(11-02-2018 12:07 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  What change? Going to 8 provides slightly more hope...1.0 percent instead of 0.1 but doesn't change the inequities of the system.

-Very limited chances to win national awards.
-Playing ultra tough OOCs that doom seasons to failure.
-Constant disrespect in the media.
-The huge resource disparity.

I'd rather go parallel like the Ivy and SWAC do in FCS.

If the AAC wants to chart their own national course that's fine. The MWC, CUSA and MAC are enough markets for a national TV deal by themselves.

The change I think is coming is a guaranteed CFP slot for the top G5 champ when the playoff expands to 8---likely at the end of the current deal. I think the court of public opinion is slowly turning--and we are only in the 5th year of a 12 year deal. By the time this one ends, I think there will be widely held consensus that the G5 deserves at least one guaranteed slot in the playoff.

College football is never going to be fair. Its the nature of the sport. However, I think even the most jaded fans believe it should at least give everyone an actual legitimate pathway to the playoff. More and more people are realizing that the current system, despite its claims to the contrary, in practice effectively has no legitimate pathway for half of college football. Yeah, I know---a one in 65 chance isnt great---but Im fine with it. No chance at all is where I have a problem.

(11-02-2018 01:01 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-02-2018 12:07 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  What change? Going to 8 provides slightly more hope...1.0 percent instead of 0.1 but doesn't change the inequities of the system.

-Very limited chances to win national awards.
-Playing ultra tough OOCs that doom seasons to failure.
-Constant disrespect in the media.
-The huge resource disparity.

I'd rather go parallel like the Ivy and SWAC do in FCS.

If the AAC wants to chart their own national course that's fine. The MWC, CUSA and MAC are enough markets for a national TV deal by themselves.

The change I think is coming is a guaranteed CFP slot for the top G5 champ when the playoff expands to 8---likely at the end of the current deal. I think the court of public opinion is slowly turning--and we are only in the 5th year of a 12 year deal. By the time this one ends, I think there will be widely held consensus that the G5 deserves at least one guaranteed slot in the playoff.

College football is never going to be fair. Its the nature of the sport. However, I think even the most jaded fans believe it should at least give everyone an actual legitimate pathway to the playoff. More and more people are realizing that the current system, despite its claims to the contrary, in practice effectively has no legitimate pathway for half of college football. Yeah, I know---a one in 65 chance isnt great---but Im fine with it. No chance at all is where I have a problem.

I think there will be a widely held consensus among fans of G5 schools that the G5 should have a guaranteed spot in an 8 team playoff. I'm not sure what would make anyone else move in that direction.

I would take a different approach. Eliminate conference championship games. Expand the field to 16 teams to include every division champion ranked in the Top 20. Fill out the field with the highest ranked non champions. If that methodology had been used last year, the field would have consisted of the 15 highest ranked teams plus Memphis (ranked #20).

Top 8 seeds host the first round games. All first round winners earn a spot in the NY6. Then, the bowls fill the remaining four spots first with teams they have a contract with that aren't already in the field, and then the highest ranked available teams. For example, if there is no PAC team among first round winners, they would be guaranteed a Rose Bowl spot before any other teams are invited.

The big question would be how to divide up the CFP money in a way that doesn't take money out of the Big Dogs' mouths.

(11-02-2018 03:05 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(11-02-2018 01:01 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-02-2018 12:07 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  What change? Going to 8 provides slightly more hope...1.0 percent instead of 0.1 but doesn't change the inequities of the system.

-Very limited chances to win national awards.
-Playing ultra tough OOCs that doom seasons to failure.
-Constant disrespect in the media.
-The huge resource disparity.

I'd rather go parallel like the Ivy and SWAC do in FCS.

If the AAC wants to chart their own national course that's fine. The MWC, CUSA and MAC are enough markets for a national TV deal by themselves.

The change I think is coming is a guaranteed CFP slot for the top G5 champ when the playoff expands to 8---likely at the end of the current deal. I think the court of public opinion is slowly turning--and we are only in the 5th year of a 12 year deal. By the time this one ends, I think there will be widely held consensus that the G5 deserves at least one guaranteed slot in the playoff.

