Should the final four only include 0 to 1 loss teams?

[cane_man]

What do you mean "secondary comparisons." We are comparing Alabama's football team in 2013 to Auburn's. Every game is part of their season equally. They are all games that took place on an actual football field and go down in the actual record book. We are comparing two teams' seasons. The fact that one team performed better on one night ON A MISSED FIELD GOAL RETURN IN THEIR OWN STADIUM doesn't somehow make the rest of the season magically disappear.

You're the one who is suddenly making football games meaningless, not me. LSU-Alabama? Meaningless to you. LSU-Auburn? It never fucking happened. My approach counts every game throughout the entire season. And any basic statistician will tell you more games produces a better sample. Also, any statistician will tell you a true comparison needs to be controlled...and a game played in Jordan-Hare Stadium is much less controlled than a seven game set of common opponents.

Bear with me on this hypothetical.....

Teams a and b have the 2 best records in the land and share 3 common opponents. The next best team has 4 losses.

Team a is 11-1. They lost to the worst of the 3 common opponents by 20 and beat the other 2 by 1 point in double overtimes, all at home.

Team b is 12-0 and beat all commons by 40 on the road.

Team a and b face off in the very, very last game of the season. Team a wins by 2 in quadruple ot on a fluke 2 point return . Who do you give the nc to?

 

[Smart]

Bear with me on this hypothetical.....

Teams a and b have the 2 best records in the land and share 3 common opponents. The next best team has 4 losses.

Team a is 11-1. They lost to the worst of the 3 common opponents by 20 and beat the other 2 by 1 point in double overtimes, all at home.

Team b is 12-0 and beat all commons by 40 on the road.

Team a and b face off in the very, very last game of the season. Team a wins by 2 in quadruple ot on a fluke 2 point return . Who do you give the nc to?

If the game is framed as "the national championship" and isn't part of the regular season, it's Team A. I think Team B is the better team with the better overall resume, but if both team knew that the season would end with a national title game, you have to give it to A.

If that was, say, the conference championship and the national title was cancelled, I go with B without a moment of hesitation.

 

[Smart]

My word, you didn't listen to a single word I wrote here.

Every eligible team has the opportunity to win their conference. In 2012, Oregon had the same division record as Stanford, but the Pac-12 rules stated that division ties go to the team which won the head-to-head match-up. That was Stanford, deal with it. The Pac-12 rules don't care about MOV. They only care if you got the W or not. Stanford then went on to re-defeat UCLA in the Pac-12 conference championship game. If Oregon wanted to win the conference, they needed to beat Stanford in their own building. For a team, which produced high MOV numbers and according to you, was the "superior team," then they should have taken care of business. But they didn't.

Stanford, not only won the head-to-head match-up and the conference, they also played a more difficult road. Their SOS was much better. The number of quality opponents was much higher, 5:1. Their two losses were quite mild and came down to the wire. Some have even argued that Stanford should have beaten Notre Dame and refs messed up on the call. You maybe right that Oregon was the "better team" in 2012, but guess what? College football doesn't do best of seven series or best of three series. At most, you can have best of two. But when we look at the resume between the two programs, Stanford was the most impressive due to their SOS, quality of wins, and the fact they won both the conference and head-to-head match-up.

Now lets turn to Alabama and Auburn, and just like Stanford-Oregon, you had a division tie, and the edge going to the head-to-head winner. Also like Stanford, Auburn won its conference championship game and produced a better SOS number and produced more quality wins.

There's no way else to slice it. You either respect conference championship status or you have everybody go Notre Dame.

Why does the fact that a conference exist and crowns a champion have to be dispositive when it comes to ranking teams for the national championship? You make it sound like it would literally be impossible, but it's not. College basketball, hockey, tennis, and just about every other sport with a bracket rank teams based on the totality of the resume regardless of whether they won the title. Again, it's not like Michigan State suddenly got the 2 seed by winning the Big Ten tournament.

And you can ignore MOV all you want, but it does factor into how teams played and does tell you which team was better.

I'll go to hypothetical land now. It's widely considered that home field advantage makes a 6 point difference (it moves the spread -3). Let's say that A was the best team. They outperform B by 2 points on a neutral field. B outperforms C by two on a neutral field. C outperforms D by two on a neutral field. Teams are consistent every game, and play to their skill.

