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

[The Authority]

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

Of course its arguable. Its called a criteria. You either meet it or you don't.

 

[Codaxx]

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

I understand. I am simply pting out that the 2 thoughts directly contradict each other.

 

[WNY_FOOTBALL_DUDE]

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.

How is it odd?

You take the top 4 conference champions with the best RPI ratings. It's marriage between winning%, SOS, and conference championship status.

 

[Codaxx]

Of course its arguable. Its called a criteria. You either meet it or you don't.

It is not arguable that pro playoffs are much more exclusive and try to mitigate the differences in divisions by having a wildcard. That is why you can have 3 teams come from the NFC west and one one from the NFC east.

 

[Codaxx]

How is it odd?

You take the top 4 conference champions with the best RPI ratings. It's marriage between winning%, SOS, and conference championship status.

that is all the teams. I see it as flawed logic to assume SOS is only important for conference winners. If strength of schedule is important, it should be used to evaluate all teams.

 

[The Authority]

It is not arguable that pro playoffs are much more exclusive and try to mitigate the differences in divisions by having a wildcard. That is why you can have 3 teams come from the NFC west and one one from the NFC east.

Yes in divisions but not Conferences.


The point is certain teams get left out due to the conference.

 

[The Authority]

that is all the teams. I see it as flawed logic to assume SOS is only important for conference winners. If strength of schedule is important, it should be used to evaluate all teams.

Conference champ should be first then SOS.

 

[WNY_FOOTBALL_DUDE]

that is all the teams. I see it as flawed logic to assume SOS is only important for conference winners. If strength of schedule is important, it should be used to evaluate all teams.

It's not perfect, but it's much much better than the wild wild west mentality we currently have. But I like I said before, I think it should be 8 teams with at least 5 conference champions.

 

[Codaxx]

Yes in divisions but not Conferences.


The point is certain teams get left out due to the conference.

-
Like I said, pro leagues have mechanisms to help mediate the differences.

 

[The Authority]

-
Like I said, pro leagues have mechanisms to help mediate the differences.

Not across conferences. Not sure why you keep ignoring that.

 

[WNY_FOOTBALL_DUDE]

Conference champ should be first then SOS.

That's exactly right.

1. Win your conference or go undefeated.
2. RPI

RPI is heavy 2/3rds SOS.

If we did it in the past, the four teams would have been:

2013
Florida State, Auburn, Stanford, and Michigan State

2012
Notre Dame, Alabama, Kansas State, and Stanford

2011
LSU, Oklahoma State, Oregon, and Wisconsin

2010
Auburn, Oregon, TCU, and Oklahoma

2009
Alabama, Cincinnati, Texas, and TCU

2008
Oklahoma, Florida, Utah, and USC

 

[Codaxx]

Not across conferences. Not sure why you keep ignoring that.

Not sure why you would say that, you are ignoring pretty much everything I type.You never gave the your reasoning on why a loss is more important to a win. I told you Pro's try to mitigate the inequalities of divisions (which are the exact counter-part to college, not conferences) and you are ignoring that. Your point would be much more relevant if FBS and FCS met at the end of the yr. Nobody said they completely resolve the issue, but they do mitigate the effects. Conference Champions only make no attempt to resolve disparities between leagues.

 

[4down20]

It's not perfect, but it's much much better than the wild wild west mentality we currently have. But I like I said before, I think it should be 8 teams with at least 5 conference champions.

It's not wild wild west.

Prove that the polls aren't getting it done and that a 4 team playoff doesn't fix any problems with it.

 

[4down20]

It's not perfect, but it's much much better than the wild wild west mentality we currently have. But I like I said before, I think it should be 8 teams with at least 5 conference champions.

8 teams?

How are you going to pick the 3 teams outside the big5 conference championships? Using the methods you keep claiming don't work?

And if that method isn't good enough to pick among the top 4 teams according to you, which usually set themselves out among the pack, how is it suddenly good enough to pick among a bunch of 2 and 3 loss teams?

