Started By
Message
Silly arguments about Final Four.
Posted on 11/28/18 at 3:32 pm
Posted on 11/28/18 at 3:32 pm
The whole idea of the BCS (and I think it worked) was to get the two best teams in the country to play in a National Championship game to determine the true National Champions.
Thus eliminating the nonsense of voting a team as NC’s with the decades of inherent biases.
The BCS was a huge advance for the SEC.
So then, “they” complained that the BCS wasn’t getting the two best teams in the Championship game. (I think the BCS worked)
So we get the final four.
With the final four, there is absolutely no reason to argue that the two best teams in the country are not included.
So any arguments about who should be #4 or #5 is nonsense.
If you want to argue to expand the playoffs, please state your real reason.
Thus eliminating the nonsense of voting a team as NC’s with the decades of inherent biases.
The BCS was a huge advance for the SEC.
So then, “they” complained that the BCS wasn’t getting the two best teams in the Championship game. (I think the BCS worked)
So we get the final four.
With the final four, there is absolutely no reason to argue that the two best teams in the country are not included.
So any arguments about who should be #4 or #5 is nonsense.
If you want to argue to expand the playoffs, please state your real reason.
This post was edited on 11/28/18 at 3:34 pm
8
Posted on 11/28/18 at 3:33 pm to Rohan Gravy
Slive proposed a +1 in 08 but only the ACC commish supported it. So now we're stuck with this committee of kangaroos.
Posted on 11/28/18 at 3:34 pm to Rohan Gravy
and if the playoff was expanded to 8 the argument would be about 8, 9, & 10. and it the playoff was 16 teams the argument would be over 16, 17, & 18.
Hell the basketball tournament had 64 teams and that was expanded
Hell the basketball tournament had 64 teams and that was expanded
Posted on 11/28/18 at 3:35 pm to Rohan Gravy
Joe Lunardi has Bama going all the way
Posted on 11/28/18 at 3:38 pm to civiltiger07
quote:
Hell the basketball tournament had 64 teams and that was expanded
Ah, hell, I'm old nuff to 'member when it had only 64. The First Four play-in was the beginning of the end for real college basketball. Now it's just a buncha kids trying to score baskets with no understanding of the culture we had back in the 64 team era.
Posted on 11/28/18 at 3:38 pm to Rohan Gravy
quote:
If you want to argue to expand the playoffs, please state your real reason.
I wouldn't mind expanding the playoffs to either 6 teams (with 1 and 2 getting byes) or 8 teams. My reasoning is it should prevent anyone from having a legitimate argument that they were unfairly left out. This year not included, there have been years where there aren't multiple undefeated teams. And there are years where there are more than 3 1-loss teams. Then, we're left with determining, subjectively which 1 loss team has a better resume. If you include all these teams, you should have less complaining.
However, I also wish they'd go back to a BCS-like formula to determine rankings instead of intruding and unpredictable human panel to decide who they think are the best teams. They really never should have done away with it.
But, I do agree that in almost every season, the BCS got it right. Only seasons I can think off that they probably didn't were 2001 and 2003. Nebraska and Oklahoma never should have been in those games.
This post was edited on 11/28/18 at 3:39 pm
Posted on 11/28/18 at 3:38 pm to Rohan Gravy
I think it is fair to argue there are certainly quite a few years where there are 3 teams that has legitimate national title chance arguments. There are maybe a few years where there are 4 of them, but not many.
There are almost zero (if any) years where there are more than 4.
There are almost zero (if any) years where there are more than 4.
Posted on 11/28/18 at 3:40 pm to lsufball19
quote:
I wouldn't mind expanding the playoffs to either 6 teams (with 1 and 2 getting byes) or 8 teams. My reasoning is it should prevent anyone from having a legitimate argument that they were unfairly left out. This year not included, there have been years where there aren't multiple undefeated teams. And there are years where there are more than 3 1-loss teams. Then, we're left with determining, subjectively which 1 loss team has a better resume. If you include all these teams, you should have less complaining.
Agreed - I think 6 would be acceptable with the Top 2 getting byes (and the Top 2 are GENERALLY no-doubt playoff/national title teams/resumes).
quote:
However, I also wish they'd go back to a BCS-like formula to determine rankings instead of intruding and unpredictable human panel to decide who they think are the best teams.
100 frickin percent, though most of the time the committee does end up miroring the old BCS rankings. It just feels a whole lot more cut and dry and less "human" (in a bad way) when the formula says it instead of a smoke filled room.
We've also gotten to a point where we have so much data that quite frankly they can pick and choose how to present it and what to include that should be reasonable and acceptable to most sane people.
