Someone please tell me

dawgfantipdawgfantip Posts: 19 ✭ Freshman

I hear talk of this team or that team being left out because they are not the "best team" or one of the 4 best. Can anyone tell me why it matters. In all of sports this is never the case. If the best team at the end of the year has a worse record than another team, the other team goes to the pkayoffs. If a mediocre team gets plucky and takes down the better team then thats what matters not the talent on the team.

Comments

  • YaleDawgYaleDawg Posts: 192 ✭✭✭ Junior

    We cant go by "best record" because not everyone plays each other or the same caliber of opponents.

  • mattmd2mattmd2 Posts: 695 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate
    edited November 7

    I’ll take a stab at it.

    College football I think is a little unique in that there are so many divisions and the competition between divisions is not always equal. A team can go undefeated in an easy division and another can struggle through superior competition.

    Case in point - UCF.

    This is why records aren’t the end-all-be-all of college football. You’d be penalizing teams that are in reality much better, but they play stronger competition.

    The purpose of the CFP system is to give the best shot for the four BEST teams to win. Other sports may not have this problem - Professional sports keep things pretty even through the draft system, salary caps, and because they’re not “recruiting”, they’re paying. College basketball would have to do something similar except that basketball is able to have a 64 team tournament... something football could never do.

    If football were able to have a 64 or even 16 team playoff, you’d see a lot less concentration on trying to pick the “best team” - you’d have luxury of taking the 16 best records and letting it play out from there.

    My thoughts anyways.

    Edit: Another suggestion to be more like other sports would just be to have conference winners, but the fact that there are 5 P5 conferences means you have to have a subjective evaluation to decide who gets in and who gets left out. And if you’re going to have a subjective decision anyways, may as well go ahead and pick the “best” teams rather than just picking from the pool of 5. Makes sense especially when 1 or 2 conferences are obviously not producing good teams.

    In the purest sense, we should want to watch the best teams compete to experience the best football has to offer. No one wants to watch a once-lucky team get destroyed in a championship.

  • dawgfantipdawgfantip Posts: 19 ✭ Freshman

    I get that when comparing 2 teams from different conferences and all that, but it makes no sense when comparing georgia and alabama or michigan to ohio state. I don't know i mean i see the issues and they are real but the way its decided now is'nt right either. I'm starting to understand people who want 4 megaconferences and the rest can go play for a junior trophy

  • YaleDawgYaleDawg Posts: 192 ✭✭✭ Junior

    IMO a better system is to play 9 conference games + 2 non-conf P5 teams +1 cupcake, each conference must have a championship game, 5 conf champs automatically in with 3 at large bids.

  • WCDawgWCDawg Posts: 7,685 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    @YaleDawg said:
    We cant go by "best record" because not everyone plays each other or the same caliber of opponents.

    This is true when comparing a UCF to a P5 team. when you have 130 or so teams of widely varying levels of strength of schedule a certain amount of subjectivity is necessary.
    That said, giving a program like Bama's deference just because we perceive strength based on history is wrong in my opinion. For the most part the committee has done a good job though.

  • UgaXforPresidentUgaXforPresident Posts: 25 ✭✭ Sophomore

    @dawgfantip said:
    I get that when comparing 2 teams from different conferences and all that, but it makes no sense when comparing georgia and alabama or michigan to ohio state. I don't know i mean i see the issues and they are real but the way its decided now is'nt right either. I'm starting to understand people who want 4 megaconferences and the rest can go play for a junior trophy

    Personally, I would hate having 4 megaconferences. I think the current Big 12 is the perfect format. You play everyone in the conference every year and then the top 2 records play a championship game.

    This alignment effectively makes it so that one loss cannot ruin your season. For example, if Georgia had beaten LSU but lost to Kentucky, Kentucky would be going to the SEC championship game. Plus, the fact that you play everyone means you do not wait 14 years between trips to Baton Rouge or Tuscaloosa. Another positive is that 9 conference games makes scheduling easier. 9 conference games plus tech means even if you had the last two as cupcakes, it's comparable to the current schedule in the best years. If you swapped a cupcake for a high quality home and home or neutral site, even better.

