Author
Topic: 5+1+2
(Read 16683 times)

rolltidefan · « **Reply #126 on:** December 04, 2018, 01:50:40 PM »

Quote from: bwarbiany on December 04, 2018, 01:17:56 PM

I think you need to look at it differently. The SEC and B12 had conference championship games going back to the 90's, but of the other P5 conferences, the ACC started in 2005, PAC-12 in 2011, and B1G in 2011.
Then you can throw out UConn and WVU, because both were in the Big East which not only isn't a conference anymore, but also didn't have a CCG.
So 2000, 2002, and 2004 don't count as significantly. 2005, 2008 and 2011, the ACC had a weak champ get in who had won their CCG. 2012 was a weird year with both OSU and PSU ineligible, so you can sorta throw that out. Then you had 5 straight years before this year's Washington team.
Conference championship games GREATLY reduce the odds that an undeserving team will make it in.

that's a whole lot of spinning to discount all those years to where it doesn't matter.
imo it will greatly increase the likelihood.
in a round robin or best conf record wins, it's much less likely that a conf puts up a bad candidate cause those with bad record will already be eliminated. unless the whole conf is crap.
but in a title game scenario, it becomes a 1 game play-in season. all you have to do is be lucky on your side of the bracket.
in sec, last 8 years there's been 2 3-loss teams (pre-seccg) in it.
in the 8 years of b1gcg, there's been 1 4-loss and 1 5-loss teams in, and the 5 loss team won it.

in the acc last 8 years, they've had 1 3-loss team, 1 5-loss team, and 1 6-loss team.
in the pac it's only a handful of years that they don't have a 3+ loss team involved. and had multiple 4 and a 6 loss team involved. this year BOTH were 3 loss teams.
it's a minor miracle that none of those upsets happened in the last 5 years.
if we're going to do auto bids for conf champs, it has to be with the caveat that they're in top 10-12. and if a crazy season with ridiculous parity results in a 3-4 loss team being top 10, then so be it. it hasn't happened in the history of the game, but if it does, fine. but i have 0 problem leaving out any conf champ that's got 3-4-5 losses in favor of a non-conf champ with 1.

betarhoalphadelta · « **Reply #127 on:** December 04, 2018, 02:43:25 PM »

Quote from: rolltidefan on December 04, 2018, 01:50:40 PM

in sec, last 8 years there's been 2 3-loss teams (pre-seccg) in it.
in the 8 years of b1gcg, there's been 1 4-loss and 1 5-loss teams in, and the 5 loss team won it.
in the acc last 8 years, they've had 1 3-loss team, 1 5-loss team, and 1 6-loss team.
in the pac it's only a handful of years that they don't have a 3+ loss team involved. and had multiple 4 and a 6 loss team involved. this year BOTH were 3 loss teams.

I agree with you that it greatly increases the likelihood that an inferior conference champ makes it in. Still, I say "so what"?
For your B1G example, 2012 was screwy because of the postseason bans of OSU and PSU. Had undefeated OSU made it to the CCG, it changes things.
Same for the year that a 6-loss team made it in the PAC. UCLA only made it to the CCG because USC wasn't allowed.
So maybe if teams would stop cheating, that'd reduce the chances of the inferior teams getting in?
But even so. Let's say each year there is one team that wouldn't normally stand a chance of getting in, but they get lucky and make it to [and win] the CCG... Is it so wrong that they get rewarded for winning their CCG? Especially if no other P5 champion is excluded, and you have two at-large slots for P5 non-champions to get selected as well?

rolltidefan · « **Reply #128 on:** December 04, 2018, 02:56:57 PM »

yes, it's wrong that they get rewarded for 5-6 losses, but were lucky they found themselves in a ridiculously fortuitous situation where only 1 game matters, instead of the previous 12.

FearlessF · « **Reply #129 on:** December 04, 2018, 03:43:44 PM »

yup, let the 5 loss suckbutt be a warmup game for Bama

medinabuckeye1 · « **Reply #130 on:** December 04, 2018, 03:56:59 PM »

Quote from: bwarbiany on December 04, 2018, 01:17:56 PM

Conference championship games GREATLY reduce the odds that an undeserving team will make it in.

