Chatelain: Playoff should reward conference champions

[MLB 51]

Once again, how does this affect the auto bids. Clearly a 1 loss Ala. team is better than a 3 loss Big East team, or a 4 loss Neuter Dame. How do they keep all the conferences happy.

[bhamHusker]

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.

Allow me to quote myself since you seem to be misjudging me:

First, I need the obligatory disclaimer: I live deep in 'Bama country here in Birmingham and my wife is a die hard 'Bama fan, but I'm not an Alabama fan in any degree, nor am I a fan of the SEC - AT ALL.

My friends down here, along with my wife have been known to call me an SEC Hater, so don't misunderstand - even if I liked Alabama or the SEC, which I most assuredly do not, they would be VERY distant seconds to NU and the B1G. Conference strength and dominance is cyclical, and while what I'm saying might currently favor the SEC, I have no doubt that at some point the B1G, Pac-12, Big 12 or ACC will be the beneficiaries of such a system. I'm not going off half cocked (you, on the other hand seem to be) or picking and choosing. I think as long as we're talking about a play off with only 4 teams, those 4 must be the top 4 according to the BCS rankings or whatever similar selection system replaces it (I don't really see that happening). If / when we can get to 8 or more teams the system can be more inclusive of conference champions, and I'll more than welcome that. Personally, I'd prefer to see 16 for an optimal system or 8 at a minimum - 4 teams leaves too much room for arguments exactly like what we're seeing in this thread.

 

Using last year as an example, it's clear to me that LSU and Alabama were head and shoulders above any of the other teams in the discussion. Of course we can't be 100% sure about it since we never got a chance to see them all slug it out with each other, but that can be said of virtually any of the 120 teams last year. We may not know with absolute certainty that the Stanford, Oklahoma State, Oregon, Wisconsin or even Boise or Houston wouldn't have been a better match-up, but I think we have a pretty good idea. I think we can conclude with relative ease that Wisconsin or Oregon weren't better than Alabama just because they won their conferences in the same way that we can conclude that Boise or Houston aren't: by looking at what they did and comparing it to LSU or Alabama. The same goes for the others that were left out. No, it's not perfect (obviously), but I think the system got it right last year, whether you or I cared for the matchup or not. For a 4 team playoff, a similar selection for the top 4 teams will get it right more more often than not.

['SkersRule]

Top 4 conference champions in 2011: #1 LSU, #3 Oklahoma St, #5 Oregon, #7 Boise. You can't tell me you wouldn't be pissed that Boise got in over Alabama.

 

 

...or that 2001 Nebraska wouldn't have even been in the discussion.

 

If that type of scenario were to happen then boo-hoo for Alabama...win your conference next time. This is why if we're going to move college football to a true play-off then the play-off needs to be 16 teams. There are 11 FBS conferences, give the champion of each conference an automatic bid to the play-offs and then have 5 "at-large" teams fill out the field. Those teams that don't make the play-offs can still go to bowl games. Every level of football has a play-off except D1-A. And would the a**holes saying that a play-off would detract from the student's academics go take a five iron and then shove it up their own a**es? I get so tired of hearing all the pathetic excuses as to why major college football can't have a play-off.

[huKSer]

Top 4 conference champions in 2011: #1 LSU, #3 Oklahoma St, #5 Oregon, #7 Boise. You can't tell me you wouldn't be pissed that Boise got in over Alabama.

 

 

...or that 2001 Nebraska wouldn't have even been in the discussion.

 

If that type of scenario were to happen then boo-hoo for Alabama...win your conference next time. This is why if we're going to move college football to a true play-off then the play-off needs to be 16 teams. There are 11 FBS conferences, give the champion of each conference an automatic bid to the play-offs and then have 5 "at-large" teams fill out the field. Those teams that don't make the play-offs can still go to bowl games. Every level of football has a play-off except D1-A. And would the a**holes saying that a play-off would detract from the student's academics go take a five iron and then shove it up their own a**es? I get so tired of hearing all the pathetic excuses as to why major college football can't have a play-off.

How many teams are in the lower division play-offs?

[GSG]

Top 4 conference champions in 2011: #1 LSU, #3 Oklahoma St, #5 Oregon, #7 Boise. You can't tell me you wouldn't be pissed that Boise got in over Alabama.

 

 

...or that 2001 Nebraska wouldn't have even been in the discussion.

