Quote:You really don't need ONE playoff system of 4 teams every year, or 8 teams or 16 teams every year. You need a different sized tournament every season, so that at the end of the playoff, the team who wins is guaranteed to have the best record in college football, or a tied record with a head-to-head victory.

I thought about that before, but no other sport does that. You wouldn't really know until finishing up the end of the reg season.

But I agree -- if there's a lot of disparity, one could easily see 12 teams one year, but another year it's tightly locked with #5 Notably lower, you'd have 4. Usually something like 6 (1st two bye) - 8.

Problem is, although there Can be disparity between the Tip-Top VS high ranked -- it's usually not certain, but assumed with good grounding. Too few games, too many teams. The expansion of the "playoff" into an Actual PLAYOFF is because there's less spots than P5 conferences. Meaning, you can't get all P5 Conf Champs, and you'd only get 3 out of 5 if ND/BYU/G5-Champ crashes the party.

So you're always going to need 6, at least (to include all P5 Champs). The reason they're Expanding is because they want all 5 P5s. The only way it'd be Realistically allowed to disclude a P5 Champ is if said P5 Champ was unranked and/or 2 G5 Conf Champs were ranked above them.

Going 8 -- OK, P5 Champs covered, but a main problem. You're eliminating 50% of the BCS/NY bowl teams into the mix (12->8). One can talk all they want about the other 4 having good bowls, but at the end of the day, the other 2 bowls won't be any bigger than the Outback Bowl or something.

IMO, you go 12 which they are aiming for, understandably. Essentially, the 12 who go to the 6 BCS/NY bowls now -- but giving the Top 4 a bye instead of 'the' playoff -- and the other 8 play home-away. Then those 4 winners play the Top 4.

I can understand "shifting" the seeds somewhat after the 1st round for the sake of Bowl-setup (pushing B1G vs P12 against each other for Rose Bowl). But besides the Rose Bowl, no real bending to do so much. Obviously one shouldn't in one year put #1 vs #2 or #3 in the 1st round of the "Last 8".

^Going WAY out there... 538 once proposed spotting teams X points depending on regular season performance. So, #1 Georgia might be spotted 13 points vs. #8 Utah. In years of more parity, or between the 4th and 5th ranked teams, the value of the spot would be closer to 0.

[Side note, I think "spotting" 1/2 point to one or another team is an excellent way to avoid overtime altogether]

Obviously giving points to teams before the game is pure fantasy. 538 also said that in playoff series (so, not football) it'd be more palatable to spot teams whole games, to reward winning X% more regular season games than your opponent. In football, it might be something whereby certain teams must lose twice, like a McIntyre System.

That double-elimination part is included in my preferred system. P5 + G + WC + 1. 7 teams play in to the playoff, but that "1" last spot is reserved for a high-ranking team who may have lost their CCG. While one might say Georgia or Alabama "had" their chance, a loss in the SECCG may still leave them with a Top 8 resume.

(11-22-2021 07:35 PM)toddjnsn Wrote:  

Quote:You really don't need ONE playoff system of 4 teams every year, or 8 teams or 16 teams every year. You need a different sized tournament every season, so that at the end of the playoff, the team who wins is guaranteed to have the best record in college football, or a tied record with a head-to-head victory.

I thought about that before, but no other sport does that. You wouldn't really know until finishing up the end of the reg season.

But I agree -- if there's a lot of disparity, one could easily see 12 teams one year, but another year it's tightly locked with #5 Notably lower, you'd have 4. Usually something like 6 (1st two bye) - 8.

Problem is, although there Can be disparity between the Tip-Top VS high ranked -- it's usually not certain, but assumed with good grounding. Too few games, too many teams. The expansion of the "playoff" into an Actual PLAYOFF is because there's less spots than P5 conferences. Meaning, you can't get all P5 Conf Champs, and you'd only get 3 out of 5 if ND/BYU/G5-Champ crashes the party.

So you're always going to need 6, at least (to include all P5 Champs). The reason they're Expanding is because they want all 5 P5s. The only way it'd be Realistically allowed to disclude a P5 Champ is if said P5 Champ was unranked and/or 2 G5 Conf Champs were ranked above them.

Going 8 -- OK, P5 Champs covered, but a main problem. You're eliminating 50% of the BCS/NY bowl teams into the mix (12->8). One can talk all they want about the other 4 having good bowls, but at the end of the day, the other 2 bowls won't be any bigger than the Outback Bowl or something.

IMO, you go 12 which they are aiming for, understandably. Essentially, the 12 who go to the 6 BCS/NY bowls now -- but giving the Top 4 a bye instead of 'the' playoff -- and the other 8 play home-away. Then those 4 winners play the Top 4.

I can understand "shifting" the seeds somewhat after the 1st round for the sake of Bowl-setup (pushing B1G vs P12 against each other for Rose Bowl). But besides the Rose Bowl, no real bending to do so much. Obviously one shouldn't in one year put #1 vs #2 or #3 in the 1st round of the "Last 8".

You hit on a key point that has always driven me nuts about a lot of college football fans (and I’m speaking as a massive college football fan): we are for some reason obsessed with the random “undeserving” team(s) making it into the playoff that no fans of any other sport (pro or college) have thought twice about for decades. This brings us to seriously debating convoluted concepts, such as having a variable playoff size every year, that if anyone tried to apply in any other sport (including football at every single other level), it would be looked at as batsh*t crazy.

