The playoff rankings are retarded...
- Thread starter sadgator
- Start date
I agree mostly with giving more weight to better wins over better losses. They seem to usually do that but not always.
Michigan loses to Iowa and is still #3? Wtf? And it isn't really even the top 4 that is the most screwed up. It is 7-25 that is just filled with nonsense. There is no rhyme or reason as to how much teams move up or down or where they are ranked. You can't have a system that is so arbitrary and has such little predictability week to week...the polls even do it better.
(better maybe, but not by much imo)
I'm with you on this one sg (CFP),,, overall or even just among the SEC teams.
CFP Rankings:
15. AU (7-3 5-2)
16. LSU (6-3 4-2)
23. UF (7-2 5-2)
W UGA 10 - 24 UF (+14) - UF beats UGA convincingly.
L AU 07 - 13 UGA (+6) - then AU loses to UGA
L LSU 13 - 18 AU (+5) - and LSU loses to AU
===========
19. Tn (7-3 3-3)
23. UF (7-2 5-2)
UF 28 - 38 @ Tn (+10)
UF 20 - 7 SCa (-13) and it should have been 41 - 7...
Tn 21 - 24 SCa (+3) tennis-sea loses at home to SCa!
===========
MsSt 27 - 14 SCa (-13)
UF - 20 - 07 SCa (-13)
MsSt 35 - 28 aTm (-7)
MsSt 38 - 40 UK (+2)
UF - 45 - 07 UK (-38)
===========
The SEC is just to 'screwy' to predict this season imo.
'On Any Saturday' has taken on a whole new meaning this season...
(7-2, 5-2) 23. UF ?? - ?? @ LSU 16. (6-3, 4-2)
I agree that the CFP Rankings are screwy with their rankings so far.
Maybe it all sorts itself out by the end, but they look clueless to me as of now.
Last edited:
Well I'm glad we let humans and all their biases decide instead of letting unbiased computers decide. You playoff guys are getting what you deserve. We literally had his same thing pre-BCS which is why everyone complained for the computers to begin with and we decided to go backwards.
We just need to make it 8 it would be much easier, of course people would think it would make the games less important and interesting... i've never really talked much about this stuff on either side but I think an 8 team playoff would be amazing tv and since all they care about is money, it would be the perfect solution for them. That way you could really get the matchups everyone wants on a yearly basis with pretty much two big money schools from each big conference going at it for a chance at it all instead of just the Sugar Bowl or Fiesta bowls that are meaning less and less each season now because of guys about to go pro. Imagine two SEC teams and two Big teams a year giving the people what they want on new years eve or split it into two full days and tear the house down... You could have for example on one day, UF vs ohio State, and OU vs FSU.. then another day have Michigan vs Bama and then whoever was left over like this year Washington vs UL.. That would be pretty good to me as a football junkie then the final four would be more intriguing and have more build up after the first round of playoff games like the Final Four in basketball.. but like i said it's just a random idea i never really put much thought into these things or agree or disagree
Way back in 1999 I called for an 8 team playoff. (and I do like Dr. Pepper)
I was told back then that a playoff would NEVER happen at all, the Bowl system controlled everything because of the $$ involved.
Multiple Media-Moron Polls, plus a few 'other' organizations, determined the mythical NC.
Then we had the BCS.
Now a 4 team playoff, with teams determined by a load of mostly committee idiots.
My suggestion was also not perfect, but I still think that it was better than anything that's been put in place so far.
The Power 5 Conference Champs (no voting needed), plus the next 3 highest ranked teams (allows the media-morons their votes), regardless of conference or independents, across all of D-1.
I was told back then that a playoff would NEVER happen at all, the Bowl system controlled everything because of the $$ involved.
Multiple Media-Moron Polls, plus a few 'other' organizations, determined the mythical NC.
Then we had the BCS.
Now a 4 team playoff, with teams determined by a load of mostly committee idiots.
My suggestion was also not perfect, but I still think that it was better than anything that's been put in place so far.
The Power 5 Conference Champs (no voting needed), plus the next 3 highest ranked teams (allows the media-morons their votes), regardless of conference or independents, across all of D-1.
Last edited:
I'll never understand why they didn't just keep the BCS format but expand it from 2 to 4 teams. I don't think people really disliked the rankings so much as that only two teams in meant two very good teams left out.
This new system is a joke.
This new system is a joke.
