(05-10-2018 08:57 AM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  

(05-10-2018 07:22 AM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  

(05-10-2018 12:27 AM)sierrajip Wrote:  

(05-09-2018 08:18 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-08-2018 09:36 PM)sierrajip Wrote:  That is true, but how many teams have beaten a team that was played by the same two teams earlier in the year which is a rarity.

UA-LSU 2011,2012
UF-FSU 1996,1997

This may change now that the Big 12 plays a championship game, but it took this cfp format to agree to this.

Seriously, I'm having trouble following what you are saying here. The UCF situation is that in their bowl game, they played and beat a team (AU) that beat both teams in the national title game during the season (UGA and AL).

Now you mention 2011 - but that year the teams in the BCS title game were Alabama and LSU. What team played and beat a team that beat both Alabama and LSU before the title game? LSU was unbeaten before the title game and Alabama had lost only to LSU.

The only things that stand out to me about 96/97 and 11/12 is that in the national title game (which FSU vs UF Sugar Bowl de facto became), the winner beat a team that had beaten them during the season.

I was just trying to point out that it is very difficult to beat a team twice in one year. I am sure there are other examples.

To your point about how people gauge a teams wins and losses (Clemson over Aub, Aub over Ala, Ala over Clemson), you make great points.

This is why having a playoff with the conference champions should be followed than being based on opinions. When the system changes to bring in all the conference champions, I will then change my tune about a true playoff, a true NC.

Take the top 8 based on an average of computer rankings. We don't need corrupt people making decisions. The conference champs if you're talking 10 probably wouldn't fly. You would have 3 or 4 teams not even in the top 25. I don't think anyone needs a welfare ticket, but if you're good enough then you get the shot. If the #4 can win the cfp (Alabama) then #8 could too.

All five P5 champs, three at large, one conditional spot to the G5=8

I say make it 16 wirh all 10 conferences given a conditional, something like a minimum of 10 regular season FBS wins or something to that effect. You probably still end up with some lopsided games in the first round, but most G5 teams that get to double digit wins arent going to get steamrolled in a playoff.

I like this one, except I'd make the G5 slot automatic. What we have seen, irregardless of the "ranking", the best G5 champ has been more than competetive with the top P5's in the access bowl. If the G5 gets its butt whipped every once in a while---so what? There have been plenty of P5 teams that have laid an egg in the playoffs. In order for the playoff to have the widest possible audience, in order for the playoff to be completely inclusive, and in order for the playoff to legitimately overacome all bias---the G5 needs to be treated as one big azz P5 conference for purposes of the playoff. I dont think guaranteeing one team---effectively representing half the schools in FBS---is all that unreasonable.

(05-10-2018 10:57 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-10-2018 08:57 AM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  

(05-10-2018 07:22 AM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  

(05-10-2018 12:27 AM)sierrajip Wrote:  

(05-09-2018 08:18 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Seriously, I'm having trouble following what you are saying here. The UCF situation is that in their bowl game, they played and beat a team (AU) that beat both teams in the national title game during the season (UGA and AL).

Now you mention 2011 - but that year the teams in the BCS title game were Alabama and LSU. What team played and beat a team that beat both Alabama and LSU before the title game? LSU was unbeaten before the title game and Alabama had lost only to LSU.

The only things that stand out to me about 96/97 and 11/12 is that in the national title game (which FSU vs UF Sugar Bowl de facto became), the winner beat a team that had beaten them during the season.

I was just trying to point out that it is very difficult to beat a team twice in one year. I am sure there are other examples.

To your point about how people gauge a teams wins and losses (Clemson over Aub, Aub over Ala, Ala over Clemson), you make great points.

This is why having a playoff with the conference champions should be followed than being based on opinions. When the system changes to bring in all the conference champions, I will then change my tune about a true playoff, a true NC.

Take the top 8 based on an average of computer rankings. We don't need corrupt people making decisions. The conference champs if you're talking 10 probably wouldn't fly. You would have 3 or 4 teams not even in the top 25. I don't think anyone needs a welfare ticket, but if you're good enough then you get the shot. If the #4 can win the cfp (Alabama) then #8 could too.

All five P5 champs, three at large, one conditional spot to the G5=8

I say make it 16 wirh all 10 conferences given a conditional, something like a minimum of 10 regular season FBS wins or something to that effect. You probably still end up with some lopsided games in the first round, but most G5 teams that get to double digit wins are going to get steamrolled in a playoff.

I like this one, except I'd make the G5 slot automatic. What we have seen, irregardless of the "ranking", the best G5 champ has been more than competetive with the top P5's in the access bowl. If the G5 gets its butt whipped every once in a while---so what? There have been plenty of P5 teams that have laid an egg in the playoffs. In order for the playoff to have the widest possible audience, in order for the playoff to be completely inclusive, and in order for the playoff to legitimately overacome all bias---the G5 needs to be treated as one big azz P5 conference for purposes of the playoff. I dont think guaranteeing one team---effectively representing half the schools in FBS---is all that unreasonable.

I don't think that agreeing to conditions when we aren't exactly in a position of strength in negotiating is unreasonable either.

In the BCS the auto AQ bid was, IIRC, top 12 in BCS rankings or top 16 and ranked ahead of an AQ champ.

