• The KillerFrogs

I kinda miss the BCS.

geefrogs

Active Member
FDOcFVhXsAUiaFC


For a 68-team tourney, a selection committee is fine, the room for error is more.

For football, its the dumbest thing about the sport besides the targeting penalty.

Bring back the computers I say.
 

Wexahu

Full Member
Ha. This was very predictable the minute they ditched the computer system, which most everyone hated. I'd have no problem letting computers pick the teams, but people would be criticizing that after one year.

I'll start......how are Alabama, Cincinnati and Oklahoma ahead of Michigan State?

Presumably, you like it better because you see Cincy at #2. That's the problem, that's all some people care about, that the "little guy" gets ranked as high as possible, no matter how many big schools get overlooked in the process.
 

geefrogs

Active Member
Ha. This was very predictable the minute they ditched the computer system, which most everyone hated. I'd have no problem letting computers pick the teams, but people would be criticizing that after one year.

I'll start......how are Alabama, Cincinnati and Oklahoma ahead of Michigan State?

Presumably, you like it better because you see Cincy at #2. That's the problem, that's all some people care about, that the "little guy" gets ranked as high as possible, no matter how many big schools get overlooked in the process.

Yeah, theres no perfect system for sure. And this ranking doesnt show the percentage point difference which im sure is pretty slim from the teams you listed.
 

AustinFrog

Full Member
Ha. This was very predictable the minute they ditched the computer system, which most everyone hated. I'd have no problem letting computers pick the teams, but people would be criticizing that after one year.

I'll start......how are Alabama, Cincinnati and Oklahoma ahead of Michigan State?

Presumably, you like it better because you see Cincy at #2. That's the problem, that's all some people care about, that the "little guy" gets ranked as high as possible, no matter how many big schools get overlooked in the process.
I like it better because it has Ohio State outside the top 4.
 

Wexahu

Full Member
Eight-team playoff would help (though the teams left out of that would gripe).
Why is Oregon behind Ohio State? Why is Wake Forest not in there somewhere? They fixed the computers so Notre Dame wouldn't drop below #8!!

Yeah, that really wouldn't stop the bitching.
 

geefrogs

Active Member
I do. Same principle applies with your initial post though too, right? Everyone seems to be jumping the gun on Cincy not being a Top 4 team with 5 weeks left in the season.

Yeah fair, its just the committee really moves the goal posts accordingly for the power 5. Whereas BCS would be "a little" more objective.
 

Wexahu

Full Member
Yeah fair, its just the committee really moves the goal posts accordingly for the power 5. Whereas BCS would be "a little" more objective.
Well, nobody moves the goalposts more than the typical fan. Start with result you want, and then work back from that. Might be best win one year, might be best/worst loss another, might be strength of schedule, might be point margin in another year. Pick the data point that best supports your team and that's the one you're gonna say is most important.

Case in point, just look at the current rankings. Everyone says Oregon has to be ahead of Ohio State because they beat them. Same record, so there's just no way you can put Ohio State ahead of them, right? Just no way, no how. I mean, Oregon beat them. And that argument will be made from now until the end of the year as long as each of those teams has one loss. Fair enough, I don't have a problem with it. But 7 years ago, it was not only acceptable, but it was appropriate, that in the case of two teams that played each other and had the same record, for the losing team in that HTH matchup to be ranked ahead of the winner. See what I mean?
 
I'll go a step further...let's just go back to pre-BCS when they told you up front it was nothing more than a beauty pageant that was decided by drunken sportswriters rather than by computers or a dubious committee.

At least going to a Rose Bowl or Orange Bowl or Sugar Bowl or Fiesta Bowl or Cotton Bowl meant something huge to the non blue-blood programs.

When your team lost a game, the season wasn't over. You still had something meaningful to play for. And you could argue the entire off-season about why you think 13-0 TCU after winning a Cotton Bowl was better than 12-1 Alabama, who beat 10-3 Florida State in the Sugar Bowl.
 

