I love this proposal for a bunch of reasons. Makes too much sense to ever happen:
Mike Gundy thinks A G5 school belongs in college football playoff
- Thread starter Chris McLaughlin
- Start date
Going to 8 teams is going to happen... Theres too much TV revenue available for it not to, probably when the current TV deal runs out after the 2023 season.
The question is going to be can the G5 leagues muster enough influence to get one of the spots?
Personally, 8 teams with the 5 P5 champs, 2 at-larges and 1 G5 is the best possible system. You give "everyone" a chance, you don't penalize conferences who may have 2 teams in the top 5 (SEC/ACC), and all of the P5 league champs get in.
An 8-team playoff, if done right, would make a lot of people happy and it would basically market/promote itself – which is why I am planning on the NCAA screwing it up somehow, lol.
The question is going to be can the G5 leagues muster enough influence to get one of the spots?
Personally, 8 teams with the 5 P5 champs, 2 at-larges and 1 G5 is the best possible system. You give "everyone" a chance, you don't penalize conferences who may have 2 teams in the top 5 (SEC/ACC), and all of the P5 league champs get in.
An 8-team playoff, if done right, would make a lot of people happy and it would basically market/promote itself – which is why I am planning on the NCAA screwing it up somehow, lol.
Last edited:
I'm with you on the delicacy of what makes college football so special. The regular season means SO much compared to other sports. I want no part of 16 teams but I think eight could work.
Also understand what you're saying about an undeserving G5 getting in the final eight. I'd be okay with a rule being in place that stipulates the G5 must be in the BCS top 15 (or something similar) at year's end. I would have been perfectly fine with teams like UCF, Houston and Western Michigan (not sure how highly they were ranked) getting a shot.
I understand the sentiment... But not the lack of logic...
For a G5 team to get the one playoff spot they are going to have to go at worst 12-1. Probably 13-0 most years. The same as it is now to get the BCS bowl slot. Also, the current system with less teams is mathematically more likely to keep a 10-2 SEC team out than a system with two at-large slots.
Expanding to 8 doesn't ruin the regular season at all. The games that matter now will still matter and playing your way into a conference championship game will be even more important in the P5 assuming a playoff spot is on the line.
Also, allowing 8 teams in will do nothing but help early season attendance and TV ratings... For example, lets say Marshall started a season 4-0 in the nonconference. With a chance to actually make the playoffs in the balance every week (MU literally could not afford to lose) the hype would increase every week. Under the current system, if MU starts 4-0, casual fans still dont give a rats a$$ because they know at the end of the season we will 99-percent surely be in a second-tier bowl game. At absolute best case scenario, MU runs the table and gets to play whoever finishes third in the SEC/ACC in a BCS game that means very little because its not part of the playoffs.
That has nothing to do with this discussion. I don't care about the "BCS bowl slot" for the best G5 team. That isn't being discussed. What is being discussed is an automatic PLAYOFF slot to allow playing for a national championship. In the current system, the G5 team is battling it out for a 5th place finish, and I am fine with that. The eight team playoff with an automatic G5 spot is entirely different.
That's exactly my point. If there are no two loss teams in, that is perfect. Look at the four team playoff last season: no two loss teams. That is the way it should be.
As you just admitted, an expanded playoff is far more likely to include two and three loss teams in it. That's bullshit. It waters down the regular season drastically.
In the proposed eight team playoff, last year's playoff would have included a 10-3 Auburn. No thanks. The year before, half of your playoff teams would have had at least two losses. No thanks.
In the current system, if it had been applied over the last ten years, there wouldn't have been a single two loss team in the playoff . . . and that's exactly the way it should be. Only the best of the best after 12-13 games deserve the right to play for a national championship. Teams with two and three losses aren't the best of the best. They don't deserve that opportunity.
This is the problem with having this discussion on Marshall boards . . . and it has been like this year-after-year on here. Too many people are selfish; you think only of what is in your (Marshall's) best interest with little regard to FBS football overall. Yes, in your scenario, a hot start by Marshall would lead to some growing buzz where excitement would grow every week. Want to know what it would do to the teams that bring in far more attention and are far more popular than Marshall (P5 teams)? It would be a drastic decline in weekly attention.
If Ohio State fans know they can lose to Penn State, know they can lose to Oklahoma, and know they can possibly lose to Wisconsin yet still get in an 8 team playoff, you realize that same exact belief you have to grow interest in Marshall would have the reverse effect on the P5 teams like Ohio State, right? In an 8 team playoff, those P5 teams don't have a do-or-die scenario each week even if they already have one or possibly two losses. Why would they? They have two extra playoff slots that will give them the ability to lose more games and get in. As a result, each regular season game has far less importance to those teams. When games have far less importance, attention and interest greatly subsides.
Sure, that may be good for a few G5 teams who start the season at 4-0, but for FBS football overall, it is a huge detriment to what makes it special.
I don't know how a playoff including these teams from the 2017 couldn't have been fun to watch. CFP Ranking is in parentheses.
ACC - Clemson (#1)
SEC - Georgia (#3)
Big-10 - Ohio St (#5)
Big-12 - Oklahoma (#2)
Pac-12 - USC (#8)
G5 - UCF (#12)
At-Large1 - Alabama (#4)
At-Large2 - Wisconsin (#6)
ACC - Clemson (#1)
SEC - Georgia (#3)
Big-10 - Ohio St (#5)
Big-12 - Oklahoma (#2)
Pac-12 - USC (#8)
G5 - UCF (#12)
At-Large1 - Alabama (#4)
At-Large2 - Wisconsin (#6)
You are blowing this out of proportion. There will be very few years where a 3-loss team would make the playoff as a P5 conference champion, and the premium would be set on winning your conference to get in the playoff. You don't even have that now as Alabama finished 3rd in the SEC and was still awarded a playoff spot. What is in the best interest of FBS is to have a better competitive balance and financial health among all FBS schools. An expanded playoff would generate far more revenue than the current system that could be shared among all FBS schools as the revenue is now. An 8-school playoff in the version that was suggested would have yielded the group below for the 2017 playoffs.
