What happens if both Boise State and UCF go undefeated this year? What happens if both get left out of the playoff?

(08-02-2018 10:15 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-02-2018 09:54 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-02-2018 09:44 AM)Fthechips Wrote:  NCAA teams get the shaft every year when it comes to rankings and committee decisions, that's just part of the system. But I'd rather have teams get shafted once in a while than for the G5 to have no access at a national title.

People keep forgetting that the G5 has the same access as the P5 - the playoff committee ranks the teams, nobody is guaranteed a spot in the playoffs, as the B1G and PAC last year could attest.

Youve already admitted that the top G5 teams are under rated--often placed behind multi-loss P5 teams that really "arent very good". There is an issue here. There are two solutions.

1) Simply guarantee one slot to the G5 when an expansion to 8 occurs.

or

2) Revise the Selection Committee structure to a 10 man committee comprised of one rep from each FBS conference.

I would definitely go with option #2. With 4 teams or even 8, nobody should have guarantees.

(08-02-2018 01:12 PM)Fthechips Wrote:  

(08-02-2018 09:54 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-02-2018 09:44 AM)Fthechips Wrote:  NCAA teams get the shaft every year when it comes to rankings and committee decisions, that's just part of the system. But I'd rather have teams get shafted once in a while than for the G5 to have no access at a national title.

People keep forgetting that the G5 has the same access as the P5 - the playoff committee ranks the teams, nobody is guaranteed a spot in the playoffs, as the B1G and PAC last year could attest.

UCF won every single game last year and didn't even make the field. The G5 does not have the same access.

So what? If your schedule doesn't merit you being in the top four, then you shouldn't make the playoffs. That doesn't mean you don't have access, it means you didn't merit access.

Nobody had UCF in the top 4 last year - not the polls, not the computers, not the committee - nobody.

Remember, you can be *really, really good*, and still not be good enough to make the playoffs, it doesn't mean you've been disrespected. The playoffs are 4 out of 132 teams, that's like the top 3%. There were other really really good teams last year that didn't make the playoffs either, teams better than UCF. Two P5 conference champs didn't make the playoffs for crissakes.

(08-02-2018 02:19 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(08-02-2018 02:11 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(08-02-2018 02:00 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(08-02-2018 09:54 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-02-2018 09:44 AM)Fthechips Wrote:  NCAA teams get the shaft every year when it comes to rankings and committee decisions, that's just part of the system. But I'd rather have teams get shafted once in a while than for the G5 to have no access at a national title.

People keep forgetting that the G5 has the same access as the P5 - the playoff committee ranks the teams, nobody is guaranteed a spot in the playoffs, as the B1G and PAC last year could attest.

This is a good point.

There is a possibility of it happening even as it exists today.

Technically, but not really practically. When you have only so much control over who you schedule and you beat everyone you play and not have a chance then there's a deficiency in the system. Would I have ranked UCF in the top four based on who they beat last year? Probably not. Do I believe they should have had a chance? Yes, and it's clear they were good enough to compete for the title.

I certainly agree in regards to the difference between possibility and practicality.

The thing is that certain people have made the argument for just access. This whole thing is all on a sliding scale.

The answer, at least in my opinion, just isn't to give away a spot. I think that is too much of an overcorrection.

However, the point Quo made challenges the idea that schools are just looking for a shot. What they are in fact asking for is some level of support. That level of support is what people have an issue with.

Giving away an auto-bid is just the wrong tool for the wrong problem.

Well then there has to be more access to higher profile games during the season. The same is true for basketball. G5 or Midmajors get one or two shots to prove they can play with big boys and even if they win it might not be enough while the P5 play a whole conference schedule of big games and drop a few (or in BB several) games against better competition and are given the benefit of the doubt.

Now most lower rung G5/mid major teams will get their lunch eaten. So forcing a mixed up schedule on everyone to find out who can hang might not be the best idea. But there's always a couple that can hang and as others have pointed out it's pretty clear who those are so why not a designated spot. If they get beat down it won't be any worse than having to endure the 2013 BCS Title match that Notre Dame clearly wasn't ready for.

