(01-05-2019 12:18 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote: Next 4 Out Appearances:
SEC: 19
Big Ten: 9
That IMO is why you won't see this format happen. Basically, what you have is, compared to a "straight 8" format, a bunch of G5 type teams replacing not just a P5 team, but an SEC or B1G team. Let's look, where "in" is a team ranked outside the top 8 that makes the playoffs, while "out" is a team ranked inside the top 8 that does not make the playoffs:
2018: In PAC ... out B1G
2017: In AAC .... out SEC
2016: In MAC ........... out B1G
2015: In AAC ........... out Notre Dame
2014: In MWC .......... out B1G
2013: In AAC ............ out SEC
So looking at the last six years, you see that the AAC is a huge winner, they'd put three more teams in the playoffs. But the B1G would lose 3 playoff teams, the SEC would lose 2 playoff teams, and Notre Dame would get aced out.
There isn't any way a system that would benefit the AAC at the expense of the B1G, SEC, and Notre Dame is likely to be enacted.
By your definition, the current NY6 benefits the G5 at the expense of the B1G, SEC and Notre Dame. Yet they approved that.
He also fella to mention that if a 8-4 PAC team wins their conference championship it takes away from all the other potential at large teams as the PAC could get two teams that year instead of one. Nothing is perfect but it allows everyone to play it out on the field
(04-18-2019 04:10 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote: Part of the thought processes that you need to give the G5 some representation to prevent anti-trust action. Also, if the G5 champ is truly inferior they are going to end up facing the top ranked team, who out to be able to blow past a G5.
I think a 5-1-2 system is *more* vulnerable to anti-Trust action than is a "straight 8" system. That's because under straight 8, no conference, A5 or G5, is given a formal advantage in making the playoffs. Everyone is in the same pot, Notre Dame or UTEP, Michigan or San Jose State.
But 5-1-2 gives each A5 conference a guaranteed slot while lumping the entire G5 in to one pot, with no G5 conference having its own guaranteed slot. That's a formal difference that could be legally vulnerable.
You have to have someone willing to sue under anti-trust. Since the G5 get a slot, they have been bought off. From a practical standpoint (not legal), it is much less likely to be subject to anti-trust action.
(01-05-2019 12:18 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote: Next 4 Out Appearances:
SEC: 19
Big Ten: 9
That IMO is why you won't see this format happen. Basically, what you have is, compared to a "straight 8" format, a bunch of G5 type teams replacing not just a P5 team, but an SEC or B1G team. Let's look, where "in" is a team ranked outside the top 8 that makes the playoffs, while "out" is a team ranked inside the top 8 that does not make the playoffs:
2018: In PAC ... out B1G
2017: In AAC .... out SEC
2016: In MAC ........... out B1G
2015: In AAC ........... out Notre Dame
2014: In MWC .......... out B1G
2013: In AAC ............ out SEC
So looking at the last six years, you see that the AAC is a huge winner, they'd put three more teams in the playoffs. But the B1G would lose 3 playoff teams, the SEC would lose 2 playoff teams, and Notre Dame would get aced out.
There isn't any way a system that would benefit the AAC at the expense of the B1G, SEC, and Notre Dame is likely to be enacted.
By your definition, the current NY6 benefits the G5 at the expense of the B1G, SEC and Notre Dame. Yet they approved that.
Yes, because the NY6 spot doesn't involve the playoffs. IMO, there is a big difference there.
(04-18-2019 04:10 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote: Part of the thought processes that you need to give the G5 some representation to prevent anti-trust action. Also, if the G5 champ is truly inferior they are going to end up facing the top ranked team, who out to be able to blow past a G5.
I think a 5-1-2 system is *more* vulnerable to anti-Trust action than is a "straight 8" system. That's because under straight 8, no conference, A5 or G5, is given a formal advantage in making the playoffs. Everyone is in the same pot, Notre Dame or UTEP, Michigan or San Jose State.
But 5-1-2 gives each A5 conference a guaranteed slot while lumping the entire G5 in to one pot, with no G5 conference having its own guaranteed slot. That's a formal difference that could be legally vulnerable.
