Play Fantasy Use your Fantasy skills to win Cash Prizes. Join or start a league today. Play Now
 
Tag:NCAA Football
Posted on: June 27, 2012 9:17 pm
 

Solution to CFB

Aside from the greed aspect, which won't go away until someone steps up and says no more excessive profits from postseason games, there is an easy way to fix ANY college football postseason.

Its all about rankings and Strength Of Schedule. If we can devise a way to have a objective ranking /SOS system, we get rid of all the controversy in postseason play. An easy way to do this is to create a ranking system in which the teams will be not only judged on their own record, but on the collective record of their conferences as well.

I have come up with a relatively simple fix, that while not perfect, will give a great idea as to who the True Number 1, 2, 3, and 4 teams in the Nation are based on ONLY record and conference record. The system punishes conferences for having FCS games and losses. It gives a thorough idea of which is the strongest conference top to bottom, and it is completely objective to conferences, although a large conference with a lot of bad teams could suffer, which encourages parity in the major conferences, and the "smaller" programs like Boise St., TCU, Utah, Etc to join a "major" conference. It also punishes those whom are independent, as these teams have no affiliation whatsoever.

So heres the idea:  (OWP=Overall Winning Percentage, OCWP= Overall Conference Winning Percentage, meaning the total win percentage [including non-Conference] of all teams in the conference combined)

Take the conference overall winning percentage, multiply by .75 for a 12 team conference or by .5 for a 16 team.
This is done because if you play 3/4 of a strong conference, you are playing more than one good team, etc. (you only play 8 games in conference, multiplication points figured by how many teams are in conference) If one really wishes to they could use the winning percentage of each Division within a "split conference.
 Let's Take the Non-Conference Schedule. If there is a FCS team then it counts for a loss in the OCWP (discourage cupcakes). Take the four Non conference games and combine their winning percentage. This make it important for conference commisioners to encourage at least FBS Non-conference schedules.
 So an example would be Team A plays 4 non-conference, one of which is FCS, then 8 conference games in a 16 game conference (location irrelevant in all cases, as the best teams need to win at home and on the road)
The 4 non-conference teams have a .33, .500, .89, and a .625 WP. This adds to 2.315.
Now lets say that the overall CWP is .785. divide that by half because they only played half the teams from the conference. That is .392. Add it to the 2.315 its 2.707. This is their Schedule Difficulty Rating.
Yes, I know that people would cry foul because " ALA played both Ark and LSU.. They should weigh more." The fact is those are 2 of 8 games. We could assume there would be a good deal of parity in the schedule because of conference scheduling, and the fact that MOST conferences have around an overall .500-.650 OCWP
. If the SDR were used as part of the criteria for the "FFF", is would create easily generated numbers, take away the question of WHO in the conference played, and would even solve the Ratings dilemma.
For rankings, Simply multiply the Individual team's winning percentage by SDR, and whoever has the highest is the top ranked and so on.
 It is objective, school size/ income has no influence, and it would show which conference is the strongest top to bottom. This system could create a very solid finals, but does have the chance to backfire because of a conference being very top-heavy or very good all around.
This could be rectified by using SDR as a seeding tool, and only a pure selection tool if "The number 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, etc are NOT conference champions, then the overall Ranking after WP*SDR needs to be X amount higher than the conference champion, in which case the conference champion will relinquish it's position in the 4 team playoff for the team with the Higher combine WP*SDR."

This creates a scenario in which the winner of a weak conference (in regards to WP) will NOT be selected because they have not won a conference with a significant amount of contenders. The easy way for any team to fix prevent this, however, would be to arrange a very strong Non-conference schedule, so the WP of the Non conference opponents will be higher.


Of course, Absolutely none of this ranking system means a thing if your own winning percentage is low, so the importance is still on the regular season. Lose a game to Idaho? You may see your chance at a NC slip away in the first four weeks of the season. Lose that late one to one of the best teams in the country in a conference showdown? It doesn't destroy your cause, although it does hinder it. Using this system gives a true idea as to who the best four teams in the country are, and it may need some tweaking, such as weighing the NCS a little different, or making sure there is parity between the conferencesm. However, overall, this seems as objective system as we've ever seem in ANY sport.
Category: NCAAF
 
 
 
 
The views expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of CBS Sports or CBSSports.com