(08-02-2018 02:25 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-02-2018 01:12 PM)Fthechips Wrote:  

(08-02-2018 09:54 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-02-2018 09:44 AM)Fthechips Wrote:  NCAA teams get the shaft every year when it comes to rankings and committee decisions, that's just part of the system. But I'd rather have teams get shafted once in a while than for the G5 to have no access at a national title.

People keep forgetting that the G5 has the same access as the P5 - the playoff committee ranks the teams, nobody is guaranteed a spot in the playoffs, as the B1G and PAC last year could attest.

UCF won every single game last year and didn't even make the field. The G5 does not have the same access.

So what? If your schedule doesn't merit you being in the top four, then you shouldn't make the playoffs. That doesn't mean you don't have access, it means you didn't merit access.

Nobody had UCF in the top 4 last year - not the polls, not the computers, not the committee - nobody.

Remember, you can be *really, really good*, and still not be good enough to make the playoffs, it doesn't mean you've been disrespected. The playoffs are 4 out of 132 teams, that's like the top 3%. There were other really really good teams last year that didn't make the playoffs either, teams better than UCF. Two P5 conference champs didn't make the playoffs for crissakes.

I do think that UCF would have been invited in a 8 team format this year. Leaving an undefeated team out of the playoff for a two loss team for the selection committee would have been much more difficult to explain.

I would like an automatic G5 link to the playoff, but I can see if this does not happen. It would have to be earned.

(08-02-2018 02:56 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(08-02-2018 02:19 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(08-02-2018 02:11 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(08-02-2018 02:00 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(08-02-2018 09:54 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  People keep forgetting that the G5 has the same access as the P5 - the playoff committee ranks the teams, nobody is guaranteed a spot in the playoffs, as the B1G and PAC last year could attest.

This is a good point.

There is a possibility of it happening even as it exists today.

Technically, but not really practically. When you have only so much control over who you schedule and you beat everyone you play and not have a chance then there's a deficiency in the system. Would I have ranked UCF in the top four based on who they beat last year? Probably not. Do I believe they should have had a chance? Yes, and it's clear they were good enough to compete for the title.

I certainly agree in regards to the difference between possibility and practicality.

The thing is that certain people have made the argument for just access. This whole thing is all on a sliding scale.

The answer, at least in my opinion, just isn't to give away a spot. I think that is too much of an overcorrection.

However, the point Quo made challenges the idea that schools are just looking for a shot. What they are in fact asking for is some level of support. That level of support is what people have an issue with.

Giving away an auto-bid is just the wrong tool for the wrong problem.

Well then there has to be more access to higher profile games during the season. The same is true for basketball. G5 or Midmajors get one or two shots to prove they can play with big boys and even if they win it might not be enough while the P5 play a whole conference schedule of big games and drop a few (or in BB several) games against better competition and are given the benefit of the doubt.

Now most lower rung G5/mid major teams will get their lunch eaten. So forcing a mixed up schedule on everyone to find out who can hang might not be the best idea. But there's always a couple that can hang and as others have pointed out it's pretty clear who those are so why not a designated spot. If they get beat down it won't be any worse than having to endure the 2013 BCS Title match that Notre Dame clearly wasn't ready for.

To me, both 4 and 8 team playoffs are too small to have designated spots for anyone, A5 or G5. Conference title selection procedures have too great a margin for error and ignore OOC games, which should be the games that matter most, not least.

So no, I disagree with the concept of auto-bids for A5, G5, anybody. A committee or BCS type formula is best.

(08-02-2018 02:56 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(08-02-2018 02:19 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(08-02-2018 02:11 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(08-02-2018 02:00 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(08-02-2018 09:54 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  People keep forgetting that the G5 has the same access as the P5 - the playoff committee ranks the teams, nobody is guaranteed a spot in the playoffs, as the B1G and PAC last year could attest.

This is a good point.

There is a possibility of it happening even as it exists today.

