Author
Topic: The Helmets (and near helmets) rolling 10-year winning percentages
(Read 13729 times)

CWSooner · « **Reply #112 on:** May 23, 2020, 11:08:34 AM »

Quote from: Cincydawg on May 23, 2020, 07:46:24 AM

I actually like the current system, I think I'm pretty unusual (huh). I think most fans want to go to 8 teams, or more.

Going to 8 teams will just make it twice as bad.

Cincydawg · « **Reply #113 on:** May 23, 2020, 02:06:23 PM »

I have issues with 8, I could possibly be "OK" with 6. We'll always have "issues" of one sort or another, as when some pro team finishes well back and then wins the playoff.

Usually, the 8th best team is a really good team capable of beating anyone, just not as often as not.

I really don't want to see the 7th or 8th "top ranked team" win a CFP.

OrangeAfroMan · « **Reply #114 on:** May 23, 2020, 02:24:57 PM »

Just a reminder: college basketball has the most meaningless regular season in all of sport.
Maybe we shouldn't mimic that model.

betarhoalphadelta · « **Reply #115 on:** May 24, 2020, 08:52:46 AM »

Quote from: OrangeAfroMan on May 23, 2020, 02:24:57 PM

Just a reminder: college basketball has the most meaningless regular season in all of sport.
Maybe we shouldn't mimic that model.

I disagree. It's only 31 games. Every game matters. Teams on the bubble are sweating every outcome as the season winds down. Teams firmly in the field know that any "bad loss" they take could bump them down a seed line or two, and that chances for tourney success depend heavily on not only their seeding but their regional draw--so they're doing everything they can to win every game and improve their seed. Getting a 1 seed over a 2 improves your route to the Final Four. Getting a 3 seed over a 4 reduces the chances that you'll have to face the 1 seed in your bracket another round. Getting a 4 over a 5 ensures you have a geographic advantage in the first two rounds by being placed close to your campus. Nothing like losing out on a 4 seed and getting a 5, and then realizing you have to fly from West Lafayette to Spokane for the first round and you're in the "night" game out West when your team would normally be sleeping.

Contrast that to NBA basketball where over half the teams make the playoffs, and teams get in with losing records. Where it's an 81 game season and teams quite literally "rest" star players, giving up games, because they don't care. Contrast that to MLB, where it's a 162 game season, and the fans who show up to games are basically there to while away an afternoon or evening and drink beer. Sure, they root for their team to win, but nobody goes home dejected from a loss. They just hope the weather is nice.

I recognize that college basketball regular seasons are hard to follow, but that's more due to the structure of the sport. They can't play all their games on weekends like NCAAFB or the NFL. NBA/MLB/NHL have the same problem. Weekday games make it hard to follow your team.

But I emphatically disagree that NCAA Basketball has a less meaningful regular season than either the NBA, MLB, or NHL.

FearlessF · « **Reply #116 on:** May 24, 2020, 09:37:45 AM »

Quote from: Cincydawg on May 23, 2020, 07:46:24 AM

I actually like the current system, I think I'm pretty unusual (huh). I think most fans want to go to 8 teams, or more.

I would have liked the current system in 1984
but only following that season

Cincydawg · « **Reply #117 on:** May 24, 2020, 09:42:33 AM »

No system will ever be "perfect". I am not sure what perfect even means in this context. The core concept is of course money (eyeballs).

The reveal show gets a lot of attention now, as does the weekly reveal of the CFP poll ( which is somewhat irrelevant).

I don't think a 10-3 or even 11-2 team that just lost it's CG should be included (unless there is no clear alternative).

CWSooner · « **Reply #118 on:** May 24, 2020, 12:12:54 PM »

Quote from: Cincydawg on May 24, 2020, 09:42:33 AM

No system will ever be "perfect". I am not sure what perfect even means in this context. The core concept is of course money (eyeballs).

The reveal show gets a lot of attention now, as does the weekly reveal of the CFP poll ( which is somewhat irrelevant).

I don't think a 10-3 or even 11-2 team that just lost it's CG should be included (unless there is no clear alternative).

Somebody pretty smart said, "Don't let the perfect become the enemy of the good."
We weren't satisfied with "the good"--the bowls-and-polls method of selecting the Div I-A college football national champion. So we went after the perfect. And what we got, IMO, is something less good than what we ditched.
Many of the things that were unique to big-time college football--compared specifically to the NFL--are gone. The Rose Bowl as the annual meeting between the champions of the Big Teneleven and Pac-8/10/12 is an example. The endless arguments over which of the two major polls was "better" or "more accurate." The goal each year being to win your conference. The joy of winning said conference, regardless of whether or not doing so set you up for a bowl game with national championship implications. The "big game" being the one with your hated rival.
Now we've got an NFL-Lite playoff system and, while something has been gained, much has been lost.

Cincydawg · « **Reply #119 on:** May 24, 2020, 12:14:49 PM »

I've noted before how humans like "lists" and rankings, and "certainty" of uncertain things.

FearlessF · « **Reply #120 on:** May 24, 2020, 12:20:17 PM »

Quote from: CWSooner on May 24, 2020, 12:12:54 PM

Now we've got an NFL-Lite playoff system and, while something has been gained, much has been lost.

tradition tossed aside

OrangeAfroMan · « **Reply #121 on:** May 24, 2020, 02:26:38 PM »

Quote from: bwarbiany on May 24, 2020, 08:52:46 AM

But I emphatically disagree that NCAA Basketball has a less meaningful regular season than either the NBA, MLB, or NHL.

