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

[L41k18]

Changes are not permanent, but change is.

I love that, and will use it often. "Augusta Jacket said, and I quote... ."

 

[stinger78]

CFB "as we knew it" has died many times in our lifetimes. 1 platoon changed to 2 platoon. Freshmen became eligible. Integration. Myriad rules changes, several major ones each decade. Supreme Court ruling allowing more games on tv (hallelujah!). Title IX legislation which forced the hand of the NCAA to impose scholarship limits. Heretofore unimagined specialists in the game. Tempo offenses. NIL. Portal.

It is a never ending story of change. Some good, some bad. Kinda like all the other things in the world.

A very wise man once told me: Change is inevitable. Not all change is good.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

I love that, and will use it often. "Augusta Jacket said, and I quote... ."

It's a lyric from the song Tom Sawyer by Rush. Wish I could take credit for it...

 

[TechPhi97]

I’m an odd duck and I now it. Playoff titles when they involve more and more teams mean little to me. Not nothing, but no where near as meaningful as regular season championships, imho. Viewership and dollars tell me I’m the odd man out. But it’s how I feel. This new system will result in a 2nd or 3rd place conference team winning a “national championship”. Nope.Not right. Never will be.

But it will generate $$$.

In 2004 our basketball team was 4th in conference and almost won a national championship. Would that have not been right?

 

[stinger78]

It's a lyric from the song Tom Sawyer by Rush. Wish I could take credit for it...

Ah, Rush… Electric Ballroom c. 1975. Those were the days.

 

[Southern psu fan]

It's a lyric from the song Tom Sawyer by Rush. Wish I could take credit for it...

Man I love that song. IMO Neil Peart was the best drummer ever that dude could get down on the drums.

 

[Richard7125]

Would you prefer "most likely?"

We've gone from a completely haphazard bowl process of the 70s and 80s where you rarely, if ever, had two highly ranked teams playing against each other, to the top 2 ranked teams of the BCS in the 90s, to a 4 team CFP in the 2010s to a 12 team playoff in the 2020's. I just think it's funny that you can't say the confidence level of determining a national champion is increasing. You have to qualify it by saying "probably" or "most likely."

 

[SOWEGA Jacket]

I think a divisional split is inevitable. Once that happens (along money lines), there will be less chaos (or maybe more chaos).

Absolutely it’s coming. I just want to get to the day where good teams have a chance for a post season. Sure, under my thinking like in every other sport, the regular season becomes devalued, but that’s how all sports at all levels are run and our society accepts it because that’s the right way. I love that the WS champs were bloodied 55 times to get there and that a team that may have laid a few eggs in September can come together and still be Super Bowl champs.

I totally accept that the playoffs are expanding not for fairness but for money. I don’t care because with each expansion you are giving more teams and fans hope.. I will be happy to eventually see a 30 plus team playoff because I love the drama and all the X factors that go into it. For my 54 years on this earth, it’s been the same teams invited into the club. And sure, these same teams will probably make up a majority if the Elite Eight. But we’ll also get those teams that emerge with special players ala Boise, Stanford, or a GT. And with more games, you’ll have more variables such as injuries. You’ll also make these so called top tier coaches have to prove they are top tier by game planning within a small window. The past decade the top coaches had to basically game plan for 4 games - their division rival ala Bama/LSU, Mich/OSU, then the conference championship game, then have a month to prepare for the 2 playoff games. It’s just a joke. A real playoff system will show how vulnerable these elite teams are especially in the age of the portal. Sure, 5 years ago, Bama, UGA and others could absorb injuries due to the unbelievable depth that couldn’t escape. Now, in the portal era their starters will out gun you but their depth are now starters at schools like GT. Its all trending the right direction in my view. I just hope someone at GT is working on our future whether it’s to leave or talk some sense into the ACC to secure itself out self of the current hostage situation we have become.

