or Connect
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The 19th Hole › Sports › 2013 NCAA College Football
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

2013 NCAA College Football - Page 20

post #343 of 692
Quote:
Originally Posted by SloverUT View Post
 

 

Don't need to see an Optometrist.  The same system to rank the teams will still be in place, just as it is now.  So at this point in the season things would be exactly the same as they are now.

 

And even with the panel I think the SEC would get two teams in if the season ended now.  I'd have a hard time of being convinced that at this point in the season any of the other 1 loss teams are more deserving than Auburn.  However, it is good for other conferences that Auburn/Mizzou, and Bama would end two teams chances of of making the playoffs if they were in this year.

 

Also, a panel is no better than the current BCS system if you feel the system is subjective.  A panel of people voting is definitely subjective.

 

Not to mention that we are going to have the exact same arguments of the system that we do now, except instead of #3 arguing they should be #2, it will be #5 arguing they should have been #4.

 

You mean Auburn, whose only good win is against an 8-4 Georgia team. Their loss is to a 3 loss LSU team. A team that doesn't have a top 25 ranked defense or offense. If their is an overrated team in the SEC it is Auburn. 

 

If the playoff was now. It would probably be,

 

Alabama

Ohio State 

FSU

Missouri

 

Missouri has a much better resume. I think in this case Missouri would get the nod over a number 4 auburn. To think the BCS playoff commission will use the BCS rankings as a bible is a lack of foresight. 

 

It really isn't the same argument because even Stanford has a claim to that 4th place. They have wins against 4 top 25 teams. Not even Missouri or Auburn can claim that. Yes they lost to Houston, but they trashed Oregon. They lost to a surging USC team that might crack the top 15 by the end of the year. 

 

So it isn't clear cut here. 

post #344 of 692
Quote:
Originally Posted by SloverUT View Post
 

Yes, but do you not think people will be formulating week to week rankings based off a similar system that we use now? AP, etc.  People are going to want to know how their teams stack up on a week to week basis.

 

As long as subjective people are picking and choosing the system will continuously be perceived as flawed.

But if people can't pick the final four, and computers (one computer has Arizona State at #4, another has Northern Illinois at #3) can't pick the final four, do we have to wait for divine intervention before the playoffs are unbiased? No wait, that won't work... Notre Dame would get in every year!;-)

post #345 of 692
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harmonious View Post
 

But if people can't pick the final four, and computers (one computer has Arizona State at #4, another has Northern Illinois at #3) can't pick the final four, do we have to wait for divine intervention before the playoffs are unbiased? No wait, that won't work... Notre Dame would get in every year!;-)

 

No, the only thing needed, if you can't do it in an NFL style manner, is to have a transparent formula that is not guided at all by subjective voting.

 

If the formula used to rank individuals is fully transparent, without any input from human voting, then how could you possibly claim bias?

post #346 of 692
Quote:
Originally Posted by SloverUT View Post
 

 

No, the only thing needed, if you can't do it in an NFL style manner, is to have a transparent formula that is not guided at all by subjective voting.

 

There is no way to come up with a non-subjective, transparent formula. For example, you would probably want to emphasize relative strength of a conference (SEC, right?) while I might want to emphasize out-of-conference records. Someone else might want to include a team's recent history (like Alabama's unbeaten streak over the past years) and others would want to include teams from smaller conferences with unbeaten records (Fresno St and Northern Illinois).  See, there is no easy way.

 

Personally, I think 13 intelligent people who know they will be under the microscope will do a good job of selecting four teams at the end of the season. Just like if 13 people who have commented in this thread were responsible for selecting, the results would be similar if not identical. Right now, I bet you and I and Saevel and most others would have Alabama, FSU and Ohio State in the playoffs, with maybe a different #4. That's not so bad.

post #347 of 692
Quote:
Originally Posted by saevel25 View Post
 

 

You mean Auburn, whose only good win is against an 8-4 Georgia team. Their loss is to a 3 loss LSU team. A team that doesn't have a top 25 ranked defense or offense. If their is an overrated team in the SEC it is Auburn. 

 

If the playoff was now. It would probably be,

 

Alabama

Ohio State 

FSU

Missouri

 

Missouri has a much better resume. I think in this case Missouri would get the nod over a number 4 auburn. To think the BCS playoff commission will use the BCS rankings as a bible is a lack of foresight. 

 

It really isn't the same argument because even Stanford has a claim to that 4th place. They have wins against 4 top 25 teams. Not even Missouri or Auburn can claim that. Yes they lost to Houston, but they trashed Oregon. They lost to a surging USC team that might crack the top 15 by the end of the year. 

 

So it isn't clear cut here. 