ACC - Clemson (#1)
SEC - Georgia (#3)
Big-10 - Ohio St (#5)
Big-12 - Oklahoma (#2)
Pac-12 - USC (#8)
G5 - UCF (#12)
At-Large 1 - Alabama (#4)
At-Large 2 - Wisconsin (#6)
Nobody claimed that it wouldn't be fun to watch. We are football fans. Of course those games would be fun. At what expense? Quite a bit. Look at the biggest regular season and conference championship matchups. The biggest regular season games would be meaningless in an 8 team playoff because it would be irrelevant who lost the game- both teams would still be able to get in the playoffs. Hell, why would Wisconsin, Ohio State, Georgia, or Alabama even bother preparing for their conference championship game? Why would they risk losing their top players in that game knowing all of the teams were already going to make the playoffs? If their goal is to win a national championship, why risk that in a far less important game? Those games would lose an enormous amount of importance. If I am Baker Mayfield, why would I play in the last regular season game or a conference championship game if I know I am going to be a top draft pick and if I know my team is already assured a playoff spot?
In this eight team playoff, it is reasonably possible that two teams would face each other in the regular season (Georgia/Alabama, Wisky/Ohio State, Clemson/Miami), face each other in a conference championship, and then face each other again in an 8 team playoff. Teams could reasonably end up playing each other three times in their first 14 games with this proposed system.
And there will be just about every year where you have numerous 2 loss teams getting in, which is not a good thing. As I already mentioned, with the current system, there wouldn't have been a 2 loss team in the playoffs over at least the last ten years. And that is the way it should be.
This isn't rocket science: you expand the playoffs, you allow more teams with more losses into the playoff. That, without a doubt, drastically reduces the importance of every game these teams play in the regular season. Does it give Marshall a better chance of someday playing for a national championship? Probably. Should that come at a reduction in what makes FBS football so special? Absolutely not.
And rightfully so! They were 11-1 and lost their division to a team (10-3) that didn't make the playoffs. Alabama's body of work for the entire season was far superior, thus they were given the playoff spot without winning their conference.
The national championship should not be open to a team that played the best in 8 of its 12 games. It should be open to the team that played the best in all 12 of its games. As a result, the 4 playoffs spots are granted to those teams who played their best over the entire season, not just who had the best record in 8 of their 12 games.
FBS football does not have an issue with financial health when it relates to bowl games, playoffs, etc. The most pressing issue is the decline in attendance throughout the regular season over the last handful of years. The G5 schools aren't the biggest victim of that. Those schools never had huge attendance numbers, and thus, haven't lost as many seats. The P5 schools are the biggest victims of this trend and are losing far more ticket sales.
This system would only further damage that, as what are currently huge games with major implications would amount to games with far less meaning in an expanded playoff.
So the system is "better" when 10-15 teams have a chance to actually play for something at the end of the year by week 3?
Also unmentioned is the fact that four teams is in no way guaranteed to give you the best four teams, especially in a system where those teams are picked by a selection committee. It's not like 4 teams gives you four absolute juggernauts and 8 teams gives you Bama and seven Sisters of the Poor.
There are years where you could take the top 8 teams and play a bracket five times and come out with five different winners.
Lets say a year ends like this...
1. Alabama (12-1)
2. Auburn (11-1) only loss to is Bama
3. Ohio State (12-1)
4. Georgia (12-1) only loss to Bama
5. Oklahoma (11-2)
6. Any G5 team (13-0)
7. Pac12 champ (11-2)
8. Acc Champ (11-2)
Under an 8-team system all of those teams get in... Under the current system... An undefeated G5 team has zero chance, and at least one SEC team gets left out despite being ranked in the top 5. The selection committee might take two SEC teams (despite not liking that idea) there is no chance they ever take 3 out of 4, even if they are clearly the three best teams in the country.
No system is perfect, but at the end of the day 8 teams is better than 4... The conferences know it (none of the P5 like being left out in the cold come playoff time), the coaches know it, the players know it, and the guys who sign the TV checks are going to figure it out by 2023 when the next deal (potentially worth as much as $8 billion) will be on the table.
Also unmentioned is the fact that four teams is in no way guaranteed to give you the best four teams, especially in a system where those teams are picked by a selection committee. It's not like 4 teams gives you four absolute juggernauts and 8 teams gives you Bama and seven Sisters of the Poor.
There are years where you could take the top 8 teams and play a bracket five times and come out with five different winners.
Lets say a year ends like this...
1. Alabama (12-1)
2. Auburn (11-1) only loss to is Bama
3. Ohio State (12-1)
4. Georgia (12-1) only loss to Bama
5. Oklahoma (11-2)
6. Any G5 team (13-0)
7. Pac12 champ (11-2)
8. Acc Champ (11-2)
Under an 8-team system all of those teams get in... Under the current system... An undefeated G5 team has zero chance, and at least one SEC team gets left out despite being ranked in the top 5. The selection committee might take two SEC teams (despite not liking that idea) there is no chance they ever take 3 out of 4, even if they are clearly the three best teams in the country.
No system is perfect, but at the end of the day 8 teams is better than 4... The conferences know it (none of the P5 like being left out in the cold come playoff time), the coaches know it, the players know it, and the guys who sign the TV checks are going to figure it out by 2023 when the next deal (potentially worth as much as $8 billion) will be on the table.
Last edited:
I think the whole idea of giving the G-5 an auto-bid to the playoff is a preposterous proposal. Especially considering that most of the G-5 only plays two P-5's while the many of the P-5's play eleven programs playing at the top level. If the G-5 thinks they deserve a shot at the true national championship, then they need to start scheduling like the big boys. Either that, or beg for it to get back to the way it was when we had 1-A and 1-AA so they could have their own championship game.
