(07-25-2014 10:12 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  It's about the 4 best teams period not the four best teams from a particular region of the country.

It's not about the four best teams, for one simple reason. Nobody knows which the best four teams are. Ever. Never have, never will. Now, anybody can say that in any given year, those four would surely have been chosen. I don't disagree with that. I just disagree that anybody could say they were the "best four".

The best you can do is say these four are the ones most fans want to see play.

And even having Condelengus Rice picking 4 teams to play beats having a computer tell me who I have to watch play for a national championship.

(07-25-2014 10:47 AM)PiratePanther189 Wrote:  And even having Condelengus Rice picking 4 teams to play beats having a computer tell me who I have to watch play for a national championship.

I see what you did there.

(07-25-2014 10:18 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  If the SEC has the two best teams, then they should be in. Likewise if the 4 best teams are SEC, MWC, ACC and PAC, that's who should play.

The idea that every region has to be given an AQ is dumb

(07-25-2014 10:12 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  It's about the 4 best teams period not the four best teams from a particular region of the country.

(07-25-2014 10:37 AM)ken d Wrote:  It's not about the four best teams, for one simple reason. Nobody knows which the best four teams are. Ever. Never have, never will. Now, anybody can say that in any given year, those four would surely have been chosen. I don't disagree with that. I just disagree that anybody could say they were the "best four".

The best you can do is say these four are the ones most fans want to see play.

BINGO. This poster gets it. Having a committee pick the "4 best" teams is only marginally better than just letting them pick the champion and not even play the games! To say you "know" that the SEC "deserves" 2, 3 or all 4 of the playoff spots is ridiculous. The year Florida beat Ohio State in the BCS championship game, everyone "knew" that Ohio State and Michigan were the 2 best teams; they were wrong.

IMO you need to have teams from as many different conferences as possible to guarantee you are getting the right champion. That's why I've always supported 8 teams with all P5 champions included. If the "best" team doesn't win the SEC championship (why not?), they can get one of the at-large bids.

...but don't try to say that human opinion about which 4 teams are best is better than conference champions - it just isn't.

Well - in fairness - it's like the discussion of South Carolina always getting stuck in the Outback, Champs Sports, Capital One bowls and never getting to play in the BCS when they beat Clemson every year and Clemson gets a whole bowl of Oranges.

The SEC really does have a disadvantage over every other conference in that while there may be plenty of other good teams - possibly capable teams - around the country, none of them have to play that conference slate.

Not that I'm necessarily saying anything that no one already knows...but I mean I'm of the belief that the SEC is probably going to have (at least) 2 of the top 4 teams in the land every year whether they're in the playoff or not.

(07-25-2014 10:58 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  To say you "know" that the SEC "deserves" 2, 3 or all 4 of the playoff spots is ridiculous. The year Florida beat Ohio State in the BCS championship game, everyone "knew" that Ohio State and Michigan were the 2 best teams; they were wrong.

Yup. Florida beat Ohio State easily, and Michigan got pummeled by USC in the Rose Bowl. So much for the computers and pollsters knowing "for sure" who the two best teams were.

(07-25-2014 10:37 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(07-25-2014 10:12 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  It's about the 4 best teams period not the four best teams from a particular region of the country.

It's not about the four best teams, for one simple reason. Nobody knows which the best four teams are. Ever. Never have, never will. Now, anybody can say that in any given year, those four would surely have been chosen. I don't disagree with that. I just disagree that anybody could say they were the "best four".

The best you can do is say these four are the ones most fans want to see play.

That's the problem. This is not a science.

And the pollsters are frequently wrong.

If the committee determines the 4 best teams are from one best conference, that just proves they did a terrible job picking the committee.

I don't like that they aren't considering "deserving" teams. If a team like Notre Dame a couple years back goes unbeaten against a tough schedule, even if they have a lot of close games, they need to be in. I didn't think Notre Dame was in the top 4 "best" teams that year, but you can't have a legitimate championship if you exclude them in that type of situation. Noone thought Ohio St. had a chance against Miami that one year, but they won. Some teams just know how to win but aren't necessarily impressive about it. Hardly anyone outside Texas thought Texas had a chance against USC in 2005, but Texas won. There should be a heavy weight to "deserve."

And if you include only two conferences in the final 4 (2+2 or 3+1), you are putting way too much weight into eyeball tests and not enough into deserve.

