Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
CFP selection committee defends leaving out undefeated UCF
Author Message
_C2_ Offline
The King of Overanalysis
*

Posts: 19,065
Joined: Feb 2008
Reputation: 364
I Root For: Houston
Location: Zamunda
Post: #101
RE: CFP selection committee defends leaving out undefeated UCF
(01-06-2018 07:01 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-06-2018 06:17 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  
(01-06-2018 05:26 PM)westwolf Wrote:  Everyone knows UCF didn't belong in the CFP. Nice mid-major team, but the bucks aren't there.

What we know is there is no system in place that assures that every team controls its own destiny if they win all their games.

True, and we have never had that. Probably because the costs of doing so exceed the benefits. The current system has an extremely high chance of crowning the 'best' team as champ so why change it?

Based on what? The biases of a few people in a room? Not even the NCAA Tournament does an airtight job of getting it right, how many legit snubs have there been over the years and ridiculous seedings?

Crowning the best team, or at least the most accomplished team, begins and ends with making sure all conference champions get a shot. I suppose I could live without all of the non-major 65 champions getting a bid but at least one should get an auto- invite. Do that and teams can prove it on the field instead of relying on assumptions and bias.
01-06-2018 08:30 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 26,608
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 589
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #102
RE: CFP selection committee defends leaving out undefeated UCF
(01-06-2018 08:30 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  
(01-06-2018 07:01 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-06-2018 06:17 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  
(01-06-2018 05:26 PM)westwolf Wrote:  Everyone knows UCF didn't belong in the CFP. Nice mid-major team, but the bucks aren't there.

What we know is there is no system in place that assures that every team controls its own destiny if they win all their games.

True, and we have never had that. Probably because the costs of doing so exceed the benefits. The current system has an extremely high chance of crowning the 'best' team as champ so why change it?

Based on what? The biases of a few people in a room? Not even the NCAA Tournament does an airtight job of getting it right, how many legit snubs have there been over the years and ridiculous seedings?

Crowning the best team, or at least the most accomplished team, begins and ends with making sure all conference champions get a shot.

Not necessarily. There's nothing magical about being a 'conference champion', it just means you beat out 10 or 11 of out 130 teams. Doesn't prove anything versus all those other teams that aren't in your conference.

So being champion of conference A doesn't necessarily mean you are better, and therefore more deserving of a spot in a national playoff than a team that didn't win conference B.

The most obvious example of this is OOC games. Team A might go 8-0 in its conference and win it, but be 8-4 over all thanks to losing four OOC games. Another team might be 7-1 in its conference and lose it, but be 11-1 overall thanks to OOC games. There's no reason to think that 8-4 team A is more deserving of a playoff spot than 11-1 team B. Quite the opposite.
01-06-2018 10:11 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 24,634
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 978
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #103
RE: CFP selection committee defends leaving out undefeated UCF
(01-06-2018 10:11 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-06-2018 08:30 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  
(01-06-2018 07:01 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-06-2018 06:17 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  
(01-06-2018 05:26 PM)westwolf Wrote:  Everyone knows UCF didn't belong in the CFP. Nice mid-major team, but the bucks aren't there.

What we know is there is no system in place that assures that every team controls its own destiny if they win all their games.

True, and we have never had that. Probably because the costs of doing so exceed the benefits. The current system has an extremely high chance of crowning the 'best' team as champ so why change it?

Based on what? The biases of a few people in a room? Not even the NCAA Tournament does an airtight job of getting it right, how many legit snubs have there been over the years and ridiculous seedings?

Crowning the best team, or at least the most accomplished team, begins and ends with making sure all conference champions get a shot.

Not necessarily. There's nothing magical about being a 'conference champion', it just means you beat out 10 or 11 of out 130 teams. Doesn't prove anything versus all those other teams that aren't in your conference.

So being champion of conference A doesn't necessarily mean you are better, and therefore more deserving of a spot in a national playoff than a team that didn't win conference B.

The most obvious example of this is OOC games. Team A might go 8-0 in its conference and win it, but be 8-4 over all thanks to losing four OOC games. Another team might be 7-1 in its conference and lose it, but be 11-1 overall thanks to OOC games. There's no reason to think that 8-4 team A is more deserving of a playoff spot than 11-1 team B. Quite the opposite.

Nothing magical about 13 guys in a room (especially these 13). I can get that at any sports bar (probably would get a more fair group). Even the NCAA Tournament, with the most famous selection committee in sports--only is allowed to fill less than half the field. The majority of the bracket is automatically filled based on conference championships. As Ive said before--if they dont mean anything---why play an 8 game conference schedule to crown a champ? Hell--why play any games? Just let the committee study the rosters and decide who has the best paper roster (we can solve the concussion issue that way).