 

[stinger78]

We've gone from a completely haphazard bowl process of the 70s and 80s where you rarely, if ever, had two highly ranked teams playing against each other, to the top 2 ranked teams of the BCS in the 90s, to a 4 team CFP in the 2010s to a 12 team playoff in the 2020's. I just think it's funny that you can't say the confidence level of determining a national champion is increasing. You have to qualify it by saying "probably" or "most likely."

Depends in what one means by “national champion.” If it’s a playoff of conference champions, I could absolutely love it. But that’s too simple. It has to be an invitational tournament to maximize money. That’s OK, but it needs to be done in an equitable way. The Cartel doesn’t want equity, they want dominance and they’ve accumulated the firepower to force that… they think. We’ll see.

 

[forensicbuzz]

We've gone from a completely haphazard bowl process of the 70s and 80s where you rarely, if ever, had two highly ranked teams playing against each other, to the top 2 ranked teams of the BCS in the 90s, to a 4 team CFP in the 2010s to a 12 team playoff in the 2020's. I just think it's funny that you can't say the confidence level of determining a national champion is increasing. You have to qualify it by saying "probably" or "most likely."

All I'm saying is that there is no guarantee (you can't quantify it, so, I'm not sure why you're trying to) even with a 12-team playoff. The rest is you reading into what I said things that I didn't say.

 

[Root4GT]

Depends in what one means by “national champion.” If it’s a playoff of conference champions, I could absolutely love it. But that’s too simple. It has to be an invitational tournament to maximize money. That’s OK, but it needs to be done in an equitable way. The Cartel doesn’t want equity, they want dominance and they’ve accumulated the firepower to force that… they think. We’ll see.

Comparing the MAC to the B1G is laughable. They are in no way equals. Why should they be treated as equals? MAC teams play road games to fund their athletic departments. The B1G does no such thing, Historically they are B1G 317. MAC 54. If you get to the upper tier of the B1G it is much more lopsided.

Such games in a playoff would be pointless at best and of little to no interest to the vast majority of college football fans.

Of course nothing like your proposal will ever happen. The NCAA Mens BB Tournsment will expand adding mor P5 teams long before more G5 teams make the CFP.

 

[Richard7125]

All I'm saying is that there is no guarantee (you can't quantify it, so, I'm not sure why you're trying to) even with a 12-team playoff. The rest is you reading into what I said things that I didn't say.

Lol. This obviously pressed my buttons. The only thing I took issue with was you saying “probably increasing”. The confidence level is definitely increasing. I’m guilty of zeroing in on a specific couple or words in a post. I hate when people do that, but I can see how it happens now.

 

[stinger78]

The argument that “historically” the conference bias has kept 3-loss BIG / SEC teams ahead of 1-2 loss P5 made me take a quick look at CFP historic standings. I think it actually contradicts that assertion. A few 3 loss teams have snuck into the top ten but in those cases, the two loss teams behind them don’t support the bias you’re looking for…

2023 - no 3-loss team in top 10 and no 3-loss team over a 2-loss P5 team

2022- Two 3-loss teams snuck into the top 10 over 2-loss teams. Utah and KSt were ranked above 2-loss USC, Penn St and Washington. (Big Ten snub?)

2021 - no 3-loss top ten team

2020 - Florida and Iowa State snuck into top 10 with 3 losses in a screwed up partial season due to Covid. Not much to take from this year.

2019- Wisconsin snuck in at 10-3. The two loss teams behind them? Florida, Penn St, Utah, Bama and ND.

2018 - Washington and Florida were 3 loss teams. The only P5 team with 2 losses that fell behind them was Wash St.

2017 - 3 loss Auburn was #7. There were two loss USC, Penn St and Miami behind them at 8,9 and 10. The top ten “snubs” were 10-2 Washington at 11 and 12-0 UCF at 12.

2016 - three 3-loss teams at 8,9, and 10, led by Wisconsin ( Badgers seem to be the 3-loss darling of this analysis). Only P5 team with two losses behind them was WVU way back at 16.

