|
Post by cjhawkeyes on Oct 8, 2018 14:58:10 GMT
Too much of college football is still all about identifying and validating the best team. Competition is about determining a winner. Rules say Do X and the teams that best accomplish X place higher. People can favor rules they think provide the greatest challenge for placing and advancing but rules are never about guaranteeing that the best teams win. Being a better team is a competitive advantage only.
|
|
|
Post by cjhawkeyes on Oct 7, 2018 15:28:18 GMT
I'm with bluehen in that I think the competitive gap is as big as it is because the system is rigged and basically eliminates G5 teams from the start. I don't know how much G5 teams would be able to close the gap with my idea of a fair system. However, if for example there were an 8 team playoff using my system, every team would, beyond very unlikely scenarios, control their playoff destiny. What would being able to control their destiny vs no chance do for G5 teams ability to recruit better players, get better TV deals, and attract a larger fanbase?
|
|
|
Post by cjhawkeyes on Jan 13, 2018 22:36:46 GMT
This is irrelevant to how legitimate competitions operate. With most every other sport, teams advance based on beating the competition according to the rules in play. If you are a better team, that is advantage towards beating the competition. Better teams still have to beat lesser teams at the rules in play. The point of competition is to determine a winner. It is not to identify and validate the best teams. I agree with you: recruiting is 100% irrelevant to what teams should be considered for the playoffs. It might correlate, but... but it should NEVER be a deciding factor. But, here's the cold hard truth: FBS football is made up of a CRAP LOAD of teams, all playing at greatly disparate levels of competition. There are LONG held, traditional factions (conferences and bowls) that drive practically ALL of the interest and the bulk of the revenue for this sport. These factions demand a significant portion of the season to hold their own, internal regional competitions. That leaves precious little time available for any kind of overall, nation-wide tournament similar to what most "other sports do". For nearly 100 years, there was ZERO effort toward a national competition at all. Only very recently has there been ANY effort in doing so. Given the limited time, huge number of teams, and the power of the controlling conferences.. (not to mention the traditional bowls) there will NEVER BE a system like most other sports, where every team has a chance to compete against every other team, or even to be assured of a chance to "play their way into" the Title competition. There will ALWAYS be a higher level of subjectivity in the process of "selecting which teams will be given a chance to play in a limited playoff." There may be changes, or growth to the number of teams selected. Or, there may not be any change. But, we're NEVER going to a system that gives conference with such a high degree of competitive imbalance an equal shot at placing their Champion into post-season competition. If that's the only thing that will make you happy? Then, maybe college football isn't your thang? Might want to take an interest in curling, or extreme-snow boarding. I'm all about rules deciding which teams advance...........whether or not a system gives auto bids for league champs is not a huge concern.
|
|
|
Post by cjhawkeyes on Jan 12, 2018 0:58:25 GMT
Some facts to gnaw on in the midst of all the whining and finger pointing about who should and should not be in the playoffs. 24/7 Recruiting average over past 5 years: Alabama .......1.0 Ohio State ....3.6 Georgia ........7.2 USC .............7.8 Clemson ......13.6 Oklahoma ....14.2 UCF .............67.0
4 team playoff average: 9.0 2 team championship: 4:1 This is irrelevant to how legitimate competitions operate. With most every other sport, teams advance based on beating the competition according to the rules in play. If you are a better team, that is advantage towards beating the competition. Better teams still have to beat lesser teams at the rules in play. The point of competition is to determine a winner. It is not to identify and validate the best teams.
|
|
|
Post by cjhawkeyes on Jan 8, 2018 17:01:30 GMT
The "weakness" of UCF's schedule is based on the perception of their opponents' abilities which is not something objective SOS is concerned with. Based on FBS games only, if we add W% + OW% to rank teams, UCF makes the top four and owns the highest score among non power teams over 40 seasons. If we add OOW% to the equation to rank teams, UCF still makes the top four and owns the highest score among non power teams over 40 seasons. And if we go further and add OOOW% to the equation, UCF still makes the top four and owns highest non power score over 40 seasons. None of this says anything about the difficulty of UCF's schedule but SOS is not specifically about that although the any SOS metric may be intuitively designed to reward difficulty as much as possible. SOS is about how accomplished your opponents are according to whatever it is any rules/SOS metric value.