I find it funny that people are perfectly willing to accept a team being eliminated in a playoff game---but those same people dont think a big game in division play (that eliminates an opponent from a conference championship contention) should mean anything. I find that thinking utterly perplexing.

Conference championships are always about making the right play at the right moment. Teams that win conference championships have done that. When faced with the big elimination game---they won it. When faced with a critical play in a game---they made it--time after time after time. So--yeah--I disagree---A conference championship is kind of magical.
(This post was last modified: 01-07-2018 01:59 AM by Attackcoog.)
01-07-2018 01:56 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
otown Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,827
Joined: May 2013
Reputation: 45
I Root For: Florida
Location:
Post: #104
RE: CFP selection committee defends leaving out undefeated UCF
(01-07-2018 01:56 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(01-06-2018 10:11 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-06-2018 08:30 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  
(01-06-2018 07:01 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-06-2018 06:17 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  What we know is there is no system in place that assures that every team controls its own destiny if they win all their games.

True, and we have never had that. Probably because the costs of doing so exceed the benefits. The current system has an extremely high chance of crowning the 'best' team as champ so why change it?

Based on what? The biases of a few people in a room? Not even the NCAA Tournament does an airtight job of getting it right, how many legit snubs have there been over the years and ridiculous seedings?

Crowning the best team, or at least the most accomplished team, begins and ends with making sure all conference champions get a shot.

Not necessarily. There's nothing magical about being a 'conference champion', it just means you beat out 10 or 11 of out 130 teams. Doesn't prove anything versus all those other teams that aren't in your conference.

So being champion of conference A doesn't necessarily mean you are better, and therefore more deserving of a spot in a national playoff than a team that didn't win conference B.

The most obvious example of this is OOC games. Team A might go 8-0 in its conference and win it, but be 8-4 over all thanks to losing four OOC games. Another team might be 7-1 in its conference and lose it, but be 11-1 overall thanks to OOC games. There's no reason to think that 8-4 team A is more deserving of a playoff spot than 11-1 team B. Quite the opposite.

Nothing magical about 13 guys in a room (especially these 13). I can get that at any sports bar (probably would get a more fair group). Even the NCAA Tournament, with the most famous selection committee in sports--only is allowed to fill less than half the field. The majority of the bracket is automatically filled based on conference championships. As Ive said before--if they dont mean anything---why play an 8 game conference schedule to crown a champ? Hell--why play any games? Just let the committee study the rosters and decide who has the best paper roster (we can solve the concussion issue that way).

I find it funny that people are perfectly willing to accept a team being eliminated in a playoff game---but those same people dont think a big game in division play (that eliminates an opponent from a conference championship contention) should mean anything. I find that thinking utterly perplexing.

Conference championships are always about making the right play at the right moment. Teams that win conference championships have done that. When faced with the big elimination game---they won it. When faced with a critical play in a game---they made it--time after time after time. So--yeah--I disagree---A conference championship is kind of magical.

Here is the problem. Too many people act as if getting into the playoff is WINNING a title or something. They ignore the fact that one would need to win 3 to 4 games in a row against top competition to win the only thing that matters. Those same people use two excuses, first is that there is no money expanding the playoffs to include conference champs when pointed out that it works perfectly fine in other sports leagues. When the 99% of other league post seasons are not brought up, they then use the term "deserving".
01-07-2018 06:45 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
_C2_ Offline
The King of Overanalysis
*

Posts: 19,065
Joined: Feb 2008
Reputation: 364
I Root For: Houston
Location: Zamunda
Post: #105
RE: CFP selection committee defends leaving out undefeated UCF
(01-06-2018 10:11 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-06-2018 08:30 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  
(01-06-2018 07:01 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-06-2018 06:17 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  
(01-06-2018 05:26 PM)westwolf Wrote:  Everyone knows UCF didn't belong in the CFP. Nice mid-major team, but the bucks aren't there.

What we know is there is no system in place that assures that every team controls its own destiny if they win all their games.

True, and we have never had that. Probably because the costs of doing so exceed the benefits. The current system has an extremely high chance of crowning the 'best' team as champ so why change it?

Based on what? The biases of a few people in a room? Not even the NCAA Tournament does an airtight job of getting it right, how many legit snubs have there been over the years and ridiculous seedings?

Crowning the best team, or at least the most accomplished team, begins and ends with making sure all conference champions get a shot.

