Chatelain: Playoff should reward conference champions

[Saunders]

Then why change the system at all? Obviously, you know who the best teams are. So, the voters must know who the best teams are as well, and can pick the best 2 teams. No reason for a playoff then.

 

Because a playoff is good for business that why....

 

And I never claimed to know it all, but there is clearly a reason why Delany is pushing this plan. And I fully believe he knows his teams would have been left out if the four best were taken. And I would say the voters do a pretty bang up job for the most part in the top 5 to 8. I guess the question to you is why do you feel the need to circumvent a system that uses 2 polls done by humans, a number of computer generated rankings & SOS to rank teams fairly TOO INSTEAD use a system that gives teams an auto bid not based on who they beat, or how hard their SOS is, but instead on how old and rich their conference is??

Again, look at the plan. It's not "circumventing" the system. It's refining the system.

 

Since 2006, CFB averages 6+ teams with 0 or 1 loss after the last week of the regular season. Smallest amount was 3 (2007). Largest amount was 9 (2008). Considering that SOS is inherently flawed (look it up), and human voters (coaches poll) don't watch every game, you're leaving entirely too much up to opinion.

[knapplc]

I'm firmly in the party of an 8 team playoff because it seems like the best of both worlds. Let in the 5 conference champs (B10, B12, SEC, ACC, PAC) from the current BCS conferences and then 3 at large. It keeps Alabama in from last year and gives teams like Boise a chance. If they can go undefeated and voters think highly enough of the SOS to put them in the top 5 then I don't have a problem with them making a playoff.

 

Exactly! And if the Boises of the world can earn their way through the playoff and win the title, nobody will complain about their weak schedule. If I'm Boise, and I've been harping on the lack of respect my team is getting over the past decade, THIS is the solution. It would silence the doubters - or prove them right.

[Saunders]

I'm firmly in the party of an 8 team playoff because it seems like the best of both worlds. Let in the 5 conference champs (B10, B12, SEC, ACC, PAC) from the current BCS conferences and then 3 at large. It keeps Alabama in from last year and gives teams like Boise a chance. If they can go undefeated and voters think highly enough of the SOS to put them in the top 5 then I don't have a problem with them making a playoff.

 

Exactly! And if the Boises of the world can earn their way through the playoff and win the title, nobody will complain about their weak schedule. If I'm Boise, and I've been harping on the lack of respect my team is getting over the past decade, THIS is the solution. It would silence the doubters - or prove them right.

I'm cool with this as well. What I don't want, is to see a 1 or 2 loss conference champ get shafted for a 1 or 2 loss wildcard. Because it will happen.

[It'sNotAFakeID]

The playoff should not be based on conference champions alone. What would've happened if UCLA pulled an upset against Oregon in the Pac-12 championship game in a format like the one proposed to happen? You seriously can't be telling me that a 6-7 team deserves to be in a four team playoff to determine the national champion?

 

I know that is an exaggeration, but teams with 3 losses win their conferences all the time. If you win your conference, I think you should get a little more recognition, but an automatic bid to the national championship playoffs is over the top (especially if there are teams who didn't win their division because they lost to the team that did--but ran roughshod all over the rest of the teams they played).

 

I wasn't fine with the voters picking LSU and Alabama to play each other last year. But if the playoff turned out that result (by taking the Top 4 teams--LSU, Alabama, Oklahoma State, and Oregon--so LSU vs Oregon and Okie Light vs Alabama (really the match up that a lot of people were playing in their heads to determine who should play LSU)), I would be perfectly okay with it--they did what they needed to do. The voters had no say in who got to the title game. Both those teams earned it on the field and proved by beating two of the top 4 teams in the nation, that they are indeed the best two teams in the nation.

 

With any playoff system that exists, the one who was the closest left out will always complain about something or another. You want a resolution to that--include a playoff system of all teams, give all teams a chance to win--like the Carling Cup and the F.A. Cup in England (for soccer). It doesn't diminish the value of the regular season, but then again the regular season has no say on how both of the cups play out.

 

You have to draw the line somewhere. Right now it's at 4, which means that #5, #6, #7, and #8 will all think they were "snubbed" in some way or another. If it goes to 8, then #9, #10, #11, and #12 will feel the same thing. Ask the NCAA Men's Basketball Selection Committee about teams #69, #70, #71, and #72. There is no true solution.

