The expanded College Football Playoff off to a rough start | Page 3 | The Boneyard

The expanded College Football Playoff off to a rough start

CJasmer said:
SOS should be considered for CFP. The problem is G5 and lower level P4 leagues would be disadvantaged.
Expand ...
I would agree with all of this. The one other thing I think that everyone would agree on is that none of the bubble teams we were talking about down the stretch would have a chance to win the title, maybe not even a game, although I guess that could be matchup dependent.

Moving forward, the two big leagues are simply going to gobble up all the talent and whatever handful of teams left that they want, and then no one else will even have that slight chance that they have now.
 
traitor71 said:
I would agree with all of this. The one other thing I think that everyone would agree on is that none of the bubble teams we were talking about down the stretch would have a chance to win the title, maybe not even a game, although I guess that could be matchup dependent.

Moving forward, the two big leagues are simply going to gobble up all the talent and whatever handful of teams left that they want, and then no one else will even have that slight chance that they have now.
Expand ...
But college football has been like that for the last 30 years. Even before NIL. Basketball is a game where little schools have a chance since you only need to recruit 5 players.
 
CJasmer said:
But college football has been like that for the last 30 years. Even before NIL. Basketball is a game where little schools have a chance since you only need to recruit 5 players.
Expand ...
This is pretty much true, but you had much more of a chance to actually build a program prior to what we now have. You could at least tell yourself that if you found a good coach, recruited well, got the admin behind you, etc that you could do something. Now the money and power possessed by two leagues just crushes that. You get a year or two of success and your coaches and players get so much money thrown at them that it all vanishes. That sucks in my opinion.
 
There are 130+ FBS teams and only 12 games. 8-9 of which are in conference. It is not possible to create a SOS metric that can precisely rank the quality of teams based on who they play. You can only sort them broadly based on quality. Yeah, the top P4 teams and teams that look like those teams are really good, they look better than the other good and pretty good looking teams. This is the committee model in a nutshell, the pomp is just covering their decisions. You will note how the chosen metrics shift year to year and team to team. Same happens in BB but they use more computer rankings.

Everyone assumes the SEC teams are good because they play other SEC teams. The reality is the top SEC teams are good because they get the best players so they are inclined but not guaranteed to be among the best 5 or 6 at large teams. 2 or 3, probably. But, it's all assumptions.

The only thing we know about the SEC is that Georgia was the best team in it this year. They won the championship and beat the next closest contender twice. We assume Texas was next best based in their record, but they didn't play as many top half conference teams as Bama or Tenn. But they went undefeated in conference except for UGA, so we assume and rank them as the SEC #2.

You can do the same for every P4, and the committee discounts them for number of losses and the perception of their conference vs the others. Reputation and the eye test. It's all subjective.

The best system is based on conference championship with some at large teams to account for the small sample of games, the lack of similar schedules and the any given Saturday effects.

Well, that's what we currently have. A system that values championships and allows for others to play their way to the NCG. Just because the SEC and ESPN didn't like this year's result and CFB is more about hot takes than playing the games.

This will be the first year that we get an uncontestable deserving champion. Try to enjoy it.
 
Vowelguy said:
And Miami’s title came when they were in the big East

Texas and Oklahoma won as part of the big12
Expand ...
If you're talking championships in the last 30 and naming the conference they were won in Nebraska won 3 in the BigXII

I guess it's 2, the one in 94 would be 31 years ago
 
.-.
traitor71 said:
This is pretty much true, but you had much more of a chance to actually build a program prior to what we now have. You could at least tell yourself that if you found a good coach, recruited well, got the admin behind you, etc that you could do something. Now the money and power possessed by two leagues just crushes that. You get a year or two of success and your coaches and players get so much money thrown at them that it all vanishes. That sucks in my opinion.
Expand ...
But reality is to win a national championship in football you need lots of resources. Just look at the winners over last 30 years. I would say NIL now makes it possible to have a top 25 team. Look at SMU.
 
CJasmer said:
But reality is to win a national championship in football you need lots of resources. Just look at the winners over last 30 years. I would say NIL now makes it possible to have a top 25 team. Look at SMU.
Expand ...
At some point there is a limit to how much NIL a school can put together, whether it be through the university and/or through collectives. Year in and year out, can they raise the tens of millions that will be required to fund a competitive program? SMU had a lot of enthusiasm with the move to the ACC, but where was all that money when they were a mediocre G5 team? And will that money still be there in 5-10 years when they are an average P4 team in the bottom P4 conference? My guess is no.
 
