I'd like to see a World Cup type of structure.

1) OOC "Friendlies" - 1 or 2 out of conference games that have no direct bearing on Qualification....but do influence Qualification rankings.

2) Conference Qualification - conference play. Automatic Qualification for P5 champs and top 2 G5 champs. Also, any other teams ranked in the top 10 receive automatic Qualification to the CFP Group Stage. The remaining spots (likely 4-6 spots) will be filled via Play-In games. G5 conference champions that have not already qualified get an automatic Play-In invitation. Also, each P5 conference is guaranteed at least 2 teams in the Qualification process, so a P5 conference with one or no top-10 team gets at least one team in the Play-In. The rest of the Play-In games are filled based on CFP Rankings.

3) CFP Group Stage - all Qualification teams and Play-In winners are ranked 1-16. Ranks 1-4 get a #1 seed; 5-8 get a #2 seed; 9-12 get #3 seed; and #13-16 get #4 seed. Four 4-team CFP Groups are organized with each Group having a #1, #2, #3, and #4 seed. Best efforts are made to avoid any Group having more than one team from the same conference. Group Stage involves 3 intra-Group games: Week 1 - #3@#1, #4@#2; Week 2 - #1@#4, #3@#2; Week 3 - #2@#1, #4@#3.

[3b) NIT/Region Group Stage - 16-24 team NIT and various Regional Groups are organized to determine matchups for the final 3 weeks.]

4) CFP Tournament - The top two teams from each CFP Group advance to the CFP Tournament, while the other teams earn bids to certain marquee bowl games.

[4b) NIT and Regional Bowls - the results of the NIT and Regional Group play determine bids for various national and regional bowl games...and who does not qualify for any bowl game.]

2020 CFP Qualification, Group Stage, and Tournament example:

CFP QUALIFICATION
P5 and G5 Champ Autobid bids:
-(1)Alabama(SEC)
-(2)Clemson(ACC)
-(3)Ohio State(B1G)
-(6)Oklahoma(B12)
-(8)Cincinnati(AAC)
-(12)Coastal Carolina(Sun Belt)
-(17)USC(PAC)
Top-10 Autobids: (4)Notre Dame, (5)Texas A&M, (7)Florida, (9)Georgia, (10)Iowa State

Play-In games (for 4 spots):
-(11)Indiana(B1G) v. (NR)UAB(CUSA)
-(13)North Carolina v. (25)Oregon(PAC)
-(14)Northwestern v. (23)Ball State(MAC)
-(15)Iowa v. (22)San Jose State(MWC)

CFP GROUP STAGE
Group A: (1)Alabama, (2)Cincinnati, (3)Indiana, (4)USC
Group B: (1)Clemson, (2)Florida, (3)Iowa State, (4)Iowa
Group C: (1)Ohio State, (2)Oklahoma, (3)Georgia, (4)North Carolina
Group D: (1)Notre Dame, (2)Texas A&M, (3)Coastal Carolina, (4)Northwestern

CFP TOURNAMENT
Quarterfinals
- Sugar Bowl: (1)Alabama v. (2)Oklahoma
- Cotton Bowl: (1)Notre Dame v. (2)Florida
- Orange Bowl: (1)Clemson v. (2)Cincinnati
-Rose Bowl: (1)Ohio State v. (2)Texas A&M

Semifinals
* New Orleans, LA
- Quarterfinals Winners

* Indianapolis, Indiana
- Quarterfinals Winners

Championship
* Miami, Florida
- Semifinals Winners

(02-02-2021 12:37 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-02-2021 12:19 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-02-2021 10:53 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-01-2021 10:58 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-31-2021 07:33 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Here's the problem with that line of attack. Regarding computers, in 2017, UCF was ranked #9 in the Massey Composite before their bowl game. In 2018, UCF was ranked #8 at the same point.

In contrast, in 2009, "G5" TCU was ranked #4 in the MC before their bowl while Boise was #7. In 2010, TCU, still in the non-AQ camp, was #3 while Boise was #5 going in to the bowls.

