Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
G5 CFP distribution for 2019
Author Message
BruceMcF Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 13,099
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 760
I Root For: Reds/Buckeyes/.
Location:
Post: #41
RE: G5 CFP distribution for 2019
(01-15-2019 10:53 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  There is more than enough for a case. You might win--you might lose---but there is certainly an argument to be made. There is no suit because that this point, the P5 are throwing just enough crumbs that the G5 could be huge losers if the ruling were to go the wrong way. If the P5 split from the G5---thats when you'll see an anti-trust suit. The G5 would have nothing to lose at that point. If they win--there would be back damages and the award could be massive. So---a split is not the riskless pot of gold some might believe it would be. It could end up being just the opposite.

Thats why I think you'll see basically an extension of the status quo with minor modifications. The playoff will probably expand to 8 with P5 champ auto-bids. The G5 will get one slot--to mitigate anti-trust action. And the money split percentages will largely stay as is. Everyone will be getting more than enough money and benefits to keep all parties reasonably happy.

Note a key part of that quote:
Quote: intentionally excluded teams from non-privileged conferences, not on the basis of competition, but due to pre-arranged agreements

The strongest against that language is "6 highest ranking FBS champions", but that goes against the certainty that college presidents like (for the A5 college presidents, that is).

An autobid to the highest ranked among the 5 Go5 conference would probably be close enough to "on the basis of competition", especially if there is a hypothetical opening to a "2nd Go5 champion that is also really, really good" in the two at-large spots. It is merely close, because it does open up the hypothetical possibility that the 6th best FBS champion will be left out in favor of the 7th best, "due to a pre-arranged agreement", if a fluke CCG win throws up an A5 champion that is ranked below two Go5 champions ... but that hypothetical has to be seen as a real risk before it becomes an actual effective restraint on trade.

Any threshold placed on the best Go5 champion that is not placed on A5 champions weakens the defense further ... eg, best Go5 so long as it is ranked 16 or higher. By contrast, a "6 best FBS champions so long as they are ranked 16 or higher" would be a lot safer.
01-16-2019 06:30 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 50,012
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2372
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #42
RE: G5 CFP distribution for 2019
(01-15-2019 06:41 PM)YNot Wrote:  
(01-15-2019 06:19 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-15-2019 06:05 PM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  Eh, all I remember from him was how the MAC was the top G5 conference in 2016 based on total $. The NY6 bowl pushed the MAC ahead of the higher ranked AAC...similar to what happened this year. I guess it wasn’t important enough to separate out back then. Whatever narratives fit I guess lol! The NY6 bowl is the prize, gets the most pub and has the longest shelf life as it is discussed weekly all season/preseason. AAC needs to do a better job in the post season as this is the second time in five years that bowl performance cost the conference $. As far as which has a greater impact on perception and brand awareness, CFP all day every day. Rightly or wrongly, it’s what gets the most attention from mainstream media in regards to G5 teams/conferences...well, reg. season P5 upsets get attention as well due to CFP implications.

It wasn't just bowl season, the AAC was nothing during the regular season too. What was the AAC's best OOC win during the regular season? I can't think one worth mentioning.

Bottom line is that the AAC, which is trying to push a "P6" narrative, wasn't even the best G5 conference this past year, which makes that narrative difficult to justify.

Can you think of any good G5 OOC wins?

Not really, but that wasn't the point. The point was, the AAC didn't have any P5 wins worth mentioning.

And no, beating 7-7 Pitt and 7-6 Georgia Tech are not worth mentioning. 07-coffee3
01-16-2019 08:46 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 50,012
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2372
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #43
RE: G5 CFP distribution for 2019
(01-15-2019 06:44 PM)YNot Wrote:  
(01-15-2019 06:22 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-15-2019 06:20 PM)YNot Wrote:  
(01-13-2019 07:26 PM)leofrog Wrote:  
(01-12-2019 04:19 PM)72Tiger Wrote:  Peanuts for all. Somebody needs to file a lawsuit to blow this system up.

For what reason?

If you’re talking about the TV dollars, that’s negotiable based on supply/demand.

If you’re talking about the CFP dollars, that is something that was negotiated and unanimously agreed among all 10 FBS conferences.

I'm not agreeing that somebody needs to file a lawsuit, but whether it was originally 'negotiated and unanimously agreed' can be overcome in an anti-trust lawsuit. It would be fairly straightforward for a school, or group of schools, to allege that the CFP contract is or has become collusive and an unreasonable restraint of trade.

Whether they would win is a different matter, but they could make a reasonable allegation that would justify a very public lawsuit and investigation.

I'm curious - what "trade" do you think is "restrained" by the CFP?

Do you think that if, e.g., the G5 negotiated their own post-season bowl and playoffs deal with the networks separate from the P5 that they would get more money?

Seriously?

https://www.antitrustlawblog.com/2009/08...-legality/

"In his opening statement to the Subcommittee, Senator Hatch detailed his concerns that the BCS violated both Section 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act: “Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act prohibits contracts, combinations, or conspiracies to limit competition. I’ve said before that I don’t believe a plainer description of the BCS exists.” Id. Senator Hatch characterized the system as an agreement between preferred conferences and the major bowl games as to how they will compete against each other and the non-preferred conferences. Id."

"Clearly, the BCS bowl games exist in a category all their own and the architects of the BCS system appear to have intentionally excluded teams from non-privileged conferences, not on the basis of competition, but due to pre-arranged agreements.[3]"

Again, I'm not saying that the lawsuit would come out a winner, but these exact same arguments that were made to a senate subcommittee against the BCS could be made against the CFP and NY6.

Those were *political* arguments - made by a politician, Senator Hatch, in front of a political body, a Senate subcommittee. That doesn't mean they have any legal validity.

Importantly, though, they worked, because that political body had the power to create great difficulties for the BCS. The result was that the BCS structure was changed to give a non-AQ a greater chance to make a BCS bowl, and that was enough to stifle the political sabre-rattling by Senator Hatch.

But also importantly, that modification didn't give any "access" to the playoff then in effect at the time, and it did not *guarantee* a non-AQ team would play in a BCS bowl.

In contrast, the CFP does guarantee that a non-AQ (G5) team will play in a BCS/NY6 bowl each year, so if the BCS changes satisfied the anti-trust concerns (and they did) it is unclear how the CFP would violate them, when the CFP gives more access than the BCS did.
(This post was last modified: 01-16-2019 08:53 AM by quo vadis.)
01-16-2019 08:53 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 50,012
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2372
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #44
RE: G5 CFP distribution for 2019
(01-16-2019 06:30 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  Any threshold placed on the best Go5 champion that is not placed on A5 champions weakens the defense further ... eg, best Go5 so long as it is ranked 16 or higher. By contrast, a "6 best FBS champions so long as they are ranked 16 or higher" would be a lot safer.

