College Football Playoff
- Thread starter twolt
- Start date
It's a thought...but truth be told, unless the major conferences get out of the system which determines who the NC should be, or the polls no longer have any meaning and all play is bracketed by conferences (with the winners of each conference going to the selection pool), a playoff will be counterproductive.
If a top-8 bracket were used, both Virginia Tech and Boise St. would not be in the running if it were based upon poll selection.
Nor would the Big 10 champs (Michigan) for that matter.
The whole system is inherently flawed. You have arbitrary voting to determine who the best teams are, but then a competitive system to determine who is awarded the championship. The two are incompatible, really.
At best, a poll system or selection committe would just extend the current controversy to include more teams who could have a gripe.
Instead of just Auburn having a beef with not getting to play USC, you'll have Boise St making a claim it belongs in the top 8 because of it's undefeated record, and Virginia Tech making a claim that its 10-2 record is superior to Georgia's 9-2 record by virtue of playing and winning an additional game.
However....
If conferences were dissolved (they pretty much have outlived their usefullness anyway - I think transportation has improved enough to where the need to have close regional competition is no longer there) and schedules were unlocked to allow a greater range of opponents, then a legitimate ELO rating system could be used.
If you're not familiar with an ELO rating - it's simply a system where one's rating goes up or down depending on the strength of the team you face. ELO goes up more if you beat a higher rated team, and down more if you lose to a lower rated team (and up less beating a lower rated team and down less losing to a higher rated team).
This is the system that's incorporated into Sagarin's rating system in USA Today if you're familiar with that.
A true rating system can't work, though, as long as there are "inbred" schedules. If the same 8-12 teams play the majority of their games against each other, there's no way to get a statistically valid rating in place for the whole of Div 1A.
So really, if everyone wants a playoff, the only way to get it is to start pushing for independant status or more open scheduling. Once conferences aren't controlling schedules and requiring minimum conference matches, it will be much easier to make substantial and positive changes, I think.
USA Today has a nice article on the huge cluster-f*ck that is the BCS and its controlling interests, the Major Conferences.
IRISH!
If a top-8 bracket were used, both Virginia Tech and Boise St. would not be in the running if it were based upon poll selection.
Nor would the Big 10 champs (Michigan) for that matter.
The whole system is inherently flawed. You have arbitrary voting to determine who the best teams are, but then a competitive system to determine who is awarded the championship. The two are incompatible, really.
At best, a poll system or selection committe would just extend the current controversy to include more teams who could have a gripe.
Instead of just Auburn having a beef with not getting to play USC, you'll have Boise St making a claim it belongs in the top 8 because of it's undefeated record, and Virginia Tech making a claim that its 10-2 record is superior to Georgia's 9-2 record by virtue of playing and winning an additional game.
However....
If conferences were dissolved (they pretty much have outlived their usefullness anyway - I think transportation has improved enough to where the need to have close regional competition is no longer there) and schedules were unlocked to allow a greater range of opponents, then a legitimate ELO rating system could be used.
If you're not familiar with an ELO rating - it's simply a system where one's rating goes up or down depending on the strength of the team you face. ELO goes up more if you beat a higher rated team, and down more if you lose to a lower rated team (and up less beating a lower rated team and down less losing to a higher rated team).
This is the system that's incorporated into Sagarin's rating system in USA Today if you're familiar with that.
A true rating system can't work, though, as long as there are "inbred" schedules. If the same 8-12 teams play the majority of their games against each other, there's no way to get a statistically valid rating in place for the whole of Div 1A.
So really, if everyone wants a playoff, the only way to get it is to start pushing for independant status or more open scheduling. Once conferences aren't controlling schedules and requiring minimum conference matches, it will be much easier to make substantial and positive changes, I think.
USA Today has a nice article on the huge cluster-f*ck that is the BCS and its controlling interests, the Major Conferences.
IRISH!