Something along those lines would be fair I think, if we demand a guaranteed slot the counter argument is probably something like "no one wants to see a 2 or 3 loss G5 team in the playoff"

(05-10-2018 10:57 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-10-2018 08:57 AM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  

(05-10-2018 07:22 AM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  

(05-10-2018 12:27 AM)sierrajip Wrote:  

(05-09-2018 08:18 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Seriously, I'm having trouble following what you are saying here. The UCF situation is that in their bowl game, they played and beat a team (AU) that beat both teams in the national title game during the season (UGA and AL).

Now you mention 2011 - but that year the teams in the BCS title game were Alabama and LSU. What team played and beat a team that beat both Alabama and LSU before the title game? LSU was unbeaten before the title game and Alabama had lost only to LSU.

The only things that stand out to me about 96/97 and 11/12 is that in the national title game (which FSU vs UF Sugar Bowl de facto became), the winner beat a team that had beaten them during the season.

I was just trying to point out that it is very difficult to beat a team twice in one year. I am sure there are other examples.

To your point about how people gauge a teams wins and losses (Clemson over Aub, Aub over Ala, Ala over Clemson), you make great points.

This is why having a playoff with the conference champions should be followed than being based on opinions. When the system changes to bring in all the conference champions, I will then change my tune about a true playoff, a true NC.

Take the top 8 based on an average of computer rankings. We don't need corrupt people making decisions. The conference champs if you're talking 10 probably wouldn't fly. You would have 3 or 4 teams not even in the top 25. I don't think anyone needs a welfare ticket, but if you're good enough then you get the shot. If the #4 can win the cfp (Alabama) then #8 could too.

All five P5 champs, three at large, one conditional spot to the G5=8

I say make it 16 wirh all 10 conferences given a conditional, something like a minimum of 10 regular season FBS wins or something to that effect. You probably still end up with some lopsided games in the first round, but most G5 teams that get to double digit wins arent going to get steamrolled in a playoff.

I like this one, except I'd make the G5 slot automatic. What we have seen, irregardless of the "ranking", the best G5 champ has been more than competetive with the top P5's in the access bowl.

I'd agree with an auto-G5 slot, as long as the playoffs were at least 16 teams. Eight would be too small.

At the end of the BCS era, the top non-AQ schools like TCU and Utah did beat truly 'top' AQ schools. E.g., in 2008 Utah beat #4 Alabama, and in 2010 TCU beat #5 and B1G champ Wisconsin.

But in the CFP era, the quality of P5 teams played by G5 has been lower. The G5 wins have come over runner-up P5 or P5 ranked outside the top 5. That's not playoff quality wins.

(05-10-2018 03:03 PM)nastybunch Wrote:  

(05-10-2018 03:00 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-10-2018 02:17 PM)The Knight Time Wrote:  

(05-08-2018 07:21 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-22-2018 07:53 AM)ODU2017 Wrote:  Auburn beat both teams that played in the Championship game and UCF beat Auburn.

Of all the silly arguments, this IMO might be the silliest. E.g., going in to the playoffs, Clemson had beat Auburn, who beat Alabama and Georgia ... and yet when Alabama played Clemson, they crushed them.

LSU also had beaten Auburn, who beat Alabama and Georgia, and yet ... when Alabama played LSU, they beat them too.

Plus, the UCF fans also never mention that Georgia also beat Auburn too, and a lot worse than UCF did.

Bottom line is, Auburn wasn't exactly 2005 Texas or 2001 Miami. They had three losses before they played UCF, so beating Auburn wasn't exactly a big deal.

LOL

Sure- so much so "not a big deal" that the SEC homers and pundits are still talking about UCF on May 10th, 2018. 5 months after the game was played.

I live in Baton Rouge, which is swarming with SEC homers, and I haven't heard UCF mentioned by anyone in months, if ever.

I mean, if you count an SEC or Alabama fan pointing their finger at UCF and laughing when UCF hoists another self-made banner or something as "talking about", I guess you might have a point?

As for USF, we'll be back to doing what we usually do - beat UCF - soon enough.

I believe we have a little jealousy here by USF. At least when they played us they didn’t poke the players eyes while in the pile during the tackle.

My position about UCF's bogus national title claim is correct, whether I'm a UCF-hater or not (and as a USF fan, yes, I am, LOL).

As for eye-gouging, nobody condones that, just the opposite.

(05-11-2018 06:59 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-10-2018 10:57 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-10-2018 08:57 AM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  

(05-10-2018 07:22 AM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  

(05-10-2018 12:27 AM)sierrajip Wrote:  I was just trying to point out that it is very difficult to beat a team twice in one year. I am sure there are other examples.

To your point about how people gauge a teams wins and losses (Clemson over Aub, Aub over Ala, Ala over Clemson), you make great points.

This is why having a playoff with the conference champions should be followed than being based on opinions. When the system changes to bring in all the conference champions, I will then change my tune about a true playoff, a true NC.

Take the top 8 based on an average of computer rankings. We don't need corrupt people making decisions. The conference champs if you're talking 10 probably wouldn't fly. You would have 3 or 4 teams not even in the top 25. I don't think anyone needs a welfare ticket, but if you're good enough then you get the shot. If the #4 can win the cfp (Alabama) then #8 could too.

All five P5 champs, three at large, one conditional spot to the G5=8

I say make it 16 wirh all 10 conferences given a conditional, something like a minimum of 10 regular season FBS wins or something to that effect. You probably still end up with some lopsided games in the first round, but most G5 teams that get to double digit wins arent going to get steamrolled in a playoff.

