#13 in the CFP.....Alamo here we come?

[Flatlandcoug]

Sure would. This also is why I disagree with those saying that the highest-ranked G of 5 champ should have a guaranteed spot in an 8-team playoff. Even just the highest-ranked G of 5 team, regardless of whether they're a conference champ (usually would be), often is going to be a Boise State team ranked 24th or something of that ilk. Automatically including one each year, even if they are nowhere near the top 8, will lead to a lot of undeserving teams getting in.

So you're saying that the NCAA basketball tournament should be changed to eliminate champs from all the small conferences? They are never going to win and there always some pretty decent Power 5 teams left out.

Giving the Group of 5 teams a single spot in the Top 12 was the only way that the Power 5 avoided a lawsuit that they'd probably lose. It's important to put yourself in their shoes. We are pissed because we feel like we are getting screwed out of an NY6 game. We still have a shot even though we lost two games and our last one. UCF knows that if they lose a game this weekend (for the first time in over two years), their dream is over. If the MWC does get in, it will only happen because another team's starting QB was injured. The Power 5 uses the Group of 5 pretty hard, so throwing them a bone is only fair.

 

[Coug95man2]

So you're saying that the NCAA basketball tournament should be changed to eliminate champs from all the small conferences? They are never going to win and there always some pretty decent Power 5 teams left out.

Giving the Group of 5 teams a single spot in the Top 12 was the only way that the Power 5 avoided a lawsuit that they'd probably lose. It's important to put yourself in their shoes. We are pissed because we feel like we are getting screwed out of an NY6 game. We still have a shot even though we lost two games and our last one. UCF knows that if they lose a game this weekend (for the first time in over two years), their dream is over. If the MWC does get in, it will only happen because another team's starting QB was injured. The Power 5 uses the Group of 5 pretty hard, so throwing them a bone is only fair.

I really don't care about "fair". I truly don't. "Fair" implies some sort of emotion. Nope. Numbers, facts please. That's the only metric that will take OUT the "unfair".

But I do agree that they should be in. Because they are the conference champs. Period. I don't even care if they aren't in the TOP 25. Because it's a reflection on the the conference. I think it's important to get a gauge of each conference. If such-and-such program is the champ of their conference and can't beat a mediocre ACC team, for instance, then we know about that conference. But it's on them to build it up because they KNOW they have a seat at the table. And I honestly think this should be done for all the FBS conferences, not just the 5. But that's also why I'm all for expansion of the playoffs. There's always going to be a situation like WSU is in. There's always going to be some team/program that gets jacked around. Expansion is the only way to avoid this.

I'll also add, somehow, somewhere I think it would be cool to see the champion of the FCS come in, somehow. I don't ever see that happening because the FBS schools. would see it as a no win situation. They win, they were supposed to. They lose, it's serious mud on their face to lose to an FCS. Also timing would be an issue. But I think it would be entertaining.

 

[425cougfan]

So you're saying that the NCAA basketball tournament should be changed to eliminate champs from all the small conferences? They are never going to win and there always some pretty decent Power 5 teams left out.

Giving the Group of 5 teams a single spot in the Top 12 was the only way that the Power 5 avoided a lawsuit that they'd probably lose. It's important to put yourself in their shoes. We are pissed because we feel like we are getting screwed out of an NY6 game. We still have a shot even though we lost two games and our last one. UCF knows that if they lose a game this weekend (for the first time in over two years), their dream is over. If the MWC does get in, it will only happen because another team's starting QB was injured. The Power 5 uses the Group of 5 pretty hard, so throwing them a bone is only fair.

I don't want a lawsuit, certainly, and if what you describe is the price of an 8-team playoff, I'd gladly incur it. That said:

- Basketball and its tourney are both completely different beasts for many reasons. You know that.

- UCF has shown this year that a very good Group of Five team can make an 8-team playoff as an at-large candidate, even if it hasn't played anyone (which, ignoring past control that UCF did have, is out of its control this year). It would be even more tenable for a good Group of Five team that had played anyone, which, in the medium term, is in the control of those teams to a great extent.

