Started By
Message
Would you prefer the selection committee have concrete qualifiers or not?
Posted on 3/12/14 at 12:00 pm
Posted on 3/12/14 at 12:00 pm
Been kinda quiet in regards to what criteria will be used to select play off teams, unless I missed some coverage. Which do you think would best serve college football... having set-in-stone qualifications that dictate what a team must do to make it, or allowing this panel completely subjective choice over who goes?
12
Posted on 3/12/14 at 12:02 pm to TheDrunkenTigah
Do it like basketball...nobody knows who selects or the criteria.
It removes biases.
It removes biases.
Posted on 3/12/14 at 12:05 pm to parkjas2001
Lot more teams get in that tourney, having four selections almost guarantees they'll have to give reasoning. Then the next year, what happens if the reasoning flips?
Posted on 3/12/14 at 12:08 pm to TheDrunkenTigah
quote:
Lot more teams get in that tourney
A fraction of eligible teams get into post season play in basketball compared to the over half that qualify in football.
Having a "set criteria" leads to schedule manipulation like the mid-majors have done to snatch up at large bids in the NCAA tournament.
Posted on 3/12/14 at 12:12 pm to DaleDenton
There's no schedule manipulation in football now? That's actually the point of my thread. Will the committee set precedents that reward a bold schedule or weak one, or will the CFB world be up in arms when they turn on a precedent set in a previous year?
Posted on 3/12/14 at 12:18 pm to TheDrunkenTigah
quote:
There's no schedule manipulation in football now?
Not like basketball where you have the mid-majors making their schedules of other mid-majors with each play a couple against a power conference school. This manipulates the RPI calculations and drags down many power conference schools who have to resort to scheduling low majors to complete a home schedule.
Notre Dame could manipulate their schedule to where they are in any year they have a decent record if a system like the RPI was used as they will get the boost from playing ACC schools then can use the other games against teams they have little chance of losing too but would drive up the numbers of these sources given to the committee.
If there is any criteria set, being a conference champion would be the one pushed for to eliminate the SEC from getting multiple teams into the playoffs.
Posted on 3/12/14 at 12:20 pm to TheDrunkenTigah
Prefer there be no selection committee. But if there has to be, it will be subjective.
Posted on 3/12/14 at 12:21 pm to TheDrunkenTigah
quote:
having set-in-stone qualifications
IF they do that, then all teams will work to meet that criteria and many more than 4 will lclaim to have met such criteria.
Posted on 3/12/14 at 12:22 pm to JuiceTerry
quote:
Prefer there be no selection committee. But if there has to be, it will be subjective.
What else are you going to use?
The polls? Which are just as much if not more so subjective and able to be manipulated by the voters. (all the false AP NCs of yesteryear from the north ring a bell?)
Posted on 3/12/14 at 12:24 pm to DaleDenton
quote:frick if I know. Just make sure Bama has a spot every year, amirite?
What else are you going to use?
Posted on 3/12/14 at 12:24 pm to TheDrunkenTigah
Hate the selection committee in the first place.
They should keep something similar to the BCS formula (i.e. hundreds of human voters and several computers with millions of data inputs) and just take the top 4 from that formula. In this case I am confident that more data inputs would greatly decrease overall process bias and internally inconsistent results compared to what we will get from a small selection committee.
They should keep something similar to the BCS formula (i.e. hundreds of human voters and several computers with millions of data inputs) and just take the top 4 from that formula. In this case I am confident that more data inputs would greatly decrease overall process bias and internally inconsistent results compared to what we will get from a small selection committee.
This post was edited on 3/12/14 at 12:34 pm
Posted on 3/12/14 at 12:24 pm to TheDrunkenTigah
Yes.
No fatties.
No fatties.
Posted on 3/12/14 at 12:28 pm to parkjas2001
quote:
IF they do that, then all teams will work to meet that criteria and many more than 4 will lclaim to have met such criteria.
I was referring to ways the committee will sort the teams. Conference champs is the most obvious answer, but there undoubtedly be more whether public or not and it will get complicated, and possibly very biased, fast. Did team x make it's CCG? Did team y's entire conference finish the season unranked in polls? Does a one loss PAC12 CCG loser get in over a three loss conf champ?
Posted on 3/12/14 at 12:29 pm to TheDrunkenTigah
quote:
I was referring to ways the committee will sort the teams.
So am I.
Posted on 3/12/14 at 12:32 pm to TheDrunkenTigah
quote:
I was referring to ways the committee will sort the teams. Conference champs is the most obvious answer, but there undoubtedly be more whether public or not and it will get complicated, and possibly very biased, fast. Did team x make it's CCG? Did team y's entire conference finish the season unranked in polls? Does a one loss PAC12 CCG loser get in over a three loss conf champ?
They will do the same thing they do in basketball to justify/explain why a team did or did not get in.
The "eye test"...
Posted on 3/12/14 at 12:37 pm to parkjas2001
Ok, then how long until there's zero confidence in the system and it's scrapped for something else? Without some notion of precedents there can't be long term stability, that's exactly what killed the BCS.
Posted on 3/12/14 at 12:46 pm to TheDrunkenTigah
quote:
Ok, then how long until there's zero confidence in the system and it's scrapped for something else? Without some notion of precedents there can't be long term stability, that's exactly what killed the BCS.
Not really.
At first there was a call for a +1 game, so that happened, then there was basically a call for an additional game added between the top teams then a +1 after those games, which is what is happening and they are calling it a "play off".
The system is basically the same, it is a money making machine that will not be scrapped, same reason why the bowls are remaining in place, they make money.
The precedent is in basketball. Since the modern era when the tourney first expanded to 32 teams to take at-large bids, from there it expanded to take all conference tourney champs and will keep expanding as long as interest remains in the sport as it even at 115 or so teams making post season play between the NCAAs, NIT, CBI, and CIT, that is still a 1/3 of all teams while football is moving closer to 60% of teams making post season play.
If the non-power conference schools are able to split away from the FBS, but stay above the FCS creating their own little division, you will see the format change, if the trend to create "super conferences" increase you will see the format change.
If 16 team conferences come into play you will see the format expand the play offs to conference champs and at large bids to fill out a 8-16 team bracket, if this was to occur you would see 4-8 lower tier bowls disappear if enough qualifiers failed to occur on an annual basis.
Posted on 3/12/14 at 12:51 pm to elposter
quote:
Hate the selection committee in the first place.
They should keep something similar to the BCS formula (i.e. hundreds of human voters and several computers with millions of data inputs) and just take the top 4 from that formula. In this case I am confident that more data inputs would greatly decrease overall process bias and internally inconsistent results compared to what we will get from a small selection committee.
:kige:
Posted on 3/12/14 at 1:07 pm to TheDrunkenTigah
There definitely should be a set criteria.
We should have a set of tie breakers.
Remove all bias
We should have a set of tie breakers.
Remove all bias
Posted on 3/12/14 at 1:08 pm to DaleDenton
You're describing a completely different issue. Of course postseason college football will continue to exist, but the selection committee is an entirely new animal. The BCS was blamed for having to pick two teams and the problems associated with that. Instead of just allowing the BCS to choose four teams rather than two, the choice is now in the hands of a few individuals. Should they not be bound to at least some form of precedence to remove bias? Expanding is just punting on the issue, and it will just pop right back up in seeding.
Page 1 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News