Started By
Message
re: I keep seeing the argument for "the 4 best teams should be in the playoff"
Posted on 12/1/16 at 5:30 pm to dbeck
Posted on 12/1/16 at 5:30 pm to dbeck
quote:
If you only take conference champions then the teams know what's at stake. Didn't win your division? Then you've got no room to gripe. It doesn't matter how good you are. Win and get in. That's what fans want to see.
Thing about winning your divison is like the SEC.
All the strong teams are on one side of the conference.
That's why they need to do away with divisions in conferences. That way 1 vs 2 in the conference will always play for the championship
1
Posted on 12/1/16 at 5:32 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
I think this year it would be #1 Alabama (assuming they beat UF) vs #8 Western Michigan.
So you want to start the playoffs with #1 Alabama playing #17 Western Michigan.
Jesus effing Christ.
Posted on 12/1/16 at 5:33 pm to Columbia
The gift was four missed field goals to a team with zero offense.
Posted on 12/1/16 at 5:37 pm to dbeck
If we keep things the way they are (conference alignment-wise):
8 playoff slots
P5 Conference champions get automatic bid
Highest ranked Non-P5 Champ (if ranked in the top 12), gets in (automatic if they're undefeated. If there are multiple undefeated Non-P5 champions, as long as there are less than 4, they are given at large bids)
2 at large teams.
That would mean this year (if the favorites win their Conference Championship games):
1. Alabama
2. Clemson
3. Washington
4. Big 10 Champ
5. Big 12 Champ
6. Western Michigan
7. Ohio State
8. Michigan or Navy
Alabama v. Michigan Clemson v. Ohio State
Big 10 Champ v. Big 12 Champ Washington v. Western Michigan
8 playoff slots
P5 Conference champions get automatic bid
Highest ranked Non-P5 Champ (if ranked in the top 12), gets in (automatic if they're undefeated. If there are multiple undefeated Non-P5 champions, as long as there are less than 4, they are given at large bids)
2 at large teams.
That would mean this year (if the favorites win their Conference Championship games):
1. Alabama
2. Clemson
3. Washington
4. Big 10 Champ
5. Big 12 Champ
6. Western Michigan
7. Ohio State
8. Michigan or Navy
Alabama v. Michigan Clemson v. Ohio State
Big 10 Champ v. Big 12 Champ Washington v. Western Michigan
Posted on 12/1/16 at 5:38 pm to boweswi05
quote:
All the strong teams are on one side of the conference
If this truly is the case then Alabama should beat UF soundly and there's no problem with the system.
quote:
That's why they need to do away with divisions in conferences. That way 1 vs 2 in the conference will always play for the championship
Under that scenario, how do you plan on determining the two best teams in the conference.
Let's say Alabama plays: UK, Vandy, Missouri, Ole Miss, MSU, South Carolina, Georgia and Tennessee
LSU plays: Auburn, Florida, Tennessee, Texas A&M, Georgia, Arkansas, Ole Miss, MSU
Would you consider Alabama the better team for going undefeated while LSU had one loss?
This post was edited on 12/1/16 at 5:40 pm
Posted on 12/1/16 at 5:41 pm to Weagle25
I know an 11-1 record is better than a 10-2 record.
That's not an eye ball test.
That's not an eye ball test.
Posted on 12/1/16 at 5:42 pm to Weagle25
quote:
Everything about the conference championship is determined on the field. Nobody gives their opinion on who it should be. It was played for. The next argument will be about scheduling but I'm up for the idea that non-divisional opponents shouldn't be factored into determining division champs.
And where do OOC losses come into play?
Posted on 12/1/16 at 5:42 pm to Weagle25
quote:
Under that scenario, how do you plan on determining the two best teams in the conference. Let's say Alabama plays: UK, Vandy, Missouri, Ole Miss, MSU, South Carolina, Georgia and Tennessee LSU plays: Auburn, Florida, Tennessee, Texas A&M, Georgia, Arkansas, Ole Miss, MSU Would you consider Alabama the better team for going undefeated while LSU had one loss?
If you think divisons is the best way then fine.
I however do not. As with NCAA basketball in the SEC.
All one conference figure out the scheduling.
They have a mess in the BIG this year because of it.
SEC I believe a fews years back had the same problem. Bama, LSU, Arkansas were all in top 6 I believe.
Posted on 12/1/16 at 5:42 pm to SammyTiger
quote:
I know an 11-1 record is better than a 10-2 record.
That's not an eye ball test.
So you have Western Michigan in your playoff?