Safest of all would be my "straight 8" proposal for an 8-team playoff, the top 8 ranked teams make the playoffs regardless of whether they are A5 or G5 or champs or not, as it would have no threshold at all placed on G5 that are not also on the A5. 07-coffee3
(This post was last modified: 01-16-2019 08:58 AM by quo vadis.)
01-16-2019 08:57 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 50,012
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2372
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #45
RE: G5 CFP distribution for 2019
(01-15-2019 10:53 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(01-15-2019 06:44 PM)YNot Wrote:  
(01-15-2019 06:22 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-15-2019 06:20 PM)YNot Wrote:  
(01-13-2019 07:26 PM)leofrog Wrote:  For what reason?

If you’re talking about the TV dollars, that’s negotiable based on supply/demand.

If you’re talking about the CFP dollars, that is something that was negotiated and unanimously agreed among all 10 FBS conferences.

I'm not agreeing that somebody needs to file a lawsuit, but whether it was originally 'negotiated and unanimously agreed' can be overcome in an anti-trust lawsuit. It would be fairly straightforward for a school, or group of schools, to allege that the CFP contract is or has become collusive and an unreasonable restraint of trade.

Whether they would win is a different matter, but they could make a reasonable allegation that would justify a very public lawsuit and investigation.

I'm curious - what "trade" do you think is "restrained" by the CFP?

Do you think that if, e.g., the G5 negotiated their own post-season bowl and playoffs deal with the networks separate from the P5 that they would get more money?

Seriously?

https://www.antitrustlawblog.com/2009/08...-legality/

"In his opening statement to the Subcommittee, Senator Hatch detailed his concerns that the BCS violated both Section 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act: “Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act prohibits contracts, combinations, or conspiracies to limit competition. I’ve said before that I don’t believe a plainer description of the BCS exists.” Id. Senator Hatch characterized the system as an agreement between preferred conferences and the major bowl games as to how they will compete against each other and the non-preferred conferences. Id."

"Clearly, the BCS bowl games exist in a category all their own and the architects of the BCS system appear to have intentionally excluded teams from non-privileged conferences, not on the basis of competition, but due to pre-arranged agreements.[3]"

Again, I'm not saying that the lawsuit would come out a winner, but these exact same arguments that were made to a senate subcommittee against the BCS could be made against the CFP and NY6.

There is more than enough for a case. You might win--you might lose---but there is certainly an argument to be made. There is no suit because that this point, the P5 are throwing just enough crumbs that the G5 could be huge losers if the ruling were to go the wrong way. If the P5 split from the G5---thats when you'll see an anti-trust suit. The G5 would have nothing to lose at that point. If they win--there would be back damages and the award could be massive. So---a split is not the riskless pot of gold some might believe it would be. It could end up being just the opposite.

Thats why I think you'll see basically an extension of the status quo with minor modifications. The playoff will probably expand to 8 with P5 champ auto-bids. The G5 will get one slot--to mitigate anti-trust action. And the money split percentages will largely stay as is. Everyone will be getting more than enough money and benefits to keep all parties reasonably happy.

IMO you mistake two things. First, the reason the A5 do not split from the G5, and second, the reason there is no G5 lawsuit against the A5.

The reason the A5 do not split from the G5 has zero to do with fear of a lawsuit. Such a lawsuit has close to no chance of succeeding, because in effect the G5 would be arguing that the A5 should be legally compelled to play games against them, and that itself is "restraint of trade" rather than its opposite. Heck, at that point, the FCS could sue the G5 on the same grounds, and ditto Division 3 against Division 2.

If the A5 did break away, that would put zero constraints on the G5 at all -the G5 would be fully free to have their own playoff system, sign their own deals with bowl games (or create their own bowl games) and sign their own TV deals, and the A5 would be powerless to interfere in any of that.

All they wouldn't be able to do is piggy-back on the market and brand value of the A5 conferences, and they have no legal right to do that.

No, the A5 do not split from the G5 because, other than Nick Saban, they *like* having the G5 in the same division, because they like "easy wins" that count towards bowl eligibility. And while yes, we all know that G5 do beat A5, usually that's not the case. Nobody really wants to play Alabama and Clemson every week, because nobody wants to go 0-12. If you are NC State, you want ECU on the schedule so you can beat them 58-3 and make your fans forget a little that Clemson cleaned your clock the week before. The 1/6 share of the CFP money that goes to the G5 is the price the A5 is willing to pay to incentivize the G5 to stay in the same division and thus be available for two or three OOC games each year.

Second, there is no lawsuit not because the G5 are happy with the "crumbs" - the great bulk of G5 fans do not like the current system. There is no lawsuit because the lawyers involved know that the CFP arrangement is legally satisfactory. Long ago, in 1984, the supreme court threw out an NCAA media money regime that basically gave the same amount of media money to all conferences and teams, and no G5 conference can argue with a straight face that the CFP money split is based on restraint of trade rather than market forces. We know that because the TV networks sign media deals with the conferences that have the same disparity. The MAC has no more of a lawsuit grounds vs the SEC than the 12th player on the New Orleans Pelicans bench has against the Pelicans for paying him $600,000 a year while paying Anthony Davis $22 million a year. Davis is just worth a lot more.

The only time the system was challenged was by Orrin Hatch 15 years ago. The result was an easier path to the BCS bowls (not the BCS title game) for the non-AQ, and that satisfied the legal aspect of the situation. If anything, the CFP provides even MORE access to the G5 so there is no reason to believe the CFP violates anti-trust.
(This post was last modified: 01-16-2019 09:20 AM by quo vadis.)
01-16-2019 09:11 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
usffan Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,021
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 691
I Root For: USF
Location:
Post: #46
RE: G5 CFP distribution for 2019
(01-16-2019 08:57 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-16-2019 06:30 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  Any threshold placed on the best Go5 champion that is not placed on A5 champions weakens the defense further ... eg, best Go5 so long as it is ranked 16 or higher. By contrast, a "6 best FBS champions so long as they are ranked 16 or higher" would be a lot safer.

Safest of all would be my "straight 8" proposal for an 8-team playoff, the top 8 ranked teams make the playoffs regardless of whether they are A5 or G5 or champs or not, as it would have no threshold at all placed on G5 that are not also on the A5. 07-coffee3

The problem with this is the whole "ranked" part. If it's based exclusively on computers, then people will whine about quirky teams that most would probably disagree with (for example, Mississippi State is the #8 Sagarin team - does anybody other than a Mississippi State fan and MAYBE a ridiculous SEC homer seriously believe Mississippi State should have been in the top 8?). But using human ratings opens up the potential for human biases. Remember a few years ago when Mac Brown rallied the Big XII writers and coaches to vote Cal down and Texas up in the final poll so that Texas would go to the Rose Bowl and Cal got relegated to the Holiday Bowl? You put a "top 8" situation in there and suddenly all of the west coast voters start rallying around moving Washington up and UCF down.