You have to have someone willing to sue under anti-trust. Since the G5 get a slot, they have been bought off. From a practical standpoint (not legal), it is much less likely to be subject to anti-trust action.
Whatever system is agreed to going forward - whether straight 8 or 5-1-2 or 5-0-3 - will be agreed to by the whole of FBS, just like the CFP was, so in any case, everyone will be "bought off" so to speak. No difference in that regard among the systems.
(04-22-2019 10:22 AM)bullet Wrote: Alabama-LSU convinced 4 conferences and ESPN that it needed to change.
LSU vs Alabama produced a 14.0 rating. That was towards the lower end of the BCS title game ratings, but not the lowest, two other BCS title games ranked lower. And it wasn't astonishingly low, e.g., the last BCS title game, between FSU and Auburn, drew a 14.8 despite being a far closer and exciting game.
No reason to think that game had any kind of impact on the adoption of the CFP.
(04-18-2019 04:10 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote: Part of the thought processes that you need to give the G5 some representation to prevent anti-trust action. Also, if the G5 champ is truly inferior they are going to end up facing the top ranked team, who out to be able to blow past a G5.
I think a 5-1-2 system is *more* vulnerable to anti-Trust action than is a "straight 8" system. That's because under straight 8, no conference, A5 or G5, is given a formal advantage in making the playoffs. Everyone is in the same pot, Notre Dame or UTEP, Michigan or San Jose State.
But 5-1-2 gives each A5 conference a guaranteed slot while lumping the entire G5 in to one pot, with no G5 conference having its own guaranteed slot. That's a formal difference that could be legally vulnerable.
You have to have someone willing to sue under anti-trust. Since the G5 get a slot, they have been bought off. From a practical standpoint (not legal), it is much less likely to be subject to anti-trust action.
Whatever system is agreed to going forward - whether straight 8 or 5-1-2 or 5-0-3 - will be agreed to by the whole of FBS, just like the CFP was, so in any case, everyone will be "bought off" so to speak. No difference in that regard among the systems.
Sankey issued a statement yesterday where he said he was happy with 4 and saw no need to change. Consensus is going to be tough.
(04-18-2019 04:10 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote: Part of the thought processes that you need to give the G5 some representation to prevent anti-trust action. Also, if the G5 champ is truly inferior they are going to end up facing the top ranked team, who out to be able to blow past a G5.
I think a 5-1-2 system is *more* vulnerable to anti-Trust action than is a "straight 8" system. That's because under straight 8, no conference, A5 or G5, is given a formal advantage in making the playoffs. Everyone is in the same pot, Notre Dame or UTEP, Michigan or San Jose State.
But 5-1-2 gives each A5 conference a guaranteed slot while lumping the entire G5 in to one pot, with no G5 conference having its own guaranteed slot. That's a formal difference that could be legally vulnerable.
You have to have someone willing to sue under anti-trust. Since the G5 get a slot, they have been bought off. From a practical standpoint (not legal), it is much less likely to be subject to anti-trust action.
Whatever system is agreed to going forward - whether straight 8 or 5-1-2 or 5-0-3 - will be agreed to by the whole of FBS, just like the CFP was, so in any case, everyone will be "bought off" so to speak. No difference in that regard among the systems.
Sankey issued a statement yesterday where he said he was happy with 4 and saw no need to change. Consensus is going to be tough.
Bottom line is this is a decision that doesn't have to be made for at least 5 years, so it won't be made until then.
(04-18-2019 04:10 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote: Part of the thought processes that you need to give the G5 some representation to prevent anti-trust action. Also, if the G5 champ is truly inferior they are going to end up facing the top ranked team, who out to be able to blow past a G5.
I think a 5-1-2 system is *more* vulnerable to anti-Trust action than is a "straight 8" system. That's because under straight 8, no conference, A5 or G5, is given a formal advantage in making the playoffs. Everyone is in the same pot, Notre Dame or UTEP, Michigan or San Jose State.
But 5-1-2 gives each A5 conference a guaranteed slot while lumping the entire G5 in to one pot, with no G5 conference having its own guaranteed slot. That's a formal difference that could be legally vulnerable.
