College Football - Week of 9/8

[Mephistopheles]

The best team at the end of the year doesn't always end up No. 1

 

Does anyone think that by January, Ohio State was a better team than USC? No way. But they were higher ranked, because they hadn't lost all season. A playoff would eliminate that little problem.

 

Not really. The larger the playoff is, the more likely the best team isn't crowned champions.

 

No, that's what I'm saying. No one looks at the winner of a playoff and says "well, there's the best team in the nation." They just accept them as the winner of the championship tournament and move on.

 

In a sport where you only play 14 games, it's useless to try to determine who the best team is if you don't have to. Let's stick them in a playoff, crown a champion and go home.

 

Exactly. Crown the team that proves their worth on the field. Enough with this subjective crap we've put up with dealing with the BCS.

 

in reality all youre doing is crowing the team that got lucky. Crap if its an 8 team tournament and USC is the best team and they won they still got lucky.

[Mephistopheles]

The 10% hypothesis I alluded to earlier. If UCLA and USC played 10 games against each other. How often would USC win? Probably 7 times. So that 30% chance that they were outplayed happened. It doesn't change the quality of the team.

 

I'm not saying the qualityof the team changed. Just that they played below their best - hence UCLA outplaying them.

 

Then youve missed my point. Ws and Ls dont judge a team in football any better than they do in baseball. The difference between 11-2 and 12-1 in football is probably the difference between a 30-25 and a 27-28 record in baseball. In the end that one loss is meaningless when it comes to figuring out who is better. After 55 games in a baseball season are you willing to accept the notion that a team 3 games up on another is better?

[dew1679666265]

The best team at the end of the year doesn't always end up No. 1

 

Does anyone think that by January, Ohio State was a better team than USC? No way. But they were higher ranked, because they hadn't lost all season. A playoff would eliminate that little problem.

 

Not really. The larger the playoff is, the more likely the best team isn't crowned champions.

 

No, that's what I'm saying. No one looks at the winner of a playoff and says "well, there's the best team in the nation." They just accept them as the winner of the championship tournament and move on.

 

In a sport where you only play 14 games, it's useless to try to determine who the best team is if you don't have to. Let's stick them in a playoff, crown a champion and go home.

 

Exactly. Crown the team that proves their worth on the field. Enough with this subjective crap we've put up with dealing with the BCS.

 

in reality all youre doing is crowing the team that got lucky. Crap if its an 8 team tournament and USC is the best team and they won they still got lucky.

 

True. Luck does play into it. But it's a better system than what we currently have.

[Mephistopheles]

The best team at the end of the year doesn't always end up No. 1

 

Does anyone think that by January, Ohio State was a better team than USC? No way. But they were higher ranked, because they hadn't lost all season. A playoff would eliminate that little problem.

 

Not really. The larger the playoff is, the more likely the best team isn't crowned champions.

 

No, that's what I'm saying. No one looks at the winner of a playoff and says "well, there's the best team in the nation." They just accept them as the winner of the championship tournament and move on.

 

In a sport where you only play 14 games, it's useless to try to determine who the best team is if you don't have to. Let's stick them in a playoff, crown a champion and go home.

 

Exactly. Crown the team that proves their worth on the field. Enough with this subjective crap we've put up with dealing with the BCS.

 

in reality all youre doing is crowing the team that got lucky. Crap if its an 8 team tournament and USC is the best team and they won they still got lucky.

 

True. Luck does play into it. But it's a better system than what we currently have.

 

 

im not so sure it is. a playoff has about oh .5^3 chance of crowning the best team as NC. a one game BCS (with SOS and point differential) is probably around .5^2 Where that extra .5 comes from winning the big game in the season.

[dew1679666265]

The 10% hypothesis I alluded to earlier. If UCLA and USC played 10 games against each other. How often would USC win? Probably 7 times. So that 30% chance that they were outplayed happened. It doesn't change the quality of the team.

 

I'm not saying the qualityof the team changed. Just that they played below their best - hence UCLA outplaying them.

 

Then youve missed my point. Ws and Ls dont judge a team in football any better than they do in baseball. The difference between 11-2 and 12-1 in football is probably the difference between a 30-25 and a 27-28 record in baseball. In the end that one loss is meaningless when it comes to figuring out who is better. After 55 games in a baseball season are you willing to accept the notion that a team 3 games up on another is better?