I like this one, except I'd make the G5 slot automatic. What we have seen, irregardless of the "ranking", the best G5 champ has been more than competetive with the top P5's in the access bowl.

I'd agree with an auto-G5 slot, as long as the playoffs were at least 16 teams. Eight would be too small.

At the end of the BCS era, the top non-AQ schools like TCU and Utah did beat truly 'top' AQ schools. E.g., in 2008 Utah beat #4 Alabama, and in 2010 TCU beat #5 and B1G champ Wisconsin.

But in the CFP era, the quality of P5 teams played by G5 has been lower. The G5 wins have come over runner-up P5 or P5 ranked outside the top 5. That's not playoff quality wins.

That '08 Utah team was good, but for Alabama, that was a slap in the face to have to play a MWC team. Those Utah players approached that game as 'we got something to prove' and the Alabama players as 'this is total BS we have to play the MWC and we don't give a shat about this game'.

The higher the ranked P5 team that gets a consolation prize of playing a G5 team, the less interested they'll be. The mental factor does impact results.

Now, if that had been a playoff game, the attitude on the Alabama side of the field would have been different.

Coog's comment about the G5 should be treated like a big azzz P5 conference is spot on. That was what CUSA and MWC was trying to do as the 2 top non-BCS conferences, align for a AQ spot.

16 is too many. Go to 8 with the top ranked G5 getting a CFP spot. Then us G5s will eventually argue among ourselves that we need a G5 playoff to see who gets that spot.

(05-11-2018 07:42 AM)va-eagle Wrote:  

(05-11-2018 06:59 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-10-2018 10:57 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-10-2018 08:57 AM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  

(05-10-2018 07:22 AM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  Take the top 8 based on an average of computer rankings. We don't need corrupt people making decisions. The conference champs if you're talking 10 probably wouldn't fly. You would have 3 or 4 teams not even in the top 25. I don't think anyone needs a welfare ticket, but if you're good enough then you get the shot. If the #4 can win the cfp (Alabama) then #8 could too.

All five P5 champs, three at large, one conditional spot to the G5=8

I say make it 16 wirh all 10 conferences given a conditional, something like a minimum of 10 regular season FBS wins or something to that effect. You probably still end up with some lopsided games in the first round, but most G5 teams that get to double digit wins arent going to get steamrolled in a playoff.

I like this one, except I'd make the G5 slot automatic. What we have seen, irregardless of the "ranking", the best G5 champ has been more than competetive with the top P5's in the access bowl.

I'd agree with an auto-G5 slot, as long as the playoffs were at least 16 teams. Eight would be too small.

At the end of the BCS era, the top non-AQ schools like TCU and Utah did beat truly 'top' AQ schools. E.g., in 2008 Utah beat #4 Alabama, and in 2010 TCU beat #5 and B1G champ Wisconsin.

But in the CFP era, the quality of P5 teams played by G5 has been lower. The G5 wins have come over runner-up P5 or P5 ranked outside the top 5. That's not playoff quality wins.

That '08 Utah team was good, but for Alabama, that was a slap in the face to have to play a MWC team. Those Utah players approached that game as 'we got something to prove' and the Alabama players as 'this is total BS we have to play the MWC and we don't give a shat about this game'.

The higher the ranked P5 team that gets a consolation prize of playing a G5 team, the less interested they'll be. The mental factor does impact results.

Now, if that had been a playoff game, the attitude on the Alabama side of the field would have been different.

We, heck everyone who is honest, know this is true. In 2008, Alabama was obviously "down" for that Sugar Bowl, having just had their SEC and national title hopes dashed by Florida in the SEC title game, and then relegated to playing a non-AQ.

Likewise, Auburn surely was in the dumps last year when they played UCF, having also had their SEC title and national title hopes dashed in the SEC title game, and then relegated to playing UCF in the Peach Bowl while their two historical rivals were in the playoffs - and teams they beat during the season to boot! Enormously bitter for them.

Not always, but usually it's the case that the G5/non-AQ is sky-high about being in the major bowl and is highly motivated, while the P5/AQ school is in the dumps about it, as usually just a week or two earlier they had bigger dreams dashed, and then seeing the bowl matchups and having to play a G5 is rubbing salt in the wound. It's often a big advantage for the G5/non-AQ team in their bowl game.

But, if you mention these kinds of obvious facts, a locust swarm or G5 fans will descend on you, saying you are "making excuses" or are a "Cartel lapdog" and similar nonsense.

So best just to keep quiet about it. LOL.

Instead of calling it obvious facts, which they obviously aren’t, I would call it obvious excuses, which it obviously is...

(05-10-2018 11:58 PM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  

(05-10-2018 10:57 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-10-2018 08:57 AM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  

(05-10-2018 07:22 AM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  

(05-10-2018 12:27 AM)sierrajip Wrote:  I was just trying to point out that it is very difficult to beat a team twice in one year. I am sure there are other examples.

To your point about how people gauge a teams wins and losses (Clemson over Aub, Aub over Ala, Ala over Clemson), you make great points.

This is why having a playoff with the conference champions should be followed than being based on opinions. When the system changes to bring in all the conference champions, I will then change my tune about a true playoff, a true NC.

