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

[oaknightshockey1]

It's not irrelevant, it just isn't the only factor. You want it to be the only factor, I want a subjective evaluation. We won't change each others minds.

The problem is the whole "subjective evaluation" part. The BCS system is a subjective evaluation. It was also very controversial and many would argue wrong some of the time.

 

[Bandwagonbo2]

No I think Bama is the 2nd best team in the country this year behind FSU but its irrelevant. You guys had your shot and lost. Stanford had their shot and won. Thats what a playoff is about.

No, the purpose of the playoff is supposed to pit the BEST four teams in the country against each other and determine a champion. While Bama was beating all of its 7 loss teams and winning, Stanford was losing its shot, but got redeemed because it had no competition in its conference to speak of. Do we really feel a 2 loss Stanford is better than a one loss Alabama. I certainly hope we dont simply on the basis of them winning what has turned out to be a weak PAC 12. Just as in 2011, i felt that losing to a 28pt underdog was not befitting of playing in a title game based on losing to an undefeated team. Both had one loss, but one won its conference but still was not proven to be the clearcut choice. To me conference champs is fine if you have a bigger Playoff and then some at-large teams, but to have a four team playoff you want the best four teams and that cannot be answered with conference champions only(iMO)

 

[Bandwagonbo2]

If we REALLY want a true playoff and a true test of who the best teams are its simple. A. Abolish preseason rankings, no rankings til at LEAST week 7. B. All leagues play 9 conference games, not fair to have some leagues play 8 while others play 9. C. Playoff has to be at LEAST 12 teams. That way you can get conference champs AND the best at larges in. That makes the regular season important but doesnt penalize you for playing a tougher schedule and D. ALL BCS conference teams must play OOC schedules that consist of at least 2 other BCS conference teams, if you want to schedule 1 cupcake then fine but playing 4 cupcakes and 8 league game and going 11-1 isnt nearly as impressive as playing 2 decent OOC games and a 9 game league slate and going 10-2 IMO.

I can agree with all of this, i have been a proponent of most of this already. And for the record Saban likes the 9 game ICS and has said so on numerous occasions.

 

[rmilia1]

I can agree with all of this, i have been a proponent of most of this already. And for the record Saban likes the 9 game ICS and has said so on numerous occasions.

Part of the reason I have trouble bashing Stanford for losing to Utah. We all know league games are tougher because the teams know you better ( especially road games ). A game at Utah is much tougher than a home game vs Charleston Southern or whatever. Im sure Stanford would rather play San Diego State than at Utah but it is what it is.

 

[Bandwagonbo2]

They shouldnt have lost then. CFB " where every game counts". Thats the motto for the whole sport. Dont lose that game and they are in. They knew the ramifications before the game started.

Apparently not if you want to allow a team to get into a playoff that won its conference, but lost two games, one to a 7 loss team. Every game didnt count for them and the eam being left out had a target on its back all season and lost on a fluke play with no time on the clock. Funny that we are not counting every game, just one, the Championship game of the conference. Can anyone say possible weaker conference winner getting in over possible better team. I always thought the playoff was about finding the BEST TEAM IN THE COUNTRY, not the best conference winner among the four conferences chosen no matter record of their winners or not.

 

[Bandwagonbo2]

Part of the reason I have trouble bashing Stanford for losing to Utah. We all know league games are tougher because the teams know you better ( especially road games ). A game at Utah is much tougher than a home game vs Charleston Southern or whatever. Im sure Stanford would rather play San Diego State than at Utah but it is what it is.

So in the same vein, you applaud Stanford for losing to a conference foe(two of them by the way) one of which was a 7 loss foe, but want to keep Alabama out for losing on the last play of a game to its biggest Rival in their house because they didnt win their conference. We will allow a team to lose two games in conference and as long as they can win their conference we will overlook possibly a better team to find an NCAA champion to represent the BEST of the NCAA at that level...OK. Illogical to me, but more power to you if you scan sell that shit to someone else.

 

[rmilia1]

So in the same vein, you applaud Stanford for losing to a conference foe(two of them by the way) one of which was a 7 loss foe, but want to keep Alabama out for losing on the last play of a game to its biggest Rival in their house because they didnt win their conference. We will allow a team to lose two games in conference and as long as they can win their conference we will overlook possibly a better team to find an NCAA champion to represent the BEST of the NCAA at that level...OK. Illogical to me, but more power to you if you scan sell that shit to someone else.

