(11-24-2018 12:44 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(11-24-2018 12:43 PM)72Tiger Wrote:  

(11-24-2018 12:40 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(11-24-2018 12:37 PM)72Tiger Wrote:  

(11-24-2018 11:15 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  Agree, and besides that it is quality losses that define a program.

That must be why it is a problem to not have any losses.

I understand why y’all are being obtuse but it doesn’t make it any less silly.

A 1 point loss in OT to #2 is a better metric for how good a team is than winning 5 straight against the bottom 25 of college football. That’s common sense.

Having an L on your record and and a W against a top 5 team is also better than 5 wins against nobody/terrible teams.

Your team lost to Auburn last year. UCF beat Auburn. Who is being obtuse?

Logical fallacy

Should have played it on the field and let logic be part of a chess tournament, but the system is rigged.

(11-24-2018 12:46 PM)72Tiger Wrote:  Unrig the system and we can all just watch the games instead of hypothetically arguing about them. Lamest way to crown a champion in all of sports on any level. No arguing that.

What you call rigged others call fairness.

I see no reason that UCF should receive a spot over a more deserving team that has objectively accomplished more and is therefore more likely to be a better team.

The streak is a nice talking point, but the problem with it can’t be denied. It’s against nobodies.

Hopefully UCF’s leadership is looking to travel to some quality opponents in the future.

If UCF had a quality top 10 win they would absolutely deserve to be in this year.

(11-24-2018 12:50 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(11-24-2018 12:46 PM)72Tiger Wrote:  Unrig the system and we can all just watch the games instead of hypothetically arguing about them. Lamest way to crown a champion in all of sports on any level. No arguing that.

What you call rigged others call fairness.

I see no reason that UCF should receive a spot over a more deserving team that has objectively accomplished more and is therefore more likely to be a better team.

The streak is a nice talking point, but the problem with it can’t be denied. It’s against nobodies.

Hopefully UCF’s leadership is looking to travel to some quality opponents in the future.

If UCF had a quality top 10 win they would absolutely deserve to be in this year.

It's a lame system when you can go unbeaten and not make the playoffs. No other sport on an level does that. Because it is lame. To argue otherwise is silly.

(11-24-2018 12:53 PM)72Tiger Wrote:  

(11-24-2018 12:50 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(11-24-2018 12:46 PM)72Tiger Wrote:  Unrig the system and we can all just watch the games instead of hypothetically arguing about them. Lamest way to crown a champion in all of sports on any level. No arguing that.

What you call rigged others call fairness.

I see no reason that UCF should receive a spot over a more deserving team that has objectively accomplished more and is therefore more likely to be a better team.

The streak is a nice talking point, but the problem with it can’t be denied. It’s against nobodies.

Hopefully UCF’s leadership is looking to travel to some quality opponents in the future.

If UCF had a quality top 10 win they would absolutely deserve to be in this year.

It's a lame system when you can go unbeaten and not make the playoffs. No other sport on an level does that. Because it is lame. To argue otherwise is silly.

UCF is hardly the first team to go undefeated and not have anything to show for it. It’s not exactly a conspiracy.

The problem is that it’s a zero sum game. For UCF to be in somebody else must be out. It’s very difficult into rationalize them being in over others in the mix.

(11-24-2018 12:56 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(11-24-2018 12:53 PM)72Tiger Wrote:  

(11-24-2018 12:50 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(11-24-2018 12:46 PM)72Tiger Wrote:  Unrig the system and we can all just watch the games instead of hypothetically arguing about them. Lamest way to crown a champion in all of sports on any level. No arguing that.

What you call rigged others call fairness.

I see no reason that UCF should receive a spot over a more deserving team that has objectively accomplished more and is therefore more likely to be a better team.

The streak is a nice talking point, but the problem with it can’t be denied. It’s against nobodies.

Hopefully UCF’s leadership is looking to travel to some quality opponents in the future.

If UCF had a quality top 10 win they would absolutely deserve to be in this year.

It's a lame system when you can go unbeaten and not make the playoffs. No other sport on an level does that. Because it is lame. To argue otherwise is silly.

