(12-20-2019 10:46 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(12-19-2019 05:38 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I actually think that's where an 8-team playoff would enhance the regular season TV packages. More teams are going to have an objective mathematical chance at the playoff (assuming that there are P5 auto-bids), which means that more games are going to have playoff implications, which means that there are going to be a whole lot more important games every Saturday.

If you watch both college football and NFL, you can see the contrast right away.

Unless you're a fan of a handful of elite teams (e.g. Ohio State, Alabama, Clemson, etc.) plus a small handful of other contenders, the big games generally involve someone *other* than your own team. I believe that you're an Ohio State fan, so this might be a blind spot because the Buckeyes are in big games all of the time.

In contrast, in the NFL, as long as your own team still has a mathematical chance for the playoffs, every game for YOUR team is a big game.

As a result, virtually every late afternoon NFL game on Fox or CBS (we're not even talking about Sunday Night Football) draws higher ratings than the College Football Playoff semifinals and several of them actually drew higher ratings than the national championship game last year. Why? Because NFL fans are generally watching their *own* team with playoff stakes at hand, which means that they have a whole lot more personal investment in watching every game compared to a neutral college football fan watching the national game of the week on ABC.

That's why I think having an objective mathematical path to the playoffs really matters even if a subjective system might produce a similar (or even the same) playoff field. My interest in watching my Chicago Bears this week (after being eliminated from the playoffs) has plummeted compared to watching them last week (when they had about a 5% chance of making the playoffs... but it was still a chance). Still, the fact that the entire Chicago market is still engaged well into December simply based on a 5% chance of making the playoffs is instructive. Multiply that across many other NFL markets and you can see why the NFL is the most powerful entity in all of media today (not just sports). In contrast, the current college football playoff system is designed to eliminate all but a handful of teams from the national conversation by the end of September. That's a whole lot potential viewers from a lot of fan bases that are being left on the table.

So, you're actually right that it's not just about the playoff. What can elevate interest, viewers and revenue is that a critical mass of teams will have a mathematical chance (however slight) well into the season. This isn't just about who actually makes the playoff, but rather how many more teams actually have a *chance* for the playoff. A fan is always going to inherently be more motivated in watching his/her own team and the rest of the sport in general if his/her own team is actually in the playoff race.

Has this helped to boost MLB ratings for regional networks significantly? Attendance has still been declining even after adding a wild card team. What about NCAAM expansion (albeit 65 to 68 isn't very significant)? I don't know what sport where adding the teams has perked significantly more interest in the sport, unless you want to go back to the 80s when the NFL was still at 4 for each conference. If this is the case why hasn't the NFL rushed to add 7 teams and two extra wild card games? The fact that they haven't done this while we are at almost peak saturation in the NFL is VERY telling. Likewise, there is not a massive upside going from 4 to 8.

You can look at MLB TV ratings for regional networks and they have a *very* strong correlation to how competitive they are in that particular season. MLB actually has very good regional TV ratings - it's just that most teams outside of the Yankees, Red Sox and Cubs aren't national draws anymore.

The HUGE MASSIVE INSANE difference between the CFP and every single other postseason as of now is its scale. That is, the CFP field is so incredibly small with such a small percentage of teams having a chance that it really does kill (or at the very least significantly limit) interest for the much larger percentage that doesn't have a chance. Even an 8-team college football playoff would *still* be the most exclusive and hardest to reach postseason in American sports by a huge margin.

It's all about balance. The NCAA Tournament field is so large that it pretty much reduces any stakes to any particular regular season game. The NBA and NHL postseasons arguably have the same issue. The MLB postseason field is probably the correct size, but the sheer number of baseball games during the regular season also reduces the stakes to any particular regular season game.

IMHO, though, the NFL has the correct balance to maximize interest. The fact that the NFL hasn't expanded its playoffs isn't evidence to me at all that college football shouldn't expand its own playoffs. Instead, what it shows to me is that the NFL has found the correct balance: there are enough playoff spots to ensure that every team feels that it has a chance at making the playoffs, but limited enough that each regular season game still has a lot of impact. That balance is why the NFL destroys the ratings of everything else on television today (including even the best college football games).

