about who the true champion. That was a lot more fun and interesting than all this ridiculous money bu$ine$$.

Perhaps by using the word "prestige," I wasn't accurately conveying my point.

Before the College Football Playoff, there was the Bowl Championship Series (BCS). Before the BCS, there was the Bowl Alliance and the Bowl Coalition. The first two formats did not include the Rose Bowl and the Rose Bowl (along with the Big Ten and Pac-12) joined when the BCS was formed. So the Big Ten and Pac-12 have a history of prioritizing the Rose Bowl game over any notion of some sort of national championship determination.

Today, the Rose Bowl is an $80 million per year contract bowl from which the Big Ten and the Pac-12 share the annual payouts. The Sugar Bowl is the only other $80 million contract bowl. When these two bowls are not semi-final bowls, these conferences get this pay-out for whatever teams they put in this bowl. If I remember correctly, the first year of the play-off contracts, the "pay-offs" for the play-off bowls were $80 million.

So, I am not suggesting that either the Big Ten or the Pac-12 is going to do anything against their interest. What I am suggesting is that, from a monetary standpoint, these two conferences already each get what I will euphemistically refer to as a "play-off share" even if neither conference gets a team in the actual play-off. And if they make the actual play-offs, and I don't presently remember exactly how this money works, but in essence, they would get another share. But this is a euphemistic statement because it is a contract bowl, permitting the two conferences to negotiate whatever deal they want for it.

From a monetary standpoint, when I refer to "watering down," a big part of what I am referring to is the annual pay-outs that the Big Ten and the Pac-12 get from their participation in the Rose Bowl.

By the way, I live in Minnesota and was born and raised here. However, I probably wouldn't know any of these facts if I were not a Houston alumni and therefore able to see the way these things are set up from both perspectives, that of the 800-lb gorilla conference and the upstart team and conference.

Why would the powerful schools of the SEC & B1G ever agree to an expanded playoff. They're getting paid at least 25% of the pot and they're virtually guaranteed a spot at the table every year. Expanding to 8 or 12 would probably mean a smaller payoff unless you're still getting 25% of the seats at the table.

(04-30-2021 02:53 PM)Edgebrookjeff Wrote:  Why would the powerful schools of the SEC & B1G ever agree to an expanded playoff. They're getting paid at least 25% of the pot and they're virtually guaranteed a spot at the table every year. Expanding to 8 or 12 would probably mean a smaller payoff unless you're still getting 25% of the seats at the table.

I agree with this statement. Whats in a expanded playoff for say an Ole Miss or South Carolina ? These middle of pack SEC teams currently hope for a great bowl game with no chance of winning the SEC east or west?
When UCF or Houston have a chance to win the AAC championship and get an automatic seat in the playoffs ?

(04-30-2021 02:53 PM)Edgebrookjeff Wrote:  Why would the powerful schools of the SEC & B1G ever agree to an expanded playoff. They're getting paid at least 25% of the pot and they're virtually guaranteed a spot at the table every year. Expanding to 8 or 12 would probably mean a smaller payoff unless you're still getting 25% of the seats at the table.

Under the current system---they may send 25% of the field to the CFP---but they dont get 25% of the money. They get roughly 1/6th of the money. The SEC has the best and deepest conference in the nation---so Im not having much trouble seeing the SEC sending 3 and 4 teams to the playoff on a regular basis.

That said---so what if the SEC votes against it? Virtually every other conference (P5 and G5 alike) is absolutely guaranteed of more participation (both in raw numbers and on a percentage basis) than they enjoy in the current system. So---if every conference votes for their own self interest---and they always do---this is just a vote that the SEC is probably going to lose---and it likley wont even be close.

(04-30-2021 03:02 PM)DeeHee33 Wrote:  

(04-30-2021 02:53 PM)Edgebrookjeff Wrote:  Why would the powerful schools of the SEC & B1G ever agree to an expanded playoff. They're getting paid at least 25% of the pot and they're virtually guaranteed a spot at the table every year. Expanding to 8 or 12 would probably mean a smaller payoff unless you're still getting 25% of the seats at the table.

