T-Rode's Unpopular Opinion - Session 1: BCS vs. CFP

ericd7633 · Nov 14, 2018

TheDayMan said:
Probably because people bitched about the BCS and its supposed bias every bit as much as they do now with the committee, and it was time for a change.

People were bitching about computers being part of the system with the old BCS, and now those same people are bitching about the CFP rankings because they don't line up with where they are in the computers. It's comical really.

Yo Tee · Nov 14, 2018

ericd7633 said:
People were bitching about computers being part of the system with the old BCS, and now those same people are bitching about the CFP rankings because they don't line up with where they are in the computers. It's comical really.

Well I think there had to have been some sort of thought that people were gonna complain about the CFP STRICTLY BECAUSE it wasn't what they were use to, A.K.A the BCS system. This CFP system will go on for a while and when another change it made, the same complaining will happen because of the same reason.

ericd7633 · Nov 14, 2018

Terry Rode said:
Well I think there had to have been some sort of thought that people were gonna complain about the CFP STRICTLY BECAUSE it wasn't what they were use to, A.K.A the BCS system. This CFP system will go on for a while and when another change it made, the same complaining will happen because of the same reason.

People that are bitching now about wanting an 8 team playoff will no doubt bitch when a 3 loss team makes an 8 team playoff. And most likely because it will be an SEC team(who probably deserves it)

Yo Tee · Nov 14, 2018

ericd7633 said:
People that are bitching now about wanting an 8 team playoff will no doubt bitch when a 3 loss team makes an 8 team playoff. And most likely because it will be an SEC team(who probably deserves it)

Moral of the story: There will ALWAYS be someone, somewhere, bitching about something!

Ojb81 · Nov 14, 2018

Terry Rode said:
Moral of the story: There will ALWAYS be someone, somewhere, bitching about something!

End thread

belcherboy · Nov 14, 2018

It seems that quite a few people believe that most problems would be solved if we simply expand the playoffs. For years it was the BCS fault, and most cheered when they went to a committee to choose the 4 team playoff. Now, the committee sucks and the solution is an 8 team playoff. IMO, the committee has chosen the 4 best teams every year. Yeah, there will be debate on that 4th team, but the bottom line is that teams ranked 4th-8th have lost at least one game during the season. If they hadn't lost that game(s), they would have been in the playoffs. It might seem unfair that other one loss teams were ranked above them, but that is what makes college football so good IMO. One bad game can keep you out of the playoffs. If you are willing to make a difficult OOC schedule and/or play in a big conference, many times, that one loss will be forgiven.

IMO, the BCS was fine, and the committee is fine. Leave it at four teams.

theboardref · Nov 14, 2018

Terry Rode said:
I'm gonna do these regularly.

T-Rode's Unpopular Opinion - Session 1:

The BCS was a better system for deciding who is the College Football National Champion than the College Football Playoff system is. The CFP is a matter of opinion from old men with (sarcasm) absolutely no bias whatsoever (sarcasm).

The BCS, while an imperfect system, went by data, statistics, facts. Choosing the best teams in the country shouldn't be based on an eye test or have any room for error/personal bias/OPINIONS. It should be based on facts. The BCS wasn't perfect, but it was better than what we have right now.

BCS > CFP All day.

That's my unpopular opinion.

Not super difficult to see it should be a 4 team playoff using the BCS formula.

CaptainStubing · Nov 14, 2018

i would have no problem using the BCS ratings to select the 4 teams but there needs to be 4 teams.

SlinkyRedfoot · Nov 14, 2018

TheDayMan said:
if you can't figure out what they're looking for you're a stupid asshole.

Kevin12773 · Nov 14, 2018

7Samurai13 said:
What if I told you that every simulation of the BCS done during the College Football Playoff era has resulted in the same 4 teams being selected to the playoffs as was selected by the committee?

On a special 30 for 30

SlinkyRedfoot · Nov 14, 2018

TheDayMan said:

I like this one best.