 

Except in this scenario (USC v UCLA) we're comparing a 2-loss team to a 6-loss team. Bigger difference.

 

That's beside the point, though. Both of us agree USC is the better team in comparison to UCLA regardless of their wins and losses. What I'm saying is that because USC is better, they had to play below their best to lose to UCLA - thus not playing up to their talent level.

[dew1679666265]

The best team at the end of the year doesn't always end up No. 1

 

Does anyone think that by January, Ohio State was a better team than USC? No way. But they were higher ranked, because they hadn't lost all season. A playoff would eliminate that little problem.

 

Not really. The larger the playoff is, the more likely the best team isn't crowned champions.

 

No, that's what I'm saying. No one looks at the winner of a playoff and says "well, there's the best team in the nation." They just accept them as the winner of the championship tournament and move on.

 

In a sport where you only play 14 games, it's useless to try to determine who the best team is if you don't have to. Let's stick them in a playoff, crown a champion and go home.

 

Exactly. Crown the team that proves their worth on the field. Enough with this subjective crap we've put up with dealing with the BCS.

 

in reality all youre doing is crowing the team that got lucky. Crap if its an 8 team tournament and USC is the best team and they won they still got lucky.

 

True. Luck does play into it. But it's a better system than what we currently have.

 

 

im not so sure it is. a playoff has about oh .5^3 chance of crowning the best team as NC. a one game BCS (with SOS and point differential) is probably around .5^2 Where that extra .5 comes from winning the big game in the season.

 

What big game are you referring to exactly?

[Mephistopheles]

no even if they play their best they could still lose (ucla would have had to play unworldy).

 

 

 

a team is likely to bring their best game a certain percentage of the games. a team is also going to bring a bad game. In the end they lose the ones when they bring their bad game and their opponents bring their good game. in other words im saying your statement doesnt mean anything.

[Mephistopheles]

The best team at the end of the year doesn't always end up No. 1

 

Does anyone think that by January, Ohio State was a better team than USC? No way. But they were higher ranked, because they hadn't lost all season. A playoff would eliminate that little problem.

 

Not really. The larger the playoff is, the more likely the best team isn't crowned champions.

 

No, that's what I'm saying. No one looks at the winner of a playoff and says "well, there's the best team in the nation." They just accept them as the winner of the championship tournament and move on.

 

In a sport where you only play 14 games, it's useless to try to determine who the best team is if you don't have to. Let's stick them in a playoff, crown a champion and go home.

 

Exactly. Crown the team that proves their worth on the field. Enough with this subjective crap we've put up with dealing with the BCS.

 

in reality all youre doing is crowing the team that got lucky. Crap if its an 8 team tournament and USC is the best team and they won they still got lucky.

 

True. Luck does play into it. But it's a better system than what we currently have.

 

 

im not so sure it is. a playoff has about oh .5^3 chance of crowning the best team as NC. a one game BCS (with SOS and point differential) is probably around .5^2 Where that extra .5 comes from winning the big game in the season.

 

What big game are you referring to exactly?

 

in a hyopthetical scenario. Say LSU goes 11-1 in the regular season is the best team in the nation ranked #2. If they beat Florida they go to the NC. UF beat them the first meeting and the chance of UF beating LSU (Say UF is number 4) is roughly 50 percent. Then at this point the odds of LSU making the NC is .5. The odds of them winning the NC is .5*.5

 

Now if we had a 8 team playoff. This game isnt going to matter. If LSU loses theyre going to go into the playoff. If they win theyre going in the playoffs. So they have to win three games in the playoff consecutively against top 8 teams in order to win the NC. So thats roughly .5*.5*.5.

 

So its less likely for them to win the NC. Its a hypothetical scenario but illustrates the point.

Edited September 10, 2007 by Mephistopheles

[dew1679666265]

no even if they play their best they could still lose (ucla would have had to play unworldy).

 

 

 

a team is likely to bring their best game a certain percentage of the games. a team is also going to bring a bad game. In the end they lose the ones when they bring their bad game and their opponents bring their good game. in other words im saying your statement doesnt mean anything.

