G5 Considering Their Own Playoffs?

[Blue & Gold]

HustleBelt roundtable discussion w/ a couple other mid-major bloggers.  Very good article!

[Blue & Gold]

This quote from the end of the above-linked article pretty much sums up where I am on the issue:

 

That’s my major concern more than the playoff system. FCS and G5 teams need games with the P5 to help pay for their entire athletic departments and to help craft a message for recruits that they can play on the same level as the blue-blood programs. That disappears with a move like this. And yes, national prestige does affect more than sports; I’ve known people that go to colleges at a certain school just because the school’s athletic teams were highly-touted. It matters.

Would some people like a split? Sure. The diehards will, certainly. But, more casual sports fans? Nope. It could prove to make such programs entirely irrelevant.

[skip-zip]

12 hours ago, ZipsVoice said:

I can't think of one NCAA selection commitee in any sport that is not either consciously or subconciously biased towards the big $$ schools, let alone the BCS  selection committee.  Just look at D1 basketball, soccer mens and womens, hockey and yes football.  The number of teams from the P5 leagues are outrageous and the seeding is even worse.  At least with track and field and swimming it's totally objective - be the fastest and you go.  I've had an opportunity to be around some of the NCAA bigwigs and committee people and they are so sanctimonious and cloistered in their big conference mentality.  One of the highlights of this year was going to the NCAA rifle championship banquet and watching the NCAA bigwigs squirm and tut-tut, listening to Bob Golic deliver his politically incorrect keynote speech!

 

Good Post.  Thanks for the information.  

 

I suppose that something like swimming and track/field, where there's times that make it easier to compare competitors, makes it more difficult for selection committees to ignore athletes from "smaller" D-1 schools.  When there are not direct ways to compare teams, their subjective judgement and motives are much more difficult to challenge.

 

I love that last sentence.  Made me laugh.  

[Balsy]

15 hours ago, zippyman23 said:

I can't rationalize how the #2 team in AP and Coaches poll doesn't make a four-team playoff. 

 

Because the AP poll is a popularity contest, that's why.  I may give a little, and I mean a little, credence to the coaches poll but not much.  If either of them had any real value the first AP and Coaches poll would have better predictive power.  It's entertaining yes, but really self-serving to the "big" guys.

 

The whole premise of my argument though is that the ranking in upon itself is flawed, isn't objective, and benefits the "Big" guys.  Was Michigan REALLY the 3rd best team in the country?  Was Ohio State REALLY the 2nd best team in the country?  By slapping the label of "2 vs 3" on the game, you're now creating a dialogue so that if either team loses, theres the possible justification for why they can be in the CFP at a later date.  OSU looked TERRIBLE in that game.  As did Michigan.  They definitely didn't look like the 2 and 3 best teams in the country when I watched the game, and I think that's been all but confirmed in the post season with both teams losing, OSU in a blowout to Clemson and Michigan in a good game to FSU. 

 

Winning your conference should be FIRST PRIORITY.  Then OOC should be considered.  Period, end of discussion.  THAT is more objective than trying to shoe horn this nonsense about "they played x ranked team and lost only to y ranked team".  It's not objective at all.  And if teams don't like being out because they didn't win their conference championship, then expand the field.  

 

Can you imagine if the NFL worked on this asinine system?  It'd be the Patriots, Cowboys, Steelers and (insert other good team in any given year) in the playoffs.  They'd always be the higher ranked teams, and teams in their conference would always be "ranked" higher due to popularity and by virtue of being in the same conference as they are.

 

Sorry for the rant, I just don't get how theres so many people trying to justify this system as fair and balanced.  It's IMHO, very clearly not, by the virtue of how it's set up.

Edited January 2, 2017 by Balsy

[zippyman23]

57 minutes ago, Balsy said:

 

Because the AP poll is a popularity contest, that's why.  I may give a little, and I mean a little, credence to the coaches poll but not much.  If either of them had any real value the first AP and Coaches poll would have better predictive power.  It's entertaining yes, but really self-serving to the "big" guys.