You have to have someone willing to sue under anti-trust. Since the G5 get a slot, they have been bought off. From a practical standpoint (not legal), it is much less likely to be subject to anti-trust action.
Whatever system is agreed to going forward - whether straight 8 or 5-1-2 or 5-0-3 - will be agreed to by the whole of FBS, just like the CFP was, so in any case, everyone will be "bought off" so to speak. No difference in that regard among the systems.
Sankey issued a statement yesterday where he said he was happy with 4 and saw no need to change. Consensus is going to be tough.
Yup. Change obviously isnt happening anytime soon. However, I do think there will be enough P5 conferences fed up with being left out in any given year that some sort of expansion will happen at the end of the current deal. While my favorite 5-1-2 version seems to be popular with the sports writers---I have no idea if it will have any real traction with the people that matter when it comes to defining the next version of the CFP.
(04-18-2019 04:10 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote: Part of the thought processes that you need to give the G5 some representation to prevent anti-trust action. Also, if the G5 champ is truly inferior they are going to end up facing the top ranked team, who out to be able to blow past a G5.
I think a 5-1-2 system is *more* vulnerable to anti-Trust action than is a "straight 8" system. That's because under straight 8, no conference, A5 or G5, is given a formal advantage in making the playoffs. Everyone is in the same pot, Notre Dame or UTEP, Michigan or San Jose State.
But 5-1-2 gives each A5 conference a guaranteed slot while lumping the entire G5 in to one pot, with no G5 conference having its own guaranteed slot. That's a formal difference that could be legally vulnerable.
You have to have someone willing to sue under anti-trust. Since the G5 get a slot, they have been bought off. From a practical standpoint (not legal), it is much less likely to be subject to anti-trust action.
Whatever system is agreed to going forward - whether straight 8 or 5-1-2 or 5-0-3 - will be agreed to by the whole of FBS, just like the CFP was, so in any case, everyone will be "bought off" so to speak. No difference in that regard among the systems.
Sankey issued a statement yesterday where he said he was happy with 4 and saw no need to change. Consensus is going to be tough.
Figuring out how to fit the games into the schedule will be the tough part. And the SEC is going to have to make a lot of money to give up the $40 million from the Sugar if you make it a quarterfinal.
But one conference won't stop it. If the SEC and B1G are both opposed, it won't happen. If both are for, it will happen. If one is opposed and the other 4 are for it, it will also happen.
(01-05-2019 12:18 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote: Next 4 Out Appearances:
SEC: 19
Big Ten: 9
That IMO is why you won't see this format happen. Basically, what you have is, compared to a "straight 8" format, a bunch of G5 type teams replacing not just a P5 team, but an SEC or B1G team. Let's look, where "in" is a team ranked outside the top 8 that makes the playoffs, while "out" is a team ranked inside the top 8 that does not make the playoffs:
2018: In PAC ... out B1G
2017: In AAC .... out SEC
2016: In MAC ........... out B1G
2015: In AAC ........... out Notre Dame
2014: In MWC .......... out B1G
2013: In AAC ............ out SEC
So looking at the last six years, you see that the AAC is a huge winner, they'd put three more teams in the playoffs. But the B1G would lose 3 playoff teams, the SEC would lose 2 playoff teams, and Notre Dame would get aced out.
There isn't any way a system that would benefit the AAC at the expense of the B1G, SEC, and Notre Dame is likely to be enacted.
And Quo all of this assumes that the BCS and CFP rankings would have remained the same for the final poll prior to selection. As we have all witnessed there have been many spurious last second changes in rankings that accommodated teams that otherwise might not have made the final 2 in the BCS (less so) or final 4 in the CFP (much more so). So some of the leave outs you illustrate might have sneaked into that last ranking with a wink and a lot of fuss.
(04-21-2019 10:14 AM)quo vadis Wrote: I think a 5-1-2 system is *more* vulnerable to anti-Trust action than is a "straight 8" system. That's because under straight 8, no conference, A5 or G5, is given a formal advantage in making the playoffs. Everyone is in the same pot, Notre Dame or UTEP, Michigan or San Jose State.
