- Sep 9, 2012
With news of the elite European Soccer Clubs forming their own superleague, I wonder if College Football is soon headed that way with basically a tiered FBS?
If they want to destroy the sport, that is exactly what they will do.With news of the elite European Soccer Clubs forming their own superleague, I wonder if College Football is soon headed that way with basically a tiered FBS?
To be fair, I don't think the problem is that there isn't a "perfect system" so much as the criteria can be used as a wax nose from week to week. I think we're probably all in agreement that there are "better systems than other systems."There is no perfect system. The current whiners usually have a dog that they want to be in the hunt but has justifiably been shut out. Another large segment would never be satisfied, they just want to gripe. I.e., there will always be a complaint no matter what. Many fans of programs who have not won, often don't like anything or the only thing they like is what will include their program more frequently.
IMO, the playoff system for football has yielded the best team more often that basketball, who often simply get hot or fortunate (lucky bounces, good matchups, etc.) champions.
If I ever find myself in court facing serious charges, I'm hiring Earle and you...no team could win against that team.To be fair, I don't think the problem is that there isn't a "perfect system" so much as the criteria can be used as a wax nose from week to week. I think we're probably all in agreement that there are "better systems than other systems."
Urban Meyer - correctly in my view - pointed out the problem with the playoff when Alabama was chosen over Ohio St in 2017. Make no mistake - it was the right choice, and I'd be saying this even had the situation been reversed (if we had lost by 31 points to, say, Mississippi State). But the problem was that the committee insinuated "the distance between 4th and 8th is so incredibly close" - and then the moment Ohio State knocked off unbeaten Wisconsin, the very same people informed us all, "Well, it was never really that close in the first place."
That what they're saying is a literal impossibility didn't keep them from acting like professional wrestling promoters.
I have a VERY simple test I apply when it comes to evaluating the fairness of the method:
"Was any team that SHOULD have been in the playoff excluded from it?" And my criteria STARTS where it should - is the second number in your record a zero (as in 12-0, etc)? If it is then you're going to get into the playoff whether anyone thinks you're the best team in the country or not, and that's exactly as it should be. The other MOST IMPORTANT criterion IN MY OPINION is "head to head results."
So when we look over the seven years of playoffs already concluded:
a) no undefeated Power 5 team has been excluded from the playoff
b) the ONLY unbeaten ever excluded played a total of TWO ranked teams in two seasons combined, beat both by 7 points, and needed double overtime to beat one of them (Note: you cannot count a bowl game against Auburn or LSU that had not yet been played in your evaluation for obvious reasons).
UCF played ZERO teams that were ranked in the top 20 (both ranked teams were in the 21-25 ranking).
Oklahoma - beat four teams ranked in the top 14
Georgia - went 3-1 against teams in the top 20
Alabama - went 2-1 against teams in the top 20
Clemson - went 4-0 against teams in the top 25
These are NOT similar numbers.
Even Alabama, whose schedule was arguably the weakest of the three, faced more ranked teams than UCF did. And oh yes, Ohio State went 3-1 against teams ranked in the top 15 and beat two teams in the top 10. (Isn't it funny how the UCF partisans go with "but we beat the team who beat the teams," but they don't say "Well Iowa St beat Memphis and a bunch of teams beat Iowa State?").
Oklahoma - went 2-1 against teams ranked in the top 20
Alabama - went 4-0 against teams ranked in the top 25, 3-0 against top 16, 2-0 against top 10.
Clemson - went 2-0 against teams ranked in the top 16
Notre Dame - went 2-0 against teams ranked in the top 16
And you can throw in UGA, who went 2-2 against four games against teams in the final top 11.
And UCF played....ZERO teams ranked in the final regular season top 25.
These are not similar numbers.
If you lose a game? Well, you better start figuring out how to bribe committee members.
NO TEAM with zero losses that deserved at least a chance has been passed over. And that alone is why I don't think expanding the playoff is even necessary. If there was ever a single "automatic qualifier" - in m view - it should be this: "Any team that is the defending national champion that runs the table with an undefeated record is an automatic selection."
But that's not even necessary; even with Clemson's lousy 2019 schedule, they were still getting in.
You want someone with more experience in criminal/trial law. OTOH, in my few months as a trial lawyer, before going off to tax grad law school, I got a murder conviction reversed before the state court of criminal appeals. One of the justices drew me aside and complimented me. Upon learning my plans, he tried to talk me out of it. Said my destiny was really as a trial lawyer. Personally, I think I'd already be dead, had I taken that fork in the road...
Well I’m not a lawyer BUT my high school classmates assumed I was going to be a prosecutor. That’s the first thing they asked when we met at the 10-year reunion - “where are you a DA?”
Same for OSU in 2014 - IMO, you traded a loss in 2014 for a win in 2017 with the CFP vs. BCS.Its hard to argue that the CFP has been better than the BCS...
Well we would not have won the 2017 National Championship with the BCS. So from a Bama perspective that is very good.
Who said anything about "any team can win" ? My point was that the best team often does not win - that's quite a difference. IMO, in most cases guessing who is the "best" team ultimately becomes a subjective matter regarding men's basketball. There are not many Cinderellas but there are more good or even great teams who have won when there was another team in the country who was likely better.I don't even agree with this part as I demonstrated above.
Once upon a time we STARTED with the Final Four, and this thing called the NIT meant something.
Then b-ball expanded and - like most folks as they get older - continued to expand.
We've had THREE....THREE teams that people call Cinderella teams win the title:
1983 NC State
And let's again dismantle this "any team can win" idea.
Not true in football, not true in basketball, either.
