In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 2459
Online now 2457 Record: 18710 (2/25/2012)
We aren't just committed to college football; we're early enrolling in it.
Where the madness isn't just in March.
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
I would like to have an intellegent discussion about how the selection committee should select the four teams for the upcoming playoffs. It would be nice if everyone could try and remove their regional and team bias and have an honest discussion. Here are my thoughts on the subject.
1. During the poll era - winning is the most important thing.
Strength of opponent is a secondary consideration at best and is usually only used to differentiate between teams with
HOW you win is almost completely irrelevant
If the goal of the committee is to pick the most politically correct teams, then we should keep the status quo.
If the goal of the committee is to pick the most deserving (best) teams, then we should make a radical change in how we "rank" teams.
Here are some general guidelines (some admittedly arbitrary) that I think should be used.
Win/loss record should be important but not ultimately important
How you win/lose games should be considered.
Did you dominate the game? Were you "fortunate" to win the game
Close wins against "good" opponents don't adversely affect your rating
Close wins against multiple average/bad opponents SHOULD adversely affect your rating (so I am giving a team one "off" game with no penalty)
I have some more ideas but I think this is enough to get a conversation started. What say ye?
It's an almost impossible task. First, you need to totally throw out the polls. They are far too tied to W-L and where each team began the season and virtually ignore SOS. Second, winning your conference must be a major factor. I'm not saying it should be mandatory to make the playoff, but a team should almost never make the playoff ahead of a team from the same conference that did. So last year, LSU should have stood in line before Bama and Oregon should have stood in line before Stanford. And, finally, teams that play 13 games and win their CCG should be favored over teams that only play 12. I'm not saying teams like ND or teams from the B12 should not be considered, but teams like Alabama or Stanford this year that played and won an extra game against another top team should get credit for that. Beyond that, I don't know how they are going to do it. I promose you, however, it's going to be messy and very controversial most years.
This post has been edited 2 times, most recently by MrWoodson 15 months ago
You want an intelligent discussion on the Blue Board? WTF man?
they should keep the BCS formula & tweak the SOS formula.
the Committee is going to be a farce. who's in it ? Lou Holtz ?
Conf Champ or not, it should be the best 4 teams PERIOD.
Don't forget about all of the bias that will be involved
It's meaningless to say pick the best four. How? Based on what criteria? Last year, LSU won the SEC. Doesn't that matter or do you throw it out the window and pick Bama ahead of them because of the eye test? You have to have some sort of objective criteria.
4 highest Ranked Teams in BCS Bowls. It would have worked this year. Just keep it simple. Conference Champions only concept is a joke.
AP poll? Coaches poll? Sagarin? The playoff teams will be selected by a committee, similar to how the NCAA selects teams for the basketball tourney. The committee is not going to simply go by some random set of third party rankings. If they were, you wouldn't need a selection committee in the first place.
The question is who is on this committee? I can see the bias already. What a nightmare
I agree with all the comments about the committee but that seems to be the direction they are going in.
IMO....it really doesnt solve anything
I agree 100%. It will be a nightmare. I've thought that from the beginning. Not that I like the BCS formula either (the coaches' poll is a total joke), but I don't see the committee being a great alternative. Every year, one or maybe two teams stand out. But picking the last two is going to be a nightmare.
This post was edited by MrWoodson 15 months ago
last year LSU won the SEC and reached the the NCG w/ many outsiders believing they were THE TEAM.
Bama got in at #2 (the criteria set) because its currently 1 vs 2 & after all of the naysayers cried,whimpered, & belly-ached...
Bama proved LSU was the 2nd best team LAST YEAR.
keep in mind Notre Dame didnt win a Conf Title this year.
Exactly....and where the bias will come in. It really isnt the answer
But that's exactly the problem. Last year, LSU went into the title game ranked #1 and got crushed. This year, ND went into the the title game ranked #1 and got crushed. The polls are not reliable. So, how do you pick who gets in and who doesn't?
What objective measures would you recommend?
Win/Loss - important but obviously flawed
Computers - no one seems to like them... (I do but I feel strongly that they should add margin of victory back in if they use them. They could cap the MOV benefit at 14 or so to appease the crowd that is worried about running up the score)
I think the BCS has done a decent job in getting the right participants but I think it is time to take a more intelligent approach to choosing the teams.
I don't mean to offend ND or tOSU fans but does anyone (besides fans of those teams) really believe either of them were in the top 2 teams in the country this year?
I know I have a Bama bias, but there was a reason ND was a 10-point dog and it doesn't have anything to do with bias.
By any objective or subjective measure LSU deserved to be in the BCSNCG last year. I personally felt Bama was the better team (even after we lost), but if I had to choose between those two teams for the last spot I would have chosen LSU without hesitation.
ND this year is an entirely different story. (again, no offense) They had several close games against average opponents. It was very obvious to me that they we a decent team that had been very fortunate on the season.
By the way... Bama was also very fortunate... They won 2/3 of their "coin-flip" games... But those games were all against very tough opponents. I think Bama got in over Oregon for several reasons (old thinking) but I am far from certain that they were better than Oregon this year. I was positive they were much better than ND.
Idk. As I said, it's a nearly impossible task to pick teams #3 and #4. I don't know how they should do it, but the more objective they can make it the better. In college hockey, the NCAA has a mathematical formula that uses W-L record, RPI and record against "teams under consideration". I don't know if something like that would work with football (because of the relatively small number of games played), but if they could come up with something purely mathematical that would be best. I just don't know if it can be done.
THE BEST ?
keep the BCS and go to an 8 team playoff. 1-8
if you get "left out" at #9 it only means you didnt play your way in.
note #9 vs #10 in Hawaii Bowl each year
1) For starters, throw out the pre-season polls.
2) SOS should hold more weight than the "eye test." Obviously, the eye test works better when 2 evenly matched teams face off, but there is no way to tell when strong teams are dominating weaker teams.
3) Computers have to be used, mainly as an equalizer or tie breaker.
4) Coaches' poll should be thrown out, for obvious reasons.
5) Margin of victory should come back into play.
The only way the PC guys are going to be happy is if we have a 112 team playoff, and somebody will bitch about 113 getting left out.
Since that's out of the way, I want to first say that I like the 4 team playoff. I'm not really down for 8 teams, but 6, with top 2 getting byes would be cool with me. Since that's not what we're going to get...
I would keep the BCS rankings and put #1 and #2 in as the top 2 seeds. I'd let the committee pick the next 2, since they're the most likely to have the same record as the other candidates. I would like to see the committee use some form of RPI like you see in basketball to trim it down to 3-4 candidates in the event that there are a bunch of 3-10 teams with the same record. After that, you just have to hope the committee has common sense. A conference championship should matter. But a team with one loss to the other best team in a division that's in the top 2, particularly early in the year, who dominates everyone else, shouldn't be ruled out. The 2 best teams can actually be in the same division... I would limit participants to only 2 from 1 conference, maximum. The SEC is tough, but let's say UGA had been undefeated going into the SECCG, I just can't see how you can be so indecisive as to put UGA, UF, and Bama all 3 in there. I mean, we are doing this to be PC, right? Give Little Timmy a shot. Finally, I think once the top 2 are slotted in there, and the rest of the field is narrowed to 3-4 teams, the committee should be forced to watch, at minimum, the best 6 games (wins, but particularly losses) for each team in the field, as well as the 1 perceived worst game for each. Then just make a common sense decision. If anyone is worried about the fate of Northern Illinois or Boise, I don't give a damn about you. You probably got a participation trophy for finishing last in the 6th grade.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports