Virtually every commentator I've read has blasted the CFP's new poll to determine the 4 participants. They say...why choose 25 when you only need 4? They say...why do it for six weeks, when only the last week counts? They say...why use a poll which will be anonymous when you are seeking transparency?

First off, college sports are a business. What's the best way to garner publicity and buzz? A poll. Heck, it's why they started polls in the early 20th century in the first place. They wanted to get notoriety for a very regional and plateauing sport. In the same way that the BCS poll created buzz (good buzz the first decade, bad buzz the last five years), this new poll will do the same. Hate them for redundancy, but don't hate them for lack of business savvy.

Secondly, this poll will communicate far more than a top 4. This will communicate the direction that CFB wants to see itself evolve. Sure, team #5 will be miffed that their strength of schedule is worse than team #4...but we will also see this play out when #10 is dinged for having a worse SOS than #9...and #19 than #18...and so on. Or, when team #10 leapfrogs #8 and #9 because team #10 won its conference championship game on the final weekend. We as fans will hopefully see better scheduling in the future because of the agenda set by the CFP committee.

Thirdly, 25 teams are needed because this poll is about more than just 4 spots--there are 12 spots at stake. All 6 of the top bowls will be determined by this poll, supposedly. A team who is #25 in that first poll could very much ascend into a New Year's Day CFP bowl by the sixth poll.

Lastly, the pundits are decrying how the fans will revolt when a team is #3 in the AP, #3 in the coaches' poll, and then #6 in the CFP poll. What if the CFP poll becomes the most respected poll after all? What if the CFP poll sets the agenda and "corrects" the other polls that are out there? What if they set a new agenda about "worthiness" that isn't just a win-loss record, as the traditional polls have been?[/align]

I think the new system makes sense. Even putting that poor schmuck on national TV to explain their decisions is a good idea. A computer algorithm doesn't have reasons...just numbers. The CFP committee is willing to be transparent enough to explain itself...and I think it'll be a good--even if it it can't be a perfect--solution.

Agree.
The media polls have been pretty good, and the Computer rankings "fixed" some of the shortcomings (while creating others).
If this committee spends the time to analyze in depth the entire top 25 field top to bottom, they potentially could create a (nearly) prefect poll. If you don't agree with the result, at least we'll know the reason why they picked one team over another (more or less).

Oh and by the way we do technically need 25 teams ranked so we can decide which of the lowly G5 teams gets the token access bowl spot. Just in case it's a down year and no G5 teams crack the top 20.

Is all this SOS talk code for a predictive poll? Is the committee trying to determine the 4 most powerful teams at the end of the season regardless of record?

If that's true, then margin of victory matters, and no one is talking about that.

(05-05-2014 08:06 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  Is all this SOS talk code for a predictive poll? Is the committee trying to determine the 4 most powerful teams at the end of the season regardless of record?

If that's true, then margin of victory matters, and no one is talking about that.

That's part of the dirty little secret. This emphasis on SOS will mean teams with weaker schedules must blow out weak opponents in order to impress the committee. For instance, if Im coaching Marshall and have Marshall's very weak schedule, I'm going to run up the score every week or risk looking like my team is barely capable of beating weak competition. There is going to be pressure on coaches to turn every game against a weak opponent into a nasty blow out. We may see that running up the score becomes more common than in the recent past.

(05-05-2014 08:34 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-05-2014 08:06 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  Is all this SOS talk code for a predictive poll? Is the committee trying to determine the 4 most powerful teams at the end of the season regardless of record?

If that's true, then margin of victory matters, and no one is talking about that.

That's part of the dirty little secret. This emphasis on SOS will mean teams with weaker schedules must blow out weak opponents in order to impress the committee. For instance, if Im cosching Marshall and have Marshall's very weak schedule, I'm going to run up the score every week or risk looking like my team is barely capable of beating weak competition. It here is going to be pressure on coaches to turn every game against a weak opponent into a nasty blow out. We may see that running up the score becomes more common than in the recent past.

This raises an interesting question. Until now, the various computer rankings all had one thing in common, dictated by the NCAA. In order to be used in the BCS formula, a computer ranking had to be modified to eliminate margin of victory as a rating criterion. Will those rankings now revert to the model their developer believed were relevant, including MOV?

IMO, computers that calculate things like SOS can be calibrated to take into account blowout wins without encouraging running up the score. One way would be to give credit for a blowout win if a team is leading by more than 24 points at the end of the third quarter and goes on to win. If the opponent scores in the fourth quarter against your scrubs, it won't be counted against you. Conversely, the losing team isn't charged with a blowout loss unless the final margin of victory is more than 24 points.

(05-05-2014 08:34 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-05-2014 08:06 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  Is all this SOS talk code for a predictive poll? Is the committee trying to determine the 4 most powerful teams at the end of the season regardless of record?

If that's true, then margin of victory matters, and no one is talking about that.

