(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.

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

I think the bigger challenge is trying to figure out the best way a playoff and the bowl system can coexist.

(12-11-2015 12:18 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(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.

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

I think the bigger challenge is trying to figure out the best way a playoff and the bowl system can coexist.

that's easy-

an 8 team play off would have 4 first round games, 2 semifinal games, and 1 final game. That's 7 bowl games. The other 120 teams not in the playoffs can fill the other bowls.

(12-10-2015 05:14 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  

(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.

No FCS champion has played more than four games in the playoffs, since the playoff bracket expanded past 16 teams (how ever many years ago).

Normally, FCS is only allowed to play 11 games in the regular season. Occasionally, depending on the calendar, they do allow them to play 12 games.

If you had actually done the research on NDSU's schedules, you would have seen that last year was the first time NDSU ever played 12 games in the regular season. They had the option to do that the year before, and choose not to.


So normally, 15 is the max.

For FBS, that's 12 regular season, 1 CCG and two playoff games, max.


Arguing that the regular season should be reduced to 11 so that the playoff can expand to eight is a waste of your fingers. And you know it. Defeated very easily, it would 90-something % against. Why? Because you're taking a game away from every FBS team in order to give only four extra teams one game in the playoff.

(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.

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

Much better than when computers and coaches were involved. And I don't trust sports writer to be these perfectly unbiased "selection gods", either.


The only thing that's nice with the AP poll is that the votes are public.

That's all I would change with the current CFP, make every vote from every step of the process public.

(12-11-2015 11:53 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(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.

Or they just felt that Ole Miss was better than Mich St.

You can't prove it either way, since the votes were never public. That's the only thing that should be changed, make the votes public.

(12-11-2015 12:18 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(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.

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

I think the bigger challenge is trying to figure out the best way a playoff and the bowl system can coexist.

It should be easy, in my mind: make them completely separate.

Bowls should be nothing more than exhibition games, with the participating teams designated by the contracts signed between the bowl games and the conferences.


The playoff should be entirely separate, with each of the three games played at a bid-out, neutral site.

(12-13-2015 10:48 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-11-2015 11:53 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(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.

Or they just felt that Ole Miss was better than Mich St.

You can't prove it either way, since the votes were never public. That's the only thing that should be changed, make the votes public.

Actually we pretty much can. They moved Ole Miss up one spot the week after either played a game. Neither played championship week, and they were the only teams in the top 25 to move spots relative to any other team who did not play a game. And in fact, the results of championship weekend actually improved MSU's SOS and lowered Ole Miss' comparatively speaking , so there was no reason to do it. And in fact when asked about it, Long didn't answer the question and changed the subject. However the move absolutely benefited the Big Ten, as it preserved their top non Access/Contract bowl slot. It was even reported that the B1G had lobbied some committee members to make the change (which was how it became noticed in the first place). There was absolutely no reason to make the move except as a favor, which they did. They just thought no one would notice. But it shows they are corruptable.

(12-13-2015 10:48 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-11-2015 11:53 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(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.

Or they just felt that Ole Miss was better than Mich St.

You can't prove it either way, since the votes were never public. That's the only thing that should be changed, make the votes public.

Even if/when the votes are public, people will always suspect that "their side" got screwed when the decisions of a small group went against them.

Your not-quite-arguments against the computer rankings aside, they take the results of the games and put them into a mathematical formula. The formula doesn't know Notre Dame from Northern Illinois, it just knows that Team A played these teams with these rankings and got these scores.

The Coaches Poll--coaches don't always get to watch a lot of games that they aren't watching tape to prepare for. Sometimes the coaches follow the herd, sometimes they get their Sports Information Directors to fill it out. Not to mention the shenanigans that would happen when coaches hated each other's guts, or when one conference's coaches tried to boost their #3 over someone's #2.

The final years of the BCS formula was a pretty good formula. The computers, the coaches, the AP (ahem, Harris) poll were all taken into account. And by the end of the BCS' life cycle, the BCS rankings had legitimacy. The more voices in the process, the harder it is to argue that the results are because of bias or shenanigans etc.