So according to the computers alone, non-AQ teams like TCU and Boise were regarded as significantly better than UCF was in 2017 and 2018, or Cincy in 2019. The best G5 teams of today just are not as good as the best G5 teams of a decade ago, and that explains the lower human poll rankings, not some mystical influence of the CFP.

Different time my man. How you cant see that is simply ignoring the basic facts of how the worst biases of the Committee have bled into the polls and computer models.

Wow, just when I thought I had put the "the CFP has caused biased in the human polls" unsupported notion to rest (if anything, the AP and Coaches polls influence the CFP, not vice-versa), now we have a claim that somehow CFP biases have "bled" in to the computers as well?

Pointing out who TCU and Boise and UCF and Cincy played or didn't play doesn't mean much, because it doesn't take in to account all the various factors these computers consider, nor does it consider that rankings are all relative to the competition you are being ranked against.

Just how on earth is CFP "bleeding" in to the computers supposed to have happened? You think Wolfe and Sagarin and all the other computer nerds have somehow tweeked their formulas to mimic CFP biases (if you can even model that kind of alleged bias to begin with)? Seriously?

Come on. This is grasping at grasping, IMO.

You dont think the computer models get tweaked? Seriously? You think they are exactly the same as they have been since their inception?

LOL ... I didn't say computers don't get tweaked. I am sure Wolfe and Sagarin et all tweak them when their thinking leads them to believe other factors are more important or less important than they previously thought. These math and stat nerds are probably always thinking about different ways of modeling college football. I said "tweaked to mimic CFP biases" (whatever they are). What would their motivation be to mimic the CFP? Nothing. If anything, nerds tend to be contrarian, they like to show how the conventional wisdom is wrong, not echo it.

There is no evidence for this. Even less support then the notion that the AP and Coaches voters have changed to mimic the CFP.

It's poppycock to me, sorry. On the best evidence we have, teams like Boise and TCU a decade ago were just better - relative to the competition at least - than UCF was a couple years ago or Cincy this year.

Absolutely zero evidence to indicate that. If anything, its the other way around. UCF simply beat Auburn. Houston simply beat Florida St and Oklahoma. There were no trick Statue of Liberty plays necessary for those wins. They just beat them.

On the other hand, 8 years of empirical evidence exists that tells us no "1-loss" G5 is never ever ever going to be ranked #6. That statement cannot be disputed with facts because there are none indicating otherwise. Nebulous "If's" and "but's" are all anyone can use to dispute that because the CFP data tells us undefeated G5's can't even get to #6. Hell, even in a pandemic where some P5's only played a little over half a schedule, and one P5 league didnt begin play until nearly half the season was over, an undefeated G5 still couldnt get to #6.

Fwiw, a lot of the people that get paid to cover Cincinnati football believe the 2020 Bearcats were better than the 2009-10 team that went 12-1.

(02-02-2021 01:49 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-02-2021 12:37 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-02-2021 12:19 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-02-2021 10:53 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-01-2021 10:58 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Different time my man. How you cant see that is simply ignoring the basic facts of how the worst biases of the Committee have bled into the polls and computer models.

Wow, just when I thought I had put the "the CFP has caused biased in the human polls" unsupported notion to rest (if anything, the AP and Coaches polls influence the CFP, not vice-versa), now we have a claim that somehow CFP biases have "bled" in to the computers as well?

Pointing out who TCU and Boise and UCF and Cincy played or didn't play doesn't mean much, because it doesn't take in to account all the various factors these computers consider, nor does it consider that rankings are all relative to the competition you are being ranked against.

Just how on earth is CFP "bleeding" in to the computers supposed to have happened? You think Wolfe and Sagarin and all the other computer nerds have somehow tweeked their formulas to mimic CFP biases (if you can even model that kind of alleged bias to begin with)? Seriously?

Come on. This is grasping at grasping, IMO.

You dont think the computer models get tweaked? Seriously? You think they are exactly the same as they have been since their inception?

LOL ... I didn't say computers don't get tweaked. I am sure Wolfe and Sagarin et all tweak them when their thinking leads them to believe other factors are more important or less important than they previously thought. These math and stat nerds are probably always thinking about different ways of modeling college football. I said "tweaked to mimic CFP biases" (whatever they are). What would their motivation be to mimic the CFP? Nothing. If anything, nerds tend to be contrarian, they like to show how the conventional wisdom is wrong, not echo it.

