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

[The Authority]

-
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.

I would prefer more teams too but not much more. However With only a 4 team playoff, I think Conference champ should be criteria number one.

Personally I think six would be enough with two teams getting a bye.

 

[Codaxx]

I would prefer more teams too but not much more. However With only a 4 team playoff, I think Conference champ should be criteria number one.

Personally I think six would be enough with two teams getting a bye.

-
I am fine with it being option #1, but it is far from a Panacea.

 

[4down20]

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

Win% based formulas are awful. They don't take into account who the wins and losses came too. It's like saying that in 2011 Alabama and Oklahoma were generally equal because they had the same win%/record, but the reality is who they won and lost too was much different.

When I start doing rankings those kinds of things went out the window quick due to how flawed of a concept it was.

Being formula based doesn't solve anything either, people will just call the formula flawed when the results people want to see aren't there. When peoples opinions are reflected, people will be in an uproar and want to change the formula. Evidence: 2004 BCS formula which removed the amount of influence by computers and gave more to the opinion polls.

8 teams is too many. If you think there is controversy deciding who the top2 or 4 teams are, wait until you get to decide who that 8th team is going to be when you have 15 teams claiming it should be them.

 

[WNY_FOOTBALL_DUDE]

-
I am fine with it being option #1, but it is far from a Panacea.

No system is going to be perfect. We just need to find the top of the bell curve. I think it is probably 8, for the following reasons:

(1) Length of season. 8 teams, means no team plays more than 16 games, and it means, we don't have to shorten the regular season.
(2) Keeps the playoff contenders elite, and doesn't devalue winning your conference.
(3) Keeps the Bowl games intact. We can always have each of the 6 BCS Bowl games rotate for the National Championship game.

 

[4down20]

No system is going to be perfect. We just need to find the top of the bell curve. I think it is probably 8, for the following reasons:

You still haven't pointed out the flaw with the BCS system taking the top4 teams and pointed out a single year where such a solution would have problems.

 

[WNY_FOOTBALL_DUDE]

Being formula based doesn't solve anything either, people will just call the formula flawed when the results people want to see aren't there.

Doing it based on humans, means emotion, conference/team bias, location of bowls, previous team history, and celebrity status of the players and coaches come into play. I am assuming that is your alternative, right?

I do believe most people want something more objective than subjective. They don't want bias to creep into the equation of any kind.

Why would people complain, besides homers? The formula is transparent. Everybody knows how to get from point A to point B. At least 5 conference champions get the chance to play for a National Championship.

Who is the judge on whether the results are good or bad? Are we going to survey 100 college football fans?

SOS does not measure specific wins and losses. That is true, but they do measure the strength of your journey, and how well you played during that time period. That's all what you need. If you want to add quality wins to the algorithm and subtract points bad losses, be my guess.

 

[Codaxx]

Win% based formulas are awful. They don't take into account who the wins and losses came too. It's like saying that in 2011 Alabama and Oklahoma were generally equal because they had the same win%/record, but the reality is who they won and lost too was much different.

When I start doing rankings those kinds of things went out the window quick due to how flawed of a concept it was.

Being formula based doesn't solve anything either, people will just call the formula flawed when the results people want to see aren't there. When peoples opinions are reflected, people will be in an uproar and want to change the formula. Evidence: 2004 BCS formula which removed the amount of influence by computers and gave more to the opinion polls.

8 teams is too many. If you think there is controversy deciding who the top2 or 4 teams are, wait until you get to decide who that 8th team is going to be when you have 15 teams claiming it should be them.

I would qualify this by saying all controversy is not created equal. Yes, people will bitch. Does not mean it really matters. When people complained about #3 beign left out it is a big deal. Its one game. 4 v 5? That is an argument, but carries less weight. You go to 16 and the argument really doesnt matter and is forgotten by the general public in short order.

 

[WNY_FOOTBALL_DUDE]

You still haven't pointed out the flaw with the BCS system taking the top 4 teams and pointed out a single year where such a solution would have problems.

I have no problem with picking the top 4 teams. My issue has always been the mysterious criteria to select these teams.