    Imagine the 10-team conference of:
    Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, LSU, Mississippi State, Ole Miss, South Carolina, Tennessee

    For what it's worth, there are currently 64 power 5 schools, so effectively 65. Add five more group of 5 schools to make 7 top tier conferences. Each top tier conference gets their champion into an 8 team playoff, plus the best ranked team outside the top tier. I honestly cannot think of a scenario where someone would have a legitimate gripe about getting left out.

  • donmdonm Posts: 6,399 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    @UgaXforPresident said:

    @dawgfantip said:
    I get that when comparing 2 teams from different conferences and all that, but it makes no sense when comparing georgia and alabama or michigan to ohio state. I don't know i mean i see the issues and they are real but the way its decided now is'nt right either. I'm starting to understand people who want 4 megaconferences and the rest can go play for a junior trophy

    Personally, I would hate having 4 megaconferences. I think the current Big 12 is the perfect format. You play everyone in the conference every year and then the top 2 records play a championship game.

    This alignment effectively makes it so that one loss cannot ruin your season. For example, if Georgia had beaten LSU but lost to Kentucky, Kentucky would be going to the SEC championship game. Plus, the fact that you play everyone means you do not wait 14 years between trips to Baton Rouge or Tuscaloosa. Another positive is that 9 conference games makes scheduling easier. 9 conference games plus tech means even if you had the last two as cupcakes, it's comparable to the current schedule in the best years. If you swapped a cupcake for a high quality home and home or neutral site, even better.

    Imagine the 10-team conference of:
    Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, LSU, Mississippi State, Ole Miss, South Carolina, Tennessee

    For what it's worth, there are currently 64 power 5 schools, so effectively 65. Add five more group of 5 schools to make 7 top tier conferences. Each top tier conference gets their champion into an 8 team playoff, plus the best ranked team outside the top tier. I honestly cannot think of a scenario where someone would have a legitimate gripe about getting left out.

    I can't think of a scenario right now either. However, I'd be almost positive someone would come up with one and complain about feeling left out. I mean, they still do it with the 64 team basketball tournament seedings.

  • tfk_fanboytfk_fanboy Posts: 650 ✭✭✭✭ Senior

    @YaleDawg said:
    IMO a better system is to play 9 conference games + 2 non-conf P5 teams +1 cupcake, each conference must have a championship game, 5 conf champs automatically in with 3 at large bids.

    I have a different system I would prefer, though I'll admit your suggestion is much more probable

    I want 7 conference games for all P5 conferences + 4 P5 OOC games + 1 cupcake. With such a large sample size each season of P5 vs P5 from different conferences we will have a much better idea of what conferences are truly up and which are down and then we can also stick with a 4 team playoff. And I think from a fan perspective seeing more P5 OOC games is way more exciting than playing a few extra in-conference games.

    It is more unique match ups, more test of which conference is best, better for recruiting, better ratings, and more cool places for fans to visit. All while giving each conference a chance to flex, keeping to value of the regular season without expanding the playoffs/watering it down, and it would make forums so much more exciting

  • YaleDawgYaleDawg Posts: 192 ✭✭✭ Junior
    edited November 8

    @tfk_fanboy said:

    @YaleDawg said:
    IMO a better system is to play 9 conference games + 2 non-conf P5 teams +1 cupcake, each conference must have a championship game, 5 conf champs automatically in with 3 at large bids.

    I have a different system I would prefer, though I'll admit your suggestion is much more probable

    I want 7 conference games for all P5 conferences + 4 P5 OOC games + 1 cupcake. With such a large sample size each season of P5 vs P5 from different conferences we will have a much better idea of what conferences are truly up and which are down and then we can also stick with a 4 team playoff. And I think from a fan perspective seeing more P5 OOC games is way more exciting than playing a few extra in-conference games.

