Started By
Message
re: Which ranking system do you agree with more: CFP Committee or BCS (if it existed today)
Posted on 11/29/17 at 7:32 am to Bench McElroy
Posted on 11/29/17 at 7:32 am to Bench McElroy
Rankings are a stupid way of determining the best teams. It's never made any sense (which says a lot since we're supposed to be institutions of higher learning). Does anyone really buy that Wisconsin is better than Miami, Alabama, or Georgia?
Just force the Big12 to dissolve and make the conference champions go into a 4 team playoff. Pac12 vs Big Ten and SEC vs ACC for semifinal and the winners play for a Championship.
Just force the Big12 to dissolve and make the conference champions go into a 4 team playoff. Pac12 vs Big Ten and SEC vs ACC for semifinal and the winners play for a Championship.
1
Posted on 11/29/17 at 7:36 am to Bench McElroy
I prefer BCS to take the human element out of the voting.
They should revamp the voting system, using the BCS formula to choose the 4 (or 8, IMO) teams instead of a committee of biased entities.
They should revamp the voting system, using the BCS formula to choose the 4 (or 8, IMO) teams instead of a committee of biased entities.
Posted on 11/29/17 at 7:37 am to The Mad Fratter
quote:
should add stipulation that conference champ has no more than 3 losses.
I disagree. Brings a measure of ambiguity into it and that's what fricks up these systems to begin with.
You win your conference: auto bid. Period. Seed 1-8 by record, though. In your hypothetical, a 3 loss conference champ would open on the road as a lower seed.
The reward for winning a P5 conference should be the chance to play for a title. That doesn't mean you'll get seeding preference over a team with a better record/stronger resume.
Posted on 11/29/17 at 7:38 am to Texas Weazel
quote:
Does anyone really buy that Wisconsin is better than Miami
Yes.
quote:
Alabama
No.
quote:
or Georgia
No.
Posted on 11/29/17 at 7:47 am to TTsTowel
quote:
They should revamp the voting system, using the BCS formula to choose the 4 (or 8, IMO)
I think you are close. The BCS used the AP poll, with biased voters. Using a system, based on math, would establish who the real top 8 are.
I am thinking something similar to Dunkel, where all that counts is wins and losses and strength of schedule. It would change weekly but the additional data input each weekend would leave no doubt after the season.
Strength of schedule would be verified by every teams wins and losses against every opponent.
Math doesn't lie or get swayed by people on the committee that work for schools, with a vested interest.
Posted on 11/29/17 at 7:50 am to Bench McElroy
BCS all day long.
Posted on 11/29/17 at 8:11 am to Hussss
quote:
BCS formula for top 6
Seeds #1 & #2 get byes
could work for now, but there will always be bitching about adding another game. that is the big problem
4 x 16 team conferences, 4 pods, with a conference playoff and championship. Then conferences' 4 winners playoff.
Problem with this is adding another game as well, but you could really get rid of a regular season game in this case, as each conference still will have two games/4 teams in an added game. You would also essentially eliminate Cinderella teams by limiting field to 64, but tough shite, let the other 60 teams in div. 1 play for a secondary league title if they want
Posted on 11/29/17 at 8:17 am to Bench McElroy
The BCS system was far superior. It mitigated the human element, diversified source data types, and eliminated outliers. The BCS WASN'T THE ISSUE! The lack of playoff was the issue...when they added the playoff, there was no need to change anything...but in "their" wisdom, they replaced the far superior system with a f***ing committee? It's beyond retarded. This is why you don't try to fix what is not broken.
As an Auburn fan, I like seeing us at #2, but I fully expected us to be at #4...which in terms of keeping Bama out of the playoff, would have been better (because if Auburn squeaked pass UGA and stayed at 4, the committee wouldn't have put Bama above AU no matter what else happened. Regardless, AU sits at #2 because RIGHT NOW we are playing like #2... if I were Wisconsin, I've got to ask why the "body of work" doesn't seem to matter... is that how we should do it? Should the first half of the season not even matter? AU deserves to be in the playoff if we beat UGA... #2 RIGHT NOW is just dumb based on the resume/body of work
As an Auburn fan, I like seeing us at #2, but I fully expected us to be at #4...which in terms of keeping Bama out of the playoff, would have been better (because if Auburn squeaked pass UGA and stayed at 4, the committee wouldn't have put Bama above AU no matter what else happened. Regardless, AU sits at #2 because RIGHT NOW we are playing like #2... if I were Wisconsin, I've got to ask why the "body of work" doesn't seem to matter... is that how we should do it? Should the first half of the season not even matter? AU deserves to be in the playoff if we beat UGA... #2 RIGHT NOW is just dumb based on the resume/body of work
Posted on 11/29/17 at 8:18 am to Bench McElroy
I prefer the BCS system. What would be ideal for me is if they simply used that to select the top four teams for the CFP. I'm not comfortable with a committee sitting around in a room; too much chance of personal biases, even if unintended, playing a negative role.