Fuck the Quack Attack.

tducey · Nov 14, 2018

Looking forward to reading your thoughts. IMO the College Football playoff system is fine but needs to be expanded to be as good as possible. A 6 team college football playoff is what I would like to see.

Deep Creek · Nov 14, 2018

belcherboy said:
One bad game can keep you out of the playoffs.

Sometimes

NU_FTW · Nov 14, 2018

Can we just get rid of the "judges" and go strait to live voting AGT or American Idol style???

belcherboy · Nov 14, 2018

Deep Creek said:
Sometimes

That’s why I said “can” instead of “will”.

belcherboy · Nov 14, 2018

tducey said:
Looking forward to reading your thoughts. IMO the College Football playoff system is fine but needs to be expanded to be as good as possible. A 6 team college football playoff is what I would like to see.

I think it will be like the men’s basketball tournament. There will ALWAYS be complaining. IMO the best team has won it every year except when Ohio St won it all. Although, I have a biased opinion in that statement.

WNY_FOOTBALL_DUDE · Nov 14, 2018

Terry Rode said:
The CFP is a matter of opinion from old men with (sarcasm) absolutely no bias whatsoever (sarcasm).

2/3rds of the BCS formula was "old men" stating opinions.

The only difference is that 33% of the rankings came from averaging together the computer rankings from both ELO algorithms and earned algorithms.

My guess is that you want the computers to "jingle" the human polling. Is that correct?

The committee idea is a decent one. Ideally, you take people from different conferences, regions, football experience, and have a conversation. Everybody shares their point-of-view, and then they attempt to form a consensus.

But the problem with this committee -- not that they are doing a bad job -- is that the members are screwed heavily toward the "power" conferences, and we never get a detailed explanation for why each team got ranked where they did. I also don't like the fact that the system is heavily leans on "ranked wins" and lacks any specific criteria.

Rolltide94 · Nov 14, 2018

Terry Rode said:
I honestly don't think Bama should've been the #1 team until week 8. ND should've been the #1 team with wins over Michigan, Stanford and Va. Tech, who were all ranked at the time ND beat them. ND had a much better resume up until Bama's game with LSU. Bama scored 50-60 points on bottom of the barrel P5 teams and an FCS team. Why should I be impressed by that?

Speaking of unpopular opinions...Notre Dame was #12 to start the year...not bad considering they finished #11 last year. When exactly did you think they should have jumped up to #1...after beating #14 Michigan, lol. If we gave the #1 ranking to everyone that beat a top 15 team, there would be a lot of #1's. There were plenty of teams more deserving than Notre Dame to be in the top spot earlier in the season, Ohio State come immediately to mind with win over ranked TCU and ranked Penn St on the road. Stanford was already unranked by the time Ohio State lost and Virginia Tech never should have been ranked in the first place.

TheRobotDevil · Nov 14, 2018

Terry Rode said:
How is it bias if the computer is using statistical/factual information? Also, is it any more bias than a group of humans we've trusted to NOT use their NATURAL bias?

BCS Formula

TheRobotDevil · Nov 14, 2018

Terry Rode said:
Moral of the story: There will ALWAYS be someone, somewhere, bitching about something!

Thats a given people have preferences on systems. The problem with the current system however is it parallels the BCS system too closely. Which is seen in the results both ways. Still to much human influence. The only real difference being the use of the mathematical computer systems. Which do not account for variables i.e. actually SOS and the rankings. While not accounting for the variables within the numbers which are boosted by teams scheduling weaker schedules.

If they go to a more concrete system the question marks and debate are significantly reduced. While leaving a far more concrete gauge of who the best teams actually are.rather than these opinion systems. Theres are far better system that is not based on BCS or the committee.

T-Rode's Unpopular Opinion - Session 1: BCS vs. CFP

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

thewhite_00 ESPN board

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Boomer Sooner

Well-Known Member

Sports discussion

Well-Known Member

I DGAF

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Immortal

Immortal

Similar threads