    It is more unique match ups, more test of which conference is best, better for recruiting, better ratings, and more cool places for fans to visit. All while giving each conference a chance to flex, keeping to value of the regular season without expanding the playoffs/watering it down, and it would make forums so much more exciting

    That would be exciting but it would be difficult to maintain cross divisional rivalries. We would have to play barn every year and never play another west team in that format. 8 teams would prevent any major controversy because no team outside the top 8 could win 3 straight games against the best teams (probably). Teams would still complain but they wouldn't be taken that seriously.

  • donmdonm Posts: 6,399 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    @tfk_fanboy said:

    @YaleDawg said:
    IMO a better system is to play 9 conference games + 2 non-conf P5 teams +1 cupcake, each conference must have a championship game, 5 conf champs automatically in with 3 at large bids.

    I have a different system I would prefer, though I'll admit your suggestion is much more probable

    I want 7 conference games for all P5 conferences + 4 P5 OOC games + 1 cupcake. With such a large sample size each season of P5 vs P5 from different conferences we will have a much better idea of what conferences are truly up and which are down and then we can also stick with a 4 team playoff. And I think from a fan perspective seeing more P5 OOC games is way more exciting than playing a few extra in-conference games.

    It is more unique match ups, more test of which conference is best, better for recruiting, better ratings, and more cool places for fans to visit. All while giving each conference a chance to flex, keeping to value of the regular season without expanding the playoffs/watering it down, and it would make forums so much more exciting

    Not bad. Not sure how practical it is, but I like it in theory. Football scheduling is kind of weird by nature, having to schedule so far into the future.

  • tfk_fanboytfk_fanboy Posts: 650 ✭✭✭✭ Senior

    @YaleDawg said:

    @tfk_fanboy said:

    @YaleDawg said:
    IMO a better system is to play 9 conference games + 2 non-conf P5 teams +1 cupcake, each conference must have a championship game, 5 conf champs automatically in with 3 at large bids.

    I have a different system I would prefer, though I'll admit your suggestion is much more probable

    I want 7 conference games for all P5 conferences + 4 P5 OOC games + 1 cupcake. With such a large sample size each season of P5 vs P5 from different conferences we will have a much better idea of what conferences are truly up and which are down and then we can also stick with a 4 team playoff. And I think from a fan perspective seeing more P5 OOC games is way more exciting than playing a few extra in-conference games.

    It is more unique match ups, more test of which conference is best, better for recruiting, better ratings, and more cool places for fans to visit. All while giving each conference a chance to flex, keeping to value of the regular season without expanding the playoffs/watering it down, and it would make forums so much more exciting

    That would be exciting but it would be difficult to maintain cross divisional rivalries. We would have to play barn every year and never play another west team in that format. 8 teams would prevent any major controversy because no team outside the top 8 could win 3 straight games against the best teams (probably). Teams would still complain but they wouldn't be taken that seriously.

    great observation

    several options to fix it

    1) there are not cross division rivalries
    2) there are not divisions, or at least your 7 conference games are not based solely on who is in your division

    If you go with option 1 the downside is you still on play one team vs the other division a year and that means you could go decade + without playing every team in your conference. But does that truly matter? I dunno

    If you go with option 2 then it becomes a bit tricky but not unmanageable. I have not put a lot of thought into this but it could be something like you figure a schedule where you play 7 conference games and the two best teams, based on records and a series of tie-breakers, play each other in the SECCG. Not a true round robin but a stripped down version of it. I am sure someone much smarter than me could tweak that or come up with a better formula

    But if going with my idea then the concept of divisions and scheduling could also be tweaked to work

  • YaleDawgYaleDawg Posts: 192 ✭✭✭ Junior

    @tfk_fanboy said:

    @YaleDawg said:

    @tfk_fanboy said:

    @YaleDawg said:
    IMO a better system is to play 9 conference games + 2 non-conf P5 teams +1 cupcake, each conference must have a championship game, 5 conf champs automatically in with 3 at large bids.

    I have a different system I would prefer, though I'll admit your suggestion is much more probable

    I want 7 conference games for all P5 conferences + 4 P5 OOC games + 1 cupcake. With such a large sample size each season of P5 vs P5 from different conferences we will have a much better idea of what conferences are truly up and which are down and then we can also stick with a 4 team playoff. And I think from a fan perspective seeing more P5 OOC games is way more exciting than playing a few extra in-conference games.