I'd rather have an argument for #9 being left out in the cold than the argument for Auburn and Utah, both going unbeaten, playing really good and decent opponents respectively, and not even getting a shot at being #1. It's like the Bball tourney each year, the teams that are 66th can argue that they belong, but it really doesn't matter when the champion is crowned.
The big picture is that every other athlete in every other sport has the chance to prove it on the field or the court, and college football doesn't. That sucks and I'd like to see it change, just like the majority of fans across the nation.
The big picture is that every other athlete in every other sport has the chance to prove it on the field or the court, and college football doesn't. That sucks and I'd like to see it change, just like the majority of fans across the nation.
I see your point, hoya - but It's really a semantic argument you're making.
I mean, what if you had 9 undefeated teams? Or (and more likely) 9 teams with only 1 loss?
It doesn't matter if there's 2 or 8 or 32 teams in a playoff - as long as the means to determine who actually goes to the playoff is arbitrary, it won't be fair either. Boise St. should have had a shot as well as Utah or Auburn but BSU was screwed in the polls and didn't stand even a margin of a chance.
If we're going to determine the champion on the field, determining who is eligible to play for the championship should be decided on the field as well.
And the only way for a non-arbitrary selection system to work would be if conference scheduling were eliminated.
IRISH!
I mean, what if you had 9 undefeated teams? Or (and more likely) 9 teams with only 1 loss?
It doesn't matter if there's 2 or 8 or 32 teams in a playoff - as long as the means to determine who actually goes to the playoff is arbitrary, it won't be fair either. Boise St. should have had a shot as well as Utah or Auburn but BSU was screwed in the polls and didn't stand even a margin of a chance.
If we're going to determine the champion on the field, determining who is eligible to play for the championship should be decided on the field as well.
And the only way for a non-arbitrary selection system to work would be if conference scheduling were eliminated.
IRISH!
I see your point as well.
But what would eliminating conference scheduling really solve? Each team could do what KState does every year and schedule special olympic athletes to play against so they could run their record perfect. If 8 teams did this and went undefeated, and let's say USC, NU, LSU, Auburn, Michigan, Florida all played each other once or twice and lost, who would you shut out then?
I just think it would be a lot more fair to bump a team that played a weak schedule (BSU) from playoff contention than to not give a team that beat tough opponents and ranked teams (Utah/Auburn) even a chance to wind up #1.
Any type of playoff would be better than what we have now, because more than 1, 2 or 3 teams would have a chance to prove they were the best. Even a +1 would be better, even though that would have still screwed Utah this year.
Ahhh...you are correct!
Which is why an ELO system would work well. Because conference games wouldn't be confining who a team's opponents will be, national scheduling can happen more freely and a truer measure can be made of how good a team really is.
Boise St. wouldn't be playing Rice and UTEP but traditionally Big 12/10, SEC, ACC, Pac-10 teams because they wouldn't get as far ahead beating up on weak teams., Weak teams would have bad ELO ratings, and therefore not worth as much.
Teams that want to win will go after the bigger fish, as it were - because losses don't hurt as much and wins are much more beneficial. The incentive to have a stronger schedule will push sandbaggers like KSU out of the running.
IRISH!
Which is why an ELO system would work well. Because conference games wouldn't be confining who a team's opponents will be, national scheduling can happen more freely and a truer measure can be made of how good a team really is.
Boise St. wouldn't be playing Rice and UTEP but traditionally Big 12/10, SEC, ACC, Pac-10 teams because they wouldn't get as far ahead beating up on weak teams., Weak teams would have bad ELO ratings, and therefore not worth as much.
Teams that want to win will go after the bigger fish, as it were - because losses don't hurt as much and wins are much more beneficial. The incentive to have a stronger schedule will push sandbaggers like KSU out of the running.
IRISH!
HANC
All-Conference
Last year I called into a talk show and offered advice simailar to this....concerning potential playoff......Now, I am unsure of how many bowls there now are, so my numbers may be off
I suggested a 16 team play-off using the final BCS rankings to find the top 16... number 17 will be pissed, but hey, it's #17....