Technically, but not really practically. When you have only so much control over who you schedule and you beat everyone you play and not have a chance then there's a deficiency in the system. Would I have ranked UCF in the top four based on who they beat last year? Probably not. Do I believe they should have had a chance? Yes, and it's clear they were good enough to compete for the title.

I certainly agree in regards to the difference between possibility and practicality.

The thing is that certain people have made the argument for just access. This whole thing is all on a sliding scale.

The answer, at least in my opinion, just isn't to give away a spot. I think that is too much of an overcorrection.

However, the point Quo made challenges the idea that schools are just looking for a shot. What they are in fact asking for is some level of support. That level of support is what people have an issue with.

Giving away an auto-bid is just the wrong tool for the wrong problem.

Well then there has to be more access to higher profile games during the season. The same is true for basketball. G5 or Midmajors get one or two shots to prove they can play with big boys and even if they win it might not be enough while the P5 play a whole conference schedule of big games and drop a few (or in BB several) games against better competition and are given the benefit of the doubt.

Now most lower rung G5/mid major teams will get their lunch eaten. So forcing a mixed up schedule on everyone to find out who can hang might not be the best idea. But there's always a couple that can hang and as others have pointed out it's pretty clear who those are so why not a designated spot. If they get beat down it won't be any worse than having to endure the 2013 BCS Title match that Notre Dame clearly wasn't ready for.

I agree with that as well, the G5 need better games.

But you can see how we drift from one thing to another and our logic gets muddy as we go from auto-bid to better games.

If we institute a system where the G5 get better games, like assigning schedules, then we cant also put a system of auto-bids in because thats essentially rigging.

If we institute a system of auto-bids then why bother with anything to do with schedules?

The problems with each of those situations is pretty obvious.

We agree on a lot but the solution.

(08-02-2018 06:23 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-02-2018 02:56 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(08-02-2018 02:19 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(08-02-2018 02:11 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(08-02-2018 02:00 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  This is a good point.

There is a possibility of it happening even as it exists today.

Technically, but not really practically. When you have only so much control over who you schedule and you beat everyone you play and not have a chance then there's a deficiency in the system. Would I have ranked UCF in the top four based on who they beat last year? Probably not. Do I believe they should have had a chance? Yes, and it's clear they were good enough to compete for the title.

I certainly agree in regards to the difference between possibility and practicality.

The thing is that certain people have made the argument for just access. This whole thing is all on a sliding scale.

The answer, at least in my opinion, just isn't to give away a spot. I think that is too much of an overcorrection.

However, the point Quo made challenges the idea that schools are just looking for a shot. What they are in fact asking for is some level of support. That level of support is what people have an issue with.

Giving away an auto-bid is just the wrong tool for the wrong problem.

Well then there has to be more access to higher profile games during the season. The same is true for basketball. G5 or Midmajors get one or two shots to prove they can play with big boys and even if they win it might not be enough while the P5 play a whole conference schedule of big games and drop a few (or in BB several) games against better competition and are given the benefit of the doubt.

Now most lower rung G5/mid major teams will get their lunch eaten. So forcing a mixed up schedule on everyone to find out who can hang might not be the best idea. But there's always a couple that can hang and as others have pointed out it's pretty clear who those are so why not a designated spot. If they get beat down it won't be any worse than having to endure the 2013 BCS Title match that Notre Dame clearly wasn't ready for.

To me, both 4 and 8 team playoffs are too small to have designated spots for anyone, A5 or G5. Conference title selection procedures have too great a margin for error and ignore OOC games, which should be the games that matter most, not least.

So no, I disagree with the concept of auto-bids for A5, G5, anybody. A committee or BCS type formula is best.

I agree.

The idea of a system of auto-bids is simply not compatible with the idea of picking the very best teams at a given point. It will match up most of the time, but not always.

(08-02-2018 02:21 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  What happens if both Boise State and UCF go undefeated this year? What happens if both get left out of the playoff?

1) Then they go undefeated.
2) Boise and UCF fans will be upset but nothing will happen.

