I suppose it's only natural and rational. After all, what possible greater and more important honor can there be than making a preseason all-conference team.
Don't like it? Too damn bad. Win your conference next year. Period. I don't care how 'tough' your conference is; if you aren't the best team in your conference you aren't the best team in the country. End or story, as far as I'm concerned.
I'm assuming then you'd require every team be part of a conference and all conferences to have a championship. It's hardly right to have Oklahoma have to play Missouri just for conference champs while Stanford could just have a decent season and get in.
Plus your idea is just bad. Conference champs should get a bid, but no one wants to see a number 25 get in while a number 2 sits home.
First, I don't really care how conferences choose their own chapions - that's their own problem. They can do it however they think serves their interests best.
Regarding the bold statement, if that's true then they're lying about wanting a playoff because they want to crown the best team as often as possible. I don't give a shit if the other conference champ is rated 60 - it's irrelevant, because you've already proven you aren't even the best team in your own conference so no, you don't get a shot at the national title. Want to cry about being better than #25 Pitt? Tough shit - beat Florida next year. If Pitt's really that bad, guess what? They'll lose.
The fact that this will never, ever happen is why I'm pretty much against a playoff. It's why the NFL system is total bullshit, and it's why March Madness is a damn joke (and, by the way, why the college basketball system is completely irrelevant until the conference tournaments).
Let me ask you this: if you replayed the NFL playoffs twice, would you get the same result? If you played it 5 times, would the same team win more than once? I doubt it. That doesn't indicate a system that's good at consistently identifying the best team; that indicates a system that's being fucked with by probability (in this case, the probability that a lesser team will win a single game against a better oponent).
It all goes back to what I said before: if you aren't able to play a best of 5 or 7 series in your postseason tournament, you NEED to weight the regular season heavily in order to have a large enough sample size to be sure you're really getting the best team; pro baseball and basketball can more or less get away with th emoney grab of a huge pool of playoff teams and still crown the best with confidence because their playoff system incorporates enough 'data' to be confident in the ultimate winner. Football does not allow for this, so it has to rely on the regular season to weed out the pretenders. That's the one thing college football does right. What it does wrong is not then giving each conference champ a legit shot at the title, even if it is in a flukey single elimination tournament.
Let me ask you this: if you replayed the NFL playoffs twice, would you get the same result? If you played it 5 times, would the same team win more than once? I doubt it. That doesn't indicate a system that's good at consistently identifying the best team; that indicates a system that's being fucked with by probability (in this case, the probability that a lesser team will win a single game against a better oponent).
It all goes back to what I said before: if you aren't able to play a best of 5 or 7 series in your postseason tournament, you NEED to weight the regular season heavily in order to have a large enough sample size to be sure you're really getting the best team; pro baseball and basketball can more or less get away with th emoney grab of a huge pool of playoff teams and still crown the best with confidence because their playoff system incorporates enough 'data' to be confident in the ultimate winner. Football does not allow for this, so it has to rely on the regular season to weed out the pretenders. That's the one thing college football does right. What it does wrong is not then giving each conference champ a legit shot at the title, even if it is in a flukey single elimination tournament.
You can't have playoff series in football though. There's way too many injuries. While the single-elimination tournament structure does allow for the occasional fluke, its better than not having a playoff system at all.
You can't have playoff series in football though. There's way too many injuries.
Tell that to the guys in 1-AA, Div II, and Div III. They'll be astounded to hear that those four extra games they played after the eleven game season couldn't have happened.
Let me ask you this: if you replayed the NFL playoffs twice, would you get the same result? If you played it 5 times, would the same team win more than once? I doubt it. That doesn't indicate a system that's good at consistently identifying the best team; that indicates a system that's being fucked with by probability (in this case, the probability that a lesser team will win a single game against a better oponent).
It all goes back to what I said before: if you aren't able to play a best of 5 or 7 series in your postseason tournament, you NEED to weight the regular season heavily in order to have a large enough sample size to be sure you're really getting the best team; pro baseball and basketball can more or less get away with th emoney grab of a huge pool of playoff teams and still crown the best with confidence because their playoff system incorporates enough 'data' to be confident in the ultimate winner. Football does not allow for this, so it has to rely on the regular season to weed out the pretenders. That's the one thing college football does right. What it does wrong is not then giving each conference champ a legit shot at the title, even if it is in a flukey single elimination tournament.
I've never heard of this Best of 5/7 requirement. Does Tiger Woods have to win the Masters 3 times out of 5 every year? Do we require winning 3 of 5 Tour de Frances, or 5 Olympic Finals, or 5 Wimbledons, before we accept those winners as legitimate as well?
The problem is college football doesn't decide anything on the field past the results of each individual game. The regular season doesn't weed out anybody or anything - if it did we wouldn't have undefeated teams being passed over in favor of 1-loss teams.
Other stuff:
Texas beat Oklahoma by 10 on a true neutral field = not champions.
Florida beat Oklahoma by 10 on a so-called "neutral" field (which was in Florida) = champions.
Of all the elite 1-loss teams: Florida, USC, Oklahoma, Texas, Penn St, Alabama, - Florida was the ONLY team to lose a season game at home.
Several BCS voters have admitted they didn't watch Utah play a single down at any point during the season.
The only "weeding out" that occurs is the NCAA and BCS ensuring that small-money schools are weeded out of the BCS, while schools that travel well and draw TV ratings are rewarded.
You can't have playoff series in football though. There's way too many injuries.
Tell that to the guys in 1-AA, Div II, and Div III. They'll be astounded to hear that those four extra games they played after the eleven game season couldn't have happened.
I believe FF is referring to football requiring a Best of 5/7 series to advance through each round. Which in a 4-round tournament (16 teams) would require from 12-28 additional games.
You can't have playoff series in football though. There's way too many injuries.
Tell that to the guys in 1-AA, Div II, and Div III. They'll be astounded to hear that those four extra games they played after the eleven game season couldn't have happened.
It could take seven games to resolve one best of 7 series, or up to 28 to play the full playoff bracket. That's not happening. My argument was that if you have a single elimination tournament (the only feasible option) you HAVE to use the regular season to be very selective in admiting participants otherwise the results are non-replicable and therefore essentially meaningless if you're truly trying to determine the 'best'. And, as a corolary, if you're not seriously doing everything you can do most accurately determine the true champion, why bother to change the system?
