Started By
Message
re: Alternative approach to CFP Selection/Seeding
Posted on 8/21/18 at 1:30 pm to RogerTempleton
Posted on 8/21/18 at 1:30 pm to RogerTempleton
quote:
Alabama would have made it every year since year 2 of Saban.
And even as an Alabama fan, I think that blows. I enjoy the regular season as it is now, and honestly, even going to four teams has made it less interesting.
quote:
Boise State would have made it in 06 and 08. TCU in 2010. UCF last year.
Let's be honest. These teams are never going to get that chance. They had a better chance with the BCS. The main reason for a human committee made up of people tied to P5 universities is to keep small brands out.
When those programs elected to go FBS, they basically decided money and the occasional big stage like a NY6 bowl was more important than being able to win a lower level national championship.
2
Posted on 8/21/18 at 1:33 pm to TomRollTideRitter
quote:
Let's be honest. These teams are never going to get that chance.
You responded to my comment about a 5-2-1* model where 1 playoff spot goes to the highest ranked undefeated G5, giving those teams a chance. If there are no undefeated G5s, then it becomes a third at large spot.
Posted on 8/21/18 at 1:35 pm to BammerDelendaEst
A couple of flaws:
1. Any scenario where a statistical analysis of previous seasons would be a pain is hard to give an objective opinion on.
2. Opening day games will cease to be between good teams. Why bother scheduling Michigan when Buffalo is worth just as many marbles to start the season?
3. Beating the same team on the road 1 week after they lost on the road is less worthwhile (case in point - Team B loses on the road by 5 points, drops from 100 to 80 marbles. Team C beats Team B by 10 points in Team B's stadium, gets 20 marbles. If Team D beats Team B by 45 in Team B's stadium the next week, they get 15 marbles).
Statistically, this system doesn't work for your intended purpose.
1. Any scenario where a statistical analysis of previous seasons would be a pain is hard to give an objective opinion on.
2. Opening day games will cease to be between good teams. Why bother scheduling Michigan when Buffalo is worth just as many marbles to start the season?
3. Beating the same team on the road 1 week after they lost on the road is less worthwhile (case in point - Team B loses on the road by 5 points, drops from 100 to 80 marbles. Team C beats Team B by 10 points in Team B's stadium, gets 20 marbles. If Team D beats Team B by 45 in Team B's stadium the next week, they get 15 marbles).
Statistically, this system doesn't work for your intended purpose.
Posted on 8/21/18 at 1:35 pm to JesusQuintana
quote:
College football has been about bowl games for its entire existence leading up to the playoff which has rendered them completely meaningless.
CFB is not structured correctly for playoffs, and they wont ever be without massive fundamental changes. The entire premise is nonsensical.
Yep and the singular focus on the playoff by ESPN and others is terrible. Outside of live games, national networks only cover four or five teams each season now.
Posted on 8/21/18 at 1:36 pm to TomRollTideRitter
quote:
I enjoy the regular season as it is now, and honestly, even going to four teams has made it less interesting.
And I think going to a 5-2-1 where 5 conf champions are in makes the conference games and conf race even more exciting, because there is an auto-bid playoff spot on the line.
It also makes non-conf games important because if you fail to win your conference, there are 2 spots available for teams who had a strong record and SOS with a big non conf win.
This post was edited on 8/21/18 at 1:37 pm
Posted on 8/21/18 at 1:37 pm to RogerTempleton
quote:
Alabama would have made it every year since year 2 of Saban.
I get making it in 2008, despite the loss to Florida, because we would have been 12-1.
In 2010, though, before the bowls we were 9-3. I'm not sure how you interpret Alabama of 2010 as getting one of the two at-large bids.
This post was edited on 8/21/18 at 2:04 pm
Posted on 8/21/18 at 1:39 pm to RogerTempleton
quote:
You responded to my comment about a 5-2-1* model where 1 playoff spot goes to the highest ranked undefeated G5, giving those teams a chance. If there are no undefeated G5s, then it becomes a third at large spot.
Sorry I should've been more clear. I just don't see to the G5 getting a spot in the playoff unless it becomes massive, so I don't see 5-2-1 ever happening. The decisions are made by people affiliated with P5 schools, so there's no benefit to them to throw the G5 a bone. If they go to eight, I bet it'll just be eight P5 teams every year.
