(12-08-2015 10:59 PM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  the BCS era was the worst thing to ever happen to college football. I diluted the value in dominating a team since a 60 point win against another highly ranked team was the same thing, according to the computers, as a 3-2 win over an FCS team. It also lead to schools scheduling soft ass schedules that still shows its ugly head to this very day.

The playoff is MUCH, MUCH, MUCH better!!!!!!!

you had to have a BCS to break the lock on the Rose Bowl....

Pre-BCS, we'd have:

Orange Bowl: #1 Clemson vs. #2 Alabama
Rose Bowl: #3 Michigan State vs. #5 Stanford

The B1G and Big XII would be left out of the National Championship

(12-09-2015 09:45 AM)EvilVodka Wrote:  

(12-08-2015 10:59 PM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  the BCS era was the worst thing to ever happen to college football. I diluted the value in dominating a team since a 60 point win against another highly ranked team was the same thing, according to the computers, as a 3-2 win over an FCS team. It also lead to schools scheduling soft ass schedules that still shows its ugly head to this very day.

The playoff is MUCH, MUCH, MUCH better!!!!!!!

you had to have a BCS to break the lock on the Rose Bowl....

Pre-BCS, we'd have:

Orange Bowl: #1 Clemson vs. #2 Alabama
Rose Bowl: #3 Michigan State vs. #5 Stanford

The B1G and Big XII would be left out of the National Championship

The computers were an utter disaster. The final results were only as good as the initial input and after they tweaked their forumulas for a 4th time it destroyed the value of a strong schedule and put the same value on a 3-2 win over an FCS school as a 60-0 win over a top 10 team.

It was flat out a disaster.

I LOVE the playoff and having a group of people discuss the rankings. Good dominate wins over a good team actually means something again and you can still make the playoff with two losses now.

(12-08-2015 10:59 PM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  the BCS era was the worst thing to ever happen to college football. I diluted the value in dominating a team since a 60 point win against another highly ranked team was the same thing, according to the computers, as a 3-2 win over an FCS team. It also lead to schools scheduling soft ass schedules that still shows its ugly head to this very day.

Where on earth do you get that? Not remotely true. In fact it is the opposite: computers polls rely on SOS so much, that they actually removed SOS as a separate component of the BCS. Now what was true was that to the computer portion of the computation, a 60 point win over a highly ranked team was the same as a 2 point win, but computers take wins, SOS, and stats into consideration. In fact one thing computers do, is unlike the human votes at times, they don't forget wins where humans tend to, and computers reevaluate wins and losses as the season goes on, where as (most) human voters only look at last week and gauge what to change from the ranking from the previous week.

The computers actually help balance the human polls. What they tweaked over the years was to remove MOV from computer components. They removed SOS from the BCS formula, as it used to be separate from the polls, precisely because both the computer and human polls accounted for SOS, and with SOS as 1/3 of the formula in ADDITION to computers and humans evaluating schedules, SOS was accounting for some 60% of the vote, to the point that teams with losing records but strong SOS's, where starting to get ranked.

the only thing the BCS did wrong IMO, in terms of evolving the rankings, was the complete removal of MOV. It is one thing to put a governor on MOV so that teams are not encouraged to run up the score, but when you remove it all together, a close win is no different than a blowout win, because the computers cannot account for any margin of victory.

MOV is a fallacy when used outside the context of any single game, like trying to rank a top 25.

Just the simple fact alone that a team can choose not to run up the score, perhaps by getting the backups more playing time, destroys it as an argument for why a team should be ranked ahead of another team.

(12-09-2015 01:04 AM)perimeterpost Wrote:  10 conference champs ranked 1-10. Bottom 4 play a play-in game (7v10, 8v9). 2 play-in winners join top 6 for 8 team playoff. Done.

College football players are young men, with fragile, still developing minds, who put their health at risk for the sake of your entertainment, without getting paid.

They play enough games in a year, as it is.

Sorry if that doesn't live up to your standard of entertainment.

The computers removed margin of victory in one of their first tweaks to the computer.

People I tell yeah.

(12-09-2015 08:28 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-09-2015 01:04 AM)perimeterpost Wrote:  10 conference champs ranked 1-10. Bottom 4 play a play-in game (7v10, 8v9). 2 play-in winners join top 6 for 8 team playoff. Done.

College football players are young men, with fragile, still developing minds, who put their health at risk for the sake of your entertainment, without getting paid.

They play enough games in a year, as it is.

Sorry if that doesn't live up to your standard of entertainment.

you root for NDSU, they played 16 games last year.

(12-09-2015 08:43 PM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  The computers removed margin of victory in one of their first tweaks to the computer.

People I tell yeah.

Yes. But they never, EVER removed SOS, and in fact SOS became a bigger component in some computer models to make up for lack of MOV. You stated twice about how computers ruined the BCS because they don't account for SOS. You even gave an example (top ranked team vs. FCS team) that left no doubt it was not a typo.

The BCS removed strength of schedule as a stand-alone component of the standings in 2004. lol.

All I can do is shake my head...

The BCS was a total disaster.

(12-09-2015 08:57 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  

(12-09-2015 08:28 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-09-2015 01:04 AM)perimeterpost Wrote:  10 conference champs ranked 1-10. Bottom 4 play a play-in game (7v10, 8v9). 2 play-in winners join top 6 for 8 team playoff. Done.

College football players are young men, with fragile, still developing minds, who put their health at risk for the sake of your entertainment, without getting paid.

They play enough games in a year, as it is.

Sorry if that doesn't live up to your standard of entertainment.

you root for NDSU, they played 16 games last year.

FCS teams only play 11 regular season games. So NDSU played 15 total, as they won the national championship.

And frankly, with the FCS playoffs being as watered down as they are (NDSU already on its second rematch, in the quarter final), it should be an 8-team field.