(08-02-2018 06:47 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(08-02-2018 02:21 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  What happens if both Boise State and UCF go undefeated this year? What happens if both get left out of the playoff?

1) Then they go undefeated.
2) Boise and UCF fans will be upset but nothing will happen.

Then they start claiming national titles and then Bama fans get butthurt

(08-02-2018 02:21 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  What happens if both Boise State and UCF go undefeated this year? What happens if both get left out of the playoff?

One goes to the access bowl and the other plays in the Spatula City Bowl.

(08-02-2018 06:46 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(08-02-2018 06:23 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-02-2018 02:56 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(08-02-2018 02:19 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(08-02-2018 02:11 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  Technically, but not really practically. When you have only so much control over who you schedule and you beat everyone you play and not have a chance then there's a deficiency in the system. Would I have ranked UCF in the top four based on who they beat last year? Probably not. Do I believe they should have had a chance? Yes, and it's clear they were good enough to compete for the title.

I certainly agree in regards to the difference between possibility and practicality.

The thing is that certain people have made the argument for just access. This whole thing is all on a sliding scale.

The answer, at least in my opinion, just isn't to give away a spot. I think that is too much of an overcorrection.

However, the point Quo made challenges the idea that schools are just looking for a shot. What they are in fact asking for is some level of support. That level of support is what people have an issue with.

Giving away an auto-bid is just the wrong tool for the wrong problem.

Well then there has to be more access to higher profile games during the season. The same is true for basketball. G5 or Midmajors get one or two shots to prove they can play with big boys and even if they win it might not be enough while the P5 play a whole conference schedule of big games and drop a few (or in BB several) games against better competition and are given the benefit of the doubt.

Now most lower rung G5/mid major teams will get their lunch eaten. So forcing a mixed up schedule on everyone to find out who can hang might not be the best idea. But there's always a couple that can hang and as others have pointed out it's pretty clear who those are so why not a designated spot. If they get beat down it won't be any worse than having to endure the 2013 BCS Title match that Notre Dame clearly wasn't ready for.

To me, both 4 and 8 team playoffs are too small to have designated spots for anyone, A5 or G5. Conference title selection procedures have too great a margin for error and ignore OOC games, which should be the games that matter most, not least.

So no, I disagree with the concept of auto-bids for A5, G5, anybody. A committee or BCS type formula is best.

I agree.

The idea of a system of auto-bids is simply not compatible with the idea of picking the very best teams at a given point. It will match up most of the time, but not always.

I couldnt disagree more. We play an entire season of games to determine the winner of a conference. Why discard the result of an entire conference season and replace that determiniation with the opinion of a dozen ice skating judges?

The whole point of the conference season is to determine the best team. Thats why we play games. How can anyone be willing to accept the winner of a short "winner take all" 2 game playoff as a legitimate champion and yet reject the notion that a grueling 8-9 game conference season will reveal the best team in a conference? I fail to see any consistent logic in that line of thinking.

To my mind---the automatic qualifiers are NOT "given" in an AQ system. They are instead "EARNED" on the field of play. The wild cards are the real give away in my 8 game proposal. Those are the teams that get in despite having been unable to close the deal on the field of play. Im willing to do that because I admit there are times when injuries or freak plays skew the results (however--you have to admit, the same thing can happen in the playoff--so, to a large degree--injuries and freak plays are just an innate part of the game of football).

My preference is a system where as many slots as possible are filled directly based on action playing out on the field. The less committee has to do---the better. That said, Im ok leaving a couple of slots open to give a truly deserving team a second shot at the apple. All playoffs are compromises to a degree---but I really do feel my 8 team proposal does a really good job of addressing virtually every significant objection. Its not too big. Its not too long. There is a path for every team. There is a way to win your way in. There is way to make sure a team like last years 'Bama can get in despite not winning their division (would also save a super team that got upset in the CCG). I think its a plan that could work for 50 years with little change.

(08-02-2018 06:59 PM)Fthechips Wrote:  

(08-02-2018 06:47 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(08-02-2018 02:21 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  What happens if both Boise State and UCF go undefeated this year? What happens if both get left out of the playoff?