BrewingFrog

Was I supposed to type something here?
"The computers"? Does anyone remember an acronym from the neolithic days of computing: GIGO? Garbage In Garbage Out. The BCS "computers" don't just magically conjure up dispassionate figures, they are programmed by people, people who are employed and paid by the very same organizations that ran the BCS. No surprise that they would spit out the figures desired by the entertainment companies that put the whole circus on in the first place. I mean, shazam!

The company that owns the Playoff, ESPN/Disney, would never allow an entity they do not absolutely control to dictate the terms of one of their biggest showcase events each year. No. Way.
 

Cougar/Frog

Active Member
I read recently that the 4 team and 12 team playoffs, as well as the two team, had been researched and discussed back in the early 90s.

The current ESPN CFP contract allows for expansion to 12 teams (with increased revenue) without negotiating with ESPN.

ESPN, however, currently owns 17 or so bowls, and broadcasts another 20 or so, so the Bowl Season group trying to jam up the 12 team playoff is ESPN itself. It likely doesn't want to pay more money and it doesn't want to diminish its assets (the Bowl games).
 

Wexahu

Full Member
I'll go a step further...let's just go back to pre-BCS when they told you up front it was nothing more than a beauty pageant that was decided by drunken sportswriters rather than by computers or a dubious committee.

At least going to a Rose Bowl or Orange Bowl or Sugar Bowl or Fiesta Bowl or Cotton Bowl meant something huge to the non blue-blood programs.

When your team lost a game, the season wasn't over. You still had something meaningful to play for. And you could argue the entire off-season about why you think 13-0 TCU after winning a Cotton Bowl was better than 12-1 Alabama, who beat 10-3 Florida State in the Sugar Bowl.
And a G5 team could end up #2 in the final poll having played only three games against teams from major conferences. That will very likely never happen again.

Now the refrain is we can't compete with the Bama's and Ohio State's of the world unless we start landing some 5-star talent. I'm not sure we even had a 4-star kid on that Rose Bowl team, so what changed?
 
And a G5 team could end up #2 in the final poll having played only three games against teams from major conferences. That will very likely never happen again.

Now the refrain is we can't compete with the Bama's and Ohio State's of the world unless we start landing some 5-star talent. I'm not sure we even had a 4-star kid on that Rose Bowl team, so what changed?
I can't believe how easy it was to reel you in. :)
 

Jared7

Active Member
Well, nobody moves the goalposts more than the typical fan. Start with result you want, and then work back from that. Might be best win one year, might be best/worst loss another, might be strength of schedule, might be point margin in another year. Pick the data point that best supports your team and that's the one you're gonna say is most important.

Case in point, just look at the current rankings. Everyone says Oregon has to be ahead of Ohio State because they beat them. Same record, so there's just no way you can put Ohio State ahead of them, right? Just no way, no how. I mean, Oregon beat them. And that argument will be made from now until the end of the year as long as each of those teams has one loss. Fair enough, I don't have a problem with it. But 7 years ago, it was not only acceptable, but it was appropriate, that in the case of two teams that played each other and had the same record, for the losing team in that HTH matchup to be ranked ahead of the winner. See what I mean?
No - "everyone" is not saying that Oregon, who lost to an unranked Stanford, should be highly ranked. I'm certainly not. Not above Ohio State and certainly not above undefeated teams like Cincinnati or OU. Why do you think "everyone" is saying that? Similarly, in 2014, Baylor lost to West Virginia, who lost to TCU - TCU should have been ranked higher because their records weren't the same. No, I don't see what you mean - H2h is important but not necessarily dispositive.

And, on the thread topic, I don't miss the BCS at all. It was a terrible 2-team-only system that was designed to discriminate against teams from non-favored conferences. The 4-team CFP system is also awful, for both similar and different reasons.
 
Top