I've never heard of this Best of 5/7 requirement. Does Tiger Woods have to win the Masters 3 times out of 5 every year? Do we require winning 3 of 5 Tour de Frances, or 5 Olympic Finals, or 5 Wimbledons, before we accept those winners as legitimate as well?
The problem is college football doesn't decide anything on the field past the results of each individual game. The regular season doesn't weed out anybody or anything - if it did we wouldn't have undefeated teams being passed over in favor of 1-loss teams.
Yt they play more than one round of golf to decide the Masters, the Tour de France isn't decided by a single stage, and Wimbledon matches aren't decided by single sets but by best three of five, oddly enough. The idea here is the same: increasing the consistency of performance required to demonstrate superiority to reduce the chances that the lesser player/team wins anyway and increase the chances that the results of the tournament are replicable. There are always going to be practical concerns on how far you can take this idea, but the principle is the same - increase the sample size in competition, increase the level of confidence that you've accurately identified the best participant as the champion.
The problem isn't that the college football regular season isn't good enough to determine this (except in cases where there genuinely ISN'T a clear winner, of which a three way tie like Texa/OU/TT is a clear example), but that we don't use those results to appropriately select postseason participants to maximize the chances of identifying the actual best team.
You can't have playoff series in football though. There's way too many injuries.
Tell that to the guys in 1-AA, Div II, and Div III. They'll be astounded to hear that those four extra games they played after the eleven game season couldn't have happened.
I believe FF is referring to football requiring a Best of 5/7 series to advance through each round. Which in a 4-round tournament (16 teams) would require from 12-28 additional games.
Indeed. I thought I had made it clear that by playoff series, I was referring to playoffs with best of x-series each round.
I forgot to touch on Jihad's mention of pro-basketball: the regular season does a good job of separating the best from the pretenders - as does the best of 7 series - but the NBA playoffs also includes 16 teams. This is more than half of the teams in the league. It's a joke. Its why I hope that if college football does implement a playoff.. its not retarded.
Oh, I absolutely agree that they include too many teams in the NBA playoffs (and I think the NHL has a similar problem, although I don't follow hockey) but at least you can be reasonably confident that the best team advances out of each matchup. It's a pretty transparent and unnecessary money grab on their part, but because of the structure of the post season tournament I don't think it's terribly detrimental overall to identifying a champion.
I've never heard of this Best of 5/7 requirement. Does Tiger Woods have to win the Masters 3 times out of 5 every year? Do we require winning 3 of 5 Tour de Frances, or 5 Olympic Finals, or 5 Wimbledons, before we accept those winners as legitimate as well?
The problem is college football doesn't decide anything on the field past the results of each individual game. The regular season doesn't weed out anybody or anything - if it did we wouldn't have undefeated teams being passed over in favor of 1-loss teams.
Yt they play more than one round of golf to decide the Masters, the Tour de France isn't decided by a single stage, and Wimbledon matches aren't decided by single sets but by best three of five, oddly enough.
They play more than 1 quarter of football, too.
A round of golf or a stage of cycling is just as meaningless as a quarter of football in determining the outcome. You don't win a golf event by winning 3 out of 4 rounds, you have to have the best score out of all the rounds. Just like in football you have to have the best score after all the quarters, you don't just win the game by winning 3 quarters.
And every set in a tennis match is played on the same day, weather permitting. It's not a series, or designed to be replicable in any way. If a player has a bad day they're gone with no second chances - same as if a NFL team or an Olympic sprinter has a bad day.
Oh, I absolutely agree that they include too many teams in the NBA playoffs (and I think the NHL has a similar problem, although I don't follow hockey) but at least you can be reasonably confident that the best team advances out of each matchup. It's a pretty transparent and unnecessary money grab on their part, but because of the structure of the post season tournament I don't think it's terribly detrimental overall to identifying a champion.
No more confident than in any single elimination tournament.
Look at how many wild card teams in MLB have won the World Series - teams that purists will argue shouldn't even be in the playoffs based on their larger body of work (entire season vs 1 playoff run).
In the NBA Boston was a better team than Orlando all year, but suffered untimely injuries that allowed Orlando to beat them in a series.
NHL teams often make runs through the playoffs because a single player, the goalie, gets on a hot streak, enabling them to topple teams that performed at a higher level than they did all year.
At any rate, the point of a I-A tournament is not to ensure that a lesser team can never beat a better team. Unpredictability is ingrained in sport. The point is to ensure that a team earns its advancement through on-field play, rather than in a popularity contest judged by a combination of mathematical formulas and biased and uninformed voters.
Yes, all playoff systems are less than perfect. And I'm aware that - but the baseline idea is the same. If that's not the case, why NOT decide the Master with a single round or tennis matches with a single set? Because you want some assurance that the better player wins. And yeah, there are externalities or peculiarities to specific sports that make the best of 7 imperfect as well - but it's undeniably better than single elimination whenever possible, and at least some of those concerns (notably injuries) could be minimized if the leagues wouldn't admit an absurd number to the postseason.
And I'm not saying that teams perceived as being lesser should face insurmountable challenges, but that as a fan you should prefer a system in which the truly 'better' teams should tend to advance as consistently as possible if you are really interested in reliably finding the 'true' champion (as most playoff hungry fands content they are). A one-loss tournament isn't really the best way to do that, but as it's the only feasible solution you need to structure it in such a way as to weight the regular season. I'm not in any way waying that the way we do that now, with the regular season being a de facto single (maybe double, depending on your individual school's reputation) elimination tournament is the way to do that, just that it should be a concern in designing a playoff system.
And, personally, I don't really think it matters much. Maybe it's just because my school has sucked so horribly lately, but I don't really gt worked up about finding the One True Champion. But if that's going to be the reasoning for instituting a massive reworking of the college football system, I'd prefer it actually gets done right. Instead, it'll get done in whatever way makes the big conferences, ND, and most importantly the networks, the most money.
Back to the whole Tebow not being unanimously voted as QB in the SEC preseason team...
You aren't allowed to vote for your own player.