College football is on the opposite end of the spectrum: it has such a limited playoff field that there is a small handful of teams that may have huge high impact regular season games, but the vast majority of teams aren't even thinking about the playoff at all. Once again, an 8-team playoff would still be the most exclusive playoff field in American sports by far. The people that are acting as if though this type of playoff expansion is anywhere near the NCAA Tournament or even any of the pro leagues are completely off-base.

(12-20-2019 11:13 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-19-2019 05:38 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  So, you're actually right that it's not just about the playoff. What can elevate interest, viewers and revenue is that a critical mass of teams will have a mathematical chance (however slight) well into the season.

An 8-team playoff may increase ratings because of mathematical chances of making it, etc. but I don't think comparing to the NFL is instructive. NFL games get higher ratings than CFB games because the NFL is the highest level of football and casual fans want to see a sport at the highest level. And because usually support for a team in an area is universal. E.g., in greater Chicago you might have Northwestern and Illinois and Notre Dame fans, but basically everyone roots for the Bears.

If we are going to compare, the obvious benchmark is college basketball. And in hoops, all teams have a mathematical chance of making the playoffs for about 98% of the season. Even an awful 4-25 team usually isn't eliminated until the first round of their conference tournament, which may take place 5 days before selection Sunday.

And yet … CFB not college hoops "drives the bus" of conference TV deals.

As I've noted elsewhere, it's about the *balance* between the number of playoff spots and the value of the regular season.

You're correct that college basketball's system provides for a mathematical chance to make it to the NCAA Tournament up until they're eliminated from their own conference tournament, but let's not be obtuse here. The NCAA Tournament field is so large and inclusive that it devalues the entire regular season.

In contrast, the NFL has the right balance (as I've noted in my previous post). Even an 8-team college football playoff would still be MUCH more exclusive than the NFL playoff, so concerns that the value of the college football regular season would somehow be devalued are totally unfounded (just as concerns that the value of the college football regular season would somehow be devalued when we went from the BCS to the CFP turned out to be totally unfounded, too).

(12-20-2019 01:14 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(12-20-2019 11:13 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-19-2019 05:38 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  So, you're actually right that it's not just about the playoff. What can elevate interest, viewers and revenue is that a critical mass of teams will have a mathematical chance (however slight) well into the season.

An 8-team playoff may increase ratings because of mathematical chances of making it, etc. but I don't think comparing to the NFL is instructive. NFL games get higher ratings than CFB games because the NFL is the highest level of football and casual fans want to see a sport at the highest level. And because usually support for a team in an area is universal. E.g., in greater Chicago you might have Northwestern and Illinois and Notre Dame fans, but basically everyone roots for the Bears.

If we are going to compare, the obvious benchmark is college basketball. And in hoops, all teams have a mathematical chance of making the playoffs for about 98% of the season. Even an awful 4-25 team usually isn't eliminated until the first round of their conference tournament, which may take place 5 days before selection Sunday.

And yet … CFB not college hoops "drives the bus" of conference TV deals.

As I've noted elsewhere, it's about the *balance* between the number of playoff spots and the value of the regular season.

You're correct that college basketball's system provides for a mathematical chance to make it to the NCAA Tournament up until they're eliminated from their own conference tournament, but let's not be obtuse here. The NCAA Tournament field is so large and inclusive that it devalues the entire regular season.

In contrast, the NFL has the right balance (as I've noted in my previous post). Even an 8-team college football playoff would still be MUCH more exclusive than the NFL playoff, so concerns that the value of the college football regular season would somehow be devalued are totally unfounded (just as concerns that the value of the college football regular season would somehow be devalued when we went from the BCS to the CFP turned out to be totally unfounded, too).

I don't agree with the idea that the regular season becomes devalued with an expanded playoff. I see the exact opposite.

