Why being a conference champion should not give automatic bids to a playoff

[sakau2007]

Nick Saban found the SEC a lot easier than the Big10 which is why he ran from the Big10.

same with bret bielema too, right? goes from winning the big 10 in 2012 to going winless in the sec in 2013.

but again, money had nothing to do with his move.

 

[oaknightshockey1]

Yes, if those are the 2 best teams.

Why? Team #2 had their shot. They lost. Sorry, better luck next year. As someone mentioned earlier, to add Team #2, you would leave out a #1 from another conference that didn't have that chance.

 

[LawDawg]

-
That is true. The only issue is using conference champs just makes sense. There are so few inter-conference games to truly know which conference is better. By using a conference champ, you can be reasonably assured that the best teams are there. Is there a chance the Pac or SEC has the 3 best teams in its conference? Definitely. I would rather have the tops from every conference meet than take the chance that one of the top teams was arbitrarily excluded based on perception. That is the important thing. IF you exclude #2 in a conference, he had his chance to win the conference playoff. Excluding #1 in a conference is different and arbitrary

Yours is a pure objective standard that could lead to all sorts of bad stuff - UCLA at 7-6 could have won the PACC a few years ago; Duke could have upset FSU this year. I think Whisky won the B1G last year with 3 losses. Mine is a subjective standard that takes into consideration CC status, but it is just one of many inputs. UCLA, Duke and Whisky would be eliminated in mine, would get included in yours. I believe the subjective method is best. Reasonable minds could differ.

 

[LawDawg]

So, we have Auburn winning the Iron Bowl. Winning the SEC. Going to the playoffs.

And having to play Alabama a second time.

Meaning, Auburn would have to beat Alabama twice to be National Champions.

Alabama would only have to beat Auburn once.

Still liking this idea, Auburn fan?

I do, because I want the 4 best teams to be in the playoff. You don't.

 

[7Samurai13]

Yeah, that was it. didnt have a thing to do with money at all.

He couldn't compete in the Big 10 and went down to LSU because they through a butt load of money at him and 3-8 to 8-4. Yeah he didn't find the SEC that tough.

(Just playing off of the idea of Urban Meyer)

 

[sakau2007]

But the "two best teams" is an opinion. Take 2011 for example. Everyone says that Bama was obviously was one of the best teams because they beat three FBS teams with a winning record. Oklahoma State had a much better strength of schedule than Bama and won their conference. There is no way to prove one team is better than another without them actually playing on the field. It wasn't like we had one undefeated team, one 1 loss team, and everyone else was 2+ losses.

no, everyone is not saying that bama was obviously one of the two best teams because they beat 3 FBS teams with winning records. they are saying they were obviously one of the two best teams because of their entire body of work on the football field. the stifling defense. the complete domination of opponents, the completeness of their team.

oklahoma state did not have a "much better" SOS than alabama.

here's one computer that thinks alabama had a better SOS than oklahoma state.

College Football Power Ratings - College FB Team Strength of Schedule Power Rating

entering bowl season, it had alabama's SOS 2nd and OKSt's 9th.

 

[LawDawg]

But the "two best teams" is an opinion. Take 2011 for example. Everyone says that Bama was obviously was one of the best teams because they beat three FBS teams with a winning record. Oklahoma State had a much better strength of schedule than Bama and won their conference. There is no way to prove one team is better than another without them actually playing on the field. It wasn't like we had one undefeated team, one 1 loss team, and everyone else was 2+ losses.

Agreed it was an opinion, but I would defer to the subjective judgement of a committee before I would want the disaster that could happen with an objective, inflexible standard like conference champs.

 

[LawDawg]

Why? Team #2 had their shot. They lost. Sorry, better luck next year. As someone mentioned earlier, to add Team #2, you would leave out a #1 from another conference that didn't have that chance.

Again, I want the 4 best teams in the playoff. You don't. We disagree.

 

[RobToxin]

I do, because I want the 4 best teams to be in the playoff. You don't.

Based on opinion.

That's what we want to eliminate.

Let them earn their way on the field. Not some opinion poll.

 

[sakau2007]

Yours is a pure objective standard that could lead to all sorts of bad stuff - UCLA at 7-6 could have won the PACC a few years ago; Duke could have upset FSU this year. I think Whisky won the B1G last year with 3 losses. Mine is a subjective standard that takes into consideration CC status, but it is just one of many inputs. UCLA, Duke and Whisky would be eliminated in mine, would get included in yours. I believe the subjective method is best. Reasonable minds could differ.

Wisconsin won the Big 10 last year with 6 losses. 5 entering bowl season, 4 of those in conference. Seriously, they were 4-4 in Big 10 play and won the conference title... because over 30% of the leaders were on probation for cheating and covering up a child-diddler.

 

[7Samurai13]

no, everyone is not saying that bama was obviously one of the two best teams because they beat 3 FBS teams with winning records. they are saying they were obviously one of the two best teams because of their entire body of work on the football field. the stifling defense. the complete domination of opponents, the completeness of their team.

oklahoma state did not have a "much better" SOS than alabama.

here's one computer that thinks alabama had a better SOS than oklahoma state.

College Football Power Ratings - College FB Team Strength of Schedule Power Rating

entering bowl season, it had alabama's SOS 2nd and OKSt's 9th.

Anderson Hester, Colley, and Sagarin all disagree.

 

[sakau2007]

Based on opinion.

That's what we want to eliminate.

Let them earn their way on the field. Not some opinion poll.

