Started By
Message
re: SEC Playoff scenario
Posted on 7/6/14 at 1:10 pm to geauxnavybeatbama
Posted on 7/6/14 at 1:10 pm to geauxnavybeatbama
That's why I mentioned the Big 12 specifically. Experience of playing Big 12 teams versus playing SEC teams, there is no doubt in my mind that the SEC gauntlet is much tougher.
0
Posted on 7/6/14 at 2:44 pm to sms151t
quote:
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.
Um...I assume you just looked the word up without looking at the context in which I used it? You can certainly make two different ideas. But that wasn't what I was saying. I was saying you can't separate the concept of "national champion" from that of "the best." It makes absolutely no sense to do so, since without the latter, the former has no special significance whatsoever. What would be the point of anointing a team as national champions if you're not aiming for a superlative? Hence my observation that you might as well pick four of the worst teams to play for the title if being the best isn't implied by the contest. And, to add on to the same point, how is winning championships somehow located in a different array from winning games? You don't win championships without winning games, and my point is that artificially restricting the parameters to ultimately focus on a single game -- a specific single game, decided in advance of the season with no ability to discriminate using all available evidence -- is intellectual sterile at best.
I'm not discussing this with the committee. I'm discussing this with you, and you most certainly did make that restriction. If the committee wants to come on SEC-R and argue, I'd present them with the exact same response. The actual application of intelligent analysis remains not only viable, but preferable to checking off a box and calling it a day. It's not like they aren't going to be doing it even if they artificially restrict the field to conference winners. It's simple math. Five major conferences. Four spots. At some point every single year, they will have to exercise their powers of critical thinking. If they can, and must, do it at least once, it's pure laziness to refuse to do it four times (and expanding the field to 8 doesn't solve the issue. It exacerbates it, because then they'd be doing it at least three times.)
Posted on 7/6/14 at 2:49 pm to Socratics
Even with Jeff Long heading the committee, the undercurrent will be to NOT take more than one from the SEC unless it's just so blatantly indefensible to do so. Tie for a spot will always go to another conference. We should have one every year though I would believe. JMHO.
Posted on 7/6/14 at 2:54 pm to randomways
What the hell? The committee has said that the CCG winners will get extra emphasis. Just because I agree with the committee and you think in your view they are wrong, I am wrong.
Next time leave your Roget's closed and stop acting like you are the founding member of MENSA.
Next time leave your Roget's closed and stop acting like you are the founding member of MENSA.
Posted on 7/6/14 at 3:00 pm to sms151t
quote:
What the hell? The committee has said that the CCG winners will get extra emphasis. Just because I agree with the committee and you think in your view they are wrong, I am wrong.
Next time leave your Roget's closed and stop acting like you are the founding member of MENSA.
Yes, I think you're wrong. You think I'm wrong. How was that not clear from the beginning?
I apologize if having an actual intelligent conversation about football frustrates you. Perhaps you should have told me that earlier in our exchange in order to avert reaching this point where you snap and start ranting. Prevention is key, my friend. I guess this conversation is over.
This post was edited on 7/6/14 at 3:01 pm
Posted on 7/6/14 at 5:59 pm to randomways
quote:
It makes absolutely no sense to do so, since without the latter, the former has no special significance whatsoever. What would be the point of anointing a team as national champions if you're not aiming for a superlative?
With respect to college football this is more rationalization and advocacy for name programs than reality. The best team isn't generally an objectively best team historically - often there are other teams which were overlooked and lacked the same prestige.
With a rational four team tournament intended to provide opportunity for deserving teams while preserving the value of the regular season you might see an improvement from a relatively terrible system. Using the top four seeded conference champions would be a pretty logical way to do this IMO. It is possible for one of the best teams in the country to fail to win their conference (e.g. 2006 LSU) but in so failing they deserved to lose their opportunity to win a national championship IMO.
If this were made a transparent rule I think the integrity of the committee and the college game would be improved and the potential objections of reasonable people would be removed. A reasonable person is not a SEC homer that thinks a four team tournament should include multiple teams from their conference.
Posted on 7/6/14 at 6:53 pm to observant1
quote:
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?
You didn't read the playoff criteria before making this comment did you?
Playoff criteria
Teams will be chosen based on several factors including conference championships, strength of schedule, head-to-head competition, comparing common opponents and injuries.
USCe and Florida have a leg up on the rest of the SEC when the second SEC team is chosen for the playoffs by beating their instate rivals.
Based on that criteria, Florida would of been chosen in 2012 without much doubt in my mind.
I was just trying too spark some intelligent debate.
Posted on 7/6/14 at 7:32 pm to molsusports
quote:
With respect to college football this is more rationalization and advocacy for name programs than reality. The best team isn't generally an objectively best team historically - often there are other teams which were overlooked and lacked the same prestige.
With a rational four team tournament intended to provide opportunity for deserving teams while preserving the value of the regular season you might see an improvement from a relatively terrible system. Using the top four seeded conference champions would be a pretty logical way to do this IMO. It is possible for one of the best teams in the country to fail to win their conference (e.g. 2006 LSU) but in so failing they deserved to lose their opportunity to win a national championship IMO.