Ultimately, the games on the field have to matter. If a team loses a conference championship game to another team that's going to be in the playoff, why do we automatically assume that shouldn't count as a de facto playoff game? The whole notion that Georgia should have gone to the playoff this year was so silly, since that would have meant that the Alabama/Georgia SEC title game meant absolutely nothing when they played the next week.

USFFan
01-16-2019 09:48 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 50,012
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2372
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #47
RE: G5 CFP distribution for 2019
(01-16-2019 09:48 AM)usffan Wrote:  
(01-16-2019 08:57 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-16-2019 06:30 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  Any threshold placed on the best Go5 champion that is not placed on A5 champions weakens the defense further ... eg, best Go5 so long as it is ranked 16 or higher. By contrast, a "6 best FBS champions so long as they are ranked 16 or higher" would be a lot safer.

Safest of all would be my "straight 8" proposal for an 8-team playoff, the top 8 ranked teams make the playoffs regardless of whether they are A5 or G5 or champs or not, as it would have no threshold at all placed on G5 that are not also on the A5. 07-coffee3

The problem with this is the whole "ranked" part. If it's based exclusively on computers, then people will whine about quirky teams that most would probably disagree with (for example, Mississippi State is the #8 Sagarin team - does anybody other than a Mississippi State fan and MAYBE a ridiculous SEC homer seriously believe Mississippi State should have been in the top 8?). But using human ratings opens up the potential for human biases. Remember a few years ago when Mac Brown rallied the Big XII writers and coaches to vote Cal down and Texas up in the final poll so that Texas would go to the Rose Bowl and Cal got relegated to the Holiday Bowl? You put a "top 8" situation in there and suddenly all of the west coast voters start rallying around moving Washington up and UCF down.

Ultimately, the games on the field have to matter. If a team loses a conference championship game to another team that's going to be in the playoff, why do we automatically assume that shouldn't count as a de facto playoff game? The whole notion that Georgia should have gone to the playoff this year was so silly, since that would have meant that the Alabama/Georgia SEC title game meant absolutely nothing when they played the next week.

A couple things come to mind:

1) Your example of Sagarin having Mississippi State #8 is a good reason why the previous systems that used computers, like the BCS, used multiple computers and also 'threw out' the highest and lowest rankings to control for those kinds of crazy outliers**. Also, because human beings do have biases, it makes sense to have multiple humans or a combination of computers and humans making these decisions, so that no one bias is likely to carry the day.

2) Concerning your Georgia/Alabama example, it doesn't resonate much with me. E.g., if #1 Duke and #6 North Carolina play in the finals of the ACC basketball tournament, does that game become a joke just because both teams are going to make the NCAA tournament no matter who wins? I don't think so and the ACC doesn't either.

In the end, though, whether humans or computers are involved, games on the field are ultimately what matter. How does a Clemson or a Notre Dame get ranked #2 or #3 in the CFP? By winning games against tough teams. There is no system that ignores games on the field.



** btw, while MSST at #8 does seem crazy, they did finish #19 in the Massey Composite while unranked in the final AP poll, so the human voters maybe underappreciated them.
(This post was last modified: 01-16-2019 10:07 AM by quo vadis.)
01-16-2019 10:06 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
usffan Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,021
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 691
I Root For: USF
Location:
Post: #48
RE: G5 CFP distribution for 2019
(01-16-2019 10:06 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-16-2019 09:48 AM)usffan Wrote:  
(01-16-2019 08:57 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-16-2019 06:30 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  Any threshold placed on the best Go5 champion that is not placed on A5 champions weakens the defense further ... eg, best Go5 so long as it is ranked 16 or higher. By contrast, a "6 best FBS champions so long as they are ranked 16 or higher" would be a lot safer.

Safest of all would be my "straight 8" proposal for an 8-team playoff, the top 8 ranked teams make the playoffs regardless of whether they are A5 or G5 or champs or not, as it would have no threshold at all placed on G5 that are not also on the A5. 07-coffee3

The problem with this is the whole "ranked" part. If it's based exclusively on computers, then people will whine about quirky teams that most would probably disagree with (for example, Mississippi State is the #8 Sagarin team - does anybody other than a Mississippi State fan and MAYBE a ridiculous SEC homer seriously believe Mississippi State should have been in the top 8?). But using human ratings opens up the potential for human biases. Remember a few years ago when Mac Brown rallied the Big XII writers and coaches to vote Cal down and Texas up in the final poll so that Texas would go to the Rose Bowl and Cal got relegated to the Holiday Bowl? You put a "top 8" situation in there and suddenly all of the west coast voters start rallying around moving Washington up and UCF down.

Ultimately, the games on the field have to matter. If a team loses a conference championship game to another team that's going to be in the playoff, why do we automatically assume that shouldn't count as a de facto playoff game? The whole notion that Georgia should have gone to the playoff this year was so silly, since that would have meant that the Alabama/Georgia SEC title game meant absolutely nothing when they played the next week.

A couple things come to mind:

1) Your example of Sagarin having Mississippi State #8 is a good reason why the previous systems that used computers, like the BCS, used multiple computers and also 'threw out' the highest and lowest rankings to control for those kinds of crazy outliers**. Also, because human beings do have biases, it makes sense to have multiple humans or a combination of computers and humans making these decisions, so that no one bias is likely to carry the day.

2) Concerning your Georgia/Alabama example, it doesn't resonate much with me. E.g., if #1 Duke and #6 North Carolina play in the finals of the ACC basketball tournament, does that game become a joke just because both teams are going to make the NCAA tournament no matter who wins? I don't think so and the ACC doesn't either.

In the end, though, whether humans or computers are involved, games on the field are ultimately what matter. How does a Clemson or a Notre Dame get ranked #2 or #3 in the CFP? By winning games against tough teams. There is no system that ignores games on the field.



** btw, while MSST at #8 does seem crazy, they did finish #19 in the Massey Composite while unranked in the final AP poll, so the human voters maybe underappreciated them.

I don't think it's valid to compare basketball to football for a couple of reasons. 68 teams are getting into the NCAA tournament compared to 4 (or 8 if expansion ever happens). If there were only 4 or 8 bids to the NCAA tournament, then you can bet your bottom dollar that the loser of that Duke/UNC game would be more likely to be left out for the champion of the Pac-12, for example.

I would agree with the "top 8 ranked teams" scenario if (and only if) there were also a completely independent commission (say, for example, the CFP committee) that were given free reign to 'schedule' the OOC games. Because that is the only way that non-blue bloods would ever have a realistic chance of gaining access to this. If the schedules were set up so that certain weeks were planned for these (let's say 2nd weekend in October and 2nd weekend in November), the committee could ensure that every team would have a chance at "winning games against tough teams." I realize that UCF's overblown sense of self-importance in turning down the chance to play Fl*rida shoots this argument in the foot, but if a CFP committee came in in October and forced UCF to play, say, LSU, it would have ended much of the whole debate. That, to me, is how you can justify going with a straight top 8 system, by inserting a chance to make sure whether a team is a paper tiger.

