truebuckeye99 wrote:

cincydawg4 wrote:

SOBuck wrote: The polls are manipulated by the voters.

Amazing and perceptive comment.

LOL!!!!! SOBuck is a clown.

When Ohio State played LSU in the NCG Georgia was the in the logical position in the polls to play in the championship game and the reason given for LSU jumping them was that Georgia didn't win their conference. Last year Alabama didn't win their conference and they played for the championship. If that is not manipulation of the polls by voters I don't know what is. They don't even follow their own precedent.

You need to change your name to truedomerfan and change boards. You are the clown.

cincydawg4 wrote: I'm kinda content with the four team thing, at least to see how it plays out.  I tend to think that may be optimal all things considered.  We'll see.

Eight teams, I believe, is the best. If you're going to vote on the teams (a bad idea), it's much better to argue on #8 vs #9 than #4 vs #5, simply because there will be years when the #4 team might actually win it all, and that team shouldn't be left out. JMO.

A problem with 8 teams is that it makes the "best team" statistically unlikely to win.

That's the problem with a system that attempts to rank a team "the best" without even playing a game. Then, it uses complete bias and indefensible concepts like transitive law, strength of conference, flawed and convoluted "computer models" and best of all biased and often disinterested coaches to come to the conclusion regarding who are the two "best teams."

There is no value placed on the collective determination of "best team" in any other sport, college or pro - especially before any game is even played. That's why you have two seasons, regular season where you get to prove that you are worthy of making the playoffs and a playoff season, where you get to prove it on the field.

Your assumption is based on whether it is possible to even determine a best team under the current system, which it can't. Fact is, any of the top teams can beat each other on any given day.

A system that stacks the deck against other teams based on factors completely out of that team's control is simply not fair. OSU can't change the fact that teams in the BIG are not very good right now. Nor can they change the fact that they schedule games years in advance against teams that end up being bad when the game is played.

Does that mean OSU isn't good enough to be considered the best team? This is a very real possibility for next year. A bad OOC schedule + weak BIG = somehow not worthy if there are multiple teams with a better "resume." It is completely illogical. A playoff system removes most of this. There's always going to be an argument and collateral damage on the back end of the bracket, just like NCAA BB every year, but the positives far outweigh the negatives.

A multiple team playoff (at least 8) assures that deserving teams that were unfairly determined to not be "the best" have an opportunity to win it all. That is the only fair way.

You can argue how many teams should be included, but it is clear that removing the subjective determination of "best" and making teams earn their position, like almost every other sport on the planet, is much fairer than the current system.

cincydawg4 wrote: A problem with 8 teams is that it makes the "best team" statistically unlikely to win.

Last edited 1/5/2013 7:33 AM by KMSbuck

KMSbuck wrote: 

Your assumption is based on whether it is possible to even determine a best team under the current system, which it can't. Fact is, any of the top teams can beat each other on any given day.

This is my point.  You end up with a "playoff champion" in any playoff, which in any 8 team situation will likely NOT be the "best team".

By "best team", I mean the true "best team" known only by omniscience.  It could be the 2 seed or the 3 seed or whatever because seeding is done by humans.

Let's imagine this "best team" is a 3 seed, playing the 6 seed out of the gate.  The chances are that the 3 seed will win, but there is a significant chance they will lose despite being the "true best team".  Let's imagine that chance is 25%.

Then this team, if it wins, plays the 4 seed, for exmaple, and the chances it will win are say 70%.  The chances of winning both games are not barely 50% and you still have another game to play.  Say in that final game the 3 seed has a 65% chance of winning.  Now their chances of winning 3 games against tough competition are less than half.

The point should be that basing any system on a season long determination of "best team" is flawed, irrelevant and unfair.

Fact is, there is no objective way to determine best team, which is why every other sport chooses to have a playoff system.

cincydawg4 wrote:

KMSbuck wrote: 

Your assumption is based on whether it is possible to even determine a best team under the current system, which it can't. Fact is, any of the top teams can beat each other on any given day.

This is my point.  You end up with a "playoff champion" in any playoff, which in any 8 team situation will likely NOT be the "best team".

By "best team", I mean the true "best team" known only by omniscience.  It could be the 2 seed or the 3 seed or whatever because seeding is done by humans.

Let's imagine this "best team" is a 3 seed, playing the 6 seed out of the gate.  The chances are that the 3 seed will win, but there is a significant chance they will lose despite being the "true best team".  Let's imagine that chance is 25%.

Then this team, if it wins, plays the 4 seed, for exmaple, and the chances it will win are say 70%.  The chances of winning both games are not barely 50% and you still have another game to play.  Say in that final game the 3 seed has a 65% chance of winning.  Now their chances of winning 3 games against tough competition are less than half.