If this were made a transparent rule I think the integrity of the committee and the college game would be improved and the potential objections of reasonable people would be removed.
Doesn't the expansion of the playoff mitigate the problem you're discussing? When there were literally only two teams allowed to play for the title, then subjectivity takes on a greater magnitude. Once you expand to four teams, the problem is less pronounced (and even less pronounced upon the hypothetical expansion to eight teams.) The problem of excessive subjectivity can then very reasonably be contrasted with the problem of lacking objectivity. The distinction between the two isn't strictly polar -- one can have too much subjectivity in performance while at least having an objective understanding in theory. If we make the top four teams automatic qualifiers, we're undercutting the potential for objectivity. That is, it's "objective" only in the most superficial sense. Fundamentally, it's saying that we're so afraid of subjective perspective that we're handing out glorified Participation Awards. Did you win a major conference? Congratulations, you participated! You get to move on! That just doesn't sit well with me because I'm not seeing the way a de facto single-elimination in conference championship games furthers the cause of honoring the regular season. If anything, I think it does the opposite. You can lose 3 games -- 25% of your total -- and another team can lose 1 game -- 8% of its total -- and the regular season suddenly becomes a farce...and even more so if their resumes are radically different (say, the one loss was to the #1 team, the three losses are to three mediocre teams.)
I get why some people are dead set on using the conference championship criterion, honestly I do. They're worried about the potential slapfights in the wake of Selection Sunday (or whatever day the committee decides to release its choices and seedings.) But we're burning too many bridges, as far as I'm concerned, by quashing subjective analysis via a rigid, barely-yielding system. You're replacing the "prestige" factor that you talk about with an equally-flawed presumption of quality, and in doing so, you're actually risking the same injustice, i.e. omitting a deserving team. If you're going to do that, why not give the selection enough breathing room to at least attempt to avoid the problem? With the CC paradigm, they don't even have the option of making the right choice in a situation where one team appears more deserving after an analysis of their entire schedule. It's basically saying, "We want to avoid miscarriages of justice, so we'll ensure that any potential miscarriages are required rather than optional." It saves the committee a lot of headache, certainly, but I personally consider that a weak way out of a dilemma.
quote:
A reasonable person is not a SEC homer that thinks a four team tournament should include multiple teams from their conference.
I do object to this part. Nothing in my argument's formulation requires that the potential multi-team conference be the SEC. As far as I'm concerned, my points apply equally regardless of conference. If Oregon and Stanford are both generally regarded as better than the SEC champion, that's just how it goes. The only way it could be SEC-centric is if one assumes that the SEC is the conference most likely to have multiple top 4 teams at the end of the regular season, which is actually is a homer-ish assertion.
Posted on 7/6/14 at 8:05 pm to randomways
quote:
Doesn't the expansion of the playoff mitigate the problem you're discussing?
Not if we have serious people talking about at large bids as a priority (when there are five plus major conferences). Florida from two years ago is an obvious example IMO. They were a team that did not win their division and was not in the same division as the winner of the conference but we see people giving them serious thought as participants in a four team playoff. Beating FSU that year is great an all but obviously doesn't mean they were a top four team - especially not after seeing what the Big East champion did to them in the Sugar Bowl.
The lessen from that would be obvious on a non-SEC populated message board. The well-regarded champ from another conference, at a minimum, deserves a chance to compete when we see a highly regarded SEC team taken to the woodshed by Louisville like that.
quote:
The problem of excessive subjectivity can then very reasonably be contrasted with the problem of lacking objectivity
those aren't opposing or contrasting problems, excessive subjectivity runs the sport and prevents people who try to do objective comparisons from getting any traction in the public. the system lacks objectivity because of excessive subjectivity.
quote:
you're actually risking the same injustice, i.e. omitting a deserving team.
everyone save the fans of the major programs with the most media boosters (ND, USC, Alabama, OU, etc) currently suffers because of excessive partiality which favors those teams. I can be at peace with a system like 2006 when LSU is eliminated because they lost a game that they needed to win to win their conference. I've said that since 2006 even though I thought that LSU team could beat anyone and in some ways might have been the best team in the country.
I can not be at peace with a system where I know the rules will be regularly shite upon in favor of the media darlings with the most subjective boosters insisting that the eyeball test is what favors their team and that their special team deserves extra chances while others receive lesser treatment.
quote:
I do object to this part. Nothing in my argument's formulation requires that the potential multi-team conference be the SEC. As far as I'm concerned, my points apply equally regardless of conference. If Oregon and Stanford are both generally regarded as better than the SEC champion, that's just how it goes. The only way it could be SEC-centric is if one assumes that the SEC is the conference most likely to have multiple top 4 teams at the end of the regular season, which is actually is a homer-ish assertion.
For teh moment at least the SEC is the conference getting unfair boosts in the polls. That's the reality.
What I care about is a fair and sustainable system that I will like not just now but also in the future when the wheel has turned and the SEC's prestige is not as high. Then all the SEC homers will be pissed because suddenly it is their favorite conference getting passed over without fair opportunity.
Posted on 7/6/14 at 8:44 pm to DirtyDawg
quote:
Larry, please go mountain biking with a cactus shoved up your arse hole.
Page 6 of 6
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News