 

That's awesome.

 

Anyway, UCLA could play unworldly and win (maybe), but that's not the way it turned out. Theoretically, you're right, but I was referring to a specific game that occured last year. UCLA played very, very well, but unworldly is quite an overstatement.

 

Theoretically, though (which is how I think you're looking at this), you're right.

[Mephistopheles]

no even if they play their best they could still lose (ucla would have had to play unworldy).

 

 

 

a team is likely to bring their best game a certain percentage of the games. a team is also going to bring a bad game. In the end they lose the ones when they bring their bad game and their opponents bring their good game. in other words im saying your statement doesnt mean anything.

 

That's awesome.

 

Anyway, UCLA could play unworldly and win (maybe), but that's not the way it turned out. Theoretically, you're right, but I was referring to a specific game that occured last year. UCLA played very, very well, but unworldly is quite an overstatement.

 

Theoretically, though (which is how I think you're looking at this), you're right.

 

of course im looking at it theoretically. in theory NO team brings their best game every time out. You just have to hope your struggles come against bad teams not decently average teams.

 

remember when UF almost lost to SC and needed a miracle.

 

its kind of funny im making these arguments. going into bowl season the gators had little business being in the NC and these faults in the system allowed them to win the NC and im a gator fan. of course the gator rape of osu may only lead to the discussion is if the sample is too small to analyze statistically? but if you accept that to be true you have to look at W-L even less.

[dew1679666265]

The best team at the end of the year doesn't always end up No. 1

 

Does anyone think that by January, Ohio State was a better team than USC? No way. But they were higher ranked, because they hadn't lost all season. A playoff would eliminate that little problem.

 

Not really. The larger the playoff is, the more likely the best team isn't crowned champions.

 

No, that's what I'm saying. No one looks at the winner of a playoff and says "well, there's the best team in the nation." They just accept them as the winner of the championship tournament and move on.

 

In a sport where you only play 14 games, it's useless to try to determine who the best team is if you don't have to. Let's stick them in a playoff, crown a champion and go home.

 

Exactly. Crown the team that proves their worth on the field. Enough with this subjective crap we've put up with dealing with the BCS.

 

in reality all youre doing is crowing the team that got lucky. Crap if its an 8 team tournament and USC is the best team and they won they still got lucky.

 

True. Luck does play into it. But it's a better system than what we currently have.

 

 

im not so sure it is. a playoff has about oh .5^3 chance of crowning the best team as NC. a one game BCS (with SOS and point differential) is probably around .5^2 Where that extra .5 comes from winning the big game in the season.

 

What big game are you referring to exactly?

 

in a hyopthetical scenario. Say LSU goes 11-1 in the regular season is the best team in the nation ranked #2. If they beat Florida they go to the NC. UF beat them the first meeting and the chance of UF beating LSU (Say UF is number 4) is roughly 50 percent. Then at this point the odds of LSU making the NC is .5. The odds of them winning the NC is .5*.5

 

Now if we had a 8 team playoff. This game isnt going to matter. If LSU loses theyre going to go into the playoff. If they win theyre going in the playoffs. So they have to win three games in the playoff consecutively against top 8 teams in order to win the NC. So thats roughly .5*.5*.5.

 

So its less likely for them to win the NC. Its a hypothetical scenario but illustrates the point.

 

The game matters to the extent that you feel seeding matters (assuming in this hypothetical playoff, seeding would be affected by the game).

 

Also, let's throw a third 1 loss team in the mix - say USC at #3. My problem is that a large part of selecting between the winner of LSU/Fla and USC to play whoever is ranked #1 is subjective.

 

A playoff system eliminates that subjectivity, thus the system is better.

[Mephistopheles]

The best team at the end of the year doesn't always end up No. 1

 

Does anyone think that by January, Ohio State was a better team than USC? No way. But they were higher ranked, because they hadn't lost all season. A playoff would eliminate that little problem.

 

Not really. The larger the playoff is, the more likely the best team isn't crowned champions.

 

No, that's what I'm saying. No one looks at the winner of a playoff and says "well, there's the best team in the nation." They just accept them as the winner of the championship tournament and move on.

