https://www.ajc.com/sports/college/roy-k...oEM9G2NDK/

Not surprisingly, a former commissioner thinks it would be a mistake to expand the playoff. But interestingly, he is not a fan of the committee:



"...Indeed, former SEC Commissioner Roy Kramer said there’s a reason he believed cold, hard numbers should be more heavily relied upon than human opinions in determining national championship playoff qualifiers.It’s why he designed the Bowl Championship Series the way he did leading into its application before the 1998 season. We were concerned with regionalism and the emotion,” Kramer said, explaining why the BCS relied on a pre-determined formula of computer rankings and polls rather than the veiled committee approach used by the current College Football Playoff....."


I think there is also a problem caused by the coaches on the committee. They have retired coaches who carry a lot of weight (as stated by some members of the committee) and who were in an era more of grind it out and seem to have had a bias against the pass happy modern offenses.

Other comments in the article include concerns about rivals and tradition impacting the conclusions. There also seems to be a heavier weight towards recent results as happens with the polls and is less pronounced in computer systems.

Quote:It’s why he designed the Bowl Championship Series the way he did leading into its application before the 1998 season. We were concerned with regionalism and the emotion

I loved the BCS. From the computers to the music to the crystal ball trophy. Ideally, you just use BCS computer rankings to determine the playoff and keep the music/crystal ball trophy.

(08-26-2019 10:22 AM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  

Quote:It’s why he designed the Bowl Championship Series the way he did leading into its application before the 1998 season. We were concerned with regionalism and the emotion

I loved the BCS. From the computers to the music to the crystal ball trophy. Ideally, you just use BCS computer rankings to determine the playoff and keep the music/crystal ball trophy.

This. It's really not a hard concept, people. But god forbid one of the blue bloods gets shut out in favor of a G5 program or some such, so it'll likely never happen

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

(08-26-2019 10:22 AM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  

Quote:It’s why he designed the Bowl Championship Series the way he did leading into its application before the 1998 season. We were concerned with regionalism and the emotion

I loved the BCS. From the computers to the music to the crystal ball trophy. Ideally, you just use BCS computer rankings to determine the playoff and keep the music/crystal ball trophy.

The geeks were able to fairly accurately project if/then outcomes. That was the best part of the BCS. You could understand what happens to team X if they win and Y wins or X wins and Y loses and so on.

Second best thing was the trophy didn't look like some trashy millionaires/billionaire's fleshlight.

(08-26-2019 10:22 AM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  

Quote:It’s why he designed the Bowl Championship Series the way he did leading into its application before the 1998 season. We were concerned with regionalism and the emotion

I loved the BCS. From the computers to the music to the crystal ball trophy. Ideally, you just use BCS computer rankings to determine the playoff and keep the music/crystal ball trophy.

Yes, the crystal ball trophy was WAY better than that current dull wannabe trophy, LOL. I recall in 2003, when the final BCS standings came out and USC was left out of the BCS title game in favor of Oklahoma (vs LSU), Pete Caroll said that several disappointed players had come up to him saying "you mean we don't get to play for the crystal football"?

Of course, since it was the Coach's poll trophy, the CFP winner still gets it, if the Coach's poll votes them #1 as well.

But it's not the same as when it was the official BCS Championship trophy, and everyone wanted that crystal football.

(08-26-2019 10:09 AM)bullet Wrote:  Not surprisingly, a former commissioner thinks it would be a mistake to expand the playoff. But interestingly, he is not a fan of the committee:

Good find. There aren't many, if any, figures in college football more respected, or more representative of 'mainstream' thinking, than Roy Kramer, so his ideas probably carry a lot of weight.

Conference championships should have more gravitas and ought to grant you a seat at the playoff table.

If the CCGs are guaranteed to be play in games for the playoff that increases interest in those games.

There absolutely should be a path for an at large entry too.

Computers would provide less (or, different) bias than a committee, but computers in aggregate spit out ratings rather than rankings. Tie-breakers like winning a conference, number of losses, and head-to-head, should be applied between the computers' #4 and #5.

(08-26-2019 10:22 AM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  

Quote:It’s why he designed the Bowl Championship Series the way he did leading into its application before the 1998 season. We were concerned with regionalism and the emotion

I loved the BCS. From the computers to the music to the crystal ball trophy. Ideally, you just use BCS computer rankings to determine the playoff and keep the music/crystal ball trophy.

Agreed. The ranking system itself was fine.

(08-26-2019 11:56 AM)Crayton Wrote:  Computers would provide less (or, different) bias than a committee, but computers in aggregate spit out ratings rather than rankings. Tie-breakers like winning a conference, number of losses, and head-to-head, should be applied between the computers' #4 and #5.

Isn't this what the CFP committee is already doing?

Every year, the CFP committee has picked the same 4 teams the BCS rankings would have put into a playoff. The correlation is strong, and the most obvious explanation is that the committee members are looking at, and are strongly influenced by, computer ratings very similar to those used in the BCS system.

The BCS was better than the current system, and a G5 had a theoretical shot, more so then than now. The only gripe I had was when they had 2 G5’s play each other rather than have them each play a P5.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

(08-26-2019 10:22 AM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  

Quote:It’s why he designed the Bowl Championship Series the way he did leading into its application before the 1998 season. We were concerned with regionalism and the emotion

I loved the BCS. From the computers to the music to the crystal ball trophy. Ideally, you just use BCS computer rankings to determine the playoff and keep the music/crystal ball trophy.

It was much classier than the golden bud vase they give now. If you looked into the Auburn trophy case all of the gilded pedestal oriented trophies look like a collection of junk, but that crystal football draws and keeps your eye immediately. It really is quite stunning. The new trophy doesn't even look as nice as the old bowl trophies. Considering the money they make on the thing such a trophy seems like a cracker jacks prize.

