2008 Bowl Game Talk - Fantasy Football Cafe 2014 Fantasy Football Cafe


Return to College Football

2008 Bowl Game Talk

Moderator: Football Moderators

Re: 2008 Bowl Game Talk

Postby HskrPwr13 » Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:20 pm

Metroid wrote:But see a playoff system is to crown a National Champion, not find the "best team." I know who the best team is, it's about finding a National Champion, if that happens to be the team that was the best during the regular season then great. Sometimes the "best team" will slip up in the playoffs(which shouldn't happen if they're truely the best team IMO) and we'll get a lesser team as National Champ(see NYG last year in the NFL). I don't have a problem with that at all. Teams get hot at the right time...it happens in all sports, that's what was great about the Giants last year. I loved watching them knock of the "unbeatable" Pats in the Superbowl. Ands I have loved to see Utah push around Florida and become National Champs this year(not saying that would happen just making an example) I would enjoy this much more than what we have now and most college football fans would too. Like knapp said EVERY other sport does it this way, it's insane that college football does not. You still have to play very well during the regular season to get in the playoffs, we can still have the bowls the way they are, just add a handful of games after the bowl season is all I'm asking for. Sure some teams still will be left out, but it'd be better than what we have now and we'd be way closer to finding a "true" National Champion.


Thats the difference in philosophy that I have with seemingly everyone else. I dont want to go from a "mythical/wishy-washy" championship to a "mythical/wishy-washy-lite" championship. And that's what a playoff creates. I dont feel that NFL creates a more meaningful champion that college football does, and its because of the happen stance that the NFL playoffs are created from:

If the Cards won the SB, they would go down in history as the champion for that year. It just so happens that the NFL plays an unbalanced schedule. It just so happened that they were in the worst division in football. It just so happened that Philly took the Giants out of the playoffs which meant the Cards happned to then get the NFC championship at home.

I'm not so much anti-playoff as I am anti-happen stance when it comes to competitive balance. Give me a balanced schedule, and I'll give you a playoff that won't be swayed by happen stance, therefor a champion that lgocially cant be argued with.

I guess for me, I'm more okay with Florida, LSU, and Texas being the most deserverd champions based on the season, than I am thinking that Steelers '06, Giants '07, and gasp, Cards '08 were the most deserved champions based on their entire bodies of work.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think as history passes people generally look back and think that the Super Bowl winner (or whatever definded champion) was the best team that year. Traditionally, I might have bought into that, but as the last 10 years or so of parity as taught me, this is flawed reasoning. This is a huge reason why I feel that way I do about implementing a they type of cf playoff scenarios I've seen batted around.
HskrPwr13
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar

Posts: 3936
Joined: 8 Sep 2004
Home Cafe: Football

Re: 2008 Bowl Game Talk

Postby knapplc » Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:39 pm

Hskr, without a tournament/playoff/whatever you want to call it, what is the "better way" of determining your regular season champion when there are 119 teams who can't possibly play each other? Your method of determining a champion becomes: "I think Team X is better than Team Y because __________________ (insert subjective explanation here)."

We just did the season and Dee and I can't agree that Nebraska or Ole Miss is better. Why? Because they didn't play each other and the team they did played in common isn't a proper measuring stick. Without some way of sorting them your "champion" is going to be based purely on speculation, and you open it up to arguments based on stuff like the "Transitive Property" thread.
Image
How 'bout them Huskers!
knapplc
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Cafe WriterCafe RankerGolden Eagle EyeCafe MusketeerCafe Blackjack Weekly Winner
Posts: 18961
Joined: 27 Dec 2004
Home Cafe: Football
Location: It's an L, not an I

Re: 2008 Bowl Game Talk

Postby Metroid » Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:23 pm

And see with the system the way it is now only 2 of the best regular season teams get to play each other for the National Championship. In most years there can be as many as 4 or 5 teams where it's debatable who the best is. How is it fair that only 2 get the chance at being crowned National Champ?
Image
Metroid
Moderator
Moderator

User avatar
ModeratorCafeholicCafe RankerGraphics ExpertEagle Eye
Posts: 22544
Joined: 9 Oct 2005
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Bringing the funk in P-Town!