1) Then they go undefeated.
2) Boise and UCF fans will be upset but nothing will happen.

Then they start claiming national titles and then Bama fans get butthurt

Fthechips that’s a funny response indeed, but the bama dude is correct, nothing will change at least not in the short term, I do think that if the g5 teams keep winning most NY6 games it will attract better recruits for g5 teams, better recruiting = power

(08-02-2018 08:16 PM)JHS55 Wrote:  

(08-02-2018 06:59 PM)Fthechips Wrote:  

(08-02-2018 06:47 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(08-02-2018 02:21 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  What happens if both Boise State and UCF go undefeated this year? What happens if both get left out of the playoff?

1) Then they go undefeated.
2) Boise and UCF fans will be upset but nothing will happen.

Then they start claiming national titles and then Bama fans get butthurt

Fthechips that’s a funny response indeed, but the bama dude is correct, nothing will change at least not in the short term, I do think that if the g5 teams keep winning most NY6 games it will attract better recruits for g5 teams, better recruiting = power

More teams in the Top 25 then pressure is on for additional NY6 bids........

(08-02-2018 06:47 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(08-02-2018 02:21 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  What happens if both Boise State and UCF go undefeated this year? What happens if both get left out of the playoff?

1) Then they go undefeated.
2) Boise and UCF fans will be upset but nothing will happen.

UCF could have beaten Bama last season. That is the most scary thing. Same for the UCF Blake Bortles led team. I don't blame you for protecting your territory but notice a little "keep them black men from our women" stuff mentality.

(08-02-2018 06:45 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(08-02-2018 02:56 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(08-02-2018 02:19 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(08-02-2018 02:11 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(08-02-2018 02:00 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  This is a good point.

There is a possibility of it happening even as it exists today.

Technically, but not really practically. When you have only so much control over who you schedule and you beat everyone you play and not have a chance then there's a deficiency in the system. Would I have ranked UCF in the top four based on who they beat last year? Probably not. Do I believe they should have had a chance? Yes, and it's clear they were good enough to compete for the title.

I certainly agree in regards to the difference between possibility and practicality.

The thing is that certain people have made the argument for just access. This whole thing is all on a sliding scale.

The answer, at least in my opinion, just isn't to give away a spot. I think that is too much of an overcorrection.

However, the point Quo made challenges the idea that schools are just looking for a shot. What they are in fact asking for is some level of support. That level of support is what people have an issue with.

Giving away an auto-bid is just the wrong tool for the wrong problem.

Well then there has to be more access to higher profile games during the season. The same is true for basketball. G5 or Midmajors get one or two shots to prove they can play with big boys and even if they win it might not be enough while the P5 play a whole conference schedule of big games and drop a few (or in BB several) games against better competition and are given the benefit of the doubt.

Now most lower rung G5/mid major teams will get their lunch eaten. So forcing a mixed up schedule on everyone to find out who can hang might not be the best idea. But there's always a couple that can hang and as others have pointed out it's pretty clear who those are so why not a designated spot. If they get beat down it won't be any worse than having to endure the 2013 BCS Title match that Notre Dame clearly wasn't ready for.

I agree with that as well, the G5 need better games.

But you can see how we drift from one thing to another and our logic gets muddy as we go from auto-bid to better games.

If we institute a system where the G5 get better games, like assigning schedules, then we cant also put a system of auto-bids in because thats essentially rigging.

If we institute a system of auto-bids then why bother with anything to do with schedules?

The problems with each of those situations is pretty obvious.

We agree on a lot but the solution.

“Ain’t no easy answers” as somebody said. I don’t think you’ll get anyone to agree to breaking up conference scheduling to include what many would deem lesser teams. So the solution that’s left is the “charity bowl”. In some years I agree it might be just that. But many saw the access bowl as charity and the G5 haven’t just held their own, they hold a winning record. 8 team playoff: 5 P5 champs, 1 G5 determined by committee and 2 at large determined by committee. That doesn’t seem unreasonable to me.

