Menu
What's new
By:
Filters
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!

CFP Race 2024

Penn St. / Oregon is still going to draw a bigger rating than SMU / Clemson at 8pm on Saturday, right?

One is basically a play-in game, with SMU maybe being safe with a loss; the other is just for seeding.

If the ACC game did draw more eyeballs, that could set the table tempering the B1G/SEC stranglehold on things, especially if the XII and ACC winners managed to get to each win a game or two in the CFP.
 
Robert Sorell said:
Penn St. / Oregon is still going to draw a bigger rating than SMU / Clemson at 8pm on Saturday, right?

One is basically a play-in game, with SMU maybe being safe with a loss; the other is just for seeding.

If the ACC game did draw more eyeballs, that could set the table tempering the B1G/SEC stranglehold on things, especially if the XII and ACC winners managed to get to each win a game or two in the CFP.
Click to expand...
Tell you what I’m not waking up to watch….
 
yes, this is the first time i remember smu being nationally relevant in forever. people will probably prefer to watch psu and oregon just because its psu and oregon. also the b1g is just perceived as more important than the acc.

casual viewers, and those will be the majority, wont particularly care about whats at stake or how good or bad teams are, they either want to see big teams or games with truly big stakes aka playoff games.

sidenote, how big a draw is smu in texas or the metroplex? being in the metroplex is obviously a good thing but generally speaking everyone there fights for the scraps ou, ut and atm leave over, right?
 
Jens1893 said:
yes, this is the first time i remember smu being nationally relevant in forever. people will probably prefer to watch psu and oregon just because its psu and oregon. also the b1g is just perceived as more important than the acc.

casual viewers, and those will be the majority, wont particularly care about whats at stake or how good or bad teams are, they either want to see big teams or games with truly big stakes aka playoff games.

sidenote, how big a draw is smu in texas or the metroplex? being in the metroplex is obviously a good thing but generally speaking everyone there fights for the scraps ou, ut and atm leave over, right?
Click to expand...
I think if you ask the casual fan where SMU is actually located, most won’t be able to tell you
 
I feel like the field is basically set, with the B1G and SEC CCGs being for seeds, and the ACC, XII, and MWC games being play-in with some seeding implications.

The last at-large spot comes down to Bama / South Carolina / Ole Miss, and Bama's resume is probably the best but it doesn't really matter as their brand trumps that. BYU, Miami, if SMU lost, and the XII CCG loser deserve to be in this discussion but won't be, or at least won't get picked by the committee

My Prediction (UNLV, Georgia, ASU, Oregon, SMU win CCGs)

1. Oregon
2. Georgia
3. SMU
4. Arizona State
5. Texas
6. Penn State
7. Notre Dame
8. Tennessee
9. Ohio State
10. Indiana
11. Alabama
12. UNLV
 
I am curious if the committee are going to move ISU and ASU up in such a way as to justify the Big 12 champ jumping Boise in the final standings.

Personally, I think Vegas would set both ISU and ASU as neutral site favorites against BSU.

My prediction is that ASU beats ISU rather handily in the Big 12 CCG and they end up #10 or so while BSU stays at #11 or even drops to #12. Honestly, having to do a rematch with UNLV while ASU beats an ISU team ranked #15 or so is not going help BSU's cause.
 
The Alabaster Yak said:
I don't see delusion. I see Lane Kiffin self fellating the SEC, and the B1G head coach using similar data to support the idea that they should also be considered.
Click to expand...
One - I can't the stand the larger premise that "close losses" should count. You were supposed to win the game ... period, full stop. If every team wants to play revisionist historian about how or why this particular "close loss" to this "better team" should boost their resume then these arguments would be pointless.

Two - my wife went to Illinois, their fans are delusional. Period.

Three - I've watched their games. CU would destroy them. They are nowhere near a top-12 program.

Four - looking at their actual wins they've beaten Kansas (2nd game of the year when they didn't yet figure out how to play football), @ Nebraska (which in hindsight is probably not a great win even though the Nubs were #22 at the time), and #24 Michigan (but again, not the same Michigan of the last two seasons). Probably their best win looking back was home against Kansas and that's it. There's nothing about their record that says their a top-12 team. But hey, they had a couple of "good" losses.
 
pmoney52 said:
One - I can't the stand the larger premise that "close losses" should count. You were supposed to win the game ... period, full stop. If every team wants to play revisionist historian about how or why this particular "close loss" to this "better team" should boost their resume then these arguments would be pointless.