Take the top 8 based on an average of computer rankings. We don't need corrupt people making decisions. The conference champs if you're talking 10 probably wouldn't fly. You would have 3 or 4 teams not even in the top 25. I don't think anyone needs a welfare ticket, but if you're good enough then you get the shot. If the #4 can win the cfp (Alabama) then #8 could too.

All five P5 champs, three at large, one conditional spot to the G5=8

I say make it 16 wirh all 10 conferences given a conditional, something like a minimum of 10 regular season FBS wins or something to that effect. You probably still end up with some lopsided games in the first round, but most G5 teams that get to double digit wins are going to get steamrolled in a playoff.

I like this one, except I'd make the G5 slot automatic. What we have seen, irregardless of the "ranking", the best G5 champ has been more than competetive with the top P5's in the access bowl. If the G5 gets its butt whipped every once in a while---so what? There have been plenty of P5 teams that have laid an egg in the playoffs. In order for the playoff to have the widest possible audience, in order for the playoff to be completely inclusive, and in order for the playoff to legitimately overacome all bias---the G5 needs to be treated as one big azz P5 conference for purposes of the playoff. I dont think guaranteeing one team---effectively representing half the schools in FBS---is all that unreasonable.

I don't think that agreeing to conditions when we aren't exactly in a position of strength in negotiating is unreasonable either.

In the BCS the auto AQ bid was, IIRC, top 12 in BCS rankings or top 16 and ranked ahead of an AQ champ.

Something along those lines would be fair I think, if we demand a guaranteed slot the counter argument is probably something like "no one wants to see a 2 or 3 loss G5 team in the playoff"

The problem with conditional access is that it doesnt address committee bias. I'd be fine with conditional G5 access if the Selection Committee is reformed to become a 10 person body with one rep from each FBS confernece. That way I'd feel reasonably confident the G5 will get a fair shake in the rankings. Otherwise, its too easy to just artificially depress the best G5's rank (just as we see every year under the current system).

(05-11-2018 07:49 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-11-2018 07:42 AM)va-eagle Wrote:  

(05-11-2018 06:59 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-10-2018 10:57 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-10-2018 08:57 AM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  All five P5 champs, three at large, one conditional spot to the G5=8

I say make it 16 wirh all 10 conferences given a conditional, something like a minimum of 10 regular season FBS wins or something to that effect. You probably still end up with some lopsided games in the first round, but most G5 teams that get to double digit wins arent going to get steamrolled in a playoff.

I like this one, except I'd make the G5 slot automatic. What we have seen, irregardless of the "ranking", the best G5 champ has been more than competetive with the top P5's in the access bowl.

I'd agree with an auto-G5 slot, as long as the playoffs were at least 16 teams. Eight would be too small.

At the end of the BCS era, the top non-AQ schools like TCU and Utah did beat truly 'top' AQ schools. E.g., in 2008 Utah beat #4 Alabama, and in 2010 TCU beat #5 and B1G champ Wisconsin.

But in the CFP era, the quality of P5 teams played by G5 has been lower. The G5 wins have come over runner-up P5 or P5 ranked outside the top 5. That's not playoff quality wins.

That '08 Utah team was good, but for Alabama, that was a slap in the face to have to play a MWC team. Those Utah players approached that game as 'we got something to prove' and the Alabama players as 'this is total BS we have to play the MWC and we don't give a shat about this game'.

The higher the ranked P5 team that gets a consolation prize of playing a G5 team, the less interested they'll be. The mental factor does impact results.

Now, if that had been a playoff game, the attitude on the Alabama side of the field would have been different.

We, heck everyone who is honest, know this is true. In 2008, Alabama was obviously "down" for that Sugar Bowl, having just had their SEC and national title hopes dashed by Florida in the SEC title game, and then relegated to playing a non-AQ.

Likewise, Auburn surely was in the dumps last year when they played UCF, having also had their SEC title and national title hopes dashed in the SEC title game, and then relegated to playing UCF in the Peach Bowl while their two historical rivals were in the playoffs - and teams they beat during the season to boot! Enormously bitter for them.

Not always, but usually it's the case that the G5/non-AQ is sky-high about being in the major bowl and is highly motivated, while the P5/AQ school is in the dumps about it, as usually just a week or two earlier they had bigger dreams dashed, and then seeing the bowl matchups and having to play a G5 is rubbing salt in the wound. It's often a big advantage for the G5/non-AQ team in their bowl game.

But, if you mention these kinds of obvious facts, a locust swarm or G5 fans will descend on you, saying you are "making excuses" or are a "Cartel lapdog" and similar nonsense.

So best just to keep quiet about it. LOL.

Yes. Auburn cared so little they came back to lead the game in the 3rd quarter. Im afraid that narrative doesn't really fit with the facts. Auburn cared for the first 3 quarters, then got bored? A lot of mental gymnastics required to buy that one.

(05-11-2018 10:04 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The problem with conditional access is that it doesnt address committee bias. I'd be fine with conditional G5 access if the Selection Committee is reformed to become a 10 person body with one rep from each FBS confernece. That way I'd feel reasonably confident the G5 will get a fair shake in the rankings. Otherwise, its too easy to just artificially depress the best G5's rank (just as we see every year under the current system).

