Saying playoffs are an awful way to crown the "best team" as national champion. Used math to prove that using probabilities... Downvoted anyway.

Me wrote:

Think about it like this. Let's say Team A is the best team and will beat Team B 60% of the time. Team B will beat Team C 60% of the time, and Team C will beat Team D 60% of the time.

Team A will play Team D. Team A will beat Team D 80% of the time.

Team B will play Team C. Team B will beat Team C 60% of the time.

We know, already, that Team A will beat Team B 60% of the time... and we know that Team A, for this exercise, is the best team.

However, Team A will win the tournament just 51.2% of the time despite being 60% likely to beat Team B, 70% likely to beat Team C, and 80% likely to beat Team D.

Team B will win 27.6% of the time.
Team C will win 14.4% of the time.
Team D will win 6.8% of the time.

So we will have a team that is not the best team in the country as champion roughly 48.8% of the time.

---

What's really unsettling is that the more realistic you make the probabilities, the less likely it is the best team is champion. Even a well defined best team such as I've described previously in this thread will win just 51.2% of the time...

but if you use the following... (A:B) 52/48, (A:C) 55/45, (A:D) 58:42 and so on as I've done before... you're more likely to see the lesser teams as champion. With the math as above, the best team will win the National Championship just 30.9% of the time.

It's really simple probability that the more games you make the best team play, the more likely it is that they will be upset.

TL;DR No, playoffs are not likely to name the best team as champion and no the system is not a step forward in that regard from the BCS.

I'll admit, I didn't downvote it.
But I should.

It sounds like what you're saying is the #1 seed in the regular season is always the best team.

I'd downvote it too.

Fuck math.

And fuck math tbh.

^^ That's what this logic is saying. #1 seed is always the best team but they won't always win. And that's not true.

If you look at it any other way, then you can apply this same thing to any and all sports regular seasons and any kind of tournament formats as well. Therefore meaning there is never a best team ever, just a winner based on the percentages.

You can apply it to all other sports and leagues. Who's saying you aren't?

Doesn't mean there's never a better team.

No, that is NOT what the logic is saying. Good on you for being dumb.

What it IS saying, is that no matter who the best team is, they're statistically UNLIKELY to ACTUALLY WIN the tournament.

Yes, all tournaments are bad in crowning the "best team" as champion. What they're really good at, though, is increasing revenue, which is the goal.

Even accounting for human error, the bowl system prior to the Championship was the system most likely to crown the "best team" as champion. Some people don't(/refuse to) realize this. People would rather use false logic than have a little doubt even though the math is clear: The system didn't get any better in this regard.

That's fine but then the best team is only ever subjective..... And it seems like Ian's talking about the playoffs and not regular season. Regular season also applies in the same way. BCS does too.

A season & playoffs tournament is the best way to do it... Especially something like a Best of 7 in the playoffs like the NBA / some other sports do it. The playoffs is the best season teams facing off. And when it's best of 7 it makes the result that much more accurate.

Is there a proposal for something different / better? Or will we decide best teams based on opinion?

Burdur

There is no way to 100% crown the "best team" because there are so many factors that go into any amount of games that are played that can change any single outcome...

Any format (barring one that includes 100s to 1000s of games being played) will not accurately crown the #1 team.

A tournament is definitely best for revenue & excitement and not so much rewarding the very best but it's not flawed in comparison to any other way you want to determine a winner either.

Bruh

Bruh.......

Hold on I rushed that post while trying to play 2k.. I'll explain this in a way you dumb ass niggas can understand when I'm done with this game.

Burdur......

I'm not even all that into sports and just by reading these posts I can tell Burdur knows very little.

I don't know why I even bother with you people but :

Like, what Ian is saying is technically right, I'm not saying that it's wrong... but it's ridiculous to think and actually knock a tournament format for that reason. There IS no format that works based on that reasoning. There are just some that might be somewhat better than others, but in the end all realistic possibilities are very inaccurate anyway.

The NCAA varies ridiculously in talent conference & schedule-wise for teams. And is even to the point where it's subjective in deciding these bowl games...

