College Football PLayoffs - What should be the criteria for selection?

[eyekwah]

The selection committee is meeting for the first time. My feeling is that the four teams need to win their way in and the committee is there to resolve a tie for the 4th position not select the teams. There are plenty of methods and below might be one.

There needs to be measurement criteria and points awarded.

1. A teams earns 10 points for every win over a power 5 conference opponent or designated independent.
2. A team earns 8 points for every win over a FBS non-power conference opponent.
3. A team earns 5 points for every win over a FCS opponent.
4. A team earns bonus points after the completion of the season. Three points are awarded for every win over a power conference opponent with a winning record, =>7, Two points for every win over a non power conference team with a winning record, =>7, one point for every win over an FCS opponent with a winning record, =>9.
5. A team earns 2 points for each power conference win away from home over a team with a winning conference record.
6. A team earns 10 points for winning the conference championship.

The idea is to reward playing a tougher schedule and earning bonus points for beating team with winning records on the road as well as at home.

How would you do it?

 

[hawkeyebob62]

How would I do it? Depends.

Personally, I would award NEGATIVE points to teams who keep starters in during blow-out wins for the sake of victory margin, Heisman votes or humiliation. I would also take away points for every team Lou Holtz gushes over during halftime reports.

It would seem to me that the basic criteria we will see is "How do we justify 2 $EC teams make the playoff each year?", "How do we make sure Nick Saban is happy?" and "How soon can we expect the White House and Eric Holder to tell us how bad a job we are doing and issuing Executive Orders to unionize ALL schools and players?" But what do I know, maybe they'll actually pick the best teams instead

 

[kicker22]

Hadn't put much thought into it. Nothing wrong with your model, but I'm not sure I'd reward any points for victories over FCS schools. I think its time to eliminate them from schedules and as you said "reward playing a tougher schedule".

I'm a firm believer that the four schools selected better win their division and should be conference champions, regardless of any arguments about how strong the SEC is. In my opinion if your only selecting 4 spots then those 4 should be the best of the best, who've proved it by punching their ticket with a conference championship. Regardless of the argument I don't think a conferences #2 should backdoor a program that won their conference.

 

[thetrza]

I think the top two teams from each SEC division should get bids. Automatic bid for winning the SEC Championship Game, and the runner up. Another play in game for the team with the most SEC road wins, because winning on the road is tough in the SEC. Another website fan vote to get Texas A & M into the playoffs, because they win every online fan vote even in the SEC.

 

[hawkeyebob62]

I think the top two teams from each SEC division should get bids. Automatic bid for winning the SEC Championship Game, and the runner up. Another play in game for the team with the most SEC road wins, because winning on the road is tough in the SEC. Another website fan vote to get Texas A & M into the playoffs, because they win every online fan vote even in the SEC.

Winner. /thread

 

[NCHawker]

Still the sportwriters have a lot of say in who's the champion in college footba.

 

[Seth53]

The selection committee is meeting for the first time. My feeling is that the four teams need to win their way in and the committee is there to resolve a tie for the 4th position not select the teams. There are plenty of methods and below might be one.

There needs to be measurement criteria and points awarded.

1. A teams earns 10 points for every win over a power 5 conference opponent or designated independent.
2. A team earns 8 points for every win over a FBS non-power conference opponent.
3. A team earns 5 points for every win over a FCS opponent.
4. A team earns bonus points after the completion of the season. Three points are awarded for every win over a power conference opponent with a winning record, =>7, Two points for every win over a non power conference team with a winning record, =>7, one point for every win over an FCS opponent with a winning record, =>9.
5. A team earns 2 points for each power conference win away from home over a team with a winning conference record.
6. A team earns 10 points for winning the conference championship.

The idea is to reward playing a tougher schedule and earning bonus points for beating team with winning records on the road as well as at home.

How would you do it?

Excellent thread with a lot of thought put into it. I'd seriously consider sending in your ideas to the FB selection committee.
I've been a playoff fan forever. My two cents:

I like the 10 points for winning the conference championship. If a league doesn't have a champ game, then the regular season winner gets the 10 points.

The top leagues need to agree on how many in-conference games they play. A team playing 8 in-league games could potentially have an advantage over a team playing a 9-team schedule because they could schedule a "tougher" game.

