The CardBoard
The Lex Plan - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: The Lex Plan (/thread-15161.html)

Pages: 1 2

The Lex Plan - lex24 - 12-03-2017

Stanford and Washington played in the same division. Stanford had the tougher league schedule - the difference being USC for Stanford, Colorado for Washington. Otherwise their conference opponents were the same. Stanford beat Washington and won the division.
Washington gets the nod not because of what happened on the field but because a bunch of slobs sitting in their easy chairs decide Washington should be ranked higher. Despite the fact that Stanford beat them handily and won the division. And because they “travel better.”
The process is corrupt. There are simple bright line rules that should be in place to reward what teams do in their conference.
1. As long as the NC series is 4 teams, it should be conference champions only. If you don’t win your conference you don’t make the final four. That still leaves the slobs making one selection. But unless they go a different system that can’t be avoided. (I’ve already set forth my 6 team NCS plan. To repeat 5 Conference champs and one at large. Rank them 1-6. Based on the following criteria: Record 40%. SOS 30%. SOC 30 %. (The final at large is based on same criteria. Clearly set forth. Decided by a computer. No decisions by a bunch of slobs).
If you are an independent 50% record 50% SOS. Top 2 get a bye. Because they EARNED IT. Then 3 vs 6 and 4vs 5. Reseed. Wait two weeks and go.
2. For the other 4 NY6 games the conference champ that doesn’t make it to the NCS gets one slot. The 5 teams that lost their CCG get slots. That leaves 2. - 1 goes to top non Power 5 conference winner. The last is at large- either an independent (we can’t forget ND can we) or a second non Power 5 winner.
The beauty of the Lex Plan is it takes non-league schedules out of the equation ( except for the 4vs5 both of whom are conference winners). And it adds value to conference play. That still leaves 2 spots to be selected instead of decided on the field. But it is better than this excrement show.




Re: The Lex Plan - cardcrimson - 12-03-2017

Sorry Lex. The Lex Plan doesn't have the necessary ESPN contract bias built in. For instance, this year, you'd have to find a way to get three SEC schools in if you expanded to six teams.

Re: The Lex Plan - Langdude - 12-03-2017

Lex, out of curiosity, what do you see then as the role of OOC games?

-m.

Re: The Lex Plan - lex24 - 12-03-2017

Well overall record is 40% in seeding. And they would figure in for Strength of Conference and Strength of Schedule.  But they wouldn’t be penalized for playing tough OOC games. In fact they would be rewarded. Which leads to another benefit - better OOC matchups. Beating Mercer shouldn’t count anyway

Re: The Lex Plan - jacketree - 12-03-2017

So Lex,

What do you think of the Jacketree plan to which no one commented?  Seems simpler and it screws ND.

Re: The Lex Plan - lex24 - 12-03-2017

Solid plan. And it screws ND. I like it. Heck almost anything is better than what they have now. 

(12-03-2017, 11:50 PM)jacketree link Wrote:So Lex,

What do you think of the Jacketree plan to which no one commented?  Seems simpler and it screws ND.


Re: The Lex Plan - Mick - 12-04-2017

(12-03-2017, 11:50 PM)jacketree link Wrote:So Lex,

What do you think of the Jacketree plan to which no one commented?  Seems simpler and it screws ND.

Is the Jacketree plan to take ND off the schedule, replace it with San Jose State, then add two other cupcakes for a guaranteed 3-0 with less wear and tear on the team?  Yes, please.

Re: The Lex Plan - Phogge - 12-04-2017

Washington 10-2, Stanford 9-4. Killed WSU who beat SU. Got to rank UDub higher.

Granted Bama is chickenshit of tough OOC foes why lower yourself and join their club.

Re: The Lex Plan - winflop - 12-04-2017

I think a 6-team playoff gives too much of an advantage to the 1 & 2 seeds, so I favor an 8-team playoff
All Power 5 conference champions
Top-ranked Group of 5 conference champion
Two at-large teams - must be Power 5 conference game runner-up or independent

Re: The Lex Plan - gocard14 - 12-04-2017

(12-04-2017, 07:39 AM)winflop link Wrote:I think a 6-team playoff gives too much of an advantage to the 1 & 2 seeds, so I favor an 8-team playoff
All Power 5 conference champions
Top-ranked Group of 5 conference champion
Two at-large teams - must be Power 5 conference game runner-up or independent

I like this setup, only removing the last restriction that a team must be a power-5 championship game loser. I don't see why if we're 11-1 but lose to UW who went undefeated in conference and then beat a weaker south division opponent in the title game why we couldn't be considered for an at large bid.

Re: The Lex Plan - jacketree - 12-04-2017

(12-04-2017, 03:39 AM)Mick link Wrote:[quote author=jacketree link=topic=18285.msg216951#msg216951 date=1512370205]
So Lex,

What do you think of the Jacketree plan to which no one commented?  Seems simpler and it screws ND.

