As we go around and around on this issue of selecting

[demlion]

the teams for the playoff, I am still surprised that so many people are upset that anyone would actually consider allowing the winner of the ccg to represent the league. "What IF NW HAD WON???"

Then by definition, by the rules of the game, by the only fair way to decide it, they ARE THE CONFERENCE CHAMPS!!!

The way you decide which team is better is to play them. WTF? If that is not so, then this is not a sport. Its art, or dance, or politics or something.

We already have refs who bend the outcomes with their judgments. To the extent you choose cfp teams by eyetest or body of work horseshit, you are denying the actual meaning of the games.

 

[demlion]

Oh yeah: without divisions, like in the B12, you have a situation where you might well have two teams play each other 2 weeks in a row. Still possible with divisions, but not as likely.

To get the divisions re-ordered in the B1G will take one thing--beating the big 2's asses until they are not so relevant anymore.

 

[fizzyskittles]

In a situation like the big ten you have essentially a nine game citizen as opposed to a 16 game season for the nfl.
This non conference games count overall in rankings but not in the conference standings. It’s a silly mishmash that produces things like this .

 

[JWB389]

In a situation like the big ten you have essentially a nine game citizen as opposed to a 16 game season for the nfl.
This non conference games count overall in rankings but not in the conference standings. It’s a silly mishmash that produces things like this .

I posted once before and nobody cared, but I think conferences & schools needing all the home games for revenue are the problem when it comes to crowning a national champion. In order to have a true champion, conferences would have to give up a lot of games. You play maybe a 9 game schedule total, then go into a bracketed playoff for 4 or 5 weeks. Otherwise, you have people voting on it and we all know that is crap.

With the Northwestern winning the upset question, you would only have that a few times until the leagues realize they need to change their format. That being said, if NW beats OSU in the championship game, they're more deserving to go than OSU. If that's the rule, they go.

 

[pawildcat]

I posted once before and nobody cared, but I think conferences & schools needing all the home games for revenue are the problem when it comes to crowning a national champion. In order to have a true champion, conferences would have to give up a lot of games. You play maybe a 9 game schedule total, then go into a bracketed playoff for 4 or 5 weeks. Otherwise, you have people voting on it and we all know that is crap.

With the Northwestern winning the upset question, you would only have that a few times until the leagues realize they need to change their format. That being said, if NW beats OSU in the championship game, they're more deserving to go than OSU. If that's the rule, they go.

You can have upsets, but usually the best team wins. That's why they're the best teams. Have a playoff that includes conference champions. Do more of the deciding on the field, rather than by a committee holding a beauty contest.

 

[psuro]

the teams for the playoff, I am still surprised that so many people are upset that anyone would actually consider allowing the winner of the ccg to represent the league. "What IF NW HAD WON???"

Then by definition, by the rules of the game, by the only fair way to decide it, they ARE THE CONFERENCE CHAMPS!!!

The way you decide which team is better is to play them. WTF? If that is not so, then this is not a sport. Its art, or dance, or politics or something.

We already have refs who bend the outcomes with their judgments. To the extent you choose cfp teams by eyetest or body of work horseshit, you are denying the actual meaning of the games.

That has happened in men's basketball. One of the non Power 5 leagues - might have been the SWAC - had a tournament where the tourney winner got an automatic inclusion into the NCAA tournament. A team with a losing record (Prairie View A&M?) went on a tear and won the conference tournament with a losing record - from what I recall a decided losing record - like 8 games under.500. But, they got invited to the NCAA tourney (and got promptly bounced). Other teams complained, but the rules dictated that the tourney winner had to be invited.

 

[demlion]

If you have an eight team playoff, you use the champs of the P5, and 3 other teams chosen by the same shitty eyetest/body of work nonsense we are arguing about now.

But you serve notice: 5 years from now, we are gonna add 3 other conference champs, and if you are not in a conference when that day comes, F you, you are OUT.

Draw a north south line and an east west line that distributes the conferences equally, and match them up by overall record.

 

[Fox Chapel Lion II]

If you have an eight team playoff, you use the champs of the P5, and 3 other teams chosen by the same shitty eyetest/body of work nonsense we are arguing about now.

But you serve notice: 5 years from now, we are gonna add 3 other conference champs, and if you are not in a conference when that day comes, F you, you are OUT.

Draw a north south line and an east west line that distributes the conferences equally, and match them up by overall record.

Now who could you possibly be thinking of?

 

[demlion]

Now who could you possibly be thinking of?

Army. They piss me off.

 

[psuro]

If you have an eight team playoff, you use the champs of the P5, and 3 other teams chosen by the same shitty eyetest/body of work nonsense we are arguing about now.

But you serve notice: 5 years from now, we are gonna add 3 other conference champs, and if you are not in a conference when that day comes, F you, you are OUT.

Draw a north south line and an east west line that distributes the conferences equally, and match them up by overall record.

I still say its a layer cake of stupidity.

1. Conference championships
2. Poll system
3. Bowl tie ins to guarantee fans in seats/positive economic impact
4. A group of people sitting in a hotel somewhere in Texas making decisions in a vacuum.
5. An inherent bias against almost half the programs that play at the D-1 level. And no system for those programs to develop an equitable talent and skill set.

 

[rudedude]

the teams for the playoff, I am still surprised that so many people are upset that anyone would actually consider allowing the winner of the ccg to represent the league. "What IF NW HAD WON???"

Then by definition, by the rules of the game, by the only fair way to decide it, they ARE THE CONFERENCE CHAMPS!!!

The way you decide which team is better is to play them. WTF? If that is not so, then this is not a sport. Its art, or dance, or politics or something.

We already have refs who bend the outcomes with their judgments. To the extent you choose cfp teams by eyetest or body of work horseshit, you are denying the actual meaning of the games.

Isn’t that how the legal business works? Eye test for guilty or not guilty? Lol let’s not let facts get in the way!

 

[demlion]

I still say its a layer cake of stupidity.

1. Conference championships
2. Poll system
3. Bowl tie ins to guarantee fans in seats/positive economic impact
4. A group of people sitting in a hotel somewhere in Texas making decisions in a vacuum.
5. An inherent bias against almost half the programs that play at the D-1 level. And no system for those programs to develop an equitable talent and skill set.

Not ever gonna be perfect, but you can move the stink further away from the title game. That should be the goal.

 

[pawildcat]

That has happened in men's basketball. One of the non Power 5 leagues - might have been the SWAC - had a tournament where the tourney winner got an automatic inclusion into the NCAA tournament. A team with a losing record (Prairie View A&M?) went on a tear and won the conference tournament with a losing record - from what I recall a decided losing record - like 8 games under.500. But, they got invited to the NCAA tourney (and got promptly bounced). Other teams complained, but the rules dictated that the tourney winner had to be invited.

The basketball situation does not happen in football because the BB conference tourneys include ALL teams from the conference. You don't have to win your way in as you do in football. No football team with a losing record in conference play is going to make the B1G championship game.

 

[Nitt1300]

The problem is that someone is "selecting" teams for a "playoff". Real playoffs don't select teams- there is a clear path that they follow to earn a spot- and they either do or they don't get in- there are no votes, or committees, or opinions involved.

 

[Glen]

There was a poster on here with what I thought was a great solution. Eight conferences of 10 teams each playing 9 conference games with an 8 team playoff (which could actually expand to include wild cards with a bye system).

Put the emphasis on conference play and a true on field champion.

 

[heckmans]

the teams for the playoff, I am still surprised that so many people are upset that anyone would actually consider allowing the winner of the ccg to represent the league. "What IF NW HAD WON???"

Then by definition, by the rules of the game, by the only fair way to decide it, they ARE THE CONFERENCE CHAMPS!!!

The way you decide which team is better is to play them. WTF? If that is not so, then this is not a sport. Its art, or dance, or politics or something.

We already have refs who bend the outcomes with their judgments. To the extent you choose cfp teams by eyetest or body of work horseshit, you are denying the actual meaning of the games.