 

The whole premise of my argument though is that the ranking in upon itself is flawed, isn't objective, and benefits the "Big" guys.  Was Michigan REALLY the 3rd best team in the country?  Was Ohio State REALLY the 2nd best team in the country?  By slapping the label of "2 vs 3" on the game, you're now creating a dialogue so that if either team loses, theres the possible justification for why they can be in the CFP at a later date.  OSU looked TERRIBLE in that game.  As did Michigan.  They definitely didn't look like the 2 and 3 best teams in the country when I watched the game, and I think that's been all but confirmed in the post season with both teams losing, OSU in a blowout to Clemson and Michigan in a good game to FSU. 

 

Winning your conference should be FIRST PRIORITY.  Then OOC should be considered.  Period, end of discussion.  THAT is more objective than trying to shoe horn this nonsense about "they played x ranked team and lost only to y ranked team".  It's not objective at all.  And if teams don't like being out because they didn't win their conference championship, then expand the field.  

 

Can you imagine if the NFL worked on this asinine system?  It'd be the Patriots, Cowboys, Steelers and (insert other good team in any given year) in the playoffs.  They'd always be the higher ranked teams, and teams in their conference would always be "ranked" higher due to popularity and by virtue of being in the same conference as they are.

 

Sorry for the rant, I just don't get how theres so many people trying to justify this system as fair and balanced.  It's IMHO, very clearly not, by the virtue of how it's set up.

 

The four P5 teams with 1 loss or less made the playoffs. Three years ago it would been a debate about which 1-loss team would face Bama. The talking heads would have brought up their dream "Plus One" scenerio where there we be a 4-team playoff and foolishly mention that it would end all debate. 

 

I can only imagine the horror of the NFL letting teams with the best records in the playoffs. The absolute horror of a 7-9 Division champ not being let in the playoffs in favor of 10-6 team from a different Division. Wake me up from that nightmare. It's completely asinine to suggest that it still wouldn't be the teams with best records as in college football. 

[skip-zip]

1 hour ago, Balsy said:

Can you imagine if the NFL worked on this asinine system?  It'd be the Patriots, Cowboys, Steelers and (insert other good team in any given year) in the playoffs.  They'd always be the higher ranked teams, and teams in their conference would always be "ranked" higher due to popularity and by virtue of being in the same conference as they are.

 

I hadn't thought about this previously, but you can't come up with a better comparison that this.

 

Yes, can you imagine if the NFL selected their playoff teams with a criteria that resembled anything like some of the arguments we are seeing here?  Like, "Well, X beat Y, and Y beat Z...so we think X should be in the playoff"  Or "We still think that A is better than B, even though B beat A, and won A's Conference".  

 

It would seem absurd to everyone who follows the NFL.  Division champions AUTOMATICALLY get priority in playoff spots over everyone else, regardless of the OOC/OOD schedule they played, and regardless of anyone's opinions on how strong their division/conference might have been that particular year.  And even the other teams who qualify for the LOWER spots are certainly not handed playoff spots by a person or group of people in a room who vote based on who they think might be better than another.      

 

Hey, just look at the NCAA Basketball Tournament (even thought their seeding process is 100% subjective).

Who are the only teams that are GUARANTEED a spot in that tournament?

That's right.  Conference Tournament Champions.  

Edited January 2, 2017 by skip-zip

[zippyman23]

2 hours ago, skip-zip said:

 

It would seem absurd to everyone who follows the NFL.  Division champions AUTOMATICALLY get priority in playoff spots over everyone else, regardless of the OOC/OOD schedule they played, and regardless of anyone's opinions on how strong their division/conference might have been that particular year.  And even the other teams who qualify for the LOWER spots are certainly not handed playoff spots by a person or group of people in a room who vote based on who they think might be better than another.      

 

 

Would Arizona (7-8-1) get in over Seattle (10-5-1) because they would be West Division Champs because of a better Division record? College conference champs ignore overall record, so I can only assume that is the preferred method? 

 

As much criticism of the college football selection process as their has been, the teams with the best records have still gotten in every single year. 