Mike75 said:
At some point there is a limit to how much NIL a school can put together, whether it be through the university and/or through collectives. Year in and year out, can they raise the tens of millions that will be required to fund a competitive program? SMU had a lot of enthusiasm with the move to the ACC, but where was all that money when they were a mediocre G5 team? And will that money still be there in 5-10 years when they are an average P4 team in the bottom P4 conference? My guess is no.
Expand ...
For Athletic Boosters for SMU that is chump change. It will be interesting to see the difference once revenue sharing goes into effect (July 2025) providing many P4 schools with around $16 million for football team excluding NIL. Obviously SMU getting no revenue from the ACC will have to make that up through NIL. It will be interesting to see revenue sharing impact on G5 schools.
 
Mike75 said:
At some point there is a limit to how much NIL a school can put together, whether it be through the university and/or through collectives. Year in and year out, can they raise the tens of millions that will be required to fund a competitive program? SMU had a lot of enthusiasm with the move to the ACC, but where was all that money when they were a mediocre G5 team? And will that money still be there in 5-10 years when they are an average P4 team in the bottom P4 conference? My guess is no.
Expand ...
You do realize that SMU won the AAC the year prior to joining the ACC
 
SubbaBub said:
There are 130+ FBS teams and only 12 games. 8-9 of which are in conference. It is not possible to create a SOS metric that can precisely rank the quality of teams based on who they play. You can only sort them broadly based on quality. Yeah, the top P4 teams and teams that look like those teams are really good, they look better than the other good and pretty good looking teams. This is the committee model in a nutshell, the pomp is just covering their decisions. You will note how the chosen metrics shift year to year and team to team. Same happens in BB but they use more computer rankings.

Everyone assumes the SEC teams are good because they play other SEC teams. The reality is the top SEC teams are good because they get the best players so they are inclined but not guaranteed to be among the best 5 or 6 at large teams. 2 or 3, probably. But, it's all assumptions.

The only thing we know about the SEC is that Georgia was the best team in it this year. They won the championship and beat the next closest contender twice. We assume Texas was next best based in their record, but they didn't play as many top half conference teams as Bama or Tenn. But they went undefeated in conference except for UGA, so we assume and rank them as the SEC #2.

You can do the same for every P4, and the committee discounts them for number of losses and the perception of their conference vs the others. Reputation and the eye test. It's all subjective.

The best system is based on conference championship with some at large teams to account for the small sample of games, the lack of similar schedules and the any given Saturday effects.

Well, that's what we currently have. A system that values championships and allows for others to play their way to the NCG. Just because the SEC and ESPN didn't like this year's result and CFB is more about hot takes than playing the games.

This will be the first year that we get an uncontestable deserving champion. Try to enjoy it.
Expand ...
So you think the semifinals will not be SEC/BIG10?
 
.-.
CJasmer said:
Miami goes down. ACC is 1-8 in bowl games. Two games left. NC state is probably only other game ACC could win. Expect Duke to get boat raced.
Expand ...
Who would’ve thought that their record in the ACC-SEC bball challenge would be the one they’d be proud of?
 
traitor71 said:
I'm just pointing out that Clemson, who won that league, really benefited from the schedule. As these leagues expand, we are going to see more situations where teams can benefit from an unbalanced schedule. Indiana benefited from that as well, but they have the benefit of playing in the BIG, so it looks a little better.
Expand ...
They also went 11-1 or 10-2 with losses against other high and mighty teams
 
CJasmer said:
So you think the semifinals will not be SEC/BIG10?
Expand ...

Don't care one way or the other. Whoever makes it will have earned it through their regular season and winning on the field.

I'm not sure what else people think could be better. A stacking of the top 8 based on biased polls and a disproportionately southeastern media pool?

I know the best SEC team was UGA, I know the best B1G was Oregon. After that there is no way to tell if SEC 3 is better than B12 #1 other than playing for it. ASU can absolutely beat an SEC team that loses to LSU or Kentucky or Oklahoma. Boise took Oregon to the wire. They can win a playoff game.

Tennessee could have too, they just didn't and they were clearly SEC #3 if games and standings matter at all.

So I fail to see your point. The SEC sorted itself and has exactly 2 contenders. Once Clemson lost there were no more stowaways.
 
SubbaBub said:
Don't care one way or the other. Whoever makes it will have earned it through their regular season and winning on the field.

I'm not sure what else people think could be better. A stacking of the top 8 based on biased polls and a disproportionately southeastern media pool?

I know the best SEC team was UGA, I know the best B1G was Oregon. After that there is no way to tell if SEC 3 is better than B12 #1 other than playing for it. ASU can absolutely beat an SEC team that loses to LSU or Kentucky or Oklahoma. Boise took Oregon to the wire. They can win a playoff game.