(08-02-2018 07:10 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I couldnt disagree more. We play an entire season of games to determine the winner of a conference. Why discard the result of an entire conference season and replace that determiniation with the opinion of a dozen ice skating judges?

The whole point of the conference season is to determine the best team. Thats why we play games. How can anyone be willing to accept the winner of a short "winner take all" 2 game playoff as a legitimate champion and yet reject the notion that a grueling 8-9 game conference season will reveal the best team in a conference? I fail to see any consistent logic in that line of thinking.

To my mind---the automatic qualifiers are NOT "given" in an AQ system. They are instead "EARNED" on the field of play. The wild cards are the real give away in my 8 game proposal. Those are the teams that get in despite having been unable to close the deal on the field of play. Im willing to do that because I admit there are times when injuries or freak plays skew the results (however--you have to admit, the same thing can happen in the playoff--so, to a large degree--injuries and freak plays are just an innate part of the game of football).

1) I don't think anyone believes the committee "discards" conference titles. The fact that 14 of the 16 teams that have made the playoffs so far have been conference champions means that they give it considerable weight, as they should. And no doubt, in an 8-team playoff, the great bulk of playoff teams will be conference champs as well.

2) The CFP probably does a far better job of picking the best team nationally then does a given conference's selection procedure in terms of picking the best conference team. If you actually do win that 4-team playoff, you have unquestionably proved you are the most accomplished team, therefore deserving of the title. Basically, to win the CFP, on top of already having a great season (no team has ever made the playoff with more than 1 loss), you then have to beat TWO of the AP top four teams to win it, and typically these are winners of P5 conferences.

E.g., in 2016, Clemson beat #2 and then #1 (SEC champ) to win the title. Last year, Alabama beat #1 (ACC champ) and #3 (SEC champ) to win the title. In 2015, Alabama beat #3 (B1G champ) and #1 (ACC champ) to win the title. In 2014, Ohio State beat #1 (SEC champ) and then #3 (PAC champ) to win the title.

Really, no champs before the CFP ever had to accomplish as much as CFP winners do. In ALL four cases, the team had to beat not just the AP #1 team, they also had to beat another team ranked either AP #2 or #3, and in three of the four cases, they beat two P5 champs. That's off the charts.

In contrast, there is a massive flaw in how the conferences choose their champ - OOC games, the ones most relevant for knowing how nationally strong a team is, are ignored. No other sports does this. In the NFL, e.g., the NFC East winner isn't determined by which team has the best record within the division but rather by their entire record, against all teams, inside and outside the division. So the Cowboys might be 5-1 in the NFC East games and the Eagles 4-2, but if the Eagles are 13-3 overall and the Cowboys 11-5, the Eagles win the division. But in the AAC, for example, only AAC games count. So Houston could beat #5 Oklahoma and #10 Louisville, but that means absolutely nothing towards winning the AAC, and yet you want to make winning the AAC the marker for making the playoffs? That makes no sense.

3) The auto-qualifier IS a gift, to the conference. In effect, in your method, we're saying that regarding the ten Big 12 teams, one of you WILL make the playoffs. Doesn't matter how bad all 10 of you might be, we are assuring one of you a spot in the playoffs. Another conference might have 3 teams better than any of you, but one of you gets in anyway. That's a dumb-down move.

IMO, given the flaws in how conference winners are picked, you can only give auto-bids to conferences if the field is large enough, and 4 or 8 isn't enough. It would take at least 16 teams.

(08-02-2018 02:56 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(08-02-2018 02:19 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(08-02-2018 02:11 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(08-02-2018 02:00 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(08-02-2018 09:54 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  People keep forgetting that the G5 has the same access as the P5 - the playoff committee ranks the teams, nobody is guaranteed a spot in the playoffs, as the B1G and PAC last year could attest.

This is a good point.

There is a possibility of it happening even as it exists today.