I think once people figure out that this format wasn't meant to be 'fair' they'll come to grips with it. The whole reason for the superconference talk and playoffs was to basically kill off all the little schools and push the NCAA aside. Which is why there was talk of a having 'college football commissioner' and the conferences making their own rules. This is about the blue bloods raking in all the cash.
That's why a Michigan can lose and not drop from 3. That's why Texas went from unranked to nearly top 10 after beating ND and on and on. They want the blue bloods high up there in rankings for TV ratings from a 4-team playoff. Why do you think they haven't even explained their criteria fully other than to say they value conference championships and quality wins? And then they turn right around and go against their own supposed formula. I'm laughing at the idea of having a bunch of people in a room with their own agendas ranking teams being more unbiased than a computer with a formula.
That's why a Michigan can lose and not drop from 3. That's why Texas went from unranked to nearly top 10 after beating ND and on and on. They want the blue bloods high up there in rankings for TV ratings from a 4-team playoff. Why do you think they haven't even explained their criteria fully other than to say they value conference championships and quality wins? And then they turn right around and go against their own supposed formula. I'm laughing at the idea of having a bunch of people in a room with their own agendas ranking teams being more unbiased than a computer with a formula.
Well they obviously haven't been paying attention to the college football landscape.....I'm seeing more parity each year....
Because we have been conditioned to use the "rankings" as a predictable measuring stick of how strong teams are relative to each other as the season moves along. The CFP rankings don't work for that level of comparison. That isn't the purpose of those rankings, and so consequently, outside of the top 4, the order and movement seems absurd in ways.
But to answer your question, it probably doesn't matter.
Decimal points should never. ever find their way into college football ever again. sadgator will gladly live with wacky rankings over that nonsense.
How so? Unless you define parity as an upset here or there. But then that isn't really parity because it's just hard to be on for 12 games a year (or 15 now), upsets have always happened. Look at the teams winning championships and going to the big bowl games...it's the same powerhouses that were there 30-40 years ago. It hasn't changed.
8 teams
5 conference champs to make season meaningul
3 at large with SOS largely considered
Committee picks 3 at large and seeds teams
5 conference champs to make season meaningul
3 at large with SOS largely considered
Committee picks 3 at large and seeds teams
How often are teams 6-8 worthy of playing for a championship? All the teams in that range now have 2 losses already and we still have games left to play. Sorry but you shouldn't get to lose 25% of your games and compete for a title, this isn't the NFL (which is losing viewers by the way). It takes all the meaning out of the games in the regular season. And then by guaranteeing a playoff spot to a conference champ you leave the door open to 3-4 loss teams winning a poor conference and still getting in, like OU may do this year. That's awful.
It was a natural evolution of the scholly reductions. Bama and ND can't have 130 kids on scholly any more. Look at how frequently somebody is able to run the table these days....
In only the rarest of years would you look at teams 6-8 and believe more than maybe one has any business playing for the title.
I have always preferred to establish who was the best team of the year.
As I've brought up before, the 2007 NFL season personifies what's wrong with this whole concept.
The undefeated, record setting Patriots lost to 10-6 New York, whom the Patriots beat in the last week of the regular season. Sure, they're the Super Bowl champ, but they were far and away the lesser team.
In 2011, a 9-7 Giants team again defeated a juggernaut Patriots team, which is even more of a sham.
Getting hot at the end of the year, despite being mediocre the rest of the time, does not make you deserving of being crowned the champion.
I have always preferred to establish who was the best team of the year.
As I've brought up before, the 2007 NFL season personifies what's wrong with this whole concept.
The undefeated, record setting Patriots lost to 10-6 New York, whom the Patriots beat in the last week of the regular season. Sure, they're the Super Bowl champ, but they were far and away the lesser team.
In 2011, a 9-7 Giants team again defeated a juggernaut Patriots team, which is even more of a sham.
Getting hot at the end of the year, despite being mediocre the rest of the time, does not make you deserving of being crowned the champion.
That's a fair point but I don't think you can credit all of that to parity. For one, we play more games now so you have more chances to lose. Used to be 9 games then it evolved to 10 then 11 and now if you make the conference title game you end up with 13 regular season games. If you make the playoffs and advance to the title game it's 15 which is basically an NFL schedule. So scholarships notwithstanding, that alone makes it harder to go undefeated now. Plus if you look back far enough you'll notice that not many teams went undefeated back then only playing 9 or 10 games. There were tons of ties and whatnot involved which is why so many teams claim titles. So that isn't really new.
Right.