USFFan
01-16-2019 10:23 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 50,012
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2372
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #49
RE: G5 CFP distribution for 2019
(01-16-2019 10:23 AM)usffan Wrote:  
(01-16-2019 10:06 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-16-2019 09:48 AM)usffan Wrote:  
(01-16-2019 08:57 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-16-2019 06:30 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  Any threshold placed on the best Go5 champion that is not placed on A5 champions weakens the defense further ... eg, best Go5 so long as it is ranked 16 or higher. By contrast, a "6 best FBS champions so long as they are ranked 16 or higher" would be a lot safer.

Safest of all would be my "straight 8" proposal for an 8-team playoff, the top 8 ranked teams make the playoffs regardless of whether they are A5 or G5 or champs or not, as it would have no threshold at all placed on G5 that are not also on the A5. 07-coffee3

The problem with this is the whole "ranked" part. If it's based exclusively on computers, then people will whine about quirky teams that most would probably disagree with (for example, Mississippi State is the #8 Sagarin team - does anybody other than a Mississippi State fan and MAYBE a ridiculous SEC homer seriously believe Mississippi State should have been in the top 8?). But using human ratings opens up the potential for human biases. Remember a few years ago when Mac Brown rallied the Big XII writers and coaches to vote Cal down and Texas up in the final poll so that Texas would go to the Rose Bowl and Cal got relegated to the Holiday Bowl? You put a "top 8" situation in there and suddenly all of the west coast voters start rallying around moving Washington up and UCF down.

Ultimately, the games on the field have to matter. If a team loses a conference championship game to another team that's going to be in the playoff, why do we automatically assume that shouldn't count as a de facto playoff game? The whole notion that Georgia should have gone to the playoff this year was so silly, since that would have meant that the Alabama/Georgia SEC title game meant absolutely nothing when they played the next week.

A couple things come to mind:

1) Your example of Sagarin having Mississippi State #8 is a good reason why the previous systems that used computers, like the BCS, used multiple computers and also 'threw out' the highest and lowest rankings to control for those kinds of crazy outliers**. Also, because human beings do have biases, it makes sense to have multiple humans or a combination of computers and humans making these decisions, so that no one bias is likely to carry the day.

2) Concerning your Georgia/Alabama example, it doesn't resonate much with me. E.g., if #1 Duke and #6 North Carolina play in the finals of the ACC basketball tournament, does that game become a joke just because both teams are going to make the NCAA tournament no matter who wins? I don't think so and the ACC doesn't either.

In the end, though, whether humans or computers are involved, games on the field are ultimately what matter. How does a Clemson or a Notre Dame get ranked #2 or #3 in the CFP? By winning games against tough teams. There is no system that ignores games on the field.



** btw, while MSST at #8 does seem crazy, they did finish #19 in the Massey Composite while unranked in the final AP poll, so the human voters maybe underappreciated them.

I don't think it's valid to compare basketball to football for a couple of reasons. 68 teams are getting into the NCAA tournament compared to 4 (or 8 if expansion ever happens). If there were only 4 or 8 bids to the NCAA tournament, then you can bet your bottom dollar that the loser of that Duke/UNC game would be more likely to be left out for the champion of the Pac-12, for example.

I would agree with the "top 8 ranked teams" scenario if (and only if) there were also a completely independent commission (say, for example, the CFP committee) that were given free reign to 'schedule' the OOC games. Because that is the only way that non-blue bloods would ever have a realistic chance of gaining access to this. If the schedules were set up so that certain weeks were planned for these (let's say 2nd weekend in October and 2nd weekend in November), the committee could ensure that every team would have a chance at "winning games against tough teams." I realize that UCF's overblown sense of self-importance in turning down the chance to play Fl*rida shoots this argument in the foot, but if a CFP committee came in in October and forced UCF to play, say, LSU, it would have ended much of the whole debate. That, to me, is how you can justify going with a straight top 8 system, by inserting a chance to make sure whether a team is a paper tiger.

USFFan

Sure, if there were only 4 or 8 teams in the NCAA tournament, then the odds that any team would be left out if they lost a game late are much higher than if they won the game, merely because there are far fewer slots available.

But IMO, that doesn't mean such a system would favor the PAC champion. I think the PAC champion would be compared to the Duke/UNC loser and might get in or might not, depending on how good they are believed to be relative to each other.

The CFP, even with four teams, could favor conference champs moreso than it does. E.g., there could be a rule that says that in the final rankings, conference champs are to be ranked ahead of all non-champs, such that the only way a conference champ can be left out is in favor of a team that also won its conference. But there is no such rule, indicating that the conferences themselves don't think being a champ should be THAT important in determining playoff slots.

As for your qualification for a straight 8, i get what you are trying to do here. I just don't think it is possible to have a committee of some kind setting OOC schedules. OOC schedules are too valuable to the schools themselves, they provide the schools with the flexibility to craft schedules that meet their particular program-building needs, which may or may not include trying to look as good as possible to a ranking committee or anyone else. If school X wants to schedule light OOC because they believe that in their current situation they need easy wins more than tough losses, they shouldn't be forced to play a tougher OOC schedule just so a team like Memphis *can* play an LSU or Ohio State OOC to meet their playoff-seeking needs. So they just aren't going to give up that power.

Given that reality, I guess we have to disagree about the utility about straight 8. IMO, if the playoffs are just 8 teams, then one slot guaranteed to *anyone*, P5 or G5, is too high a price to pay to remove whatever doubt some might have about whether someone is a paper tiger or not.

In effect, a G5 autobid (or A5 autobid) rewards scheduling light, as a team that plays a light schedule and wins can say "hey, our light schedule didn't prove we aren't a Real Tiger, so you have to let us in the playoffs to prove we're not..."
(This post was last modified: 01-16-2019 11:45 AM by quo vadis.)
01-16-2019 11:38 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
usffan Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,021
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 691
I Root For: USF
Location:
Post: #50
RE: G5 CFP distribution for 2019
(01-16-2019 11:38 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-16-2019 10:23 AM)usffan Wrote:  
(01-16-2019 10:06 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-16-2019 09:48 AM)usffan Wrote:  
(01-16-2019 08:57 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Safest of all would be my "straight 8" proposal for an 8-team playoff, the top 8 ranked teams make the playoffs regardless of whether they are A5 or G5 or champs or not, as it would have no threshold at all placed on G5 that are not also on the A5. 07-coffee3

The problem with this is the whole "ranked" part. If it's based exclusively on computers, then people will whine about quirky teams that most would probably disagree with (for example, Mississippi State is the #8 Sagarin team - does anybody other than a Mississippi State fan and MAYBE a ridiculous SEC homer seriously believe Mississippi State should have been in the top 8?). But using human ratings opens up the potential for human biases. Remember a few years ago when Mac Brown rallied the Big XII writers and coaches to vote Cal down and Texas up in the final poll so that Texas would go to the Rose Bowl and Cal got relegated to the Holiday Bowl? You put a "top 8" situation in there and suddenly all of the west coast voters start rallying around moving Washington up and UCF down.

