So 2 SEC schools, 1 Big 12 school and whoever the Big 10 champ is.
That's not how I interpret that. You're repeating what the traditional year-in-year out types say and think. Look, I'm not delusional that anything is certain with Cincinnati's inclusion but you have to agree that in no other time since the CFP began has there been this much conversation and chance for a team outside the A5 to get in. Let's not act like it is IMPOSSIBLE or IMPROBABLE that Cincinnati gets in. They have to finish unbeaten for sure. Time will tell...
There was a lot of discussion about Houston that year they beat OU, but they fell apart late in the season.
And how does that impact right now? Different team, different time.
Did you read your own post???? Pretty clearly untrue.
There is NO WAY IN HELL ESPN allows Cincinnati in over Notre Dame. The Bearcats don’t have nearly enough “subway alumni”! Remember: it is NOT a sports competition, it is a TELEVISION SHOW!
(This post was last modified: 10-14-2021 11:32 PM by Erictelevision.)
I actually think it can happen this year. Cincy has checked or can check all the theoretical boxes we've speculated about a team needing to reach the CFP:
Strong lead in year (check)
Multiple P5 victories (check)
Beat a conference champion or highly ranked P5 team (check)
Meet the eye test (check)
Blowout remaining opponents (so far so good)
Run the table (I'd say they're a little better than a coin flip to do so)
After that pray that there isn't 4 undefeated P5 champs or possibly even 1 loss champs.
However, the thing that Cincy has going for them that no team in prior years had on its side (including the 2016 UH team) is that Cincy just got added into the ranks of the P5. Including them this year and celebrating their inclusion as a major feat for the G5 would be the ultimate rug pull because it would effectively mean nothing for G5 teams going forward.
(This post was last modified: 10-15-2021 12:44 AM by WhoseHouse?.)
(10-15-2021 03:02 AM)Erictelevision Wrote: They’re a AAC in 2021! You CANNOT project them!
If I'm reading WhoseHouse' post correctly, he is not projecting them at all. He is saying we can celebrate them as a G5 team that broke through the CFP barrier. The fact that they, and three other G5 teams, will soon be elevated to a P5 conference also means that their accomplishment won't open any doors to a future G5 aspirant, as every promotion of strong G5 teams lessens the number of remaining teams that would have a realistic shot at matching Cincy's feat.
(10-15-2021 12:43 AM)WhoseHouse? Wrote: I actually think it can happen this year. Cincy has checked or can check all the theoretical boxes we've speculated about a team needing to reach the CFP:
Strong lead in year (check)
Multiple P5 victories (check)
Beat a conference champion or highly ranked P5 team (check)
Meet the eye test (check)
Blowout remaining opponents (so far so good)
Run the table (I'd say they're a little better than a coin flip to do so) After that pray that there isn't 4 undefeated P5 champs or possibly even 1 loss champs.
However, the thing that Cincy has going for them that no team in prior years had on its side (including the 2016 UH team) is that Cincy just got added into the ranks of the P5. Including them this year and celebrating their inclusion as a major feat for the G5 would be the ultimate rug pull because it would effectively mean nothing for G5 teams going forward.
The odds of Wake Forest running the table are very slim, and the PAC has no more unbeaten teams already and only two one-loss teams left. If Cincy is undefeated, their biggest threat would be a one-loss SEC or B1G runnerup.
(10-14-2021 02:46 PM)quo vadis Wrote: IMO, Cincy is in great position. The main problem any unbeaten G5 has to overcome in making the playoffs is they have to beat out two P5 champs and also a possible high-ranked Notre Dame. That's a hurdle no G5 has yet met. But as of *right now*, Cincy has already met 2/3 of that hurdle. Thanks to the win over ND, Cincy will surely be ranked ahead of Notre Dame. Also, IMO, Cincy will not be ranked behind a one-loss PAC champ, and all PAC teams already have one loss.
So that makes Cincy vulnerable to losing out to the SEC, B1G, B12 and ACC champs. Or, to two SEC teams and two more P5 champs.
As I said, it ND wins out, they may make the top 3 and get ranked ahead of Cincinnati. A 1 loss Oregon with a win over a 1 loss Big 10 Ohio St. gets in ahead of Cincinnati. I think they will find ways to keep Cincinnati no higher than #5, barring continued disruption at the top.
I would be willing to bet you $50 that if Notre Dame runs the table from here on
out and so does Cincy, that Notre Dame does not end up ranked ahead of Cincy in the final CFP rankings, the one that determines the playoff spots.
And $50 is the most I ever bet on football, LOL.
I will admit that your Oregon scenario gives me pause. So I'm unwilling to bet on that.
One thing Cincinnati has going for it is there is a national push for inclusion of a non-autonomous conference team. This has been building since the undefeated UCF season a few years back. Fair or not, I think UC will tend to get more consideration for the CFP relatively speaking. I would also add that their success last year including a close loss to Georgia in the Peach Bowl has given them some cache for this year. If you don't include the Peach Bowl the Bearcats can win 22 straight games from last season through the AAC chip game this year. That success from last year was evident in their preseason ranking for 2021: #8.
I agree.
As I said earlier, I think an unbeaten Cincy will benefit from a tendency for the CFP to want to prove that it is 'inclusive', that a G5 has a shot at the playoffs.
And then yes, Cincy has benefitted from things other schools traditionally have benefitted from - a strong prior year carrying over in to the polls the following year. Shouldn't be that way, but it has been the entire 50 years I've been following the polls.
(10-14-2021 09:44 AM)Crayton Wrote: I'm with this. Like a 12-1 Georgia, I think a 1-loss at large Michigan would also be in a category ahead of Cincinnati. I'm not yet sold on Harbaugh's ability to get 11 or 12 wins, so it is as likely as an undefeated Kentucky or Wake Forest.
This is why conference champions must be the driving factor instead of this bogus ranking system. Let the ranking be determined on the field.
This position erroneously presupposes that is it a universal truth that a team who wins a given league, by virtue of that fact alone, is objectively more ‘deserving’ of a CFP slot than a team who finishes second in another conference, irrespective of league-to-league talent disparities. A 12-1 Georgia team who loses to a 12-1 Alabama in the SECCG certainly has a stronger claim than Cincy; a 12-1 Iowa whose only loss is in the B1G title game to a 12-1 Ohio State or Penn State or to 13-0 Michigan or Michigan State team likely does as well. If Bama beats UGA, OSU wins the B1G and OU gets its QB situation resolved and finishes undefeated, I’d expect it shake out like #1 OU (13-0); #2 Bama (12-1); #3 OSU (12-1); #4 UGA (12-1) and then outside the playoff #5 Iowa (12-1); #6 Oregon (12-1); and then #7 Cincy (13-0).
Yes, it makes no sense to prioritize conference champs when conferences may be very unequal.
Going 9-3 vs Arkansas's schedule is likely a more worthy achievement than going 12-0 vs Cincy's schedule.
HaHa, prioritising conference champs is Exactly the priority for real playoffs
in your words please explain why “ unequal conference champs “ is soooo bad when every other sport on earth has real playoffs and why college football is your preferred bull sh!t system that you desperately hold on to like a dying ember
so yeah, the floor is yours...
It's because of the nature of the playoffs. Yes, if we had a huge playoffs like the NFL or NBA or college hoops or college baseball has, then it would make sense to include all conference champs regardless of how weak and sorry the conference is. That's why I have zero problem with the NCAA hoops and baseball tournaments including the SWAC champ, the MAC champ, etc. There's room for all.
But the reality is this year there is a four-team playoff. That's the reality, like it or not. And mathematically, there isn't room for all 10 conference champs. With only four, it IMO therefore makes sense to try and pick the four best teams - use computers if you think humans are biased, that's fine with me. But IIRC as another poster said, winning conference X tells us nothing about how good you are compared to teams in conference Y, so why should the winner of X be prioritized over anyone in Y? Makes no sense to me.
Remember, the NCAA hoops used to have a system in which being conference champs was everything - before 1975, unless you were independent, the only way to get in the tournament was to win your conference championship. So you had teams ranked as high as #3 or #4 missing out because they didn't win their championship. That felt absurd to people, so the playoffs were expanded.
(This post was last modified: 10-15-2021 06:36 AM by quo vadis.)
(10-14-2021 09:47 AM)kdblazer Wrote: This is why conference champions must be the driving factor instead of this bogus ranking system. Let the ranking be determined on the field.