Last edited:
If the system is being used to determine the most deserving teams to play for a national championship, then yes.
If you select the best four, the fifth team in many years could make a decent argument that they should have been in. If you select the best eight teams, the ninth team in many years could make a decent argument that they should have been in. If you select sixteen teams, the seventeenth team in many years could make a decent argument that they should have been in.
This is EXACTLY what I said would happen if they went to a four-team playoff. People would start bitching that they should extend the playoffs again because the fifth team might have been deserving of the fourth spot. It's a never-ending cycle. A 12-1 G5 team who had its tits demolished by a 6th place Big Ten team does not deserve to get in over a second place SEC team that went 9-3 overall.
So, yes, if you want no arguments, you can select the top thirty-two teams and hope that number thirty-three doesn't complain too much. But in doing so, as in every expansion of the playoffs, you will see a huge dilution of the regular season.
No shit. And that's why it is absurd. You play 12-13 games. Why would you allow teams that have absolutely no business being in based on their resume to compete for a national title and potentially knock off a team that has a far better resume? It's not logical.
Upsets happen. But if you're trying to be fair, you take only the very best teams based on their entire resume. Look at last year's USC team. They were 11-3. Even with three losses, they won a game in double overtime. They won another game by 1 point. They won another game by 3 points. They won another game by 5 points. It isn't far-fetched that they could have lost six games last year. Yet you want to give them a chance to knock off a team in the playoffs that went 13-0 in the SEC? That's unfair. They have no business being in that position and the undefeated SEC team shouldn't have to defend their resume against an inferior opponent.
If that happens, it has nothing to do with the best system and everything to do with making a dollar. Christ.
So in an effort to maximize the importance of the regular season, which less and less people are watching (even at the Tennessee's, Ohio State's and Oklahoma's of the world), why don't we do away with the playoffs all together and just crown the SEC champion as the national champion every year?... I mean most years the SEC champ is pretty clearly the top team in the country with the best "resume."
Oh yeah, because that's not how sports works.
Taking 8 teams over 4 is not diluting the regular season. It's not the NBA or the NHL taking half the freaking league into the playoffs, or even the NCAA basketball tournament where 68 teams out of 320 make it and 55 of those have zero realistic chance of winning a championship... Eight teams out of 130 is not watering down the system. And for the sake of the record, I agree that 16 is too many and I don't think most rational/knowledgeable football fans would want 16 teams in the playoffs.
Oh yeah, because that's not how sports works.
Taking 8 teams over 4 is not diluting the regular season. It's not the NBA or the NHL taking half the freaking league into the playoffs, or even the NCAA basketball tournament where 68 teams out of 320 make it and 55 of those have zero realistic chance of winning a championship... Eight teams out of 130 is not watering down the system. And for the sake of the record, I agree that 16 is too many and I don't think most rational/knowledgeable football fans would want 16 teams in the playoffs.
I'm not sure how your attempt matches up with my logic. After playing 12-13 games, it should be clear who the very top teams are. It absolutely is clear that a #6, #7, and #8 ranked team isn't the best after 12-13 games. So why are they getting the opportunity to compete against and knock off a team which earned the right to be #1 far more?
After that many games, you can clearly get the most deserving team by selecting the four top teams. At that point, you let them settle it on the field.
It absolutely is diluting it. Every time you expand the playoffs, it dilutes the regular season more. This isn't something that is opinion based. If that isn't a fact, why would you be against a 16 team playoff?
The only reason you want an 8 team playoff is due to your Marshall bias.
I don't understand how you can say the system clearly gets the best four teams every year? Every year there are arguments among 6-7 teams for those four spots, especially the fourth slot, because so many teams have the same or similar records and play in different conferences and have widely disparate strength of non-conference schedules... A selection committee deciding between a 11-2 team from the PAC-12 and a 11-2 team from the Big-12 based on whatever subjective garbage they use to draw straws is not a good system. The same way letting the AP and the Coaches decide the national champion without those teams ever playing was not a good system.
As far as my Marshall bias, I would prefer an 8-team playoff even without a G5 team taking one of the slots... If it ended up being the top four SEC teams and the other P5 league champs, that's cool with me. I don't like seeing teams get screwed because of the "timing" of a loss or whether it was home or away, or other BS justifications that the committee has used to separate team 4 from teams 5-6-7.
I understand that an 8-team system will inevitably lead to team 9 being pissed... I get that... But if you have the five P5 league champs and then pick the three best remaining teams from any league you would have a field that would lessen the bitching. Wanna make the playoffs win your conference. Wanna make it as a G5, schedule hard in the nonconference and run the table (13-0) to be considered.
I would love to see this happen. The inclusion of a G5 school would be great. I doubt that any school (G5) in the past 20 plus years could have made it past the Final 4, but it would create some excitement and stop a school like UCF from holding a stupid press conference claiming to be the National Champs because they beat one big time opponent during a season.
You can't understand that because it isn't what I said. I said the current system gets the best TEAM (note, that isn't plural).
Sure, you can make somewhat decent arguments that the #5 team should have made it over #4. But at that point, you're arguing over which two teams that clearly aren't #1 or #2 should get in. It's irrelevant in finding the best team. You have the two most deserving teams in. If somebody can win a tournament out of the #1, #2, #3, and #4/#5 team, then they have earned it after a successful regular season.
Yes, college football is so special. The season starts with 60 of the 129 schools eliminated from national title contention before the first game. Super special.
Schedule better and that wouldn't be the issue. Thankfully, all head coaches and ADs know that they couldn't survive a full schedule against P5 schools, so they only schedule one or two each year instead of four.
I would tend to agree with you on that Yags. However, I think it is also almost an impossibility to schedule 4 P5 OOC games. What do you think?
Schedule better, hell the SEC teams all schedule a FCS foe every year. Every year! And it certainly doesn't hurt their vaunted, but dubious, SOSs and playoff chances!