Strength of Schedule is the linchpin to this process. However, as you know, scheduling 3-4 years in advance is Russian Roulette. Even the mighty Michigangers for example have crap years. Still....it's a lot better than the awful awful BCs garbage.

Nice job.

 

[JonDMiller]

The selection committee is meeting for the first time. My feeling is that the four teams need to win their way in and the committee is there to resolve a tie for the 4th position not select the teams. There are plenty of methods and below might be one.

There needs to be measurement criteria and points awarded.

1. A teams earns 10 points for every win over a power 5 conference opponent or designated independent.
2. A team earns 8 points for every win over a FBS non-power conference opponent.
3. A team earns 5 points for every win over a FCS opponent.
4. A team earns bonus points after the completion of the season. Three points are awarded for every win over a power conference opponent with a winning record, =>7, Two points for every win over a non power conference team with a winning record, =>7, one point for every win over an FCS opponent with a winning record, =>9.
5. A team earns 2 points for each power conference win away from home over a team with a winning conference record.
6. A team earns 10 points for winning the conference championship.

The idea is to reward playing a tougher schedule and earning bonus points for beating team with winning records on the road as well as at home.

How would you do it?

Very good post...I think the end of year awarding of points for wins against teams with winning records, while it makes sense, scheduling in college football is not as fluid as it is in college hoops. Some of these games are scheduled 10-plus years out, many are scheduled four or five years out. Had a team scheduled TCU a few years back when they were Top 10, then played them last year, they are somewhat penalized for that.

But a good start. I like it

 

[CAARHawk]

The problem with your model is the 3 points for a win over a conference team with a 7-5 record. That basically gives every SEC team 21 automatic points each season. Amend that to say 3 points for every win against a team with seven or more wins over P5 conference teams and I am good.

It would also start to address John's point about TCU. Teams running the table in G5 and scheduling right against P5 get an easier path. Plus, beating a 7-5 P5 team that has played 10 games against P5 is a lot more significant than beating a 7-5 Sun Belt team.

 

[ArvadaHawk]

The selection committee is meeting for the first time. My feeling is that the four teams need to win their way in and the committee is there to resolve a tie for the 4th position not select the teams. There are plenty of methods and below might be one.

There needs to be measurement criteria and points awarded.

1. A teams earns 10 points for every win over a power 5 conference opponent or designated independent.
2. A team earns 8 points for every win over a FBS non-power conference opponent.
3. A team earns 5 points for every win over a FCS opponent.
4. A team earns bonus points after the completion of the season. Three points are awarded for every win over a power conference opponent with a winning record, =>7, Two points for every win over a non power conference team with a winning record, =>7, one point for every win over an FCS opponent with a winning record, =>9.
5. A team earns 2 points for each power conference win away from home over a team with a winning conference record.
6. A team earns 10 points for winning the conference championship.

The idea is to reward playing a tougher schedule and earning bonus points for beating team with winning records on the road as well as at home.

How would you do it?

I think the first qualification/requirement is each team must be its outright conference champion. the $EC has been lobbying since before the playoff format was a reality, that they would need to be allowed to have more than 1 team in a playoff format.

I would limit awarding points for a win over a FCS opponent to a total of 5 points. Each team could afford a first game against a FCS opponent; but I would not want to award points for playing 3 FCS opponents, for example. Perhaps remove the bonus point(s) from your point #4 for FCS oppenent with a winning record. Some FCS conferences are horrible and they are, in fact, a lower level of competition.

Otherwise, I think your list is excellent.

 

[franstheman]

How would I do it? Depends.

Personally, I would award NEGATIVE points to teams who keep starters in during blow-out wins for the sake of victory margin, Heisman votes or humiliation. I would also take away points for every team Lou Holtz gushes over during halftime reports.

It would seem to me that the basic criteria we will see is "How do we justify 2 $EC teams make the playoff each year?", "How do we make sure Nick Saban is happy?" and "How soon can we expect the White House and Eric Holder to tell us how bad a job we are doing and issuing Executive Orders to unionize ALL schools and players?" But what do I know, maybe they'll actually pick the best teams instead

You're a piece of work man...

 

[hawkeyebob62]

You're a piece of work man...

Aren't, I, though?

