The way the college football post season should look
 

1. USC
16. Arkansas State

9. Auburn
8. Miami

5. Oregon
12. Florida State

13. Boise State
4. Ohio State

3. Penn State
14. Tulsa

11. TCU
6. Notre Dame

7. Georgia
10. West Virginia

15. Akron
2.Texas

Re: The way the college football post season should look
 

Arkansas State?

Re: The way the college football post season should look
 

Meh, 4 weeks of playoffs?

I really like the 4-team system. You're just looking for every undefeated team that's played a reasonably hard schedule, the tier 1 teams, the best teams in the league.

Re: The way the college football post season should look
 

I would love 8 or even 16 teams. The excitement for even those first round games would be out of this world. And I really don't see any reason why you couldn't still have the other bowls still being played outside of the playoff. I mean, is the freaking Outback Bowl isn't going to be less significant b/c there is an 8 team playoff going on as well. It is still better than going to no bowl at all, the school still gets money, the kids get a trip, city gets $$ etc. Rotate the 8 team playoff through what are now the BCS bowls or even give the highest seeds home field in the first round. There are so many ways to do this but the bottom line is that more interest would be generated for every bowl associated with the playoff and the others would remain constant. If the Fiesta Bowl and Orange Bowl were semifinals this year they would bring in more $$$ easily.

Re: The way the college football post season should look
 

Why should Texas and USC be penalized for their great season, 14 (6) other teams should not start on equal ground? Why should losers get another chance?

We already had an 11 game playoff...nothing else is needed. This is the one sport that settles it on the field over a whole season. NCAA basketball, for example, settles it by who runs hot over the final 3 weekends.

Re: The way the college football post season should look
 

Except for the two unbeaten teams who didn't get to settle it on the field last year. I'd rather see a one loss team win it all in a playoff than see a zero loss team never get their shot.

Re: The way the college football post season should look
 

Playoffs are gay. every sport marginalizes their regular season (also know as 90% of the games) into what becomes a crap shoot.

Second, I will watch every bowl game that I possibly can this year, because there all bowl games. However, if there was a playoff I wouldn't watch a single one, just like I don't watch the post season NIT.

Ken

Re: The way the college football post season should look
 

It makes no sense to give the sun belt champ an automatic bid.

Re: The way the college football post season should look
 

[ QUOTE ]
Playoffs are gay. every sport marginalizes their regular season (also know as 90% of the games) into what becomes a crap shoot.

Second, I will watch every bowl game that I possibly can this year, because there all bowl games. However, if there was a playoff I wouldn't watch a single one, just like I don't watch the post season NIT.

Ken

[/ QUOTE ]

so, you don't think head-to-head play is the best way to find out who the better team is?

Re: The way the college football post season should look
 

[ QUOTE ]

so, you don't think head-to-head play is the best way to find out who the better team is?

[/ QUOTE ]

Uhhh... no.

Re: The way the college football post season should look
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

so, you don't think head-to-head play is the best way to find out who the better team is?

[/ QUOTE ]

Uhhh... no.

[/ QUOTE ]

well, I think if you want to find out who's better, Team A or Team B, the best way to find out is to have them play each other.

you would rather look at the #'s and try to infer who's better?

Re: The way the college football post season should look
 

Limiting yourself to just a head to head match is idiotic. You have to consider all the data.

Re: The way the college football post season should look
 

[ QUOTE ]
Limiting yourself to just a head to head match is idiotic. You have to consider all the data.

[/ QUOTE ]

why do I need to consider all the data? why do I need to consider any data?

maybe we have a philosophical difference on the point of the playoffs.

the 01 Rams dominated the 01 Pats in various stats that year. if they played that Super Bowl 10 times, the Rams probably win 7. but none of that really matters to me. did the Rams have a better season? Yep. Were they more talented? yep.

but could they step up, make key adjustments in the heat of the moment, and play their best when they needed to, on the one day of the year that really mattered?

No. so they were not deserving champions.

Re: The way the college football post season should look
 

jstnrgrs,

What you must consider is that the machine that is the College Football bowl season is a cash cow. No one will watch USC vs. Ark State. Sure, it might be nice to have some of those conference champions of the weaker conferences in there to make them feel like D1A teams, when in reality, they aren't. Big Matchups between Big teams are what people want to see. Sure, it's nice to throw in an underdog in there, but they sure as hell better be undefeated (see 2004 Utes).

Re: The way the college football post season should look
 

[ QUOTE ]
It makes no sense to give the sun belt champ an automatic bid.

[/ QUOTE ]

If there were a 16 team playoff, I think it would make sense to give EVERY conference champ an automatic bid. Otherwise you REALLY are marginalizing the regular season.

Re: The way the college football post season should look
 

[ QUOTE ]
jstnrgrs,

What you must consider is that the machine that is the College Football bowl season is a cash cow. No one will watch USC vs. Ark State. Sure, it might be nice to have some of those conference champions of the weaker conferences in there to make them feel like D1A teams, when in reality, they aren't. Big Matchups between Big teams are what people want to see. Sure, it's nice to throw in an underdog in there, but they sure as hell better be undefeated (see 2004 Utes).