Nothings perfect man. I just want to take it out of the hands of the people as much as possible. The people can be swayed by opinion, by history/heritage, by name recognition etc. A 12-1 Ohio State with the same resume as a 12-1 Arizona State is going ahead of the SunDevils every time if you leave it up to the people. Im sick of awarding titles based on conjecture and opinion so to me Id rather see the results of the leagues mean more when crowning a champion IF its a 4 team playoff.

 

[7Samurai13]

Nothings perfect man. I just want to take it out of the hands of the people as much as possible. The people can be swayed by opinion, by history/heritage, by name recognition etc. A 12-1 Ohio State with the same resume as a 12-1 Arizona State is going ahead of the SunDevils every time if you leave it up to the people. Im sick of awarding titles based on conjecture and opinion so to me Id rather see the results of the leagues mean more when crowning a champion IF its a 4 team playoff.

There would be people swayed to put in a 11-1 Alabama over a 12-1 Auburn or a 12-1 Ohio State over a 12-1 Michigan State this season.

 

[Codaxx]

My issue with every game counts is that it is patently untrue. People decide which games count and they put there spin on it, whether it is best win or worst loss. In a 12 game schedule each game is not given 8% credit.

 

[rmilia1]

There would be people swayed to put in a 11-1 Alabama over a 12-1 Auburn or a 12-1 Ohio State over a 12-1 Michigan State this season.

If you were legitimately trying to decide who the better team was when comparing Bama to Auburn you could make a convincing argument for Bama even with the actual game result in mind. Imagine if that was the last spot for a playoff and 11-1 Bama was chosen ahead of 12-1 Auburn based on all the points you could make pointing to Bamas superiority over the entire season. Now thatd be some fucked up shit and not out of the realm of possibility IMO

 

[Bandwagonbo2]

Nothings perfect man. I just want to take it out of the hands of the people as much as possible. The people can be swayed by opinion, by history/heritage, by name recognition etc. A 12-1 Ohio State with the same resume as a 12-1 Arizona State is going ahead of the SunDevils every time if you leave it up to the people. Im sick of awarding titles based on conjecture and opinion so to me Id rather see the results of the leagues mean more when crowning a champion IF its a 4 team playoff.

But reality says that if you have a small sampling, such as four, you need to allow it to be more teams to choose from, not restrict yourself or you taint the pool(so to speak).

My thoughts are if they went to 8 teams then we could say 4 champions or 6 champions and two at-large teams. this would be a fair shot for some good playoffs. Right now the case can be made it would not help, but hurt the pool of teams if we limit it to champions only and that is my point.

As in everything, nothing will ever be perfect, but I dont want to hear the bitching if a two loss SEC champion gets in over a one loss AQ conference team because they didnt win their conference. We all remember the two loss SEC title winner from a few years ago that caused a firestorm of controversy, can happen again in any conference. We even had a three loss B1G champ last year. Just want the BEST 4 teams to get in at this point until its a bigger sampling to make it more fair for all.

 

[ellupo]

No, the purpose of the playoff is supposed to pit the BEST four teams in the country against each other and determine a champion. While Bama was beating all of its 7 loss teams and winning, Stanford was losing its shot, but got redeemed because it had no competition in its conference to speak of. Do we really feel a 2 loss Stanford is better than a one loss Alabama. I certainly hope we dont simply on the basis of them winning what has turned out to be a weak PAC 12. Just as in 2011, i felt that losing to a 28pt underdog was not befitting of playing in a title game based on losing to an undefeated team. Both had one loss, but one won its conference but still was not proven to be the clearcut choice. To me conference champs is fine if you have a bigger Playoff and then some at-large teams, but to have a four team playoff you want the best four teams and that cannot be answered with conference champions only(iMO)

There is no way a playoff committee will get this. Who was better this year, SC or Bama? No clue they didnt play. With the way the conferences are setup, all except B12, we will never know. Conferences should be 10 teams with a 9 game conf schedule so there mostly likely is a true winner of a conference. Then those winners can play in the playoff.
All any of the current playoff formats like BBall or NFL do is crown the hottest team in the tourney. The hottest team for a couple weeks is not the best. For instance, on a neutral field, how many would pick Auburn over Bama today? I think the committee would pick Bama as the "better" team. To say the "best" should play is very subjective and will always be until other changes are made.