Ultimately, the games on the field have to matter. If a team loses a conference championship game to another team that's going to be in the playoff, why do we automatically assume that shouldn't count as a de facto playoff game? The whole notion that Georgia should have gone to the playoff this year was so silly, since that would have meant that the Alabama/Georgia SEC title game meant absolutely nothing when they played the next week.

A couple things come to mind:

1) Your example of Sagarin having Mississippi State #8 is a good reason why the previous systems that used computers, like the BCS, used multiple computers and also 'threw out' the highest and lowest rankings to control for those kinds of crazy outliers**. Also, because human beings do have biases, it makes sense to have multiple humans or a combination of computers and humans making these decisions, so that no one bias is likely to carry the day.

2) Concerning your Georgia/Alabama example, it doesn't resonate much with me. E.g., if #1 Duke and #6 North Carolina play in the finals of the ACC basketball tournament, does that game become a joke just because both teams are going to make the NCAA tournament no matter who wins? I don't think so and the ACC doesn't either.

In the end, though, whether humans or computers are involved, games on the field are ultimately what matter. How does a Clemson or a Notre Dame get ranked #2 or #3 in the CFP? By winning games against tough teams. There is no system that ignores games on the field.



** btw, while MSST at #8 does seem crazy, they did finish #19 in the Massey Composite while unranked in the final AP poll, so the human voters maybe underappreciated them.

I don't think it's valid to compare basketball to football for a couple of reasons. 68 teams are getting into the NCAA tournament compared to 4 (or 8 if expansion ever happens). If there were only 4 or 8 bids to the NCAA tournament, then you can bet your bottom dollar that the loser of that Duke/UNC game would be more likely to be left out for the champion of the Pac-12, for example.

I would agree with the "top 8 ranked teams" scenario if (and only if) there were also a completely independent commission (say, for example, the CFP committee) that were given free reign to 'schedule' the OOC games. Because that is the only way that non-blue bloods would ever have a realistic chance of gaining access to this. If the schedules were set up so that certain weeks were planned for these (let's say 2nd weekend in October and 2nd weekend in November), the committee could ensure that every team would have a chance at "winning games against tough teams." I realize that UCF's overblown sense of self-importance in turning down the chance to play Fl*rida shoots this argument in the foot, but if a CFP committee came in in October and forced UCF to play, say, LSU, it would have ended much of the whole debate. That, to me, is how you can justify going with a straight top 8 system, by inserting a chance to make sure whether a team is a paper tiger.

USFFan

Sure, if there were only 4 or 8 teams in the NCAA tournament, then the odds that any team would be left out if they lost a game late are much higher than if they won the game, merely because there are far fewer slots available.

But IMO, that doesn't mean such a system would favor the PAC champion. I think the PAC champion would be compared to the Duke/UNC loser and might get in or might not, depending on how good they are believed to be relative to each other.

The CFP, even with four teams, could favor conference champs moreso than it does. E.g., there could be a rule that says that in the final rankings, conference champs are to be ranked ahead of all non-champs, such that the only way a conference champ can be left out is in favor of a team that also won its conference. But there is no such rule, indicating that the conferences themselves don't think being a champ should be THAT important in determining playoff slots.

As for your qualification for a straight 8, i get what you are trying to do here. I just don't think it is possible to have a committee of some kind setting OOC schedules. OOC schedules are too valuable to the schools themselves, they provide the schools with the flexibility to craft schedules that meet their particular program-building needs, which may or may not include trying to look as good as possible to a ranking committee or anyone else. If school X wants to schedule light OOC because they believe that in their current situation they need easy wins more than tough losses, they shouldn't be forced to play a tougher OOC schedule just so a team like Memphis *can* play an LSU or Ohio State OOC to meet their playoff-seeking needs. So they just aren't going to give up that power.

Given that reality, I guess we have to disagree about the utility about straight 8. IMO, if the playoffs are just 8 teams, then one slot guaranteed to *anyone*, P5 or G5, is too high a price to pay to remove whatever doubt some might have about whether someone is a paper tiger or not.

In effect, a G5 autobid (or A5 autobid) rewards scheduling light, as a team that plays a light schedule and wins can say "hey, our light schedule didn't prove we aren't a Real Tiger, so you have to let us in the playoffs to prove we're not..."

The problem is that it's become the opposite - a built in crutch to ensure Alabama is able to get into the playoff. They play a tough conference schedule that they can't even win, but the purported schedule difficulty (I use purported because most SEC teams use the "SEC is so tough" argument for their scheduling difficulty rather than going on the road and playing tough opponents - there are occasional exceptions) gets them in like last year, rendering this a self-fulfilling prophecy. Hence my argument for an independent group making OOC schedules.

The thing is, using this year as an example, Georgia had a chance to demonstrate they were capable of beating Alabama and couldn't do it head to head. Ohio State didn't. So Ohio State was much more deserving of a playoff spot than Georgia. Thus, games on the field actually mattered. This is why conference champions need to be prioritized over an arbitrary assignment of 'best X number of teams."

USFFan
01-16-2019 12:00 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CoastalJuan Offline
Business Drunk
*

Posts: 6,900
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation: 517
I Root For: ECU
Location: Right near da beeach
Post: #51
RE: G5 CFP distribution for 2019
(01-16-2019 08:46 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-15-2019 06:41 PM)YNot Wrote:  
(01-15-2019 06:19 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-15-2019 06:05 PM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  Eh, all I remember from him was how the MAC was the top G5 conference in 2016 based on total $. The NY6 bowl pushed the MAC ahead of the higher ranked AAC...similar to what happened this year. I guess it wasn’t important enough to separate out back then. Whatever narratives fit I guess lol! The NY6 bowl is the prize, gets the most pub and has the longest shelf life as it is discussed weekly all season/preseason. AAC needs to do a better job in the post season as this is the second time in five years that bowl performance cost the conference $. As far as which has a greater impact on perception and brand awareness, CFP all day every day. Rightly or wrongly, it’s what gets the most attention from mainstream media in regards to G5 teams/conferences...well, reg. season P5 upsets get attention as well due to CFP implications.

It wasn't just bowl season, the AAC was nothing during the regular season too. What was the AAC's best OOC win during the regular season? I can't think one worth mentioning.

Bottom line is that the AAC, which is trying to push a "P6" narrative, wasn't even the best G5 conference this past year, which makes that narrative difficult to justify.

Can you think of any good G5 OOC wins?

Not really, but that wasn't the point. The point was, the AAC didn't have any P5 wins worth mentioning.