|
|
|
Post by cjhawkeyes on Dec 30, 2017 19:40:31 GMT
I blame me. First game I went to in 14 years. Need to go more often if they play like that.
|
|
|
Post by cjhawkeyes on Dec 28, 2017 4:48:26 GMT
Not that the NFL will change, but the playoffs aren't the cause of sandbagging, its the divisional and conference format. The less teams in direct competition makes it easier for teams to clinch. However, if for example, the NFL was one 32 team division and the top 12 advanced, depending on tiebreakers, as many as seven teams would still have a shot at homefield through to the Super Bowl.
|
|
|
Post by cjhawkeyes on Dec 20, 2017 16:32:06 GMT
Replay is not the problem here. It is a nonsensical rule. He survived the ground with his knee. He caught the ball, pulled it into himself and then stretched for the goalline.
|
|
|
Post by cjhawkeyes on Dec 10, 2017 19:08:14 GMT
I enjoy it but that committee format and deliberately rigged system make the sport much less than it could be.
|
|
|
Post by cjhawkeyes on Dec 3, 2017 22:55:27 GMT
Which part am I right about or not? First of all, I never said you were "right or wrong". Only Herd went there. I said, I disagree with your opinion. I don't know, with any certainty whether my opinion is 'right', or your is. The topic under discussion is: The INTENT of the cartel, or P5, or whatever you want to call them..... are they really trying to keep the G5 down, to monopolize their money? I don't think that is their intent. You think it is. Only They, and God know the real answer to that. I don't think the P5 conferences CARE enough to even think about the G5 conferences. We are NOT worried about them taking over. I truly believe, if a G5 conference were to start playing really good, competitive football.... drawing big full stadiums and large TV audiences, ESPN and the "cartel" would love nothing more than to have SIX "power" conferences. The division between the P5 and G5 is very real, very distinct... but, not chiseled in stone. It can be fluid, with various teams heading up, or down.. and, conferences going up or down. It's up to them to decide their fate. I don't think the Cartel keeps them down, I think it's their own ability to spend and compete. I do not believe CFP was NOT designed to keep everyone down. I believe it's been a genuine effort to give the public something we requested for decades: A way to make sure that, at the end of the season, the top teams... teams who have a credible, legitimate claim to being the National Champ, have a chance to play against each other to hammer out the winner of the field. The sport was not clamoring to change the entire season format to cede relevance to a huge season ending tournament. All we've wanted was a way to have the last couple of teams standing play against each other. Many moons ago, the top two rarely played against each other in a Bowl at all. So, the BCS came along, to make sure the Top 2 played. That ended up being unsatisfactory... so, they decided to expand it to 4. So far, this seems to be getting the primary goal accomplished. You may believe the entire system has been designed to keep the G5 teams down. I don't. Frankly, I don't think the people making these decisions are smart enough to be that nefarious. They haven't thought through the "unintended consequences" of the system, as designed. They're just trying to out together a show, and provide additional legitimacy to the eventual National Champion. Just to clear, I wouldn't be upset if you think I'm wrong. That said, I do think the P5 leagues want to limit the ability of G5 teams to compete. You simply don't favor the systems we have had to date if your intention is to make the sport as competitive as possible. I don't think there is any way the results are as lopsided as they are if a fair objective system had always been place. There is no doubt in my mind that P5 leagues do not want a system like mine to replace the committee.