 

If that type of scenario were to happen then boo-hoo for Alabama...win your conference next time. This is why if we're going to move college football to a true play-off then the play-off needs to be 16 teams. There are 11 FBS conferences, give the champion of each conference an automatic bid to the play-offs and then have 5 "at-large" teams fill out the field. Those teams that don't make the play-offs can still go to bowl games. Every level of football has a play-off except D1-A. And would the a**holes saying that a play-off would detract from the student's academics go take a five iron and then shove it up their own a**es? I get so tired of hearing all the pathetic excuses as to why major college football can't have a play-off.

How many teams are in the lower division play-offs?

 

FCS has 20

 

Division II has 24

 

Division III has 64

 

As far as I know, the lower divisions all play a few less regular season games. I played D-3, we had 8 conference games and 2 non-con games. I'm not sure how the playoff teams are determined though.

[HUSKER 37]

The voices in mmy head keep telling me not to post on this thread. But... There's just so many things I want to learn.

 

#!) Am I un-American for not really caring who has the "Best" team?

 

I loved playing Football and took losses really hard but the older I get, the less I let them get me down.

 

1971's "Game of the Century" was the first time I enjoyed watching a game almost as much as actually playing and I was left with the overpowering feeling that if NU and OU played 10 times that season, we'd each win 7.

 

I've tried to like the NFL and the lower divisions of college ball, but they never seemed to interest me near as much. I always suspected it was because of the lack of a playoff..That Division 1 had the right (delicate?) mix of controversy and excitement.

 

In my mind, I think the BCS was a great compromise to the old bowl system, but in my heart..the probability of rematches with the expanded conferences and conference championship games makes the regular season a little "tarnished"? or something.

 

#2) Any guess as to how many times the "best team" wins? Last season, LSU and Alabama split their games...Which one was better?

 

[The King]

Rewarding conference champions would only make sense if all conferences were equal. No way do I reward the big Easy champ or ACC champ for playing in a weak conference that inflates there ranking because they are in an AQ. Top 4 teams. Period. Conference champ or not.

[Saunders]

Rewarding conference champions would only make sense if all conferences were equal. No way do I reward the big Easy champ or ACC champ for playing in a weak conference that inflates there ranking because they are in an AQ. Top 4 teams. Period. Conference champ or not.

Here's some top ten team records from the Week 15 rankings (post CCG's).

 

2 teams are 12-0

3 Teams are 12-1

4 teams are 11-1

 

 

Without knowing teams names, prove which teams are the best and deserving of the top 4.

[The King]

Okay I'd need more information. The way you are doing it is highly flawed. I'd need to know strength of schedule, W-L vs top 25 teams, AT LEAST.

[Saunders]

Okay I'd need more information. The way you are doing it is highly flawed. I'd need to know strength of schedule, W-L vs top 25 teams, AT LEAST.

I'll bite. I'm not using SOS, because it's a broken system. But I will use top 25 victories. These are wins over ranked teams (at time of game).

 

 

2 teams are 12-0

A. (1-0)

B. (2-0)

 

3 Teams are 12-1

C. (4-1)

D. (4-0)

E. (3-1)

 

4 teams are 11-1

F. (3-1)

G. (3-0)

H. (3-1)

I. (3-0)

[huKSer]

Okay I'd need more information. The way you are doing it is highly flawed. I'd need to know strength of schedule, W-L vs top 25 teams, AT LEAST.

I'll bite. I'm not using SOS, because it's a broken system. But I will use top 25 victories. These are wins over ranked teams (at time of game).

 

 

2 teams are 12-0

A. (1-0)

B. (2-0)

 

3 Teams are 12-1

C. (4-1)

D. (4-0)

E. (3-1)

 

4 teams are 11-1

F. (3-1)

G. (3-0)

H. (3-1)

I. (3-0)

I was going to give this a try, but I was more interested in sub-top ten losses. Losing to a non-elite team shows lack of consistency, Beating (or a close loss) to an elite team, if you are an elite team, should be expected

 

And it can't be at the time. ND (among others) are almost always over-rated at the start of the season. Beating an end of the season 6-6 ND team that was rated in the first week does little for me.

[Saunders]

Okay I'd need more information. The way you are doing it is highly flawed. I'd need to know strength of schedule, W-L vs top 25 teams, AT LEAST.

