- Thread starter
- #1
EvilVodka
Warlock
- 223
- 0
- 0
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2011
- Hoopla Cash
- $ 1,000.00
- Fav. Team #1
- Fav. Team #2
- Fav. Team #3
An interesting article by By P. Harrison & T. Johnson
CollegeFootballNews.com
Posted Mar 4, 2012
Scout.com: Should Conference Champs Only Be In Plus-One?
It appears to be only a matter of time before a plus one type of model is reality in college football, but that’s just the beginning. After the framework is built, the selection process will need to be hammered out. Do you open the field up to the best teams period, or must a team first be a conference champion before being considered. CFN’s Phil Harrison and Terry Johnson debate on whether a team must be a conference championship to be considered for the selection process of a plus one model.
Phil Harrison – A Team Must Win Its Conference to be Eligible for Selection
If we are really on the doorstep of a plus one playoff type model, then let’s get it right from the jump shall we? You have absolutely got to be a conference champion before even being considered for selection in the de-facto semi-final. That is of course if you are in a conference.
There would obviously have to be a way to work in the stray independent from time to time, but stay with here for a minute while we navigate the fmuddy waters of debate will you? If a plus one, and only a plus one is what we’re going to get, then you have to look at the rest of the regular season as the playoff before the playoff-right? That’s really the only fair way to do it. For that very reason, only a conference champion--the winner of the first wave of playoffs should get consideration. And it’s simple.
If, when good ‘ole state U had an opportunity to knock off its conference brethren but didn’t get it done, then the right to have another shot at big things should be lost. This would have eliminated Alabama from it’s born again college football life last year, but why is it so wrong to conclude that the Tide shouldn’t have gotten another chance in the first place? It lost to LSU at home in round one and squandered its opportunity with everyone tuned in. LSU won the SEC and Alabama was the second or third best team-from a strictly standings point of view. Yet it still got a mulligan?
And that’s the point--been there done that. If a team can’t get past its conference brethren and finish in first place, then by default we already have evidence on the field that it doesn’t deserve to get a shot at playing the other conference champions because it wasn’t the best team in even its own league--and sometimes division. It’s not like there is a computer model spitting out what if scenarios when something actually happened on the field of play. If you want to move on, win games and win a championship in your league. If left out, there’s here the fault is, not in a “I think this will happen” MIT computer model.
There is simply no way to tell whether one conference champion is better than another no matter how the numbers and scenarios are crunched without staging a contest of athletic endeavors. What is known is that the second place team in said “strong” conference did not measure up against the champion of the league. Done. Case Closed. Book slammed shut.
But what about last year? Just as easily as someone can use last year’s Alabama scenario as proof that simply the best “rated” teams should get in, one could also use the same season as the antithesis. Who in this crazy world of college football can--with all certainty-- know that Oklahoma State would not have beaten Alabama or LSU? That’s right, you can’t. So here we still sit with a one loss Cowboy team--a conference champion no-less, with just as much claim to the national title as Alabama who was able to hit the reset button that no other team got the privilege of using. Alabama won because it beat the system--a system that is flawed and slanted in favor of perception.
So congrats Alabama on winning the national title and disposing of a Tiger team that had gotten the best of you at home the first go round. The way I see it and every other possibility that would play out like this is the series is tied and there needs to be a rubber match to determine who plays another team who won its conference--a championship.
Now if we are talking about a full fledged playoff then the whole ball of wax changes.....
Follow me on Twitter: @PhilHarrisonCFN
Terry Johnson – Give Us the Best Teams Regardless of Conference Supremacy?
If the “plus one” model wants to legitimately crown college football’s national champion every season, the selection process must include the top four teams in the final BCS standings, rather than the top four conference champions.
Since its inception, the BCS has had two very specific goals. The primary goal was to ensure that the top two teams in the country played for the national championship every season. At the same time, the BCS had a secondary goal of preserving the importance of the regular season, creating an environment in which every single game counts.
While well intentioned, including only conference champions in the “plus one” system would violate both of these principles and ultimately make college football less exciting for the players, coaches, and fans.
A closer examination of these two plans will demonstrate precisely why the including the top four teams in the “plus one”, is the only plan that will accomplish the goals set forth in the BCS mission statement.
The biggest flaw with including only conference champions in the “plus one” system is that it will fail to produce the best matchups among the top four teams.
As an example, consider the 2011 season. If only conference champions qualified, the national semifinals would have matched No. 1 LSU against No. 10 Wisconsin and No. 3 Oklahoma State against No. 5 Oregon. Under these rules, eventual champion Alabama would not make the field despite losing only one game, while Wisconsin and Oregon could conceivably win the title with two losses.
