If they can't find a #12 would they pull a Sun Belt and go 10/12? The Sun Belt is allowed to run a football championship game and all AAC would need to do is drop football only Navy.
(06-08-2021 10:40 PM)46566 Wrote: If they can't find a #12 would they pull a Sun Belt and go 10/12? The Sun Belt is allowed to run a football championship game and all AAC would need to do is drop football only Navy.
Navy is usually quite competitive and carries far too much prestige/brand power to drop. I really think we will end up seeing UAB join and they stay at 12.
(06-08-2021 08:42 AM)Duke Dawg Wrote: they shut the door on Boise because they are realizing finally that JMU has been, and always will be, the best add to the AAC now and for the future.
If you don't think so, it's only because you are stuck looking in the past and not seeing the future.
They very well might have been if they had taken that Sun Belt invite back in the day. No way the American takes a direct jump from FCS.
American isn't going to take a direct jump from FCS, nor will they take a jump from the Sun Belt, most of whom are fresh out of FCS. Army is first. Air Force and Colorado St. from the MWC may still be possibilities even if Boise is out. After that a CUSA team would be most likely. Buffalo, Western Michigan or Northern Illinois would be the only schools from the MAC to get considered.
(06-08-2021 03:48 PM)usffan Wrote: These threads always remind me of the cliche of a group of women always trying to find somebody to marry their single dude co-worker because it bothers them to no end that he's single. If the AAC finds somebody, they'll invite them to join. But they for damn sure won't marry UAB, or JMU, or Buffalo, or whoever, just because everybody else thinks they should be at 12.
Only matters if the NCAA thinks they need to marry.
Or give up the CCG.
Or just play an unbalanced schedule...
Exactly. The three options are invite a school as a full member who wants to join, invite a member as a football-only affiliate who will take that, and play an unbalanced schedule.
It doesn't seem likely they'll either drop the CCG or, as some keep suggesting, invite a school who is going to turn them down, like football-only invites to BYU, Army or Air Force.
If there was a good option, they would have been invited already. So imagining that there is a totally obvious good option that people are overlooking is wishful thinking, and pointing out that there are flaws in any of the options that people point out is belaboring the obvious.
(This post was last modified: 06-09-2021 08:46 AM by BruceMcF.)
(06-08-2021 03:48 PM)usffan Wrote: These threads always remind me of the cliche of a group of women always trying to find somebody to marry their single dude co-worker because it bothers them to no end that he's single. If the AAC finds somebody, they'll invite them to join. But they for damn sure won't marry UAB, or JMU, or Buffalo, or whoever, just because everybody else thinks they should be at 12.
Only matters if the NCAA thinks they need to marry.
Or give up the CCG.
Or just play an unbalanced schedule...
Exactly. The three options are invite a school as a full member who wants to join, invite a member as a football-only affiliate who will take that, and play an unbalanced schedule.
It doesn't seem likely they'll either drop the CCG or, as some keep suggesting, invite a school who is going to turn them down, like football-only invites to BYU, Army or Air Force.
If there was a good option, they would have been invited already. So either imagining that there is a totally obvious good option that people are overlooking is wishful thinking, and pointing out that there are flaws in any of the options that people point out is belaboring the obvious.
^^^^^^THIS^^^^^
By the way, in his latest interview Aresco has stated that we intend to go forward with 11 and that nothing was really happening right now with expansion. He said its on the back burner unless we hear from somebody that would add to the conference "brand".
(This post was last modified: 06-09-2021 12:39 AM by Attackcoog.)
(06-08-2021 11:04 AM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote: jedclampett and JamesTKirk post on both the Realignment and AAC boards.
jedclampett and JamesTKirk both post walls of words.
jedclampett and JamesTKirk both bold a lot and use ellipses and those “one paragraph periods”.
Jed Clampett and James T Kirk are both early 1960s fictional TV characters.
jedclampett and JamesTKirk are the same person.
This is exactly what I was noticing lol
JamesTKirk has also posted in a couple of jedclampett's "would you support a G5 movement for a new NY7 bowl" threads on the other conference boards.