When we had the BCS and a 2-school playoff, we would have a couple great 1-loss schools playing near the end of the season for essentially no marbles. The BCS was essentially a 1-loss-and-done situation. Many schools would schedule a tough week 1 OOC game, lose, and be out of title contention.

The more we add to the playoff field, the more value more regular season games will have because more schools will still be in the hunt 8, 9, 10 weeks into the season.

I do think there is a limit because the playoff can't (nor should it) be super long. It should be a reward for a great season, unlike the NBA and NHL where it is harder to miss the playoffs than make it.

(12-20-2019 02:34 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(12-20-2019 01:14 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(12-20-2019 11:13 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-19-2019 05:38 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  So, you're actually right that it's not just about the playoff. What can elevate interest, viewers and revenue is that a critical mass of teams will have a mathematical chance (however slight) well into the season.

An 8-team playoff may increase ratings because of mathematical chances of making it, etc. but I don't think comparing to the NFL is instructive. NFL games get higher ratings than CFB games because the NFL is the highest level of football and casual fans want to see a sport at the highest level. And because usually support for a team in an area is universal. E.g., in greater Chicago you might have Northwestern and Illinois and Notre Dame fans, but basically everyone roots for the Bears.

If we are going to compare, the obvious benchmark is college basketball. And in hoops, all teams have a mathematical chance of making the playoffs for about 98% of the season. Even an awful 4-25 team usually isn't eliminated until the first round of their conference tournament, which may take place 5 days before selection Sunday.

And yet … CFB not college hoops "drives the bus" of conference TV deals.

As I've noted elsewhere, it's about the *balance* between the number of playoff spots and the value of the regular season.

You're correct that college basketball's system provides for a mathematical chance to make it to the NCAA Tournament up until they're eliminated from their own conference tournament, but let's not be obtuse here. The NCAA Tournament field is so large and inclusive that it devalues the entire regular season.

In contrast, the NFL has the right balance (as I've noted in my previous post). Even an 8-team college football playoff would still be MUCH more exclusive than the NFL playoff, so concerns that the value of the college football regular season would somehow be devalued are totally unfounded (just as concerns that the value of the college football regular season would somehow be devalued when we went from the BCS to the CFP turned out to be totally unfounded, too).

I don't agree with the idea that the regular season becomes devalued with an expanded playoff. I see the exact opposite.

When we had the BCS and a 2-school playoff, we would have a couple great 1-loss schools playing near the end of the season for essentially no marbles. The BCS was essentially a 1-loss-and-done situation. Many schools would schedule a tough week 1 OOC game, lose, and be out of title contention.

The more we add to the playoff field, the more value more regular season games will have because more schools will still be in the hunt 8, 9, 10 weeks into the season.

I do think there is a limit because the playoff can't (nor should it) be super long. It should be a reward for a great season, unlike the NBA and NHL where it is harder to miss the playoffs than make it.

NBA it's harder to miss it (16/30 teams). NHL will soon be 50/50 with the expansion to Seattle (16/32). NFL is great with 12/32 and autobids for division winners. It's the exception that a terrible team can make it as a champion over a better team elsewhere, not the rule. It certainly does happen, and will likely happen this year thanks to the NFC East.

The MLB has enough games in the season that the true best teams will typically be there in the right place. Each game is only 0.6% of the season. Compare that to the NFL where it's 6.25% (10x) and the Div I FB where it's 8.3% of the season (excluding conference championships). The fewer games, the more likely it is a team will have an off moment, a bad week, players with the flu at the wrong time, etc. and have it ruin their whole season.

The 2018 Red Sox were statistically dominant the whole year. 108-54, one of the best records of all time. Still lost to the literal worst team in baseball over the course of the season though.

(12-20-2019 02:34 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(12-20-2019 01:14 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(12-20-2019 11:13 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-19-2019 05:38 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  So, you're actually right that it's not just about the playoff. What can elevate interest, viewers and revenue is that a critical mass of teams will have a mathematical chance (however slight) well into the season.