Am I missing something here or is the obvious choice that Meyer had to vote for someone else? And we're making a huge deal about this because not a single one of these analysts can figure this out?
Edit: Never mind, apparently others were "unanimously" elected. Which makes even less sense than the ridiculous fanfair. If 12 guys are voting and one isn't allowed to vote for a guy, how do you get a unanimous decision -_-
Oh, I absolutely agree that they include too many teams in the NBA playoffs (and I think the NHL has a similar problem, although I don't follow hockey) but at least you can be reasonably confident that the best team advances out of each matchup. It's a pretty transparent and unnecessary money grab on their part, but because of the structure of the post season tournament I don't think it's terribly detrimental overall to identifying a champion.
No more confident than in any single elimination tournament.
Look at how many wild card teams in MLB have won the World Series - teams that purists will argue shouldn't even be in the playoffs based on their larger body of work (entire season vs 1 playoff run).
I think baseball is a very special case where individuals play a much larger role in the success of their teams. If you have the best pitching staff, you'll win the world series. Just look at how Josh Beckett essentially won the world series against the yankees all by himself when he was on the Marlins. Baseball is all about matchups between pitchers and hitters. You really don't have to buy into the team concept when in reality every play that happens (except for some pitcher/catcher interaction) is done of an individual basis. So and so is in a slump... so replace him with a better hitter. Its not like in basketball or football where the substitution of one player all of a sudden changes the chemistry of the team and all of a sudden they don't play the same way.
NHL teams often make runs through the playoffs because a single player, the goalie, gets on a hot streak, enabling them to topple teams that performed at a higher level than they did all year.
Again, similar to my reasons above regarding baseball. Football doesn't have the correlation between individual brilliance and team success like other sports have.
At any rate, the point of a I-A tournament is not to ensure that a lesser team can never beat a better team. Unpredictability is ingrained in sport. The point is to ensure that a team earns its advancement through on-field play, rather than in a popularity contest judged by a combination of mathematical formulas and biased and uninformed voters.
...and here I have to agree. Polls are biased. Get at least 2 more teams in there to have it almost resemble a viable playoff... no matter how much a single-elimination tournament isn't as great as we'd like.
Back to the whole Tebow not being unanimously voted as QB in the SEC preseason team...
You aren't allowed to vote for your own player.
Am I missing something here or is the obvious choice that Meyer had to vote for someone else? And we're making a huge deal about this because not a single one of these analysts can figure this out?
Edit: Never mind, apparently others were "unanimously" elected. Which makes even less sense than the ridiculous fanfair. If 12 guys are voting and one isn't allowed to vote for a guy, how do you get a unanimous decision -_-
Apparently they count every coach voting for a player but his own coach as unanimous.
Yes, all playoff systems are less than perfect. And I'm aware that - but the baseline idea is the same. If that's not the case, why NOT decide the Master with a single round or tennis matches with a single set? Because you want some assurance that the better player wins. And yeah, there are externalities or peculiarities to specific sports that make the best of 7 imperfect as well - but it's undeniably better than single elimination whenever possible, and at least some of those concerns (notably injuries) could be minimized if the leagues wouldn't admit an absurd number to the postseason.
And I'm not saying that teams perceived as being lesser should face insurmountable challenges, but that as a fan you should prefer a system in which the truly 'better' teams should tend to advance as consistently as possible if you are really interested in reliably finding the 'true' champion (as most playoff hungry fands content they are). A one-loss tournament isn't really the best way to do that, but as it's the only feasible solution you need to structure it in such a way as to weight the regular season. I'm not in any way waying that the way we do that now, with the regular season being a de facto single (maybe double, depending on your individual school's reputation) elimination tournament is the way to do that, just that it should be a concern in designing a playoff system.
And, personally, I don't really think it matters much. Maybe it's just because my school has sucked so horribly lately, but I don't really gt worked up about finding the One True Champion. But if that's going to be the reasoning for instituting a massive reworking of the college football system, I'd prefer it actually gets done right. Instead, it'll get done in whatever way makes the big conferences, ND, and most importantly the networks, the most money.
A playoff system does weight the regular season. The top NFL teams get 1st round byes. Teams with higher seeds get (presumably) more advantageous matchups, against teams with worse regular season performances.
But for a moment let's put aside the "single elimination playoff vs series playoff" debate. How do you get from
"Best of 5 playoff > single elimination playoff"
to
"Current BCS popularity contest > single elimination playoff"
?
And a playoff system would make money. Tons of money. Imagine if there were 7 bowl games that mattered each year, instead of just 1. 7 games that every CFB fan in the country was interested in, rather than just Trojan and Nittany Lion fans, or Ute and Crimson Tide fans.
Back to the whole Tebow not being unanimously voted as QB in the SEC preseason team...
You aren't allowed to vote for your own player.
Am I missing something here or is the obvious choice that Meyer had to vote for someone else? And we're making a huge deal about this because not a single one of these analysts can figure this out?
Edit: Never mind, apparently others were "unanimously" elected. Which makes even less sense than the ridiculous fanfair. If 12 guys are voting and one isn't allowed to vote for a guy, how do you get a unanimous decision -_-
Unanimous = 100% of the 1st team votes. Snead got 1 first-team vote, so Tebow isn't unanimous.
But for a moment let's put aside the "single elimination playoff vs series playoff" debate. How do you get from
"Best of 5 playoff > single elimination playoff"
to
"Current BCS popularity contest > single elimination playoff"
?
I didn't say the BCS was better; I said if you're going to change the system supposedly to do a better job of crowning the champion then you might as well do it right, which in practice means using the regular season in a meaningful way. And the 'weighting' of the regular season in the NFL playoffs is pretty much non-applicable here. The tournament almost certainly won't be structured to build in byes for top seeds, and given that they'll be played in freaking winter and they'll have to get buy in from traditional bowls to implement the system the games are almost certain to take place at neutral sites. Not to mention, the 'rankings' used to setup any kind incentive system you can come up with is still derived from the 'popularity contest' you seem to despise - introducing subjectivity we all want to remove.
So why bother with that instead of just limiting the tournament to 8 conference champs to start with, and assigning random initial brackets?
