Started By
Message
re: Would you prefer the selection committee have concrete qualifiers or not?
Posted on 3/12/14 at 2:40 pm to DaleDenton
Posted on 3/12/14 at 2:40 pm to DaleDenton
quote:
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).
Yeah but you would of had a 5 loss Wisconsin team in it in 2012, and 6 loss UCLA and Georgia Tech gave Oregon and Florida State fits in their conference championship games recently too.
0
Posted on 3/12/14 at 2:41 pm to Nado Jenkins83
I think the top 4 will be fluid , there is no reason to assume that the polls 1-4 would be the committes in that order.
I think if the polls and the end of 2014. Are something like:
1. FSU
2 UGA
3 OHIO St
4 OREGON
we may see the commitee say, especially if records are equal .
1 FSU
2 OSU
3 OREGON
4 UGA.
That way you get
ROSE- OSU-OREGON
SUGAR- FSU-UGA
That makes for good TV and happy bowls and easy travel. And lots of money.
I think the committee and hosting bowls are gonna gave big time discussions on seeding, not necessarily what teams but who is 1-4 once teams are decided .
I think if the polls and the end of 2014. Are something like:
1. FSU
2 UGA
3 OHIO St
4 OREGON
we may see the commitee say, especially if records are equal .
1 FSU
2 OSU
3 OREGON
4 UGA.
That way you get
ROSE- OSU-OREGON
SUGAR- FSU-UGA
That makes for good TV and happy bowls and easy travel. And lots of money.
I think the committee and hosting bowls are gonna gave big time discussions on seeding, not necessarily what teams but who is 1-4 once teams are decided .
Posted on 3/12/14 at 2:41 pm to TheDrunkenTigah
They should use the BCS formula to make their decision, but one of the rules should be you have to win your conference championship. Every conference must have a championship game in order for the schools to be eligible. The Notre dames of the world are in eligible as an independent. I hate how the NCAA is trying this new system, but decided to make like a fricking 15 year contract. It's gonna be a shitty 15 years if this don't workout.
Posted on 3/12/14 at 2:44 pm to geauxnavybeatbama
quote:
I hate how the NCAA is trying this new system, but decided to make like a fricking 15 year contract. It's gonna be a shitty 15 years if this don't workout.
Yeah but I don't think the contracts prevent them from changing how the four teams are selected, they were only put in place so three or four years down the road it doesn't balloon into an eight or sixteen team playoff.
This post was edited on 3/12/14 at 2:46 pm
Posted on 3/12/14 at 2:45 pm to TheDrunkenTigah
quote:
Which do you think would best serve college football... having set-in-stone qualifications that dictate what a team must do to make it, or allowing this panel completely subjective choice over who goes?
I can't see how anyone would argue for the subjective - at least not unless they were doing it out of pure self interest.
Fairness seems like a virtue. Knowing what gets you into the biggest dance just makes sense. With four teams I'd think you could set up some pretty common sense criteria like:
#1 ranked team is in.
teams 2-4 are in if they won their conference or are independents.
teams 5 or 6 may be in if they won their conference and all four slots have not been filled.
Posted on 3/12/14 at 2:45 pm to 3rddownonthe8
I see what you mean.
Im sure I won't like their decisions. Most of these committee members don't know that much.
Im sure I won't like their decisions. Most of these committee members don't know that much.
Posted on 3/12/14 at 2:46 pm to parkjas2001
quote:
Do it like basketball...nobody knows who selects or the criteria.
It removes biases.
how? The people who select still know. So their biases are still there.
Posted on 3/12/14 at 2:51 pm to SammyTiger
quote:
quote:
Do it like basketball...nobody knows who selects or the criteria.
It removes biases.
how? The people who select still know. So their biases are still there.
Yeah I didnt comment on that because it was pretty dumb.
Posted on 3/12/14 at 3:09 pm to geauxnavybeatbama
quote:
They should use the BCS formula to make their decision, but one of the rules should be you have to win your conference championship. Every conference must have a championship game in order for the schools to be eligible. The Notre dames of the world are in eligible as an independent.
That would have worked pretty well last year imo, although it would have hurt Alabama.
Would have had:
#1 - FSU
#2 - Auburn
#4 - Mich St
#5 - Stanford
Not bad.
"Left out":
#3 Bama
However, that would approach would have been kind of
in 2012: Would have had:
#2 - Bama
#6 - Stanford
#12 - FSU
#15 - Northern Illinois?