Just look at some of the SEC teams non conference schedules. Both Kentucky and Ole Miss were 6-6 and bowl eligible ONLY thanks to victories over FCS opponents, EKU and UT Martin, respectively!! Hell, Texas A&M was about as bad, going 7-5 before losing to Wake Forest in a bowl. The Aggies were bowl eligible thanks to wins over FCS Nichols State, over a 5-7 Louisiana and a 3-9 New Mexico.
So these are the kinds of teams that those mighty SEC elites whipped to get into those sacred 4 team playoffs the SEC sycophants/sucks accept and defend. What's that? How about mighty LSU, you say? Ah, yes, the mighty SEC West strong boy and perennial contenders. The Tigers beat FCS Chattanooga (are we seeing a pattern here, guys?), a 4-8 Syracuse and a 4-9 BYU team. Whew!! What a gauntlet of OOC foes!! By the way, LSU beat the Cougars 27-0 in Baton Rouge while the Cougars lost at home 40-6 to Wisconsin. Wait you say, . . . we only compare scores if it makes the SEC teams look good, and makes other potential playoff contenders look bad! Got it!! Back to LSU, let's see, they DID have a Fourth non conference game in 2017 against, uh, mighty TROY!!! Yes, the same G5 Troy who put on their Trojans and reamed the Bayou Bengals down in the bayou, in Death Valley, Tiger Stadium, you know, the most hostile venue in ALL of College Football, in front of all those rabid fans, etc., SEC football atmosphere personified. But, yep, the Troy Trojans beat em!!!!
So what about Auburn and Alabama? Auburn who defeated BOTH Bama and Georgia. Well, the Tigers certainly weren't taxed after playing FCS Mercer, a 4-8 UL Monroe and a 2-10 Georgia Southern. The Tigers also lost to a playoff team, their only legitimate non-conference foe, Clemson, so there's nothing to write home about in that portion of their record.
Bama? They, too, played "mighty Mercer", of the FCS ilk (obviously the Bears AD pretty much financed the school's athletic budget with the 2 SEC games in Alabama), as well as Fresno, Colorado State (ask the Herd about them), and Florida State. While Florida State sounds "impressive", the 6-6 Seminoles became bowl eligible due in large part to wins over FCS Delaware State, a bad UL Monroe team(above), and a losing, disappointing Florida Gators squad, another over rated, under achieving SEC "big boy". But give the Tide some credit: that tough, 4 game OOC sked may not have aided them in getting into the SEC Championship game but obviously gained them a bye week or so and obviously impressed enough air heads on the playoff committee to get them in!!
From the above, one thing is pretty clear: Across the board, in 2017, the SEC 4 game non conference games were very average to mediocre. Nothing there to support arguments of "superior strength of schedule", or "clearly head and shoulders the best Power conference", and, lastly, to warrant 2 playoff slots. All SEC teams played at least one FCS team (Vandy played Alabama A&M, Miss. State played Charleston Southern, Arkansas played Florida A&M, South Carolina played Wofford, and Tennessee played Indiana State).
So how about some of those playoff contenders who didn't make the "Final Four". Well, Ohio State, Southern Cal and Wisconsin played NO FCS teams, for starters. In fact, all, or practically all, Big Ten teams played NO FCS foes among their OOC games (as a wise old baseball manager, Casey Stengel, once said, "You can look it up"). OSU played 5-7 UNLV, 10-3 Army and Oklahoma, a playoff team. Wisconsin played BYU, Utah State, and CUSA champ FAU. Southern Cal played 6-6 Western Michigan, 7-6 Texas and 10-3 Notre Dame. All 3 as good or better than most, if not all, SEC OOC schedules.
Now some of the many asinine, if not downright stupid, arguments made above in defense of the playoff "status quo" position tries to use scoring margins, comparison of scores, etc., in doing. That is a dangerous tactic since examples can show that it works BOTH WAYS. Argument was made that Ohio State should be dismissed because of a solid loss at Iowa.
Well, the Hawkeyes finished at 8-5, including a bowl win. They beat a 9-5 North Texas, an 8-5 Iowa State and a 8-5 Wyoming team in non conference play. That OOC schedule was, IMO, as good or better than ANY OOC schedule in the SEC! The argument also was made that Ohio State's playoff credentials should be diminished by close wins. OK, let's use that argument against a SEC playoff team: Georgia. The Bulldogs best win in out of conference play was a ONE POINT WIN at Notre Dame! In fact, I submit that that narrow victory was the most impressive Georgia win in the regular season and easily the entire SEC's BEST Win in OOC play in 2017! However, if Ohio State is to be dismissed because of "close" wins, shouldn't Georgia's ONE Point win at Notre Dame also be dismissed/disregarded?
In arguing that an 8 team playoff would probably have, with Ohio State, Wisconsin, UCF, Southern Cal, for example, produced a different, and more valid, championship game, and perhaps, a different champion, the entirety of the season, through the bowls, needs to be assessed. If that is done, and done correctly, then some flaws in the 2017 process are exposed. How can the selection of 2 teams, from the same conference, one of whom failed to make the league's championship game, be defended? Especially when, across the board, the league teams play a collective weak and watered down out of conference schedule (fully one third of the season's schedule per school, 4 games out of 12)!!
In the bowls, the Big Ten won 7 and lost 1: Iowa beat Boston College; Purdue beat Arizona; Michigan State beat Washington State; Northwestern beat Kentucky; Ohio State beat Southern Cal; Penn State beat Washington and Wisconsin beat Miami, FL.
The "mighty" SEC on the other hand, went 2 and 5 (4 and 6 if you want to count the playoff games)!! South Carolina defeated Michigan of the Big Ten; Miss. State def. Louisville; Texas def. Missouri; Wake Forest def. Texas A&M; Notre Dame def. LSU; and, of course, UNDEFEATED UCF vanquished "mighty" Auburn, conqueror of BOTH SEC playoff finalists!!!