Remember, the CFP rankings were by no means out of line with other rankings, so if their ranking was 'artificially depressed', well everyone did the same thing. Because it wouldn't matter what rankings were used last year - AP poll, Coaches poll, BCS computers, Sagarin, Massey Composite - human or computer, they all had UCF well outside the top 4.

Heck, they all had UCF well outside the top 4 *after* they beat Auburn.

So the only kind of selection panel that would have put UCF in last year (and I am just using them as an example, I know you are talking more generally, across all years), would have been one specifically biased towards the G5. No "fair and objective" panel would have given you that result.

And even a biased panel might be hard pressed to produce a result you like: In last year's final coach's poll, there were six AAC coaches who cast ballots**, all six voted Alabama #1, none voted for UCF.

** Cincy, Tulane, Tulsa, Houston, ECU and Navy

(05-11-2018 10:10 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-11-2018 07:49 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-11-2018 07:42 AM)va-eagle Wrote:  

(05-11-2018 06:59 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-10-2018 10:57 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I like this one, except I'd make the G5 slot automatic. What we have seen, irregardless of the "ranking", the best G5 champ has been more than competetive with the top P5's in the access bowl.

I'd agree with an auto-G5 slot, as long as the playoffs were at least 16 teams. Eight would be too small.

At the end of the BCS era, the top non-AQ schools like TCU and Utah did beat truly 'top' AQ schools. E.g., in 2008 Utah beat #4 Alabama, and in 2010 TCU beat #5 and B1G champ Wisconsin.

But in the CFP era, the quality of P5 teams played by G5 has been lower. The G5 wins have come over runner-up P5 or P5 ranked outside the top 5. That's not playoff quality wins.

That '08 Utah team was good, but for Alabama, that was a slap in the face to have to play a MWC team. Those Utah players approached that game as 'we got something to prove' and the Alabama players as 'this is total BS we have to play the MWC and we don't give a shat about this game'.

The higher the ranked P5 team that gets a consolation prize of playing a G5 team, the less interested they'll be. The mental factor does impact results.

Now, if that had been a playoff game, the attitude on the Alabama side of the field would have been different.

We, heck everyone who is honest, know this is true. In 2008, Alabama was obviously "down" for that Sugar Bowl, having just had their SEC and national title hopes dashed by Florida in the SEC title game, and then relegated to playing a non-AQ.

Likewise, Auburn surely was in the dumps last year when they played UCF, having also had their SEC title and national title hopes dashed in the SEC title game, and then relegated to playing UCF in the Peach Bowl while their two historical rivals were in the playoffs - and teams they beat during the season to boot! Enormously bitter for them.

Not always, but usually it's the case that the G5/non-AQ is sky-high about being in the major bowl and is highly motivated, while the P5/AQ school is in the dumps about it, as usually just a week or two earlier they had bigger dreams dashed, and then seeing the bowl matchups and having to play a G5 is rubbing salt in the wound. It's often a big advantage for the G5/non-AQ team in their bowl game.

But, if you mention these kinds of obvious facts, a locust swarm or G5 fans will descend on you, saying you are "making excuses" or are a "Cartel lapdog" and similar nonsense.

So best just to keep quiet about it. LOL.

Yes. Auburn cared so little they came back to lead the game in the 3rd quarter. Im afraid that narrative doesn't really fit with the facts. Auburn cared for the first 3 quarters, then got bored? A lot of mental gymnastics required to buy that one.

You're kidding, right? The Auburn guys were out on the field and playing, so of course they were giving some effort.

But to use the ebb and flow of the game to deny the obvious psychology of their situation doesn't seem very sensible.

Not sure if mentioned yet but look back at the 1990 NCAA Football season that ended with Colorado and Ga Tech sharing the national championship. Colorado won the "AP" Poll but Ga Tech won the "Coaches Poll"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1990_NCAA_...all_season

Let not forget how Alabama has "claimed" a few of their championships as well

https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...-counting/

(05-11-2018 01:38 PM)claydus Wrote:  Not sure if mentioned yet but look back at the 1990 NCAA Football season that ended with Colorado and Ga Tech sharing the national championship. Colorado won the "AP" Poll but Ga Tech won the "Coaches Poll"

Before the BCS era, and even once during the BCS era, that happened many times. E.g., off the top of my head during the past 40 years - 2003, 1997, 1990, and 1978, were all years in which team A got the AP vote and team B got the coach's vote, such that there was a widely-recognized "split" national champion.

In fact, at least since the 1960s onwards, the only time a "split" championship existed was in just that situation, when the two widely-recognized polls, AP and Coaches, voted different teams #1.

But that didn't happen last year: Alabama won the CFP, and got the AP vote and the coach's vote as well.

UCF got nothing but apparently the "Colley-Matrix" computer ranking, a ranking that for a few years was one of 5 or 6 computers used in the BCS formula to determine who played in the BCS title game. It was never used by itself as an indicator of anything much less a national champion.

As for the argument that "well, Alabama has claimed national titles on really dumb, unjustified bases, so UCF can too ...", well I think that speaks for itself - the solution is to condemn and laugh at those bogus Alabama claims, not justify UCF's.

(05-11-2018 07:49 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-11-2018 07:42 AM)va-eagle Wrote:  

(05-11-2018 06:59 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-10-2018 10:57 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-10-2018 08:57 AM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  All five P5 champs, three at large, one conditional spot to the G5=8

I say make it 16 wirh all 10 conferences given a conditional, something like a minimum of 10 regular season FBS wins or something to that effect. You probably still end up with some lopsided games in the first round, but most G5 teams that get to double digit wins arent going to get steamrolled in a playoff.