Seriously, the MORE we start putting stipulations, the more the $EC figures out ways to skirt them.

We have to let it play out. And the OP DID solicit opinions.

At this point, I think it boils down to this: the best IOWA can ever hope for is making the playoff if we go 11-1/12-1 or better. Even though there is now a "playoff", it will be same-old/same-old with regard to certain teams having built-in advantages. A 2-loss Alabama will always be in the mix. A 1-loss IOWA will ALWAYS be "wondering and waiting".

I just don't think "playoff" means anything as long as we don't have a level playing field.

If what happened at PSU happened at Texas, the penalties would have been different. A U$C or Miami/FL will always seek--and find--that little investigative loophole.

Putting stipulations on playoff entries only hurts the teams and programs that play under accepted rules. Those teams and programs that disregard those rules disregard them for a reason.

 

[Seth53]

Aren't, I, though?

Seriously, the MORE we start putting stipulations, the more the $EC figures out ways to skirt them.

We have to let it play out. And the OP DID solicit opinions.

At this point, I think it boils down to this: the best IOWA can ever hope for is making the playoff if we go 11-1/12-1 or better. Even though there is now a "playoff", it will be same-old/same-old with regard to certain teams having built-in advantages. A 2-loss Alabama will always be in the mix. A 1-loss IOWA will ALWAYS be "wondering and waiting".

I just don't think "playoff" means anything as long as we don't have a level playing field.

If what happened at PSU happened at Texas, the penalties would have been different. A U$C or Miami/FL will always seek--and find--that little investigative loophole.

Putting stipulations on playoff entries only hurts the teams and programs that play under accepted rules. Those teams and programs that disregard those rules disregard them for a reason.

Have to agree to disagree.

If a workable and logical strength of schedule (SoS) is adhered to by the selection committee, the bias and homerism of the BCS goes away.

There are already some stipulations in place to prevent this:

"A committee member who is currently employed or compensated by a school, or who has an immediate family member at a school, will not be allowed to vote for that school."

http://espn.go.com/college-football...ff-selection-committee-sets-parameters-season

 

[hawkeyebob62]

Have to agree to disagree.

If a workable and logical strength of schedule (SoS) is adhered to by the selection committee, the bias and homerism of the BCS goes away.

There are already some stipulations in place to prevent this:

"A committee member who is currently employed or compensated by a school, or who has an immediate family member at a school, will not be allowed to vote for that school."

http://espn.go.com/college-football...ff-selection-committee-sets-parameters-season

Seth, with all due respect, we already see the effect polls have, whether they are used in BCS "calculation" or not.

Again, there will be "rankings" starting in October. Tell me who YOU think will be ranked the four highest in October if all were to be undefeated:

Alabama, Auburn, Michigan, Ohio State, USC, Notre Dame, Oregon, Florida, Florida State, Texas, Oklahoma, Missouri, Syracuse, Iowa. (Hint: I left the three perennial afterthoughts last to make your process of elimination a little easier).

You can say "SoS" and "selection committee", and no matter what, any/all committee members can and WILL spin to their heart's content.

For all the corruption in the NCAA and BCS, at least a bowl system is honest: they want the best match-up that put the most rear ends in the seats and fills hotels and local businesses with the most cash possible (within parameters of conference slotting, etc.).

Citing parameters off the ESecPN website is fine, if you'll also admit that ESecPN has their own self-interest.

You hate bowls for 6-6 or 7-5 teams, but at least those bowls reward teams for a decent season. A playoff and the the BCS have rewarded teams that cheat heavily and have used darn near any means possible to avoid detection/investigation/punishment. Then folks cite NCAAs lack of investigative/enforcement power. And yet, this is the group setting up the playoff!

 

[eyekwah]

I spent a little time going through the records of Auburn, Florida State, Michigan State, Stanford and Baylor for 2013 regular season. Under the above system here are the results of each:

1. Florida State 111 pts for wins and 23 bonus pts or 134
2. Baylor 101 pts for wins and 24 bonus pts or 125
3. Auburn 101 pts for wins and 22 bonus pts or 123
4. Michigan State 101 pts for wins and 20 bonus pts or 121
5. Stanford 96 pts for wins and 24 bonus pts or 120

Florida State going undefeated with 12 wins and the conference championship got them to the top of the list. Their schedule had only 5 teams with winning records and one was an FCS school that went 10 and 2. Baylor and Stanford tied with the most bonus points, but Stanford with two losses in the regular season eliminated themselves. Michigan State had few opportunities to gain bonus points during the regular season. Iowa, Minnesota and Nebraska were the only three conference opponents that provided any bonus points other than the conference championship.