Two things that I believe with structuring a playoff:

(1) K.I.S.S.: Keep It Simple Stupid. If you can’t explain your playoff system to a first grader, then it’s too complicated. The proposed 12-team playoff (whether top 6 conference champs or 5+1) meets that standard in a way that all of these convoluted proposals that try to address the outlier “undeserving” team don’t. This brings me to the next point…

(2) Don’t Create a Playoff to Fit a Certain Outcome (because it ALWAYS backfires) - It’s the proverbial cure that’s worse than the disease when people become so obsessed about how good the #12 seed is or whether a mediocre team wins an upset in a conference championship game that they put up a list of caveats, exceptions, and “if/then” formula applications that the playoff structure becomes unrecognizable (and thus violating the first point of K.I.S.S.).

Guess what? Bad teams sometimes win NFL divisions and even host home playoff games (see Washington last season). Wild card teams often have better records than division winners (which happens all of the time in the NFL and MLB). A conference championship game upset can result in bid thieves, which happens in virtually every NCAA Tournament.

The point is to not to try to legislate that out of any proposed playoff system. Just accept that any system is going to have outlier participants from time to time and that’s perfectly fine because that’s what happens when you actually determine spots based on the games themselves instead of a committee setting in a conference room in Dallas. Imperfection due to upsets is called freaking sports! That’s why we watch!

Quote:(1) K.I.S.S.: Keep It Simple Stupid. If you can’t explain your playoff system to a first grader, then it’s too complicated. The proposed 12-team playoff (whether top 6 conference champs or 5+1) meets that standard in a way that all of these convoluted proposals that try to address the outlier “undeserving” team don’t. This brings me to the next point…

I agree to keep it as non-complicated as possible. However, unlike the NFL (and all pro sports) -- it's not a simple scenario. Like the current 4-team playoff. Sure, you can just say "Top 4, good to go, done," but obviously that ain't doing it for good reason. Just because something's simple -- does not mean it's a good idea. In college, it'll be more flawed than NFL as you're dealing with a different ball of wax (rankings + SEVERE lack of play between teams).

Quote:(2) Don’t Create a Playoff to Fit a Certain Outcome (because it ALWAYS backfires) - It’s the proverbial cure that’s worse than the disease when people become so obsessed about how good the #12 seed is or whether a mediocre team wins an upset in a conference championship game that they put up a list of caveats, exceptions, and “if/then” formula applications that the playoff structure becomes unrecognizable (and thus violating the first point of K.I.S.S.).

Well, in my layout, it doesn't matter how good the #12 is to "make it". And it's not trying to fit a certain "deserved" outcome.

Mine's pretty simple, IF one were to do a 16-team playoff (which won't happen): 10 Conf Champs, 6 at-larges based on rank. For all practical purposes, no more than 2 from same conference as at large (unless 3rd at-large same conf in Top 6). And the committee seedings can shift a bit -- Just Like in the NCAA TOURNEY -- to avoid same-conference showdowns in 1st round, and to help avoid it potentially in the 2nd round. Especially when, in CFB, you play much less against OOC teams than anywhere else. It's pretty simple. :)

The simpler SETUP though, as far as how we're rolling so far -- is a 12-team playoff. Ya just take the current 12 going to NY/BCS bowls -- and just giving the Top 4 a bye. But since it is a playoff and not a bowl setup, you don't purely do it by ratings & conf matchups, but just avoid same-conf games in the beginning & roll by rank without stockpiling with same-conf teams (as the BCS/NY bowls currently try to avoid now anyway).

I love all the folks who think there would be a cap at all to the # of teams from any one conference. So stupid. The Big Conferences don't want it, and TV doesn't want it. ergo, no chance in hell there will ever be a cap on the number of teams in the tourney.

(11-23-2021 12:35 AM)stever20 Wrote:  I love all the folks who think there would be a cap at all to the # of teams from any one conference. So stupid. The Big Conferences don't want it, and TV doesn't want it. ergo, no chance in hell there will ever be a cap on the number of teams in the tourney.

I’d think the ACC, PAC, and XII would want the cap knowing the B1G and SEC could very take most, if not all, of the at-large bids every year.

(11-23-2021 12:52 AM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(11-23-2021 12:35 AM)stever20 Wrote:  I love all the folks who think there would be a cap at all to the # of teams from any one conference. So stupid. The Big Conferences don't want it, and TV doesn't want it. ergo, no chance in hell there will ever be a cap on the number of teams in the tourney.

I’d think the ACC, PAC, and XII would want the cap knowing the B1G and SEC could very take most, if not all, of the at-large bids every year.

You might be right, but IMO, this is more a false-outcome dictated by the nature of these playoff models. E.g., if an ACC or PAC commissioner is smart, and I know they are, they know that B1G/SEC dominance of at-large spots is very likely cyclical. There's nothing permanent about it, because historically, we don't see it.

I mean, here are the top 12 in the final BCS standings 20 years ago, in 2001. The first number is by actual conference affiliation that year, the number in parentheses is by current 2021 affiliation:

PAC .... 3 (4)
ACC ... 1 (2)
B12 ... 4 (2)
B10 ... 1 (2)
SEC ... 2 (2)
BEast . 1 (0)

No SEC/B1G dominance there, the PAC is on top.