And no, beating 7-7 Pitt and 7-6 Georgia Tech are not worth mentioning. 07-coffee3

So is the MWC clinging to Oregon State, Arizona State, or UCLA as their signature win from 2018? At least Pitt played in the ACC championship game, losing to the eventual CFP champ.
01-16-2019 01:07 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 44,735
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 2860
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #52
RE: G5 CFP distribution for 2019
(01-16-2019 09:11 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-15-2019 10:53 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(01-15-2019 06:44 PM)YNot Wrote:  
(01-15-2019 06:22 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-15-2019 06:20 PM)YNot Wrote:  I'm not agreeing that somebody needs to file a lawsuit, but whether it was originally 'negotiated and unanimously agreed' can be overcome in an anti-trust lawsuit. It would be fairly straightforward for a school, or group of schools, to allege that the CFP contract is or has become collusive and an unreasonable restraint of trade.

Whether they would win is a different matter, but they could make a reasonable allegation that would justify a very public lawsuit and investigation.

I'm curious - what "trade" do you think is "restrained" by the CFP?

Do you think that if, e.g., the G5 negotiated their own post-season bowl and playoffs deal with the networks separate from the P5 that they would get more money?

Seriously?

https://www.antitrustlawblog.com/2009/08...-legality/

"In his opening statement to the Subcommittee, Senator Hatch detailed his concerns that the BCS violated both Section 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act: “Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act prohibits contracts, combinations, or conspiracies to limit competition. I’ve said before that I don’t believe a plainer description of the BCS exists.” Id. Senator Hatch characterized the system as an agreement between preferred conferences and the major bowl games as to how they will compete against each other and the non-preferred conferences. Id."

"Clearly, the BCS bowl games exist in a category all their own and the architects of the BCS system appear to have intentionally excluded teams from non-privileged conferences, not on the basis of competition, but due to pre-arranged agreements.[3]"

Again, I'm not saying that the lawsuit would come out a winner, but these exact same arguments that were made to a senate subcommittee against the BCS could be made against the CFP and NY6.

There is more than enough for a case. You might win--you might lose---but there is certainly an argument to be made. There is no suit because that this point, the P5 are throwing just enough crumbs that the G5 could be huge losers if the ruling were to go the wrong way. If the P5 split from the G5---thats when you'll see an anti-trust suit. The G5 would have nothing to lose at that point. If they win--there would be back damages and the award could be massive. So---a split is not the riskless pot of gold some might believe it would be. It could end up being just the opposite.

Thats why I think you'll see basically an extension of the status quo with minor modifications. The playoff will probably expand to 8 with P5 champ auto-bids. The G5 will get one slot--to mitigate anti-trust action. And the money split percentages will largely stay as is. Everyone will be getting more than enough money and benefits to keep all parties reasonably happy.

IMO you mistake two things. First, the reason the A5 do not split from the G5, and second, the reason there is no G5 lawsuit against the A5.

The reason the A5 do not split from the G5 has zero to do with fear of a lawsuit. Such a lawsuit has close to no chance of succeeding, because in effect the G5 would be arguing that the A5 should be legally compelled to play games against them, and that itself is "restraint of trade" rather than its opposite. Heck, at that point, the FCS could sue the G5 on the same grounds, and ditto Division 3 against Division 2.

If the A5 did break away, that would put zero constraints on the G5 at all -the G5 would be fully free to have their own playoff system, sign their own deals with bowl games (or create their own bowl games) and sign their own TV deals, and the A5 would be powerless to interfere in any of that.

All they wouldn't be able to do is piggy-back on the market and brand value of the A5 conferences, and they have no legal right to do that.

No, the A5 do not split from the G5 because, other than Nick Saban, they *like* having the G5 in the same division, because they like "easy wins" that count towards bowl eligibility. And while yes, we all know that G5 do beat A5, usually that's not the case. Nobody really wants to play Alabama and Clemson every week, because nobody wants to go 0-12. If you are NC State, you want ECU on the schedule so you can beat them 58-3 and make your fans forget a little that Clemson cleaned your clock the week before. The 1/6 share of the CFP money that goes to the G5 is the price the A5 is willing to pay to incentivize the G5 to stay in the same division and thus be available for two or three OOC games each year.

Second, there is no lawsuit not because the G5 are happy with the "crumbs" - the great bulk of G5 fans do not like the current system. There is no lawsuit because the lawyers involved know that the CFP arrangement is legally satisfactory. Long ago, in 1984, the supreme court threw out an NCAA media money regime that basically gave the same amount of media money to all conferences and teams, and no G5 conference can argue with a straight face that the CFP money split is based on restraint of trade rather than market forces. We know that because the TV networks sign media deals with the conferences that have the same disparity. The MAC has no more of a lawsuit grounds vs the SEC than the 12th player on the New Orleans Pelicans bench has against the Pelicans for paying him $600,000 a year while paying Anthony Davis $22 million a year. Davis is just worth a lot more.

The only time the system was challenged was by Orrin Hatch 15 years ago. The result was an easier path to the BCS bowls (not the BCS title game) for the non-AQ, and that satisfied the legal aspect of the situation. If anything, the CFP provides even MORE access to the G5 so there is no reason to believe the CFP violates anti-trust.

I didnt read much past this because your simply stating your opinion as fact. There is no way anyone can know how such a suit will be decided. We do know that such a case would be venue shopped to find the most sympathetic court possible. The reality is college football is kind of a crooked "good ole' boy" sport. In every single major court case since the 80's---the existing college football power structure has lost almost every time it was challenged. I suspect the non-power schools could make a pretty good case that the existing power structure excludes them unfairly from the postseason---and has since the early 1990's. From there---its just a matter of determining the total damages that have accrued to the non-power schools as a result of this exclusion going back to the 1990's. Could they win? Who knows? I do believe the possibility of the non-power schools winning is not negligible---its significant enough that it cant be ignored.
(This post was last modified: 01-16-2019 02:47 PM by Attackcoog.)
01-16-2019 02:45 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 50,012
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2372
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #53
RE: G5 CFP distribution for 2019
(01-16-2019 01:07 PM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  So is the MWC clinging to Oregon State, Arizona State, or UCLA as their signature win from 2018? At least Pitt played in the ACC championship game, losing to the eventual CFP champ.

The MWC didn't have any OOC wins worth mentioning either.

But at least they weren't claiming to be a Power conference, or better than the other G5, even though this year, they were. 07-coffee3
(This post was last modified: 01-16-2019 03:11 PM by quo vadis.)
01-16-2019 03:10 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 50,012
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2372
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #54
RE: G5 CFP distribution for 2019
(01-16-2019 12:00 PM)usffan Wrote:  
(01-16-2019 11:38 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-16-2019 10:23 AM)usffan Wrote:  
(01-16-2019 10:06 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-16-2019 09:48 AM)usffan Wrote:  The problem with this is the whole "ranked" part. If it's based exclusively on computers, then people will whine about quirky teams that most would probably disagree with (for example, Mississippi State is the #8 Sagarin team - does anybody other than a Mississippi State fan and MAYBE a ridiculous SEC homer seriously believe Mississippi State should have been in the top 8?). But using human ratings opens up the potential for human biases. Remember a few years ago when Mac Brown rallied the Big XII writers and coaches to vote Cal down and Texas up in the final poll so that Texas would go to the Rose Bowl and Cal got relegated to the Holiday Bowl? You put a "top 8" situation in there and suddenly all of the west coast voters start rallying around moving Washington up and UCF down.