A playoff is no more objective than any other system, it merely determines a "playoff champion", which is objective, but not determinative of anything else.

You would have some years where in 8 seed won those three games, in some cases having lost  twice to the 1 seed during the regular season.  ANY means of determining a "best team" is flawed short of playing hundreds of matches.

Every system has issues.  I personally think a four team playoff is the best overall compromise between a lot of issues.

cincydawg4 wrote: A playoff is no more objective than any other system, it merely determines a "playoff champion", which is objective, but not determinative of anything else.

You would have some years where in 8 seed won those three games, in some cases having lost  twice to the 1 seed during the regular season.  ANY means of determining a "best team" is flawed short of playing hundreds of matches.

Every system has issues.  I personally think a four team playoff is the best overall compromise between a lot of issues.

Way more unlikely to happen in the college ranks than the current system of leaving out the third ranked team.  Leaving out the 'best team' b/c of the time of the year of a loss, which we do now, makes no sense.

I'd rather have a 'playoff champion' than having beauty contest filled with spin and rhetoric meaning more than on field results.

A playoff is way more objective, if you're structure is clear...certain conference champs and a couple at large seeds.  You know exactly what you have to do to qualify, and you DON"T have to worry about what teams who you don't face are doing.  What in the world does the strength of the SEC have to do with how good Ohio St. is?

The question for me is whether a four team playoff is better than an eight team playoff.

I favor the former for reasons stated. 

Many favor the latter, or even 16 team playoffs.  I think those have some "issues" people overlook.

cincydawg4 wrote: A problem with 8 teams is that it makes the "best team" statistically unlikely to win.

I see your point, but OTOH, playoffs are like democracy - the worst system, except for all the others.

But please do drop a note to the NFL, the NBA, MLB, NHL, even the US Olympic Committee, and let them know they're doing it wrong

cincydawg4 wrote: This is my point.  You end up with a "playoff champion" in any playoff, which in any 8 team situation will likely NOT be the "best team".

By "best team", I mean the true "best team" known only by omniscience.  It could be the 2 seed or the 3 seed or whatever because seeding is done by humans.

Let's imagine this "best team" is a 3 seed, playing the 6 seed out of the gate.  The chances are that the 3 seed will win, but there is a significant chance they will lose despite being the "true best team".  Let's imagine that chance is 25%.

Then this team, if it wins, plays the 4 seed, for exmaple, and the chances it will win are say 70%.  The chances of winning both games are not barely 50% and you still have another game to play.  Say in that final game the 3 seed has a 65% chance of winning.  Now their chances of winning 3 games against tough competition are less than half.

But those are just theoretical statistics. How can anyone guarantee or even guess they're accurate in the real world, ie, on the field?

At the same time, the difference is, in a playoff situation, every team knows going in what the rules are. They win, or go home. That's far better than the current system, or the upcoming system, which is: win, or maybe go home, unless you can lobby the voters, or your conference has done well, or hasn't done well, or the voter has a stomach ache, or the voter doesn't think your team ran the ball enough (ie, as much as he, the voter, thinks they should have), or because this team beat that team blah blah blah (look at Herbie voting Ohio State very low a few years ago), and so on.

That IS NOT fair to the kids, and this is supposed to be about them.

I am going to side with CINCY on this...Logically, 8 teams are better than 4...Logic has never interfered with my thinking before   1st, the number one thing to me is that you must win your coinference...even if you are unanimously the best team by voters, computers, whatever...If we are 12-0 & lose in Indianapolis to a 9-3 Michigan State team, we know we are not going to the Rose Bowl because those are the rules & we knew that going in..we won't be bawling like babies over it....Yes, the more teams the more likely it is you include the best team  ( whomever that is ?)...The NCAA  has 66 or something & they still argue....The NFL, NBA , NCAA have playoffs with a whole lot more than 4 teams  ( SEE$$$$$MONEY$$$$), but the wild card has won the NFL  more than once...those systems are better for the teams that are good at the end of the  year...a 9-7 Giants can beat a 16-0 Patriots..UCONN can win the NCAA men's after being 9th in the Big East......the fewer teams the more important the regular season is...we are playing in Champaign this afternoon.. Does anybody feel nervous?  .Yes, we want the Bucks to win...but it isn't do or die...we are not nervous wrecks this morning talking about Simon's triceps or Rod Smith fumbling.. we hope Thomas or Carr or Lenzell get hot hands....but we aren't arguing over zone or man to man....in football, every game is so important we argue over everything...we still argue over Tressel!     ....we know we are going to the NCAA no matter what...the 4 team, conference champs only makes all 12 games super important...& that is why I prefer...and Go Bucks!...

