2017 College Football Season thread

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by dubb93

And for the record I think the committee got this wrong two years in a row. I’d like to see a system where the 5 power 5 conference champions + 3 go to a tournament with the conference champions seeded 1-5 and the +3 seeded 6-8. That is the system I would like to see.

This, with at least one guaranteed spot to a non-power 5 conference champ.

[hollmt]

I will again preface this by saying that I am not upset about OSU not getting in, but I do think the committee got it wrong again this year as well as last year.

I was and have been a proponent of conf champs getting an opportunity for a national championship from the beginning of this debacle of a playoff system. Last year I was in favor of PSU getting in over OSU, (but was again, not disappointed that OSU got the nod as it favored my team). I was disappointed that Bama got in this year as well as they aren't a champion of their own conference. I know, I know...many on here give 2 shits about conference championships and think they are meaningless...I get it.

The main problem I see in this is the shitbox human element of judging teams and who the best 4 are year after year. I do not trust people and time after time we have been shown how people are bought and the system is rigged for financial gain (i.e.; Olympics). Tell me that the committee wasn't tickled pink that Wisconsin lost so that they could put Bama or OSU in at 4 and I will laugh in your face. Bama or OSU sells MUCH better than Wisconsin ever does or will.

I am a fan of proving it on the field with your record in your conference. I always will be. Win your conference, you get an invite. Simple as that. There would still be a mild human element if we went to 8 teams, but at least it would be 5 Power Five champs, a possible Group of 5 champ and then 2 other at large teams.

There wont be a perfect system, but I do think one of the systems that helps get it more HONEST, is by getting rid of corrupt people with bias and motives making the decisions. Any system where judging is involved is corrupt in some way. That is not fun and causes mistrust and debate.

[tarcone]

Someone mentioned that there will always be controversy, no matter how many teams are in. They mentioned college basketball.

The difference between college basketball is you have the 7th place teams in a conference that may not make it. Not the champion.

A field of 8 takes not having a champion out of the equation. Being a power 5 conference champion is a big deal. And should be rewarded.

[hollmt]

Correct, there will always be some sort of controversy and debate. The main debate we have and always have though is who is the best 4 teams.

Everyone for the most part, evident on this board, disagrees with just that concept...who are the best 4 teams. There is usually a general consensus maybe on a couple or few of them from week to week or at year end, but that is about it.

Rhetorical question...why is Georgia considered one of the best teams? Why is Alabama? Why isnt UCF? They were undefeated. Dont they deserve a chance to show why they are or or not deserving?

NCAA BBall at least rewards conference champs. Hell no, I do not want to see NWSE Virginia A&M Technical win the NCAA championship because they got lucky and won their tourney and rolled off 6 or 7 games in the NCAA tourney after going 15-16 in the regular season. It wouldn't happen, but what is exciting is the prospect that it could happen. The cream usually rises to the top in most sporting situations.

UCF is as deserving as any other school this year to have an opportunity to play on the field against the 'best 4 teams'. But they dont and wont get that chance, because the 'experts' have judged and deemed them not worthy because they aren't OSU, Clemson, Alabama, Notre Dame, or any other big school that will generate $$$.

I am tired of having 13 jackwagons sitting in a room judging with bias and motives on who they feel (by a vote that is often split) who the best 4 teams are. I do not trust them or the human element of it.

Reward the conference champs from the Power 5. Then reward at large teams from the Group of 5 or Power 5 similar to the men's tourney. No other major sport judges ALL the teams who deserve to play for a championship except in college football. If you win your conference, no matter how shitty you might think that conferene is compared to another conference, and then you beat the other teams in a tournament from said conferences...you deserve to be the champion.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by tarcone

Being a power 5 conference champion is a big deal.

Not really, not always at least.

[hollmt]

It does though Jon. I will beat that drum as long as I breathe and yes, you can beat on the drum that you believe it doesnt, but running through your conference that you play in means something. You cant pick and choose when it means something and then when it doesn't. It doesn't work that way.