College football is never going to be fair. Its the nature of the sport. However, I think even the most jaded fans believe it should at least give everyone an actual legitimate pathway to the playoff. More and more people are realizing that the current system, despite its claims to the contrary, in practice effectively has no legitimate pathway for half of college football. Yeah, I know---a one in 65 chance isnt great---but Im fine with it. No chance at all is where I have a problem.

I think there will be a widely held consensus among fans of G5 schools that the G5 should have a guaranteed spot in an 8 team playoff. I'm not sure what would make anyone else move in that direction.

I would take a different approach. Eliminate conference championship games. Expand the field to 16 teams to include every division champion ranked in the Top 20. Fill out the field with the highest ranked non champions. If that methodology had been used last year, the field would have consisted of the 15 highest ranked teams plus Memphis (ranked #20).

Top 8 seeds host the first round games. All first round winners earn a spot in the NY6. Then, the bowls fill the remaining four spots first with teams they have a contract with that aren't already in the field, and then the highest ranked available teams. For example, if there is no PAC team among first round winners, they would be guaranteed a Rose Bowl spot before any other teams are invited.

The big question would be how to divide up the CFP money in a way that doesn't take money out of the Big Dogs' mouths.

I think your seeing a more and more writers and talking heads acknowledge that the current system has no playoff pathway for the G5. I do think that the most popular payoff suggestion currently out there is an 8 team playoff with AQ slots for the 5 P5 champs and the top G5 champ--with 2 wildcards. Thats a playoff setup thats fairly possible and requires relatively little change. Basically, you'd just snap on a set of first round games at the home stadium of the higher ranked of each pairing the week after Championship Saturday. Once that round is done---the rest of the playoff and bowl season would basically remain just as it currently stands.

I have zero issue with your plan. I probably like it better in fact. But--the reality is a jump to 8 teams would be almost too huge for the slow moving college football world to handle---the idea of jumping to 16 might kill some of the old geezers in charge.

As for money---truth be told--the current split is probably not far off at all. The P5 bring most of the viewers so--they should get most of the money.

The idea of expanding to 8 teams with an auto bid for the G5 makes a lot of sense. Probably too much sense for it to happen.

(11-02-2018 05:48 PM)WhoseHouse? Wrote:  The idea of expanding to 8 teams with an auto bid for the G5 makes a lot of sense. Probably too much sense for it to happen.

I would hope this is the inevitable outcome.

(11-01-2018 09:57 AM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  

(11-01-2018 09:50 AM)McKinney Wrote:  

(11-01-2018 07:49 AM)ken d Wrote:  I, for one, am tired of the bias in the human polls in favor of G5 schools.

Uh, examples please?

(11-01-2018 07:49 AM)ken d Wrote:  Maybe that could be fixed by not giving the G5 an autobid. Make them earn it.

65 schools compete for one bid, another 65 schools compete for the other 11 (effectively). That's a 1.5% chance for a G5 team to make the NY6 versus a 17% chance for a P5 team to make the NY6. If that's not earning it idk what else could be done.

What’s the G5’s record in those bowls? That should show who’s earning it on the field and who’s getting a free ride.

I intentionally stayed out of this thread because I've enjoyed the AAC haters jumping on anything to dispute anything, but the AAC is undefeated in our short history in ny6 bowls,,, 3-0 . I think the AAC is .500 against the p5 in all bowl games though.

CFP does not offer conference champs automatic and will not even going to eight. Eight solves the problem of including all P5 conferences. It will still be a P5 exclusive club. If a conference does not have a top 8 team, they don't belong.

Can't figure out why the G5 fans think they will be included. It will come down to take the money or P5 splits off. Non football and other can't afford to lose the money if they leave and form own league. TV and money will follow P5 conferences. I like four because it at least make one P5 stay home.

Personally, I will be happy just to still be around when the next CFP deal occurs.

(11-01-2018 10:26 AM)westwolf Wrote:  Too bad UCF, Houston, Cincy & ??? couldn't join the Big 12.