[It'sNotAFakeID]

And as far as 2001, that is the perfect example of the the one and only thing that can flaw the voting system. teams like tx, ne, nd, fsu and a few others who get the benifit of the doubt because of what they did years ago and not being judged on what they have done lately. Constantly starting the year ranked or ranked highly only to finish unranked or barely ranked at all. OR WORSE, being ranked ahead of teams that they should be behind based on their name alone

 

Which is a great reason why they should ban pre-season polls, and any poll before at least a week or two into conference play. I think that is the ONLY thing the BCS gets right - they hold off on their initial poll until we have something to base the poll on, not just hype.

 

And for the record, we didn't deserve to be in that 2001 game. But that's long, long ago.

 

It could make the non-conference games a little bit more exciting, too. You want to earn the top spot, schedule top teams and beat them. You want to earn a mid-ranking, schedule some patsies and cream them and get there on hype.

[fro daddy]

And as far as 2001, that is the perfect example of the the one and only thing that can flaw the voting system. teams like tx, ne, nd, fsu and a few others who get the benifit of the doubt because of what they did years ago and not being judged on what they have done lately. Constantly starting the year ranked or ranked highly only to finish unranked or barely ranked at all. OR WORSE, being ranked ahead of teams that they should be behind based on their name alone

 

Which is a great reason why they should ban pre-season polls, and any poll before at least a week or two into conference play. I think that is the ONLY thing the BCS gets right - they hold off on their initial poll until we have something to base the poll on, not just hype.

 

And for the record, we didn't deserve to be in that 2001 game. But that's long, long ago.

 

You and I have agreed on this point for a while now, probably since the first offseason I was here. Pre polls and polls in the first weeks are just dumb, not to mention the do hinder a true ranking. waiting to week 7 or 8 would be ideal. and i didnt bring up 2001, so no need to rehash that one.

[knapplc]

And as far as 2001, that is the perfect example of the the one and only thing that can flaw the voting system. teams like tx, ne, nd, fsu and a few others who get the benifit of the doubt because of what they did years ago and not being judged on what they have done lately. Constantly starting the year ranked or ranked highly only to finish unranked or barely ranked at all. OR WORSE, being ranked ahead of teams that they should be behind based on their name alone

 

Which is a great reason why they should ban pre-season polls, and any poll before at least a week or two into conference play. I think that is the ONLY thing the BCS gets right - they hold off on their initial poll until we have something to base the poll on, not just hype.

 

And for the record, we didn't deserve to be in that 2001 game. But that's long, long ago.

 

You and I have agreed on this point for a while now, probably since the first offseason I was here. Pre polls and polls in the first weeks are just dumb, not to mention the do hinder a true ranking. waiting to week 7 or 8 would be ideal. and i didnt bring up 2001, so no need to rehash that one.

 

And yet, you and I both helped make the HuskerBoard preseason poll. We did it to pass the time, though, while many of these polls are intended to be taken seriously. What a world, huh?

[MLB 51]

This could get interesting. What happens to the other two confeerence champs. Clearly they will have to expand this to a six team playoff to keep all happy. Also what of the indie teams?

[fro daddy]

And as far as 2001, that is the perfect example of the the one and only thing that can flaw the voting system. teams like tx, ne, nd, fsu and a few others who get the benifit of the doubt because of what they did years ago and not being judged on what they have done lately. Constantly starting the year ranked or ranked highly only to finish unranked or barely ranked at all. OR WORSE, being ranked ahead of teams that they should be behind based on their name alone

 

Which is a great reason why they should ban pre-season polls, and any poll before at least a week or two into conference play. I think that is the ONLY thing the BCS gets right - they hold off on their initial poll until we have something to base the poll on, not just hype.

 

And for the record, we didn't deserve to be in that 2001 game. But that's long, long ago.

 

You and I have agreed on this point for a while now, probably since the first offseason I was here. Pre polls and polls in the first weeks are just dumb, not to mention the do hinder a true ranking. waiting to week 7 or 8 would be ideal. and i didnt bring up 2001, so no need to rehash that one.

 

And yet, you and I both helped make the HuskerBoard preseason poll. We did it to pass the time, though, while many of these polls are intended to be taken seriously. What a world, huh?