"Left out":
#1 - ND
#3 - UF
#4 - Oregon
#5 - KSU
#7 - UGA
#8 - LSU
#9 - TX A&M
#10 - S. Carolina
#11 - Oklahoma
#13 - Oregon State
#14 - Clemson
I think in 2011 it would have been:
#1 - LSU
#5 - Oregon
#10 - Wisconsin
#15 - Clemson
"Left out"
#2 - Bama
#3 - Ok State
#4 - Stanford
#6 - Arkansas
#7 - Boise St
#8 - KSU
#9 - S. Carolina
#11 - Va Tech
#12 - Baylor
#13 - Mich
#14 - Oklahoma
Would be/will be some interesting conversations for sure.
Posted on 3/12/14 at 3:19 pm to elposter
I'm sure winning your conference will be the deciding factor between two teams with as similar resume.
You may hear of the committee placing a great importance on this like they do winning road games to be in a tournament played at neutral sites like in Basketball. Shouldn't the neutral site record be more important since that is where the games are played? It is if the team was good there but sucked on the road, it is ignored if the team sucked at neutral sites but had a better road record than the other team in the running.
Point is you will see many different ways for the committee to justify putting in the teams they want, just like you do with the NCAA tournament in basketball, you will likely see them talking out of both sides of their mouth the same year for the teams picked for the playoff like you do for the basketball tourney.
You may hear of the committee placing a great importance on this like they do winning road games to be in a tournament played at neutral sites like in Basketball. Shouldn't the neutral site record be more important since that is where the games are played? It is if the team was good there but sucked on the road, it is ignored if the team sucked at neutral sites but had a better road record than the other team in the running.
Point is you will see many different ways for the committee to justify putting in the teams they want, just like you do with the NCAA tournament in basketball, you will likely see them talking out of both sides of their mouth the same year for the teams picked for the playoff like you do for the basketball tourney.
Posted on 3/12/14 at 3:26 pm to elposter
quote:
I think in 2011 it would have been:
#1 - LSU
#5 - Oregon
#10 - Wisconsin
#15 - Clemson
"Left out"
#2 - Bama
#3 - Ok State
#4 - Stanford
#6 - Arkansas
#7 - Boise St
#8 - KSU
#9 - S. Carolina
#11 - Va Tech
#12 - Baylor
#13 - Mich
#14 - Oklahoma
I'm confused by what possible criteria would leave out Ok State if you're including Oregon, Wisconsin, and Clemson instead of them. They won their conference, beat a bunch of ranked teams, and finished highly ranked (#2 overall in the computers behind LSU)
This post was edited on 3/12/14 at 3:27 pm
Posted on 3/12/14 at 3:29 pm to elposter
I think they will probably use a filter process ..
something like ..
ACC, BIG, B12, PAC12, SEC CHAMPIONS RANKED IN TOP 8
INDEPENDANTS , ALL OTHER CONF CHAMPIONS and NON-CONF CHAMPIONS, RANKED IN TOP 6
they will get their list down to 12-8 , and then start eliminating them based on SOS and just plain ole eye test...
once they get down to 5 or 6 they'll start using how the teams did in their division and or conference, conf championship results , etc.
I think it is a very good chance that someone ranked in the polls in the top 4, will get left out most years.
One thing is for sure if you go undefeated out of the ACC, BIG, B12, PAC12, SEC, & you are ND you are getting in.
something like ..
ACC, BIG, B12, PAC12, SEC CHAMPIONS RANKED IN TOP 8
INDEPENDANTS , ALL OTHER CONF CHAMPIONS and NON-CONF CHAMPIONS, RANKED IN TOP 6
they will get their list down to 12-8 , and then start eliminating them based on SOS and just plain ole eye test...
once they get down to 5 or 6 they'll start using how the teams did in their division and or conference, conf championship results , etc.
I think it is a very good chance that someone ranked in the polls in the top 4, will get left out most years.
One thing is for sure if you go undefeated out of the ACC, BIG, B12, PAC12, SEC, & you are ND you are getting in.
Posted on 3/12/14 at 3:29 pm to molsusports
quote:
I'm confused by what possible criteria would leave out Ok State if you're including Stanford, FSU, and one other instead of them. They won their conference, beat a bunch of ranked teams, and finished highly ranked (#2 overall in the computers behind LSU)
I was just using geauxnavybeatbama's criteria above me. I don't think Ok State won a conference championship game, so they are disqualified.
Point is that all set in stone criteria systems can have pretty big perceived "flaws" or unforeseen/unintended results. This is an interesting question and will certainly generate a ton of conversation for college football towards this end of every season, which in and of itself can be a good thing.
Posted on 3/12/14 at 3:31 pm to molsusports
I believe he is responding to someone that said you should have to win a conference championship game.
