Started By
Message
re: Would you prefer the selection committee have concrete qualifiers or not?
Posted on 3/12/14 at 1:10 pm to Nado Jenkins83
Posted on 3/12/14 at 1:10 pm to Nado Jenkins83
quote:
There definitely should be a set criteria.
We should have a set of tie breakers.
Remove all bias
Give me a proposal and I will show you the bias.
1
Posted on 3/12/14 at 1:12 pm to elposter
quote:
Give me a proposal and I will show you the bias.
Must compete in SEC Championship game.
would be my first rule.
what would be yours?
Posted on 3/12/14 at 1:12 pm to TheDrunkenTigah
All it really does is resort back to a committee selecting the teams for the bowls, err playoffs.
Instead of the bowl committees doing what's best for their pocket, it is a centralized committee picking for them for two games.
Money bias will still remain the pockets will change, the TV networks will try to influence the teams selected.
Instead of the bowl committees doing what's best for their pocket, it is a centralized committee picking for them for two games.
Money bias will still remain the pockets will change, the TV networks will try to influence the teams selected.
Posted on 3/12/14 at 1:27 pm to Nado Jenkins83
quote:
Must compete in SEC Championship game.
would be my first rule.
So only the SEC championship participants can qualify for the playoffs?
That seems like a weird rule (and would limit the candidates to two teams and therefore you couldn't even have a four team playoff), and it sure as hell is biased against the rest of the country.
Try again?
Posted on 3/12/14 at 1:28 pm to elposter
quote:
So only the SEC championship participants can qualify for the playoffs?
That seems like a weird rule (and would limit the candidates to two teams and therefore you couldn't even have a four team playoff), and it sure as hell is biased against the rest of the country.
Try again?
I mean for SEC teams. OK Must compete in their conference championship.
Happy?
Posted on 3/12/14 at 1:29 pm to TheDrunkenTigah
Personally I feel this committee is going to get thrown under the bus big time by everyone when controversy strikes. Then we will expand the playoffs again.
Should have kept the BCS rankings and expanded it out to four teams. At least then you knew the criteria.
Should have kept the BCS rankings and expanded it out to four teams. At least then you knew the criteria.
Posted on 3/12/14 at 1:31 pm to Ross
quote:
Should have kept the BCS rankings and expanded it out to four teams. At least then you knew the criteria.
My thoughts exactly. If your #4 (just be happy you are getting a shot). #5 you can't be that upset
Posted on 3/12/14 at 1:32 pm to elposter
Stop being a douche, there are plenty of HUNH threads around if that's your thing.
Posted on 3/12/14 at 1:38 pm to Ross
quote:
I feel this committee is going to get thrown under the bus big time
My thoughts exactly. They're in an impossible situation. At least the polls spread the blame over a few hundred people and some computers. This feels like a step backward, but I'm curious as to how they will run the process. Adopt rules and you risk letting a shitty team sneak in, don't adopt rules and it's open season for the biggest tv market.
Posted on 3/12/14 at 1:40 pm to Ross
quote:
Should have kept the BCS rankings and expanded it out to four teams. At least then you knew the criteria.
All the data will still be in place, human polls and computer polls.
It will be like the NCAA tournament in basketball where the committee will take the human polls and computer polls and select the teams.
With less teams to examine (likely top 15 or so in the polls) the committee will have an easier job to see whose data is being greatly manipulated like in the BCS where the #5-8 team in the human polls was #1 in several of the computer polls.
Posted on 3/12/14 at 1:48 pm to TheDrunkenTigah
Top 4 of the BCS.
It's really not that complicated.
It's really not that complicated.
Posted on 3/12/14 at 2:00 pm to skrayper
There is no BCS.
Posted on 3/12/14 at 2:12 pm to TheDrunkenTigah
W-L, polls, sos...
but I also thnk whether or not you win your conference should factor into tiebreakers
ie...
COACHES POLL:
1 - FSU ( 13-0 ) CONF CHAMPION
2 - LSU ( 12-1 ) CONF CHAMPION
3 - TEX AM ( 11-1 )
4 - OSU (12-1) CONF CHAMP
5 - TEXAS ( 11-1 ) CONF CHAMP
PLAYOFF SHOULD BE:
FSU VS TEXAS
LSU VS OSU
but I also thnk whether or not you win your conference should factor into tiebreakers
ie...