 

[4down20]

Doing it based on humans, means emotion, conference/team bias, location of bowls, previous team history, and celebrity status of the players and coaches come into play. I am assuming that is your alternative, right?

I do believe most people want something more objective than subjective. They don't want bias to creep into the equation of any kind.

Why would people complain, besides homers? The formula is transparent. Everybody knows how to get from point A to point B. At least 5 conference champions get the chance to play for a National Championship.

Who is the judge on whether the results are good or bad? Are we going to survey 100 college football fans?

SOS does not measure specific wins and losses. That is true, but they do measure the strength of your journey, and how well you played during that time period. That's all what you need. If you want to add quality wins to the algorithm and subtract points bad losses, be my guess.

Again I ask for proof of problems. You fault human error, but yet do not provide any examples that wouldn't be fixed simply by expanding to 4 teams.

Human error/bias is pretty much erased in polls because of the bulk of votes. And then computers give formulas and information to help them make informed decisions. I run computer rankings if you haven't figured it out.

 

[4down20]

I would qualify this by saying all controversy is not created equal. Yes, people will bitch. Does not mean it really matters. When people complained about #3 beign left out it is a big deal. Its one game. 4 v 5? That is an argument, but carries less weight. You go to 16 and the argument really doesnt matter and is forgotten by the general public in short order.

I understand what you are saying, but to the people being left out it's going to matter. And will come with the same arguments about conference bias, shitty formulas and whatever.

Also there is the issue of what it does to the importance of the regular season as well.

 

[Codaxx]

I understand what you are saying, but to the people being left out it's going to matter. And will come with the same arguments about conference bias, shitty formulas and whatever.

Also there is the issue of what it does to the importance of the regular season as well.

-
but that is just sports. Why there is this board. Importance of the season is a shaky argument to start with, but it is easily dealt with in a proper system. Awarding byes and/or home field games puts a premium on positioning. Obviously we are not at that stage yet, but we are slowly creeping towards that arena.

 

[WNY_FOOTBALL_DUDE]

I would qualify this by saying all controversy is not created equal. Yes, people will bitch. Does not mean it really matters. When people complained about #3 beign left out it is a big deal. Its one game. 4 v 5? That is an argument, but carries less weight. You go to 16 and the argument really doesnt matter and is forgotten by the general public in short order.

Regardless of any format or method of determining the National Championship contenders, somebody out there is going to get upset. You cannot live your life, trying to please everybody. You just want to create a system where every gets a chance to win and we treat everybody fairly.

 

[WNY_FOOTBALL_DUDE]

Again I ask for proof of problems. You fault human error, but yet do not provide any examples that wouldn't be fixed simply by expanding to 4 teams.

Why was Stanford picked over Oregon in 2011, and vice verse happened in 2012? In 2011, Oregon played the better schedule, won the conference, and head-to-head match-up. In 2012, Stanford beat Oregon in the head-to-head match-up, won the conference, and played a much better schedule.

In 2010, why was Wisconsin picked over Oklahoma for the #4 spot? Oklahoma played the best schedule and beat more quality opponents.

In 2008, why didn't Utah make it into the final four? They won all their games, and beat both their AQ competition. You know, Utah actually tried to toughen their OCC competition. But of course, they are in the MWC, of course, they can't handle Alabama, right?

I could go on, but that would be irrelevant.

Instead, why not include Stanford and Oregon in a playoff in 2011 and 2012? Why not include both Wisconsin and Oklahoma in 2010? Why not include Utah, as well as USC and Penn State in 2008? 2008 is an example of a season where you needed 8 teams. There's absolutely no reason, other than it would make the Rose, Orange, and Sugar executives angry.

 

[Codaxx]

Why was Stanford picked over Oregon in 2011, and vice verse happened in 2012? In 2011, Oregon played the better schedule, won the conference, and head-to-head match-up. In 2012, Stanford beat Oregon in the head-to-head match-up, won the conference, and played a much better schedule.

In 2010, why was Wisconsin picked over Oklahoma for the #4 spot? Oklahoma played the best schedule and beat more quality opponents.