I agree with this statement. Whats in a expanded playoff for say an Ole Miss or South Carolina ? These middle of pack SEC teams currently hope for a great bowl game with no chance of winning the SEC east or west?
When UCF or Houston have a chance to win the AAC championship and get an automatic seat in the playoffs ?

That may be why these larger 12 or 16 team models are being seriously studied. Lets say you want to guarantee that every P5 champ gets in---avoid anti-trust issues----and still insure that there is something in it for mid-tier P5's--how do you do it?

So---12 team playoff. Top 7 conference champs get in. That virtually guarantees that every P5 champ is in. That also means at least 2 G5 champs are in. So--anti-trust G5 issues are gone. Now you still have 5 slots--about 40% of the field---still open for non-champs. Thats 5 slots for runners up---which could easily be a mid-tier P5 team having a great year. But---the situation is even better if you just forget 12 an do a full 16 team playoff (why not---it fits in the same time window as a 12 and probably nets more money). In a 16 team playoff with 7 slots reserved for the top 7 champs---You'd still have 9 slots open for non-champs. Thats over half the field. So with nine "at large" slots---Notre Dame and BYU feel they have a darn good shot of getting in every year---and a mid tier P5 team that has a nice 10 win season is absolutely in the race for one of those 9 slots.

As much as I think an 8-team (5-1-2) playoff is the easiest and most elegant solution given the time window and tendency to resist change---going big at 12 or 16 might be the more profitable answer that gives every stake holder what they need to feel good about the playoff system (assuming the time window issues can be resolved).

(04-28-2021 04:06 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Hi folks!

If they playoff expands and the G5 get an autobid what does that mean for the AAC? Does it change the strategy as far as expansion goes?

Most of the projections I’ve heard have 8 teams (5 AQ champs plus top Non-AQ champ,plus 2 wild cards). The non AQ champ has proven to be the AAC champ most years for the access bowl so it would greatly enhance the chances of our champion becoming a defacto auto qualifier—

If you add Boise to the aac it’s a lock every year our champ goes. Strength of schedule would be the reason to add Boise. But it’s not mandatory.

Obviously if it goes to 12 or 16 the AAC champ has an even better shot-

(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.

(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.

The reason is based on ranking. More importantly---who's doing the ranking? In 2011 a 12-0 Houston team was ranked 6th in the nation with its only P5 win being over UCLA. When the CFP Selection Committee was born---SOS became the PRIMARY basis for every ranking. Furthermore, the Committee was stacked with virtually all P5 reps. The result has been a devaluing of G5 wins and undefeated seasons.

In the years since 2011 several G5 teams teams have gone undefeated---yet not one has ever reached #6 when they were 12-0 and NONE have reached that high even after being 13-0. The current system, based on little more than conjecture, opinion, and eyeballin'---has decided that no undefeated G5 can ever be better than a good P5. In fact, the committee has often decreed that a 13 win G5 wasnt as good as any undefeated P5, or any 1-loss P5's, or some 2-loss P5's, and in some cases---they weren't determined to be as good as some 3-loss P5's. Since the CFP Committee is the only poll that really matters---their valuation criteria has now bled over into the human polls. One need only see how an undefeated Marshall was treated in the CFP vs Human polls in 2013. The Human polls had Marshall ranked much higher (the CFP didnt even rank Marshall for weeks), and over those weeks in which they were unranked by the CFP---suddenly Marshall began to fall in the human polls despite continuing to win. Its clear the Human polls no longer reflect the voters opinion---instead--for the most part---they reflect an attempt by voters to "think like the CFP" and "predict" what the CFP will do--rather than actually rank as per their own opinion.