An 8-team playoff may increase ratings because of mathematical chances of making it, etc. but I don't think comparing to the NFL is instructive. NFL games get higher ratings than CFB games because the NFL is the highest level of football and casual fans want to see a sport at the highest level. And because usually support for a team in an area is universal. E.g., in greater Chicago you might have Northwestern and Illinois and Notre Dame fans, but basically everyone roots for the Bears.

If we are going to compare, the obvious benchmark is college basketball. And in hoops, all teams have a mathematical chance of making the playoffs for about 98% of the season. Even an awful 4-25 team usually isn't eliminated until the first round of their conference tournament, which may take place 5 days before selection Sunday.

And yet … CFB not college hoops "drives the bus" of conference TV deals.

As I've noted elsewhere, it's about the *balance* between the number of playoff spots and the value of the regular season.

You're correct that college basketball's system provides for a mathematical chance to make it to the NCAA Tournament up until they're eliminated from their own conference tournament, but let's not be obtuse here. The NCAA Tournament field is so large and inclusive that it devalues the entire regular season.

In contrast, the NFL has the right balance (as I've noted in my previous post). Even an 8-team college football playoff would still be MUCH more exclusive than the NFL playoff, so concerns that the value of the college football regular season would somehow be devalued are totally unfounded (just as concerns that the value of the college football regular season would somehow be devalued when we went from the BCS to the CFP turned out to be totally unfounded, too).

I don't agree with the idea that the regular season becomes devalued with an expanded playoff. I see the exact opposite.

When we had the BCS and a 2-school playoff, we would have a couple great 1-loss schools playing near the end of the season for essentially no marbles. The BCS was essentially a 1-loss-and-done situation. Many schools would schedule a tough week 1 OOC game, lose, and be out of title contention.

The more we add to the playoff field, the more value more regular season games will have because more schools will still be in the hunt 8, 9, 10 weeks into the season.

I do think there is a limit because the playoff can't (nor should it) be super long. It should be a reward for a great season, unlike the NBA and NHL where it is harder to miss the playoffs than make it.

Over half the power teams and 20% of everyone make the NCAA bb tourney. I'm old enough to remember the 25 team NCAA tourney. And I remember USC going 24-2, losing only to national champ UCLA and not making the tourney. That system still had 10% of the teams making the tourney. College football is 4 out of 130. 8 out of 130 would still be less than the NCAA in the 60s and early 70s. The current NCAA bb tourney has definitely lowered my interest in the regular season. When you have a good program, you expect to make the tourney.

Texas, for example, has only made it 2 out of the last 4 years. That is disappointing. Prior to that, they only missed 3 times going back to 1988. Kentucky has only missed 5 times going back to 1979 and 2 of those years UK was on probation.

(12-19-2019 10:29 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-19-2019 08:06 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  

(12-18-2019 03:01 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-18-2019 02:53 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  The problem with 5-1-2 is that if the AAC continues its climb, then a school like Tulane actually has a safer path to the CFP than Texas A+M does (although Aggy has the resources to contend for a championship immediately).

Tenn and Tex would not sniff a playoff no matter the system in place. UF also was bad for the last 4 years before this year. FSU has been garbage since Jimbo Fisher left. So Memphis, UH, Boise, and UCF should have gone more than those schools.

You miss the point: As an example, neither Memphis nor Tennessee deserved to be in a 8 team playoff this year. But under 5-1-2, Memphis would have gone while Tennessee wouldn't.

IMO, that would be intolerable to Tennessee, because of the national brand implications of making the playoffs.

With 5-1-2, you will see #15 ranked Boise/Memphis/UCF teams going to the playoffs, and getting all the media attention and brand building that will bring, while "big brother" P5 schools in the same state will NOT go to the playoffs when they are also ranked #15.

For example, compare Memphis to Florida the last five years, four of which you said Florida was "bad". Memphis was ranked #17 this year and #20 in 2016. Florida was ranked #9 this year, #10 last year, #17 in 2016 and #19 in 2015

And yet under 5-1-2, Memphis would have a trip to the playoffs while Florida would not. So to reiterate, in the past 5 years:

Memphis …. #17 and #20 …. playoff spot

Florida ……. #19, #17, #10, #9 …. no playoff spots.