Last season was not the only time that the “plus one” would not have included the top four teams. In fact, if the “champions only” rule had been in place since the inception of BCS in 1998, the at least one of the top four teams would have failed to qualify in 10 of the 14 seasons.
In other words, the system would fail to get the four best teams on the field 71% of the time.
On the other hand, by selecting the top four teams in the BCS standings always put the best four teams on the field. As the end of 2011 season showed, the voters will always move teams up and down to ensure that the best teams play for the championship.
Which system works better, the one that succeeds 100% of the time, or the one that fails to deliver five out of every seven seasons?
Even if a “champions only” clause could consistently match the top four teams every season, it would have a very negative impact in the regular season. Under the current system, every game that a team plays factors into whether or not it plays for the national championship. Alabama qualified for the national championship because the BCS took into account its entire body of work (SEC West Schedule plus a road win at Penn State), not just its overtime loss on November 5.
By admitting only conference champions into the “plus one” system, some games would matter more than others do. Beating a tough non-conference schedule would mean absolutely nothing, because a single conference loss would be enough to derail a team’s national championship hopes. In fact, given the increased importance of every conference game, teams would cease playing tough out of conference games, and schedule weaker (see also WAC, MAC, and Sun Belt) opponents before crucial conference showdowns.
The madness does not stop there. Conference championship games would suddenly become the most important games of the year, since that is the only way to earn a shot at the national title.
That last sentence should frighten every fan. Conference championship games usually produce an upset or two every season. What if Georgia had beaten LSU and UCLA had upset Oregon? Under a “champions only” system, the teams playing for the national title would have been No. 3 Oklahoma State, No. 10 Wisconsin, No. 15 Clemson, and No. 16 Georgia.
Do the powers that be really want to create a system where it is possible for nine of the top ten teams in the country stay home, while teams with double-digit rankings play for the national title?
Now that a “plus one” system is inevitable, the conference commissioners have the unenviable task of settling the details regarding selection criteria. The decisions that they make will forever shape the future of college football.
If they are serious about getting the best two teams on the field, and preserving the history and tradition of the regular season, they will admit the top four teams in the final BCS standings, and use no other selection criteria.
Failure to do so will put college football back to where it was during the Bowl Coalition. Everyone loses in that situation!
Follow me on Twitter: @TPJCollFootball
CollegeFootballNews.com
Posted Mar 4, 2012
Scout.com: Should Conference Champs Only Be In Plus-One?
It appears to be only a matter of time before a plus one type of model is reality in college football, but that’s just the beginning. After the framework is built, the selection process will need to be hammered out. Do you open the field up to the best teams period, or must a team first be a conference champion before being considered. CFN’s Phil Harrison and Terry Johnson debate on whether a team must be a conference championship to be considered for the selection process of a plus one model.
Phil Harrison – A Team Must Win Its Conference to be Eligible for Selection
If we are really on the doorstep of a plus one playoff type model, then let’s get it right from the jump shall we? You have absolutely got to be a conference champion before even being considered for selection in the de-facto semi-final. That is of course if you are in a conference.
There would obviously have to be a way to work in the stray independent from time to time, but stay with here for a minute while we navigate the fmuddy waters of debate will you? If a plus one, and only a plus one is what we’re going to get, then you have to look at the rest of the regular season as the playoff before the playoff-right? That’s really the only fair way to do it. For that very reason, only a conference champion--the winner of the first wave of playoffs should get consideration. And it’s simple.
If, when good ‘ole state U had an opportunity to knock off its conference brethren but didn’t get it done, then the right to have another shot at big things should be lost. This would have eliminated Alabama from it’s born again college football life last year, but why is it so wrong to conclude that the Tide shouldn’t have gotten another chance in the first place? It lost to LSU at home in round one and squandered its opportunity with everyone tuned in. LSU won the SEC and Alabama was the second or third best team-from a strictly standings point of view. Yet it still got a mulligan?
And that’s the point--been there done that. If a team can’t get past its conference brethren and finish in first place, then by default we already have evidence on the field that it doesn’t deserve to get a shot at playing the other conference champions because it wasn’t the best team in even its own league--and sometimes division. It’s not like there is a computer model spitting out what if scenarios when something actually happened on the field of play. If you want to move on, win games and win a championship in your league. If left out, there’s here the fault is, not in a “I think this will happen” MIT computer model.
