What would the BCS look like?

[corn train]

The bcs is getting older certainly now, it would look something like this

 

[WizardHawk]

Here, I'll spoon feed you the actual data FACTS again.

2017
Clemson 12-1 CC, 12–1 Oklahoma CC,, 11-2 Ohio State CC , 11-2 USC,
Are in on Auto bid and12-1 Alabama most likely gets the At Large spot

Now you left out Georgia (again) and only listed 5, but I know you had to include them as conf champs so I added them
College Football Playoff
The final selection week ranking for 2017 top 6:
1 Clemson 12-1 2 Oklahoma 12-1 3 Georgia 12-1 4 Alabama 11-1 5 Ohio State 11-2 6 Wisconsin 12-1

every game is the same except you would have USC in (SURPRISE!!! lol) and the CFP would put wisky in.

SCORE= 5 of 6 the same either way

2016
12- 1 Clemson CC, 12-1 Oklahoma CC,11-2 Penn State CC,11-1 Washington CC, 13-0 Alabama CC,
Are all in on Auto bid 11-1 Ohio State moct likely gets the At Large Bid

https://s3.amazonaws.com/sidearm.si...ts.com/documents/2017/10/20/2016_Rankings.pdf
The final selection week ranking for 2016 top 6:
1 Alabama 13-0 2 Clemson 12-1 3 Ohio State 11-1 4 Washington 12-1 5 Penn State 11-2 6 Michigan 10-2

Actually, I had thought there were two differences here, but it seems I was wrong and there is only one difference. You have Oklahoma in while the CFP would have put Michigan in. That's the only difference.

SCORE = 10 of 12 teams the same over last two years.

2015
13-0 Clemson CC,,12-1 Oklahoma CC,12-1 Michigan State CC,11-2 Stanford CC,12-1 Alabama CC

Are allí in on Auto Bids 11-1 Ohio State or !!-1 Iowa most likely get the At Large Bid

https://s3.amazonaws.com/sidearm.si...ts.com/documents/2017/10/20/2015_Rankings.pdf
The final selection week ranking for 2015 top 6:
1 Clemson 13-0 2 Alabama 12-1 3 Michigan State 12-1 4 Oklahoma 11-1 5 Iowa 12-1 6 Stanford 11-2

EXACT COPY. ALL THE SAME

SCORE = 16 of 18 the same

2014
13-0 FSU CC, 12-1 Ohio State CC, 12-1 Oregon CC,12-1 Alabama CC
Are all in on Auto Bod 11 - 1 TCU and !1 - 1 Baylor are most likely in as the At Large Bids

https://s3.amazonaws.com/sidearm.si...ts.com/documents/2017/10/20/2014_Rankings.pdf
The final selection week ranking for 2014 top 6:
1 Alabama 12-1 2 Oregon 12-1 3 Florida State 13-0 4 Ohio State 12-1 5 Baylor 11-1 6 TCU 11-1

Again, carbon copy.

FINAL SCORE = 22 of 24 teams end up the EXACT SAME under current format at 6 games as some arbitrary auto bid.

THIS IS PROOF IT ISN'T FIXING SOME EGREGIOUS ISSUES.

This entirely torpedos the whole thing. With proof and factual numbers.

 

[TheRobotDevil]

Here, I'll spoon feed you the actual data FACTS again.

Now you left out Georgia (again) and only listed 5, but I know you had to include them as conf champs so I added them
College Football Playoff
The final selection week ranking for 2017 top 6:
1 Clemson 12-1 2 Oklahoma 12-1 3 Georgia 12-1 4 Alabama 11-1 5 Ohio State 11-2 6 Wisconsin 12-1

every game is the same except you would have USC in (SURPRISE!!! lol) and the CFP would put wisky in.

SCORE= 5 of 6 the same either way


https://s3.amazonaws.com/sidearm.si...ts.com/documents/2017/10/20/2016_Rankings.pdf
The final selection week ranking for 2016 top 6:
1 Alabama 13-0 2 Clemson 12-1 3 Ohio State 11-1 4 Washington 12-1 5 Penn State 11-2 6 Michigan 10-2

Actually, I had thought there were two differences here, but it seems I was wrong and there is only one difference. You have Oklahoma in while the CFP would have put Michigan in. That's the only difference.

SCORE = 10 of 12 teams the same over last two years.


https://s3.amazonaws.com/sidearm.si...ts.com/documents/2017/10/20/2015_Rankings.pdf
The final selection week ranking for 2015 top 6:
1 Clemson 13-0 2 Alabama 12-1 3 Michigan State 12-1 4 Oklahoma 11-1 5 Iowa 12-1 6 Stanford 11-2

EXACT COPY. ALL THE SAME

SCORE = 16 of 18 the same


https://s3.amazonaws.com/sidearm.si...ts.com/documents/2017/10/20/2014_Rankings.pdf
The final selection week ranking for 2014 top 6:
1 Alabama 12-1 2 Oregon 12-1 3 Florida State 13-0 4 Ohio State 12-1 5 Baylor 11-1 6 TCU 11-1

Again, carbon copy.

