Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Jim Delany: SEC, ACC snub could spur playoff change
Author Message
esayem Offline
Hark The Sound!
*

Posts: 16,256
Joined: Feb 2007
Reputation: 1202
I Root For: Olde Ironclad
Location: Tobacco Road
Post: #81
RE: Jim Delany: SEC, ACC snub could spur playoff change
(12-20-2019 11:26 AM)Hokie4Skins Wrote:  
(12-20-2019 11:22 AM)esayem Wrote:  The truth is, if UNC knocked out #1 Clemson in 2015, they would have been in. Who else? Iowa, which lost their CCG or 2-loss Stanford? Or 1-loss Clemson, a team they would have beat on a neutral field a day prior?
Ohio State for sure.

They were ranked behind Iowa.
12-20-2019 01:20 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 66,292
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 3285
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #82
RE: Jim Delany: SEC, ACC snub could spur playoff change
(12-20-2019 11:45 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  
(12-18-2019 07:34 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(12-18-2019 05:51 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  The 4 other P5s will wait and see if the Big 12 survives the expiration of its GoR intact, in which case they may well pursue an 8-team CFP for the next cycle. If it becomes a P4, however, with de facto autobids for P4 conference champs, then there is no need for expanding the CFP from the perspective of the powers-that-be. It would be preferable to simply expand the CCG to a 2-round affair than expand the CFP.

How many times does this have to be said? ESPN has ZERO interest in champs only. It simply will not happen no matter how nice and neat and orderly and it makes OCD types happy-we aren't having a 4X16 where everyone places 10 conferences games and we have a 4 team champs only playoff.

On top of that, the exclusion of G5 is very problematic.

Obviously the G5 is not driving the bus on any of this, but there's a reason since the BCS started each change has thrown a few more scraps their way in terms of money and access. It ain't because the power leagues are feeling generous. Obviously the power leagues are never going to do anything that makes the non-power leagues "equals" but they've never actually officially locked out the non-power leagues for a reason. I suspect that reason is they know they have been in a precarious legal position regarding all sorts of things for years and throwing just enough scraps towards those leagues keeps them in line and keeps them from attempting to rock the boat at all.

They loosened the rules on the BCS because of Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch. He's retired and Utah has since been admitted to the club.
12-20-2019 02:58 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Fighting Muskie Online
Senior Chief Realignmentologist
*

Posts: 11,790
Joined: Sep 2016
Reputation: 789
I Root For: Ohio St, UC,MAC
Location: Biden Cesspool
Post: #83
RE: Jim Delany: SEC, ACC snub could spur playoff change
(12-20-2019 10:53 AM)bullet Wrote:  
(12-19-2019 09:54 PM)esayem Wrote:  
(12-19-2019 06:52 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Maybe this was a subtle reminder to the ACC that between 2004-2012 they would have qualified for exactly 1 top 4 CFP playoff. The ACC has enjoyed a nice ride since 2013 but their was a season where they were the weak sister and truth be told, Florida St and Clemson, not the conference as a whole, have been successful in recent years.

You’re right, numbers don’t lie. What exactly does qualifying for the playoff mean if nothing comes from it? There really aren’t that many teams in a given year that have a chance to pretty much run the table and win it all.

What team in the Big Ten has done anything other than Ohio State? MSU? Playoff blowout loss. No other team in the Big Ten has sniffed a national title.

There have been 15 games in the CFP history. Alabama (6), Clemson (5) and Ohio St. (2) have won 13 of them. They didn't play in the other two, which were won by Oregon and Georgia. So really, only 5 teams have done anything and 125 have done nothing.

I guess Oklahoma with 3 can claim the most losses, tied with Alabama. The other 4 above combine for 5-Clemson-2, UGA, Ohio ST. and Oregon 1.

Exactly. Anyone looking simply at a 5 year sample of CFP results is looking at a data set that is way too small.
12-20-2019 03:02 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
esayem Offline
Hark The Sound!
*

Posts: 16,256
Joined: Feb 2007
Reputation: 1202
I Root For: Olde Ironclad
Location: Tobacco Road
Post: #84
RE: Jim Delany: SEC, ACC snub could spur playoff change
(12-20-2019 03:02 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  
(12-20-2019 10:53 AM)bullet Wrote:  
(12-19-2019 09:54 PM)esayem Wrote:  
(12-19-2019 06:52 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Maybe this was a subtle reminder to the ACC that between 2004-2012 they would have qualified for exactly 1 top 4 CFP playoff. The ACC has enjoyed a nice ride since 2013 but their was a season where they were the weak sister and truth be told, Florida St and Clemson, not the conference as a whole, have been successful in recent years.

You’re right, numbers don’t lie. What exactly does qualifying for the playoff mean if nothing comes from it? There really aren’t that many teams in a given year that have a chance to pretty much run the table and win it all.

What team in the Big Ten has done anything other than Ohio State? MSU? Playoff blowout loss. No other team in the Big Ten has sniffed a national title.

There have been 15 games in the CFP history. Alabama (6), Clemson (5) and Ohio St. (2) have won 13 of them. They didn't play in the other two, which were won by Oregon and Georgia. So really, only 5 teams have done anything and 125 have done nothing.

I guess Oklahoma with 3 can claim the most losses, tied with Alabama. The other 4 above combine for 5-Clemson-2, UGA, Ohio ST. and Oregon 1.

Exactly. Anyone looking simply at a 5 year sample of CFP results is looking at a data set that is way too small.

Then why not stop at 1990? The ACC would look a lot better?
12-20-2019 04:17 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Statefan Offline
Banned

Posts: 3,511
Joined: May 2018
I Root For: .
Location:
Post: #85
RE: Jim Delany: SEC, ACC snub could spur playoff change
I've looked at the AP final regular season rankings since 1936 - a little over 80 years. Using the following logic - a top 4 finish in the regular season, 5th if a second school from a conference is also ranked, the ACC and it's predecessor Southern Conference would have placed the following teams in a 4 team playoff:

38 - Duke
41 - Duke
43 - Duke
48 - UNC
51 - MD
53 - MD
55 - MD
Twenty year hiatus due to the 800 SAT Minimum Rule
76 - MD
81 - CU
90 - GT
91 - FSU
93 - FSU
94 - FSU
95 - FSU
98 - FSU
99 - FSU
00 - FSU
01 - MD
07 - VT
13 - FSU
14- FSU
15 - CU
16 - CU
17 - CU
18 - CU
19 - CU

That would be 26 appearances over 82 years - roughly once every four years.

The main source of criticism for the ACC is ignorance of the past. The Pacific Conference brought along it's pre-1959 records whereas the ACC left their pre 1954 records behind. That obscures how good Duke, MD, Clemson, and UNC football were in that time frame. Most folks outside the ACC don't understand what happened in 1962 when the 800 SAT Minimum Rule was adopted and how it negatively affected ACC schools for 15 years causing recruits that would have played in the ACC to no longer be able to get into the ACC and thereby end up at Penn State, WVa, Georgia, Auburn, TN, etc., . Keep in mind that in the 1960's a black student in the South had a difficult time making 800 on the SAT due to generations of an inferior education.
12-20-2019 04:43 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.