Not necessarily. There's nothing magical about being a 'conference champion', it just means you beat out 10 or 11 of out 130 teams. Doesn't prove anything versus all those other teams that aren't in your conference.

So being champion of conference A doesn't necessarily mean you are better, and therefore more deserving of a spot in a national playoff than a team that didn't win conference B.

The most obvious example of this is OOC games. Team A might go 8-0 in its conference and win it, but be 8-4 over all thanks to losing four OOC games. Another team might be 7-1 in its conference and lose it, but be 11-1 overall thanks to OOC games. There's no reason to think that 8-4 team A is more deserving of a playoff spot than 11-1 team B. Quite the opposite.

(First paragraph) And neither does winning the college football playoff. Neither does winning the championship in general. Games aren't played on paper, otherwise they would just award the champion in college basketball before the NCAA Tournament rather than after it. Sure, the best team doesn't always win their conference but now days every team in football controls their own destiny. That's what at-large bids are for and if you don't get one, tough sledding. Team B, from your bottom example likely had a chance to beat team A but didn't. They had their chance.

College football has a small sample size of games and since a 64-team tournament or even a 32-team tournament is unrealistic, the best thing to do is field a playoff with the most accomplished teams in college football. That should mean all ten conference champions and some at-larges but at least 5 champions, maybe 1 other conference champ and at-larges so that a really good team that failed to win it's conference is not left out in the cold.
01-07-2018 07:54 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
firmbizzle Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 19,865
Joined: Jul 2008
Reputation: 420
I Root For: UF, UCF, UC bb
Location:
Post: #106
RE: CFP selection committee defends leaving out undefeated UCF
It's not a playoff if you can win all of your games and not be invited.
01-07-2018 08:39 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 26,608
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 589
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #107
RE: CFP selection committee defends leaving out undefeated UCF
(01-07-2018 01:56 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(01-06-2018 10:11 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-06-2018 08:30 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  
(01-06-2018 07:01 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-06-2018 06:17 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  What we know is there is no system in place that assures that every team controls its own destiny if they win all their games.

True, and we have never had that. Probably because the costs of doing so exceed the benefits. The current system has an extremely high chance of crowning the 'best' team as champ so why change it?

Based on what? The biases of a few people in a room? Not even the NCAA Tournament does an airtight job of getting it right, how many legit snubs have there been over the years and ridiculous seedings?

Crowning the best team, or at least the most accomplished team, begins and ends with making sure all conference champions get a shot.

Not necessarily. There's nothing magical about being a 'conference champion', it just means you beat out 10 or 11 of out 130 teams. Doesn't prove anything versus all those other teams that aren't in your conference.

So being champion of conference A doesn't necessarily mean you are better, and therefore more deserving of a spot in a national playoff than a team that didn't win conference B.

The most obvious example of this is OOC games. Team A might go 8-0 in its conference and win it, but be 8-4 over all thanks to losing four OOC games. Another team might be 7-1 in its conference and lose it, but be 11-1 overall thanks to OOC games. There's no reason to think that 8-4 team A is more deserving of a playoff spot than 11-1 team B. Quite the opposite.

Nothing magical about 13 guys in a room (especially these 13). I can get that at any sports bar (probably would get a more fair group). Even the NCAA Tournament, with the most famous selection committee in sports--only is allowed to fill less than half the field. The majority of the bracket is automatically filled based on conference championships. As Ive said before--if they dont mean anything---why play an 8 game conference schedule to crown a champ? Hell--why play any games? Just let the committee study the rosters and decide who has the best paper roster (we can solve the concussion issue that way).

I find it funny that people are perfectly willing to accept a team being eliminated in a playoff game---but those same people dont think a big game in division play (that eliminates an opponent from a conference championship contention) should mean anything. I find that thinking utterly perplexing.

Conference championships are always about making the right play at the right moment. Teams that win conference championships have done that. When faced with the big elimination game---they won it. When faced with a critical play in a game---they made it--time after time after time. So--yeah--I disagree---A conference championship is kind of magical.

We don't have to go over the obvious differences between football and hoops: The reason we can have all conference champs in the NCAA tourney is precisely because the nature of the sport permits a tournament large enough to ALSO accommodate basically every reasonable non-champ team with a chance to win the title as well.

Football isn't that way, we'll never have a 68 team playoffs, so rather than a "both" solution that includes 30 conference champs and 38 wild cards, we have to choose between them.

And given the need to choose, the logic i describe above shows why there's no reason to automatically include conference champs. Maybe use it as a "plus factor", something that is a feather in the cap when deciding if Fresno State or ECU should be in a playoff, but not auto-decisive, not by a long shot.