The Committee makes mistakes all the times. It over ranks and under ranks teams all the time. The committee is not perfect--so why should it be treated as such. Furthermore--the Committee appears to find it exceptionally hard to believe a good G5 team can beat a good P5 team. The possibility that a good G5 can beat a good P5 simply does not compute inside that committee chamber. But we have seen that this is often the case in the major NYD bowls. Thus, in order to judge G5 teams that have not played many good P5 teams--one must be able to believe the concept that a good G5 can beat a good P5 (as well as vice versa). And if one cannot do that---then there is a systemic anti-G5 bias that makes it impossible for the Committee to be a viable arbiter of playoff access.

In the end, the argument as to why the G5 deserve their own slot boils down to a simple truth----Any system in which you can win 100% of your games, including the conference championship---and still not qualify for the playoffs due to an opinion----is a fundamentally flawed system in terms of access (and I would say that regardless of who is left out). My sense is---the Committee could still be ok. I think they do a good job of comparing P5 vs P5 and G5 vs G5. They simply have too much built-in bias or lack the tools necessary to accurately judge P5 vs G5. Thus, a guaranteed G5 slot eliminates the problem. At that point, the Committee need only determine the best G5---which I think they can probably perform that task with reasonable competence.

(04-28-2021 05:12 PM)Edgebrookjeff Wrote:  So an expanded playoff without a G5 autobid means more of the same BS.

Absolutely, and that would be unacceptable.

(04-30-2021 08:20 PM)Rob3338 Wrote:  I don't understand why folks on this board think any G5 conference deserves an auto bid.

You've really got some nerve coming onto our message board and saying something like that, Mister.

Moreover, if you really "don't understand," you must be pretty clueless, because it's obvious why the AAC "folks" want an auto-bid, or too thoughtless to notice that the case for a G5 spot in the CFP has been presented in detail by dozens of writers in these pages.

If you wonder why we're not inclined to accept the rankings, it's because they're they've been so biased that our best teams have been under-rated and under-ranked for years.

If you still have trouble wrapping your mind around the idea, just think of it as a kind of affirmative action plan to move things toward a more equal playing field. That should satisfy your curiosity.

(04-30-2021 08:20 PM)Rob3338 Wrote:  The concept of a G5 auto bid is a nonstarter.

Incorrect. The process has already started. It may take a few years to get there, but the CFP will expand, and when it does, there will be some provision to add a spot for a G5 team, just like there is a guaranteed spot for a G5 team in the NY6 bowls.

(04-30-2021 02:53 PM)Edgebrookjeff Wrote:  Why would the powerful schools of the SEC & B1G ever agree to an expanded playoff. They're getting paid at least 25% of the pot and they're virtually guaranteed a spot at the table every year. Expanding to 8 or 12 would probably mean a smaller payoff unless you're still getting 25% of the seats at the table.

It's not up to those few powerful schools. They don't have veto power.

There are much bigger forces at play, and there are as many students and alumni of G5/FBS indy schools as there are from P5 schools.

The current situation is unacceptable because we live in a nation that supports the principle of equal opportunity and non-discrimination. Most Americans believe that everybody should have a shot at success, and the current system prevents half the FBS teams from making the CFP playoffs.

Moreover, based on the recent trends (e.g., 7 G5/FBS indies in the Final AP Top 25 in 2019 and 8 G5/FBS indies in the top 25 in 2020), anyone who thinks that the P5 is going to dominate the FBS top 25 over the next decade the way that they once did isn't paying attention.

(04-30-2021 03:02 PM)DeeHee33 Wrote:  Whats in a expanded playoff for say an Ole Miss or South Carolina ? These middle of pack SEC teams currently hope for a great bowl game with no chance of winning the SEC east or west?

Sounds like you think that schools such as Ole Miss and South Carolina would have something to lose - - but that is absolutely incorrect. They would have everything to gain and nothing to lose if there was a 16-team playoff system with provisions for a couple of G5 conference champions.

(04-30-2021 03:16 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  That may be why these larger 12 or 16 team models are being seriously studied. Lets say you want to guarantee that every P5 champ gets in---avoid anti-trust issues----and still insure that there is something in it for mid-tier P5's--how do you do it?