Posted on 11/29/17 at 8:21 am to DonaldDuckworth
quote:
The BCS system was far superior. It mitigated the human element, diversified source data types, and eliminated outliers. The BCS WASN'T THE ISSUE! The lack of playoff was the issue...when they added the playoff, there was no need to change anything
This^^^^^^
At first when they announced the four-team playoff, I just assumed they would simply use the BCS formula to select the four teams. I was very disappointed to learn otherwise. To me, it made absolutely no sense to go to a human committee instead of using the BCS formula, which was pretty free of human bias.
Posted on 11/29/17 at 8:28 am to TTsTowel
quote:
I prefer BCS to take the human element out of the voting
Who do you think votes in the polls that comprised 2/3 of the BCS? Aliens? Monkeys? Do you guys ever think? Also the “computers” are a formula written by *gasp* a human, most by a “random” dude who may or may not know much about college football but is good at math and programming.
The committee has been 100% transparent, they are people that have been shown to have integrity and knowledge of the game. For those saying certain schools have people on the committee they are recused when discussing their team and conference. Overall think it’s been very good, way better than the traditional polls and hardly any difference from the BCS.
Posted on 11/29/17 at 8:34 am to TbirdSpur2010
quote:
P5 conference champs plus 3 at large.
The problem with this imo is Conference championship games. Teams that play in and lose a CCG would effectively e eliminated while teams that miss it would lock in a spot. This year for example the loser of the SECCG would be out, that would completely unfair to Auburn if they lost.
Posted on 11/29/17 at 8:42 am to H-Town Tiger
quote:
Teams that play in and lose a CCG would effectively e eliminated while teams that miss it would lock in a spot. This year for example the loser of the SECCG would be out, that would completely unfair to Auburn if they lost.
In this situation, Auburn would lose the auto-bid, but likely have the resume for an at-large spot. Ergo, performing well during the regular season remains important.
Posted on 11/29/17 at 8:48 am to TbirdSpur2010
The biggest problem with the committee, other than the inevitable human bias, is that they are trying to choose the BEST teams which has always been a fallacy and way too subjective.
The most DESERVING teams should be the goal, and yes there is a difference.
The most DESERVING teams should be the goal, and yes there is a difference.
Posted on 11/29/17 at 9:10 am to TbirdSpur2010
quote:
In this situation, Auburn would lose the auto-bid, but likely have the resume for an at-large spot. Ergo, performing well during the regular season remains important
Maybe but with only 2 at large spots essentially, 11-1 Bama would be in, it would largely depend on what else happens either way Auburn is being punished for winning a division while Alabama is rewarded for missing it. You had a similar situation in 2012 with UGA - Bama and Florida.
2014 is an even better example: TCU is a lock for 1 at large (Baylor wins conf based on head to head win). Going into to CCG there were 6 10-2 teams. 4, Wisconsin, GaTech, Missouri, Arizona all played in and lost aCCG. Mich St and Miss St did not. Who do you take as last 2 at large?
Posted on 11/29/17 at 9:13 am to TbirdSpur2010
quote:
Cut out these bullshite cupcake games.
Smaller football programs wouldn't survive without the rent-a-wins.
Posted on 11/29/17 at 9:15 am to Bench McElroy
I prefer anything over the committee. They way over do a process that is just not that difficult.
Posted on 11/29/17 at 9:26 am to UpToPar
quote:
Smaller football programs wouldn't survive without the rent-a-wins.
This will sound heartless, but i truly don't give a frick. The efficacy of the highest level of the sport determining a champion should not be hampered by keeping D2 schools afloat.
Posted on 11/29/17 at 9:31 am to JesusQuintana
quote:
The most DESERVING teams should be the goa
+1
And the BCS formula does this extremely well.
Posted on 11/29/17 at 9:32 am to Bench McElroy
I think both work fine.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News