Honest question... who do you think has earned their way in to the field between these two teams

11-1 Alabama, with a 21 point win over LSU and a road win over Texas A&M. Only loss on the road to #2.
or
12-1 Michigan State, with no road (or home) wins over ranked teams. First and only win over a ranked team was in the Big 10 title game to Ohio State. Loss to an unranked Notre Dame team.

If you say Michigan State has earned it more than Alabama, then that is your opinion.

 

[LawDawg]

Based on opinion.

That's what we want to eliminate.

Let them earn their way on the field. Not some opinion poll.

The system doesn't allow them to earn it on the field because they can't play enough games against one another. Let's say the SEC is awesome, and the B1G sucks balls. Just a hypothetical, of course. But, the college football god agrees with me that all the teams in the SEC are better than all the teams in the B1G. The B1G representative isn't earning it on the field as they are playing demonstrably (in this hypo) lesser teams. That is why I think there has to be a subjective element to the selection.

It probably has to also do with the fact that the subjective component cuts my conference's way right now, and against yours. If the shoe was on the other foot, we might both be taking the other position, although I'd like to think I wouldn't.

 

[Bandwagonbo2]

He couldn't compete in the Big 10 and went down to LSU because they through a butt load of money at him and 3-8 to 8-4. Yeah he didn't find the SEC that tough.

(Just playing off of the idea of Urban Meyer)

So going 9-2(before he left) was not competing? He left before he had time to get that program on its feet. Lets not pretend like the previous four coaches had not done a thing either, Saban was getting recruits to come and was beginning to make an impact when he left. Sadly the next coach was about as inept as the previous four coaches you had before Saban. Its not like anyone really has ever done much with MSU except Dantonio(who is a Saban disciple by the way). And the last tiem both coaches squared off, one had the lesser team win wise and blew the other out by 42 points. Kinda bad to lose to the man who was not able to hack in the B1G huh?

 

[oaknightshockey1]

Based on opinion.

That's what we want to eliminate.

Let them earn their way on the field. Not some opinion poll.

This is my point. Because there are so few OOC matchups, it's impossible to really know who is the best. What happens when the SEC "beats each other up" and all the teams end up with multiple losses, yet two B1G teams go undefeated to the CCG where one of them loses in a close game? Or two in the same division go undefeated except for one of the two losing to the other earlier in the year and ending up with only 1 loss? Would you be okay with those two B1G teams getting into the playoff and the 2 or more loss SEC champ getting left out?

 

[Codaxx]

Yours is a pure objective standard that could lead to all sorts of bad stuff - UCLA at 7-6 could have won the PACC a few years ago; Duke could have upset FSU this year. I think Whisky won the B1G last year with 3 losses. Mine is a subjective standard that takes into consideration CC status, but it is just one of many inputs. UCLA, Duke and Whisky would be eliminated in mine, would get included in yours. I believe the subjective method is best. Reasonable minds could differ.

-
There is the 2-3% exceptions that happen. It is what it is, but focusing on the 3 standard deviation moves is not helpful to the discussion.

 

[RobToxin]

The system doesn't allow them to earn it on the field because they can't play enough games against one another. Let's say the SEC is awesome, and the B1G sucks balls. Just a hypothetical, of course. But, the college football god agrees with me that all the teams in the SEC are better than all the teams in the B1G. The B1G representative isn't earning it on the field as they are playing demonstrably (in this hypo) lesser teams. That is why I think there has to be a subjective element to the selection.

It probably has to also do with the fact that the subjective component cuts my conference's way right now, and against yours. If the shoe was on the other foot, we might both be taking the other position, although I'd like to think I wouldn't.

I don't even have a conference. I don't care about conference arguments.

The system doesn't allow them to earn it on the field because they can't play enough games against one another

Why even play the games then? Let's just sim the season on XBox and crown a champion from there?

 

[blstoker]

The issue you bring up is a moot point. There are only 4 play off teams at this point, so unlike the basketball tournament, there will be conference champs who will not be able to be in the playoff anyway. So, if USC is on probation, so UCLA is the conference champion with a 9-4 record, then that conference champ is not included as one of the four. Just like they did with the conference championship game, you take the next team in line. You don't necessarily have to go to a non champ if that is what is decided.

 

[sakau2007]

Anderson Hester, Colley, and Sagarin all disagree.

Entering bowl season,
Anderson Hester had OKSt's SOS 9th vs. Alabama's 22nd. Hardly a huge gap.
Sagarin had OKSt's SOS 3rd vs. Alabama's 15th. Hardly a huge gap (I think this was post-bowl season. Couldn't find entering bowl season).
Colley had Alabama's SOS 16th vs. OkSt 2nd. Again, not a huge gap.

In all cases, that Alabama team played a top 25 schedule no matter how you slice it and were far, far, far more dominant against the competition they played. The only team Alabama lost to was a unanimous #1. Both OKSt and Alabama were undefeated against teams not ranked #1. Wait, no they weren't. Oklahoma State lost to a ~50th ranked Iowa State team.

 

[Jonny Valtimore]

It's pretty simple: probation.

You create situations where you might end up with the 3rd or 4th best team in a conference gets an automatic bid because other teams in the conference had been cheating. See: Wisconsin in 2012, and very nearly UCLA and Georgia Tech a few years back. I think both teams were 6-6 and played for their conference titles. Both did lose, but had they won, it would be a shame for them to go over a 1 loss (or even 4 loss) conference non-champion.

Well Wisconsin won the conference championship game in a blowout and nearly beat a really good Stanford team in a bowl. Should they have made a 4 team playoff? No, but that's a pretty extreme scenario. More often than not the conference championship game winner is plenty worthy, and if the expectation is set that you have to win your conference to make the playoff it's as fair as can be.