So did the playoff finals come about because the committee was enamored with the SEC's collective "rugged and challenging" (gag here!) OOC opponents, or how the SEC's two teams fared against the likes of its conference foes who laid such a putrid egg in bowl play? Or did, as many would conclude, the entire decision rest on how the committee evaluated the games between 3 teams only: Alabama, Auburn and Georgia!!
What a hell of a system to determine who is suppose to be the champion of major college football! Surely there is a better way!
Just look at some of the SEC teams non conference schedules. Both Kentucky and Ole Miss were 6-6 and bowl eligible ONLY thanks to victories over FCS opponents, EKU and UT Martin, respectively!! Hell, Texas A&M was about as bad, going 7-5 before losing to Wake Forest in a bowl. The Aggies were bowl eligible thanks to wins over FCS Nichols State, over a 5-7 Louisiana and a 3-9 New Mexico.
So these are the kinds of teams that those mighty SEC elites whipped to get into those sacred 4 team playoffs the SEC sycophants/sucks accept and defend. What's that? How about mighty LSU, you say? Ah, yes, the mighty SEC West strong boy and perennial contenders. The Tigers beat FCS Chattanooga (are we seeing a pattern here, guys?), a 4-8 Syracuse and a 4-9 BYU team. Whew!! What a gauntlet of OOC foes!! By the way, LSU beat the Cougars 27-0 in Baton Rouge while the Cougars lost at home 40-6 to Wisconsin. Wait you say, . . . we only compare scores if it makes the SEC teams look good, and makes other potential playoff contenders look bad! Got it!! Back to LSU, let's see, they DID have a Fourth non conference game in 2017 against, uh, mighty TROY!!! Yes, the same G5 Troy who put on their Trojans and reamed the Bayou Bengals down in the bayou, in Death Valley, Tiger Stadium, you know, the most hostile venue in ALL of College Football, in front of all those rabid fans, etc., SEC football atmosphere personified. But, yep, the Troy Trojans beat em!!!!
So what about Auburn and Alabama? Auburn who defeated BOTH Bama and Georgia. Well, the Tigers certainly weren't taxed after playing FCS Mercer, a 4-8 UL Monroe and a 2-10 Georgia Southern. The Tigers also lost to a playoff team, their only legitimate non-conference foe, Clemson, so there's nothing to write home about in that portion of their record.
Bama? They, too, played "mighty Mercer", of the FCS ilk (obviously the Bears AD pretty much financed the school's athletic budget with the 2 SEC games in Alabama), as well as Fresno, Colorado State (ask the Herd about them), and Florida State. While Florida State sounds "impressive", the 6-6 Seminoles became bowl eligible due in large part to wins over FCS Delaware State, a bad UL Monroe team(above), and a losing, disappointing Florida Gators squad, another over rated, under achieving SEC "big boy". But give the Tide some credit: that tough, 4 game OOC sked may not have aided them in getting into the SEC Championship game but obviously gained them a bye week or so and obviously impressed enough air heads on the playoff committee to get them in!!
From the above, one thing is pretty clear: Across the board, in 2017, the SEC 4 game non conference games were very average to mediocre. Nothing there to support arguments of "superior strength of schedule", or "clearly head and shoulders the best Power conference", and, lastly, to warrant 2 playoff slots. All SEC teams played at least one FCS team (Vandy played Alabama A&M, Miss. State played Charleston Southern, Arkansas played Florida A&M, South Carolina played Wofford, and Tennessee played Indiana State).
So how about some of those playoff contenders who didn't make the "Final Four". Well, Ohio State, Southern Cal and Wisconsin played NO FCS teams, for starters. In fact, all, or practically all, Big Ten teams played NO FCS foes among their OOC games (as a wise old baseball manager, Casey Stengel, once said, "You can look it up"). OSU played 5-7 UNLV, 10-3 Army and Oklahoma, a playoff team. Wisconsin played BYU, Utah State, and CUSA champ FAU. Southern Cal played 6-6 Western Michigan, 7-6 Texas and 10-3 Notre Dame. All 3 as good or better than most, if not all, SEC OOC schedules.
Now some of the many asinine, if not downright stupid, arguments made above in defense of the playoff "status quo" position tries to use scoring margins, comparison of scores, etc., in doing. That is a dangerous tactic since examples can show that it works BOTH WAYS. Argument was made that Ohio State should be dismissed because of a solid loss at Iowa.
Well, the Hawkeyes finished at 8-5, including a bowl win. They beat a 9-5 North Texas, an 8-5 Iowa State and a 8-5 Wyoming team in non conference play. That OOC schedule was, IMO, as good or better than ANY OOC schedule in the SEC! The argument also was made that Ohio State's playoff credentials should be diminished by close wins. OK, let's use that argument against a SEC playoff team: Georgia. The Bulldogs best win in out of conference play was a ONE POINT WIN at Notre Dame! In fact, I submit that that narrow victory was the most impressive Georgia win in the regular season and easily the entire SEC's BEST Win in OOC play in 2017! However, if Ohio State is to be dismissed because of "close" wins, shouldn't Georgia's ONE Point win at Notre Dame also be dismissed/disregarded?
In arguing that an 8 team playoff would probably have, with Ohio State, Wisconsin, UCF, Southern Cal, for example, produced a different, and more valid, championship game, and perhaps, a different champion, the entirety of the season, through the bowls, needs to be assessed. If that is done, and done correctly, then some flaws in the 2017 process are exposed. How can the selection of 2 teams, from the same conference, one of whom failed to make the league's championship game, be defended? Especially when, across the board, the league teams play a collective weak and watered down out of conference schedule (fully one third of the season's schedule per school, 4 games out of 12)!!
In the bowls, the Big Ten won 7 and lost 1: Iowa beat Boston College; Purdue beat Arizona; Michigan State beat Washington State; Northwestern beat Kentucky; Ohio State beat Southern Cal; Penn State beat Washington and Wisconsin beat Miami, FL.
