The case for an 8 Team Playoff

NDRock

Well-known member
Messages
7,489
Reaction score
5,448
You can't just say "Alabama lost and should have been out." You have to also say who would/should have taken their spot.

#5 Ohio State had two losses.
#6 Wisconsin lost to #5 Ohio State and had the easiest schedule conceivable up to that point

Everyone else had 2 or 3 losses except UCF.

Exactly, that's why you can't say the regular season is so great because Michigan lost some imaginary "quarterfinal" game in week 1. It's only a quarterfinal game after the season is over and you look back.
 

wizards8507

Well-known member
Messages
20,660
Reaction score
2,661
The problem here is that Michigan received two opportunities to play in quarterfinal games. They could have lost their first one but still advanced if they had won their second one. Notre Dame would not have had that opportunity. One quarterfinal loss and the Irish would have been eliminated.
Holy shit it's not LITERALLY a quarterfinal, I was being rhetorical. My point is, there are enough big games in the regular season where every team not named UCF had a fair opportunity to qualify for the playoff and they blew it.

Georgia would be in if they had beaten LSU or Alabama. Ohio State would be in if they had beaten Purdue or even lost to Purdue in a respectable showing. Michigan would be in if they had beaten Notre Dame or Ohio State. Everyone else has three losses so who cares about them? Everyone who thinks they should be in had their chance to prove it, and they failed.

Except UCF, who, as I said, got boned.
 

Irishize

Well-known member
Messages
4,531
Reaction score
461
You can't just say "Alabama lost and should have been out." You have to also say who would/should have taken their spot.

#5 Ohio State had two losses.
#6 Wisconsin lost to #5 Ohio State and had the easiest schedule conceivable up to that point

Everyone else had 2 or 3 losses except UCF.

I agree. I was simply basing it on your suppositions for how the CFP gives us a quasi-playoff w/ conference champ games being quarter finals. There’s always going to be a caveat (a free pass based on recent historical performance which I agree Bama has earned) to prevent it from wrapping up neatly upon the season’s conclusion. The CFP wins in the end b/c they love the debate it inspires.
 

RDU Irish

Catholics vs. Cousins
Messages
8,628
Reaction score
2,732
Yes, this current iteration of the CFP did just that. But what do they mean by “best four teams”? Four best teams at the conclusion of the regular season & conf champ games? With only 4 spots that is an easy default to the lazy “eye test” which is code for SEC teams>the rest of FBS. If that’s the bar, just give it to the top four consensus recruiting classes averaged over the last five years.

The “eye test” was deemed gospel when scUM was blowing out a bunch of tomato cans. What did the “eye test” tell us when LSU rolled UGA by three TDs? Was that “eye test” trumped by the one that saw them almost beat Bama who saved their yearly letdown for the SEC Championship game? The same Bama that shut out LSU at Baton Rouge.

If the season is going to matter, it needs to be the four teams who turned in the best seasons b/c w/ 129(?) FBS programs & only 4 CFP spots, there’s no other way to objectively award a slot. If they go by recency bias & select teams based on the “eye test” but forgive embarrassing (not close) losses to inferior opponents in the regular season...we may as well go back to the BCS system.

If you are going to treat the non-P5 as second class citizens whose wins don't matter unless they work their way into the right P5 non-conference schedules to build SoS - just split 129 in to two divisions already. Only way Houston/UCF/Boise St/Etc can win a championship is.....????? Well they can't. Join a P5 conference or be Notre Dame is about it.
 

Irishize

Well-known member
Messages
4,531
Reaction score
461
Holy shit it's not LITERALLY a quarterfinal, I was being rhetorical. My point is, there are enough big games in the regular season where every team not named UCF had a fair opportunity to qualify for the playoff and they blew it.

Georgia would be in if they had beaten LSU or Alabama. Ohio State would be in if they had beaten Purdue or even lost to Purdue in a respectable showing. Michigan would be in if they had beaten Notre Dame or Ohio State. Everyone else has three losses so who cares about them? Everyone who thinks they should be in had their chance to prove it, and they failed.

Except UCF, who, as I said, got boned.

With this I agree
 

Irishize

Well-known member
Messages
4,531
Reaction score
461
If you are going to treat the non-P5 as second class citizens whose wins don't matter unless they work their way into the right P5 non-conference schedules to build SoS - just split 129 in to two divisions already. Only way Houston/UCF/Boise St/Etc can win a championship is.....????? Well they can't. Join a P5 conference or be Notre Dame is about it.

