header pic

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.


« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11] 12 13 ... 17   Go Down
Author

Topic: 5+1+2

 (Read 34227 times)

ELA

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 23289
  • Liked:
Re: 5+1+2
« Reply #140 on: December 04, 2018, 05:41:45 PM »
Quote from: Anonymous Coward on December 04, 2018, 04:47:45 PM
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.
Yeah, I know my idea would never work, but even your there doesn't solve the problem of years like 2005 where we just needed USC-Texas.  I have no idea, but I'm sure (particularly since the Big Ten and Pac 12 had no CCG back then) that there would other champs that would qualify under your model, but be unnecessary.  I'm torn this year, but I think either 3, 5 or 7.  I think you either leave it at undefeateds; or have an Oklahoma-OSU play in game, and leave it at that, or if you insist Georgia must be included, then I must insist that Michigan be included too, and you go to 7.
Logged

Anonymous Coward

  • All Star
  • ******
  • Posts: 3187
  • Liked:
Re: 5+1+2
« Reply #141 on: December 04, 2018, 05:46:35 PM »
Because you asked a narrow question:
I tend to dislike playoffs for their risk to accidentally crown a hot team that is not the nation's best all season. So I guess I want to crown the nation's best team all season.
The pre-BCS system may have done this best. The BCS somewhat less. Each larger playoff will risk being worse.
« Last Edit: December 04, 2018, 05:49:46 PM by Anonymous Coward »
Logged

medinabuckeye1

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 11043
  • Liked:
Re: 5+1+2
« Reply #142 on: December 04, 2018, 06:29:46 PM »
Quote from: ELA on December 04, 2018, 05:41:45 PM
Yeah, I know my idea would never work, but even your there doesn't solve the problem of years like 2005 where we just needed USC-Texas.  I have no idea, but I'm sure (particularly since the Big Ten and Pac 12 had no CCG back then) that there would other champs that would qualify under your model, but be unnecessary.  I'm torn this year, but I think either 3, 5 or 7.  I think you either leave it at undefeateds; or have an Oklahoma-OSU play in game, and leave it at that, or if you insist Georgia must be included, then I must insist that Michigan be included too, and you go to 7.
I was thinking about that for this year as well and I don't know either.  Then there is another problem.  Even if this were plausible (which it probably isn't), it would almost certainly require an even number of teams.  You could do four (as now), or six with two play-in games, or eight with three rounds but  you would almost certainly never do 3, 5, or 7 which means that this year it really wouldn't work well anyway for the reasons that you stated:
  • If you go to five to include all of the 1-loss P5 Champions then you have to go to six so you get Georgia.  
  • Once you go to six and include Georgia it seems ridiculous not to include Michigan since their losses were arguably better than Georgia's so now you have to go to seven.  
  • Once you go to seven then you have to go to eight and who is #8?  According to the CFP it would be UCF but, as I have said numerous times in this thread, they have ZERO wins over ranked teams.  Including them would be ridiculous and if they are in then at least all of the following (in addition to the seven already included) should be as well:  Washington, Florida, LSU, PSU, WSU, Kentucky, Texas, WVU.  So now you have a four-round, 16-team playoff.  FWIW, even then I would still make UCF the #16 seed.  
Logged

OrangeAfroMan

  • Stats Porn
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 22563
  • Liked:
Re: 5+1+2
« Reply #143 on: December 04, 2018, 11:17:53 PM »
Quote from: TyphonInc on December 04, 2018, 09:32:40 AM
If I was the commish I would do it.
I hate the straw-man argument of "NFL-lite" when comments are brought up about making the schedules more balanced. Again only 8 conference games + plus an FCS team on the schedule has shown the formula for making the playoffs each year. (ACC and SEC.) 9 conference games and no FCS (Pac and B1G) in theory produces a better regular season, but after 5 years appears to cripples the chance of making a the playoffs. I actually like the B12's everyone plays everyone he most, but I don't think we can cut multiple teams from each conference to get there.
So, can anything be done to get ACC, SEC, Pac and B1G to try and line up the style of scheduling?
I hate it, too.  If we want to crown a champion and be certain they deserve it, college football needs to mimic something rednecky - stock car racing.
The framework of college football should be stock for everyone.  Get an equal, uniform infrastructure, and THEN we'll really see who's the best, year-in, year-out.
Every conference should have the same number of schools.
Every conference should play the same number of conference games.
Every school should have the same number of home games and away games.
Every conference should have the same tie-breaker rules.
Once all that is in place, just let 'em have at it and enjoy.
Logged
“The Swamp is where Gators live.  We feel comfortable there, but we hope our opponents feel tentative. A swamp is hot and sticky and can be dangerous." - Steve Spurrier

betarhoalphadelta

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 15139
  • Liked:
Re: 5+1+2
« Reply #144 on: December 04, 2018, 11:33:23 PM »
As long as players are attracted through recruiting, there's no such thing as uniform. 
Logged

ohio1317

  • Player
  • ****
  • Posts: 540
  • Liked:
Re: 5+1+2
« Reply #145 on: December 04, 2018, 11:50:04 PM »
I don't want things uniform.  That's part of the beauty of the sport and I still wish the Big Ten hadn't played follow the leader and put in the conference championship game.  I vastly preferred the difficulty of winning an outright title (although going to 14 made it unavoidable). 

