Online Now 4633

The Blue Board

We aren't just committed to college football; we're early enrolling in it.

On this Board 2340
Record: 7394 (2/14/2012)

Online now 3958
Record: 18710 (2/25/2012)

Boards ▾

The Blue Board

We aren't just committed to college football; we're early enrolling in it.

247Rumors

College football scuttlebutt and scoop- powered by Football Rumor Mill

The Green Board

Where the madness isn't just in March.

Big Ten Board (Beta)

Reply

ACC commish Swofford

  • BillyEN4C said...

    It's a conference championship Game for everyone that argues that the whole season should count what for example uga beat Lsu in last years game. Does that make Georgia the best team in the conference even though they have a worse record? Nope. That argument is flawed. You can't use that argument for the national title game or playoff cause you have to draw the line somewhere but at least the best teams are playing for it not one game "tournament" winners

    If Georgia would have beat LSU, they still wouldn’t have jumped into the top 6 so they still would have been ineligible and LSU would still get in as an at large.

    signature image signature image signature image

    CWEBB

  • BillyEN4C said...

    There's too much money in conference championship games for them or anyone else to do it any other way

    Really? $20 million divided by 14 teams? That's about $1.5 million per team. Weak argument. Also, the B12 just voluntarily did away with its CCG for exactly the reason you raised ... namely that they decided that the regular season is a better method of selecting a conference champion than a single game. Does the B12 not need money as badly as the SEC?

    MrWoodson

  • CWEBB said...

    If Georgia would have beat LSU, they still wouldn’t have jumped into the top 6 so they still would have been ineligible and LSU would still get in as an at large.

    See now we are putting stipulations on what teams can get in. A number 2 or 3 team gets sent home cause a number 5 or 6 team won its conference. That's full retarded

    signature image signature image signature image

    @BillyEN4C

    BillyEN4C

  • MrWoodson said...

    Really? $20 million divided by 14 teams? That's about $1.5 million per team. Weak argument. Also, the B12 just voluntarily did away with its CCG for exactly the reason you raised ... namely that they decided that the regular season is a better method of selecting a conference champion than a single game. Does the B12 not need money as badly as the SEC?

    1.5 million isn't a lot of money? Well I'll be damned. The b12 gave away its conference championship because it didn't have enough teams last year to have one. Acc,sec, big 10, and pac 12 all have conference title games. everyone has to get one the same page to even have this argument and I don't think any are gonna get rid of their conference championship games

    signature image signature image signature image

    @BillyEN4C

    BillyEN4C

  • BillyEN4C said...

    See now we are putting stipulations on what teams can get in. A number 2 or 3 team gets sent home cause a number 5 or 6 team won its conference. That's full retarded

    Let's be clear. You are talking about a #2 or #3 team that did not win its conference. And the answer is yes. I would much rather have a #5 team that won its conference than a #2 or #3 or #4 team that didn't, particularly because the rankings suck. Just because one team is ranked #2 and another is ranked #5 does not mean the first team is better. Frequently, the rankings are just wrong. And FWIW we had almost exactly the scenario you posed this year in #4 Oregon v. #5 Stanford. Why is it a better result for Stanford (which lost to Oregon and did not win the P12) to make the playoffs while Oregon (which beat Stanford and won the P12) is left out?

    MrWoodson

  • BillyEN4C said...

    1.5 million isn't a lot of money? Well I'll be damned. The b12 gave away its conference championship because it didn't have enough teams last year to have one. Acc,sec, big 10, and pac 12 all have conference title games. everyone has to get one the same page to even have this argument and I don't think any are gonna get rid of their conference championship games

    I'm not the one complaining about CCGs. And, yes, this decision is much bigger than $1.5 million. That is roughly 1% of Alabama's AD budget and less than 3% of the AD budget of the smallest school in the SEC. That argument is a joke.

    MrWoodson

  • MrWoodson said...

    Also, the B12 just voluntarily did away with its CCG for exactly the reason you raised ... namely that they decided that the regular season is a better method of selecting a conference champion than a single game.

    I’m pretty sure the reason they don’t have one anymore is because they don’t have 12 teams anymore.

    signature image signature image signature image

    CWEBB

  • MrWoodson said...