But for a moment let's put aside the "single elimination playoff vs series playoff" debate. How do you get from
"Best of 5 playoff > single elimination playoff"
to
"Current BCS popularity contest > single elimination playoff"
?
I didn't say the BCS was better; I said if you're going to change the system supposedly to do a better job of crowning the champion then you might as well do it right, which in practice means using the regular season in a meaningful way. And the 'weighting' of the regular season in the NFL playoffs is pretty much non-applicable here. The tournament almost certainly won't be structured to build in byes for top seeds, and given that they'll be played in freaking winter and they'll have to get buy in from traditional bowls to implement the system the games are almost certain to take place at neutral sites. Not to mention, the 'rankings' used to setup any kind incentive system you can come up with is still derived from the 'popularity contest' you seem to despise - introducing subjectivity we all want to remove.
So why bother with that instead of just limiting the tournament to 8 conference champs to start with, and assigning random initial brackets?
I think we all (me included) were confused about what exactly you were in favor of until that last part (which happens to sound awesome btw).
It seems your problem is that a dark horse/underdog might have a chance of winning by capitalizing on a big team's mistakes. When you know, perhaps that big team shouldn't have made mistakes.
'random chance' is pretty much how real life works. One of the best seasons ever in recent history was because of all the underdogs toppling big teams that got too complacent.
FyreWulff on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
edited July 2009
My favored system so far is to:
- force all teams into conferences
- enforce conference championships in all conferences
- give the top eight conferences automatic bids
- give the top eight rated non-champion teams bids
- seed them according to the BCS
This way, at worst, people are bitching about their team being voted ninth and not making the cut than voted second and missing out. And it still gives talented teams in packed conferences and talented teams in smaller conferences the opportunity to grab bids. All you really have to do is break the Top 16 (more or less) to get in.
Then, for everyone outside that system, do a NIT-style tourney, either by invite or criteria.
But for a moment let's put aside the "single elimination playoff vs series playoff" debate. How do you get from
"Best of 5 playoff > single elimination playoff"
to
"Current BCS popularity contest > single elimination playoff"
?
I didn't say the BCS was better; I said if you're going to change the system supposedly to do a better job of crowning the champion then you might as well do it right, which in practice means using the regular season in a meaningful way. And the 'weighting' of the regular season in the NFL playoffs is pretty much non-applicable here. The tournament almost certainly won't be structured to build in byes for top seeds, and given that they'll be played in freaking winter and they'll have to get buy in from traditional bowls to implement the system the games are almost certain to take place at neutral sites. Not to mention, the 'rankings' used to setup any kind incentive system you can come up with is still derived from the 'popularity contest' you seem to despise - introducing subjectivity we all want to remove.
So why bother with that instead of just limiting the tournament to 8 conference champs to start with, and assigning random initial brackets?
I have no problem with an 8 team playoff of only conference champs. Picking which 8 conferences are included would be an issue, and I'd go with a soccer-style system of promotion and relegation.
However, even a lesser playoff system would still be better than the current setup, and still be worth changing. While getting the best playoff system possible is the best solution, it's also important that a playoff system be implemented. While you'd like to score on every play, sometimes you just need to pick up that first down. Once a playoff is in, then it can be tweaked as years go on. Even the BCS has been tweaked over the years, it's just that no amount of tweaking can fix it.
On a different note, as long as we have the BCS I'd like to see the NCAA make schedules. Lord knows they get paid enough, they might as well do something to earn that money besides making commercials. No more of this scheduling 8 home games in an 11 game season stuff, and loading up on creampuffs.
Who cares about the team that gets voted in ninth? They're either a team that wouldn't have more than a tiny outside chance, or a major power that has lost 2-3 times. Either way, you can comfortably say they don't belong there.
I don't like a tournament format that doesn't include at least some at-large bids, because if you do it entirely by conference it'll either be too big or always be locking people out.
edit: honestly 16 teams even kinda feels to big to me. The goal is deciding the nat'l champ, not recreating march madness.
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
I'm dead set against any form of tournament that includes at large bids in any form - it introduces subjectivity, devalues the regular season, emphasizes traditional powers, continues to reward cowardly scheduling for major conference teams, allows ND to get preferential treatment, and creates at least a 16 team clusterfuck of a tournament. In short, it fails to address most of my major concerns with the current system. Since that's what we're actually going to get in practice, I'm not overly enthused at the prospect of a playoff.
JihadJesus on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Who cares about the team that gets voted in ninth? They're either a team that wouldn't have more than a tiny outside chance, or a major power that has lost 2-3 times. Either way, you can comfortably say they don't belong there.
Eh, I don't know. You can might say they don't deserve a shot at the championship, but if it's some Mountain West or CUSA team ahead of a two-loss Texas or Georgia or LSU? I think Georgia v. Hawaii two years ago proved that a high winning percentage means crap if you don't play anyone.
edit: honestly 16 teams even kinda feels to big to me. The goal is deciding the nat'l champ, not recreating march madness.
It works just fine for every division except Div-1A.
I have no problem with an 8 team playoff of only conference champs
I do. The goal of the national championship shouldn't be finding the team with the fewest losses, it should be about finding the best teams to play for the title. I'll back a Big 10 or SEC team ranked second or third in their conference any day over the winner of the M-West or CUSA conference. Probably Big 10, too. And as far as sponsorship goes, I'd think that the bowls would much rather have conference runners-up like Texas or Oklahoma or Tech or LSU or Florida or Bama than a game of "Tulane v. Fresno St."
I have no problem with an 8 team playoff of only conference champs
I do. The goal of the national championship shouldn't be finding the team with the fewest losses, it should be about finding the best teams to play for the title. I'll back a Big 10 or SEC team ranked second or third in their conference any day over the winner of the M-West or CUSA conference. Probably Big 10, too. And as far as sponsorship goes, I'd think that the bowls would much rather have conference runners-up like Texas or Oklahoma or Tech or LSU or Florida or Bama than a game of "Tulane v. Fresno St."
First, Tulane vs Fresno State wouldn't happen because neither of those would be in the top 8 conferences right now. The only way they'd get in is if those conferences outperformed bigger ones on the field, in which case they should get in. If the Big East gets stomped by every mid-major around, then they shouldn't get an automatic invite.
