|
Post by Bevo on Nov 29, 2017 17:32:29 GMT
The guys point was they play 1 or 2 P5 games while all the P5 teams play 9 or 10. Big difference whether some want to recognize that or not. True.. but they won pretty big against the P5 teams they played. Another 35-10, or even 28-14 score against GTECH would have been enough to convince me. For sure, over any 2 loss teams. Two losses is a BIG gap. Bigger, IMO that difference in schedule strength.
|
|
|
Post by Hero on Nov 30, 2017 8:34:21 GMT
The guys point was they play 1 or 2 P5 games while all the P5 teams play 9 or 10. Big difference whether some want to recognize that or not. Well said
|
|
|
Post by cjhawkeyes on Nov 30, 2017 15:43:48 GMT
The P5/G5 divide that the committee format reinforces is precisely why rules are needed. FBS teams should be treated the same. I don't believe the gap between P5 and G5 is as great as perceived and certainly not to the extent that UCF is routinely ranked behind 2-3 loss teams. P5 schedules compared to G5 schedules are not worth three free losses. Rules like my system would spell out what it typically takes to make a four team playoff and provide the top P5 teams with an incentive to play the top G5 schools. I think rules would do as much for G5 schools as would an invitation to a P5 league which is precisely why P5 schools would never go for rules and prefer a committee that can place UCF 14th without any real explanation and get away with it.
|
|
|
Post by doc on Nov 30, 2017 17:01:32 GMT
The P5/G5 divide that the committee format reinforces is precisely why rules are needed. FBS teams should be treated the same. I don't believe the gap between P5 and G5 is as great as perceived and certainly not to the extent that UCF is routinely ranked behind 2-3 loss teams. P5 schedules compared to G5 schedules are not worth three free losses. Rules like my system would spell out what it typically takes to make a four team playoff and provide the top P5 teams with an incentive to play the top G5 schools. I think rules would do as much for G5 schools as would an invitation to a P5 league which is precisely why P5 schools would never go for rules and prefer a committee that can place UCF 14th without any real explanation and get away with it. The explanation is pretty simple - they beat one P5 team that finished 4-8 and finished tied for last in their division. And people who spend a helluva a lot more time watching and analyzing these things than we do mostly say the competition level is a big difference. I was listening to Steve Spurrier this morning and he said if UCF went undefeated and the playoff field was 8, he'd give them a chance but not in a field of 4. The AAC is basically a collection of teams that no other conference wants. There are very few historical or bitter rivalries, they've only been around about 5 years, none of the teams want to be in the conference, the better coaches get picked up by a P5 school as Tom Herman and soon, Scott Frost have demonstrated. UCF's had a great season and if they win on Saturday, and I think they will they'll get to play in a New Years Day bowl. That's a great feat for them. But like I said in another post, they'll probably have another coach on the sidelines!
|
|
|
Post by cjhawkeyes on Nov 30, 2017 17:31:01 GMT
The P5/G5 divide that the committee format reinforces is precisely why rules are needed. FBS teams should be treated the same. I don't believe the gap between P5 and G5 is as great as perceived and certainly not to the extent that UCF is routinely ranked behind 2-3 loss teams. P5 schedules compared to G5 schedules are not worth three free losses. Rules like my system would spell out what it typically takes to make a four team playoff and provide the top P5 teams with an incentive to play the top G5 schools. I think rules would do as much for G5 schools as would an invitation to a P5 league which is precisely why P5 schools would never go for rules and prefer a committee that can place UCF 14th without any real explanation and get away with it. The explanation is pretty simple - they beat one P5 team that finished 4-8 and finished tied for last in their division. And people who spend a helluva a lot more time watching and analyzing these things than we do mostly say the competition level is a big difference. I was listening to Steve Spurrier this morning and he said if UCF went undefeated and the playoff field was 8, he'd give them a chance but not in a field of 4. The AAC is basically a collection of teams that no other conference wants. There are very few historical or bitter rivalries, they've only been around about 5 years, none of the teams want to be in the conference, the better coaches get picked up by a P5 school as Tom Herman and soon, Scott Frost have demonstrated. UCF's had a great season and if they win on Saturday, and I think they will they'll get to play in a New Years Day bowl. That's a great feat for them. But like I said in another post, they'll probably have another coach on the sidelines! The P5/G5 is used to maintain the competitive gap that exists whether or not it is as great as imagined. There are plenty of G5 teams better than P5 programs. The committee has a three loss Stanford with a loss to a G5 team ranked ahead of an unbeaten UCF whose league is looked down upon despite 2 BCS/Big Six bowl wins and its fifth place team last year beating the Big 12 champions. This is why coaches leave. The format does not allow G5 teams to compete. It does not provide specifics on scheduling, does not create an incentive for top P5 teams to play top G5 teams, and basically allows P5 teams to load up on cupcakes in OOC play because conference play is enough. Too many seem to think that P5 teams have to beat 4-5 ranked teams on a yearly basis to make the top 4 when the average is less than three and many get there with less than 2 such wins.
