Bit, that's a great idea, and something I'd never considered previously.

It would work well and could preserve the bowl system for the masses, eventually.

(06-02-2012 02:52 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(06-02-2012 02:31 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  I'm not saying there's any problem with your logical deduction. But anyone applying a modicum of common sense and intelligence could have come up with anything better than we have now. Only an idiot would have dreamed this up...

I don't understand the thinking involved, and have no care to, frankly. But you seem to. So more power to ya...

Ahh, well sure if I could recreate the whole system it would surely be different but this is the system we got and it is only going to get better one step at a time. Now that the masses seem to actually be able to put their two cents worth in to the discussion in a meaningful way, we might actually get somewhere.

I'll believe it when I see it happening...

(06-02-2012 10:32 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(06-02-2012 10:12 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-02-2012 09:01 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(06-02-2012 08:46 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-02-2012 08:17 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  I think there is rational basis for favoring a conference champ over a runner-up.
1. Conference championships should be worth some kind of bonus.
2. Giving conference champions a bump spreads participation out around the country, which is worth something.
3. Politically, I think the other conferences want an unfair advantage for their conference champs over an SEC or Big 12 runner-up, so some guarantee for conference champs will be needed to get any Final Four passed.

All that said, none of those arguments are as important as the perceived damage of having a #2 or even #1 ranked team screwed out of the playoffs.

So I think Delany's plan works okay. CC's if they're ranked in the top six, otherwise start taking top-ranekd runnerups.

That would have put Alabama in in 2011, and put Oregon over Stanford.

Say there had been conference champs at #5 and #6--say Houston and Virginia Tech win their CCG's, so you have 4 CC's in the top 6. There would have been protests from Alabama fans, but not much support from anyone else, since Alabama had their shot at LSU and lost at home. The difference between a one-loss #2 and a one-loss #5 Virginia Tech would be manageable enough to leave Alabama out.

I agree with your earlier statement that leaving out a #1 or #2 team is not acceptable, so how could you agree with a top-6 conference champ system that would have kept #2 Alabama out?

Because I think the teams that would go instead of Alabama would have pretty good cases. Houston would have been the undefeated C-USA champ. Virginia Tech would have been a one-loss ACC champ who avenged their regular season loss to Clemson in their CCG.

There would be an argument for Alabama over Virginia Tech, but not an overwhelming one. Virginia Tech in the Final Four over Alabama would be a minor injustice, something that is inevitable in the imperfect world in which we live. 12-1 VT over 11-1 Alabama may be the wrong call, but it's a judgement call.

But that's the rub: Under your system, it would NOT be a "judgment call", it would be an outcome rigidly determined by the rules. I'd prefer a selection committee to a rigid formula.

Who selects the selection committee? Because I'd expect the selection committee to look a lot like Silve, Delany, Bowlsby and Scott. A formula is at least facially neutral--you can rig the formula in your favor beforehand, but not once you start playing the games.

Quote:I just wonder why we need to tolerate even "minor" injustices when we could have a system - like top 2 are guaranteed in playoffs no matter what - that eliminates that?

Because people don't agree on the definition of justice. There are plenty of people who argued--and still argue--that Alabama shouldn't have been in the NCG, that the polls are biased, etc. Plenty of people argue that Oklahoma State was more worthy of a shot at LSU. etc.

A rigid formula means that you're not changing the criteria in mid-season to benefit your own perspective. A few years ago, a rematch of Ohio State and Michigan in the NCG was an atrocity to all right-thinking SEC fans, and just common sense in Big Ten country. This year, the situation was reversed. Rigid formulas counteract that

Personally, i thought OK State should have been in the national title game instead of Alabama as well.

As for rigid formulas, if we are going to have one, let's make it a good one. E.g., let's let the BCS computers, not human pollsters who might be "biased", and not a rule that favors conference champions for no good reason, do the choosing.

There is a good reason that NO computer formulas give bonus points for teams that win their conference. It's because every football geek who has thought about what makes a team worthy has decided that winning a conference tells us nothing about how good that team is compared to other teams around the country.

(06-02-2012 05:02 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-02-2012 10:32 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(06-02-2012 10:12 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-02-2012 09:01 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(06-02-2012 08:46 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I agree with your earlier statement that leaving out a #1 or #2 team is not acceptable, so how could you agree with a top-6 conference champ system that would have kept #2 Alabama out?

Because I think the teams that would go instead of Alabama would have pretty good cases. Houston would have been the undefeated C-USA champ. Virginia Tech would have been a one-loss ACC champ who avenged their regular season loss to Clemson in their CCG.

