Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
College football playoff
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
rath v2.0 Offline
Wartime Consigliere
*

Posts: 39,886
Joined: Jun 2007
Reputation: 1173
I Root For: ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
Location: Tip Of The Mitt

Donators
Post: #41
RE: College football playoff
Don’t hold your breath. 11-1 in that division will earn them a bid just about every year until he retires.
 
Yesterday 10:19 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
UCBearcatlawjd2 Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 975
Joined: Nov 2014
Reputation: 10
I Root For: UC
Location:
Post: #42
RE: College football playoff
The biggest thing the new proposal does is open the door that next group to get a piece of the action, which includes Cincinnati.

But make no mistake this also helps the Auburn, Texas A&M, Florida, Penn State, Michigan, Texas, Oklahoma State, and every other program stuck behind the elite programs who have monopolized their playoff spots.

I don’t think this helps the perennial power conference bottom feeder or the bottom rung G5 schools as those within each conference that have the resources to win will continue to do so.
 
Today 07:04 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Cat-Man Online
All American
*

Posts: 3,774
Joined: Sep 2004
Reputation: 41
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #43
RE: College football playoff
(Yesterday 10:19 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  Don’t hold your breath. 11-1 in that division will earn them a bid just about every year until he retires.

I didn't say BID, I said BYE. And I was somewhat referring to 2019 when they didn't win their conference (LSU and Burrow did), I believe Bama finished 11-2 and I seem to recall Saban doing a lot of belly aching that his team still belonged in the CFP over other teams (Oklahoma) because of their schedule.
 
Today 08:22 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OKIcat Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,342
Joined: Sep 2015
Reputation: 116
I Root For: Cincinnati
Location:
Post: #44
RE: College football playoff
(Today 07:04 AM)UCBearcatlawjd2 Wrote:  The biggest thing the new proposal does is open the door that next group to get a piece of the action, which includes Cincinnati.

But make no mistake this also helps the Auburn, Texas A&M, Florida, Penn State, Michigan, Texas, Oklahoma State, and every other program stuck behind the elite programs who have monopolized their playoff spots.

I don’t think this helps the perennial power conference bottom feeder or the bottom rung G5 schools as those within each conference that have the resources to win will continue to do so.

Bolded, I agree. If Indiana soon regresses to the norm, Purdue, Illinois and Kentucky struggle and Louisville doesn't regain their form from a few years ago, UC coaches can continue to win recruiting battles by selling the fact that the expressway to the CFP runs through Cincinnati; not Bloomington, West Lafayette, Urbana, Lexington or the 'Ville. At least as long as this coaching staff remains intact.
 
Today 08:32 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Captain Bearcat Offline
All-American in Everything
*

Posts: 7,413
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 522
I Root For: UC
Location: IL & Cincinnati, USA
Post: #45
RE: College football playoff
I'm trying to figure out the losers from this system.

The obvious loser is the bowl system. And some conferences lose their benefits from prestigious bowl tie-ins (Rose Bowl, Sugar Bowl, Orange Bowl).

But it also paradoxically might help the conference who has benefited the most from a prestigious bowl tie-in, the PAC. The PAC has only gotten 2 CFP playoff appearances. It's become a de-facto P4, not P5.

But under this new system, the PAC is practically guaranteed a playoff spot AND is likely to get at-large bids. If this had been in place over the past 10 years, the PAC would have gotten 9 auto-bids (only missed it in crazy 2020) and 9 at-large bids (Utah in 2019, Washington in 2017, Washington and Colorado in 2016, Arizona in 2014, Stanford in 2013, Stanford in 2012, Stanford and USC in 2011)
 
Today 08:49 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BearcatMan Online
Kicking Connoisseur/Occasional Man Crush
*

Posts: 18,115
Joined: Jan 2009
Reputation: 374
I Root For: Cincinnati
Location:
Post: #46
RE: College football playoff
(Today 08:49 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  I'm trying to figure out the losers from this system.

The obvious loser is the bowl system. And some conferences lose their benefits from prestigious bowl tie-ins (Rose Bowl, Sugar Bowl, Orange Bowl).

But it also paradoxically might help the conference who has benefited the most from a prestigious bowl tie-in, the PAC. The PAC has only gotten 2 CFP playoff appearances. It's become a de-facto P4, not P5.