[Young Drachma]

What's wild is, given the system most of us grew up with, it's crazy to consider we have a playoff at all. For years, they swore it'd never happen and yet, here we are. When somebody find a few billion under a seat cushion somewhere to warrant expanding, they will.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by hollmt

It does though Jon. I will beat that drum as long as I breathe and yes, you can beat on the drum that you believe it doesnt, but running through your conference that you play in means something. You cant pick and choose when it means something and then when it doesn't. It doesn't work that way.

How much it means depends on the caliber of the conference in a given year. There's been a number of years, just as an easy example, where winning the SEC East wasn't exactly much to crow about. ACC had a year or two like that too, most conferences have once at times.

[hollmt]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

How much it means depends on the caliber of the conference in a given year. There's been a number of years, just as an easy example, where winning the SEC East wasn't exactly much to crow about. ACC had a year or two like that too, most conferences have once at times.

I figured that would be your comeback...about how good a conference or division of a conference is perceived from one year to the next. Again, you cant pick and choose when YOU feel a conference is not as good from one year to the next or when YOU think Conference A is better than Conference B, therefore Conference B and their champ....dont matter.

Tell that to the kids at UCF who went undefeated and won their conference. It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter that you get absolutely zero shot to play against Alabama or Clemson and prove your worth. Jon and the so called experts of the committee says so.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by hollmt

Again, you cant pick and choose when YOU feel a conference is not as good from one year to the next or when YOU think Conference A is better than Conference B, therefore Conference B and their champ....dont matter.

Oh I absolutely can. And so can anyone with any knowledge of the sport. The eye test outweighs anything else afaic, in terms of determine the quality of a team. (Quality of team, not quality of their season, two different things)

And, if you really just wanna be fucking hostile about it, I hold little or no regard for the opinion of anyone that can't. In short, if you can't make that sort of judgment then kindly stay the hell out of the way & leave things to the more capable adults.

Earlier, however, I think I figured out the simpler & more way to phrase my take on it

If you're good (or better than good) you might be a conference champion.
Being a conference champion does not make you good.

[hollmt]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Oh I absolutely can. And so can anyone with any knowledge of the sport. The eye test outweighs anything else afaic, in terms of determine the quality of a team. (Quality of team, not quality of their season, two different things)

And, if you really just wanna be fucking hostile about it, I hold little or no regard for the opinion of anyone that can't. In short, if you can't make that sort of judgment then kindly stay the hell out of the way & leave things to the more capable adults.

Earlier, however, I think I figured out the simpler & more way to phrase my take on it

If you're good (or better than good) you might be a conference champion.
Being a conference champion does not make you good.

wow, jon, was I being 'fucking hostile'? a difference of opinion got you pretty riled up there huh?

this is exactly the problem with your thought process and those that support it...judging with the eye test and what you (not the figurative you) think and judge as opposed to what just happens over the course of the season. you dismiss what is earned.

as I mentioned before...no other sport selects ALL their teams eligible for a championship based solely on 'an eye test' or judgment calls on who they feel is the best. no....its earned from winning a conference, a division, a league etc. and then those teams play for it all.

so get your head out of your ass and use some common sense and stop thinking only you have some superior knowledge of the sport that nobody else has. how is that for fucking hostility?

[hollmt]

Let me add just a bit to our debate:

Lets assume, that you me and lets say...tarcone with our vast and superior college football and sports knowledge get to pick the 4 teams that get to participate in the playoff based solely mind you, on the eye test and judging (bias and motive).

You, Jon, think teams A, B, C and D deserve it.
I think that teams A, B, C and E deserve it.
Tarcone thinks that teams A, B, H and J deserve it.

All 3 of us believe A and B deserve it, so they are in. You and I feel as if team C deserve it and 2 out of 3 feel that way, so team C is in. But we will not agree on the 4th team. You and I have to recuse ourselves because we clearly have a bias/motive on the 4th team, leaving Tarcone to decide. He chooses team H, so therefore they are in. A, B, C and H.