As was stated in another post. It's up to the conferences to decide how to determine their best team.
If having a stacked division and a meh division results in a generally mismatched CFG and the occasional upset that puts 2018 NW in the playoff, well, too bad B1G, fix it and see you next year.

 

[okinburg1]

the teams for the playoff, I am still surprised that so many people are upset that anyone would actually consider allowing the winner of the ccg to represent the league. "What IF NW HAD WON???"

Then by definition, by the rules of the game, by the only fair way to decide it, they ARE THE CONFERENCE CHAMPS!!!

The way you decide which team is better is to play them. WTF? If that is not so, then this is not a sport. Its art, or dance, or politics or something.

We already have refs who bend the outcomes with their judgments. To the extent you choose cfp teams by eyetest or body of work horseshit, you are denying the actual meaning of the games.

The stated goal of the committee is to have the 4 best teams in the playoff. Winning a conference championship is one part of the equation and will remain so unless they increase the number of teams included.

Even in NW had beaten OSU I can't imagine anyone would have thought NW was one of the 4 best teams in college football this year.

Hard to argue that Alabama, Clemson and Notre Dame are 3 of the 4 best teams this year. Arguments could be made for Oklahoma, OSU and/or Georgia as the other. The committee has stayed consistent on 2 things - no blowout losses and no 2 loss teams.

 

[psuro]

The basketball situation does not happen in football because the BB conference tourneys include ALL teams from the conference. You don't have to win your way in as you do in football. No football team with a losing record in conference play is going to make the B1G championship game.

You missed the point.

 

[Bob78]

Oh yeah: without divisions, like in the B12, you have a situation where you might well have two teams play each other 2 weeks in a row. Still possible with divisions, but not as likely.

To get the divisions re-ordered in the B1G will take one thing--beating the big 2's asses until they are not so relevant anymore.

This is what I was saying in another thread. You cannot have it both ways... with a 4-team playoff, you cannot be limited to the winner of the CCG. As much as I believe that PSU was deserving to go to the playoff in 2016, over Washington and even with 2 losses, the theory behind not having the CCG winner stood up over time... the entire season needs to matter as well as the CCG winner when carving it down to just 4 teams. The NW and Pitt factor were moot this year because of there being no rule about Conf Champs getting an automatic bid.

- Eliminate the CCGs, and take the best team, i.e. the regular season Conf. Champ, and we are closer. The money factor all but eliminates this option.
- Expand the playoffs to 8, and then the 5 CCG winners can go automatically, with the other 3 being selected by some criteria that is as unbiased as possible. I have no idea what that is, as it seems all iterations we've seen that have people using eye tests involved fail that to at least some degree. If NW and/or Pitt had won, so be it... they're in. Now you need to hope you're good enough to get an at-large, knowing (this season) that ND has already grabbed 1 of them. And what do we do about the best G5 team (as determined off the field yet again?!)

As far as expanding beyond 8.... mmmm... maybe. I'm good with just 8. Round 1 either at the home of the higher seed, ensuring near-capacity attendance, or tie in the bowls. I prefer the home field advantage to help fans save on travel costs. The TV money will be there of course. The fan interest will be there. It is 3 more games for the finalists vs. 2. And just 2 more games for everyone else - either get to the 2nd round (a bowl game), or go to a bowl game after a 1st round loss if that option is kept available. Team psyche comes in to play there, of course, which would be trumped by the money factor 100% of the time.

It is just not a real comparison to bball and their 64+ team tournament. I think in the case that Ro mentioned, where a sub-.500 team won the tourney and the regular season champ is eliminated because they are a lower mid-major is a dumb rule. I'd say in those cases, if a sub-.500 team wins the tourney, the Conf. should still get to designate the team (if just 1) who gets to go into the tourney.

Right now, we have a Power 3 or maybe 2 deal. Hard to designate a conference as a power conf if their Champion gets bumped out 3 seasons in a row, no matter how tough the conf is. And the B1G is a tough conference. CJF is right - we need to standardize or change or something to make the reality fit the assumptions made going into this whole deal a few seasons ago.

