Qualifications for making the College Football Playoff

[Diego Roll Tide]

I'm with you about favoring fact over opinion and do think greater uniformity when it comes to leagues games and OOC games played would be good. If it were up to me, I'd have all FBS teams play 12 regular season games versus FBS competition only, teams place according to my point system concept, and the top 8 teams advance or the top six league champions plus two wildcards. That said, I agree with many of the problems you point out. I want expansion and rules to determine playoff teams and seeds and not opinion that rewards identity and perception.

Did you post on Rivals?

 

[CJH9972]

Did you post on Rivals?

It is DTP2. I had an account here that I never used but came over to see how ex rivals people were doing.

 

[Diego Roll Tide]

It is DTP2. I had an account here that I never used but came over to see how ex rivals people were doing.

I thought that was you.

There were a couple of long threads here about our friend from Alamosa.

 

[WizardHawk]

I'm with you about favoring fact over opinion

This is where things start getting messed up in this discussion, and it's where people get tripped up way too easily.

It sounds nice on paper to say fact over opinion, but that's not what you end up with using any of the proposed changes.

First of all the 'opinion' part is somehow assuming the committee is not making decisions based on actual game play. It's a false narrative. The BCS tried to use non human factors and people ended up hating it. The computer models left all sorts of room for scratching your head. There really isn't a points system or model that can smooth out the data in such a skewed pool. When you have 130 teams playing just 12 games mostly sticking to smaller groups with few cross over games to tie the conference together you have no option for using ANY metric that can smooth out the baseline stats. It's actually simple math. There are anomalies in every index because of it.

As we pointed out, going to 6 games still using the committee end up giving you basically the same outcome as going to some forced auto placement anyway, and doesn't come with baggage of ruining the value of OOC games.

So if simply adding more games brings about the same result anyway the 'problem' (really if there is one) isn't the rankings of the existing committee.

When you can accept that there can be shitty champions from a P5 conference, just like we have this year with a 9-3 UW Pac12 champion then you can see where auto anything has its limits and can break down, just as easily as this 'opinion' based nonsense people have themselves worked up over now. In other words, there isn't a perfect solution out there. Which is why we have this system. It was a compromise and one that has worked just fine.

The teams that have been left out at 5 and 6 every year ultimately have themselves to look at. This isn't a minor point. Every regular season game matters when you are in the top 10. If you get left out, schedule better and win your games. It isn't any harder than that. Don't have bad losses. Easy to understand. Don't lose to Iowa State. Don't drop a bad loss to Purdue. You weren't playing like a champion in those games.

Want to have more sweeping reform? There's room for improvement within the sport. The problem is money gets in the way. I'd be for making all P5's play nothing but other P5's (splitting off and sticking to our own). That would give us the best product on the field. It's just not going to happen. It isn't what the conferences and the schools within them want. Too much money would be lost. Getting 7 or 8 home games every year is big to most schools bottom line. You can't get above 6 on a 12 game schedule without using G5's at the least. That's why I said I'd at least accept a compromise and drop all FCS and maybe say no G5's past week 5 or so and give us nothing but P5's over the second half of the year and make teams play more challenging schedules down the stretch run toward bowl season/post season.

 

[CJH9972]

I thought that was you.

There were a couple of long threads here about our friend from Alamosa.

I saw that. He is getting worse by the one million word post.

 

[CJH9972]

This is where things start getting messed up in this discussion, and it's where people get tripped up way too easily.

It sounds nice on paper to say fact over opinion, but that's not what you end up with using any of the proposed changes.

First of all the 'opinion' part is somehow assuming the committee is not making decisions based on actual game play. It's a false narrative. The BCS tried to use non human factors and people ended up hating it. The computer models left all sorts of room for scratching your head. There really isn't a points system or model that can smooth out the data in such a skewed pool. When you have 130 teams playing just 12 games mostly sticking to smaller groups with few cross over games to tie the conference together you have no option for using ANY metric that can smooth out the baseline stats. It's actually simple math. There are anomalies in every index because of it.

As we pointed out, going to 6 games still using the committee end up giving you basically the same outcome as going to some forced auto placement anyway, and doesn't come with baggage of ruining the value of OOC games.

So if simply adding more games brings about the same result anyway the 'problem' (really if there is one) isn't the rankings of the existing committee.