(07-25-2014 10:58 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(07-25-2014 10:18 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  If the SEC has the two best teams, then they should be in. Likewise if the 4 best teams are SEC, MWC, ACC and PAC, that's who should play.

The idea that every region has to be given an AQ is dumb

(07-25-2014 10:12 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  It's about the 4 best teams period not the four best teams from a particular region of the country.

(07-25-2014 10:37 AM)ken d Wrote:  It's not about the four best teams, for one simple reason. Nobody knows which the best four teams are. Ever. Never have, never will. Now, anybody can say that in any given year, those four would surely have been chosen. I don't disagree with that. I just disagree that anybody could say they were the "best four".

The best you can do is say these four are the ones most fans want to see play.

BINGO. This poster gets it. Having a committee pick the "4 best" teams is only marginally better than just letting them pick the champion and not even play the games! To say you "know" that the SEC "deserves" 2, 3 or all 4 of the playoff spots is ridiculous. The year Florida beat Ohio State in the BCS championship game, everyone "knew" that Ohio State and Michigan were the 2 best teams; they were wrong.

IMO you need to have teams from as many different conferences as possible to guarantee you are getting the right champion. That's why I've always supported 8 teams with all P5 champions included. If the "best" team doesn't win the SEC championship (why not?), they can get one of the at-large bids.

...but don't try to say that human opinion about which 4 teams are best is better than conference champions - it just isn't.

Limiting it to 2 or 4 causes these issues. 8 at least can get all the major champs and 3 additional teams who can argue they are the "best."

(07-25-2014 11:42 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-25-2014 10:58 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(07-25-2014 10:18 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  If the SEC has the two best teams, then they should be in. Likewise if the 4 best teams are SEC, MWC, ACC and PAC, that's who should play.

The idea that every region has to be given an AQ is dumb

(07-25-2014 10:12 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  It's about the 4 best teams period not the four best teams from a particular region of the country.

(07-25-2014 10:37 AM)ken d Wrote:  It's not about the four best teams, for one simple reason. Nobody knows which the best four teams are. Ever. Never have, never will. Now, anybody can say that in any given year, those four would surely have been chosen. I don't disagree with that. I just disagree that anybody could say they were the "best four".

The best you can do is say these four are the ones most fans want to see play.

BINGO. This poster gets it. Having a committee pick the "4 best" teams is only marginally better than just letting them pick the champion and not even play the games! To say you "know" that the SEC "deserves" 2, 3 or all 4 of the playoff spots is ridiculous. The year Florida beat Ohio State in the BCS championship game, everyone "knew" that Ohio State and Michigan were the 2 best teams; they were wrong.

IMO you need to have teams from as many different conferences as possible to guarantee you are getting the right champion. That's why I've always supported 8 teams with all P5 champions included. If the "best" team doesn't win the SEC championship (why not?), they can get one of the at-large bids.

...but don't try to say that human opinion about which 4 teams are best is better than conference champions - it just isn't.

Limiting it to 2 or 4 causes these issues. 8 at least can get all the major champs and 3 additional teams who can argue they are the "best."

I agree. If you pick 8 teams, chances are you will not have picked the 8 best. But the chances are excellent that your list will include the two best, and most of the time will include every team capable of winning three straight games against top competition.

I don't think you can say either of those things with four teams.

One of the problems with having a playoff at all is that at the end of it only one school can credibly argue that it was the "best" (even if they weren't).

Before the BCS, any number of schools could make that claim, and keep the conversation going all the way to the following season. I miss that.

Unless every school plays every other school you never definitively know who is best.

Tournaments are not designed to determine who is "best". All they do is produce a champion. Those two things are not the same. Sometimes the winner of the NCAA basketball tournament may, in fact, be the "best" team. But we all would agree that often the winner is demonstrably not the best.

Even if you were to have an eight team tournament, the winner of that tournament may very well not win a second tournament including all the same 8 teams. You could repeat the process ten times and perhaps have as many as four different winners. But obviously you can't repeat that process, whether in a football tournament or a basketball tournament.

You can say the same thing about a regular season in a conference with a true round robin schedule. Repeat that schedule and the results might be different the second time.