COACHES POLL:
1 - FSU ( 13-0 ) CONF CHAMPION
2 - LSU ( 12-1 ) CONF CHAMPION
3 - TEX AM ( 11-1 )
4 - OSU (12-1) CONF CHAMP
5 - TEXAS ( 11-1 ) CONF CHAMP
PLAYOFF SHOULD BE:
FSU VS TEXAS
LSU VS OSU
Posted on 3/12/14 at 2:18 pm to 3rddownonthe8
I wish there was no committee, and they would have just kept the BCS formula and have #1 v #4 and #2 v 3.
However, If they would have done that I would have also been ok with them shuffling the seeding to avoid rematches in the semi finals. If you would have had the playoff in 2008 using the BCS would have given you #1 Oklahoma vs #4 Alabama and #2 Florida vs #3 Texas, which works out, but what if the final BCS had switched Florida and Oklahoma? You would have had rematches in both semi finals. That's why I think seeding should be a *little* fluid.
However, If they would have done that I would have also been ok with them shuffling the seeding to avoid rematches in the semi finals. If you would have had the playoff in 2008 using the BCS would have given you #1 Oklahoma vs #4 Alabama and #2 Florida vs #3 Texas, which works out, but what if the final BCS had switched Florida and Oklahoma? You would have had rematches in both semi finals. That's why I think seeding should be a *little* fluid.
Posted on 3/12/14 at 2:27 pm to 3rddownonthe8
quote:
W-L, polls, sos...
but I also thnk whether or not you win your conference should factor into tiebreakers
ie...
COACHES POLL:
1 - FSU ( 13-0 ) CONF CHAMPION
2 - LSU ( 12-1 ) CONF CHAMPION
3 - TEX AM ( 11-1 )
4 - OSU (12-1) CONF CHAMP
5 - TEXAS ( 11-1 ) CONF CHAMP
PLAYOFF SHOULD BE:
FSU VS TEXAS
LSU VS OSU
This is the only acceptable answer.
Posted on 3/12/14 at 2:28 pm to TheDrunkenTigah
Concrete qualifiers, concrete overshoes...six of one, half dozen of the other, you know
Posted on 3/12/14 at 2:28 pm to BamaDude06
quote:
wish there was no committee, and they would have just kept the BCS formula and have #1 v #4 and #2 v 3.
However, If they would have done that I would have also been ok with them shuffling the seeding to avoid rematches in the semi finals. If you would have had the playoff in 2008 using the BCS would have given you #1 Oklahoma vs #4 Alabama and #2 Florida vs #3 Texas, which works out, but what if the final BCS had switched Florida and Oklahoma? You would have had rematches in both semi finals. That's why I think seeding should be a *little* fluid.
I don't see why the rematches would matter there.
You get in is all that should matter to teams.
Im sure the teams won't care as long as they are in.
Posted on 3/12/14 at 2:32 pm to Nado Jenkins83
quote:
I don't see why the rematches would matter there.
You get in is all that should matter to teams.
Im sure the teams won't care as long as they are in.
The only reason they are going to a playoff is for the TV money. You want as many eye balls as possible, and having BOTH semi finals be rematches will have a negative effect. This isn't the NFL playoffs were casual fans are going to automatically tune in. You have to give people reason to watch.
Posted on 3/12/14 at 2:35 pm to BamaDude06
quote:
The only reason they are going to a playoff is for the TV money. You want as many eye balls as possible, and having BOTH semi finals be rematches will have a negative effect. This isn't the NFL playoffs were casual fans are going to automatically tune in. You have to give people reason to watch.
Yeah, this is why if any set criteria it would be for a conference champ.
This would make it sure that you had a west coast team (Pac12), north/midwest team (Big10), then two teams from the south/east (ACC, SEC, Big12).
If they had their way you would see the Rose Bowl handling the first round every year between the big10/PAC12 champ with the winner taking on the winner from the other side from the other 3 conferences.
Posted on 3/12/14 at 2:39 pm to BamaDude06
quote:
The only reason they are going to a playoff is for the TV money. You want as many eye balls as possible, and having BOTH semi finals be rematches will have a negative effect. This isn't the NFL playoffs were casual fans are going to automatically tune in. You have to give people reason to watch.
Yeah I agree with this.
So you don't think it will be a #1 vs #4 and #2 vs #3 setup?
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News