The complaint about hte BCS system, by the end, was that it wasn't a playoff, not with the outcome of the rankings.

(12-06-2015 03:09 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(12-06-2015 02:59 PM)Zombiewoof Wrote:  This is my old guy, obligatory post stating a desire to completely scrap the playoff and go back to the "mythical national champion" days when the polls determined their own champion and people got to argue why their team was most worthy.

I completely agree. It was much better when we could all argue without knowing for sure. I'm sure the schools liked it better too - a lot more schools could tell their alumni that they had a successful season.

And I'm in my early 30s, not exactly an old fart.

Oh, the horror of two schools out of well over 100, the vast majority of which never actually play one another, each getting a ring at the end of the year. It's just mind-boggling how we ever survived living so long under that dark cloud.

Frankly, I don't think "the fans" ever clamored for a "true champion" nearly as much as the press jonesed to be able to promote, cover, and broadcast the process to crown one.

(12-13-2015 01:27 PM)HarborPointe Wrote:  

(12-06-2015 03:09 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(12-06-2015 02:59 PM)Zombiewoof Wrote:  This is my old guy, obligatory post stating a desire to completely scrap the playoff and go back to the "mythical national champion" days when the polls determined their own champion and people got to argue why their team was most worthy.

I completely agree. It was much better when we could all argue without knowing for sure. I'm sure the schools liked it better too - a lot more schools could tell their alumni that they had a successful season.

And I'm in my early 30s, not exactly an old fart.

Oh, the horror of two schools out of well over 100, the vast majority of which never actually play one another, each getting a ring at the end of the year. It's just mind-boggling how we ever survived living so long under that dark cloud.

Frankly, I don't think "the fans" ever clamored for a "true champion" nearly as much as the press jonesed to be able to promote, cover, and broadcast the process to crown one.

I think the "Bowl Alliance" and BCS began in the 1990s because the bowl games saw some public sentiment for a CFB playoff, maybe spurred by the explosion of popularity for March Madness. The bowl guys and their allies wanted to block the possibility of a playoff that cut out the bowls, so they created a fake playoff that locked in the bowl games as major players.

(12-13-2015 01:13 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(12-13-2015 10:48 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-11-2015 11:53 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(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.

Or they just felt that Ole Miss was better than Mich St.

You can't prove it either way, since the votes were never public. That's the only thing that should be changed, make the votes public.

Actually we pretty much can. They moved Ole Miss up one spot the week after either played a game. Neither played championship week, and they were the only teams in the top 25 to move spots relative to any other team who did not play a game. And in fact, the results of championship weekend actually improved MSU's SOS and lowered Ole Miss' comparatively speaking , so there was no reason to do it. And in fact when asked about it, Long didn't answer the question and changed the subject. However the move absolutely benefited the Big Ten, as it preserved their top non Access/Contract bowl slot. It was even reported that the B1G had lobbied some committee members to make the change (which was how it became noticed in the first place). There was absolutely no reason to make the move except as a favor, which they did. They just thought no one would notice. But it shows they are corruptable.

There was no reason to make the move ... unless they felt they had gotten it wrong the week before.

Which would then be perfectly valid reason to make the change.


Long probably didn't answer the question because it wouldn't serve anyone except conspiracy theorists.


Only fact is that you can't prove it one way or another, so long as the discussion/votes were held private.


You're going to believe what you already believe, and bend whatever evidence you can find to support that agenda. Fine.

(12-13-2015 01:17 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(12-13-2015 10:48 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-11-2015 11:53 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(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.

Or they just felt that Ole Miss was better than Mich St.

You can't prove it either way, since the votes were never public. That's the only thing that should be changed, make the votes public.

Even if/when the votes are public, people will always suspect that "their side" got screwed when the decisions of a small group went against them.

Your not-quite-arguments against the computer rankings aside, they take the results of the games and put them into a mathematical formula. The formula doesn't know Notre Dame from Northern Illinois, it just knows that Team A played these teams with these rankings and got these scores.

The Coaches Poll--coaches don't always get to watch a lot of games that they aren't watching tape to prepare for. Sometimes the coaches follow the herd, sometimes they get their Sports Information Directors to fill it out. Not to mention the shenanigans that would happen when coaches hated each other's guts, or when one conference's coaches tried to boost their #3 over someone's #2.

