(12-30-2018 02:28 PM)toddjnsn Wrote:  

Quote:Well, if we had straight 8 the last 5 years, all of the A5 champs would have made the playoffs save for one, Washington this year. That's 19/20 in, a pretty high ratio.

But you're Ignoring the 5 years before that, dude! We can't base it ONLY on the last 5 and ignore the rest in recent history. :) The 5 years before that, you only had *1* year they ALL made it, and a couple years only *3* made it in the straight-8!

Not 100% sure, but I think I've already explained that is by no means a coincidence that in the last 5 years of the BCS it was common for an A5 conference champ to be outside the top 8 but extremely rare during the CFP. That's because the CFP changed the incentive structure. So it is right and proper to ignore the last 5 years of the BCS.

Quote:that is by no means a coincidence that in the last 5 years of the BCS it was common for an A5 conference champ to be outside the top 8 but extremely rare during the CFP. That's because the CFP changed the incentive structure. So it is right and proper to ignore the last 5 years of the BCS.

I don't believe that. First, 5 is too little to work off of. Second, 4 out of 5 is not extremely rare. It's 20%. Third, the reason why lately it has been better (4 out of 5; not 1 out of 5) -- is because Clemson became a dominant force in the ACC where they weren't several years ago (ACC historically would be on the lower end), and Boise isn't as good lately as they were more years prior, and TCU is not quite as good either (and joined the B12).

I think ANY conference championship is going to UP them by default, it being an extra game against a formidable opponent. By your rationale, you'd see Large discrepancies of the CFP Rankings vs AP & Coaches Poll -- and you would have seen Ohio State jump over Georgia or something. Instead, AP & Coaches poll had Ohio State over Georia but the CFP Rankings did not.

(12-30-2018 11:21 AM)OrangeDude Wrote:  

(12-29-2018 01:39 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(12-28-2018 06:02 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  ...With Auto-bids, every P5 champ will be in and the top G5 champ will be in. So, in what sport do division or conference champs NOT get in. Rank is subjective. Making the right play, at the right time, and winning when its all on the line is literally the definition of a conference champion. There would still be two wildcards to give high ranking deserving teams a SECOND chance to get in after they FAILED to win their conference championship. Nobody is going care if a team is left out because they couldnt even prove they were the best team in their own conference (or even division in some cases)--and then FAILED to convince the even the ice skating judges that they were one of the 2 best teams not automatically in the playoff.

This is a critical point that too many people miss. By definition there can ONLY be one undefeated team per conference (at most), and by definition that team WILL be the champion. So all of this talk of "more deserving at-large teams" really applies to the runners-up, second-place (or worse) teams. Why would those teams deserve more sympathy than the conference champ who lost a couple of upsets early in the season - then won when it mattered most (i.e. the championship game)?

It's hard to justify calling any team best in the nation if we know for a fact they aren't even the best in their own conference... isn't their conference in the nation?

No matter what the system, no one is going to be satisfied. Let's say this year's Syracuse beat Clemson as a result of us knocking Trevor Lawrence out of the game early. We still lose to Pitt and ND so Clemson is 11-1 and we are 10-2 but we hold the conference tie-breaker against Clemson so we get to play in the ACCCG while they don't. Everything else stays the same. We get revenge on Pitt in that game to get to 11-2 and are the auto-bid or Pitt beats us again and finishes the season 8-5 and gets the auto-bid. Are we truly getting "the best team in the conference"? I'd still believe the Tigers were the best team in the conference, but a fluke in one game allowed us to play in the ACCCG and left Clemson out when it should have been Clemson vs Syracuse all along in this alternate reality.

This is why I only want auto-bids for conference champions IF the conferences devise a system where the top two teams play each other in that game. Right now this only happens in the Big 12.

Of course then, depending upon what criteria the conference develops, someone will still complain.

Cheers,
Neil

Agreed. It would need to be a system that allowed a Clemson/Syracuse rematch in this case. Perhaps the CCG should take the top 2 highest-ranked teams (CFP Poll)? That way the winner is likely to at least be ranked in the top 15 even in the case of an upset.

Quote:No matter what the system, no one is going to be satisfied.

