Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
CFP Recommendation: 6 conf. champs + 6 at-large
Author Message
Crayton Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 774
Joined: Feb 2019
Reputation: 67
I Root For: Florida
Location:
Post: #381
RE: CFP Recommendation: 6 conf. champs + 6 at-large
Ya, I hope there is “leeway” in seeding. After all, the committee rankings themselves are subjective. Maybe guardrails that (a) a team can’t be moved more than 2 seeds away from their ranking and (b) the 4 lowest ranked teams MUST play on the road; everything else is fair game for the committee.

For the OCD among us, the “seeds” will still reflect the expected 1 vs. (9@8 winner). Honestly, I don’t even care if each quarterfinal has exactly 1 “Top 4 Champ” and 1 “First Round Winner” so long as home teams winning the first round produces 1v8, 4v5, 2v7, 3v6.
06-20-2021 01:50 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RUScarlets Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,235
Joined: May 2012
Reputation: 26
I Root For: Rutgers
Location:
Post: #382
RE: CFP Recommendation: 6 conf. champs + 6 at-large
(06-20-2021 11:59 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(06-20-2021 02:33 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  What the PAC-12 wants is a guaranteed spot ... rather than "Top 6", they want "P5 + top non-Contract conference champion". None of this possibility that if the PAC-12 has a really bad season (or has only one really good team which happens to be on postseason ban for how they became so good), the PAC-12 is Champion #7 and left out of the CFP. They are one of the conferences where the guaranteed spot for the champion adds relatively more value to the CCG.

And after that, if they are not in the Top 4 champions, they would rather be in the first round game that has the winner going to the Rose Bowl.

Their first preference would likely be johnbragg's:
(06-20-2021 12:59 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  Earn a bye? Naah. Rose Bowl Quarterfinal has dibs on any B1G and PAC teams in the Quarterfinals. Why not? ...

IOW, have the Big Ten versus the Pac-12 champion in the Rose Bowl if both are in the quarterfinal round, no matter what their seeding, which would mean that when they both have the bye, one of the Quartfinals would feature two first round winners, totally messing up the nice pretty bracket that Notre Dame, the BigXII and the SEC, SEC came up with (and ALSO have a guaranteed CFP spot, messing up the outside shot of two non-Contract Bowl conferences in the CFP that the MWC representative was able to wrangle).

It goes without saying that that is the version that the Rose Bowl would pay the most for, which would then mean that is the version that on average gives the PAC-12 the most Contract Bowl money.

I think the PAC is more likely to get concessions on the Rose Bowl-B1GvsPAC quarterfinal than on getting a guaranteed spot. The committee said they decided pretty early on on G5 access, and that AQ had picked up a negative odor.

Realistically, the PAC is never going to miss a 6+6 playoff. 2020 doesn't count. So there's no money at stake there, and the PAC will have no backup on that point.

The Rose Bowl tradition, on the other hand, IS monetizable. So the PAC will have Big Ten backup, plus whatever stroke the Rose Bowl has as current CFP contract partners.

(The Fiesta and Peach Bowls, on the other hand, have no reason at all to cooperate with the new system.)

(06-20-2021 06:26 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  B1G vs PAC is dead with this model. Period. You can’t reseed and make an exception for a 2 vs 4 or 1 vs 5 in a QF game.


Sure you can. They're already making an "exception" when a non-conference-champion is in the top 4.

Quote:It throws everything off.

So call a waaaahmbulance. Oh, wait, better not, because the purity of the bracket doesn't generate any revenue, so you can't afford the waaahmbulance ride.

Quote:At that point, the plus 4 model would work best because you’d take all the traditional tie ins (hell, a 1 vs 2 is possible before the SF) and then reseed 1-4 post NYD bowls. I don’t feel that is viable either because of the calendar crunch.

That would have been a viable model, but I don't think you get the 12-team-playoff genie back in the bottle. (I strongly suspect that you're getting 12 because they can't put the "12 teams get to go to major/ NY6 bowls" genie back in the bottle)

(06-20-2021 06:39 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  
(06-20-2021 06:26 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  B1G vs PAC is dead with this model. Period. You can’t reseed and make an exception for a 2 vs 4 or 1 vs 5 in a QF game. It throws everything off. ...

Of course it throws everything off ... having a neat bracket is not something the PAC-12 is likely to worry about.

