|
Post by cjhawkeyes on Aug 24, 2017 17:16:56 GMT
Replace the committee with actual rules and G5 teams will become much more competitive and that is why the P5 will never agree to it. It all depends upon what the "rules" are. You might recall that the BCS forced Jeff Sagarin and other computer services to not include SOS in their ratings. That automatically made it impossible for any G5 team to have an opportunity to be selected. It is super simple to compel computer ratings to have a built-in bias that would exclude any hope for non-P5 teams. As long as the CFP is controlled by the P5 conferences, it will not be fair and open to non-P5 schools. But, there is nothing wrong with that, as long as it is admitted and there is no pretense that the CFP is a legitimate national championship playoff. My own idea does not consider MOV and is much more friendly to non-power schools over the years. Therefore. MOV is not needed to give G5 teams a chance although you could still favor it being considered. That said, I think it would be impossible to adopt a objective system with a clearly built in bias. Rules that clearly favor teams based on their identity would be self-evident.
|
|
|
Post by cjhawkeyes on Aug 24, 2017 15:07:34 GMT
Replace the committee with actual rules and G5 teams will become much more competitive and that is why the P5 will never agree to it.
|
|
|
Post by cjhawkeyes on Aug 24, 2017 0:50:07 GMT
Lack of rules is the problem........not SOS being overemphasized or MOV being ignored. The CFP has rules! (I prefer to call them "guidelines). Note that SOS is not listed: "A team's strength of schedule is one of the most pertinent considerations for the committee in making its selections. Other factors that the committee weighs are conference championships, team records, and head-to-head results plus other points such as injuries and weather." en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/College_Football_PlayoffGuidelines that ultimately tell you nothing about what tips the scales in favor of one team to the next. Besides, it cannot get much dumber than considering injuries and weather. That said, G5 teams would be much better off with clearly stated objective rules versus any format where teams are voted in.
|
|
|
Post by cjhawkeyes on Aug 24, 2017 0:39:33 GMT
You can't get around the fact that the CFP system is rigged against non-P5 schools. With SOS being overemphasized and MOV being prohibited as a factor, it is impossible to evaluate teams as to how they perform relative to their schedules. A deserving non-P5 team doesn't even have a snowflake's chance in hell of being selected as a CFP challenger. Lack of rules is the problem........not SOS being overemphasized or MOV being ignored.
|
|
|
Post by cjhawkeyes on Aug 23, 2017 16:38:30 GMT
Voting teams into the playoffs will always be stupid.
|
|
|
Post by cjhawkeyes on Jan 13, 2017 15:04:17 GMT
The NCAA power people are the same ones running the CFP. By not having it run by the NCAA, they get away with a lopsided system.
|
|
|
Post by cjhawkeyes on Jan 12, 2017 18:20:46 GMT
I had them finish 11th.
|
|
|
Post by cjhawkeyes on Jan 10, 2017 21:18:31 GMT
I don't agree... Houston had the blueprint figured out. All they had to do was "win". With the schedule they had, they would clearly have made it... if undefeated. I think other schools will make runs at it. But, it takes a lot of things falling into place. Would definitely be MUCH easier for the G5 schools if the playoff were expanded to 8. Must be? I don't think you'll find many people in the CFP that will agree with that. Especially not those who are on the committee. They love the prestige of it. Frankly, I think THAT is more of a motivating factor than any desire to "keep G5 teams in their place". But, that's just my opinion. Replace the ESPN/Cartel selection committee with an NCAA selection committee....a good and necessary first step to fairness.
NCAA committees are biased against G5 teams as well but I will say that CFP committee seems more biased than polls do
|
|
|
Post by cjhawkeyes on Jan 10, 2017 21:17:30 GMT
If the idea is to have the most fair and objective system, using a committee because voters like the prestige of it is not a goo argument for keeping it and still believe the only reason to vote teams in is to maintain the competitive divide between P5 and G5 leagues. I think a system like mine is worth far more to G5 teams than auto NY6 bowl berths. I'm not arguing that it's a good argument... I think your system would be a HUGE improvement. I'm simply telling you my opinion of WHY the system is like it is. I'm not as conspiratorial as you guys are.
You could be right but I have seen many arguments stated against going completely objective and they are so ridiculous. I suppose its possible they don't even realize the benefits of an objective system for G5 schools since leaders of those schools have not been smart enough to advocate for such.
|
|
|
Post by cjhawkeyes on Jan 10, 2017 18:42:49 GMT
If the idea is to have the most fair and objective system, using a committee because voters like the prestige of it is not a goo argument for keeping it and still believe the only reason to vote teams in is to maintain the competitive divide between P5 and G5 leagues. I think a system like mine is worth far more to G5 teams than auto NY6 bowl berths.
|
|
|
Post by cjhawkeyes on Jan 10, 2017 16:05:47 GMT
For my two cents, the best systems are completely objective and allow all teams to control their destiny from the start of competition. The CFP, while an improvement, fails on both points. That said, I understand why some enjoy a format with a small margin of error. However, I also don't think it matters if its safe to assume some teams will never win or come close. What matters is simply having the opportunity. It is a safe bet that all P5 teams essentially control their destiny from the start of competition excluding very unlikely events occurring. The same is not true for G5 teams who are not provided a blueprint for making a four team playoff beyond unrealistic and vague demands that they play top P5 teams all on the road for an indefinite period of time. Ultimately, if the playoff isn't going to expand, then the committee must be replaced with an objective system. The only reason not to do this is so the P5 leagues can keep G5 leagues "in their place" and make it very difficult for them to beat a rigged system.
|
|
|
Post by cjhawkeyes on Dec 6, 2016 16:14:38 GMT
...and that's your problem right there....the criteria used to determine that is ambiguous and subjective Would you still be saying "it got the 4 best teams" if Penn State had gotten in? What exactly are the four best teams? No one knows... The Committee clearly set a precedent in '14 by giving emphasis to conference championship games. That's what has fueled Big XII expansion... 3 years later, we see that "nah, they don't matter as much. Each season is it's own unique circumstances, like a snowflake" There are no rules....it may be hard for you to wrap your head around it, but that's the bottom line with the committee I do think they should change the verbiage from "four best teams" to "four most deserving teams." In other words, make it more clear that the committee is looking at overall resume and body of work, similar to the NCAA Basketball Tournament Committee. "Four best teams" means so many things to so many different people. Some think it should be whoever Vegas would favor. But just because Vegas says that Michigan would beat Washington on a neutral field doesn't mean that Michigan would be more deserving of a playoff spot if Washington went unbeaten and Michigan had four upset losses. On-field results matter. Or four best/most valuable seasons (for Herdfan)
|
|
|
Post by cjhawkeyes on Dec 6, 2016 6:47:49 GMT
WMU drops to 6th based on FBS games only........Would have been sixth based on all games if not for CMU over Oklahoma State outcome. That said, while G5 teams fare better under my system, this is unusually high against such a weak schedule. However, they are only ahead of one team less than two games back in loss column and that team played a poor OOC schedule.
|
|
|
Post by cjhawkeyes on Dec 5, 2016 20:31:09 GMT
Again, the debate is pointless. If there were established rules, there would be no complaining even if the adopted rules were not everyone's first choice.
|
|
|
Post by cjhawkeyes on Dec 5, 2016 19:27:33 GMT
BCS ranking system is as bad as committee.
|
|