Sorta quasi OT - the BCS Computer pollsters

crimsonaudio

Administrator
Staff member
Sep 9, 2002
63,414
67,193
462
crimsonaudio.net
I guess I'm just not afraid of this scenario. Why is it the end of the world if a 2 or 3 loss team is in the playoffs?
Because the more losses you allow into the playoffs via expansion, the less the regular season matters. Sure, there will be teams fighting for that last spot up until the end, but who wants to see Alabama bench the starters and lose the IB because they're already guaranteed a playoff spot and there's no point in risking it?

Seems far-fetched, but it happens every year in the NFL, and those teams are far more balanced than CFB.
 

81usaf92

TideFans Legend
Apr 26, 2008
35,306
31,375
187
South Alabama
Because the more losses you allow into the playoffs via expansion, the less the regular season matters. Sure, there will be teams fighting for that last spot up until the end, but who wants to see Alabama bench the starters and lose the IB because they're already guaranteed a playoff spot and there's no point in risking it?

Seems far-fetched, but it happens every year in the NFL, and those teams are far more balanced than CFB.
It really depends on how you do it.
 

RollTide_HTTR

Hall of Fame
Feb 22, 2017
8,772
6,538
187
Because the more losses you allow into the playoffs via expansion, the less the regular season matters. Sure, there will be teams fighting for that last spot up until the end, but who wants to see Alabama bench the starters and lose the IB because they're already guaranteed a playoff spot and there's no point in risking it?

Seems far-fetched, but it happens every year in the NFL, and those teams are far more balanced than CFB.
I don't feel like it would be all that hard to structure it in a way that would prevent this. Make sure seeding is important for one.
 

RollTide_HTTR

Hall of Fame
Feb 22, 2017
8,772
6,538
187
Come on...a 3 loss team has no business playing for the national championship.
Except, for that 3 loss team to win a NC they would have to win at least 3 games in a row against highly regarded teams. At that point who cares if they have 3 losses?

Maybe I'd feel differently if teams all played the same schedule but they don't.
 

crimsonaudio

Administrator
Staff member
Sep 9, 2002
63,414
67,193
462
crimsonaudio.net
Except, for that 3 loss team to win a NC they would have to win at least 3 games in a row against highly regarded teams. At that point who cares if they have 3 losses?
*raises hand*

I have an issue with it as it essentially erodes the importance of the regular season. Los e1/4 of your games but get hot at the right moment and voila! Champions. That sucks, imo, as it rewards teams getting hot instead of teams being consistently good.
 

BamaInBham

All-American
Feb 14, 2007
4,465
2,110
187
I still maintain if we went to 4 16 team super conferences and everyone else who didn’t make the 64 team league went FCS, you would solve a lot of problems. You would solve the conference champ and at large bid arguments
I completely reject automatic conference champion inclusion. IMO, there can be 2 or 3 teams from the same conference that are better than any team from 2 or 3 other conferences. That was shown last year. The difference in conferences can be great.

Not only that, but you breed complacency in the weaker conferences who get an automatic invitation and you frustrate stronger conferences who may have a dominant program that great 2nd and 3rd place programs can't get past or that had great years but because they are in the same conf as another great team they don't get in. The focus would move away from overall record, eliminating any importance of the OOC schedule, to soley on conf play. Ultimately, you deprive the country from seeing the 4 best/most deserving teams.

Conferences are great in that they provide a regional foundation for scheduling and rivalries. They also provide a significant though secondary bauble to hang around one's neck, but IMO, their proper significance to the CFP discussion has been ascribed by the CFP Committee. I.e., sometimes it means only a little, never much.
 

81usaf92

TideFans Legend
Apr 26, 2008
35,306
31,375
187
South Alabama
I completely reject automatic conference champion inclusion. IMO, there can be 2 or 3 teams from the same conference that are better than any team from 2 or 3 other conferences. That was shown last year. The difference in conferences can be great.

Not only that, but you breed complacency in the weaker conferences who get an automatic invitation and you frustrate stronger conferences who may have a dominant program that great 2nd and 3rd place programs can't get past or that had great years but because they are in the same conf as another great team they don't get in. The focus would move away from overall record, eliminating any importance of the OOC schedule, to soley on conf play. Ultimately, you deprive the country from seeing the 4 best/most deserving teams.