There is no evidence for this. Even less support then the notion that the AP and Coaches voters have changed to mimic the CFP.

It's poppycock to me, sorry. On the best evidence we have, teams like Boise and TCU a decade ago were just better - relative to the competition at least - than UCF was a couple years ago or Cincy this year.

Absolutely zero evidence to indicate that. If anything, its the other way around. UCF simply beat Auburn. Houston simply beat Florida St and Oklahoma. There were no trick Statue of Liberty plays necessary for those wins. They just beat them.

On the other hand, 8 years of empirical evidence exists that tells us no "1-loss" G5 is never ever ever going to be ranked #6. That statement cannot be disputed with facts because there are none indicating otherwise. Nebulous "If's" and "but's" are all anyone can use to dispute that because the CFP data tells us undefeated G5's can't even get to #6. Hell, even in a pandemic where P5's only played a little over half a schedule, an undefeated G5 still couldnt get to #6.

I agree that there is absolutely zero evidence to suggest that the top-ranked non-P5 teams then were better than Cincy was this year.

I can't imagine how anyone could even come up with such a theory or hypothesis. If one were to give it a name, perhaps it would be called the "good old days" theory.

The "logic" may be that, since TCU and Utah were top non-P5 teams then and are members of power conferences now, then they must have been better. But that would be very flawed logic.

.

The ranking data show that that there is twice as much parity between the non-P5 and P5 conferences today than there was 15 or 20 years ago. Back then, there were never more than 3 or 4 non-P5 teams in the Final Top 25 polls, but today (in 2019 and 2020) there are 7, and in 2018, there were 6.

While this doesn't prove that Cincy, BYU or Coastal Carolina were better than TCU or Utah were 20 years ago, it does suggest that there's no good reason to suppose that they are any worse.

What's most likely is that the Cincy of 2020 is probably about as good as the best TCU and Utah teams of the early 2000s. That would be the most parsimonious interpretation. Occam's razor.

.

Since we've been tossing terms like "poppycock" around, note this:

The words "Quo Vadis" mean "Where are you going?"

When it comes to the AAC and the non-P5 schools, is it really true that we're all going nowhere?

I think not.

(02-02-2021 01:59 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  Fwiw, a lot of the people that get paid to cover Cincinnati football believe the 2020 Bearcats were better than the 2009-10 team that went 12-1.

It's possible that team was the better team in a H2H and worse relative to the rest of the country.

(02-02-2021 02:41 PM)WhoseHouse? Wrote:  

(02-02-2021 01:59 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  Fwiw, a lot of the people that get paid to cover Cincinnati football believe the 2020 Bearcats were better than the 2009-10 team that went 12-1.

It's possible that team was the better team in a H2H and worse relative to the rest of the country.

The problem is that no one will ever know if it was better or worse. All we can do is speculate and debate.

(02-02-2021 02:59 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(02-02-2021 02:41 PM)WhoseHouse? Wrote:  

(02-02-2021 01:59 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  Fwiw, a lot of the people that get paid to cover Cincinnati football believe the 2020 Bearcats were better than the 2009-10 team that went 12-1.

It's possible that team was the better team in a H2H and worse relative to the rest of the country.

The problem is that no one will ever know if it was better or worse. All we can do is speculate and debate.

True of a lot of the discussions on these boards

P6 champs n 2 at large. with G4 best getting an access bowl bid.

A guaranteed G4 is the only way to do it. Otherwise, they could make a top 25 playoff and all of a sudden every G4 team would only get as high as 26. Until they guarantee they will find a way to keep their rankings low enough to not make it.

They could literally announce a 66 team playoff (one more team than there are P5 schools) and they would find a way to keep the G4 out... The mascots played really well this year and we would like to extend the 66th slot to the mascots!!

Joel Klatt gets it. He understands what’s going on with college football. He knows 8 teams is not enough. It may be what we get and we may have to suffer a few years, but it will eventually go beyond that. NCAA basketball went through the same evolution until they eventually got to where we are today. Not suggesting football needs to be in line with basketball, but it needs to be substantially larger than it is now and 8 teams is not the answer.