I think you have this exactly backwards. Before the CG's you had a round-robin or most of a round robin so your champion was almost always a pretty good team. Outside of the B12 you now have divisions and obviously winning a division has as much to do with your competition as it does with your team. IMHO, NU was the 4th best team in the B1G this year but they played in a division opposite #1-#3 so they got into a situation where they were one game from being crowned B1G Champions. If they would have had the game of their lives last Saturday or if Ohio State would have simply played a crappy game that wouldn't have proven that Northwestern is elite team. It would simply have proven that sh*t happens.

betarhoalphadelta · « **Reply #131 on:** December 04, 2018, 04:04:09 PM »

Quote from: rolltidefan on December 04, 2018, 02:56:57 PM

yes, it's wrong that they get rewarded for 5-6 losses, but were lucky they found themselves in a ridiculously fortuitous situation where only 1 game matters, instead of the previous 12.

Quote from: medinabuckeye1 on December 04, 2018, 03:56:59 PM

I think you have this exactly backwards. Before the CG's you had a round-robin or most of a round robin so your champion was almost always a pretty good team. Outside of the B12 you now have divisions and obviously winning a division has as much to do with your competition as it does with your team. IMHO, NU was the 4th best team in the B1G this year but they played in a division opposite #1-#3 so they got into a situation where they were one game from being crowned B1G Champions. If they would have had the game of their lives last Saturday or if Ohio State would have simply played a crappy game that wouldn't have proven that Northwestern is elite team. It would simply have proven that sh*t happens.

It's not the committee's job to figure out who the conference champion is.

If the conferences start figuring out that they're sending unworthy teams to the playoff and getting embarrassed, maybe they'll change how they crown their champion.

But I still want objectivity. If you allow it to be P5 conference champions, the teams know going into the year what bar they need to clear, and they control their own destiny.

Cincydawg · « **Reply #132 on:** December 04, 2018, 04:11:03 PM »

I am fine with the current system, which is good for me as it shows no signs of changes being at all imminent.

A lot of people have multiple, myriad even, proposals for something different, which is fine with me, but I view them as abstractions, not concerns.

medinabuckeye1 · « **Reply #133 on:** December 04, 2018, 04:32:15 PM »

Quote from: bwarbiany on December 04, 2018, 04:04:09 PM

It's not the committee's job to figure out who the conference champion is.

If the conferences start figuring out that they're sending unworthy teams to the playoff and getting embarrassed, maybe they'll change how they crown their champion.

But I still want objectivity. If you allow it to be P5 conference champions, the teams know going into the year what bar they need to clear, and they control their own destiny.

At least for now, the system is objective enough for me.
2018 is only the second time since the BCS was established in 1998 that we have had more than two major undefeated teams at the end of the year. Back in 2004 Auburn, USC, and Oklahoma all finished undefeated and since we only had a 2-team playoff then, the Tigers got left out. This year we have a 4-team playoff so all three undefeated teams are in.
As you know, I don't count UCF because they played an absolute joke of a schedule and thus finished 12-0 without acquiring anything remotely resembling a quality win.
So, with the exception of a 2004 Auburn fan, to any fan complaining about their team being left out of the BCS/CFP over the past 21 years I would say either:

"Schedule some decent opposition then we'll talk" (wrt to a G5 type team like UCF), or
"You DID have control of your own destiny, don't lose any games and you'll get in" (wrt any other team).

I say this to Ohio State fans who complain about getting left out in 1998, ..., 2018 and fan of every other program with this complaint.

Anonymous Coward · « **Reply #134 on:** December 04, 2018, 04:36:51 PM »

Quote from: ELA on December 04, 2018, 11:15:27 AM

I can live without the 5 good ones a year, most of which occur in Week 1, in some bland NFL stadium. I used to be in that camp, but the interconference home and home matchups that exist now aren't that great anyway. So get rid of the couple of decent ones, because 95% of the game you are eliminating have zero interest to neutral fanbases, and replace them with 2 conference games.

I think the biggest issue with a 12-game conference schedule is the beat down. I recall some in-game analyst this year quoting an old interview with Paterno a few years after joining the Big Ten, reflecting on expectations. He said M and OSU were exactly who every PSUer expected. But what he didn't expect is how severely beaten up hos team was even after playing Indiana. That competitively there may be gimmes in a big conference, but in wear and tear, unlike the OOC cupcakes, there are no off weeks. They all have costs.
Again, I know my idea, if neat, is impossible but if it were to happen, we might have to go back to 11-game schedules for the safety of the P5 players.

Anonymous Coward · « **Reply #135 on:** December 04, 2018, 04:47:45 PM »

Quote from: Cincydawg on December 04, 2018, 12:10:05 PM

I don't think a four loss conference champion should be considered, at all, ever.