This post was edited on 11/28/18 at 3:42 pm
Posted on 11/28/18 at 3:43 pm to SummerOfGeorge
quote:
I think it is fair to argue there are certainly quite a few years where there are 3 teams that has legitimate national title chance arguments. There are maybe a few years where there are 4 of them, but not many. There are almost zero (if any) years where there are more than 4.
Agree.
Posted on 11/28/18 at 3:46 pm to Rohan Gravy
quote:
If you want to argue to expand the playoffs, please state your real reason.
2018 results:
Bama, Clemson, ND undefeated
Let's now say that OU and OSU didn't have 1 loss. Let's add Washington St. in there who didn't play any of those 5 teams.
What fing world can we live in where there is a realistic chance that the best team can be undefeated and not have a seat at the table.
It's absurd. I'm not arguing for or against OSU/OU in this post, just the general premise of it being possible
Posted on 11/28/18 at 3:49 pm to Buckeye06
quote:
Let's now say that OU and OSU didn't have 1 loss
But they did, and the 4th and 5th team almost ALWAYS have 1 loss. I do agree with the general idea that 6 is ok because USUALLY the Top 6 are at least usually 1 loss teams from P5 conferences who it could be argued would be reasonable national champs.
But it's also fair to argue that there are almost never more than 4 teams that would have a real argument that they, as of the end of the regular season, have the best resume worthy of a national title.
Posted on 11/28/18 at 3:50 pm to Rohan Gravy
quote:
So any arguments about who should be #4 or #5 is nonsense.
If Ohio State put another 59-0 effort out against Wisconsin last year instead of looking flat, Alabama is watching the playoff from home.
Think about that.
Unless you're going to argue Alabama wasn't one of the best two teams in the country.
Posted on 11/28/18 at 3:51 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
If Ohio State put another 59-0 effort out against Wisconsin last year instead of looking flat, Alabama is watching the playoff from home.
Think about that.
Unless you're going to argue Alabama wasn't one of the best two teams in the country.
Right, and in a 6 team scenario they are both there and that would probably be reasonable and fair.
Get past 6 and it's just kind of silly IMHO.
Posted on 11/28/18 at 3:52 pm to Buckeye06
I favor the 6 team CFP. The 5 conference winners + 1 at large. The 1 at large could be an ND, UCF, or 2nd team from a Power 5 conference.
Posted on 11/28/18 at 3:52 pm to SummerOfGeorge
I will say that the general idea of playing 1 vs 8, 2 vs 7, etc at the higher seed home stadium would be AWESOME entertainment and fun for fans of those teams (and anybody watching on TV).
I don't know if it is the best way to determine a champ in college football, but it would be fun as hell.
I don't know if it is the best way to determine a champ in college football, but it would be fun as hell.
Posted on 11/28/18 at 3:53 pm to SummerOfGeorge
quote:
almost
quote:
almost
I agree it almost never happens, but who cares. Why have a system where a 13-0 power 5 conference champ can in any way be left home? It's absurd
Edit: i'm agreeing with a minimum 6 since that solves my scenario. I just don't understand how having 4 teams in when you have 5 conferences and an indy like ND was ever a good system
This post was edited on 11/28/18 at 3:54 pm
Posted on 11/28/18 at 3:53 pm to SummerOfGeorge
quote:
Agreed - I think 6 would be acceptable with the Top 2 getting byes (and the Top 2 are GENERALLY no-doubt playoff/national title teams/resumes).
I couldn’t agree with you anymore Summer.
I can’t understand why most argue going from 4 to 8 or 16.
6 is perfect with the byes, if we must change.
College football is the greatest sport on the planet.
Why are so many willing to eff it up?
Posted on 11/28/18 at 3:56 pm to SummerOfGeorge
I agree. I've been saying since 2011 that we need six teams.
Every conference gets rid of divisions and plays the top two teams to determine their champion. You take the P5 champs and the highest ranked team (use BcS rankings) from the rest, including G5 teams.
Boom. Problem solved.
Every conference gets rid of divisions and plays the top two teams to determine their champion. You take the P5 champs and the highest ranked team (use BcS rankings) from the rest, including G5 teams.
Boom. Problem solved.
Posted on 11/28/18 at 3:57 pm to Rohan Gravy
8 I could accept, 16 is just stupid. Just look at the Top 16 right now.
Posted on 11/28/18 at 3:58 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
Every conference gets rid of divisions and plays the top two teams to determine their champion. You take the P5 champs and the highest ranked team (use BcS rankings) from the rest, including G5 teams.
Boom. Problem solved.
Yea, I think that would be perfect. Top 2 teams get a 1st round bye, 3 vs 6, 4 vs 5. There would be argument about who is #3 vs #1/2, but that's always going to happen.
Page 1 of 2
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News