Determining the College Football Champion

[TruffleShuffle]

Which idea do you support? Feel free to share details on how the teams are chosen in "your" format.

[Andy]

Sweet-talk the AP into coming back to the BCS, scrap the coaches' poll, and put a little more of an emphasis on the computer rankings. Half of the BCS is the average of the AP and Harris polls, half is the computer rankings.

[TruffleShuffle]

Sweet-talk the AP into coming back to the BCS, scrap the coaches' poll, and put a little more of an emphasis on the computer rankings. Half of the BCS is the average of the AP and Harris polls, half is the computer rankings.

 

yeah I didn't really hash out how the BCS rankings would be done in my system, because I liked the playoff that resulted, regardless of what formula the BCS was using that week. But I agree, get the AP back (I think they'd come back if you installed a 4 team playoff).

[Andy]

Sweet-talk the AP into coming back to the BCS, scrap the coaches' poll, and put a little more of an emphasis on the computer rankings. Half of the BCS is the average of the AP and Harris polls, half is the computer rankings.

 

yeah I didn't really hash out how the BCS rankings would be done in my system, because I liked the playoff that resulted, regardless of what formula the BCS was using that week. But I agree, get the AP back (I think they'd come back if you installed a 4 team playoff).

I voted "2 but fix the current system". I don't mind having a 2-team national title and that's that, but the way they do it now puts too much variability in.

[goonys evil twin]

Sweet-talk the AP into coming back to the BCS, scrap the coaches' poll, and put a little more of an emphasis on the computer rankings. Half of the BCS is the average of the AP and Harris polls, half is the computer rankings.

 

yeah I didn't really hash out how the BCS rankings would be done in my system, because I liked the playoff that resulted, regardless of what formula the BCS was using that week. But I agree, get the AP back (I think they'd come back if you installed a 4 team playoff).

I voted "2 but fix the current system". I don't mind having a 2-team national title and that's that, but the way they do it now puts too much variability in.

 

There's really no way to eliminate "variability" if you stay at 2 and use human polling.

[Andy]

Sweet-talk the AP into coming back to the BCS, scrap the coaches' poll, and put a little more of an emphasis on the computer rankings. Half of the BCS is the average of the AP and Harris polls, half is the computer rankings.

 

yeah I didn't really hash out how the BCS rankings would be done in my system, because I liked the playoff that resulted, regardless of what formula the BCS was using that week. But I agree, get the AP back (I think they'd come back if you installed a 4 team playoff).

I voted "2 but fix the current system". I don't mind having a 2-team national title and that's that, but the way they do it now puts too much variability in.

 

There's really no way to eliminate "variability" if you stay at 2 and use human polling.

I guess variability was the wrong word. I just would really prefer to eliminate the coaches' poll from the equation. One of these days the party-line voting by conference, the coaches voting their own teams way too high (Stoops had Oklahoma fourth, Schiano had RUTGERS seventh), and the ignorance (my own school's coach didn't rank ARKANSAS) is going to get catastrophic.

[TruffleShuffle]

I still don't like any system in which an undefeated Auburn doesn't get a chance to play for the title.

[XZero771679666304]

With as much downtime as there is in division 1 in December, I can't fathom why a two week, 4-team playoff wouldn't be more than reasonable. I don't recall any teams ranked 5th ore below having a gripe, so I think a 4 team playoff would be adequate as well.

 

The fact that all the lower divisions have playoffs negates any argument against them anyway, IMO.

[OleMissCub]

I still don't like any system in which an undefeated Auburn doesn't get a chance to play for the title.

 

No kidding. That was a travesty of monumental proportions.

 

One of the critcisms of a playoff system is they say "oh, the advertisers don't want to lose money, bla bla", to which I respond: MORE people would watch your bowl game if it actually MEANT something. How is that a bad thing for them?

[TruffleShuffle]

I still don't like any system in which an undefeated Auburn doesn't get a chance to play for the title.

 

No kidding. That was a travesty of monumental proportions.

 

One of the critcisms of a playoff system is they say "oh, the advertisers don't want to lose money, bla bla", to which I respond: MORE people would watch your bowl game if it actually MEANT something. How is that a bad thing for them?

 

Yeah, more people are gonna watch a 1-4 or 2-3 game with national title implications. As for it costing advertisers in the other games, how will it do that? The other games don't mean anything right now (as far as winning a title) - will a playoff make them mean less than nothing?

[TruffleShuffle]

I'll put my proposal into this thread too, for those who dare not stray into Rants. Plus it includes a couple of changes that I decided would be best.

 

 

My BCS proposal - 4 teams. This will include:

 

1. #1 ranked BCS team

2. #2 ranked BCS team

3. -Any other undefeated team - major conferences first, then minor conferences. If more than one minor conference team is undefeated, then the teams get chosen in order of BCS finish. Also, any team chosen here must be ranked in the top 10 of the final BCS standings.