- As I've noted, in many cases, the top Group of Five team is going to be ranked in the mid-20s. It's not crazy to think that in some years, they wouldn't be ranked at all. Including such a team at the expense of a Power 5 team that played 9 to 11 Power 5 teams and is ranked 8th isn't justified from competitiveness or fairness standpoints or the desire to get the most compelling matchups for TV viewership and attendance.

Imagine a scenario where there's an 8-team playoff next year. WSU doesn't lose a game all year other than the Apple Cup in Seattle, and is ranked 8th at 11-1. (Imagine there are more teams with 1 or 2 losses next year, as is likely.) Boise State is 10-3 and the highest-ranked Group of Five team at 23rd. Especially as a WSU fan, would you want to see Boise State in over WSU because of "fairness." Even as a fan of football more generally? It makes no sense.

I could see, and have in the past argued for, putting a thumb on the scale for a Group of Five team in an 8-team playoff scenario. That could work in a variety of ways (e.g., rankings, number of losses, or something as loose as having demonstrated success against worthy opponents), but the intent would be to include a UCF-type of team that pretty clearly was quite good, had at most one loss, and was ranked at least in the top 15 or so.

So, if in that same scenario, UCF was 12-1, had only lost one close Power 5 game, and was ranked, say, 13th, I'd have less consternation over putting it in over the 8th-ranked WSU team. Less, I say, not none. I still think that isn't the right result and wouldn't want it as a fan of a Power 5 team, but that makes more sense than reflexive, automatic inclusion of a Group of Five.

 

[TSKCoug]

Guess I am one of the few who really doesn't care if WSU makes it to a New Year's Day bowl game. A win in any bowl game is much more important to me. Hell even if it is the Cheez It Bowl.

 

[Fab5Coug]

Guess I am one of the few who really doesn't care if WSU makes it to a New Year's Day bowl game. A win in any bowl game is much more important to me. Hell even if it is the Cheez It Bowl.

I can think of about 17 million reasons why you're dead wrong.

 

[95coug]

Perhaps a radical idea, but building a bit on what I'm reading in this thread:

8 team playoff. Power 5 conference champs are in. 3 spots remain, 1 reserved for a non-power 5 conference champ.

Here's the radical part:

1. All power 5 teams play an 8 game conference schedule, with 4 OOC games.
2. 3 OOC opponents will be assigned at random annually. No team will play OOC games against more than 2 teams from any other conference (if WSU draws 2 Big 12 opponents in 2020, all remaining Big 12 teams are removed from the pool for their 3rd game)
3. In each 2 year cycle, half of OOC games must be on the road (if you have only 1 on the road in one year, you travel for 3 in the next).
4. Each year, at least 1 OOC game must be played at least 2 time zones from your campus
5. No more than 1 FCS opponent per team per year. FCS opponents cannot be used to satisfy the 2 time zone travel requirement in #4.

Even more radical:

1. If the highest ranked non-power 5 conference champion has a losing record against its Power 5 opponents, it cannot qualify for a playoff berth, and that berth becomes a 3rd P-5 wild card.
2. Before conference championship games are completed, records are compiled for all games that season played between conferences (i.e. Pac-12 v. Big 12, Pac-12 v. SEC, etc.).
3. After conference champions are assigned playoff berths, the remaining teams will be re-ordered based on regular season performance:
   1. Number of wins against FBS opponents (so - FCS opponents can be used to get bowl eligible, but not necessarily to qualify for the playoff)
      
   2. W-L record against P-5 opponents
   3. Head to head
   4. Overall conference performance against the other conference

In this year's standings, this would probably give Georgia a playoff spot, and Michigan would get in if UCF loses. WSU would be close, but might not quite make it (although I'd also be in favor of disqualifying from the playoff anyone who's already lost to 2+ playoff teams, which would eliminate Michigan).