But 5-1-2 gives each A5 conference a guaranteed slot while lumping the entire G5 in to one pot, with no G5 conference having its own guaranteed slot. That's a formal difference that could be legally vulnerable.
You have to have someone willing to sue under anti-trust. Since the G5 get a slot, they have been bought off. From a practical standpoint (not legal), it is much less likely to be subject to anti-trust action.
Whatever system is agreed to going forward - whether straight 8 or 5-1-2 or 5-0-3 - will be agreed to by the whole of FBS, just like the CFP was, so in any case, everyone will be "bought off" so to speak. No difference in that regard among the systems.
Sankey issued a statement yesterday where he said he was happy with 4 and saw no need to change. Consensus is going to be tough.
Figuring out how to fit the games into the schedule will be the tough part. And the SEC is going to have to make a lot of money to give up the $40 million from the Sugar if you make it a quarterfinal.
But one conference won't stop it. If the SEC and B1G are both opposed, it won't happen. If both are for, it will happen. If one is opposed and the other 4 are for it, it will also happen.
No, not really. The money and politics of the Big 10 or SEC either one would be a formidable force to overcome. What I could see is their agreement to go along for other concessions they might want (3 divisions, no divisions, tie ins to make up for lost bowl revenue, hosting one of the rounds at the home sites of the higher ranked teams, etc.).
So you could probably get it done but both the Big 10 and SEC would leverage some changes they want in order to go along, IMO. Philosophy: Never miss an opportunity for concessions.
(04-22-2019 07:07 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote: This is my protest of 2014:
Mississippi State was grossly overrated that year -- by the very same human polls which some people would suggest can pick the top 8 teams better than conference championships can pick 5?
(04-22-2019 07:07 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote: This is my protest of 2014:
Mississippi State was grossly overrated that year -- by the very same human polls which some people would suggest can pick the top 8 teams better than conference championships can pick 5?
This score reminds me of the "hollowing out" that has occurred in the ACC since Clemson became a super-team.
Since Clemson started their Dabo-Rise in 2012, we've seen teams like FSU, VT, and Georgia Tech have declined precipitously since then. Even Miami's brief eruption has been quelled and they are now back in limbo.
Dabo seems to have sucked all the oxygen out of the ACC bubble.
I think you need a ND caveat... 5-1 unless ND is higher than the last 6th conference champ. That puts ND on equal footing with the entire G5 plus any other P5 straggling Champ.
2 At-Large spots guaranteed no matter what. Non conference schedule is played first three weeks with the exception of ND and Army games. Rest of independents drop out otherwise apply ND rule for them as well.
This is essentially 4-2-2 model.
(This post was last modified: 04-25-2019 07:37 AM by RUScarlets.)
(04-24-2019 10:09 AM)quo vadis Wrote: This score reminds me of the "hollowing out" that has occurred in the ACC since Clemson became a super-team.
Since Clemson started their Dabo-Rise in 2012, we've seen teams like FSU, VT, and Georgia Tech have declined precipitously since then. Even Miami's brief eruption has been quelled and they are now back in limbo.
Dabo seems to have sucked all the oxygen out of the ACC bubble.
GT and Clemson weren't competing for the same recruits then. GT's decline was in part because valuable members of staff went elsewhere where they were immediately successful (Kennesaw State, Army, Navy). On top of that, shortly after this game the blocking rules were changed. It became magically a dangerous player safety issue to cut block beyond 5 yards from the line of scrimmage. Apparently you can still cut all you want with backs to protect the QB regardless of where they are -- that's somehow not dangerous. Apparently you can still tackle below the waist all you want anywhere on the field -- that's somehow not dangerous. And we all know how fastidious and consistent the refs or indeed just about any human will be with enforcing a magical line that is unmarked and moving with every down, I mean, just look at all those ineligible receiver downfield calls on linemen, right?