Start with expanding the playoff to 8 teams.

 

[fizzyskittles]

So..... who would have been the higher quality representative from the B10 West?



Jeebzus

You pick the two best teams with the overall record, non conference games count and use tie breakers. No divisions.

 

[demlion]

The stated goal of the committee is to have the 4 best teams in the playoff. Winning a conference championship is one part of the equation and will remain so unless they increase the number of teams included.

Even in NW had beaten OSU I can't imagine anyone would have thought NW was one of the 4 best teams in college football this year.

Hard to argue that Alabama, Clemson and Notre Dame are 3 of the 4 best teams this year. Arguments could be made for Oklahoma, OSU and/or Georgia as the other. The committee has stayed consistent on 2 things - no blowout losses and no 2 loss teams.

The problem is, THEY BEAT THE OTHER CANDIDATE FOR BEST IN THE CONFERENCE HEAD TO HEAD ON THE DAY IT MATTERED MOST. IF THAT DOES NOT MEAN THEY ARE THE CHAMPS, THEN WHY NOT HAVE THE 'EYETESTERS' AND "BODY OF WORKERS" JUST ANNOUNCE THE NATIONAL CHAMP ON LABOR DAY AND SKIP ALL THE GAMES???

If beating another team in a football game is not the ultimate proof that you have the better team, I do not know what is. When you deny that is the proof, then you deny the essence of the sport.

 

[okinburg1]

I completely agree that if team A beats team B, then, on the day they played, team A was better than team B.

I further agree that if team X wins conference Y's championship game over team Z, then team X is the conference Y champion.

NOW, YOU LOSE ME ON THE CAPS LOCK THOUGHT STREAM. SINCE WE DON'T HAVE A "NATIONAL CONFERENCE" THAT ALL TEAMS PLAY IN, THERE IS NO "NATIONAL CONFERENCE CHAMPIONSHIP GAME" WHOSE WINNER WE CAN DECLARE THE NATIONAL CHAMP.

Lastly, if the "EYETESTERS" and "BODY OF WORKERS" just announced the national champ on Labor Day and skipped all the games, there wouldn't be any "bodies of work" to evaluate, right? Kind of defeats your own argument.

 

[RU31trap]

Early on I felt that the playoff system was flawed. It does not reward the number 1 seed in the country, which in my opinion should be automatically selected to play in the NC game. The playoffs should be played between the 2-3-4-5 seeds. Naturally 2 plays 5 and 3 plays 4. The winners of the first round play each other in the second round and the winner of that game plays the number 1 seed in the NC game. Right now under the current system it means nothing to be a number one seed.

 

[Nitt1300]

I often think that they came up with this idiotic 4 team "playoff" just to ramp up controversy in order to generate more press. The whole thing is so transparently stupid that it's difficult to come up with a better explanation.

 

[RU31trap]

SMH


And who determines this "#1 Seed"?

Good question and no easy answer. However, this year it would have been obvious. To go undefeated, play in a very tough conference has to be rewarded with an automatic entry to the NC game. Right now there is no difference in finishing the season ranked #1 or #4. Agree?

 

[fizzyskittles]

Great.... then you have a race among every team to schedule the 3 (or 4) absolutely most dreadful teams possible for their OOC.
The phones in the ADs offices at Sam Houston State and Western Iowa will be ringing off the hooks.


Does the phrase "cutting off your nose to spite your face" come to mind?
And to do that to "solve a problem" that doesn't exist is even more..... bewildering.

__________________________________________


The whole debate is like watching folks try to enter a building.... a building with double doors flung wide-open, and a big flashing red neon sign that asys "ENTER HERE" over the transom.


And the folks trying to figure out how to enter the building are debating between:

- Digging a tunnel through 30 feet of concrete, and entering the building through the basement
- Building a helicopter out of spare parts, duct tape, and bailing twine.... and air dropping in through the chimney
and
- Constructing an identical new building, on the adjacent lot.. and standing at some point in the middle of the lot for 6 months as the construction proceeds around them.