Last year the AAC had a great year and happened to go I think 3-1/4-1 against the p5 in bowl games. My tigers were 2 bad calls without the best RB in the nation away from making it a sweep. So far this year the AAC top 4 teams have lost a combined 3 games total and only one of those were out of conference,,,,,yet the preseason polls only ranked one of them. However Boise and FAU and Arkansas state and every other gone to crap team got the early rankings,,,,SMFH who've thunk it LOL.. what if the AAC would've started with 3-4 teams ranked like the pac12 that lost damn near everything in the bowl season.

(11-02-2018 04:09 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-02-2018 03:05 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(11-02-2018 01:01 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-02-2018 12:07 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

The big question would be how to divide up the CFP money in a way that doesn't take money out of the Big Dogs' mouths.

I think your seeing a more and more writers and talking heads acknowledge that the current system has no playoff pathway for the G5. I do think that the most popular payoff suggestion currently out there is an 8 team playoff with AQ slots for the 5 P5 champs and the top G5 champ--with 2 wildcards. Thats a playoff setup thats fairly .

Money won't be an issue. Each P5 champ gets an equal share and the G5 split a share. The conf of each wild card gets a smaller share.

The P5 still get the vast majority of the cash. I would add one small change though, the G5 #2 champ get an auto access bid.

(11-03-2018 09:04 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  

(11-02-2018 04:09 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-02-2018 03:05 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(11-02-2018 01:01 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-02-2018 12:07 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

The big question would be how to divide up the CFP money in a way that doesn't take money out of the Big Dogs' mouths.

I think your seeing a more and more writers and talking heads acknowledge that the current system has no playoff pathway for the G5. I do think that the most popular payoff suggestion currently out there is an 8 team playoff with AQ slots for the 5 P5 champs and the top G5 champ--with 2 wildcards. Thats a playoff setup thats fairly .

Money won't be an issue. Each P5 champ gets an equal share and the G5 split a share. The conf of each wild card gets a smaller share.

The P5 still get the vast majority of the cash. I would add one small change though, the G5 #2 champ get an auto access bid.

What about an 8 team playoff (w/ 8 CFP bowls) and 2 access bids for the G5?

With two access bids the G5 title games become a play-in because if the AAC pukes up its championship game it could allow for an unsuspecting CUSA or SBC champ with a nice record to pick up a surprise bid.

Instead of a 1/5 shot for a G5 champ it becomes a 2/5 shot. For SBC and CUSA it goes from a 1/10 shot to like a 3/10 shot for making an access bowl.

Then of course with an 8 team playoff/8 CFP bowls its a larger TV contract and x2 times the money for the G5 (not to mention far greater access).

(11-02-2018 08:50 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  CFP does not offer conference champs automatic and will not even going to eight. Eight solves the problem of including all P5 conferences. It will still be a P5 exclusive club. If a conference does not have a top 8 team, they don't belong.

Can't figure out why the G5 fans think they will be included. It will come down to take the money or P5 splits off. Non football and other can't afford to lose the money if they leave and form own league. TV and money will follow P5 conferences. I like four because it at least make one P5 stay home.

Personally, I will be happy just to still be around when the next CFP deal occurs.

I don’t think so. I think by then, every P5 will have been left out multiple times. The P5 doesn’t like risk and will place a premium on a guarantee thier champ will be included—plus an AQ slot for each P5 makes the CCG’s (which each P5 conference owns) more valuable as they effectively become play in games. They probably are not crazy about a G5 guaranteed slot, but by then public opinion will be such they can’t really avoid it. Besides, I think by then it will be clear that it’s also smart from an economic point of view as well because adding a Cinderella component to the playoff will boost ratings (plus 65 G5 fan bases will likley be watching and rooting for the G5 rep).

UCF putting pressure on the system is exactly what we need.

If there is no performance out of the G5 its easy to justify the status quo.

(11-03-2018 11:06 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  UCF putting pressure on the system is exactly what we need.

If there is no performance out of the G5 its easy to justify the status quo.

It's still justified.

I dislike the CFP in its current setup because (1) it relies upon a completely subjective committee and (2) the lack of a true playoff in the sense that every team does not have a clear and legitimate path to the championship that doesn't rely on said subjective system.

Point one is a flaw shared by numerous college sports, though hockey to its credit at least has the Pairwise that determines all seeding and at-large bids. Point two is where college football goes wrong by not including all conference champs - even granting a guaranteed G5 spot to the playoff has some issues because of point one.

