(03-04-2018 12:46 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-04-2018 11:12 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-04-2018 10:57 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(03-04-2018 10:36 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-04-2018 02:33 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  Umm, why can't football have that? Why is it irrational? The ACC runner-up had their shot. Make sure you have enough at-large space for the ACC runner up if they're good enough. Problem solved.

And why do we just assume they're better?

We can't have a 68-team football tourney because football teams can't play every two days like basketball teams can.

As for "why do we assume ... " for an 8 team playoff, assuming the ACC runner-up is better than the Sun Belt champ isn't an ideal situation, any more than assuming that the ACC runner-up is better than the FCS or D2 champ is. Ideally, all would be in the playoffs.

But since they can't be, we have to make a choice, and it's more likely that the ACC runner-up is better than the SB champ. So it makes no sense to give the SB champ an auto-bid if that keeps the ACC #2 out.

You want to be part of the high-powered hyper-competitive super conference that makes all of the money, but you can't accept that you came in second in it and want an East German ice dancing judge or Condoleeza Rice to subjectively say you are better than another conference's champion and give you their slot.

And that makes self-serving sense from the perspective of fans of 2nd place P5 teams.

Would it make you feel better if instead of Condoleeza Rice, we used a bunch of computers created by PhD Mathematicians? The result will be the same - Sun Belt #1 behind ACC #2.

Putting ACC #2 ahead of SB #1 makes sense from any perspective that isn't biased towards the Sun Belt. There is nothing magical about being a "conference champ". E.g., if Troy beats out South Alabama, Georgia Southern, Arkansas State, etc. to win the Sun Belt, that doesn't tell us anything at all about their worthiness to play against teams from the B1G or ACC in a playoff.

Nothing. It's like me saying to you "hey, guess what! I just beat my sister, therefore, you gotta play me too!". Nonsensical.

Truth is, ACC #2 is almost always better than SB #1, so to be rational, any system that has to choose between them should favor ACC #2.

The purpose of the playoff is to annually verify if what we “think is true” really is the case. You assume it’s true—but of course, everyone knew Auburn would destroy UCF. Otherwise. Take a poll at the start of the year and eliminate the games. No reason for all that brain damaging contact and all those injuries when “we already know” who the best team is. There needs to be some sort of access to Playoff from every portion of the division for those "tests" of what we "know" to happen.

Look, if the G5 candidate is so horrible—they will be beaten in the playoff and the outcome is the same—or it’s not. Either way, a crap load of extra eyeballs will now have increased interest in the playoff. Currently, the playoff is a closed invitational with the P5 acting as the doorman. Such a system offers no possible access for half the teams who are I n the division and fails the legitimacy test.

Problem with this argument is that we can flip the ACC #2 and Sun Belt champs in it and it makes as much sense. E.g., "Look, if the ACC #2 is horrible, if we all mistakenly thought they were a lot better than they really are because of ESPN hype and P5 bias, they will be beaten in the playoff and the outcome is the same - or it's not".

Your mistake is in assuming that (a) FBS is a 'division' in a competitive sense, which it isn't, it's just an administrative category. That's why there is no groundswell for a playoff that includes G5 champs. If for some reason the NFL excluded the AFC South and NFC East champs from the playoffs, that would spark outrage, because the AFC South and NFC East really are a part of the same league as the other divisions. But in football, the true leagues are the conferences, not the "division". And (b), that winning an FBS division somehow proves more than finishing second in another conference does. But it doesn't. As I explained before, if Troy beats out other SB teams for the SB title, that means nothing in terms of their ability or qualifications to beat teams from other conferences. Zero.

So if we had a playoffs that included all conference champs but excluded ACC #2, we'd be doing just as much "assuming" - in this case that SB champ is better than ACC #2 as if we do the reverse.

So we have to make a choice: And all the evidence we have, like SOS, RPI, Sangarin, etc. tells us that that ACC #2 is probably better than SB #1, so it is rational that the system be designed to allow for that choice.

Is it ideal? No, but better than putting us in a a "conference champs" straitjacket.