But under this new system, the PAC is practically guaranteed a playoff spot AND is likely to get at-large bids. If this had been in place over the past 10 years, the PAC would have gotten 9 auto-bids (only missed it in crazy 2020) and 9 at-large bids (Utah in 2019, Washington in 2017, Washington and Colorado in 2016, Arizona in 2014, Stanford in 2013, Stanford in 2012, Stanford and USC in 2011)

Agreed...there really is no loser in this new system outside of the minor bowls that are being dumped for time. I mean, one could argue that the G5 only getting potentially 1/21 of the payout is far worse (if they do a game-credit payout), but hey, it is what it is to get a chance at the ship.
 
Today 09:58 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
eroc Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,931
Joined: Mar 2006
Reputation: 81
I Root For: UC, Liverpool
Location: The District
Post: #47
RE: College football playoff
(Today 08:49 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  I'm trying to figure out the losers from this system.

The obvious loser is the bowl system. And some conferences lose their benefits from prestigious bowl tie-ins (Rose Bowl, Sugar Bowl, Orange Bowl).

But it also paradoxically might help the conference who has benefited the most from a prestigious bowl tie-in, the PAC. The PAC has only gotten 2 CFP playoff appearances. It's become a de-facto P4, not P5.

But under this new system, the PAC is practically guaranteed a playoff spot AND is likely to get at-large bids. If this had been in place over the past 10 years, the PAC would have gotten 9 auto-bids (only missed it in crazy 2020) and 9 at-large bids (Utah in 2019, Washington in 2017, Washington and Colorado in 2016, Arizona in 2014, Stanford in 2013, Stanford in 2012, Stanford and USC in 2011)

it's been mentioned before, but the bottom feeders are losers, but i would also extend that to middle of the pack p5s. Nothing is written in stone and teams can elevate themselves with the right hire and set of circumstances, but teams that have been average for a while are likely going to lose out even more similar to the bottom feeders.

i don't know if this is an obvious loser, but are CCG losers also a loser? They drop in the rankings due to a loss in a game during a week where few are playing. The risk of being leapfrogged increases if you lose the CCG and possibly losing an at-large berth. Related to this, potential winners might be "third-best" teams, or teams that can sneak into the top 12 after all of the fall out from Championship week.
 
Today 10:12 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BearcatMan Online
Kicking Connoisseur/Occasional Man Crush
*

Posts: 18,115
Joined: Jan 2009
Reputation: 374
I Root For: Cincinnati
Location:
Post: #48
RE: College football playoff
(Today 10:12 AM)eroc Wrote:  
(Today 08:49 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  I'm trying to figure out the losers from this system.

The obvious loser is the bowl system. And some conferences lose their benefits from prestigious bowl tie-ins (Rose Bowl, Sugar Bowl, Orange Bowl).

But it also paradoxically might help the conference who has benefited the most from a prestigious bowl tie-in, the PAC. The PAC has only gotten 2 CFP playoff appearances. It's become a de-facto P4, not P5.

But under this new system, the PAC is practically guaranteed a playoff spot AND is likely to get at-large bids. If this had been in place over the past 10 years, the PAC would have gotten 9 auto-bids (only missed it in crazy 2020) and 9 at-large bids (Utah in 2019, Washington in 2017, Washington and Colorado in 2016, Arizona in 2014, Stanford in 2013, Stanford in 2012, Stanford and USC in 2011)

it's been mentioned before, but the bottom feeders are losers, but i would also extend that to middle of the pack p5s. Nothing is written in stone and teams can elevate themselves with the right hire and set of circumstances, but teams that have been average for a while are likely going to lose out even more similar to the bottom feeders.

i don't know if this is an obvious loser, but are CCG losers also a loser? They drop in the rankings due to a loss in a game during a week where few are playing. The risk of being leapfrogged increases if you lose the CCG and possibly losing an at-large berth. Related to this, potential winners might be "third-best" teams, or teams that can sneak into the top 12 after all of the fall out from Championship week.

I'd still argue that CCGs are extremely important because they are the only way to guarantee a shot.

I agree though...the mid-to-low P5s are going to lose their one recruiting feather that they held over the top G5 teams now that there is access for all to the championship.
 
Today 10:41 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
eroc Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,931
Joined: Mar 2006
Reputation: 81
I Root For: UC, Liverpool
Location: The District
Post: #49
RE: College football playoff
(Today 10:41 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  
(Today 10:12 AM)eroc Wrote:  
(Today 08:49 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  I'm trying to figure out the losers from this system.

The obvious loser is the bowl system. And some conferences lose their benefits from prestigious bowl tie-ins (Rose Bowl, Sugar Bowl, Orange Bowl).

But it also paradoxically might help the conference who has benefited the most from a prestigious bowl tie-in, the PAC. The PAC has only gotten 2 CFP playoff appearances. It's become a de-facto P4, not P5.