(11-03-2018 11:03 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-02-2018 08:50 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  CFP does not offer conference champs automatic and will not even going to eight. Eight solves the problem of including all P5 conferences. It will still be a P5 exclusive club. If a conference does not have a top 8 team, they don't belong.

Can't figure out why the G5 fans think they will be included. It will come down to take the money or P5 splits off. Non football and other can't afford to lose the money if they leave and form own league. TV and money will follow P5 conferences. I like four because it at least make one P5 stay home.

Personally, I will be happy just to still be around when the next CFP deal occurs.

I don’t think so. I think by then, every P5 will have been left out multiple times. The P5 doesn’t like risk and will place a premium on a guarantee thier champ will be included—plus an AQ slot for each P5 makes the CCG’s (which each P5 conference owns) more valuable as they effectively become play in games. They probably are not crazy about a G5 guaranteed slot, but by then public opinion will be such they can’t really avoid it. Besides, I think by then it will be clear that it’s also smart from an economic point of view as well because adding a Cinderella component to the playoff will boost ratings (plus 65 G5 fan bases will likley be watching and rooting for the G5 rep).

Guess will agree to disagree.

I'll say 2 things here:

1. I don't believe this years UCF team is within the top 4 teams in the country. They have a few holes, and its really just a matter of waiting on someone to exploit them. Thankfully for them, they've scored enough points to hide a bunch of those.

2. The idea that UCF should be left out of the playoff because of scheduling is the most absurd argument in the history of college sports. UCF has zero control of their own schedule. They have to play 8 AAC games a year because the league says so. The 4 OOC games they play are limited by WHO is willing to play them. The fact of the matter is that UCF called a bunch of teams about playing football games this offseason. They got a bunch of "no way's" The problem is related to the committee not really caring who top level P5's play OOC. Bama could play nobody OOC (They pretty much are this year) and waltz into the playoff provided they don't lose more than 1 game because their Alabama. Clemson could play no one OOC and waltz into the playoff in a similar situation. There's zero incentive for a top 15-20 program to play UCF. Those programs know that they are not going to be penalized for OOC scheduling because of the name and league they play in. That puts UCF in an impossible situation.

I mean, I guess sure, UCF could just say screw it, volunteer to go play on the road anywhere any time against anyone. Schedule zero home OOC games and spend OOC play traveling to say Florida, Texas, Ohio State, and Oregon. Then MAYBE someone would say they scheduled well. Of course, no program in America is going to play all 4 OOC games on the road. They have to have 6 home games to reward fans.

There's nothing in scheduling that is UCF's fault, but it will always be held against them because they are Central Florida.

Meanwhile, we will continue to just win. We have victories against 3 teams with winning records, with Florida and Kentucky losing above us. Should be #10 this week.

(11-04-2018 04:04 AM)TampaTom Wrote:  Meanwhile, we will continue to just win. We have victories against 3 teams with winning records, with Florida and Kentucky losing above us. Should be #10 this week.

What makes you thin WV isn't hoping UCF? They beat and over ranked Texas by a slim margin. The committee will drool at that excuse to be able to hop UCF. Their plan of over ranking Texas worked out perfect. Rinse and repeat.

Outside of Clemson, Michigan, and Alabama, the rest of the teams in front of UCF were unimpressive this week and the comittee trying to justify with certainty that they are better than UCF is an absolute joke.

Simple question, what ranked team has UCF have even played this year? Currently, Houston and USF choked. Cinci is their last hope and needs to hope Temple does not win that game. Don't get me wrong, impressive win streak, but not team that should be considered as a CFP final four.

(11-04-2018 06:52 AM)msm96wolf Wrote:  Simple question, what ranked team has UCF have even played this year? Currently, Houston and USF choked. Cinci is their last hope and needs to hope Temple does not win that game. Don't get me wrong, impressive win streak, but not team that should be considered as a CFP final four.

Not currently top 4. But sure as hell better than the glass ceiling of 10 to 12. Look, I am a UF homer, but even I saw through the BS ranking of Florida ahead of UCF last week. It will be rinse and repeat with different teams from here on out.