There is simply no way to tell whether one conference champion is better than another no matter how the numbers and scenarios are crunched without staging a contest of athletic endeavors. What is known is that the second place team in said “strong” conference did not measure up against the champion of the league. Done. Case Closed. Book slammed shut.
But what about last year? Just as easily as someone can use last year’s Alabama scenario as proof that simply the best “rated” teams should get in, one could also use the same season as the antithesis. Who in this crazy world of college football can--with all certainty-- know that Oklahoma State would not have beaten Alabama or LSU? That’s right, you can’t. So here we still sit with a one loss Cowboy team--a conference champion no-less, with just as much claim to the national title as Alabama who was able to hit the reset button that no other team got the privilege of using. Alabama won because it beat the system--a system that is flawed and slanted in favor of perception.
So congrats Alabama on winning the national title and disposing of a Tiger team that had gotten the best of you at home the first go round. The way I see it and every other possibility that would play out like this is the series is tied and there needs to be a rubber match to determine who plays another team who won its conference--a championship.
Now if we are talking about a full fledged playoff then the whole ball of wax changes.....
Follow me on Twitter: @PhilHarrisonCFN
Terry Johnson – Give Us the Best Teams Regardless of Conference Supremacy?
If the “plus one” model wants to legitimately crown college football’s national champion every season, the selection process must include the top four teams in the final BCS standings, rather than the top four conference champions.
Since its inception, the BCS has had two very specific goals. The primary goal was to ensure that the top two teams in the country played for the national championship every season. At the same time, the BCS had a secondary goal of preserving the importance of the regular season, creating an environment in which every single game counts.
While well intentioned, including only conference champions in the “plus one” system would violate both of these principles and ultimately make college football less exciting for the players, coaches, and fans.
A closer examination of these two plans will demonstrate precisely why the including the top four teams in the “plus one”, is the only plan that will accomplish the goals set forth in the BCS mission statement.
The biggest flaw with including only conference champions in the “plus one” system is that it will fail to produce the best matchups among the top four teams.
As an example, consider the 2011 season. If only conference champions qualified, the national semifinals would have matched No. 1 LSU against No. 10 Wisconsin and No. 3 Oklahoma State against No. 5 Oregon. Under these rules, eventual champion Alabama would not make the field despite losing only one game, while Wisconsin and Oregon could conceivably win the title with two losses.
Last season was not the only time that the “plus one” would not have included the top four teams. In fact, if the “champions only” rule had been in place since the inception of BCS in 1998, the at least one of the top four teams would have failed to qualify in 10 of the 14 seasons.
In other words, the system would fail to get the four best teams on the field 71% of the time.
On the other hand, by selecting the top four teams in the BCS standings always put the best four teams on the field. As the end of 2011 season showed, the voters will always move teams up and down to ensure that the best teams play for the championship.
Which system works better, the one that succeeds 100% of the time, or the one that fails to deliver five out of every seven seasons?
Even if a “champions only” clause could consistently match the top four teams every season, it would have a very negative impact in the regular season. Under the current system, every game that a team plays factors into whether or not it plays for the national championship. Alabama qualified for the national championship because the BCS took into account its entire body of work (SEC West Schedule plus a road win at Penn State), not just its overtime loss on November 5.
By admitting only conference champions into the “plus one” system, some games would matter more than others do. Beating a tough non-conference schedule would mean absolutely nothing, because a single conference loss would be enough to derail a team’s national championship hopes. In fact, given the increased importance of every conference game, teams would cease playing tough out of conference games, and schedule weaker (see also WAC, MAC, and Sun Belt) opponents before crucial conference showdowns.
The madness does not stop there. Conference championship games would suddenly become the most important games of the year, since that is the only way to earn a shot at the national title.
That last sentence should frighten every fan. Conference championship games usually produce an upset or two every season. What if Georgia had beaten LSU and UCLA had upset Oregon? Under a “champions only” system, the teams playing for the national title would have been No. 3 Oklahoma State, No. 10 Wisconsin, No. 15 Clemson, and No. 16 Georgia.
Do the powers that be really want to create a system where it is possible for nine of the top ten teams in the country stay home, while teams with double-digit rankings play for the national title?
Now that a “plus one” system is inevitable, the conference commissioners have the unenviable task of settling the details regarding selection criteria. The decisions that they make will forever shape the future of college football.
If they are serious about getting the best two teams on the field, and preserving the history and tradition of the regular season, they will admit the top four teams in the final BCS standings, and use no other selection criteria.
Failure to do so will put college football back to where it was during the Bowl Coalition. Everyone loses in that situation!
Follow me on Twitter: @TPJCollFootball