This does a few things:

• Creates a disincentive for decent teams to play FCS teams
• Rewards teams who play - and beat - higher division teams
• Gives the non-power 5 teams a playoff shot only if they are actually a competitive team
• Creates a lot more play between conferences, reduces the opportunity to pad a schedule with weak teams
• Creates a more direct measure of conference strength, and rewards teams from the stronger conference

 

[TSKCoug]

I can think of about 17 million reasons why you're dead wrong.

That is why I made it clear that it is just my opinion. I want that 11th win! Don't care who it comes against.

 

[PINGDUDE4]

What I really do not understand is how the CFP can just ignore the butt kicking Florida took at home to Missouri . Mizzou is a decent team, but no can make a legitimate argument that they are any better than Oregon.

The way I look at it , PSU and Florida would both lose to UW especially when they are on.

So then it becomes a question would either team go 3-1 against the following USC ( the team in Sept. at home), Cal ( when they were playing their best), Utah and Oregon ( when they were playing their best). That was what WSU did and I really do not see either PSU or Florida doing the same.

 

[Fab5Coug]

What I really do not understand is how the CFP can just ignore the butt kicking Florida took at home to Missouri . Mizzou is a decent team, but no can make a legitimate argument that they are any better than Oregon.

The way I look at it , PSU and Florida would both lose to UW especially when they are on.

So then it becomes a question would either team go 3-1 against the following USC ( the team in Sept. at home), Cal ( when they were playing their best), Utah and Oregon ( when they were playing their best). That was what WSU did and I really do not see either PSU or Florida doing the same.

The committee is showing us they value "marquee wins" over anything else. UF's win over LSU trumps the fact they played an embarrassing OOC schedule, including 2 FCS teams. It trumps the fact they have 3 losses including 2 they were largely uncompetitive in.

LSU's win over UGA trumps the fact they were blanked by Bama and had 74 hung on them by A&M. It trumps the fact their OOC is also largely unimpressive.

 

[425cougfan]

The committee is showing us they value "marquee wins" over anything else. UF's win over LSU trumps the fact they played an embarrassing OOC schedule, including 2 FCS teams. It trumps the fact they have 3 losses including 2 they were largely uncompetitive in.

LSU's win over UGA trumps the fact they were blanked by Bama and had 74 hung on them by A&M. It trumps the fact their OOC is also largely unimpressive.

It's hard to escape the impression that they just watch the games and loosely figure out who think is the best, based on perceived talent level, the "eye test," presence of marquee players, and all kinds of other bias-ridden criteria, and then use the things they claim they care about as mere talking points to explain their slotting as they think may be necessary. To seem less cynical, I think they genuinely are slotting teams in order corresponding to what they think are the "best," but I think much more of this is driven by the "eye test" factor than all of the arguments over things like results vs. common opponents, statistics, and so forth would imply.

 

[95coug]

It's hard to escape the impression that they just watch the games and loosely figure out who think is the best, based on perceived talent level, the "eye test," presence of marquee players, and all kinds of other bias-ridden criteria, and then use the things they claim they care about as mere talking points to explain their slotting as they think may be necessary. To seem less cynical, I think they genuinely are slotting teams in order corresponding to what they think are the "best," but I think much more of this is driven by the "eye test" factor than all of the arguments over things like results vs. common opponents, statistics, and so forth would imply.

I'm not so sure. Anyone who watched the late 4th and 7 OTs of the LSU-A&M game couldn't have possibly thought LSU looked better than us. Their defense was terrible. A&M's was only slightly better.

 

[ATACFD]

The committee is showing us they value "marquee wins" over anything else. UF's win over LSU trumps the fact they played an embarrassing OOC schedule, including 2 FCS teams. It trumps the fact they have 3 losses including 2 they were largely uncompetitive in.
.

Well if they value "marquee wins", then Penn St shouldn't be above us. They have beaten nobody.

I think they value something else more highly: Being a blue blood.