Started By
Message
1
Posted on 7/5/14 at 12:57 pm to sms151t
quote:
Again though, the National Champion is not always the best team.
I see what you are saying now. I just feel like the way it should be done is to determine who the best team is. We will just have to agree to disagree.
quote:
How do you figure out who is the best team? the ones with Best Coaches? Best Prospects? Best Offense? Best Defense?
The team that plays a reasonably tough schedule and beats the other deserving teams in the playoffs. I mean, we already know certain teams are not the best in the nation no matter what their record is. Nobody was fooled by Hawaii, and MOST people saw through Notre Dame. Do we REALLY want to see matchups like these again? It does nobody any good and simply is not entertaining.
quote:
I hope I am making sense.
You are, and I understand, now. I might not agree completely, but I also can see your point. I guess, for me, it is MUCH easier to find the very best team in College Football than just about any other sport...and if we have the opportunity, then I think we should do it.
Posted on 7/5/14 at 12:58 pm to sms151t
quote:
I am just glad to have an intelligent football conversation without the town being torched.
I am, too! THIS is what the SECRant should be. I can see your point MUCH more easily now than when we started. We may not agree with each other, but we know where each stands...and I respect where you are coming from. You have taught me to look at the situation from a new perspective....and I appreciate that!
Posted on 7/5/14 at 2:24 pm to LarrytheGolfer
quote:I laughed for a good minute. I wish the page 2 emoticons were still working so I could
Stopped reading there. Those teams will have 8 losses combined.
Posted on 7/5/14 at 4:01 pm to sms151t
quote:
The system you are looking for is a playoff and best way to determine a entry to a playoff is each team to have the same criteria...and right now the best way is a conference championship.
That's not an answer, though. It's tautological. The best way to pick the best is to pick the best from this criterion that you haven't proven is, well, the best because anyone who wins that game must be the best?
You don't answer my question -- how is a conference championship game more meaningful than any other game against a top opponent? If your toughest game of the season is in October against a team that finishes in the top 5 and your conference championship is against a substantially weaker team, how does conference championship prove to be a definitive means of establishing a team's worthiness for the play-off? Last season, for instance, Auburn beating Bama was more impressive than them beating Missouri, but your scenario assumes that the SECCG is somehow a better measuring stick of worthiness....which, no. Once you acknowledge -- and it's really hard to pretend otherwise -- that it's quite possible there are going to be games against better opponents in the regular season than in the CG, you lose any logical standing in your argument because you've singled out one game that has no inherent virtue and decided it absolutely provides a necessary platform for any argument to get into the playoffs. That's just an irrational adherence to an unneeded absolute.
quote:
Again though, the National Champion is not always the best team. How do you figure out who is the best team? the ones with Best Coaches? Best Prospects? Best Offense? Best Defense?
There's no perfect way to establish "the best." Even if every single team played in a massive round-robin, there's always a chance the 2nd or 3rd or 10th best team will somehow emerge on top. But the addition of an irrelevant criterion -- "must win conference championship" -- is a move away from establishing it, not toward. You've essentially eliminated teams by default, and the very second you do that, you run a greater risk of keeping "the best" out of the playing field. You see what I'm saying? You're artificially restricting the field with a standard that doesn't necessarily converge with the standard of "the best."
This post was edited on 7/5/14 at 4:06 pm
Posted on 7/5/14 at 4:14 pm to randomways
quote:
There's no perfect way to establish "the best." Even if every single team played in a massive round-robin, there's always a chance the 2nd or 3rd or 10th best team will somehow emerge on top. But the addition of an irrelevant criterion -- "must win conference championship" -- is a move away from establishing it, not toward. You've essentially eliminated teams by default, and the very second you do that, you run a greater risk of keeping "the best" out of the playing field. You see what I'm saying? You're artificially restricting the field with a standard that doesn't necessarily converge with the standard of "the best."
As long as the playoff is 4 teams, or when it was essentially 2 teams it should have been a criteria…winning a conference title. However a move to 8 teams with a spelled out criteria to take 5 conference champs changes the need for the championship criteria.
Posted on 7/5/14 at 4:21 pm to Tigerman97
quote:
As long as the playoff is 4 teams, or when it was essentially 2 teams it should have been a criteria…winning a conference title. However a move to 8 teams with a spelled out criteria to take 5 conference champs changes the need for the championship criteria.