I don't think the P5 will go for that, but hey, maybe they are dumb.

Florida was never better than 9-2 in regular season in those years, and that would not got them into any playoff. Memphis would not have gone to a playoff before this year either. UCF would have with 2 undefeated seasons. I agree the P5 don't want the G5 in the playoffs, The would be embarrassed by any losses that could happen. As for UF's rankings, that is what a history in the SEC gets you. Boise would have been in one year, as would UH.

Bottom line is in those years every P5 champ would have gone, along with the 2 highest ranking non champs, which almost always will filled by the SEC or B10. So the B12 and Pac never get shut out, and the SEC/Big almost always get a bonus team. If this ever happens it won't be because the P5 care about the G5 getting in, it will be because They all want a guaranteed spot every year, and #1 will get a first game vs what they all see as a lesser opponent.

(12-20-2019 03:13 PM)e-parade Wrote:  The 2018 Red Sox were statistically dominant the whole year. 108-54, one of the best records of all time. Still lost to the literal worst team in baseball over the course of the season though.

The 2018 Red Sox are an exception in that they are a dominant regular season team that actually dominated in the playoffs as well.

Really, in terms of validity, baseball should go back to pre-1969. If you have the best record in the NL or AL after 162 games, you've truly proven you are the best. Playoffs just give a lesser team a chance to fluke you out in a short seven game series (and relative to the season it is short), which is why it happens all the time.

The most legit WS titles were the ones where there were no playoffs save for the WS itself, which was necessary because the leagues were truly separate.

With the 15/15 setup in MLB it would be impossible to go back to the good ole’ days. But yeah, maybe add two expansion clubs and get rid of interleague. The two winners after 162 play in the WS, best of 9. Then you can do in season KO tournaments or pool play like European soccer, perhaps shortening the regular season down to 90-100 games or so.

(12-22-2019 10:30 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  

(12-19-2019 10:29 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-19-2019 08:06 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  

(12-18-2019 03:01 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-18-2019 02:53 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  The problem with 5-1-2 is that if the AAC continues its climb, then a school like Tulane actually has a safer path to the CFP than Texas A+M does (although Aggy has the resources to contend for a championship immediately).

Tenn and Tex would not sniff a playoff no matter the system in place. UF also was bad for the last 4 years before this year. FSU has been garbage since Jimbo Fisher left. So Memphis, UH, Boise, and UCF should have gone more than those schools.

You miss the point: As an example, neither Memphis nor Tennessee deserved to be in a 8 team playoff this year. But under 5-1-2, Memphis would have gone while Tennessee wouldn't.

IMO, that would be intolerable to Tennessee, because of the national brand implications of making the playoffs.

With 5-1-2, you will see #15 ranked Boise/Memphis/UCF teams going to the playoffs, and getting all the media attention and brand building that will bring, while "big brother" P5 schools in the same state will NOT go to the playoffs when they are also ranked #15.

For example, compare Memphis to Florida the last five years, four of which you said Florida was "bad". Memphis was ranked #17 this year and #20 in 2016. Florida was ranked #9 this year, #10 last year, #17 in 2016 and #19 in 2015

And yet under 5-1-2, Memphis would have a trip to the playoffs while Florida would not. So to reiterate, in the past 5 years:

Memphis …. #17 and #20 …. playoff spot

Florida ……. #19, #17, #10, #9 …. no playoff spots.

I don't think the P5 will go for that, but hey, maybe they are dumb.

Florida was never better than 9-2 in regular season in those years, and that would not got them into any playoff. Memphis would not have gone to a playoff before this year either.

You seem to imply that Florida has been overrated by the CFP thanks to SEC bias, but the computers don't support that. E.g., this year, the computers have Florida #9 and the CFP has them the same.

