Home
Articles
Photos
Interviews
Forums
New posts
Search forums
Georgia Tech Recruiting
Dashboard
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Chat
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Georgia Tech Athletics
Georgia Tech Football
CFP Discussion
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="ThatGuy" data-source="post: 982484" data-attributes="member: 3440"><p>Agreed...kinda. What I've realized over the past 20 years or so:</p><p></p><p>It wasn't the <em>computers</em> that were the issue. It was the fact that the computers were deciding it <em>all</em>. Computers decided the mere 2 teams that would play for a championship. The people you described who didn't like the outcomes of the computers wanted the National Championship game participants to be decided on the field, head-to-head - <em>not solely based on regular season play</em>.</p><p></p><p><a href="https://sports.yahoo.com/dw-playoff112707.html" target="_blank">At the time, many of us recommended a 16-team playoff</a>, that was built for equity. The conference champs of EACH conference were included. Why? To eliminate much of the bias. Doesn't matter if it's a so-called "lesser conference." You win on the field, you still get in. Just like in the NCAA tournament, where every year there are upsets. In 2018, when the 16th-seed team beat #1-seeded UVA in the opening round of March Madness, no one claimed that Virginia deserved the national title. It didn't matter that the team that beat them was from a so-called lesser conference - <em>they lost</em>. </p><p></p><p>The participants would be decided on the field, and the results would then be decided on the field. This is what works for college basketball, as well as the NFL playoffs. Stands to reason it would work for CFB as well.</p><p></p><p>There were also several at-large bids, so that those who were good but possibly didn't win their conference (as well as any independents) could get in. This would allow any teams like uGA</p><p></p><p>Instead, what we got was a system that PRESERVED the bias - and handily ensured a) a G5 team would <em>almost</em> never make it in, much less have the opportunity to upset a higher-ranked team and b) someone who wasn't ranked at the start of the season would <em>never</em> make it in. Doesn't matter if you win out - if the talking heads didn't see you coming back in August before fall camp was completed and anyone had a chance to even <em>look</em> at the teams, you aren't worthy. This all but eliminated teams like GT in 1990 from getting in. Win your conference? Too bad. There were other teams we ranked higher in the preseason.</p><p></p><p>Many of us bemoaned the 4-team "playoff" from the moment it was established, knowing that "the SEC just means more." The BCS would have been preferable to the committee with the 4-team playoff, except that the 4-team slate is so small, ranking bias would still affect the outcome of who got a shot. </p><p></p><p>So all that being said - I think you're spot-on. Moving to an expanded playoff, we should go back to a computer model with transparency. Even if it's not the equitable 16-team playoff that should exist. With so many at large bids, introducing a computer with a standardized ranking criteria would at least ensure a fairer shot at inclusion.</p><p></p><p>I can't remember, but I think the 12-team playoff rankings that decide inclusion will still be decided by a committee. Which stinks. But once someone has power, they're incredibly reluctant to give it up, so I don't see it changing.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="ThatGuy, post: 982484, member: 3440"] Agreed...kinda. What I've realized over the past 20 years or so: It wasn't the [I]computers[/I] that were the issue. It was the fact that the computers were deciding it [I]all[/I]. Computers decided the mere 2 teams that would play for a championship. The people you described who didn't like the outcomes of the computers wanted the National Championship game participants to be decided on the field, head-to-head - [I]not solely based on regular season play[/I]. [URL='https://sports.yahoo.com/dw-playoff112707.html']At the time, many of us recommended a 16-team playoff[/URL], that was built for equity. The conference champs of EACH conference were included. Why? To eliminate much of the bias. Doesn't matter if it's a so-called "lesser conference." You win on the field, you still get in. Just like in the NCAA tournament, where every year there are upsets. In 2018, when the 16th-seed team beat #1-seeded UVA in the opening round of March Madness, no one claimed that Virginia deserved the national title. It didn't matter that the team that beat them was from a so-called lesser conference - [I]they lost[/I]. The participants would be decided on the field, and the results would then be decided on the field. This is what works for college basketball, as well as the NFL playoffs. Stands to reason it would work for CFB as well. There were also several at-large bids, so that those who were good but possibly didn't win their conference (as well as any independents) could get in. This would allow any teams like uGA Instead, what we got was a system that PRESERVED the bias - and handily ensured a) a G5 team would [I]almost[/I] never make it in, much less have the opportunity to upset a higher-ranked team and b) someone who wasn't ranked at the start of the season would [I]never[/I] make it in. Doesn't matter if you win out - if the talking heads didn't see you coming back in August before fall camp was completed and anyone had a chance to even [I]look[/I] at the teams, you aren't worthy. This all but eliminated teams like GT in 1990 from getting in. Win your conference? Too bad. There were other teams we ranked higher in the preseason. Many of us bemoaned the 4-team "playoff" from the moment it was established, knowing that "the SEC just means more." The BCS would have been preferable to the committee with the 4-team playoff, except that the 4-team slate is so small, ranking bias would still affect the outcome of who got a shot. So all that being said - I think you're spot-on. Moving to an expanded playoff, we should go back to a computer model with transparency. Even if it's not the equitable 16-team playoff that should exist. With so many at large bids, introducing a computer with a standardized ranking criteria would at least ensure a fairer shot at inclusion. I can't remember, but I think the 12-team playoff rankings that decide inclusion will still be decided by a committee. Which stinks. But once someone has power, they're incredibly reluctant to give it up, so I don't see it changing. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
What jersey number did Joshua Nesbitt wear?
Post reply
Home
Forums
Georgia Tech Athletics
Georgia Tech Football
CFP Discussion
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top