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Nov 30, 2017 17:53:16 GMT
The I don't believe the gap between P5 and G5 is as great as perceived and certainly not to the extent that UCF is routinely ranked behind 2-3 loss teams. I think it is significant, but... I agree with you that the gap is not enough to advance a 2 loss team over and udefeated team... IF the undefeated G5 team has at least beaten a couple of P5 schools during the season. Rules like my system would spell out what it typically takes to make a four team playoff and provide the top P5 teams with an incentive to play the top G5 schools.Yes! This is probably the BEST part of using your system to determine the top 4. prefer a committee that can place UCF 14th without any real explanation and get away with it. I still believe the committee was being compassionate In ranking UCF that low early on. With an important P5 game missing from their schedule, there was NEVER ANY CHANGE They would make it into the Top 4. No reason to treat them in the criminal way they did TCU in the first year.
|
|
|
Post by FLORIDA HERD FAN on Nov 30, 2017 21:06:52 GMT
So, the committee decided that the equitable resolution was to punish UCF for the hurricane? Lol. You are too funny!
|
|
|
Post by doc on Nov 30, 2017 21:25:38 GMT
The explanation is pretty simple - they beat one P5 team that finished 4-8 and finished tied for last in their division. And people who spend a helluva a lot more time watching and analyzing these things than we do mostly say the competition level is a big difference. I was listening to Steve Spurrier this morning and he said if UCF went undefeated and the playoff field was 8, he'd give them a chance but not in a field of 4. The AAC is basically a collection of teams that no other conference wants. There are very few historical or bitter rivalries, they've only been around about 5 years, none of the teams want to be in the conference, the better coaches get picked up by a P5 school as Tom Herman and soon, Scott Frost have demonstrated. UCF's had a great season and if they win on Saturday, and I think they will they'll get to play in a New Years Day bowl. That's a great feat for them. But like I said in another post, they'll probably have another coach on the sidelines! The P5/G5 is used to maintain the competitive gap that exists whether or not it is as great as imagined. There are plenty of G5 teams better than P5 programs. The committee has a three loss Stanford with a loss to a G5 team ranked ahead of an unbeaten UCF whose league is looked down upon despite 2 BCS/Big Six bowl wins and its fifth place team last year beating the Big 12 champions. This is why coaches leave. The format does not allow G5 teams to compete. It does not provide specifics on scheduling, does not create an incentive for top P5 teams to play top G5 teams, and basically allows P5 teams to load up on cupcakes in OOC play because conference play is enough. Too many seem to think that P5 teams have to beat 4-5 ranked teams on a yearly basis to make the top 4 when the average is less than three and many get there with less than 2 such wins. I'd like to hear your plan to fix it. The P5 teams all play 9 conference games. That leaves 3 OOC games. Most will play another P5 team and then a couple bodybag games which in the long run, helps the G5 teams because they get a huge payday to play the game. P5 teams went 69-12 against G5 teams this year. You look at the scores and most are blowouts, the wins are fairly close even against the bad P5 teams. To their credit UCF's win over Maryland was probably the widest margin of victory but again, Maryland went 4-8. Of the wins by G5, I think only 3 were against teams with over .500 records; Stanford, Arizona and LSU. Kansas lost twice to the G5 - maybe UCF and Kansas should swith conferences. The week after beating LSU, Troy lost to South Alabama. It is what it is.
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Nov 30, 2017 21:36:35 GMT
So, the committee decided that the equitable resolution was to punish UCF for the hurricane? Lol. You are too funny! It's not a punishment. It was simply a lost opportunity to prove their competitiveness. The same issue was hurting Miami in the rankings. It hurt them too.. but, it just kills a G5 team. ANY G5 team.
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Nov 30, 2017 21:37:50 GMT
maybe UCF and Kansas should swith conferences. I'd be OK with that. UCF is one of the first names that comes up anytime the Big 12 talks about expansions. I think they will be P5 soon.
|
|
|
Post by FLORIDA HERD FAN on Dec 1, 2017 5:09:12 GMT
So, the committee decided that the equitable resolution was to punish UCF for the hurricane? Lol. You are too funny! It's not a punishment. It was simply a lost opportunity to prove their competitiveness. The same issue was hurting Miami in the rankings. It hurt them too.. but, it just kills a G5 team. ANY G5 team. So, the CFP is downgrading (punishing) UCF for having lost (hurricane) an opportunity to prove its competitiveness? Why hasn’t each and every game UCF has played thus far this season been a test of its competitiveness? The obvious answer is because the CFP (and you) will not permit, or are incapable of assessing, the performance of a team relative to the strength of its opponent.