Plus if the NFL type system filters down to college what's to keep coaches from using NFL type strategy to preserve their team for the playoffs? If winning my conference guarantees me a playoff birth and I wrap up a conference title appearance lets say week 10, guess what I'm doing the following weeks? Resting starters so they're healthy for the title game, like what NFL teams do when they wrap up their division.
This won't happen because too much money is involved but what they should do is go back to a 10 or 11 game regular season, keep the current playoff format and MAYBE expand it to 6, and use the BCS rankings to determine who goes. Shortening the season keeps the games important, you still get the playoff at the end, and you removed the human element.
This is what I said from the beginning!!! This 4 team crap doesn't make sense and NCAA needs a FULL BLOWN PLAYOFF SYSTEM...
Lay off the hard liqour and cocaine bro.
**takes a shot and longs for cocaine before pressing "post reply."**
Excellent point. It is a valid point that many of us fail to acknowledge. There is quite a distinction between determining the "best" team and eatablishing a "tournament champion."
sadgator is one of those people who couldn't care less about who the "best" team is. sadgator favors crowning a tournament champion. And to do so, sadgator has no problem with opening up the pool of contenders vying for it. The cream will rise to the top.
This distinction probably explains why Danny doesn't care for hoops.
That wasnt a sham imo the Giants defense just turned crazy good in the playoffs that year. Dallas had a good season that year also and that defense handled them in that playoff game.
Imo being champion is just winning by the rules period. If you cant do that then you didnt deserve to be the champion. I guess an exception might be the BCS era and when an undefeated Big 5 team got shut out of the game.
Last edited:
Not sure you are completely right about that. For example, forty years ago no Florida team was ever consistently a top ten team. Hell, of the big three, it was a rare year when two were even ranked at all.
There are certainly some teams that are in the top 10 or so now that were then. But I think there has been a quite a lot of diversity
To oozie's point;
"Next week's Iron Bowl is going to be the first casualty of the playoff. A game that normally is huge now has 0 implications" @JBradEdwards pic.twitter.com/G9syJ0CEO8
— Paul Finebaum (@finebaum) November 16, 2016
"Next week's Iron Bowl is going to be the first casualty of the playoff. A game that normally is huge now has 0 implications" @JBradEdwards pic.twitter.com/G9syJ0CEO8
— Paul Finebaum (@finebaum) November 16, 2016
Isn't that about what I've been calling for since 1999?
"The Power 5 Conference Champs (no voting needed), plus the next 3 highest ranked teams (allows the media-morons or a committee to exercise their votes), regardless of conference or independents, across all of D-1."
PS
The NFL doesn't account for SoS, they use the Division Champs instead, and if you really are deserving of the Championship, then you beat a 9-7 playoff team or just STFU.
And undefeated team with a SoS below 50 (fsu) can be the NC.
But a 2-3 loss team with a Top 5 SoS doesn't even deserve to be considered for a playoff spot.
Yeah, that seems completely fair to me alright...
Don't agree with that idea at all.
Ask either team if there are no implications. Hell, ask their fans the same thing...
IF, bama loses the Iron bowl and the SEC-C game, (not impossible, however unlikely), then they are out of the 4 team playoff, no matter how many young 5 stars they have sitting on their bench.
That is absolute horseshit. If Alabama loses to Auburn, and then loses in the SEC title game they will likely be out of the CFP. If they beat AU and either win or lose the SEC title game, they are in. It has all the meaning in the world.
And...this is MUCH more preferable than under the BCS, where Bama could lose to AU and be excluded from the national title game by a 10th of a percentage point.
Is there anybody here that believes that Bama doesn't deserve a shot to compete for the title regardless of whether or not they beat AU?!?!
The CFP at least brings some level of
order to the whole thing...
You're missing the point of the tweet. Alabama has already wrapped up their division so no, that game doesn't mean anything. As long as they win the SEC Championship they're in the playoffs. Saban would never do it because of how crazy that rivalry is in-state, but he could simply rest his starters and start preparing for the SEC Championship if he wanted to.
That's what a playoff brings us...even moreso when you guarantee a birth for a conference champion like y'all want to do in an 8 or 16 team playoff. At least now with 4 that qualifier doesn't guarantee you anything so you still have to go balls to the wall to some degree. But with 8 or 16? It doesn't matter, just win your conference no matter how many losses you have. At that point coaches will start resting players. That happens right now in CBB where all coaches care about is the tournament. Bet on it.
Latest posts
-
-
New Story No. 2 Florida Returns to SEC Action Friday at No. 15 Arkansas- Latest: JasonHigdon
-