I think you mean not everyone is going to be satisfied -- ie too many people will be unsatisfied. I think the main goal is to think things through and not base it on this & last year's placements of teams from different conferences, but over the past 10-15 years. You run a test to see how one system would fare VS another.

The goal is to tweak/change/dismiss any theoretical scheme based on botched scenarios under said system. That's what you look for, #1. The botched scenarios. Not "this scheme sounds great, simple" and fits just fine this year.

In a system, if you have more playoff slots than # of conferences, and all the conferences are roughly on the same 'level' -- every conference champ goes. That's a basic common sense thing. Now, like in FBS football, when not all conferences are on the same level (P5, G5) -- you'd need Significantly more playoff slots than conferences for all conference champs to go. It'd take a 16-team playoff to do that for FBS football. As stated prior, it's unrealistic to think that's going to be coming anytime soon. It won't. So let's also bring realism into the mix.

The "itch" for a bigger playoff is felt by P5 commissioners too, and the main reason is that they presently have a team not going or very possibly not have a team go to this 4-team playoff. They'd like to see their teams in as more of a sure-shot, and the fans want to see a broader playoff, too.

We can be pretty sure that for an 8-team playoff to be coming around in the not-so-distant future, they're going to at least make it pretty damn sure someone from their P5 conference will be going. It'd have to be a super rarity that's Deserved that they wouldn't have a representative -- not by some analytical flaw in the playoff scheme.

I believe my scheme fits the best, going thru the past 10 years or so. When making a scheme, you want the biggest complaints to be fanboy-based. That it's Surely not lopsided. You minimize the issues. Easier to do with a 16 team playoff with 10 conferences; harder to do with 8 teams with 5 power conferences, and 5 general conferences whose champs from G5 can be better than a champ from P5 as not a crazy rarity or anything.

For a mere 8-team playoff:

- You don't give 100% Unconditional auto-bids to P5 Conf Champs; this will result in a clear WTF; see 2009 rankings leading up to bowls; it's not the only year but the Clearest year to see why.

- Ranking will mean a lot, but so will Conf Championships; It's best to find a balance between both. Being Ranked #8 is not going to automatically get you in as #4 will. But also, winning your conference championship no matter who you are, even if P5, isn't going to get you in either if you're ranked Really Low or not at all. What is that cutoff and why? That's the key question.

- You Don't want to give a P5 Conf Champ a slot, while a G5 Conf Champ is understandably clearly Better than they but they don't make it because they're not "P5". Not going to work. A system will not come about like that giving P5 Champs unconditional auto-bids with just 8 teams. That would be a HUGE flaw. Instead, you have confidence your P5 Conference Champs will almost always be in and "close enough" to #8 to get an auto-bid, and the Top G5s will only be "close enough" half the time or so. That takes care of things.

(12-30-2018 06:11 PM)toddjnsn Wrote:  

Quote:that is by no means a coincidence that in the last 5 years of the BCS it was common for an A5 conference champ to be outside the top 8 but extremely rare during the CFP. That's because the CFP changed the incentive structure. So it is right and proper to ignore the last 5 years of the BCS.

I don't believe that. First, 5 is too little to work off of. Second, 4 out of 5 is not extremely rare. It's 20%.

Whether 5 is too little scientifically or not isn't IMO the point. What seems clear is that to the decision makers involved, it is more than plenty. These conference commissioners and university presidents may work for universities but they don't seem to be driven by science. E.g., the Big 12 was obviously very concerned about its playoff prospects after missing out the very first year, a sample of one. They immediately petitioned to adopt a CCG, and then went through an expansion exploration process. The recent rumbling about playoff expansion came about because the B1G is now clearly concerned about missing out just the last two years.

Second, saying "4 out 5" is misleading. It's really 19/20, as only one of the five A5 conferences would have missed the playoffs in just one of the past 5 years under straight 8, and heck that conference would have still got 5 teams in over that time because one year they would have had two in. A given A5 conference isn't worried that *an* A5 conference won't make the playoffs in a given year, they are concerned that *they* will.

Finally, as i've said before, if the "conference champs in the playoffs" ethos or urge is as strong as many seem to think it is, why isn't it more of a part of the CFP? When the BCS ended, why didn't the A5 immediately adopt an 8-team playoff that included all A5 champs? Or, even with this four team CFP, why didn't they write a rule that says that the committee is to rank A5 champs above all other teams such that if you are an A5 champ, the only teams you can be ranked behind in the final CFP are other A5 champs? No, they didn't do any of that, which suggests champs getting in isn't the be-all that many think.

