Straight seeding model expected for 2025 CFP

Deep Creek said:
Outside of Clemson's wins several years back, and TCU beating Michigan, have either of those conference teams won playoff games over the P2?
Click to expand...

First off, that’s kind of a small sample size, don’t ya think? Before 2024, there were only the CFP semis and the nat’l title game. That’s three CFP games a year, for nine years (not counting pandemic year).

Add in this year, that’s only 38 CFP games ever even played.

2024: 3 such games, 0-3
2023: 0 such games, 0-0
2022: 2 such games, 1-1
2021: 0 such games, 0-0
2019: 3 such games, 1-2
2018: 2 such games, 1-1
2017: 2 such games, 0-2
2016: 2 such games, 2-0
2015: 1 such game, 0-1
2014: 0 such games, 0-0


Did all the math in my head and went by memory teams and confs. So, this might all be correct or might not, I dunno. Check it yourselves or don’t, I don’t care.

But out of 38 total CFP games, only 15 had either an ACC or Big 12 team playing either a B1G or SEC team.

The “P2” teams have a 10-5 record in that very limited sample size.
 
WhosYourDawggy said:
No, the SEC appears to be leaning toward what is referred to as 5-11 - 1 AQ for each conference, and 11 at-large. The SEC is not really pushing the 4 AQ plan, that's more of a B1G thing ... last year in a 16-team CFP the SEC would have gotten 6 teams in.
Click to expand...
That’s what I stated. The SEC likes that 5-11 format because it doesn’t cap them at most 7 but likely 6 most years like the 4-4-2-2-1-3 would. I think Sankey believes he can get a 16 team playoff with half the teams being from the SEC. I’m just confused why in particularly the B12 would be for this over the 4-4-2-2-1-3 format. Because it really feels like unless it’s a special year for the B12, 2 will be the max in the 5-11 format and even that’s not guaranteed.
 
WhosYourDawggy said:
I am not going to shed a tear for them anyway. I am using it as an example of why, without AQs, teams will be disincentivized to play big OOC games. That's not what CFB wants to needs, but it will happen if the committee holds a IC loss against a team when a team like IU bailed on an OOC games with Louisville and then had a weak B1G schedule.
Click to expand...
I get that, but a 3 loss team isn’t the best example to use. It wasn’t just the Georgia game that cost them a better seed but also losing 2 winnable games at home vs good teams. Bottom line it’s going to be rare for an OOC game to cost a team a bye or home field if they take care of business everywhere else. Specifically for Bigger Brand Teams.
 
ralphiewvu said:
I get that, but a 3 loss team isn’t the best example to use. It wasn’t just the Georgia game that cost them a better seed but also losing 2 winnable games at home vs good teams. Bottom line it’s going to be rare for an OOC game to cost a team a bye or home field if they take care of business everywhere else. Specifically for Bigger Brand Teams.
Click to expand...
It is the perfect example. They would have been a 2 loss team if they hadn't played UGA. That's the point. A 2 loss Clemson ACC champ gets a bye. That's huge. They would be idiots to not cancel the future five UGA games.
 
WhosYourDawggy said:
It is the perfect example. They would have been a 2 loss team if they hadn't played UGA. That's the point. A 2 loss Clemson ACC champ gets a bye. That's huge. They would be idiots to not cancel the future five UGA games.
Click to expand...
They also would have been a 2 loss team had they not lost to UL or SCar. It wasn’t just the UGA game that cost them. For that reason alone it’s far from the perfect example. Any one of their 3 losses cost them a a better seed.
 
Pros and Cons.

Obvious pro: You want the best teams to get the best seeds. That way you don't end up with the two best teams playing each other in the quarterfinals.

Biggest con: Makes the CCG nothing more than an exhibition game.
 
ralphiewvu said:
They also would have been a 2 loss team had they not lost to UL or SCar. It wasn’t just the UGA game that cost them. For that reason alone it’s far from the perfect example. Any one of their 3 losses cost them a a better seed.
Click to expand...
I am going to try this one last time. Remember, the only thing I am talking about is why Clemson would play tough OOC games other than USCjr, which they do every year. The whole idea of AQs is to incentivize people to play tough OOC games.

Clemson started the season ranked 14th. The loss to UGA dropped them to 25th. If they had played and won against GaSouthern instead of UGA, they would have been ranked 13th after week 1.