That would be 14 games max.


Which in FBS is equivalent to 12 regular season, CCG and one bowl game.

But as is, 15 games is the absolute maximum. Which means it can be no more than a 4-team playoff.

(12-09-2015 11:10 PM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  The BCS removed strength of schedule as a stand-alone component of the standings in 2004. lol.

All I can do is shake my head...

The BCS was a total disaster.

In hindsight, doesn't it seem preposterous that we selected the two "best" teams by allowing some computer algorithm, sports writers who never played or coached the game and the coaches themselves to make the decision?!?

Ridiculous, if you ask me.

(12-09-2015 11:10 PM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  The BCS removed strength of schedule as a stand-alone component of the standings in 2004. lol.

All I can do is shake my head...

The BCS was a total disaster.

I mentioned that. You said the COMPUTERS REMEOVED them, and they were the issue. I pointed out to you that BCS only removed SOS as a separate component, because people complained that SOS was too dominant, since it was a primary part of all of the computer rankings AND the human polls considered them as well. IT was removed because SOS was the PRIMARY determinant in rankings. SOS was actually becoming more important than wins and losses.

You need to just retire this argument.

At the end of the day, people only ever wanted this component removed or that component minimized ... because they knew the results were wrong.

Now we always get the most correct results possible, because humans are in charge.

(12-10-2015 09:48 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-09-2015 11:10 PM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  The BCS removed strength of schedule as a stand-alone component of the standings in 2004. lol.

All I can do is shake my head...

The BCS was a total disaster.

In hindsight, doesn't it seem preposterous that we selected the two "best" teams by allowing some computer algorithm, sports writers who never played or coached the game and the coaches themselves to make the decision?!?

Ridiculous, if you ask me.

It's still preposterous. Just not as preposterous as it was with 2 teams.

(12-10-2015 09:46 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-09-2015 08:57 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  

(12-09-2015 08:28 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-09-2015 01:04 AM)perimeterpost Wrote:  10 conference champs ranked 1-10. Bottom 4 play a play-in game (7v10, 8v9). 2 play-in winners join top 6 for 8 team playoff. Done.

College football players are young men, with fragile, still developing minds, who put their health at risk for the sake of your entertainment, without getting paid.

They play enough games in a year, as it is.

Sorry if that doesn't live up to your standard of entertainment.

you root for NDSU, they played 16 games last year.

FCS teams only play 11 regular season games. So NDSU played 15 total, as they won the national championship.

And frankly, with the FCS playoffs being as watered down as they are (NDSU already on its second rematch, in the quarter final), it should be an 8-team field.

That would be 14 games max.


Which in FBS is equivalent to 12 regular season, CCG and one bowl game.

But as is, 15 games is the absolute maximum. Which means it can be no more than a 4-team playoff.

Unless we went back to 11 games in FBS. I know they won't do that but nobody forced them to change to 12 games. If it's really about the student-athletes, they could go back to 11 games.

(12-10-2015 09:46 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-09-2015 08:57 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  

(12-09-2015 08:28 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-09-2015 01:04 AM)perimeterpost Wrote:  10 conference champs ranked 1-10. Bottom 4 play a play-in game (7v10, 8v9). 2 play-in winners join top 6 for 8 team playoff. Done.

College football players are young men, with fragile, still developing minds, who put their health at risk for the sake of your entertainment, without getting paid.

They play enough games in a year, as it is.

Sorry if that doesn't live up to your standard of entertainment.

you root for NDSU, they played 16 games last year.

FCS teams only play 11 regular season games. So NDSU played 15 total, as they won the national championship.

And frankly, with the FCS playoffs being as watered down as they are (NDSU already on its second rematch, in the quarter final), it should be an 8-team field.

That would be 14 games max.


Which in FBS is equivalent to 12 regular season, CCG and one bowl game.

But as is, 15 games is the absolute maximum. Which means it can be no more than a 4-team playoff.

NDSU went 15-1 last year. 15+1 does not equal 15. it equals 16.
http://espn.go.com/college-football/team...tate-bison

An 8 team playoff would have 3 rounds + a 4th round for the 2 play-in game winners. So an FBS schedule would look like this-

4 OOC games
8 conference games
1 conf championship game
1 play-in game (7th and 8th seed)
3 playoff games

That's 17 games max., Eliminate FBS v FCS non conference games and drop the OOC to 3 and its 16 max, JUST LIKE FCS.

(12-10-2015 05:14 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  NDSU went 15-1 last year. 15+1 does not equal 15. it equals 16.

Pretty sure he will tell you that you are wrong. Not sure what reason he will come up with, but that will be his story.

Until the "committee" is eliminated from the process, you will always gave the potential for shady activities behind closed doors that result in an unfair system. The ONLY type system that would be fair would be one that doesn't involve human opinion.

Unfortunately any system established by men will be inherently corrupted by their bias that will be built into the system.

Therefore until we have a system that allows every conference champ from Sun Belt to The PAC, from The SEC to The MAC to be represented, the influence peddlers and money changers will work the system to their benefit.

Bottom line is enjoy what we have now. It ain't perfect but it's better than what we had. Just don't expect it to be a whole lot better.
CJ

This system is better than before when the bowls were completely open market and chose who they wanted. You had to literally be in the same city or region as a bowl to dream of playing in it as an outsider, like Miami in the 1984 Orange Bowl.

(12-10-2015 09:37 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  Until the "committee" is eliminated from the process, you will always gave the potential for shady activities behind closed doors that result in an unfair system. The ONLY type system that would be fair would be one that doesn't involve human opinion.

I know it is a minor thing, but the move they made last year they thought no one would notice, as a favor to the Big Ten, to move Michigan St down a spot below Ole Miss, proves they are corruptible.