I'll bite. I'm not using SOS, because it's a broken system. But I will use top 25 victories. These are wins over ranked teams (at time of game).

 

 

2 teams are 12-0

A. (1-0)

B. (2-0)

 

3 Teams are 12-1

C. (4-1)

D. (4-0)

E. (3-1)

 

4 teams are 11-1

F. (3-1)

G. (3-0)

H. (3-1)

I. (3-0)

I was going to give this a try, but I was more interested in sub-top ten losses. Losing to a non-elite team shows lack of consistency, Beating (or a close loss) to an elite team, if you are an elite team, should be expected

 

And it can't be at the time. ND (among others) are almost always over-rated at the start of the season. Beating an end of the season 6-6 ND team that was rated in the first week does little for me.

Yeah, that's gonna take alot more work, and it goes towards proving my point. SOS is flawed. Rankings are flawed. By using conference champs, you are only accounting for one thing. Did a team win their conference? If the answer is no, then you don't deserve it.

[Caven]

The playoff removes a lot of that, hence the point. Rewarding teams for being in a weak conference isn't exactly the answer either though. Why have rankings if it's just conference champions? It'll just be the big 10, big 12, PAC 12, and SEC every year. No repeats, but sounds kind of like exhibitions not playoff games.

 

I am with you on this one chris. And too me its not even close. The conferences that push this the hardest are just telling me they know they cant compete with the best and they know their champions are not as good as the 2nd or even 3rd place finishers in others. Frankly I feel like had this been brought up when NE was still in the big12 there is no question people would want the best teams in alone. Now as a part of the big10 i truely am surprised to see the number folks that are behind a conference champion only format. Maybe thats because in the big12 you could lose the big12 championship game and still be ranked just as high or higher than other conference winners. The big10 is all about just conference winners. Probably because over the last few year they would be shut out without it. But confence champs alone are the best team according to Delany...Lord knows everyone here thinks that the 96 Texas team that was 8-5 deserved to be in a final 4 championship playoff....

 

I can just see it now. For the first time in a while the big10 will have multiple top level dominant teams and a one loss 11-1 team will be left out for a 2 or 3 or 5 loss team who won a weak conference or had a once in a million game and Deleny will poop his pants in outrage. Take the best 4 that way you atleast know you got the best four teams.

 

And counter points to the"If you're not the best team in your conference, you're not the best team in the country"

1. It doest mean you not one of the 4 best teams in the country though.

2. Just because you won your conference as a 2 or 3 loss team doest mean you better than a number of other teams in better conference.

 

If you want your conference winner to be guarenteed a spot....QUIT HAVING 2 & 3 LOSS CONFERENCE CHAMPIONS!!! Quit playing low end schedules, quit lining up and playing rounds of pansy noncons if you know you have 2 of the worst BCS conference team in your conference as opponents.

 

Quit playing low end schedules is the exact reason why top 4 in the polls doesn't work. While the rest of the country is balls deep in massive conference matchups and rivalry games, the SEC is playing teams like Middle Tennessee, UMass, New Mexico State, Troy, LA-Lafayette. And then of course there is this powerhouse week at the end of November:

 

TBD Alabama A&M @ Auburn Tickets » TBD Jacksonville State @ Florida Tickets » TBD Georgia Southern @ Georgia Tickets » TBD Samford @ Kentucky Tickets » TBD Ole Miss @ LSU Tickets » TBD Syracuse @ Missouri Tickets » TBD Tennessee @ Vanderbilt Tickets » TBD Sam Houston State @ Texas A&M Tickets » TBD Western Carolina @ Alabama Tickets » TBD Arkansas @ Mississippi State Tickets » TBD Wofford @ South Carolina

 

 

The SEC knows how to game the rankings system. Yes they have had a good run of winning the 1 game that matters - but they have consistently put themselves in position to have a team in that game because they schedule to the rankings. If you want the ranking to be meaningful then power teams need to play other power teams more than 5 times in a season outside of conference play. The B10/P12 challenge starting in 2015 is a start. Set up a weekend in late October between the SEC and the B10 or B12. See which conference is truly the best top to bottom. Once you start doing those kinds of things then you can make the argument that the polls matter - but as it stands with college football right now the polls are just a glorified beauty pageant where some of the contestants are pretty and know how to game the system and others just go out and do their thing. The Big 10 has been down for almost a decade now - but that doesn't mean that we should accept an unlevel playing field. Our teams will bounce back - some possibly soon - and it would be nice if when they do they don't find that they don't have access to the party because of the black eye they got clawing their way there.