|
|
|
Post by cjhawkeyes on Dec 1, 2017 6:50:11 GMT
The P5/G5 is used to maintain the competitive gap that exists whether or not it is as great as imagined. There are plenty of G5 teams better than P5 programs. The committee has a three loss Stanford with a loss to a G5 team ranked ahead of an unbeaten UCF whose league is looked down upon despite 2 BCS/Big Six bowl wins and its fifth place team last year beating the Big 12 champions. This is why coaches leave. The format does not allow G5 teams to compete. It does not provide specifics on scheduling, does not create an incentive for top P5 teams to play top G5 teams, and basically allows P5 teams to load up on cupcakes in OOC play because conference play is enough. Too many seem to think that P5 teams have to beat 4-5 ranked teams on a yearly basis to make the top 4 when the average is less than three and many get there with less than 2 such wins. I'd like to hear your plan to fix it. The P5 teams all play 9 conference games. That leaves 3 OOC games. Most will play another P5 team and then a couple bodybag games which in the long run, helps the G5 teams because they get a huge payday to play the game. P5 teams went 69-12 against G5 teams this year. You look at the scores and most are blowouts, the wins are fairly close even against the bad P5 teams. To their credit UCF's win over Maryland was probably the widest margin of victory but again, Maryland went 4-8. Of the wins by G5, I think only 3 were against teams with over .500 records; Stanford, Arizona and LSU. Kansas lost twice to the G5 - maybe UCF and Kansas should swith conferences. The week after beating LSU, Troy lost to South Alabama. It is what it is. The solution is to adopt rules that treat all FBS teams the same without regard to identity. Doing this eliminates the manufactured divide. UCF is set to make my system's top 4 becoming only the 12 non power in 40 years to do so. The difference is such rules make it clear what kind of schedule is typically good enough to make the top 4 with an undefeated season and would provide top powers with an incentive to play top non powers. Once it becomes clear that such rules allow G5 teams the opportunity to compete, it becomes much easier to attract the talent needed to compete for playoff berths. This doesn't mean G5 teams and leagues will match the success of P5 leagues any time soon if ever but I think it would get to the point that no one will question any G5 playoff teams. The bottom line is that it takes rules that define what beats what for G5 teams to have a chance. With the committee format, they are setup to fail even when they do well because it is always easy for a committee to say not good enough short of 3-4 OOC wins vs quality power teams.
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Dec 1, 2017 14:18:43 GMT
Doing this eliminates the manufactured divide. The DIVIDE is not manufactured. It is real. It can't be eliminated and it's not going to be ignored. It factors into the calculus in multiple ways. One being, that G5 teams simply don't face the same level of grueling competition, week after week. There is NOTHING FAIR about automatically elevating every G5 Conference Champ into a short-term, single elimination tournament to determine a single "FBS Champion". THAT, is NEVER going to happen. Fair, objective rules like your system are the best the G5 teams could ever hope for. I think it would be terrific. Sadly, I don't see that happening anytime soon.
|
|
|
Post by doc on Dec 1, 2017 14:29:04 GMT
I appreciate your conviction but you're talking about changing something that's been around for over 100 years. It is what it is. Traditions, facilities, alumni support all tie into this. You have to totally commit, on an individual school by school basis to a plan, stay the course and be willing to be patient along the way.
I work at Xavier University. In 1973 they made the decision to eliminate football and use their basketball program as the athletic centerpiece - they said we're going to make our basketball program relevant and it will provide positive exposure for our university - it became a vital part of our mission. At that time the basketball program was horrible. They had seasons where they might win 5 games. In 1979 they hired Bob Staak as their coach. At that time Xavier basically recruited the slow white guys from the Cincinnati area. Staak changed that - he started recruiting a higher quality of player. By 1982 Staak was able to get Xavier into a league - the old MCC - and in 1984 they made the NCAA tournament. Staak left and they brought in Digger Phelp's top assistant from Notre Dame, Pete Gillen. Under Gillen, Xavier became the elite of the MCC - they beat Georgetown in the NCAA tournament, they made the Sweet 16, they outgrew the MCC and moved to the Atlantic 10 - everyone thought they were nuts. Gillen moved on, Skip Prosser took over and soon Xavier was one of the top teams in the A-10. They had been playing off-campus in the Cincinnati Garden but in 1999 Xavier announced plans to build an op campus facility which opened in 2001. Today, they're in the Big East, they've made the Elite 8 three times, they've made the NCAA tournament 22 out of the last 25 years. They've graduated every senior player since 1986 - over 100 consecutive players. And it all started back in 1973 - it's 44 years later. That's the kind of commitment some of these football teams will need to make and realize it's going to take time - it's not going to happen over night - it takes total buy in from everyone involved. You can't fire the damn coach every 2 years. You need to get fans to the games. You need to have patience. Xavier did it with basketball which only requires 15 players - good luck doing it with football.
|
|
|
Post by bluehen on Dec 1, 2017 14:47:55 GMT
You 'G5', 'P5' suckers....just keep one basic fact in mind.
There is no such thing as an NCAA G5 division and no such thing as an NCAA P5 division. They are strictly self serving, made up monikers for the purpose of hoarding the post season money and glory...made up by the cartel. The 'cartel' that rules post season football is comprised of the 5 conference commissioners of the leagues that like to call themselves P5, the big bowl executives, the 65 presidents of the universities that like to call their schools P5 and very importantly, their media outlets... primarily ESPN (Disney) and also CBS and Fox. Definition of a cartel : An Association of businesses that work together to control production and pricing of products.
That's why I favor an NCAA championship for the FBS over a cartel championship for the FBS even though NCAA championships aren't perfect. Such a championship would be for the entire FBS, not just open to 1/2 the FBS.
|
|