 

You are right.  I think Stanford had a fluke game to Houston much like Florida did to Georgia Southern.  I'd like to see Stanford play Ohio State.

post #348 of 692
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harmonious View Post
 

 

Yes, Harmonious, that is true.  But this is a fairly easy year to pick the top three.  And as you stated, we may waver on who is #4?  There lies the problem.   It starts to get a bit iffy when it isn't clear cut.  What happens if Alabama loses to Missouri (probably the #4 ranked team) in the SEC championship?  Obviously, Ohio State and FSU would make it.. and I think most people would put Missouri as #3.  But who is #4 then? Bama? 

 

It would be almost impossible for me to not be bias in some form. 

post #349 of 692
Quote:
Originally Posted by SloverUT View Post
 

You are right.  I think Stanford had a fluke game to Houston much like Florida did to Georgia Southern.  I'd like to see Stanford play Ohio State.

That may come to pass on Jan. 1 in Pasadena.

post #350 of 692
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harmonious View Post
 

That may come to pass on Jan. 1 in Pasadena.

 

I forgot to mention that I hope Stanford beats them 98-0 :) lol!

post #351 of 692
Quote:
Originally Posted by saevel25 View Post

You mean Auburn, whose only good win is against an 8-4 Georgia team.

tOSU fan's definition of a good win: lucky bounce off of the helmet of an intercepting defender which miraculously lands in the receiver's hands for game-winning touchdown.

(Totally kidding a1_smile.gif)
post #352 of 692
Quote:
Originally Posted by SloverUT View Post
 

 

No, the only thing needed, if you can't do it in an NFL style manner, is to have a transparent formula that is not guided at all by subjective voting.

 

If the formula used to rank individuals is fully transparent, without any input from human voting, then how could you possibly claim bias?

 

 

I agree. I would allow the polls to have some sort of margin of victory metric. Something like, max 24 points. Then just take the top 4 computer rankings. Yes all the formulas used must be vetted to ensure unbiased results. 

post #353 of 692
Quote:
Originally Posted by k-troop View Post


tOSU fan's definition of a good win: lucky bounce off of the helmet of an intercepting defender which miraculously lands in the receiver's hands for game-winning touchdown.

(Totally kidding a1_smile.gif)

That's the play that worries me. Hard to beat that kind of luck. :-)

 

P.S. Of course it also took some stupidity from the defensive backs that tried to intercept the ball instead of batting it down and going home a winner.

post #354 of 692
Quote:
Originally Posted by SloverUT View Post
 

 

Yes, Harmonious, that is true.  But this is a fairly easy year to pick the top three.  And as you stated, we may waver on who is #4?  There lies the problem.   It starts to get a bit iffy when it isn't clear cut.  What happens if Alabama loses to Missouri (probably the #4 ranked team) in the SEC championship?  Obviously, Ohio State and FSU would make it.. and I think most people would put Missouri as #3.  But who is #4 then? Bama? 

 

It would be almost impossible for me to not be bias in some form. 

 

 

If that was the case, I think it would be.

 

FSU

Ohio State

Missouri

Alabama

OSU 

Clemson

 

As the final standings. Well depending on how bad Alabama gets beat by Missouri. If it is by 3-4 TD's. Then I can see them dropping bellow Clemson. 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by k-troop View Post


tOSU fan's definition of a good win: lucky bounce off of the helmet of an intercepting defender which miraculously lands in the receiver's hands for game-winning touchdown.

(Totally kidding a1_smile.gif)

 

When your taught to knock the ball down, yet you tip it up. Players are suppose to do their assignments right :-D

 

That is the best win they got though. They are not impressive.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SloverUT View Post
 

 

You are right.  I think Stanford had a fluke game to Houston much like Florida did to Georgia Southern.  I'd like to see Stanford play Ohio State.

 

 

So do I. I think Stanford deserves the Rose Bowl more than Oregon. Honestly I would like to see the defense that stopped Oregon go up against a better offense than Oregon. It will be a smashed mouth football game that is for sure. 

post #355 of 692
Quote:
Originally Posted by SloverUT View Post

You are right.  I think Stanford had a fluke game to Houston much like Florida did to Georgia Southern.  I'd like to see Stanford play Ohio State.
I think you guys mean Utah. Stanford lost in conference to Utah and SC.
post #356 of 692
Quote:
Originally Posted by SloverUT View Post
 

 

Yes, but do you not think people will be formulating week to week rankings based off a similar system that we use now? AP, etc.  People are going to want to know how their teams stack up on a week to week basis.

 

Also, we are now trading a formulated system for the subjective votes of 13 people with flexibility to choose as they please (within reason of course).  It is still going to be a majorly flawed system with similar outcomes as I suggested earlier.  Instead of #3 being pissed off it will be the #5 team left out of the playoffs.  The only good thing out of all of this is that 4 teams will ultimately get to pair off and duke it out.  It is how those four teams got there that will be scrutinized just as it is now.