The other problem i see with your conditional approach comes from the other side: If I am wrong and the A5 are in fact very eager to make sure their champs get in to an expanded playoffs, then your conditional approach isn't likely to be adopted because a "conditional" autobid isn't an "autobid" at all. It's not "auto" if there is a chance you can miss out.

Again, I think if we HAVE to have some shade of autobids in an 8 team playoff, your conditional approach is much better than the 5-1-2 some are advocating. I just think we can do even better with straight 8.

Why all the angst over the possibility that one team in 8 once every 10 years might not be up to snuff?

Quote:Why all the angst over the possibility that one team in 8 once every 10 years might not be up to snuff?

Because it's more than that. In the last 10 years, only half the time would you have all P5 Champs going to a straight-8. Two years within that 10 years, 2 P5 Champs miss out. For better or worse, P5 Commissioners aren't going to roll with that. Talks of an 8-team playoff is to have more than "half the time, our champs are in". Double the # of playoff teams, and only have All the P5 Champs in, half the time? Not going to fly.

Quote:Second, saying "4 out 5" is misleading. It's really 19/20, as only one of the five A5 conferences would have missed the playoffs in just one of the past 5 years under straight 8

I would say your count is the misleading one. Look, what's the Ideal situation they're aiming for? All P5 Conf Champs in. Conference Champions at least, ya know, close to #8 ranking. OK. Going straight-8? Hmm, yeah, that may take care of it. Let's have a look. Oh. No. Only HALF the time in the last 10 years did ALL P5 Conf Champs make it to the straight-8. I don't think "It was a bad stretch those previous 5 years" will be good enough to accept it indefinitely.

Quote:Finally, as i've said before, if the "conference champs in the playoffs" ethos or urge is as strong as many seem to think it is, why isn't it more of a part of the CFP?

Because there's only 4 teams. And really, there are no playoffS. It's just A playoff. Winners of the Top 2 Bowls play each other later for a Nat Champ. Them seeing Conf Champs not making it, with the help of Notre Dame being up in the ranks, makes them Want to have the Conf Champs in a true playoff set, and to treat Conf Championships like a playoff. Not to a grandioso bowl but to Nat Champ Playoffs.

Until you go 12, there's not going to be a P5 Champ unconditional auto-bid without big controversy that'd be sure to come some year. Which is why instead, with only 8, you have it conditional. You get to include ALL P5 Champs ALMOST all the time (unlike half the time with a straight-8), and you don't discern P5 vs G5 for an actual National Championship Playoff System, VS Bowls which are for viewership & spotlight. You make the rankings of at least #x if you win your conference (any), and you're in, since #x is close enough to #8.

(01-01-2019 01:05 PM)toddjnsn Wrote:  Until you go 12, there's not going to be a P5 Champ unconditional auto-bid without big controversy that'd be sure to come some year. Which is why instead, with only 8, you have it conditional. ...

Up to six FBS Conference champions ranked in the top 12, and the balance of the eight at large, both in order of CFP ranking, seems like it would sidestep all of the contract in restraint of trade risks of some of the A5 autobid systems.

In ensuring that the best Go5 champion is in if it gets into the top 12, it avoids the risk of being seen as a "tacit A5 cartel", if the CFP committee can be sold as a fair arbiter.

Quote:Up to six FBS Conference champions ranked in the top 12, and the balance of the eight at large, both in order of CFP ranking, seems like it would sidestep all of the contract in restraint of trade risks of some of the A5 autobid systems.

I don't quite follow what you're saying, but I'll try and guestimate what you are saying and agree: Yes, having a max of 6 FBS Conference Champ auto-bids (in order by rank), If within the Top 12 for an 8-team Playoff, would sidestep the restraint that existed in the past (10-team BCS) and potential ones thrown out there at first glance by many.

