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

[Yo Tee]

CFP = 13 opinions. BCS = hundreds of voters' opinions + computer data.

At lease there is an element of unbias opinions with the BCS. You have former SEC guys and B1G people making these opinions. You're telling me we are just supposed to trust that there is no bias?

Side Note: Please remember this is coming from someone who thinks that the CFP got it WRONG AT LEAST one of the last two years.

 

[Yo Tee]

No, there is not a mutually agreed upon formula which is why there was 10 different formulas combined in the BCS.

I didn't say there is, I said there SHOULD be.

 

[TheDayMan]

It's not that noone knows what they are looking for, it's that the judgement of the top 4 teams right now are based on opinions, not factual information, which leaves those like me uncomfortable and less trusting of this process. And yes, while they have the rankings correct now, because the rankings are pretty flawless as there are 4 CLEAR CUT teams at this point, I'd love to see the differences, or similarities, after the conference title games. Where did you get that graphic from, by the way?

Here's last years.

 

[TheDayMan]

Here's last years.
View attachment 190736

Here's the BCS for 2016.

 

[7Samurai13]

I didn't say there is, I said there SHOULD be.

No, there never will be because certain people are going to want to push for more emphasis on defense because “defense wins championship” while other would want to put an emphasis on offense. Some will not want see anything pushing SoS because teams have no control over what their opponents do while others will wanted to be rewarded for scheduling top tier opponents. Some want conference champions only which completely takes all of that out of the equation and we are looking at a year where three power confences have a four loss conference champ.

 

[TheDayMan]

 

[Yo Tee]

2015

 

[Yo Tee]

2014

 

[7Samurai13]

2015

Same 4 teams. Michigan State would have lost by more playing Clemson than they would have Bama because they had a phenomenal QB and our secondary was hot garbage.

 

[Yo Tee]

So now it begs the question as to what's the point of the change if we get, 99% of the time, the same results? I know they didn't know that at the time, but the CFP really only altered 1 season, 2015, in which the BCS rankings would've had Clemson play Michigan State instead of Oklahoma.

 

[TheDayMan]

So now it begs the question as to what's the point of the change if we get, 99% of the time, the same results? I know they didn't know that at the time, but the CFP really only altered 1 season, 2015, in which the BCS rankings would've had Clemson play Michigan State instead of Oklahoma.

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.

 

[Yo Tee]

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.

Hmm interesting. Makes me wonder when the next change will come because I feel like the bitching of the committee is reaching that level. Maybe not as much yet, but I feel like it's getting there.

 

[Deep Creek]

At lease there is an element of unbias opinions with the BCS. You have former SEC guys and B1G people making these opinions. You're telling me we are just supposed to trust that there is no bias?

Side Note: Please remember this is coming from someone who thinks that the CFP got it WRONG AT LEAST one of the last two years.

Nope, I'm not saying that at all. Every human has some bias built into them just from living a life...whether they will admit it or not. We all like to think we can totally remove it from anything we do, but they are still always with us. The CFP has that symbolic act of "checking their caps at the door" before they enter that room. But, not 100% of their bias remains in that cap. I do think they try real hard, but at the end of the day they are human.

What I'm saying is all those AP voters have just as much bias built into them as those "SEC guys and B1G people" you reference. And there are a lot more AP voters than CFP selection committee members.

Regarding your "side note". In hindsight an argument could be made that the committee whiffed on some selections. But they did get the best two teams in each of the first four years...even if the two best may have met in a semifinal like they did in 2014 with tOSU and Bama. (One might even say the two best last year were Georgia and OU in a semifinal.) From the results of the semifinals, some would say 2014 FSU, 2015 Sparty/OU, 2016 tOSU/Washington and 2017 Clem were pretenders. But, that was all in retrospect. When they selected those teams, they didn't look as bad as they did after the semifinal performances. Easy to say after the fact.

 

[TheDayMan]

Hmm interesting. Makes me wonder when the next change will come because I feel like the bitching of the committee is reaching that level. Maybe not as much yet, but I feel like it's getting there.

It's definitely reached that level, but there was controversy with the BCS every year too, and that lasted a good 15 or 16 years. The playoff, on the surface anyway before you get all cynical and think about the money involved, was supposed to remove some of the controversy around the 3rd team. What we've learned is what we already knew, it doesn't matter how many teams are involved, there will be some team with some shred of argument over the last team that was included.

That said, I like the mini playoff. Other than maybe some small tweaks I don't know where you can go from here without changing everything. I get some people are okay with changing everything, but that's a different argument that comes up a couple times a week.

 

[Deep Creek]

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.

I don't think the bitching had as much to do with it as "time for a change" did. JMO

Bitching and difference of opinion is going to happen as long as there is ANY human element involved. Look at things like ice skating, gymnastics, diving, etc in the Olympics. Those are judged as opposed to decided who is best in the 100 meter dash. Bitching just comes with the territory in things that involve human judgement deciding who is best.

 

[7Samurai13]

So now it begs the question as to what's the point of the change if we get, 99% of the time, the same results? I know they didn't know that at the time, but the CFP really only altered 1 season, 2015, in which the BCS rankings would've had Clemson play Michigan State instead of Oklahoma.

Again because of logic. If a season ended with Bama losing to Georgia and the BCS had Bama at 4 and Georgia at 5, there would be a huge uproar over it.

 

[Deep Creek]

The playoff, on the surface anyway before you get all cynical and think about the money involved

I'm cynical. I think the change will come when the money is enticing enough to change. Until then..........

 

[Olyduck]

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?

ranked at the time is a horrible measure. remember Florida State last season? Michigan State and Notre Dame in 2016? 2013 Florida? 2012 USC?

 

[Yo Tee]

ranked at the time is a horrible measure. remember Florida State last season? Michigan State and Notre Dame in 2016? 2013 Florida? 2012 USC?

Well I used the "at the time" measure because after those ranked wins, ND was still not even in the top 5, which I believe they should've been. They went from 8th to 6th after their win over 7th ranked Stanford, then 6th to 5th over 24th ranked Va. Tech. I just think ND had a MUCH better resume over Bama at that time and should've been the #1 team in the country.

 

[ericd7633]

As was stated earlier, the BCS formula and CFP committee would have had the same 4 teams EVERY year.