That's part of the dirty little secret. This emphasis on SOS will mean teams with weaker schedules must blow out weak opponents in order to impress the committee. For instance, if Im coaching Marshall and have Marshall's very weak schedule, I'm going to run up the score every week or risk looking like my team is barely capable of beating weak competition. There is going to be pressure on coaches to turn every game against a weak opponent into a nasty blow out. We may see that running up the score becomes more common than in the recent past.

Margin of victory should matter. If a team wants to be considered as one of the best in the country, then it should be beating bad teams by wide margins. If they have a schedule chock-full of bad teams, then a team that is actually one of the best in the country should be beating all of those bad teams by 3 or 4 TDs. Doesn't have to be 7 or 8 TDs.

If a team has one off game where they barely escape, no one will hold that against them, but if more than half of their opponents are outside the top 60 and they're beating those teams by an average of less than 14 points, then many people will conclude that their W-L record is more due to a soft schedule and less due to impressive performance.

(05-05-2014 11:05 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-05-2014 08:34 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-05-2014 08:06 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  Is all this SOS talk code for a predictive poll? Is the committee trying to determine the 4 most powerful teams at the end of the season regardless of record?

If that's true, then margin of victory matters, and no one is talking about that.

That's part of the dirty little secret. This emphasis on SOS will mean teams with weaker schedules must blow out weak opponents in order to impress the committee. For instance, if Im coaching Marshall and have Marshall's very weak schedule, I'm going to run up the score every week or risk looking like my team is barely capable of beating weak competition. There is going to be pressure on coaches to turn every game against a weak opponent into a nasty blow out. We may see that running up the score becomes more common than in the recent past.

Margin of victory should matter. If a team wants to be considered as one of the best in the country, then it should be beating bad teams by wide margins. If they have a schedule chock-full of bad teams, then a team that is actually one of the best in the country should be beating all of those bad teams by 3 or 4 TDs. Doesn't have to be 7 or 8 TDs.

If a team has one off game where they barely escape, no one will hold that against them, but if more than half of their opponents are outside the top 60 and they're beating those teams by an average of less than 14 points, then many people will conclude that their W-L record is more due to a soft schedule and less due to impressive performance.

I agree that margin of victory should be considered. An example is Boise State. When playing during the WAC they blew out every opponent showing their strength as a team. If they just only beat by less than a touchdown then the does question the strength and I don't think they would have been rated in the top 10 if that was the case.

Agree, maybe after 5 or 6 TDs margin it shouldn't matter if you win by more than that. Up to that point it shows how much better the one team is. Chances are when a team is ahead by that much they're putting in backups, and if you can't hold your own against backups, well, that's your problem.

I don't really care though, 90% of FBS including my own school will have no chance of getting in the top 4. 4 teams isn't a playoff anyway.

(05-05-2014 09:18 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-05-2014 08:34 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-05-2014 08:06 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  Is all this SOS talk code for a predictive poll? Is the committee trying to determine the 4 most powerful teams at the end of the season regardless of record?

If that's true, then margin of victory matters, and no one is talking about that.

That's part of the dirty little secret. This emphasis on SOS will mean teams with weaker schedules must blow out weak opponents in order to impress the committee. For instance, if Im cosching Marshall and have Marshall's very weak schedule, I'm going to run up the score every week or risk looking like my team is barely capable of beating weak competition. It here is going to be pressure on coaches to turn every game against a weak opponent into a nasty blow out. We may see that running up the score becomes more common than in the recent past.

This raises an interesting question. Until now, the various computer rankings all had one thing in common, dictated by the NCAA. In order to be used in the BCS formula, a computer ranking had to be modified to eliminate margin of victory as a rating criterion. Will those rankings now revert to the model their developer believed were relevant, including MOV?

IMO, computers that calculate things like SOS can be calibrated to take into account blowout wins without encouraging running up the score. One way would be to give credit for a blowout win if a team is leading by more than 24 points at the end of the third quarter and goes on to win. If the opponent scores in the fourth quarter against your scrubs, it won't be counted against you. Conversely, the losing team isn't charged with a blowout loss unless the final margin of victory is more than 24 points.

Agree.
Take it one step further and just implement that as a "run rule".
50 point lead at halftime or during the third quarter - game over. 25 point lead at end of 3 or anytime during the 4th - ball game. Then award one bonus point for every minute left on the clock.

Remember, these are people, not machines. They are all very capable individuals as well. I trust them to be able to tell for themselves when a team is running up the score simply to run up the score. If anything, that might be seen in a negative light.

People are opinionated. They have preconceived bias that won't allow this system to be fair no matter how hard they try to make it transparent. Like everything else in college football the name on the jersey will mean more than the won loss record or strength of schedule. Perception will cloud the judgement of this so called impartial committee.

The talking heads trying to sell this crock will try to sell us the old "the basketball selection committee does a great job every March". Really? They select 68 teams and still those left out whine. What's going to happen when only 4 teams are selected.

If the powers that be truly wanted a playoff system that was equitable, every conference would have an automatic bid. Until that time this playoff is a charade.
CJ

(05-06-2014 02:29 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  If the powers that be truly wanted a playoff system that was equitable, ...