I don't ever see the playoff field expanding to 16 teams for a number of reasons. I simply don't.

One thing that people are ignoring is the "opt out" factor. I personally believe an extended playoff will have an adverse effect on "opt outs" due to the increased wear and tear. The Heisman Trophy winner's season came to an end in the 3rd quarter of a second additional game. Mac Jones was also hobbled. Justin Fields was basically taped together for the title game. I firmly believe that the top prospects do not want to sign on for an additional 4 games. The idea of "college glory" matters only so much when it comes to modern business decisions. Would players have to "commit" before the playoff? What tangible value would the commitment hold? Could a player get little banged up after one game and decide they're done? The elite programs aren't going to allow this to be a loophole that opens the door for "lesser" teams/programs to come in and succeed under such a format.

This is a serious issue for coaches, administrators, tv, etc. They do not want to dig into the multitude of layers. If there comes a point when compensation becomes a viable option perhaps there's a "playoff bonus" of some extent to entice players that 4 more games is worth the risk. I'm honestly not sure there is a reasonable answer to avoid "opt outs' in today's college football/nfl climate.

(02-02-2021 11:05 PM)TUowl06 Wrote:  I don't ever see the playoff field expanding to 16 teams for a number of reasons. I simply don't.

One thing that people are ignoring is the "opt out" factor. I personally believe an extended playoff will have an adverse effect on "opt outs" due to the increased wear and tear. The Heisman Trophy winner's season came to an end in the 3rd quarter of a second additional game. Mac Jones was also hobbled. Justin Fields was basically taped together for the title game. I firmly believe that the top prospects do not want to sign on for additional 4 games. The idea of "college glory" matters only so much when it comes to modern business decisions. Would players have to "commit" before the playoff? What tangible value would the commitment hold? Could a player get little banged up after one game and decide they're done? The elite programs aren't going to allow this to be a loophole that opens the door for "lesser" teams/programs to come in and succeed under such a format.

This is a serious issue for coaches, administrators, tv, etc. They do not want to dig into the multitude of layers. If there comes a point when compensation becomes a viable option perhaps there's a "playoff bonus" of some extent to entice players that 4 more games is worth the risk. I'm honestly not sure there is reasonable answer to avoid "opt outs' in today's college football/nfl climate.

The payments to players that the NCAA schools are going to have to pay, has to come from somewhere....and that's likely funds from extended playoffs. They'll probably include more bowls to discourage opt-outs and/or condition the likeness payments to players completing obligations thru bowls/playoffs.

(02-02-2021 08:27 PM)NoQuarterBrigade Wrote:  Joel Klatt gets it. He understands what’s going on with college football. He knows 8 teams is not enough. It may be what we get and we may have to suffer a few years, but it will eventually go beyond that. NCAA basketball went through the same evolution until they eventually got to where we are today. Not suggesting football needs to be in line with basketball, but it needs to be substantially larger than it is now and 8 teams is not the answer.

I like the discussion. I like that he presented a few models. I DO NOT LIKE that the guy does not have equal access to the playoff for college football teams in the same division of the sport. It’s simply not right. The stupidity has to end.

(02-03-2021 02:32 AM)UHCougar08 Wrote:  [quote='NoQuarterBrigade' pid='17254923' dateline='1612315653']
Joel Klatt gets it. He understands what’s going on with college football. He knows 8 teams is not enough. It may be what we get and we may have to suffer a few years, but it will eventually go beyond that. NCAA basketball went through the same evolution until they eventually got to where we are today. Not suggesting football needs to be in line with basketball, but it needs to be substantially larger than it is now and 8 teams is not the answer.


I like the discussion. I like that he presented a few models. I DO NOT LIKE that the guy does not have equal access to the playoff for college football teams in the same division of the sport. It’s simply not right. The stupidity has to end.

Yes, I will give you that. He definitely missed on that part of it. But I do like some of his ideas. Particularly the part about squashing the committee and going back to a BCS ranking. And also recognizing that 8 teams is not enough. The beauty of having all conference champions represented in the playoff, which he didn’t, is not just to grant equal access. It does something else. It increases the relevance of the regular season games.