2015 - no 3-loss top ten team

2014 - three loss teams in order #9 thru #18….. Ole Miss was #9 followed by Ariz, KSt, GT (biggest snub ever), uga, ucla, Ariz St, Mizzou, Clem, Wisconsin. No 2-loss P5 fell behind them.

I think you can make a solid argument that BIG / SEC teams have gotten the nod when losses are the SAME, but there isn’t much evidence to support 3 loss BIG/SEC teams being favored in the way you state. The good news for your theory is that if it does indeed start to happen, you can pretty clearly assert that they show bias NOW that top ten seeding really matters.

So, according to your study, there were 14 3-loss teams ranked in the final top CFP top 10 between 2014-23. That’s an average of 1.4 per year. Of those 14 teams, 4 that we know of were SECheat teams. Now 14 teams/5 P5 conferences would yield just under 3 per conference, if all were randomly even. So the SECheat is getting a boost in the number of 3-loss teams in the CFP top 10. Over the same period, the B1G got 3 teams with 3 losses, right at average (but a tad over).
So then, the SEC/B1G cartel received half (7 of 14) of the 3-loss teams in the top 10 of the final CFP rankings. The other three P5 conferences split the remaining 7 slots, for an average of 2.3 teams per conference over that period.

That differential is about 1 team per season between them. It’s not as pronounced as one might think, but the bias is there in your numbers. Whether it is intentional or not is another, more debatable, issue.

 

[Richard7125]

So, according to your study, there were 14 3-loss teams ranked in the final top CFP top 10 between 2014-23. That’s an average of 1.4 per year. Of those 14 teams, 4 that we know of were SECheat teams. Now 14 teams/5 P5 conferences would yield just under 3 per conference, if all were randomly even. So the SECheat is getting a boost in the number of 3-loss teams in the CFP top 10. Over the same period, the B1G got 3 teams with 3 losses, right at average.
So then, the SEC/B1G cartel received half (7 of 14) of the 3-loss teams in the top 10 of the final CFP rankings. The other three P5 conferences split the remaining 7 slots, for an average of 2.3 teams per conference over that period.

That differential is about 1 team per season between them. It’s not as pronounced as one might think, but the bias is there in your numbers.

So, according to your study, there were 14 3-loss teams ranked in the final top CFP top 10 between 2014-23. That’s an average of 1.4 per year. Of those 14 teams, 4 that we know of were SECheat teams. Now 14 teams/5 P5 conferences would yield just under 3 per conference, if all were randomly even. So the SECheat is getting a boost in the number of 3-loss teams in the CFP top 10. Over the same period, the B1G got 3 teams with 3 losses, right at average (but a tad over).
So then, the SEC/B1G cartel received half (7 of 14) of the 3-loss teams in the top 10 of the final CFP rankings. The other three P5 conferences split the remaining 7 slots, for an average of 2.3 teams per conference over that period.

That differential is about 1 team per season between them. It’s not as pronounced as one might think, but the bias is there in your numbers. Whether it is intentional or not is another, more debatable, issue.

Treating every 9-3 team as "randomly even" is probably not a good strategy.

 

[roadkill]

So, according to your study, there were 14 3-loss teams ranked in the final top CFP top 10 between 2014-23. That’s an average of 1.4 per year. Of those 14 teams, 4 that we know of were SECheat teams. Now 14 teams/5 P5 conferences would yield just under 3 per conference, if all were randomly even. So the SECheat is getting a boost in the number of 3-loss teams in the CFP top 10. Over the same period, the B1G got 3 teams with 3 losses, right at average (but a tad over).
So then, the SEC/B1G cartel received half (7 of 14) of the 3-loss teams in the top 10 of the final CFP rankings. The other three P5 conferences split the remaining 7 slots, for an average of 2.3 teams per conference over that period.

That differential is about 1 team per season between them. It’s not as pronounced as one might think, but the bias is there in your numbers. Whether it is intentional or not is another, more debatable, issue.