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, of course the 1 vs 16 game isn't likely to get much interest, but that will always be the case. It gives a team (who did win their conference) a chance. There would be planty of great matchups in the first round, and in the later rounds, the match-ups would be fantastic.

Re: The way the college football post season should look
 

arkansas state isn't even one of the 100 best teams in the nation!

Re: The way the college football post season should look
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It makes no sense to give the sun belt champ an automatic bid.

[/ QUOTE ]

If there were a 16 team playoff, I think it would make sense to give EVERY conference champ an automatic bid. Otherwise you REALLY are marginalizing the regular season.

[/ QUOTE ]

if there were a 16 team playoff, it should include the 16 best teams in the country, regardless of conference.

peronnally, I think an 8 team, or even 4 game playoff is ideal. no more than 4 or 8 teams can ever lay claim to having a great season.

Re: The way the college football post season should look
 

You're overglorifying the head to head matchup. It's not all adjustments and desire, etc. It's also the way an oblong ball bounces, how well a ref sees a play, and plenty of other things. There's plenty of variance involved in football, too. <insert poker metaphor>

Re: The way the college football post season should look
 

[ QUOTE ]
arkansas state isn't even one of the 100 best teams in the nation!

[/ QUOTE ]

Peter Wolfe (my favorite of the computer rankings) has them at 97.

Their low ranking is the reason that they would be matched up against USC.

If everyone really prefer's a system in which only the best teams get in, then I think that the system we have, or one of my many other (much more radical) suggestions would be the way to go.

Re: The way the college football post season should look
 

The number of teams should be 6. So that the #1 and #2 teams that are supposed to play for the Nat'l championship get a bye for finsihing as #1 and #2. This would also keep the auto birth of the BCS alive as the top 6 teams would get in.

Re: The way the college football post season should look
 

[ QUOTE ]
Limiting yourself to just a head to head match is idiotic. You have to consider all the data.

[/ QUOTE ]

the point of sporting events is to win. all the other data is worthless.

Re: The way the college football post season should look
 

Except it better predicts who will win next time around, or if you played for more than one match.

Variance happens, the more data you introduce, the less variance there is.

Re: The way the college football post season should look
 

[ QUOTE ]
Except it better predicts who will win next time around, or if you played for more than one match.

[/ QUOTE ]

but, that stuff doesn't matter. sports aren't played b/c of what might happen the next time around, or in a computer simulation. they're played on the field, between whistles.

Re: The way the college football post season should look
 

Just because Miami beat Denver doesn't mean Miami's better than Denver.

One game is so susceptible to variance.

Re: The way the college football post season should look
 

[ QUOTE ]
Just because Miami beat Denver doesn't mean Miami's better than Denver.

One game is so susceptible to variance.

[/ QUOTE ]

And having to win EVERY game isn't?

Re: The way the college football post season should look
 

That's also true, plus SOS considerations. So, you look at all the data and pick the best teams, and make sure they're good.

Re: The way the college football post season should look
 

[ QUOTE ]
Just because Miami beat Denver doesn't mean Miami's better than Denver.

One game is so susceptible to variance.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why bother playing the games then?

Re: The way the college football post season should look
 

Wait, you're going to actually sit there and try to say that Denver is worse than Miami?

Are you surrious?

Re: The way the college football post season should look
 

[ QUOTE ]
Wait, you're going to actually sit there and try to say that Denver is worse than Miami?

Are you surrious?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, I failed to notice the change to NFL. Of course Denver is better than Miami. I say that because of results form games that have actually played. Not because of some extranous data (like MOV).

Re: The way the college football post season should look
 

They need playoffs bottom line. When they have that I will start watching these bowl games.

Re: The way the college football post season should look
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Wait, you're going to actually sit there and try to say that Denver is worse than Miami?

Are you surrious?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, I failed to notice the change to NFL. Of course Denver is better than Miami. I say that because of results form games that have actually played. Not because of some extranous data (like MOV).

[/ QUOTE ]

Um, but Miami crushed Denver in the opener.

Re: The way the college football post season should look
 

How about a 16 thread playoff for the best thread about how College football should be.
It might be hard to get down to 16 threads though.

Re: The way the college football post season should look
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Wait, you're going to actually sit there and try to say that Denver is worse than Miami?

Are you surrious?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, I failed to notice the change to NFL. Of course Denver is better than Miami. I say that because of results form games that have actually played. Not because of some extranous data (like MOV).

[/ QUOTE ]

Um, but Miami crushed Denver in the opener.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why are you only considering one game?

I am considering the results of all games that have been played, and nothing else.

It doesn't take a fancy computer predictor to show that Denver is better than Maimi. Just look at their win / loss record.

Re: The way the college football post season should look
 

[ QUOTE ]
Why are you only considering one game?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's what I've been asking you all thread.

[ QUOTE ]
I am considering the results of all games that have been played, and nothing else.

It doesn't take a fancy computer predictor to show that Denver is better than Maimi. Just look at their win / loss record.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, it's a good thing everybody plays the same schedule as everybody else, right? And it's a good thing every win is equally indicative of a team's ability, right?

NOBODY ranks people by W/L records alone. Everyone adjusts for competition, margin of victory, how a team looks, etc. It's just that a computer does it much better than we can.