Is the Jacketree plan to take ND off the schedule, replace it with San Jose State, then add two other cupcakes for a guaranteed 3-0 with less wear and tear on the team?  Yes, please.
[/quote]

The Jacketree plan is to limit the 8-team playoff to conference champions only, with annual conference relegation based on aggregate non-conference strength of schedule and results.  I'll toss in one fewer game too, to help with the wear and tear.  Notre Dame either needs to join the ACC or never see a playoff.  Army did OK back in the day in CUSA and both Navy and Air Force are in conferences, so they can be too.  BYU I don't give a flip about.

This year UCF would be playing for a title and we would find out if they can beat "anybody".  That's their big detraction.  They haven't beaten "anybody".

Stanford would have been in the playoff 3 times in Shaw's 7 years, narrowly missing a 4th.  And you don't need to stay undefeated, so we can see even better interregional matchups during the year.

Re: The Lex Plan - BostonCard - 12-04-2017

Here's my plan.  Get rid of the playoffs altogether.  Get rid of trying to pair things into some national championship year.  Just play a regular season, and a slate of bowl games based on conference agreements, and at the end of the year, enjoy the debates of who is the "best" team.

Oh, and get off my damned lawn!

BC

Re: The Lex Plan - CrazedZooChimp - 12-04-2017

I like this plan: https://sports.yahoo.com/heres-make-college-football-playoff-even-better-032144320.html

Get rid of divisions, get rid of conference championships. Replace them with a first round hosted by top seeds, with whatever method of determining conference champion you want and putting them into the playoff (plus some at-larges). I would still put one non-power 5 in for sure, but other than that agree with the article.

Re: The Lex Plan - jacketree - 12-04-2017

(12-04-2017, 02:21 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:Here's my plan.  Get rid of the playoffs altogether.  Get rid of trying to pair things into some national championship year.  Just play a regular season, and a slate of bowl games based on conference agreements, and at the end of the year, enjoy the debates of who is the "best" team.

Oh, and get off my damned lawn!

BC

Oh like 1990 where there were two pretty clear-cut contenders for the national title, one of whom I cared about and one of whom I once cared about, and with a clear-cut way to decide it all; they played in different bowl games due to conference agreements. GT had the recent transitive argument based on common opponent (Nebraska) and CU had the 'our gold helmets are cooler and we only didn't win two games' argument going for it (plus two ill-gotten wins including one over Stanford).  I did, however, enjoy the debate (that almost became a fistfight) at the next years Stanford-Colorado game when I wore my National Champion t-shirt and an attitude.

The irony is that Tech would (probably  ;)) have destroyed Colorado that year (good running team; not as good passing team), but I doubt they could have handled Washington or Miami, the other lurking finalists.  So despite a MNC, I would still have rather watched GT, CU, UW and the U duke it out.

Can't wait to watch the two wheels on the axle of evil - Georgia and Alabama - chase the trophy while I pray for the world to end at halftime.



Re: The Lex Plan - Phogge - 12-04-2017

I agree with BC. Puts more into the regular season which really is more important. So what if two teams share the title. Makes the hot stove league more fun.

Re: The Lex Plan - jacketree - 12-04-2017

My plan puts everything on the regular season.

Also it avoids what we saw this year:

UW was rewarded for losing to Stanford when it mattered most.

Alabama was rewarded for losing to Auburn when it mattered most.

Penn State was rewarded for not winning its division.

Re: The Lex Plan - BostonCard - 12-04-2017

(12-04-2017, 02:58 PM)jacketree link Wrote:My plan puts everything on the regular season.

Also it avoids what we saw this year:

UW was rewarded for losing to Stanford when it mattered most.

Alabama was rewarded for losing to Auburn when it mattered most.

Penn State was rewarded for not winning its division.

I disagree on Alabama.  Had they won their division and lost to Georgia, they would have nonetheless been a playoff team.  But I still get what you are saying.

BC

Re: The Lex Plan - CowboyIndian - 12-04-2017

(12-04-2017, 07:34 AM)Phogge link Wrote:Washington 10-2, Stanford 9-4. Killed WSU who beat SU. Got to rank UDub higher.

Granted Bama is chickenshit of tough OOC foes why lower yourself and join their club.

Two of those losses were to $C, which UW never played. We have better wins, too, including one OVER THEM!

Re: The Lex Plan - Phogge - 12-04-2017

Lose four  you don't vault a two loss team in your conference. Period.

Re: The Lex Plan - teejers1 - 12-04-2017

I agree with the frustration voiced by Lex, CI, and others in this thread.  Don't play in CCG game get rewarded; don't play anyone in OOC games and get rewarded.  WTF!

OTOH, I am most frustrated with the L to SDSU, which ended up killing a (more) just bowl result.  Thus, it's hard to get too worked up when the team/staff have themselves to blame for not turning around just one of three games that "could have been," including the CCG.  And then, there's Oregon State . . .

Maybe we have nothing to lament, after all.