Conferences are great in that they provide a regional foundation for scheduling and rivalries. They also provide a significant though secondary bauble to hang around one's neck, but IMO, their proper significance to the CFP discussion has been ascribed by the CFP Committee. I.e., sometimes it means only a little, never much.
So when we eventually head to automatic qualifiers are you going to stop watching college football or would you take a better system. Because I’m telling you that the current form was never meant to be a final product and we are going to either move to a tourney or NFL model at some point down the line to satisfy geographic markets. I would much prefer the NFL model and I believe many others would when reality sets in at how stupid a tourney would be.

FWIW I’m completely happy as is like I was with how 2011 was, but like I said in 2011 geographic markets are going to force a playoff.
 

B1GTide

TideFans Legend
Apr 13, 2012
45,500
46,843
187
So when we eventually head to automatic qualifiers are you going to stop watching college football or would you take a better system. Because I’m telling you that the current form was never meant to be a final product and we are going to either move to a tourney or NFL model at some point down the line to satisfy geographic markets. I would much prefer the NFL model and I believe many others would when reality sets in at how stupid a tourney would be.

FWIW I’m completely happy as is like I was with how 2011 was, but like I said in 2011 geographic markets are going to force a playoff.
We don't know this. It is possible, maybe even probable, but we do not know. I have been fine with every system used, though I see each iteration as an improvement on the last. I am not going to worry about what might happen. I am just going to enjoy the sport that I love for as long as I can.
 

81usaf92

TideFans Legend
Apr 26, 2008
35,306
31,375
187
South Alabama
We don't know this. It is possible, maybe even probable, but we do not know. I have been fine with every system used, though I see each iteration as an improvement on the last. I am not going to worry about what might happen. I am just going to enjoy the sport that I love for as long as I can.
It’s extremely unlikely the Plus 1 system we are currently in is the final product.
 

BamaInBham

All-American
Feb 14, 2007
4,465
2,110
187
O$U got in on their Market Value, if we are being honest about it. Sure, we can look back with hindsight and make the ex post facto argument - but no one knew any of that in December - all we knew is O$U was on a VERY HOT STREAK against (Lets be honest) mostly suspect competition.
That's a bogus statement. We who disagree with you may be wrong, but you are presumptuous to say that we are being dishonest. I believed at the time that OSU was the right call (I don't care for OSU at all, much much less in 2014 before I became familiar with B1GTide. In fact, I wanted them out.). Yes, Baylor and TCU had a legitimate claim, but so did OSU. A choice had to be made - IMO, it was the right one. I care nothing about market value or tv ratings or OSU or the Big 10. I don't think OSU got in on market value at all but on performance (most deserving) and potential (best team). You don't even allow that the Committee, some of whom are experts, very likely could see things that you cannot. But rather you charge them with motives that you, nor anyone else, can ever know, because it supports your jaded view of their character and agenda. Is it possible that they are corrupt? Certainly, but there is no evidence to indicate that.

You have referred to your posts not garnering much respect. Well part of the reason is that you do not show much to those with whom you disagree. You charge them with dishonesty, ignoring the obvious, etc. There are other reasons but that is a tough one to overcome - and IMO, well deserved at this point.
 

BamaInBham

All-American
Feb 14, 2007
4,465
2,110
187
Except, for that 3 loss team to win a NC they would have to win at least 3 games in a row against highly regarded teams. At that point who cares if they have 3 losses?

Maybe I'd feel differently if teams all played the same schedule but they don't.
I care. Not saying that it is a matter of right and wrong. You can choose however you want to design things, but that's my opinion. I want losses to matter - a lot. Some would say, how can you support the the Committee's inclusion of AU prior to the SECC game? There are exceptions. Again, not saying you're wrong, because IMO it's not a matter of such, but we just disagree.
 

BamaInBham

All-American
Feb 14, 2007
4,465
2,110
187
So when we eventually head to automatic qualifiers are you going to stop watching college football or would you take a better system. Because I’m telling you that the current form was never meant to be a final product and we are going to either move to a tourney or NFL model at some point down the line to satisfy geographic markets.
I have my preferences but I would definitely watch. As I mentioned to another poster, it's not a matter of right or wrong, but what we prefer. We try to make our case, sincerely listen to the other guy, make our decision and move on.