So---12 team playoff. Top 7 conference champs get in. That virtually guarantees that every P5 champ is in. That also means at least 2 G5 champs are in. So--anti-trust G5 issues are gone. Now you still have 5 slots--about 40% of the field---still open for non-champs. Thats 5 slots for runners up---which could easily be a mid-tier P5 team having a great year. But---the situation is even better if you just forget 12 an do a full 16 team playoff (why not---it fits in the same time window as a 12 and probably nets more money). In a 16 team playoff with 7 slots reserved for the top 7 champs---You'd still have 9 slots open for non-champs. Thats over half the field. So with nine "at large" slots---Notre Dame and BYU feel they have a darn good shot of getting in every year---and a mid tier P5 team that has a nice 10 win season is absolutely in the race for one of those 9 slots.

As much as I think an 8-team (5-1-2) playoff is the easiest and most elegant solution given the time window and tendency to resist change---going big at 12 or 16 might be the more profitable answer that gives every stake holder what they need to feel good about the playoff system (assuming the time window issues can be resolved).

.

A 12- or 16-team CFP expansion might not be likely before 2026, when the decision will be made by a larger body than the CFP management committee. In the mean time, an 8-team expansion might be a possibility.

Notably, even if they were to simply start out with an 8-team CFP with no provisions for auto-bids, the G5's chances would still be twice as likely as it has been to get a team into the CFP playoffs.

.

Let's also bear the following in mind:

If there had been an 8-team CFP playoff after the 2020 season, these would have been the teams:

Alabama, Clemson, OSU, ND, TAMU, Oklahoma, Florida, and Cincinnati


If there had been a 16-team CFP playoff after the 2020 season, these would have been the other 8 teams in the CFP:

Georgia, Iowa St., Indiana, Coastal Carolina, UNC, Northwestern, Iowa, & BYU




If there had been a 16-team CFP playoff, with the teams selected on the basis of the final AP and Coaches Polls, these G5/FBS independent teams would have played in the CFP:

Cincinnati, Coastal Carolina, BYU, and Louisiana

.

(04-30-2021 08:36 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(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.

The reason is based on ranking. More importantly---who's doing the ranking? In 2011 an 12-0 Houston team was ranked 6th in the nation with its only P5 win being over UCLA. When the CFP Selection Committee was born---SOS became the PRIMARY basis for every ranking. Furthermore, the Committee was stacked with virtually all P5 reps. The result has been a devaluing of G5 wins and undefeated seasons.

In the years since 2011 several G5 teams teams have undefeated---yet not one has ever reached #6 when they were 12-0 and NONE have reached that high even after being 13-0. The current system, based on little more than conjecture, opinion, and eyeballin'---has decided that no undefeated G5 can ever be better than a good P5. In fact, the committee has often decreed that a 13 win G5 wasnt as good as any undefeated P5, or any 1-loss P5's, or some 2-loss P5's, and in some cases---they weren't determined to be as good as some 3-loss P5's. Since the CFP Committee is the only poll that really matters---their valuations system has now bled over into the human polls. One need only see how an undefeated Marshall was treated in the CFP vs Human polls in 2013. The Human polls had Marshall ranked much higher (the CFP didnt even rank Marshall for weeks), and over those weeks in which they were unranked by the CFP---suddenly Marshall began to fall in the human polls despite continuing to win. Its clear the Human polls no longer reflect the voters opinion---instead--for the most part---they reflect an attempt by voters to "think like the CFP" and "predict" what the CFP will do--rather than actually rank as per their own opinion.

The Committee makes mistakes all the times. It over ranks and under ranks teams all the time. The committee is not perfect--so why should it be treated as such. Furthermore--the Committee appears to find it exceptionally hard to believe a good G5 team can beat a good P5 team. The possibility that a good G5 can beat a good P5 simply does not compute inside that committee chamber. But we have seen that this is often the case in the major NYD bowls. Thus, in order to judge G5 teams that have not played many good P5 teams--one must be able to believe the concept that a good G5 can beat a good P5 (as well as vice versa). And if one cannot do that---then there is a systemic anti-G5 bias that makes it impossible for the Committee to be a viable arbiter of playoff access.