But, the problem is, the B1G and SEC are on top *now*, and likely will be for the next few years, *and* the playoff system contract will likely be for 12 or so years. So the commissioners have to think in terms of what is likely in the next 12 years, whereas the good of the game would result if they think longer term. And over the next 12 years, an ACC or PAC commissioner has reason to fear his conference will be at a disadvantage under some systems for most of that time.

It would be better if a permanent system was developed, so conferences could forget about who is on top right now, and recognize the cyclical nature of this stuff.

(11-23-2021 12:52 AM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(11-23-2021 12:35 AM)stever20 Wrote:  I love all the folks who think there would be a cap at all to the # of teams from any one conference. So stupid. The Big Conferences don't want it, and TV doesn't want it. ergo, no chance in hell there will ever be a cap on the number of teams in the tourney.

I’d think the ACC, PAC, and XII would want the cap knowing the B1G and SEC could very take most, if not all, of the at-large bids every year.

They legitimately don’t care.

There seems to be this theme in the message board world and Twitterverse that capping the number of playoff participants from a conference is an actual discussion point for the CFP negotiations, but it simply isn’t with the powers that be. It is a pure 100% fan-based wish. There might be a debate about top 6 conference champs vs. 5+1, how we deal with the Rose Bowl, and how much ESPN should be getting, but a cap on conferences hasn’t ever been mentioned once in the multitudes of reports on the CFP discussions.

Quote:There seems to be this theme in the message board world and Twitterverse that capping the number of playoff participants from a conference is an actual discussion point for the CFP negotiations, but it simply isn’t with the powers that be. It is a pure 100% fan-based wish. There might be a debate about top 6 conference champs vs. 5+1, how we deal with the Rose Bowl, and how much ESPN should be getting, but a cap on conferences hasn’t ever been mentioned once in the multitudes of reports on the CFP discussions.

I disagree. Reporters have come back about it wanting all P5 Champs to get in. Current system disallows it. That's the main motive for them going with all of this.

(11-23-2021 11:02 AM)toddjnsn Wrote:  

Quote:There seems to be this theme in the message board world and Twitterverse that capping the number of playoff participants from a conference is an actual discussion point for the CFP negotiations, but it simply isn’t with the powers that be. It is a pure 100% fan-based wish. There might be a debate about top 6 conference champs vs. 5+1, how we deal with the Rose Bowl, and how much ESPN should be getting, but a cap on conferences hasn’t ever been mentioned once in the multitudes of reports on the CFP discussions.

I disagree. Reporters have come back about it wanting all P5 Champs to get in. Current system disallows it. That's the main motive for them going with all of this.

that they're fighting for.

a thing to limit the # of teams from a conference in the playoff is message board fodder and little else.

college football my never change because the networks have, “ mark to market “ that means “ predetermined value “ contracts with individual conferences which means the networks have a vested interest to make their seasonal money each season through their contracts, so the selection committee is their tool to make sure they put the most profitable match ups to maximize or squeeze out the most money so it really has nothing to do with a real playoffs decided on the gridiron , this system leads to stagnation with the same ole blue bloods and every body else remaining the same forever...
Money money money

(11-22-2021 07:29 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  About the bolded, we should always care more about SOS than win %. Win % is meaningless by itself. I mean, take this Michigan team. If they played Arkansas Pine-Bluff 12 times, they'd be 12-0. If they played the Tampa Bay Buccaneers 12 times, they'd be 0-12. Exact same team, totally different records, based on who they played.

G5 fans complain about SOS being undervalued compared to wins, but it's the opposite - wins are far more highly valued. An SEC West team that goes 6-6 vs a Murderer's Row schedule will never be ranked ahead of say an AAC team, like this year's Houston, who goes 10-1 versus the softest possible cream-puff schedule.

The bias is always towards win %, when it should be much more heavily-tilted towards SOS.

Cincy? Compare them to Ohio State. Everyone thinks Ohio State is better right now. They are ranked higher than Cincy in the human polls, and the computers.

That's as of right now, with their respective results. But what does Ohio State have to do to make the playoffs? Beat Michigan and probably Wisconsin.

Who does Cincy have to beat? ECU and Houston. ECU and Houston!

Are you kidding me?

Nope. That's logical false. I could write a billion words on this topic and show you the logical formula you're relying in is mathematically impossible:

In order to be a good team, you have to beat a good team. That breaks down because if Cincinnati can't be a good team by being 10-0, then just being 10-0 doesn't make you a good team, so logically NO ONE can be a good team for you to beat.

And the obvious way to disprove that non-sense is that... What IS Strength of Schedule? It's the average WIN PERCENTAGE of your opponents! So if Win Percentage is "meaningless by itself" then the average of meaningless is meaningingless and SOS is meaningless.

SOS could be a valid argument if there were 130 independents playing an unrelated schedule, but conference play BREAKS IT.

Every conference goes .500 against itself...

If the entire college basketball season was the 10-team Big East (no UConn), Missouri Valley and West Coast Conference... with NO CONFERENCE PLAY; And Gonzaga, Villanova and Loyola all went undefeated at 18-0, their RPI/SOS would be identical: tsame win pct, each opponent of there's combined to go 72-90 for the season; the average opponents' opponent went 90-90.