A plays at B (B wins by 1)
B plays at C (C wins by 1)
C plays at D (D wins by 1)
C plays at A (A wins by 7)
D plays at B (B wins by 7)
A plays at D (A wins by 3)

Which team deserves the title most? Which team is worst? Keep in mind, A played the best every single game (like most studies suggest is the reason for homefield advantage, their away loss was due to ref bias). D played the worst every single game.

Yet using your logic, A and B are both 2-1. B won the head to head. They win the title.
C and D are both 1-2. D won head to head. They win third.

We know A played the best. And yet you think it's fair to had B the title? Why? And while this hypo seems farfetched, it is actually remarkably similar to Auburn-Alabama.

 

[Codaxx]

Why does the fact that a conference exist and crowns a champion have to be dispositive when it comes to ranking teams for the national championship? You make it sound like it would literally be impossible, but it's not. College basketball, hockey, tennis, and just about every other sport with a bracket rank teams based on the totality of the resume regardless of whether they won the title. Again, it's not like Michigan State suddenly got the 2 seed by winning the Big Ten tournament.

And you can ignore MOV all you want, but it does factor into how teams played and does tell you which team was better.

I'll go to hypothetical land now. It's widely considered that home field advantage makes a 6 point difference (it moves the spread -3). Let's say that A was the best team. They outperform B by 2 points on a neutral field. B outperforms C by two on a neutral field. C outperforms D by two on a neutral field. Teams are consistent every game, and play to their skill.

A plays at B (B wins by 1)
B plays at C (C wins by 1)
C plays at D (D wins by 1)
C plays at A (A wins by 7)
D plays at B (B wins by 7)
A plays at D (A wins by 3)

Which team deserves the title most? Which team is worst? Keep in mind, A played the best every single game (like most studies suggest is the reason for homefield advantage, their away loss was due to ref bias). D played the worst every single game.

Yet using your logic, A and B are both 2-1. B won the head to head. They win the title.
C and D are both 1-2. D won head to head. They win third.

We know A played the best. And yet you think it's fair to had B the title? Why? And while this hypo seems farfetched, it is actually remarkably similar to Auburn-Alabama.

I think the answer as to why head to head is a more important variable is obvious. You are attempting to judge 2 teams based on a collection of evidence. Head to Head is the only direct observation in the pool of evidence. The other information is tertiary. It can be very helpful, but you would need an overwhelming amount of evidence to overrule the direct evidence.

 

[WNY_FOOTBALL_DUDE]

We know A played the best. And yet you think it's fair to had B the title? Why? And while this hypo seems farfetched, it is actually remarkably similar to Auburn-Alabama.

Please stop. You, like many college football fans out, throw out the term "best" like it means anything more than "It's the team I like better." It's an opinion. What I want to strive here and something which should be happening, is something more objective and more dare I say it, legitimate.

Winning your conference is an example of an objective achievement. Lets not turn into something subjective.

What you and many others here are peddling into territory you cannot logically prove. Football is a violent and mentally draining sport. We cannot play more than 1 game a week. If we truly wanted to see which team is better than you setup a best-of-three or best-of-seven series, where each team gets the opportunity to play each other over and over again. This is probably the fairest way to determine who is better vs. who had the bad day, but that can't happen. Instead, we play knock-out, which is more exciting and less predictable. Sometimes the favorites win, sometimes they lose.

 

[The Authority]

I would be fine if being a conference champion is a requirement to be in the final four.

That would keep everything in the realm that every game is important and would eliminate the guessing game and popularity contest.

 

[WNY_FOOTBALL_DUDE]

I would be fine if being a conference champion is a requirement to be in the final four.

That would keep everything in the realm that every game is important and would eliminate the guessing game and popularity contest.

I 100% support CC only and would only allow in an Indy if they ran table. This would greatly benefit the sport and take away the problem I mentioned in the original post. But you still would have to decide on which CCs to take.

 

[Codaxx]

I 100% support CC only and would only allow in an Indy if they ran table. This would greatly benefit the sport and take away the problem I mentioned in the original post. But you still would have to decide on which CCs to take.