So? Like most top 25 teams schedule other top 25 out of conference teams.

 

[demlion]

I completely agree that if team A beats team B, then, on the day they played, team A was better than team B.

I further agree that if team X wins conference Y's championship game over team Z, then team X is the conference Y champion.

NOW, YOU LOSE ME ON THE CAPS LOCK THOUGHT STREAM. SINCE WE DON'T HAVE A "NATIONAL CONFERENCE" THAT ALL TEAMS PLAY IN, THERE IS NO "NATIONAL CONFERENCE CHAMPIONSHIP GAME" WHOSE WINNER WE CAN DECLARE THE NATIONAL CHAMP.

Lastly, if the "EYETESTERS" and "BODY OF WORKERS" just announced the national champ on Labor Day and skipped all the games, there wouldn't be any "bodies of work" to evaluate, right? Kind of defeats your own argument.

The day they played is the ONLY test of who is the better team is. The. Only. One. The score of the game determines who won. In competitive team sports with scoring, that is how you determine the best team, unless you play a series of games like MLB does.

Once you abandon playing games to determine who is best, you have abandoned the essence of the sport. And yes, there would be no "body of work" for the body of workers" to judge, but of course, the suggestion was to point how ridiculous the whole idea of letting anything other than games determine who is best.

 

[Bob78]

The day they played is the ONLY test of who is the better team is. The. Only. One. The score of the game determines who won. In competitive team sports with scoring, that is how you determine the best team, unless you play a series of games like MLB does.

Once you abandon playing games to determine who is best, you have abandoned the essence of the sport. And yes, there would be no "body of work" for the body of workers" to judge, but of course, the suggestion was to point how ridiculous the whole idea of letting anything other than games determine who is best.

But the point being that for determining a National Champion with just 4 teams in the playoff, you have to find the best of both the conf champions and the whole season record. By not locking in on automatic invitations to CCG winners, they have leeway to pick whoever they want. That is still less than ideal, imo.

I believe you cannot have just 4 teams and automatic invitations co-exist to determine the NC.
Expand to 8, and now you can.

 

[demlion]

But the point being that for determining a National Champion with just 4 teams in the playoff, you have to find the best of both the conf champions and the whole season record. By not locking in on automatic invitations to CCG winners, they have leeway to pick whoever they want. That is still less than ideal, imo.

I believe you cannot have just 4 teams and automatic invitations co-exist to determine the NC.
Expand to 8, and now you can.

I posited expanding to 8 teams yesterday in one of the other threads. Agree that has to be done.

 

[Glen]

If your solution to a "Playoff" involves reorganizing the entire spectrum of D1 football into "conferences" to suit that purpose...…. you are fixing a drip in the kitchen faucet by flooding your entire house.

Eight conferences of ten is 80 teams and not all of Division One and is not dramatically more than the power Fice, but should accommodate the UCFs of the world. Or make it seven by ten and 70 teams

 

[bdgan]

the teams for the playoff, I am still surprised that so many people are upset that anyone would actually consider allowing the winner of the ccg to represent the league. "What IF NW HAD WON???"

Then by definition, by the rules of the game, by the only fair way to decide it, they ARE THE CONFERENCE CHAMPS!!!

The way you decide which team is better is to play them. WTF? If that is not so, then this is not a sport. Its art, or dance, or politics or something.

We already have refs who bend the outcomes with their judgments. To the extent you choose cfp teams by eyetest or body of work horseshit, you are denying the actual meaning of the games.

The answer is easy. An 8 team playoff with the P5 conference winners getting an automatic bid. That leaves 3 at large spots. This year Alabama would have still been in if they had lost to Georgia in the conference title game.

 

[demlion]

By every eye test and body of work known to man, Miami had the better team in 1986. They beat WVU 58-14 in Morgantown, while PSU beat WVU only 19-0 in Morgantown.

Nevertheless we know who the better team was, don't we?