When you can accept that there can be shitty champions from a P5 conference, just like we have this year with a 9-3 UW Pac12 champion then you can see where auto anything has its limits and can break down, just as easily as this 'opinion' based nonsense people have themselves worked up over now. In other words, there isn't a perfect solution out there. Which is why we have this system. It was a compromise and one that has worked just fine.

The teams that have been left out at 5 and 6 every year ultimately have themselves to look at. This isn't a minor point. Every regular season game matters when you are in the top 10. If you get left out, schedule better and win your games. It isn't any harder than that. Don't have bad losses. Easy to understand. Don't lose to Iowa State. Don't drop a bad loss to Purdue. You weren't playing like a champion in those games.

Want to have more sweeping reform? There's room for improvement within the sport. The problem is money gets in the way. I'd be for making all P5's play nothing but other P5's (splitting off and sticking to our own). That would give us the best product on the field. It's just not going to happen. It isn't what the conferences and the schools within them want. Too much money would be lost. Getting 7 or 8 home games every year is big to most schools bottom line. You can't get above 6 on a 12 game schedule without using G5's at the least. That's why I said I'd at least accept a compromise and drop all FCS and maybe say no G5's past week 5 or so and give us nothing but P5's over the second half of the year and make teams play more challenging schedules down the stretch run toward bowl season/post season.

I don't think the number of teams and games played precludes using a point system. If the problems you mention are problems for actual rules, how are they not problems for a committee? The problem with the BCS is that it involved several complicated computer systems without any transparency. It did the concept of rules a disservice because that whole formula was bad. And the problem with a committee isn't that its results are wrong and a math system is needed to get different results. The problem is that outcome is not guaranteed by the game results plus a committee. With my own point system, I had the same top four (top 2 switched) and Georgia-Ohio State 5th and 6th like committee. Had Oklahoma lost to Texas, Georgia finishes fourth in my system. However, I don't believe the committee picks Georgia over Ohio State for the 4th spot if they had faced that decision just because they did for 5th when it makes no difference. And if they had, where is the consistency in their choices? In 2017, they pick a one loss non champ over a two loss champ then in 2018, pick a two loss non champ over a one loss champion. Nothing explains those selections but perceptions about best team nonsense which is exactly what rules would ignore.

 

[WizardHawk]

I don't think the number of teams and games played precludes using a point system. If the problems you mention are problems for actual rules, how are they not problems for a committee? The problem with the BCS is that it involved several complicated computer systems without any transparency. It did the concept of rules a disservice because that whole formula was bad. And the problem with a committee isn't that its results are wrong and a math system is needed to get different results. The problem is that outcome is not guaranteed by the game results plus a committee. With my own point system, I had the same top four (top 2 switched) and Georgia-Ohio State 5th and 6th like committee. Had Oklahoma lost to Texas, Georgia finishes fourth in my system. However, I don't believe the committee picks Georgia over Ohio State for the 4th spot if they had faced that decision just because they did for 5th when it makes no difference. And if they had, where is the consistency in their choices? In 2017, they pick a one loss non champ over a two loss champ then in 2018, pick a two loss non champ over a one loss champion. Nothing explains those selections but perceptions about best team nonsense which is exactly what rules would ignore.

The point is, and always has been, that there isn't a perfect solution. I'll say it very clearly again here because so many keep glossing over it, but the committee isn't a perfect solution. I don't care how many you put in it, nor what rules you want to add to it. It cannot be made perfect.

The flip side is, there isn't any other solution that can make it more perfect. Every single one offered has glaring issues. That's the rub here. I get the ideal so many want to hold onto. Mince no words here though, you cannot devise any type of rules based system that can normalize the data set as I laid it out. The math says it isn't possible. Period.

Sure, if you want to create something on paper that has zero chance of happening we could all create something better. When we are talking about viable things that has a chance of happening, there really aren't any.

Going to 6, or 8 alone basically fixes the leaving P5 champs out entirely without the need for other rules. The only conf champ in the last 5 years that would be left out without rules to force them in is UW this year and I think everyone can agree they are a weak champion that has no valid argument for gaining an automatic slot. Of course there is buzz about expanding and even a few voices talking about AQ structures, but we are still years away from the end of this agreement. Without a full collapse of ESPN and the financial end of this agreement, nothing will change until its end date at the earliest. Why do they keep making these long term ironclad deals? At least in part to stop knee jerk reactions from creating instability. They want long term negotiations and lots of thought behind changes. The CFP wasn't hatched overnight and neither will its amendments/replacements.