The real issue is the small size of the playoff. I like Conference Champions only in a 4 or less playoff. It just makes sense. If we get larger, I will reverse course. The Conference Champ is a objective goal. That can not be argued, even if a few have attempted it. There is a couple holes in the thinking though. SEC is a great example. 14 team league. Huge variations in conference scheduling. It is quiet possible that a team with 2 conferences losses is better than a team with 1 conference loss. The larger leagues get and the more diverse the conference scheduling becomes the less meaningful the Champion becomes. The other obvious pt is not all conferences are created equal. There will variations in conference play every yr.

 

[The Authority]

I 100% support CC only and would only allow in an Indy if they ran table. This would greatly benefit the sport and take away the problem I mentioned in the original post. But you still would have to decide on which CCs to take.

True. Probably the highest ranked Conference Champions.

 

[The Authority]

The real issue is the small size of the playoff. I like Conference Champions only in a 4 or less playoff. It just makes sense. If we get larger, I will reverse course. The Conference Champ is a objective goal. That can not be argued, even if a few have attempted it. There is a couple holes in the thinking though. SEC is a great example. 14 team league. Huge variations in conference scheduling. It is quiet possible that a team with 2 conferences losses is better than a team with 1 conference loss. The larger leagues get and the more diverse the conference scheduling becomes the less meaningful the Champion becomes. The other obvious pt is not all conferences are created equal. There will variations in conference play every yr.

In regards to not all conferences being equal, it works that way in every sport and its just something that has to be accepted.

There are some teams in the NFL or NBA that would make the playoffs if they were in the other Conference but are instead left out. That's just life.

 

[4down20]

Please stop. You, like many college football fans out, throw out the term "best" like it means anything more than "It's the team I like better." It's an opinion. What I want to strive here and something which should be happening, is something more objective and more dare I say it, legitimate.

Winning your conference is an example of an objective achievement. Lets not turn into something subjective.

What you and many others here are peddling into territory you cannot logically prove. Football is a violent and mentally draining sport. We cannot play more than 1 game a week. If we truly wanted to see which team is better than you setup a best-of-three or best-of-seven series, where each team gets the opportunity to play each other over and over again. This is probably the fairest way to determine who is better vs. who had the bad day, but that can't happen. Instead, we play knock-out, which is more exciting and less predictable. Sometimes the favorites win, sometimes they lose.

Once again please show where the polls aren't getting it done in a manner that wouldn't be fixed simply by expanding to 4 teams.

You keep dogging the polls and all this, yet you can't offer up anything that supports it.

And being a conference champion doesn't at all make for a better team. Take 2011. Oklahoma St was a conference champion, but Alabama was not. They both lost 1 conference game. What was the difference? The difference was Oklahoma St lost to some crappy team that was only bowl eligible because Oklahoma St lost to them. Meanwhile Alabama lost to the #1 team in the country, in OT, and because they happened to be in the same division LSU wins the conference championship. If Alabama had lost to a crappy team instead of a good team, they still could have been conference champions.

So how in the world can that conference champion be the better team? They aren't. Just like we can go down other years in other conferences and show the same thing.

And just like that I've managed to do what you can't do with your argument about the polls and point out errors that wouldn't be fixed. And that is just 1, I can give more.

 

[The Authority]

Once again please show where the polls aren't getting it done in a manner that wouldn't be fixed simply by expanding to 4 teams.

You keep dogging the polls and all this, yet you can't offer up anything that supports it.

And being a conference champion doesn't at all make for a better team. Take 2011. Oklahoma St was a conference champion, but Alabama was not. They both lost 1 conference game. What was the difference? The difference was Oklahoma St lost to some crappy team that was only bowl eligible because Oklahoma St lost to them. Meanwhile Alabama lost to the #1 team in the country, in OT, and because they happened to be in the same division LSU wins the conference championship. If Alabama had lost to a crappy team instead of a good team, they still could have been conference champions.

So how in the world can that conference champion be the better team? They aren't. Just like we can go down other years in other conferences and show the same thing.

And just like that I've managed to do what you can't do with your argument about the polls and point out errors that wouldn't be fixed. And that is just 1, I can give more.

Alabama getting a do over like they did in 2011 should not be allowed any longer.