I agree. Absent an FCS type playoff, they should split into a P5 & G5 league.
 

Whiskeyjack

Mittens Margaritas Ante Porcos
Staff member
Messages
20,894
Reaction score
8,126
If you are going to treat the non-P5 as second class citizens whose wins don't matter unless they work their way into the right P5 non-conference schedules to build SoS - just split 129 in to two divisions already. Only way Houston/UCF/Boise St/Etc can win a championship is.....????? Well they can't. Join a P5 conference or be Notre Dame is about it.

That pretty much sums it up:

SoS rank for each team in the playoff:



The only undefeated team to get left out is UCF, whose schedule ranked 103rd. That doesn't strike me as unjust at all.

It's going to be very difficult for the Knights to secure a playoff spot as long as they're in the AAC. They ought to be lobbying hard for a move to the Big-12 if they're serious about competing for championships.
 

Irishize

Well-known member
Messages
4,531
Reaction score
461
I'm not saying the FBS teams are noble and altruistic. I'm saying the FCS teams need that money and are willing participants in this. Therefore, they are willing to take any games they can get to get that money for their budgets. And yes, when you look at the fact that many of these FCS teams are in desperate need, they will do what they can to schedule FBS opponents.

I merely bring forward enacting the old rule of 1 every 4 years, because I think that is way more realistic than eliminating the FCS/FBS games entirely. We all like to rag on SEC (see Alabama) teams and other powerhouses playing these stupid games. But I do think there is some (slight) value to games played between FCS teams and the likes of the Sun Belt, Mountain West, C-USA, low level P5 (Kansas) etc.

But you miss the point that there are plenty of horrible FBS teams who could fill the same need as the FCS teams & they need the money, too. Now...if we want to compromise, I would agree w/ your 1 in 4 years format w/ one additional caveat...they have to be played in September (preferably the opener).

Why? Because we can all agree that both FBS & FCS teams experience attrition throughout the season. Be it injury, academics, suspensions, etc. Now imagine a squad w/ only 63 scholarship athletes & what that number looks like in mid-November. I haven’t researched it, but I will bet you than an FCS program has never knocked off a P5 team in November. If I’m wrong, I’ll own it but I’d respect Bama, Clemson, Auburn & others more if they kindly stroked $1 million check to the FCS charity of their choice & not insult their fans by playing the game. It’s an additional open week to rest/heal up for the post season run.

To be fair, it’s brilliant based on how the rules are laid out. I definitely don’t blame Saban as he’s called for 9 conference opponents & playing only P5 teams OOC. But you can’t hate Nick for benefitting from the loopholes that are currently set. Every team that complains of this, including ND, has nothing preventing them from doing the same damn thing.
 

Wingman Ray

Banned
Messages
1,578
Reaction score
110
I agree. I was simply basing it on your suppositions for how the CFP gives us a quasi-playoff w/ conference champ games being quarter finals. There’s always going to be a caveat (a free pass based on recent historical performance which I agree Bama has earned) to prevent it from wrapping up neatly upon the season’s conclusion. The CFP wins in the end b/c they love the debate it inspires.

See this is where we agree to disagree. If Bama is playing a soft schedule, does getting up for one game at the end constitute the best team? Im not saying SEC is a weak conference at all but this year, it was. At least the teams Bama was playing. There wasnt a top flight team on that schedule at all prior to GA and you can argue GA lost that game rather than Bama won it. LSU playing exactly one team in GA prior to playing Bama and getting blitzed. The SEC was really weak this year period.

So I cannot agree with the statement that Bama earned anything.

If you are a top team over the last ten flipping years, you shouldnt be able to schedule D2 teams and soft p5 teams. You just shouldnt. I do not buy for one minute that a CFB schedule takes five years to schedule where the pros schedule every singe year. That is just a cop out period.

Bama wants a weak schedule because it guarantees them top win/loss schedule and top marketing dollar because most fans cannot see past the year in year out W-L record. Tua gets heisman honors despite choking in the only challenge he faced all year while playing with the nations top athletes year in year out.

No my friend, Bama hasnt earned anything. Have them play a schedule with teams that are remotely comparative to them and see how they do when the injuries start piling up come post season.
 