(02-02-2021 03:03 PM)WhoseHouse? Wrote:  

(02-02-2021 02:59 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(02-02-2021 02:41 PM)WhoseHouse? Wrote:  

(02-02-2021 01:59 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  Fwiw, a lot of the people that get paid to cover Cincinnati football believe the 2020 Bearcats were better than the 2009-10 team that went 12-1.

It's possible that team was the better team in a H2H and worse relative to the rest of the country.

The problem is that no one will ever know if it was better or worse. All we can do is speculate and debate.

True of a lot of the discussions on these boards

There's nothing wrong with debate and speculation. That's the way post-season college football played out before any notion of a championship series, and frankly, the game was better in those days.

(02-02-2021 02:20 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(02-02-2021 01:49 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-02-2021 12:37 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-02-2021 12:19 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-02-2021 10:53 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Wow, just when I thought I had put the "the CFP has caused biased in the human polls" unsupported notion to rest (if anything, the AP and Coaches polls influence the CFP, not vice-versa), now we have a claim that somehow CFP biases have "bled" in to the computers as well?

Pointing out who TCU and Boise and UCF and Cincy played or didn't play doesn't mean much, because it doesn't take in to account all the various factors these computers consider, nor does it consider that rankings are all relative to the competition you are being ranked against.

Just how on earth is CFP "bleeding" in to the computers supposed to have happened? You think Wolfe and Sagarin and all the other computer nerds have somehow tweeked their formulas to mimic CFP biases (if you can even model that kind of alleged bias to begin with)? Seriously?

Come on. This is grasping at grasping, IMO.

You dont think the computer models get tweaked? Seriously? You think they are exactly the same as they have been since their inception?

LOL ... I didn't say computers don't get tweaked. I am sure Wolfe and Sagarin et all tweak them when their thinking leads them to believe other factors are more important or less important than they previously thought. These math and stat nerds are probably always thinking about different ways of modeling college football. I said "tweaked to mimic CFP biases" (whatever they are). What would their motivation be to mimic the CFP? Nothing. If anything, nerds tend to be contrarian, they like to show how the conventional wisdom is wrong, not echo it.

There is no evidence for this. Even less support then the notion that the AP and Coaches voters have changed to mimic the CFP.

It's poppycock to me, sorry. On the best evidence we have, teams like Boise and TCU a decade ago were just better - relative to the competition at least - than UCF was a couple years ago or Cincy this year.

Absolutely zero evidence to indicate that. If anything, its the other way around. UCF simply beat Auburn. Houston simply beat Florida St and Oklahoma. There were no trick Statue of Liberty plays necessary for those wins. They just beat them.

On the other hand, 8 years of empirical evidence exists that tells us no "1-loss" G5 is never ever ever going to be ranked #6. That statement cannot be disputed with facts because there are none indicating otherwise. Nebulous "If's" and "but's" are all anyone can use to dispute that because the CFP data tells us undefeated G5's can't even get to #6. Hell, even in a pandemic where P5's only played a little over half a schedule, an undefeated G5 still couldnt get to #6.

I agree that there is absolutely zero evidence to suggest that the top-ranked non-P5 teams then were better than Cincy was this year.

I can't imagine how anyone could even come up with such a theory or hypothesis. If one were to give it a name, perhaps it would be called the "good old days" theory.

The "logic" may be that, since TCU and Utah were top non-P5 teams then and are members of power conferences now, then they must have been better. But that would be very flawed logic.

.

The ranking data show that that there is twice as much parity between the non-P5 and P5 conferences today than there was 15 or 20 years ago. Back then, there were never more than 3 or 4 non-P5 teams in the Final Top 25 polls, but today (in 2019 and 2020) there are 7, and in 2018, there were 6.

While this doesn't prove that Cincy, BYU or Coastal Carolina were better than TCU or Utah were 20 years ago, it does suggest that there's no good reason to suppose that they are any worse.

What's most likely is that the Cincy of 2020 is probably about as good as the best TCU and Utah teams of the early 2000s. That would be the most parsimonious interpretation. Occam's razor.

.