Of course, it would not be necessary to reseed ... the bracket could be built around it. But it would drive the OCD among football fandom nuts.

Indeed, the Big XII and SEC could have a different set of terms on their Bowl contract, the higher ranked hosting the Sugar Bowl, the other champion hosting its own quarterfinal if they have a bye but seeded into the Sugar Bowl bracket if they are in the first round.

And once everyone is trying to angle for the bowl they want, the ACC could have a contract to have their champion host in the Orange Bowl if they have a bye and be bracketed into the Orange Bowl QF if they are in the first round.

I can see people objecting that it turns the bracket into a mess, like a committee started out trying to design a horse and ended up with a camel ... but looking at some of the different cobbled together systems that have been put into place over the years, I hesitate to suggest it is not possible.

It's not even that difficult. If you decide that seeding the bracket is less important than the P5 conferences getting paid for major bowl ties, then it's quite easy.

Rose Bowl pays the B1G and PAC, gets priority on B1G and PAC teams in the quarterfinals. (Maybe dibs on champions only, maybe dibs on any available team from that league).
Sugar Bowl pays the SEC, Cotton Bowl pays the Big 12, Orange Bowl pays the ACC.
And, in my little fan fiction here, the commitee has leeway to flip teams in the seedings to avoid rematches where possible, or at least delay them into later rounds.

Lets see how this plays out using some past seasons, CFP rankings.
2019, since 2020 doesn't count
4 top champions: Ohio State, LSU, Oklahoma, Clemson
5-12 Georgia, Oregon, Baylor, Wisconsin, Florida, Penn State, Utah, Memphis (#17)
Committee flips Utah and Penn State to avoid an Oregon-Utah first round game.
If Oregon beats Penn State, they go to the Rose Bowl.
If Oregon loses, and Utah beats Baylor, Utah goes to the Rose Bowl.
If Oregon and UTah both lose in the first round, then the Rose Bowl gets whoever.
(Georgia and Florida do NOT go to the Sugar Bowl.)

2018. 4 top champions: Alabama, Clemson, Oklahoma, Ohio State (#5)
5-12: Notre Dame (#4), Georgia, Michigan, UCF©, Washington©, FLorida, LSU, Penn State.
Rose Bowl gets Ohio State, and Washington if they beat UCF.
(Note: Georgia-LSU in the first round, and Alabama-Florida in the Sugar Bowl, would not be rematches. For what it's worth)

2017. 1-4 Clemson, Oklahoma, Georgia, Ohio State(#5)
5-12. Alabama (#4), Wisconsin, Auburn, USC ©, Penn State, Miami, Washington, UCF (#12)
Rose Bowl gets Ohio STate and either USC (if they beat Penn State), or Washington (if USC loses and Washington beats Wisconsin), or they get an at-large.

2016. Here's the year it gets wild and hairy.
EDIT: It gets very hairy--this is the year that OSU went to the playoff without playing in the Big Ten CCG

1-4. Alabama, Clemson, Ohio State, Washington.
5-12. Penn State, Michigan, Oklahoma ©, Wisconsin, USC, Colorado, FSU, Western Michigan ©

So the Rose Bowl is [s]Ohio State
Penn State[b] vs Washington, champion vs champion.
Sugar gets Alabama, Orange gets Clemson.
Then we look at the first round games.
WMU @ [b]Ohio
STate, FSU @ Michigan, Colorado @ Oklahoma, USC @ Wisconsin.
If Oklahoma wins, they go to the Cotton Bowl.
If Oklahoma loses, the Cotton Bowl doesn't get a Big 12 team this year.

Actually, it's not the end of the world at all.

There's plenty of leeway in the system to make concessions to the Big Ten-PAC-12 Rose Bowl coalition, IMO.

All that is cute… yet it is already clear the CFP committee could care less about these “priority” bowl tie-ins when the Rose is a CFP game. They took FSU at #3 vs Oregon when #4 OSU could have been justified to preserve B1G vs PAC. The committee as presently constructed will not disadvantage or advantage teams by skewing the seeds to preserve traditional tie ins. It has to stick to a transparent metric defined as the top 6+6 in the country. So this effectively kills the B1G/PAC Rose Bowl affiliation by at least 50%, aside from the rare years where seeds and tradition miraculously align. Will the Presidents and the Rose sacrifice this? We may find out this Tuesday.