 

I could see the arguments now, based on the selection committee.

 

Archie Manning: That guy favors the SEC.

 

Mike Tranghese: That guy favors the Big East.

 

And so on..

 

 

As long as subjective people are picking and choosing the system will continuously be perceived as flawed.

Yes, it's a trade-off, but its not a lateral move.  The current formula chooses 2 teams and the new formula will choose 4.  It cannot be argued that that isn't better - as far as deciding a "truer" national champion, at least.  Arguments can certainly be made that its not necessary, but since it seems like the vast majority of people want to know who the true champion is, then a 4-team playoff is better than a 2-team playoff.

 

Yes, perhaps its not as good as a 6 or 8, or maybe even 16 team playoff**, but just because it can't be "perfect" doesn't mean it can't be improved upon.  And slowly but surely it gets improved upon with each revision.  Prior to 1992, teams were tied to bowl games and there were situations where there were 2 clear cut teams better than everybody else but they couldn't play each other.  So, in came the Bowl Coalition.  Then the Bowl Allaince, then the BCS, then a couple of upgrades to the BCS (to allow non AQ schools an opportunity) and now playoffs.

 

And, yes, if it's subjective it will always be perceived as flawed, but it's entirely IMPOSSIBLE for it not to be subjective.  You can't have an NFL style subjective playoff system when you have 208 (or whatever it is) teams who largely do not play each other.  Otherwise, people get to play the transitive game and come up with conclusions like:  Eastern Washington is better than Oregon and Stanford because they beat Utah, who beat Stanford, who beat Oregon. ;)

 

And a bunch of people - assuming they are intelligent and reasonable - should be able to equal or better what any computer will come up with anyway.  Will there always be controversy?  Of course.  But controversy over who is 4th is a lot less than controversy of who should be chosen 2nd. :beer:

 

**Just daydreaming about this, and how freaking amazing that would be!!  December 14th would be the first round and the matchups would be:

 

Alabama vs. Fresno State

FSU vs. Wisconsin

OSU vs. Northern Illinois

Auburn vs. Oregon

Missouri vs. Arizona State

Clemson vs. Michigan State

Oklahoma State vs. South Carolina

Stanford vs. Baylor

 

That would be some pretty amazing stuff, and just assuming all the favorites won (and assuming a March Madness style bracket) would leave the second round (Dec 21) as:

 

Alabama vs. Stanford

FSU vs. Oklahoma State

Ohio State vs. Clemson

Auburn vs. Missouri

 

And that's where it starts to get realllllllllllly good. :)  The semifinals could be played on Dec 28th, or on New Years Day, and the championship the following week.

 

Someday, perhaps ... someday.

post #357 of 692
Quote:
Originally Posted by Golfingdad View Post
 

Yes, it's a trade-off, but its not a lateral move.  The current formula chooses 2 teams and the new formula will choose 4.  It cannot be argued that that isn't better - as far as deciding a "truer" national champion, at least.  Arguments can certainly be made that its not necessary, but since it seems like the vast majority of people want to know who the true champion is, then a 4-team playoff is better than a 2-team playoff.

 

Yes, perhaps its not as good as a 6 or 8, or maybe even 16 team playoff**, but just because it can't be "perfect" doesn't mean it can't be improved upon.  And slowly but surely it gets improved upon with each revision.  Prior to 1992, teams were tied to bowl games and there were situations where there were 2 clear cut teams better than everybody else but they couldn't play each other.  So, in came the Bowl Coalition.  Then the Bowl Allaince, then the BCS, then a couple of upgrades to the BCS (to allow non AQ schools an opportunity) and now playoffs.

 

And, yes, if it's subjective it will always be perceived as flawed, but it's entirely IMPOSSIBLE for it not to be subjective.  You can't have an NFL style subjective playoff system when you have 208 (or whatever it is) teams who largely do not play each other.  Otherwise, people get to play the transitive game and come up with conclusions like:  Eastern Washington is better than Oregon and Stanford because they beat Utah, who beat Stanford, who beat Oregon. ;)

 

And a bunch of people - assuming they are intelligent and reasonable - should be able to equal or better what any computer will come up with anyway.  Will there always be controversy?  Of course.  But controversy over who is 4th is a lot less than controversy of who should be chosen 2nd. :beer:

 

**Just daydreaming about this, and how freaking amazing that would be!!  December 14th would be the first round and the matchups would be:

 

Alabama vs. Fresno State

FSU vs. Wisconsin

OSU vs. Northern Illinois

Auburn vs. Oregon

Missouri vs. Arizona State

Clemson vs. Michigan State

Oklahoma State vs. South Carolina

Stanford vs. Baylor

 

That would be some pretty amazing stuff, and just assuming all the favorites won (and assuming a March Madness style bracket) would leave the second round (Dec 21) as:

 

Alabama vs. Stanford

FSU vs. Oklahoma State

Ohio State vs. Clemson

Auburn vs. Missouri

 

And that's where it starts to get realllllllllllly good. :)  The semifinals could be played on Dec 28th, or on New Years Day, and the championship the following week.