Sorry, I disagree there as well. The move to 8 teams only makes it more likely that every conference champ should be included for it to be an honest grouping of the best 8 teams. I still don't think it should be an automatic entry into the field. The basketball tourney can get away with it because, well, they've expanded to the point that it's hard to keep out conference champions. But they do keep out the regular season champions of smaller leagues all the time, frequently to the detriment of the tourney. If the MAAC champion goes 30-0 and loses in a 17-13 upset in the tourney final, no reasonable person is going to argue that the 17-13 team was either better or more deserving in terms of their season's success. So I simply wouldn't use the conference championship criterion to pick teams for the football playoff even at 8 teams. Obviously, it should be used as a measure of how good a team is -- winning a game against a good team while adding an extra game to your resume is always a plus -- but it shouldn't be codified as a means of automatic entry as far as I'm concerned.
Posted on 7/5/14 at 4:36 pm to randomways
Based on what do you think a game in week 5 is more difficult than a CCG? Teams evolve, pressures, match ups, etc all change each game. No 1 game is the same also a team that is 3-8 matches up better than a team that 10-1...based on philosophy...so is the 3-8 team less difficult?
Posted on 7/5/14 at 4:53 pm to sms151t
quote:
Based on what do you think a game in week 5 is more difficult than a CCG? Teams evolve, pressures, match ups, etc all change each game. No 1 game is the same also a team that is 3-8 matches up better than a team that 10-1...based on philosophy...so is the 3-8 team less difficult?
Certainly teams evolve (and devolve) but that has no bearing on my argument. If anything, it reinforces my point that all games should be taken on their own merits rather than applying a strict standard of one game being a mandatory item on the list of criteria to enter the play-offs. I didn't say a specific game was more difficult, simply that it can be. How is the CG game somehow more relevant? How is losing that game more important than winning the previous 12 games, especially if the previous 12 games exposed a team to some very good opponents? And how does winning that game somehow negate bad losses in the past?
This post was edited on 7/5/14 at 4:55 pm
Posted on 7/5/14 at 5:17 pm to randomways
Winning a CCG means that you are the champion of a league, something that is tangible and measurable. Something that can separate teams that are in a pool.
Again, we are crowning a NC not trying to determine the best team, as that is subjective.
Again, we are crowning a NC not trying to determine the best team, as that is subjective.
Posted on 7/5/14 at 6:03 pm to sms151t
quote:
Winning a CCG means that you are the champion of a league, something that is tangible and measurable. Something that can separate teams that are in a pool.
Again, we are crowning a NC not trying to determine the best team, as that is subjective.
You can't just arbitrarily bifurcate the idea of crowning a national champion and from that of determining the best team. They're part of the same principle here. No, it's not possible to pick the best team with 100% reliability, but it's nevertheless the basic goal. If you're not trying to determine the best team, you have no basis for the play-off. You might as well say 'frick it' and pick the cellar-dwellers from each conference without that basic motivation because, well, that basic motivation is why we're even choosing good teams rather than bad ones. Dismissing the idea of doing so out-of-hand is intellectually regressive.
I can't think of a legitimate reason to deliberately exclude a team simply because you want to crown a national champion from an artificially-restricted pool. Not being able to determine the "best" with absolute certainty doesn't mean we have to throw up our hands and impose artificial limitations on teams we allow to compete. Why on earth should we place inherent value on a 10-3 ACC champion and give it preference to a 12-1 runner-up from another conference? What exactly does that achieve except a sense that we didn't even try to pick the best teams? Sorry, but it honestly sounds like either laziness (unwilling to deal with actual thinking about what qualifies as 'worthy,' preferring to leave it to even more imperfect mechanics) or straight-up worry (fear that your team might not measure up if teams from other conferences were judged more closely on their own merits.)
Posted on 7/5/14 at 6:40 pm to randomways
quote:
arbitrarily bifurcate the idea of crowning a national champion and from that of determining the best team.
So I can't make two separate branches or ideas?
But the goal is to crown a national champion and they are charged with finding the best teams, and the committee has already stated champions of conferences will be given more or extra consideration.
I did not restrict the pool the committee did in their statements. But I would make you win a CC to be included. The goal is to win championships not just win games.
If a 10-3 ACC champion is out there I am sure there will be a 1 loss B1G, Pac 12, AAC, etc. They will probably be placed into the pool before the 3 loss champion.
I have stated my way to decide the contestants...what is yours? I have yet to see it.
This post was edited on 7/5/14 at 6:41 pm
Posted on 7/5/14 at 9:53 pm to sms151t
Did not read all 5 pages.
