In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 1301
Online now 1165 Record: 7224 (2/22/2012)
The place to talk about the Texas Longhorns
The place for off topic discussion on Hookem
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
They already announced out of their meeting that they are looking for a football version of RPI. There won't be the BCS computers anymore, but there is still going to be a computerized ranking to help the committee pick and seed the top 4.
My money would be on the Sagarain Predictor model or something similar being used or adapted for the committee's purposes.
Again, its still people selecting. It will be screwed up. You dont even need Murphy to intervene, they will do it all on their own.
There is nothing more dangerous in this world than a man with nothing to lose.
Right, but its no longer hypothetical. Its happening.
Barring some drastic change, there will be a selection committee and there will be a RPI-style ranking for the committee to use however they want.
All that is left to discuss is the makeup of the committee and the parameters given to them.
You sir are absolutely correct. Put on a helmet and hold your ears because the noise and fallout are on the way.
Why not a combination?
1. If it's four teams in the playoffs. Make it 3 conference champs and an at-large bid chosen by the committee
2. All the conferences are rated by some sort of combined computer formulas which are based on only your non-conference games. Meaning the games your conference teams play against other conferences determines the strength of your conference (not games against your own conference) and whether or not your conference gets an automatic bid. Strength of schedule has to play a part in all of the computer formulas to force teams to play quality non-conference opponents.
3. All teams play eight conference games and a conference championship and four non-conference games. (this is the one problem with this idea)
4. If you really want to make things interesting you force conferences to divide up the season this way: The first four games are conference games. The second four are the non-conference games and the last four are conference, followed by the conference championship game.
I came up with this in 10 minutes. Obviously wouldn't work. It certainly would make the season interesting. I think you'd see some great college football games throughout the year. It keeps the integrity of the (every game matters) in the regular season and I think you would get the four best teams in most of the time (unless three of the best teams came from the same conference).
This post was edited by Alan Trubow 22 months ago
Lead Writer Hookem.com___EMAIL:firstname.lastname@example.org___TWITTER: http://twitter.com/#!/aTrubow
Having a committee to decide only four teams is terrible because it gives the committee too much power. It works in basketball because there are so many seeds that the teams left out were mediocre and stood no real chance of winning the title anyway. I'd rather have a computer algorithm with SOS weighted fairly heavily than a committee of corrupted a-holes.
Yes. It happens. Didn't an 11-5 New England team miss the playoffs a few years back because some team won a crappy division and NE didn't. It happens. Nature of the beast. A conference champion model is the only way to remove any agendas from the equation. Plus, as I've stated, it allows you to play monster OOC games and not be penalized for having the stones to do so.
You seem to say any system is bad. What to do then?
1. Conference champ doesn't mean they deserve to be in the hunt. A weak conference champ is a screwed up as anything you've been complaining about.
2. Computers can pick it, but humans have to write the criteria for the code, so it's still a human.
3. You simply cannot eliminate the human decision making.
4. There is no perfect system.
5. If you have a playoff, you have to pick the teams to get it - it's that simple. The last man out will always complain, regardless of the system used to pick the teams, regardless of the number of teams in.
You get a committee, give them RPI type tools, and have them decide.
This post was edited by TulsaHorn 22 months ago
Great point, but the NFL conferences are generally a little more balanced than the FBS conferences. You also have three times more teams going to the playoffs in the NFL, increasing the odds that you are capturing the best teams.
1) The NFL doesnt have nearly as many teams as D1 CFB, and how do you decide which conference champions make up the top 4? There's a lot more than 4 conferences
2) the NFL's wild card was written into the system to take out the crappy division problem. How do you do a wild card for this system?
I can see where you are coming from, but I would argue the fact that only 4 teams can get into this playoff is even more of a reason to eliminate bias. I'm ok with a lesser conference champ getting in because the criteria is concrete and laid out before everyone at the start of every year. Its not left to vague subjections or biases. Can you imagine trying to get an objective vote from Gary Danielson??? Second, you make a good point about NFL divisions being more balanced. I would say if they go 4 best it should come with the caveat that 3 of your OCC games must be against B1G, Big XII,SEC or Pac 12 competition. How can you truly get a measure of the 4 best otherwise?
Unfortunately there are 12 conferrences
I guess go top 3 conference champs and a wild card. There is not going to be a perfect way to do this with only 4. Every proposal has holes. I just lean towards the conference champ model because it is the one most decided on the field IMO.
I didn't articulate this and that's my fault, but I'm working under the assumption that a major shift is on the horizon.
And here we goooooo...
50-person selection committee should be heavy on media. We're the most objective.
He lost me at Kirk Bohls
Holy shit at that article. Talk about tone deaf. Matt Hayes?
Go figure that the media thinks that the media should choose.
Addendum to my first post.
Selection Committee rules:
1. No former coaches.
2. No media.
The less human input aside from the players and refs, the better. If you win your conference, then you deserve to be there. Now, what many people struggle with is that their eyes may say that so and so may be better. That might be true, according to your eyes but weve seen what eyes can get you. Thats the beauty contest that you get when its getting close to the end (see 2008). My model doesnt use computers or humans that arent on the field. Its perfect.
What i described would work, but people that arent playing just wanna be heard I guess.
As for 12 conferences, I said the ADs figure out how to get it down to 8 and then let it fly.
We will see. Maybe itll all work out. Maybe this is it and I am just not seeing it.
Oh, as far as a selection committee, they should pick ex JUCO and DIV III coaches. Even old high school coaches. People that are as far from top level football as possible, but still know something about football. Media will tend to pick for a story to be made. Top level coaches will have bias. Anyone who has ever given an opinion on TV or the net should not be considered. My one must person would be phil steele.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports