Thread: North's proposal on how to deal with rankings/playoffs in NCAA Football

This is a rough draft with an idea of how to approach NCAA football and how to incorporate the strength of schedule and rankings to which i feel should not take place until the 5th week of football. I mean, lets be honest we dont truly get to see who is legit, who has potential, who has issues, or who just flat out sucks until a few games into the season. Keep in mind that this list would only be the rankings after 5 weeks of football (6 for a couple of others). This does not mean that the same teams will hold those positions down stretch however it does give some legitimacy to who belongs where.

While the list needs some tweaking, mainly due to the fact that in my proposal there will need to be a power ranking system in place but not an "actual" ranking like the AP Poll, etc. But in order to gauge the quality of opponent for the first 5 weeks we will definitely need something to base the power rankings on. While im not entirely sure how i would create that list i know that overall player talent would be a factor as well as Home/Away, coaching, etc would play a part. But assuming that the power rankings were already in place the list i came up with seems fair based on what we know at the present time. While i would love to have a 8 game playoff we will stick currently to the 4 game format which is in place. So judging by that the top 4 teams at this juncture would be Auburn, Miss St, Texas A&M, and FSU.

The reason why the power rankings are important or would be important is because some teams were ranked at the beginning of the year and some werent. But after 5 weeks some of those teams showed they were worthy of a higher (Oklahama St/Mississippi ST) rating and some have shown be lower (Virginia Tech/South Carolina) based on wins and losses. Obviously for these teams things could still change before the end of the year. As you see by the list you have the school, followed by their W/L record and then how many top teams they played and whether they won or lost those games. This is where the power rankings would come into play because obviously at the beginning of the year we wouldnt have any ranked opponents but you could judge by the quality of said opponent and work from there. Now some of the tweaking i was talking about would certainly be in areas where a team like TCU being ranked over LSU or Oregon, or where USC with 2 losses is ranked over Bama.

With the power rankings we would have to determine how strong the teams were for the wins and of course the quality of the opponent in any loss. For instance, with Mizzu i believe they lost to unranked Indiana so despite having a win vs a more quality opponent perhaps they would drop a bit because of the loss and so forth. But like i said, this is basically a rough draft of the idea i would like to see put in place or something similar. Currently i just hate the idea that teams come in automatically ranked in the top 25 because of cases like a few years ago Michigan was ranked in the top 5 i believe and lost to Appalachian St. which is great for the game but i believe at the time Michigan only fell to like 7 or 8 at the time so they still had the edge compared to a team who may have been ranked lower and had a better record but could not climb the rankings fast enough to get a better bowl or in this case a chance at the playoffs.

Anyway, what are your thoughts? And im not looking for smart ass remarks, i would like a good discussion on this. I realize that this post changes nothing but i actually like my idea and think it would be better for the sport.

1. Auburn- 5-0 (2)(W)
2. Mississippi St- 5-0 (2)(W)
3. Texas A&M- 5-1 (3)(2-1)
4. FSU- 5-0 (1)(W)
5. Ole Miss- 5-0 (1)(W)
6. Notre Dame- 5-0 (1)(W)
7. Michigan St- 4-1 (2)(1-1)
8. Georgia- 4-1 (2)(1-1)
9. TCU- 4-0 (1)(W)
10. LSU- 4-2 (2)(1-1)
11. Oregon- 4-1 (1)(W)
12. East Carolina- 4-1 (2)(1-1)
13. Missouri- 4-1 (1)(W)
14. UCLA- 4-1 (1)(W)
15. USC- 3-2 (1)(W)
16. Alabama- 4-1 (1)(L)
17. Oklahoma- 4-1 (1)(L)
18. Oklahoma St- 4-1 (1)(L)
19. Nebraska- 5-1 (1)(L)
20. Kansas St- 4-1 (1)(L)
21. Stanford- 3-2 (2)(L)
22. Wisconsin- 3-2 (1)(L)
23. Baylor- 5-0
24. Ohio St- 4-1
25. BYU- 4-1

Why is Texas A&M ranked ahead of Florida State?

Same for Ole Miss.

There also is going to be some sort of ranking released by the committee this month.