Second, Florida vs Bama vs LSU should be settled in-conference. These teams should start playing each other during the season, rather than ducking each other as they do now because it improves the conference's image and record.
Third, the Mountain West champ just smacked the SEC #2 upside the head in New Orleans last January. The game wasn't even close.
Second, Florida vs Bama vs LSU should be settled in-conference. These teams should start playing each other during the season, rather than ducking each other as they do now because it improves the conference's image and record.
Third, the Mountain West champ just smacked the SEC #2 upside the head in New Orleans last January. The game wasn't even close.
..except Florida beat LSU during the regular season and then dismantled Bama in the SEC Championship game. Sounds like it was settled in-conference to me.
Also can we stop giving praise to Ohio State until they beat anything worth a damn out-of-conference?
Second, Florida vs Bama vs LSU should be settled in-conference. These teams should start playing each other during the season, rather than ducking each other as they do now because it improves the conference's image and record.
Third, the Mountain West champ just smacked the SEC #2 upside the head in New Orleans last January. The game wasn't even close.
..except Florida beat LSU during the regular season and then dismantled Bama in the SEC Championship game. Sounds like it was settled in-conference to me.
Also can we stop giving praise to Ohio State until they beat anything worth a damn out-of-conference?
Until the Rock-Paper-Scissors reality of "OSU beats Big 10 teams who beat other conference teams who beat OSU" stops, you might not get anywhere.
If you're going to do it based on conferences, how do you decide which 8 to include? What if the conference is terrible, but there's one really good team in it? You're just doing the same thing we currently do, but with entire conferences instead of teams.
I don't think you have to abandon using conferences, I just think the only way to account for all the non-major conferences is to use at-large bids. What if you copied the NFL tournament, with 12 teams (top four get byes?) Same number of games, same conf. champs, and a few at large bids that we can fight over.
You're going to have subjectivity no matter what you do; there are too many schools involved for a completely on-the-field determination to happen. Basketball solves this by just including a ton of teams; that isn't as much of an option in football, but you could easily include the top 8, or 12, or 16. And if #9 or #13 is the first team to miss the tournament, I would feel pretty comfortable with that. Like I said, that team is either going to be not all that good or is going to have multiple bad losses (like the SC teams of the last few years.)
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
If you're going to do it based on conferences, how do you decide which 8 to include? What if the conference is terrible, but there's one really good team in it? You're just doing the same thing we currently do, but with entire conferences instead of teams.
That's why I wouldn't exactly be opposed to using the BCS standings to choose the top 12 or 16 teams instead of finding a justification for Conference A to get an automatic bid but Conference D doesn't. I trust the BCS to find the top 16 teams much more than I would the top one team; with the former, you're never going to mess up the top four or five teams, and your correctness average is pretty close to 100%, whereas with the latter method you're in for all or nothing, either getting it perfect or fucking up entirely.
At worst in that method, some #15 in the Harris poll is bitching about why TCU got in over Tulsa or some crap like that, instead of Clemson getting a bid and LSU sitting at home.
Let the rankings be the rankings, and let the playoffs be the playoffs. I can't see a better way than that.
Second, Florida vs Bama vs LSU should be settled in-conference. These teams should start playing each other during the season, rather than ducking each other as they do now because it improves the conference's image and record.
Third, the Mountain West champ just smacked the SEC #2 upside the head in New Orleans last January. The game wasn't even close.
..except Florida beat LSU during the regular season and then dismantled Bama in the SEC Championship game. Sounds like it was settled in-conference to me.
Also can we stop giving praise to Ohio State until they beat anything worth a damn out-of-conference?
That's good enough, then, for that year. There would be no reason for LSU or Bama to have been included in a 2008-09 tourney.
However, there are years where teams miss each other. LSU and Georgia during the 2007-08 season, for instance. Still, that's a problem for each conference to sort out, rather than letting conference #2s in the tourney at the expense of teams that did win their conference.
I suppose it's only natural and rational. After all, what possible greater and more important honor can there be than making a preseason all-conference team.
As a UF student, I am, naturally, a fan of the Gators. My expectation for this year is that we'll have 1 loss, either the SEC championship game or when we go to LSU. Why the reticence to go all "wooo undefeated!" like my compatriots? Honestly, there are a few things that have happened this off season.
1. They're trying to change the way Tebow is playing to make him more appealing to the NFL.
2. Florida's OC was very cautious about unleashing the playbook last season, commonly ignoring the ability the Gators have for misdirection considering the speed of the team. Will that continue?
3. Percy Harvin is gone. Self-explanatory.
So we open up with a couple of tune up games, and I really want to see some play calling that doesn't rely on Tebow to try and get past a middle linebacker. I'd rather see him set up for passes and then make decisions on whether or not to run. I generally dislike the designed run plays that are just for him because they seem, a lot of the time, taking an unnecessary risk when they've shown better success with the option or with the short slant.
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
edited July 2009
From my time in the NCAA, the one thing I can say positive about the NFL recruiting scouts is that those dudes know what the fuck they're doing. It was always so frustrating in going into college watching the scouts look at 16-year-old high schoolers and go, "Hey, he carried for 1000 yards his sophomore year. Better offer him a scholarship," only to watch those same guys scratch their heads in wonder two years later when they can't figure out why their top recruit from a private school division with only five teams isn't a better athlete when he graduates.
For instance? My cousin. Nice guy. Played for TAPPS-Div.II, a program that is not only private and religious, but competes against eight teams in the whole state of Texas. So yeah, at 6'2" he stands out amongst all the little trustfund kids, and of course all the passes go to him. So by the end of high school, his coach sends every Div-1 program copy of how my cousin has a combined 5,000 yard reception record and 50 tackles a season. Naturally, both Air Force and Notre Dame offer him scholarships, virtually sight-unseen.
Two years later, he's back and in Div-III, not even starting.
All that said, Tebow needs every bit of "restructuring" he can get if he has any hopes of being an NFL player, because they only recruit pro-level talent, not crazy system-dependent figures. Go ask Graham Harrell, the NCAA's leading passer last year. You'll find him undrafted and probably working at the sporting goods desk at a Wal-Mart in Lubbock, Tx.*
*
Actually probably not. Not a lot of gay folks working in guns and ammo.