The problem with your defense of a conference champ as 'magical' is that all of those clutch heroics, the big plays and critical games won to win the conference - came within a tiny group of 10 or so teams out of 130. There's no reason for Michigan, e.g., to respect the heroics and clutch play that Fresno State exhibited to beat out SDSU and Colorado State to win the MWC, as they didn't do it to beat out Michigan. And vice-versa. It all happened in your little corner of the sand box.

Heck if anything, for the purpose of filling a *national* playoff, OOC games should count more than conference games, because those give a better indication of how a team did outside its corner of the sandbox, and thus its worthiness to compete nationally.

So contrary to what the other poster said, a system that includes all conference champs is not automatically the best, or even a good, system for a national playoff.
(This post was last modified: 01-07-2018 10:31 AM by quo vadis.)
01-07-2018 10:05 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 26,608
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 589
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #108
RE: CFP selection committee defends leaving out undefeated UCF
(01-07-2018 07:54 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  
(01-06-2018 10:11 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-06-2018 08:30 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  
(01-06-2018 07:01 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-06-2018 06:17 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  What we know is there is no system in place that assures that every team controls its own destiny if they win all their games.

True, and we have never had that. Probably because the costs of doing so exceed the benefits. The current system has an extremely high chance of crowning the 'best' team as champ so why change it?

Based on what? The biases of a few people in a room? Not even the NCAA Tournament does an airtight job of getting it right, how many legit snubs have there been over the years and ridiculous seedings?

Crowning the best team, or at least the most accomplished team, begins and ends with making sure all conference champions get a shot.

Not necessarily. There's nothing magical about being a 'conference champion', it just means you beat out 10 or 11 of out 130 teams. Doesn't prove anything versus all those other teams that aren't in your conference.

So being champion of conference A doesn't necessarily mean you are better, and therefore more deserving of a spot in a national playoff than a team that didn't win conference B.

The most obvious example of this is OOC games. Team A might go 8-0 in its conference and win it, but be 8-4 over all thanks to losing four OOC games. Another team might be 7-1 in its conference and lose it, but be 11-1 overall thanks to OOC games. There's no reason to think that 8-4 team A is more deserving of a playoff spot than 11-1 team B. Quite the opposite.

(First paragraph) And neither does winning the college football playoff. Neither does winning the championship in general. Games aren't played on paper, otherwise they would just award the champion in college basketball before the NCAA Tournament rather than after it. Sure, the best team doesn't always win their conference but now days every team in football controls their own destiny. That's what at-large bids are for and if you don't get one, tough sledding. Team B, from your bottom example likely had a chance to beat team A but didn't. They had their chance.

College football has a small sample size of games and since a 64-team tournament or even a 32-team tournament is unrealistic, the best thing to do is field a playoff with the most accomplished teams in college football. That should mean all ten conference champions and some at-larges but at least 5 champions, maybe 1 other conference champ and at-larges so that a really good team that failed to win it's conference is not left out in the cold.

A few things wrong here, bolded above:

1) Nowadays in college football everyone doesn't control their destiny. Formally, nobody does. Theoretically, even a Michigan can go undefeated and not make the playoffs, and we know UCF didn't.

2) Maybe I wasn't clear, but in my bottom example, Team B was from a different conference than Team A, not the same conference, so Team A did not beat out Team B in conference play. Imagine comparing an 8-4 MWC champ Fresno with an 11-1 ECU that did not win the AAC.

3) Again, winning a conference doesn't make you necessarily "more accomplished' than not winning one, especially when comparing two teams from different conferences. Assuming similar SOS, it would be silly to argue that 8-4 MWC champ Fresno is 'more accomplished' than 11-1 ECU that did not win the AAC.

Given that, as you say, a football playoff can never be as big as a hoops playoff, we can't make conference champs an auto-decisive thing for playoff entry. At best, it should be a "plus factor", kind of like it is in the CFP system. But just one factor among many.
01-07-2018 10:29 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 24,634
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 978
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #109
RE: CFP selection committee defends leaving out undefeated UCF
(01-07-2018 10:05 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-07-2018 01:56 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(01-06-2018 10:11 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-06-2018 08:30 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  
(01-06-2018 07:01 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  True, and we have never had that. Probably because the costs of doing so exceed the benefits. The current system has an extremely high chance of crowning the 'best' team as champ so why change it?

Based on what? The biases of a few people in a room? Not even the NCAA Tournament does an airtight job of getting it right, how many legit snubs have there been over the years and ridiculous seedings?

Crowning the best team, or at least the most accomplished team, begins and ends with making sure all conference champions get a shot.