I've not tried to predict what will happen but your projection is plausible. I don't know that we are sure what the final product is intended to be or if there is a "final product". IMO, they have chosen what they think is best at this point and want it to last for a while. I do think that they will consider these "political" issues in the future when the current contract expires. But I've been encouraged by everyone's apparent integrity to this point and also that the Committee has seemed to ignore geographic concerns. IMO, that is the more honest and equitable system.

I would much prefer the NFL model and I believe many others would when reality sets in at how stupid a tourney would be.
Not sure what you mean by "when reality sets in at how stupid a tourney would be".

FWIW I’m completely happy as is like I was with how 2011 was, but like I said in 2011 geographic markets are going to force a playoff.
I'm happy too. I liked the BCS, but think the CFP Committee is an upgrade. I was concerned about them considering "geographic markets" and at first I thought that might be one of the primary motives for having a Committee, but again have been impressed that they have resisted that temptation.
 

selmaborntidefan

TideFans Legend
Mar 31, 2000
36,432
29,735
287
54
Respectfully, I'm not sure I see your point?

The week 15 BCS Poll in 2010, the one that set the Title game (and would have set the Playoff had their been one) Was:
1 - barn - 13-0* - SEC Champ*
2 - Oregon 12-0 - PAC Champ
3 - TCU - 12-0 - Big-12 Champ
4 - Stanford - 11-1 -PAC runner up.
You have to view it in the context of the earlier post:

My hunch? The committee is designed to keep out the Boise States of the world.

Go back to 2010. The week before the infamous Camback Iron Bowl, here's your rankings:

1) Auburn
2) Oregon
3) Texas Cash Unlimited
4) Boise St

If Colin Kaepernick doesn't lead Nevada over Boise in an upset, TWO non-AQ schools would have made it in a four-team BCS setup. Not one - two.

There was NO WAY the cartel was going to let that happen. Hence, committee.

And I'm stretching it to even give Kap credit. If Kyle Brotzman can make a 26-yard field goal, Boise State is #4.
If you have a four-team BCS selection, you were one chip shot field goal away from two non-AQs making it.

Not. Gonna. Happen.

#5 was 11-1 Wisconsin, B1G co-champ with #9 Mich. St. (even though Mich.St won head to head).

Boise St. was ranked #10 - 11-1, having lost to WAC champions Nevada (though the WAC declared them "co-champs")

Are you suggesting #10 Boise St. should have been in a field of 4 vs. Stanford OR Wisconsin?
No, I'm pointing out that a chip shot field goal and Boise finishes fourth. And in a four-team BCS, they make it.
 

colbysullivan

Hall of Fame
Dec 12, 2007
16,695
13,605
187
Gulf Breeze, FL
Except, for that 3 loss team to win a NC they would have to win at least 3 games in a row against highly regarded teams. At that point who cares if they have 3 losses?

Maybe I'd feel differently if teams all played the same schedule but they don't.
You’re ignoring the fact that they don’t belong in the playoffs in the first place.
 

selmaborntidefan

TideFans Legend
Mar 31, 2000
36,432
29,735
287
54
Yea, the one where EVERY Poll Ballot was DISCLOSED, and the public KNEW how every individual poll voter ranked the teams, AND that one where all the formulas were set IN ADVANCE and PUBLICLY DISCLOSED.
I assume you're talking about the BCS here? Asking for clarification.


Compare that to today, when "subjective human beings" are (allegedly) 100% of the "formula" - except THERE IS NO FORMULA! At least not any "Formula" that's publicly disclosed.
That's because there is no formula. More on this in a moment.

AND all ballots are SECRET.
AND the Committee NEVER discloses how any member voted, how many votes were taken, who (if anyone) changed their votes,
OR what role ESPiN had in influencing the Committee, how much data was provided - SECRETLY - to the committee on TV ratings projections,
You mean it was ESPN that told the committee to pick Michigan State over Ohio State in 2015?
That's an odd choice for a network to make and harm its own interests.