But is you are trying to imply a non P5 conf champ deserved to get in over a conf champ p5 team with multiple losses.., it could happen, but I do not think they could do it in 1 year.
What I mean, and this is unfortunate for these teams, it would take a team like UCF for Example. They go undefeated this year, on top of last years BCS bowl win.
This year would include wins over PSU, MIZZ, and BYU.
They would at that point be ranked in the polls into the top 10 at least if not 5.
If you have 2 conf champs with at least 2 losses, I could see the committee ranking them 4.
I still don't think a conf gets more than 1 team until it goes to 8. Too much money on the line. When at all possible , playoffs love having east vs west , north vs south, acc vs sec, big vs pac.. Makes for great story lines and lots of cash. And even if rematches make a good story rarely does the game meet the hype. When it comes down to it take the easy money and run.
But is you are trying to imply a non P5 conf champ deserved to get in over a conf champ p5 team with multiple losses.., it could happen, but I do not think they could do it in 1 year.
What I mean, and this is unfortunate for these teams, it would take a team like UCF for Example. They go undefeated this year, on top of last years BCS bowl win.
This year would include wins over PSU, MIZZ, and BYU.
They would at that point be ranked in the polls into the top 10 at least if not 5.
If you have 2 conf champs with at least 2 losses, I could see the committee ranking them 4.
I still don't think a conf gets more than 1 team until it goes to 8. Too much money on the line. When at all possible , playoffs love having east vs west , north vs south, acc vs sec, big vs pac.. Makes for great story lines and lots of cash. And even if rematches make a good story rarely does the game meet the hype. When it comes down to it take the easy money and run.
Posted on 7/5/14 at 10:22 pm to 3rddownonthe8
No I am saying there will not be 2 SEC teams in playoff due to committee placing weight into CCG winners.
Posted on 7/5/14 at 10:27 pm to sms151t
Yeah. I've been saying that all along. It would absolutely take a couple of multiple loss conf champs and the non champ could only have 1 loss and a hell of a resume besides.
Posted on 7/5/14 at 11:07 pm to Socratics
You ask a lot of questions. Alabama and auburn play at the end of the year, so it's hard for the loser of that game to be seen as deserving.
What if UF beats your arse 56 to nothing but You are undefeated in the ACC that same year and it's your only loss.
Would you be upset if the selection committee burst out laughing when they got to FSU?
What if UF beats your arse 56 to nothing but You are undefeated in the ACC that same year and it's your only loss.
Would you be upset if the selection committee burst out laughing when they got to FSU?
Posted on 7/6/14 at 6:11 am to randomways
Whenever someone says "best team" in these discussions what they really mean is the big time team with the most press clippings. Think Miami at the start of the 00s, USC for about four years in the early to mid 2000s and Alabama for the 09-12 run. What is annoying about this to everyone but a proponent of those teams is the criteria by which teams should be crowned NC change from year to year because the most favored media team has different warts from year to year.
Most members of the media were fairly outraged that their USC darling was not in the BCS Championship game. The whipping boy for that became OU and the particular magical criteria for why they shouldn't have been included became them failing to win their conference. It was an admittedly arbitrary argument given that USC had the worst resume of the three 2003 teams in contention (with only one win against a team that finished in the top 25 team prior to their bowl game) but it was a criteria and it more than anything probably kept a 2006 rematch between Michigan and tOSU from replacing a new match between tOSU and Florida.
But 2011 was a different story. Oklahoma State had a much better resume with a slew of quality wins, while Alabama had really only one good win having beaten Arkansas, lost at home, and they failed to even win their division. Now the eyeball test emerged. Without a premiere name program to compete against the prior criteria that allowed Florida to replace Michigan in the BCS NCG were thrown out the window and Alabama got a second shot against a team they had already lost to at home while Oklahoma State (a team that won their division and came from the same conference as a team that handled Alabama just this year in their bowl game) was left with no credit for beating a very good Stanford team with the best college quarterback in recent history.
Anyway, because people are such complete unfair and inconsistent shits when it comes to declaring football championships you do need some rules and transparent criteria by which teams will be selected. Otherwise its going to be Notre Dame, USC, OU, Alabama type teams getting in regularly at the expense of teams with superior credentials. Requiring a conference championship for entry into a field limited to only four really isn't a bad idea. A tournament of champions is what we, as fans, should want to see at the end of the year. We should want to see the best from each conference play. We should not want the prior results from regular season conference play devalued. And we should be pleased that something in the playoff system is giving some value to the regular seasons conference championship and other crucial games.