There are more stylistic similarities, too.
- Opening with "that's an interesting article" then going off on a tangent
- Saying "A lot of posters have shown interest..." which resulted in this beauty:
(06-01-2021 07:14 PM)MUther Wrote:
(06-01-2021 02:37 AM)jedclampett Wrote: C-USA fans have shown some interest in the idea.
There are 10 posts in this thread. Five of them are you. 4 more are mocking you or the idea and one guy said he'd support it. That's not some interest. That's a complete lack of interest.
- Misrepresenting Aresco's interview statements
But the blank line-period-blank line offset seen in this thread was what clinched it for me.
LOL - I’m reading this thread now. And this is an actual quote after one person agreed with one of his crazy ideas:
(05-30-2021 10:03 AM)jedclampett Wrote: If anyone would like to see a bowl game like this come to pass, you might send it up the flagpole on whichever message boards you post on and mention it to some of your friends. If enough people start talking about this, the idea will filter up to the G5 conference executives. It would be a "grass roots" type of campaign.
He later summons his sock puppet for support when his crazy ideas weren’t met with sufficient fanfare.
No one on this board knows who the AAC has NOT spoken with in regards to moving forward. There are AAC ADs & certainly coaches who don't know who the AAC has NOT spoken with in regards to moving forward. And I very much doubt the AAC offices have not reached out to any program that would be central in the next move...whatever that move may be. And, before it inevitably comes, I'm talking the category of "Let's discuss some things..." so not counting the schools/confs that called the AAC and were put on hold.
(06-08-2021 01:53 PM)SMUstang Wrote: I agree to some extent. Guess I was putting them in the same category as Tulane. Though they do have a recent history of excellent sports unlike Tulane. A football game between Buffalo and Tulane would be about as exciting as a Princeton vs Dartmouth game.
I'd actually tune in for a Buffalo vs Tulane football game. Tulane isn't a doormat anymore, they've been a 7-6 type team the past few years and their talent has upgraded. I'd think that would make for a good minor-level bowl game.
Buffalo does have some good fundamentals. But as "coog" said, they have zero brand value. They just have no name recognition at all. Save for Syracuse, NY state is just an empty wasteland for college athletics, in terms of national interest.
I would be fine with Buffalo for all-sports as the AAC's No. 12, but the points you and ACoog make are very valid, Quo.
I do like the thought of a university that 1. has strong academic clout in a highly populated state; and 2. brings a solid one-two punch in football and hoops. Thus, UB intrigues me.
Having grown up in and around New York City, my sense is that most New Yorkers hardly even consider Buffalo a part of the state. Their fan support is pretty local, and Buffalo isn't very big. This is a team that averages about 16K attendance for football. They are more likely to get support from Toronto than from Syracuse (much less the heavily populated part of New York which is NYC plus Long Island). And that one-two punch is from a lightweight, not a heavyweight.
I doubt the AAC gives them a second thought.
Buffalo + Rochester is roughly 2.6 million folks once you include the Southern Tier counties. Having their program dropped to D3 in the 70's put them severely behind the 8 ball.
(06-08-2021 02:01 PM)quo vadis Wrote: I'd actually tune in for a Buffalo vs Tulane football game. Tulane isn't a doormat anymore, they've been a 7-6 type team the past few years and their talent has upgraded. I'd think that would make for a good minor-level bowl game.
Buffalo does have some good fundamentals. But as "coog" said, they have zero brand value. They just have no name recognition at all. Save for Syracuse, NY state is just an empty wasteland for college athletics, in terms of national interest.
Army is national interest.
Army is located on federal territory. And Army's interest is very narrow, not like a normal university.
I would venture to guess there are plenty of Army vets who cheer for Army.
And right, let’s forget about West Point, NY and call it West Point, USA. Because people actually do that, right?
I think people just call it "West Point", nothing else. And I think most assume that because it's the US Military Academy, it is federal territory and not part of New York the way say Syracuse is. But I admit I haven't conducted a poll on it so who knows?