Not necessarily. There's nothing magical about being a 'conference champion', it just means you beat out 10 or 11 of out 130 teams. Doesn't prove anything versus all those other teams that aren't in your conference.

So being champion of conference A doesn't necessarily mean you are better, and therefore more deserving of a spot in a national playoff than a team that didn't win conference B.

The most obvious example of this is OOC games. Team A might go 8-0 in its conference and win it, but be 8-4 over all thanks to losing four OOC games. Another team might be 7-1 in its conference and lose it, but be 11-1 overall thanks to OOC games. There's no reason to think that 8-4 team A is more deserving of a playoff spot than 11-1 team B. Quite the opposite.

Nothing magical about 13 guys in a room (especially these 13). I can get that at any sports bar (probably would get a more fair group). Even the NCAA Tournament, with the most famous selection committee in sports--only is allowed to fill less than half the field. The majority of the bracket is automatically filled based on conference championships. As Ive said before--if they dont mean anything---why play an 8 game conference schedule to crown a champ? Hell--why play any games? Just let the committee study the rosters and decide who has the best paper roster (we can solve the concussion issue that way).

I find it funny that people are perfectly willing to accept a team being eliminated in a playoff game---but those same people dont think a big game in division play (that eliminates an opponent from a conference championship contention) should mean anything. I find that thinking utterly perplexing.

Conference championships are always about making the right play at the right moment. Teams that win conference championships have done that. When faced with the big elimination game---they won it. When faced with a critical play in a game---they made it--time after time after time. So--yeah--I disagree---A conference championship is kind of magical.

We don't have to go over the obvious differences between football and hoops: The reason we can have all conference champs in the NCAA tourney is precisely because the nature of the sport permits a tournament large enough to ALSO accommodate basically every reasonable non-champ team with a chance to win the title as well.

Football isn't that way, we'll never have a 68 team playoffs, so rather than a "both" solution that includes 30 conference champs and 38 wild cards, we have to choose between them.

And given the need to choose, the logic i describe above shows why there's no reason to automatically include conference champs. Maybe use it as a "plus factor", something that is a feather in the cap when deciding if Fresno State or ECU should be in a playoff, but not auto-decisive, not by a long shot.

The problem with your defense of a conference champ as 'magical' is that all of those clutch heroics, the big plays and critical games won to win the conference - came within a tiny group of 10 or so teams out of 130. There's no reason for Michigan, e.g., to respect the heroics and clutch play that Fresno State exhibited to beat out SDSU and Colorado State to win the MWC, as they didn't do it to beat out Michigan. And vice-versa. It all happened in your little corner of the sand box.

Heck if anything, for the purpose of filling a *national* playoff, OOC games should count more than conference games, because those give a better indication of how a team did outside its corner of the sandbox, and thus its worthiness to compete nationally.

So contrary to what the other poster said, a system that includes all conference champs is not automatically the best, or even a good, system for a national playoff.

I agree there are obvious differences in basketball and football that affect the limits of the playoff field size. That’s why I support an 8 team playoff where the 5 P5 champs and the top G5 champ are all AQ. The two highest ranked non-champs would be wildcards—so the Committee rankings continue to be important—they just would be responsible for filling a much smaller portion of the bracket. The committee would simply determine the 2 wildcards and the top G5 champ (almost half the field). Better yet, 75% of the field would be reserved for conference champs. Still, 2 slots would remain open to deserving teams that maybe had one tough loss. It also guarantees that the #1 and #2 teams could never be left out due to CCG upsets.

I prefer the objective on the field results to be the primary method by which the bracket is filled. The 8 team playoff I describe seems to be the option gaining traction in the press. It makes sense, is possible, and while not perfect—it’s pretty darn good at eliminating most of the most unappealing aspects of the current system.
(This post was last modified: 01-07-2018 10:46 AM by Attackcoog.)
01-07-2018 10:41 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
_C2_ Offline
The King of Overanalysis
*

Posts: 19,065
Joined: Feb 2008
Reputation: 364
I Root For: Houston
Location: Zamunda
Post: #110
RE: CFP selection committee defends leaving out undefeated UCF
(01-07-2018 10:29 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  A few things wrong here, bolded above:

1) Nowadays in college football everyone doesn't control their destiny. Formally, nobody does. Theoretically, even a Michigan can go undefeated and not make the playoffs, and we know UCF didn't.

2) Maybe I wasn't clear, but in my bottom example, Team B was from a different conference than Team A, not the same conference, so Team A did not beat out Team B in conference play. Imagine comparing an 8-4 MWC champ Fresno with an 11-1 ECU that did not win the AAC.