-If no other undefeateds, then #3 BCS team.

4. A fourth undefeated team, or the #3 or #4 BCS team (depending on whether there's a 3rd undefeated.

 

The seedings will go in order of BCS ranking, so this year, it would be #1 Ohio State, #2 Florida, #3 Michigan, #4 Boise St. There would remain five BCS games - the national semifinals would rotate among the four BCS bowls, as would the national championship game.

 

Other years, this is how the playoff would go:

2005: #1 USC vs #4 Ohio St, #2 Texas vs #3 Penn State

2004: #1 USC vs #4 Utah, #2 Oklahoma vs #3 Auburn

2003: #1 Oklahoma vs #4 Michigan, #2 LSU vs #3 UCLA

2002: #1 Miami vs #4 USC, #2 Ohio State vs #3 Georgia

2001: #1 Miami vs #4 Oregon, #2 Nebraska vs #3 Colorado

2000: #1 Oklahoma vs #4 Washington, #2 Florida State vs #3 Miami

1999: #1 Florida State vs #4 Marshall, #2 Virginia Tech vs #3 Nebraska

1998: #1 Tennessee vs #4 Tulane, #2 Florida State vs #3 Kansas State

 

 

Now, there will be argument about who makes the #4 seed often times, but think about the debates about who deserved to play for the championship in recent years.

 

 

2000: Miami beat Florida State head to head, but FSU played for the title. Washington also beat Miami head to head, so they had an argument as well.

2001: Nebraska plays for the title despite getting blown out by #3 seed and Big XII champion Colorado. Also, one-loss Oregon is ranked behind Nebraska and the two-loss Buffaloes.

2002: No debate

2003: USC finishes behind LSU by a tiny margin. Oklahoma also plays for the title despite getting blown out in the Big XII Championship.

2004: Auburn goes undefeated, but doesn't get to play for the title. Utah was also undefeated.

2005: No debate

2006: Florida leaps over Michigan; both have one loss.

 

 

So there you go - all the teams that people say deserved a shot at the national title would get their chance. This is a simple playoff, adds one extra game for just two teams, and doesn't prolong the college football season.

[soccer10k]

Sweet-talk the AP into coming back to the BCS, scrap the coaches' poll, and put a little more of an emphasis on the computer rankings. Half of the BCS is the average of the AP and Harris polls, half is the computer rankings.

 

yeah I didn't really hash out how the BCS rankings would be done in my system, because I liked the playoff that resulted, regardless of what formula the BCS was using that week. But I agree, get the AP back (I think they'd come back if you installed a 4 team playoff).

I voted "2 but fix the current system". I don't mind having a 2-team national title and that's that, but the way they do it now puts too much variability in.

 

There's really no way to eliminate "variability" if you stay at 2 and use human polling.

I guess variability was the wrong word. I just would really prefer to eliminate the coaches' poll from the equation. One of these days the party-line voting by conference, the coaches voting their own teams way too high (Stoops had Oklahoma fourth, Schiano had RUTGERS seventh), and the ignorance (my own school's coach didn't rank ARKANSAS) is going to get catastrophic.

 

Whatever system is implemented, the Coaches poll has to be eliminated from that system and the AP poll should be brought back. I don't understand how you can let coaches vote when they likely don't watch any other games besides their own. They might watch some if they play early in the day (like the Big 10 usually does) but there is no way a coach playing the night ESPN game is thinking about anything other than his game.

[TruffleShuffle]

Whatever system is implemented, the Coaches poll has to be eliminated from that system and the AP poll should be brought back. I don't understand how you can let coaches vote when they likely don't watch any other games besides their own. They might watch some if they play early in the day (like the Big 10 usually does) but there is no way a coach playing the night ESPN game is thinking about anything other than his game.

 

To be fair, some AP voters probably don't watch many of the games either. I doubt most have seen a team like BYU even once this year. I think if they look at box scores of games and read recaps, they can at least inform themselves enough to put a decent top 25 together.

 

I'd also be willing to bet that a large part of putting most coaches' top 25 polls is done by someone other than the head coach. Someone probably puts a top 25 together and then the coach maybe makes a couple of tweaks before submitting it.

[Andy]

Whatever system is implemented, the Coaches poll has to be eliminated from that system and the AP poll should be brought back. I don't understand how you can let coaches vote when they likely don't watch any other games besides their own. They might watch some if they play early in the day (like the Big 10 usually does) but there is no way a coach playing the night ESPN game is thinking about anything other than his game.

 

To be fair, some AP voters probably don't watch many of the games either. I doubt most have seen a team like BYU even once this year. I think if they look at box scores of games and read recaps, they can at least inform themselves enough to put a decent top 25 together.