Until it is a true playoff, it's all just a bunch of window dressing.

(08-26-2019 12:07 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(08-26-2019 11:56 AM)Crayton Wrote:  Computers would provide less (or, different) bias than a committee, but computers in aggregate spit out ratings rather than rankings. Tie-breakers like winning a conference, number of losses, and head-to-head, should be applied between the computers' #4 and #5.

Isn't this what the CFP committee is already doing?

Every year, the CFP committee has picked the same 4 teams the BCS rankings would have put into a playoff. The correlation is strong, and the most obvious explanation is that the committee members are looking at, and are strongly influenced by, computer ratings very similar to those used in the BCS system.

There was certainly a lot more transparency before. The committee uses contradictory explanations from one year to the next.

(08-26-2019 10:39 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-26-2019 10:22 AM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  

Quote:It’s why he designed the Bowl Championship Series the way he did leading into its application before the 1998 season. We were concerned with regionalism and the emotion

I loved the BCS. From the computers to the music to the crystal ball trophy. Ideally, you just use BCS computer rankings to determine the playoff and keep the music/crystal ball trophy.

Yes, the crystal ball trophy was WAY better than that current dull wannabe trophy, LOL. I recall in 2003, when the final BCS standings came out and USC was left out of the BCS title game in favor of Oklahoma (vs LSU), Pete Caroll said that several disappointed players had come up to him saying "you mean we don't get to play for the crystal football"?

Of course, since it was the Coach's poll trophy, the CFP winner still gets it, if the Coach's poll votes them #1 as well.

But it's not the same as when it was the official BCS Championship trophy, and everyone wanted that crystal football.

Well we need to have an example for anyone who doesn't remember:

https://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/imag...101-01.jpg

(08-26-2019 03:57 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-26-2019 12:07 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(08-26-2019 11:56 AM)Crayton Wrote:  Computers would provide less (or, different) bias than a committee, but computers in aggregate spit out ratings rather than rankings. Tie-breakers like winning a conference, number of losses, and head-to-head, should be applied between the computers' #4 and #5.

Isn't this what the CFP committee is already doing?

Every year, the CFP committee has picked the same 4 teams the BCS rankings would have put into a playoff. The correlation is strong, and the most obvious explanation is that the committee members are looking at, and are strongly influenced by, computer ratings very similar to those used in the BCS system.

There was certainly a lot more transparency before. The committee uses contradictory explanations from one year to the next.

The committee chair's comments on the weekly ESPN shows are not helpful to the public perception. It would be better if the committee members didn't comment and just let the talking heads discuss the rankings, similar to what they would have done with the BCS rankings.

(08-26-2019 04:05 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(08-26-2019 03:57 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-26-2019 12:07 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(08-26-2019 11:56 AM)Crayton Wrote:  Computers would provide less (or, different) bias than a committee, but computers in aggregate spit out ratings rather than rankings. Tie-breakers like winning a conference, number of losses, and head-to-head, should be applied between the computers' #4 and #5.

Isn't this what the CFP committee is already doing?

Every year, the CFP committee has picked the same 4 teams the BCS rankings would have put into a playoff. The correlation is strong, and the most obvious explanation is that the committee members are looking at, and are strongly influenced by, computer ratings very similar to those used in the BCS system.

There was certainly a lot more transparency before. The committee uses contradictory explanations from one year to the next.

The committee chair's comments on the weekly ESPN shows are not helpful to the public perception. It would be better if the committee members didn't comment and just let the talking heads discuss the rankings, similar to what they would have done with the BCS rankings.

I was referring from one year to the next, but you are correct. They often contradict themselves from one week to the next.

(08-26-2019 10:30 AM)Stay Cool Wrote:  

(08-26-2019 10:22 AM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  

Quote:It’s why he designed the Bowl Championship Series the way he did leading into its application before the 1998 season. We were concerned with regionalism and the emotion

I loved the BCS. From the computers to the music to the crystal ball trophy. Ideally, you just use BCS computer rankings to determine the playoff and keep the music/crystal ball trophy.

This. It's really not a hard concept, people. But god forbid one of the blue bloods gets shut out in favor of a G5 program or some such, so it'll likely never happen

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Your right. Now all you have to do is follow the money in the new corrupt system and watch the same reruns year after year to serve what the P5's want on the menu.

(08-27-2019 06:56 AM)panite Wrote:  

(08-26-2019 10:30 AM)Stay Cool Wrote:  

(08-26-2019 10:22 AM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  

Quote:It’s why he designed the Bowl Championship Series the way he did leading into its application before the 1998 season. We were concerned with regionalism and the emotion

I loved the BCS. From the computers to the music to the crystal ball trophy. Ideally, you just use BCS computer rankings to determine the playoff and keep the music/crystal ball trophy.

This. It's really not a hard concept, people. But god forbid one of the blue bloods gets shut out in favor of a G5 program or some such, so it'll likely never happen

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Your right. Now all you have to do is follow the money in the new corrupt system and watch the same reruns year after year to serve what the P5's want on the menu.

For all the whining about the CFP committee being "biased" against G5, the bottom line is, had we used say the Massey Composite rankings the past 5 years for the CFP, the same number of G5 teams would have made the 4-team playoff that actually did - zero. And if we had had an 8-team playoff, with no autobids for anyone, one G5 would have, UCF this past season - which the CFP committee would have done as well.

In short, while there are some differences between CFP and computer rankings of top G5 teams - the computers have tended to rate the G5 champ about 1.5 rankings positions higher - it is so small that it never would have had a practical difference in outcomes.

If we used computers and no human committee, G5 fans would soon be whining about them too, because the bottom line is they won't be happy until a G5 is in the playoffs even if they don't deserve to be.