"OFM's College Football Playoff system 2.0" Topic
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Sports Plus Board
|Winston Smith ||17 Nov 2016 8:30 a.m. PST|
In ye olde days, National Champions were decided by the polls. One by sportswriters and one by coaches. Now we have a top 4 chosen by a panel of experts. If it's purpose is to generate controversy, they have succeeded.
This is purely mathematical. No "good loss" or "ugly win".
As Bill Parcells says, "You are what your record says you are."
A few definitions first
A "win" is any win over a FBS team.
A "loss" is ANY loss against any team.
Comment: The purpose of this is to discourage scheduling pushover non-conference small colllege teams to pad your "resume".
This will be an 8 team playoff.
The first tier shall be populated by teams with no losses. Obviously at this posting, Alabama is the only team in the first tier. But if there were more, the first tiebreaker shall be total wins if that team. Second tiebreaker shall be total wins of their opponents. Third tiebreaker shall be the prettiest cheerleaders.
The second tier shall be teams with one loss. Tiebreakers as above.
The third tier shall be teams with 2 losses, with tiebreakers as above.
The #1 seed shall play #8 in the first round. Etc.
The championship game shall be scheduled the week before the Super Bowl.
The purpose of a conference is to schedule games. If that conference has a championship game, that will be reflected in the win/loss numbers above.
|Choctaw||17 Nov 2016 10:40 a.m. PST|
I would love to see a system based upon wins and losses that didn't include style points. "Control of the game" is BS and simply means one team must completely destroy the other in order to make points with the committee.
I hope we see an eight game playoff, and your model is as good as any, especially with the cheerleaders.
|Winston Smith ||17 Nov 2016 3:02 p.m. PST|
As a further justification, the current system allows for whining by #5 and #6 because they were judged unfairly in a beauty contest.
In my 8 team system, the whiners have less to complain about. "You should have won more games" sounds better than "Your victory over Southern Idaho was not as pretty as it could have been."
|Smokey Roan ||17 Nov 2016 3:39 p.m. PST|
6 teams, 5 conference champions and 1 team who hS the most wins over conference champs
|Winston Smith ||17 Nov 2016 4:54 p.m. PST|
No. The only purpose of a conference is to schedule games. Then pure arithmetic takes over.
|Charlie 12||17 Nov 2016 9:07 p.m. PST|
…simply means one team must completely destroy the other in order to make points with the committee.
But that makes for SUCH entertaining football… NOT…
And the old "lose one late in the season" vs "lose one early in the season" crap. A loss is a loss, but lose late and the committee will poleaxe you.
|carne68||28 Nov 2016 3:46 p.m. PST|
I've had this debate with OFM before. My theory is that the NCAA should be consistent across every level of college football. FCS(Div IAA), Div II, and Div III all play a 16 team playoff. Div IA (aka FBS) football is the only post-season IN ANY SPORT not run by the NCAA itself.
In a 16 team playoff every conference champion gets in. No more 12-0 Tulane or 13-0 Western Michigan teams getting left out because they don't play in the SEC or ACC. All 128 teams have a chance to play their way into the field of 16. Every game matters.
Fill out the bracket with 6 at-large teams and seed the bracket based on records. Extra consideration should be given to road wins and by that I mean REAL AWAY GAMES-that means you Alabama, with your annual "away" game played in Birmingham. I would also give consideration to margin-of-victory up to say 20 points because we don't want to encourage teams running up the score on an overmatched opponent. Conversely, in evaluating losses I would give full consideration the margin-of-loss, however large, because while beauty might be skin deep, ugly goes clean to the bone.