But IMO the real issue here is what I consider the overrating of the military academies on this board. Yes, all military academies, by their nature, have veterans scattered throughout the country. Plus, many civilians, like myself, have a soft spot for the academy football teams for patriotic reasons.
Still, I refuse to believe that Army, Navy or Air Force have much "brand value" from a conference POV. Maybe it's my age, but when I began watching football in the 1970s, the military academies were held in the lowest regard from an athletic perspective. They were regarded as the easiest "Little Sisters of the Poor" kinds of opponents. For year, decades, haters of Notre Dame took shots at them for scheduling Navy each year, as if that was almost the equivalent of scheduling a high school team or Junior College. The notion that any of the service academies was a "valuable brand" that a conference would be eager to court and sign up would have been a ludicrous concept.
And really, I don't see what objectively has changed about this. So I am mystified when fans of G5 conferences (and it's always G5 conferences, btw, nobody in the B1G or SEC to my knowledge has ever discussed inviting Army) discuss military academies in terms like "well we don't need to expand, but of course if we could get Army, well then that's totally different!". As if Army is Ohio State or USC.
I scratch my head at this, sometimes literally.
I do agree that Army (not Rutgers) is still NYC's defacto football school.
(06-08-2021 03:34 PM)esayem Wrote: Army is national interest.
Army is located on federal territory. And Army's interest is very narrow, not like a normal university.
I would venture to guess there are plenty of Army vets who cheer for Army.
And right, let’s forget about West Point, NY and call it West Point, USA. Because people actually do that, right?
I think people just call it "West Point", nothing else. And I think most assume that because it's the US Military Academy, it is federal territory and not part of New York the way say Syracuse is. But I admit I haven't conducted a poll on it so who knows?
But IMO the real issue here is what I consider the overrating of the military academies on this board. Yes, all military academies, by their nature, have veterans scattered throughout the country. Plus, many civilians, like myself, have a soft spot for the academy football teams for patriotic reasons.
Still, I refuse to believe that Army, Navy or Air Force have much "brand value" from a conference POV. Maybe it's my age, but when I began watching football in the 1970s, the military academies were held in the lowest regard from an athletic perspective. They were regarded as the easiest "Little Sisters of the Poor" kinds of opponents. For year, decades, haters of Notre Dame took shots at them for scheduling Navy each year, as if that was almost the equivalent of scheduling a high school team or Junior College. The notion that any of the service academies was a "valuable brand" that a conference would be eager to court and sign up would have been a ludicrous concept.
And really, I don't see what objectively has changed about this. So I am mystified when fans of G5 conferences (and it's always G5 conferences, btw, nobody in the B1G or SEC to my knowledge has ever discussed inviting Army) discuss military academies in terms like "well we don't need to expand, but of course if we could get Army, well then that's totally different!". As if Army is Ohio State or USC.
I scratch my head at this, sometimes literally.
I do agree that Army (not Rutgers) is still NYC's defacto football school.
Actually I would say the ND is NYC's defacto football school with Rutgers selling all the cable TV sets in the NY/NJ area. That is why the B-10 expanded with them for the revenue. Army is third or fourth on the list because Penn State territory extends into northern NJ too.
(06-09-2021 12:38 AM)Attackcoog Wrote: Aresco has stated that we intend to go forward with 11 and that nothing was really happening right now with expansion. He said its on the back burner unless we hear from somebody that would add to the conference "brand".
...and yet, how quickly things change, as - - within 48 hours of Aresco's statement to that effect - - Pete Thamel's article suggested the possibility that all of that could change over the summer, with the possibility of major developments by the time that the football season shifts into high gear...
Army is not joining the AAC. It is a dead subject. I think moves out west are done. Staying at 11 makes the most sense short term, watch the big city schools in CUSA and the BELT and see who rises above the pack. A big city school would make most sense if they rise from the ashes, Atlanta, Charlotte, Buffalo, Birmingham.