As a UF student, I am, naturally, a fan of the Gators. My expectation for this year is that we'll have 1 loss, either the SEC championship game or when we go to LSU. Why the reticence to go all "wooo undefeated!" like my compatriots? Honestly, there are a few things that have happened this off season.
1. They're trying to change the way Tebow is playing to make him more appealing to the NFL.
2. Florida's OC was very cautious about unleashing the playbook last season, commonly ignoring the ability the Gators have for misdirection considering the speed of the team. Will that continue?
3. Percy Harvin is gone. Self-explanatory.
So we open up with a couple of tune up games, and I really want to see some play calling that doesn't rely on Tebow to try and get past a middle linebacker. I'd rather see him set up for passes and then make decisions on whether or not to run. I generally dislike the designed run plays that are just for him because they seem, a lot of the time, taking an unnecessary risk when they've shown better success with the option or with the short slant.
Did you win season tickets in the student lottery this year? I'm 0 for 2 in two years...
Go ask Graham Harrell, the NCAA's leading passer last year. You'll find him undrafted and probably working at the sporting goods desk at a Wal-Mart in Lubbock, Tx.*
He's actually in the CFL, no, he didn't sign a fat contract that sets him up for life, but he still has a shot at making the NFL. While they don't populate the NFL rosters, they can still make it, just ask Jeff Garcia.
Posts
she is definitely one of 2-3 announcers that make me just want to change the channel
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
One SEC coach dares violate the tenets of Tebowism and votes another QB to the preseason All-SEC team, making Tebow only a near-unanimous selection,
and
the
media
goes
crazy.
Heresy!
Blasphemer!
Defiler!
Infidel!
I suppose it's only natural and rational. After all, what possible greater and more important honor can there be than making a preseason all-conference team.
First, I don't really care how conferences choose their own chapions - that's their own problem. They can do it however they think serves their interests best.
Regarding the bold statement, if that's true then they're lying about wanting a playoff because they want to crown the best team as often as possible. I don't give a shit if the other conference champ is rated 60 - it's irrelevant, because you've already proven you aren't even the best team in your own conference so no, you don't get a shot at the national title. Want to cry about being better than #25 Pitt? Tough shit - beat Florida next year. If Pitt's really that bad, guess what? They'll lose.
The fact that this will never, ever happen is why I'm pretty much against a playoff. It's why the NFL system is total bullshit, and it's why March Madness is a damn joke (and, by the way, why the college basketball system is completely irrelevant until the conference tournaments).
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Let me ask you this: if you replayed the NFL playoffs twice, would you get the same result? If you played it 5 times, would the same team win more than once? I doubt it. That doesn't indicate a system that's good at consistently identifying the best team; that indicates a system that's being fucked with by probability (in this case, the probability that a lesser team will win a single game against a better oponent).
It all goes back to what I said before: if you aren't able to play a best of 5 or 7 series in your postseason tournament, you NEED to weight the regular season heavily in order to have a large enough sample size to be sure you're really getting the best team; pro baseball and basketball can more or less get away with th emoney grab of a huge pool of playoff teams and still crown the best with confidence because their playoff system incorporates enough 'data' to be confident in the ultimate winner. Football does not allow for this, so it has to rely on the regular season to weed out the pretenders. That's the one thing college football does right. What it does wrong is not then giving each conference champ a legit shot at the title, even if it is in a flukey single elimination tournament.
You can't have playoff series in football though. There's way too many injuries. While the single-elimination tournament structure does allow for the occasional fluke, its better than not having a playoff system at all.
Tell that to the guys in 1-AA, Div II, and Div III. They'll be astounded to hear that those four extra games they played after the eleven game season couldn't have happened.
I've never heard of this Best of 5/7 requirement. Does Tiger Woods have to win the Masters 3 times out of 5 every year? Do we require winning 3 of 5 Tour de Frances, or 5 Olympic Finals, or 5 Wimbledons, before we accept those winners as legitimate as well?
The problem is college football doesn't decide anything on the field past the results of each individual game. The regular season doesn't weed out anybody or anything - if it did we wouldn't have undefeated teams being passed over in favor of 1-loss teams.
Other stuff:
Texas beat Oklahoma by 10 on a true neutral field = not champions.
Florida beat Oklahoma by 10 on a so-called "neutral" field (which was in Florida) = champions.
Of all the elite 1-loss teams: Florida, USC, Oklahoma, Texas, Penn St, Alabama, - Florida was the ONLY team to lose a season game at home.
Several BCS voters have admitted they didn't watch Utah play a single down at any point during the season.
The only "weeding out" that occurs is the NCAA and BCS ensuring that small-money schools are weeded out of the BCS, while schools that travel well and draw TV ratings are rewarded.
I believe FF is referring to football requiring a Best of 5/7 series to advance through each round. Which in a 4-round tournament (16 teams) would require from 12-28 additional games.
It could take seven games to resolve one best of 7 series, or up to 28 to play the full playoff bracket. That's not happening. My argument was that if you have a single elimination tournament (the only feasible option) you HAVE to use the regular season to be very selective in admiting participants otherwise the results are non-replicable and therefore essentially meaningless if you're truly trying to determine the 'best'. And, as a corolary, if you're not seriously doing everything you can do most accurately determine the true champion, why bother to change the system?
Yt they play more than one round of golf to decide the Masters, the Tour de France isn't decided by a single stage, and Wimbledon matches aren't decided by single sets but by best three of five, oddly enough. The idea here is the same: increasing the consistency of performance required to demonstrate superiority to reduce the chances that the lesser player/team wins anyway and increase the chances that the results of the tournament are replicable. There are always going to be practical concerns on how far you can take this idea, but the principle is the same - increase the sample size in competition, increase the level of confidence that you've accurately identified the best participant as the champion.
The problem isn't that the college football regular season isn't good enough to determine this (except in cases where there genuinely ISN'T a clear winner, of which a three way tie like Texa/OU/TT is a clear example), but that we don't use those results to appropriately select postseason participants to maximize the chances of identifying the actual best team.
