Fairest Comparisons?

[Zaimejs]

I have been reading a bit about the polls and the new playoff poll. I am just wondering what the ultimate fairest way to determine the best teams is?

 

You can't go by ratings because those are skewed.

 

Stats will also be skewed based on opponents.

 

You can't do strength of schedule because we base that on ratings which can't be ultimately, logically trusted.

 

It would see that the only real test (and it isn't a real test either) is to look at common opponents and margins of victory. But because there are so many variables on any given Saturday, not even this comparison makes sense.

 

So is there a fair way to accurately compare teams to determine the best teams? I don't think so.

 

But it seems like there should be an algorithm that could come close. What statistics would be most important?

 

total offense

total defense

points for

points against

turnover margin

 

????

 

 

[EbylHusker]

So is there a fair way to accurately compare teams to determine the best teams?

 

No. The only way to do it is to have a playoff that casts a large enough net so you catch the teams with a reasonable shot. And a 4 team playoff isn't nearly large enough.

 

Edit - And while the overall "best" team may not always be the best on the field on a given day, that's the nature of sports. Everyone accepts the winner of a real playoff can reasonably called the champion and best team, no matter how much a few might grumble on the side.

[grandpasknee]

I have been reading a bit about the polls and the new playoff poll. I am just wondering what the ultimate fairest way to determine the best teams is?

 

You can't go by ratings because those are skewed.

 

Stats will also be skewed based on opponents.

 

You can't do strength of schedule because we base that on ratings which can't be ultimately, logically trusted.

 

It would see that the only real test (and it isn't a real test either) is to look at common opponents and margins of victory. But because there are so many variables on any given Saturday, not even this comparison makes sense.

 

So is there a fair way to accurately compare teams to determine the best teams? I don't think so.

 

But it seems like there should be an algorithm that could come close. What statistics would be most important?

 

total offense

total defense

points for

points against

turnover margin

 

????

 

 

I'd add on more statistic to the algorithm and weight this one very heavily. >>>>>>> How many games did they suite up with a big, block, red N on their helmet. This should trump all other statistics.

[NebraskaShellback]

Why should a runner up (or more teams) in the same conference be considered in the playoffs, when they did not win their conference? It is another chance to be National Champions for multiple teams in the same conference to win. Win your freakin' conference, if not - their is always next year and take a bowl game, good luck.

[hskrpwr13]

Why should a runner up (or more teams) in the same conference be considered in the playoffs, when they did not win their conference? It is another chance to be National Champions for multiple teams in the same conference to win. Win your freakin' conference, if not - their is always next year and take a bowl game, good luck.

 

Exactly! Never understood why people try to compare the college football set up to the pro game. However, if I were to attempt that, the only objective way to do is to put in clear rules about how a non-conference winner can be selected. As one example, assuming X amount of teams go to the playoff after the Big5 conference champions, something like making those teams only have X amount of losses and finishing no lower than second in their division/conference. Then there'd have to be stipulations for the Independents.

 

Frankly, I think going to wild cards really makes these messy from an objectives perspective.

[JJ Husker]

This is exactly what makes college football unique and interesting, there is no definitive answer to the rankings. The best system is little more than various opinions arranged in haphazard, biased ways. They are trying to screw it up by having a playoff and settling the issue the only way you really can- on the field but, that is just going to take all the fun out of it. What fun would it be for a Michigan fan to know for a fact that they were not the National champs in 1997? Not much fun for them so we have this imperfect system that lets them think they were actually qualified to hold our jock straps in 97.

[Landlord]

Why should a runner up (or more teams) in the same conference be considered in the playoffs, when they did not win their conference? It is another chance to be National Champions for multiple teams in the same conference to win. Win your freakin' conference, if not - their is always next year and take a bowl game, good luck.

 

 

Why are people still asking this question when Bama throttled LSU in 2011

[jamesbond]

How about 8 sixteen team conferences divided into two divisions. Play your seven division opponents and 3 out of conference games. Then the division winners play each other to create the 8 team playoff. The rest of the teams could play an additional two games if wanted. So, win your division, beat your division opponent, leave nothing to chance or discussion.

[blackshirt98]

Why should a runner up (or more teams) in the same conference be considered in the playoffs, when they did not win their conference? It is another chance to be National Champions for multiple teams in the same conference to win. Win your freakin' conference, if not - their is always next year and take a bowl game, good luck.

I'm wit u here, conference champion of every conference in a play off and dat including the mac and wac and mountain west, all dem conferences in a battle royale!

[Branno]

 

 

Why should a runner up (or more teams) in the same conference be considered in the playoffs, when they did not win their conference? It is another chance to be National Champions for multiple teams in the same conference to win. Win your freakin' conference, if not - their is always next year and take a bowl game, good luck.