Whiskeyjack

Mittens Margaritas Ante Porcos
Staff member
Messages
20,894
Reaction score
8,126
See this is where we agree to disagree. If Bama is playing a soft schedule, does getting up for one game at the end constitute the best team? Im not saying SEC is a weak conference at all but this year, it was. At least the teams Bama was playing. There wasnt a top flight team on that schedule at all prior to GA and you can argue GA lost that game rather than Bama won it. LSU playing exactly one team in GA prior to playing Bama and getting blitzed. The SEC was really weak this year period.

So I cannot agree with the statement that Bama earned anything.

If you are a top team over the last ten flipping years, you shouldnt be able to schedule D2 teams and soft p5 teams. You just shouldnt. I do not buy for one minute that a CFB schedule takes five years to schedule where the pros schedule every singe year. That is just a cop out period.

Bama wants a weak schedule because it guarantees them top win/loss schedule and top marketing dollar because most fans cannot see past the year in year out W-L record. Tua gets heisman honors despite choking in the only challenge he faced all year while playing with the nations top athletes year in year out.

No my friend, Bama hasnt earned anything. Have them play a schedule with teams that are remotely comparative to them and see how they do when the injuries start piling up come post season.

'Bama's SoS over the last 10 years:

2018 - 11th
2017 - 3rd
2016 - 3rd
2015 - 2nd
2014 - 2nd
2013 - 29th
2012 - 21st
2011 - 11th
2010 - 8th
2009 - 5th
2008 - 14th

I don't see how you can argue that 'Bama isn't playing one of the toughest overall schedules year in and year out. You can argue that scheduling cupcakes like Citadel should be disqualifying, but there's no argument against the overall difficulty of their schedules.
 

Wingman Ray

Banned
Messages
1,578
Reaction score
110
'Bama's SoS over the last 10 years:



I don't see how you can argue that 'Bama isn't playing one of the toughest overall schedules year in and year out. You can argue that scheduling cupcakes like Citadel should be disqualifying, but there's no argument against the overall difficulty of their schedules.

OK let me throw this out because SOS is really front loaded.

So I start off preseason top 10. I play 2 hard teams and 2 decent teams with the rest being cake walks which is typical of an SEC schedule. So you go 2-2 or even 1-3 on those games. Im guaranteed to end the season top 10, top 15 if you lost 3 of 4 from beforementioned. When the SEC yearly starts off the season with 3-4 in the top 10 and another 4 in the top 20, what do you get when add up SOS?

You get a lot of points for beating a team that lost to the only teams on their schedules with a pulse.

THIS is why preseason rankings and any rankings early season should not exist.
 

wizards8507

Well-known member
Messages
20,660
Reaction score
2,661
OK let me throw this out because SOS is really front loaded.

So I start off preseason top 10. I play 2 hard teams and 2 decent teams with the rest being cake walks which is typical of an SEC schedule. So you go 2-2 or even 1-3 on those games. Im guaranteed to end the season top 10, top 15 if you lost 3 of 4 from beforementioned. When the SEC yearly starts off the season with 3-4 in the top 10 and another 4 in the top 20, what do you get when add up SOS?

You get a lot of points for beating a team that lost to the only teams on their schedules with a pulse.

THIS is why preseason rankings and any rankings early season should not exist.
The SOS Whiskey shared are based on end-of-season records and efficiency ratings, not polls or any other arbitrary metric. Those are ACTUAL SOS rankings, not the perceived SOS rankings.
 

Irishize

Well-known member
Messages
4,531
Reaction score
461
See this is where we agree to disagree. If Bama is playing a soft schedule, does getting up for one game at the end constitute the best team? Im not saying SEC is a weak conference at all but this year, it was. At least the teams Bama was playing. There wasnt a top flight team on that schedule at all prior to GA and you can argue GA lost that game rather than Bama won it. LSU playing exactly one team in GA prior to playing Bama and getting blitzed. The SEC was really weak this year period.

So I cannot agree with the statement that Bama earned anything.

If you are a top team over the last ten flipping years, you shouldnt be able to schedule D2 teams and soft p5 teams. You just shouldnt. I do not buy for one minute that a CFB schedule takes five years to schedule where the pros schedule every singe year. That is just a cop out period.

Bama wants a weak schedule because it guarantees them top win/loss schedule and top marketing dollar because most fans cannot see past the year in year out W-L record. Tua gets heisman honors despite choking in the only challenge he faced all year while playing with the nations top athletes year in year out.