Two - my wife went to Illinois, their fans are delusional. Period.

Three - I've watched their games. CU would destroy them. They are nowhere near a top-12 program.

Four - looking at their actual wins they've beaten Kansas (2nd game of the year when they didn't yet figure out how to play football), @ Nebraska (which in hindsight is probably not a great win even though the Nubs were #22 at the time), and #24 Michigan (but again, not the same Michigan of the last two seasons). Probably their best win looking back was home against Kansas and that's it. There's nothing about their record that says their a top-12 team. But hey, they had a couple of "good" losses.
Click to expand...
That’s kind of the point… people just get blinded by the SEC label and laugh when you apply the same logic elsewhere
 
LesGrossman said:
That’s kind of the point… people just get blinded by the SEC label and laugh when you apply the same logic elsewhere
Click to expand...
I don't have a problem with SOS treating losses differently. But I do have a problem with arguing how much they're losing those games by, because at the end of the day we're just getting back to the BCS era of style points (which, IMO, f---k'd CU of the national championship game in 2001). I don't think style points should have any bearing on the value of a team, especially at the college level.

And I'm picking on Illinois here because I find it extremely rich that of all schools to insinuate that they're one the 12 best, it's Illinois. I have just as much of a problem with Lane using this argument as Bret.
 
pmoney52 said:
I don't have a problem with SOS treating losses differently. But I do have a problem with arguing how much they're losing those games by, because at the end of the day we're just getting back to the BCS era of style points (which, IMO, f---k'd CU of the national championship game in 2001). I don't think style points should have any bearing on the value of a team, especially at the college level.

And I'm picking on Illinois here because I find it extremely rich that of all schools to insinuate that they're one the 12 best, it's Illinois. I have just as much of a problem with Lane using this argument as Bret.
Click to expand...
I don’t think Beliema believes in this argument.
 
A few things I think I think:

1. The expanded playoff to 12 teams made the regular season a lot more interesting with a lot more games I cared about in November.

2. The issues with different conferences playing different schedules with regard to the number of conference games was exacerbated by realignment. How different do things look right now if SEC teams were playing a 9th conference game instead of taking on schools like UFSP in November?

3. The issue of conferences being able to fairly determine their champions is thrown off kilter when everyone doesn't play everyone. Conferences have gotten too big for several reasons, but this is a major problem I'm highlighting here. Frankly, anything more than 10 is too big.

Anyway, I thought things were improved this year but that there's still a lot of work to do.
 
Buffnik said:
A few things I think I think:

1. The expanded playoff to 12 teams made the regular season a lot more interesting with a lot more games I cared about in November.

2. The issues with different conferences playing different schedules with regard to the number of conference games was exacerbated by realignment. How different do things look right now if SEC teams were playing a 9th conference game instead of taking on schools like UFSP in November?

3. The issue of conferences being able to fairly determine their champions is thrown off kilter when everyone doesn't play everyone. Conferences have gotten too big for several reasons, but this is a major problem I'm highlighting here. Frankly, anything more than 10 is too big.

Anyway, I thought things were improved this year but that there's still a lot of work to do.
Click to expand...
I'm not gonna care about win loss records going forward that dont breakout the p4 w/l.
 
I think quantitative tiebreakers are frustrating for teams and fans.

Going forward, I think it would make sense to keep CCGs but if there is a tie at the top with more than 2 teams, have a conference play in where the top 3 or 4 play and determine a true champion. Then the power 4 champs still get an auto-bid but the teams that have to play in the play in shouldn’t be punished. They can either jump up and earn a bye through winning the play in or they keep their spot in the rankings.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dio
Bread said:
I think quantitative tiebreakers are frustrating for teams and fans.

Going forward, I think it would make sense to keep CCGs but if there is a tie at the top with more than 2 teams, have a conference play in where the top 3 or 4 play and determine a true champion. Then the power 4 champs still get an auto-bid but the teams that have to play in the play in shouldn’t be punished. They can either jump up and earn a bye through winning the play in or they keep their spot in the rankings.
Click to expand...
It's mostly about money.