This position erroneously presupposes that is it a universal truth that a team who wins a given league, by virtue of that fact alone, is objectively more ‘deserving’ of a CFP slot than a team who finishes second in another conference, irrespective of league-to-league talent disparities. A 12-1 Georgia team who loses to a 12-1 Alabama in the SECCG certainly has a stronger claim than Cincy; a 12-1 Iowa whose only loss is in the B1G title game to a 12-1 Ohio State or Penn State or to 13-0 Michigan or Michigan State team likely does as well. If Bama beats UGA, OSU wins the B1G and OU gets its QB situation resolved and finishes undefeated, I’d expect it shake out like #1 OU (13-0); #2 Bama (12-1); #3 OSU (12-1); #4 UGA (12-1) and then outside the playoff #5 Iowa (12-1); #6 Oregon (12-1); and then #7 Cincy (13-0).
Yes, it makes no sense to prioritize conference champs when conferences may be very unequal.
Going 9-3 vs Arkansas's schedule is likely a more worthy achievement than going 12-0 vs Cincy's schedule.
HaHa, prioritising conference champs is Exactly the priority for real playoffs
in your words please explain why “ unequal conference champs “ is soooo bad when every other sport on earth has real playoffs and why college football is your preferred bull sh!t system that you desperately hold on to like a dying ember
so yeah, the floor is yours...
It's because of the nature of the playoffs. Yes, if we had a huge playoffs like the NFL or NBA or college hoops or college baseball has, then it would make sense to include all conference champs regardless of how weak and sorry the conference is. That's why I have zero problem with the NCAA hoops and baseball tournaments including the SWAC champ, the MAC champ, etc. There's room for all.
But the reality is this year there is a four-team playoff. That's the reality, like it or not. And mathematically, there isn't room for all 10 conference champs. With only four, it IMO therefore makes sense to try and pick the four best teams - use computers if you think humans are biased, that's fine with me. But IIRC as another poster said, winning conference X tells us nothing about how good you are compared to teams in conference Y, so why should the winner of X be prioritized over anyone in Y? Makes no sense to me.
Remember, the NCAA hoops used to have a system in which being conference champs was everything - before 1975, unless you were independent, the only way to get in the tournament was to win your conference championship. So you had teams ranked as high as #3 or #4 missing out because they didn't win their championship. That felt absurd to people, so the playoffs were expanded.
Is there any other major sport where a team can go undefeated and not get at least a chance to win the championship? I can’t think of one.
(10-14-2021 10:56 AM)CarlSmithCenter Wrote: This position erroneously presupposes that is it a universal truth that a team who wins a given league, by virtue of that fact alone, is objectively more ‘deserving’ of a CFP slot than a team who finishes second in another conference, irrespective of league-to-league talent disparities. A 12-1 Georgia team who loses to a 12-1 Alabama in the SECCG certainly has a stronger claim than Cincy; a 12-1 Iowa whose only loss is in the B1G title game to a 12-1 Ohio State or Penn State or to 13-0 Michigan or Michigan State team likely does as well. If Bama beats UGA, OSU wins the B1G and OU gets its QB situation resolved and finishes undefeated, I’d expect it shake out like #1 OU (13-0); #2 Bama (12-1); #3 OSU (12-1); #4 UGA (12-1) and then outside the playoff #5 Iowa (12-1); #6 Oregon (12-1); and then #7 Cincy (13-0).
Yes, it makes no sense to prioritize conference champs when conferences may be very unequal.
Going 9-3 vs Arkansas's schedule is likely a more worthy achievement than going 12-0 vs Cincy's schedule.
HaHa, prioritising conference champs is Exactly the priority for real playoffs
in your words please explain why “ unequal conference champs “ is soooo bad when every other sport on earth has real playoffs and why college football is your preferred bull sh!t system that you desperately hold on to like a dying ember
so yeah, the floor is yours...
It's because of the nature of the playoffs. Yes, if we had a huge playoffs like the NFL or NBA or college hoops or college baseball has, then it would make sense to include all conference champs regardless of how weak and sorry the conference is. That's why I have zero problem with the NCAA hoops and baseball tournaments including the SWAC champ, the MAC champ, etc. There's room for all.