The "mighty" SEC on the other hand, went 2 and 5 (4 and 6 if you want to count the playoff games)!! South Carolina defeated Michigan of the Big Ten; Miss. State def. Louisville; Texas def. Missouri; Wake Forest def. Texas A&M; Notre Dame def. LSU; and, of course, UNDEFEATED UCF vanquished "mighty" Auburn, conqueror of BOTH SEC playoff finalists!!!
So did the playoff finals come about because the committee was enamored with the SEC's collective "rugged and challenging" (gag here!) OOC opponents, or how the SEC's two teams fared against the likes of its conference foes who laid such a putrid egg in bowl play? Or did, as many would conclude, the entire decision rest on how the committee evaluated the games between 3 teams only: Alabama, Auburn and Georgia!!
What a hell of a system to determine who is suppose to be the champion of major college football! Surely there is a better way!
Last edited:
It's unfortunate that you spent so much time on what was a flawed argument from the start.
The entire first half of your post was all an argument that the SEC didn't have a tough SOS because they all played weak to average out-of-conference schedules. Unfortunately for your argument, a SOS isn't simply determined by 1/3 (out-of-conference) of a team's schedule. The entire schedule is used to determine the SOS.
Yes, the SEC as a whole didn't play a strong out-of-conference schedule. And that's pretty much accurate each year. However, they play, usually, a nightmarish schedule the rest of the year. That's why the computers - a system with very little human bias - routinely has those teams with some of the hardest schedules in the country (along with the Big 10 when they have strong years).
So, again, the entire first half of your post seems to be a misguided understanding of what SOS is.
Further, you won't find many people who will argue that the SEC was "head and shoulders" the best conference in football last year. In fact, I'll argue that they were probably only the third best conference, at best, in 2017. Though the west was strong, as usual, the east continued to be very average. But this is where your logic falls off once again.
In selecting the four most deserving teams for a playoff, you don't simply pick two teams from the best conference. There is no logic behind that. That would be like claiming that whoever wins the playoff has the best conference. That's simply illogical. Both Georgia and Alabama were selected not because of some belief that they play in the best conference, but rather, that they had two of the best four resumes in the country . . . and we can touch on that more in a minute.
You also attempted to make a point that penalizing Ohio State for close wins isn't fair when a team like Georgia is rewarded for a close win. First, the argument wasn't about Ohio State, it was about USC. Those are two entirely different schools if you aren't familiar with them. Further, there is a difference between beating a 5-7 team by 1 point compared with a top 15 team by 1 point on the road. Some wins aren't good wins while others are very good wins. And I am more than willing to discuss that more with you if you can't understand it.
You then tried using bowl records as some sort of proof of your argument. Again, nobody is arguing that the SEC was the best conference last season. And, again, just because the SEC had two of the best four teams doesn't make them the best conference. Just as important, using bowl record is an extremely, extremely illogical method in determining the best conferences. First, bowl games don't include many teams that finish without bowl eligibility. Yet those teams are all part of a conference, thus the conference strength. For instance, if one conference had all of its non-bowl eligible teams go 1-11 on the year and another conference had all of its non-bowl eligible teams go 5-7 on the year, assuming everything else is fairly equal, which conference would have a much better bottom of the conference? That's quite clear. So from the start, looking at bowl records to determine the better conference dismisses a large part of each conference. Also, bowl records are extremely misleading simply based on the matchups. Should a conference be judged on if its #2 team beats another conference's #8 team by 3 points? That really isn't a good indicator of a conference's value.
You seem to believe the playoffs didn't include the four best teams. Other than the four teams that made it, which teams(s) do you feel had a better resume than one of the teams that made it?
Last edited:
...........oldeherd has Yags in the corner! He unleashes a barrage of blows to the body! But Yags gets in 2 quick shots to the face, and then a ferocious uppercut to the chin of olde, sending him toppling to the canvas!
Pass the popcorn........
Pass the popcorn........
The opening bell never sounded as I would have never agreed to schedule a fight with an unworthy challenger.
There are a couple of valid arguments against the system. Oldeherd didn't touch on them and argued illogical points.
The decision to expand the playoffs will be made by P5 power brokers (mainly the SEC and the Big 10) and their TV partners.
Neither Mike Gundy nor the G5 schools will have any influence in the final decision.
Neither Mike Gundy nor the G5 schools will have any influence in the final decision.
"Flawed from the start", Yak breath? That statement makes the rest of your inane post useless drivel. Since the gist of the thread is the possible inclusion of a G5 team into the payoffs which would probably require expanding the event to 8 teams. Just presented the argument that an 8 team event in 2017 could have been as entertaining as the 4 team playoff, if not more so, including one of said G5 schools, perhaps, (UCF) and would have arguably produced a more valid champion. Continue to defend the SEC if you wish, in light of a seasonal record of 4 games per team against mediocre opposition in out of conference play, except for the Georgia game at Notre Dame. Also, except for a couple of top teams, the in conference games overall weren't that taxing or challenging, either. The bowl games DO establish that quality football throughout the SEC in 2017 didn't run very deep! A 2-5 record in non-playoff bowl games by SEC teams in bowl games remains a fact. As your posts reflect you often fail to recognize, or are swayed by, facts. Hell, maybe SEC teams should all just schedule some games with powerhouses like, say, Bethune Cookman! Problem solved!! Have a nice day, now!! OUT,
The sop to the G5 for agreeing to expand these playoffs, as predicted, will be some sort of slot for a G5 team. Since playing three rounds of neutral site playoffs is a live gate loser some G5 will get to lose at Alabama sometime around Christmas (Hopefully, the thought of wintertime games in balmy places like Lincoln, East Lancing, or Boulder comes to mind.) So it will be the four major conference champions, the Big 12 champion, the best one out of the five G5 champions and two "wild cards" (AKA P5 losers). Rah rah rah.