 

[WNY_FOOTBALL_DUDE]

The real issue is the small size of the playoff. I like Conference Champions only in a 4 or less playoff. It just makes sense. If we get larger, I will reverse course. The Conference Champ is a objective goal. That can not be argued, even if a few have attempted it. There is a couple holes in the thinking though. SEC is a great example. 14 team league. Huge variations in conference scheduling. It is quiet possible that a team with 2 conferences losses is better than a team with 1 conference loss. The larger leagues get and the more diverse the conference scheduling becomes the less meaningful the Champion becomes. The other obvious pt is not all conferences are created equal. There will variations in conference play every yr.

But with the way the system is setup, we would never know for sure. I really hate to project how teams would play out in a tournament. It's always unpredictable. We always see teams getting overrated and underrated by human polling and computer rankings. I am not going to stand here, and pretend I am a brilliant projector of sports outcomes.

I personally would like to see an 8-team playoff, and include at least 5 conference champions. This would put high emphasis on winning your conference, but at the same time, rewards teams like Alabama in 2013 and 2011, Oklahoma in 2003, or Oregon/Florida in 2012, the opportunity to win a National Championship. But this will not work, because the Orange, Rose, and Sugar would be whining too much.

 

[WNY_FOOTBALL_DUDE]

Alabama getting a do over like they did in 2011 should not be allowed any longer.

Absolutely. It bugged me that Alabama got a mulligan in 2011. Not only did they fail to win their division and conference, they only beat 3 teams with winning records that season and avoided both South Carolina and Georgia. It was a disaster, and the system had to change itself because of the intense backlash. I would even go farther, and say, whenever college football doesn't respect conference championship status, it gets into serious trouble.

 

[Codaxx]

In regards to not all conferences being equal, it works that way in every sport and its just something that has to be accepted.

There are some teams in the NFL or NBA that would make the playoffs if they were in the other Conference but are instead left out. That's just life.

and other sports have a playoff that include wildcards. That serves as a measure to balance these issues. Conference/Division Champs are given preferential treatment to acknowledge the accomplishment. Wild Cards are still given a chance to prove their worth. Not to mention CFB is mcuh different than pro sports. In the Pro game there are a lot more intra-divison games. That is why I have always supported a larger format that would give top seeds byes or home games.

 

[WNY_FOOTBALL_DUDE]

In regards to not all conferences being equal, it works that way in every sport and its just something that has to be accepted.

There are some teams in the NFL or NBA that would make the playoffs if they were in the other Conference but are instead left out. That's just life.

Very true. Plus, I find it very illogical for people to project winners. If we watched sports long enough, we know that surprises happen. Who saw Louisville defeating Florida coming? Who predicted that Oklahoma/Utah would beat Alabama, UCF would beat Baylor, or Boise State defeating Oklahoma? Who predicted that WV would not only beat Clemson, but put up 70 points?

 

[Codaxx]

Very true. Plus, I find it very illogical for people to project winners. If we watched sports long enough, we know that surprises happen. Who saw Louisville defeating Florida coming? Who predicted that Oklahoma/Utah would beat Alabama, UCF would beat Baylor, or Boise State defeating Oklahoma? Who predicted that WV would not only beat Clemson, but put up 70 points?

All true, but an odd stance for someone favoring a system based on SOS/RPI. You clearly believe that schedules are not created equal, but you are willing to throw that out at the same time in reference to Conference Champs.

 

[The Authority]

and other sports have a playoff that include wildcards. That serves as a measure to balance these issues. Conference/Division Champs are given preferential treatment to acknowledge the accomplishment. Wild Cards are still given a chance to prove their worth. Not to mention CFB is mcuh different than pro sports. In the Pro game there are a lot more intra-divison games. That is why I have always supported a larger format that would give top seeds byes or home games.

Wild cards help within each conference not across conferences so the same issue applies.

Look at the NBA this year. The West is so much better than the East.

There are several teams in the west that would make the playoffs if they were in the east but they are not so they just have to accept it.

 

[Codaxx]

Wild cards help within each conference not across conferences so the same issue applies.

Look at the NBA this year. The West is so much better than the East.

There are several teams in the west that would make the playoffs if they were in the east but they are not so they just have to accept it.

look at the percentage of teams involved in playoffs. Systems are much more inclusive. It really is not arguable.

 

[The Authority]

All true, but an odd stance for someone favoring a system based on SOS/RPI. You clearly believe that schedules are not created equal, but you are willing to throw that out at the same time in reference to Conference Champs.

SOS would have to come into play when dealing with Multiple Conference champions.