The final years of the BCS formula was a pretty good formula. The computers, the coaches, the AP (ahem, Harris) poll were all taken into account. And by the end of the BCS' life cycle, the BCS rankings had legitimacy. The more voices in the process, the harder it is to argue that the results are because of bias or shenanigans etc.

The complaint about hte BCS system, by the end, was that it wasn't a playoff, not with the outcome of the rankings.

The complaint is that the formula sometimes picked the wrong teams.

Now, we always get as close as possible to picking the right teams.

(12-13-2015 03:06 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-13-2015 01:17 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(12-13-2015 10:48 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-11-2015 11:53 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(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.

Or they just felt that Ole Miss was better than Mich St.

You can't prove it either way, since the votes were never public. That's the only thing that should be changed, make the votes public.

Even if/when the votes are public, people will always suspect that "their side" got screwed when the decisions of a small group went against them.

Your not-quite-arguments against the computer rankings aside, they take the results of the games and put them into a mathematical formula. The formula doesn't know Notre Dame from Northern Illinois, it just knows that Team A played these teams with these rankings and got these scores.

The Coaches Poll--coaches don't always get to watch a lot of games that they aren't watching tape to prepare for. Sometimes the coaches follow the herd, sometimes they get their Sports Information Directors to fill it out. Not to mention the shenanigans that would happen when coaches hated each other's guts, or when one conference's coaches tried to boost their #3 over someone's #2.

The final years of the BCS formula was a pretty good formula. The computers, the coaches, the AP (ahem, Harris) poll were all taken into account. And by the end of the BCS' life cycle, the BCS rankings had legitimacy. The more voices in the process, the harder it is to argue that the results are because of bias or shenanigans etc.

The complaint about hte BCS system, by the end, was that it wasn't a playoff, not with the outcome of the rankings.

The complaint is that the formula sometimes picked the wrong teams.

When? And who says?

Quote:Now, we always get as close as possible to picking the right teams.

Again, says who?

A year ago, it was hard to find anyone in Texas who agreed.

(12-13-2015 03:05 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  There was no reason to make the move ... unless they felt they had gotten it wrong the week before.

Or because they were asked to, which was reported, because it helped the Big Ten bowl position. As it stood, MSU would have automatically grabbed the Big Ten Orange Bowl tie in, but at the cost of the Citrus Bowl. Had they been moved down a spot, as was rumored to be asked, Ole Miss would get the Orange Bowl spot, MSU would still get an at-large spot, and the Big Ten would retain the Citrus Bowl slot, which is what happened

(12-13-2015 03:05 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Only fact is that you can't prove it one way or another, so long as the discussion/votes were held private.

Neither can you, but a you say "You're going to believe what you already believe, and bend whatever evidence you can find to support that agenda." I actually have some evidence to support my theory, the rumored request, the media asking, the question being dodged, and the result. What is your evidence, other than your unsupported opinion?

Not to mention, your theory is actually even worse, because it means if they are not corrupt: they are incompetent. Which undermines your theory that the process is now better because it is controlled by humans, when your retort is "they felt they got it wrong." Well that means they have proven they are not very good at the job. What if they felt a week after announcing the playoffs, that they got it wrong again? C'mon man. That is even worse.

(12-13-2015 03:14 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(12-13-2015 03:06 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-13-2015 01:17 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(12-13-2015 10:48 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-11-2015 11:53 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  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.

Or they just felt that Ole Miss was better than Mich St.

You can't prove it either way, since the votes were never public. That's the only thing that should be changed, make the votes public.

Even if/when the votes are public, people will always suspect that "their side" got screwed when the decisions of a small group went against them.

Your not-quite-arguments against the computer rankings aside, they take the results of the games and put them into a mathematical formula. The formula doesn't know Notre Dame from Northern Illinois, it just knows that Team A played these teams with these rankings and got these scores.

