Started By
Message
re: The Perfect Playoff System
Posted on 9/3/14 at 4:42 pm to Mulat
Posted on 9/3/14 at 4:42 pm to Mulat
quote:
Too bad we can't have this conversation face to face, I am losing some of your points, as I see it, "it is a lose and go home", starts at the conference level, essentially these are mini playoffs if you will. There is no second bite at the apple, one and done or go on.
Basically I see the conference championships as the quarter-finals. If you lose your conference championship game, you do not advance to the playoffs.
Ultimately try to think of the easiest, most elementary structure for a playoff, with no provisions, special rules, subjective voting, byes, or mulligans, and you will see the best system.
8 champions, 7 games, winner take all in a tournament of champions.
The simpler it is, the less room there is for bias and for people to gripe about the outcome.
1
Posted on 9/3/14 at 4:47 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
WildTchoupitoulas
How else do you decide the best teams if not by conference champions?
Various possible ways. Or are you really going to sit there with a straight face and tell us that Rice and La-Lafayette were better than Oklahoma last year?
Posted on 9/3/14 at 4:48 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
Basically I see the conference championships as the quarter-finals. If you lose your conference championship game, you do not advance to the playoffs.
I am with you on this, it appears adding the At Large group is causing the rub
Posted on 9/3/14 at 4:48 pm to Mulat
quote:
it is the addition of the 4 At Large that you think is watering down the playoffs, correct?
That is correct.
"At-large" looks like "wildcard" to me which looks like "Undeserving, but we'll give them another chance" which looks like bullshite.
And 12 teams looks like some teams will get a "bye" which looks like copping out, which again looks like bullshite.
All of that overcomplicates an otherwise simple and elegant solution.
ANY system you devise will produce criers. The criers in the system I propose will be losers and not conference champions and that's okay by me. To include a team that didn't win their conference over a team that did just looks like bias and favoritism - which is exactly what we are trying to minimize with a playoff system. Otherwise, why not just go back to the way it was prior to 1990?.
Posted on 9/3/14 at 4:56 pm to BamaGradinTn
quote:
Or are you really going to sit there with a straight face and tell us that Rice and La-Lafayette were better than Oklahoma last year?
Better how? What criteria do we use to define what "better" is? Let a bunch of people 'vote' on it?
But I can also say that, no, they were not better than Oklahoma, but that doesn't matter. Over the course of the season Baylor was better than Oklahoma, and that's who Oklahoma was up against. The beauty of it is that if Oklahoma wins their conference in my scenario, they could play a ULL or Rice in the semis.
But if you're so afraid that a Rice or ULL would win the whole thing...
...then just say you're scared.
Bama fans sitting there with 23 conference titles would be the absolute LAST people I would expect to be against my proposal. You're looking like Aubie right about now.
Posted on 9/3/14 at 4:59 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
ANY system you devise will produce criers. The criers in the system I propose will be losers and not conference champions and that's okay by me. To include a team that didn't win their conference over a team that did just looks like bias and favoritism - which is exactly what we are trying to minimize with a playoff system. Otherwise, why not just go back to the way it was prior to 1990?.
This helpful, thanks. I think Tiger 2 needs to step in here as I think he may have a different perspective.
My goal was to try and bring the best points of many suggestions and put them into an SEC RANT PLAYOFF Model
Posted on 9/3/14 at 5:09 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
If you take 3 non-power 5 conference champs to go with the big 5, you would have had these to choose from last year:
Rice (10-3...yes, that same Rice that lost by 37 to MIssissippi State. Zero wins vs. ranked opponents.)
La-Lafayette (8-4...including a 20 point loss to, ahem...Arkansas)
Bowling Green (10-3...including a 32 point loss to Indiana. fricking Indiana.)
Fresno State (11-1...but zero games vs. ranked opponents)
Central Florida (11-1...the only team of these five that even merits being in the conversation, and not surprisingly, from one of the old AQ conferences.)
So, once again, why are we discussing these teams in the context of playing for a national championship? Someone explain it to me like I'm a fricking fifth grader. Someone explain to me why these teams should get a seat at the table just because they want one. This isn't fricking NCAA basketball where you only need 6 or 7 players and you can ride one stud's back to an upset.
Here's the thing...the Alabama's and the LSU's of college football get criticized for playing the La-Lafayettes...but now some posters want to actually include those teams in a playoff? I don't think so.
Rice (10-3...yes, that same Rice that lost by 37 to MIssissippi State. Zero wins vs. ranked opponents.)
La-Lafayette (8-4...including a 20 point loss to, ahem...Arkansas)
Bowling Green (10-3...including a 32 point loss to Indiana. fricking Indiana.)
Fresno State (11-1...but zero games vs. ranked opponents)
Central Florida (11-1...the only team of these five that even merits being in the conversation, and not surprisingly, from one of the old AQ conferences.)
So, once again, why are we discussing these teams in the context of playing for a national championship? Someone explain it to me like I'm a fricking fifth grader. Someone explain to me why these teams should get a seat at the table just because they want one. This isn't fricking NCAA basketball where you only need 6 or 7 players and you can ride one stud's back to an upset.