Technically, but not really practically. When you have only so much control over who you schedule and you beat everyone you play and not have a chance then there's a deficiency in the system. Would I have ranked UCF in the top four based on who they beat last year? Probably not. Do I believe they should have had a chance? Yes, and it's clear they were good enough to compete for the title.

I certainly agree in regards to the difference between possibility and practicality.

The thing is that certain people have made the argument for just access. This whole thing is all on a sliding scale.

The answer, at least in my opinion, just isn't to give away a spot. I think that is too much of an overcorrection.

However, the point Quo made challenges the idea that schools are just looking for a shot. What they are in fact asking for is some level of support. That level of support is what people have an issue with.

Giving away an auto-bid is just the wrong tool for the wrong problem.

Well then there has to be more access to higher profile games during the season. The same is true for basketball. G5 or Midmajors get one or two shots to prove they can play with big boys and even if they win it might not be enough while the P5 play a whole conference schedule of big games and drop a few (or in BB several) games against better competition and are given the benefit of the doubt.

Now most lower rung G5/mid major teams will get their lunch eaten. So forcing a mixed up schedule on everyone to find out who can hang might not be the best idea. But there's always a couple that can hang and as others have pointed out it's pretty clear who those are so why not a designated spot. If they get beat down it won't be any worse than having to endure the 2013 BCS Title match that Notre Dame clearly wasn't ready for.

That is the essence of the OP. An autobid to an access bowl, or even to an expanded playoff, doesn't help the G5 as a whole. Whether they realize it or not, the G5 isn't competing against the P5 for eyeballs and paydays. They are competing with FCS teams, who are more numerous and willing to work cheap.

The trend in the P5 is to play fewer non-P5 opponents, not more. What the G5 needs is a rule that discourages FBS-FCS games, allowing all the G5 teams in the FBS to play the big boys more during the regular season when it counts. Just letting one of them play a meaningless bowl game isn't the answer.

(08-02-2018 08:58 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(08-02-2018 06:45 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(08-02-2018 02:56 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(08-02-2018 02:19 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(08-02-2018 02:11 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  Technically, but not really practically. When you have only so much control over who you schedule and you beat everyone you play and not have a chance then there's a deficiency in the system. Would I have ranked UCF in the top four based on who they beat last year? Probably not. Do I believe they should have had a chance? Yes, and it's clear they were good enough to compete for the title.

I certainly agree in regards to the difference between possibility and practicality.

The thing is that certain people have made the argument for just access. This whole thing is all on a sliding scale.

The answer, at least in my opinion, just isn't to give away a spot. I think that is too much of an overcorrection.

However, the point Quo made challenges the idea that schools are just looking for a shot. What they are in fact asking for is some level of support. That level of support is what people have an issue with.

Giving away an auto-bid is just the wrong tool for the wrong problem.

Well then there has to be more access to higher profile games during the season. The same is true for basketball. G5 or Midmajors get one or two shots to prove they can play with big boys and even if they win it might not be enough while the P5 play a whole conference schedule of big games and drop a few (or in BB several) games against better competition and are given the benefit of the doubt.

Now most lower rung G5/mid major teams will get their lunch eaten. So forcing a mixed up schedule on everyone to find out who can hang might not be the best idea. But there's always a couple that can hang and as others have pointed out it's pretty clear who those are so why not a designated spot. If they get beat down it won't be any worse than having to endure the 2013 BCS Title match that Notre Dame clearly wasn't ready for.

I agree with that as well, the G5 need better games.

But you can see how we drift from one thing to another and our logic gets muddy as we go from auto-bid to better games.

If we institute a system where the G5 get better games, like assigning schedules, then we cant also put a system of auto-bids in because thats essentially rigging.

If we institute a system of auto-bids then why bother with anything to do with schedules?

The problems with each of those situations is pretty obvious.

We agree on a lot but the solution.

“Ain’t no easy answers” as somebody said. I don’t think you’ll get anyone to agree to breaking up conference scheduling to include what many would deem lesser teams. So the solution that’s left is the “charity bowl”. In some years I agree it might be just that. But many saw the access bowl as charity and the G5 haven’t just held their own, they hold a winning record. 8 team playoff: 5 P5 champs, 1 G5 determined by committee and 2 at large determined by committee. That doesn’t seem unreasonable to me.

