(12-01-2017 05:59 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(12-01-2017 02:27 PM)BlueBird10 Wrote:  

(12-01-2017 01:22 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  

(12-01-2017 01:08 PM)BlueBird10 Wrote:  Where is UCF?!

They need to beat Menphis first. They are only #14. Top 12 is attainable, though.

Or Memphis...I was making the point that the top Group of 5 representative needs to be included.

No they don't.

They have to earn it.

(12-01-2017 06:00 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(12-01-2017 05:59 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(12-01-2017 02:27 PM)BlueBird10 Wrote:  

(12-01-2017 01:22 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  

(12-01-2017 01:08 PM)BlueBird10 Wrote:  Where is UCF?!

They need to beat Menphis first. They are only #14. Top 12 is attainable, though.

Or Memphis...I was making the point that the top Group of 5 representative needs to be included.

No they don't.

They have to earn it.

So a 12-0 team (if UCF wins the AAC) wouldn't have earned a spot in a 12 team playoff mentioned above? Sounds pretty ridiculous...the College Football Playoff consists of 10 conferences. When five of those conferences don't have a path to the playoff you are talking about an invitational, not a playoff.

(12-01-2017 06:38 PM)BlueBird10 Wrote:  

(12-01-2017 06:00 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(12-01-2017 05:59 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(12-01-2017 02:27 PM)BlueBird10 Wrote:  

(12-01-2017 01:22 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  They need to beat Menphis first. They are only #14. Top 12 is attainable, though.

Or Memphis...I was making the point that the top Group of 5 representative needs to be included.

No they don't.

They have to earn it.

So a 12-0 team (if UCF wins the AAC) wouldn't have earned a spot in a 12 team playoff mentioned above? Sounds pretty ridiculous...the College Football Playoff consists of 10 conferences. When five of those conferences don't have a path to the playoff you are talking about an invitational, not a playoff.

Wins against relatively weak teams are not equivalent to wins against strong teams.

(12-01-2017 06:38 PM)BlueBird10 Wrote:  

(12-01-2017 06:00 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(12-01-2017 05:59 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(12-01-2017 02:27 PM)BlueBird10 Wrote:  

(12-01-2017 01:22 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  They need to beat Menphis first. They are only #14. Top 12 is attainable, though.

Or Memphis...I was making the point that the top Group of 5 representative needs to be included.

No they don't.

They have to earn it.

So a 12-0 team (if UCF wins the AAC) wouldn't have earned a spot in a 12 team playoff mentioned above? Sounds pretty ridiculous...the College Football Playoff consists of 10 conferences. When five of those conferences don't have a path to the playoff you are talking about an invitational, not a playoff.

Again, that was the lesson learned from the BCS. To avoid anti-trust you have to provide the opportunity even it is not very likely. Why the CFP commercials show all 10 conferences but only the P5 will likely get in. Conference Champs are not assured a playoff slot. This is what made the CFP a brilliant move by allowing to keep them money for the power 5.

(12-01-2017 04:43 PM)Sellular1 Wrote:  

(12-01-2017 03:27 PM)ArQ Wrote:  

(12-01-2017 01:02 PM)EPJr2 Wrote:  I would be satisfied with an expansion to 6; however this one is intriging

Scott Lambrecht‏ @scottlambrecht 11/18/2016
This might be the more realistic playoff expansion. 12 teams. 8 home games for top 8 seeds. 2 week break after Championship weekend, 2 week break after that. Still done in first half of January. College football belongs on Saturdays! Bowls still have plenty of teams.

I agree with 6. To make it simple, five P5 champions and the highest ranked team of G5/Independent participate in the playoff. Alabama will be out this year. Top 2 seed has bye. No. 3 vs No. 6 and No. 4 vs No. 5 match-up use two minor bowls one week before New York Day.

I don't think the G5 should get an autobid unless they are ranked high enough to deserve it. Playoff goes to 8 highest ranked teams. What I do have a problem with is the current way the teams are ranked. Bring the computers back into the mix to offset some of the P5 homerism. Balance and unbiased rankings are what's needed.