 

[wilbury]

I posted once before and nobody cared, but I think conferences & schools needing all the home games for revenue are the problem when it comes to crowning a national champion. In order to have a true champion, conferences would have to give up a lot of games. You play maybe a 9 game schedule total, then go into a bracketed playoff for 4 or 5 weeks. Otherwise, you have people voting on it and we all know that is crap.

With the Northwestern winning the upset question, you would only have that a few times until the leagues realize they need to change their format. That being said, if NW beats OSU in the championship game, they're more deserving to go than OSU. If that's the rule, they go.

So you think it's better to have a multiple loss team go to the playoff versus what we have now? It's not the playoff that's broken, it's the conference championship game. We don't need them, they aren't important. If you want to expand the playoff, get rid of divisions in conferences, eliminate the championship game, force an 8 game conference schedule, and then pick the top 6 or 8 teams at the end for a playoff.

 

[Bob78]

So you think it's better to have a multiple loss team go to the playoff versus what we have now? It's not the playoff that's broken, it's the conference championship game. We don't need them, they aren't important. If you want to expand the playoff, get rid of divisions in conferences, eliminate the championship game, force an 8 game conference schedule, and then pick the top 6 or 8 teams at the end for a playoff.

Or, force all conferences to have a 9th conference game in lieu of the CCG. But, given the money involved in the CCGs, that's a pipe dream - one that I share with you and many others in this thread and elsewhere.

A (mandated) 9-game conf slate and a 3 games OOC, with at least 1 of those games coming from another P5 while eliminating the 1AA games would work for me. 2 G5 games is fine - they are all 1A teams and all P5 schools need to have that 7th home game.
No CCGs (ha!), regular season Champ from each P5 plus 3 at-large and we're looking pretty good for chipping away at a true NC determined on the field. Problem of determining the 3 at-large remains.... eye-tests, other human factors will leave open much debate, which may be what the powers that be want. Do something via a statistical model (ala the old Dunkle Index?) or some unbiased method, and we're even closer.

 

[delcoLion]

Oh yeah: without divisions, like in the B12, you have a situation where you might well have two teams play each other 2 weeks in a row. Still possible with divisions, but not as likely.

To get the divisions re-ordered in the B1G will take one thing--beating the big 2's asses until they are not so relevant anymore.

Well, that's a pretty tall order.

 

[JWB389]

So you think it's better to have a multiple loss team go to the playoff versus what we have now?

I don't think a multiple loss team would be selected, but I think they should be selected over an OSU team that they beat the prior week, assuming that was the case. I agree with you. Conferences have a flawed method to pick the conf. champ. IMO, if you're not the conference champ, you are disqualified from playoff, period.

 

[pawildcat]

You missed the point.

I guess you're right, because I don't think the situations are at comparable.

 

[pawildcat]

So you think it's better to have a multiple loss team go to the playoff versus what we have now? It's not the playoff that's broken, it's the conference championship game. We don't need them, they aren't important. If you want to expand the playoff, get rid of divisions in conferences, eliminate the championship game, force an 8 game conference schedule, and then pick the top 6 or 8 teams at the end for a playoff.

How many multiple-loss teams are coming out of the championship games in most years? What if one conference's three-loss team is better than another conference's one-loss team, which is entirely possible? An eight-game playoff this season likely would have included Washington, Clemson, Alabama, Ohio State, Oklahoma, Notre Dame, Georgia and possibly Michigan or UCF. Which of the top four teams do you think are left out of that?

 

[pawildcat]

You pick the two best teams with the overall record, non conference games count and use tie breakers. No divisions.

Not any better because the teams in one division would still not be playing the same schedule unless you have a 10-team conference or less or make virtually all of your games conference games.

 

[pawildcat]

By every eye test and body of work known to man, Miami had the better team in 1986. They beat WVU 58-14 in Morgantown, while PSU beat WVU only 19-0 in Morgantown.

Nevertheless we know who the better team was, don't we?

I think Miami would have won that matchup seven or eight out of 10 times, but Penn State definitely outmatched them on that night and deserved the championship.