Posted on 8/21/18 at 1:39 pm to BammerDelendaEst
I like the 5 conference championship games and 3 at larges. People say the regular season matters less but I disagree. For example the de-facto PAC-12 North championship game between Stanford and Washington this past season is a much bigger game. More teams will feel in the hunt in November
Posted on 8/21/18 at 1:39 pm to skrayper
quote:
In 2010, though, before the bowls we were 9-3. I'm not sure how you interpret Alabama of 2010 as getting one of the two at-large bids.
Forgot about 2010. Good point
Posted on 8/21/18 at 1:42 pm to RogerTempleton
I just don’t know how I feel about the G-5 team. Sure sometimes it’s UCF or Boise. But in 2016 it would have been Western Michigan vs. Alabama in Tuscaloosa or New Orleans or wherever. That would almost always be a bloodbath
Posted on 8/21/18 at 1:45 pm to RogerTempleton
quote:
It also makes non-conf games important because if you fail to win your conference, there are 2 spots available for teams who had a strong record and SOS with a big non conf win.
I'd see this the opposite way. Giving conference champs auto bids makes OOC games insignificant. You could lose every OOC game and pull a 2011 Wisconsin (could have that year wrong) go 7-5, pull an upset in the conference title, and make the playoff.
There's not really a right answer. It's just different ways of looking at things.
Posted on 8/21/18 at 1:53 pm to TomRollTideRitter
quote:
You could lose every OOC game and pull a 2011 Wisconsin (could have that year wrong) go 7-5, pull an upset in the conference title, and make the playoff.
eta - This was 2012 Wisconsin that went 7-5, not 2011. 2011 Wisconsin had Russell Wilson and was 11-2
How often does that happen? 2012 Wisconsin also only went to the conference title because they were in the same division as Ohio State (when they did that Leaders/Legends shite) and Ohio State had a bowl ban. Perfect storm of crap.
This post was edited on 8/21/18 at 1:55 pm
Posted on 8/21/18 at 1:59 pm to Glorious
quote:
But in 2016 it would have been Western Michigan vs. Alabama in Tuscaloosa or New Orleans or wherever. That would almost always be a bloodbath
In that case it's a tune-up and a reward for the no.1 seed to play an easy team in the QF.
Posted on 8/21/18 at 2:10 pm to anc
quote:
I've always been a proponent of the eight team playoff.
Power 5 conference champions + Top 3 non-champions.
If you read it carefully, the guy actually points out that it works better for 8 teams than for 4.
Posted on 8/21/18 at 2:18 pm to RogerTempleton
quote:
How often does that happen? 2012 Wisconsin
That Wisconsin team is an extreme case, but mediocre teams win P5 conferences pretty often. Hell from 2006-2011 the ACC had a mediocre champion pretty much every year.
Also, say Florida is 8-3 heading into Florida State week and has won the East. They'll either win the conference or have at least four losses. They'd have no shot for an at-large bid with four losses. Why would they not essentially throw that FSU game and prep for the SEC championship game for two weeks?
Posted on 8/21/18 at 2:23 pm to BammerDelendaEst
Sounds like an incentive to be an independent and play Duke, Vandy, LaTech, SMU, NMSU, Utah State, Missouri, and Indiana every year.
Posted on 8/21/18 at 2:26 pm to Glorious
quote:
For example the de-facto PAC-12 North championship game between Stanford and Washington this past season is a much bigger game.
If Washington wins that game and the Pac-12 title game, they go to playoff, so that game already did matter. Winning your conference matters anyways.
quote:
More teams will feel in the hunt in November
Plenty of teams are in the hunt in February in basketball and no one cares until March.
This post was edited on 8/21/18 at 2:27 pm
Posted on 8/21/18 at 2:42 pm to RogerTempleton
It’s not often that it can happen but it can happen. You’re guaranteeing any conference champion whether they have one loss or 5 to be in. With an 8 team playoff every P5 champion will already be in even if you didn’t have a guaranteed spot. Because in almost all cases the champion has 0-2 losses and are ranked top 8 in the polls.
There’s no reason to guarantee a P5 conf. champion a spot in an 8-team playoff because they would be regarded as a top 8 team in almost all cases, but guaranteeing a spot would open the possibility for a 4-5 loss team to make it in.
There’s no reason to guarantee a P5 conf. champion a spot in an 8-team playoff because they would be regarded as a top 8 team in almost all cases, but guaranteeing a spot would open the possibility for a 4-5 loss team to make it in.
This post was edited on 8/21/18 at 2:44 pm
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News