Re: 2008 Bowl Game Talk

Postby HskrPwr13 » Fri Jan 23, 2009 5:15 pm

knapplc wrote:Hskr, without a tournament/playoff/whatever you want to call it, what is the "better way" of determining your regular season champion when there are 119 teams who can't possibly play each other? Your method of determining a champion becomes: "I think Team X is better than Team Y because __________________ (insert subjective explanation here)."

We just did the season and Dee and I can't agree that Nebraska or Ole Miss is better. Why? Because they didn't play each other and the team they did played in common isn't a proper measuring stick. Without some way of sorting them your "champion" is going to be based purely on speculation, and you open it up to arguments based on stuff like the "Transitive Property" thread.


I guess to sum up my stance, I dont want to see a #8, multiple loss, or whatever, team that we'd all agree has no business being there, get hot, and slink away with our national title. Its a posterity thing for me. I think in some yeras the playoffs will give us the type of champion we all want, and in other years were going to get a fluke champion. As much as I dont care for the voters, I will admit that I'm generally fine with who gets crowned champ at the end. For me, the risk of a weaker champion trumps the reward of a stronger one. I certainly dont expect everyone to fall in line with that.

To more specifically answer your question, I would agree with some type of playoff if it was like mine, which I think few would disagree with, but its pie-in-the-sky. Something less pie in the sky, i.e. where we still rely on voters, is to have a playoff model thats fluid. Use a plus-one model when needed. Use a 4 team playoff when needed. Have 2 teams play for a spot to face the one team that everyone basically agrees is the best. Technically, we already have a static playoff thats based on the wims of the voters. It consists of two teams. All I hear fans wanting to do is expand the current playoff we have. To me this doesnt really change much for the better, it just allows for additional silliness in terms of how the playoff results would reflect the season as a whole.

As a side, this guy is asking for your playoff ideas. This link shows one man's playoff idea. Its different. At the bottom, he provides the contact info to send you playoff idea. If you want to see mine, continue on after the link.
http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/b ... ng-content



The 120 D1 teams would be required to make up ten 12-team conferences. The regular season consists of all teams playing 11 games against their other 11 conference foes. Tie Breaker: W/L, H2H, margin of victory (MOV), total points scored, Home v. Away record, or whatever.

The 10 conference winners enter the playoffs. The rest can be selected for bowls. Playoff seeding is determined the same way conference championships would be determined, of course eliminating the H2H factor. Just like in the NFL, the teams are re-bracketed after each round.

The seeds and playoff winners in this example are creatively determined using some pre-bowl stats and rankings. In this scenario, after some conference shifting to accommodate the model, the Sun Belt no longer exists.

TEAM REC MOV
1. Boise St (11-0) (+336)
2. Utah (11-0) (+242)
3. USC (10-1) (+336)
4. Florida (10-1) (+327)
5. Penn St (10-1) (+322)
6. Texas (10-1) (+304)
7. Cincinnati (10-1) (+61)
8. Virginia Tech (8-3) (+44)
9. East Carolina (8-3) (+36)
10. Buffalo (8-3) (+26)

The first set of games would be considered a play-in week for the bottom four seeds while the top six seeds would Bye. Assuming the winners based on last season’s pre-bowl rankings
10. Buffalo loses at 7. Cincinnati
9. East Carolina loses at 8. Virginia Tech

Round 1:
This leaves the final 8 conference champions to duke it out:
8. Virginia Tech loses at 1. Boise St
7. Cincinnati loses at 2. Utah
6. Texas wins at 3. USC
5. Penn St loses at Florida
Remaining Seeds:
1. Boise St
2. Utah
4. Florida
6. Texas

Round 2:
Results after re-bracketing:
6. Texas wins at Boise St
4. Florida wins at Utah

Round 3 (National Championship):
6. Texas loses to 4. Florida in Miami

For those not counting at home, that’s 14 maximum games for the National Championship participants, and that’s only if they had to play their way in. Theoretically, this would eliminate any biases or fluke championships. This won’t eliminate fans believing that their second place team was better than some other conference’s champion, but when all things are equal, and that team still can’t win its conference, there’d be no reason to believe it should have a shot at the national title.
HskrPwr13
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar

Posts: 3936
Joined: 8 Sep 2004
Home Cafe: Football

Re: 2008 Bowl Game Talk

Postby knapplc » Fri Jan 23, 2009 5:20 pm

I'm cool with your idea except I'd take it a step further - cut the Division 1-A teams in half. 120 teams is WAY TOO MANY. There is no way Wyoming can compete on the same playing field with Nebraska, not in recruiting, talent, cash, nothing. Make more divisions, and make them smaller.

