(01-16-2019 06:29 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  If the participants aren't the top 8 teams then the playoff is a sham. If that means all eight teams are members of the same conference then so be it.

LMFAO, in a sport with so little cross-sectional play, a system where participants are selected by closed door machinations of a small unelected cabal that would intentionally be directed to circumnavigate on-field championship results would be viewed as a MAJOR sham by the vast majority of the world and is counter to every single other athletics championship, amateur or pro. Any playoff expansion would include at least five P5 autobids and likely the top ranked G5 champion.

(01-20-2019 10:29 AM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(01-16-2019 06:29 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  If the participants aren't the top 8 teams then the playoff is a sham. If that means all eight teams are members of the same conference then so be it.

LMFAO, in a sport with so little cross-sectional play, a system where participants are selected by closed door machinations of a small unelected cabal that would intentionally be directed to circumnavigate on-field championship results would be viewed as a MAJOR sham by the vast majority of the world and is counter to every single other athletics championship, amateur or pro. Any playoff expansion would include at least five P5 autobids and likely the top ranked G5 champion.

A sham to whom?

Tilting the field towards tiny fan bases is not a net positive for the sport.

Also, if we are forcing certain people into the scheme who did not otherwise earn it we are creating a real sham.

(01-20-2019 11:36 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(01-20-2019 10:29 AM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(01-16-2019 06:29 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  If the participants aren't the top 8 teams then the playoff is a sham. If that means all eight teams are members of the same conference then so be it.

LMFAO, in a sport with so little cross-sectional play, a system where participants are selected by closed door machinations of a small unelected cabal that would intentionally be directed to circumnavigate on-field championship results would be viewed as a MAJOR sham by the vast majority of the world and is counter to every single other athletics championship, amateur or pro. Any playoff expansion would include at least five P5 autobids and likely the top ranked G5 champion.

A sham to whom?

Tilting the field towards tiny fan bases is not a net positive for the sport.

Also, if we are forcing certain people into the scheme who did not otherwise earn it we are creating a real sham.

Says a fan of the school who made it to the postseason in 2011 and 2017 in years they didn’t even win their division. The blind spot here is massive my friend.

You can argue your self interest but don’t pretend it’s in the best interest of the sport.

(01-16-2019 11:06 AM)Phlipper33 Wrote:  I don't. I'd prefer the NCAA actually hold a playoff like they do for every other sport they have, and every other level of football. The idea of the CFP expanding to 8 doesn't really do anything for me, I want a legit playoff.

Treat the bowl games like the NIT, except they aren't a tournament, it's just one-off games.

NCAA then sponsors a (minimum) 16 game playoff. All conference champs get auto-bids, just like in every other sport.

First round games on campus, or location of higher seeds choosing (for example, if TCU/SMU were hosting, the game could be at Jerry World). Remaining games played at existing NY6 bowl sites, or other large stadiums on rotating basis.

Finally, allow practice time for all schools after regular season ends, not just those schools going into playoff or bowl games.

This X1000. Hold a REAL playoff and then I'll care.

I wouldn't be surprised if we get a 5-1*-2 Model where there is a minimum ranking required for the G5 Champ.

Frankly there is some perks to letting a weaker G5 in the mix each year because it would theoretically give the top seeded team an easier quarterfinal game.

(01-20-2019 01:10 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(01-20-2019 11:36 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(01-20-2019 10:29 AM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(01-16-2019 06:29 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  If the participants aren't the top 8 teams then the playoff is a sham. If that means all eight teams are members of the same conference then so be it.

LMFAO, in a sport with so little cross-sectional play, a system where participants are selected by closed door machinations of a small unelected cabal that would intentionally be directed to circumnavigate on-field championship results would be viewed as a MAJOR sham by the vast majority of the world and is counter to every single other athletics championship, amateur or pro. Any playoff expansion would include at least five P5 autobids and likely the top ranked G5 champion.

A sham to whom?

Tilting the field towards tiny fan bases is not a net positive for the sport.

Also, if we are forcing certain people into the scheme who did not otherwise earn it we are creating a real sham.