I frankly think they would sacrifice, but having QF games on NYD is too late in the year and I think the Presidents ultimately shut this down before the bowls can take matters into their own hands.
(This post was last modified: 06-20-2021 02:13 PM by RUScarlets.)
06-20-2021 02:08 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
johnbragg Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 10,374
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation: 437
I Root For: St Johns
Location:
Post: #383
RE: CFP Recommendation: 6 conf. champs + 6 at-large
(06-20-2021 01:48 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(06-20-2021 11:13 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(06-20-2021 10:26 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(06-20-2021 10:12 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(06-20-2021 10:09 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Yeah, I'm OK with this proposed 12 team format. Especially because I feared that 5-1-2 was going to happen, and this is IMO way better than that.

But I'd really be happier just sticking with the CFP. IMO it is the best balance between the traditions and ensuring we always have a truly undisputed champion.

UCF, 2017 or so National Champions, would like a word here

I enjoy 03-lmfao at UCF having a word with me. UCF 2017 is no more National Champions than you or I are, or Notre Dame 2012 is or 2016 Alabama is (the UCF-loving Colley-Matrix picked Notre Dame #1 that year even after Alabama beat them in the BCS title game; it also picked Alabama #1 in 2016, after they lost to Clemson in the CFP title game).

The CFP has, every single time, produced a champ that was unanimous with respect to the traditional pre-BCS determination, the Coaches and AP polls. As for computers, you can't expect unanimity. E.g., in 2019, when LSU was the legitimate national champ as much as anyone has ever been the legit champion at anything, there were IIRC about 20 computers out of 100 in the MC that picked someone else. Several had them #3 or even #4. That's meaningless.

And heck, an actual inclusive playoffs wouldn't change that - this past year, Baylor won the NCAA hoops title, but the Massey Composite of computers picked Gonzaga as #1 - *after* the tournament.

The last time there was an actual "split" football title was in 2003, when the AP voted for USC despite LSU winning the official BCS title. Before then, 1997.

The CFP has produced a consensus champ every year, and always will, as it is basically impossible for anyone to merit the title more than a team that beats two of the other four top teams after also having a great regular season.

Fair enough. But UCF definitely replicated the "Tulane problem" from the pre or early BCS era.

And having an undefeated team that's not part of the championship picture is definitely a flaw in the system, which 6+6 is going to solve.

Well, I think there is definitely a chance that we could have an unbeaten team left out. I suspect that had the PAC had a full season, its champ would have been in the top 12 and Coastal Carolina would not have been.

If we have two unbeaten G5 champs, I think there's a good chance one will get left out. We could even have that if there is only one unbeaten G5 champ. E.g., imagine if in 2016 the AAC champ had had one loss. They might have been ranked #13 or so. In that case, I think unbeaten MAC champ WMU, who finished #15 in the CFP, gets left out.

Naah. The committee would just jump 13-0 G5 champ above 12-1 AAC chsmp
06-20-2021 02:23 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
usffan Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,827
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 635
I Root For: USF
Location:
Post: #384
RE: CFP Recommendation: 6 conf. champs + 6 at-large
(06-20-2021 02:23 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(06-20-2021 01:48 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(06-20-2021 11:13 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(06-20-2021 10:26 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(06-20-2021 10:12 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  UCF, 2017 or so National Champions, would like a word here

I enjoy 03-lmfao at UCF having a word with me. UCF 2017 is no more National Champions than you or I are, or Notre Dame 2012 is or 2016 Alabama is (the UCF-loving Colley-Matrix picked Notre Dame #1 that year even after Alabama beat them in the BCS title game; it also picked Alabama #1 in 2016, after they lost to Clemson in the CFP title game).

The CFP has, every single time, produced a champ that was unanimous with respect to the traditional pre-BCS determination, the Coaches and AP polls. As for computers, you can't expect unanimity. E.g., in 2019, when LSU was the legitimate national champ as much as anyone has ever been the legit champion at anything, there were IIRC about 20 computers out of 100 in the MC that picked someone else. Several had them #3 or even #4. That's meaningless.

And heck, an actual inclusive playoffs wouldn't change that - this past year, Baylor won the NCAA hoops title, but the Massey Composite of computers picked Gonzaga as #1 - *after* the tournament.