And ONE non-conference game: 10th place Portland beats 10th place DePaul: Gonzaga's opponents are now 73-90, Loyola's are 72-90, and Nova's are not 72-91. So Gonzaga is first, Loyola 2nd, Nova third. Does that make Loyola better than Nova? It does by SOS, but probably not reality.

Because everyone's conference schedule is 67% or 75% of the total schedule, the Win Pct of your conference opponents is twice as big, or three times as big of a factor in your SOS as non-conference games.

So if Tulane plays #2 Oklahoma, #15 Ole Miss, an FCS team and UAB OOC and is 2-9 overall, they count the same in Cincy's SOS as 2-9 Vandy counts for Alabama's SOS. Even though Vandy played Stanford (3-8), Colorado St (3-8), UConn (1-10) and an FCS in non-conference play.

By your SOS argument, Tulane was a better non-conference team than Vandy. And BTW, you're ragging on Houston for being an easy opponent for Cincy. Houston's 10-1 and ranked. East Carolina is 7-4 and their four losses came to teams who are 34-11 on the season. Alabama's so good because they beat SEC teams like Mississippi St, who's 7-4, and their opponents are a combined 27-17).

SOS is nothing more than "Who can guy guarantee games and win them." Which doesn't tell you HOW GOOD someone is.

If you want to know how good Cincinnati and UTSA is compared to Georgia... let them play Georgia in the CFP and we'll find out. And we'll have a true champion, instead of just having a playoff winner.

CRAZY playoff using newest CFP Rankings

SOUTH (to Sugar)
4. UTSA @ 1. Georgia
3. Ole Miss @ 2. OU/OSU Winner

EAST (to Sugar)
4. Louisiana @ 1. Cincinnati
3. OSU/UM Loser @ 2. Pitt/Wake/NCSU/Clemson

NORTH (to Rose)
4. Northern Illinois @ 1. OSU/UM Winner
3. Oregon @ 2. Notre Dame

WEST (to Rose)
4. San Diego St @ 1. Alabama
3. Baylor @ 2. Utah

BYU, the Bedlam loser, and 1 of MSU/Iowa/Wisconsin are in line to take a spot should one of the above at-larges lose this week to their rival (except Georgia, who has already clinched the SEC). A&M may also play their way into a spot if Alabama or Ole Miss lose. An ACC runner-up can make it if there is enough carnage above.

(11-23-2021 05:30 PM)JSchmack Wrote:  

(11-22-2021 07:29 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  About the bolded, we should always care more about SOS than win %. Win % is meaningless by itself. I mean, take this Michigan team. If they played Arkansas Pine-Bluff 12 times, they'd be 12-0. If they played the Tampa Bay Buccaneers 12 times, they'd be 0-12. Exact same team, totally different records, based on who they played.

G5 fans complain about SOS being undervalued compared to wins, but it's the opposite - wins are far more highly valued. An SEC West team that goes 6-6 vs a Murderer's Row schedule will never be ranked ahead of say an AAC team, like this year's Houston, who goes 10-1 versus the softest possible cream-puff schedule.

The bias is always towards win %, when it should be much more heavily-tilted towards SOS.

Cincy? Compare them to Ohio State. Everyone thinks Ohio State is better right now. They are ranked higher than Cincy in the human polls, and the computers.

That's as of right now, with their respective results. But what does Ohio State have to do to make the playoffs? Beat Michigan and probably Wisconsin.

Who does Cincy have to beat? ECU and Houston. ECU and Houston!

Are you kidding me?

Nope. That's logical false. I could write a billion words on this topic and show you the logical formula you're relying in is mathematically impossible:

In order to be a good team, you have to beat a good team. That breaks down because if Cincinnati can't be a good team by being 10-0, then just being 10-0 doesn't make you a good team, so logically NO ONE can be a good team for you to beat.

And the obvious way to disprove that non-sense is that... What IS Strength of Schedule? It's the average WIN PERCENTAGE of your opponents! So if Win Percentage is "meaningless by itself" then the average of meaningless is meaningingless and SOS is meaningless.

SOS could be a valid argument if there were 130 independents playing an unrelated schedule, but conference play BREAKS IT.

Every conference goes .500 against itself...

If the entire college basketball season was the 10-team Big East (no UConn), Missouri Valley and West Coast Conference... with NO CONFERENCE PLAY; And Gonzaga, Villanova and Loyola all went undefeated at 18-0, their RPI/SOS would be identical: tsame win pct, each opponent of there's combined to go 72-90 for the season; the average opponents' opponent went 90-90.

And ONE non-conference game: 10th place Portland beats 10th place DePaul: Gonzaga's opponents are now 73-90, Loyola's are 72-90, and Nova's are not 72-91. So Gonzaga is first, Loyola 2nd, Nova third. Does that make Loyola better than Nova? It does by SOS, but probably not reality.

Because everyone's conference schedule is 67% or 75% of the total schedule, the Win Pct of your conference opponents is twice as big, or three times as big of a factor in your SOS as non-conference games.

So if Tulane plays #2 Oklahoma, #15 Ole Miss, an FCS team and UAB OOC and is 2-9 overall, they count the same in Cincy's SOS as 2-9 Vandy counts for Alabama's SOS. Even though Vandy played Stanford (3-8), Colorado St (3-8), UConn (1-10) and an FCS in non-conference play.