So, you want to choose computer rankings that are biased in favor of G5 teams? I believe with all my heart that the AP Poll is less biased than many of these computer rankings. In fact, when the BCS included them, they required that they change their methodology in order to reduce the influence of difficulty of schedules. That is, to be included in the formula, they had to agree to introduce a bias in favor of teams from non-power conferences.

(12-01-2017 06:53 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  

(12-01-2017 06:38 PM)BlueBird10 Wrote:  

(12-01-2017 06:00 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(12-01-2017 05:59 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(12-01-2017 02:27 PM)BlueBird10 Wrote:  Or Memphis...I was making the point that the top Group of 5 representative needs to be included.

No they don't.

They have to earn it.

So a 12-0 team (if UCF wins the AAC) wouldn't have earned a spot in a 12 team playoff mentioned above? Sounds pretty ridiculous...the College Football Playoff consists of 10 conferences. When five of those conferences don't have a path to the playoff you are talking about an invitational, not a playoff.

Again, that was the lesson learned from the BCS. To avoid anti-trust you have to provide the opportunity even it is not very likely. Why the CFP commercials show all 10 conferences but only the P5 will likely get in. Conference Champs are not assured a playoff slot. This is what made the CFP a brilliant move by allowing to keep them money for the power 5.

Its a brilliant move until enough data exists to prove a G5 can never make the playoff. After this year, with multiple undefeated G5's unable to even get out of the mid-teens---it woould be seen as fairly conclusive evidence by most any judge or jury that the playoff is effectively closed to the G5. Its basically like defending racisim in employment practices by saying "we just did not have any minority candidates that were good enough". In a 4 year period? When multiple candidates offered up a 4.0 grade point average and a 100% record of success? Considering the plantiff will likely file in friendly venue of their own choosing--that's going to be a pretty tough case to defend. We have more than enough information from the field of play indicating that the top G5 champion is more than a match for the typical top 10 P5. The current glass ceiling that blocks the top G5's from both the top 10 and the playoff is just simply arbitrary at this point.

That said, legal action is the last option. Nobody wants to do that--mainly, because if you lose--you'll probably be in an even worse position and it likely poisons the well of future cooperation (not that the current behavior of the committee isn't doing plenty of well poisoning on its own).

(12-01-2017 07:58 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(12-01-2017 04:43 PM)Sellular1 Wrote:  

(12-01-2017 03:27 PM)ArQ Wrote:  

(12-01-2017 01:02 PM)EPJr2 Wrote:  I would be satisfied with an expansion to 6; however this one is intriging

Scott Lambrecht‏ @scottlambrecht 11/18/2016
This might be the more realistic playoff expansion. 12 teams. 8 home games for top 8 seeds. 2 week break after Championship weekend, 2 week break after that. Still done in first half of January. College football belongs on Saturdays! Bowls still have plenty of teams.

I agree with 6. To make it simple, five P5 champions and the highest ranked team of G5/Independent participate in the playoff. Alabama will be out this year. Top 2 seed has bye. No. 3 vs No. 6 and No. 4 vs No. 5 match-up use two minor bowls one week before New York Day.

I don't think the G5 should get an autobid unless they are ranked high enough to deserve it. Playoff goes to 8 highest ranked teams. What I do have a problem with is the current way the teams are ranked. Bring the computers back into the mix to offset some of the P5 homerism. Balance and unbiased rankings are what's needed.

So, you want to choose computer rankings that are biased in favor of G5 teams? I believe with all my heart that the AP Poll is less biased than many of these computer rankings. In fact, when the BCS included them, they required that they change their methodology in order to reduce the influence of difficulty of schedules. That is, to be included in the formula, they had to agree to introduce a bias in favor of teams from non-power conferences.

Actually--no. The CFP playoff system can actually work....it just needs to be tweeked a bit. We dont need computers. We need fairness. What I would prefer is that the committee representation reflect the entire FBS division instead of just one half of it.

The selection committee needs to be a 10 member body comprised of one representative from each conference. One conference--one vote. Problem solved.

If you expand the playoff. Then we should expect for conferences to start to break up and make new ones.

Think 4 is right and do not want to see any bigger. If my Buckeyes or Alabama or whomever doesn't make it, so what, we have only ourselves to blame. I love the fact I need to care about every game and we have high stakes games every week. Go to 6 or 8 and beyond further de-emphasizing thr bowls, I will care far less about events around the country as Big Ten champ likely always in.