The issue with it goes right back to what was said earlier.

What about the 8th ranked team that has to give up its earned spot to the 17th, 25th, or NR best G5 team in a given year. I think that's unreasonable.

It also isn't actually addressing the issue of games.

(08-02-2018 11:21 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-02-2018 07:10 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I couldnt disagree more. We play an entire season of games to determine the winner of a conference. Why discard the result of an entire conference season and replace that determiniation with the opinion of a dozen ice skating judges?

The whole point of the conference season is to determine the best team. Thats why we play games. How can anyone be willing to accept the winner of a short "winner take all" 2 game playoff as a legitimate champion and yet reject the notion that a grueling 8-9 game conference season will reveal the best team in a conference? I fail to see any consistent logic in that line of thinking.

To my mind---the automatic qualifiers are NOT "given" in an AQ system. They are instead "EARNED" on the field of play. The wild cards are the real give away in my 8 game proposal. Those are the teams that get in despite having been unable to close the deal on the field of play. Im willing to do that because I admit there are times when injuries or freak plays skew the results (however--you have to admit, the same thing can happen in the playoff--so, to a large degree--injuries and freak plays are just an innate part of the game of football).

1) I don't think anyone believes the committee "discards" conference titles. The fact that 14 of the 16 teams that have made the playoffs so far have been conference champions means that they give it considerable weight, as they should. And no doubt, in an 8-team playoff, the great bulk of playoff teams will be conference champs as well.

2) The CFP probably does a far better job of picking the best team nationally then does a given conference's selection procedure in terms of picking the best conference team. If you actually do win that 4-team playoff, you have unquestionably proved you are the most accomplished team, therefore deserving of the title. Basically, to win the CFP, on top of already having a great season (no team has ever made the playoff with more than 1 loss), you then have to beat TWO of the AP top four teams to win it, and typically these are winners of P5 conferences.

E.g., in 2016, Clemson beat #2 and then #1 (SEC champ) to win the title. Last year, Alabama beat #1 (ACC champ) and #3 (SEC champ) to win the title. In 2015, Alabama beat #3 (B1G champ) and #1 (ACC champ) to win the title. In 2014, Ohio State beat #1 (SEC champ) and then #3 (PAC champ) to win the title.

Really, no champs before the CFP ever had to accomplish as much as CFP winners do. In ALL four cases, the team had to beat not just the AP #1 team, they also had to beat another team ranked either AP #2 or #3, and in three of the four cases, they beat two P5 champs. That's off the charts.

In contrast, there is a massive flaw in how the conferences choose their champ - OOC games, the ones most relevant for knowing how nationally strong a team is, are ignored. No other sports does this. In the NFL, e.g., the NFC East winner isn't determined by which team has the best record within the division but rather by their entire record, against all teams, inside and outside the division. So the Cowboys might be 5-1 in the NFC East games and the Eagles 4-2, but if the Eagles are 13-3 overall and the Cowboys 11-5, the Eagles win the division. But in the AAC, for example, only AAC games count. So Houston could beat #5 Oklahoma and #10 Louisville, but that means absolutely nothing towards winning the AAC, and yet you want to make winning the AAC the marker for making the playoffs? That makes no sense.

3) The auto-qualifier IS a gift, to the conference. In effect, in your method, we're saying that regarding the ten Big 12 teams, one of you WILL make the playoffs. Doesn't matter how bad all 10 of you might be, we are assuring one of you a spot in the playoffs. Another conference might have 3 teams better than any of you, but one of you gets in anyway. That's a dumb-down move.

IMO, given the flaws in how conference winners are picked, you can only give auto-bids to conferences if the field is large enough, and 4 or 8 isn't enough. It would take at least 16 teams.

You can't compare the college post-season with the NFL's. The NFL's actually makes sense. For one thing, they don't take a vote to determine who gets into the post-season.