CCGs are worth a lot. Them giving autobids makes regular season conference games much more valuable - I mean, who the fvck was going to tune in for Houston @ BYU Saturday night if it didn't determine whether Colorado would get into the Big 12 Championship and have a shot at the playoffs?

So, if we're going to stay with this type of setup and follow the money, I think the next step is 2-round conference championships.

If that were a thing, this week we'd have the following semifinal games:

ACC:
SMU vs Syracuse
Clemson vs Miami

Big 12:
ASU vs Colorado
Iowa State vs BYU

Big Ten:
Oregon vs Ohio State
Penn State vs Indiana

SEC:
Texas vs Alabama
Georgia vs Tennessee

Then you could have the 2 highest ranked G5 champs play each other next week:

Boise State-UNLV winner vs Army-Tulane winner.

I just added 9 premium broadcast games that don't currently exist. That's probably an injection of over $500M into college athletics.
 
Buffnik said:
A few things I think I think:

1. The expanded playoff to 12 teams made the regular season a lot more interesting with a lot more games I cared about in November.

2. The issues with different conferences playing different schedules with regard to the number of conference games was exacerbated by realignment. How different do things look right now if SEC teams were playing a 9th conference game instead of taking on schools like UFSP in November?

3. The issue of conferences being able to fairly determine their champions is thrown off kilter when everyone doesn't play everyone. Conferences have gotten too big for several reasons, but this is a major problem I'm highlighting here. Frankly, anything more than 10 is too big.

Anyway, I thought things were improved this year but that there's still a lot of work to do.
Click to expand...
I think divisions solves #3 about as well a it can be solved.

A zipper setup with yearly division "realignment" would also solve the issue of chronically weak division like the B1G 10 had.

Basically, you pair teams off with a rival that they'll play every year, but always be in the opposite division. For the Big XII the pairs would look like BYU-Utah, Arizona-ASU, Cincy-WVa., etc. Take the higher finishing team in each pair to rank each pair, then alternate adding each team to a division. This year ASU would be #1, Arizona in the oppo division with #2 ISU, who I guess you pair with Okie Lite who is now in a division with ASU, on down the line.

Now you have two divisions of 8 teams, you play your 7 division mates, your zipper/rival partner, and the closest ranked opponent in the opposite division. This way you preserve the rivalry, you get a rematch of last year's CCG, something a lot closer to equally difficult schedules, and a round robin in the division to ensure that you at least have H2H results for the first tiebreaker.

The rub is getting everyone on board with who their "rival" is, After the obvious ones (KU/KSU, Ariz./ASU, UU/BYU, TCU/Baylor, Cincy/WVa) the other 6 are Okie Lite, ISU, CU, UCF, Houston, TexTech. Houston could pair with either UCF or Tech, any of the old Big8/Big XII pairings could work, UCF/CU could make a lot of sense.
 
After going with divisions in the old Big 12 and the Pac-12, no one in their right mind would support divisions going forward.

The Big 12 and SEC just had an exciting couple weeks of football trying to determine who was in the running for the CCG and at large CFP bids.

Indiana would not get the attention they had if the Leaders and Legends divisions were still there. Maryland was another school that could realistically look at a winning record in the Big Ten instead of being stuck in the East with Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, and Penn State.

The ACC had to try to figure out who was going to the ACC championship when Miami, Clemson, and SMU didn't even play each other.

This was a fun season overall.
 
Alfred91 said:
I am curious if the committee are going to move ISU and ASU up in such a way as to justify the Big 12 champ jumping Boise in the final standings.

Personally, I think Vegas would set both ISU and ASU as neutral site favorites against BSU.

My prediction is that ASU beats ISU rather handily in the Big 12 CCG and they end up #10 or so while BSU stays at #11 or even drops to #12. Honestly, having to do a rematch with UNLV while ASU beats an ISU team ranked #15 or so is not going help BSU's cause.
Click to expand...

FWIW, Sagarin would have ISU as a 4.5 point favorite vs. BSU on a neutral field and ASU as a 3 point favorite. Massey would have ASU/BSU as a pick 'em and ISU as a 5.5 point favorite. A big part of it is SOS- Massey has BSU's schedule as 73rd strongest, and Sagarin says it's 89th. FPI would have ISU as a favorite and ASU as a pick 'em against BSU.