But the reality is this year there is a four-team playoff. That's the reality, like it or not. And mathematically, there isn't room for all 10 conference champs. With only four, it IMO therefore makes sense to try and pick the four best teams - use computers if you think humans are biased, that's fine with me. But IIRC as another poster said, winning conference X tells us nothing about how good you are compared to teams in conference Y, so why should the winner of X be prioritized over anyone in Y? Makes no sense to me.
Remember, the NCAA hoops used to have a system in which being conference champs was everything - before 1975, unless you were independent, the only way to get in the tournament was to win your conference championship. So you had teams ranked as high as #3 or #4 missing out because they didn't win their championship. That felt absurd to people, so the playoffs were expanded.
Is there any other major sport where a team can go undefeated and not get at least a chance to win the championship? I can’t think of one.
Is there any other sport where 130 teams are all in the same division, no matter the discrepancy in resources? I can't think of one. Just because the NCAA is stupid when it comes to hoops, that doesn't mean they should double down on football.
(This post was last modified: 10-15-2021 08:37 AM by ken d.)
And spare me on the discrepancy in resources. This isn’t a FCS v FBS situation where one team gives out 85 scholarships versus 65. Moreover, there is a huge gap in resources $$$ between the elites in college FB and many members of the autonomy conferences. Mississippi State does not have the resources of Alabama and Texas A&M but I don’t hear guys like you calling for them to be excluded.
(This post was last modified: 10-15-2021 08:28 AM by CliftonAve.)
(10-15-2021 08:23 AM)CliftonAve Wrote: ^^ College Basketball.
And spare me on the discrepancy in resources. This isn’t a FCS v FBS situation where one team gives out 85 scholarships versus 65. Moreover, there is a huge gap in resources $$$ between the elites in college FB and many members of the autonomy conferences. Mississippi State does not have the resources of Alabama and Texas A&M but I don’t hear guys like you calling for them to be excluded.
The regular season conference schedule pretty much takes care of that.
Let's not forget that much of the G5 made a conscious decision to play in a division where they would not have the opportunity to play for a championship as they did before leaving the FCS. The only reason they want to now is to get a bigger share of the media loot, not because they care about national championships.
Because of the impact of ESPN's money, the NCAA should further subdivide the FBS. They had the number of schools about right in 1978. That hasn't changed.
(10-15-2021 08:23 AM)CliftonAve Wrote: ^^ College Basketball.
And spare me on the discrepancy in resources. This isn’t a FCS v FBS situation where one team gives out 85 scholarships versus 65. Moreover, there is a huge gap in resources $$$ between the elites in college FB and many members of the autonomy conferences. Mississippi State does not have the resources of Alabama and Texas A&M but I don’t hear guys like you calling for them to be excluded.
(10-14-2021 02:41 PM)quo vadis Wrote: Yes, it makes no sense to prioritize conference champs when conferences may be very unequal.
Going 9-3 vs Arkansas's schedule is likely a more worthy achievement than going 12-0 vs Cincy's schedule.
HaHa, prioritising conference champs is Exactly the priority for real playoffs
in your words please explain why “ unequal conference champs “ is soooo bad when every other sport on earth has real playoffs and why college football is your preferred bull sh!t system that you desperately hold on to like a dying ember
so yeah, the floor is yours...
It's because of the nature of the playoffs. Yes, if we had a huge playoffs like the NFL or NBA or college hoops or college baseball has, then it would make sense to include all conference champs regardless of how weak and sorry the conference is. That's why I have zero problem with the NCAA hoops and baseball tournaments including the SWAC champ, the MAC champ, etc. There's room for all.
But the reality is this year there is a four-team playoff. That's the reality, like it or not. And mathematically, there isn't room for all 10 conference champs. With only four, it IMO therefore makes sense to try and pick the four best teams - use computers if you think humans are biased, that's fine with me. But IIRC as another poster said, winning conference X tells us nothing about how good you are compared to teams in conference Y, so why should the winner of X be prioritized over anyone in Y? Makes no sense to me.
Remember, the NCAA hoops used to have a system in which being conference champs was everything - before 1975, unless you were independent, the only way to get in the tournament was to win your conference championship. So you had teams ranked as high as #3 or #4 missing out because they didn't win their championship. That felt absurd to people, so the playoffs were expanded.
Is there any other major sport where a team can go undefeated and not get at least a chance to win the championship? I can’t think of one.