Edited January 2, 2017 by zippyman23

[skip-zip]

3 hours ago, Balsy said:

The whole premise of my argument though is that the ranking in upon itself is flawed, isn't objective, and benefits the "Big" guys.  Was Michigan REALLY the 3rd best team in the country?  Was Ohio State REALLY the 2nd best team in the country?  By slapping the label of "2 vs 3" on the game, you're now creating a dialogue so that if either team loses, theres the possible justification for why they can be in the CFP at a later date.  OSU looked TERRIBLE in that game.  As did Michigan.  They definitely didn't look like the 2 and 3 best teams in the country when I watched the game, and I think that's been all but confirmed in the post season with both teams losing, OSU in a blowout to Clemson and Michigan in a good game to FSU. 

 

This is good stuff. I had to read it again.  

 

The results on Saturday clearly showed what happens when you take these early season and pre-season polls and results, and just keep those teams hovering at the top all season because of it, despite the obvious flaws.  That's why I pointed out Marla's article.  

 

Even though Michigan and Ohio State were both playing terribly in that game (and had been doing so for a week or two leading up to that game), they BOTH benefited from that game, win or lose, because of the "labels" that had already been put on them.  

 

Since we've spent so much time talking about the Suckeyes, lets talk about Michigan too.  Lost to Iowa, followed by an unimpressive win over Indiana, followed by the loss to OSWho, and there was still talk about putting them into the playoff???   All because of people's preconceived label that was put on them?  Then poor Penn State, who had just won 9 straight conference game, including OSWho, and was getting better and better every week was on the outside looking in.....all because they never had the lofty preseason or early season "label", which gave them way too much ground to make up.  

[ZippyforPresident]

2 hours ago, zippyman23 said:

As much criticism of the college football selection process as their has been, the teams with the best records have still gotten in every single year. 

I think Western Michigan's football program would disagree with your statement.

[Buckzip]

Make it an 8 team playoff all conf champs are in and then you have the wild cards. There will still be bitching but to leave out a conference champ is ridiculous. 

[zippyman23]

39 minutes ago, skip-zip said:

 

This is good stuff. I had to read it again.  

 

The results on Saturday clearly showed what happens when you take these early season and pre-season polls and results, and just keep those teams hovering at the top all season because of it, despite the obvious flaws.  That's why I pointed out Marla's article.  

 

Even though Michigan and Ohio State were both playing terribly in that game (and had been doing so for a week or two leading up to that game), they BOTH benefited from that game, win or lose, because of the "labels" that had already been put on them.  

 

Since we've spent so much time talking about the Suckeyes, lets talk about Michigan too.  Lost to Iowa, followed by an unimpressive win over Indiana, followed by the loss to OSWho, and there was still talk about putting them into the playoff???   All because of people's preconceived label that was put on them?  Then poor Penn State, who had just won 9 straight conference game, including OSWho, and was getting better and better every week was on the outside looking in.....all because they never had the lofty preseason or early season "label", which gave them way too much ground to make up.  

 

OSU/UM were 2 of only 5 P5 teams at the time with 1 loss or less. They got those "labels" because of pre-season polls?

[zippyman23]

49 minutes ago, ZippyforPresident said:

I think Western Michigan's football program would disagree with your statement.

 

P5 teams.

Edited January 2, 2017 by zippyman23

[LZIp]

1 hour ago, ZippyforPresident said:

I think Western Michigan's football program would disagree with your statement.

Even PJ Fleck has admitted his team didn't deserve to be in the playoff.

[kreed5120]

6 hours ago, zippyman23 said:

 

Would Arizona (7-8-1) get in over Seattle (10-5-1) because they would be West Division Champs because of a better Division record? College conference champs ignore overall record, so I can only assume that is the preferred method? 

 

As much criticism of the college football selection process as their has been, the teams with the best records have still gotten in every single year. 

 

You can't use that kind of logic here. You also forgot to mention conference schedules aren't balanced. OSU crossover games that went into their 8-1 division record featured Wisconsin, Nebraska, and Northwesten. Penn State got doormat Purdue, Iowa, and Minnesota.

[skip-zip]

3 hours ago, zippyman23 said:

OSU/UM were 2 of only 5 P5 teams at the time with 1 loss or less. They got those "labels" because of pre-season polls?