But under this new system, the PAC is practically guaranteed a playoff spot AND is likely to get at-large bids. If this had been in place over the past 10 years, the PAC would have gotten 9 auto-bids (only missed it in crazy 2020) and 9 at-large bids (Utah in 2019, Washington in 2017, Washington and Colorado in 2016, Arizona in 2014, Stanford in 2013, Stanford in 2012, Stanford and USC in 2011)

it's been mentioned before, but the bottom feeders are losers, but i would also extend that to middle of the pack p5s. Nothing is written in stone and teams can elevate themselves with the right hire and set of circumstances, but teams that have been average for a while are likely going to lose out even more similar to the bottom feeders.

i don't know if this is an obvious loser, but are CCG losers also a loser? They drop in the rankings due to a loss in a game during a week where few are playing. The risk of being leapfrogged increases if you lose the CCG and possibly losing an at-large berth. Related to this, potential winners might be "third-best" teams, or teams that can sneak into the top 12 after all of the fall out from Championship week.

I'd still argue that CCGs are extremely important because they are the only way to guarantee a shot.

I agree though...the mid-to-low P5s are going to lose their one recruiting feather that they held over the top G5 teams now that there is access for all to the championship.

We're not disagreeing on this. i just think that there is way more risk losing now then before.
 
Today 10:46 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Captain Bearcat Offline
All-American in Everything
*

Posts: 7,413
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 522
I Root For: UC
Location: IL & Cincinnati, USA
Post: #50
RE: College football playoff
The Big 10 and SEC championship games become competitions for a bye in the playoff. Most years, all 4 of those teams will be in the playoff.

So they're not quite as meaningful as they used to be.
 
Today 11:01 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BearcatMan Online
Kicking Connoisseur/Occasional Man Crush
*

Posts: 18,115
Joined: Jan 2009
Reputation: 374
I Root For: Cincinnati
Location:
Post: #51
RE: College football playoff
(Today 11:01 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  The Big 10 and SEC championship games become competitions for a bye in the playoff. Most years, all 4 of those teams will be in the playoff.

So they're not quite as meaningful as they used to be.

Ehhhh...how many years would the Big Ten West Champ be a shoe-in for the playoff? I feel like they are almost always in the mid-teens when they play, whether it is Wisconsin, Iowa, or Northwestern.
 
Today 11:19 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OKIcat Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,342
Joined: Sep 2015
Reputation: 116
I Root For: Cincinnati
Location:
Post: #52
RE: College football playoff
(Today 11:19 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  
(Today 11:01 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  The Big 10 and SEC championship games become competitions for a bye in the playoff. Most years, all 4 of those teams will be in the playoff.

So they're not quite as meaningful as they used to be.

Ehhhh...how many years would the Big Ten West Champ be a shoe-in for the playoff? I feel like they are almost always in the mid-teens when they play, whether it is Wisconsin, Iowa, or Northwestern.

Agreed. Indiana might have had a case last year but they couldn't be in the CCG since they were in OSU's division. The SEC championship game rarely features a non-elite program. In the CFP era, the B10 has pretty much been a one trick pony.
 
Today 12:16 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
C1ncy4Life Online
1st String
*

Posts: 2,428
Joined: Mar 2019
Reputation: 33
I Root For: Cincinnati
Location:
Post: #53
RE: College football playoff
(Today 12:16 PM)OKIcat Wrote:  
(Today 11:19 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  
(Today 11:01 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  The Big 10 and SEC championship games become competitions for a bye in the playoff. Most years, all 4 of those teams will be in the playoff.

So they're not quite as meaningful as they used to be.

Ehhhh...how many years would the Big Ten West Champ be a shoe-in for the playoff? I feel like they are almost always in the mid-teens when they play, whether it is Wisconsin, Iowa, or Northwestern.

Agreed. Indiana might have had a case last year but they couldn't be in the CCG since they were in OSU's division. The SEC championship game rarely features a non-elite program. In the CFP era, the B10 has pretty much been a one trick pony.

With top 12 I think the Big10 will we a 2 (or more) bid conference most years. That said it’s likely it comes from the Eastern Division if the West flounders as it has a lot of years. With share the Eastern Division includinf OSU, Penn State, Michigan, Michigan State, Indiana, etc... I think those teams will pick up any slack if the Western Division struggles.
 
(This post was last modified: Today 01:02 PM by C1ncy4Life.)
Today 01:01 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: C1ncy4Life, Cal1362, mbj655, 10 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.