Tennessee could have too, they just didn't and they were clearly SEC #3 if games and standings matter at all.

So I fail to see your point. The SEC sorted itself and has exactly 2 contenders. Once Clemson lost there were no more stowaways.
Expand ...
ultimately, teams at the very top are hard to compare against each other... did they win against the right teams? How closely do we measure their one or two specific losses. you'll never get great answers until they actually play each other
 
.-.
They'd be better served by going ahead still guaranteeing the top-4 the byes and then reseeding based on the final poll in the quarterfinal "bowl games." Keep the conference championships semi-meaningful but avoid the scenario where the SEC & Big Ten runner ups arguably got an easier road to the playoff than the two conference champions and top seeds.
 
Let's try this again. There is literally NOTHING in the selection or seeding process that would make the CFP work. The talent is so lopsided at the top that there always has been and always will be mostly blowouts in the playoffs. If you want competitive contests in the playoffs, you are best off selecting another sport to follow.
 
nelsonmuntz said:
Let's try this again. There is literally NOTHING in the selection or seeding process that would make the CFP work. The talent is so lopsided at the top that there always has been and always will be mostly blowouts in the playoffs. If you want competitive contests in the playoffs, you are best off selecting another sport to follow.
Expand ...
Depends on how you define "work".

It's often been stated that the sole purpose of the CFP is to help ensure the "best" team succeeds and wins the crown. It's not to guarantee entertaining contests.

If one goes by that definition, then this year's CFP is the best way to do that that's been devised thus far. Although I still think they could've accomplished the same with just eight teams.
 
nelsonmuntz said:
Let's try this again. There is literally NOTHING in the selection or seeding process that would make the CFP work. The talent is so lopsided at the top that there always has been and always will be mostly blowouts in the playoffs. If you want competitive contests in the playoffs, you are best off selecting another sport to follow.
Expand ...
So when are you going to do that and leave us alone
 
.-.
nelsonmuntz said:
Let's try this again. There is literally NOTHING in the selection or seeding process that would make the CFP work. The talent is so lopsided at the top that there always has been and always will be mostly blowouts in the playoffs. If you want competitive contests in the playoffs, you are best off selecting another sport to follow.
Expand ...
Yeah. We agree on something. :)
 
nelsonmuntz said:
Let's try this again. There is literally NOTHING in the selection or seeding process that would make the CFP work. The talent is so lopsided at the top that there always has been and always will be mostly blowouts in the playoffs. If you want competitive contests in the playoffs, you are best off selecting another sport to follow.
Expand ...

Conversely. Just because it didn’t work perfectly the first time doesn’t mean the whole thing needs to be thrown in the trash.
 
ZooCougar said:
Conversely. Just because it didn’t work perfectly the first time doesn’t mean the whole thing needs to be thrown in the trash.
Expand ...

2/3's of the college football playoff games played to date, over 10 years, have been decided by more than 10 points, and those games only involved the top 4 teams. This is not a recent phenomenon.

If this format lasts 10 more years, there won't be 3 teams from the 9-12 seeds that even make the Final Four.

College football would be better off organizing some kind of salary cap or other mechanism to create more competitive balance. A different selection process is not going to make a difference.
 
nelsonmuntz said:
2/3's of the college football playoff games played to date, over 10 years, have been decided by more than 10 points, and those games only involved the top 4 teams. This is not a recent phenomenon.

If this format lasts 10 more years, there won't be 3 teams from the 9-12 seeds that even make the Final Four.

College football would be better off organizing some kind of salary cap or other mechanism to create more competitive balance. A different selection process is not going to make a difference.
Expand ...

I'm going to hold off judgement until at least tonight and even then there is no predicting what it is going to look like in 10 years. NIL Conglomerates will attract the best freshmen, but these kids want to play too. Nick Saban is not walking through that door and hording all the 5*s. It should even out.
 
Husky25 said:
I'm going to hold off judgement until at least tonight and even then there is no predicting what it is going to look like in 10 years. NIL Conglomerates will attract the best freshmen, but these kids want to play too. Nick Saban is not walking through that door and hording all the 5*s. It should even out.
Expand ...
Boise is a good football team. On a neutral site they can get through to the final 4.
 
Purple Stein said:
Boise is a good football team. On a neutral site they can get through to the final 4.
Expand ...
I haven’t seen much of Boise this year. Are they more than just Jeanty? It feels like Penn St. should have the defense to somewhat control Jeanty and Boise will need to show a passing game.
 
.-.
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,171
Messages
4,555,710
Members
10,441
Latest member
Virginiafan


Top Bottom