Use all of the curent bowls in existance, so no one gets bent out of shape....the cities keep their tourist attractions....
For 16 teams, you would need to use your "top 15 bowl games"...
The 3rd weekend in December play round 1 at 8 different bowl sites...Top 8 winners advance, losing 8 take the bowl payout and go home...(Winners get no $, except for travel expenses paid by bowl to help universities to absorb cost)
The final weekend in December, play round 2 using the next 4 highest ranking bowl sites..... once again, losers take bowl payout for themselves and conf. and go home....Winners take travel stipend and move on
1st weekend in Jan......Remaining 4 teams play in 2 of BCS sites for semi-final games.....losers get paid and go home
2nd weekend in Jan....Championship game at rotating BCS site...... Gauranteed payout for winner and losing school....
Under this scenario, schools don't lose money for extra travel, they still get bowl payout for revenue, bowl sites still get attraction, we get play-off
Now, this scenario used only 15 bowls, leaving maybe 20 bowls left..... Here is were you make everyone else happy..... during the 2nd week of December (after Conf. Championships and before play-off) let these 20 - some bowls select games from #17 - ? for a bowl game .....This would be a bowl site for the unfortunate who didn't make tourney (NIT of football)..... ESPN would make a killing on a complete slate of games during that week, and jsut as many teams get to play at a bowl destination and get some sort of pay-out
Just a thought, probably has a lot of holes....What do you think?
I suggested a 16 team play-off using the final BCS rankings to find the top 16... number 17 will be pissed, but hey, it's #17....
Use all of the curent bowls in existance, so no one gets bent out of shape....the cities keep their tourist attractions....
For 16 teams, you would need to use your "top 15 bowl games"...
The 3rd weekend in December play round 1 at 8 different bowl sites...Top 8 winners advance, losing 8 take the bowl payout and go home...(Winners get no $, except for travel expenses paid by bowl to help universities to absorb cost)
The final weekend in December, play round 2 using the next 4 highest ranking bowl sites..... once again, losers take bowl payout for themselves and conf. and go home....Winners take travel stipend and move on
1st weekend in Jan......Remaining 4 teams play in 2 of BCS sites for semi-final games.....losers get paid and go home
2nd weekend in Jan....Championship game at rotating BCS site...... Gauranteed payout for winner and losing school....
Under this scenario, schools don't lose money for extra travel, they still get bowl payout for revenue, bowl sites still get attraction, we get play-off
Now, this scenario used only 15 bowls, leaving maybe 20 bowls left..... Here is were you make everyone else happy..... during the 2nd week of December (after Conf. Championships and before play-off) let these 20 - some bowls select games from #17 - ? for a bowl game .....This would be a bowl site for the unfortunate who didn't make tourney (NIT of football)..... ESPN would make a killing on a complete slate of games during that week, and jsut as many teams get to play at a bowl destination and get some sort of pay-out
Just a thought, probably has a lot of holes....What do you think?
AR Husker Fan
Team HuskerBoard
Trouble is, absent some kind of massive public fraud or corruption that galvanizes the public, I don't see the conference affiliations ever going away. The college presidents and ADs see conference affiliation as a kind of protection - and guaranteed income stream.
I've heard similar ideas before, but never with the twist of having the payout go to only the loser. I think that's brilliant as it keeps the costs of hosting the bowls down significantly (having only one team to payout).
The key to me, really, is determining who should go. Once you get that field of candidates in place, something like you propose would be a great way to do it, I think.
If I could wave a magic wand, I would do one of two things:
1. Dissolve the conferences, and prohibit 1A teams from playing 1AA teams. Then install a weighted ranking system like ELO to manage rankings for the tournament.
2. Consolidate all the teams into 16 inter-regional conferences. The winners of those conferences would go on to play in the tourney (like having divisions in pro sports).
If the latter were ever used, your idea of having the secondary bowls host the conference 2's and 3's would be awesome.