I like this one, except I'd make the G5 slot automatic. What we have seen, irregardless of the "ranking", the best G5 champ has been more than competetive with the top P5's in the access bowl.

I'd agree with an auto-G5 slot, as long as the playoffs were at least 16 teams. Eight would be too small.

At the end of the BCS era, the top non-AQ schools like TCU and Utah did beat truly 'top' AQ schools. E.g., in 2008 Utah beat #4 Alabama, and in 2010 TCU beat #5 and B1G champ Wisconsin.

But in the CFP era, the quality of P5 teams played by G5 has been lower. The G5 wins have come over runner-up P5 or P5 ranked outside the top 5. That's not playoff quality wins.

That '08 Utah team was good, but for Alabama, that was a slap in the face to have to play a MWC team. Those Utah players approached that game as 'we got something to prove' and the Alabama players as 'this is total BS we have to play the MWC and we don't give a shat about this game'.

The higher the ranked P5 team that gets a consolation prize of playing a G5 team, the less interested they'll be. The mental factor does impact results.

Now, if that had been a playoff game, the attitude on the Alabama side of the field would have been different.

We, heck everyone who is honest, know this is true. In 2008, Alabama was obviously "down" for that Sugar Bowl, having just had their SEC and national title hopes dashed by Florida in the SEC title game, and then relegated to playing a non-AQ.

Likewise, Auburn surely was in the dumps last year when they played UCF, having also had their SEC title and national title hopes dashed in the SEC title game, and then relegated to playing UCF in the Peach Bowl while their two historical rivals were in the playoffs - and teams they beat during the season to boot! Enormously bitter for them.

Not always, but usually it's the case that the G5/non-AQ is sky-high about being in the major bowl and is highly motivated, while the P5/AQ school is in the dumps about it, as usually just a week or two earlier they had bigger dreams dashed, and then seeing the bowl matchups and having to play a G5 is rubbing salt in the wound. It's often a big advantage for the G5/non-AQ team in their bowl game.

But, if you mention these kinds of obvious facts, a locust swarm or G5 fans will descend on you, saying you are "making excuses" or are a "Cartel lapdog" and similar nonsense.

So best just to keep quiet about it. LOL.

Kind of like an AAC team forced to play a G4 team in a bowl.

(05-11-2018 01:23 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-11-2018 10:04 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The problem with conditional access is that it doesnt address committee bias. I'd be fine with conditional G5 access if the Selection Committee is reformed to become a 10 person body with one rep from each FBS confernece. That way I'd feel reasonably confident the G5 will get a fair shake in the rankings. Otherwise, its too easy to just artificially depress the best G5's rank (just as we see every year under the current system).

Remember, the CFP rankings were by no means out of line with other rankings, so if their ranking was 'artificially depressed', well everyone did the same thing. Because it wouldn't matter what rankings were used last year - AP poll, Coaches poll, BCS computers, Sagarin, Massey Composite - human or computer, they all had UCF well outside the top 4.

Heck, they all had UCF well outside the top 4 *after* they beat Auburn.

So the only kind of selection panel that would have put UCF in last year (and I am just using them as an example, I know you are talking more generally, across all years), would have been one specifically biased towards the G5. No "fair and objective" panel would have given you that result.

And even a biased panel might be hard pressed to produce a result you like: In last year's final coach's poll, there were six AAC coaches who cast ballots**, all six voted Alabama #1, none voted for UCF.

** Cincy, Tulane, Tulsa, Houston, ECU and Navy

They are artificially lower because the only poll that matters is the CFP. The other polls have become more about "guessing" what the selection committee will do than they are a true independent poll. Give all 3 polls equal weight, and you'll see results that start to look more like the pre-CFP results. Hell, just make the CFP Selection Committee a 10 member 1-conference-one-vote body and you'll see the CFP committee results change (and loe and behold---the other major polls will suddenly begin to trend to match). Thats was the only question I had when this system was designed. Would the CFP be influences by the big human polls, or would the human polls be influenced by the Selection Committee? We now have our answer. G5's no longer ever show up in the top 10 of any polls once the Selection Committee begins issuing polls--despite multiple undefeated G5's being available in those time frames. Wouldnt have ever happened that way pre-CFP. You can literally see the climb of undefeated G5's in the polls hit glass ceiling as soon as the CFP begins issuing rankings with the G5 vastly lower than the human polls. It is what it is.

(05-11-2018 03:34 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-11-2018 01:23 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-11-2018 10:04 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The problem with conditional access is that it doesnt address committee bias. I'd be fine with conditional G5 access if the Selection Committee is reformed to become a 10 person body with one rep from each FBS confernece. That way I'd feel reasonably confident the G5 will get a fair shake in the rankings. Otherwise, its too easy to just artificially depress the best G5's rank (just as we see every year under the current system).

Remember, the CFP rankings were by no means out of line with other rankings, so if their ranking was 'artificially depressed', well everyone did the same thing. Because it wouldn't matter what rankings were used last year - AP poll, Coaches poll, BCS computers, Sagarin, Massey Composite - human or computer, they all had UCF well outside the top 4.

Heck, they all had UCF well outside the top 4 *after* they beat Auburn.