I think you're off by nearly a factor of ten. The actual difference per season is only about 0.12, which in my opinion is statistically insignificant. If anything, the data shows a bias toward the PAC, which is ironic.

 

[Lil G]

I keep thinking about how the early ACC vs SEC games this season could rewrite so much of the narrative and truly trickle through future seasons. We got FSU vs LSU as a middle finger to the SEC last season, and finished 7-5 regular season I think vs the SEC, but this coming one has some really decisive stuff.

UGA vs clemson and Tenn vs NC State are the big ones on my mind. UGA will almost certainly be #1 or #2 and Tenn will be ranked too high per usual. Miami also plays Florida, and I bet will be slightly favored. And week 3 BC plays Mizzuo, who will be undefeated and probably top 7 because of their multiple SEC scheduled warmup games. I wouldn’t be surprised if BC puts up a lot of points in that game and every game with their returning offense.

If the ACC somehow comes out with 3 wins in the 4 games I just mentioned- ESPN will be IMPLODING with how to word that they were all flukes. Unlikely, but it would be hilarious and awesome.

 

[Root4GT]

I keep thinking about how the early ACC vs SEC games this season could rewrite so much of the narrative and truly trickle through future seasons. We got FSU vs LSU as a middle finger to the SEC last season, and finished 7-5 regular season I think vs the SEC, but this coming one has some really decisive stuff.

UGA vs clemson and Tenn vs NC State are the big ones on my mind. UGA will almost certainly be #1 or #2 and Tenn will be ranked too high per usual. Miami also plays Florida, and I bet will be slightly favored. And week 3 BC plays Mizzuo, who will be undefeated and probably top 7 because of their multiple SEC scheduled warmup games. I wouldn’t be surprised if BC puts up a lot of points in that game and every game with their returning offense.

If the ACC somehow comes out with 3 wins in the 4 games I just mentioned- ESPN will be IMPLODING with how to word that they were all flukes. Unlikely, but it would be hilarious and awesome.

Winning those games would clearly help the ACC's perception. In past the ACC has not won enough of the major games between the two conferences. Last year's Louisville loss to Kentucky significantly hurt the SEC perception.

 

[stinger78]

Treating every 9-3 team as "randomly even" is probably not a good strategy.

It’s why I used the term “if.” You could make the same assertion about 1 and 2-loss teams as well.

 

[stinger78]

I think you're off by nearly a factor of ten. The actual difference per season is only about 0.12, which in my opinion is statistically insignificant. If anything, the data shows a bias toward the PAC, which is ironic.

Good pick up. My mistake.

 

[CEB]

So, according to your study, there were 14 3-loss teams ranked in the final top CFP top 10 between 2014-23. That’s an average of 1.4 per year. Of those 14 teams, 4 that we know of were SECheat teams. Now 14 teams/5 P5 conferences would yield just under 3 per conference, if all were randomly even. So the SECheat is getting a boost in the number of 3-loss teams in the CFP top 10. Over the same period, the B1G got 3 teams with 3 losses, right at average (but a tad over).
So then, the SEC/B1G cartel received half (7 of 14) of the 3-loss teams in the top 10 of the final CFP rankings. The other three P5 conferences split the remaining 7 slots, for an average of 2.3 teams per conference over that period.

That differential is about 1 team per season between them. It’s not as pronounced as one might think, but the bias is there in your numbers. Whether it is intentional or not is another, more debatable, issue.

One point of contention with your summary…
The case wasn’t made for WHICH 3-loss teams get the nod over other 3-loss teams,it was about whether or not 3-loss teams were getting in over 2-loss teams. The examples of the latter are relatively few.
In years like ‘14 and ‘16, there were no 2-loss teams to leave out, so 3-loss teams had to get in by default.
The most egregious example would be 2017 Auburn, but that team picked up their third loss in the SEC championship and had beaten both #2 uGA and #1 Bama.
BUT if your point is that the 3-loss SEC teams get the nod over 3-loss teams from other conferences, there is no disagreement from me.