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

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...
Ooh…don’t put this on Reddit. You’d crash the server with hate-responses.
 
Bison said:
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.
Click to expand...
12 team and 16 team conferences are wildly different with an 8 or 9 game conference schedule.

No divisions was ok for Pac12 because there was a ~81% chance that a tiebreaker would have H2H results to work with. In 16 teams that goes to just over 50%, but even a little less likely as the best records are partially because they missed each other on the schedule.
 
Robert Sorell said:
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
Click to expand...

It's funny to think back - well before they decided on 12 teams, I always assumed the "correct" number of teams for a playoff was 8. Two reasons: (1) it makes for a nice, round 3 week playoff schedule, and (2) no more than 8 teams realistically has a chance of running the table. (Honestly, it's probably more like 5 teams max in any given year.)

Now some are saying 16 would be more balanced, more appealing. I say bring it on, especially for the attention it'll bring to the sport from people who only care about the NFL, of which there are millions. I still don't think there are more than 5 teams who could run the table in any given year; that's especially true if you run out the playoff to 3+ games needed to win. Depth (lack of) will show in such an extended format.

PS, this year I'm seeing only 3 who have a realistic shot: OR, GA, TX. Those three should beat any of the other 9 on any given day.
 
Bisonic said:
It's funny to think back - well before they decided on 12 teams, I always assumed the "correct" number of teams for a playoff was 8. Two reasons: (1) it makes for a nice, round 3 week playoff schedule, and (2) no more than 8 teams realistically has a chance of running the table. (Honestly, it's probably more like 5 teams max in any given year.)

Now some are saying 16 would be more balanced, more appealing. I say bring it on, especially for the attention it'll bring to the sport from people who only care about the NFL, of which there are millions. I still don't think there are more than 5 teams who could run the table in any given year; that's especially true if you run out the playoff to 3+ games needed to win. Depth (lack of) will show in such an extended format.

PS, this year I'm seeing only 3 who have a realistic shot: OR, GA, TX. Those three should beat any of the other 9 on any given day.
Click to expand...
I feel like ND’s got a shot. But in the real world, their loss to NIU should exclude them.
 
Sankey has the SEC coaches executing a full PR campaign for playoff spots. The SEC is absolutely going to try and put their thumb on the scale to modify the playoff format in the future, despite evidence we are seeing more national parity.
 
Last edited:
SuperD said:
Sankey has the SEC coaches executing a full PR campaign for playoff spots. The SEC is absolutely going to try and put their thumb on the scale to modify the playoff format in the future, despite evidence we are seeing more national parity.
Click to expand...
Yep. They're going to try to convince us all that playing Vanderbilt is more challenging than playing Duke when we look at the resumes.
 
SuperD said:
Based on the latest rankings the committee seems to be saying they straight up think the MWC is better than the B12 which is insanity.
Click to expand...
The Big 12 is purely a victim of the preseason bull**** rankings. If Utah had the same resume as ASU or BYU, they’d be in. Same with Arizona, KU, KSU and OSU. Instead all the Big 12 teams that were actually good this year were projected in the bottom half of the conference.
 
The Alabaster Yak said:
The Big 12 is purely a victim of the preseason bull**** rankings. If Utah had the same resume as ASU or BYU, they’d be in. Same with Arizona, KU, KSU and OSU. Instead all the Big 12 teams that were actually good this year were projected in the bottom half of the conference.
Click to expand...
Great point. Imagine if ASU, ISU, CU and BYU had all been ranked in the Top 25 to start the year. Like, swap those 4 with preseason #12 Utah, #18 Okie Lite, #21 Arizona and #22 Kansas. (You could keep KSU at #17 and it would be fine.) Not only would perception be much better but we'd all be ranked higher because of the way voters move teams up or down based on where they were ranked last week instead of based on their body of work to that point.
 
Buffnik said:
Great point. Imagine if ASU, ISU, CU and BYU had all been ranked in the Top 25 to start the year. Like, swap those 4 with preseason #12 Utah, #18 Okie Lite, #21 Arizona and #22 Kansas. (You could keep KSU at #17 and it would be fine.) Not only would perception be much better but we'd all be ranked higher because of the way voters move teams up or down based on where they were ranked last week instead of based on their body of work to that point.
Click to expand...
If the voters get it right from the beginning, those teams are absolutely going to be ranked higher than the ones who they got it wrong about at first and didn’t ranked. It actually creates a pretty major bias that affects the outcomes of the season.
 
Suppose Milroe blew out his knee in practice this week, will Bama still be in the playoffs? (Remember FSU last year?)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top