    Let's be clear. You are talking about a #2 or #3 team that did not win its conference. And the answer is yes. I would much rather have a #5 team that won its conference than a #2 or #3 or #4 team that didn't, particularly because the rankings suck. Just because one team is ranked #2 and another is ranked #5 does not mean the first team is better. Frequently, the rankings are just wrong. And FWIW we had almost exactly the scenario you posed this year in #4 Oregon v. #5 Stanford. Why is it a better result for Stanford (which lost to Oregon and did not win the P12) to make the playoffs while Oregon (which beat Stanford and won the P12) is left out?

    Dude if you're willing to throw away #2 and #3 ranked teams for a conference champion #5 or 6 then there is no hope. Between 3 freaking polls they can get the top teams right. 9/10 they can get 1-4 right. Usually there's a decent drop off after the top 4 How many times in history can you argue for a #5 or # 6 team? You realize you're probably throwing out your own team say Ohio st is #1 Michigan #3 for a undefeated big east team right? Cause that's what we are talking about here

    signature image signature image signature image

    @BillyEN4C

    BillyEN4C

  • MrWoodson said...

    I'm not the one complaining about CCGs. And, yes, this decision is much bigger than $1.5 million. That is roughly 1% of Alabama's AD budget and less than 3% of the AD budget of the smallest school in the SEC. That argument is a joke.

    Where else are you gonna generate 1.5 million dollars for the university? A bake sale?

    signature image signature image signature image

    @BillyEN4C

    BillyEN4C

  • CWEBB said...

    I’m pretty sure the reason they don’t have one anymore is because they don’t have 12 teams anymore.

    Go back and read the quotes of the B12 ADs and conference commissioner when Nebraska and Colorado left. They discussed whether or not to add two teams to go back up to 12 and decided that they would rather remain at 10 and not have a CCG. They specifically mentioned how the CCG put the regular season champion at risk. If the CCG game was such a big deal, they easily could have gone back to 12 teams or petitioned the NCAA for a waiver. They chose to do neither. They added WVU and TCU only after TAMU and Mizzou were poached because they were at risk of the conference falling apart and/or their TV deal being pulled. I have not heard a single AD in the B12 or the new B12 commish talk about the need to get back to 12 because they desperately must have a CCG. They are exploring a return to 12 teams for conference stability, not because of the CCG issue. It is a relatively small amount of money when you spread it over 12-14 teams.

    MrWoodson

  • BillyEN4C said...

    Dude if you're willing to throw away #2 and #3 ranked teams for a conference champion #5 or 6 then there is no hope. Between 3 freaking polls they can get the top teams right. 9/10 they can get 1-4 right. Usually there's a decent drop off after the top 4 How many times in history can you argue for a #5 or # 6 team? You realize you're probably throwing out your own team say Ohio st is #1 Michigan #3 for a undefeated big east team right? Cause that's what we are talking about here

    No they can't and that's the reason we are discussing a playoff in the first place. No one believes the polls rank the teams right. They clearly did not get #4 and #5 right this year. And, arguably, they had #1 and #2 wrong as well. We will never know about #3 because they got shafted. For all we know, they were the best team in the country.

    Note: I've asked three times and each time you refuse to answer - your system would have put Stanford in the playoff last year and left Oregon out. How is that better?

    MrWoodson

  • MarineMountie said...

    "The BCS has gotten it right more times than not".

    I agree. On the other side of that though...

    OSU played a tougher SOS. Not just tougher, but by every publication around 20 spots separated OSU and Bama in terms of SOS. That is when the bias voters come in and just vote for the sexiest school. That is NOT acceptable in terms of crowning a champion. When two teams have 1 conference loss, and one of those teams play a significantly tougher schedule they should not be punished because they aren't in the SEC. A champion only playoff would prevent this. I also believe there needs to be stipulations to prevent a 16th ranked ACC champion from participating in a playoff to be the national champion.

    Quality of opponent in each team's 1 loss bias maybe.

    PTCcock195

  • BillyEN4C said...

    Where else are you gonna generate 1.5 million dollars for the university? A bake sale?

    If Alabama cannot meet its budget without that $1.5 million, you will have to make some cuts.