    It is more unique match ups, more test of which conference is best, better for recruiting, better ratings, and more cool places for fans to visit. All while giving each conference a chance to flex, keeping to value of the regular season without expanding the playoffs/watering it down, and it would make forums so much more exciting

    That would be exciting but it would be difficult to maintain cross divisional rivalries. We would have to play barn every year and never play another west team in that format. 8 teams would prevent any major controversy because no team outside the top 8 could win 3 straight games against the best teams (probably). Teams would still complain but they wouldn't be taken that seriously.

    great observation

    several options to fix it

    1) there are not cross division rivalries
    2) there are not divisions, or at least your 7 conference games are not based solely on who is in your division

    If you go with option 1 the downside is you still on play one team vs the other division a year and that means you could go decade + without playing every team in your conference. But does that truly matter? I dunno

    If you go with option 2 then it becomes a bit tricky but not unmanageable. I have not put a lot of thought into this but it could be something like you figure a schedule where you play 7 conference games and the two best teams, based on records and a series of tie-breakers, play each other in the SECCG. Not a true round robin but a stripped down version of it. I am sure someone much smarter than me could tweak that or come up with a better formula

    But if going with my idea then the concept of divisions and scheduling could also be tweaked to work

    Not many people, including myself, are going to give up the deep south's oldest rivalry. Divisionless confs need all teams to play each other to work. Without that you end up with tiebreakers based on points for and points against or some other non-record tiebreaker

  • tfk_fanboytfk_fanboy Posts: 650 ✭✭✭✭ Senior

    @YaleDawg said:

    @tfk_fanboy said:

    @YaleDawg said:

    @tfk_fanboy said:

    @YaleDawg said:
    IMO a better system is to play 9 conference games + 2 non-conf P5 teams +1 cupcake, each conference must have a championship game, 5 conf champs automatically in with 3 at large bids.

    I have a different system I would prefer, though I'll admit your suggestion is much more probable

    I want 7 conference games for all P5 conferences + 4 P5 OOC games + 1 cupcake. With such a large sample size each season of P5 vs P5 from different conferences we will have a much better idea of what conferences are truly up and which are down and then we can also stick with a 4 team playoff. And I think from a fan perspective seeing more P5 OOC games is way more exciting than playing a few extra in-conference games.

    It is more unique match ups, more test of which conference is best, better for recruiting, better ratings, and more cool places for fans to visit. All while giving each conference a chance to flex, keeping to value of the regular season without expanding the playoffs/watering it down, and it would make forums so much more exciting

    That would be exciting but it would be difficult to maintain cross divisional rivalries. We would have to play barn every year and never play another west team in that format. 8 teams would prevent any major controversy because no team outside the top 8 could win 3 straight games against the best teams (probably). Teams would still complain but they wouldn't be taken that seriously.

    great observation

    several options to fix it

    1) there are not cross division rivalries
    2) there are not divisions, or at least your 7 conference games are not based solely on who is in your division

    If you go with option 1 the downside is you still on play one team vs the other division a year and that means you could go decade + without playing every team in your conference. But does that truly matter? I dunno

    If you go with option 2 then it becomes a bit tricky but not unmanageable. I have not put a lot of thought into this but it could be something like you figure a schedule where you play 7 conference games and the two best teams, based on records and a series of tie-breakers, play each other in the SECCG. Not a true round robin but a stripped down version of it. I am sure someone much smarter than me could tweak that or come up with a better formula

    But if going with my idea then the concept of divisions and scheduling could also be tweaked to work

    Not many people, including myself, are going to give up the deep south's oldest rivalry. Divisionless confs need all teams to play each other to work. Without that you end up with tiebreakers based on points for and points against or some other non-record tiebreaker

    I would give it up if it meant 4 P5 OOC games every season for every P5 team. Net gain, imo

    But none of it matters since my proposal as zero chance of happening.

Sign In or Register to comment.