No my friend, Bama hasnt earned anything. Have them play a schedule with teams that are remotely comparative to them and see how they do when the injuries start piling up come post season.

I’ve actually made that same argument but that argument doesn’t gain much traction outside this board. It may not be fair and we may not like it but Bama can lose one game every year as long as Saban is here & Bama will still be in the CFP. I’m basing that on the fact that Bama coached by Saban has never really been blown out.

Even before this year’s SEC Champ Game, I made the case to my SEC friend:

So Bama (at that time) was widely regarded as an unbeatable behemoth that passed the eye test & the W/L test by beating every opponent handily & w/ little stress. So much so, their star QB rarely played in the 4th quarter. So if they are that great....and that unbeatable....shouldn’t they have zero excuse for losing to Georgia in the SEC Champ game? A UGA team that got rolled by 3 TDs by LSU?

Bama/SEC fans’ response is ALWAYS: “Are you saying they’re not still one of the best four teams?”

No, I’m saying if they’re as great as everyone claims, why should they be given a pass in a game that decides who the champion of their conference is? Why not just forfeit the game to rest the players b/c if you’re in the CFP despite a loss in the SEC Champ Game, why risk injuring your QB or other key players that are needed for the CFP? And it would help their “friends” (Georgia) also get in the CFP b/c they’d be a 1-loss SEC Champion.

Of course, it’s a moot point b/c Bama won in dramatic fashion (and some horrible play calling by Georgia). And yes, I’m being somewhat facetious to make a point. I suppose if there were four undefeated P5 teams, then a one loss Bama may get left out. Or if all the 1-loss teams won their conf championship & Bama had one loss w/o a conf champ, they could get left out. But until Saban steps down...that’s what you can expect.
 

NDohio

Well-known member
Messages
5,869
Reaction score
3,060
Holy shit it's not LITERALLY a quarterfinal, I was being rhetorical. My point is, there are enough big games in the regular season where every team not named UCF had a fair opportunity to qualify for the playoff and they blew it.

Georgia would be in if they had beaten LSU or Alabama. Ohio State would be in if they had beaten Purdue or even lost to Purdue in a respectable showing. Michigan would be in if they had beaten Notre Dame or Ohio State. Everyone else has three losses so who cares about them? Everyone who thinks they should be in had their chance to prove it, and they failed.

Except UCF, who, as I said, got boned.

Uh yeah, I know. However, some schools still get more opportunities to play in your "quarterfinal" games than other schools do. What quantifies as a big game? Was OSU vs Purdue a big game? Was ND's win over Stanford a bigger game than the win over Syracuse? It's all too subjective to only narrow it down to four teams after a twelve game schedule played by 129 teams.

If Georgia had only the loss in the CCG and OSU had played Purdue to a tighter game what a mess this year would have been. There is a good chance that ND would have been left out in that scenario even though they would be undefeated against a schedule that ranked in the top half of all schedules. That's ridiculous but very likely.
 

Whiskeyjack

Mittens Margaritas Ante Porcos
Staff member
Messages
20,894
Reaction score
8,126
OK let me throw this out because SOS is really front loaded.

So I start off preseason top 10. I play 2 hard teams and 2 decent teams with the rest being cake walks which is typical of an SEC schedule. So you go 2-2 or even 1-3 on those games. Im guaranteed to end the season top 10, top 15 if you lost 3 of 4 from beforementioned. When the SEC yearly starts off the season with 3-4 in the top 10 and another 4 in the top 20, what do you get when add up SOS?

You get a lot of points for beating a team that lost to the only teams on their schedules with a pulse.

THIS is why preseason rankings and any rankings early season should not exist.

That's why I linked to an advanced model like FEI (though you'd see the same thing in any decent SoS model, including Sagarin's). Those models use pre-season projections at the start of each season, because they have to start somewhere, but that data is mostly filtered out by mid-season, and is completely absent in the end-of-season figures I linked above.

I get the frustration with the ESPN circle-jerk as every SEC out-of-conference win is proof of superiority, and every in-conference loss is downplayed due to difficulty. But the pundits aren't designing the advanced models, and the latter don't lie.
 

wizards8507

Well-known member
Messages
20,660
Reaction score
2,661
I get the frustration with the ESPN circle-jerk as every SEC out-of-conference win is proof of superiority, and every in-conference loss is downplayed due to difficulty. But the pundits aren't designing the advanced models, and the latter don't lie.
4a4.gif


You just contradicted yourself within two sentences. It's not a circle-jerk if it's true. The SEC isn't the best conference because of ESPN bias. It's the best conference because they have the best coaches and get the best recruits.
 

