If 2 teams from the same conference make the playoffs

[WizardHawk]

Games played throughout the season and even CCGs eliminates nearly all cfb teams from who are the best teams.

Only a select few after the first week in December can make an argument that they deserve to play for a NC.

Maybe we are just splitting hairs over language, but all you speak of tells us who deserves to play for the title and/or be crowned the champion most. The idea of 'best' team, or even as 4d20 was claiming 'better than every other team including those you never actually played' is a different concept. You can deserve it/earn it more and not know the answer of 'better than everyone else'.

That's why baseball has 7 game playoffs and other sports have 5. How many of them have lost game 1 and gone on to win it all?

The problem with claiming superiority in college football is the gross disparity of the scheduling. Teams can have a very very different path and we have relied on 'the eye test' to adjust for it ever since the sport started. That's no basis for 'proof' that one team is better than everyone else.

 

[Oney]

I'd prefer to see it be the top 4 conference champs. It's clear cut, no drama. Every team knows what they have to do, every fan knows what to expect. It gets decided on the field, not some committee's opinion.


Most of the BCS champs were conference champs, anyways.


SOS is a stat based on opinions anyways. The NCAA is different from Sagarin, is different from Collier. It's another one of those "pick which list suits my argument best" type stats. At least the NCAA version is a mathematical formula, the rest are heavily impacted by the first/preseason poll.
And what does SOS really mean if a team is undefeated? Not much.

 

[WhiteMamba]

I'd prefer to see it be the top 4 conference champs. It's clear cut, no drama. Every team knows what they have to do, every fan knows what to expect. It gets decided on the field, not some committee's opinion.


Most of the BCS champs were conference champs, anyways.


SOS is a stat based on opinions anyways. The NCAA is different from Sagarin, is different from Collier. It's another one of those "pick which list suits my argument best" type stats. At least the NCAA version is a mathematical formula, the rest are heavily impacted by the first/preseason poll.
And what does SOS really mean if a team is undefeated? Not much.

So you are in favor of an NFL like preseason? That is what ooc games would turn into in this model.

If ooc games are meaningless, Teams would schedule patsies and not even play the starters and or stars.

 

[WizardHawk]

Agreed, SoS should matter more, not less or we will end up with far worse games to watch.

 

[Codaxx]

So you are in favor of an NFL like preseason? That is what ooc games would turn into in this model.

If ooc games are meaningless, Teams would schedule patsies and not even play the starters and or stars.

You keep typing this, but I have no idea why you believe this. It does not happen that way in other sport. Most teams schedule garbage in the OOC already and the starters play. Currently fans are lucky if they get 1 solid game on their OOC schedule. At worst fans will get 1 more garbage game. On the flip side, perhaps CFB coaches will act like CBB and schedule a lot more top games early in the season.

 

[Oney]

So you are in favor of an NFL like preseason? That is what ooc games would turn into in this model.

If ooc games are meaningless, Teams would schedule patsies and not even play the starters and or stars.

Your assumption is wrong. You still have to be in the top 4 conference champs. That brings the OOC into play. And it may not be that the top 4 are all from the Power 5.

 

[WizardHawk]

Your assumption is wrong. You still have to be in the top 4 conference champs. That brings the OOC into play. And it may not be that the top 4 are all from the Power 5.

How so? He's saying if all you have to do is win your conference then there is no need to add strength to your out of conference schedule. Play 3-4 non FBS schools, run the table on your division, and go win your CCG and you are in.

 

[4down20]

It doesn't! And that's the point.

They keep changing the formula because it doesn't/hasn't/can't prove who the overall best team is.

The reason we are here is because you are wrong with saying the title winner was the 'best team' that year. Plain and simple.

In which years was the best team not the National Champion, and who do you feel was the best team for that year?

I'll hang up and listen.

 

[WizardHawk]

In which years was the best team not the National Champion, and who do you feel was the best team for that year?

I'll hang up and listen.

I guess you missed the part where I said the 'best' team is unknowable given the number of games played and the format of the season?

So that brings us full circle to the post you commented on that leaves the discussion of 'best' team to drunks in bars and most deserving on the field.

 

[4down20]

You keep typing this, but I have no idea why you believe this. It does not happen that way in other sport. Most teams schedule garbage in the OOC already and the starters play. Currently fans are lucky if they get 1 solid game on their OOC schedule. At worst fans will get 1 more garbage game. On the flip side, perhaps CFB coaches will act like CBB and schedule a lot more top games early in the season.

1 more garbage game is the exact opposite direction that is wanted, and the exact opposite direction college football is heading.

Furthermore, beyond OOC scheduling it would reward teams for being in a weaker conference unfairly.

 

[4down20]

I guess you missed the part where I said the 'best' team is unknowable given the number of games played and the format of the season?

So that brings us full circle to the post you commented on that leaves the discussion of 'best' team to drunks in bars and most deserving on the field.

Except that it is bullshit. Are you telling me people can't tell if Alabama or Southern Miss was the better team last year? It can only be decided in bars among drunks and isn't a matter of common football sense that Alabama was a better team than Southern Miss?

I don't think I need to be a drunk in order to say among those 2 teams Alabama was the best team. Nor do I need to be a drunk in order to say FSU was the best team in the country last year.

