|
Post by GatorGrad on Dec 6, 2016 15:07:09 GMT
So we agree that a 3 loss team should not go over the 1 loss team, even if the 3 loss team beat the 1 loss team head to head and the 3 loss team won the conference title I just wanted to clarify this statement: I agree that, under the CURRENT system as it is loosely defined, that a 3-loss team should not be elevated over a 1 loss team. However, I DO NOT AGREE that this is the way it SHOULD be. Especially not, if we start expanding the playoff field. FBS is nearing a turning point in the way we think about how to determine a "Champion". When you start actually PLAYING for titles, instead of voting for them, you have to live with the fact that SOMETIMES, the "Best Team" doesn't win. Playoffs DO NOT DETERMINE who the "Best Team" is... it's just a WAY of choosing a winner in a game of chance and probability. If you HAD to bet on a roll of the dice, which is the "Best Number" to bet on? I'll take the 7. But, it doesn't always win. Football teams/games are much the same way. The term "Conference Champion" needs to have meaning. The WINNER of a Conference Championship, in my opinion, should be the FIRST team selected to any National Championship playoff. If people don't like what that brings? Then, we should change the method of determining Conference Champs and/or figuring out how many teams to invite to the Natty playoff. OK but just as some may think that a 3-loss team shouldn't be elevated over a 1-loss team...others do. And just like you think that a 2-loss team should be elevated over a 1-loss team in this scenario...others do not. There are no rules that state exactly what has to happen for a team to overcome a loss when compared to another team. Obviously the committee did not feel as if PSU's H2H win and conference crown was enough to make up for the perceived advantage OSU had in overall resume which includes OOC results where OSU won at Oklahoma while PSU lost to Pitt. So do you think the four-team playoff should just be the top four conference champs? Because then you risk a four or five loss division champ from a weak division getting an upset win in the CCG and being in the four team playoff. I don't think that will be a possibility until (1) the Big 12 goes away and we are down to just a P4 with each champ feeding into the final four or (2) the playoff expands to 8 teams where all P5 conference champs can have an automatic bid.
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Dec 6, 2016 15:31:11 GMT
I just wanted to clarify this statement: I agree that, under the CURRENT system as it is loosely defined, that a 3-loss team should not be elevated over a 1 loss team. However, I DO NOT AGREE that this is the way it SHOULD be. Especially not, if we start expanding the playoff field. FBS is nearing a turning point in the way we think about how to determine a "Champion". When you start actually PLAYING for titles, instead of voting for them, you have to live with the fact that SOMETIMES, the "Best Team" doesn't win. Playoffs DO NOT DETERMINE who the "Best Team" is... it's just a WAY of choosing a winner in a game of chance and probability. If you HAD to bet on a roll of the dice, which is the "Best Number" to bet on? I'll take the 7. But, it doesn't always win. Football teams/games are much the same way. The term "Conference Champion" needs to have meaning. The WINNER of a Conference Championship, in my opinion, should be the FIRST team selected to any National Championship playoff. If people don't like what that brings? Then, we should change the method of determining Conference Champs and/or figuring out how many teams to invite to the Natty playoff. OK but just as some may think that a 3-loss team shouldn't be elevated over a 1-loss team...others do. And just like you think that a 2-loss team should be elevated over a 1-loss team in this scenario...others do not. There are no rules that state exactly what has to happen for a team to overcome a loss when compared to another team. Obviously the committee did not feel as if PSU's H2H win and conference crown was enough to make up for the perceived advantage OSU had in overall resume which includes OOC results where OSU won at Oklahoma while PSU lost to Pitt. So do you think the four-team playoff should just be the top four conference champs? Because then you risk a four or five loss division champ from a weak division getting an upset win in the CCG and being in the four team playoff. I don't think that will be a possibility until (1) the Big 12 goes away and we are down to just a P4 with each champ feeding into the final four or (2) the playoff expands to 8 teams where all P5 conference champs can have an automatic bid. YES! I believe, ONLY Conference Champions should be considered... If a 4-loss Champ from a weak Division gets in? Maybe, that conference will figure out a way to STOP THAT from happening. Like, do away with unbalanced schedules and CCG's.
I'd be willing to allow non-Cof Champs if the field were expanded to 8. But, only AFTER the P5 Champs were auto-bid.
|
|
|
Post by Hero on Dec 6, 2016 19:20:32 GMT
I just wanted to clarify this statement: I agree that, under the CURRENT system as it is loosely defined, that a 3-loss team should not be elevated over a 1 loss team. However, I DO NOT AGREE that this is the way it SHOULD be. Especially not, if we start expanding the playoff field. FBS is nearing a turning point in the way we think about how to determine a "Champion". When you start actually PLAYING for titles, instead of voting for them, you have to live with the fact that SOMETIMES, the "Best Team" doesn't win. Playoffs DO NOT DETERMINE who the "Best Team" is... it's just a WAY of choosing a winner in a game of chance and probability. If you HAD to bet on a roll of the dice, which is the "Best Number" to bet on? I'll take the 7. But, it doesn't always win. Football teams/games are much the same way. The term "Conference Champion" needs to have meaning. The WINNER of a Conference Championship, in my opinion, should be the FIRST team selected to any National Championship playoff. If people don't like what that brings? Then, we should change the method of determining Conference Champs and/or figuring out how many teams to invite to the Natty playoff. OK but just as some may think that a 3-loss team shouldn't be elevated over a 1-loss team...others do. Who thinks a 3 loss team should be elevated over a one loss team?
|
|
|
Post by FLORIDA HERD FAN on Dec 6, 2016 20:46:13 GMT
OK but just as some may think that a 3-loss team shouldn't be elevated over a 1-loss team...others do. Who thinks a 3 loss team should be elevated over a one loss team? The CFP selection committee. They elevated several 3 and 4 loss teams over an undefeated team.
|
|
|
Post by bluehen on Dec 6, 2016 21:47:04 GMT
Who thinks a 3 loss team should be elevated over a one loss team? The CFP selection committee. They elevated several 3 and 4 loss teams over an undefeated team. There are different rules or actually criteria for the different conference patches on the jerseys. This event is no D1-FBS subdivision playoff.
|
|
|
Post by GatorGrad on Dec 7, 2016 1:33:52 GMT
OK but just as some may think that a 3-loss team shouldn't be elevated over a 1-loss team...others do. And just like you think that a 2-loss team should be elevated over a 1-loss team in this scenario...others do not. There are no rules that state exactly what has to happen for a team to overcome a loss when compared to another team. Obviously the committee did not feel as if PSU's H2H win and conference crown was enough to make up for the perceived advantage OSU had in overall resume which includes OOC results where OSU won at Oklahoma while PSU lost to Pitt. So do you think the four-team playoff should just be the top four conference champs? Because then you risk a four or five loss division champ from a weak division getting an upset win in the CCG and being in the four team playoff. I don't think that will be a possibility until (1) the Big 12 goes away and we are down to just a P4 with each champ feeding into the final four or (2) the playoff expands to 8 teams where all P5 conference champs can have an automatic bid. YES! I believe, ONLY Conference Champions should be considered... If a 4-loss Champ from a weak Division gets in? Maybe, that conference will figure out a way to STOP THAT from happening. Like, do away with unbalanced schedules and CCG's.
I'd be willing to allow non-Cof Champs if the field were expanded to 8. But, only AFTER the P5 Champs were auto-bid.
Conference champs only will never happen as long as Notre Dame remains independent and as long as the playoff remains at four teams with five power conferences. Either kill off the Big 12 and then we could perhaps have a four-team playoff between the P4 conference champs...or (more likely) expand it to an eight team playoff awarding auto bids to the P5 champs.
|
|
|
Post by GatorGrad on Dec 7, 2016 1:34:56 GMT
OK but just as some may think that a 3-loss team shouldn't be elevated over a 1-loss team...others do. Who thinks a 3 loss team should be elevated over a one loss team? Anyone who favors "conference champions only."
|
|
|
Post by Hero on Dec 7, 2016 1:44:49 GMT
Who thinks a 3 loss team should be elevated over a one loss team? Anyone who favors "conference champions only." I'm lost. I think I'm finished with this debate anyway. Time to press on.
|
|