Beyond the Box Score: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Sports blogs for fans, by fans.
New Blog: World Soccer Digest for Soccer Fans!

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

Playoff System

I agree, not so much with the boycott, but that we need a Good Playoff System. The current system is a joke. The lame arguments about the seasonal games mean more is shallow. With four weeks left in the season this year, there were only 6 or 7 teams left who had meaningful games left.
vr, Xei

by Xeifrank on Jan 8, 2009 10:58 AM EST reply actions   0 recs

I love the bowl system and wouldn't want to move to a play-off

But the problem I have with it is the formulas the computers use are a joke.

by Gina on Jan 8, 2009 12:27 PM EST reply actions   0 recs

Don't have to be mutually exclusive

This is one of my biggest pet peeves with the Bowl vs Playoff discussion. Bowls can coexist with a playoff. In a playoff scenario, 8 to 16 teams would be in the playoff (I prefer 8 or 10-12 with byes, BTW) and all of the remaining bowl-eligible teams would go to the San Diego Credit Union Poinsettia Bowl, etc. The real question is, what do you do with the 4 to 8 bowl games that would be replaced by a playoff? If it’s an 8 team playoff, simply play the first round at the home field of the higher seed, and the remaining three semifinal and championship games would be assigned to three of the current BCS bowls on a rotating basis.

If something like this was done, what is it about the current bowl system you love that would prevent you from going to a playoff?

Agree that the formulas used by the computers are a joke. Margin of victory and home-away should definitely be considered. It would seem that defining a cutoff for the win margin (20 points? 30?) would be sufficient to prevent teams from running up the score against patsies. Plus, additional penalties in strength of schedule could provide incentive not to schedule the patsies in the first place.

by Adam Peterson on Jan 8, 2009 2:21 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Care to expand on that?

I’m really not up on my NCAA football computer algorithms, but I really find that the human ballots are jokes. Except for schools in non-major conferences, teams are basically ranked by order of record. Teams rarely get flip-flopped unless one of them loses. Losses early in the season are worth way less than losses later in the season. Etc, etc.

Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.

by Sky Kalkman on Jan 8, 2009 6:26 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

I don't mean the idea of a computer

I mean literally the formulas the computers use are ridiculous, as well as what they’re explanations of what they intend to measure. Personally I wish they could get rid of the human ballots, or at least the coaches poll and just make the others weigh less. But I don’t mean they should do away with the computers I mean they’re formulas need to be completely reworked.

Most of them from what I’ve seen don’t take point differential into account. Some of them rely to heavily on the human polls, one of them in particular I can’t remember the name, didn’t take anything a team did after a game into account. For example if lets say USC was ranked number 5 and they played Texas or someone who was #1 in the first week and beat them and Texas went on to go like 3-9 or something it wouldn’t affect USC’s strength of schedule they’d still be credited as though they had beaten the #1 team in the nation. Some of them go entirely off the game scores/wins and losses and nothing that actually happened in the game, like first downs, 3rd down conversation percentage, turnovers, offensive efficiency and what not. One of them, and this I thought was really weird, has a strict head to head rule where if two teams played the team that won would always be ranked ahead of the team that lost of at least one week. And just a lot of things like that that makes me wonder how much research actually goes into the formulas of the 6 computers and how much accurate they are. Plus most of them don’t provide much, if any, explanation or detail about their formulas.

by Gina on Jan 8, 2009 8:16 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Computers are in there for effect only

I’m parroting some thoughts from BBTF but ones that I’ve agreed with.

Any time the computers disagree with the pundits and pollsters they tweak the computers. That’s the equivalent of changing Dewan’s +/- to have Jeter be the best SS in the bigs.

If everyone disagrees with the computers, you might want to look into why, but you shouldn’t necessarily assume it’s the computers fault.

by Dan Turkenkopf on Jan 8, 2009 10:56 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Thanks for expanding on that.

I literally do not know how the computer systems tend to work. SOS seems to be the main way they can be MUCH smarter than human voters.

A big breakthrough would be an ability to tell the difference between two good teams playing to a 24-17 score and two bad teams playing to the same score. I know that’s really difficult to do, but would be awesome. It would also allow detecting if a typically good team had a bad game or if they got beat by a much better team.

Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.

by Sky Kalkman on Jan 9, 2009 11:47 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

This.

I’m glad there’s no playoffs, but I want a major BCS overhaul. I like the idea, it’s the execution that sucks.

by philkid3 on Jan 8, 2009 8:21 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Bill James has an interesting point

Regarding what he thinks would have happened if a playoff were instituted long ago. The big schools / conferences were (and are) reluctant to give money to the smaller conferences.

Also, with any playoff system there would still be a push for computer rankings to determine the at large teams and seeding, meaning college football would still have to resolve James’ basic problems with the BCS formulae.

by Adam Peterson on Jan 8, 2009 2:33 PM EST reply actions   0 recs

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

We use numbers and stuff.
Community Guidelines
Why be a member?
Start posting on Beyond the Box Score »

Join SB Nation and dive into communities focused on all your favorite teams.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recent FanPosts

Leopold_butter_scotch_southpark_small
Using the TVC
Small
Determining Batted Ball Rates using Pitch Type and Location
Small
a new xBABIP calculator
Img587561916661595
Top 15 high school MLB draft prospects
Small
PZR-based Win Values 2001-2006
Small
The "30 parks on a budget" challenge
Sunflower_small
World Series Simulation, Game #6
Small
JT20 Dynasty League
E52205a2_small
New Look
Sth70021_small
Exploring Hit f/x, Albeit Badly

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

FanShots

Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.

Recent FanShots

Defensive Projections Take 2
The Baseball Nation Sim League has an opening
Primer on BaseRuns
Cool Baseball Infographics
ESPN's Jerry Crasnick on defensive metrics
I’m also a follower, since Brian Bannister’s on our team, of sabermetric st...
Top Ten Baseball-Reference.com's Sponsorships
Primer on Linear Weights
JC Bradbury on "Hot Stove Myths"

+ New FanShot All FanShots >

BtB on Twitter

Main Feed: @BtBScore

Tommy B: @tommy_bennett
Sky: @BtB_Sky
Dan: @dturkenk
Harry: @harrypav
Jinaz: @jinazreds
Jack: @jh_moore
Erik: @Erik_Manning
Tommy R: @trancel
Justin: @justinbopp

Subscribe to BtB via Email

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

BtB Goes Social


Managers

Nando_small R.J. Anderson

Limes_125_small Sky Kalkman

E52205a2_small Tommy Bennett

Editors

Face_small Harry Pavlidis

Rawlings_baseball_bigger_small Dan Turkenkopf

770insig_small Jeff Zimmerman (TucsonRoyal)

Aviles_small Justin Bopp

Authors

Banny_small erik

Raysring1_small Tommy Rancel

Jinaz-reds-avatar_small JinAZ

Jmlogo_small Jack Moore

1753738656_110919ebe9_o_small vivaelpujols

1_small Graham

Baseball_small Mike Rogers

Redcap_small SFiercex4

Small Patrick Clark

Walter_album_small Walter Fulbright