Most members of the media were fairly outraged that their USC darling was not in the BCS Championship game. The whipping boy for that became OU and the particular magical criteria for why they shouldn't have been included became them failing to win their conference. It was an admittedly arbitrary argument given that USC had the worst resume of the three 2003 teams in contention (with only one win against a team that finished in the top 25 team prior to their bowl game) but it was a criteria and it more than anything probably kept a 2006 rematch between Michigan and tOSU from replacing a new match between tOSU and Florida.
But 2011 was a different story. Oklahoma State had a much better resume with a slew of quality wins, while Alabama had really only one good win having beaten Arkansas, lost at home, and they failed to even win their division. Now the eyeball test emerged. Without a premiere name program to compete against the prior criteria that allowed Florida to replace Michigan in the BCS NCG were thrown out the window and Alabama got a second shot against a team they had already lost to at home while Oklahoma State (a team that won their division and came from the same conference as a team that handled Alabama just this year in their bowl game) was left with no credit for beating a very good Stanford team with the best college quarterback in recent history.
Anyway, because people are such complete unfair and inconsistent shits when it comes to declaring football championships you do need some rules and transparent criteria by which teams will be selected. Otherwise its going to be Notre Dame, USC, OU, Alabama type teams getting in regularly at the expense of teams with superior credentials. Requiring a conference championship for entry into a field limited to only four really isn't a bad idea. A tournament of champions is what we, as fans, should want to see at the end of the year. We should want to see the best from each conference play. We should not want the prior results from regular season conference play devalued. And we should be pleased that something in the playoff system is giving some value to the regular seasons conference championship and other crucial games.
Posted on 7/6/14 at 6:50 am to molsusports
quote:
Whenever someone says "best team" in these discussions what they really mean is the big time team with the most press clippings. Think Miami at the start of the 00s, USC for about four years in the early to mid 2000s and Alabama for the 09-12 run. What is annoying about this to everyone but a proponent of those teams is the criteria by which teams should be crowned NC change from year to year because the most favored media team has different warts from year to year.
Most members of the media were fairly outraged that their USC darling was not in the BCS Championship game. The whipping boy for that became OU and the particular magical criteria for why they shouldn't have been included became them failing to win their conference. It was an admittedly arbitrary argument given that USC had the worst resume of the three 2003 teams in contention (with only one win against a team that finished in the top 25 team prior to their bowl game) but it was a criteria and it more than anything probably kept a 2006 rematch between Michigan and tOSU from replacing a new match between tOSU and Florida.
But 2011 was a different story. Oklahoma State had a much better resume with a slew of quality wins, while Alabama had really only one good win having beaten Arkansas, lost at home, and they failed to even win their division. Now the eyeball test emerged. Without a premiere name program to compete against the prior criteria that allowed Florida to replace Michigan in the BCS NCG were thrown out the window and Alabama got a second shot against a team they had already lost to at home while Oklahoma State (a team that won their division and came from the same conference as a team that handled Alabama just this year in their bowl game) was left with no credit for beating a very good Stanford team with the best college quarterback in recent history.
Anyway, because people are such complete unfair and inconsistent shits when it comes to declaring football championships you do need some rules and transparent criteria by which teams will be selected. Otherwise its going to be Notre Dame, USC, OU, Alabama type teams getting in regularly at the expense of teams with superior credentials. Requiring a conference championship for entry into a field limited to only four really isn't a bad idea. A tournament of champions is what we, as fans, should want to see at the end of the year. We should want to see the best from each conference play. We should not want the prior results from regular season conference play devalued. And we should be pleased that something in the playoff system is giving some value to the regular seasons conference championship and other crucial games.
What he said...
Posted on 7/6/14 at 12:10 pm to Tigerman97
3 teams from the SEC will NEVER make the playoffs. 2 will most likely never make the playoffs. The playoffs were generated to screw the SEC in my opinion. Just frustrated that in the examples everyone gives, those teams from the other conferences would NEVER have only 1 loss if they had to run the gauntlet of the SEC. At least none of the Big 12 teams would make it through with one loss outside of the odd year.
Posted on 7/6/14 at 12:21 pm to reedus23
quote:
At least none of the Big 12 teams would make it through with one loss outside of the odd year
quote:
Mizzou fan
Page 5 of 6
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News