Article CFP unanimously approves 5+7 model for new 12-team playoff

[g0lftime]

I think it depends on whether the college you are rooting for is in a big city or close enough to be a home team. At least some of the Big 10 teams are in communities that aren't tied to a pro team. Think Nebraska, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Purdue, OSU, Penn St., Wisconsin (though some could argue Green Bay on this one), Michigan St. could at least be in that argument. But I do get the impact pro teams make. I think GT certainly went down leaving the SEC. But at basically at the same time, the Falcons came into existence. Now I am not naive enough to say UGA would not have dominated media space, but I think the combo of leaving the SEC and the Falcons showing up magnified the issue.

And the Braves, and the Hawks, and pro hockey. The pro teams started getting a large share of local TV and paper coverage.
Loss of geographical rivals has hurt. UT and Auburn for example were huge draws with their fans. Now replaced with teams like Boston College, Duke, or Syracuse who don't draw opposing fans.

 

[stinger78]

There are many.
Here's one:
Nattys since the ACC began:
SEC 26
ACC 7

You could also look at Top 10 finishes in the final rankings since the ACC's birth. I anticipate that gap would be quite larger than this, which is 3.7 times more for the SEC.

Again, how many of those are repeats by the same 2-3 top teams? No one should debate that the top of the SECheat is and has not been better than the top of the ACC in any span of time. That is a different statement than the conference as a whole is markedly better. It is not. Marginally, yes, in maybe even most years, but not significantly so most years. That is the issue I hear being debated. Yet when facts like the ACC winning head-to-head over the SECheat this past year by a 6-4 margin, it gets dissed. Yet that happens from time to time and it's illustrative of the point.

 

[L41k18]

Again, how many of those are repeats by the same 2-3 top teams? No one should debate that the top of the SECheat is and has been better than the top of the ACC in any span of time. That is a different statement than the conference as a whole is markedly better. It is not. Marginally, yes, in maybe even most years, but not significantly so most years. That is the issue I hear being debated.

Tech people love data.
Unless the data doesn't support their position.

Why didn't you ask the same question about the ACC? 71% of their titles are by 2 teams.

Also - as you for some reason ignore - all that mattes to the natonal perspective are the top teams. And the national perspective is all that matters.

 

[stinger78]

Because I'm not debating the top of the conference. How many times must I repeat this?

 

[L41k18]

Because I'm not debating the top of the conference. How many times must I repeat this?

That's the point. The rest of the CFB world simply does not care about the middle & bottom of the conferences. You are arguing about something that does not matter.

You asked my criteria for a "clear gap" between the SEC & ACC, and when I provided it you ignored it. I am 100% not surprised

 

[stinger78]

That's the point. The rest of the CFB world simply does not care about the middle & bottom of the conferences. You are arguing about something that does not matter.

You asked my criteria for a "clear gap" between the SEC & ACC, and when I provided it you ignored it. I am 100% not surprised

The entire CFB world? No, that’s your point and the point of The Narrative that has CFB by the nads. You need to read more.

 

[Southern psu fan]

The Big10 is headquartered in Chicago. Kind of hard not to think of it as Big10 country.

You’d think Illinois would be good in football but they stink most of the time.

 

[Root4GT]

Again, how many of those are repeats by the same 2-3 top teams? No one should debate that the top of the SECheat is and has not been better than the top of the ACC in any span of time. That is a different statement than the conference as a whole is markedly better. It is not. Marginally, yes, in maybe even most years, but not significantly so most years. That is the issue I hear being debated. Yet when facts like the ACC winning head-to-head over the SECheat this past year by a 6-4 margin, it gets dissed. Yet that happens from time to time and it's illustrative of the point.

Until the top 2-3 in the ACC compete regularly for NCs the narrative that the SEC is a much better football conference than the ACC will NOT change regardless of how much you want it to change. That is reality. Currently only Clemson and FSU have shown they can compete at the level of top SEC teams. Unfortunately they never both do it the same year so at best the ACC has had 1 elite team at the most for decades.

Will Miami ever revert to the level they were 20+ years ago when they were competing for NCs and had more talent than any other team? That would really help the ACC but might not be good for GT football! If the ACC has Clemson, FSU and Miami as regulars in the CFP the perception of the ACC will change. There are no other ACC teams that have the National reputation to be viewed as potential CFP teams currently.

 

[L41k18]

The entire CFB world? No, that’s your point and the point of The Narrative that has CFB by the nads. You need to read more.

Tbh I think when it comes to this issue you let outside voices color your perception of reality. I - and others - have presented plenty of data showing the ACC has been less good at football than the SEC since the get-go, but you cling to the Recent Great SEC-ESPN Conspiracy Theory.

But hey. Each to his own.

 

[forensicbuzz]

The Big10 is headquartered in Chicago. Kind of hard not to think of it as Big10 country.

I drive right by it 2X every day I go to work.

 

[MWBATL]

Tech people love data.
Unless the data doesn't support their position.

Why didn't you ask the same question about the ACC? 71% of their titles are by 2 teams.

Also - as you for some reason ignore - all that mattes to the natonal perspective are the top teams. And the national perspective is all that matters.

So if the average SEC team is favored in a hypothetical matchup over the average ACC by 4 points, is that a huge difference in your mind?

 

[L41k18]

So if the average SEC team is favored in a hypothetical matchup over the average ACC by 4 points, is that a huge difference in your mind?

Again, "average" teams do nothing to move the national needle. Perception is based on the top teams. Perception translates to eyeballs on tv, which translates to $$$. Games between middling teams (in any conference) do not matter when it comes to the $$.

 

[bobongo]

Again, "average" teams do nothing to move the national needle. Perception is based on the top teams. Perception translates to eyeballs on tv, which translates to $$$. Games between middling teams (in any conference) do not matter when it comes to the $$.