 

In a sport where you only play 14 games, it's useless to try to determine who the best team is if you don't have to. Let's stick them in a playoff, crown a champion and go home.

 

Exactly. Crown the team that proves their worth on the field. Enough with this subjective crap we've put up with dealing with the BCS.

 

in reality all youre doing is crowing the team that got lucky. Crap if its an 8 team tournament and USC is the best team and they won they still got lucky.

 

True. Luck does play into it. But it's a better system than what we currently have.

 

 

im not so sure it is. a playoff has about oh .5^3 chance of crowning the best team as NC. a one game BCS (with SOS and point differential) is probably around .5^2 Where that extra .5 comes from winning the big game in the season.

 

What big game are you referring to exactly?

 

in a hyopthetical scenario. Say LSU goes 11-1 in the regular season is the best team in the nation ranked #2. If they beat Florida they go to the NC. UF beat them the first meeting and the chance of UF beating LSU (Say UF is number 4) is roughly 50 percent. Then at this point the odds of LSU making the NC is .5. The odds of them winning the NC is .5*.5

 

Now if we had a 8 team playoff. This game isnt going to matter. If LSU loses theyre going to go into the playoff. If they win theyre going in the playoffs. So they have to win three games in the playoff consecutively against top 8 teams in order to win the NC. So thats roughly .5*.5*.5.

 

So its less likely for them to win the NC. Its a hypothetical scenario but illustrates the point.

 

The game matters to the extent that you feel seeding matters (assuming in this hypothetical playoff, seeding would be affected by the game).

 

Also, let's throw a third 1 loss team in the mix - say USC at #3. My problem is that a large part of selecting between the winner of LSU/Fla and USC to play whoever is ranked #1 is subjective.

 

A playoff system eliminates that subjectivity, thus the system is better.

 

this isnt really true. Assume then USC has a laugher against UCLA and they win this time. If theyre close the BCS is going to reward the big win to LSU over UF because of SOS and the nine yards. So they get in. Now if USC is the better team.....then the odds of them getting in is still .5.

[dew1679666265]

no even if they play their best they could still lose (ucla would have had to play unworldy).

 

 

 

a team is likely to bring their best game a certain percentage of the games. a team is also going to bring a bad game. In the end they lose the ones when they bring their bad game and their opponents bring their good game. in other words im saying your statement doesnt mean anything.

 

That's awesome.

 

Anyway, UCLA could play unworldly and win (maybe), but that's not the way it turned out. Theoretically, you're right, but I was referring to a specific game that occured last year. UCLA played very, very well, but unworldly is quite an overstatement.

 

Theoretically, though (which is how I think you're looking at this), you're right.

 

of course im looking at it theoretically. in theory NO team brings their best game every time out. You just have to hope your struggles come against bad teams not decently average teams.

 

remember when UF almost lost to SC and needed a miracle.

 

its kind of funny im making these arguments. going into bowl season the gators had little business being in the NC and these faults in the system allowed them to win the NC and im a gator fan. of course the gator rape of osu may only lead to the discussion is if the sample is too small to analyze statistically? but if you accept that to be true you have to look at W-L even less.

 

Obviously a team doesn't always play it's best, that's the point I've been trying to make. USC was the most talented team in the nation last year, they're losses to UCLA and Oregon State doesn't change that. It does mean that they played below they're potential in those two games, though.

[Mephistopheles]

no even if they play their best they could still lose (ucla would have had to play unworldy).

 

 

 

a team is likely to bring their best game a certain percentage of the games. a team is also going to bring a bad game. In the end they lose the ones when they bring their bad game and their opponents bring their good game. in other words im saying your statement doesnt mean anything.

 

That's awesome.

 

Anyway, UCLA could play unworldly and win (maybe), but that's not the way it turned out. Theoretically, you're right, but I was referring to a specific game that occured last year. UCLA played very, very well, but unworldly is quite an overstatement.

 

Theoretically, though (which is how I think you're looking at this), you're right.

 

of course im looking at it theoretically. in theory NO team brings their best game every time out. You just have to hope your struggles come against bad teams not decently average teams.

 

remember when UF almost lost to SC and needed a miracle.