If you want to see that call in action go watch the USF-GT game last year. Damn near every time USF needed a break they got one in the form of the lamest targeting call ever (the AAC in general, from games I watched last year at least, is *horrendous* about this) or a block below the waist 5 yards downfield. I still remember one of those calls was *VERY* costly and erased a touchdown when replay showed the block was 4 yards downfield.
It'll be interesting to see what the O'Leary gang does with the USF game this year. That game is like when Kansas came to Atlanta after a bad call laden travesty in Lawrence, KS the year before. I really feel in general the bloodlust for that game this year. Hope it goes like the Kansas rematch in Atlanta did too.
Doing this over but correctly. The Big East was a member of the BCS selection group 2004-2012. So there would have been 6 champions and only 2 at large. The MAC, WAC, MWC, SBC and C-USA were the non-power conferences. In 2013 the Big East/American dropped out of the BCS/P5 group and into the G5, while the WAC folded.
Taking that into account and using the rankings to select the 8 --- which the committee would probably adjust against the G5/non-power conferences, but we'll ignore that -- I get the following (+ indicates non-power school):
2004
Rose: 1 USC vs 13 Michigan
Orange: 2 Oklahoma vs 8 Virginia Tech
Peach: 3 Auburn vs 10 Louisville
Sugar: 4 Texas* vs 6 Utah +(MWC) *
Next 4 Out--
Peach: 7 Georgia vs 9 Boise St +(MWC) *
Fiesta: 5 California vs 11 LSU
// Louisville was the Big East BCS representative
2005
Fiesta: 1 USC vs 22 Florida St
Cotton: 2 Texas vs 11 West Virginia
Orange: 3 Penn St vs 7 Georgia
Peach: 4 Ohio St* vs 5 Oregon*
Next 4 Out--
Rose: 6 Notre Dame vs 8 Miami
Sugar: 9 Auburn vs 14 TCU +(MWC)
// West Virginia was the Big East BCS representative
// 10 Virginia Tech out, TCU gets the NY6 access
2006
Rose: 1 Ohio St vs 14 Wake Forest
Peach: 2 Florida vs 10 Oklahoma
Fiesta: 3 Michigan* vs 6 Louisville
Sugar: 4 LSU* vs 5 USC
Next 4 Out--
Orange: 7 Wisconsin vs 9 Auburn
Cotton: 8 Boise St +(MWC) vs 11 Notre Dame
// Louisville was the Big East BCS representative
2007
Rose: 1 Ohio St vs 9 West Virginia
Sugar: 2 LSU vs 7 USC
Orange: 3 Virginia Tech vs 6 Missouri*
Cotton: 4 Oklahoma vs 5 Georgia*
Next 4 Out--
Peach: 8 Kansas vs 12 Florida
Fiesta: 10 Hawai'i +(WAC) vs 11 Arizizona St
// West Virginia was the Big East BCS representative
2008
Cotton: 1 Oklahoma vs 19 Virginia Tech
Orange: 2 Florida vs 8 Penn St
Fiesta: 3 Texas* vs 6 Utah
Peach: 4 Alabama* vs 5 USC
Next 4 Out--
Rose: 7 Texas Tech vs 10 Ohio St
Sugar: 9 Boise St +(MWC) vs 14 Oklahoma St
// 11 TCU would get bumped by OK State since Boise St gets NY6 slot
2009
Peach: 1 Alabama vs 11 Virginia Tech
Sugar: 2 Texas vs 8 Ohio St
Fiesta: 3 Cincy vs 7 Oregon
Rose: 4 TCU +(MWC)* vs 5 Florida*
Next 4 Out--
Cotton: 6 Boise St +(MWC) vs 12 LSU
Orange: 10 Iowa vs 9 Georgia Tech
// Cincinnati was the Big East BCS representative