Wingman Ray

Banned
Messages
1,578
Reaction score
110
The SOS Whiskey shared are based on end-of-season records and efficiency ratings, not polls or any other arbitrary metric. Those are ACTUAL SOS rankings, not the perceived SOS rankings.

I understand but what I am saying is that you tend to end the season with a nice ranking if you start the season with a nice ranking and dont play challenging teams. Or just lose to the few that you do play. Rare is the team that starts out unranked, loses the same number of games (or even less games) and surpasses a team pre-season ranked higher.

Fact is that ranking starts pre season and those rankings rippled down the rest of the season. Unless you just tank like Auburn has done and lose to everyone you were expected to win against, you dont end up too far from where you started.
 

gkIrish

Greek God
Messages
13,184
Reaction score
1,004
Let's just blow it up and do a 6 game regular season then break it down into two separate 64 team playoff brackets using 128 of the 129 FBS teams. No preseason rankings. Use a combination of computer metrics and human polls to seed teams.

Force each conference to have an East/West or similar breakdown (looking at you Big 12).

For example, SEC West plays in tournament A. SEC East plays in tournament B. All the other conferences do the same (ACC Coastal = A, ACC Atlantic = B etc. etc.).

Higher seeds get home games until the round of 16 in each respective tournament. From there on out you use current bowl sites as neutral fields (16 + 8 + 4 + 2 + 1 = 31 bowl sites).

Round 1: Of the 128 teams, 64 advance. Losers don't play again the rest of the year unless they want to scrimmage against some other loser.

Round 2: Of the 64 teams, 32 advance. Losers move into a consolation bracket. Higher seeds host all games in consolation bracket. The winner of the consolation bracket gets some trophy and an automatic top 32 seed in the following year's tournament.

Round 3: Of the 32 teams, 16 advance. Losers play consolation bracket and winner gets another trophy and guaranteed top 16 seed the following year.

Round 4: Of the 16 teams, 8 advance. Losers play consolation bracket and winner gets a trophy plus guaranteed top 8 seed the following year.

Round 5: Of the 8 teams, 4 advance. Losers play consolation tournament and winner gets trophy plus guaranteed top 6 seed the following year.

Round 6: Of the 4 teams, 2 advance. Losers play each other and the winner of that game gets a trophy and guaranteed top 4 seed the following year.

Round 7: Final 2 teams square off after having won their respective tournaments. Think NFC and AFC in the NFL. Huge accomplishment in and of itself to get to the game.

Completely unrealistic but would be so fun to watch. Basically a combination of March Madness and the NFL playoffs.
 

Whiskeyjack

Mittens Margaritas Ante Porcos
Staff member
Messages
20,894
Reaction score
8,126
You just contradicted yourself within two sentences. It's not a circle-jerk if it's true. The SEC isn't the best conference because of ESPN bias. It's the best conference because they have the best coaches and get the best recruits.

It's not an issue of truth or falsity. One has to be rated before one can be overrated. "Circle jerks" don't happen over terrible teams toiling in obscurity. So there was no contradiction in my post above.
 

NDRock

Well-known member
Messages
7,489
Reaction score
5,448
'Bama's SoS over the last 10 years:



I don't see how you can argue that 'Bama isn't playing one of the toughest overall schedules year in and year out. You can argue that scheduling cupcakes like Citadel should be disqualifying, but there's no argument against the overall difficulty of their schedules.

Bama's schedule gets a huge boost because they are so good and end up playing very good teams in the CCG, bowl games, or playoffs. When discussing schedules, I like to look at their regular season games. Here is Bama's ranking from the same site during the same years. Per the site it is based on a teams ...strength of the given team's regular season schedule discounting conference championship games and bowl games

2008 - 79th
2009 - 35th
2010 - 7th
2011 - 45th
2012 - 41st
2013 - 31st
2014 - 21st
2015 - 21st
2016 - 33rd

Looks like they stopped tracking RSOS after 2016.
 