Yes, we know that.

 

[Richard7125]

Because we’re discussing the past, not the future?

My question is not which is the strongest come August, it is why the Oregons, USC’s, OU’s and UTA’s of the world did what they did with the SEC/B1G cartel. It will become harder to get into the CFP for them, not easier unless one of two things happens: 1) the CFP expands to allow 8-10 cartel teams in, or 2) a premier division spins off with just the cartel and they allow 8-10 teams into their media extravaganza playoff.

Which is it? Why put themselves into that meat grinder? What’s the payoff? Is it just money alone? If so, they have done no more than having made themselves prostitutes.

Otherwise, there has to be a payoff in terms of access to the CFP. But the rest of the CFB world won’t vote to approve that. So, my dollar is bet on a premier league in the near future. Let them go! Please, Lord, let them go.

I thought this topic was about next year’s (5+7, 12 team) playoff and how many potential slots the SEC/Big10 will get. Since we're talking about next year’s playoff, my arguments took into consideration the SEC with Texas and Oklahoma and the Big10 with USC, Washington, Oregon. My focus has only been on the top teams that may get the playoff spots.

Some of your posts referenced the bottom teams, but I didn’t connect the dots that you were arguing the bottom teams in each conference are all equally bad. I agree with you the SEC, Big10, ACC, etc are all equally bad at the bottom (or close enough that no one really cares).

 

[L41k18]

Yes, we know that.

It seems some do not... why then would they want to discuss odds between middling teams?

 

[Richard7125]

What I find dumbfounding is that fonts continue to make this statement. I've never heard anyone say that year-in/year-out the SEC isn't stronger than the ACC. The point I've continually heard is that the "clear gap" ain't always so clear and the top-to-bottom claim the SEC has put forth also ain't "clear."

I think the top to bottom claim is more hyperbole, but I know some take it as gospel. For example, I don’t think anyone believes Vandy is a strong team. 7 or 8 out of 10 years, the SEC has the most depth of any conference, but there are a few years they don’t.

I think there has been a gap in the past. Imagine if the ACC had added ND and the SEC hadn’t added Texas and Oklahoma. The argument would be the ACC has closed “the gap” and is now on par with the SEC. Instead, the SEC adds Texas and Oklahoma and the gap has become clearly bigger. It’s funny how Tech people struggle with words like “clearly”.

 

[stinger78]

Tbh I think when it comes to this issue you let outside voices color your perception of reality. I - and others - have presented plenty of data showing the ACC has been less good at football than the SEC since the get-go, but you cling to the Recent Great SEC-ESPN Conspiracy Theory.

But hey. Each to his own.

You can think what you want. Fine by me. I’ve long held the opinion they are overrated as a conference - not at the top. The middle and bottom of the conferences are mostly even with one or the other having the upper hand from year to year. Overall, as a conference, they are often a bit better, sometimes a good bit better, but almost always the other conferences are competitive with them. This is my assessment.

 

[stinger78]

I thought this topic was about next year’s (5+7, 12 team) playoff and how many potential slots the SEC/Big10 will get. Since we're talking about next year’s playoff, my arguments took into consideration the SEC with Texas and Oklahoma and the Big10 with USC, Washington, Oregon. My focus has only been on the top teams that may get the playoff spots.

Some of your posts referenced the bottom teams, but I didn’t connect the dots that you were arguing the bottom teams in each conference are all equally bad. I agree with you the SEC, Big10, ACC, etc are all equally bad at the bottom (or close enough that no one really cares).

Top, middle, and bottom... the whole conference. You think what you want, that is fine by me.

 

[yeti92]

It seems some do not... why then would they want to discuss odds between middling teams?

The discussion about the middling teams comes from the "reasoning" often provided that the SEC teams deserve more guaranteed spots, or deserve a bye over the other conferences, or an OOC loss by an SEC team is excused because "they play such a brutal SeC schedule" that is so much harder than what anyone else plays.

In 2023, the SEC had 6 teams with losing records.

Florida
S Carolina
Vandy
Auburn
MSU
Arkansas

Does anybody doubt that Florida and Auburn, at the very least, will be overrated to start next season, based on this past season's results? MSU and Arkansas likely will too, and a decent chance also for SC. Vandy is pretty much the only SEC school that doesn't benefit from this perception.

To be fair, there are a couple ACC teams, Miami and UNC, who seem to also benefit from being wildly overrated to start every season too. Schools like Tech, Wake, Syracuse? Almost always come into the following season expected to do worse, especially if they had a really good season the previous year.

 

[roadkill]

The discussion about the middling teams comes from the "reasoning" often provided that the SEC teams deserve more guaranteed spots, or deserve a bye over the other conferences, or an OOC loss by an SEC team is excused because "they play such a brutal SeC schedule" that is so much harder than what anyone else plays.

In 2023, the SEC had 6 teams with losing records.

Florida
S Carolina
Vandy
Auburn
MSU
Arkansas

Does anybody doubt that Florida and Auburn, at the very least, will be overrated to start next season, based on this past season's results? MSU and Arkansas likely will too, and a decent chance also for SC. Vandy is pretty much the only SEC school that doesn't benefit from this perception.

To be fair, there are a couple ACC teams, Miami and UNC, who seem to also benefit from being wildly overrated to start every season too. Schools like Tech, Wake, Syracuse? Almost always come into the following season expected to do worse, especially if they had a really good season the previous year.

No doubt the SEC has teams that are perennially overrated to start the season, and thus benefit from it in later rankings. An analysis done a few years ago, based on Week 1 vs. end-of-season rankings, showed that uga took the prize for the most overrated team.

That said, the current "way too early" preseason rankings from ESPN and SI show none of the SEC teams you mentioned.