    MrWoodson

  • PTCcock195 said...

    Quality of opponent in each team's 1 loss bias maybe.

    Measured how? Alabama lost at home. Oklahoma State lost on the road. And if you are going to use the polls to determine the "quality of losses" you end up with a circular argument. If the polls are accurate, then why do we even need a playoff. If the polls are always right, a final game with #1 v. #2 should be more than sufficient. The polls are the problem not the solution.

    This post was edited by MrWoodson on 5/17/2012 at 6:11 AM

    MrWoodson

  • MrWoodson said...

    Measured how?

    Iowa State sucked and LSU was awesome. He said Bama went over Ok St with a tougher schedule because of bias.

    PTCcock195

  • MrWoodson said...

    Then Sagarin is out. Actually, Sagarin already came up with a second algorithm to eliminate margin of victory. Let him come up with a third that he is willing to make public. If he won't do that, he is out. And FWIW none of the six computer models is great all by itself. The value comes when you average all six together because then the quirky results of each cancel each other out. If Sagarin has to be replaced, it's not the end of the world. It's far more important that we know none of the models are being paid off to favor a team or conference.

    Edit: In fact, increase the number of computer models to 10 or 12. The more there are the less likely it is that one person's error or bias (or dishonesty) can impact the final rankings.

    All of the computers are worthless
    WITHOUT Margin of Victory factored in.

    The BCS received a letter from one of the computer programmers after the 2001 season, informing them
    that Tennessee would have STILL played in the BCS Title game despite their 2nd loss coming in the SEC CCG,
    (UT was holding the #2 spot behind Miami going into the SEC CCG)....if M.O.V. had not been factored into the computer formulas the BCS used.

    Once they saw that it benefitted them, they moved quickly and removed M.O.V.
    from all computers used (or kicked out the ones who refused)
    in the BCS standings before the 2002 season.

    So NO computers at all, unless they include M.O.V.

    Another stupid thing they do is throw out the high and the low score.
    (The low score should be thrown out, but throwing out the high score is idiotic)

    Also, if computers are used at all, 4 of the 6, and maybe all 6 they currently use, need to be replaced.
    The only computers that maybe they could consider still using -with MOV of course-
    are = Massey's and Sagarin's.

    There's a reason why some of these computer rankings systems were chosen to be a part of the BCS.
    For example, the Colley Matrix. Colley works out of an office somewhere on an Alabama campus and his formula was picked because his formula DOES NOT factor in whether a HOME or ROAD game was played.

    Which is ridiculous, and a huge advantage to the 8 game home schedule
    playing conferences like the SEC.

    NcaaAssassinG13 ●

  • MrWoodson said...

    Go back and read the quotes of the B12 ADs and conference commissioner when Nebraska and Colorado left. They discussed whether or not to add two teams to go back up to 12 and decided that they would rather remain at 10 and not have a CCG. They specifically mentioned how the CCG put the regular season champion at risk. If the CCG game was such a big deal, they easily could have gone back to 12 teams or petitioned the NCAA for a waiver. They chose to do neither. They added WVU and TCU only after TAMU and Mizzou were poached because they were at risk of the conference falling apart and/or their TV deal being pulled. I have not heard a single AD in the B12 or the new B12 commish talk about the need to get back to 12 because they desperately must have a CCG. They are exploring a return to 12 teams for conference stability, not because of the CCG issue. It is a relatively small amount of money when you spread it over 12-14 teams.

    I understand that the need for CCG was not enough at the time just to add two more teams to get to 12. But if they were hypothetically to add FSU, and Clemson they would have a CCG. It’s not because they thought having a CCG was a stupid way of determining a CC, it was because they didn’t have 12 teams and didn’t feel the need was enough to just add any two teams.

    signature image signature image signature image

    CWEBB

  • The problem with taking the top 4 is that teams are scheduling less and less big games against OOC opponents so the ability to judge conference strength and thus individual team strength is becoming harder and harder. With very few big OOC matchups, how does anyone truly know what are the best conferences and who the top 4 teams are for a playoff? Remember a couple of years ago we were told Mich and OSU were the two best teams in the country until Florida let us know the B10 conference may have been a little overrated that year. Gotta take conference champions over 2nd place teams from other conferences if there is to be a true playoff. If not, then we are simply at the mercy of the polls and we all know at least 1/3rd of that is completely bogus. The coaches do not watch the games and know little about teams outside their own conferences.

