- Aug 26, 2011
“I’m open to the consideration and looking at it and thinking about it,” Michigan athletic director Warde Manuel said at the Big Ten’s spring meetings. “Anytime our Big Ten champion is left out of the playoff what, three years in a row, that’s something that needs to be discussed. Because I obviously believe that you go through and you win the Big Ten championship in this league you’ve accomplished something that deserves to put you in position to play for the national championship.”Couldn’t happen to a more corrupt bunch. They and the ACC are to blame for the demise of regional rivalries that were the lifeblood of college sports.
I would sign on to that. Sounds more than fair...which is probably why it has such little chance of happening.Hopefully we end up with:
- Each of the five Power 5 conf champ winners. Each conf would retain the right to decide if they want to substitute their conf champ winner for any team within their conf that finishes the season at a ranking higher than their own conf champ winner.
- The highest ranked G5 or independent school. G5 and Independent schools will have to meet certain schedule criteria (ie no more than one FCS game)
- Two wildcard spots for the selection committee. However, one slot is set aside for any G5 program or Independent program that finishes the season undefeated, but did not finish with a ranking ahead of the highest G5 program. Yes, I want a back door for undefeated FBS programs to get in in the event we have a situation like UCF and Boise (or ND or BYU) both finishing undefeated. Undefeated should always be rewarded as long as no more than one victory was against FCS competition.
Any system that doesn’t prioritize conference winners or selecting a single team from a conference means we might as well create a new division of about 20 teams because that’s all we will ever watch in the field of 8.I have always maintained that there, in a smallish 8 team field, be an attempt to put the best 8 teams forward...Automatic qualifiers would take the place of a perhaps better team.
Winning 11 games has a different difficulty factor, depending on your schedule/league.
The question is...Is it more important to have "equity" in the playoffs, or put forward the best teams? The very current question of "merit" vs "inclusion" and how that plays out.
I think of the problem like that of the use of SAT scores for college admission. The allowance of "other factors" than standardized tests to determine acceptance in entrance competition.
For instance, last year...
The Sagarin Rating...WIN 50%
The WIN50% is the rating required to win 50% of the games if playing an infinite number of round-robins in the given group at a neutral location.
The SEC West was #1 at 82.97 and the SEC East was #2 at 79.91. As much as we rag on their OOC schedules, their conference is a tough one to win 11 games in.
An 11 win Georgia or 10 win LSU (like last year) would have played a significantly tougher schedule than most...
Georgia #10, LSU #5.
This is not a case of one side is incorrect, its just about what you value. I value a system that gives some purpose for the existence of the full 130 team FBS field and its ten conferences rather than a system that really is just to serve the top 20 teams and top 4 conferences (sorry PAC 12). 5 conference winners, best of the other 5 conference winners and 2 wild cards is equitable and serves the well being of the sport in the long run. A top 8 system might as well result in the G5 forming their own subdivision with its own playoff.But..say that it was a field of only eight in basketball for the tournament?
Would you feel the same about a strong #2 team in conference not being selected over a weaker champion of a weaker conference?
The equity vs "best" issue is still the same...it just gores a different ox...
I know, basketball is not the same as football because you can actually play more, but the principle doesn't change....