So, how about we just take over the BCS and make this happen?
IRISH!
The key to me, really, is determining who should go. Once you get that field of candidates in place, something like you propose would be a great way to do it, I think.
If I could wave a magic wand, I would do one of two things:
1. Dissolve the conferences, and prohibit 1A teams from playing 1AA teams. Then install a weighted ranking system like ELO to manage rankings for the tournament.
2. Consolidate all the teams into 16 inter-regional conferences. The winners of those conferences would go on to play in the tourney (like having divisions in pro sports).
If the latter were ever used, your idea of having the secondary bowls host the conference 2's and 3's would be awesome.
So, how about we just take over the BCS and make this happen?
IRISH!
bigredtoad
Five-Star Recruit
OK but isnt an ELO system still flawed bcuz computing these rankings based on SOS is in itself arbitrary no? how are the original rankings contrived? by polls which are themselves subjective so now youre in a perpetual circle J. :wacko:
I believe that a playoff system, while a great idea, is a pipe dream. The only thing we can hope for is a plus one system. This would be great for CFB because it would line up the 'media' top 4 teams and allow them to have a mini playoff of sorts. It would give us, as college football fans, the opportunity to see one more game. Would give the two conferences that participated, extra money from a second bowl game. Add in sponsorships, advertising... I think it would become Superbowlish, and wouldn't string out the players too long (as is the argument of all of the schools, not wanting to extend the season).
On another tenet, I believe that we should also reduce the amount of cupcake bowls, by setting a rule that a team must acheive at minimum 8 wins in a season (for a bcs conference team) to become bowl eligible (7 for mids).
On another tenet, I believe that we should also reduce the amount of cupcake bowls, by setting a rule that a team must acheive at minimum 8 wins in a season (for a bcs conference team) to become bowl eligible (7 for mids).
bigredtoad
Five-Star Recruit
Agree, those garbage bowls on Dec 10th just dont do it for me. Not to mention they go against everything the yuppy Prezs claim is wrong with a playoff. Too close 2 finals blah blabh blabh. But Im afraid this is as much a pipe dream as a playoff system, as it is a money maker so there will be more befor there are less. :wacko:
Blackshirt34
Four-Star Recruit
Im really liking your system Hanc...doubtful anything like it will come into place anytime soon...but here's hoping.
Utah_Husker
Five-Star Recruit
This is an interesting discussion. I for one never want to see a playoff in college football because I feel it would devalue the regular season. I think the solution to the post-season mess (championship controversey and crappy bowls) is to strengthen the conferences, not weaken them. I think the problem is too many bowl tie-ins below the conference champions. I think the Big12 has 7 bowl tie-ins. That's ridiculous. I would love to see a rule that each league can negotiate a bowl for its conference champion (that would reinforce some of the tradition that has been lost), but everything else is a free-for-all like it used to be. Just set a date, say December 1st, before which an invitation could not be extended. There would be more competition between bowls to get good match-ups, the match-ups would be fresh every year so attendence would be up, and the bowls that couldn't compete would die off.
Then you put a clause in the BCS that says if the top two teams in the final BCS rankings are undefeated, you play one more game between them two weeks later. If not, the #1 team is the champion. That would cover all the bases and preserve tradition. I know it wouldn't have worked out perfectly this year because Auburn, USC, and Utah all went undefeated...but that would hardly ever happen. And having a mess every couple of decades is a small price to pay to get great games every week. I don't want to have to wait until November to see a football game that matters.
Then you put a clause in the BCS that says if the top two teams in the final BCS rankings are undefeated, you play one more game between them two weeks later. If not, the #1 team is the champion. That would cover all the bases and preserve tradition. I know it wouldn't have worked out perfectly this year because Auburn, USC, and Utah all went undefeated...but that would hardly ever happen. And having a mess every couple of decades is a small price to pay to get great games every week. I don't want to have to wait until November to see a football game that matters.