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 ... 16 17 [18] 19 20   Go Down
Author

Topic: The Helmets (and near helmets) rolling 10-year winning percentages

 (Read 13656 times)

FearlessF

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 37494
  • Liked:
Re: The Helmets (and near helmets) rolling 10-year winning percentages
« Reply #238 on: June 01, 2020, 05:19:41 PM »
I think folks like the idea of conf champs because they don't like the idea of 2 teams from one conference getting a shot.  the adage that if you couldn't win your conference, you're not worthy.  I agree.

I also agree that if Wake wins the ACC with 2 losses, they are probably not worthy as well
Logged
"Courage; Generosity; Fairness; Honor; In these are the true awards of manly sport."

Cincydawg

  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 71469
  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Liked:
Re: The Helmets (and near helmets) rolling 10-year winning percentages
« Reply #239 on: June 01, 2020, 05:21:24 PM »
The two common ideas are:

6 team playoff with 5 conference champs and one AL

8 team playoff with 3 at large bids.

I'm fine with what we have personally.
Logged

FearlessF

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 37494
  • Liked:
Re: The Helmets (and near helmets) rolling 10-year winning percentages
« Reply #240 on: June 01, 2020, 05:32:19 PM »
I'll always believe it's simply about adding more quality games, which adds more $$$
Logged
"Courage; Generosity; Fairness; Honor; In these are the true awards of manly sport."

Cincydawg

  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 71469
  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Liked:
Re: The Helmets (and near helmets) rolling 10-year winning percentages
« Reply #241 on: June 01, 2020, 05:37:04 PM »
If were entirely about money, we'd have gone to an 8 team playoff long ago.
Logged

Cincydawg

  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 71469
  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Liked:
Re: The Helmets (and near helmets) rolling 10-year winning percentages
« Reply #242 on: June 01, 2020, 05:44:06 PM »
My best approach is to start with a problem definition.  What am I trying to get solved?  Is the "problem" that the current system is "unfair"?

Good luck fixing that.
Logged

betarhoalphadelta

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 12173
  • Liked:
Re: The Helmets (and near helmets) rolling 10-year winning percentages
« Reply #243 on: June 01, 2020, 06:11:25 PM »
I advocate for conference champions because it makes the conference race matter. 

I think every team should have, as their first goal, winning their conference. If your second goal is winning the national championship, knowing that winning your conference is automatic entry to the second goal aligns everything. 

Right now winning your conference doesn't matter. I mean, it does, because it's REALLY hard to get a CFP invite without winning a conference (although it's happened 3 times), but conversely 10 teams have won their conference and not gotten an invite. You can get into the CFP without it, and you can win it without going to the CFP. So winning your conference is neither necessary nor sufficient for CFP entry. 

So for me, I want the conference champion to matter. Even if it means that "unworthy" teams might get into a playoff, it gives you a serious reward for winning your conference. 
Logged

CWSooner

  • Team Captain
  • *******
  • Posts: 6045
  • Liked:
Re: The Helmets (and near helmets) rolling 10-year winning percentages
« Reply #244 on: June 01, 2020, 07:03:04 PM »
Quote from: FearlessF on June 01, 2020, 01:14:30 PM
gee, back in 79 I thought the helmets played tougher schedules

huskers with only 1 ranked team, the Sooners???

well, Penn St was ranked #18 when they played in Sept
I was thinking the same thing.
Was '79 an outlier, or was it typical?  I wonder.
Logged
Play Like a Champion Today

FearlessF

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 37494
  • Liked:
Re: The Helmets (and near helmets) rolling 10-year winning percentages
« Reply #245 on: June 01, 2020, 08:17:13 PM »
Quote from: bwarbiany on June 01, 2020, 06:11:25 PM
I advocate for conference champions because it makes the conference race matter.

I think every team should have, as their first goal, winning their conference. If your second goal is winning the national championship, knowing that winning your conference is automatic entry to the second goal aligns everything.

I agree with this and like it.

simply take the 4 highest conference champs as ranked by the committee
the 5th conference champ should have played more impressively on the field during the season, perhaps scheduled non-con tougher.

Notre Dame can join a conference or suck it
other teams want a shot?  play well enough long enough to get an invite from one of the 5 conferences

I don't think the top 2 teams in the country would be left out in this selection
Logged
"Courage; Generosity; Fairness; Honor; In these are the true awards of manly sport."

betarhoalphadelta

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 12173
  • Liked:
Re: The Helmets (and near helmets) rolling 10-year winning percentages
« Reply #246 on: June 01, 2020, 08:29:00 PM »
Good luck getting the SEC to accept they can't get two (or hell, four) teams in the playoff. 
Logged

FearlessF

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 37494
  • Liked:
Re: The Helmets (and near helmets) rolling 10-year winning percentages
« Reply #247 on: June 01, 2020, 10:15:05 PM »
yup, I'm certain the SEC would like to see the playoff expand to 6 or 8 teams

and the SEC seems to have the most influence 
Logged
"Courage; Generosity; Fairness; Honor; In these are the true awards of manly sport."