FINAL SCORE = 22 of 24 teams end up the EXACT SAME under current format at 6 games as some arbitrary auto bid.

THIS IS PROOF IT ISN'T FIXING SOME EGREGIOUS ISSUES.

This entirely torpedos the whole thing. With proof and factual numbers.

You realize that does not follow the format Mistaken laid out. That removed the question marks correct? You're paste and copied data does not irun off his system. Which includes Conference Champions that do not have more than two losses. Your still going off data based on polls and opinion. Unless you prefer games are decided by poll maybe ?

I already gave you the play off teams under his system. There's a mass differential and it removes all the question marks.....

Need something solid refuting @Mistaken4193 s format. Still nothing that refutes his format. You may want to pick that mic up.......

get back to me when you have something viable

 

[WizardHawk]

You realize that does not follow the format Mistaken laid out. That removed the question marks correct? You're paste and copied data does not irun off his system. Which includes Conference Champions that do not have more than two losses. Your still going off data based on polls and opinion. Unless you prefer games are decided by poll maybe ?

I already gave you the play off teams under his system. There's a mass differential and it removes the question marks.....

Need something solid refuting @Mistaken4193 s format. Still nothing that refutes his format. You may want to pick that mic up.......

get back to me when you have something viable

lol, I gave you exact real facts as to what the final CFP poll has been for all 4 years and compared what the results would have been from their system if they went to 6 games (to normalize it and compare it directly) and directly went game for game against this nonsense you are on about now.

The results are crystal clear and not debatable. 22 of the 24 teams in either system are exactly the same. And without all of the drama.

Of course you won't acknowledge it. I wouldn't expect anything else. You haven't ever once on this site accepted when you were proven wrong so why start now? It's just spin the shit out of it, ignore the facts, spew some nonsense, and repeat.

You keep on with it though. The more we educate others, the more they will stop with this nonsense and accept the current system is more than adequate and doesn't break things to create a fix that does more harm than good.

 

[TheRobotDevil]

lol, I gave you exact real facts as to what the final CFP poll has been for all 4 years and compared what the results would have been from their system if they went to 6 games (to normalize it and compare it directly) and directly went game for game against this nonsense you are on about now.

The results are crystal clear and not debatable. 22 of the 24 teams in either system are exactly the same. And without all of the drama.

Of course you won't acknowledge it. I wouldn't expect anything else. You haven't ever once on this site accepted when you were proven wrong so why start now? It's just spin the shit out of it, ignore the facts, spew some nonsense, and repeat.

You keep on with it though. The more we educate others, the more they will stop with this nonsense and accept the current system is more than adequate and doesn't break things to create a fix that does more harm than good.

You're missing a conference champion....Who fills the criteria of having played a tougher schedule. Wisconsin doesn't fit the 10 game P5 criteria in the format set forth. And no I don't care that it was USC.I view them as a team that qualified under that system. No different than any other team that qualified. I want the best over all product across the board.

Other than that you're getting there. Starting to see why the 6 game play off with CC auto bids. Using the Conference champion cant lose more than 2 games fail safe. And an at large is the better system for the sport.

I am glad you're starting to see its a much more reliable system that reduces the margin for error we.ve seen over the past 4 years tho

 

[7Samurai13]

You're missing a conference champion....Who fills the criteria of having played a tougher schedule. Wisconsin doesn't fit the 10 game P5 criteria in the format set forth. And no I don't care that it was USC.I view them as a team that qualified under that system. No different than any other team that qualified. I want the best over all product across the board.

Other than that you're getting there. Starting to see why the 6 game play off with CC auto bids. Using the Conference champion cant lose more than 2 games fail safe. And an at large is the better system for the sport.

I am glad you're starting to see its a much more reliable system that reduces the margin for error we.ve seen over the past 4 years tho

So let’s go to a system that makes big nonconference games meaningless and provides absolutely no value but in fact hurts even more than in the current system is good for college football?

 

[TheRobotDevil]

So let’s go to a system that makes big nonconference games meaningless and provides absolutely no value but in fact hurts even more than in the current system is good for college football?

It raises the bar on regular season games and the play offs. He covered all the bases. Relying on polls and opinion. While promoting teams to play weaker schedules lowers the bar

 

[7Samurai13]

It raises the bar on regular season games and the play offs. He covered all the bases. Relying on polls and opinion. While promoting teams to play weaker schedules lowers the bar

Raises the bar by making non conference games meaningless and provides no value to anyone. No thank you.