Take that and multiply it by a bit for all the committee members. Take that and multiply it by more for all the 'experts', 'capable adults' and 'analysts' out there. Take that and multiply it by all the millions of fans....all with different opinions on what/who is considered the best (conference or team).

And there lies the problem with using a judgement type system to determine who deserves a shot to play for a national championship. It is flawed. Humans are flawed and yes you Jon and myself (mostly you), are flawed and cannot be trusted not to have bias, motives and too heavy of opinions to make those choices.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by hollmt

You, Jon, think teams A, B, C and D deserve it.

We could easily enough stop right there. That's really the only opinion on the subject I give much of a damn about. And I'd do everything within my power to put those 4 choices in place.

As I think I've noted previously, I didn't buy your argument when it positioned BYU as a "national champion" in 1984, I don't buy it now.

Further, why would I take issue with the playoff committee when I think they've gotten things right the large majority of the time?

Yr 1: Bama, Oregon, FSU, Ohio State
I had: Oregon, Bama, FSU, Ohio State
Yr 2: Clemson, Bama, Mich State, Oklahoma
I had: Clemson, Bama, Oklahoma, Michigan State
Yr 3: Bama, Clemson, Ohio State, Washington
I had: Bama, Ohio State, Clemson, Washington
Yr 4: Clemson, Oklahoma, Georgia, Bama
I had: Clemson, Oklahoma, Georgia, Ohio State

15 out of 16 right ain't too shabby on their part.

[tarcone]

Jon, using your eye test means that every year there will be about 7 teams ever, with a chance to win the national championship.
Those teams that have 5* recruits all over their 2 deeps are obviously going to look better than, say an Iowa or Wisconsin, that get 2 and 3* recruits.

Why dont we just make one conference of Alabama, Georgia, Clemson, Texas, Oklahoma, Michigan, USC, Notre Dame, Florida, Florida St. and call it the BLue Blood Conference. And the winner of the conference is the National Championship.

Everyone else uses the bowl system and just enjoys the fact that they suck and can just enjoy the tailgating.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by tarcone

Jon, using your eye test means that every year there will be about 7 teams ever, with a chance to win the national championship.
Those teams that have 5* recruits all over their 2 deeps are obviously going to look better than, say an Iowa or Wisconsin, that get 2 and 3* recruits.

Why dont we just make one conference of Alabama, Georgia, Clemson, Texas, Oklahoma, Michigan, USC, Notre Dame, Florida, Florida St. and call it the BLue Blood Conference. And the winner of the conference is the National Championship.

Everyone else uses the bowl system and just enjoys the fact that they suck and can just enjoy the tailgating.

You could throw a few more teams into the mix like Ohio State and their recruiting classes.

A team that has a lot of experience coming back(starters) of mostly 4-5 star recruits that wasnt a "national powerhouse" could sneak into the picture. As unbelievable as it may be a team with 50 5 star recruits and 50 4 star recruits is 99.9 percent of the time going to be better than a team with 75 3 star recruits and 25 2 star recruits. Teams may miss on recruits but when you have such a large talent pool to choose from within your own team the odds are slim to none that you dont have a stud replacement.

Wisconsin is a pretty good example of this. They play solid football every single year and have as good of program as any in the nation at developing talent but they just dont have the depth and athletes of some of the national powers. Give Wisconsin the ability to recruit like USC and they would win National Championships.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

We could easily enough stop right there. That's really the only opinion on the subject I give much of a damn about. And I'd do everything within my power to put those 4 choices in place.

As I think I've noted previously, I didn't buy your argument when it positioned BYU as a "national champion" in 1984, I don't buy it now.

Further, why would I take issue with the playoff committee when I think they've gotten things right the large majority of the time?