// TCU qualifies as the non-power school, at #3 makes playoff
// Boise State makes it 2 non-power schools, get a NY6 but not playoff
2010
Orange: 1 Auburn vs 13 Virginia Tech
Rose: 2 Oregon vs 7 Oklahoma
Cotton: 3 TCU +(MWC) vs Connecticut
Sugar: 4 Stanford* vs 5 Wisconsin
Next 4 Out--
Peach: 8 Arkansas vs 9 Michigan St
Fiesta: 6 Ohio St vs 11 LSU
// Connecticut was the Big East BCS representative
// Ohio State drops down to next 4 out
// TCU qualifies as the non-power school, at #3 makes playoff
2011
Cotton: 1 LSU vs 15 Clemson
Peach: 2 Alabama* vs 10 Wisconsin
Orange: 3 Oklahoma St vs #17 West Virginia
Fiesta: 4 Stanford vs 5 Oregon*
Next 4 Out--
Sugar: 6 Arkansas vs 8 Kansas St
Rose: 9 South Carolina vs 7 Boise St +(MWC)
// West Virginia was the Big East BCS representative
2012
Fiesta: 1 Notre Dame* vs Wiscconsin (12-0 Ohio St and Penn St faced bowl bans)
Sugar: 2 Alabama vs 13 Louisville
Peach: 3 Florida* vs 12 Florida St
Rose: 4 Oregon vs 5 Kansas St
Next 4 Out--
Cotton: 6 Stanford vs 15 Northern Illinois +(MAC)
Orange: 7 Georgia vs 8 LSU
// 9 Texas A&M out, Stanford not in playoff
// Louisville was the Big East BCS representative
// last year of Big East membership in BCS
2013
Orange: 1 Florida St vs 8 Misouri *
Cotton: 2 Auburn vs 7 Ohio St*
Sugar: 3 Alabama* vs 6 Baylor
Rose: 4 Michigan St vs 5 Stanford
Next 4 Out--
Fiesta: 10 Oregon vs 15 UCF+ (AAC)
Peach: 9 South Carolina vs 11 Oklahoma
// UCF in access bowl only
2014
Peach: 1 Alabama vs 8 Michigan St
Fiesta: 2 Oregon vs 7 Mississippi St*
Orange: 3 Florida St vs 6 TCU
Cotton: 4 Ohio St 5 Baylor*
Next 4 Out--
Rose: 10 Arizona vs 20 Boise St +(MWC)
Sugar: 9 Mississippi vs 11 Kansas St
2015
Peach: 1 Clemson vs 8 Notre Dame*
Sugar: 2 Alabama vs 7 Ohio St*
Rose: 3 Michigan St vs 6 Stanford
Fiesta: 4 Oklahoma vs 5 Iowa*
Next 4 Out--
Orange: 9 Florida St vs 10 North Carolina
Cotton: 11 TCU vs 18 Houston +(AAC)
2016
Sugar: 1 Alabama vs 8 Wisconsin
Orange: 2 Clemson vs 7 Oklahoma
Cotton: 3 Ohio St* vs Michigan*
Rose: 4 Washington vs 5 Iowa
Next 4 Out--
Fiesta: 9 USC vs 15 Western Michigan +(MAC)
Peach: 10 Colorado vs 11 Florida St
2017
Orange: 1 Clemson vs 11 Washington
Cotton: 2 Oklahoma vs 7 Auburn*
Peach: 3 Georgia* vs 6 Wisconsin*
Fiesta: 4 Alabama vs 5 Ohio St
Next 4 Out--
Sugar: 10 Miami vs 12 UCF +(AAC)
Rose: 8 USC vs 9 Penn St
2018
Sugar: 1 Alabama vs 9 Washington
Peach: 2 Clemson vs 7 Michigan
Rose: 3 Notre Dame* vs 6 Ohio St
Fiesta: 4 Oklahoma vs 5 Georgia*
Next 4 Out--
Orange: 8 UCF +(AAC) vs 10 Florida
Cotton: 11 LSU vs 12 Penn St
// note the committee selected 15 Texas over 12 Penn State
(This post was last modified: 04-27-2019 10:40 PM by Stugray2.)
(08-23-2019 10:23 PM)wavefan12 Wrote: Where is the 2008 and 2010 BE champ?
I treated the Big East the same way the modern formula would treat the AAC—as one of the G5 conferences. If the Big East champ was the highest ranked of the G champs the got the G League autobid. Some years one of the other leagues bumped them out.
/
A Retroactive 5-1-2 Playoff 2004-2018