 

You may have missed something I put on here earlier.  OSWho only dropped from #2 to #5 after losing to an unranked team.  Do you believe that would have happened if they hadn't already been given a tag as a high-ranked team?  Going all the way back to the Preseason?

 

The results on Saturday speak for themselves.  They could barely stand on the same field with at team that was ranked right next to them.  Michigan didn't prove to be worthy of their bloated ranking either.  Look at what's happening to the other Big Ten teams as well.  

 

It would be ironic if their actual Conference Champion delivers a message to the Selection Committee tonight.  Or, maybe the culmination of this season for all of these teams will tell us something else entirely.  

 

Not only do all the preseason and season-long rankings Lock In people's impressions about some teams.  But I don't see why the CFP has to come out with anything before the end of the season either.  

[Balsy]

23 minutes ago, skip-zip said:

But I don't see why the CFP has to come out with anything before the end of the season either.  

 

Well I think you do see skip...to generate more $$$ from the discussion, publication, faked hype etc...  Great points Skip, I ran out of likes, but I would have liked every one of them.

 

For the rest of this thread; I'm done trying to point out that the emperor is wearing no clothes and trying to ask about the man behind the curtain.  I'm actually kinda shocked how many people on this forum rush to the defense of a system that literally is designed to screw your alma-mater over in athletic programs in every way possible.  It's the same asinine system that gives you Ohio State at home vs Akron in the NCAA College Cup (when Akron has the better record, better SOS, better RPI).  But who cares?

 

 

[kreed5120]

14 minutes ago, skip-zip said:

 

You may have missed something I put on here earlier.  OSWho only dropped from #2 to #5 after losing to an unranked team.  Do you believe that would have happened if they hadn't already been given a tag as a high-ranked team?  Going all the way back to the Preseason?

 

The results on Saturday speak for themselves.  They could barely stand on the same field with at team that was ranked right next to them.  Michigan didn't prove to be worthy of their bloated ranking either.  Look at what's happening to the other Big Ten teams as well.  

 

It would be ironic if their actual Conference Champion delivers a message to the Selection Committee tonight.  Or, maybe the culmination of this season for all of these teams will tell us something else entirely.  

 

Not only do all the preseason and season-long rankings Lock In people's impressions about some teams.  But I don't see why the CFP has to come out with anything before the end of the season either.  

 

The vast majority of teams had 2 or more losses by the time OSU lost their 1st game and the ones that only had 1 loss didn't have wins as good as Wisconsin or Oklahoma.

 

Saturdays results are irrelevant. That data point wasn't available to the selection committee at the time of selection as the event hadn't occurred yet. As I've said before even the old BCS rankings had OSU at #2 at the end of the season. It wasn't just the selection committee high on them, but pretty much every reputable computer poll as well.

[zippyman23]

23 minutes ago, skip-zip said:

 

You may have missed something I put on here earlier.  OSWho only dropped from #2 to #5 after losing to an unranked team.  Do you believe that would have happened if they hadn't already been given a tag as a high-ranked team?  Going all the way back to the Preseason?

 

The results on Saturday speak for themselves.  They could barely stand on the same field with at team that was ranked right next to them.  Michigan didn't prove to be worthy of their bloated ranking either.  Look at what's happening to the other Big Ten teams as well.  

 

It would be ironic if their actual Conference Champion delivers a message to the Selection Committee tonight.  Or, maybe the culmination of this season for all of these teams will tell us something else entirely.  

 

Not only do all the preseason and season-long rankings Lock In people's impressions about some teams.  But I don't see why the CFP has to come out with anything before the end of the season either.  

 

They fell to 6th/8th depending on what poll you want to use. Didn't have anything to do with preseason because they had already beaten highly ranked Oklahoma and Wisconsin on the road at that point. But it really doesn't matter. As I already mentioned, there were 10 0-1 loss P5 teams at that time with OSU, all of which except Alabama/OSU lost after that game. Multiple times in a number of cases. It really doesn't mean a damn thing how far you want to drop them in Week 8? because they were going to pass them regardless when those teams in front of them kept losing. 

 

 

[zippyman23]

18 minutes ago, Balsy said:

 

Well I think you do see skip...to generate more $$$ from the discussion, publication, faked hype etc...  Great points Skip, I ran out of likes, but I would have liked every one of them.

