Chatelain: Playoff should reward conference champions

[kchusker_chris]

It's not about Alabama being in the championship game. Everyone acts like we are picking the champion...they aren't. That's the point of a playoff, and the best 4 should be included. I don't care if you agree with last year, this is about next year and Alabama would have beat everyone of the other conference champions 4 out of 5 times, and quite possibly their own conference champion 3 out of 5....yet you don't think they should have been included in a playoff? Well that immediately takes any legitimacy away from the playoff. It's not Alabama's fault the SEC is loaded right now - it won't always be that way so why structure the playoff around the assumption they will always be heavily weighted and penalize them for that while they are?

Uh, yeah they are. Last year the system said 'Bama was the best, even though they had already lost to the team they beat. When you aren't even giving other conferences a shot at the title because conference bias gets in the way, there's a problem.

No you aren't, the playoff determines the champion.

 

But by your logic Oregon would have gotten in then. They lost to the same team Alabama lost to, by a wider margin and had a second loss after that. But they are top 4 and Alabama isn't?

Correct, and that's the way the season played out. But the chances of that happening are infinitely smaller than seeing two teams from the same conference (or division) play again.

So you don't really care about the legitimacy of the playoff...you just want to ensure we don't have rematches. Gotcha.

[Saunders]

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.

Nope. If you aren't the best team in your own division, let alone conference, how can you be the best team in the country? It's stupidly simple.

 

Win your division.

Win your conference.

Win the playoff.

 

If you can't do all those, you don't deserve it, period. You don't have polls, voters, or anyone to blame but yourselves. No politicking. No "best conference" circular logic. None of it.

 

I would have loved to see Boise get in over Bama, and I don't even like Boise. Any system that doesn't put a priority on conference champs is inherently flawed due to human bias. Since that will never happen (SEC is already crying) the a top 3 champs +1 at large is the next best thing.

Then you are saying you don't want the playoff to be comprised of the top 4 teams.

Top 4 teams is relative.

[kchusker_chris]

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.

Nope. If you aren't the best team in your own division, let alone conference, how can you be the best team in the country? It's stupidly simple.

 

Win your division.

Win your conference.

Win the playoff.

 

If you can't do all those, you don't deserve it, period. You don't have polls, voters, or anyone to blame but yourselves. No politicking. No "best conference" circular logic. None of it.

 

I would have loved to see Boise get in over Bama, and I don't even like Boise. Any system that doesn't put a priority on conference champs is inherently flawed due to human bias. Since that will never happen (SEC is already crying) the a top 3 champs +1 at large is the next best thing.

Then you are saying you don't want the playoff to be comprised of the top 4 teams.

Top 4 teams is relative.

Very true, but 2 losses with a shared opponent versus 1 loss is easy. As is Alabama versus Boise...we know how that would have turned out without wasting a playoff game on the pairing

[Guy Chamberlin]

As this thread makes clear, a playoff system still leaves plenty of room for arguments.

 

Win/win.

[Saunders]

It's not about Alabama being in the championship game. Everyone acts like we are picking the champion...they aren't. That's the point of a playoff, and the best 4 should be included. I don't care if you agree with last year, this is about next year and Alabama would have beat everyone of the other conference champions 4 out of 5 times, and quite possibly their own conference champion 3 out of 5....yet you don't think they should have been included in a playoff? Well that immediately takes any legitimacy away from the playoff. It's not Alabama's fault the SEC is loaded right now - it won't always be that way so why structure the playoff around the assumption they will always be heavily weighted and penalize them for that while they are?

Uh, yeah they are. Last year the system said 'Bama was the best, even though they had already lost to the team they beat. When you aren't even giving other conferences a shot at the title because conference bias gets in the way, there's a problem.

No you aren't, the playoff determines the champion.

 

But by your logic Oregon would have gotten in then. They lost to the same team Alabama lost to, by a wider margin and had a second loss after that. But they are top 4 and Alabama isn't?

Correct, and that's the way the season played out. But the chances of that happening are infinitely smaller than seeing two teams from the same conference (or division) play again.