    This post has been edited 2 times, most recently by dpfenny on 5/17/2012 at 6:15 AM

    dpfenny

  • MrWoodson said...

    No they can't and that's the reason we are discussing a playoff in the first place. No one believes the polls rank the teams right. They clearly did not get #4 and #5 right this year. And, arguably, they had #1 and #2 wrong as well. We will never know about #3 because they got shafted. For all we know, they were the best team in the country.

    Note: I've asked three times and each time you refuse to answer - your system would have put Stanford in the playoff last year and left Oregon out. How is that better?

    Lol what? You're the only person I've seen argue Oregon should have been in the top four last year. I'm not gonna have much remorse for team #4. They aren't gonna win it all but once a blue moon anyways. You know what i will and can say about team #5? "should have played better during the regular season"

    signature image signature image signature image

    @BillyEN4C

    BillyEN4C

  • PTCcock195 said...

    Iowa State sucked and LSU was awesome. He said Bama went over Ok St with a tougher schedule because of bias.

    Based on what? They eye test? That's the problem with the whole system. You can't just go based on people's opinions. You need some level of objective basis.

    MrWoodson

  • BillyEN4C said...

    Lol what? You're the only person I've seen argue Oregon should have been in the top four last year. I'm not gonna have much remorse for team #4. They aren't gonna win it all but once a blue moon anyways. You know what i will and can say about team #5? "should have played better during the regular season"

    And that's how most of us feel about any team that does not win its conference. To quote a very wise man, "I'm not gonna have much remorse ... should have played better during the regular season."

    MrWoodson

  • MrWoodson said...

    Based on what? They eye test? That's the problem with the whole system. You can't just go based on people's opinions. You need some level of objective basis.

    You gotta draw the line somewhere bud

    signature image signature image signature image

    @BillyEN4C

    BillyEN4C

  • NcaaAssassinG13 said...

    All of the computers are worthless WITHOUT Margin of Victory factored in.

    The BCS received a letter from one of the computer programmers after the 2001 season, informing them that Tennessee would have STILL played in the BCS Title game despite their 2nd loss coming in the SEC CCG, (UT was holding the #2 spot behind Miami going into the SEC CCG)....if M.O.V. had not been factored into the computer formulas the BCS used.

    Once they saw that it benefitted them, they moved quickly and removed M.O.V. from all computers used (or kicked out the ones who refused) in the BCS standings before the 2002 season.

    So NO computers at all, unless they include M.O.V.

    Another stupid thing they do is throw out the high and the low score. (The low score should be thrown out, but throwing out the high score is idiotic)

    Also, if computers are used at all, 4 of the 6, and maybe all 6 they currently use, need to be replaced. The only computers that maybe they could consider still using -with MOV of course- are = Massey's and Sagarin's.

    There's a reason why some of these computer rankings systems were chosen to be a part of the BCS. For example, the Colley Matrix. Colley works out of an office somewhere on an Alabama campus and his formula was picked because his formula DOES NOT factor in whether a HOME or ROAD game was played.

    Which is ridiculous, and a huge advantage to the 8 game home schedule playing conferences like the SEC.

    I'm the last person you will ever find defending the computers. I look at those rankings every week and laugh. Not to mention they are all different, sometimes by a big margin. How can the computers be right if they are all different?

    MrWoodson

  • MrWoodson said...

    And that's how most of us feel about any team that does not win its conference. To quote a very wise man, "I'm not gonna have much remorse ... should have played better during the regular season."

    But look dude you can't throw away teams that are #2 or #3 because they didn't win their conference. That's just crap

    signature image signature image signature image

    @BillyEN4C

    BillyEN4C

  • MrWoodson said...

    Based on what? They eye test? That's the problem with the whole system. You can't just go based on people's opinions. You need some level of objective basis.

    So you can't tell LSU was significantly better than Iowa State last year? You sound pretty objective.

    PTCcock195

Football Recruiting
Basketball Recruiting
Features
Resources
Connect

247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports