http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/wr...t=hp_wr_a5

Interestingly, the at-large bid only would have gone to an SEC team once in the BCS era (Alabama 2011). A Big 12 team would have been an at-large 5 times (counting Nebraska). Three times though, they would have an at-large team in over their own conference champ. The Big Ten would have had 2 at-large and the Pac-X 1 (again over their own conference champion).

For me, the most upsetting issue with this system is years where a non-champ gets in over the champ of their own conference.

1998- Kansas State over Texas A&M
2001- Nebraska over Colorado
2011- Stanford over Oregon

Several people have proposed the "Stanford Rule" where an at large can't jump a conference champ IF they are within 1-2 poll places of each other.

I'll be the first to admit K-state was the better team in 98 and we were very lucky to come back and win the B12 title in that game.

(06-03-2012 01:57 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Several people have proposed the "Stanford Rule" where an at large can't jump a conference champ IF they are within 1-2 poll places of each other.

I'll be the first to admit K-state was the better team in 98 and we were very lucky to come back and win the B12 title in that game.

There is talk of changing the manner in which losses against strong teams works against a team's rating. If that was the case last year then the Oregon/Stanford situation wouldn't even be a problem. The head to head loss for Stanford would have been weighed much more heavily than Oregon's loss to LSU. Also the win Stanford picked up against USC wouldn't have been rated so much more heavily than Oregon's loss to USC considering neither win was all that convincing.

New computer ratings will solve much of the problems. We don't need to fix symptoms, such as a "Stanford Rule" would do, we need to fix the problem.

(06-03-2012 01:39 PM)nuftw Wrote:  http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/wr...t=hp_wr_a5

Interestingly, the at-large bid only would have gone to an SEC team once in the BCS era (Alabama 2011). A Big 12 team would have been an at-large 5 times (counting Nebraska). Three times though, they would have an at-large team in over their own conference champ. The Big Ten would have had 2 at-large and the Pac-X 1 (again over their own conference champion).

For me, the most upsetting issue with this system is years where a non-champ gets in over the champ of their own conference.

1998- Kansas State over Texas A&M
2001- Nebraska over Colorado
2011- Stanford over Oregon

Read the article again.

In 2011 Oregon gets in as the #3 champ, and Stanford is out because they are not the highest-rated wildcard, Alabama is.

In 2001 Nebraska gets in as the wildcard, but Colorado is also in as the #2 champ; NU would not have knocked CU out of a 4-team playoff.

1998 would have been the only year, from 1998 through 2011, in which a wildcard (KSU) would get into the playoff but the champ of the wildcard's conference (TAMU) would not (because they were not even one of the top four champs, much less one of the top three).

I would be all for a weighted SOS/RPI like basketball where the outcome is weighted as a "Quality Win", "Regular Win", "Regular Loss", "Bad Loss" to reflect that not all wins and losses are equal. For too long, CFB has been operating under a system of "all wins are equal" which just isn't fair to teams in close situations of 12-0 vs 11-1

(06-03-2012 02:12 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  I would be all for a weighted SOS/RPI like basketball where the outcome is weighted as a "Quality Win", "Regular Win", "Regular Loss", "Bad Loss" to reflect that not all wins and losses are equal. For too long, CFB has been operating under a system of "all wins are equal" which just isn't fair to teams in close situations of 12-0 vs 11-1

I would have those four categories plus two more. "Close win" and "Close loss".

Again, Mandel is the voice of reason in an increasingly sensationalistic field!

(06-03-2012 02:14 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(06-03-2012 02:12 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  I would be all for a weighted SOS/RPI like basketball where the outcome is weighted as a "Quality Win", "Regular Win", "Regular Loss", "Bad Loss" to reflect that not all wins and losses are equal. For too long, CFB has been operating under a system of "all wins are equal" which just isn't fair to teams in close situations of 12-0 vs 11-1

I would have those four categories plus two more. "Close win" and "Close loss".

Maybe, but the devil is in the details. What is a quality win? Is a "close loss" any game within 10 points, or are we going to be smart enough to treat a game that is close throughout differently from a game where the losing team is never really in it but scores a couple of late TDs to narrow the final margin?

More importantly, one must-have addition to any good ratings system is an element that has recently been added to the college basketball and baseball RPIs: Giving more points for a road win than a home win. A 11-1 team that played 6 road games deserves some "brownie points" in the rankings that are not deserved by an 11-1 team that played only 4 road games.

(06-03-2012 03:01 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-03-2012 02:14 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(06-03-2012 02:12 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  I would be all for a weighted SOS/RPI like basketball where the outcome is weighted as a "Quality Win", "Regular Win", "Regular Loss", "Bad Loss" to reflect that not all wins and losses are equal. For too long, CFB has been operating under a system of "all wins are equal" which just isn't fair to teams in close situations of 12-0 vs 11-1

I would have those four categories plus two more. "Close win" and "Close loss".

Maybe, but the devil is in the details. What is a quality win? Is a "close loss" any game within 10 points, or are we going to be smart enough to treat a game that is close throughout differently from a game where the losing team is never really in it but scores a couple of late TDs to narrow the final margin?

More importantly, one must-have addition to any good ratings system is an element that has recently been added to the college basketball and baseball RPIs: Giving more points for a road win than a home win. A 11-1 team that played 6 road games deserves some "brownie points" in the rankings that are not deserved by an 11-1 team that played only 4 road games.

I don't know. I am pretty much a hard judge when it comes to that first scenario. If the game is still on and your TEAM suddenly allows a a surge of scoring by the other team then that is still held against your TEAM. If the coaches decide to put in the second string and they in turn get rolled over then that is on the coaches and the players of the TEAM. So I know some folks seem to think that the latter part of the game is not as important as the rest I guess but I disagree. If you let up on another team and allow them to beat you up for a quarter, I don't necessarily excuse that behavior. There will always be extenuating circumstances but if we are going to have a formula that really works then we are going to have to start holding teams responsible for those moments.

(06-03-2012 03:07 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(06-03-2012 03:01 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-03-2012 02:14 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(06-03-2012 02:12 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  I would be all for a weighted SOS/RPI like basketball where the outcome is weighted as a "Quality Win", "Regular Win", "Regular Loss", "Bad Loss" to reflect that not all wins and losses are equal. For too long, CFB has been operating under a system of "all wins are equal" which just isn't fair to teams in close situations of 12-0 vs 11-1

I would have those four categories plus two more. "Close win" and "Close loss".

Maybe, but the devil is in the details. What is a quality win? Is a "close loss" any game within 10 points, or are we going to be smart enough to treat a game that is close throughout differently from a game where the losing team is never really in it but scores a couple of late TDs to narrow the final margin?

More importantly, one must-have addition to any good ratings system is an element that has recently been added to the college basketball and baseball RPIs: Giving more points for a road win than a home win. A 11-1 team that played 6 road games deserves some "brownie points" in the rankings that are not deserved by an 11-1 team that played only 4 road games.

I don't know. I am pretty much a hard judge when it comes to that first scenario. If the game is still on and your TEAM suddenly allows a a surge of scoring by the other team then that is still held against your TEAM. If the coaches decide to put in the second string and they in turn get rolled over then that is on the coaches and the players of the TEAM. So I know some folks seem to think that the latter part of the game is not as important as the rest I guess but I disagree. If you let up on another team and allow them to beat you up for a quarter, I don't necessarily excuse that behavior. There will always be extenuating circumstances but if we are going to have a formula that really works then we are going to have to start holding teams responsible for those moments.

Winning the game is what matters. If a coach leaves his Heisman-candidate QB in when the team is up by 3 TDs in the last 8 minutes, and the QB gets hurt, then everyone calls the coach a fool for not putting the second-stringer in the game. Same would be true if your pass protection is wholly dependent on your stud left tackle and he tears his ACL in the last five minutes of a blowout. We should not make running up the score a component of any ratings system.

Don't worry. At the next meeting on the 26th, they'll hammer out a compromise that nobody likes...

(06-03-2012 03:19 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  Don't worry. At the next meeting on the 26th, they'll hammer out a compromise that nobody likes...

semi-finals
B1G champ vs. PAC champ in the Rose Bowl
SEC champ vs. Notre Dame(auto bid doesn't matter if they finish 0-12, they bring the eyes and $$$)

Everyone else can play in the other bowls.

(06-03-2012 03:33 PM)wildthing202 Wrote:  

(06-03-2012 03:19 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  Don't worry. At the next meeting on the 26th, they'll hammer out a compromise that nobody likes...

semi-finals
B1G champ vs. PAC champ in the Rose Bowl
SEC champ vs. Notre Dame(auto bid doesn't matter if they finish 0-12, they bring the eyes and $$$)

Everyone else can play in the other bowls.

It'll never happen. The B1G and Pac won't want the SEC to have an easy path to the championship game every year, while they don't...

Yeah, history suggests that the most likely outcome is that when the powerbrokers emerge with their final decision, our reaction will be, "WTF were they thinking?"

Maybe they will resurrect that "three semifinals" idea.

(06-03-2012 03:12 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-03-2012 03:07 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(06-03-2012 03:01 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-03-2012 02:14 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(06-03-2012 02:12 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  I would be all for a weighted SOS/RPI like basketball where the outcome is weighted as a "Quality Win", "Regular Win", "Regular Loss", "Bad Loss" to reflect that not all wins and losses are equal. For too long, CFB has been operating under a system of "all wins are equal" which just isn't fair to teams in close situations of 12-0 vs 11-1

I would have those four categories plus two more. "Close win" and "Close loss".

Maybe, but the devil is in the details. What is a quality win? Is a "close loss" any game within 10 points, or are we going to be smart enough to treat a game that is close throughout differently from a game where the losing team is never really in it but scores a couple of late TDs to narrow the final margin?

More importantly, one must-have addition to any good ratings system is an element that has recently been added to the college basketball and baseball RPIs: Giving more points for a road win than a home win. A 11-1 team that played 6 road games deserves some "brownie points" in the rankings that are not deserved by an 11-1 team that played only 4 road games.

I don't know. I am pretty much a hard judge when it comes to that first scenario. If the game is still on and your TEAM suddenly allows a a surge of scoring by the other team then that is still held against your TEAM. If the coaches decide to put in the second string and they in turn get rolled over then that is on the coaches and the players of the TEAM. So I know some folks seem to think that the latter part of the game is not as important as the rest I guess but I disagree. If you let up on another team and allow them to beat you up for a quarter, I don't necessarily excuse that behavior. There will always be extenuating circumstances but if we are going to have a formula that really works then we are going to have to start holding teams responsible for those moments.

Winning the game is what matters. If a coach leaves his Heisman-candidate QB in when the team is up by 3 TDs in the last 8 minutes, and the QB gets hurt, then everyone calls the coach a fool for not putting the second-stringer in the game. Same would be true if your pass protection is wholly dependent on your stud left tackle and he tears his ACL in the last five minutes of a blowout. We should not make running up the score a component of any ratings system.

I agree, those are decisions a coach will have to make. The decision of weighing the slight loss of ratings points by not maintaining that large lead vs possibly having some very important players injured needlessly. That does not mean that the losing school should not be given a little extra credit for staying in the game when it was basically already lost. It is not like there is going to be a huge difference in the factor between a "bad loss" and a "normal loss". For me the bigger difference would come between the "normal loss" and "close loss". I hate how a close loss can damage a team fatally.