The Coaches Poll--coaches don't always get to watch a lot of games that they aren't watching tape to prepare for. Sometimes the coaches follow the herd, sometimes they get their Sports Information Directors to fill it out. Not to mention the shenanigans that would happen when coaches hated each other's guts, or when one conference's coaches tried to boost their #3 over someone's #2.

The final years of the BCS formula was a pretty good formula. The computers, the coaches, the AP (ahem, Harris) poll were all taken into account. And by the end of the BCS' life cycle, the BCS rankings had legitimacy. The more voices in the process, the harder it is to argue that the results are because of bias or shenanigans etc.

The complaint about hte BCS system, by the end, was that it wasn't a playoff, not with the outcome of the rankings.

The complaint is that the formula sometimes picked the wrong teams.

When? And who says?

Quote:Now, we always get as close as possible to picking the right teams.

Again, says who?

A year ago, it was hard to find anyone in Texas who agreed.

I say. It's a message board. I only need my opinion.

TCU and Baylor does not equal everyone in Texas.

(12-13-2015 03:48 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(12-13-2015 03:05 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  There was no reason to make the move ... unless they felt they had gotten it wrong the week before.

Or because they were asked to, which was reported, because it helped the Big Ten bowl position. As it stood, MSU would have automatically grabbed the Big Ten Orange Bowl tie in, but at the cost of the Citrus Bowl. Had they been moved down a spot, as was rumored to be asked, Ole Miss would get the Orange Bowl spot, MSU would still get an at-large spot, and the Big Ten would retain the Citrus Bowl slot, which is what happened

(12-13-2015 03:05 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Only fact is that you can't prove it one way or another, so long as the discussion/votes were held private.

Neither can you, but a you say "You're going to believe what you already believe, and bend whatever evidence you can find to support that agenda." I actually have some evidence to support my theory, the rumored request, the media asking, the question being dodged, and the result. What is your evidence, other than your unsupported opinion?

Not to mention, your theory is actually even worse, because it means if they are not corrupt: they are incompetent. Which undermines your theory that the process is now better because it is controlled by humans, when your retort is "they felt they got it wrong." Well that means they have proven they are not very good at the job. What if they felt a week after announcing the playoffs, that they got it wrong again? C'mon man. That is even worse.

They're incompetent for correcting a mistake? They felt Ole Miss was one slot better, and corrected the mistake. That's honest, if anything.

It was always a conspiracy theory. It was reported because they knew they'd get clicks from tabloid tactics. Long did right to avoid contributing to that.

You have your conspiracy theory. I have my practical theory. Neither of us has any evidence (you don't have any actual evidence -- rumors don't count).

That leaves us with Occam's Razor.

(12-13-2015 03:14 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(12-13-2015 03:06 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-13-2015 01:17 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(12-13-2015 10:48 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-11-2015 11:53 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  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.

Or they just felt that Ole Miss was better than Mich St.

You can't prove it either way, since the votes were never public. That's the only thing that should be changed, make the votes public.

Even if/when the votes are public, people will always suspect that "their side" got screwed when the decisions of a small group went against them.

Your not-quite-arguments against the computer rankings aside, they take the results of the games and put them into a mathematical formula. The formula doesn't know Notre Dame from Northern Illinois, it just knows that Team A played these teams with these rankings and got these scores.

The Coaches Poll--coaches don't always get to watch a lot of games that they aren't watching tape to prepare for. Sometimes the coaches follow the herd, sometimes they get their Sports Information Directors to fill it out. Not to mention the shenanigans that would happen when coaches hated each other's guts, or when one conference's coaches tried to boost their #3 over someone's #2.

The final years of the BCS formula was a pretty good formula. The computers, the coaches, the AP (ahem, Harris) poll were all taken into account. And by the end of the BCS' life cycle, the BCS rankings had legitimacy. The more voices in the process, the harder it is to argue that the results are because of bias or shenanigans etc.

The complaint about hte BCS system, by the end, was that it wasn't a playoff, not with the outcome of the rankings.

The complaint is that the formula sometimes picked the wrong teams.

When? And who says?

Quote:Now, we always get as close as possible to picking the right teams.

Again, says who?

A year ago, it was hard to find anyone in Texas who agreed.

The fan of the team that didn't make it.