UCF is hardly the first team to go undefeated and not have anything to show for it. It’s not exactly a conspiracy.

The problem is that it’s a zero sum game. For UCF to be in somebody else must be out. It’s very difficult into rationalize them being in over others in the mix.

More reasons why it is lame.

Picking a playoff based on the best potential tv ratings is ridiculously lame.

(11-24-2018 12:56 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(11-24-2018 12:53 PM)72Tiger Wrote:  

(11-24-2018 12:50 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(11-24-2018 12:46 PM)72Tiger Wrote:  Unrig the system and we can all just watch the games instead of hypothetically arguing about them. Lamest way to crown a champion in all of sports on any level. No arguing that.

What you call rigged others call fairness.

I see no reason that UCF should receive a spot over a more deserving team that has objectively accomplished more and is therefore more likely to be a better team.

The streak is a nice talking point, but the problem with it can’t be denied. It’s against nobodies.

Hopefully UCF’s leadership is looking to travel to some quality opponents in the future.

If UCF had a quality top 10 win they would absolutely deserve to be in this year.

It's a lame system when you can go unbeaten and not make the playoffs. No other sport on an level does that. Because it is lame. To argue otherwise is silly.

UCF is hardly the first team to go undefeated and not have anything to show for it. It’s not exactly a conspiracy.

The problem is that it’s a zero sum game. For UCF to be in somebody else must be out. It’s very difficult into rationalize them being in over others in the mix.

If you cant win your way in---its not a playoff. Its a beauty contest---an invitational if you will. Thats why I want 8 with the P5 champs getting autobids, the top G5 with an autobid, and 2 wild cards. That means 6 of the 8 slots are essentially direct paths to the playoffs that are based on winning games on the field in full view of millions of viewers. The more the backroom politics are marginalized---the better.

(11-24-2018 06:56 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-24-2018 12:56 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(11-24-2018 12:53 PM)72Tiger Wrote:  

(11-24-2018 12:50 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(11-24-2018 12:46 PM)72Tiger Wrote:  Unrig the system and we can all just watch the games instead of hypothetically arguing about them. Lamest way to crown a champion in all of sports on any level. No arguing that.

What you call rigged others call fairness.

I see no reason that UCF should receive a spot over a more deserving team that has objectively accomplished more and is therefore more likely to be a better team.

The streak is a nice talking point, but the problem with it can’t be denied. It’s against nobodies.

Hopefully UCF’s leadership is looking to travel to some quality opponents in the future.

If UCF had a quality top 10 win they would absolutely deserve to be in this year.

It's a lame system when you can go unbeaten and not make the playoffs. No other sport on an level does that. Because it is lame. To argue otherwise is silly.

UCF is hardly the first team to go undefeated and not have anything to show for it. It’s not exactly a conspiracy.

The problem is that it’s a zero sum game. For UCF to be in somebody else must be out. It’s very difficult into rationalize them being in over others in the mix.

If you cant win your way in---its not a playoff. Its a beauty contest---an invitational if you will. Thats why I want 8 with the P5 champs getting autobids, the top G5 with an autobid, and 2 wild cards. That means 6 of the 8 slots are essentially direct paths to the playoffs that are based on winning games on the field in full view of millions of viewers. The more the backroom politics are marginalized---the better.

What makes you think a G5 team deserves an auto-bid over the team ranked 8th?

Your plan isn’t fair either. The 8th placed team played their way in as you say and then you are just turning around and giving it to whomever, perhaps unranked or lowly ranked.

I think you need to admit that you just want the G5 in it and however that works out is fine for you.

It is a zero sum game and you want to give away somebody else’s spot to your favored. I don’t see that as any more fair than what we have where all four must accomplish something very impressive to get in.

Everybody wants what is best for their team but you can’t sit around and complain about fairness when you want an equally as unfair system that favors your folks.

This isn't the year that UCF should be complaining that they Currently Should be making the Top 4 in the country. Their SoS is weak, partially due to scheduling, partially due to the AAC not having a dominating season. UCF is not as good as they were last year either.

