WoVeU wrote: If you are going to have a champion and no playoff then I feel the whole thing should work to figure out the best TEAM. And that is not always going to align with a NC game that pits the best 2 teams against each other. Because with no playoff, that is still based on perception.
Yes & No;
Even a playoff does not necessarily give you teams that are the Best teams. Which means the perception of who is in the playoff, deserves to be there, is also subjective. The criteria that got them in is what shapes our opinion of them.
Do you implant a team because they won their conference.
Do you allow teams with an overall best record.
You can win your conference and not have the best record. When Texas played USC for the title, it was clear we had the best two teams in the land.
But, before the Championship game, Texas had to play Colorado for the Big XII title.
Texas was undefeated @ 11-0 (8-0 in conference) , Colorado was 7-4 (4-4 in conference).
Had Colorado won the game, the Buffaloes would have been in the playoff, because they would have won the conference title game to become the Big XII champions.
Texas, who had beat Colorado in the regular season that year, would have been 2cnd in the Conference.
.
WoVeU wrote:f a team beats another team in their house, even in 9 overtimes...the evidence says the winning team is the better team. A rematch is a 2nd bite at the apple, but it is more than that. It isn't just a chance to reprove...it is a chance to go .500...and .500 is a line that things tend toward. If you have 2 teams that are close, even rather close....the .500 outcome is very likely.
And I am okay with that.
The problem I see, is that Oklahoma St has the same record at 10-1 as Alabama.
Assuming Oklahoma St is
not getting a second bite of the apple because they haven't yet played LSU is just as subjective.
Oklahoma St also lost. Why does it matter that the team they lost to was not LSU?
Because of the same perception that says you don't want to see a rematch.
From a truly objective point of view; remove the names of the teams who you are attempting to show case in the National Title game --- now apply these numbers to your algorithm --- #2 lost to #1, #3 lost to unranked team (I am using the #3 ranking as Oklahoma St, as Arkansas lost yesterday).
Tell me what your numerical values leave you with.
.
WoVeU wrote:1) There has to be an odd number of games to determine who is the better of 2 teams (1, 3, 5...). The only exception is round robin play, and for that system to be deterministic the math says playing everyone more than once, where 2 or 4 is acceptable.
The problem with a round robin system, is the 12 weeks of play. No match ups outside of conference, except for those conferences with less than 12 teams (that is, in an odd number of games).
To make a system where everyone in conference plays twice, you would have to have 6 team conferences (to ensure an odd number of conference games), which I doubt anyone would find interesting. (I for one, would no longer watch College Football under those circumstances)
.
WoVeU wrote:History and mankind has said this works to a very acceptable level. Note that the FBS is the only entity in sports that tries to subvert this system.
The FCS is not watched by many people. It is not a desirable product. So, that comparison is weak.
I assume then, you refer to other forms of sports. But, basketball can do so with the number of games played. NFL can do so, because of the number of teams they have.
120 teams, conferences with 8-10-12-14 teams makes this a non possibility.
.
WoVeU wrote:2) There is only 1 permissible 2nd bite that should be allowed, and that bite happens to correlate with the only situation in the FBS where a playoff exists at all, a Conference Championship game. And that is not a NC affair, it is an external factor that is used to help in deciding who should be the Champ, or play for it, along with other things. And teams do not get to gripe about whether it is fair or not because they signed on.
Yes, and it is the same thing as saying, these conferences signed on with the BCS, knowing this sort of situation was something that could potentially happen.
And it almost happened in 2001 (Oklahoma/Nebraska), and in 2006 (Michigan/Ohio St).
This is something conference affiliates are aware of. They stayed with the BCS, and have tweaked the rules each time they feel it needs to be fixed. But, they agree to those terms, in which revisions to the system have been laid out; even the ones which create these types of scenarios.
.
WoVeU wrote: If you don't like it, take it up with your conference
I suppose that is my point, because the conference decided this system was suffice, and agreed to it.
.
WoVeU wrote:the BCS ask is asking them for their best team....how they determine it is on them. And no system should try to take the greater to resolve the lesser, when that lesser is supposed to lead a better input to the greater. Never try use an input as an output or vice versa. To that, there is no way 2 teams from the same conference should EVER play for the NC. If your conference didn't determine who is the best between 2 teams, that is on them.
The BCS is asking for the best from each of the BCS affiliated conferences to play in 5 games; not solely the National Championship.
The BCS is asking for the Best Two teams in the nation for the National Title game.
If those two teams happen to be in the same conference . . . so be it.
.
WoVeU wrote: You can't make the local problem the national problem. To do so you are saying, we will use the NC to determine who was the better of 12 teams rather than 120!!!
At what point has the BCS ever been about 120 teams.
The BCS only ranks teams 1-25. Even then, they are only obligated to the top 5. As a BCS bowl does not have to take non BCS affiliated teams who are ranked 6-25.
It is a national platform, teams such as Oklahoma St, Stanford, Va Tech have all had the same opportunity, based upon the same criteria.
Wins/Losses
Who you beat
Who you lose to
All of those other teams had the exact same opportunity.
er, except for Houston . . . but I did not include them above, so . . .
.
WoVeU wrote:3) "We are the best!" "No, we are the best!" This is the can you open when you get 2 bites (or 4 or 6). We can take a system that has errors by design and introduce yet another error. Because in a rematch, especially one that happens after the season development period (like after game 4 and maybe 5) one team's best possible outcome is to draw even. Thus, effectually, you now only have 1 team playing for the NC. In that only 1 team can come out of a rematch game and be clearly declared the best!
And losing is losing, even if the team is or is not a conference game. W's & L's.
If Oklahoma St, Stanford, Virginia Tech had all won that extra game; they would not be subjugated to the criticism they have, and would be ahead of Alabama.
By assuming these teams who also lost, just, it being to someone other than LSU, is not getting a second bite, still, "[b]
very much correlates with the subjectivity and argumentation[/b]".
.
WoVeU wrote:The whole system is an ornate filtering process.
The problem and argument only comes in when people are answering 2 different questions, is the last layer in determining the best team, or is it a venue to pit the perceived 2 "best" teams against each other.
Yes, it is a filtering process.
And that process is, by the system, to showcase the Two Best teams against one-another.
It is not a playoff. Which is why it is not to determine who the best teams might possibly be, by facing that team against a random ranked team, simply to avois a rematch.
.
.
.
