pittdan77
Athletic Director
I'm fine with it if they become full-time members of the ACC. Otherwise, they can go get their own bid.
B1G, SEC to receive three auto bids under proposed 14-team CFP expansion
- Thread starter HailToPitt725
- Start date
If the B10 and SEC are so good, then they don't need the extra autobid. They'll get it through the at-large.
Winning more games is not a criteria, you know they'd rather have the 4th place 9-3 SEC team than the 13-0 Sun Belt champ. Ranking is subjective.
then it's not an auto bid.
im not disagreeing with you but if that's the case then it's a complete contradiction to what an "Autobid" truly is.
OK that's probably true, so that means wins aren't a criteria, that's what
I'm saying. It's probably true but not proven if they never play, 2017 UCF was 12-0 and played 10-3 Auburn, so you would assume Auburn is "really better" because they are SEC, but UCF won 34-27? So, who was really better?
College Football Playoff - Rankings
collegefootballplayoff.com
2014-2017 would have had 2, 3, 3, 3, 2 for the ACC in the top 14. There were other top 25 finishes.
And yes, the SEC would probably dominate the CFP every year with teams if there were no autobids. So why are they pushing for so many? Same with the BIG.
If anything I think the ACC and Big XII should take this.
On paper this sounds like a good deal for the ACC and Big 12. I personally don't like more than one automatic bid for the conference champion. Also, should we assume conference championship games will soon be going away with an expanded contract?
On November 28th, here's a breakdown of the CPF rankings based on future conferences.
ACC
4. Florida State
14. Louisville
---------
19. NC State
Big 10
2. Michigan
3. Washington
5. Oregon
--------
6. Ohio State
10. Penn State
16. Iowa
Big 12
15. Arizona
18. Oklahoma State
SEC
1. Georgia
7. Texas
8. Alabama
----------
9. Missouri
11. Ole Miss
12. Oklahoma
13. LSU
21. Tennessee
Other
17. Notre Dame
20. Oregon State
24. Liberty
On November 28th, here's a breakdown of the CPF rankings based on future conferences.
ACC
4. Florida State
14. Louisville
---------
19. NC State
Big 10
2. Michigan
3. Washington
5. Oregon
--------
6. Ohio State
10. Penn State
16. Iowa
Big 12
15. Arizona
18. Oklahoma State
SEC
1. Georgia
7. Texas
8. Alabama
----------
9. Missouri
11. Ole Miss
12. Oklahoma
13. LSU
21. Tennessee
Other
17. Notre Dame
20. Oregon State
24. Liberty
So true. Especially when you give high seeds home games. That's how you have North Dakota State go on a run of 9 FCS championships in 11 years.
I agree but that's how they will word it and then there will be an asterisk.
Since it’s a leap year the committee should have told Notre Dame that they are only eligible for a playoff birth in a leap year. Otherwise they can sit on the sidelines.
Who said I want that?
The argument made by some is that the SEC and Big Ten are trying to unfairly guarantee a disproportionate amount of teams in the playoffs.
What I’m saying is, at least as it relates to the SEC, it’s not “unfair.” It’s probably in line with much of the quality they produce in a given year.
Whether I *want* that to be the case is irrelevant. I didn’t *want* Alabama to play in the national title game almost every year there for a stretch. But I would have been opposed to any rule that attempted to limit what they clearly deserved.
College Football Playoff - Rankings
2014-2017 would have had 2, 3, 3, 3, 2 for the ACC in the top 14. There were other top 25 finishes.
And yes, the SEC would probably dominate the CFP every year with teams if there were no autobids. So why are they pushing for so many? Same with the BIG.
If anything I think the ACC and Big XII should take this.
Those bottom, just made the cut ACC teams, wouldn’t make the cut in a season where those were playoff spots.
That proves my point. The top 3 of the ACC is made up of teams that just barely make the playoff rankings in years where the committee didn’t care about anything outside of 1-4 except that which was needed to justify 1-4. And those rankings somewhat mirror the analytic rankings I cited previously. Which is bottom tier ACC teams.
The answer to that should be obvious by the points in the thread.
1. The SEC objectively deserves that many
2. There is a faction that would artificially limit what the SEC deserves, because they think doing so would improve the product.