But it does bring to light, being undefeated, that we need actual playoffs -- not the winner of the Top 2 Bowls to play in a Nat Championship game.

Best & most Feasible Way -- without Nixing any of the "big time" bowl placements -- is to take all NY6 bowl teams (12) and have them play in an actual playoff. Top 4 instead gets a bye 1st round. Other 8 duke it out 1st round to have those 4 winners play the Top 4.

Going to an 8-team playoff makes more sense at first -- but there's no way with only 8 would they give the Top G5 the auto-nod into it. No way. It took an ADDED "BCS" bowl when there were only 10 teams, to give the Top G5 an auto-bid to that (12 teams).

So with an 8-team playoff you'd not only eliminate a G5's chances almost every time -- but you'd also have 4 less teams making it to the "big stage".

(11-24-2018 07:51 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(11-24-2018 06:56 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-24-2018 12:56 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(11-24-2018 12:53 PM)72Tiger Wrote:  

(11-24-2018 12:50 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  What you call rigged others call fairness.

I see no reason that UCF should receive a spot over a more deserving team that has objectively accomplished more and is therefore more likely to be a better team.

The streak is a nice talking point, but the problem with it can’t be denied. It’s against nobodies.

Hopefully UCF’s leadership is looking to travel to some quality opponents in the future.

If UCF had a quality top 10 win they would absolutely deserve to be in this year.

It's a lame system when you can go unbeaten and not make the playoffs. No other sport on an level does that. Because it is lame. To argue otherwise is silly.

UCF is hardly the first team to go undefeated and not have anything to show for it. It’s not exactly a conspiracy.

The problem is that it’s a zero sum game. For UCF to be in somebody else must be out. It’s very difficult into rationalize them being in over others in the mix.

If you cant win your way in---its not a playoff. Its a beauty contest---an invitational if you will. Thats why I want 8 with the P5 champs getting autobids, the top G5 with an autobid, and 2 wild cards. That means 6 of the 8 slots are essentially direct paths to the playoffs that are based on winning games on the field in full view of millions of viewers. The more the backroom politics are marginalized---the better.

What makes you think a G5 team deserves an auto-bid over the team ranked 8th?

Your plan isn’t fair either. The 8th placed team played their way in as you say and then you are just turning around and giving it to whomever, perhaps unranked or lowly ranked.

I think you need to admit that you just want the G5 in it and however that works out is fine for you.

It is a zero sum game and you want to give away somebody else’s spot to your favored. I don’t see that as any more fair than what we have where all four must accomplish something very impressive to get in.

Everybody wants what is best for their team but you can’t sit around and complain about fairness when you want an equally as unfair system that favors your folks.

Why not just take the top eight overall then? All you'd have to do is come up with a rating system that takes the committees/polls out of it.

The CFP Committee has never been transparent about anything they've ever done. It's amazing that even half of the P5 agreed to this nonsense.

Ignore the G5 for a moment: Do you think they were EVER going to let a 1-loss WSU into the CFP - assuming they had beaten UW and Utah?

Why is Pitt, who have been funky all year long, ranked in the top 25?

NW has a run of hideous losses and only 1-2 decent wins - why are they ranked?

It's an inconsistent ranking system that doesn't even treat the P5 fairly.

(11-24-2018 08:06 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  

(11-24-2018 07:51 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(11-24-2018 06:56 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-24-2018 12:56 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(11-24-2018 12:53 PM)72Tiger Wrote:  It's a lame system when you can go unbeaten and not make the playoffs. No other sport on an level does that. Because it is lame. To argue otherwise is silly.

UCF is hardly the first team to go undefeated and not have anything to show for it. It’s not exactly a conspiracy.

The problem is that it’s a zero sum game. For UCF to be in somebody else must be out. It’s very difficult into rationalize them being in over others in the mix.

If you cant win your way in---its not a playoff. Its a beauty contest---an invitational if you will. Thats why I want 8 with the P5 champs getting autobids, the top G5 with an autobid, and 2 wild cards. That means 6 of the 8 slots are essentially direct paths to the playoffs that are based on winning games on the field in full view of millions of viewers. The more the backroom politics are marginalized---the better.