The last time there was an actual "split" football title was in 2003, when the AP voted for USC despite LSU winning the official BCS title. Before then, 1997.

The CFP has produced a consensus champ every year, and always will, as it is basically impossible for anyone to merit the title more than a team that beats two of the other four top teams after also having a great regular season.

Fair enough. But UCF definitely replicated the "Tulane problem" from the pre or early BCS era.

And having an undefeated team that's not part of the championship picture is definitely a flaw in the system, which 6+6 is going to solve.

Well, I think there is definitely a chance that we could have an unbeaten team left out. I suspect that had the PAC had a full season, its champ would have been in the top 12 and Coastal Carolina would not have been.

If we have two unbeaten G5 champs, I think there's a good chance one will get left out. We could even have that if there is only one unbeaten G5 champ. E.g., imagine if in 2016 the AAC champ had had one loss. They might have been ranked #13 or so. In that case, I think unbeaten MAC champ WMU, who finished #15 in the CFP, gets left out.

Naah. The committee would just jump 13-0 G5 champ above 12-1 AAC chsmp

Man, your anti-AAC hard on must be John Holmes-esque.

We can tie ourselves into a twist trying to figure out scenarios when we all know every college football season is like a set of fingerprints - always unique. It's like when you hear political wonks trying to find scenarios with an electoral tie when we've never actually had one.

If we ever get to a situation where there are two undefeated G5's, or an undefeated G5 and another 1 loss G5 who's played a schedule widely considered to have been more difficult, my suggestion would be to wait and see what happens. It's not impossible that the lower of those two teams could actually end up garnering one of the 6 at-large berths, if for no other reason than to avoid the squawking when an 8-4 SEC team is picked over an undefeated or 1 loss conference champion for that final at-large spot.

The last time two teams from non power conferences finished the season undefeated was in 2009, when both TCU and Boise did it and played each other in the Rose Bowl.

As my good friend Jeff Goldblum says

[Image: giphy.gif]

USFFan
06-20-2021 05:18 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BruceMcF Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,262
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 276
I Root For: Reds/Buckeyes/.
Location:
Post: #385
RE: CFP Recommendation: 6 conf. champs + 6 at-large
(06-20-2021 02:08 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  All that is cute… yet it is already clear the CFP committee could care less about these “priority” bowl tie-ins when the Rose is a CFP game. They took FSU at #3 vs Oregon when #4 OSU could have been justified to preserve B1G vs PAC. The committee as presently constructed will not disadvantage or advantage teams by skewing the seeds to preserve traditional tie ins.

Which simply means if it is going to happen, the proposal has to be amended to make it happen. The proposal already includes slotting conference champions into place above their committee ranking if an at-large school has a higher ranking than a top four among conference champions ... and doesn't specify how the bye schools slot into quarterfinals, so "conditional contracts", contingent on the conference champion being a top four, are already an option under the proposal.

Quote: It has to stick to a transparent metric defined as the top 6+6 in the country.
It has to stick to the metric it is given. This is the working committee's proposal. It might not be the same as the proposal that is passed by the management committee in the Fall.

Quote: So this effectively kills the B1G/PAC Rose Bowl affiliation by at least 50%, aside from the rare years where seeds and tradition miraculously align.
This proposes to do so, but of course neither the Big Ten, PAC-12 nor a rep from the Rose Bowl committee were sitting on the working committee. Obviously, there are available amendments to the proposal which would not kill the BigTen/PAC-12 Rose Bowl affiliation to the same degree.

Quote: Will the Presidents and the Rose sacrifice this? We may find out this Tuesday.
Yes, Tuesday will be interesting.

Quote: I frankly think they would sacrifice, but having QF games on NYD is too late in the year and I think the Presidents ultimately shut this down before the bowls can take matters into their own hands.
Isn't having the QF games on NYD already part of the proposal? If it was a thorny an issue as the relationship with the big money bowl games, it seems like it would have been punted, too.