The fact we have analysts not worth a damn doesn't change that reality.
1) There were 17 weekly polls in 1982-83.
a) an ACC team (UVA or UNC) was #1 in seven of those 17 polls
b) at the end of the season, THREE ACC teams were ranked - UNC, UVA, and NC State
c) UVA was a #1 seed in the bracket of 52 teams
d) UNC was a #2 seed
e) UVA was considered the best team in the country by most. They had four pre-tournament losses. THREE of those four losses were to UNC and NC State.
(Wait a minute.....you mean I'm pointing out that the perceived best team lost to the so-called Cinderella???? Yup, and guess who eliminated UVA in the tournament? The eventual champions did).
1983 NC State winning the title while surprising was about like if 2017 Auburn had won the national championship. They DID manhandle UGA, and they beat Alabama. They narrowly lost to Clemson, and they choked against LSU. Entering the SEC title game, they were #2 despite two losses.
Would it have been a surprise if Auburn won? Yes.
Would it have been an actual Cinderella story? No.
Auburn had an easier time with UGA than Oklahoma did, folks.
Sure they lost the rematch, but they were a decent team and not some upstart.
2) I covered Villanova above. Villanova winning would have been about like 2011 Arkansas winning the national championship. And again, the Hawgs were probably the third-best team in the country.
3) 1988 Kansas comes a little bit closer to proving the case.
a) But basketball is a game where one individual player can take over and transcend the game; no matter which player you're talking about, that is not going to happen in CFB. A guy like Cam Newton or Tim Tebow would the closest, but Tebow had a stellar defense helping him, and Newton DID have Nick Fairley and schedule luck.
b) if you have ONE example to prove your case, you don't have much of an argument in the first place.
c) once again, the team that won the tournament came from a conference where one team was a #1 overall seed in the tournament. When Kansas played OU in the final, it was the third time they'd met that season, so it's not like KU wasn't familiar with OU and their schemes.
d) THREE of the Elite Eight teams were all from the Big Eight Conference, which strengthens the "strong conference" argument.
1988 Kansas would be about like 2012 A/M winning the national championship - the third best team in a powerful conference with one guy who can virtually take the team on his back and win. A surprise, yes? But far above the level of Boise State, Nevada, Tulane, etc.
This is a fair point and further validates my view that CFB is always in equilibrium and you win as many titles as you should. Yeah, we got hosed in 1966 and 1977, but we kinda got away with one in 1978, too.Same for OSU in 2014 - IMO, you traded a loss in 2014 for a win in 2017 with the CFP vs. BCS.
I don't think anyone is suggesting FBS takes only 12 teams - just the idea of the 'super league' that many of us have been begging for since, well, forever.If they want to destroy the sport, that is exactly what they will do.
You can do this with 64 teams; you're comitting suicide if you take 12.
Oh I agree, but the soccer league proposed is next-level insane. Personally, I think FBS would be just fine with four 16-team conferences, and I'm even willing to expand THAT playoff to six (the four conference champions and two at-large bids) to allow for certain situations like 2011 Alabama, where a team shows a high level of greatness but fails for one reason or another to win the conference.I don't think anyone is suggesting FBS takes only 12 teams - just the idea of the 'super league' that many of us have been begging for since, well, forever.
I think what helps in my particular case is all of those exegetical papers I had to write at my evangelical seminary for so many years. The difference there, of course, is that I had to cover the material within prescribed page limits, which was nearly impossible. We once had a paper on a particular word (and it's semantic meaning) in Ephesians 2, and I had to cover ALL SIX MAJOR PROPOSED interpretations of it (succinctly but fully), and come to my own conclusions on "the most probable is X because" and then defend the position, all while footnoting virtually every sentence with multiple references. Even then, my paper usually had a lot of red markings on it, heh heh, because the grader was some intern trying to earn his/her PhD, and they were always far better read on the subject than it was possible for me to be in a compressed time frame.
I agree. Last year showed they can schedule games "on the fly" with only four days notice. I have thought for some time that the first round (at least) should be incorporated into the regular season schedule.Oh I agree, but the soccer league proposed is next-level insane. Personally, I think FBS would be just fine with four 16-team conferences, and I'm even willing to expand THAT playoff to six (the four conference champions and two at-large bids) to allow for certain situations like 2011 Alabama, where a team shows a high level of greatness but fails for one reason or another to win the conference.
I'd also be just fine with some rotating "out of conference" scheduling like the NFL does where, for example, one year the SEC and Pac 12 teams play one another. They can set a stadium benchmark for the money so that the SEC teams with larger venues can play teams like Wazzu or Oregon St in a stadium of "minimum size X" like Seattle or somewhere as a home/home.
They can even match them up by seeds, say the Pac 12 champs vs the SEC champs with a predetermined venue. You could even do this two years in a row to allow for each team to play home/home and then flip leagues.
Of course, I think they should reduce the regular season to ten anyway.
On BBC last night, had the league survived, the individual teams would have cleared a half billion more per year. I think they were talking dollars...I don't think anyone is suggesting FBS takes only 12 teams - just the idea of the 'super league' that many of us have been begging for since, well, forever.
I honestly don't think it's that hard to argue that the CFP has been better than the BCS.Its hard to argue that the CFP has been better than the BCS...
Well we would not have won the 2017 National Championship with the BCS. So from a Bama perspective that is very good.
Well, I'm sorta willing to concede we "got away with one" in 1973 save for the fact we won it WITHIN THE RULES. Sure, they were stupid rules, but so was the time when Notre Dame got one knowing the bowl games wouldn't count and played for a tie.And 1973.