Started By
Message
re: Would you prefer the selection committee have concrete qualifiers or not?
Posted on 3/12/14 at 3:52 pm to elposter
Posted on 3/12/14 at 3:52 pm to elposter
Yeah, something like that (using some derivative of the BCS formula) seems like a decent solution.
The third step is admittedly arbitrary (when 5-8 are often very close and a deserving undefeated midmajor like a Utah may be in one of those positions) and I wouldn't quibble if someone extended that out to seven or even eight. But there has to be a real floor to put pressure on people to schedule appropriately if they want to aspire for a national championship. The other issue with the 6-8 positions is you can often have a team with three losses coasting on preseason reputation or conference reputation rather than actual accomplishments.
I agree with the theoretical point that no system will be absolutely perfect but... generally I find that argument to be used by people who are happier defending what they know to be a bad alternative rather than try to come up with something that should work better most of the time.
The third step is admittedly arbitrary (when 5-8 are often very close and a deserving undefeated midmajor like a Utah may be in one of those positions) and I wouldn't quibble if someone extended that out to seven or even eight. But there has to be a real floor to put pressure on people to schedule appropriately if they want to aspire for a national championship. The other issue with the 6-8 positions is you can often have a team with three losses coasting on preseason reputation or conference reputation rather than actual accomplishments.
I agree with the theoretical point that no system will be absolutely perfect but... generally I find that argument to be used by people who are happier defending what they know to be a bad alternative rather than try to come up with something that should work better most of the time.
1
Posted on 3/12/14 at 3:54 pm to TeLeFaWx
quote:
the rematch Bama didn't deserve
quote:
SEC getting all the favoritism(mostly deserved until it started giving the gumps things like a Heisman and a rematch)
quote:
regional catastrophe like the undeserved rematch
quote:
the undeserved rematch happening
What do you think about Alabama's 2011 BCS Championship?
Posted on 3/12/14 at 4:05 pm to elposter
quote:
What do you think about Alabama's 2011 BCS Championship?
I think it's hard to give out National Championship for going 1-1 against another undefeated team. When those two matches were neutral site and in Tuscaloosa, I'd give the nod to the swamp kittens.
Posted on 3/12/14 at 4:32 pm to molsusports
The issue is that there is no "derivative of the BCS" that has been put forward. There is no BCS. There will be the AP and the coaches, etc, but the unofficial polls very rarely agree, especially around spots 4, 5, 6.
Any ranking the committee recognizes will simply be an extension of their opinions, a mixture of this poll and that computer that they think is a good blend.
Fawx may be on to something, maybe they've known trolling is good for business for years and think this will be the perfect drama machine.
Any ranking the committee recognizes will simply be an extension of their opinions, a mixture of this poll and that computer that they think is a good blend.
Fawx may be on to something, maybe they've known trolling is good for business for years and think this will be the perfect drama machine.
Posted on 3/12/14 at 4:39 pm to TheDrunkenTigah
If they were serious about using a playoff to find a real NC for FBS football they would:
Eliminate all bowl games.
Shorten the regular season to allow a 16-32 team bracket where the last game is played towards the middle/late January. 20% of D1 teams makes the NCAAs so it would take a 25 team bracket to get equal %s.
None of this is or will happen because December-January being play offs of 32 teams will generate less money for everyone involved than 60 teams playing in a bowl game and 4 playing in the playoffs.
Plus they would not be able to put games during the week to draw the casual FB Fan's interest, does anyone really care who wins the Poinsettia bowl between TCU and Nevada? No, but plenty of people will watch this game on a Tuesday night.
Eliminate all bowl games.
Shorten the regular season to allow a 16-32 team bracket where the last game is played towards the middle/late January. 20% of D1 teams makes the NCAAs so it would take a 25 team bracket to get equal %s.
None of this is or will happen because December-January being play offs of 32 teams will generate less money for everyone involved than 60 teams playing in a bowl game and 4 playing in the playoffs.
Plus they would not be able to put games during the week to draw the casual FB Fan's interest, does anyone really care who wins the Poinsettia bowl between TCU and Nevada? No, but plenty of people will watch this game on a Tuesday night.
Posted on 3/12/14 at 4:52 pm to TheDrunkenTigah
quote:
The issue is that there is no "derivative of the BCS" that has been put forward. There is no BCS. There will be the AP and the coaches, etc, but the unofficial polls very rarely agree, especially around spots 4, 5, 6.
I think it was clear from my posts that I'm aware there is a selection committee and that they have not made public concrete qualifiers.
You could easily use either a composite of the computer formulas and the harris or even just the computer formulas as a replacement for the previous BCS poll - and I hope it was clear from my posts that this type of thing was the inference you should have drawn. FWIW, I don't like the lack of clarity but the idea that they might enjoy the controversy (either for its own sake to generate interest or as an excuse to expand the playoff in the near future) is an idea that has been around since the four team playoff system was announced.
Posted on 3/12/14 at 5:02 pm to TheDrunkenTigah
quote:This gives me the sad. I've enjoyed watching the "BCS Countdown" on Sunday nights.
The issue is that there is no "derivative of the BCS" that has been put forward. There is no BCS. There will be the AP and the coaches, etc, but the unofficial polls very rarely agree, especially around spots 4, 5, 6.
Posted on 3/12/14 at 5:06 pm to RT1941
quote:
This gives me the sad. I've enjoyed watching the "BCS Countdown" on Sunday nights.
ESPN will figure out a way to drum up interest, debate, and outrage in the weeks leading up to the selection of the teams.
First 2 out, next next 2 out, next next next 2 out, etc.
Every game is a must win or to a lowly bowl game for you Mr. top 15 team.
Posted on 3/12/14 at 5:47 pm to molsusports
I understand what you're saying, but the point you're missing is that the selection committee will be the ones who decide what formula to use, and it may in no way resemble the BCS rankings. It seems simple, but it's a concern. Could they use the same combination of polls and weighting factors? Sure. Will they? I highly doubt it.
Excluding just one poll from the average may skew the entire top 10 by putting more emphasis on beating good teams OOC or winning your division. That's partly what this thread is about, what will the new ruling body of CFB reward and punish, and to what degree? And once they've established a track record of doing things one way, will they stick to it or back track to get the major tv markets into the games?
Excluding just one poll from the average may skew the entire top 10 by putting more emphasis on beating good teams OOC or winning your division. That's partly what this thread is about, what will the new ruling body of CFB reward and punish, and to what degree? And once they've established a track record of doing things one way, will they stick to it or back track to get the major tv markets into the games?
Posted on 3/12/14 at 6:36 pm to TheDrunkenTigah
They should still be using the BCS formula.
Page 4 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News