 

Your right, for us its for poops and giggles not used to make it eaiser or harder for teams to get high rankings.

 

But your also leaving out that as 2/3 of the trifecta, leaving our awsomeness out of such a poll it would automatically make it void. We HAD to be included.

[broganreynik]

The whol

There will never be a conference champs only model. That's a given. The "4 best teams" model reeks of bias and collusion.

 

What the B1G Ten has been proposing all along (SEC misinformation aside) is a hybrid model.

 

 

Pay attention, please ...

Delany favors a "hybrid model" with a "quality-control cap" for selections: where the best conference champions are "honored" but allowances are made for elite teams that haven't won their leagues and/or divisions, as well as top independents like Notre Dame.

 

Here's what Delany said May 15 in Chicago:

"I don't want to adopt a model that any way belittles the regular-season championship process, whether it entails or doesn't entail a [conference] championship game. I also don't want to create a structure that doesn't reward highly regarded teams, whether they're independents or whether they're non-champions from other conferences. ... What is the right balance between champions, who have won it on the field, teams that are highly regarded but haven't won a conference championship and independents who should have a fair opportunity to play their way in as well?"

 

The Big Ten's view is spelled out pretty clearly. Athletic directors in Chicago discussed a playoff model that would include the top three-rated conference champions -- as long as they met a certain rankings threshold -- and a wild-card spot.

 

 

Link

 

too bad for Delany that his conference champs would still be left out in this model each of the last 4 years....(atleast if you did it right)

 

Also you still researving positions for teams that are conference champs. And who or what determines the merits of a conference winner. The ranking of that conference winner? Or just based on the conference?

 

To me an undefeated team in a mid major conference that played 2 Majors and destroyed every team they played winning nearly every game by 30 or 40+ points is better than a major co-champ who has a loss and played 5 teams within their conference that had 3 or less conference wins. But who gets the call in Delany's model. Im sure his big dog big10 team, not the TCU team that beat his big dog in Delany's own bowl game. So who gets the shaft if that is what happenes in 2010? Well that would be #4 Stanford, who was 12-1. That is unless you forget about taking a big 3 or 4 conf. winners (which is what I fully beleive Delany is after) and you do the right thing and take Auburn (conf winner), Oregon (conf winner), TCU (conf. winner) & Stanford (wild card) and leave the big10 out.

 

So I would ask Delany, are we supposed to take the a higher ranked team out and put a lower ranked one in based on the bias of a major conference?

 

What the ??? So the model that HE supports shows the opposite of bias towards his own conference, and you rail on him for only wanting his conference's teams in? How does that make any sense? I've ALWAYS thought a team should win it's conference to be in play for the National title. I thought it in 2001, I thought it in 2003, and I thought it in 2011. Your question of 8-5 Texas in 1996 is irrelevant, because they were not ranked in the top 6.

 

You guys are somehow dismissing that fact, that it's conference champions ranked in the top 6. So let's see, say this year the B1G, ACC and Big East champs are all rated lower than 6th. Holy cow your blessed second place SEC team gets in and you can all cheer of your dominance of the country.

 

You don't know that Alabama would have beat Oklahoma State or Wisconsin last year. You think they would have, but you don't know that. That's where rankings get murky. Without a round robin of all 120+ teams, there's no way to know if Team A is truly better than Team B. Therefore, go with the way that makes teams prove it on the field. You couldn't seal the deal at home against the team who finished #1? Tough.

 

At the same time, if a team loses multiple games, but somehow pulls out a conference championship, this way doesn't reward them either, because the rankings you hold near and dear will count them out.

 

BEST OF BOTH WORLDS.

 

But oh hell no, why would anyone ever want to compromise. What could ever be solved by that. If we don't have a four SEC-team playoff then it's all a sham!

[broganreynik]

Using the top 4 teams since 2006, there would have been rematches divisional/conference rematches in 2006, 2008, 2010 and 2011. There also would have been double rematches in 2006, and 2008. Four out of 6 years, the playoffs would have been rematches, and two of those years would have had 2 rematches.

I'll take your word for it since I don't have time to check for myself. It's irrelevant to how I feel about it anyway. If getting the 4 best teams into the playoff system being considered results in rematches, so be it. I want the best teams to square off, and if one of those teams is left out to make room for an inferior champion of a crap conference, the results will have no legitimacy from my perspective. If the playoff is expanded to 8 or 16 teams, my argument becomes moot - put all of the power conference champs into the mix and then all of the remaining best teams, so long as seeding is done by best to worst, regardless of conference championship status.