Indeed. I thought I had made it clear that by playoff series, I was referring to playoffs with best of x-series each round.
I forgot to touch on Jihad's mention of pro-basketball: the regular season does a good job of separating the best from the pretenders - as does the best of 7 series - but the NBA playoffs also includes 16 teams. This is more than half of the teams in the league. It's a joke. Its why I hope that if college football does implement a playoff.. its not retarded.
/that is all
They play more than 1 quarter of football, too.
A round of golf or a stage of cycling is just as meaningless as a quarter of football in determining the outcome. You don't win a golf event by winning 3 out of 4 rounds, you have to have the best score out of all the rounds. Just like in football you have to have the best score after all the quarters, you don't just win the game by winning 3 quarters.
And every set in a tennis match is played on the same day, weather permitting. It's not a series, or designed to be replicable in any way. If a player has a bad day they're gone with no second chances - same as if a NFL team or an Olympic sprinter has a bad day.
No more confident than in any single elimination tournament.
Look at how many wild card teams in MLB have won the World Series - teams that purists will argue shouldn't even be in the playoffs based on their larger body of work (entire season vs 1 playoff run).
In the NBA Boston was a better team than Orlando all year, but suffered untimely injuries that allowed Orlando to beat them in a series.
NHL teams often make runs through the playoffs because a single player, the goalie, gets on a hot streak, enabling them to topple teams that performed at a higher level than they did all year.
At any rate, the point of a I-A tournament is not to ensure that a lesser team can never beat a better team. Unpredictability is ingrained in sport. The point is to ensure that a team earns its advancement through on-field play, rather than in a popularity contest judged by a combination of mathematical formulas and biased and uninformed voters.
And I'm not saying that teams perceived as being lesser should face insurmountable challenges, but that as a fan you should prefer a system in which the truly 'better' teams should tend to advance as consistently as possible if you are really interested in reliably finding the 'true' champion (as most playoff hungry fands content they are). A one-loss tournament isn't really the best way to do that, but as it's the only feasible solution you need to structure it in such a way as to weight the regular season. I'm not in any way waying that the way we do that now, with the regular season being a de facto single (maybe double, depending on your individual school's reputation) elimination tournament is the way to do that, just that it should be a concern in designing a playoff system.
And, personally, I don't really think it matters much. Maybe it's just because my school has sucked so horribly lately, but I don't really gt worked up about finding the One True Champion. But if that's going to be the reasoning for instituting a massive reworking of the college football system, I'd prefer it actually gets done right. Instead, it'll get done in whatever way makes the big conferences, ND, and most importantly the networks, the most money.
You aren't allowed to vote for your own player.
Am I missing something here or is the obvious choice that Meyer had to vote for someone else? And we're making a huge deal about this because not a single one of these analysts can figure this out?
Edit: Never mind, apparently others were "unanimously" elected. Which makes even less sense than the ridiculous fanfair. If 12 guys are voting and one isn't allowed to vote for a guy, how do you get a unanimous decision -_-
I think baseball is a very special case where individuals play a much larger role in the success of their teams. If you have the best pitching staff, you'll win the world series. Just look at how Josh Beckett essentially won the world series against the yankees all by himself when he was on the Marlins. Baseball is all about matchups between pitchers and hitters. You really don't have to buy into the team concept when in reality every play that happens (except for some pitcher/catcher interaction) is done of an individual basis. So and so is in a slump... so replace him with a better hitter. Its not like in basketball or football where the substitution of one player all of a sudden changes the chemistry of the team and all of a sudden they don't play the same way.
This pains me to say this as a Boston fan, but tough tits. This has nothing to do with how well the playoff system is structured.
Again, similar to my reasons above regarding baseball. Football doesn't have the correlation between individual brilliance and team success like other sports have.
...and here I have to agree. Polls are biased. Get at least 2 more teams in there to have it almost resemble a viable playoff... no matter how much a single-elimination tournament isn't as great as we'd like.
Apparently they count every coach voting for a player but his own coach as unanimous.
A playoff system does weight the regular season. The top NFL teams get 1st round byes. Teams with higher seeds get (presumably) more advantageous matchups, against teams with worse regular season performances.
But for a moment let's put aside the "single elimination playoff vs series playoff" debate. How do you get from
"Best of 5 playoff > single elimination playoff"
to
"Current BCS popularity contest > single elimination playoff"
?
And a playoff system would make money. Tons of money. Imagine if there were 7 bowl games that mattered each year, instead of just 1. 7 games that every CFB fan in the country was interested in, rather than just Trojan and Nittany Lion fans, or Ute and Crimson Tide fans.
Unanimous = 100% of the 1st team votes. Snead got 1 first-team vote, so Tebow isn't unanimous.
I didn't say the BCS was better; I said if you're going to change the system supposedly to do a better job of crowning the champion then you might as well do it right, which in practice means using the regular season in a meaningful way. And the 'weighting' of the regular season in the NFL playoffs is pretty much non-applicable here. The tournament almost certainly won't be structured to build in byes for top seeds, and given that they'll be played in freaking winter and they'll have to get buy in from traditional bowls to implement the system the games are almost certain to take place at neutral sites. Not to mention, the 'rankings' used to setup any kind incentive system you can come up with is still derived from the 'popularity contest' you seem to despise - introducing subjectivity we all want to remove.
So why bother with that instead of just limiting the tournament to 8 conference champs to start with, and assigning random initial brackets?
I think we all (me included) were confused about what exactly you were in favor of until that last part (which happens to sound awesome btw).
'random chance' is pretty much how real life works. One of the best seasons ever in recent history was because of all the underdogs toppling big teams that got too complacent.
- force all teams into conferences
- enforce conference championships in all conferences
- give the top eight conferences automatic bids
- give the top eight rated non-champion teams bids
- seed them according to the BCS
This way, at worst, people are bitching about their team being voted ninth and not making the cut than voted second and missing out. And it still gives talented teams in packed conferences and talented teams in smaller conferences the opportunity to grab bids. All you really have to do is break the Top 16 (more or less) to get in.
Then, for everyone outside that system, do a NIT-style tourney, either by invite or criteria.
I have no problem with an 8 team playoff of only conference champs. Picking which 8 conferences are included would be an issue, and I'd go with a soccer-style system of promotion and relegation.