Ultimately, the games on the field have to matter. If a team loses a conference championship game to another team that's going to be in the playoff, why do we automatically assume that shouldn't count as a de facto playoff game? The whole notion that Georgia should have gone to the playoff this year was so silly, since that would have meant that the Alabama/Georgia SEC title game meant absolutely nothing when they played the next week.

A couple things come to mind:

1) Your example of Sagarin having Mississippi State #8 is a good reason why the previous systems that used computers, like the BCS, used multiple computers and also 'threw out' the highest and lowest rankings to control for those kinds of crazy outliers**. Also, because human beings do have biases, it makes sense to have multiple humans or a combination of computers and humans making these decisions, so that no one bias is likely to carry the day.

2) Concerning your Georgia/Alabama example, it doesn't resonate much with me. E.g., if #1 Duke and #6 North Carolina play in the finals of the ACC basketball tournament, does that game become a joke just because both teams are going to make the NCAA tournament no matter who wins? I don't think so and the ACC doesn't either.

In the end, though, whether humans or computers are involved, games on the field are ultimately what matter. How does a Clemson or a Notre Dame get ranked #2 or #3 in the CFP? By winning games against tough teams. There is no system that ignores games on the field.



** btw, while MSST at #8 does seem crazy, they did finish #19 in the Massey Composite while unranked in the final AP poll, so the human voters maybe underappreciated them.

I don't think it's valid to compare basketball to football for a couple of reasons. 68 teams are getting into the NCAA tournament compared to 4 (or 8 if expansion ever happens). If there were only 4 or 8 bids to the NCAA tournament, then you can bet your bottom dollar that the loser of that Duke/UNC game would be more likely to be left out for the champion of the Pac-12, for example.

I would agree with the "top 8 ranked teams" scenario if (and only if) there were also a completely independent commission (say, for example, the CFP committee) that were given free reign to 'schedule' the OOC games. Because that is the only way that non-blue bloods would ever have a realistic chance of gaining access to this. If the schedules were set up so that certain weeks were planned for these (let's say 2nd weekend in October and 2nd weekend in November), the committee could ensure that every team would have a chance at "winning games against tough teams." I realize that UCF's overblown sense of self-importance in turning down the chance to play Fl*rida shoots this argument in the foot, but if a CFP committee came in in October and forced UCF to play, say, LSU, it would have ended much of the whole debate. That, to me, is how you can justify going with a straight top 8 system, by inserting a chance to make sure whether a team is a paper tiger.

USFFan

Sure, if there were only 4 or 8 teams in the NCAA tournament, then the odds that any team would be left out if they lost a game late are much higher than if they won the game, merely because there are far fewer slots available.

But IMO, that doesn't mean such a system would favor the PAC champion. I think the PAC champion would be compared to the Duke/UNC loser and might get in or might not, depending on how good they are believed to be relative to each other.

The CFP, even with four teams, could favor conference champs moreso than it does. E.g., there could be a rule that says that in the final rankings, conference champs are to be ranked ahead of all non-champs, such that the only way a conference champ can be left out is in favor of a team that also won its conference. But there is no such rule, indicating that the conferences themselves don't think being a champ should be THAT important in determining playoff slots.

As for your qualification for a straight 8, i get what you are trying to do here. I just don't think it is possible to have a committee of some kind setting OOC schedules. OOC schedules are too valuable to the schools themselves, they provide the schools with the flexibility to craft schedules that meet their particular program-building needs, which may or may not include trying to look as good as possible to a ranking committee or anyone else. If school X wants to schedule light OOC because they believe that in their current situation they need easy wins more than tough losses, they shouldn't be forced to play a tougher OOC schedule just so a team like Memphis *can* play an LSU or Ohio State OOC to meet their playoff-seeking needs. So they just aren't going to give up that power.

Given that reality, I guess we have to disagree about the utility about straight 8. IMO, if the playoffs are just 8 teams, then one slot guaranteed to *anyone*, P5 or G5, is too high a price to pay to remove whatever doubt some might have about whether someone is a paper tiger or not.

In effect, a G5 autobid (or A5 autobid) rewards scheduling light, as a team that plays a light schedule and wins can say "hey, our light schedule didn't prove we aren't a Real Tiger, so you have to let us in the playoffs to prove we're not..."

The problem is that it's become the opposite - a built in crutch to ensure Alabama is able to get into the playoff. They play a tough conference schedule that they can't even win, but the purported schedule difficulty (I use purported because most SEC teams use the "SEC is so tough" argument for their scheduling difficulty rather than going on the road and playing tough opponents - there are occasional exceptions) gets them in like last year, rendering this a self-fulfilling prophecy. Hence my argument for an independent group making OOC schedules.

The thing is, using this year as an example, Georgia had a chance to demonstrate they were capable of beating Alabama and couldn't do it head to head. Ohio State didn't. So Ohio State was much more deserving of a playoff spot than Georgia. Thus, games on the field actually mattered. This is why conference champions need to be prioritized over an arbitrary assignment of 'best X number of teams."

USFFan

Well, neither Georgia nor Ohio State made the playoffs, so I'm not sure why they are being compared.

As for conference champions being prioritized, the CFP data suggests they are: Of the 20 teams that have made the playoffs so far, 17 of them have been conference champs, and one of the three that wasn't was Notre Dame, who you have to throw out because while they didn't win a conference they also didn't lose one either. Only Ohio State 2016 and Alabama 2017 have made the playoffs without being conference champs.

And as for Alabama specifically, they have made the playoff 5 times, and 4 of those times have been as conference champs, so it's not really fair to say that the playoffs have somehow become a crutch to get them in as not a champ.

As for SOS, I just looked at the final Sagarin rankings. Alabama's final SOS was #9, which was the highest of anyone in the final Sagarin top 10. Georgia SOS was #10, which was the second-best SOS among the top 10 teams. So the SEC doesn't seem to be skating by somehow with weaker SOS.
(This post was last modified: 01-16-2019 03:24 PM by quo vadis.)
01-16-2019 03:20 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 50,012
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2372
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #55
RE: G5 CFP distribution for 2019
(01-16-2019 02:45 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I suspect the non-power schools could make a pretty good case that the existing power structure excludes them unfairly from the postseason---and has since the early 1990's.

The Rose Bowl wants to have a relationship with the PAC and B1G, not the MAC or SEC for that matter. Is that anti-trust? That seems bizarro.