Posted on 12/1/16 at 5:44 pm to boweswi05
quote:
I however do not
I asked you, under your scenario how would determine who would play in the conference championship. It a simple question.
quote:
As with NCAA basketball in the SEC.
It's easier to get rid of them in Basketball because you play more games. Plus they have a tournament at the end to determine their champion so bringing them up is pretty odd
This post was edited on 12/1/16 at 5:46 pm
Posted on 12/1/16 at 5:48 pm to rockiee
quote:
And where do OOC losses come into play?
They don't. Why should they be relevant in determining a conference champion?
You can definitively say that the team who won the conference performed the best this season inside that conference though. Hence why I said it's the least subjective way to determine a champion.
This post was edited on 12/1/16 at 5:50 pm
Posted on 12/1/16 at 5:48 pm to rockiee
quote:
And where do OOC losses come into play?
In our current system, OOC games are tiebreakers because we have more conferences than playoff spots as well as very important for seeding purposes.
In a scenario where we have at-large bids who are not conference champions, those OOC games go a long way in determining which at large teams get in.
Posted on 12/1/16 at 5:52 pm to randomways
I really enjoy all the arguments about the system. . . college football has been an argument for as long as I can remember and that's a lot of its charm.
If people took a step back from getting so caught up in "fairness" many would see that the system is not nearly as "broken" as many people seem to imply.
At this point, four teams make the playoff and while it's easy to argue who should have been 4th instead of 5th the big picture was always more about making relatively sure that an undefeated power conference team wouldn't be left out in.
Again, I enjoy the arguments about whether Penn St (if they win the Big10) or Ohio St or Washington should be in. . .
However, in the big picture, all lost big games so any of them simply going to Rose Bowl as reward for a good season seems "fair enough"
We could easily go so overboard in an impossible quest for a perfectly "fair" ending to what's such a quirky, uneven and disorganized regular season that we end up killing much of what makes college football so special . . . and made it special even back when AP voters, who probably watched 1/10 of the games if that many, just voted for the champion.
Posted on 12/1/16 at 5:54 pm to Weagle25
quote:
They don't. Why should they be relevant in determining a conference champion?
I'm not saying they should play a role in determining conference champions
I'm talking about "in theory" a conference champion with one or two bad OOC loses. Maybe you aren't clearing advocating for conference champions to be included in the playoff but many are using that angle and it could get messy with a conference champ who had some bad loses out of conference.
Posted on 12/1/16 at 5:55 pm to wm72
quote:
However, in the big picture, all lost big games so any of them simply going to Rose Bowl as reward for a good season seems "fair enough"
This I agree with. If you didn't go undefeated, you have no room to bitch.
Posted on 12/1/16 at 5:56 pm to Weagle25
quote:
It's easier to get rid of them in Basketball because you play more games. Plus they have a tournament at the end to determine their champion so bringing them up is pretty odd
My point was comparaing it to basketball was the top 4 in the SEC gets byes in the tournament.
You might be the 5th best team in SEC but play in the SEC East and go to the title game.
That doesn't mean because you didn't win your division on the other side you aren't as good as the SEC East champ. That just means they has to beat out 6 teams instead of 12.
Example with Penn State, Ohio State and Michigan this year.
Each of those teams would have won the BIG west division. Just so happens that most of the good teams are in the east division.
That doesn't mean Wisconsin is the 2nd best team in the conference. It just mean divisons made it easier.
Doing away with divisons would eliminate that.
Posted on 12/1/16 at 5:56 pm to kingbob
quote:
In our current system, OOC games are tiebreakers because we have more conferences than playoff spots as well as very important for seeding purposes.
In a scenario where we have at-large bids who are not conference champions, those OOC games go a long way in determining which at large teams get in.
This is what I was asking
I think it all gets much easier if it was expanded to 8 teams. You can't really argue against conference champs getting an automatic bid with 3 other "at large" spots still available.
Posted on 12/1/16 at 5:56 pm to Weagle25
I say Auburn, UAB, Arkansas, and the Alabama institute for the deaf and blind are the 4 best teams. See why that doesn't work?
Posted on 12/1/16 at 5:57 pm to boweswi05
Doing away with divisions also brings up another whole set of problems which for some reason, you're completely ignoring and have no proposed solutions for
Posted on 12/1/16 at 5:58 pm to boweswi05
quote:
Example with Penn State, Ohio State and Michigan this year.
Each of those teams would have won the BIG west division. Just so happens that most of the good teams are in the east division.
I can understand Michigan and Ohio St but why would Penn state win the west division?
Page 3 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News