3) Again, winning a conference doesn't make you necessarily "more accomplished' than not winning one, especially when comparing two teams from different conferences. Assuming similar SOS, it would be silly to argue that 8-4 MWC champ Fresno is 'more accomplished' than 11-1 ECU that did not win the AAC.

Given that, as you say, a football playoff can never be as big as a hoops playoff, we can't make conference champs an auto-decisive thing for playoff entry. At best, it should be a "plus factor", kind of like it is in the CFP system. But just one factor among many.

For number 3, yes, and especially for college football, winning your conference makes you more accomplished. You only have so many games to play with and make a statement and winning your conference proves you earned the biggest accomplishment possible in the regular season. It doesn't necessarily make you the best team but as I said games are played on the field and not on paper. If you're just gonna overlook a team like Alabama not winning their division every time, then what's the point of playing the games?

So what 8-4 Fresno is not better than 11-1 ECU, Fresno did what they could control, which was win their conference, ECU didn't. If there are any at-large spots left over, then maybe ECU sneaks in. That's the way it works in every other sport except the NBA until recently. Winning a conference title in college football should mean everything because of so few games played, especially for the big 65. For everyone else, they should be granted one spot at least.
01-07-2018 01:54 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 26,608
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 589
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #111
RE: CFP selection committee defends leaving out undefeated UCF
(01-07-2018 01:54 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  
(01-07-2018 10:29 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  A few things wrong here, bolded above:

1) Nowadays in college football everyone doesn't control their destiny. Formally, nobody does. Theoretically, even a Michigan can go undefeated and not make the playoffs, and we know UCF didn't.

2) Maybe I wasn't clear, but in my bottom example, Team B was from a different conference than Team A, not the same conference, so Team A did not beat out Team B in conference play. Imagine comparing an 8-4 MWC champ Fresno with an 11-1 ECU that did not win the AAC.

3) Again, winning a conference doesn't make you necessarily "more accomplished' than not winning one, especially when comparing two teams from different conferences. Assuming similar SOS, it would be silly to argue that 8-4 MWC champ Fresno is 'more accomplished' than 11-1 ECU that did not win the AAC.

Given that, as you say, a football playoff can never be as big as a hoops playoff, we can't make conference champs an auto-decisive thing for playoff entry. At best, it should be a "plus factor", kind of like it is in the CFP system. But just one factor among many.

For number 3, yes, and especially for college football, winning your conference makes you more accomplished. You only have so many games to play with and make a statement and winning your conference proves you earned the biggest accomplishment possible in the regular season. It doesn't necessarily make you the best team but as I said games are played on the field and not on paper. If you're just gonna overlook a team like Alabama not winning their division every time, then what's the point of playing the games?

So what 8-4 Fresno is not better than 11-1 ECU, Fresno did what they could control, which was win their conference, ECU didn't. If there are any at-large spots left over, then maybe ECU sneaks in. That's the way it works in every other sport except the NBA until recently. Winning a conference title in college football should mean everything because of so few games played, especially for the big 65. For everyone else, they should be granted one spot at least.

No, both teams controlled the 12 games on their schedules, but Fresno lost three more of them than ECU, 8-4 to 11-1. ECU obviously performed better, but we're supposed to ignore that and favor Fresno just because they won more conference games?

Nonsensical, especially since from a national POV, which is what the playoffs are about, OOC games probably tell us more than conference games, which are "corner sandbox" games do.
(This post was last modified: 01-07-2018 09:51 PM by quo vadis.)
01-07-2018 09:50 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
_C2_ Offline
The King of Overanalysis
*

Posts: 19,065
Joined: Feb 2008
Reputation: 364
I Root For: Houston
Location: Zamunda
Post: #112
RE: CFP selection committee defends leaving out undefeated UCF
So what? They won their conference. You don't get bonus points for being the best team on paper...well, I guess except in college football, where even when the regular season is supposed mean everything, it doesn't when arbitrary logic rules the roost.

The 2007 Patriots were arguably the best team in NFL history but so what? They didn't prove it or earn it on the field when they lost to a worse team. No one is gonna go back and retroactively grant them the Super Bowl title. If the NFL worked like college football in the 80's, some combination of Packers, Giants and Patriots would have been the split champions.
01-08-2018 05:36 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 26,608
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 589
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #113
RE: CFP selection committee defends leaving out undefeated UCF
(01-08-2018 05:36 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  So what? They won their conference. You don't get bonus points for being the best team on paper...well, I guess except in college football, where even when the regular season is supposed mean everything, it doesn't when arbitrary logic rules the roost.