(12-01-2017 08:17 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-01-2017 06:53 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  

(12-01-2017 06:38 PM)BlueBird10 Wrote:  

(12-01-2017 06:00 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(12-01-2017 05:59 PM)ken d Wrote:  No they don't.

They have to earn it.

So a 12-0 team (if UCF wins the AAC) wouldn't have earned a spot in a 12 team playoff mentioned above? Sounds pretty ridiculous...the College Football Playoff consists of 10 conferences. When five of those conferences don't have a path to the playoff you are talking about an invitational, not a playoff.

Again, that was the lesson learned from the BCS. To avoid anti-trust you have to provide the opportunity even it is not very likely. Why the CFP commercials show all 10 conferences but only the P5 will likely get in. Conference Champs are not assured a playoff slot. This is what made the CFP a brilliant move by allowing to keep them money for the power 5.

Its a brilliant move until enough data exists to prove a G5 can never make the playoff. After this year, with multiple undefeated G5's unable to even get out of the mid-teens---it woould be seen as fairly conclusive evidence by most any judge or jury that the playoff is effectively closed to the G5. Its basically like defending racisim in employment practices by saying "we just did not have any minority candidates that were good enough". In a 4 year period? When multiple candidates offered up a 4.0 grade point average and a 100% record of success? Considering the plantiff will likely file in friendly venue of their own choosing--that's going to be a pretty tough case to defend. We have more than enough information from the field of play indicating that the top G5 champion is more than a match for the typical top 10 P5. The current glass ceiling that blocks the top G5's from both the top 10 and the playoff is just simply arbitrary at this point.

That said, legal action is the last option. Nobody wants to do that--mainly, because if you lose--you'll probably be in an even worse position and it likely poisons the well of future cooperation (not that the current behavior of the committee isn't doing plenty of well poisoning on its own).

Wow, G5 compared to racism. I know some posters that would not surprise me but from you AC, that is really surprising. G5 willingly entered into this CFP agreement. Non D1 football schools don't want to lose the P5 money and have them create their own conference. Again, the NCAA does not control college football and they would lose Basketball if the P5 bolt. AC remember the golden rule, "He who has the gold, rules"

(12-01-2017 08:57 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  If you expand the playoff. Then we should expect for conferences to start to break up and make new ones.

That is what...a lot of us want.

(12-01-2017 06:38 PM)BlueBird10 Wrote:  

(12-01-2017 06:00 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(12-01-2017 05:59 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(12-01-2017 02:27 PM)BlueBird10 Wrote:  

(12-01-2017 01:22 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  They need to beat Menphis first. They are only #14. Top 12 is attainable, though.

Or Memphis...I was making the point that the top Group of 5 representative needs to be included.

No they don't.

They have to earn it.

So a 12-0 team (if UCF wins the AAC) wouldn't have earned a spot in a 12 team playoff mentioned above? Sounds pretty ridiculous...the College Football Playoff consists of 10 conferences. When five of those conferences don't have a path to the playoff you are talking about an invitational, not a playoff.

Who said they wouldn't earn a spot in a 12 team playoff? All anybody is saying is that they shouldn't get in just because they are the best G5 team. If they are one of the 12 best teams, they have no problem. But if they are an 11-2 team without any wins against top 30 competition, why should they get in over a more deserving team just because they are the best of a weak bunch?

I believe that if UCF wins today, they will be in the top 12 in the cfp ranking, and probably the AP and Coaches' Polls as well.

8 team playoff. 5 P5 conference champions, 1 G5 champion, 2 wildcards from any conference. Have the opening round start the bowl season on or around Dec. 20th.

1 vs. 8 - (Las Vegas Bowl)
2 vs. 7 - (Texas Bowl or Alamo Bowl)
3 vs. 6 - (Camping World Bowl in Orlando)
4 vs. 5 - (Holiday Bowl)

1/8 winner vs. 4/5 winner - Rose Bowl/Orange Bowl/Fiesta Bowl
2/7 winner vs. 3/6 winner - Sugar Bowl /Cotton Bowl/Peach Bowl

1/8/4/5 winner vs 2/7/3/6 winner - College Football Championship Game

The quality of these P5 championship games is why we shouldn't have more than 4 teams in the playoff.