I have to ask, though - why did you spend the last several posts saying you hate the playoff idea, then advocate a playoff? :-b
Image
How 'bout them Huskers!
knapplc
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Cafe WriterCafe RankerGolden Eagle EyeCafe MusketeerCafe Blackjack Weekly Winner
Posts: 18961
Joined: 27 Dec 2004
Home Cafe: Football
Location: It's an L, not an I

Re: 2008 Bowl Game Talk

Postby HskrPwr13 » Fri Jan 23, 2009 5:43 pm

knapplc wrote:I'm cool with your idea except I'd take it a step further - cut the Division 1-A teams in half. 120 teams is WAY TOO MANY. There is no way Wyoming can compete on the same playing field with Nebraska, not in recruiting, talent, cash, nothing. Make more divisions, and make them smaller.

I have to ask, though - why did you spend the last several posts saying you hate the playoff idea, then advocate a playoff? :-b


Because I dont believe that anything remotely reasonable in terms of elminating the biases, even a little, will be implemented. They'll either implement a plus one or 8-team playoff, that will have biased rules and still be dependent on voters. One season the playoff model will seem genious and the next we'll beg for the poll and bowl. I can also dang near guarantee that whatever the clowns decide to implement, it will end up negatively affecting a regular season. Maybe not all, but once in a while. If a change is too be made I want something that can stand the test of time and eliminate as much "deserve" ambiguity as possible. You really think the NCAA/networks/presidents can pull that off?

I figured you'd be alright with my model. Really the only negative I've heard, and I agree with, is that it just aint gonna happen. I would agree with your tweak, but something like that happening just adds to the pie-in-the-sky theory that it'll never happen. :-b How do you either convince or force a D1 shcool to take a backseat to other D1 schools. Those schools would clearly lose athletic prestige and the correspondin money that follows? I doubt most would just accept a payoff.
HskrPwr13
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar

Posts: 3936
Joined: 8 Sep 2004
Home Cafe: Football

Re: 2008 Bowl Game Talk

Postby A Fleshner Fantasy » Fri Jan 23, 2009 6:04 pm

Hskr- what I've gathered from many of your posts is that the biggest issue with a playoff in your mind is that teams like Boise St. will be unfairly left out because they aren't in a major conference, which is a perfectly legit concern. However, while you may not think that an 8 team playoff is perfect, how does a team like Boise St. have less of a chance to compete for the finals when 8 teams are considered than when 2 teams are considered? Surely they have a better chance at making the 8 team playoff than at making the 2 team championship. So how is the playoff not better (in that respect) than the current system?
Image

Thanks to abrunn for the awesome sig
A Fleshner Fantasy
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Cafe RankerMock(ing) Drafter
Posts: 7746
Joined: 11 May 2006
Home Cafe: Football
Location: The Big House

Re: 2008 Bowl Game Talk

Postby Metroid » Fri Jan 23, 2009 6:20 pm

A Fleshner Fantasy wrote:Hskr- what I've gathered from many of your posts is that the biggest issue with a playoff in your mind is that teams like Boise St. will be unfairly left out because they aren't in a major conference, which is a perfectly legit concern. However, while you may not think that an 8 team playoff is perfect, how does a team like Boise St. have less of a chance to compete for the finals when 8 teams are considered than when 2 teams are considered? Surely they have a better chance at making the 8 team playoff than at making the 2 team championship. So how is the playoff not better (in that respect) than the current system?

Totally Fleshner. There will never be a perfect system, but we can make it better and more fair by giving more teams who performed well during the season a chance to compete for a National Championship.