In 2008, why didn't Utah make it into the final four? They won all their games, and beat both their AQ competition. You know, Utah actually tried to toughen their OCC competition. But of course, they are in the MWC, of course, they can't handle Alabama, right?

I could go on, but that would be irrelevant.

Instead, why not include Stanford and Oregon in a playoff in 2011 and 2012? Why not include both Wisconsin and Oklahoma in 2010? Why not include Utah, as well as USC and Penn State in 2008? 2008 is an example of a season where you needed 8 teams. There's absolutely no reason, other than it would make the Rose, Orange, and Sugar executives angry.

Actually, I have heard the biggest impediment to a larger playoff is the NCAA, not bowl. CFB keeps the money from bowls. The fear is a change in the system could bring the NCAA into the fold and profits would have to be shared. So once again greed rules the day.

 

[WNY_FOOTBALL_DUDE]

Actually, I have heard the biggest impediment to a larger playoff is the NCAA, not bowl. CFB keeps the money from bowls. The fear is a change in the system could bring the NCAA into the fold and profits would have to be shared. So once again greed rules the day.

That's right. The Big conferences don't want the postseason revenue to be evenly divided out. The big conferences want the largest slices of the pie, and want to throw scraps to the mid-majors.

 

[4down20]

Why was Stanford picked over Oregon in 2011, and vice verse happened in 2012? In 2011, Oregon played the better schedule, won the conference, and head-to-head match-up. In 2012, Stanford beat Oregon in the head-to-head match-up, won the conference, and played a much better schedule.

In 2010, why was Wisconsin picked over Oklahoma for the #4 spot? Oklahoma played the best schedule and beat more quality opponents.

In 2008, why didn't Utah make it into the final four? They won all their games, and beat both their AQ competition. You know, Utah actually tried to toughen their OCC competition. But of course, they are in the MWC, of course, they can't handle Alabama, right?

I could go on, but that would be irrelevant.

Instead, why not include Stanford and Oregon in a playoff in 2011 and 2012? Why not include both Wisconsin and Oklahoma in 2010? Why not include Utah, as well as USC and Penn State in 2008? 2008 is an example of a season where you needed 8 teams. There's absolutely no reason, other than it would make the Rose, Orange, and Sugar executives angry.

Everything you've said is irrelevant and wasn't even the question I asked.

I assume you are going on about the 4th place team? They were picked because they were better teams.

 

[WNY_FOOTBALL_DUDE]

Everything you've said is irrelevant and wasn't even the question I asked.

I assume you are going on about the 4th place team? They were picked because they were better teams.

This is why I don't like to respond to your posts. You make little to no sense, and don't even address my points.

Do you really think Stanford was better than Oregon in 2011? Did you watch the game?

 

[4down20]

This is why I don't like to respond to your posts. You make little to no sense, and don't even address my points.

Do you really think Stanford was better than Oregon in 2011? Did you watch the game?

All you did was talk about 4th place teams. And then you go and pretend like 1 single game was the entire season to try and justify it. Was Iowa St better than Oklahoma St in 2011 because Iowa St won a single game?

In my computer poll - not human, based 100% on formula, I had Stanford ranked #5 and Oregon ranked #13.

Power wise(team strength):

I had Stanford ranked 6th overall, predicted to beat 95.80% of all FBS teams.

Oregon was ranked 9th overall, predicted to win 93.28%.

Alabama was #1, predicted to win 100%, LSU right behind(99.16%) predicted to win all but Alabama.

SoS wise:

Oregon I had a slightly better SoS. 55th overall and 77.78% as hard as the toughest schedule that year(Notre Dame)

Stanford I had 66th, 74.59% as hard as Notre Dame

So pretty close.

The difference, Oregon lost 2 games and Stanford only lost to Oregon.

Yes, Stanford was the more deserving team of the 2.

 

[Codaxx]

That's right. The Big conferences don't want the postseason revenue to be evenly divided out. The big conferences want the largest slices of the pie, and want to throw scraps to the mid-majors.

You misunderstood. NCAA is mostly financed from college basketball. The tournament is the biggest money maker for them. The NCAA doesn't profit off college football. Universities are afraid that the NCAA could get involved, not mid-majors.