Now, a regular season format to determine the best team (and nothing else) would make the most sense for accuracy. And on top of that, make the season reeeally long for more accuracy. I'll give that to this reasoning. But there are still problems.

An upset loss or a couple upset losses to a far less superior team (not a top 12-16 team that qualified for the playoffs) – which other top ranked teams are obviously likely to win - playing a significant role in determining who the best team is, is NOT a very accurate measure. Say if there was only a regular season and no playoffs, those upset losses that shouldn’t have happened whatsoever, but did, will potentially be a major or THE determining factor in knocking a team out of the #1 rank when everything is said and done.

The odds of winning each game apply to all regular season games as well. There is no end to Ian’s logic here. Meaning there is never a best team except based on subjective opinions with that logic.

His logic says that previously played games in a “regular season” or whatever don’t actually tell you who the #1 team is based on those odds of Team A beating Team D, etc. etc. etc. So how the hell do we ever know who the best team is?

The more games for a season, the better for accuracy, but the less realistic to actually happen. Plus, if results were determined like that then there is also more concern for potential injuries over that longer duration... that would hurt the accuracy of this best team crowning.

Having a playoffs tournament is the best, actually realistic, way of determining a champion (with something like a 7-game series being the best way to go by far out of all potential championship formats we’ve seen). It’s a 2-step process between season & playoffs that works. The playoffs are the biggest stage between the best teams. That is championship material if you pull it off. If a team upsets a “better” team in a game, or more so a series, then 1) they earned their spot to be in position for the upset that game based on their regular season performance and 2) they deserve the credit for beating them when it mattered most. They changed the script and now are the better team.

No "Burdur "'s... explain to me why that doesn't make sense if it doesn't or how Ian's logic isn't actually illogical to think that way to "accurately" crown a best team.

Usually I'm fucking/trolling with you guys on subjects but right now I'm being hella serious & I'm mind boggled as to what you niggas are actually trying to say.

Man, I thought we agreed that we were banning this nigga from this section?

BurdurSmurf wrote:

I don't know why I even bother with you people but :

Like, what Ian is saying is technically right, I'm not saying that it's wrong... but it's ridiculous to think and actually knock a tournament format for that reason. There IS no format that works based on that reasoning. There are just some that might be somewhat better than others, but in the end all realistic possibilities are very inaccurate anyway.

The NCAA varies ridiculously in talent conference & schedule-wise for teams. And is even to the point where it's subjective in deciding these bowl games...

Now, a regular season format to determine the best team (and nothing else) would make the most sense for accuracy. And on top of that, make the season reeeally long for more accuracy. I'll give that to this reasoning. But there are still problems.

An upset loss or a couple upset losses to a far less superior team (not a top 12-16 team that qualified for the playoffs) – which other top ranked teams are obviously likely to win - playing a significant role in determining who the best team is, is NOT a very accurate measure. Say if there was only a regular season and no playoffs, those upset losses that shouldn’t have happened whatsoever, but did, will potentially be a major or THE determining factor in knocking a team out of the #1 rank when everything is said and done.

The odds of winning each game apply to all regular season games as well. There is no end to Ian’s logic here.  Meaning there is never a best team except based on subjective opinions with that logic.

His logic says that previously played games in a “regular season” or whatever don’t actually tell you who the #1 team is based on those odds of Team A beating Team D, etc. etc. etc. So how the hell do we ever know who the best team is?

The more games for a season, the better for accuracy, but the less realistic to actually happen. Plus, if results were determined like that then there is also more concern for potential injuries over that longer duration... that would hurt the accuracy of this best team crowning.

Having a playoffs tournament is the best, actually realistic, way of determining a champion (with something like a 7-game series being the best way to go by far out of all potential championship formats we’ve seen). It’s a 2-step process between season & playoffs that works. The playoffs are the biggest stage between the best teams. That is championship material if you pull it off. If a team upsets a “better” team in a game, or more so a series, then 1) they earned their spot to be in position for the upset that game based on their regular season performance and 2) they deserve the credit for beating them when it mattered most. They changed the script and now are the better team.

Man, what is this gibberish?

Burdur......