No, I'm not in favor of going to more playoff rounds/teams. I absolutely hate the NFL 9-7 gets you in a post season bullshit. I want true champions fighting for it. I like losses mattering. I can't stand the idea of 2 loss teams fighting to be called champion. You aren't one if you can't prove it in the regular season. But IF we have to add more, we do not need to go crazy and force all kinds of new changes that add even worse atrocities to the sport. 8 would ensure P5 champs are in unless they are like UW this year and still gives the G5 front runners something to shoot for that still forces them to schedule something with meat in their OOC or risk being left out anyway, which it should.

 

[CJH9972]

The point is, and always has been, that there isn't a perfect solution. I'll say it very clearly again here because so many keep glossing over it, but the committee isn't a perfect solution. I don't care how many you put in it, nor what rules you want to add to it. It cannot be made perfect.

The flip side is, there isn't any other solution that can make it more perfect. Every single one offered has glaring issues. That's the rub here. I get the ideal so many want to hold onto. Mince no words here though, you cannot devise any type of rules based system that can normalize the data set as I laid it out. The math says it isn't possible. Period.

Sure, if you want to create something on paper that has zero chance of happening we could all create something better. When we are talking about viable things that has a chance of happening, there really aren't any.

Going to 6, or 8 alone basically fixes the leaving P5 champs out entirely without the need for other rules. The only conf champ in the last 5 years that would be left out without rules to force them in is UW this year and I think everyone can agree they are a weak champion that has no valid argument for gaining an automatic slot. Of course there is buzz about expanding and even a few voices talking about AQ structures, but we are still years away from the end of this agreement. Without a full collapse of ESPN and the financial end of this agreement, nothing will change until its end date at the earliest. Why do they keep making these long term ironclad deals? At least in part to stop knee jerk reactions from creating instability. They want long term negotiations and lots of thought behind changes. The CFP wasn't hatched overnight and neither will its amendments/replacements.

No, I'm not in favor of going to more playoff rounds/teams. I absolutely hate the NFL 9-7 gets you in a post season bullshit. I want true champions fighting for it. I like losses mattering. I can't stand the idea of 2 loss teams fighting to be called champion. You aren't one if you can't prove it in the regular season. But IF we have to add more, we do not need to go crazy and force all kinds of new changes that add even worse atrocities to the sport. 8 would ensure P5 champs are in unless they are like UW this year and still gives the G5 front runners something to shoot for that still forces them to schedule something with meat in their OOC or risk being left out anyway, which it should.

I don't know what it means to say that any solution is or is not perfect. Nor do I know what it it means to say you can't normalize the data set. Whatever size playoff there is, I think it is a simple matter to play by rules to determine playoff teams. There is no need to use a committee. The only reason this sport remains a beauty contest is because it benefits P5 teams financially.

 

[WizardHawk]

I don't know what it means to say that any solution is or is not perfect. Nor do I know what it it means to say you can't normalize the data set. Whatever size playoff there is, I think it is a simple matter to play by rules to determine playoff teams. There is no need to use a committee. The only reason this sport remains a beauty contest is because it benefits P5 teams financially.

You agreed that 'rules' that look only at CCG winners and throw away any value in OOC games adds in something undesirable. So not all 'rules' come without consequence. You have to add more rules to fix those negatives and then more rules again. You are talking about sweeping reform. Even your own idea requires changing the structure of conferences and how they create scheduling and they all have consequences. The NCAA IS the schools so any larger agreement must have their endorsement and not result in a loss of rivalries (many would kill a lot of them) and cannot drop income. All of these ideas about killing off FCS and G5 play would kill a ton of money.

So I would argue as much as you don't like the idea of a committee, expanding alone fixes most of the complaints about them and adds ZERO new problems that have to be fixed. Why wouldn't we then keep it? It makes no sense to change it if simply adding more teams smooths out the perceived issues with them now. Not that I entirely agree they are as bad as a few want to make them out to be as it is.