However, even a lesser playoff system would still be better than the current setup, and still be worth changing. While getting the best playoff system possible is the best solution, it's also important that a playoff system be implemented. While you'd like to score on every play, sometimes you just need to pick up that first down. Once a playoff is in, then it can be tweaked as years go on. Even the BCS has been tweaked over the years, it's just that no amount of tweaking can fix it.
On a different note, as long as we have the BCS I'd like to see the NCAA make schedules. Lord knows they get paid enough, they might as well do something to earn that money besides making commercials. No more of this scheduling 8 home games in an 11 game season stuff, and loading up on creampuffs.
I don't like a tournament format that doesn't include at least some at-large bids, because if you do it entirely by conference it'll either be too big or always be locking people out.
edit: honestly 16 teams even kinda feels to big to me. The goal is deciding the nat'l champ, not recreating march madness.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Eh, I don't know. You can might say they don't deserve a shot at the championship, but if it's some Mountain West or CUSA team ahead of a two-loss Texas or Georgia or LSU? I think Georgia v. Hawaii two years ago proved that a high winning percentage means crap if you don't play anyone.
It works just fine for every division except Div-1A.
I do. The goal of the national championship shouldn't be finding the team with the fewest losses, it should be about finding the best teams to play for the title. I'll back a Big 10 or SEC team ranked second or third in their conference any day over the winner of the M-West or CUSA conference. Probably Big 10, too. And as far as sponsorship goes, I'd think that the bowls would much rather have conference runners-up like Texas or Oklahoma or Tech or LSU or Florida or Bama than a game of "Tulane v. Fresno St."
First, Tulane vs Fresno State wouldn't happen because neither of those would be in the top 8 conferences right now. The only way they'd get in is if those conferences outperformed bigger ones on the field, in which case they should get in. If the Big East gets stomped by every mid-major around, then they shouldn't get an automatic invite.
Second, Florida vs Bama vs LSU should be settled in-conference. These teams should start playing each other during the season, rather than ducking each other as they do now because it improves the conference's image and record.
Third, the Mountain West champ just smacked the SEC #2 upside the head in New Orleans last January. The game wasn't even close.
..except Florida beat LSU during the regular season and then dismantled Bama in the SEC Championship game. Sounds like it was settled in-conference to me.
Also can we stop giving praise to Ohio State until they beat anything worth a damn out-of-conference?
Until the Rock-Paper-Scissors reality of "OSU beats Big 10 teams who beat other conference teams who beat OSU" stops, you might not get anywhere.
Let 'em eat fucking pineapples!
I don't think you have to abandon using conferences, I just think the only way to account for all the non-major conferences is to use at-large bids. What if you copied the NFL tournament, with 12 teams (top four get byes?) Same number of games, same conf. champs, and a few at large bids that we can fight over.
You're going to have subjectivity no matter what you do; there are too many schools involved for a completely on-the-field determination to happen. Basketball solves this by just including a ton of teams; that isn't as much of an option in football, but you could easily include the top 8, or 12, or 16. And if #9 or #13 is the first team to miss the tournament, I would feel pretty comfortable with that. Like I said, that team is either going to be not all that good or is going to have multiple bad losses (like the SC teams of the last few years.)
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
That's why I wouldn't exactly be opposed to using the BCS standings to choose the top 12 or 16 teams instead of finding a justification for Conference A to get an automatic bid but Conference D doesn't. I trust the BCS to find the top 16 teams much more than I would the top one team; with the former, you're never going to mess up the top four or five teams, and your correctness average is pretty close to 100%, whereas with the latter method you're in for all or nothing, either getting it perfect or fucking up entirely.
At worst in that method, some #15 in the Harris poll is bitching about why TCU got in over Tulsa or some crap like that, instead of Clemson getting a bid and LSU sitting at home.
Let the rankings be the rankings, and let the playoffs be the playoffs. I can't see a better way than that.
That's good enough, then, for that year. There would be no reason for LSU or Bama to have been included in a 2008-09 tourney.
However, there are years where teams miss each other. LSU and Georgia during the 2007-08 season, for instance. Still, that's a problem for each conference to sort out, rather than letting conference #2s in the tourney at the expense of teams that did win their conference.
It was Spurrier
1. They're trying to change the way Tebow is playing to make him more appealing to the NFL.
2. Florida's OC was very cautious about unleashing the playbook last season, commonly ignoring the ability the Gators have for misdirection considering the speed of the team. Will that continue?
3. Percy Harvin is gone. Self-explanatory.
So we open up with a couple of tune up games, and I really want to see some play calling that doesn't rely on Tebow to try and get past a middle linebacker. I'd rather see him set up for passes and then make decisions on whether or not to run. I generally dislike the designed run plays that are just for him because they seem, a lot of the time, taking an unnecessary risk when they've shown better success with the option or with the short slant.
SteamID: devCharles
twitter: https://twitter.com/charlesewise
For instance? My cousin. Nice guy. Played for TAPPS-Div.II, a program that is not only private and religious, but competes against eight teams in the whole state of Texas. So yeah, at 6'2" he stands out amongst all the little trustfund kids, and of course all the passes go to him. So by the end of high school, his coach sends every Div-1 program copy of how my cousin has a combined 5,000 yard reception record and 50 tackles a season. Naturally, both Air Force and Notre Dame offer him scholarships, virtually sight-unseen.
Two years later, he's back and in Div-III, not even starting.
All that said, Tebow needs every bit of "restructuring" he can get if he has any hopes of being an NFL player, because they only recruit pro-level talent, not crazy system-dependent figures. Go ask Graham Harrell, the NCAA's leading passer last year. You'll find him undrafted and probably working at the sporting goods desk at a Wal-Mart in Lubbock, Tx.*
*
Did you win season tickets in the student lottery this year? I'm 0 for 2 in two years...
Just curious, what is it exactly did you did during your time in the NCAA?
He's actually in the CFL, no, he didn't sign a fat contract that sets him up for life, but he still has a shot at making the NFL. While they don't populate the NFL rosters, they can still make it, just ask Jeff Garcia.
SteamID: devCharles
twitter: https://twitter.com/charlesewise