(06-09-2021 08:39 AM)goodknightfl Wrote: Army is not joining the AAC. It is a dead subject. I think moves out west are done. Staying at 11 makes the most sense short term, watch the big city schools in CUSA and the BELT and see who rises above the pack. A big city school would make most sense if they rise from the ashes, Atlanta, Charlotte, Buffalo, Birmingham.
Army is still gun-shy (no pun intended) after their CUSA experience in the 1990s. They were not competitive and it set their program back afterwards for a decade or more.
(06-08-2021 11:04 AM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote: jedclampett and JamesTKirk post on both the Realignment and AAC boards.
jedclampett and JamesTKirk both post walls of words.
jedclampett and JamesTKirk both bold a lot and use ellipses and those “one paragraph periods”.
Jed Clampett and James T Kirk are both early 1960s fictional TV characters.
jedclampett and JamesTKirk are the same person.
This is exactly what I was noticing lol
JamesTKirk has also posted in a couple of jedclampett's "would you support a G5 movement for a new NY7 bowl" threads on the other conference boards.
There are more stylistic similarities, too.
- Opening with "that's an interesting article" then going off on a tangent
- Saying "A lot of posters have shown interest..." which resulted in this beauty:
(06-01-2021 07:14 PM)MUther Wrote:
(06-01-2021 02:37 AM)jedclampett Wrote: C-USA fans have shown some interest in the idea.
There are 10 posts in this thread. Five of them are you. 4 more are mocking you or the idea and one guy said he'd support it. That's not some interest. That's a complete lack of interest.
- Misrepresenting Aresco's interview statements
But the blank line-period-blank line offset seen in this thread was what clinched it for me.
This latest missive from another thread should seal the deal...
(06-09-2021 12:06 AM)JamesTKirk Wrote:
(06-08-2021 07:18 PM)owl at the moon Wrote:
(06-08-2021 06:29 PM)quo vadis Wrote:
(06-08-2021 06:23 PM)owl at the moon Wrote: If you win your conference (P5 or G5) and finish in the top 25*, then you should be guaranteed an invite in to a 12 team playoff.
*ideally, top 25 in any of the three rankings: CFP, AP, Coaches.
Top 25 is too easy. We'd have 2-3 G5 champs ranked around #21 getting in over P5 teams ranked in the top 10.
Ok, you’re right.
True, but it is interesting to note that a few P5 champions were ranked #21st in the nation or lower, prior to NY bowl games, such as:
2020 #25 (AP/CFP) Oregon (4-2; 4-2)
2008 #21 (AP) Virginia Tech (9-4; 5-3)
2005 #22 (AP) Florida State (8-4; 5-3)
(06-08-2021 07:18 PM)owl at the moon Wrote: Top 20 is probably better.
In other words to quote you, "If you win your conference (P5 or G5) and finish in the top 20, then you should be guaranteed an invite in to a 12 team playoff."
That might seem like a radical idea to some people, but actually, it makes a lot of sense, and it could be done within a 12-team CFP format (see table below).
NOTE: In 2019, #19 (12-1) Boise St. and #20 (12-1) App. St. would have made their way into the CFP ahead of #11 (11-2) Utah and #12 (9-3) Auburn, by virtue of having won their conference championships.
The idea makes sense, logically, because a highly-ranked conference champion is a much more credible candidate for a national championship than is a team that has failed to meet that same basic threshold.
After all, how strong a claim can a team make on a national championship if it couldn't even manage to win its own conference championship?
If the rule you've suggested were to have been put into place:
(a) Three more G5 teams would have made it into the CFP over a 7-year period,
(b) The G5 would've been represented by more competitive teams in 2016 & '18, and the #12 team would have played in the CFP, rather than the #25 team in 2020.*
*#12 Coastal Carolina would've played in the 2020 CFP, rather than #25 Oregon.
G5 teams that would play in the CFP if they were required to be Top 20 (CFP) ranked G5 conference champions,
rather than simply being the champion of the top-ranked G5 conference:
Champion of the highest-........................Top 20 (CFP) ranked
ranked G5 conference:........................... conference champions:
Most importantly, the column on the right might have been a more competitive slate of teams.