Bubble teams suck. They're sub-.500 in their conference, all competing to get curb-stomped in the first round of the tournament. And it's after-the-fact.

Name 3 big regular-season college basketball games from the past decade. I'll wait.

The NBA and NHL are such absurd outliers, they are their own group of crazy. Allowing 50% or more of your teams into the postseason destroys the competition vs entertainment sliding scale to pieces. It's solely entertainment.

MLB had it right, but then has slid further to the entertainment end with the wild-card junk. Obviously, I'm pro-competition vs entertainment, but whatever. That's not important.

College football had a system that was poor at identifying the one, best team (best meaning best resume...meaning best record, because it was a simpler time). The playoff has been installed to better help find that best team. It allows for matchups to happen that couldn't have in the past, and that's a good thing, IF you're interested in identifying the one, best team.

For those of us pining for the good ole days, then entertainment might be a little more important than competition.

My proposal, to go back to how it used to be AND having an AS-NEEDED +1 championship game tries to value entertainment and competition equally.

CWSooner · « **Reply #122 on:** May 24, 2020, 07:53:53 PM »

I too find regular-season college hoops un-compelling.

Riffraft · « **Reply #123 on:** May 26, 2020, 04:29:48 PM »

I admit I am an old fart, I like the old bowl system, where winning the Big Ten and getting the Rose Bowl mattered. Then lets argue who is the best team in the country.

However, we are never going back to that, so if we are going to have a playoff go to 6 teams (5 power conference winners and 1 additional team) and no more.

And yes the regular College basketball season does not matter. I have lost my fandom for the most part. During the first weekend of March Madness, I am watching the NCAA wrestling tournament rather than the basketball games.

medinabuckeye1 · « **Reply #124 on:** May 26, 2020, 05:13:08 PM »

Quote from: OrangeAfroMan on May 24, 2020, 02:26:38 PM

Bubble teams suck. They're sub-.500 in their conference, all competing to get curb-stomped in the first round of the tournament. And it's after-the-fact.

Name 3 big regular-season college basketball games from the past decade. I'll wait.

The NBA and NHL are such absurd outliers, they are their own group of crazy. Allowing 50% or more of your teams into the postseason destroys the competition vs entertainment sliding scale to pieces. It's solely entertainment.

MLB had it right, but then has slid further to the entertainment end with the wild-card junk. Obviously, I'm pro-competition vs entertainment, but whatever. That's not important.

College football had a system that was poor at identifying the one, best team (best meaning best resume...meaning best record, because it was a simpler time). The playoff has been installed to better help find that best team. It allows for matchups to happen that couldn't have in the past, and that's a good thing, IF you're interested in identifying the one, best team.

For those of us pining for the good ole days, then entertainment might be a little more important than competition.

My proposal, to go back to how it used to be AND having an AS-NEEDED +1 championship game tries to value entertainment and competition equally.

I am with @OrangeAfroMan on this. When Ohio State is a Bubble Team in CBB I want them to get in but I know that it will be a short tournament even if they do. I think OAM overstated that a LITTLE bit because bubble teams typically end up somewhere around 8-12 so the first game is definitely a "winnable" game and getting to the second weekend isn't impossible. It ends there though. If my Buckeyes are on the bubble and they get in they might have a nice run or a lot of luck the first weekend but once they get to the S16 and beyond they are almost guaranteed to play a vastly superior team every time out. They might win one or two of those games against vastly superior teams but they aren't going to win all four.

In CFB it is completely different. I have LOTS of experience with this because in the six years of the CFP, Ohio State has been a "bubble team" five times. I felt that those five CFB "bubble teams" were each capable of winning a NC.

medinabuckeye1 · « **Reply #125 on:** May 26, 2020, 05:48:49 PM »

Quote from: ftbobs on May 22, 2020, 07:36:58 PM

Michigan was getting votes in the preseason poll in 1969, they could have been just unranked.

I see that they had votes in the 1969 preseason poll, but I don't think that changes my argument. When is the last time a "helmet" got as high as #4, finished #12, and started the next season as an "ORV"? It doesn't happen. Helmet teams that finish #12 start right around #12. In between the final 1968 poll and the first 1969 poll Michigan got jumped by:

Houston (moved from #18 to #7)
Mississippi (moved from nr to #9)
Bama (moved from #17 to #13)
Indiana (moved from nr to #14)
Tennessee (moved from #13 to #15)
Stanford (moved from nr to #16)
UCLA (moved from nr to #17)
Purdue (moved from #10 to #18)
Minnesota (moved from nr to #19)
Auburn (moved from #16 to #20)

A helmet might get jumped by another helmet or by a team with a tremendous amount of returning talent but not 10 teams including some obviously NOT helmets.

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

CWSooner

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

Cincydawg

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

OrangeAfroMan

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

betarhoalphadelta

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

FearlessF

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

Cincydawg

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

CWSooner

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

Cincydawg

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

FearlessF

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

OrangeAfroMan

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

CWSooner

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

Riffraft

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

medinabuckeye1

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

medinabuckeye1

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