CFP Discussion

[forensicbuzz]

Well, doesn't the fact that one is called P4 and the other called G5 already indicate there are two subcategories?

No, not really. I believe the difference is the NCAA granted the P5 the ability to create their own rules separate from others, but there are no such rules, so there aren't two subcategories. I could be wrong about what the NCAA has allowed. I don't remember. However, there is no difference between a program in a G5 conference and a P5 conference.

I know it's Wikipedia, but it's accurate and I don't have time to look everything else up. Link

 

[Richard7125]

It is also a false choice since their records would have been different if they were all in the same conference.

i agree their records would have been different, but the teams will still have been the same, very good teams. That's kind of my point. It's hard to disagree that the SEC and Big10 are stacked at the top. With the addition of Texas, Oklahoma, Washington, Oregon, USC, UCLA, they are only getting more stacked. They should have more losses during the season than they've had in the past, but that doesn't make them worse teams.

 

[leatherneckjacket]

i agree their records would have been different, but the teams will still have been the same, very good teams. That's kind of my point. It's hard to disagree that the SEC and Big10 are stacked at the top. With the addition of Texas, Oklahoma, Washington, Oregon, USC, UCLA, they are only getting more stacked. They should have more losses during the season than they've had in the past, but that doesn't make them worse teams.

Better teams get left out of playoffs all the time. I bet if you ask an SEC fan they would put 9 SEC teams and the three other P4 conference champs.

Regardless, the 4th place SEC or B10 team are not more deserving to be in a 12 team playoff than a G5 conference champ in the top 25.

 

[forensicbuzz]

It is a poll of sports writers. They were getting lobbied and getting threats. They wanted that to stop. It also tested journalistic integrity. Were the people voting on the polls "reporting" about the sport, or were they participating in the sport. From SI: https://www.si.com/college/2018/07/12/ap-poll-bcs-system-rankings-national-champion




The AP wasn't the BCS and it isn't Bill Hancock's committee. They can chose whoever they want to be the top team in their "fun to do" poll. It has no actual real-world meaning and was never intended to have. That, in my opinion, is one of the biggest issues with sports fans when it comes to sports "reporting". Many can't tell the difference between what is real and what is "professional wrestling".

Except that the AP "Champion" is/was recognized by the NCAA whereas not all polls are.

 

[forensicbuzz]

I agree with you in principle, but I think there is a problem with that. I used Washington, Oregon, Michigan and OSU because two are in the Pac12 and two are in the Big10. All four of them would have been in a 12 team playoff this year - and no one would have complained. Just because they will all be in the Big10 next year shouldn't make a difference. Granted, their records will be different because at some point they will play each other during the season or in the Big10 championship game, but that doesn't make any of those four teams less good.

I understand the desire not to have 4 teams from any one conference, but I also think you need to recognize the Big10 (and SEC) will be absolutely stacked beginning in 2024.

All 4 probably wouldn't have been in the 12-team playoff for the exact reason you said. They wouldn't have had the same record they have now, or close to it.

 

[forensicbuzz]

When you have 68 teams, it is hard to exclude someone who is second in a major conference. It is hard to exclude any team with 28 wins no matter what conference they are in. You can't have a 68 team playoff in football. There are teams with zero chance going into the season of even sniffing a shot at the playoffs, even if they win every game by 30 points including two OOC against P4 teams.

Right. But look at where that tournament started. Originally, it was a Tournament of Champions.

 

[forensicbuzz]

i agree their records would have been different, but the teams will still have been the same, very good teams. That's kind of my point. It's hard to disagree that the SEC and Big10 are stacked at the top. With the addition of Texas, Oklahoma, Washington, Oregon, USC, UCLA, they are only getting more stacked. They should have more losses during the season than they've had in the past, but that doesn't make them worse teams.

Maybe they shouldn't stack their conferences. Life is all about choices.

 

[Richard7125]

Better teams get left out of playoffs all the time. I bet if you ask an SEC fan they would put 9 SEC teams and the three other P4 conference champs.

Regardless, the 4th place SEC or B10 team are not more deserving to be in a 12 team playoff than a G5 conference champ in the top 25.

I think many on this board are quick to be condescending to SEC fan. Some of it is deserved, but much smells like sour grapes. Would you want 9 ACC teams in the playoffs? I don't think you would and i think many SEC and Big10 fans are closer to your train of thought than the Bama guy who poisoned Auburn's trees.

I disagree with your second point.

 

[RonJohn]

Except that the AP "Champion" is/was recognized by the NCAA whereas not all polls are.

That is true. However, it never was considered a real championship. Some years there were splits in the polls, like in 1990.

The BCS was supposed to be the end of controversy and select the one-and-only college football champion. Since that didn't work, the CFP was supposed to be the end of controversy and select the one-and-only college football champion. Controversy definitely hasn't ended. UCF "claims" to be national champs in 2017. People find that laughable, but nobody was able to prove it wrong, because they never lost on the field.

The AP was always set up as a "fun to do" thing to drive up subscriber engagement and sell newspapers. Even with the MNC being shown by the NCAA as between the AP poll and several other polls, the reporters were not comfortable actually being used to make decisions and become part of the story.

 

[stinger78]

Maybe they shouldn't stack their conferences. Life is all about choices.

This is the exact reason that was done, and is the exact reason the solution we advocate will never be done.

 

[CEB]

My question is why should a conference runner-up get into a playoff for NC? They already lost their conference.

I agree. I would support just taking the top eight conference champions. All of these guys who consolidated conferences for millions of dollars will complain, but we can simply remind them that they moved for millions, not to compete for championships.