RDU Irish

Catholics vs. Cousins
Messages
8,628
Reaction score
2,732
Bama's schedule gets a huge boost because they are so good and end up playing very good teams in the CCG, bowl games, or playoffs. When discussing schedules, I like to look at their regular season games. Here is Bama's ranking from the same site during the same years. Per the site it is based on a teams ...strength of the given team's regular season schedule discounting conference championship games and bowl games

2008 - 79th
2009 - 35th
2010 - 7th
2011 - 45th
2012 - 41st
2013 - 31st
2014 - 21st
2015 - 21st
2016 - 33rd

Looks like they stopped tracking RSOS after 2016.

Bolded = BINGO

Kind of surprised the stats wonks didn't self disclose the Catch 22.

I don't blame Bama. Getting rich and staying rich are two very different things.
 

RDU Irish

Catholics vs. Cousins
Messages
8,628
Reaction score
2,732
Not to mention - actual student athletes should get a chance to dance with the semi-pros when they get an occasional perfect storm of leadership, elite player or two and good coaching to run the table that is put in front of them. How can you blame the kids on the field for having a bad SoS? If you can't get behind a team like UCF the last two years and find a way to give them a shot - just form a semi-pro league and cut colleges out of all athletics.
 

Whiskeyjack

Mittens Margaritas Ante Porcos
Staff member
Messages
20,894
Reaction score
8,126
Bama's schedule gets a huge boost because they are so good and end up playing very good teams in the CCG, bowl games, or playoffs.

Well, yeah. Playing a 13th game against Georgia or Florida every year tends to boost one's SoS. And 'Bama isn't just gifted that 13th game; they have to win the SEC W first to get there.

Bolded = BINGO

Kind of surprised the stats wonks didn't self disclose the Catch 22.

I don't blame Bama. Getting rich and staying rich are two very different things.

You guys are the ones making the case that the current system unfairly disadvantages deserving programs like UCF in favor of 'Bama. So you bear the burden of proof in demonstrating that. I used current stats to show that UCF doesn't deserve a playoff spot having played the 103rd ranked SoS. If you'd like to use the RSOS from 2016 or earlier to demonstrate which deserving program got left out to 'Bama's benefit, I'd love to see it.

Not to mention - actual student athletes should get a chance to dance with the semi-pros when they get an occasional perfect storm of leadership, elite player or two and good coaching to run the table that is put in front of them. How can you blame the kids on the field for having a bad SoS? If you can't get behind a team like UCF the last two years and find a way to give them a shot - just form a semi-pro league and cut colleges out of all athletics.

The whole student-athlete/ semi-pro model thing is a separate debate entirely. UCF's had a great run over the last two years, but how are you going to justify giving them a shot over one of the current four without completely throwing out SoS? I'd love to see UCF play some real competition, and they just aren't going to find that in the AAC. As I said before, they ought to be lobbying hard for a move to the Big-12 if they want to compete for championships.
 

Irish YJ

Southsida
Messages
25,888
Reaction score
1,444
It's going to be very difficult for the Knights to secure a playoff spot as long as they're in the AAC. They ought to be lobbying hard for a move to the Big-12 if they're serious about competing for championships.

The AAC’s next TV deal could affect Big 12 expansion and all of college football
https://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2018/12/10/18134521/aac-tv-deal-big-12-expansion

Here are all 17 expansion candidates the Big 12 is meeting with
https://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2016/8/12/12451440/big-12-expansion-candidates-realignment

Will any new schools be added to the Big 12 in the next five years?
https://sportsday.dallasnews.com/co...will-new-schools-added-big-12-next-five-years

Found the above articles interesting.

-Shows the AAC is trying to lock in their teams

-A lot of articles I've read on potential Big12 expansion mention the 2025 date. Not sure if they have told teams they are targeting 2025, or if that's just a date pulled out of the air. Other articles like the 3rd, talk over the next five years.

-I hate that TX and OK are not only controlling expansion, but also are the most likely to leave the Big12

-It was discussed in one of these threads that some states prohibit (via legislature or other means) teams from moving up to a P5.

I don't see how you can argue that 'Bama isn't playing one of the toughest overall schedules year in and year out. You can argue that scheduling cupcakes like Citadel should be disqualifying, but there's no argument against the overall difficulty of their schedules.

Whiskey have you ever seen out-of-conference SoS ranked? Or in-conference SoS ranked?

I don't have a problem in general about Bama's SoS. I do have a problem with their cupcakes, unwillingness to travel to cold states in cold months, and scheduling placement of those cupcakes. It just "feels" like they have more or less byes before almost every big game. I take my hat off to Saban for using the system to his advantage. Allows for increased game prep, freshness, and recovery from injury. If ND did the same thing, wonder what our SoS would look like without a SEC West to fall back on?
 

stlnd01

Was away. Now returned.
Messages
13,388
Reaction score
10,249
.
.