But practical considerations mean we can't ever determine the "best", no matter how many times we try. So we should stop trying. All we can, and should, do is have a reasonable basis for picking the participants. IMO, the regular season is, and must be, an integral part of that tournament. That is, if you didn't win the regular season part of that tournament (your league championship), you should be eliminated from consideration for going further.

That doesn't mean you aren't the "best". Just that you won't be the champion. Not this year, at least.

I think this has more to do with there only being a limited number of spots and several conferences being scared they wont be included so they want to make sure conferences like the SEC cant get multiple teams.

(07-25-2014 11:05 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-25-2014 10:58 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  To say you "know" that the SEC "deserves" 2, 3 or all 4 of the playoff spots is ridiculous. The year Florida beat Ohio State in the BCS championship game, everyone "knew" that Ohio State and Michigan were the 2 best teams; they were wrong.

Yup. Florida beat Ohio State easily, and Michigan got pummeled by USC in the Rose Bowl. So much for the computers and pollsters knowing "for sure" who the two best teams were.

And #11 Oklahoma beat #3 Alabama in the Sugar Bowl last year...so there's that.

Looking backwards is going to produce all kinds of mixed results...simply because teams were disappointed to be playing in the bowl they ended up in at times. It doesn't EXCUSE Alabama's lackluster performance in 2013 or Michigan's in 2006 or Baylor's vs. UCF...but it's part of the equation.

The same thing will often happen to teams #5 and #6 in the CFP...because they'll feel slighted but they'll still have an extremely difficult opponent (top 12) to face in their bowl. Which will then make naysayers say..."SEE! We told you team #5, #6, or #7 wasn't as good!"

(07-25-2014 01:55 PM)ken d Wrote:  Tournaments are not designed to determine who is "best". All they do is produce a champion.

Well said. Championship formats may or may not result in the best team winning. Take the NCAA basketball tournament. A better format for ensuring that the best team wins would be to invite the 16 best schools from the regular season, and have them play four rounds with best of three series. However, the excitement of single elimination with 68 schools is far better pagentry.

The Major League Baseball Wild Card games are a joke as far as identifying the most deserving team.

The NFL and NBA playoffs do a pretty good job. In football, a single game is a fair test. In basketball, best of 7 is also a fair test.

(07-25-2014 10:12 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  It's about the 4 best teams period not the four best teams from a particular region of the country.

Gotta disagree. This is about limiting the SEC.

SEC, PAC 12, Big, IMHO could all get 2 in this season. Not sure Big 12 or ACC can this season.

I like what David Shaw said the other day, we don't want to look like an SEC team we want to look
like an NFL team.

If it's a playoff that selects the best teams if the SEC has two of the best teams then two SEC teams need to go.

And looking at how recruiting has been going the past few years everyone should be surprised if the SEC is not putting two teams in.

I have no doubt that politics will come into decision. The other conferences have an interest in preventing the SEC from getting too powerful and in establishing a one-team per conference precedent to maximize their own chances each year. Between the Pac, Big 10, ACC and Big 12, their reps make up more than 50% of the committee. The SEC has two reps on the committee which is not enough to sway the final decision if the other conferences decide to band together.

(07-25-2014 07:27 PM)prp Wrote:  I have no doubt that politics will come into decision. The other conferences have an interest in preventing the SEC from getting too powerful and in establishing a one-team per conference precedent to maximize their own chances each year. Between the Pac, Big 10, ACC and Big 12, their reps make up more than 50% of the committee. The SEC has two reps on the committee which is not enough to sway the final decision if the other conferences decide to band together.

But this is where the logic of your argument fails.

If there are two SEC teams in the top five all season long and those two SEC teams have a stronger schedule than the rest of the competition the committee cannot at the last minute go "Oh, well we want to be fair...."

I agree with equal competition but I also see that teams should not be punished for playing tough competition. These are the things I see right now:

1. The SEC is absolutely dominating recruiting. Go to 2010-14 and look at the top five. 2010-3 SEC teams in the top 5. 2011- Two SEC teams in the top 5. 2012 - Three SEC teams in the top five. 2013 - Two SEC teams in the top five. And this is not including all the SEC teams in the top 25.

2. Look at bowl records, OOC records, all Americans, NFL talent, etc.

3. Look at attendance, TV time, athletic budgets, coach salaries.

It's insane to even suggest that the SEC should not be able to place two teams in the playoff. The conference has become a monster at this sport.