Also FWIW, Sagarin would have CU as a TD favorite over BSU on a neutral field. Massey and FPI would put that closer to a 2 point spread.
 
Denver_sc said:
FWIW, Sagarin would have ISU as a 4.5 point favorite vs. BSU on a neutral field and ASU as a 3 point favorite. Massey would have ASU/BSU as a pick 'em and ISU as a 5.5 point favorite. A big part of it is SOS- Massey has BSU's schedule as 73rd strongest, and Sagarin says it's 89th. FPI would have ISU as a favorite and ASU as a pick 'em against BSU.

Also FWIW, Sagarin would have CU as a TD favorite over BSU on a neutral field. Massey and FPI would put that closer to a 2 point spread.
Click to expand...

That's where computers fall short. BSU has inflated numbers, imo, while ASU is getting shorted, when you consider the trajectories of the teams. ASU is peaking, BSU's most impressive results occurred in September.
 
Alfred91 said:
That's where computers fall short. BSU has inflated numbers, imo, while ASU is getting shorted, when you consider the trajectories of the teams. ASU is peaking, BSU's most impressive results occurred in September.
Click to expand...
Sagarin also publishes their "Strong Recent" ratings, which give more weight to more recent games. This data point backs up your assertion about ASU: under that system, Colorado would be 11th and ASU 15th, (under the normal system, they rate 12th and 21st respectively) whereas BSU would be 35th (they are also 35th under the standard Sagarin system).

Under the Strong Recent rankings, ASU would go from a 3 point favorite vs. BSU on a neutral field to a 7 point favorite (ISU would be a 5 point favorite and CU would be an 11 point favorite).
 
Denver_sc said:
Sagarin also publishes their "Strong Recent" ratings, which give more weight to more recent games. This data point backs up your assertion about ASU: under that system, Colorado would be 11th and ASU 15th, (under the normal system, they rate 12th and 21st respectively) whereas BSU would be 35th (they are also 35th under the standard Sagarin system).

Under the Strong Recent rankings, ASU would go from a 3 point favorite vs. BSU on a neutral field to a 7 point favorite (ISU would be a 5 point favorite and CU would be an 11 point favorite).
Click to expand...
These are much closer to what our model say the lines would be.
 
Denver_sc said:
Sagarin also publishes their "Strong Recent" ratings, which give more weight to more recent games. This data point backs up your assertion about ASU: under that system, Colorado would be 11th and ASU 15th, (under the normal system, they rate 12th and 21st respectively) whereas BSU would be 35th (they are also 35th under the standard Sagarin system).

Under the Strong Recent rankings, ASU would go from a 3 point favorite vs. BSU on a neutral field to a 7 point favorite (ISU would be a 5 point favorite and CU would be an 11 point favorite).
Click to expand...

Love that.
 
Buffnik said:
It's mostly about money.

CCGs are worth a lot. Them giving autobids makes regular season conference games much more valuable - I mean, who the fvck was going to tune in for Houston @ BYU Saturday night if it didn't determine whether Colorado would get into the Big 12 Championship and have a shot at the playoffs?

So, if we're going to stay with this type of setup and follow the money, I think the next step is 2-round conference championships.

If that were a thing, this week we'd have the following semifinal games:

ACC:
SMU vs Syracuse
Clemson vs Miami

Big 12:
ASU vs Colorado
Iowa State vs BYU

Big Ten:
Oregon vs Ohio State
Penn State vs Indiana

SEC:
Texas vs Alabama
Georgia vs Tennessee

Then you could have the 2 highest ranked G5 champs play each other next week:

Boise State-UNLV winner vs Army-Tulane winner.

I just added 9 premium broadcast games that don't currently exist. That's probably an injection of over $500M into college athletics.
Click to expand...
I feel like there may need to be an option for this, but I don’t agree with the SEC/B1G model you have (for this year at least). Oregon did their part. So did Texas and SMU - won the conference schedule they were given and didn’t tie with anybody. They shouldn’t be at risk of losing their spot in the CCG just cuz. I would be incensed if I were a coach / player / fan if I then had to play yet another game to prove the point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top