 

its kind of funny im making these arguments. going into bowl season the gators had little business being in the NC and these faults in the system allowed them to win the NC and im a gator fan. of course the gator rape of osu may only lead to the discussion is if the sample is too small to analyze statistically? but if you accept that to be true you have to look at W-L even less.

 

Obviously a team doesn't always play it's best, that's the point I've been trying to make. USC was the most talented team in the nation last year, they're losses to UCLA and Oregon State doesn't change that. It does mean that they played below they're potential in those two games, though.

 

so in the end we didnt crown the best team as NC. we crowned some other team. so in reality the NC then is meaningless. you have to be lucky.

[dew1679666265]

The best team at the end of the year doesn't always end up No. 1

 

Does anyone think that by January, Ohio State was a better team than USC? No way. But they were higher ranked, because they hadn't lost all season. A playoff would eliminate that little problem.

 

Not really. The larger the playoff is, the more likely the best team isn't crowned champions.

 

No, that's what I'm saying. No one looks at the winner of a playoff and says "well, there's the best team in the nation." They just accept them as the winner of the championship tournament and move on.

 

In a sport where you only play 14 games, it's useless to try to determine who the best team is if you don't have to. Let's stick them in a playoff, crown a champion and go home.

 

Exactly. Crown the team that proves their worth on the field. Enough with this subjective crap we've put up with dealing with the BCS.

 

in reality all youre doing is crowing the team that got lucky. Crap if its an 8 team tournament and USC is the best team and they won they still got lucky.

 

True. Luck does play into it. But it's a better system than what we currently have.

 

 

im not so sure it is. a playoff has about oh .5^3 chance of crowning the best team as NC. a one game BCS (with SOS and point differential) is probably around .5^2 Where that extra .5 comes from winning the big game in the season.

 

What big game are you referring to exactly?

 

in a hyopthetical scenario. Say LSU goes 11-1 in the regular season is the best team in the nation ranked #2. If they beat Florida they go to the NC. UF beat them the first meeting and the chance of UF beating LSU (Say UF is number 4) is roughly 50 percent. Then at this point the odds of LSU making the NC is .5. The odds of them winning the NC is .5*.5

 

Now if we had a 8 team playoff. This game isnt going to matter. If LSU loses theyre going to go into the playoff. If they win theyre going in the playoffs. So they have to win three games in the playoff consecutively against top 8 teams in order to win the NC. So thats roughly .5*.5*.5.

 

So its less likely for them to win the NC. Its a hypothetical scenario but illustrates the point.

 

The game matters to the extent that you feel seeding matters (assuming in this hypothetical playoff, seeding would be affected by the game).

 

Also, let's throw a third 1 loss team in the mix - say USC at #3. My problem is that a large part of selecting between the winner of LSU/Fla and USC to play whoever is ranked #1 is subjective.

 

A playoff system eliminates that subjectivity, thus the system is better.

 

this isnt really true. Assume then USC has a laugher against UCLA and they win this time. If theyre close the BCS is going to reward the big win to LSU over UF because of SOS and the nine yards. So they get in. Now if USC is the better team.....then the odds of them getting in is still .5.

 

What if LSU, though, is rather unimpressive all year - barely winning games and USC is blowing away crap competition? The polls may just put USC over LSU because they were more dominant. And the polls have as much (maybe more? I can't remember) impact in the final rankings as the computers in the current system.

[soccer10k]

It doesn't matter. When you institute a playoff system the team most likely to win is usually the best team (seeding can change probabilities somewhat). USC was the best team in the nation last year. The fact that they had two Ls doesn't change that fact. It's just that 10% chance of losing happening twice. It doesn't mean that 10% figure should be higher.

 

I'm pretty sure the Cardinals weren't the best team in baseball last year.

[dew1679666265]

no even if they play their best they could still lose (ucla would have had to play unworldy).

 

 

 

a team is likely to bring their best game a certain percentage of the games. a team is also going to bring a bad game. In the end they lose the ones when they bring their bad game and their opponents bring their good game. in other words im saying your statement doesnt mean anything.

 

That's awesome.

 

Anyway, UCLA could play unworldly and win (maybe), but that's not the way it turned out. Theoretically, you're right, but I was referring to a specific game that occured last year. UCLA played very, very well, but unworldly is quite an overstatement.

 

Theoretically, though (which is how I think you're looking at this), you're right.