 

[The Authority]

Not sure why you would say that, you are ignoring pretty much everything I type.You never gave the your reasoning on why a loss is more important to a win. I told you Pro's try to mitigate the inequalities of divisions (which are the exact counter-part to college, not conferences) and you are ignoring that. Your point would be much more relevant if FBS and FCS met at the end of the yr. Nobody said they completely resolve the issue, but they do mitigate the effects. Conference Champions only make no attempt to resolve disparities between leagues.

But what do the pros make most important? Winning the division. That is criteria number one as with all sports.

Whether they have wild cards or not the first thing they do is reward division champs so you know that is the most important thing. imbalance in divisions is just accepted.

that is why you will see teams with worse records have home field advantage in the playoffs.

CFB only has 4 teams to work with so that should be most important just like it is in all other sports.

 

[4down20]

But what do the pros make most important? Winning the division. That is criteria number one as with all sports.

Whether they have wild cards or not the first thing they do is reward division champs so you know that is the most important thing. imbalance in divisions is just accepted.

that is why you will see teams with worse records have home field advantage in the playoffs.

CFB only has 4 teams to work with so that should be most important just like it is in all other sports.

That's only because they get home field advantage - which in addition to on the field advantage means more money for the franchise as well as bonuses to players/staff. And a bye week in the playoffs.

College playoffs is done at specific bowlgame stadiums, no homefield advantage, no bye or any of that. The closest that comes is coaches sometimes get bonuses for making the games.

 

[WNY_FOOTBALL_DUDE]

8 teams?

How are you going to pick the 3 teams outside the big5 conference championships? Using the methods you keep claiming don't work?

You really want to know, my ideal playoff plan? Here you go:

(1) Calculate each team's RPI rating, using winning%, opponents winning%, and opponents of opponents winning%. All FCS opponents receive a 0 calculation. You don't get credit for playing an FCS opponent.

(2) The top 5 highest rated conference champions get an automatic spot. This could mean the Big 5 or it could mean the Big 4 and an undefeated non-AQ.

(3) The three highest rated non-conference champions fill in the wildcard spots.

No polls. No committees. The formula is transparent. Emphasis is put highly on winning your conference, winning%, and SOS.

Sample results:

2013
FSU, Auburn, Stanford, Alabama, Michigan State, Missouri, Ohio State, and Baylor

2012
Notre Dame, Florida, Alabama, Kansas State, Stanford, Oregon, LSU, and Florida State

2011
LSU, Oklahoma State, Alabama, Kansas State, Stanford, Oregon, Wisconsin, and Clemson

2010
Auburn, Oregon, TCU, Oklahoma, Stanford, Arkansas, LSU, and Wisconsin

 

[The Authority]

That's only because they get home field advantage - which in addition to on the field advantage means more money for the franchise as well as bonuses to players/staff. And a bye week in the playoffs.

College playoffs is done at specific bowlgame stadiums, no homefield advantage, no bye or any of that. The closest that comes is coaches sometimes get bonuses for making the games.

You missed the point entirely.

 

[WNY_FOOTBALL_DUDE]

But what do the pros make most important? Winning the division. That is criteria number one as with all sports.

That's precisely correct. Conference championship status and division champion ALWAYS gets preferential treatment.

I do agree that we need more than 4 teams. 8 to 16 should be the maximum.

 

[Codaxx]

But what do the pros make most important? Winning the division. That is criteria number one as with all sports.

Whether they have wild cards or not the first thing they do is reward division champs so you know that is the most important thing. imbalance in divisions is just accepted.

that is why you will see teams with worse records have home field advantage in the playoffs.

CFB only has 4 teams to work with so that should be most important just like it is in all other sports.

-
Again like I said the wildcards mitigate the effect,so it is not simply accepted. In the original post you responded to on this topic I said I am fine with conference champions in a 4 team playoff. I prefer more and there to be "wild cards". I also pointed out the Conference Champ idea is a flawed approach with inherent deficiencies. That is where you came in.