Since we've been tossing terms like "poppycock" around, note this:

The words "Quo Vadis" mean "Where are you going?"

When it comes to the AAC and the non-P5 schools, is it really true that we're all going nowhere?

I think not.

AP rankings and the total numer of G5 ranked teams are not a true indicator of quality now vs then.

AP rankings are simply an aggregation of opinions. I havent paid attention to any Ap/coaches polls in years. I dont understand the obsession with them.

(02-03-2021 08:22 PM)PicksUp Wrote:  

(02-02-2021 02:20 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(02-02-2021 01:49 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-02-2021 12:37 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-02-2021 12:19 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  You dont think the computer models get tweaked? Seriously? You think they are exactly the same as they have been since their inception?

LOL ... I didn't say computers don't get tweaked. I am sure Wolfe and Sagarin et all tweak them when their thinking leads them to believe other factors are more important or less important than they previously thought. These math and stat nerds are probably always thinking about different ways of modeling college football. I said "tweaked to mimic CFP biases" (whatever they are). What would their motivation be to mimic the CFP? Nothing. If anything, nerds tend to be contrarian, they like to show how the conventional wisdom is wrong, not echo it.

There is no evidence for this. Even less support then the notion that the AP and Coaches voters have changed to mimic the CFP.

It's poppycock to me, sorry. On the best evidence we have, teams like Boise and TCU a decade ago were just better - relative to the competition at least - than UCF was a couple years ago or Cincy this year.

Absolutely zero evidence to indicate that. If anything, its the other way around. UCF simply beat Auburn. Houston simply beat Florida St and Oklahoma. There were no trick Statue of Liberty plays necessary for those wins. They just beat them.

On the other hand, 8 years of empirical evidence exists that tells us no "1-loss" G5 is never ever ever going to be ranked #6. That statement cannot be disputed with facts because there are none indicating otherwise. Nebulous "If's" and "but's" are all anyone can use to dispute that because the CFP data tells us undefeated G5's can't even get to #6. Hell, even in a pandemic where P5's only played a little over half a schedule, an undefeated G5 still couldnt get to #6.

I agree that there is absolutely zero evidence to suggest that the top-ranked non-P5 teams then were better than Cincy was this year.

I can't imagine how anyone could even come up with such a theory or hypothesis. If one were to give it a name, perhaps it would be called the "good old days" theory.

The "logic" may be that, since TCU and Utah were top non-P5 teams then and are members of power conferences now, then they must have been better. But that would be very flawed logic.

.

The ranking data show that that there is twice as much parity between the non-P5 and P5 conferences today than there was 15 or 20 years ago. Back then, there were never more than 3 or 4 non-P5 teams in the Final Top 25 polls, but today (in 2019 and 2020) there are 7, and in 2018, there were 6.

While this doesn't prove that Cincy, BYU or Coastal Carolina were better than TCU or Utah were 20 years ago, it does suggest that there's no good reason to suppose that they are any worse.

What's most likely is that the Cincy of 2020 is probably about as good as the best TCU and Utah teams of the early 2000s. That would be the most parsimonious interpretation. Occam's razor.

.

Since we've been tossing terms like "poppycock" around, note this:

The words "Quo Vadis" mean "Where are you going?"

When it comes to the AAC and the non-P5 schools, is it really true that we're all going nowhere?

I think not.

AP rankings and the total numer of G5 ranked teams are not a true indicator of quality now vs then.

AP rankings are simply an aggregation of opinions. I havent paid attention to any Ap/coaches polls in years. I dont understand the obsession with them.

Do you feel the BCS ranking was a better indicator since it pulled from a large pool of human based rankings and a computer based one? I always thought the BCS was the most accurate because it pulled from multiple sources. Never was in favor of a committee. I think it’s worse than the AP and Coaches polls. How can you have 13 people represent all of college football. In the US Senate every state has equal representation to vote on things. Yet in college football we trust 13 people, mostly from P5 schools to decide the ranking. The committee needs to go.

I say, bring back the BCS style ranking system. Let it begin each season with a clean slate as all teams differ from year to year. Let the True rankings start in week 5 or 6. That would give teams time to go through thier OOC games and give a general idea of the strength/weakness of the different conferences based on games vs each other. Then let the in conference play decide the rest. It will help answer the old strenth of schedule of each conference. I also believe we will eventually settle in at a 16 team playoff. "Eventually!"