 

For the rest of this thread; I'm done trying to point out that the emperor is wearing no clothes and trying to ask about the man behind the curtain.  I'm actually kinda shocked how many people on this forum rush to the defense of a system that literally is designed to screw your alma-mater over in athletic programs in every way possible.  It's the same asinine system that gives you Ohio State at home vs Akron in the NCAA College Cup (when Akron has the better record, better SOS, better RPI).  But who cares?

 

 

 

You've been stating that Penn State should have been ahead of Ohio State. That's an interesting way of sticking up for your alma-mater. 

Edited January 2, 2017 by zippyman23

[skip-zip]

14 minutes ago, Balsy said:

I'm actually kinda shocked how many people on this forum rush to the defense of a system that literally is designed to screw your alma-mater over in athletic programs in every way possible.  It's the same asinine system that gives you Ohio State at home vs Akron in the NCAA College Cup (when Akron has the better record, better SOS, better RPI).

 

Same here.  

 

Sometimes, it's difficult to tell if they are defending the Playoff System selections, or if they are some of the usual culprits that are jumping to defend the honor of an almighty OSWho team that just got absolutely pummeled.  

 

But it's a great topic to discuss.  

[kreed5120]

23 minutes ago, zippyman23 said:

 

You've been stating that Penn State should have been ahead of Ohio State. That's an interesting way of sticking up for your alma-mater. 

 

What I feel is so great is they keep saying OSU only got in because of its name failing to realize OSU had the 3 seed. Penn State, unlike 4th seeded Washington, is a legit blue blood. They would have attracted more eyeballs and money than Washington. There is no disputing that fact.

[skip-zip]

25 minutes ago, zippyman23 said:

You've been stating that Penn State should have been ahead of Ohio State. That's an interesting way of sticking up for your alma-mater. 

 

He's bashing the system that's stacked against his Alma Mater, and every other school at our mid-major level.  Just like so many of the other "selection committees" in other collegiate sports that do the same thing to us. 

 

If you're an Akron fan, why would you criticize that?

 

If you haven't noticed, both Penn State and our very own MAC Champ never got the advantage of a "name status" ranking to ever have a chance to win a title.  

[kreed5120]

6 minutes ago, skip-zip said:

He's bashing the system that's stacked against his Alma Mater, and every other school at our mid-major level.  Just like so many of the other "selection committees" in other collegiate sports that do the same thing to us. 

 

If you're an Akron fan, why would you criticize that?

 

If you haven't noticed, both Penn State and our very own MAC Champ never got the advantage of a "name status" ranking to ever have a chance to win a title.  

 

Are you serious? Penn State is a huge name in the college football world. Certainly bigger than that of Clemson and Washington. OSU like it or not was always going to get in because their resume clearly showed they deserved it. If Penn State jumped any of the 1 loss teams it would have been Washington as they played a very weak schedule and were the 4th seed.

[skip-zip]

15 minutes ago, kreed5120 said:

Penn State, unlike 4th seeded Washington, is a legit blue blood.

 

It's been a very, very long time since Penn State got any favors from anyone who ranks college football teams, and that surely was also impacted by the negative publicity in recent years.  And in this case, Penn State is the team who beat a playoff team, won that playoff team's division, won that playoff team's conference title, and won their last 9 straight conference games, but still was virtually eliminated before the season even started.  

Edited January 2, 2017 by skip-zip

[zippyman23]

11 minutes ago, skip-zip said:

 

He's bashing the system that's stacked against his Alma Mater, and every other school at our mid-major level.  Just like so many of the other "selection committees" in other collegiate sports that do the same thing to us. 

 

If you're an Akron fan, why would you criticize that?

 

If you haven't noticed, both Penn State and our very own MAC Champ never got the advantage of a "name status" ranking to ever have a chance to win a title.  

 

No, he's not. He's arguing against Ohio State. Same as you. Nothing more, nothing less. I'm not even OSU fan, so I'll save you that reply.

 

With five P5 conferences and only four playoff spots, playoff expansion that would have given WMU an auto bid is really the only thing that would help a school like Akron.