It would be difficult for a conference to get more than one team into the playoffs under this idea. Based on the results Baylor probably had as much claim to be #2 rather than Auburn in 2013.

 

[hawkeyebob62]

I spent a little time going through the records of Auburn, Florida State, Michigan State, Stanford and Baylor for 2013 regular season. Under the above system here are the results of each:

1. Florida State 111 pts for wins and 23 bonus pts or 134
2. Baylor 101 pts for wins and 24 bonus pts or 125
3. Auburn 101 pts for wins and 22 bonus pts or 123
4. Michigan State 101 pts for wins and 20 bonus pts or 121
5. Stanford 96 pts for wins and 24 bonus pts or 120

Florida State going undefeated with 12 wins and the conference championship got them to the top of the list. Their schedule had only 5 teams with winning records and one was an FCS school that went 10 and 2. Baylor and Stanford tied with the most bonus points, but Stanford with two losses in the regular season eliminated themselves. Michigan State had few opportunities to gain bonus points during the regular season. Iowa, Minnesota and Nebraska were the only three conference opponents that provided any bonus points other than the conference championship.

It would be difficult for a conference to get more than one team into the playoffs under this idea. Based on the results Baylor probably had as much claim to be #2 rather than Auburn in 2013.

NIU wasn't a "bad" loss for us last year until they lost the MAC Championship Game, and subsequently, their bowl game. MSU wasn't a "good" loss coming off their poor performance against ND. By the end of the season, it wasn't so "bad".

Just like media and fans, committee members will spin and rationalize all they want.

All that said, I don't mind a playoff as long as it doesn't gut the bowl system and still leaves some relevance to NY Day bowls, etc. A simple playoff, a la FCS, Div-II, Div-II, etc., doesn't excite me in the least.

EDIT: Sorry, in correcting my post, I wiped out my first paragraph/thought, which was that, you did good work to get that info. In the end, that is all "past"/"end of season" stuff. As long as there will be human-generated rankings OR human-programmed computer rankings, the system still isn't ideal.

 

[NCHawker]

Read this...scathing assessment of the comish.

http://www.cornnation.com/2014/5/1/5672442/jim-delany-impotent-college-football-playoff-fail

 

[SonofaSailor]

I read an article by SI I think...you think the BCS was a mess...just wait...instead of only undefeated teams having a legit gripe...we will now have probably 8-10 teams with a gripe.

I don't understand the need to release weekly selection rankings...then start clean every week...This is going to be a nightmare.

 

[Hawknigh]

I read an article by SI I think...you think the BCS was a mess...just wait...instead of only undefeated teams having a legit gripe...we will now have probably 8-10 teams with a gripe.

I don't understand the need to release weekly selection rankings...then start clean every week...This is going to be a nightmare.

The 4-team playoff was just a trick to get a playoff introduced into college football. I predict it will go to 8 games really soon. However, it isn't until you get to 16 that you can really be "sure" the best teams are in. 8 just cuts it too tight.

I love bowl games, but I think the playoff will ruin them. The playoff is designed for a TV audience (where the money is). Bowls are designed for local communities and the fan bases of the two teams.

 

[SonofaSailor]

The 4-team playoff was just a trick to get a playoff introduced into college football. I predict it will go to 8 games really soon. However, it isn't until you get to 16 that you can really be "sure" the best teams are in. 8 just cuts it too tight.

I love bowl games, but I think the playoff will ruin them. The playoff is designed for a TV audience (where the money is). Bowls are designed for local communities and the fan bases of the two teams.

Yeah...I will be pretty sad when they get rid of the bowls...nothing would beat watching the Hawks kick off as the sun is setting in Pasadena, CA after watching the parade.

The playoff is dumb...this whole push for "one true champ" is BS. Who cares...besides...in a one game playoff...you are not going to get the best team anyways...you have to go to a series (unheard of in football) to truly find the best team.