Selection Process and Unbalanced Schedules

[cbrown]

As conference sizes grow, we’re seeing the challenges unbalanced schedules present when trying to truly select the 12 best teams. It makes it difficult to judge teams from conference to conference, but also within the same conference. While Tennessee finished 3rd in the SEC this year, they are likely the 7th best team in the conference, and that’s if you can say they are definitively better than LSU and Missouri. I’d guess that, even before last night’s result, Georgia, Texas, aTm, Ole Miss, Alabama, and South Carolina would have all been favored against TN on a neutral field. Yes, we beat Alabama, but Neyland Stadium, under the right conditions, can be worth 10-14 points. With schedules being as unbalanced as they are, 6-2 is not necessarily better than 5-3. We benefited from it this year, but there will be years when a 5-3 or 6-2 TN team is better than multiple teams ahead of them in the standings. I don’t have the answer . . . I guess maybe over time it will all even out.

 

[teeball]

Yep. That’s certainly a problem with these ever expanding conferences of 12, 14, 16 and now even 18 team leagues. Using multiple computer polls from various regions seems to be the only possible solution going forward IMO. Committees (especially biased ones) certainly aren’t the answer.

 

[cbrown]

Yep. That’s certainly a problem with these ever expanding conferences of 12, 14, 16 and now even 18 team leagues. Using multiple computer polls from various regions seems to be the only possible solution going forward IMO. Committees (especially biased ones) certainly aren’t the answer.

I think you’re right. There is no perfect way to do it, but I think a BCS-type formula is about the best you can do.

 

[Cartervol]

You reseed the teams after the opening rounds. Let #1 actually be rewarded for being #1.. Also I'd rather the games be at neutral sites. Home field is too much of a advantage.