Posted: Today 8:05 AM
lowiq wrote: yugo i agree with most of your post but one thing stands out like a sore thumb.why should it be the 4 best conference champs OR notre dame?at the end of the season if its determined notre dame is one of the 4 best teams then i have zero problem with them being in even though they have won no conference title.if they dont have to win a conference then why should ANYBODY else have to?this isnt an anti irish rant either.....and i have gone on record saying i would PREFER it to be 4 different conference teams.....but at the same time if they dont have to win a conference than why does anyone else?are they THAT much more important than every other school?
Posted: Yesterday 3:59 PM
These is more than one issue at play. Two that I can see are one, the integrity of ESPN considering its conflict of interest position, and second, the optimization and integrity of the system to select the four teams for the playoff.First, it appears to me that ESPN is in a conflict of interest position. First, they want to be viewed as the expert that is able to provide an unbiased view. Second, they want to make a profit from their agreements with various conferences. My view is that you can't have both and maintain integrity for both - you can easily end up with no integrity for either of the two.In terms of the playoffs selection. We can go about trying to select the four best teams but there is no real objective criteria to determine who the four best teams are. There are a bunch of things that you can look at to formulate an opinion and to support your opinion. The question of which are the four best teams to determine a national champion should be based upon as much objective data as possible and provide the highest probability that the best team wins the national championship. The tradeoff between One, ending up with the best team winning the playoffs and Two, having the four best teams in the playoff should favor ending up with the best team winning the playoffs. The conferences have a relatively objective way to determine who is the best team in the conference. Which is the best conference is based upon a lot of subjective criteria. Since the conference has determined the best team from its conference, having two teams from the same conference doesn't prove anything or very little. In fact it undermines the conference in determining which is the best team from the conference. Comparisons between conference champions is based upon a very limited amount of data and normally games that were played at the beginning of the season. Since this comparison is so subjective, it is the weak link in the chain of selecting teams. With only four teams and so many conferences, choose the four best conference champions to increase the integrity of the playoff. If you do that, who really cares how many SEC teams you put in the top 25. Just put all the SEC teams in the top if that is what the SEC and ESPN want - it is a meaningless ranking - just like the preseason polls. The system of playing games, determining division and conference champions and the playoff system should be optimized to determine the best team. If the system does that, I could care less about what the SEC and ESPN have to say. I don't watch ESPN to listen to their propaganda; I watch ESPN to view the games, results of the day and game highlights. The other stuff is what Disneyland and Mickey Mouse is all about - entertainment, fantasy and making money. To optimize the system, you select the four best conference champions unless you have some overwhelming and objective reason to select an independent team. The playoff games and other bowl games will give us some indication of who the best conference is. If teams from the same conference play each other, at the end of the day, we have reduced our ability to have objective criteria in selecting the best team as the national champion. A conference that was subjectively excluded could have been objectively represented.