-I hate that TX and OK are not only controlling expansion, but also are the most likely to leave the Big12

-It was discussed in one of these threads that some states prohibit (via legislature or other means) teams from moving up to a P5.

If Texas and Oklahoma leave the Big 12, it’s hard to justify the Big 12 as a Power 5, automatic-bid, conference. That’s how you get to four 16-team superconferences.
.
 

Wingman Ray

Banned
Messages
1,578
Reaction score
110
Not to mention - actual student athletes should get a chance to dance with the semi-pros when they get an occasional perfect storm of leadership, elite player or two and good coaching to run the table that is put in front of them. How can you blame the kids on the field for having a bad SoS? If you can't get behind a team like UCF the last two years and find a way to give them a shot - just form a semi-pro league and cut colleges out of all athletics.

I have to say UCF just blew it. Florida offered a 2 for 1 to them, something unheard of to play and it has gone no where. UCF knows they cant hang with the bigger schools except on an upset. Of course, if LSU lays an egg, I will have to eat my hat.
 

Whiskeyjack

Mittens Margaritas Ante Porcos
Staff member
Messages
20,894
Reaction score
8,126
I don't have a problem in general about Bama's SoS. I do have a problem with their cupcakes, unwillingness to travel to cold states in cold months, and scheduling placement of those cupcakes. It just "feels" like they have more or less byes before almost every big game.

I don't disagree, but how pedantic are we going to get in attacking 'Bama? No matter how you slice it, they're playing and dominating against one of the toughest schedules in the country year in and year out. I can't conceive of a credible system that would slot in a team like UCF over 'Bama.

I take my hat off to Saban for using the system to his advantage. Allows for increased game prep, freshness, and recovery from injury. If ND did the same thing, wonder what our SoS would look like without a SEC West to fall back on?

That's another frustrating aspect, since we can't really replicate Saban's methods given our unique circumstances. I'm just struggling to find non-pedantic grounds for criticizing 'Bama's position in the current system. You can get into the whole student-athlete/ semi-pro thing, but that's an indictment of the system as a whole.
 

Irish YJ

Southsida
Messages
25,888
Reaction score
1,444
If Texas and Oklahoma leave the Big 12, it’s hard to justify the Big 12 as a Power 5, automatic-bid, conference. That’s how you get to four 16-team superconferences.
.

I agree. I don't think they will leave though. They would lose their status joining the PAC. I think they are just trying to suck up every dollar they can until their hand is forced. Right now, the two ADs are bending over the rest of the conference and hold all the leverage. They should pick up UCF, BSt, Cinci, and Houston IMO. USF, Temple, SMU, Memphis, and BYU would be solid too.

If I weren't a ND fan, I'd be a huge fan of four 16 team super conferences. It would make things so much cleaner.
 

NDRock

Well-known member
Messages
7,489
Reaction score
5,448
Well, yeah. Playing a 13th game against Georgia or Florida every year tends to boost one's SoS. And 'Bama isn't just gifted that 13th game; they have to win the SEC W first to get there.

Nobody can take away what Bama has accomplished. I was just pointing out that they scheduled the 35th ranked schedule for the years you posted.

You guys are the ones making the case that the current system unfairly disadvantages deserving programs like UCF in favor of 'Bama. So you bear the burden of proof in demonstrating that. I used current stats to show that UCF doesn't deserve a playoff spot having played the 103rd ranked SoS. If you'd like to use the RSOS from 2016 or earlier to demonstrate which deserving program got left out to 'Bama's benefit, I'd love to see it.

I don't think the current system disadvantages programs like UCF, I think it just doesn't include them. UCF went undefeated last year and beat Auburn. They went undefeated again this year and realistically had no chance of making the playoff. I'm fine with that. I just wish we had a system where you knew going in what you had to do and could do it on the field. Not some BS committee. I prefer something like Lax's idea earlier.

As a soccer fan, I personally would enjoy some sort of Power 5/Group of 5 promotion/relegation system*. Each Power 5 conference gets assigned one of the Group of 5 conferences. Bottom two from the Power 5 get relegated, top two get promoted. Fuck it. Let's get crazy with it.

*I saw this idea somewhere online.
 
Top