(01-03-2018, 09:53 AM)UCF Knight Wrote: (01-03-2018, 08:47 AM)Perkolater Wrote: According to Golic and Wingo this morning UCF's strength of schedule was 84th in the country. The also said that even if you went back to the old BCS method of doing the rankings etc AND expanding the playoffs to 8 teams, UCF would have been....... Ninth.
Golic and Wingo are changing the narrative to fit their argument. UCF did not have the 84th sos in the country. In fact I looked yesterday and I think it was 55th.
We don't use the old BCS method so why are they even discussing it? Nobody has talked about doing the playoffs that way. They've talked about the 5 "power 5" champs and 3 at large with a mixture of including a non power 5 if parameters are met.
When the defining way the teams are picked is money, things need to change. When a team like UCF is growing and they have been fighting for years to get into the "power 5" and keep getting stone walled, it only shows the good ole boys don't want to change the status quo.
I agree with you.
The conference set up now is a joke on way to many levels. It allows so much room for debatable variables, that are not played out by the players or coaches, to determine ranking. Not to mention there is no real guideline as to how teams are judge like in the NFL. I understand that history of a school and long term success are important, but it generally is used too much in determining placing of teams ranks. Even if they stuck with the system they have but offer a set standard of how they judge teams, it would be better.
For now its- Lets base our results on strength of schedule(which can be debated), strength of conference(which can be debated), record(the only real thing the players and coaches control), and about 50 other financial and logistic factor that don't relate to football.
I also understand that it is very difficult to compare the amount of teams that are out there with the set amount of games that are played. But there are better methods than what is being used right now.
This is just an idea ive been tossing around on top of the example i threw out earlier, Basically a method with smaller conferences and less season play that would allow for more of a lengthy bracket tournament. This would allow more teams to be compared while keeping the length of the season close to what it is now. in other words something like the nfl with 4 team conferences and only an 8 game regular season composed of only conference play. followed by a 32ish(open for suggestion) team bracket tourney after the season. one could easily make 16-32 conferences out of the amount of teams that are out there now and allow of for either the top on or two team from each to go. A tangent idea onto something like this would be to have the latter teams that didn't make the tourney play in a similar tourney to determined relegation or even conference shifts. In other words possibly having confrences that are not set in stone but determined by the prior years results.
Just an idea and needs a lot of work but i was just brainstorming lol.
It may sound crazy but if you want to compare a lot of teams while considering the limited size of a schedule football players can actually accomplish, it would sort of cover both.
Unfortunately the conferences that are in place would have to be blown up(i also understand they connect to other sports) which makes this almost impossible.