By your SOS argument, Tulane was a better non-conference team than Vandy. And BTW, you're ragging on Houston for being an easy opponent for Cincy. Houston's 10-1 and ranked. East Carolina is 7-4 and their four losses came to teams who are 34-11 on the season. Alabama's so good because they beat SEC teams like Mississippi St, who's 7-4, and their opponents are a combined 27-17).

SOS is nothing more than "Who can guy guarantee games and win them." Which doesn't tell you HOW GOOD someone is.

If you want to know how good Cincinnati and UTSA is compared to Georgia... let them play Georgia in the CFP and we'll find out. And we'll have a true champion, instead of just having a playoff winner.

I would agree that no SOS calculation is perfect. Which is probably why no two computer rankings of SOS produce the same results. Different programmers have different formulas, and that's because there is no way of knowing what the best way to calculate SOS is, and also because given the limited nature of college football schedule interactions, the data is always much less complete than we'd like it to be.

That said, I think SOS calculations are a reasonable approximation of schedule strength. I mean, just eyeballing two schedules, based on 50 years of watching college football, I would say that Arkansas's schedule has been a lot tougher than UTSA's schedule. And lo and behold, I look at the Sagarin SOS rankings, and see that Arkansas's is #4 and UTSA's is #130. Just confirming my biases? Maybe, but then again these computer geeks put a lot of thought in to this too, I bet.

And if we're going to throw our hands up over SOS and say the only way to know if 12-0 Georgia is better than 12-0 UTSA is to have them play a game in the playoffs, then why not say that if FCS South Dakota State is 12-0 that they shouldn't get to play 12-0 Georgia for an overall, Division I championship? You can't say "well, UTSA and Georgia are both FBS!" Because FBS is an arbitrary category. If there's no way of telling if 12-0 Georgia is better than 12-0 UTSA, unless we give UTSA a chance to play them on the field, then the same is true of South Dakota vs UTSA.

Regarding the Loyola/Gonzaga/Portland/Villanova situation, FWIW, I never use SOS like a scalpel, precisely because it is uncertain. If Cincy's SOS was #60 and Ohio State's was #50, much less say #60 to #58, I wouldn't say Ohio State deserves a higher ranking on that basis alone, because IMO that's within an SOS calculation "margin for error". But we're talking #35 to #94 (Sagarin). That's not. That, IMO is, worth the loss that OSU has the Cincy does not.

And then, on that basis, we have the ridiculous situation where Ohio State, whose resume right now is at least as equal to Cincy's, has to beat Michigan and say Wisconsin to make the playoffs, while Cincy can feast on ECU and Houston. IMO, any effort to make obvious lightweights like ECU and Houston equal to Michigan and Wisconsin is just not tenable.

I mean, ECU lost to South Carolina, lost to App State, needed a miracle to beat Marshall and was dominated by and barely beat *Charleston Southern*. You're not going to convince me they are worth anything because since then they've beaten Temple, USF and Navy (needed a near-miracle to win that one too), three of the worst teams in FBS, and a bad Memphis team - in overtime. That's just not a good football team.

It's an enormous advantage, and an unfair one, IMO, that Cincy can "win out" vs Houston/ECU while the other top contenders face heavyweight opposition.

(11-24-2021 09:22 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I would agree that no SOS calculation is perfect. Which is probably why no two computer rankings of SOS produce the same results.

That said, I think SOS calculations are a reasonable approximation of schedule strength. I mean, just eyeballing two schedules, based on 50 years of watching college football, I would say that Arkansas's schedule has been a lot tougher than UTSA's schedule. And lo and behold, I look at the Sagarin SOS rankings, and see that Arkansas's is #4 and UTSA's is #130. Just confirming my biases? Maybe, but then again these computer geeks put a lot of thought in to this too, I bet.

I'd agree.

(11-24-2021 09:22 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  And if we're going to throw our hands up over SOS and say the only way to know if 12-0 Georgia is better than 12-0 UTSA is to have them play a game in the playoffs, then why not say that if FCS South Dakota State is 12-0 that they shouldn't get to play 12-0 Georgia for an overall, Division I championship? You can't say "well, UTSA and Georgia are both FBS!" Because FBS is an arbitrary category. If there's no way of telling if 12-0 Georgia is better than 12-0 UTSA, unless we give UTSA a chance to play them on the field, then the same is true of South Dakota vs UTSA.

The purpose of computer rankings, SOS, etc, is to determine "who is better." Which is a totally different discussion than "Who should be invited to the Championship?"

MLB Baseball is the easiest example. Who was the better team, the Los Angeles Dodgers or San Francisco Giants? You look at the rosters and it's no contest. The Dodgers were TOTALLY LOADED, while the Giants had a bunch of older vets having throwback years, and scrap-heap pitchers ditching their worst pitches and having great results. Despite being the "Worse" team, the Giants WON THE DIVISION. They won more games.

And that's the problem here: "Who is BETTER" doesn't actually MATTER. "Who should be invited to the championship" does. I really don't CARE if Alabama is better than Cincinnati or UTSA. Alabama lost a game and those other two didn't. You have to invite to the championship anyone who is undefeated, regardless of schedule, because then you're actually deciding something.