 

[TheRobotDevil]

Raises the bar by making non conference games meaningless and provides no value to anyone. No thank you.

You would have to read his system. To qualify you would need 10 P5 games. Thats raising the bar opposed to 3/G5/FCS games. The current system via the presidents the committee. Has already removed the meaning from what should be meaningless games. And set the table for more teams increasing the amount of meaningless games. The current system by design promotes meaningless games. The 6 game format with structure promotes meaningful games by design

 

[7Samurai13]

You would have to read his system. To qualify you would need 10 P5 games. Thats raising the bar opposed to 3/G5/FCS games. The current system via the presidents the committee. Has already removed the meaning from what should be meaningless games. And set the table for more teams increasing the amount of meaningless games. The current system by design promotes meaningless games. The 6 game format with structure promotes meaningful games by design

Let’s assume bizzaro world, Duke beats Bama next year. Bama loses a game to Mississippi State and wins the SEC. Free pass to the playoffs. Duke goes 11-1 but their one loss is to a 9-3 VTech who lost two non conference games but wins their division. Duke gets punished and booted out of the playoffs because they aren’t “conference champs” and get no real benefit from defeating Bama. So why the fuck would you schedule them when you get nothing for beating them and potentially eliminated for losing to them. Instead I’m going to schedule Oregon State, Kansas, and Wake Forest to an endless rotation of games because according to you, all P5 teams are equal.

 

[Wild Turkey]

Not sure I get your reference?

2004 for us.

 

[WizardHawk]

You would have to read his system. To qualify you would need 10 P5 games. Thats raising the bar opposed to 3/G5/FCS games. The current system via the presidents the committee. Has already removed the meaning from what should be meaningless games. And set the table for more teams increasing the amount of meaningless games. The current system by design promotes meaningless games. The 6 game format with structure promotes meaningful games by design

And magically because some dipshit on a forum says so, suddenly teams everywhere will schedule real challenging teams that do not count in any way toward a playoff hunt and risk their star players in these meaningless games for shits and grins.

This isn't thought out. It has already been proven to be no better than what we have. With actual details facts and links to the sources. We do not need to destroy anything to enjoy what we already have. For some reason the sport is completely broken for you after USC was passed up last year. FFS, just play better next year and have your shot. Stop trying to create special rules that screw everyone else just to ensure a team gets in whether they deserve it or not.

Your agenda was exposed. Your proposed system was destroyed and left for dead.

Move on. You are entirely finished here.

 

[TheRobotDevil]

Let’s assume bizzaro world, Duke beats Bama next year. Bama loses a game to Mississippi State and wins the SEC. Free pass to the playoffs. Duke goes 11-1 but their one loss is to a 9-3 VTech who lost two non conference games but wins their division. Duke gets punished and booted out of the playoffs because they aren’t “conference champs” and get no real benefit from defeating Bama. So why the fuck would you schedule them when you get nothing for beating them and potentially eliminated for losing to them. Instead I’m going to schedule Oregon State, Kansas, and Wake Forest to an endless rotation of games because according to you, all P5 teams are equal.

You're gettimg into what ifs .....There are no what ifs in the 6 game system that was laid out. Hence the fail safes

 

[7Samurai13]

You're gettimg into what ifs .....There are no what ifs in the 6 game system that was laid out. Hence the fail safes

My scenario would get by your fail safes. Duke is at home while Bama is in the playoffs because no one is there to look at it. So sign me up for a 30 year home and home deal with Oregon State because beating them is the same as beating Bama in your “ideal” playoff structure.

 

[WizardHawk]

No what if's indeed. A 1 point win against Rutgers equals the same as a 20 point win against Oklahoma. Then we keep the conferences the same and let some in your division have to play a much tougher schedule while you skate off and then compare those wins.

They call this fair.


USC plays Oregon State and Cal this year while Utah plays UW and Oregon. In dipshits new world those schedules are the same. There is no merit for who you play so if your schedule is fucked by your imbalanced league slate, too bad. Maybe next year it's your turn to have the easier ride.



It's so stupid I'm surprised he can keep peddling this bullshit with a straight face.

 

[TheRobotDevil]

And magically because some dipshit on a forum says so, suddenly teams everywhere will schedule real challenging teams that do not count in any way toward a playoff hunt and risk their star players in these meaningless games for shits and grins.

This isn't thought out. It has already been proven to be no better than what we have. With actual details facts and links to the sources. We do not need to destroy anything to enjoy what we already have. For some reason the sport is completely broken for you after USC was passed up last year. FFS, just play better next year and have your shot. Stop trying to create special rules that screw everyone else just to ensure a team gets in whether they deserve it or not.

Your agenda was exposed. Your proposed system was destroyed and left for dead.