(01-31-2021 04:10 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  While I think one day the playoffs will expand, we are still several years away from seeing it. The autonomy group wants to keep the non-autonomous schools under thumb as much as possible.

"we are still several years away from seeing it"

Sounds a lot like: "Reply hazy, try again."

Two questions:

1) Where'd you get your crystal ball?

2) Are you sure it isn't just a "Magic 8-ball?"

(02-03-2021 08:40 PM)NoQuarterBrigade Wrote:  

(02-03-2021 08:22 PM)PicksUp Wrote:  

(02-02-2021 02:20 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(02-02-2021 01:49 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-02-2021 12:37 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  LOL ... I didn't say computers don't get tweaked. I am sure Wolfe and Sagarin et all tweak them when their thinking leads them to believe other factors are more important or less important than they previously thought. These math and stat nerds are probably always thinking about different ways of modeling college football. I said "tweaked to mimic CFP biases" (whatever they are). What would their motivation be to mimic the CFP? Nothing. If anything, nerds tend to be contrarian, they like to show how the conventional wisdom is wrong, not echo it.

There is no evidence for this. Even less support then the notion that the AP and Coaches voters have changed to mimic the CFP.



It's poppycock to me, sorry. On the best evidence we have, teams like Boise and TCU a decade ago were just better - relative to the competition at least - than UCF was a couple years ago or Cincy this year.

Absolutely zero evidence to indicate that. If anything, its the other way around. UCF simply beat Auburn. Houston simply beat Florida St and Oklahoma. There were no trick Statue of Liberty plays necessary for those wins. They just beat them.

On the other hand, 8 years of empirical evidence exists that tells us no "1-loss" G5 is never ever ever going to be ranked #6. That statement cannot be disputed with facts because there are none indicating otherwise. Nebulous "If's" and "but's" are all anyone can use to dispute that because the CFP data tells us undefeated G5's can't even get to #6. Hell, even in a pandemic where P5's only played a little over half a schedule, an undefeated G5 still couldnt get to #6.

I agree that there is absolutely zero evidence to suggest that the top-ranked non-P5 teams then were better than Cincy was this year.

I can't imagine how anyone could even come up with such a theory or hypothesis. If one were to give it a name, perhaps it would be called the "good old days" theory.

The "logic" may be that, since TCU and Utah were top non-P5 teams then and are members of power conferences now, then they must have been better. But that would be very flawed logic.

.

The ranking data show that that there is twice as much parity between the non-P5 and P5 conferences today than there was 15 or 20 years ago. Back then, there were never more than 3 or 4 non-P5 teams in the Final Top 25 polls, but today (in 2019 and 2020) there are 7, and in 2018, there were 6.

While this doesn't prove that Cincy, BYU or Coastal Carolina were better than TCU or Utah were 20 years ago, it does suggest that there's no good reason to suppose that they are any worse.

What's most likely is that the Cincy of 2020 is probably about as good as the best TCU and Utah teams of the early 2000s. That would be the most parsimonious interpretation. Occam's razor.

.

Since we've been tossing terms like "poppycock" around, note this:

The words "Quo Vadis" mean "Where are you going?"

When it comes to the AAC and the non-P5 schools, is it really true that we're all going nowhere?

I think not.

AP rankings and the total numer of G5 ranked teams are not a true indicator of quality now vs then.

AP rankings are simply an aggregation of opinions. I havent paid attention to any Ap/coaches polls in years. I dont understand the obsession with them.

Do you feel the BCS ranking was a better indicator since it pulled from a large pool of human based rankings and a computer based one? I always thought the BCS was the most accurate because it pulled from multiple sources. Never was in favor of a committee. I think it’s worse than the AP and Coaches polls. How can you have 13 people represent all of college football. In the US Senate every state has equal representation to vote on things. Yet in college football we trust 13 people, mostly from P5 schools to decide the ranking. The committee needs to go.

The fact that they chose the number "13" should tell us something, like they had really poor judgment to go with an unlucky number...