If Georgia wins the SEC, we used the regular season to prove Alabama, Ole Miss, Arkansas, etc weren't the best team in college football: Georgia was better.
If Cincinnati finishes undefeated, we used the regular season to Notre Dame wasn't the best, because Cincy was better than the Irish in their meeting.

Regardless of the fact that UTSA is almost certainly not the third-best team in college football, you let them lose to Cincinnati or Georgia in the CFP, and you know for sure. If UTSA went into the CFP, beat Cincy and Georgia for the national championship, they'd be undefeated AND pick up the two best wins of anyone in college football (vs 1 and 2) making them the undisputed champ.

(All the talk of Cincinnati playing a "Weaker" schedule, and Cincinnati is the only team in the top 6 with a win over another Top 6 team).

And no, the difference between FBS and FCS isn't arbitrary. It's 22 scholarships, and the agreed upon structure: No FBS teams in the FCS playoffs, no FCS teams in the CFP.

(11-24-2021 09:22 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Regarding the Loyola/Gonzaga/Portland/Villanova situation, FWIW, I never use SOS like a scalpel, precisely because it is uncertain. If Cincy's SOS was #60 and Ohio State's was #50, much less say #60 to #58, I wouldn't say Ohio State deserves a higher ranking on that basis alone, because IMO that's within an SOS calculation "margin for error". But we're talking #35 to #94 (Sagarin). That's not. That, IMO is, worth the loss that OSU has the Cincy does not.

The purpose of the example was to show you how ridiculous SOS actually is. Using it as a scalpel is definitely bad, but using it at all is almost as bad because almost no one knows what they'd doing with it.

Everyone LOVES to point out the difference between the #30 SOS and the #100 SOS, as if that means one team's Schedule was STRONG and one-team's schedule was WEAK.

But what's the win pct difference between 30 and 100? It's 6-5 instead of 5-5. Alabama beat 6-5 Miami, and UTSA beat 4-7 Illinois. Who cares? If you're competing for a championship, you're supposed to beat ALL the teams with mediocre or losing records.

UTSA has done that. Alabama is 1-1 vs very good teams, UTSA is 0-0. Why are we inviting the team that got chances instead of the team that didn't?

SOS is legitimately just decimal-place math that boils down to "Does your conference buy guarantee games, or get bought?" It has absolutely NOTHING to do with the quality of teams. You think Cincinnati's schedule is bad, because the teams they play have lackluster records.

The SEC / Big Ten had 10 teams with winning records in guarantee games.
The AAC / Sun Belt had 3 or 4 each.

All SOS does is reflect that and give people an excuse to pretend anyone not in the P5 is dog water.

(11-24-2021 09:22 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  And then, on that basis, we have the ridiculous situation where Ohio State, whose resume right now is at least as equal to Cincy's, has to beat Michigan and say Wisconsin to make the playoffs, while Cincy can feast on ECU and Houston. IMO, any effort to make obvious lightweights like ECU and Houston equal to Michigan and Wisconsin is just not tenable.

I mean, ECU lost to South Carolina, lost to App State, needed a miracle to beat Marshall and was dominated by and barely beat *Charleston Southern*. You're not going to convince me they are worth anything because since then they've beaten Temple, USF and Navy (needed a near-miracle to win that one too), three of the worst teams in FBS, and a bad Memphis team - in overtime. That's just not a good football team.

It's an enormous advantage, and an unfair one, IMO, that Cincy can "win out" vs Houston/ECU while the other top contenders face heavyweight opposition.

Right, but go do that schedule analysis of all the Big Ten and SEC "second-tier teams."

You don't respect Cincinnati and Houston because they went unbeaten against chumps. The SEC and Big Ten are the best leagues in college football because they each have eight teams that did nothing but beat a bunch of chumps, and then six of them split with each other, and Alabama and Georgia go 4-1 against THOSE SIX.

To quote Rick & Morty: "That's just slavery with extra steps."


IF the American had TWO Cincinnatis, TWO Houstons, and one ECU/Tulane instead of both, they'd be no different than the SEC/Big Ten.

But what the hell does that have to do with the quality of Cincinnati's football team?


We had 18+ years of this garbage in basketball with Gonzaga: They're only undefeated because the WCC is so weak, if they played in a power conference... They haven't been LEFT OUT of an NCAA Tournament in 22 years, so they had the chance to prove it. And now they're pimp-slapping Texas and UCLA and no one would call them anything other than Top 4 team.

But in football, we keep undefeated teams out of the championship because it's nothing more than a TV cartel. If you let UTSA and Cincy and ANY undefeated team into the playoff:

1. They will win and prove themselves and be legit champs.
2. They will lose and everyone's assumptions will be proved correct.
3. The P5 teams that don't like letting G5 teams go undefeated.... will have incentive to ACTUALLY GO PLAY THEM. If the P5 needs to send their ranked teams on OOC assignment to beat the top contenders of the G5, that's a great thing for college football: Then the G5 can say "Sure, but only if YOU come HERE." The G5 gets better inventory to sell to TV and more chances to win.

Conferences owning their TV rights have created a P5 cartel that has turned college sports into a caste system, which is inherently unfair, and this would work to rectify the inequity. We'd get a much better regular season and the number of quality games would INCREASE because far more conferences would play games that matter to the national picture.

(11-25-2021 03:14 PM)JSchmack Wrote:  

(11-24-2021 09:22 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I would agree that no SOS calculation is perfect. Which is probably why no two computer rankings of SOS produce the same results.

That said, I think SOS calculations are a reasonable approximation of schedule strength. I mean, just eyeballing two schedules, based on 50 years of watching college football, I would say that Arkansas's schedule has been a lot tougher than UTSA's schedule. And lo and behold, I look at the Sagarin SOS rankings, and see that Arkansas's is #4 and UTSA's is #130. Just confirming my biases? Maybe, but then again these computer geeks put a lot of thought in to this too, I bet.

I'd agree.

(11-24-2021 09:22 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  And if we're going to throw our hands up over SOS and say the only way to know if 12-0 Georgia is better than 12-0 UTSA is to have them play a game in the playoffs, then why not say that if FCS South Dakota State is 12-0 that they shouldn't get to play 12-0 Georgia for an overall, Division I championship? You can't say "well, UTSA and Georgia are both FBS!" Because FBS is an arbitrary category. If there's no way of telling if 12-0 Georgia is better than 12-0 UTSA, unless we give UTSA a chance to play them on the field, then the same is true of South Dakota vs UTSA.

The purpose of computer rankings, SOS, etc, is to determine "who is better." Which is a totally different discussion than "Who should be invited to the Championship?"

MLB Baseball is the easiest example. Who was the better team, the Los Angeles Dodgers or San Francisco Giants? You look at the rosters and it's no contest. The Dodgers were TOTALLY LOADED, while the Giants had a bunch of older vets having throwback years, and scrap-heap pitchers ditching their worst pitches and having great results. Despite being the "Worse" team, the Giants WON THE DIVISION. They won more games.

And that's the problem here: "Who is BETTER" doesn't actually MATTER. "Who should be invited to the championship" does. I really don't CARE if Alabama is better than Cincinnati or UTSA. Alabama lost a game and those other two didn't. You have to invite to the championship anyone who is undefeated, regardless of schedule, because then you're actually deciding something.

If Georgia wins the SEC, we used the regular season to prove Alabama, Ole Miss, Arkansas, etc weren't the best team in college football: Georgia was better.
If Cincinnati finishes undefeated, we used the regular season to Notre Dame wasn't the best, because Cincy was better than the Irish in their meeting.

Regardless of the fact that UTSA is almost certainly not the third-best team in college football, you let them lose to Cincinnati or Georgia in the CFP, and you know for sure. If UTSA went into the CFP, beat Cincy and Georgia for the national championship, they'd be undefeated AND pick up the two best wins of anyone in college football (vs 1 and 2) making them the undisputed champ.

(All the talk of Cincinnati playing a "Weaker" schedule, and Cincinnati is the only team in the top 6 with a win over another Top 6 team).

And no, the difference between FBS and FCS isn't arbitrary. It's 22 scholarships, and the agreed upon structure: No FBS teams in the FCS playoffs, no FCS teams in the CFP.

About the bolded parts:

1) I disagree. I care who is better, because relying on wins and losses is IMO too badly flawed. IMO, it is axiomatic that wins and losses depend heavily on who you play. If Ole Miss played Arkansas State 12 times, they'd be 12-0. If they played Alabama 12 times, maybe 2-10. Same team, dramatically different results based on who they played. So I can't abide teams that go unbeaten vs creampuff schedules. Those wins mean little to me.

In a four-team playoff, I don't feel any need to "know for sure" whether an unbeaten UTSA is really the 1995 Nebraska Cornhuskers (maybe a 1% chance?) or who I think they are, a 5-7 team in the B1G. Satisfying that 1% chance is not the question that is foremost in my mind when I think about playoffs. I'd rather see teams that seem obviously to be among the best play each other.

If CFB was like the NCAA tournament, we could do both - we could include six SEC teams that I think are better than UTSA, and we could include UTSA too and then run the tournament. But given that we can't do both, I'd rather leave out 4 of those 6 SEC teams, and UTSA, and leave in the two SEC teams that I and most others think are the best. In a four-team playoff, spots are too valuable to waste giving a UTSA team that hasn't beaten anyone in the computers top-50. It's not an itch I need to see scratched. Again, if we had say a 32-team playoff, sure, we could put in all the Cincys and UTSAs that go unbeaten vs basket-case schedules. But we don't have that.

And Gonzaga actually supports my point. They've made the tournament 23 times in the past 25 years, but have advanced to the Final 4 just twice. In football terms, that's two times in 26 years they would have merited inclusion in a 4-team CFP type playoff. Also, unlike say the UTSA and even Cincys of FBS, Gonzaga can and has recruited on a par with top P5 teams. They have attracted 4-star and 5-star guys, something that no G5 football team does. And yet, they've still never won it, so had we excluded them from all those tournaments, we never would need have wondered if "For Sure" they weren't the best team.

And if Gonzaga, a P5 program operating in a G-level league, has never won it, what are the chances that we are missing out on anything if we don't know "for sure" about UTSA?

Finally, for all the talk about the great inclusiveness of the NCAA tournament, when's the last time a non-Power league team won it? With the exception of UConn in 2014 - a program that had just been in the Power Big East league and still had all its trappings, and UNLV in 1990, again, a "ringer" team loaded with NBA talent of the kind we never see in the football G5, we could have excluded the entire G5 from the last 50 NCAA tournaments and never missed out on a national champion.