So the only kind of selection panel that would have put UCF in last year (and I am just using them as an example, I know you are talking more generally, across all years), would have been one specifically biased towards the G5. No "fair and objective" panel would have given you that result.

And even a biased panel might be hard pressed to produce a result you like: In last year's final coach's poll, there were six AAC coaches who cast ballots**, all six voted Alabama #1, none voted for UCF.

** Cincy, Tulane, Tulsa, Houston, ECU and Navy

They are artificially lower because the only poll that matters is the CFP. The other polls have become more about "guessing" what the selection committee will do than they are a true independent poll.

We've been over this before, and IMO there are big flaws with it. E.g., the only CFP poll that actually matters is the last one, and on the day the last one comes out, the AP and Coaches vote first, so if anything the CFP is following them. Also, the final Coaches and AP polls come out after the bowls and there is no CFP poll for them to follow, and yet they both voted for Alabama overwhelmingly and the six AAC coaches all voted Alabama #1 too.

And this doesn't even address the computers, which don't know anything about the CFP poll yet had UCF well out of the picture as well. IIRC, UCF finished 7th in the final Massey Composite, same as in the human polls.

Except for Colley-Matrix, LOL.

(05-11-2018 01:30 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-11-2018 10:10 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-11-2018 07:49 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-11-2018 07:42 AM)va-eagle Wrote:  

(05-11-2018 06:59 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I'd agree with an auto-G5 slot, as long as the playoffs were at least 16 teams. Eight would be too small.

At the end of the BCS era, the top non-AQ schools like TCU and Utah did beat truly 'top' AQ schools. E.g., in 2008 Utah beat #4 Alabama, and in 2010 TCU beat #5 and B1G champ Wisconsin.

But in the CFP era, the quality of P5 teams played by G5 has been lower. The G5 wins have come over runner-up P5 or P5 ranked outside the top 5. That's not playoff quality wins.

That '08 Utah team was good, but for Alabama, that was a slap in the face to have to play a MWC team. Those Utah players approached that game as 'we got something to prove' and the Alabama players as 'this is total BS we have to play the MWC and we don't give a shat about this game'.

The higher the ranked P5 team that gets a consolation prize of playing a G5 team, the less interested they'll be. The mental factor does impact results.

Now, if that had been a playoff game, the attitude on the Alabama side of the field would have been different.

We, heck everyone who is honest, know this is true. In 2008, Alabama was obviously "down" for that Sugar Bowl, having just had their SEC and national title hopes dashed by Florida in the SEC title game, and then relegated to playing a non-AQ.

Likewise, Auburn surely was in the dumps last year when they played UCF, having also had their SEC title and national title hopes dashed in the SEC title game, and then relegated to playing UCF in the Peach Bowl while their two historical rivals were in the playoffs - and teams they beat during the season to boot! Enormously bitter for them.

Not always, but usually it's the case that the G5/non-AQ is sky-high about being in the major bowl and is highly motivated, while the P5/AQ school is in the dumps about it, as usually just a week or two earlier they had bigger dreams dashed, and then seeing the bowl matchups and having to play a G5 is rubbing salt in the wound. It's often a big advantage for the G5/non-AQ team in their bowl game.

But, if you mention these kinds of obvious facts, a locust swarm or G5 fans will descend on you, saying you are "making excuses" or are a "Cartel lapdog" and similar nonsense.

So best just to keep quiet about it. LOL.

Yes. Auburn cared so little they came back to lead the game in the 3rd quarter. Im afraid that narrative doesn't really fit with the facts. Auburn cared for the first 3 quarters, then got bored? A lot of mental gymnastics required to buy that one.

You're kidding, right? The Auburn guys were out on the field and playing, so of course they were giving some effort.

But to use the ebb and flow of the game to deny the obvious psychology of their situation doesn't seem very sensible.

So your sticking with the theory that Auburn cared enough to come back and take a lead in the third and then just decided not to care in the 4rth quarter. Because, for your theory to be right--that's the white elephant in the room we would need to ignore.

(05-11-2018 01:30 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-11-2018 10:10 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-11-2018 07:49 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-11-2018 07:42 AM)va-eagle Wrote:  

(05-11-2018 06:59 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I'd agree with an auto-G5 slot, as long as the playoffs were at least 16 teams. Eight would be too small.

At the end of the BCS era, the top non-AQ schools like TCU and Utah did beat truly 'top' AQ schools. E.g., in 2008 Utah beat #4 Alabama, and in 2010 TCU beat #5 and B1G champ Wisconsin.

But in the CFP era, the quality of P5 teams played by G5 has been lower. The G5 wins have come over runner-up P5 or P5 ranked outside the top 5. That's not playoff quality wins.

That '08 Utah team was good, but for Alabama, that was a slap in the face to have to play a MWC team. Those Utah players approached that game as 'we got something to prove' and the Alabama players as 'this is total BS we have to play the MWC and we don't give a shat about this game'.

The higher the ranked P5 team that gets a consolation prize of playing a G5 team, the less interested they'll be. The mental factor does impact results.

Now, if that had been a playoff game, the attitude on the Alabama side of the field would have been different.

We, heck everyone who is honest, know this is true. In 2008, Alabama was obviously "down" for that Sugar Bowl, having just had their SEC and national title hopes dashed by Florida in the SEC title game, and then relegated to playing a non-AQ.