The 2007 Patriots were arguably the best team in NFL history but so what? They didn't prove it or earn it on the field when they lost to a worse team. No one is gonna go back and retroactively grant them the Super Bowl title. If the NFL worked like college football in the 80's, some combination of Packers, Giants and Patriots would have been the split champions.

You do realize that OOC games are won on the field, not on paper, rght?

By going 11-1 compared to 8-4, ECU proved it on the field three more times than Fresno. But we're supposed to give a playoff spot to Fresno because they won more in 'conference'? Screwy.
01-08-2018 09:15 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
_C2_ Offline
The King of Overanalysis
*

Posts: 19,065
Joined: Feb 2008
Reputation: 364
I Root For: Houston
Location: Zamunda
Post: #114
RE: CFP selection committee defends leaving out undefeated UCF
Yes...you're either being stubborn or trolling. Probably just stubborn and devil's advocating.

The fact of the matter is that if the 6th place team in the SWAC wins the auto-bid, they deserve to go to the NCAA Tournament more than the 6th place team in the Big 12 that was squeezed out of an at-large, because the former won their conference.

It's not a hard concept to grasp. When you don't win your own grouping, you're at the mercy of a committee or rules laid in place. You need an at-large, which is the case in every sports league except European soccer (who at least has a double round robin format) and the NBA until recently. And when you take note that the NBA is and has for decades in reality been two giant divisions, the same logic applies, as even if a team from the other conference has a better record, it doesn't mean they should get in the playoffs over a team with a worse record from the other and same goes for seeding.

It's not a hard concept to grasp.
01-08-2018 10:58 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 24,634
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 978
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #115
RE: CFP selection committee defends leaving out undefeated UCF
(01-08-2018 10:58 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  Yes...you're either being stubborn or trolling. Probably just stubborn and devil's advocating.

The fact of the matter is that if the 6th place team in the SWAC wins the auto-bid, they deserve to go to the NCAA Tournament more than the 6th place team in the Big 12 that was squeezed out of an at-large, because the former won their conference.

It's not a hard concept to grasp. When you don't win your own grouping, you're at the mercy of a committee or rules laid in place. You need an at-large, which is the case in every sports league except European soccer (who at least has a double round robin format) and the NBA until recently. And when you take note that the NBA is and has for decades in reality been two giant divisions, the same logic applies, as even if a team from the other conference has a better record, it doesn't mean they should get in the playoffs over a team with a worse record from the other and same goes for seeding.

It's not a hard concept to grasp.

Thats my feeling. If you win your conference--you are in. That allows a defined path for any team at the start of any season to completely control their own playoff destiny. Barring winning your conference, your secondary path is to impress the committee. Im fine if the second chance route is more subjective--becasue at that point, every team was already given a viable route (that they themselves had complete control over) to make the playoff.

Obviously, football is too physcial and the schedule too tight to do a 16 team playoff where every conference winner gets in. But, we should strive to get as close to giving every team a route into the playoff that is entirely within thier control as possible. I think the 8-team playoff (5 P5 champs, top G5 champ, 2 wildcards) does that. 04-cheers
01-08-2018 03:41 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
HeartOfDixie Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 23,520
Joined: Oct 2013
Reputation: 850
I Root For: Alabama
Location: Huntsville AL
Post: #116
RE: CFP selection committee defends leaving out undefeated UCF
12 pages and we have it all boiled down to the fact that one group thinks winning the AAC was impressive enough and one group that doesn't...
01-08-2018 04:20 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 26,608
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 589
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #117
RE: CFP selection committee defends leaving out undefeated UCF
(01-08-2018 10:58 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  Yes...you're either being stubborn or trolling. Probably just stubborn and devil's advocating.

The fact of the matter is that if the 6th place team in the SWAC wins the auto-bid, they deserve to go to the NCAA Tournament more than the 6th place team in the Big 12 that was squeezed out of an at-large, because the former won their conference.

It's not a hard concept to grasp.

You're just not thinking clearly enough. There is merit in the idea of winning your grouping and making the playoffs, but there is a cost to that as well - it can be obvious that team A that won its division/grouping wasn't as good or as accomplished as team B that didn't win its.

The question then is whether the benefit is worth the cost. It is, so long as the playoffs are expansive enough to include most of those teams that didn't win their groupings but nevertheless performed as well or better than those who did. For sports like the NFL, NBA, NHL and college hoops, the playoffs are indeed expansive enough, so there is not cost to giving all group-winners auto-bids. In those pro sports, playoff spots go to 40% to 50% of the entire league. And in college hoops there are more at-large bids than conference champ bids.