Says a fan of the school who made it to the postseason in 2011 and 2017 in years they didn’t even win their division. The blind spot here is massive my friend.

You can argue your self interest but don’t pretend it’s in the best interest of the sport.

...because we use a ranking system instead of pretending that all conference champions etc. are equal.

It's a pretty simple system, friend.

As for arguing self interest, that' precisely what putting woefully underprepared and weak G5 teams into the playoff over deserving teams is.

You either use a ranking system or a conference championship system, mixing isn't good.

(01-20-2019 04:35 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(01-20-2019 01:10 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(01-20-2019 11:36 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(01-20-2019 10:29 AM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(01-16-2019 06:29 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  If the participants aren't the top 8 teams then the playoff is a sham. If that means all eight teams are members of the same conference then so be it.

LMFAO, in a sport with so little cross-sectional play, a system where participants are selected by closed door machinations of a small unelected cabal that would intentionally be directed to circumnavigate on-field championship results would be viewed as a MAJOR sham by the vast majority of the world and is counter to every single other athletics championship, amateur or pro. Any playoff expansion would include at least five P5 autobids and likely the top ranked G5 champion.

A sham to whom?

Tilting the field towards tiny fan bases is not a net positive for the sport.

Also, if we are forcing certain people into the scheme who did not otherwise earn it we are creating a real sham.

Says a fan of the school who made it to the postseason in 2011 and 2017 in years they didn’t even win their division. The blind spot here is massive my friend.

You can argue your self interest but don’t pretend it’s in the best interest of the sport.

...because we use a ranking system instead of pretending that all conference champions etc. are equal.

It's a pretty simple system, friend.

1- And a very flawed one where their number one team often is upset among other mistakes. At best it’s someones guess.

Quote:As for arguing self interest, that' precisely what putting woefully underprepared and weak G5 teams into the playoff over deserving teams is.

You either use a ranking system or a conference championship system, mixing isn't good.

2- Self interest is giving your school the best odds of qualifying. Since no school will get more benefit of the doubt than Saban’s Bama it’s your self interest to see as many subjective spots as possible stay that way.

Me arguing that an unbeaten G5 deserves a shot isn’t self interest- my school is a P5 and ensuring a deserving g5 makes it is counter to my school’s interest.

3- Weak and unprepared Utah looked pretty prepared for Alabama in that Sugar Bowl once again showing how fallible the ranking system is. But I’m sure the standard “didn’t want to be there” cop out is coming in 3... 2... 1...

(01-20-2019 03:55 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I wouldn't be surprised if we get a 5-1*-2 Model where there is a minimum ranking required for the G5 Champ.

Frankly there is some perks to letting a weaker G5 in the mix each year because it would theoretically give the top seeded team an easier quarterfinal game.

5-1-2 is a good consensus starting point.

Modify it to address the absurdity of a really weak P5 or G5 getting in with concrete rules and we’ve got a really good format that solves all but two of the last 30 years IMO.

(01-18-2019 07:05 AM)toddjnsn Wrote:  

Quote:Whether people want to agree to it or not, Power 5 auto-bids are pretty much the only impetus to for the system to move to an 8-team playoff. That will be the entire reason why the ones that actually have the power to make change (the P5) would be motivated to expand the system.

Most don't want the 8-team playoff apparently, after they voted for an expansion (very safe to assume 8 was the focal point).

When you put thought into it, you're going to run into Problems giving P5 *unconditional* auto-bids. What if Boise is as good as yesteryear (less than 10yrs ago) -- and UCF is about as good as now? You have two G5 Champs potentially being better than the lowest P5 Champ who pulled an upset and ranked low down the line. Chaos. Again, these aren't "spotlight matchup bowls". These are Playoffs. Ranking leans heavier.

Giving P5 Champs *unconditional* auto-bids, presents a (uncommon, but destined) problem. You trade CLEAR NO-EXCUSES general Fairness of a P5 Champ being left out (with possibility of NO team from their Conf going), while letting 1 or even 2 high & HIGHER RANKED G5 Champs IN -- or you ditch one of the HIGHER RANKED G5 CONF CHAMPS for a *lower ranked* P5 Champ... because they get more TV attention/$$-revenue.