In the end, the argument as to why the G5 deserve their own slot boils down to a simple truth----Any system in which you can win 100% of your games, including the conference championship---and still not qualify for the playoffs due to an opinion----is a fundamentally flawed system in terms of access (and I would say that regardless of who is left out). My sense is---the Committee could still be ok. I think they do a good job of comparing P5 vs P5 and G5 vs G5. They simply have too much built-in bias or lack the tools necessary to accurately judge P5 vs G5. Thus, a G5 slot eliminates the problem. At that point, the Committee need only determine the best G5---which I think they can probably perform that task with reasonable competence.

The last paragraph is well reasoned is the most powerful argument that is driving expansion. There is a fundamental flaw in the current format relating to G5 teams that cannot be addressed without a guaranteed slot. The committee will then have to figure out how to shore up perceived inherent weaknesses in the strength of schedule within the G5 conferences. This is where ideas needs to be debated.

(04-30-2021 11:57 PM)Acres Wrote:  

(04-30-2021 08:36 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  In the end, the argument as to why the G5 deserve their own slot boils down to a simple truth----Any system in which you can win 100% of your games, including the conference championship---and still not qualify for the playoffs due to an opinion----is a fundamentally flawed system in terms of access (and I would say that regardless of who is left out). My sense is---the Committee could still be ok. I think they do a good job of comparing P5 vs P5 and G5 vs G5. They simply have too much built-in bias or lack the tools necessary to accurately judge P5 vs G5. Thus, a G5 slot eliminates the problem. At that point, the Committee need only determine the best G5---which I think they can probably perform that task with reasonable competence.

The last paragraph is well reasoned is the most powerful argument that is driving expansion. There is a fundamental flaw in the current format relating to G5 teams that cannot be addressed without a guaranteed slot. The committee will then have to figure out how to shore up perceived inherent weaknesses in the strength of schedule within the G5 conferences. This is where ideas needs to be debated.

I agree. +n to both posters. It is the #1 argument, which UCF was fortunate enough to demonstrate when they beat the team that beat both Play-off Championship teams. Claiming a share of the national championship based on that outcome was one of the AAC's shining moments, regardless of whether anyone believed that UCF should claim that honor. It demonstrated to ordinary unbiased people that the Championship was not settled on the field, and therefore was somewhat arbitrary and definitely biased.

(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.

Who do you think does the rankings? The foxes are guarding the hen house man. Wake up and smell the coffee. The P5 controls the rankings. They won’t schedule us home and homes then they add a strength of schedule component. It’s built to keep us out.

The G5 autobid is very much in the mix. Heard several guys on radio this week from SI and other places saying there has to be a G5 auto to keep half of the teams in D1 motivated to at least say they have a shot. They mentioned UCF teams, that Houston team, UC last year all having good enough teams to deserve a spot. Now you may have to go on the road to win a game but at least you’re in the damn thing.

I really love the arguments for 12 and 16 team playoffs. Maybe I am too narrowly focused but I don't think you will see a 12. 12 or 16 adds one more week to the schedule and if you are adding one more week 16 offers more product for sale at the same cost. More product means more money.

That being said, I think change happens slowly. My opinion is that this step will only be to 8. I think the best chance will be the 5-1-2. I think it will be that for 10 or 12 years and then MAYBE go to a 16 (over a 12). Too much change and people (schools) will not be able to find thier cheese.... Don't move my cheese. Baby steps.

I would suggest that the AAC will take that 1 in most years. I believe they are currently seen as the strongest of the G5. A tweener if you want.

Over the next 10 to 12 years they want to take that spot every single time, not just for that year's payout but because of perception. Perception dramatically effects their TV negotiating position.

Now who could threaten the AAC for taking that 1 seat at the table every single year.

So hypothetically, lets say a 5-1-2 is in place tomorrow. Then lets say this next year for arguments sake, Cincy goes 12-1 and is conference champ. BSU goes 13-0 and is conference champ. I think there is a good chance that Cincy gets the invite. But the next year BSU goes 13-0 they would get the invite probably.