Mixing others' ideas:
What about a 5-team default tourney with (a) "no 4-loss participants" and (b) "no substitutions" rules?
In this thread, we've acknowledged how nice ELA's idea of a telescoping playoff is -- large some years, small in others, depending on whether there are enough great teams to deserve a large or small format that year. We keep liking it but saying it's a logistical nightmare.
This would be objective and clean, though.
5 champs with fewer than 4 reg season losses?

4v5, then 1v4/5 and 2v3

4 such champs?

1v4 and 2v3

3 such champs?

2v3, then 1v2/3

2?

1v2

1?

Hard to believe, but just give them the trophy

Side effect: This might lead conferences to rethink how (or whether) they do CCGs, which I'd like but others might not.

Cincydawg · « **Reply #136 on:** December 04, 2018, 04:48:46 PM »

What is the primary objective of a modified playoff in your mind? Can you state one?

rolltidefan · « **Reply #137 on:** December 04, 2018, 04:56:39 PM »

Quote from: bwarbiany on December 04, 2018, 04:04:09 PM

It's not the committee's job to figure out who the conference champion is.

If the conferences start figuring out that they're sending unworthy teams to the playoff and getting embarrassed, maybe they'll change how they crown their champion.

But I still want objectivity. If you allow it to be P5 conference champions, the teams know going into the year what bar they need to clear, and they control their own destiny.

you're right, it's not the committees job to figure out the conf champs. it's the committees job to figure out who the best teams are across the nation and put them in the playoffs (and other bowls). and a 4-5-6 loss team shouldn't factor into that, i don't care what conf champ t-shirt they're wearing.

and i'm on board making it objective as possible. but we also need to be reasonable about who should be considered. when's the last time a 0-1 loss p5 champ wasn't in the top 10-12? hell, even 2 loss p5 champs almost always are. go 5+1+2, with the caveat that you must be in top 12, and it's easy enough. and if we get some crazy 6-6 acc winner like we almost had with ga tech a few years back, then it becomes a 4+1+3.

much like the bowl games used to be, i want this to be a reward for an excellent whole season. not a "we finished the season with our heads barely above water" season.

Anonymous Coward · « **Reply #138 on:** December 04, 2018, 05:12:40 PM »

Quote from: Cincydawg on December 04, 2018, 04:48:46 PM

What is the primary objective of a modified playoff in your mind? Can you state one?

To acknowledge that when we switched formats after 1997, the idea was to value unanimous NCs so much as to sacrifice bits of the sport. So the regular season suffered. And, though (outside of USC v LSU at least - 2003?) unanimity happened, because the selection system remained subjective, controversy never exited. My interest is to accept that others want a unanimous champ from an uncontroversial playoff ... and finally do that within a framework that maximizes the value of the regular season. Ever since 1997, we've made sacrifices (some smaller than others) to the regular season. And it doesn't have to be that way. We can technically have it all. Unanimity. Objectivity. Eliminate controversy. And maximally honor the P5 regular season.
A telescoping "P5 champs only ... but never with 4+ losses" playoff (astoundingly) checks off every one of those.
It's not exactly elegant. And if an alternative format could elegantly check off every one of those, I'll leap at it instead.
But I want it all and of the things I want, maximal value for the regular season and all conference races is runaway #1.

Cincydawg · « **Reply #139 on:** December 04, 2018, 05:22:32 PM »

I meant an objective along the lines of:

To determine the best team each year.
To select the best teams for a playoff by the best method.
To create a playoff champion.

One can acknowledge whatever without changing anything.

Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

The 'Old' CFN/Scout Crowd- Enjoy Civil discussion, game analytics, in depth player and coaching 'takes' and discussing topics surrounding the game. You can even have your own free board, all you have to do is ask!!!

Anyone is welcomed and encouraged to join our FREE site and to take part in our community- a community with you- the user, the fan, -and the person- will be protected from intrusive actions and with a clean place to interact.

Topic: 5+1+2

rolltidefan

Re: 5+1+2

betarhoalphadelta

Re: 5+1+2

rolltidefan

Re: 5+1+2

FearlessF

Re: 5+1+2

medinabuckeye1

Re: 5+1+2

betarhoalphadelta

Re: 5+1+2

Cincydawg

Re: 5+1+2

medinabuckeye1

Re: 5+1+2

Anonymous Coward

Re: 5+1+2

Anonymous Coward

Re: 5+1+2

Cincydawg

Re: 5+1+2

rolltidefan

Re: 5+1+2

Anonymous Coward

Re: 5+1+2

Cincydawg

Re: 5+1+2