And yes, IMO the difference between FCS and FBS is arbitrary. First, the scholarship difference between FCS and FBS doesn't mean much, because IIRC, the FCS limit of 63 football schollies is a limit, it's an artificial cap. It doesn't necessarily mean that a FCS school couldn't offer 85 if it wanted to. They are told they can't do it. Also, quantity of scholarships is one thing, quality another. The guys Georgia gives scholarships to are a lot different than the guys UTSA gives them to. The NFL proves that. More importantly, the "structure" of FBS was never designed to make UTSA and Cincy "playoff contending equals" with the likes of Ohio State and Georgia. FBS was not structured for playoffs, quite the opposite, it was designed for schools and conferences that didn't want playoffs.

Admission to FBS has never been based on being able to be within the same ballpark in terms of resources as LSU, Alabama, USC, etc. I'm not even sure there is a resource commitment component, the criteria I know are sponsoring 16 teams balanced by gender, and averaging 15,000 fans a football game, a bar ridiculously low to begin with, and yet one that about 40% of FBS schools have to meet by fudging their numbers, buying back their own tickets, etc. It doesn't mean you are on an even competitive keel with Alabama.

Finally, regarding the second post about SOS. I disagree that SOS is just mathematical hair-splitting. I can eye-ball Arkansas's schedule and see that they have played far tougher teams than has UTSA - or Cincinnati. I don't think Mississippi State is better than Southern Miss because of a formula, I can see with my eyes that Mississippi State has far better athletes, etc. Just like I don't need a formula to know that Kentucky is a better basketball team than Grambling State. Though it is helpful when the computers confirm my beliefs, LOL.

UTSA is IMO about the #20 - #25 team in the country. That's where the computers have them. IMO, that's being generous, as sadly, even computers can't escape being mathematically dazzled by a pile of wins vs bad teams, like UTSA and Houston have put up. In the B1G, I'd bet they'd be 5-7 and about #60 in the computers. But #23 they are, so I'm OK with them getting the spoils that come with that.

But a spot in a 4-team playoff, or 8-team playoff, isn't one of them, IMO.

Quote:I love all the folks who think there would be a cap at all to the # of teams from any one conference. So stupid. The Big Conferences don't want it, and TV doesn't want it. ergo, no chance in hell there will ever be a cap on the number of teams in the tourney.

When you have a small amt of at-large, it is best to grab #13 over #12 if #12 is from a conference where there's a ton o teams already in, and the #13th only has 1. TV wants it. Plus, rankings aren't exact, so by a Narrow margin, it's fine.

It's not like you snuff out a #5 for a #25. :)

(11-25-2021 03:14 PM)JSchmack Wrote:  And that's the problem here: "Who is BETTER" doesn't actually MATTER. "Who should be invited to the championship" does. I really don't CARE if Alabama is better than Cincinnati or UTSA. Alabama lost a game and those other two didn't. You have to invite to the championship anyone who is undefeated, regardless of schedule, because then you're actually deciding something.

I remember 15 years ago USC was consistently the "best" team in FBS, but in years when they lost 2+ games, then "no" they do not deserve to go to the BCS National Championship.

At some point a 12-1 team will be more "deserving" than a 13-0 team BECAUSE their schedule was just that much more difficult. The measure I value is what ESPN calls "Strength of Record", the X likelihood that a team of Y strength can achieve the same record (or better).

I prefer calculating it backward: the strength Y that gets you X likelihood of achieving a record. Strength is a more open-ended scale than 0%-100% likelihood, plus fixing Strength to be (as ESPN does it) "Average Top 25 Team" causes you to lose meaningful resolution far from the Top 25.

You still may want to look at head-to-head, conference championships, etc. But a "Strength of Record" gives you a nice baseline of Deservingness.

(11-25-2021 09:15 PM)Crayton Wrote:  

(11-25-2021 03:14 PM)JSchmack Wrote:  And that's the problem here: "Who is BETTER" doesn't actually MATTER. "Who should be invited to the championship" does. I really don't CARE if Alabama is better than Cincinnati or UTSA. Alabama lost a game and those other two didn't. You have to invite to the championship anyone who is undefeated, regardless of schedule, because then you're actually deciding something.

I remember 15 years ago USC was consistently the "best" team in FBS, but in years when they lost 2+ games, then "no" they do not deserve to go to the BCS National Championship.

At some point a 12-1 team will be more "deserving" than a 13-0 team BECAUSE their schedule was just that much more difficult. The measure I value is what ESPN calls "Strength of Record", the X likelihood that a team of Y strength can achieve the same record (or better).

I prefer calculating it backward: the strength Y that gets you X likelihood of achieving a record. Strength is a more open-ended scale than 0%-100% likelihood, plus fixing Strength to be (as ESPN does it) "Average Top 25 Team" causes you to lose meaningful resolution far from the Top 25.

You still may want to look at head-to-head, conference championships, etc. But a "Strength of Record" gives you a nice baseline of Deservingness.

About the bold - "at some point"? I think it happens frequently. UTSA is going to be 13-0 and nowhere near the playoffs, well behind many one-loss teams, and deservedly so. Their schedule is just that weak.

Coastal Carolina was unbeaten last year in the regular season and also didn't merit playoff consideration. Ditto for Cincy.