What teams have shown they can challenge the AAC champ for the invite? What teams CAN challenge the AAC for that invite in the future?

If the AAC wants to take every single one of those invites how can they position themselves to to that? The AAC is in a good position now to improve their standing. Can they improve that?

The problem with analyses using previous years' rankings, and then applying a revised CFP of 8-12-16 to provide an expected outcome is that you have not applied the bias. The highest ranked G-5 program always falls just outside of the selection criteria needed to be included. That seems to be an unspoken rule of P-5 bias within the committee. The only way that changes is for the G-5 to have a guaranteed slot but then the bias will always place the G-5 rep against the #1 seed.......so the bias will just manifest in a new way with a continued narrative that the G-5 doesn't measure up.

(05-01-2021 07:58 AM)Sea Pirate Wrote:  

(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.

Who do you think does the rankings? The foxes are guarding the hen house man. Wake up and smell the coffee. The P5 controls the rankings. They won’t schedule us home and homes then they add a strength of schedule component. It’s built to keep us out.

The G5 autobid is very much in the mix. Heard several guys on radio this week from SI and other places saying there has to be a G5 auto to keep half of the teams in D1 motivated to at least say they have a shot. They mentioned UCF teams, that Houston team, UC last year all having good enough teams to deserve a spot. Now you may have to go on the road to win a game but at least you’re in the damn thing.

+2

(05-01-2021 03:20 PM)Atlanta Wrote:  The problem with analyses using previous years' rankings, and then applying a revised CFP of 8-12-16 to provide an expected outcome is that you have not applied the bias. The highest ranked G-5 program always falls just outside of the selection criteria needed to be included. That seems to be an unspoken rule of P-5 bias within the committee. The only way that changes is for the G-5 to have a guaranteed slot but then the bias will always place the G-5 rep against the #1 seed.......so the bias will just manifest in a new way with a continued narrative that the G-5 doesn't measure up.

Right, and there are only two ways around that problem:

1) Either the top G5 (G5 + FBS independents) team will have to be able to beat the #1 seed, or

2) Just reject the CFP as being invalid/corrupt and set up an alternative post-season playoff or tournament.

.

(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.

My take is simple: If there is an eight-team playoff and IF the top-rated G5 meets certain criteria (an undefeated season would be one metric required, for example) then, at the minimum, the top G5 team deserves consideration (and perhaps even inclusion) with the 5-1-2 model.

I also think on the "deserving theme" that the G5 teams collectively contribute to the overall health and vibrancy of college football. As such, there is at least a modest level of "deserved respect" that should be forthcoming.

Now if the playoff were expanded to only six teams and the model was 5-1 and that model involved the winners of each of the P5 and a wildcard (with no "automatic" or "semi-automatic" spot for the G5) ... I would be 100 percent fine with that.

Conversely, 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.

(05-01-2021 05:19 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(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.

My take is simple: If there is an eight-team playoff and IF the top-rated G5 meets certain criteria (an undefeated season would be one metric required, for example) then, at the minimum, the top G5 team deserves consideration (and perhaps even inclusion) with the 5-1-2 model.

I also think on the "deserving theme" that the G5 teams collectively contribute to the overall health and vibrancy of college football. As such, there is at least a modest level of "deserved respect" that should be forthcoming.

Now if the playoff were expanded to only six teams and the model was 5-1 and that model involved the winners of each of the P5 and a wildcard (with no "automatic" or "semi-automatic" spot for the G5) ... I would be 100 percent fine with that.

Conversely, 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.

So Bill,

you are saying that A G5 team that lets say beet the no.3 team in the nation by 10 points, is blowing everyone else out, having a year of historic proportion, but because they were missing two starting linebackers and a quarterback against a triple option team, Linebackers coach had the second string guys biting a little too aggressively they fall behind by three touchdowns in the first half but come racing back in the second only to lose by a last second field goal. That team is not deserving because they did not win every game.

I know my scenario is improbable, but it is possible. Really? your qualifications just eliminated them.

(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

.