 

By your judgment. Judging a team as inferior without letting them prove it is no different than what we have now. Is it absolutely outside your idea of possibilities that maybe a team that wins the PAC-12 with one loss is better than a team that doesn't win the SEC and has one loss? It's not like we're throwing in USF over Alabama here. If you're going to go off half cocked, at least think about the whole proposal, not just pick and choose your battles.

[VA Husker Fan]

This may blow your mind, but I didn't think we deserved it in 2001, and was sure we'd get murdered.

We sure as heck belonged in a 4 team playoff though, right? Colorado and Oregon would've also been murdered by Miami. It was pretty much a toss-up of the 3 as to who should've been in.

[flatwaterfan]

IMO having a conference champion game is like a playoff game, so I am all for conference champions and no at-larges.

[knapplc]

This may blow your mind, but I didn't think we deserved it in 2001, and was sure we'd get murdered.

We sure as heck belonged in a 4 team playoff though, right? Colorado and Oregon would've also been murdered by Miami. It was pretty much a toss-up of the 3 as to who should've been in.

 

I'm leaning toward conference champions being the only qualified teams, so no, by that criteria we wouldn't be eligible.

[fro daddy]

What the ??? So the model that HE supports shows the opposite of bias towards his own conference, and you rail on him for only wanting his conference's teams in? How does that make any sense?

 

Because his teams would have possible got a spot in 2010. And really that format is the only one where most big10 teams have a shot lately. He is pushing it hard, that with the whole Rose bowl thing. Its my opinion as to why he is pushing it.

 

Same reason why the big12 and sec dont care for it, because they would put multiple teams in nearly every year without it.

 

Holy cow your blessed second place SEC team. you can all cheer of your dominance. If we don't have a four SEC-team playoff then it's all a sham.

 

 

You don't know that Alabama would have beat Oklahoma State or Wisconsin last year. You think they would have, but you don't know that

 

WHOA!! Slow down there buddy. NO WHERE did I ever go on some SEC rant. Mizzou has yet to play a single game in the SEC and simply put I grew up hating other big8/12 teams, Im not on the whole conference pride/cheer for your brethren train yet. NOR have I every acted like it, claim it, or pretended to be a part of it. Dont be pissed at me because the big10 has been avg for years. Dont be pissed at me because the cfb nation doenst believe your better than maybe 3rd or 4th best conference. Darn near every husker fan on this board would have echoed those thoughts more than 2 years ago, up until the day you became part of it.

 

And your right, I dont have special powers and cant see the future, so I cant for sure say that bama would have beat OSU or Wisc. BUT i did watch nearly every OSU, Bama & Wisc game and I DO fully beleive bama would have won by no less than 2 scores. Maybe thats because they are just better than those teams. I didnt know it was illegal to say what you think would happen. I guess you better warn all those posters picking nebraskas record for next year. OR is it just me who cant pick games??

 

And for the record I would have loved for bama and OSU to play, because I fully believe i would have made alot of money on that game. What do you think is more likely. OSU #3 O scoring on Bamas #1 D and one the best college team defenses in the history of the game, or bamas #31 O scoring on OSU's #107th ranked D? Bama allowed 10 or more pts only 5 times and more than 14 once. Meanwhile they scored 30 or more 9 times, 5 of those they scored over 40. OSU scored 30 or more 13 times, 9 times over 40. However the allowed 24 or more 10 times of those 5 where 30+ points allowed.

 

Given the recent sucess of the SEC teams against big12 offenses and other top O's (OU 08', TX 09' & Oregon 10' for MNC) and the fact that I believe and the stats show that its very likely that bama would have scored 30+ on OSU, and I believe and the stats show that Bama would have held OSU to well below their avgs. Is why I feel the way I do about that game. BUt then again instead of using my opinions formed over watching nearly all the games, and stats, and football knowledge, and a good track record of picking games and common thought, I bet you thought I just put on my saturday best, raised my conference flag (for a conference that were not in yet) and started chanting SEC SEC SEC SEC SEC SEC SEC SEC SEC SEC.