(06-08-2021 07:18 PM)owl at the moon Wrote: (06-08-2021 06:29 PM)quo vadis Wrote: (06-08-2021 06:23 PM)owl at the moon Wrote: If you win your conference (P5 or G5) and finish in the top 25*, then you should be guaranteed an invite in to a 12 team playoff.
*ideally, top 25 in any of the three rankings: CFP, AP, Coaches.
Top 25 is too easy. We'd have 2-3 G5 champs ranked around #21 getting in over P5 teams ranked in the top 10.
Ok, you’re right.
True, but it is interesting to note that a few P5 champions were ranked #21st in the nation or lower, prior to NY bowl games, such as:
2020 #25 (AP/CFP) Oregon (4-2; 4-2)
2008 #21 (AP) Virginia Tech (9-4; 5-3)
2005 #22 (AP) Florida State (8-4; 5-3)
(06-08-2021 07:18 PM)owl at the moon Wrote: Top 20 is probably better.
In other words to quote you, "If you win your conference (P5 or G5) and finish in the top
20, then you should be guaranteed an invite in to a 12 team playoff."
That might seem like a radical idea to some people, but actually, it makes a lot of sense, and it could be done within a 12-team CFP format (see table below).
NOTE: In 2019, #19 (12-1) Boise St. and #20 (12-1) App. St. would have made their way into the CFP ahead of #11 (11-2) Utah and #12 (9-3) Auburn, by virtue of having won their conference championships.
The idea makes sense, logically, because a highly-ranked conference champion is a much more credible candidate for a national championship than is a team that has failed to meet that same basic threshold.
After all, how strong a claim can a team make on a national championship if it couldn't even manage to win its own conference championship?
If the rule you've suggested were to have been put into place:
(a) Three more G5 teams would have made it into the CFP over a 7-year period,
(b) The G5 would've been represented by more competitive teams in 2016 & '18, and the #12 team would have played in the CFP, rather than the #25 team in 2020.*
*#12 Coastal Carolina would've played in the 2020 CFP, rather than #25 Oregon.
G5 teams that would play in the CFP if they were required to be Top 20 (CFP) ranked G5 conference champions,
rather than simply being the champion of the top-ranked G5 conference:
Champion of the highest-........................
Top 20 (CFP) ranked
ranked G5 conference:...........................
conference champions:
2020....#8 Cincinnati.............................#8 Cincinnati;
#12 Coastal Carolina (replaces #25 Oregon)
2019....#17 Memphis............................#17 Memphis;
#19 Boise St.;
#20 App St.
2018....#21 Fresno St............................
#8 UCF (replaces #21)
2017....#12 UCF...................................#12 UCF
2016....#24 Temple..............................
#15 Western Michigan (replaces #24)
2015....#18 Houston.............................#18 Houston
2014....#20 Boise St.............................#20 Boise St.
Most importantly, the column on the right might have been a more competitive slate of teams.
(06-08-2021 07:18 PM)owl at the moon Wrote: IMO a 5:1 ratio of P5:G5 is healthy mix. Really need two G5 in there *on average*, if twelve teams are involved.
If the CFP were to be designed to ensure a representative ("healthy") mix of teams, by emulating the selection criteria for NCAA tournament teams, the CFP format would need to be expanded to at least 16 teams.
If the 12-team CFP format with auto-bids had been adopted in 2014, there only would have been one G5 at-large team (#8 UCF, in 2018).
#12 Coastal Carolina would have been bumped from the 2020 field by #25 Oregon.
There would be slightly more G5 at-large teams with a 16-team CFP Playoff Format:
..........Top-Ranked G5 conference / Champion...............Highest-Ranked
............
(Massey Composite Conference Rankings)..............."At-Large" G5 Team
2020............AAC / #8 Cincinnati (9-0)....................
#12 Coastal Carolina (11-0)
2019............AAC / #17 Memphis (12-1)..................#19 Boise State (12-1)
2018............MWC / #21 Fresno St. (12-2)................
#8 UCF (12-0)
2017............AAC / #12 UCF (12-0).........................#20 Memphis (10-2)
2016............AAC /#24 Temple (10-3).....................
#15 Western Michigan (13-0)
2015............AAC / #18 Houston (12-1)...................#21 Navy (9-2)
2014............MWC / #20 Boise St. (11-2).................#21 Louisville (9-3)
If a 16-team CFP with the basic 12-team criteria had been adopted in 2014, there would have been G5 at-large teams in 2016, 2018, and 2020.
The G5 would have had an average of 1.43 teams per year in the playoffs since 2014.
A 16-team CFP would also be a better test of which team is the true national champion, because the top-seeded teams wouldn't get a bye week.
In both respects, a 16-team CFP would be better than a 12-team CFP, from the standpoint of the G5 conferences. It would also be more consistent with the principles of sportsmanship that the NCAA tournament is based on.
.
The information in these tables indicate, or suggest that:
1) The proposed 12-team CFP expansion format would be unlikely to have more than one G5 team, unless or until more G5 teams are able to end the regular seasons in the nation's top 12.
2) It may be advisable to grant CFP access to G5 teams that and win their conference championships and finish in the CFP Top 20. This would result in a very modest, intermittent uptick in the number of G5 teams in the CFP, but would be consistent with the NCAA principles of sportsmanship evidenced in the selection of teams for the NCAA basketball tournament.
3) While a 12-team CFP with an automatic bid for one G5 team would be considered a step in the right direction from the standpoint of the G5 conferences, a 16-team CFP would have two major advantages: (A) By eliminating "bye" games for the top-seeded teams, it would permit all teams "to compete on a more even playing field," and (B) It would enable a slightly larger number of G5 teams to compete for a national championship (estimated 1.5 G5 teams per year, on average).