What makes you think a G5 team deserves an auto-bid over the team ranked 8th?

Your plan isn’t fair either. The 8th placed team played their way in as you say and then you are just turning around and giving it to whomever, perhaps unranked or lowly ranked.

I think you need to admit that you just want the G5 in it and however that works out is fine for you.

It is a zero sum game and you want to give away somebody else’s spot to your favored. I don’t see that as any more fair than what we have where all four must accomplish something very impressive to get in.

Everybody wants what is best for their team but you can’t sit around and complain about fairness when you want an equally as unfair system that favors your folks.

Why not just take the top eight overall then? All you'd have to do is come up with a rating system that takes the committees/polls out of it.

The CFP Committee has never been transparent about anything they've ever done. It's amazing that even half of the P5 agreed to this nonsense.

Ignore the G5 for a moment: Do you think they were EVER going to let a 1-loss WSU into the CFP - assuming they had beaten UW and Utah?

Why is Pitt, who have been funky all year long, ranked in the top 25?

NW has a run of hideous losses and only 1-2 decent wins - why are they ranked?

It's an inconsistent ranking system that doesn't even treat the P5 fairly.

I’ve said for a long time that the biggest weakness of the CFP was the committee. They should have kept the BCS computer.

(11-24-2018 08:06 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  Why not just take the top eight overall then? All you'd have to do is come up with a rating system that takes the committees/polls out of it.

That was essentially the BCS formula of 1998 - 2003, which weighted the computers and SOS component more heavily than the human polls.

But what happened? In 2001, a Nebraska team got 62 points hung on them in the Big 12 title game but the computers picked them for the BCS title game anyway, and then in 2003 Oklahoma lost their CCG to Kansas State like 30-0 or something but got in to the title game over USC anyway.

Those results - which computers can produce, because they don't "see" when a game was played - created a huge uproar, and the BCS formula was changed to count the human polls more. And so since then the tendency has been to make the human component more, not less, important.

Quote:Why not just take the top eight overall then? All you'd have to do is come up with a rating system that takes the committees/polls out of it.

Yeah, the problem with that is rankings. There's 130 teams in the nation. It's hard to judge. That said, here's the defense to that: We don't really care if #6,7,8 is "off". Getting the Surely Top 4 in is what matters, and "this is Why we're doing an 8 team playoff". So #9, #10 people -- you can't complain. Just like a bubble team in the NCAA Tourney who doesn't make it can't complain. It's not giving #7 or #8 a national championship or runner-up.

Now, that said -- the problem of Top G5 comes into play, especially if undefeated. A main concept of playoffs in any sport is certainly to make it so that any undefeated team will get in. Or surely someone with one of the best records in the nation. This is why Conference Winners is a key in the NCAA Tourney.

IMO, if we were to have an 8, and not a 12:
- The 5 P5 Conference Champs, if ranked in Top 16.
- The Top G5 Conference Champ, if ranked in the Top 16.
- The other 2 or 3, in ranking order
- No more than 2 teams from the same conference in the Playoff

Giving an assumptive outcomes in Conf Championships:

- #1 Alabama (SEC Champ)
- #2 Clemson (ACC Champ)
- #4 Oklahoma (B12 Champ)
- #5 Ohio State (B10 Champ)
- #10 Washington State (P12 Champ)
- #9 Central Florida (TOP G5 - AAC Champ)

+ #3 Notre Dame (IND)
+ #6 Georgia (SEC Runner-Up)

(11-24-2018 08:24 PM)toddjnsn Wrote:  

Quote:Why not just take the top eight overall then? All you'd have to do is come up with a rating system that takes the committees/polls out of it.

Yeah, the problem with that is rankings. There's 130 teams in the nation. It's hard to judge. That said, here's the defense to that: We don't really care if #6,7,8 is "off". Getting the Surely Top 4 in is what matters, and "this is Why we're doing an 8 team playoff". So #9, #10 people -- you can't complain. Just like a bubble team in the NCAA Tourney who doesn't make it can't complain. It's not giving #7 or #8 a national championship or runner-up.