Posted on 3/12/14 at 3:32 pm to TheDrunkenTigah
Yes
Co-division championship is a prerequisite.
Co-division championship is a prerequisite.
Posted on 3/12/14 at 3:39 pm to elposter
quote:
I was just using geauxnavybeatbama's criteria above me. I don't think Ok State won a conference championship game, so they are disqualified.
ugg, I read it.
that's the dumbest criteria I've read in this thread. You can't automatically disqualify every independent and every major team that plays in a conference without a conference championship game. You will end up with a playoff missing the top seed or multiple top seeds - and therefore lose all credibility. His proposal reads like a proposal from someone who just hates everything not exactly like his conference.
quote:
Point is that all set in stone criteria systems can have pretty big perceived "flaws" or unforeseen/unintended results.
What would be the problem with the criteria I outlined above? Especially:
1) top (#1) ranked team is in
2) teams 2-4 are automatically in if they are independents or won their conference.
3) teams 5-6 are in if they won their conference and there are unfilled slots after step 2.
4) teams 2-4 are in automatically (regardless of conference championship criteria) if there are unfilled slots after step 3.
This post was edited on 3/12/14 at 3:41 pm
Posted on 3/12/14 at 3:43 pm to elposter
Damn I didn't realize it would be the spread out for ranked teams by my theory. But I still think if you aren't the best in your conference you shouldn't be up for best in the nation. Last year was perfect because the iron bowl was essentially a playoff game. And then so was the seccg.
Posted on 3/12/14 at 3:45 pm to molsusports
quote:
What would be the problem with the criteria I outlined above? Especially:
1) top (#1) ranked team is in
2) teams 2-4 are automatically in if they are independents or won their conference.
3) teams 5-6 are in if they won their conference and there are unfilled slots after step 2.
4) teams 2-4 are in automatically (regardless of conference championship criteria) if there are unfilled slots after step 3.
I'm presuming you are basically using something like the BCS formula for the rankings? I could live with this. Ensures that you won't go past the top 6 teams just for the sake of putting undue weight to winning a crappy conference, but you also essentially break "close calls" by factoring in conference championships. Not bad.
Posted on 3/12/14 at 3:47 pm to molsusports
IN THE NEAR FUTURE I HOPE...
I would like to see in the near future...
1st week in December - 5 CCG, 3 at large games ( decided by selection commitee) at pre determined neutral sites - no limitation on conf entries
2nd week in December - re-seeded qtr finals on campus, all games to be scheduled for kick sometime after completion of Army-Navy.
Winners advance to the New Years semi finals and on to national title game as planned
* side note that's a full 16 team tournament , accomplished with just 1 extra week than now.
* ncaa bball tournament made up up 32 automatic, 36 at large 56% at large
* this would be 10 automatic with 6 at large 38% at large - which isn't bad.
I would like to see in the near future...
1st week in December - 5 CCG, 3 at large games ( decided by selection commitee) at pre determined neutral sites - no limitation on conf entries
2nd week in December - re-seeded qtr finals on campus, all games to be scheduled for kick sometime after completion of Army-Navy.
Winners advance to the New Years semi finals and on to national title game as planned
* side note that's a full 16 team tournament , accomplished with just 1 extra week than now.
* ncaa bball tournament made up up 32 automatic, 36 at large 56% at large
* this would be 10 automatic with 6 at large 38% at large - which isn't bad.
Posted on 3/12/14 at 3:48 pm to TheDrunkenTigah
quote:
Been kinda quiet in regards to what criteria will be used to select play off teams, unless I missed some coverage. Which do you think would best serve college football... having set-in-stone qualifications that dictate what a team must do to make it, or allowing this panel completely subjective choice over who goes?
The best thing to serve college football is a ton of controversy and people getting mad. Make no mistake. The only reason that a playoff exists in the first place is that the second most powerful commish(Jim Delaney) hated the rematch Bama didn't deserve to be in. He was adamant about not having a playoff til he started to see the SEC getting all the favoritism(mostly deserved until it started giving the gumps things like a Heisman and a rematch).
There is a committee in place now to prevent this. Those hoping for a multi-SEC playoff will be shitting themselves because they are going to be adamant about not having more than one team in there. The BEST thing for college football is for continued chaos. Another regional catastrophe like the undeserved rematch. At that point, hopefully closer to the end of the 12 year contract(much like the undeserved rematch happening when the BCS contract was up for renegotiated was perfect), we can get autobids for power 5 conference champs, highest ranked conference champ among the little 5, and 2 at large bids(Independents will receive an autobid if ranked higher than some preset criteria).
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News