 

Why are people still asking this question when Bama throttled LSU in 2011

Because the Bama/LSU rematch is the entire reason we have the playoffs in the first place. The outcome of that doesn't really matter when it shouldn't have been played in the first place.

 

I for one don't want my shiny brand new playoffs to turn into a 4 game second SEC championship.

[okaive]

 

Why should a runner up (or more teams) in the same conference be considered in the playoffs, when they did not win their conference? It is another chance to be National Champions for multiple teams in the same conference to win. Win your freakin' conference, if not - their is always next year and take a bowl game, good luck.

 

Exactly! Never understood why people try to compare the college football set up to the pro game. However, if I were to attempt that, the only objective way to do is to put in clear rules about how a non-conference winner can be selected. As one example, assuming X amount of teams go to the playoff after the Big5 conference champions, something like making those teams only have X amount of losses and finishing no lower than second in their division/conference. Then there'd have to be stipulations for the Independents.

 

Frankly, I think going to wild cards really makes these messy from an objectives perspective.

 

 

I really like what your saying, but what about the Big 12? They only have ten teams and could easily have a situation that the big 10 had with 3 teams tied in the 2010 season. (Ohio St, Wisconsin and Mich St).

 

Personally I think that if we are going to this type of playoff, then all Power 5 conferences will be mandatory to have atleast 12 teams.

[MichiganDad3]

 

Why should a runner up (or more teams) in the same conference be considered in the playoffs, when they did not win their conference? It is another chance to be National Champions for multiple teams in the same conference to win. Win your freakin' conference, if not - their is always next year and take a bowl game, good luck.

 

 

Why are people still asking this question when Bama throttled LSU in 2011

 

Because a few non-SEC teams earned the opportunity to throttle LSU, but were denied.

[MichiganDad3]

 

 

Why should a runner up (or more teams) in the same conference be considered in the playoffs, when they did not win their conference? It is another chance to be National Champions for multiple teams in the same conference to win. Win your freakin' conference, if not - their is always next year and take a bowl game, good luck.

 

Exactly! Never understood why people try to compare the college football set up to the pro game. However, if I were to attempt that, the only objective way to do is to put in clear rules about how a non-conference winner can be selected. As one example, assuming X amount of teams go to the playoff after the Big5 conference champions, something like making those teams only have X amount of losses and finishing no lower than second in their division/conference. Then there'd have to be stipulations for the Independents.

 

Frankly, I think going to wild cards really makes these messy from an objectives perspective.

 

 

I really like what your saying, but what about the Big 12? They only have ten teams and could easily have a situation that the big 10 had with 3 teams tied in the 2010 season. (Ohio St, Wisconsin and Mich St).

 

Personally I think that if we are going to this type of playoff, then all Power 5 conferences will be mandatory to have atleast 12 teams.

 

Perhaps the solution is to give all conferences with 12 or more teams a first round bye. After all, the conference championship game is similar to the first round of the playoffs.

[Landlord]

Because a few non-SEC teams earned the opportunity to throttle LSU, but were denied.

 

 

 

Because the Bama/LSU rematch is the entire reason we have the playoffs in the first place. The outcome of that doesn't really matter when it shouldn't have been played in the first place.

I for one don't want my shiny brand new playoffs to turn into a 4 game second SEC championship.

 

 

Why shouldn't it have been played when Alabama dominated them and was the better team? Isn't the national championship supposed to go to the best team?

 

I agree with you guys and think OSU should have been in the title game but with the playoff I think preference should be given to conference champions but it shouldn't be an absolute rule, because if we're honest Bama earned that title even if they didn't deserve it.

[Glendower]

Strip down the "preseason" out of conference crap games-- begin conference play on week 2 and have teams play as many of their conference mates as possible and, consider the conference championships to be, effectively, the first round of the playoffs. After that, conference champions from the big 5 conferences and 3 wildcards (which would be selected by a committee but, possibly, be less critical than deciding the top four) for an 8 game playoff. Since we don't have a good way to determine ranking (that's what the playoffs are for in this scenario), pairings for each round are determined randomly.

 

Yes, maybe there will be a #2 from a conference that is better than the top team from another, but so what? They lost their conference. They might pick up a wildcard slot, anyway, unless a non-power 5 conference seems to offer more interesting or worthy addition, but this isn't double elimination.

 

This way, it's not a question of ranking (which, without extensive and significant interconference play, are based on previous rankings reaching back to the preseason rankings-- they really just have to be in order to ascertain the value of a win or loss), just a question of performance during the regular season. Wins will still matter, etc.