So you don't really care about the legitimacy of the playoff...you just want to ensure we don't have rematches. Gotcha.

Any system that relies on humans determining who gets in is inherently flawed. Your idea of "legitimacy" is illogical and incorrect.

[Saunders]

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.

Nope. If you aren't the best team in your own division, let alone conference, how can you be the best team in the country? It's stupidly simple.

 

Win your division.

Win your conference.

Win the playoff.

 

If you can't do all those, you don't deserve it, period. You don't have polls, voters, or anyone to blame but yourselves. No politicking. No "best conference" circular logic. None of it.

 

I would have loved to see Boise get in over Bama, and I don't even like Boise. Any system that doesn't put a priority on conference champs is inherently flawed due to human bias. Since that will never happen (SEC is already crying) the a top 3 champs +1 at large is the next best thing.

Then you are saying you don't want the playoff to be comprised of the top 4 teams.

Top 4 teams is relative.

Very true, but 2 losses with a shared opponent versus 1 loss is easy. As is Alabama versus Boise...we know how that would have turned out without wasting a playoff game on the pairing

Yeah, just like when Bama creamed Utah.

 

 

http://scores.espn.go.com/ncf/recap?gameId=290020333

 

Oh wait.

[kchusker_chris]

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.

[fro daddy]

comparing bama and boise teams last year to a bama team 3 years ago is definatly applicable here...

 

 

[fro daddy]

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.

[Saunders]

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.

What do you think a playoff is? Playoffs themselves don't reward the best overall team, they reward the hottest teams. If we aren't going to use a strict guideline system, and force teams to prove it on the field, then what's the point? Let's just pick the best 2 SEC teams, have them play each other, and give the winner a MNC, and continue the circlejerk. That's what we do know, and it's why we had that crapfest of a "title game" this year.

 

There's a reason why the playoff system that people have been bitching about for a decade is finally coming around. It's because outside of Baton Rouge and Tuscaloosa, very few people thought the current system got it right last year. Even in the middle of SEC country (where I live) it was considered a sham.

[Saunders]

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. 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 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.

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

[fro daddy]

Let's just pick the best 2 SEC teams, have them play each other, and give the winner a MNC, and continue the circlejerk. That's what we do know, and it's why we had that crapfest of a "title game" this year.

 

There's a reason why the playoff system that people have been bitching about for a decade is finally coming around. It's because outside of Baton Rouge and Tuscaloosa, very few people thought the current system got it right last year. Even in the middle of SEC country (where I live) it was considered a sham.

 

Frankly, LSU & BAMA would have run **adult content** all over any other conference out there. Yes a rematch isnt as great as a game featuring two team that have yet to play. But there is no doubt in my mind those were the two best teams. OSU was good. Even sometimes very good. BUT not top 2 great. They just were not. They lost to ISU, who was lead by a first time starter. The same ISU who beat northern iowa by 1, Uconn by 4 & ku by 3. The same ISU that lost by 23 to 6th place texas, lost by 23 to baylor, 35 to missouri, 16 to aTm & 20 to OU.

 

And please for the love of god dont tell me that 85 kids 18-23 years old were just devistated by a woman bb coach and assistant that died. Yes the deaths were tragic, but lets be real here. How many of those boys even knew who those coaches were. Were not talking about fb coaches or MBB.

[CornHOLIO]

They really need to play a "best of seven" to get the best team

[bhamHusker]

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.

 

That said, I'm with KC, too. There will be times, although rare (hopefully) that the two (or 4 since we're talking about a 4 team playoff) best teams in the country happen to play each other earlier in the year. It's rarer still when the two are in the same conference, and even more rare that they happen to be in the same division. That rare circumstance doesn't change the fact that they're among the four best teams in the country. Excluding one to make a space for a weaker conference champion, with potentially more losses and a lower BCS ranking, makes no sense. For the system to be legitimate, it HAS to put the best 4 teams in the country into the playoff, not the 4 that happen to have won potentially weak / cheap conference championships.

[fro daddy]

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?