So if you’re the SEC, you want to legalize that which you deserve, and others would try to prevent.
Correct. Universities and their fans prefer money to winning. I can see that from the university's point of view but how could an FSU fan prefer, what should be an auto bid every year for them to the SEC will even if they get 5-6 bids, it wont be easy to get in? Though I am sure they feel with the extra SEC money, they can finish in the Top 3-5 with Bama, UGa, OU, and Texas.
these proposed playoff systems are going to add 3 and possibly 4 more games to a college football team's schedule.
16, 17 games. if you are an nfl caliber player, have a bright future in the nfl, are you going to play 3 or even 4 more games or opt out?
16, 17 games. if you are an nfl caliber player, have a bright future in the nfl, are you going to play 3 or even 4 more games or opt out?
So in reality it's all fake, they will just be ranked higher automatically because of conference affiliation and just assumed to be better from the start, with no objective criteria to meet.
How is this "quality" measured, we are always told SEC and B1G are always "better" but outside their top teams, how are we so sure the rest of the teams are any better than the middle teams in the other conferences?
That's coming soon too, opting out of the playoffs, it's going to begin soon.
So you as a fan, would rather see Pitt get more money and go 5-7, than get less money and go 10-2? As a fan not as accountant for the university.
Well they constantly dominate analytic ratings. I suppose you can argue analytics are junk, but it’s at least prima facile evidence.
And I don’t really see what your point is relevant anyway?
The playoffs by definition should be made up of the top teams.
No. By your own link, you made my point.
Remember what I originally asked: how many legit top 10 teams does the ACC have in any given year?
Most years that you cited was just 1.
They frequently do. That’s why every analytic model factors in recent history. Because it’s a good indicator of future success.
I guess if your point is that the ACC or Big 12 could see some huge increase in recruiting and start having a bunch of elite coaches, and so start having a bunch of legit Top 10, national title contenders, I can’t really refute that. In theory it could happen. But there’s no evidence that it’s going to happen.
Got it. So Clemson of the mid 2010s, which won 2 national championships and played in 2 others and was a legit top 2 team should be punished because of things that happened a year before.
I mean, I don't know what other sports use past years to secure more auto playoff spots or byes is used in the United States, but the CFP is the only one I know of really talking about it. Hell, even the NCAA basketball tourney has only one autobid for conference champions for pretty much every conference.
Whatever, we'll agree to disagree. THis is just a power grab for more money and just to flaunt power instead of legit competition.
If you want to use analytics to determine a season, then just skip the actual games and their results.
You don't? It's a simple question, is a team initially ranked higher or considered better at the start of a season simply because they are SEC or B1G?
This is basically what college football is, why not just play the Final 4 on Labor Day weekend with Bama, Georgia, Michigan and tOSU every year, we know they're always better, so why waste time with all those games that include teams that should never have a chance to get in the playoffs anyways?
are they ranked higher because they are in the SEC/Big 10 or are they ranked higher because the big 10 / sec get best recruits and best rosters with teams that have played and won against the best competition in football?
Tough to say, egg or chicken argument to be honest. lets face it, the 3rd or 4th team in the SEC is better than an undefeated G5 team 99% of the time. i dont think its a grand conspiracy here, more common sense than anything.
You're still assuming that stuff, like in the example of UCF vs Auburn, or Boise State vs. Oklahoma, Tulane vs USC, we can assume the SEC is always better but it doesn't always play out that way, college football is the only sport that decides so much based on perception. But that's just the way it is I suppose and won't change.
You could only ask that question, if you have no understanding of how these analytic models works.
SEC teams dominate analytic rankings because they are dominate teams.
Analytic rankings don’t care about your preseason data.
Early in the year some models input your analytic numbers from the previous year, because the sample size is too small in the season.
But at some point it’s based entirely on the current season. The current season’s numbers are based on how dominate you are compared to the average team. Just as WAR is relative to the replacement player.
There’s no “SEC” bias ranking except to the extent that some models factor in recruiting class rankings into their projections. And the SEC dominates recruiting class rankings.
But even that isn’t a bias towards the SEC per se. It’s a bias towards favoring recruiting classes.
Last edited:
Similar threads