With this much money on the table, I believe that the Presidents will find rationalizations for whichever system ends up attracting the most money. "The reason we support NYD QFinals is because of it gives those student athletes that have their finals study or finals scheduling interrupted by the first round playoff games time to complete their make-ups before practices for the Quarterfinal Games begin. We must always put the interests of the student-athletes first. Kaching!"
(This post was last modified: 06-21-2021 04:20 AM by BruceMcF.)
06-20-2021 06:08 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 39,547
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 1296
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #386
RE: CFP Recommendation: 6 conf. champs + 6 at-large
(06-20-2021 02:23 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(06-20-2021 01:48 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(06-20-2021 11:13 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(06-20-2021 10:26 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(06-20-2021 10:12 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  UCF, 2017 or so National Champions, would like a word here

I enjoy 03-lmfao at UCF having a word with me. UCF 2017 is no more National Champions than you or I are, or Notre Dame 2012 is or 2016 Alabama is (the UCF-loving Colley-Matrix picked Notre Dame #1 that year even after Alabama beat them in the BCS title game; it also picked Alabama #1 in 2016, after they lost to Clemson in the CFP title game).

The CFP has, every single time, produced a champ that was unanimous with respect to the traditional pre-BCS determination, the Coaches and AP polls. As for computers, you can't expect unanimity. E.g., in 2019, when LSU was the legitimate national champ as much as anyone has ever been the legit champion at anything, there were IIRC about 20 computers out of 100 in the MC that picked someone else. Several had them #3 or even #4. That's meaningless.

And heck, an actual inclusive playoffs wouldn't change that - this past year, Baylor won the NCAA hoops title, but the Massey Composite of computers picked Gonzaga as #1 - *after* the tournament.

The last time there was an actual "split" football title was in 2003, when the AP voted for USC despite LSU winning the official BCS title. Before then, 1997.

The CFP has produced a consensus champ every year, and always will, as it is basically impossible for anyone to merit the title more than a team that beats two of the other four top teams after also having a great regular season.

Fair enough. But UCF definitely replicated the "Tulane problem" from the pre or early BCS era.

And having an undefeated team that's not part of the championship picture is definitely a flaw in the system, which 6+6 is going to solve.

Well, I think there is definitely a chance that we could have an unbeaten team left out. I suspect that had the PAC had a full season, its champ would have been in the top 12 and Coastal Carolina would not have been.

If we have two unbeaten G5 champs, I think there's a good chance one will get left out. We could even have that if there is only one unbeaten G5 champ. E.g., imagine if in 2016 the AAC champ had had one loss. They might have been ranked #13 or so. In that case, I think unbeaten MAC champ WMU, who finished #15 in the CFP, gets left out.

Naah. The committee would just jump 13-0 G5 champ above 12-1 AAC chsmp

Not sure why they would do that if the AAC champ has had the better season?

Undefeated does not mean better, or more worthy. Could just mean soft schedule.
06-21-2021 02:32 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Maize Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 20,700
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 475
I Root For: da Ville/ACC
Location:
Post: #387
RE: CFP Recommendation: 6 conf. champs + 6 at-large
(06-21-2021 02:32 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(06-20-2021 02:23 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(06-20-2021 01:48 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(06-20-2021 11:13 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(06-20-2021 10:26 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I enjoy 03-lmfao at UCF having a word with me. UCF 2017 is no more National Champions than you or I are, or Notre Dame 2012 is or 2016 Alabama is (the UCF-loving Colley-Matrix picked Notre Dame #1 that year even after Alabama beat them in the BCS title game; it also picked Alabama #1 in 2016, after they lost to Clemson in the CFP title game).

The CFP has, every single time, produced a champ that was unanimous with respect to the traditional pre-BCS determination, the Coaches and AP polls. As for computers, you can't expect unanimity. E.g., in 2019, when LSU was the legitimate national champ as much as anyone has ever been the legit champion at anything, there were IIRC about 20 computers out of 100 in the MC that picked someone else. Several had them #3 or even #4. That's meaningless.

And heck, an actual inclusive playoffs wouldn't change that - this past year, Baylor won the NCAA hoops title, but the Massey Composite of computers picked Gonzaga as #1 - *after* the tournament.

The last time there was an actual "split" football title was in 2003, when the AP voted for USC despite LSU winning the official BCS title. Before then, 1997.

The CFP has produced a consensus champ every year, and always will, as it is basically impossible for anyone to merit the title more than a team that beats two of the other four top teams after also having a great regular season.

Fair enough. But UCF definitely replicated the "Tulane problem" from the pre or early BCS era.

And having an undefeated team that's not part of the championship picture is definitely a flaw in the system, which 6+6 is going to solve.

Well, I think there is definitely a chance that we could have an unbeaten team left out. I suspect that had the PAC had a full season, its champ would have been in the top 12 and Coastal Carolina would not have been.