Here's one chaotic scenario that could lead to College Football Playoff expansion
https://sports.yahoo.com/heres-one-chaot...45969.html

AAC commissioner wouldn't mind open discussion to expanded playoff
http://www.espn.com/college-football/sto...ng-playoff

(12-01-2017 03:15 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(12-01-2017 01:02 PM)EPJr2 Wrote:  I would be satisfied with an expansion to 6; however this one is intriging

Scott Lambrecht‏ @scottlambrecht 11/18/2016
This might be the more realistic playoff expansion. 12 teams. 8 home games for top 8 seeds. 2 week break after Championship weekend, 2 week break after that. Still done in first half of January. College football belongs on Saturdays! Bowls still have plenty of teams.

Not that I'm necessarily in favor of expanding beyond 4, but if you're going to 12, you might as well go to 16, since it takes the same number of rounds. In any case, there would need to be reseeding after each round rather than a rigid bracket structure.

No. You get 8-4 teams with 16. And there is no team that low that has any realistic chance to win 4 rounds.

11 might work better than 12. You give the P5 champs byes into the 2nd round. You could even assign them to historical bowls. Big 10/Pac 12 to Rose, ACC to Orange, SEC to Sugar, Big 12 to either Sugar or Cotton.

It would also be flexible enough to put in the next 6 teams (as if you really need 6 wildcards) or to mix in some G5 champs. You could have 3 or 4 wildcards and 2 or 3 G5 champs. Still gives you 8 P5 teams in the final 8 without any upsets.

dude, they are NEVER and I mean NEVER assigning teams into their historical Bowls. This year is a PRIME reason why.... Why should what would be in a 8 team playoff
1 Alabama
2 Clemson
3 Notre Dame
4 Michigan
5 WVU or Oklahoma
6 Georgia or LSU
7 Washington St
8 UCF

why should Michigan get to play Washington St?

It would be Alabama/UCF, Clemson/Washington St, Notre Dame/Georgia-LSU, and Michigan/WVU-Oklahoma. Period.

9

(12-01-2017 08:22 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-01-2017 07:58 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(12-01-2017 04:43 PM)Sellular1 Wrote:  

(12-01-2017 03:27 PM)ArQ Wrote:  

(12-01-2017 01:02 PM)EPJr2 Wrote:  I would be satisfied with an expansion to 6; however this one is intriging

Scott Lambrecht‏ @scottlambrecht 11/18/2016
This might be the more realistic playoff expansion. 12 teams. 8 home games for top 8 seeds. 2 week break after Championship weekend, 2 week break after that. Still done in first half of January. College football belongs on Saturdays! Bowls still have plenty of teams.

I agree with 6. To make it simple, five P5 champions and the highest ranked team of G5/Independent participate in the playoff. Alabama will be out this year. Top 2 seed has bye. No. 3 vs No. 6 and No. 4 vs No. 5 match-up use two minor bowls one week before New York Day.

I don't think the G5 should get an autobid unless they are ranked high enough to deserve it. Playoff goes to 8 highest ranked teams. What I do have a problem with is the current way the teams are ranked. Bring the computers back into the mix to offset some of the P5 homerism. Balance and unbiased rankings are what's needed.

So, you want to choose computer rankings that are biased in favor of G5 teams? I believe with all my heart that the AP Poll is less biased than many of these computer rankings. In fact, when the BCS included them, they required that they change their methodology in order to reduce the influence of difficulty of schedules. That is, to be included in the formula, they had to agree to introduce a bias in favor of teams from non-power conferences.

Actually--no. The CFP playoff system can actually work....it just needs to be tweeked a bit. We dont need computers. We need fairness. What I would prefer is that the committee representation reflect the entire FBS division instead of just one half of it.

The selection committee needs to be a 10 member body comprised of one representative from each conference. One conference--one vote. Problem solved.

I agree that the selection committee should be balanced. But you are fooling yourself if you think e.g. a balanced committee would have put UCF anywhere near the top 4.