 

of course im looking at it theoretically. in theory NO team brings their best game every time out. You just have to hope your struggles come against bad teams not decently average teams.

 

remember when UF almost lost to SC and needed a miracle.

 

its kind of funny im making these arguments. going into bowl season the gators had little business being in the NC and these faults in the system allowed them to win the NC and im a gator fan. of course the gator rape of osu may only lead to the discussion is if the sample is too small to analyze statistically? but if you accept that to be true you have to look at W-L even less.

 

Obviously a team doesn't always play it's best, that's the point I've been trying to make. USC was the most talented team in the nation last year, they're losses to UCLA and Oregon State doesn't change that. It does mean that they played below they're potential in those two games, though.

 

so in the end we didnt crown the best team as NC. we crowned some other team. so in reality the NC then is meaningless. you have to be lucky.

 

Currently, the National Championship is not a meaningful as it could be. Look at situations similar to 2004 (two undefeated major conference teams at the end of the year) for examples.

 

A playoff system would make things more meaningful, but there's no way to play the game on the field and take away any type of luck factor.

[soccer10k]

Currently, the National Championship is not a meaningful as it could be. Look at situations similar to 2004 (two undefeated major conference teams at the end of the year) for examples.

 

A playoff system would make things more meaningful, but there's no way to play the game on the field and take away any type of luck factor.

 

You have to be lucky to win three or four games in a row against very good opponents which you would have to do in a playoff system. There would still be a luck factor.

[dew1679666265]

Currently, the National Championship is not a meaningful as it could be. Look at situations similar to 2004 (two undefeated major conference teams at the end of the year) for examples.

 

A playoff system would make things more meaningful, but there's no way to play the game on the field and take away any type of luck factor.

 

You have to be lucky to win three or four games in a row against very good opponents which you would have to do in a playoff system. There would still be a luck factor.

 

That's what I said. No matter the system, if the games are being played on the field, there's luck involved.

[Derwood]

no other sport worries about whether the best team wins the championship, why should college football be any better?

 

in fact, the "best" team almost never wins the championship, especially in a single elimination playoff system.

 

the NCAA Basketball tournament is the greatest championship in the world because it takes winning 6 games in a row to win it all.

 

i don't understand why people are holding CFB to some higher standard than any other sport

[Guest]

It doesn't matter. When you institute a playoff system the team most likely to win is usually the best team (seeding can change probabilities somewhat). USC was the best team in the nation last year. The fact that they had two Ls doesn't change that fact. It's just that 10% chance of losing happening twice. It doesn't mean that 10% figure should be higher.

 

I'm pretty sure the Cardinals weren't the best team in baseball last year.

 

He said usually.

 

At the very least, you'll have a better chance to crown the best team.

[Jon]

Making the championship game more meaningful with a playoff system makes the regular season less meaningful. And considering that is one of the reasons why college football is so popular, it's a lose/lose.

[Derwood]

Making the championship game more meaningful with a playoff system makes the regular season less meaningful. And considering that is one of the reasons why college football is so popular, it's a lose/lose.

 

no, that's a win/lose.

 

what people want is a win/win/win (where I win for successfully negotiating an office dispute).....

[Jon]

Making the championship game more meaningful with a playoff system makes the regular season less meaningful. And considering that is one of the reasons why college football is so popular, it's a lose/lose.

 

no, that's a win/lose.

 

what people want is a win/win/win (where I win for successfully negotiating an office dispute).....

The situation overall is a lose/lose. There will be significant enough flaws for any system, whether the current one, the previous one, or the next one.

[Mephistopheles]

It doesn't matter. When you institute a playoff system the team most likely to win is usually the best team (seeding can change probabilities somewhat). USC was the best team in the nation last year. The fact that they had two Ls doesn't change that fact. It's just that 10% chance of losing happening twice. It doesn't mean that 10% figure should be higher.

 

I'm pretty sure the Cardinals weren't the best team in baseball last year.

 

Thanks for proving to me that you can't read. I didn't say that the best team wins. I didn't say that the best teams usually wins, CR. I said the best team usually has the highest probability of winning (in the MLB playoffs thats normally around 20 or so percent). So in a tournament the best team usually does not win.