As for the math, agan it's not hard to understand either on the macro level, nor at the conference level. I'm clear at the lower level that anything short of every team playing every other team and claiming it is more desirable than our current committee is seriously wrong IMO. And having some play 8, others play 9, and having so much variance in scheduling, but somehow saying simply winning those very different sets of rules then equals everyone on a level playing field with yet another set of rules to decide seeding is pie in the sky. You must create a level playing field to even begin that conversation and the conferences really aren't going to go along with it. So it's a non starter IMO. On the macro level again there aren't formulas to take away 'opinion' as you guys want to put it when 130 teams play 8-9 games in small pools (10 conferences playing in their own league) and the rest across each other, but so many playing joke games meant to create extra home games to bring in money. So every non human poll has issues that cannot be worked out with improved formulas alone. The attempt to create 'rules' or your 'points' are not 'well connected' enough to be viable. And the math is very clear on that.

 

[CJH9972]

You agreed that 'rules' that look only at CCG winners and throw away any value in OOC games adds in something undesirable. So not all 'rules' come without consequence. You have to add more rules to fix those negatives and then more rules again. You are talking about sweeping reform. Even your own idea requires changing the structure of conferences and how they create scheduling and they all have consequences. The NCAA IS the schools so any larger agreement must have their endorsement and not result in a loss of rivalries (many would kill a lot of them) and cannot drop income. All of these ideas about killing off FCS and G5 play would kill a ton of money.

So I would argue as much as you don't like the idea of a committee, expanding alone fixes most of the complaints about them and adds ZERO new problems that have to be fixed. Why wouldn't we then keep it? It makes no sense to change it if simply adding more teams smooths out the perceived issues with them now. Not that I entirely agree they are as bad as a few want to make them out to be as it is.

As for the math, agan it's not hard to understand either on the macro level, nor at the conference level. I'm clear at the lower level that anything short of every team playing every other team and claiming it is more desirable than our current committee is seriously wrong IMO. And having some play 8, others play 9, and having so much variance in scheduling, but somehow saying simply winning those very different sets of rules then equals everyone on a level playing field with yet another set of rules to decide seeding is pie in the sky. You must create a level playing field to even begin that conversation and the conferences really aren't going to go along with it. So it's a non starter IMO. On the macro level again there aren't formulas to take away 'opinion' as you guys want to put it when 130 teams play 8-9 games in small pools (10 conferences playing in their own league) and the rest across each other, but so many playing joke games meant to create extra home games to bring in money. So every non human poll has issues that cannot be worked out with improved formulas alone. The attempt to create 'rules' or your 'points' are not 'well connected' enough to be viable. And the math is very clear on that.

My biggest issue with any format is voting on any playoff teams or seeds. Throwing out AQs and just taking the top 8 is fine by me and my rules idea does not depend on teams being "well connected" by their schedules. All that matters is that teams are competing against each other according to shared objective. The rules say do X and the teams that best accomplish X advance. Having a committee pick A over B for reason C where C guarantees nothing going forward is simply meaningless.

 

[78Cyclones]

This is worse than being stuck in a "Roundabout"!

 

[WizardHawk]

my rules idea does not depend on teams being "well connected" by their schedules. All that matters is that teams are competing against each other according to shared objective. The rules say do X and the teams that best accomplish X advance.

Um, that's really the same thing. You can't have teams from different leagues compared to each other and say which one did x first, better, etc. It won't work. This is why we have the system we do. If it was as easy as saying just have a rule, we would have had it long ago.

 

[CJH9972]

Um, that's really the same thing. You can't have teams from different leagues compared to each other and say which one did x first, better, etc. It won't work. This is why we have the system we do. If it was as easy as saying just have a rule, we would have had it long ago.

Of course you can. For example, suppose teams were ranked by adding their win % and opponents' win % and the top 8 totals qualify for the playoffs. You would be comparing teams based on who best accomplishes winning and playing winning opponents. That is the shared objective. Post a better total according to those rules. To be clear, a better total only tells us who is more accomplished according to those particular rules. It makes no other claims especially claims about purely subjective considerations like best team.

 

[WizardHawk]

Of course you can. For example, suppose teams were ranked by adding their win % and opponents' win % and the top 8 totals qualify for the playoffs. You would be comparing teams based on who best accomplishes winning and playing winning opponents. That is the shared objective. Post a better total according to those rules. To be clear, a better total only tells us who is more accomplished according to those particular rules. It makes no other claims especially claims about purely subjective considerations like best team.

I'll defer this part of the equation to @4down20 , but no. Winning % alone does not work. Win % does not take quality into account, only quantity. UW could win 11 against a bunch of pac 12 teams that ended with a .750 winning percentage and bama 11 against a .700, but those games were tougher.