 

[Codaxx]

How so? He's saying if all you have to do is win your conference then there is no need to add strength to your out of conference schedule. Play 3-4 non FBS schools, run the table on your division, and go win your CCG and you are in.

That is one assumption. Like I pointed out, that is essentially what we have currently. The other assumptions are things would remain exactly the same. Coaches may be more emboldened to schedule better, knowing that an early loss would not hurt you. You get a chance to give your kids experience vs top talent to prepare for the conference slate and help recruiting. That is generally what I have seen.

 

[WizardHawk]

Except that it is bullshit. Are you telling me people can't tell if Alabama or Southern Miss was the better team last year? It can only be decided in bars among drunks and isn't a matter of common football sense that Alabama was a better team than Southern Miss?

I don't think I need to be a drunk in order to say among those 2 teams Alabama was the best team. Nor do I need to be a drunk in order to say FSU was the best team in the country last year.

You can keep trying to make this about individual cases, but it won't change the simple fact that the system of deciding who our champion is at most only tells you which team was 'best' on any given game they won and who deserved to play for, and be crowned champion. It in no way, shape, or form decides that the winner would have beaten every other team in football had they played. That is what the 'best' team in the land means doesn't it?

 

[WizardHawk]

That is one assumption. Like I pointed out, that is essentially what we have currently. The other assumptions are things would remain exactly the same. Coaches may be more emboldened to schedule better, knowing that an early loss would not hurt you. You get a chance to give your kids experience vs top talent to prepare for the conference slate and help recruiting. That is generally what I have seen.

No, what we have now is the teams that actually think they have a chance at the top 10 making sure their schedules have enough meat on them given how tied in SoS has been throughout the entire history of the national championship. Show me a title contender that intentionally schedules nothing but garbage and I'll show you the exception to the rule.

In b4 some asshat uses Bama as an example...

 

[nddulac]

Games played throughout the season and even CCGs eliminates nearly all cfb teams from who are the best teams.

Only a select few after the first week in December can make an argument that they deserve to play for a NC.

here is the problem - and why no system will ever make everyone happy. The number of teams who deserve to play for a National championship in or around Bowl Week is different every year. For example, in the 2011 season Alabama got the rematch against LSU, one could make a strong argument that Oklahoma State deserved a shot. But who else? And following the 2002 season, only Miami and Ohio State were undefeated - so why should anyone else get a shot at the championship? In 2004, there were five undefeated teams.

Every year there is a different scenario. This was always my beef with the BCS - it was trying to do an impossible task. It was supposed to find the two unambiguously deserving teams to play for a championship, when there is no guarantee that the season will provide two unambiguously deserving teams. A playoff doesn't fix this. In fact, the only "improvement" a playoff can offer is to include (in some seasons) a team (or teams) that has no business being considered for the championship so that they have a shot anyhow.

Now - I know there is an economic reality that there has to be a fixed number of slots because ESPN needs to be able to plan on how to spend their guaranteed revenues. But - I will always argue that a smaller playoff is better than a larger one. It reduces the likelihood of a two-loss team getting a shot which I don't think they deserve and it makes the regular season mean more since every single game is important to win.

But alas. College football moves forward without my input, whether I agree with it or not. I'll keep an open mind on the four-team format and give it a few years and see how it works out. And I'll keep lots of rum on hand . . . just in case.

 

[4down20]

You can keep trying to make this about individual cases, but it won't change the simple fact that the system of deciding who our champion is at most only tells you which team was 'best' on any given game they won and who deserved to play for, and be crowned champion. It in no way, shape, or form decides that the winner would have beaten every other team in football had they played. That is what the 'best' team in the land means doesn't it?

If a team is "Best" is relative, so I'm not sure where the idea that the best team has to have beaten every other team in football comes from.

Part of being the best team is getting up for games however and having the heart. So even as Alabama was a better team talent wise last year than say Auburn or Oklahoma, it wasn't the best team because they lacked the heart and drive to do what it needed to do.

 

[4down20]

No, what we have now is the teams that actually think they have a chance at the top 10 making sure their schedules have enough meat on them given how tied in SoS has been throughout the entire history of the national championship. Show me a title contender that intentionally schedules nothing but garbage and I'll show you the exception to the rule.

In b4 some asshat uses Bama as an example...

Well Alabama doesn't schedule garbage. Our schedule last year and this year is below average for Alabama with it's weakness. It's not the norm.

But the proof that SoS matters more is the way the schedules were before the BCS and all that. When it was all up to the polls, teams did schedule harder games as it could because they were the games needed to make that statement.

I personally think Boise St and TCU have been a large cause of weaker schedules in recent history. As they were imporperly rewarded by the BCS system for going undefeated on weak schedules.

 

[nddulac]

Are you telling me people can't tell if Alabama or Southern Miss was the better team last year?

It should be plainly obvious that Southern Mississippi was utter crap last year, since Alabama made absolutely sure the Golden Eagles made it onto the Crimson tide's schedule this year.

 

[nddulac]

Well Alabama doesn't schedule garbage.

It's true. Despite Alabama's best efforts, Old Dominion still declined the offer to play in Tuscaloosa.

 

[4down20]

It should be plainly obvious that Southern Mississippi was utter crap last year, since Alabama made absolutely sure the Golden Eagles made it onto the Crimson tide's schedule this year.

And they will probably give us a better game than Notre Dame did in 2012.