|
|
|
Post by cjhawkeyes on Dec 3, 2017 16:49:45 GMT
Best resume > best team nonsense www.espn.com/college-football/playoffPictureFour teams are remaining with 1 loss (Other than Wisconsin, who just lost.. and, UCF.. who played a G5 schedule and played one less game) It's an easy call: FOUR teams standing. No other teams outside of that field can say they had a better season than the eventual winner from that field. They should drop committee and rank by records with G5 teams spotted a two game penalty.
|
|
|
Post by cjhawkeyes on Dec 3, 2017 16:20:14 GMT
Best resume > best team nonsense
|
|
|
Post by cjhawkeyes on Dec 3, 2017 5:34:41 GMT
Which part am I right about or not?
|
|
|
Post by cjhawkeyes on Dec 1, 2017 16:26:19 GMT
Doing this eliminates the manufactured divide. The DIVIDE is not manufactured. It is real. It can't be eliminated and it's not going to be ignored. It factors into the calculus in multiple ways. One being, that G5 teams simply don't face the same level of grueling competition, week after week. There is NOTHING FAIR about automatically elevating every G5 Conference Champ into a short-term, single elimination tournament to determine a single "FBS Champion". THAT, is NEVEppppppp00pbR going to happen. Fair, objective rules like your system are the best the G5 teams could ever hope for. I think it would be terrific. Sadly, I don't see that happening anytime soon. The last part is precisely my point. I think a rules system like my idea would do as much for G5 teams as an invitation to a P5 league. Rules are a great equalizer and they won't happen for that reason. The divide is maintained by a biased voting system to severely limit the ability of G5 teams to compete in all areas in order to protect P5 power and money monopoly. No one that wished to make the on field product as competitive as possible would favor this format.
|
|
|
Post by cjhawkeyes on Dec 1, 2017 6:50:11 GMT
The P5/G5 is used to maintain the competitive gap that exists whether or not it is as great as imagined. There are plenty of G5 teams better than P5 programs. The committee has a three loss Stanford with a loss to a G5 team ranked ahead of an unbeaten UCF whose league is looked down upon despite 2 BCS/Big Six bowl wins and its fifth place team last year beating the Big 12 champions. This is why coaches leave. The format does not allow G5 teams to compete. It does not provide specifics on scheduling, does not create an incentive for top P5 teams to play top G5 teams, and basically allows P5 teams to load up on cupcakes in OOC play because conference play is enough. Too many seem to think that P5 teams have to beat 4-5 ranked teams on a yearly basis to make the top 4 when the average is less than three and many get there with less than 2 such wins. I'd like to hear your plan to fix it. The P5 teams all play 9 conference games. That leaves 3 OOC games. Most will play another P5 team and then a couple bodybag games which in the long run, helps the G5 teams because they get a huge payday to play the game. P5 teams went 69-12 against G5 teams this year. You look at the scores and most are blowouts, the wins are fairly close even against the bad P5 teams. To their credit UCF's win over Maryland was probably the widest margin of victory but again, Maryland went 4-8. Of the wins by G5, I think only 3 were against teams with over .500 records; Stanford, Arizona and LSU. Kansas lost twice to the G5 - maybe UCF and Kansas should swith conferences. The week after beating LSU, Troy lost to South Alabama. It is what it is. The solution is to adopt rules that treat all FBS teams the same without regard to identity. Doing this eliminates the manufactured divide. UCF is set to make my system's top 4 becoming only the 12 non power in 40 years to do so. The difference is such rules make it clear what kind of schedule is typically good enough to make the top 4 with an undefeated season and would provide top powers with an incentive to play top non powers. Once it becomes clear that such rules allow G5 teams the opportunity to compete, it becomes much easier to attract the talent needed to compete for playoff berths. This doesn't mean G5 teams and leagues will match the success of P5 leagues any time soon if ever but I think it would get to the point that no one will question any G5 playoff teams. The bottom line is that it takes rules that define what beats what for G5 teams to have a chance. With the committee format, they are setup to fail even when they do well because it is always easy for a committee to say not good enough short of 3-4 OOC wins vs quality power teams.
|
|