 

[Bandwagonbo2]

There would be people swayed to put in a 11-1 Alabama over a 12-1 Auburn or a 12-1 Ohio State over a 12-1 Michigan State this season.

I could see some, but not a big enough amount to make it a reality. Head to head has to count for something, but a one loss versus a two loss conference champion i could see a bigger group wanting the team chosen as the one loss team especially if they beat all the 7 loss teams on their schedule with ease.

 

[rmilia1]

But reality says that if you have a small sampling, such as four, you need to allow it to be more teams to choose from, not restrict yourself or you taint the pool(so to speak).

My thoughts are if they went to 8 teams then we could say 4 champions or 6 champions and two at-large teams. this would be a fair shot for some good playoffs. Right now the case can be made it would not help, but hurt the pool of teams if we limit it to champions only and that is my point.

As in everything, nothing will ever be perfect, but I dont want to hear the bitching if a two loss SEC champion gets in over a one loss AQ conference team because they didnt win their conference. We all remember the two loss SEC title winner from a few years ago that caused a firestorm of controversy, can happen again in any conference. We even had a three loss B1G champ last year. Just want the BEST 4 teams to get in at this point until its a bigger sampling to make it more fair for all.

Thats my point though BW, you are talking about peoples opinions like they are facts. Of course almost all of us think Bama is one of the 4 best teams and ALOT of us think they are one of the 2 best but thats all opinion. My point is that if we can steer away from opinion as much as possible I think it cuts down on controversy, although that may not be what the NCAA wants. LOL

 

[smilesid]

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.

Good Lord, does this never end?

If a team's on probation, they don't go, period. So the next team down gets the call. That's true in every sport on the planet, I think. Well except when it comes to SEC football. They're always crying for the #3 team to get the bid over everyone else's champion.

Why is football the only sport in which the opinions of pollsters, committees of pundits, TV networks, and delusional fans count for more than the results on the field?

 

[Bandwagonbo2]

Thats my point though BW, you are talking about peoples opinions like they are facts. Of course almost all of us think Bama is one of the 4 best teams and ALOT of us think they are one of the 2 best but thats all opinion. My point is that if we can steer away from opinion as much as possible I think it cuts down on controversy, although that may not be what the NCAA wants. LOL

And I am all in favor of steering away from opinion, but it needs to be done in a bigger playoff size to be correct. To limit it to 4 teams is going to allow some opinion if you limit it to conference champions. Then you have to take the best 4 conference champions and lets suppose that the bigger AQ teams all have years of 2 loss champions(slim i know but suppose) then you are looking at letting lesser conferences into the picture even though their conference schedules are not what the bigger teams play week in and out. Its all subjective and allows for some opinion no matter what. bigger is better and thats why we need a bigger playoff to allow the Conference champs only model to be a part.

 

[Bandwagonbo2]

Good Lord, does this never end?

If a team's on probation, they don't go, period. So the next team down gets the call. That's true in every sport on the planet, I think. Well except when it comes to SEC football. They're always crying for the #3 team to get the bid over everyone else's champion.

Why is football the only sport in which the opinions of pollsters, committees of pundits, TV networks, and delusional fans count for more than the results on the field?

Says the guy who posts the same thing in most of his threads.

 

[smilesid]

Says the guy who posts the same thing in most of his threads.

Actually, you and I kind of agree on this issue, But I admit, it's fun to listen to you play your violin about it. I get it, your school had it all set, a made to order paved highway to the NC game, and like Linda Loveless, choked on it in the end. It's ok, feel free to take out your frustrations on me, I'm here for you.

 

[sakau2007]

Good Lord, does this never end?

If a team's on probation, they don't go, period. So the next team down gets the call. That's true in every sport on the planet, I think. Well except when it comes to SEC football. They're always crying for the #3 team to get the bid over everyone else's champion.

Why is football the only sport in which the opinions of pollsters, committees of pundits, TV networks, and delusional fans count for more than the results on the field?

so the 2nd (or 3rd) best team in a conference should benefit simply because ohio state was giving its players free tats and penn state's coaches were diddling kids? sorry, that's dumb.

but if you want a playoff to include an 8-5 wisconsin team or 8-4 uconn team even if they are unranked... then fine.

 

[LawDawg]

The problem is the whole "subjective evaluation" part. The BCS system is a subjective evaluation. It was also very controversial and many would argue wrong some of the time.

Pick you poison ... I've chosen mine.