Originally Posted by MOtorboat

Why is Texas A&M ranked ahead of Florida State?

.

Because A&M has played 3 ranked teams and are 2-1 whereas FSU and Ole Miss have played 1 despite winning those games. Its where the strength of schedule comes into play.

Originally Posted by Northman

Because A&M has played 3 ranked teams and are 2-1 whereas FSU and Ole Miss have played 1 despite winning those games. Its where the strength of schedule comes into play.

You've weighted that way too heavily then.

Originally Posted by MOtorboat

You've weighted that way too heavily then.

Maybe, but i feel its the fairest way to go about it. While being undefeated is a good thing when your not really playing against quality opponents its a bit of a sham. But hypothetically, if A&M went on the rest of the year and finished with just one loss without playing anymore ranked teams and FSU plays 2 more ranked teams and remains undefeated than they would move ahead of A&M at that point. Keep in mind this is just after 5 weeks, not the final rankings.

Originally Posted by Northman

Maybe, but i feel its the fairest way to go about it. While being undefeated is a good thing when your not really playing against quality opponents its a bit of a sham. But hypothetically, if A&M went on the rest of the year and finished with just one loss without playing anymore ranked teams and FSU plays 2 more ranked teams and remains undefeated than they would move ahead of A&M at that point. Keep in mind this is just after 5 weeks, not the final rankings.

I understand that, but without an actual formula, you've just compiled a list of who you think is better than whom.

I, personally, can't put an undefeated defending champion at 4.

I think your just mimicking the BCS computer ratings, which is what needed changed.

Originally Posted by MOtorboat

I understand that, but without an actual formula, you've just compiled a list of who you think is better than whom.

Actually not really. If i were to actually put the teams in the order of how i feel they are in my gut it would look a LOT different. But this is where my idea of the power ranking comes in play. Its a bit hard to explain it currently because i have not dove deep into the research of how every opponent of these teams stack up. But my idea is to have that done at the beginning of the year so that in cases with teams that are 4-1 maybe the 4 wins were against really good teams, just not teams ranked in the top 25-30 but maybe top 50. Whereas a 5-0 (Baylor for example) could of played a lot of teams in the lower 80's or 90's. Does that make sense?

Originally Posted by MOtorboat

I think your just mimicking the BCS computer ratings, which is what needed changed.

Yes and no. The BCS had some good ideas but they were applied wrong. They would take the strength of schedule and combine it with a team's current rankings. My idea takes away the initial top 25 rankings and applies it 5 weeks into the season when in my opinion there is a better gauge as too where the teams actually rank at.

I could get on board with this with some tweaking. But there are 2 flaws that would require some thought.

1. If Oregon, TCU, ECU, UCLA and FSU all finished with 1 loss...and the 6 or 7 teams from the SEC all finished with 2 losses, would it be right to leave better teams out of the playoffs because they played in a more dominant and balanced division?

2. If Alabama, A&M, MSU, Auburn, Miss, Mizzou, LSU all finished with 2 losses playing against each other, how do you decide which teams qualify for a playoff bid?

Originally Posted by CoachChaz

I could get on board with this with some tweaking. But there are 2 flaws that would require some thought.

1. If Oregon, TCU, ECU, UCLA and FSU all finished with 1 loss...and the 6 or 7 teams from the SEC all finished with 2 losses, would it be right to leave better teams out of the playoffs because they played in a more dominant and balanced division?

2. If Alabama, A&M, MSU, Auburn, Miss, Mizzou, LSU all finished with 2 losses playing against each other, how do you decide which teams qualify for a playoff bid?

And thats where all the tweaking comes in. Somehow, some way the power rankings will have to come into play. In other words, do i feel that East Carolina or TCU is better than Bama or LSU? No. and i think with the tweaking it would solve the issue of who East Carolina played outside of the ranked team and the same with LSU and so on. So in other words, say that East Carolina and LSU finish with 2 losses but both have beaten 2 ranked teams. I would then begin to sift out the other teams they played based on power rankings. So if East Carolnia played Richmond and LSU played UVA than i would give the edge to LSU because UVA beat Richmond and was the stronger quality opponent. It would take some thought to make this work but i do think it could be a viable solution in the long run.