Here's the thing...the Alabama's and the LSU's of college football get criticized for playing the La-Lafayettes...but now some posters want to actually include those teams in a playoff? I don't think so.
Posted on 9/3/14 at 5:12 pm to i am dan
Why would any SEC fan be for anything like that?
Posted on 9/3/14 at 5:12 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
The beauty of it...they could play a ULL or Rice in the semis.
quote:
But if you're so afraid that a Rice or ULL would win the whole thing...
...then just say you're scared.
Bama fans sitting there with 23 conference titles would be the absolute LAST people I would expect to be against my proposal.
Now you're just making no sense whatsoever. Bama fans with 23 conference titles...in a conference that actually means something...put on the same level with winning the goddamn Sunbelt. Are you on crack?
Posted on 9/3/14 at 5:13 pm to 1609tiger
quote:
Why would any SEC fan be for anything like that?
Exactly. Because even in the SEC you get the occasional oddball fan that looks at the NCAA basketball tournament and thinks that it would look great being replicated in NCAA football.
Posted on 9/3/14 at 5:29 pm to Tiger Live2
quote:
I like 12 teams. 8 conference champs
no way.
which 8 conferences?...
12 teams in a play-off adds four weeks/games.. unless the regular season is cut by at least two weeks, it cant happen.
And if that happens the "powder puff" schools on our schedules whose athletic department lives off getting spanked 64-0 every year will dissolve.
You won't see programs rise through the ranks like Appy state or GA Southern
Posted on 9/3/14 at 5:33 pm to BamaGradinTn
No I totally get it.. I have kids soccer games, weddings, volunteer events etc - would love for the regular season to be meaningless so all I would miss is a bunch of exhibition games.
That's what you are going for right?
That's what you are going for right?
Posted on 9/3/14 at 5:34 pm to ejohns74
quote:
which 8 conferences?...
Top 8 by Seeding was the suggestion. So Strength of Schedule with Objective BCS like ranking.
Posted on 9/3/14 at 5:35 pm to TheCaterpillar
quote:
8 teams
- 5 conf champions and the 3 highest ranked at larges using the BCS formula
- Rank them 1-8 using BCS formula
- Round of 8 (first 4 games) are played January 1st on top 4 teams campuses
- Round of 4 (2 games) played in rotating BCS bowls on January 7th
- Round of 2 (title game) played in rotating BCS bowl on January 14th
This satisfies playoff need, conference championship importance, timeline for student athletes, brings major money to top 4 teams with onsite games, and still uses the BCS games.
this
Posted on 9/3/14 at 5:38 pm to skrangeo
quote:
anytime you have an "at large" bid, there will be controversy
Well now it's 4 "at large" bids and no one knows what criteria the selection committee will use. We can all guess, but that committee is slam full of self interest.
Posted on 9/3/14 at 5:39 pm to ejohns74
quote:
8 teams
- 5 conf champions and the 3 highest ranked at larges using the BCS formula
If it is going to be 8, I prefer Conferences Champions for the 8
Posted on 9/3/14 at 5:41 pm to i am dan
Posted on 9/3/14 at 5:42 pm to BamaGradinTn
Here's your problem right here:
They shouldn't get a seat at the table because they want one, that's what YOU'RE proposing. They would get a seat at the table because they are champions.
Likely 2013 seeding (based on final BCS poll):
#1. FSU vs #8. N.Ill.
#2. AU vs #7. Fresno.
#3. MSU vs #6. UCF.
#4. Stan vs #5. Baylor.
Likely finals:
#1. FSU vs #4 Stan
#2. AU vs #3. MSU
Likely championship:
#1. FSU vs #2. AU
Likely champs:
#1. FSU
I would have had no problem with that playoff result.
quote:
Someone explain to me why these teams should get a seat at the table just because they want one.
They shouldn't get a seat at the table because they want one, that's what YOU'RE proposing. They would get a seat at the table because they are champions.
Likely 2013 seeding (based on final BCS poll):
#1. FSU vs #8. N.Ill.
#2. AU vs #7. Fresno.
#3. MSU vs #6. UCF.
#4. Stan vs #5. Baylor.
Likely finals:
#1. FSU vs #4 Stan
#2. AU vs #3. MSU
Likely championship:
#1. FSU vs #2. AU
Likely champs:
#1. FSU
I would have had no problem with that playoff result.
Posted on 9/3/14 at 5:44 pm to Mulat
I am not sure if you are still referring to conferences but their are hardly 5 "top" conferences... this is why tier systems are used... calling a conference "top" 8 out of 10.5 is silly..
Tier 1
SEC
Pac12
Tier 2
ACC
B10
B12
etc...
Bringing bottom tier conferences in the conversation should't happen; however, an "at-large" bid for a team out performing their conference is acceptable
Tier 1
SEC
Pac12
Tier 2
ACC
B10
B12
etc...
Bringing bottom tier conferences in the conversation should't happen; however, an "at-large" bid for a team out performing their conference is acceptable
Posted on 9/3/14 at 5:45 pm to i am dan
making 2 non power conference teams mandantory will screw some pretty good teams from the power conferences that got edged out of their championship.
socialism
socialism
Page 6 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News