BCS Playoffs..UPDATE 6/5. Pac-12 Commish Larry Scott is fucking awesome

[shag773]

So what? If Okie State is included in a playoff, you are rendering their loss to Iowa State meaningless. The regular season is not a single-elimation tourney.

No one was talking about "evaluating" Okie State. We were talking about the significance of a teams loss if there was a playoff.

Alabama's loss to LSU is more significant than OSU's loss to ISU because that game decided the respective division winner who would play in the SEC championship game. OSU's loss, while it should hold significance because it was a road loss to a bad team, was less meaningful because they had their spot in their respective conference championship game already wrapped up. Then, in their championship game they tear the 13th ranked Sooners (who were number 1 for a couple weeks) a new asshole, while Alabama hoped road wins at Miss St and Auburn and a home win vs Georgia Southern (which was close for a good part of the game) would be enough since they lost their opportunity to play in a conference championship game.

I guess it comes down to what you place more importance on....is it finding the two best teams in the country to play in the NC game or the two most deserving....if you think about it logically, I think you would have a hard time believing Alabama was more desering than OSU...

 

[packersfan4eva]

Back on fucking topic:

If it's the four highest ranked teams that win a conference, isn't that still subjective? Who says that a 9-3, 17th-ranked Ohio State from the Big 10 is actually worse than a 5th ranked, 11-1 team from the Pac 12? There's no way to make a tournament completely unsubjective unless it's the champion from every single conference. In a four-team playoff, there will always be a team that, in some people's opinion, could be "unfairly" left out.

Oh, and what about Independents? How does Notre Dame fit into the picture?

 

[JeremyHight]

I liked that idea that it would be the top four conference champions ranked in the top 6. That way, if someone was outside the top 6, it would go to an at-large team. It makes it so you don't have low ranked teams in it just because they won their bad conference with a 9-3 record.

 

[Senser81]

Back on fucking topic:

If it's the four highest ranked teams that win a conference, isn't that still subjective? Who says that a 9-3, 17th-ranked Ohio State from the Big 10 is actually worse than a 5th ranked, 11-1 team from the Pac 12? There's no way to make a tournament completely unsubjective unless it's the champion from every single conference. In a four-team playoff, there will always be a team that, in some people's opinion, could be "unfairly" left out.

Oh, and what about Independents? How does Notre Dame fit into the picture?

Its still subjective, but at least there is a component of objectivity to it. And I think you would get a better variety of teams with the "conference champ" requirement.

Just like the current BCS, I'm sure there will be some special exception made for Notre Dame, like if they are ranked in the top 4 they automatically get a bid or something like that. I don't see that happening anytime soon, though.

 

[Senser81]

I liked that idea that it would be the top four conference champions ranked in the top 6. That way, if someone was outside the top 6, it would go to an at-large team. It makes it so you don't have low ranked teams in it just because they won their bad conference with a 9-3 record.

That would make sense, but I can foresee the typical scenario of an 11-1 TCU team being ranked 7th and winning their conference but being left out, while the 6th ranked 10-2 Georgia team who didn't even win their SEC division gets their spot.

I don't know how many times one of the top 4 conference champions would have a 9-3 record. I would think that with so many conferences, you would be able to get 4 teams with at least 10-2 records.

 

[JeremyHight]

That would make sense, but I can foresee the typical scenario of an 11-1 TCU team being ranked 7th and winning their conference but being left out, while the 6th ranked 10-2 Georgia team who didn't even win their SEC division gets their spot.

I don't know how many times one of the top 4 conference champions would have a 9-3 record. I would think that with so many conferences, you would be able to get 4 teams with at least 10-2 records.

I agree that it could still be an issue due to ranking, but that is where I'd like to see two other changes as well.

1.) Allow computers to use their actual formula. The people bastardize their ranking systems because for some reason, the BCS doesn't want to include Margin of Victory. Think about that... they don't think MoV should be a determining factor in who is the best team in the nation. By adding this change, we're far more likely to get accurate rankings. Although for the sake of competition (ie. teams not running it up by 70 over weak teams), I'd say cap it at 28. Winning by 28 is still a beatdown and will impress voters and computers alike.

2.) Get rid of the coaches poll and beg the AP to come back. The AP dropped out because they didn't want to be involved in a BCS 1 vs 2 system. If it is a four team playoff, the AP would probably come back. The AP is FAR less biased than the coaches, although bias will always exist. I'd take them over a set of coaches who know their school's payday is linked to their voting any day.

This won't necessarily make it so that the situation will not happen where a very qualified non-BCS team is outside the top 6, but it would hopefully allow for the most accurate rankings.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

Back on fucking topic:

If it's the four highest ranked teams that win a conference, isn't that still subjective? Who says that a 9-3, 17th-ranked Ohio State from the Big 10 is actually worse than a 5th ranked, 11-1 team from the Pac 12? There's no way to make a tournament completely unsubjective unless it's the champion from every single conference. In a four-team playoff, there will always be a team that, in some people's opinion, could be "unfairly" left out.

Oh, and what about Independents? How does Notre Dame fit into the picture?

But at least in that case, we would be debating the fourth & fifth best team, instead of the potential best team being snubbed.

 

[Senser81]

But at least in that case, we would be debating the fourth & fifth best team, instead of the potential best team being snubbed.