 

I'd also be willing to bet that a large part of putting most coaches' top 25 polls is done by someone other than the head coach. Someone probably puts a top 25 together and then the coach maybe makes a couple of tweaks before submitting it.

Another problem I have is the fact that 63 coaches vote, but there is no known system to determine which 63 vote. What makes Charlie Weis, Chris Petersen (Boise State), Steve Kragthorpe (Tulsa), or other guys who've been coaching for only a couple of years more qualified than, oh, I don't know, Joe Paterno, Urban Meyer, Bobby or Tommy Bowden, or any of the other coaches that have been around a little longer?

[TruffleShuffle]

Whatever system is implemented, the Coaches poll has to be eliminated from that system and the AP poll should be brought back. I don't understand how you can let coaches vote when they likely don't watch any other games besides their own. They might watch some if they play early in the day (like the Big 10 usually does) but there is no way a coach playing the night ESPN game is thinking about anything other than his game.

 

To be fair, some AP voters probably don't watch many of the games either. I doubt most have seen a team like BYU even once this year. I think if they look at box scores of games and read recaps, they can at least inform themselves enough to put a decent top 25 together.

 

I'd also be willing to bet that a large part of putting most coaches' top 25 polls is done by someone other than the head coach. Someone probably puts a top 25 together and then the coach maybe makes a couple of tweaks before submitting it.

Another problem I have is the fact that 63 coaches vote, but there is no known system to determine which 63 vote. What makes Charlie Weis, Chris Petersen (Boise State), Steve Kragthorpe (Tulsa), or other guys who've been coaching for only a couple of years more qualified than, oh, I don't know, Joe Paterno, Urban Meyer, Bobby or Tommy Bowden, or any of the other coaches that have been around a little longer?

 

Maybe you have to e-mail your poll in, and JoePa and Bobby Bowden don't know how to turn on a computer

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Right now I'm wavering between an 8 team playoff and shortening the season and going to a 32 team playoff.

[OleMissCub]

WARNING: Crazy Idea....so don't mock me

 

I think a perfect solution would be to totally make new conferences and use a professional sports format. Have 10 conferences with 12 teams each and two divisions of 6 within each conference, (I know i know...there's only 119 I-A schools), then have the 10 winners of the conferences champ games, plus 2 wild card teams go to a playoff, just like in NFL or MLB or whatever.

 

Crazy I know...but at least it'd probably work.

[TruffleShuffle]

It might have been unclear, and seemed that my way would mean:

 

Ohio State vs Michigan, and

Florida vs Boise St

 

 

Clearly, Ohio State gets screwed here. Boise State should be the weakest seed. So, after you choose the four teams that get in - which this year would go Ohio State, Florida, Boise St, Michigan - then you seed them by BCS ranking.

Edited December 5, 2006 by TruffleShuffle

[Flames24Rulz]

16 game playoff sounds good.

[Balsa]

16 game playoff sounds good.

[soccer10k]

Whatever system is implemented, the Coaches poll has to be eliminated from that system and the AP poll should be brought back. I don't understand how you can let coaches vote when they likely don't watch any other games besides their own. They might watch some if they play early in the day (like the Big 10 usually does) but there is no way a coach playing the night ESPN game is thinking about anything other than his game.

 

To be fair, some AP voters probably don't watch many of the games either. I doubt most have seen a team like BYU even once this year. I think if they look at box scores of games and read recaps, they can at least inform themselves enough to put a decent top 25 together.

 

I'd also be willing to bet that a large part of putting most coaches' top 25 polls is done by someone other than the head coach. Someone probably puts a top 25 together and then the coach maybe makes a couple of tweaks before submitting it.

 

I'm willing to bet that the AP voters do a hell of a lot more to stay informed than the coaches do. Obviously there are probably some exceptions but the majority of AP voters watch more than the coaches do.

 

And that doesn't even factor in team and conference bias into the coaches vote.

[TruffleShuffle]

That's cool if you want a 16 team playoff, but realistically, you're going to have to shorten the season. Right now, schools play a max of 13 games. What games would you cut out? Conference? Non-conference?

[soccer10k]

16 game playoff sounds good.

 

Way too many teams.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

16 game playoff sounds good.

 

Way too many teams.

 

Why?

[soccer10k]

16 game playoff sounds good.

 

Way too many teams.

 

Why?

 

How do you pick the teams involved? What happens if a team with 4 losses wins the National Title? What do you do about the current schedule? Theoretically that could mean 17 games for a team like Florida this year who has already played 13.

 

This is one thing that ticks me off: people who just suggest a playoff system then give absolutely no insight as to how they would go about doing it. I have no problem voicing an opinion but back it up with something.