CFP Bowl Pickem Standings

[billybud]

And that image comes from on field results. Beating other good teams over the years, winning bowl games.

When folks see a can of pineapple with the Del Monte picture on it, they are comfortable that they are buying a known product. If you pick up a shiny can without a developed label, you are less comfortable about the possible contents.

When Honda started selling cars here, they had to become known as a quality product. It took a few years of selling good products, being tested and passing those tests, before buying a Honda was seen as a safe bet....even a smart bet.

[Spence]

And that image comes from on field results. Beating other good teams over the years, winning bowl games.

When folks see a can of pineapple with the Del Monte picture on it, they are comfortable that they are buying a known product. If you pick up a shiny can without a developed label, you are less comfortable about the possible contents.

When Honda started selling cars here, they had to become known as a quality product. It took a few years of selling good products, being tested and passing those tests, before buying a Honda was seen as a safe bet....even a smart bet.

I agree that generally a 10 win Alabama is going to be good. I also agree that Ball State, Miami of Ohio, etc...may not be good even with that many wins. On the other hand ---- using your Del Monte example ------ Del Monte is just a label it is owned by a company named Seneca canning. They along with three other major canners pack every label you see in every store along with every single foodservice label on items you eat in a restaurant. Depending on what spec that stores are buy -- regardless of label----there may or may not be a difference in quality. Which is the case with the non AQ teams. Just because you buy the Del Monte label doesn't mean anything. It all has to do with the spec you are buying the label under. Also in buying canned food (using green beans as an example) you may buy a four sieve green bean ( the top canned quality) but the can may be half water. Good bean just not as many of them. Same goes for the football teams. You may have a great starting team with very little depth. You may have a total team with no name (marketing) recognition. You may just be a generic run of the mill team just there to grab their piece of the market share.

[billybud]

Still...it is about the public perception of the product.

And, we all know that a 10 win Bama is a team to be reckoned with. Why..because time and experience have proven that to be true.

[Spence]

Still...it is about the public perception of the product.

And, we all know that a 10 win Bama is a team to be reckoned with. Why..because time and experience have proven that to be true.

You are right, marketing is a powerful force. But Just because a product was very good twenty years ago doesn't mean it is still good today. If very well could be, but lots of times it isn't. I could name countless food products that are a shadow of their former selves.

We don't have any problem with Alabama getting screwed if they have a good team, though. If they win chances of a birth in the championship game are good - and with good reason. The problem is we don't have any way to measure the non AQ teams. I'm not on board with a team that isn't good enough being in the championship game, but there should be a way to measure their strength - creating a power ranking that uses strength of schedule. Also one that will award a team a birth if their power ranking shows them worthy even with a couple losses over a team - AQ or non AQ that isn't as good. Also one that can measure the strength of a single team in a conferences that isn't every good if their power ranking shows it.

It is possible set up a power ranking that takes into account all those things if you schedule all teams according to how they finished the previous year in conference and have the all play that OOC schedule and their conference schedule. No team should get in by not being good, but winning all their games against bad teams. But even if a team does play all average or below average teams, there should be a system in place to let them advance if they are good.

One team can play the toughest schedule in the nation and lose 4 games. Another can win them all playing the weakest team in the nation. Neither of those things should automatically disqualify them. We should be looking for a way to determine the best team without regard to who a team plays. The trick is finding that formula to measure them.

[RazorHawk]

One team can play the toughest schedule in the nation and lose 4 games. Another can win them all playing the weakest team in the nation. Neither of those things should automatically disqualify them. We should be looking for a way to determine the best team without regard to who a team plays. The trick is finding that formula to measure them.

I think this is exactly the correct statement, but there is no answer.

[Spence]

There is an answer. Whether it is financially feasible or the pubilic would accept the answer is another matter.

[RazorHawk]

There is an answer. Whether it is financially feasible or the pubilic would accept the answer is another matter.

Is that code for playoff?

[Spence]

No, a playoff is financially feasible for the schools. They would make more money by having 54 teams not go to post season. A ton more money. It would be hard on the fans who travel and the logistics would have to change, but the money would be great.

I meant that the public would have trouble accepting a team losing three games and being sent to the championship game over some teams that were undefeated and had one loss. Creating a power ranking would allow the BCS to work fairly for all teams, but the people would really raise hell about which teams would be sent to the championship game over other teams with fewer losses.

[BYUfan1]

And that image comes from on field results. Beating other good teams over the years, winning bowl games.

When folks see a can of pineapple with the Del Monte picture on it, they are comfortable that they are buying a known product. If you pick up a shiny can without a developed label, you are less comfortable about the possible contents.

When Honda started selling cars here, they had to become known as a quality product. It took a few years of selling good products, being tested and passing those tests, before buying a Honda was seen as a safe bet....even a smart bet.

What if you don't like Pineapples or prefer the real thing over a can?

[Spence]

Then you are a bright guy. The fresh pineapple is much better.

[RazorHawk]

No, a playoff is financially feasible for the schools. They would make more money by having 54 teams not go to post season. A ton more money. It would be hard on the fans who travel and the logistics would have to change, but the money would be great.

I meant that the public would have trouble accepting a team losing three games and being sent to the championship game over some teams that were undefeated and had one loss. Creating a power ranking would allow the BCS to work fairly for all teams, but the people would really raise hell about which teams would be sent to the championship game over other teams with fewer losses.

We already have computer power rankings assisting the BCS. How, other than on the field of play, do we determine if that three loss team is better than the one loss team?

[Spence]

We don't have a power ranking that is anywhere close to being accurate because you have to have comparable scheduling to be accurate.

[RazorHawk]

We don't have a power ranking that is anywhere close to being accurate because you have to have comparable scheduling to be accurate.

So then, there really is no way to do this. Comparable scheduling could only be done by the elimination of all conferences and grouping in super-conferences. This IMO would be more detrimental than a playoff.

[Jason G]

No, a playoff is financially feasible for the schools. They would make more money by having 54 teams not go to post season. A ton more money. It would be hard on the fans who travel and the logistics would have to change, but the money would be great.

I meant that the public would have trouble accepting a team losing three games and being sent to the championship game over some teams that were undefeated and had one loss. Creating a power ranking would allow the BCS to work fairly for all teams, but the people would really raise hell about which teams would be sent to the championship game over other teams with fewer losses.

We already have computer power rankings assisting the BCS. How, other than on the field of play, do we determine if that three loss team is better than the one loss team?

Therein is another problem. I honestly believe that in most years you cannot say that one team is "better" than every other. Football is game of matchups. While I school like Ohio State may match up well against the likes of a Michigan State or TCU they may not against a team like Wisconsin, while at the same time Wisconsin has trouble matching up with those same TCU and MSU squads but not against Ohio State. How can you say one is best when really it just comes down to how each team matches up with every other team?

Billybud, I understand what you are saying about the marketing and people being more comfortable with what they have in a known name. I just don't think that should play a factor if you want rankings to be truly objective and/or as unbiased as possible. That is why I'd rather have a computer ranking whose formula is determined prior to any games being played, while it may not be possible for all biases to be removed even with computer rankings it at least most likely wouldn't always intentionally favor the same teams year after year.

[Spence]

We don't have a power ranking that is anywhere close to being accurate because you have to have comparable scheduling to be accurate.

So then, there really is no way to do this. Comparable scheduling could only be done by the elimination of all conferences and grouping in super-conferences. This IMO would be more detrimental than a playoff.

You could do it with just the OOC scheduling being changed, but it would take away all choice of OOC games by the schools.