Move on. You are entirely finished here.

Not sure why your so focused on USC. When its about the big picture. So much that you're data was flawed in comparison to the much more concrete system that was provided. You could have bypassed any conference champion with no more than two losses. And used a team that didnt fit the 10 game P5 regular season schedule. in the process. I get it your fine with complacency. And enjoy opinion/debate. Over actual results. Yu can continue to debate. I want what matters most a system the relies on results and facts rather than opinions. I'm going to agree to disagree.

If all goes well Wazzu runs the table and we get a good show from the Pirate come "selection time"

And hopefully the 6 game format with the fail safes that improve the game. Reduces human influence while adding meaning to the games played.Big picture.....Whats best for the sport and crowning a true champion

 

[WizardHawk]

Yep, same old clarky. Proven wrong. Given dead ironclad facts that prove his new system is almost identical to the same output we would have with this same committee if they went to 6 games to match his format and he's entirely lost.

Dead in the water and entirely too stupid to realize it.

 

[TheRobotDevil]

My scenario would get by your fail safes. Duke is at home while Bama is in the playoffs because no one is there to look at it. So sign me up for a 30 year home and home deal with Oregon State because beating them is the same as beating Bama in your “ideal” playoff structure.

Its not my fail safe Mistaken is the one who created the system. The poster I don't want to keep tagging him to avoid confusion.

There is no way around the fail safe. Conference champions who do not have more than 2 losses get auto bis. Should the occasion arise there is a CC with more than 2 losses it goes to a WC.

Every team has to play 10 P5 teams and are measured off those 10 games.

The odds of your scenario are slim to none. But in this system everything is covered. The results of the play offs in this scenario over the past 4 years. Removed every question mark that has arisen.....

I get some people love poll,debates,opinion but like i said you cant argue the facts. This system is spot on and a major upgrade point blank. Theres really no arguing it. Without what ifs or skewing data. Its the optimal system i'll leave it at that. The people who prefer the debate system can continue debating. But I don't even have to debate it.The facts upgraded system that was provided are rooted in fact and data. And the upgraded speaks for themself.....

 

[WizardHawk]

Its not my fail safe Mistaken is the one who created the system. The poster I don't want to keep tagging him to avoid confusion.

There is no way around the fail safe. Conference champions who do not have more than 2 losses get auto bis. Should the occasion arise there is a CC with more than 2 losses it goes to a WC.

Every team has to play 10 P5 teams and are measured off those 10 games.

The odds of your scenario are slim to none. But in this system everything is covered. The results of the play offs in this scenario over the past 4 years. Removed every question mark that has arisen.....

I get some people love poll,debates,opinion but like i said you cant argue the facts. This system is spot on and a major upgrade point blank. Theres really no arguing it. Without what ifs or skewing data. Its the optimal system i'll leave it at that. The people who prefer the debate system can continue debating. But I don't even have to debate it.The facts upgraded system that was provided are rooted in fact and data. And the upgraded speaks for themself.....

He did not say they are measured off those 10. He said it is still conf champions and he might prefer the SEC go to 9 conf games, however he would be ok if they stayed at 8.

Go read it again. You got it entirely wrong... again.

In his world you ONLY need to win your 8 or 9 conf games to get in. The others can be used by the human committee that is still needed to settle that last WC slot, you know it is only bad to use humans when there is more than one game for them to pick apparently. Oh, and of course they are needed to seed the teams so they can decide who sits out the bye week and who doesn't. Again, we can have humans now do EVERYTHING expect skip conf champions. You know, because USC got left out one year.

Go read his original convo he was having with me again. He's fine with deciding this on 8 or 9 games only.

 

[WizardHawk]

Here, read for yourself. That 10 game thing was ONLY for the WC. You know the ONE game some group of humans can select.

At least 10 P5's across the board..SEC can stay at 8(I pray they go to 9) but that means they have 2 schedule 2 P5's OOC.
A 3-4 loss team would forfeit an autobid in my system and it would become an extra WC spot. That prevents an 8-4 team getting lucky in the CCG from getting in.

No conference uses OOC games to seed championship games, therefor it is not accurate at all to suggest everyone is evaluated off the 10 games he says people have to be held to that are P5.

Oddly enough, it might just be SEC teams that actually have to make real changes to reach that. I doubt there are many teams across the rest of the other 4 P5's that don't already play 10 P5's.

This is a rule that isn't enforceable anyway. You cannot always control others having open schedules for you. How many P5's have backed out of games in just the last 4 seasons and entirely screwed a team out of having one? So now anyone can entirely sabotage a team by scheduling a game with them, backing out the summer before it's supposed to happen and leave that team out of compliance.

It's yet another thing in this nonsense that cannot possibly be enforced and screws the game up even more.

Great job