Bottom line is, everyone has 9-2 Florida ranked well ahead of 12-1 Memphis. That's not SEC bias, that's a schedule that included Georgia and LSU and Auburn on it compared to a schedule that had nobody tougher than Cincinnati on it. All three of those teams are ranked at least 10 spots higher than Cincy in the computers.

So my point stands: In the past 5 years, Florida has been a top-10 team twice and a top-20 team four times, while Memphis has never been close to a top 10 team and only a top-20 team twice, but under 5-1-2 Memphis would have a playoff trip and UF would not. When making the playoffs will be THE indicator of program prestige and power.

You guys seem to think Florida will go along with that because the SEC will have an automatic playoff bid. That they won't mind lesser programs getting in to the playoffs ahead of them because of conference guarantees.

I do not. We shall see.

(12-22-2019 11:07 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-22-2019 10:30 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  

(12-19-2019 10:29 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-19-2019 08:06 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  

(12-18-2019 03:01 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

Tenn and Tex would not sniff a playoff no matter the system in place. UF also was bad for the last 4 years before this year. FSU has been garbage since Jimbo Fisher left. So Memphis, UH, Boise, and UCF should have gone more than those schools.

You miss the point: As an example, neither Memphis nor Tennessee deserved to be in a 8 team playoff this year. But under 5-1-2, Memphis would have gone while Tennessee wouldn't.

IMO, that would be intolerable to Tennessee, because of the national brand implications of making the playoffs.

With 5-1-2, you will see #15 ranked Boise/Memphis/UCF teams going to the playoffs, and getting all the media attention and brand building that will bring, while "big brother" P5 schools in the same state will NOT go to the playoffs when they are also ranked #15.

For example, compare Memphis to Florida the last five years, four of which you said Florida was "bad". Memphis was ranked #17 this year and #20 in 2016. Florida was ranked #9 this year, #10 last year, #17 in 2016 and #19 in 2015

And yet under 5-1-2, Memphis would have a trip to the playoffs while Florida would not. So to reiterate, in the past 5 years:

Memphis …. #17 and #20 …. playoff spot

Florida ……. #19, #17, #10, #9 …. no playoff spots.

I don't think the P5 will go for that, but hey, maybe they are dumb.

Florida was never better than 9-2 in regular season in those years, and that would not got them into any playoff. Memphis would not have gone to a playoff before this year either.

You seem to imply that Florida has been overrated by the CFP thanks to SEC bias, but the computers don't support that. E.g., this year, the computers have Florida #9 and the CFP has them the same.

Bottom line is, everyone has 9-2 Florida ranked well ahead of 12-1 Memphis. That's not SEC bias, that's a schedule that included Georgia and LSU and Auburn on it compared to a schedule that had nobody tougher than Cincinnati on it. All three of those teams are ranked at least 10 spots higher than Cincy in the computers.

So my point stands: In the past 5 years, Florida has been a top-10 team twice and a top-20 team four times, while Memphis has never been close to a top 10 team and only a top-20 team twice, but under 5-1-2 Memphis would have a playoff trip and UF would not. When making the playoffs will be THE indicator of program prestige and power.

You guys seem to think Florida will go along with that because the SEC will have an automatic playoff bid. That they won't mind lesser programs getting in to the playoffs ahead of them because of conference guarantees.

I do not. We shall see.

Gosh, darn, Quo. It's the holiday season. Can't you please throw my Memphis Tigers a Christmas bone?

(12-22-2019 11:20 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(12-22-2019 11:07 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-22-2019 10:30 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  

(12-19-2019 10:29 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-19-2019 08:06 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  Tenn and Tex would not sniff a playoff no matter the system in place. UF also was bad for the last 4 years before this year. FSU has been garbage since Jimbo Fisher left. So Memphis, UH, Boise, and UCF should have gone more than those schools.

You miss the point: As an example, neither Memphis nor Tennessee deserved to be in a 8 team playoff this year. But under 5-1-2, Memphis would have gone while Tennessee wouldn't.