Why exactly would they want that? It seems like the most equitable available system rarely squeezes out the most money.

People would complain about whatever system they came up with.

(05-06-2014 06:39 AM)Hokie4Skins Wrote:  People would complain about whatever system they came up with.

This is very true.
People will always complain about a system, whether it is fair, or not.
We should still continue to fix the system to make it fair(er).
2014's system will be fairer than 2013's.

(05-06-2014 06:39 AM)Hokie4Skins Wrote:  People would complain about whatever system they came up with.

They are going to certainly complain about this so called impartial system.
CJ

Give me system that is "fair." Fair and College Sports simply do not go together. I'd even contend that Fair and the NFL don't go together.

Hear me out...baseball takes 162 competitions...and then they take three more series on top of that (best of 5, 7, and 7)...to determine a champ. NBA? 82 games...and then 4 more series!!! Those are the most "fair" leagues we have in the USA.

The more teams play, the more "fairness" exists. Better teams beat weaker teams more times than not.

The NFL...yes, there is a regular season record and byes and then home-field advantage...but it's still a one-game playoff in every round. And sometimes the 9-7 Giants beat the 16-0 Patriots. Play a 7-game series of Giants/Patriots for the Super Bowl series...and I bet the Patriots win 4 of those 7 games (or 6, or 5). But it was just one game...and the Giants were Super Bowl champs that year. But "series" for football just aren't possible.

CFB is the least fair "creature" out there. No system you devise could make it "impartial" or fair. So quit complaining about this new system, which already has more fairness than the former system.

Any system that involves a bunch of old guys that sit around and give their opinion based on their experience, derived from a bias crooked system, is going to be bias and crooked.

Until every conference is represented and the game is played on the field, the system is flawed and should be treated as such.

Keep in mind these are supposedly non-profit tax supported institutions ( with a few exceptions) that participate in this system. They should all be treated equally.

Let's go to the same system in basketball. Eliminate all the tournament and go straight to the Final 4. Let's let the champion of The Big 10, Big 12, ACC and American battle it out why The SEC whines about its teams being left out. After all anyone that knows anything about basketball knows The SEC is terrible. Even a bunch of old guys.
CJ

(05-07-2014 02:21 AM)allthatyoucantleavebehind Wrote:  Give me system that is "fair." Fair and College Sports simply do not go together. I'd even contend that Fair and the NFL don't go together.

Hear me out...baseball takes 162 competitions...and then they take three more series on top of that (best of 5, 7, and 7)...to determine a champ. NBA? 82 games...and then 4 more series!!! Those are the most "fair" leagues we have in the USA.

The more teams play, the more "fairness" exists. Better teams beat weaker teams more times than not.

The NFL...yes, there is a regular season record and byes and then home-field advantage...but it's still a one-game playoff in every round. And sometimes the 9-7 Giants beat the 16-0 Patriots. Play a 7-game series of Giants/Patriots for the Super Bowl series...and I bet the Patriots win 4 of those 7 games (or 6, or 5). But it was just one game...and the Giants were Super Bowl champs that year. But "series" for football just aren't possible.

CFB is the least fair "creature" out there. No system you devise could make it "impartial" or fair. So quit complaining about this new system, which already has more fairness than the former system.

Depends on how you define "fair". Football could never have 82 regular season games in a season like basketball. Nobody who started the season would be healthy enough to play by the playoffs. So I think we can skip the number of games played as a proxy for fairness based just on common sense. The violent nature of football as a sport simply doesn't lend itself to that model of play.

Fairness in my mind basically comes down to the creating a system where playoff inclusion is decided on the field rather by crooked old men in smokey back rooms. The NCAA tournament works because every on the court champion is included. The selection committee only fills in the open slots that are not taken by legitimate champions. In football, the committee will not include every champ, so it's a job that will always be second guessed. It's results will always be seen as having some bias. Will upsets happen? Sure. But they happen in front of millions of people on the field of play---that's the point of a playoff. Besides, upsets don't mean the playoff is flawed---upsets are just proof that conventional wisdom is often wrong.

Unfortunately, about the best we could possibly hope for from a fairness standpoint is an 8 team playoff where all 5 power conference champs are AQ. That gurantees that the on field champion for the strongest conferences are all included. I'd add in the top G5 champion---which unfortunately requires a subjective decision of a committee, but the idea is that by having the top G5 champ get an AQ slot, you eliminate anti-G5 bias. The question is no longer, does a G5 deserve to get in over a P5 runner up---the question is simply who is the best G5 champ---which I think a committee can be trusted with.

With the all the P5 champs in and the top G5 in, then the FBS playoff begins to take on a stronger resemblance to the dynamic that exists in the NCAA Tournament. Now the selection committee needs only fill in the rest field as the champs that were decided on the field have already populated most of the playoff slots. This system would only use the subjective "selection committee" to decide the two wildcard playoff teams and to fill in the other "access" bowls that are connected to the CFP.