My belief is that if something can be litigated for big money, it would be. The silence of the G5 in that regard speaks volumes.

Maybe it's because over the past 15 years, since the BCS formula was changed, the G5 have never had *better* access to good post-season outcomes than they had before?
01-16-2019 03:39 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DavidSt Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 23,011
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 729
I Root For: ATU, P7
Location:
Post: #56
RE: G5 CFP distribution for 2019
(01-16-2019 06:30 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  
(01-15-2019 10:53 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  There is more than enough for a case. You might win--you might lose---but there is certainly an argument to be made. There is no suit because that this point, the P5 are throwing just enough crumbs that the G5 could be huge losers if the ruling were to go the wrong way. If the P5 split from the G5---thats when you'll see an anti-trust suit. The G5 would have nothing to lose at that point. If they win--there would be back damages and the award could be massive. So---a split is not the riskless pot of gold some might believe it would be. It could end up being just the opposite.

Thats why I think you'll see basically an extension of the status quo with minor modifications. The playoff will probably expand to 8 with P5 champ auto-bids. The G5 will get one slot--to mitigate anti-trust action. And the money split percentages will largely stay as is. Everyone will be getting more than enough money and benefits to keep all parties reasonably happy.

Note a key part of that quote:
Quote: intentionally excluded teams from non-privileged conferences, not on the basis of competition, but due to pre-arranged agreements

The strongest against that language is "6 highest ranking FBS champions", but that goes against the certainty that college presidents like (for the A5 college presidents, that is).

An autobid to the highest ranked among the 5 Go5 conference would probably be close enough to "on the basis of competition", especially if there is a hypothetical opening to a "2nd Go5 champion that is also really, really good" in the two at-large spots. It is merely close, because it does open up the hypothetical possibility that the 6th best FBS champion will be left out in favor of the 7th best, "due to a pre-arranged agreement", if a fluke CCG win throws up an A5 champion that is ranked below two Go5 champions ... but that hypothetical has to be seen as a real risk before it becomes an actual effective restraint on trade.

Any threshold placed on the best Go5 champion that is not placed on A5 champions weakens the defense further ... eg, best Go5 so long as it is ranked 16 or higher. By contrast, a "6 best FBS champions so long as they are ranked 16 or higher" would be a lot safer.


Lets say both Boise State went unbeaten last year the same as UCF and finished inside the top 10? You can not tell which school was the best. I would like to see this as the same case scenario when Boise State and TCU both went unbeaten and both G5 schools went to the Fiesta Bowl that year. Would the NY6 Bowl do the same? Boise State vs UCF?
01-16-2019 04:20 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DavidSt Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 23,011
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 729
I Root For: ATU, P7
Location:
Post: #57
RE: G5 CFP distribution for 2019
Boise State have beaten 3 teams that have finished inside the top 25 or got votes in the final polls.

Fresno State
Utah State
Troy

UCF only beat one school. Cincinnati
01-16-2019 04:24 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 44,735
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 2860
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #58
RE: G5 CFP distribution for 2019
(01-16-2019 03:39 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-16-2019 02:45 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I suspect the non-power schools could make a pretty good case that the existing power structure excludes them unfairly from the postseason---and has since the early 1990's.

The Rose Bowl wants to have a relationship with the PAC and B1G, not the MAC or SEC for that matter. Is that anti-trust? That seems bizarro.

My belief is that if something can be litigated for big money, it would be. The silence of the G5 in that regard speaks volumes.

Maybe it's because over the past 15 years, since the BCS formula was changed, the G5 have never had *better* access to good post-season outcomes than they had before?

The "BCS buster" access only existed because the power structure at the time feared the justice department was going to investigate the BCS for anti-trust issues. The BCS immediately reacted by adding Utah to a P5 and added an avenue of non-power access to BCS bowls to blunt that investigative momentum. So it would appear the power structure has some serious concerns about their vulnerability from that type anti-trust of attack. A law suit filed by non-power schools essentially opens the same vulnerabilities through the civil courts system that a federal Justice Department probe could potentially create. Again--not saying they would win---but its clear to me from the actions of the BCS and CFP---there is significant evidence that the "powers that be" believe the threat from anti-trust suits is real.
(This post was last modified: 01-16-2019 04:40 PM by Attackcoog.)
01-16-2019 04:32 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
usffan Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,021
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 691
I Root For: USF
Location:
Post: #59
RE: G5 CFP distribution for 2019
(01-16-2019 03:20 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-16-2019 12:00 PM)usffan Wrote:  The problem is that it's become the opposite - a built in crutch to ensure Alabama is able to get into the playoff. They play a tough conference schedule that they can't even win, but the purported schedule difficulty (I use purported because most SEC teams use the "SEC is so tough" argument for their scheduling difficulty rather than going on the road and playing tough opponents - there are occasional exceptions) gets them in like last year, rendering this a self-fulfilling prophecy. Hence my argument for an independent group making OOC schedules.

The thing is, using this year as an example, Georgia had a chance to demonstrate they were capable of beating Alabama and couldn't do it head to head. Ohio State didn't. So Ohio State was much more deserving of a playoff spot than Georgia. Thus, games on the field actually mattered. This is why conference champions need to be prioritized over an arbitrary assignment of 'best X number of teams."

USFFan

Well, neither Georgia nor Ohio State made the playoffs, so I'm not sure why they are being compared.

As for conference champions being prioritized, the CFP data suggests they are: Of the 20 teams that have made the playoffs so far, 17 of them have been conference champs, and one of the three that wasn't was Notre Dame, who you have to throw out because while they didn't win a conference they also didn't lose one either. Only Ohio State 2016 and Alabama 2017 have made the playoffs without being conference champs.

And as for Alabama specifically, they have made the playoff 5 times, and 4 of those times have been as conference champs, so it's not really fair to say that the playoffs have somehow become a crutch to get them in as not a champ.

As for SOS, I just looked at the final Sagarin rankings. Alabama's final SOS was #9, which was the highest of anyone in the final Sagarin top 10. Georgia SOS was #10, which was the second-best SOS among the top 10 teams. So the SEC doesn't seem to be skating by somehow with weaker SOS.

Georgia leapfrogged Ohio State in the final CFP standings - that's why I used that as an example.

And again, if SOS is 75% or more just based on conference games, it stays as a self-fulfilling prophecy. When Sagarin starts next year, the SEC will already be the top conference before a game is played.

USFFan
01-16-2019 04:37 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
usffan Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,021
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 691
I Root For: USF
Location:
Post: #60
RE: G5 CFP distribution for 2019
(01-16-2019 04:24 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Boise State have beaten 3 teams that have finished inside the top 25 or got votes in the final polls.

Fresno State
Utah State
Troy

UCF only beat one school. Cincinnati

[Image: cd3c4ee24c72cbdb788ad57cbc4e38396a0f8811...099163.jpg]

USFFan
01-16-2019 04:39 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.