They start winning and move up—22, 21, 17, 15, 10, 10, 9, 11—at this point, we are 10 weeks into the season, and Clemson would have been undefeated. Instead of 11th, there are several one-loss teams they would have been ahead of, so they probably would have been ranked 6th with a 7-0 record.

Now, they lost to Louisville in week 11. They dropped all the way to 23. Had that been their first loss, based on what happened to others in the top 10 who lost around that time, they would have dropped to about 12th-ish.

They start climbing again - 20, 17, 20, 12. So they have worked their way back to 12th. With the one loss instead of 2, they would have worked their way back into the top 6-ish.

They lost in Week 15 to USCjr and, as a three-loss team, dropped to 17th below ASU. Had they only had two losses at that point, ranked 6, they would probably have dropped to 11th-ish, above the three-loss SEC teams, and maybe above BSU, give or take a spot.

They win the ACC and move up to 16th. The key here is that without the UGA loss, they would have moved up to about 9th and would have clearly been ahead of ASU and maybe BSU.

That is why Clemson is the perfect example when looking at AQs and OOC scheduling.

It doesn't matter that they lost to Louisville and USCjr. What matters is that the early loss to UGA put them at such a disadvantage that had they not played UGA, they would have been a 2 loss ACC Champ, clearly ahead of ASU, maybe ahead of BSU. They clearly would have been ahead of a 2-loss ASU, and they would have had a bye. They don't play @ Texas. They get 30 days rest.

I hate defending Clemson, but playing UGA clearly cost them a bye. And that's why absent AQs, teams won't continue to play tough OOC.
 
Last edited:
Knight&Day said:
BFirst off, that’s kind of a small sample size, don’t ya think?

Add in this year, that’s only 38 CFP games ever even played.

2024: 3 such games, 0-3 Correct. ACC 0-2, Big 12 0-1....and G5 0-1, Ind 3-1, B1G 6-3 (with one loss against another B1G), SEC 2-3)
2023: 0 such games, 0-0 Nah ACC 0-0, Big 12 0-1, PAC 12 1-1, B!G 2-0, G5/Ind 0-0. (Texas still in BIg 12 and Washington still in PAC 12)
2022: 2 such games, 1-1 Correct ACC 0-0, Big 12 1-1, B1G 0-2, SEC 2-0
2021: 0 such games, 0-0 Nah ACC 0-1, Big 12 0-0, B1G 1-1, Ind 0-1, SEC 2-0
2019: 3 such games, 1-2 Correct ACC 1-1, Big 12 0-1, B1G 0-1, SEC 2-0
2018: 2 such games, 1-1 Nah ACC 2-0, Big 12 0-1, Ind 0-1, SEC 1-1
2017: 2 such games, 0-2 Correct ACC 0-1, Big 12 0-1, SEC 3-1 but two played each other
2016: 2 such games, 2-0 Correct ACC 2-0, Big 12 0-0, PAC 12 0-1, SEC 1-1, B!G 0-1
2015: 1 such game, 0-1 Nah 1-1 ACC 1-1, Big 12 0-1, B1G 0-1, SEC 2-0
2014: 0 such games, 0-0 Nah ACC 0-1, Big 12 0-0, PAC 12 1-1, SEC 0-1, B1G 2-0

Check it yourselves or don’t, I don’t care.

But out of 38 total CFP games, only 15 had either an ACC or Big 12 team playing either a B1G or SEC team.

The “P2” teams have a 10-5 record in that very limited sample size.
Click to expand...
I guess eleven years can be considered a "small sample size". But it is the same sample size the B1G, SEC, PAC 12, G5s and Independents had. No?

I'll look it up. I ain't got nuttin' else to do.

You must not be too old since you were pretty damn close since you just went by memory. Missed '14, '15, '18, '21 and '23. But some of that probably had to do with participants changing conferences. If my arithmetic is correct, the ACC and Big 12 combined are 7-14 with Clemson having six of those seven wins! Take Clem out and it is really bad.

Soooo, IMO I still say the ACC and Big 12 need to improve their playoff performances to increase credibility. But it looks like they may not get nearly as many opportunities as the biggies do.
 
WhosYourDawggy said:
I am going to try this one last time. Remember, the only thing I am talking about is why Clemson would play tough OOC games other than USCjr, which they do every year. The whole idea of AQs is to incentivize people to play tough OOC games.