Look, there's a million "gray areas" that are open to debate, and the debates are fun! :)

But honestly, the level of TRANSPARENCY of the BCS relative to that of the "Double Secret Committee" scam is an OBJECTIVE FACT.
1) We know every single person on the committee.
2) We did not necessarily know who exactly was voting in the BCS. A lot of coaches have the SID or someone else do the vote in their name.

Note, I never claimed the BCS was Absolutely "objective"! That's IMPOSSIBLE in CFB! That's only possible in a league like the NFL or MLB, etc.. They can use simple MATHEMATICS to make OBJECTIVE Playoff selections - CFB can't.

12 "mid major" wins are NOT Equal to 10 P-5 wins. Heck, even all P-5 wins aren't equal to all other P-5 wins - we all know this.

Just sayin'..... :)

Here's the problem (and it's not just with you, Tom, it seems to permeate this board): the problem is that there IS NO FORMULA that can tell us in advance what will happen except if you're a major conference team and go undefeated, you go to the playoffs. A lot of fans and pundits don't seem to grasp the hard to grasp idea that the stated criteria of the CFB playoff committee ONLY is invoked if......

well, here's the key instruction:

When circumstances at the margins indicate that teams are comparable, then the following criteria must
be considered:

The assumption is comparability. What I think many people don't grasp is this: the committee the last two years did NOT think Ohio State and Alabama were "comparable" or that Ohio State and Penn State were "comparable." And the truth is, they were right.

You look at Ohio State, you look at Alabama. You watch them play. ALL of their games.
They lost by double digits to OU at home, survived Penn St at home, thumped Mich St, and edged an above average Wisky team in the B1G
They also blasted every cupcake on their schedule and somehow lost by 31 points to a mediocre Iowa team that got killed by Wisky and
narrowly lost to Mich St. So OSU was 3-1 against ranked teams and lost to a mediocrity.

Alabama? They played four ranked teams as well. They also went 3-1 against them and lost a more narrow game ON THE ROAD.
And they didn't lose to any 7-5 teams by 31 points. Alabama's loss to AUBURN was more respectable than Ohio State's loss to OU.
Note: ALL of Ohio State's ranked foes were home games except Wisky; Alabama beat one at home, one at a neutral site, one on the
road, and lost on the road.


AT THIS POINT - before you've gone elsewhere - ALABAMA is CLEARLY the superior and more deserving team. IF Ohio State head beaten Iowa by 31 points or even by 5, then the whole calculus changes. That's why you can't have a formula!!!


What I'm saying is that the committee never got to this point. But let's go on so we can see why so many miss this.

• Championships won

Ohio State wins, 1-0

• Strength of schedule

Ohio State wins, not by much, but they do

• Head-to-head competition (if it occurred)
Did not occur

• Comparative outcomes of common opponents (without incenting margin of victory)

No common opponents, did not apply.

The problem is that when everyone was evaluating this and coming up with Ohio State, they were ignoring the very first sentence. The two teams were NOT comparable. One played three ranked teams at home and won two plus a neutral site win, the other won one at home, one on the road, and one at a neutral site and lost on the road to the then #2 team in the country.

It just never got to this point and a lot of people didn't grasp that issue.

The night before the picks were made, I was talking to my Eugene, OR buddy on the phone, and he was touting Ohio St. Knowing my ability to look at stuff objectively, I didn't make a passionate argument, but I made this point: simply watch the teams and tell me who is better. Set aside all the accouterments. Who is better? He woke up the next morning to watch the selection, and he told me he had decided that all things considered, Alabama was the better team - and it really wasn't close.

TBF - we both figured Ohio St would go as the "safe" pick to appease the politics.


You can't have a "formula" because as even the committee says, it's ART, not SCIENCE.
 

B1GTide

TideFans Legend
Apr 13, 2012
45,500
46,843
187
It’s extremely unlikely the Plus 1 system we are currently in is the final product.
Nothing remains static. The sport has been changing since the first game was played. Of course this isn't the final product. The next one will be better than this one, just as this is better than the last and so forth. But I am not going to try and guess what those changes will look like. It serves no useful purpose.
 

Latest threads

TideFans.shop : 2024 Madness!

TideFans.shop - Get YOUR Bama Gear HERE!”></a>
<br />

<!--/ END TideFans.shop & item link \-->
<p style= Purchases made through our TideFans.shop and Amazon.com links may result in a commission being paid to TideFans.