(06-08-2021 07:18 PM)owl at the moon Wrote: IMO a 5:1 ratio of P5:G5 is healthy mix. Really need two G5 in there *on average*, if twelve teams are involved.
If the CFP were to be designed to ensure a representative ("healthy") mix of teams, by emulating the selection criteria for NCAA tournament teams, the CFP format would need to be expanded to at least 16 teams.
If the 12-team CFP format with auto-bids had been adopted in 2014, there only would have been one G5 at-large team (#8 UCF, in 2018).
#12 Coastal Carolina would have been bumped from the 2020 field by #25 Oregon.
There would be slightly more G5 at-large teams with a 16-team CFP Playoff Format:
If a 16-team CFP with the basic 12-team criteria had been adopted in 2014, there would have been G5 at-large teams in 2016, 2018, and 2020.
The G5 would have had an average of 1.43 teams per year in the playoffs since 2014.
A 16-team CFP would also be a better test of which team is the true national champion, because the top-seeded teams wouldn't get a bye week.
In both respects, a 16-team CFP would be better than a 12-team CFP, from the standpoint of the G5 conferences. It would also be more consistent with the principles of sportsmanship that the NCAA tournament is based on.
.
The information in these tables indicate, or suggest that:
1) The proposed 12-team CFP expansion format would be unlikely to have more than one G5 team, unless or until more G5 teams are able to end the regular seasons in the nation's top 12.
2) It may be advisable to grant CFP access to G5 teams that and win their conference championships and finish in the CFP Top 20. This would result in a very modest, intermittent uptick in the number of G5 teams in the CFP, but would be consistent with the NCAA principles of sportsmanship evidenced in the selection of teams for the NCAA basketball tournament.
3) While a 12-team CFP with an automatic bid for one G5 team would be considered a step in the right direction from the standpoint of the G5 conferences, a 16-team CFP would have two major advantages: (A) By eliminating "bye" games for the top-seeded teams, it would permit all teams "to compete on a more even playing field," and (B) It would enable a slightly larger number of G5 teams to compete for a national championship (estimated 1.5 G5 teams per year, on average).
Manipulating the font color and text size? Now we're just playing ALL the hits!
(06-08-2021 11:04 AM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote: jedclampett and JamesTKirk post on both the Realignment and AAC boards.
jedclampett and JamesTKirk both post walls of words.
jedclampett and JamesTKirk both bold a lot and use ellipses and those “one paragraph periods”.
Jed Clampett and James T Kirk are both early 1960s fictional TV characters.
jedclampett and JamesTKirk are the same person.
This is exactly what I was noticing lol
JamesTKirk has also posted in a couple of jedclampett's "would you support a G5 movement for a new NY7 bowl" threads on the other conference boards.
There are more stylistic similarities, too.
- Opening with "that's an interesting article" then going off on a tangent
- Saying "A lot of posters have shown interest..." which resulted in this beauty:
(06-01-2021 07:14 PM)MUther Wrote:
(06-01-2021 02:37 AM)jedclampett Wrote: C-USA fans have shown some interest in the idea.
There are 10 posts in this thread. Five of them are you. 4 more are mocking you or the idea and one guy said he'd support it. That's not some interest. That's a complete lack of interest.
- Misrepresenting Aresco's interview statements
But the blank line-period-blank line offset seen in this thread was what clinched it for me.
This latest missive from another thread should seal the deal...
(06-09-2021 12:06 AM)JamesTKirk Wrote:
(06-08-2021 07:18 PM)owl at the moon Wrote:
(06-08-2021 06:29 PM)quo vadis Wrote:
(06-08-2021 06:23 PM)owl at the moon Wrote: If you win your conference (P5 or G5) and finish in the top 25*, then you should be guaranteed an invite in to a 12 team playoff.
*ideally, top 25 in any of the three rankings: CFP, AP, Coaches.
Top 25 is too easy. We'd have 2-3 G5 champs ranked around #21 getting in over P5 teams ranked in the top 10.
Ok, you’re right.
True, but it is interesting to note that a few P5 champions were ranked #21st in the nation or lower, prior to NY bowl games, such as:
2020 #25 (AP/CFP) Oregon (4-2; 4-2)
2008 #21 (AP) Virginia Tech (9-4; 5-3)
2005 #22 (AP) Florida State (8-4; 5-3)
(06-08-2021 07:18 PM)owl at the moon Wrote: Top 20 is probably better.
In other words to quote you, "If you win your conference (P5 or G5) and finish in the top 20, then you should be guaranteed an invite in to a 12 team playoff."
That might seem like a radical idea to some people, but actually, it makes a lot of sense, and it could be done within a 12-team CFP format (see table below).
NOTE: In 2019, #19 (12-1) Boise St. and #20 (12-1) App. St. would have made their way into the CFP ahead of #11 (11-2) Utah and #12 (9-3) Auburn, by virtue of having won their conference championships.
The idea makes sense, logically, because a highly-ranked conference champion is a much more credible candidate for a national championship than is a team that has failed to meet that same basic threshold.
After all, how strong a claim can a team make on a national championship if it couldn't even manage to win its own conference championship?
If the rule you've suggested were to have been put into place:
(a) Three more G5 teams would have made it into the CFP over a 7-year period,
(b) The G5 would've been represented by more competitive teams in 2016 & '18, and the #12 team would have played in the CFP, rather than the #25 team in 2020.*
*#12 Coastal Carolina would've played in the 2020 CFP, rather than #25 Oregon.
G5 teams that would play in the CFP if they were required to be Top 20 (CFP) ranked G5 conference champions,
rather than simply being the champion of the top-ranked G5 conference:
Champion of the highest-........................Top 20 (CFP) ranked
ranked G5 conference:........................... conference champions:
Most importantly, the column on the right might have been a more competitive slate of teams.
(06-08-2021 07:18 PM)owl at the moon Wrote: IMO a 5:1 ratio of P5:G5 is healthy mix. Really need two G5 in there *on average*, if twelve teams are involved.
If the CFP were to be designed to ensure a representative ("healthy") mix of teams, by emulating the selection criteria for NCAA tournament teams, the CFP format would need to be expanded to at least 16 teams.
If the 12-team CFP format with auto-bids had been adopted in 2014, there only would have been one G5 at-large team (#8 UCF, in 2018).
#12 Coastal Carolina would have been bumped from the 2020 field by #25 Oregon.
There would be slightly more G5 at-large teams with a 16-team CFP Playoff Format:
If a 16-team CFP with the basic 12-team criteria had been adopted in 2014, there would have been G5 at-large teams in 2016, 2018, and 2020.
The G5 would have had an average of 1.43 teams per year in the playoffs since 2014.
A 16-team CFP would also be a better test of which team is the true national champion, because the top-seeded teams wouldn't get a bye week.
In both respects, a 16-team CFP would be better than a 12-team CFP, from the standpoint of the G5 conferences. It would also be more consistent with the principles of sportsmanship that the NCAA tournament is based on.
.
The information in these tables indicate, or suggest that:
1) The proposed 12-team CFP expansion format would be unlikely to have more than one G5 team, unless or until more G5 teams are able to end the regular seasons in the nation's top 12.
2) It may be advisable to grant CFP access to G5 teams that and win their conference championships and finish in the CFP Top 20. This would result in a very modest, intermittent uptick in the number of G5 teams in the CFP, but would be consistent with the NCAA principles of sportsmanship evidenced in the selection of teams for the NCAA basketball tournament.
3) While a 12-team CFP with an automatic bid for one G5 team would be considered a step in the right direction from the standpoint of the G5 conferences, a 16-team CFP would have two major advantages: (A) By eliminating "bye" games for the top-seeded teams, it would permit all teams "to compete on a more even playing field," and (B) It would enable a slightly larger number of G5 teams to compete for a national championship (estimated 1.5 G5 teams per year, on average).
Manipulating the font color and text size? Now we're just playing ALL the hits!
JimRockfordFan
The real question is, why tf does jed need a sock account to post all his novels of nonsense?
(06-08-2021 11:04 AM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote: jedclampett and JamesTKirk post on both the Realignment and AAC boards.
jedclampett and JamesTKirk both post walls of words.
jedclampett and JamesTKirk both bold a lot and use ellipses and those “one paragraph periods”.
Jed Clampett and James T Kirk are both early 1960s fictional TV characters.
jedclampett and JamesTKirk are the same person.
This is exactly what I was noticing lol
JamesTKirk has also posted in a couple of jedclampett's "would you support a G5 movement for a new NY7 bowl" threads on the other conference boards.
There are more stylistic similarities, too.
- Opening with "that's an interesting article" then going off on a tangent
- Saying "A lot of posters have shown interest..." which resulted in this beauty:
(06-01-2021 07:14 PM)MUther Wrote:
(06-01-2021 02:37 AM)jedclampett Wrote: C-USA fans have shown some interest in the idea.
There are 10 posts in this thread. Five of them are you. 4 more are mocking you or the idea and one guy said he'd support it. That's not some interest. That's a complete lack of interest.
- Misrepresenting Aresco's interview statements
But the blank line-period-blank line offset seen in this thread was what clinched it for me.
This latest missive from another thread should seal the deal...
(06-09-2021 12:06 AM)JamesTKirk Wrote:
(06-08-2021 07:18 PM)owl at the moon Wrote:
(06-08-2021 06:29 PM)quo vadis Wrote:
(06-08-2021 06:23 PM)owl at the moon Wrote: If you win your conference (P5 or G5) and finish in the top 25*, then you should be guaranteed an invite in to a 12 team playoff.
*ideally, top 25 in any of the three rankings: CFP, AP, Coaches.
Top 25 is too easy. We'd have 2-3 G5 champs ranked around #21 getting in over P5 teams ranked in the top 10.
Ok, you’re right.
True, but it is interesting to note that a few P5 champions were ranked #21st in the nation or lower, prior to NY bowl games, such as:
2020 #25 (AP/CFP) Oregon (4-2; 4-2)
2008 #21 (AP) Virginia Tech (9-4; 5-3)
2005 #22 (AP) Florida State (8-4; 5-3)
(06-08-2021 07:18 PM)owl at the moon Wrote: Top 20 is probably better.
In other words to quote you, "If you win your conference (P5 or G5) and finish in the top 20, then you should be guaranteed an invite in to a 12 team playoff."
That might seem like a radical idea to some people, but actually, it makes a lot of sense, and it could be done within a 12-team CFP format (see table below).
NOTE: In 2019, #19 (12-1) Boise St. and #20 (12-1) App. St. would have made their way into the CFP ahead of #11 (11-2) Utah and #12 (9-3) Auburn, by virtue of having won their conference championships.
The idea makes sense, logically, because a highly-ranked conference champion is a much more credible candidate for a national championship than is a team that has failed to meet that same basic threshold.
After all, how strong a claim can a team make on a national championship if it couldn't even manage to win its own conference championship?
If the rule you've suggested were to have been put into place:
(a) Three more G5 teams would have made it into the CFP over a 7-year period,
(b) The G5 would've been represented by more competitive teams in 2016 & '18, and the #12 team would have played in the CFP, rather than the #25 team in 2020.*
*#12 Coastal Carolina would've played in the 2020 CFP, rather than #25 Oregon.
G5 teams that would play in the CFP if they were required to be Top 20 (CFP) ranked G5 conference champions,
rather than simply being the champion of the top-ranked G5 conference:
Champion of the highest-........................Top 20 (CFP) ranked
ranked G5 conference:........................... conference champions:
Most importantly, the column on the right might have been a more competitive slate of teams.
(06-08-2021 07:18 PM)owl at the moon Wrote: IMO a 5:1 ratio of P5:G5 is healthy mix. Really need two G5 in there *on average*, if twelve teams are involved.
If the CFP were to be designed to ensure a representative ("healthy") mix of teams, by emulating the selection criteria for NCAA tournament teams, the CFP format would need to be expanded to at least 16 teams.