IMO, that would be intolerable to Tennessee, because of the national brand implications of making the playoffs.

With 5-1-2, you will see #15 ranked Boise/Memphis/UCF teams going to the playoffs, and getting all the media attention and brand building that will bring, while "big brother" P5 schools in the same state will NOT go to the playoffs when they are also ranked #15.

For example, compare Memphis to Florida the last five years, four of which you said Florida was "bad". Memphis was ranked #17 this year and #20 in 2016. Florida was ranked #9 this year, #10 last year, #17 in 2016 and #19 in 2015

And yet under 5-1-2, Memphis would have a trip to the playoffs while Florida would not. So to reiterate, in the past 5 years:

Memphis …. #17 and #20 …. playoff spot

Florida ……. #19, #17, #10, #9 …. no playoff spots.

I don't think the P5 will go for that, but hey, maybe they are dumb.

Florida was never better than 9-2 in regular season in those years, and that would not got them into any playoff. Memphis would not have gone to a playoff before this year either.

You seem to imply that Florida has been overrated by the CFP thanks to SEC bias, but the computers don't support that. E.g., this year, the computers have Florida #9 and the CFP has them the same.

Bottom line is, everyone has 9-2 Florida ranked well ahead of 12-1 Memphis. That's not SEC bias, that's a schedule that included Georgia and LSU and Auburn on it compared to a schedule that had nobody tougher than Cincinnati on it. All three of those teams are ranked at least 10 spots higher than Cincy in the computers.

So my point stands: In the past 5 years, Florida has been a top-10 team twice and a top-20 team four times, while Memphis has never been close to a top 10 team and only a top-20 team twice, but under 5-1-2 Memphis would have a playoff trip and UF would not. When making the playoffs will be THE indicator of program prestige and power.

You guys seem to think Florida will go along with that because the SEC will have an automatic playoff bid. That they won't mind lesser programs getting in to the playoffs ahead of them because of conference guarantees.

I do not. We shall see.

Gosh, darn, Quo. It's the holiday season. Can't you please throw my Memphis Tigers a Christmas bone?

FWIW, I will be strongly pulling for Memphis to beat Penn State and win the Cotton Bowl.

Merry Christmas!

(12-22-2019 11:24 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-22-2019 11:20 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(12-22-2019 11:07 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-22-2019 10:30 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  

(12-19-2019 10:29 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  You miss the point: As an example, neither Memphis nor Tennessee deserved to be in a 8 team playoff this year. But under 5-1-2, Memphis would have gone while Tennessee wouldn't.

IMO, that would be intolerable to Tennessee, because of the national brand implications of making the playoffs.

With 5-1-2, you will see #15 ranked Boise/Memphis/UCF teams going to the playoffs, and getting all the media attention and brand building that will bring, while "big brother" P5 schools in the same state will NOT go to the playoffs when they are also ranked #15.

For example, compare Memphis to Florida the last five years, four of which you said Florida was "bad". Memphis was ranked #17 this year and #20 in 2016. Florida was ranked #9 this year, #10 last year, #17 in 2016 and #19 in 2015

And yet under 5-1-2, Memphis would have a trip to the playoffs while Florida would not. So to reiterate, in the past 5 years:

Memphis …. #17 and #20 …. playoff spot

Florida ……. #19, #17, #10, #9 …. no playoff spots.

I don't think the P5 will go for that, but hey, maybe they are dumb.

Florida was never better than 9-2 in regular season in those years, and that would not got them into any playoff. Memphis would not have gone to a playoff before this year either.

You seem to imply that Florida has been overrated by the CFP thanks to SEC bias, but the computers don't support that. E.g., this year, the computers have Florida #9 and the CFP has them the same.

Bottom line is, everyone has 9-2 Florida ranked well ahead of 12-1 Memphis. That's not SEC bias, that's a schedule that included Georgia and LSU and Auburn on it compared to a schedule that had nobody tougher than Cincinnati on it. All three of those teams are ranked at least 10 spots higher than Cincy in the computers.