ESPN will be happy. You will pay for it.
The losers? Well, college football fans, who will see the regular season reduced to meaninglessness and the bowl system destroyed. And college football coaches. Go back and project this system and look at all the great coaches. Whose career records would be "never made the playoffs."
ESPN will be happy. You will pay for it.
The losers? Well, college football fans, who will see the regular season reduced to meaninglessness and the bowl system destroyed. And college football coaches. Go back and project this system and look at all the great coaches. Whose career records would be "never made the playoffs."
And it may end up being more exciting, but it would be at a great cost to the regular season. You also didn't "just present the argument . . . " You tried refuting my comments, mostly with illogical arguments, to build your case.
I thought we already discussed how stupid it was to try determining the value of a conference by only looking at about 7% of only half of a conference teams' results?
But to further illustrate how dumb your argument is, here were the SEC bowl matchups. The ones with the asterisks are SEC wins:
#4 Big 12 vs. #9 SEC
#5 ACC vs. #8 SEC
#4 Big 10 vs. #7 SEC
#5 ACC vs. #6 SEC *
#6 Big 10 vs. #5 SEC *
#1 G5 vs. #2 SEC
10-2 Notre Dame vs. #4 SEC
#1 Big 12 vs. #1 SEC *
#1 ACC vs. #3 SEC *
As you can see, with the exception of the UCF/Auburn game, any time the SEC was close in conference standing to the opposing team, the SEC team won.
In all bowl games/playoffs, the SEC went 4-5 against other conferences. Out of those 9 games, the SEC team had a higher conference standing than only 1 opponent (which they won).
The SEC wasn't the best conference last year, but your attempt of using bowl games to discredit them not only is illogical, but it also was a miserable failure.
Your arguments were so putrid that you had to resort to personal jabs instead of staying on topic, moron.
"Close in conference standing" is a meaningless tool, given, for one, conferences often vary in total number of teams. By your warped thinking, would a 5th place MAC versus a 5th place SEC matchup be a tossup? Not necessarily. Would a 3rd Place Mountain West team by its conference ranking be the automatic favorite over, say, a 5th place ACC team? Or a 3rd place Big 10 team favorite over a 6th place PA12 squad? Certainly not, based on that single criterion.
Another failed try, Yaggy, or popgun, or whatever. Just resort to some name calling, as per your usual modus operandi. What a pathetic, and sad POS, Yaggy ole boy!!!
Umm, yeah, that's exactly my point, moron.
You were trying to judge the value of the SEC by looking at their bowl record. A huge flaw in that logic is that bowl games are not always pitted against similar teams from different conferences. If a #1 Sun Belt team beats a #8 Big 10 team, does that mean the Sun Belt is better? Of course not. Yet there you are trying to argue against the SEC's value due to its bowl record.
You're so dumb that you don't realize your last post is not only proving my exact argument in my previous post, but it is also refuting your own argument.
Its called "head to head" competition, you simpleton and pathetic POS! What else are you evaluating them on? The SEC's lackluster overall OOC record? Or just on how they perform in conference competition alone? Does it matter if these intersectional games are during the regular season or in post season bowls? Head to head is one, albeit not the only one, measure of the relative strengths of conferences in certain sports. Do think that among all variables that bowl committees consider in selecting teams that they obsess mightily over the teams final positions in their respective conference standings? "Oh woe is me, we can't have a 4th place ACC team matched with a 7th place Big 12 team, can we"?
Look at college basketball, for instance, which has events like the Big 12 v. the SEC challenge, etc. You'll have a number of in season games between the two leagues. Of course, since one league has more teams than the other, not all teams in a league will participate. So you'll have match ups like a Big 12 number 2 team like a WVU playing a SEC number 8 team, say Ole Miss. At the end of the competition you can be sure that the conference who wins the most of these matchups, touts it its media outlets.
Similar situation in college football bowls, other than they are at the end of, and not during, the season and are usually played at a neutral site. Why do conferences usually tout if their league teams have a success bowl season? Why do certain media entities usually have stories noting how well or how poorly conferences did in the bowls?
Just one way of measuring relative strengths/weaknesses of conferences vis-a-vis others. Not that difficult to understand, Yaggy, even for a simpleton like you. Then again, maybe not!
They do it because morons like you aren't bright enough to realize you have to actually look at the games to properly evaluate them. As I already used as an example, if the Sun Belt #1 and Sun Belt #2 defeat the #11 and #12 Big Ten teams, does that prove that the Sun Belt is the better conference? Of course not. Why not? Well, for multiple reasons, but one of the big ones is that the match-ups aren't equal. You're taking the best of one conference against the worst in another conference and basing each conference's strength based on those two inequitable games.
As I already showed, in the nine bowl/playoff games involving one SEC team, only one of those nine games had the SEC finishing higher in their conference than the opponent did in their respective conference. As a result, if trying to determine conference strength, you aren't comparing or competing equal teams in terms of conference standing. It's illogical to use that as the basis for what you're trying to claim.
This isn't rocket science, but you're struggling to understand it. Not only is your argument of judging a conference based on bowl record illogical, but you also fail to acknowledge that many teams that are part of a conference don't play in bowl games. The strength (or weakness) of those teams is just as important as those competing in bowl games, yet your illogical argument fails to take that into consideration.
As I have said, there are a couple of rational, logical arguments to make regarding flaws in the current system. You have failed to touch on any of those and have spent time taking illogical stances.
" . . . basing each conference's strength based on these two inequitable games," Again, your simple lack of comprehension knows no limits. Where does your obsession with "equitable" or "inequitable" come from? No bowl match ups are equitable in every sense; bowl committees set out to hopefully find competitive matchups, among other factors. They won't get bat crap crazy bent out of shape, like you, if they wind up with a 4th place Big Ten team against a 7th place ACC team. "Oh, its NOT equitable therefore the result of the matchup is meaningless", when it comes to assessing the respective conferences' strengths/weaknesses.