But in college football, it isn't, and couldn't be even if we had an 8-team playoff. That's just 8 spots for 130 teams.

In that environment, auto-bids for conference champs just don't make sense, because of the examples I gave of a conference winner having two more losses than a team in another conference that didn't win its conference.
(This post was last modified: 01-08-2018 05:31 PM by quo vadis.)
01-08-2018 05:30 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
_C2_ Offline
The King of Overanalysis
*

Posts: 19,065
Joined: Feb 2008
Reputation: 364
I Root For: Houston
Location: Zamunda
Post: #118
RE: CFP selection committee defends leaving out undefeated UCF
Obviously, as it stands where not even the five richest conferences are all guaranteed a playoff spot, you're right. But in the overall spirit of sport, every team should be able to control their destiny going into the season, meaning all conference champions should be granted a bid.

And I can even live with a rule that states that all remaining undefeated teams should be granted a bid to the playoffs (maybe you can insert some kind of asterisk rule against scheduling FCS to prevent light schedulers). Until teams feel like they can control their destiny, college football is and will remain a joke.

It must be really tiring seeing Alabama every year. I know I'm tired of it. It's not all about the job Nick Saban has done.
01-08-2018 06:03 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 24,634
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 978
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #119
RE: CFP selection committee defends leaving out undefeated UCF
(01-08-2018 04:20 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  12 pages and we have it all boiled down to the fact that one group thinks winning the AAC was impressive enough and one group that doesn't...

Which is why ice skating judges are no more valid than than a school declaring itself national champion after finishing a season as the nations only undefeated team. One is based on the opinion of ice skating judges---the other is based on objective results. I used to think we'd really made significant progress in the college football post season---lol...then I realized we really haven't changed much at all. Its all still just based on a poll. Worse yet---we are now using a smaller sampling of opinions to create our final poll (which in the era of "big data", means we have actually have taken a step backwards with respect to the sophistication and accuracy of the polling information we use).

In an interesting note---Im actually kinda hoping 'Bama wins tonight. If Alabama wins tonight---it means that 50% of the time in the CFP era, the last team selected into the playoff field won the national championship. That would suggest that nearly 50% of the BCS era champs (that we all currently accept as "official") very well may not have prevailed in a 4 team playoff. So when I hear arguments that 4 is enough and 8 makes no sense--Im forced to ask----How many 5, 6, 7, and 8 seeds might have won had they been involved? My guess is---based on what we have seen in the CFP era, teams from those bottom 4 seeds would probably have won more often than many think.
(This post was last modified: 01-08-2018 10:14 PM by Attackcoog.)
01-08-2018 06:24 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 26,608
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 589
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #120
RE: CFP selection committee defends leaving out undefeated UCF
(01-08-2018 06:24 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(01-08-2018 04:20 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  12 pages and we have it all boiled down to the fact that one group thinks winning the AAC was impressive enough and one group that doesn't...

Which is why ice skating judges are no more valid than than a school declaring itself national champion after finishing a season as the nations only undefeated team. One is based on the opinion of ice skating judges---the other is based on objective results. I used to think we'd really made significant progress in the college football post season---lol...then I realized we really haven't changed much at all. Its all still just based a poll. Worse yet---we are now using a smaller sampling of opinions to create our final poll (which in the era of "big data", means we have actually have taken a step backwards with respect to the sophistication and accuracy of the polling information we use).

In an interesting note---Im actually kinda hoping 'Bama wins tonight. If Alabama wins tonight---it means that 50% of the time in the CFP era, the last team selected into the playoff field won the national championship. That would suggest that nearly 50% of the BCS era champs (that we all currently accept as "official") very well may not have prevailed in a 4 team playoff. So when I hear arguments that 4 is enough and 8 makes no sense--Im forced to ask----How many 5, 6, 7, and 8 seeds might have won had they been involved? My guess is---based on what we have seen in the CFP era, teams from those bottom 4 seeds would probably have won more often than many think.

My guess is we'd need a 16-team playoff to know with 99% certainty that the team that "would have" won the playoff had they been included was in fact included in the playoff. Even 8 won't do that.

That said, there's no question that the 4-team format has removed all doubt that the winning team really was the most accomplished team. Couldn't necessarily say that with the BCS. But if you can beat two of the four best teams after already having a great season, there's no doubt you earned more on the field than anyone else.

That's why we'll never see the AP vote for someone different than the CFP champ, unlike in the old poll days where splits were common, and it even happened once with the BCS.
(This post was last modified: 01-08-2018 07:35 PM by quo vadis.)
01-08-2018 07:30 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2018 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2018 MyBB Group.