If we have two unbeaten G5 champs, I think there's a good chance one will get left out. We could even have that if there is only one unbeaten G5 champ. E.g., imagine if in 2016 the AAC champ had had one loss. They might have been ranked #13 or so. In that case, I think unbeaten MAC champ WMU, who finished #15 in the CFP, gets left out.

Naah. The committee would just jump 13-0 G5 champ above 12-1 AAC chsmp

Not sure why they would do that if the AAC champ has had the better season?

Undefeated does not mean better, or more worthy. Could just mean soft schedule.

To be fair...the AAC Champion if they go undefeated would probably not have played a soft schedule. That argument could be made for the MAC, Sunbelt or C-USA proposed Undefeated Champion.

Gotta give the AAC some due...it has become a pretty good conference with a enjoyable product to watch. Clearly most years the 6th Best Conference in the Country. Not year in or year out with the Autonomous Five but also clearly ahead of the other Group of Five. Clearly the Tweener of the 10 FBS Leagues.
06-21-2021 08:23 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BruceMcF Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,262
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 276
I Root For: Reds/Buckeyes/.
Location:
Post: #388
RE: CFP Recommendation: 6 conf. champs + 6 at-large
Thing is, while it sometimes hasn't been a lock until the end of the season, 5 out 7 Access Bowl selection is too much to be an accident.
06-21-2021 08:53 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 39,547
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 1296
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #389
RE: CFP Recommendation: 6 conf. champs + 6 at-large
(06-21-2021 08:23 AM)Maize Wrote:  
(06-21-2021 02:32 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(06-20-2021 02:23 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(06-20-2021 01:48 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(06-20-2021 11:13 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  Fair enough. But UCF definitely replicated the "Tulane problem" from the pre or early BCS era.

And having an undefeated team that's not part of the championship picture is definitely a flaw in the system, which 6+6 is going to solve.

Well, I think there is definitely a chance that we could have an unbeaten team left out. I suspect that had the PAC had a full season, its champ would have been in the top 12 and Coastal Carolina would not have been.

If we have two unbeaten G5 champs, I think there's a good chance one will get left out. We could even have that if there is only one unbeaten G5 champ. E.g., imagine if in 2016 the AAC champ had had one loss. They might have been ranked #13 or so. In that case, I think unbeaten MAC champ WMU, who finished #15 in the CFP, gets left out.

Naah. The committee would just jump 13-0 G5 champ above 12-1 AAC chsmp

Not sure why they would do that if the AAC champ has had the better season?

Undefeated does not mean better, or more worthy. Could just mean soft schedule.

To be fair...the AAC Champion if they go undefeated would probably not have played a soft schedule. That argument could be made for the MAC, Sunbelt or C-USA proposed Undefeated Champion.

Gotta give the AAC some due...it has become a pretty good conference with a enjoyable product to watch. Clearly most years the 6th Best Conference in the Country. Not year in or year out with the Autonomous Five but also clearly ahead of the other Group of Five. Clearly the Tweener of the 10 FBS Leagues.

Well, excluding 2020 Cincy because of wonky computers, I think in 2017 and 2018 UCF had low SOS ratings. Not low by G5 standards, but by P5 standards way too low.

I love watching AAC football too. Good product and exciting games among some pretty good teams, occasionally some very good teams. But the nonsense about them having been unfairly excluded from the CFP is just that, nonsense. There has never been an AAC team anywhere near worthy of a CFP playoff berth.

And that's not a knock on those teams. There are only four playoff spots for 130 teams, so you can be really good and yet not deserve one.
06-21-2021 08:54 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Maize Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 20,700
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 475
I Root For: da Ville/ACC
Location:
Post: #390
RE: CFP Recommendation: 6 conf. champs + 6 at-large
(06-21-2021 08:54 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(06-21-2021 08:23 AM)Maize Wrote:  
(06-21-2021 02:32 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(06-20-2021 02:23 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(06-20-2021 01:48 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Well, I think there is definitely a chance that we could have an unbeaten team left out. I suspect that had the PAC had a full season, its champ would have been in the top 12 and Coastal Carolina would not have been.