Unless the system comes up with matching teams against teams in other leagues who finished in identical slots in their leagues (1s vs. 1s, 2s vs. 2s, etc.), you're not going to have "equality", or at least what you are looking for, apparently. That fact DOES not eliminate, or even discount, the results of match ups in bowls games between teams when these match ups are what you call inequitable, when it comes to evaluating the relative strengths/weaknesses of the respective conferences. Not the only criterion, certainly, in evaluating leagues. Simple as that, although in your argumentative, illogical mind it probably won't sink in.
Using your illogical argument, I guess another numb nuts will try to argue that because some perennially strong FCS team, who is annually at the top of their league, happens to win over 4 or 5 years a game or so yearly over a 8th or 9th place Big 10 team, or a MAC also ran, or a CUSA bottom feeder, that the FCS's teams's league should be ranked above the MAC, or CUSA, as a whole. Never mind that those respective games between the FCS strong boy and the FBS weren't "equitable" matchups!!
When your main (and only) argument in ranking conference strength has been bowl results, it is extremely important to look to see how equal the match-ups were.
You just admitted that the bowl games are very rarely equal in terms of each team holding their respective slot in their conference standings. So how can that be your main and only argument in ranking conferences? The fact that out of nine post season games, there was only one game where the SEC was ranked higher in their conference than their opponent shows just how unequal those match-ups are. In other words, it is asinine to use those results as your main argument.
And that's why using bowl results as your main argument shows how much of a moron you are.
Conference strength is not just about nine games during bowl season. It is about all of the games the entire season. Conference strength is not just about teams in a conference good enough to make a bowl. It is about the entire conference.
Your argument is absurdly bad.
It's important to remember your original argument and your main (and only support of it). Your claim was that the SEC was not the best conference, thus they didn't deserve to have two teams in the playoff. The goal of the playoff is not to reward the best conference with an extra team. The goal of the playoff is to select the four most deserving/best teams for the entire year. Just because two of the four best teams were from the same conference does not make that conference the best.
The SEC had two of the best four teams in the country. The SEC was not the best conference. Your argument shows your inability to realize those things are exclusive from each other.
That wasn't my argument, moron. If you would take the time to learn - since clearly you don't know - the Missouri Valley has won numerous games against FBS teams in the recent past. It has nothing to do with just the best team in the conference (North Dakota State), but rather, encompasses the entire conference (see how my argument stays consistent in ranking conferences?).
But, again, why listen to me. You can listen to computers which don't just look at the top team from each conference.
Sagarin Ratings:
2013:
Missouri Valley- 59.31
Conference USA- 58.81
2014:
Missouri Valley- 64.12
Conference USA- 61.23
2015:
Missouri Valley- 58.74
Conference USA- 55.44
2016:
Missouri Valley- 57.54
Conference USA- 56.52
2017:
Missouri Valley- 60.72
Conference USA- 56.91
Over the last five years, the Missouri Valley, by far, has been better than Conference USA.
Hate to come out of retirement, but...
Sag, you had a good argument until you brought in Sagarin. A very bad model.
11 I-A INDEPENDENTS (A) = 64.91 66.47 4 ( 11)
12 AAC EAST (A) = 64.05 66.43 6 ( 12)
13 MISSOURI VALLEY (AA)= 62.43 60.50 10 ( 13)
14 MAC-WEST (A) = 61.27 59.48 6 ( 15)
15 MWC-MOUNTAIN (A) = 59.77 60.41 6 ( 14)
16 MAC-EAST (A) = 56.19 56.11 6 ( 16)
17 CONFERENCE USA-EAST (A) = 55.60 55.70 7 ( 18)
He ranks MVC above; CUSA--EAST, Entire MWC, and only two points below ND and the IA- Ind.
http://sagarin.com/sports/cfsend.htm
Not a good reference. I'll go back to hibernating now.
Wait a minute - five days ago, you said you were done with this board. Now, you have reneged on your word to make a factually incorrect post?
Explain to us how Sagarin's model is "very bad." Use logically sound arguments to discuss why the statistics he uses in his model are "very bad" or don't make sense.
You don't even know what goes into Sagarin's "model" because he uses multiple models, all which take different factors into account.
The fact is that one of Sagarin's more popular models is the most accurate predictor of games than any other computer model.
That's false. He doesn't have the Missouri Valley above the "entire Mountain West." In reality, he has the entire Mountain West, as a whole, substantially higher, which is accurate.
Yes, he has the Missouri Valley over Conference USA (not just the East side like you claim, but overall, better than all of C-USA). And, again, that is accurate.
You further claim that the independents are only two points ahead of the Missouri Valley. What you fail to realize is that the independents only have four teams, two of which were very bad last year (UMass and BYU). You also don't understand that two points is a fairly big difference in the model.
So, out of your three arguments why the model is supposedly bad . . . one of your arguments was factually wrong - he doesn't have the Missouri Valley over the "entire MWC." Another argument shows you don't understand that a conference (or in this case, the independent teams) take into account every single team, not just the top (Notre Dame) team's strength. The independent teams had one great team (Notre Dame), one good team (Army), and two bad teams (UMass and BYU). Overall, that's not a very strong group, yet his model still had that group significantly better than the Missouri Valley. Your final argument was that Conference USA - East shouldn't be ranked below the Missouri Valley, but you give absolutely no argument to support it.
........you know, the world needs a cheap, renewable energy source. Between the indefatigable, inexhaustible persistence of olde and johns, and the “I can do this all day” (Cap!)
rebuttal counterweight of YAGs, I think we may have figured out a way to save enough $$ to heat/cool the entire campus! Think what we could do with that extra dough re me!!!
rebuttal counterweight of YAGs, I think we may have figured out a way to save enough $$ to heat/cool the entire campus! Think what we could do with that extra dough re me!!!