Now, that said -- the problem of Top G5 comes into play, especially if undefeated. A main concept of playoffs in any sport is certainly to make it so that any undefeated team will get in. Or surely someone with one of the best records in the nation. This is why Conference Winners is a key in the NCAA Tourney.

IMO, if we were to have an 8, and not a 12:
- The 5 P5 Conference Champs, if ranked in Top 16.
- The Top G5 Conference Champ, if ranked in the Top 16.
- The other 2 or 3, in ranking order
- No more than 2 teams from the same conference in the Playoff

Giving an assumptive outcomes in Conf Championships:

- #1 Alabama (SEC Champ)
- #2 Clemson (ACC Champ)
- #4 Oklahoma (B12 Champ)
- #5 Ohio State (B10 Champ)
- #10 Washington State (P12 Champ)
- #9 Central Florida (TOP G5 - AAC Champ)

+ #3 Notre Dame (IND)
+ #6 Georgia (SEC Runner-Up)

A playoff should be purely about ranking, nothing else. When you start talking auto-bid etc. you’re mixing and matching concepts and ultimately going to cause more trouble than you will settle.

Quote:A playoff should be purely about ranking, nothing else. When you start talking auto-bid etc. you’re mixing and matching concepts and ultimately going to cause more trouble than you will settle.

It can, but I disagree it always will if it's pretty clean cut. Rankings are not going to be exact with 130 teams mostly playing within their conference, so you're already in some trouble there. And even in the Pros, where playoffs don't get argued so much, winning your conference/division championship > record.

Putting that into play, giving leeway on raw rankings if you win your conference championship, should be allowed.

The year that Ohio State was nixed from going to ANY post-season game, Wisconsin won the division in the B10 and then upset in the B10 Championship game. But they weren't Top 16, so no, they wouldn't have gone to an 8-team playoff.

Like I said, it's not a battle for #8, it's a battle for #1 -- most of which is during the season but inexact (rankings).

Any playoff without the Top G5 -- which almost always is going to be ranked #10 or lower, and not #8 -- especially undefeated, is not going to cut the mustard when rankings are knowingly inexact.

My proposal -- All P5 Conf Winners if within Top 16, and the Top G5 Conf Winner if within Top 16 covers all this. Then you let the remaining 2 or 3 teams usually go by the ranking after.

Oh, you're ranked #7 Michigan? Whining why undefeated UCF got in and not you, even though most bettors would put money on you in a matchup? You didn't even win your conference division, dude. You have to Earn something first to be a lock.

(11-24-2018 08:42 PM)toddjnsn Wrote:  

Quote:A playoff should be purely about ranking, nothing else. When you start talking auto-bid etc. you’re mixing and matching concepts and ultimately going to cause more trouble than you will settle.

It can, but I disagree it always will if it's pretty clean cut. Rankings are not going to be exact with 130 teams mostly playing within their conference, so you're already in some trouble there. And even in the Pros, where playoffs don't get argued so much, winning your conference/division championship > record.

Putting that into play, giving leeway on raw rankings if you win your conference championship, should be allowed.

The year that Ohio State was nixed from going to ANY post-season game, Wisconsin won the division in the B10 and then upset in the B10 Championship game. But they weren't Top 16, so no, they wouldn't have gone to an 8-team playoff.

Like I said, it's not a battle for #8, it's a battle for #1 -- most of which is during the season but inexact (rankings).

Any playoff without the Top G5 -- which almost always is going to be ranked #10 or lower, and not #8 -- especially undefeated, is not going to cut the mustard when rankings are knowingly inexact.

My proposal -- All P5 Conf Winners if within Top 16, and the Top G5 Conf Winner if within Top 16 covers all this. Then you let the remaining 2 or 3 teams usually go by the ranking after.

Oh, you're ranked #7 Michigan? Whining why undefeated UCF got in and not you, even though most bettors would put money on you in a matchup? You didn't even win your conference division, dude. You have to Earn something first to be a lock.