Clemson started the season ranked 14th. The loss to UGA dropped them to 25th. If they had played and won against GaSouthern instead of UGA, they would have been ranked 13th after week 1.

They start winning and move up—22, 21, 17, 15, 10, 10, 9, 11—at this point, we are 10 weeks into the season, and Clemson would have been undefeated. Instead of 11th, there are several one-loss teams they would have been ahead of, so they probably would have been ranked 6th with a 7-0 record.

Now, they lost to Louisville in week 11. They dropped all the way to 23. Had that been their first loss, based on what happened to others in the top 10 who lost around that time, they would have dropped to about 12th-ish.

They start climbing again - 20, 17, 20, 12. So they have worked their way back to 12th. With the one loss instead of 2, they would have worked their way back into the top 6-ish.

They lost in Week 15 to USCjr and, as a three-loss team, dropped to 17th below ASU. Had they only had two losses at that point, ranked 6, they would probably have dropped to 11th-ish, above the three-loss SEC teams, and maybe above BSU, give or take a spot.

They win the ACC and move up to 16th. The key here is that without the UGA loss, they would have moved up to about 9th and would have clearly been ahead of ASU and maybe BSU.

That is why Clemson is the perfect example when looking at AQs and OOC scheduling.

It doesn't matter that they lost to Louisville and USCjr. What matters is that the early loss to UGA put them at such a disadvantage that had they not played UGA, they would have been a 2 loss ACC Champ, clearly ahead of ASU, maybe ahead of BSU. They clearly would have been ahead of a 2-loss ASU, and they would have had a bye. They don't play @ Texas. They get 30 days rest.

I hate defending Clemson, but playing UGA clearly cost them a bye. And that's why absent AQs, teams won't continue to play tough OOC.
Click to expand...

Let's try this one more time, if Clemson wins any one of the 3 loses they incurred would they have gotten a better seed resulting in a bye or home field? If the answer is yes (and it is) then it wasn't just the UGA game that cost them. Which is exactly why they aren't a good example.
 
ralphiewvu said:
I would like to think they would try and keep the big teams playing each other. You’re absolutely right that UGA/Purdue does nothing for anyone. And yes there will be years where we may get one or two games like that. But I’d have to think they aren’t giving up matchups like OSU/UGA or PSU/Bama or Oregon/LSU because the off chance some shit plays a big boy. But I guess we’ll see.
Click to expand...
one of the problems is simply fluctuations of teams. Oregon and Oklahoma State set up in 2018. Oregon went 9-4 OK State was 7-6 did anyone expect that when the series came around Oregon would be coming off 13-1 and OK state would be 3-9.
Alabama and Wisconsin set up in 2019 Wis went 10-4 Alabama 11-2. looks good. Bama won 42-10 on the road and finished 9-4 while Wisc finished 5-7
 
ralphiewvu said:
Let's try this one more time, if Clemson wins any one of the 3 loses they incurred would they have gotten a better seed resulting in a bye or home field? If the answer is yes (and it is) then it wasn't just the UGA game that cost them. Which is exactly why they aren't a good example.
Click to expand...
You are stating the obvious ... of course, had they gone undefeated, they would have been ranked no. 1. Losing one less game would have them ranked higher. That's not relevant here, where we are discussing how to incentivize teams to play tough OOC. What you have to do is have a system that makes it so that playing tough OOC games not only doesn't hurt you, but it helps you. That's why basketball teams play all sorts of tough OOC games ... playing the games helps you, win or lose.

When looking at scheduling, you assume you will lose a game or two. No one believes that they will be undefeated or lose just one game. They know they will likely have a loss, so the natural inclination is not to schedule tough OOC games. A team like Clemson says, we are likely to lose a game or two, and in the new setting, that will get us into the CFP. But if we play UGA, too, we have a good chance of losing, and if we lose, it will likely affect our seeding and the possibility of getting a bye or better seeding. So, let's not play UGA.

The whole AQ argument is that only IC games count as to whether you get in the CFP or not, and if you win the conference or not, which will affect byes, etc. Knowing that to be the case, if you know you are likely to get into the CFP because of your situation within the conference, you feel more comfortable scheduling tough OOC and losing that game won't really matter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top