Is there any other sport where 130 teams are all in the same division, no matter the discrepancy in resources? I can't think of one. Just because the NCAA is stupid when it comes to hoops, that doesn't mean they should double down on football.
Yeah let’s limit the college basketball tournament to be four of Duke, UNC, Kansas, Kentucky and UCLA every year so it isn’t stupid.
(10-14-2021 03:54 PM)JHS55 Wrote: HaHa, prioritising conference champs is Exactly the priority for real playoffs
in your words please explain why “ unequal conference champs “ is soooo bad when every other sport on earth has real playoffs and why college football is your preferred bull sh!t system that you desperately hold on to like a dying ember
so yeah, the floor is yours...
It's because of the nature of the playoffs. Yes, if we had a huge playoffs like the NFL or NBA or college hoops or college baseball has, then it would make sense to include all conference champs regardless of how weak and sorry the conference is. That's why I have zero problem with the NCAA hoops and baseball tournaments including the SWAC champ, the MAC champ, etc. There's room for all.
But the reality is this year there is a four-team playoff. That's the reality, like it or not. And mathematically, there isn't room for all 10 conference champs. With only four, it IMO therefore makes sense to try and pick the four best teams - use computers if you think humans are biased, that's fine with me. But IIRC as another poster said, winning conference X tells us nothing about how good you are compared to teams in conference Y, so why should the winner of X be prioritized over anyone in Y? Makes no sense to me.
Remember, the NCAA hoops used to have a system in which being conference champs was everything - before 1975, unless you were independent, the only way to get in the tournament was to win your conference championship. So you had teams ranked as high as #3 or #4 missing out because they didn't win their championship. That felt absurd to people, so the playoffs were expanded.
Is there any other major sport where a team can go undefeated and not get at least a chance to win the championship? I can’t think of one.
Is there any other sport where 130 teams are all in the same division, no matter the discrepancy in resources? I can't think of one. Just because the NCAA is stupid when it comes to hoops, that doesn't mean they should double down on football.
Yeah let’s limit the college basketball tournament to be four of Duke, UNC, Kansas, Kentucky and UCLA every year so it isn’t stupid.
I believe that argument is called "reductio ad absurdum". If we simply exclude the bottom 16 conferences we would have a better tournament and wouldn't exclude any school that had even the slightest chance of winning.
(10-15-2021 06:34 AM)quo vadis Wrote: It's because of the nature of the playoffs. Yes, if we had a huge playoffs like the NFL or NBA or college hoops or college baseball has, then it would make sense to include all conference champs regardless of how weak and sorry the conference is. That's why I have zero problem with the NCAA hoops and baseball tournaments including the SWAC champ, the MAC champ, etc. There's room for all.
But the reality is this year there is a four-team playoff. That's the reality, like it or not. And mathematically, there isn't room for all 10 conference champs. With only four, it IMO therefore makes sense to try and pick the four best teams - use computers if you think humans are biased, that's fine with me. But IIRC as another poster said, winning conference X tells us nothing about how good you are compared to teams in conference Y, so why should the winner of X be prioritized over anyone in Y? Makes no sense to me.
Remember, the NCAA hoops used to have a system in which being conference champs was everything - before 1975, unless you were independent, the only way to get in the tournament was to win your conference championship. So you had teams ranked as high as #3 or #4 missing out because they didn't win their championship. That felt absurd to people, so the playoffs were expanded.
Is there any other major sport where a team can go undefeated and not get at least a chance to win the championship? I can’t think of one.
Is there any other sport where 130 teams are all in the same division, no matter the discrepancy in resources? I can't think of one. Just because the NCAA is stupid when it comes to hoops, that doesn't mean they should double down on football.
Yeah let’s limit the college basketball tournament to be four of Duke, UNC, Kansas, Kentucky and UCLA every year so it isn’t stupid.
I believe that argument is called "reductio ad absurdum". If we simply exclude the bottom 16 conferences we would have a better tournament and wouldn't exclude any school that had even the slightest chance of winning.
Yah says you. The upsets are what make the NCAAT special.
(10-15-2021 03:02 AM)Erictelevision Wrote: They’re a AAC in 2021! You CANNOT project them!