Agreed. We can all argue about who the best poster on VSN is...but when you get down to the fourth or fifth best poster, you're tossing around names like Zoneblitz and Berowsk.

 

[ZoneBlitz]

8 team playoff:

6 highest ranked conference champs
+
2 highest ranked at-large (could be runner-up in conf (Alabama), or conf champ who werent in top 6)

This would also allow Notre Dame to be eligible without them being in a conference.

 

[JeremyHight]

8 team playoff:

6 highest ranked conference champs
+
2 highest ranked at-large (could be runner-up in conf (Alabama), or conf champ who werent in top 6)

This would also allow Notre Dame to be eligible without them being in a conference.

Eh, to me, looking for the 6th best ranked conference champion would leave it open for some awful teams that have no reason to be in the title hunt. I'd rather it error on the side of being too small of a playoff at first than allowing too many people in. Yes, it will probably grow to that later on, greed will make it happen, but for now, I'd like to keep it small.

 

[ralaw]

8 team playoff:

6 highest ranked conference champs
+
2 highest ranked at-large (could be runner-up in conf (Alabama), or conf champ who werent in top 6)

This would also allow Notre Dame to be eligible without them being in a conference.

I know it isn't liked, but I prefer just to take the top 4 or 8 ranked BCS teams and have a playoff. I just have a hard time accepting that teams like Clemson, Houston, Cincinatti, Louisville or West Virginia were better (or should I say more worthy) of playing for a championship in 2011 than Alabama.

 

[ZoneBlitz]

I know it isn't liked, but I prefer just to take the top 4 or 8 ranked BCS teams and have a playoff. I just have a hard time accepting that teams like Clemson, Houston, Cincinatti, Louisville or West Virginia were better (or should I say more worthy) of playing for a championship in 2011 than Alabama.

True. Id be fine with any format as long as some at-large teams are included. But many have taken the stance that only conf champs should be allowed. Any format that wouldnt have included Alabama last year is no good.

 

[Senser81]

True. Id be fine with any format as long as some at-large teams are included. But many have taken the stance that only conf champs should be allowed. Any format that wouldnt have included Alabama last year is no good.

Wow...you actually have a stance on this issue? I thought you just posted the possible scenarios, then trolled anyone who put forth an opinion on the topic.

I don't think having "at-large" teams should be a requirement. If anything, the need for "at-large" teams in the first place is already a sign that the system doesn't really work. But that is just my opinion.

 

[ralaw]

True. Id be fine with any format as long as some at-large teams are included. But many have taken the stance that only conf champs should be allowed. Any format that wouldnt have included Alabama last year is no good.

If you're taking the top 4 or 8 BCS teams I don't see the point for an at-large bid. Wasn't Alabama a top 2 BCS team at the end of the regular season last year? IMO an at-large bid would be necessariy if they were taking the conference champion scenario, but not for the BCS scenario.

 

[ZoneBlitz]

If you're taking the top 4 or 8 BCS teams I don't see the point for an at-large bid. Wasn't Alabama a top 2 BCS team at the end of the regular season last year? IMO an at-large bid would be necessariy if they were taking the conference champion scenario, but not for the BCS scenario.

True. By at-large i meant teams that didnt win their conference. So if you're taking the top 4 or 8 BCS teams, they would be included. What im completely against is the "conference champions only" format.

 

[ralaw]

True. By at-large i meant teams that didnt win their conference. So if you're taking the top 4 or 8 BCS teams, they would be included. What im completely against is the "conference champions only" format.

I agree, thee "conference champions only" argument is pretty weak IMO. I understand the premise, but IMO it would be poor execution.

 

[Senser81]

I agree, thee "conference champions only" argument is pretty weak IMO. I understand the premise, but IMO it would be poor execution.

I think it depends on the amount of teams in the playoff. I think a conf. champs only for a 4-team playoff would be sufficient. 8 team playoff no. J-Hight made a post earlier in this thread that addressed this, which I agreed with. There would be situations which would allow for at-large teams to be included.

 

[ralaw]

I think it depends on the amount of teams in the playoff. I think a conf. champs only for a 4-team playoff would be sufficient. 8 team playoff no. J-Hight made a post earlier in this thread that addressed this, which I agreed with. There would be situations which would allow for at-large teams to be included.

Because of the disparaging differences in talent, competitiveness and quality teams among the difference conferences I just don't like the idea of deciding who gets in based on conference champions. Now, if college football forms 4 power conferences than I’d have no problem with that, but as of now I wouldn’t like the idea.

 

[ZoneBlitz]

Lets take last year for instance, which grouping of teams would you prefer in a 4-team playoff:

top 4 conf champs:
#1 LSU, #3 Okie State, #6 Oregon, #9 Wisconsin

or

top 4 overall:
#1 LSU, #2 Alabama, #3 Okie State, #4 Stanford

Id definately prefer top 4 overall, i dont want Wisconsin over Alabama in a playoff.

 

[Senser81]

Because of the disparaging differences in talent, competitiveness and quality teams among the difference conferences I just don't like the idea of deciding who gets in based on conference champion.

Thats kind of the point...you can say which conferences are better based on the field of play, not from assumptions. People assumed the SEC was superior to all other conferences last year, so some people were ok with the LSU-Alabama rematch...but its a pretty weak argument because its not like Alabama beat anyone of note outside their conference.

To bring up the Alabama example again, how can they be deserving if they can't even win their own division in their conference?