Part of what has helped the ACC is simply having one dominant team at a time for awhile (Florida State and then Clemson).  One team head and shoulders over everyone else stands a much better chance at winning out and making it.  It was getting no where a decade ago when it had none (kind of like the PAC-12 now) and with a stronger middle (like the Big Ten now), more losses would happen.  The SEC meanwhile has one of the biggest dynasties we have seen combined with a very strong top making losses a bit more acceptable.  The Big Ten and Big 12 are a bit more between which hurts the top teams a bit in my view.
Logged

Anonymous Coward

  • All Star
  • ******
  • Posts: 3187
  • Liked:
Re: 5+1+2
« Reply #146 on: December 05, 2018, 12:00:22 AM »
Quote from: bwarbiany on December 04, 2018, 11:33:23 PM
As long as players are attracted through recruiting, there's no such thing as uniform.
I don't want uniform fairness beyond the rules, just uniform fairness inside the rules. Put another way, uniform competitiveness is unrealistic. I'm not even convinced it's desirable.
Meanwhile, these two interpretations of "uniform" aren't mutually exclusive. We can easily have talent asymmetries in a sport with conferences adhering to the same membership numbers and ratio in terms of Con/Noncon scheduling.
« Last Edit: December 05, 2018, 12:03:08 AM by Anonymous Coward »
Logged

TyphonInc

  • Starter
  • *****
  • Posts: 2007
  • Easily Amused
  • Liked:
Re: 5+1+2
« Reply #147 on: December 05, 2018, 08:41:54 AM »
Quote from: rolltidefan on December 04, 2018, 01:50:40 PM
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.
I'm all for this caveat (ranked in the top 12) if it's what it takes for the playoff to include regional champs. I also through out the idea that if the highest ranked G5 team was ahead the lowest P5 Champion, the G5 team would take the that spot in the playoff. (At least until G5 splits off.)
Logged

MrNubbz

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 20761
  • Liked:
Re: 5+1+2
« Reply #148 on: December 05, 2018, 08:58:02 AM »
Quote from: Anonymous Coward on December 04, 2018, 05:46:35 PM
I tend to dislike playoffs for their risk to accidentally crown a hot team that is not the nation's best all season. So I guess I want to crown the nation's best team all season.
I get what you're saying but in the lust to have to have an undisputed champion this is what the proletariat is getting.Remember when the 9-7 Giants but beat the Patriots to win the SB 21-17?It's gonna happen
Logged
"Defensively,as a catcher I lead the major leagues in passed balls in 1967. Which was pretty impressive as I didn't play in every game" Bob Uecker

OrangeAfroMan

  • Stats Porn
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 22563
  • Liked:
Re: 5+1+2
« Reply #149 on: December 05, 2018, 08:59:16 AM »
The larger the number of teams allowed in the playoff, the less important regular season games become.  It is a direct correlation.  Some of these ideas are akin to making the college football regular season about as important as the college basketball regular season.


NO THANK YOU
Logged
“The Swamp is where Gators live.  We feel comfortable there, but we hope our opponents feel tentative. A swamp is hot and sticky and can be dangerous." - Steve Spurrier

TyphonInc

  • Starter
  • *****
  • Posts: 2007
  • Easily Amused
  • Liked:
Re: 5+1+2
« Reply #150 on: December 05, 2018, 09:01:39 AM »
Quote from: Anonymous Coward on December 05, 2018, 12:00:22 AM
I don't want uniform fairness beyond the rules, just uniform fairness inside the rules. Put another way, uniform competitiveness is unrealistic. I'm not even convinced it's desirable.
Meanwhile, these two interpretations of "uniform" aren't mutually exclusive. We can easily have talent asymmetries in a sport with conferences adhering to the same membership numbers and ratio in terms of Con/Noncon scheduling.
Yes please.
I'd argue as long as NCAA is an "amateur" sport, the kids/schools should be able to select the the dance partner they want. But yes, let's get schedules as symmetrical as possible. (I'd prefer 9 con, and no FCS. But if everyone does 8 con, and FCS so be it.)
And when are collective whimsical minds wonder back to conference expansion, trying to keep things balanced, is one of the reasons I don't want Texas and Oklahoma in the SEC.
Logged

MrNubbz

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 20761
  • Liked:
Re: 5+1+2
« Reply #151 on: December 05, 2018, 09:28:17 AM »
Quote from: OrangeAfroMan on December 05, 2018, 08:59:16 AM
Some of these ideas are akin to making the college football regular season about as important as the college basketball regular season.


NO THANK YOU
Yes it's really hard to draw comparisons to NCAA Hoops/ March Madness or the NFL play-offs.CFB presents a whole different set of factors/variables.IMO the answer isn't more
« Last Edit: December 05, 2018, 09:30:18 AM by MrNubbz »
Logged
"Defensively,as a catcher I lead the major leagues in passed balls in 1967. Which was pretty impressive as I didn't play in every game" Bob Uecker

Brutus Buckeye

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 12404
  • Liked:
Re: 5+1+2
« Reply #152 on: December 05, 2018, 09:40:31 AM »
How do auto bids for conference champions diminish the regular season? 
Logged

rolltidefan

  • Global Moderator
  • Starter
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 2222
  • Liked:
Re: 5+1+2
« Reply #153 on: December 05, 2018, 09:44:24 AM »
Quote from: Brutus Buckeye on December 05, 2018, 09:40:31 AM
How do auto bids for conference champions diminish the regular season?
who had the better regular season, 11-2 non-champ uga, or (hypothetical) 8-5 acc champ pitt? or 12-1 non-champ clemson and pitt?
« Last Edit: December 05, 2018, 09:55:13 AM by rolltidefan »
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11] 12 13 ... 17   Go Up
« previous next »
 
Support the Site!
Purchase of every item listed here DIRECTLY supports the site.
CFB51 Subscription
Subscribe

EGA- Once and Always