The plan just sets up a year where a team played their way in and instead have to give them spot to an undeserving G5 team.

You either have a playoff picked by conference champs etc. or based on rankings.

The top 4 teams, as picked by the BCS computers, as opposed to a committee, makes a lot more sense.

Here's the thing: A perfect MW/AAC team with a decent non-conference win or two is going to be in the top 10 of the polls/rankings ANYWAY.

This is why just taking the top 8 is very fair. There WILL be a G5 team as long as they did actually go perfect and score a good win or two along the way.

Quote:The plan just sets up a year where a team played their way in and instead have to give them spot to an undeserving G5 team.

It's no different than a P5 winner pulling an upset (like Northwestern this year, let's say) but getting in.

Why aren't people going just as ape-sh!t when a winner of a conference division in the NFL gets the playoffs or home-field over another in the playoffs who is in the minds of experts all around, "ranked" lower while having a lesser record?

If your rationale is true: Let's just rank NFL teams. Who cares who wins divisions, their records, etc. Just rankings. Easier/more accurate rankings with less teams playing each other. :) Are you not lobbying for that in the NFL?

(11-24-2018 09:21 PM)toddjnsn Wrote:  

Quote:The plan just sets up a year where a team played their way in and instead have to give them spot to an undeserving G5 team.

It's no different than a P5 winner pulling an upset (like Northwestern this year, let's say) but getting in.

Why aren't people going just as ape-sh!t when a winner of a conference division in the NFL gets the playoffs or home-field over another in the playoffs who is in the minds of experts all around, "ranked" lower while having a lesser record?

If your rationale is true: Let's just rank NFL teams. Who cares who wins divisions, their records, etc. Just rankings. Easier/more accurate rankings with less teams playing each other. :) Are you not lobbying for that in the NFL?

I don’t care about the NFL. But, it brings up my point about mixing incomparable concepts.

Use the rankings.

(11-24-2018 07:51 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(11-24-2018 06:56 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-24-2018 12:56 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(11-24-2018 12:53 PM)72Tiger Wrote:  

(11-24-2018 12:50 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  What you call rigged others call fairness.

I see no reason that UCF should receive a spot over a more deserving team that has objectively accomplished more and is therefore more likely to be a better team.

The streak is a nice talking point, but the problem with it can’t be denied. It’s against nobodies.

Hopefully UCF’s leadership is looking to travel to some quality opponents in the future.

If UCF had a quality top 10 win they would absolutely deserve to be in this year.

It's a lame system when you can go unbeaten and not make the playoffs. No other sport on an level does that. Because it is lame. To argue otherwise is silly.

UCF is hardly the first team to go undefeated and not have anything to show for it. It’s not exactly a conspiracy.

The problem is that it’s a zero sum game. For UCF to be in somebody else must be out. It’s very difficult into rationalize them being in over others in the mix.

If you cant win your way in---its not a playoff. Its a beauty contest---an invitational if you will. Thats why I want 8 with the P5 champs getting autobids, the top G5 with an autobid, and 2 wild cards. That means 6 of the 8 slots are essentially direct paths to the playoffs that are based on winning games on the field in full view of millions of viewers. The more the backroom politics are marginalized---the better.

What makes you think a G5 team deserves an auto-bid over the team ranked 8th?

Your plan isn’t fair either. The 8th placed team played their way in as you say and then you are just turning around and giving it to whomever, perhaps unranked or lowly ranked.

I think you need to admit that you just want the G5 in it and however that works out is fine for you.

It is a zero sum game and you want to give away somebody else’s spot to your favored. I don’t see that as any more fair than what we have where all four must accomplish something very impressive to get in.

Everybody wants what is best for their team but you can’t sit around and complain about fairness when you want an equally as unfair system that favors your folks.

I think its interesting that you view a system where winning your league guarantees your in the playoff as "unfair". Seems to me that eliminating the subjective crap and letting actual players decide most of the playoff participants on the field of play is about as "fair" as it can be.