 

Someday, perhaps ... someday.

 

 

I get what your saying, wow look at the match ups. Well you have that already in the bowl games. So why does it matter if it is a playoff. Well, I don't want to crown a 3 loss team as champion. 

post #358 of 692
Quote:
Originally Posted by saevel25 View Post
 

 

I get what your saying, wow look at the match ups. Well you have that already in the bowl games. So why does it matter if it is a playoff. Well, I don't want to crown a 3 loss team as champion.

Yup, it would be a trade-off.  Some years you may risk including a good 3 loss team but if you went with 8 teams, you'd also be risking leaving out a good 1 loss team (In this case, Baylor and Michigan State)  Same is true when you are comparing the virtues of 4 vs. 8.  Right now, we'd have 3 undefeateds and one 1-loss team in, with 5 good 1 loss teams left out (along with 2 decent undefeateds that nobody but me and a couple of people in Dekalb care about)  And of course, when comparing 2 vs. 4, it still applies.  This year, perhaps another undefeated gets left out.  Other years there is one undefeated and 7 teams with one loss.

 

I would always be of the opinion that I'd rather run the of risk crowning a 3 loss team as champion (after all, they would have earned it by playing 4 great games against 4 of the best teams in the country), than I would not even giving a good one-loss or undefeated team an opportunity.

 

@SloverUT is right in that no matter what they do (short of eliminating the entire regular season and having a 4 month long double or triple elimination nationwide tournament, lol!) the system will never be perfect and will always be flawed. (But to some of us that is, kind of, part of the beauty of it ;))

post #359 of 692
Quote:
Originally Posted by Golfingdad View Post
 

Yup, it would be a trade-off.  Some years you may risk including a good 3 loss team but if you went with 8 teams, you'd also be risking leaving out a good 1 loss team (In this case, Baylor and Michigan State)  Same is true when you are comparing the virtues of 4 vs. 8.  Right now, we'd have 3 undefeateds and one 1-loss team in, with 5 good 1 loss teams left out (along with 2 decent undefeateds that nobody but me and a couple of people in Dekalb care about)  And of course, when comparing 2 vs. 4, it still applies.  This year, perhaps another undefeated gets left out.  Other years there is one undefeated and 7 teams with one loss.

 

I would always be of the opinion that I'd rather run the of risk crowning a 3 loss team as champion (after all, they would have earned it by playing 4 great games against 4 of the best teams in the country), than I would not even giving a good one-loss or undefeated team an opportunity.

 

@SloverUT is right in that no matter what they do (short of eliminating the entire regular season and having a 4 month long double or triple elimination nationwide tournament, lol!) the system will never be perfect and will always be flawed. (But to some of us that is, kind of, part of the beauty of it ;))

 

I think it will eventually get to 8 teams. I think it fits better. You never see a 3 loss team in the top 8. So that keeps the championship as something important. I don't think people would complain as much as a with a 9th team getting left out compared to a 5th ranked team. 

 

Also you can turn the 4 BCS sites into playoff locations.

post #360 of 692
Quote:
Originally Posted by saevel25 View Post
 

 

I think it will eventually get to 8 teams. I think it fits better. You never see a 3 loss team in the top 8. So that keeps the championship as something important. I don't think people would complain as much as a with a 9th team getting left out compared to a 5th ranked team.

 

Also you can turn the 4 BCS sites into playoff locations.

No proof whatsoever to back this up, but I totally agree.  8 just seems like the logical final step.  It's not too diluted (with 3 loss teams or multiple non-AQ teams, unless they're exceptionally good) nor is it ever risking too many good teams (with legitimate chances) as being left out.

 

And I totally agree that it fits better with the bowls and such.  Starting next year, they already have the 6 bowls they'll use for the playoff sites (4 current BCS plus Peach and Cotton), so all they'll change is converting the first 4 to first round playoff games instead of other, traditional bowl games.  (And just like next year, they'll rotate every year for which pair of games gets the semifinals)

 

The rest of the bowl landscape need not change at all.  (Although, personally, I'm tired of them force feeding us 7-5 vs. 7-5 matchups, so I wish they'd chop off about 10 of the "sucky" bowl games)

 

EDIT:  Wiki says that the current contract for the playoffs runs through 2025, so we might be waiting awhile for them to expand. ;)

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sports
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The 19th Hole › Sports › 2013 NCAA College Football