Quote:In ensuring that the best Go5 champion is in if it gets into the top 12, it avoids the risk of being seen as a "tacit A5 cartel"

Now, technically, my proposal doesn't 100.0% guarantee the Top G5 Champ gets in if they're in the Top 12 or 13. It -almost- does. It ignores P5 vs G5, which, G5 fans like myself can't complain about. But I propose something else alongside the 6-Conf-Champ-Autobid-Max: Only TWO Max who are ranked past #8. So theoretically, say the SEC has a crazy dominant year + some small conf-champ upsets, and if you had #9 Washington winning the P12, and #10 Texas winning the B12, and then you had #11 Houston winning the AAC, Houston would not get in.

That said, you shift the placements of those teams around, and that P5's conference champ doesn't get in, instead. Again, it doesn't care about P5 vs G5 which is more fitting for actual Playoffs, unlike present BCS/NY Bowl situations.

The reason I also say no more than 2 auto-bids for Conf Champs ranked past #8 (limit #12 or #13)-- is because you don't want too many filling up such an elite group who aren't in the Top 8. Much the same reason why you wouldn't want to say "Max 6 Conf Champs in Top 25".

It's not what my proposal rests on by any means, but is just an extra "control" about it which would very uncommonly be challenged anyway. And the P5s would have to ask themselves: Would you want in a great year for your conference, have your 2nd best conf team at #6 be nixed because there were *3* teams not even in the Top 8 horning in?

(01-01-2019 01:05 PM)toddjnsn Wrote:  

Quote:Second, saying "4 out 5" is misleading. It's really 19/20, as only one of the five A5 conferences would have missed the playoffs in just one of the past 5 years under straight 8

I would say your count is the misleading one. Look, what's the Ideal situation they're aiming for? All P5 Conf Champs in.

No, mine is numerically accurate - 19/20. And as i explained, there is zero evidence from 1890 to 2018 that the major conferences consider autobids for their champs as an ideal end goal. In fact, they have never constructed any system with that as a feature. Heck, even with the CFP they could have mandated that A5 champs be ranked ahead of non-champs, but they didn't even do that.

(01-02-2019 09:10 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-01-2019 01:05 PM)toddjnsn Wrote:  

Quote:Second, saying "4 out 5" is misleading. It's really 19/20, as only one of the five A5 conferences would have missed the playoffs in just one of the past 5 years under straight 8

I would say your count is the misleading one. Look, what's the Ideal situation they're aiming for? All P5 Conf Champs in.

No, mine is numerically accurate - 19/20. And as i explained, there is zero evidence from 1890 to 2018 that the major conferences consider autobids for their champs as an ideal end goal. In fact, they have never constructed any system with that as a feature. Heck, even with the CFP they could have mandated that A5 champs be ranked ahead of non-champs, but they didn't even do that.

What do you call the BCS then quo? Six autobid conferences and rules in place for becoming a 7th.

However you do it, 8 is the minimum to try to call it a playoff.

(01-02-2019 09:19 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(01-02-2019 09:10 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-01-2019 01:05 PM)toddjnsn Wrote:  

Quote:Second, saying "4 out 5" is misleading. It's really 19/20, as only one of the five A5 conferences would have missed the playoffs in just one of the past 5 years under straight 8

I would say your count is the misleading one. Look, what's the Ideal situation they're aiming for? All P5 Conf Champs in.

No, mine is numerically accurate - 19/20. And as i explained, there is zero evidence from 1890 to 2018 that the major conferences consider autobids for their champs as an ideal end goal. In fact, they have never constructed any system with that as a feature. Heck, even with the CFP they could have mandated that A5 champs be ranked ahead of non-champs, but they didn't even do that.

What do you call the BCS then quo? Six autobid conferences and rules in place for becoming a 7th.

Autobids for *bowl games* goes back many decades. But not for "playoffs". We've had a two and four team playoff now for 20 years, and no preferences for conference champs has ever been given. E.g., the BCS and CFP could have had rules that said that no non-champ can be ranked ahead of a champ. But nope.

(01-02-2019 09:34 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  However you do it, 8 is the minimum to try to call it a playoff.

That's your opinion. In fact, we've had a 'playoff' for 20 years - two team and now four team. It's really not complicated.

(01-02-2019 12:15 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-02-2019 09:34 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  However you do it, 8 is the minimum to try to call it a playoff.

That's your opinion. In fact, we've had a 'playoff' for 20 years - two team and now four team. It's really not complicated.