Or maybe we should just throw our hands up in the air and say if we can't fix it all the way we should just leave it the way it is.
Image
Metroid
Moderator
Moderator

User avatar
ModeratorCafeholicCafe RankerGraphics ExpertEagle Eye
Posts: 22544
Joined: 9 Oct 2005
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Bringing the funk in P-Town!

Re: 2008 Bowl Game Talk

Postby Free Bagel » Fri Jan 23, 2009 7:50 pm

HskrPwr13 wrote:Good Lord, Bagel. You act like no one EVER gives the SEC any love. So the SEC had to share some love this year with the Big12. Oh, the horror. :-B

I'll stand with you that bowl games count just as much as regular season games and to try to quantify a teams mindset going into a game is a lesson in futility. But common sense dictates that a 30ish day layoff is not going to produce the same results as if the teams lined up after a week or two off. I dont deny that Ole Miss still may have won the football game for the exact reasons you mentioned. Those same reasons are why NU nearly knocked them off in Lubbock. But this doesnt dismiss the entire body of work by both teams. Ole Miss did lose 4 games, most against teams that no one outside of the SEC would deem worthy of losing to for such a "great" team. Will the real Ole Miss please stand up? Also, again, outside the SEC, no one really thinks that LSU was underrated and GT was overrated based on that clearly lopsided bowl. If that had game had happened one week after the season, its doubtful that wouldve happened. Coupling that GT beat an UGA team that destroyed LSU and the 30ish day layoff, I dont see how this matter-of-factly proves SEC superiority. The SEC may have turned out to be the best conference this year, but they shouldnt get that nod through fallacy reasoning.


Except that I mentioned in my post that the SEC wasn't a cut above this year either. My point was really that no one was.

HskrPwr13 wrote:Will the real Ole Miss please stand up?


Ole Miss's biggest fault this year was probably that they were just super un-clutch. They lost to Wake, Vandy, and Bama all on the last play of the game, and should've blown it against Florida too were it not for an errant throw by Tebow right at the end. Their most "convincing" loss of the year was a whopping 7 point loss, and it was their only loss that didn't come on the last play of the game.

I'm not sure that there's a team in the country they couldn't take down to the wire (as we'll see when they're likely ranked in the top 5 of many preseason polls for next year), and one lucky break (a la against Florida) could put them over the top in that game. I don't think you could say the same for Nebraska, who lost several games by 5 touchdowns.

knapplc wrote:I'm missing whatever made you think that Big XII homers are declaring it a superconference.


Well, it wasn't said explicitly, but Nebraska isn't even considered a top tier Big 12 team, probably 4th or even 5th in the conference, and supposedly a huge amount behind that tier that makes up the top 3 of the Big 12. So when you're saying that team, which isn't even on the same level as the top teams in their conference, is a better team than one of the top SEC teams it indirectly says a lot about what you think about the conference.
Image
Free Bagel
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertMock(ing) DrafterCafe Musketeer
Posts: 8495
Joined: 25 Jul 2003
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Titletown, FL

Re: 2008 Bowl Game Talk

Postby knapplc » Fri Jan 23, 2009 8:19 pm

Your reply to my question makes a good point, B-man, but of course I don't think that about the Big XII, or the SEC. Both are great conferences this year, and I'd probably lean towards the SEC being "top dog" with a closer gap than previous years. That should make it pretty clear.

Of course, Nebraska could kick Florida's ass. I think that goes without saying. :-]
Image
How 'bout them Huskers!
knapplc
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Cafe WriterCafe RankerGolden Eagle EyeCafe MusketeerCafe Blackjack Weekly Winner
Posts: 18961
Joined: 27 Dec 2004
Home Cafe: Football
Location: It's an L, not an I

PreviousNext

Return to College Football

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

Forums Articles & Tips Start & Sit Sleepers Rankings Leagues


Get Ready...
The 2014 NFL season kicks off in 2:21 hours
(and 42 days)
2014 NFL Schedule


  • Fantasy Football
  • Article Submissions
  • Privacy Statement
  • Site Survey 
  • Contact