CWSooner

  • Team Captain
  • *******
  • Posts: 6045
  • Liked:
Re: The Helmets (and near helmets) rolling 10-year winning percentages
« Reply #248 on: June 01, 2020, 10:23:26 PM »
Quote from: FearlessF on June 01, 2020, 10:15:05 PM
yup, I'm certain the SEC would like to see the playoff expand to 6 or 8 teams

and the SEC seems to have the most influence
They can't have more influence than the other four P5 conferences combined.
Logged
Play Like a Champion Today

FearlessF

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 37494
  • Liked:
Re: The Helmets (and near helmets) rolling 10-year winning percentages
« Reply #249 on: June 01, 2020, 10:39:14 PM »
they have ESPN on their side ;)
Logged
"Courage; Generosity; Fairness; Honor; In these are the true awards of manly sport."

ftbobs

  • Red Shirt
  • ***
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 118
  • Liked:
Re: The Helmets (and near helmets) rolling 10-year winning percentages
« Reply #250 on: June 02, 2020, 12:29:45 AM »
Quote from: Kris60 on May 31, 2020, 08:22:01 PM
To me, the answer is the wacky way these supersized conferences decide championships. You mentioned teams that don’t play each other or common opponents.  Hell, that happens within conferences.  Ohio St had an undefeated record and had already beaten a 2 loss Wisconsin team when they had to play them again in the Big Ten CCG.  A couple years ago Oklahoma went undefeated in a round robin schedule but still had to play TCU again in the CCG to be declared the champion.  I don’t want teams like Ohio St and Oklahoma waved off with a magic wand because they play in conferences with stupid rules for determining a champion.

It’s entirely possible for a team  to go undefeated within its  division but still not win the division to qualify for the CCG.  I’d be more inclined to agree with your proposal if we had conference sizes that allowed round robin scheduling without the split divisions and CCG format.

If conference have wacky rules for their championship (and they do), it's on them.  I'm not in favor of bringing in a team that had their chance at a conference title and failed, over a team that only through subjective measures can we say they aren't as good as that team.  I'm for removing that subjective element when we can.
Logged

ftbobs

  • Red Shirt
  • ***
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 118
  • Liked:
Re: The Helmets (and near helmets) rolling 10-year winning percentages
« Reply #251 on: June 02, 2020, 12:42:36 AM »
Quote from: medinabuckeye1 on June 01, 2020, 01:01:31 PM
I wonder how that would have impacted the NC race.  Where would Bama have ended up if no the Sugar Bowl? 

As it happened, Bama was #2 heading into the Bowls and plalyed #6 Arkansas in the Sugar Bowl.  Alabama's 25-18 win over Auburn apparently wasn't considered very impresssive because after that they got jumped in the polls by Ohio State (idle that week). 

Final pre-bowl top-10 in 1979:
  • 11-0 Ohio State (only ranked opponent was an 18-15 win in Ann Arbor over #14 Michigan)
  • 11-0 Bama (only ranked opponent was a 25-18 win over #17 Auburn in Birmingham)
  • 10-0-1 USC (the tie was at unranked Stanford, only ranked opponent was a 24-17 win in Seattle over #13 Washington)
  • 11-0 Florida State (only ranked opponent was a 27-7 home win over #16 USCe)
  • 10-1 Oklahoma (the loss was to #11 Texas 16-7 in Dallas, only other ranked opponent was a 17-14 home win over #7 Nebraska)
  • 10-1 Arkansas (the loss was 13-10 at home to #8 Houston, only other ranked opponent was a 29-20 home win over #19 Baylor)
  • 10-1 Nebraska (the loss was 17-14 in Norman to #5 Oklahoma, no other ranked opponents)
  • 10-1 Houston (the loss was 21-13 at home to #11 Texas, only other ranked opponent was a 13-10 win in Fayetteville over #6 Arkansas)
  • 11-0 BYU (no ranked opponents)
  • 10-1 Pitt (the loss was 17-7 at unranked UNC, only other ranked opponent was a 26-14 win in Seattle over #13 Washington)

In the Bowls:
  • Ohio State lost 17-16 to #3 USC in the Rose
  • Bama won 24-9 over #6 Arkansas in the Sugar
  • USC won 17-16 over #1 tOSU in the Rose
  • FSU 24-7 to #5 OU in the Orange
  • OU won 24-7 over #4 FSU in the Orange
  • Arkansas lost 24-9 to #2 Bama in the Sugar
  • Nebraska lost 17-14 to #8 Houston in the Cotton
  • Houston won 17-14 over #7 UNL in the Cotton
  • BYU lost 38-37 to unranked IU in the Holiday
  • Pitt won 16-10 over unranked Zona in the Fiesta

The Final poll was:
  • 12-0 Bama
  • 11-0-1 USC
  • 11-1 OU
  • 11-1 tOSU
  • 11-1 Houston
  • 11-1 FSU
  • 11-1 Pitt
  • 10-2 Arkansas
  • 10-2 UNL
  • 10-2 Purdue (had been #12, beat unranked Tennessee in the Bluebonnet)

Where would Bama have ended up if UGA had secured the Sugar Bowl bid with a win over Auburn?  Would the Tide's opponent have been weak enough that USC could have gotten an NC based on their win over #1 Ohio State? 




First place votes in the AP:

Alabama 46
USC 21

First place votes in the UPI:

Alabama 28
USC 9
Oklahoma 1

I don't think opponent makes enough difference to make up for that.

FWIW, Alabama also had a win over ranked Baylor.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 16 17 [18] 19 20   Go Up
« previous next »
 
Support the Site!
Purchase of every item listed here DIRECTLY supports the site.
Living Wedding Guest Book

WeatherPROOF Sign Two Sided