So my point stands: In the past 5 years, Florida has been a top-10 team twice and a top-20 team four times, while Memphis has never been close to a top 10 team and only a top-20 team twice, but under 5-1-2 Memphis would have a playoff trip and UF would not. When making the playoffs will be THE indicator of program prestige and power.

You guys seem to think Florida will go along with that because the SEC will have an automatic playoff bid. That they won't mind lesser programs getting in to the playoffs ahead of them because of conference guarantees.

I do not. We shall see.

Gosh, darn, Quo. It's the holiday season. Can't you please throw my Memphis Tigers a Christmas bone?

FWIW, I will be strongly pulling for Memphis to beat Penn State and win the Cotton Bowl.

Merry Christmas!

Thanks, QV. Merry Christmas, indeed.

5-1-2 keeps more team’s playoff hopes alive deeper into the season. The impact this is it makes the regular season more relevant and draw more viewers. If a team even has a distant chance chance of winning their division and getting a playoff shot in the CCG then it’s going to energize that fan base to keep watching. Similarly, it’s going to make fans watch games that could impact whether they get in.

Sure you will have the CFP equivalent of the 2019 NFC East champ sneak in on the occasion but that’s not a bad thing. That’s also part of the reason why the plan I created gives a guarantee of of a big dollar bowl for the 4 top teams not in the playoff. I also think that revenue distribution for the new 5-1-2 CFP should be based on number of appearances in the NY6 (the 4 who are Quarterfinals and the 2 who are’s)

The reason a G5 should get a guaranteed spot is because they already suffer from poll bias throughout the year anyway. If they aren't guaranteed a spot, you can be assured that the CFP committee will find a way to leave them out one way or the other.

(12-22-2019 09:51 PM)Big Frog II Wrote:  The reason a G5 should get a guaranteed spot is because they already suffer from poll bias throughout the year anyway. If they aren't guaranteed a spot, you can be assured that the CFP committee will find a way to leave them out one way or the other.

Problem with this theory is that the computers, which don't know if a team is P5 or G5, basically agree with the human pollsters.

(12-22-2019 09:51 PM)Big Frog II Wrote:  The reason a G5 should get a guaranteed spot is because they already suffer from poll bias throughout the year anyway. If they aren't guaranteed a spot, you can be assured that the CFP committee will find a way to leave them out one way or the other.

Good. They don’t deserve anything.

No league should be guaranteed a spot in an eight-team playoff. Certain metrics could be in place to require an element of "earning it." Similarly, the "best" G5 team will need to meet certain requirements. If no G5 meets the minimum requirements, no G5 team goes.

Without doing away with divisions, the P5 conference championship games aren't always pitting the best teams against each other. Something like a 12-0 Ohio State losing to a 7-5 Wisconsin team shouldn't automatically catapult the Badgers to the CFP. Therefore, if the CFP goes to 8 teams there should be a minimum ranking consideration. Win your championship game and meet the ranking threshold and you're in. Otherwise, it opens an additional at-large spot. But there should also be access for G5 teams. If the top G5 (representing half of the entire FBS) meets the ranking threshold they're in. Otherwise, it opens an additional at-large spot. The minimum ranking threshold could be something like 12 or 16 and that should help with the G5 teams being continually devalued in rank.

What about keeping it a 4 team playoff but only the 10 conference champions are eligible? That way, in theory, everyone has a path by winning your conference.

I think divisionless championship games would also aid in substantiating the merit of a conference champ.

The divisionless format has problems. Let’s say you have 11-1 OU and 10-2 Baylor and OU already has a win @Baylor? The conference championship game is almost penalizing OU as they would qualify for an 8 if not 4 team playoff without even playing that 13th game.

I agree that the CCG is useless for some conferences. On the other hand, it is necessary for these obscenely large conferences. Not sure how you incorporate both into an 8 team playoff unless there is a minimum ranking component or what not. To me, the minimum ranking is the only way to preserve meaningful OOC games while rewarding conference champs equitably.