Likewise, Auburn surely was in the dumps last year when they played UCF, having also had their SEC title and national title hopes dashed in the SEC title game, and then relegated to playing UCF in the Peach Bowl while their two historical rivals were in the playoffs - and teams they beat during the season to boot! Enormously bitter for them.

Not always, but usually it's the case that the G5/non-AQ is sky-high about being in the major bowl and is highly motivated, while the P5/AQ school is in the dumps about it, as usually just a week or two earlier they had bigger dreams dashed, and then seeing the bowl matchups and having to play a G5 is rubbing salt in the wound. It's often a big advantage for the G5/non-AQ team in their bowl game.

But, if you mention these kinds of obvious facts, a locust swarm or G5 fans will descend on you, saying you are "making excuses" or are a "Cartel lapdog" and similar nonsense.

So best just to keep quiet about it. LOL.

Yes. Auburn cared so little they came back to lead the game in the 3rd quarter. Im afraid that narrative doesn't really fit with the facts. Auburn cared for the first 3 quarters, then got bored? A lot of mental gymnastics required to buy that one.

You're kidding, right? The Auburn guys were out on the field and playing, so of course they were giving some effort.

But to use the ebb and flow of the game to deny the obvious psychology of their situation doesn't seem very sensible.

Now we bring in psychology. It seems this is involved during the season too. OSU lost to Iowa by a lot. Was Iowa better or was OSU not up for the game. Alabama lost to UA during the season but still won the 'supposed' NC although UA beat UG too.

With the way the bowls went, maybe OSU should have been picked over Alabama. Pick the conference champions and maybe OSU wins it all again.

UCF was undefeated but was not given the chance.

Until the system changes, why would UCF be embarrassed.

(05-13-2018 07:24 PM)sierrajip Wrote:  UCF was undefeated but was not given the chance.

Until the system changes, why would UCF be embarrassed.

Exactly. UCF could have scheduled and beaten Auburn, Ohio St, Clemson, and Alabama plus their conference schedule and they STILL wouldn't have been given the chance to compete for the mythical National Championship. Any of half of the teams in the FBS could have done that and they wouldn't have any chance of playing for the "National Championship" either.

The corrupt FBS system allows half of the league to buy the venue, buy the game officials, buy the playoff system, and restrict 90%+ of the NCAA's revenues to only half of the league members. So UCF certainly has a legitimate ON THE FIELD claim to the "National Championship". Nobody beat them and they were the ONLY team in the FBS to go undefeated!

(05-13-2018 02:03 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-11-2018 01:30 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-11-2018 10:10 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-11-2018 07:49 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-11-2018 07:42 AM)va-eagle Wrote:  That '08 Utah team was good, but for Alabama, that was a slap in the face to have to play a MWC team. Those Utah players approached that game as 'we got something to prove' and the Alabama players as 'this is total BS we have to play the MWC and we don't give a shat about this game'.

The higher the ranked P5 team that gets a consolation prize of playing a G5 team, the less interested they'll be. The mental factor does impact results.

Now, if that had been a playoff game, the attitude on the Alabama side of the field would have been different.

We, heck everyone who is honest, know this is true. In 2008, Alabama was obviously "down" for that Sugar Bowl, having just had their SEC and national title hopes dashed by Florida in the SEC title game, and then relegated to playing a non-AQ.

Likewise, Auburn surely was in the dumps last year when they played UCF, having also had their SEC title and national title hopes dashed in the SEC title game, and then relegated to playing UCF in the Peach Bowl while their two historical rivals were in the playoffs - and teams they beat during the season to boot! Enormously bitter for them.

Not always, but usually it's the case that the G5/non-AQ is sky-high about being in the major bowl and is highly motivated, while the P5/AQ school is in the dumps about it, as usually just a week or two earlier they had bigger dreams dashed, and then seeing the bowl matchups and having to play a G5 is rubbing salt in the wound. It's often a big advantage for the G5/non-AQ team in their bowl game.

But, if you mention these kinds of obvious facts, a locust swarm or G5 fans will descend on you, saying you are "making excuses" or are a "Cartel lapdog" and similar nonsense.

So best just to keep quiet about it. LOL.

Yes. Auburn cared so little they came back to lead the game in the 3rd quarter. Im afraid that narrative doesn't really fit with the facts. Auburn cared for the first 3 quarters, then got bored? A lot of mental gymnastics required to buy that one.

You're kidding, right? The Auburn guys were out on the field and playing, so of course they were giving some effort.

But to use the ebb and flow of the game to deny the obvious psychology of their situation doesn't seem very sensible.

So your sticking with the theory that Auburn cared enough to come back and take a lead in the third and then just decided not to care in the 4rth quarter. Because, for your theory to be right--that's the white elephant in the room we would need to ignore.

I really can't believe why you are sticking with this notion that because AU took the lead in the 3rd that this refutes the idea that they generally were down in the dumps about the game. That is bizarro to me. Games can ebb and flow for many reasons, but AU lack of interest in the game is an obvious likelihood and could have likely influenced all aspects of their preparation from the time it was announced.

There's no getting around the fact that few teams ever have had more dreams crushed, and in a more bitter fashion, than AU did in the SEC title game, and then to see their top rivals get the spoils, AND then get stuck playing a G5 in a bowl?

It's a miracle they put forth any effort at all. Professional pride kicked in a bit there?