If we have two unbeaten G5 champs, I think there's a good chance one will get left out. We could even have that if there is only one unbeaten G5 champ. E.g., imagine if in 2016 the AAC champ had had one loss. They might have been ranked #13 or so. In that case, I think unbeaten MAC champ WMU, who finished #15 in the CFP, gets left out.

Naah. The committee would just jump 13-0 G5 champ above 12-1 AAC chsmp

Not sure why they would do that if the AAC champ has had the better season?

Undefeated does not mean better, or more worthy. Could just mean soft schedule.

To be fair...the AAC Champion if they go undefeated would probably not have played a soft schedule. That argument could be made for the MAC, Sunbelt or C-USA proposed Undefeated Champion.

Gotta give the AAC some due...it has become a pretty good conference with a enjoyable product to watch. Clearly most years the 6th Best Conference in the Country. Not year in or year out with the Autonomous Five but also clearly ahead of the other Group of Five. Clearly the Tweener of the 10 FBS Leagues.

Well, excluding 2020 Cincy because of wonky computers, I think in 2017 and 2018 UCF had low SOS ratings. Not low by G5 standards, but by P5 standards way too low.

I love watching AAC football too. Good product and exciting games among some pretty good teams, occasionally some very good teams. But the nonsense about them having been unfairly excluded from the CFP is just that, nonsense. There has never been an AAC team anywhere near worthy of a CFP playoff berth.

And that's not a knock on those teams. There are only four playoff spots for 130 teams, so you can be really good and yet not deserve one.

Under the 4 spots for 130 Schools...the cold hard truth year in and year out 3 of those spots are already taken. Alabama, Clemson, Ohio State and either the 2nd best team in the SEC or Oklahoma.

Going forward when/if the 12 School CFP take place. The AAC Fans should not complain. JMO 7 out of 10 years the AAC Champion will get a chance to prove how good they are, only time will tell.
06-21-2021 09:15 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 39,547
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 1296
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #391
RE: CFP Recommendation: 6 conf. champs + 6 at-large
(06-21-2021 09:15 AM)Maize Wrote:  
(06-21-2021 08:54 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(06-21-2021 08:23 AM)Maize Wrote:  
(06-21-2021 02:32 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(06-20-2021 02:23 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  Naah. The committee would just jump 13-0 G5 champ above 12-1 AAC chsmp

Not sure why they would do that if the AAC champ has had the better season?

Undefeated does not mean better, or more worthy. Could just mean soft schedule.

To be fair...the AAC Champion if they go undefeated would probably not have played a soft schedule. That argument could be made for the MAC, Sunbelt or C-USA proposed Undefeated Champion.

Gotta give the AAC some due...it has become a pretty good conference with a enjoyable product to watch. Clearly most years the 6th Best Conference in the Country. Not year in or year out with the Autonomous Five but also clearly ahead of the other Group of Five. Clearly the Tweener of the 10 FBS Leagues.

Well, excluding 2020 Cincy because of wonky computers, I think in 2017 and 2018 UCF had low SOS ratings. Not low by G5 standards, but by P5 standards way too low.

I love watching AAC football too. Good product and exciting games among some pretty good teams, occasionally some very good teams. But the nonsense about them having been unfairly excluded from the CFP is just that, nonsense. There has never been an AAC team anywhere near worthy of a CFP playoff berth.

And that's not a knock on those teams. There are only four playoff spots for 130 teams, so you can be really good and yet not deserve one.

Under the 4 spots for 130 Schools...the cold hard truth year in and year out 3 of those spots are already taken. Alabama, Clemson, Ohio State and either the 2nd best team in the SEC or Oklahoma.

Going forward when/if the 12 School CFP take place. The AAC Fans should not complain. JMO 7 out of 10 years the AAC Champion will get a chance to prove how good they are, only time will tell.

Well, "taken" in the sense that those teams have had really really good teams deserving of inclusion the past several years, as has Oklahoma and Notre Dame.

The truth is, the teams the CFP has picked for the four playoff spots has been extremely non-controversial. With the exception of Baylor in the very first year, who would have been selected by the AP voters, and TCU the very first year, who would have been selected by the Massey Composite, every year the voters and old BCS simulation and MC would have put the same teams as the CFP did in the playoffs as well.

No AAC/G5 team has even gotten close in any of those ranking systems, human, computers or old BCS.
(This post was last modified: 06-21-2021 12:00 PM by quo vadis.)
06-21-2021 11:59 AM
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.