If I'm reading WhoseHouse' post correctly, he is not projecting them at all. He is saying we can celebrate them as a G5 team that broke through the CFP barrier. The fact that they, and three other G5 teams, will soon be elevated to a P5 conference also means that their accomplishment won't open any doors to a future G5 aspirant, as every promotion of strong G5 teams lessens the number of remaining teams that would have a realistic shot at matching Cincy's feat.
I don't think I worded it well but yah this is basically what I was saying.
(10-14-2021 10:56 AM)CarlSmithCenter Wrote: This position erroneously presupposes that is it a universal truth that a team who wins a given league, by virtue of that fact alone, is objectively more ‘deserving’ of a CFP slot than a team who finishes second in another conference, irrespective of league-to-league talent disparities. A 12-1 Georgia team who loses to a 12-1 Alabama in the SECCG certainly has a stronger claim than Cincy; a 12-1 Iowa whose only loss is in the B1G title game to a 12-1 Ohio State or Penn State or to 13-0 Michigan or Michigan State team likely does as well. If Bama beats UGA, OSU wins the B1G and OU gets its QB situation resolved and finishes undefeated, I’d expect it shake out like #1 OU (13-0); #2 Bama (12-1); #3 OSU (12-1); #4 UGA (12-1) and then outside the playoff #5 Iowa (12-1); #6 Oregon (12-1); and then #7 Cincy (13-0).
Yes, it makes no sense to prioritize conference champs when conferences may be very unequal.
Going 9-3 vs Arkansas's schedule is likely a more worthy achievement than going 12-0 vs Cincy's schedule.
HaHa, prioritising conference champs is Exactly the priority for real playoffs
in your words please explain why “ unequal conference champs “ is soooo bad when every other sport on earth has real playoffs and why college football is your preferred bull sh!t system that you desperately hold on to like a dying ember
so yeah, the floor is yours...
It's because of the nature of the playoffs. Yes, if we had a huge playoffs like the NFL or NBA or college hoops or college baseball has, then it would make sense to include all conference champs regardless of how weak and sorry the conference is. That's why I have zero problem with the NCAA hoops and baseball tournaments including the SWAC champ, the MAC champ, etc. There's room for all.
But the reality is this year there is a four-team playoff. That's the reality, like it or not. And mathematically, there isn't room for all 10 conference champs. With only four, it IMO therefore makes sense to try and pick the four best teams - use computers if you think humans are biased, that's fine with me. But IIRC as another poster said, winning conference X tells us nothing about how good you are compared to teams in conference Y, so why should the winner of X be prioritized over anyone in Y? Makes no sense to me.
Remember, the NCAA hoops used to have a system in which being conference champs was everything - before 1975, unless you were independent, the only way to get in the tournament was to win your conference championship. So you had teams ranked as high as #3 or #4 missing out because they didn't win their championship. That felt absurd to people, so the playoffs were expanded.
Is there any other major sport where a team can go undefeated and not get at least a chance to win the championship? I can’t think of one.
I agree with your sentiments and understand that the question is rhetorical. Nevertheless…
I attended the FIFA World Cup finals in Argentina as a teenage fan. Sixteen countries competed in the finals stage (over 200 countries had fielded national teams in prior qualifying stages). Brazil was undefeated in the first and second round of group stage (round robin) play. Argentina tied Brazil in their second round head-to-head game, and held a goals differential advantage as a tie-breaker for the championship game qualifier. Undefeated Brazil then won the third place consolation game.
Brazil’s undefeated (but non-championship contending) tournament did result in a change in future World Cups.
(10-14-2021 09:44 AM)Crayton Wrote: I'm with this. Like a 12-1 Georgia, I think a 1-loss at large Michigan would also be in a category ahead of Cincinnati. I'm not yet sold on Harbaugh's ability to get 11 or 12 wins, so it is as likely as an undefeated Kentucky or Wake Forest.
This is why conference champions must be the driving factor instead of this bogus ranking system. Let the ranking be determined on the field.
Agreed but that is effectively impossible with 130 schools unless you begin an elimination tournament like mid-season.
It's possible...div II and div III make it work. Don't see why Div I can't as well.
Because in D-II and D-III nobody is watching those early round games. In D-I the economics of a playoff requires that the games be reasonably competitive and attractive to a large number of fans. You aren't going to get that if you give an autobid to a five-loss MAC team.
yes, maybe, but we have seen some major blowouts in the current BCS playoff format