Every formula has been hashed and eventually dismissed for things this important. Because we do not get enough information to equate the conference winners the way you want to. We really don't.

 

[CJH9972]

I'll defer this part of the equation to @4down20 , but no. Winning % alone does not work. Win % does not take quality into account, only quantity. UW could win 11 against a bunch of pac 12 teams that ended with a .750 winning percentage and bama 11 against a .700, but those games were tougher.

Every formula has been hashed and eventually dismissed for things this important. Because we do not get enough information to equate the conference winners the way you want to. We really don't.

Rules are not concerned with subjective perceptions about tougher. The point of rules is accomplish what the rules value. In this example, your objective is to schedule and beat opponents that win (who are trying to do the same). Your objective is not to beat tougher opponents as a matter of opinion. That every objective formula has been dismissed by those who expect objective formulas to validate their subjective opinions about matters that rules are meant to ignore is not the fault of rules.

 

[TheRobotDevil]

I'll defer this part of the equation to @4down20 , but no. Winning % alone does not work. Win % does not take quality into account, only quantity. UW could win 11 against a bunch of pac 12 teams that ended with a .750 winning percentage and bama 11 against a .700, but those games were tougher.

Every formula has been hashed and eventually dismissed for things this important. Because we do not get enough information to equate the conference winners the way you want to. We really don't.

This is where uniformity comes into play. The lack of uniformity does not give you a pure foundation for an equation to be true.

ie a 6-6 team in the PAC,B1G r BIG XII is different from a 6-6 team in the SEC or ACC by design. A tam playing in the PAC,B1G or BIG XII is playing one more conference game. Which means the conferee is taking an extra guaranteed loss distributed throughout the conference by design. As opposed to a team in the SEC or ACC playing 8 games which is removing a guaranteed loss distributed throughout the conference. While padding a W through the extra OOC. Which means by definition mathematically procedures like w % etc are void. You can not compare numbers without a uniform mathematical foundation.

 

[TheRobotDevil]

Rules are not concerned with subjective perceptions about tougher. The point of rules is accomplish what the rules value. In this example, your objective is to schedule and beat opponents that win (who are trying to do the same). Your objective is not to beat tougher opponents as a matter of opinion. That every objective formula has been dismissed by those who expect objective formulas to validate their subjective opinions about matters that rules are meant to ignore is not the fault of rules.

Unless all conferences use the same format. Its all just perception.Which is why we see opinionated methods i.e. "the eye test. Its all just perception and opinion

 

[CJH9972]

Unless all conferences use the same format. Its all just perception.Which is why we see opinionated methods i.e. "the eye test. Its all just perception and opinion

Uniformity is best but I think the 8 vs 9 league game difference under the current format is a problem because the incentive to schedule to strong OOC games is limited to one game for most teams so the extra game OOC game for the SEC for example is another cupcake.

 

[WizardHawk]

Rules are not concerned with subjective perceptions about tougher. The point of rules is accomplish what the rules value. In this example, your objective is to schedule and beat opponents that win (who are trying to do the same). Your objective is not to beat tougher opponents as a matter of opinion. That every objective formula has been dismissed by those who expect objective formulas to validate their subjective opinions about matters that rules are meant to ignore is not the fault of rules.

So you support a system that equates beating bama as the same as beating vandy. A win is a win. Yes, I fundamentally disagree with that. Blind rules harm the game and do not improve fairness which is the primary thing most of you believe this system is lacking.

We will have to agree to disagree.

 

[WizardHawk]

This is where uniformity comes into play. The lack of uniformity does not give you a pure foundation for an equation to be true.

ie a 6-6 team in the PAC,B1G r BIG XII is different from a 6-6 team in the SEC or ACC by design. A tam playing in the PAC,B1G or BIG XII is playing one more conference game. Which means the conferee is taking an extra guaranteed loss distributed throughout the conference by design. As opposed to a team in the SEC or ACC playing 8 games which is removing a guaranteed loss distributed throughout the conference. While padding a W through the extra OOC. Which means by definition mathematically procedures like w % etc are void. You can not compare numbers without a uniform mathematical foundation.

Seriously, after that lame ass trolling from last night all I have to say to you is go fuck yourself. Didn't read this and not going back into your bullshit again. You are nothing but a weak troll.

I don't agree with the other guy, but he is talking and discussing the topic without spin and nonsense. Learn something from him you tool.