OleLardbelly wrote: ...the 4 team, conference champs only makes all 12 games super important...

The four team playoff under consideration is not conference champs only, though. It's a "selection committee" (translation: a group of "voters"). So you'll have almost certainly have politics again, rather than settling it on the field.

SOBuck wrote: The polls are manipulated by the voters.

Grassy knoll. Grassy knoll.

Wait until the SEC gets 3 teams in a 4 team playoff. The pundits this year were suggesting 3 SEC teams plus Notepre Dame. I vomited a little.
---------------------------------------------
--- ohio4president wrote:

played bama....

had notre dame got beat by USC/pitt makes that field goal?

very similar to last year that we just assume Bama is a better fit in the title game than Stanford/ Okie state.

perception determines everything.

at least a 4 team playoff will help this somewhat

---------------------------------------------

KMSbuck wrote: That's the problem with a system that attempts to rank a team "the best" without even playing a game. Then, it uses complete bias and indefensible concepts like transitive law, strength of conference, flawed and convoluted "computer models" and best of all biased and often disinterested coaches to come to the conclusion regarding who are the two "best teams."

There is no value placed on the collective determination of "best team" in any other sport, college or pro - especially before any game is even played. That's why you have two seasons, regular season where you get to prove that you are worthy of making the playoffs and a playoff season, where you get to prove it on the field.

Your assumption is based on whether it is possible to even determine a best team under the current system, which it can't. Fact is, any of the top teams can beat each other on any given day.

A system that stacks the deck against other teams based on factors completely out of that team's control is simply not fair. OSU can't change the fact that teams in the BIG are not very good right now. Nor can they change the fact that they schedule games years in advance against teams that end up being bad when the game is played.

Does that mean OSU isn't good enough to be considered the best team? This is a very real possibility for next year. A bad OOC schedule + weak BIG = somehow not worthy if there are multiple teams with a better "resume." It is completely illogical. A playoff system removes most of this. There's always going to be an argument and collateral damage on the back end of the bracket, just like NCAA BB every year, but the positives far outweigh the negatives.

A multiple team playoff (at least 8) assures that deserving teams that were unfairly determined to not be "the best" have an opportunity to win it all. That is the only fair way.

You can argue how many teams should be included, but it is clear that removing the subjective determination of "best" and making teams earn their position, like almost every other sport on the planet, is much fairer than the current system.

 

Well said.

---------------------------------------------
--- DeepSthBoy wrote:

SOBuck wrote: The polls are manipulated by the voters.

Grassy knoll. Grassy knoll.

---------------------------------------------
maybe you care to explain why LSU jumped Georgia to play in the 2007 NCG and then last year letting a team that didn't win their conference play for it. The polls the BCS uses are a joke. The coaches don't vote. If they did, they never see most games and the Harris is the " lets do what ESPN says" poll.
That is the problem with seeding playoff teams based on a poll.

SOBuck wrote:


maybe you care to explain why LSU jumped Georgia to play in the 2007 NCG and then last year letting a team that didn't win their conference play for it. The polls the BCS uses are a joke. The coaches don't vote. If they did, they never see most games and the Harris is the " lets do what ESPN says" poll.
That is the problem with seeding playoff teams based on a poll.

LSU jumped Georgia because the pollsters stepped back and viewed the "body or work" rather than penalizing LSU for that late loss to Arkansas more than an early season loss.  There was no obvious right answer that year, I think, so the voters looked at the entirety of the situation.

VaTech was out at 11-2 because they had been demolished by LSU earlier in the year.  Georgia was 10-2 and actually moved DOWN to fifth (not that it mattered).  LSU was 11-2 with a decent CG win over Tennessee.  Kansas was 11-1 but had beaten no one of note.

They were basically left with LSU.

Any playoff is going to be seeded by some arbitrary measure without some huge changes in how things are today.

That is a reasonable explanation, just not the one used at the time. It also doesn't explain last year after in 2006 scUM lost to the number 1 team why they didn't get another shot. There are many contradictions in the polls. Those are some obvious bad ones.

cincydawg4 wrote: The question for me is whether a four team playoff is better than an eight team playoff.

For me, it's to make sure every very worthy team is included.  That doesn't happen with a four team-vote based system.  The 'best team' is NEVER a known, so chasing that white rabbit makes almost no sense to me.  To exclude a once beaten team from a major conference is much more critical to avoid than trying to eliminate teams who don't deserve to be there.  This isn't the NFL.  The teams are not that closely matched.  Unworthy teams will simply be beaten at some point over a three game stretch against top 8 opponents.  I can't think of the last time a 'fraud' beat three straight top ten teams in consecutive weeks.