 

[RonJohn]

Right. But look at where that tournament started. Originally, it was a Tournament of Champions.

I don't have an issue with the way the NCAA tournament is operated. Every single eligible NCAA Division 1 team understands the qualifications and has an opportunity to "qualify" to be in the tournament. Once you get there it is up to you to compete. The NCAA committee does not disqualify qualifying teams, they give some non-qualifiers a second opportunity.

 

[CEB]

You need to define who gets in your true playoff. Do you have a proposal?

If you include all G5 Conference Champions it’s a joke. If you are selecting non conference Champions there always will be subjectivity as teams do not play similar schedules.

Going forward the P4 conferences will likely at some point apply subjectivity to who plays in the Conference Championship game. These huge conference could easily have 3 or more teams with 10-2 records that played very different conference schedules.

I offered my proposal…
Remove the subjectivity by taking onlyconference champions, or if you must subjectively choose at large teams, the same criteria should be published and applied evenly.

 

[Richard7125]

Maybe they shouldn't stack their conferences. Life is all about choices.

I agree. I would support just taking the top eight conference champions. All of these guys who consolidated conferences for millions of dollars will complain, but we can simply remind them that they moved for millions, not to compete for championships.

I would imagine if Tech was offered to join the Big10 tomorrow at a full $60m/year share, the vast majority on this board would be jumping all over that.

 

[CEB]

I would imagine if Tech was offered to join the Big10 tomorrow at a full $60m/year share, the vast majority on this board would be jumping all over that.

I agree… And we should! We would make more money, and when we have a really strong season that lands us second or third in the conference, we would have a shot at being in the playoffs. Neither of those things could be said about staying in the ACC.

 

[cpf2001]

Yeah, "GT should join the Big 10 at 60M/year" and "a sport that depends on subjective opinions to determine its champion is a joke" are not contradictory opinions at all.

It would just be better if it wasn't so dumb. But the money pressure is currently pushing strongly in the "dumb" direction where some folks on a committee get to decide if n-loss team from conference A is better than n+x loss team from conference B.

If it splits into 2 sub-divisions and the SEC+B1G grow further and turn into 4 "conferences" it could be a lot better, but my money's on it getting sillier before it gets better.

 

[forensicbuzz]

I would imagine if Tech was offered to join the Big10 tomorrow at a full $60m/year share, the vast majority on this board would be jumping all over that.

Agreed. Again, life is a series of choices. I think we can compete year in, year out with 80% of the B1G or the SEC (not as we have been recently, but as we have been). I think we can compete with the other 20% occasionally. Just my opinion.

That doesn’t change anything we’ve been discussing.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

I think many on this board are quick to be condescending to SEC fan. Some of it is deserved, but much smells like sour grapes. Would you want 9 ACC teams in the playoffs? I don't think you would and i think many SEC and Big10 fans are closer to your train of thought than the Bama guy who poisoned Auburn's trees.

I disagree with your second point.

Perhaps SEC fans are not all obsessively arrogant and poor sports. However, their networks are over the top when it comes to putting political pressure on the system.

 

[Root4GT]

I offered my proposal…
Remove the subjectivity by taking onlyconference champions, or if you must subjectively choose at large teams, the same criteria should be published and applied evenly.

The CFP has published criteria. Google it, it’s easy to find. At some point there always will be subjectivity. Teams don’t play the same schedule and are in different conferences.

If you really believe all the G5 Conference Chsmps should have auto bids go back to my post where I laid out all the 5 G5 Champs games against P5 teams. The G5 Champs were 1-9 against the P5 teams they played. Only JMU beat UVA by one point. Do you really think it serves anyone to have 5 G5 teams in when their best get beat routinely by average P5 teams. Pointless at best.

Yes the odds are high the SEC and B1G will have the most teams in the 12 team CFP. So what. Only Clemson 2 times and FSU 1 time have won the CFP from a conference not called the SEC or B1G.

Currently they have more very good teams than either the ACC or the Big 12. G5s, laughable comparison.

Next year this board will be whining like little kids who had their candy taken by the school bully when the SEC and B1G get 3 or 4 teams each in the CFP.

Clemson beating Georgia would be the ACC signature win to open the season. How many in here think that will actually happen. Possibly, for sure. Likely, nope.

 

[CEB]

The CFP has published criteria. Google it, it’s easy to find. At some point there always will be subjectivity. Teams don’t play the same schedule and are in different conferences.

If you really believe all the G5 Conference Chsmps should have auto bids go back to my post where I laid out all the 5 G5 Champs games against P5 teams. The G5 Champs were 1-9 against the P5 teams they played. Only JMU beat UVA by one point. Do you really think it serves anyone to have 5 G5 teams in when their best get beat routinely by average P5 teams. Pointless at best.

Yes the odds are high the SEC and B1G will have the most teams in the 12 team CFP. So what. Only Clemson 2 times and FSU 1 time have won the CFP from a conference not called the SEC or B1G.

Currently they have more very good teams than either the ACC or the Big 12. G5s, laughable comparison.

Next year this board will be whining like little kids who had their candy taken by the school bully when the SEC and B1G get 3 or 4 teams each in the CFP.

Clemson beating Georgia would be the ACC signature win to open the season. How many in here think that will actually happen. Possibly, for sure. Likely, nope.

I’ve heard this argument… I’m sure I’ll hear it again as justification for leaving a deserving ACC and/or big 12 team out of the playoff in a year or two. I know you’ll be somewhere smiling and that will warm my heart.