 

In a world where a 2 loss LSU makes it to the title game over a BCS conference team with 1 loss simply because they are from the SEC and a rematch was denied to Michigan/Ohio State because, well, we already saw how that game would end, but when it was the SEC that was in that position the polls gladly put the teams in the game - I can see why Delaney is reluctant to trust the polls to be making the decisions.

[The King]

I don't care for at time of game, really, but I'll still play. I take C-D maybe F or H could be considered.

 

This is not at all realistic because the BCS gets to see who the teams are, see the statistics, see how they fare and matchup against other teams, and gets to give them the eye test. Your giving me a bunch of records that have no way of being distinguished from each other. Highly flawed.

 

Once again, this won't really work unless I have end of season SOS, top 25 W-L, at the bare minimum.

[fro daddy]

Quit playing low end schedules is the exact reason why top 4 in the polls doesn't work. While the rest of the country is balls deep in massive conference matchups and rivalry games, the SEC is playing teams like Middle Tennessee, UMass, New Mexico State, Troy, LA-Lafayette. And then of course there is this powerhouse week at the end of November:

 

TBD Alabama A&M @ Auburn Tickets » TBD Jacksonville State @ Florida Tickets » TBD Georgia Southern @ Georgia Tickets » TBD Samford @ Kentucky Tickets » TBD Ole Miss @ LSU Tickets » TBD Syracuse @ Missouri Tickets » TBD Tennessee @ Vanderbilt Tickets » TBD Sam Houston State @ Texas A&M Tickets » TBD Western Carolina @ Alabama Tickets » TBD Arkansas @ Mississippi State Tickets » TBD Wofford @ South Carolina

 

While I apprieciate the effort, your approach is all wrong. Because unlike every other conference the SEC plays conference games in the first weeks of the year. Meaning they have to spread out OOC games. While the big10 and everyone playing warmups the SEC is playing full on games. So frankly that little dig your trying to make is flawed and 100% incorrect.

 

In comparison, while ne plays 2 high school teams, 1 decent mid and an avg BSC school in their first four games, Missouri would have played 1 HS team, 1 avg BSC school and 2 top 10 conference opponents. so.......i guess that "powerhouse week" comment looks just a little different now? huh?!

 

And frankly calling out SEC schools for their noncon is kinda silly. Because they play decent teams out of conference. As good or better than any other collective conference. Then when you consider the quality of conference opponent it just adds to it. Consider that Indiana and Minnisota are two of the worst BCS confernce teams their are. If you know you have creampuffs on your schedule its your job to schedule teams around that to beef it up. Yes certain teams can catch a load in any conference, nebraskas has a much harder sched. than say mich or wisc this year. But you or I just cant write it off that in the SEC you are likely to play in minnimum of 4 to 5 ranked teams. Then if you play 1 good non con that is 9 BCS games and nearly half you scheduled would be ranked teams.

 

And again, let me say, yes the SEC is it right now, but it likely wont be that way forever. I like the 4 best teams things because I like it. Not because my old and new conference both like it. Not because some secret SEC newsletter told me too. BUt because I like it that way. And maybe one day if the big10 raises again, I will still like it. I will still think you take the best teams and play them. And its not perfect, but you can use some knowledge and common sense to help you make the picks, you can use as SOS, games agasint ranked teams, losses to ranked and unranked opps, head to head wins, wins agasint teams with winning records, margin of victory and so on.

 

Neither way is perfect. The first time a 1 loss team gets left out some team that hasnt beaten anybody wins their first game against a team with a winning record and its for a conf. title and that team that has the loss is 5-1 against ranked teams, people will flip. And before you say that cant happen, ku was #2 in the country and 1 game away from playing for a big12 title and 2 from a MNC and they had not beaten a winning team all year. Infact until the bowl games went final and some 6-6 teams picked up that 7th win, they only beat 1 team with a winning record all year and that was VT in the orange bowl. they made a BCS game with ZERO wins over teams with winning records... Teams will get the shaft either way. But for me personally I want that #5 team that gets left out, to be ranked #5 or higher.