If the 12-team CFP format with auto-bids had been adopted in 2014, there only would have been one G5 at-large team (#8 UCF, in 2018).
#12 Coastal Carolina would have been bumped from the 2020 field by #25 Oregon.
There would be slightly more G5 at-large teams with a 16-team CFP Playoff Format:
If a 16-team CFP with the basic 12-team criteria had been adopted in 2014, there would have been G5 at-large teams in 2016, 2018, and 2020.
The G5 would have had an average of 1.43 teams per year in the playoffs since 2014.
A 16-team CFP would also be a better test of which team is the true national champion, because the top-seeded teams wouldn't get a bye week.
In both respects, a 16-team CFP would be better than a 12-team CFP, from the standpoint of the G5 conferences. It would also be more consistent with the principles of sportsmanship that the NCAA tournament is based on.
.
The information in these tables indicate, or suggest that:
1) The proposed 12-team CFP expansion format would be unlikely to have more than one G5 team, unless or until more G5 teams are able to end the regular seasons in the nation's top 12.
2) It may be advisable to grant CFP access to G5 teams that and win their conference championships and finish in the CFP Top 20. This would result in a very modest, intermittent uptick in the number of G5 teams in the CFP, but would be consistent with the NCAA principles of sportsmanship evidenced in the selection of teams for the NCAA basketball tournament.
3) While a 12-team CFP with an automatic bid for one G5 team would be considered a step in the right direction from the standpoint of the G5 conferences, a 16-team CFP would have two major advantages: (A) By eliminating "bye" games for the top-seeded teams, it would permit all teams "to compete on a more even playing field," and (B) It would enable a slightly larger number of G5 teams to compete for a national championship (estimated 1.5 G5 teams per year, on average).
Manipulating the font color and text size? Now we're just playing ALL the hits!
JimRockfordFan
JamesTKirk registered mid-March, with a first post on 6 June.
Three weeks prior, jedclampett posted a couple CAPT Kirk videos:
(05-13-2021 01:03 PM)jedclampett Wrote:
(05-12-2021 11:24 AM)DeeHee33 Wrote: Its a poker game between the CFP commitee and Aresco (G5). No one will show their hand until they are forced to do so. Both are having poker table talk between the players. Most of the talk at the poker table between hands is BS!!!
With an insightful statement like that, it sounds like you might be a fairly good poker player, yourself.
...or perhaps, if you're like me, most of what you've learned about poker came from watching Star Trek episodes like this one (time stamp: 1:14 in the video):
Mike Aresco as Captain Kirk? Possibly. Either way, it's probably a good way for us to interpret what's really going on behind the scenes.
(06-09-2021 12:38 AM)Attackcoog Wrote: Aresco has stated that we intend to go forward with 11 and that nothing was really happening right now with expansion. He said its on the back burner unless we hear from somebody that would add to the conference "brand".
...and yet, how quickly things change, as - - within 48 hours of Aresco's statement to that effect - - Pete Thamel's article suggested the possibility that all of that could change over the summer, with the possibility of major developments by the time that the football season shifts into high gear...
Absolutely nothing in that article changes what Aresco said. He said if someone who can add to the conference brand wants to join—then there is interest. That remains true as does the comment that realignment is inactive now and on the back burner.
Great catch. Here’s jedclampett’s other post gushing over Captain Kirk — complete with the “blank line, period, blank line” offset used by JamesTKirk in this thread, with the different colored fonts mixed in for good measure.
(05-13-2021 01:17 PM)jedclampett Wrote: .
Just to remind everybody of what Captain Kirk (oops, I meant Mike Aresco) is really up against, consider his nemesis in this battle:
"There will not be a new (expanded CFP) format this season or next season ... even if the board decides to alter the format, it may well not occur until after the current agreement has expired, which isn't until after the 2025 season."
- Bill Hancock, CFP executive director
Translation:
"Escape is impossible, since you are being taken under our power to your destination!"
/
Game Over: AAC shuts the door on Boise