There would be an argument for Alabama over Virginia Tech, but not an overwhelming one. Virginia Tech in the Final Four over Alabama would be a minor injustice, something that is inevitable in the imperfect world in which we live. 12-1 VT over 11-1 Alabama may be the wrong call, but it's a judgement call.

But that's the rub: Under your system, it would NOT be a "judgment call", it would be an outcome rigidly determined by the rules. I'd prefer a selection committee to a rigid formula.

Who selects the selection committee? Because I'd expect the selection committee to look a lot like Silve, Delany, Bowlsby and Scott. A formula is at least facially neutral--you can rig the formula in your favor beforehand, but not once you start playing the games.

Quote:I just wonder why we need to tolerate even "minor" injustices when we could have a system - like top 2 are guaranteed in playoffs no matter what - that eliminates that?

Because people don't agree on the definition of justice. There are plenty of people who argued--and still argue--that Alabama shouldn't have been in the NCG, that the polls are biased, etc. Plenty of people argue that Oklahoma State was more worthy of a shot at LSU. etc.

A rigid formula means that you're not changing the criteria in mid-season to benefit your own perspective. A few years ago, a rematch of Ohio State and Michigan in the NCG was an atrocity to all right-thinking SEC fans, and just common sense in Big Ten country. This year, the situation was reversed. Rigid formulas counteract that

Personally, i thought OK State should have been in the national title game instead of Alabama as well.

As for rigid formulas, if we are going to have one, let's make it a good one. E.g., let's let the BCS computers, not human pollsters who might be "biased", and not a rule that favors conference champions for no good reason, do the choosing.

There is a good reason that NO computer formulas give bonus points for teams that win their conference. It's because every football geek who has thought about what makes a team worthy has decided that winning a conference tells us nothing about how good that team is compared to other teams around the country.

Well, in essence, some do. It's called SOS points.

Cheers,
Neil

(06-02-2012 05:37 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(06-02-2012 05:02 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-02-2012 10:32 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(06-02-2012 10:12 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-02-2012 09:01 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  Because I think the teams that would go instead of Alabama would have pretty good cases. Houston would have been the undefeated C-USA champ. Virginia Tech would have been a one-loss ACC champ who avenged their regular season loss to Clemson in their CCG.

There would be an argument for Alabama over Virginia Tech, but not an overwhelming one. Virginia Tech in the Final Four over Alabama would be a minor injustice, something that is inevitable in the imperfect world in which we live. 12-1 VT over 11-1 Alabama may be the wrong call, but it's a judgement call.

But that's the rub: Under your system, it would NOT be a "judgment call", it would be an outcome rigidly determined by the rules. I'd prefer a selection committee to a rigid formula.

Who selects the selection committee? Because I'd expect the selection committee to look a lot like Silve, Delany, Bowlsby and Scott. A formula is at least facially neutral--you can rig the formula in your favor beforehand, but not once you start playing the games.

Quote:I just wonder why we need to tolerate even "minor" injustices when we could have a system - like top 2 are guaranteed in playoffs no matter what - that eliminates that?

Because people don't agree on the definition of justice. There are plenty of people who argued--and still argue--that Alabama shouldn't have been in the NCG, that the polls are biased, etc. Plenty of people argue that Oklahoma State was more worthy of a shot at LSU. etc.

A rigid formula means that you're not changing the criteria in mid-season to benefit your own perspective. A few years ago, a rematch of Ohio State and Michigan in the NCG was an atrocity to all right-thinking SEC fans, and just common sense in Big Ten country. This year, the situation was reversed. Rigid formulas counteract that

Personally, i thought OK State should have been in the national title game instead of Alabama as well.

As for rigid formulas, if we are going to have one, let's make it a good one. E.g., let's let the BCS computers, not human pollsters who might be "biased", and not a rule that favors conference champions for no good reason, do the choosing.

There is a good reason that NO computer formulas give bonus points for teams that win their conference. It's because every football geek who has thought about what makes a team worthy has decided that winning a conference tells us nothing about how good that team is compared to other teams around the country.

Well, in essence, some do. It's called SOS points.

Really? I did not realize that SOS adjustments factored in winning a conference, i thought they were about trying to judge the quality of a team's opponents.

(06-02-2012 05:41 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-02-2012 05:37 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(06-02-2012 05:02 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-02-2012 10:32 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(06-02-2012 10:12 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  But that's the rub: Under your system, it would NOT be a "judgment call", it would be an outcome rigidly determined by the rules. I'd prefer a selection committee to a rigid formula.

Who selects the selection committee? Because I'd expect the selection committee to look a lot like Silve, Delany, Bowlsby and Scott. A formula is at least facially neutral--you can rig the formula in your favor beforehand, but not once you start playing the games.

Quote:I just wonder why we need to tolerate even "minor" injustices when we could have a system - like top 2 are guaranteed in playoffs no matter what - that eliminates that?

Because people don't agree on the definition of justice. There are plenty of people who argued--and still argue--that Alabama shouldn't have been in the NCG, that the polls are biased, etc. Plenty of people argue that Oklahoma State was more worthy of a shot at LSU. etc.

A rigid formula means that you're not changing the criteria in mid-season to benefit your own perspective. A few years ago, a rematch of Ohio State and Michigan in the NCG was an atrocity to all right-thinking SEC fans, and just common sense in Big Ten country. This year, the situation was reversed. Rigid formulas counteract that

Personally, i thought OK State should have been in the national title game instead of Alabama as well.

As for rigid formulas, if we are going to have one, let's make it a good one. E.g., let's let the BCS computers, not human pollsters who might be "biased", and not a rule that favors conference champions for no good reason, do the choosing.

There is a good reason that NO computer formulas give bonus points for teams that win their conference. It's because every football geek who has thought about what makes a team worthy has decided that winning a conference tells us nothing about how good that team is compared to other teams around the country.

Well, in essence, some do. It's called SOS points.

Really? I did not realize that SOS adjustments factored in winning a conference, i thought they were about trying to judge the quality of a team's opponents.

SOS factors in wins and losses, opponents wins and losses, and opponents' opponents wins and losses. So, unless you face a complete dog in a conference championship game, yes SOS is likely to go up as a result of winning said game.

Cheers,
Neil

(06-02-2012 05:52 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(06-02-2012 05:41 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-02-2012 05:37 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(06-02-2012 05:02 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-02-2012 10:32 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  Who selects the selection committee? Because I'd expect the selection committee to look a lot like Silve, Delany, Bowlsby and Scott. A formula is at least facially neutral--you can rig the formula in your favor beforehand, but not once you start playing the games.


Because people don't agree on the definition of justice. There are plenty of people who argued--and still argue--that Alabama shouldn't have been in the NCG, that the polls are biased, etc. Plenty of people argue that Oklahoma State was more worthy of a shot at LSU. etc.

A rigid formula means that you're not changing the criteria in mid-season to benefit your own perspective. A few years ago, a rematch of Ohio State and Michigan in the NCG was an atrocity to all right-thinking SEC fans, and just common sense in Big Ten country. This year, the situation was reversed. Rigid formulas counteract that

Personally, i thought OK State should have been in the national title game instead of Alabama as well.

As for rigid formulas, if we are going to have one, let's make it a good one. E.g., let's let the BCS computers, not human pollsters who might be "biased", and not a rule that favors conference champions for no good reason, do the choosing.

There is a good reason that NO computer formulas give bonus points for teams that win their conference. It's because every football geek who has thought about what makes a team worthy has decided that winning a conference tells us nothing about how good that team is compared to other teams around the country.

Well, in essence, some do. It's called SOS points.

Really? I did not realize that SOS adjustments factored in winning a conference, i thought they were about trying to judge the quality of a team's opponents.

SOS factors in wins and losses, opponents wins and losses, and opponents' opponents wins and losses. So, unless you face a complete dog in a conference championship game, yes SOS is likely to go up as a result of winning said game.

Good point. So that should satisfy those who think teams that win a conference should get some kind of bonus in these formulas. They do, so no need for a rule favoring conference champions for the playoffs.

(06-02-2012 06:02 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-02-2012 05:52 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(06-02-2012 05:41 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-02-2012 05:37 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(06-02-2012 05:02 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Personally, i thought OK State should have been in the national title game instead of Alabama as well.

As for rigid formulas, if we are going to have one, let's make it a good one. E.g., let's let the BCS computers, not human pollsters who might be "biased", and not a rule that favors conference champions for no good reason, do the choosing.

There is a good reason that NO computer formulas give bonus points for teams that win their conference. It's because every football geek who has thought about what makes a team worthy has decided that winning a conference tells us nothing about how good that team is compared to other teams around the country.

Well, in essence, some do. It's called SOS points.

Really? I did not realize that SOS adjustments factored in winning a conference, i thought they were about trying to judge the quality of a team's opponents.

SOS factors in wins and losses, opponents wins and losses, and opponents' opponents wins and losses. So, unless you face a complete dog in a conference championship game, yes SOS is likely to go up as a result of winning said game.

Good point. So that should satisfy those who think teams that win a conference should get some kind of bonus in these formulas. They do, so no need for a rule favoring conference champions for the playoffs.

Agreed.

right back at you.

Neil