Again, that's semi-excusable for Big Bowls. That's not going to fly for Playoffs. No sport is like that. "Well, you're both champions of your conference, and You are ranked higher by Committee than the other.... BUT you don't get quality TV revenue coming in, so we're going to go for the other guy ranked #20."

Good luck convincing anyone of that flying. :)

That's why I say the way to help ensure a P5 Champ will *almost always* be IN an 8-team Playoff, even if not ranked #8, while nobody can have complaints:
- Top 4 unconditional auto-bids; no matter what conference
- If within Top 8 and you're a Conf Champ; unconditional auto-bid
- Limit on total # from the same conference (may help open a bottom slot for a P5 Conf struggling)
- Up to 6 Conference Champ Auto-Bids: Must be ranked in Top 13. No more than 2 past #8.

By the rationale of the Unconditional P5 Champ Auto-Bid Scenario:
#7 - Boise State
#8 - Central Florida
...
#12 - Washington State (upset)
#13 - Nebraska (upset)

Boise & UCF would be booted for #12 & #13. Good luck with that controversy and a showing of the 100% *FLAW* in the system.

Yes, wouldn't happen very often at all, either. But at least potentially nixing a P5 Champ who's clearly *ranked lower* than a G5 Champ, and letting said G5 Champ in -- doesn't have a Conceptual Flaw to it. Just a controversy about ratings -- not Rankings.

The problem can be overcome by guaranteeing the top ranked G5 team will be in the playoff. In your scenario, #7, #12, #13 will be in the playoff, plus three highly ranked conference champions. The committee will choose two wild-cards. I guess #8 will not be chosen. Suppose the conference champs are ranked #1, #5, #6. The eight teams that will be in the CFP will be #1, #2(wild card), #3(wild card), #5, #6, #7, #12 and #13. This could happen if the top four ranked schools are all SEC. But they will send three to CFP. Nothing to be complained about.

(01-20-2019 04:52 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(01-20-2019 04:35 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(01-20-2019 01:10 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(01-20-2019 11:36 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(01-20-2019 10:29 AM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  LMFAO, in a sport with so little cross-sectional play, a system where participants are selected by closed door machinations of a small unelected cabal that would intentionally be directed to circumnavigate on-field championship results would be viewed as a MAJOR sham by the vast majority of the world and is counter to every single other athletics championship, amateur or pro. Any playoff expansion would include at least five P5 autobids and likely the top ranked G5 champion.

A sham to whom?

Tilting the field towards tiny fan bases is not a net positive for the sport.

Also, if we are forcing certain people into the scheme who did not otherwise earn it we are creating a real sham.

Says a fan of the school who made it to the postseason in 2011 and 2017 in years they didn’t even win their division. The blind spot here is massive my friend.

You can argue your self interest but don’t pretend it’s in the best interest of the sport.

...because we use a ranking system instead of pretending that all conference champions etc. are equal.

It's a pretty simple system, friend.

1- And a very flawed one where their number one team often is upset among other mistakes. At best it’s someones guess.

Quote:As for arguing self interest, that' precisely what putting woefully underprepared and weak G5 teams into the playoff over deserving teams is.

You either use a ranking system or a conference championship system, mixing isn't good.

2- Self interest is giving your school the best odds of qualifying. Since no school will get more benefit of the doubt than Saban’s Bama it’s your self interest to see as many subjective spots as possible stay that way.

Me arguing that an unbeaten G5 deserves a shot isn’t self interest- my school is a P5 and ensuring a deserving g5 makes it is counter to my school’s interest.

3- Weak and unprepared Utah looked pretty prepared for Alabama in that Sugar Bowl once again showing how fallible the ranking system is. But I’m sure the standard “didn’t want to be there” cop out is coming in 3... 2... 1...

1. You are not offering anything with a higher chance of success, just your preference.

2. You can try to prescribe that to me but it doesn't change the fact that there rankings are the best way of going about things, not pretending that the Sun Belt is on an equal footing with the ACC. You either rank the teams and use them or you don't.

3. Having a selective memory is one thing, remember when parking cost more than the tickets for the NIU v FSU Orange Bowl?