And that's your opinion.

AAAARRRRGGGHHH !!!!!!!!!!

I'm sick and tired of OPINIONS !!!!

At this point, I don't give a rat's arse who freakin' "deserved" to be in the invitational. I care even less what everybody thinks about it. It's been like this ever since they started this crap. I couldn't turn on the TV without the show immediately talking ad nauseum about "Who's in?". It's all meaningless garbage.

There is no right answer because there are no rules. It's one big "eye test". This entire endeavor is nothing more than a giant self-pleasuring popularity contest.

THIS is killing college football.

(12-30-2018 11:21 AM)OrangeDude Wrote:  

(12-29-2018 01:39 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(12-28-2018 06:02 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  ...With Auto-bids, every P5 champ will be in and the top G5 champ will be in. So, in what sport do division or conference champs NOT get in. Rank is subjective. Making the right play, at the right time, and winning when its all on the line is literally the definition of a conference champion. There would still be two wildcards to give high ranking deserving teams a SECOND chance to get in after they FAILED to win their conference championship. Nobody is going care if a team is left out because they couldnt even prove they were the best team in their own conference (or even division in some cases)--and then FAILED to convince the even the ice skating judges that they were one of the 2 best teams not automatically in the playoff.

This is a critical point that too many people miss. By definition there can ONLY be one undefeated team per conference (at most), and by definition that team WILL be the champion. So all of this talk of "more deserving at-large teams" really applies to the runners-up, second-place (or worse) teams. Why would those teams deserve more sympathy than the conference champ who lost a couple of upsets early in the season - then won when it mattered most (i.e. the championship game)?

It's hard to justify calling any team best in the nation if we know for a fact they aren't even the best in their own conference... isn't their conference in the nation?

No matter what the system, no one is going to be satisfied. Let's say this year's Syracuse beat Clemson as a result of us knocking Trevor Lawrence out of the game early. We still lose to Pitt and ND so Clemson is 11-1 and we are 10-2 but we hold the conference tie-breaker against Clemson so we get to play in the ACCCG while they don't. Everything else stays the same. We get revenge on Pitt in that game to get to 11-2 and are the auto-bid or Pitt beats us again and finishes the season 8-5 and gets the auto-bid. Are we truly getting "the best team in the conference"? I'd still believe the Tigers were the best team in the conference, but a fluke in one game allowed us to play in the ACCCG and left Clemson out when it should have been Clemson vs Syracuse all along in this alternate reality.

This is why I only want auto-bids for conference champions IF the conferences devise a system where the top two teams play each other in that game. Right now this only happens in the Big 12.

Of course then, depending upon what criteria the conference develops, someone will still complain.

Cheers,
Neil

As many people have pointed out, championship game should pair the best two teams (according to rankings) instead of two division champions. Problem solved. Also in your scenario, Syracuse and Clemson will meet in the conference championship game, not Pittsburgh and somebody.

(01-02-2019 01:17 PM)CAJUNNATION Wrote:  There is no right answer because there are no rules. It's one big "eye test". This entire endeavor is nothing more than a giant self-pleasuring popularity contest.

THIS is killing college football.

No, it's not. In 1993, the voted "champion" finished with the same one-loss record as the only team to beat them because bowl games didn't believe in postseason rematches.

We have improved upon the eye test that has ALWAYS existed.

Find me one conference whose presidents want to expand the playoffs and I'll listen. Right now I don't know of any. A.D.'s don't get a vote on this issue. Commissioners don't get a vote on this issue. Fans don't get a vote on this issue. Only University Presidents get a vote on this issue. The Networks can only make it profitable, or declare it not to be so.

I know of no Presidents of Universities who support this idea. Translation: It's not happening.

(01-02-2019 01:36 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(01-02-2019 01:17 PM)CAJUNNATION Wrote:  There is no right answer because there are no rules. It's one big "eye test". This entire endeavor is nothing more than a giant self-pleasuring popularity contest.

THIS is killing college football.

No, it's not. In 1993, the voted "champion" finished with the same one-loss record as the only team to beat them because bowl games didn't believe in postseason rematches.

We have improved upon the eye test that has ALWAYS existed.

In other words, college football is slowly being dragged, kicking and screaming, into the 20th century. They have a ways to go.