Yr 1: Bama, Oregon, FSU, Ohio State
I had: Oregon, Bama, FSU, Ohio State
Yr 2: Clemson, Bama, Mich State, Oklahoma
I had: Clemson, Bama, Oklahoma, Michigan State
Yr 3: Bama, Clemson, Ohio State, Washington
I had: Bama, Ohio State, Clemson, Washington
Yr 4: Clemson, Oklahoma, Georgia, Bama
I had: Clemson, Oklahoma, Georgia, Ohio State

15 out of 16 right ain't too shabby on their part.

In fairness, I think there have really been only two arguably tough decisions in four years of this. The 2014 decision of Ohio State vs. Baylor/TCU and this year's Ohio State vs. Bama. I think 2014 was probably a harder call than this year, even though Ohio State went on to win the title.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by tarcone

Jon, using your eye test means that every year there will be about 7 teams ever, with a chance to win the national championship.
Those teams that have 5* recruits all over their 2 deeps are obviously going to look better than, say an Iowa or Wisconsin, that get 2 and 3* recruits.

To be fair, this is kinda the idea behind ESPN's FPI. They supposedly take into account the quality of the players on each teams. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy, and why the FPI is a crock of shit. Well, one reason anyway.

Not to say that I totally disagree with Jon. I do think being a conference champion should carry some weight... but you also can just TELL when teams are overrated ("eye test"). I think everyone knew going into this past weekend that Wisconsin and Miami were overrated. And it was proven on the field. Either that, or Ohio State is underrated... but it seemed like the former.

[hollmt]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

We could easily enough stop right there. That's really the only opinion on the subject I give much of a damn about. And I'd do everything within my power to put those 4 choices in place.

Thank you. You just proved my point and I doubt you even realize how.

[pbot]

What we have now is really no different than when the AP & Coaches polls determined the national champion. The only difference is the conferences pulled the power away from the polls and now it is called a committee.

Same pig, different lipstick.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by hollmt

Thank you. You just proved my point and I doubt you even realize how.

Yep. I was struck by that as well.

[Logan]

Jon, you gotta hang your hat up as soon as you walk into the committee room.

Surprised you didn't know that.

[Logan]

UCF is hiring Mizzou OC Josh Heupel as their new HC.

No opinion on the hire but good job keeping that under wraps.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by hollmt

Thank you. You just proved my point and I doubt you even realize how.

Of course there's bias ... bias toward the best four teams.
As there should be.

This isn't some socialist enterprise where everybody gets a participation trophy.
Some pigs really ARE more equal than others.

[JPhillips]

The whole problem is demanding objectivity in an exercise that is inherently subjective. There's no way to know the four best teams given the small number of games played and the lack of overlap in scheduling.

But then I'm fine with the bowl system where we accepted that there's no way to be definitive regarding the national champion.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

bias toward the best four teams.

Yes, Clemson, Georgia, Oklahoma, and Ohio State.

The ones for Alabama are just wrong. What do the folks who say the best four teams are Clem, UGA, OU, and Ala saying you think?

[hollmt]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Of course there's bias ... bias toward the best four teams.

It is painfully obvious you don't get it. And with every comment you make you continue to deflate your own argument.

The only thing I agree with you on is that there is bias towards the four best teams in your opinions. And you are allowed to have that opinion, don't misunderstand me, as I am not saying your opinion on the 4 best teams is wrong.

But then another person and their bias, feels differently than you.
And so on, and so on. But you know....those biases/opinions of others dont matter, as you've clearly stated unless it aligns with yours then it isn't too shabby....

The entire point is to get rid of the human element and bias.

[lungs]

The thing that devalues conference championship games IMO is Conference divisions. Get rid of them.

[hollmt]

Originally Posted by lungs

The thing that devalues conference championship games IMO is Conference divisions. Get rid of them.

That is a fair point.
Would you then have 1 and 2 play in a championship game or just a flat out 1st place is your champion?

[lungs]

Originally Posted by hollmt

That is a fair point.
Would you then have 1 and 2 play in a championship game or just a flat out 1st place is your champion?

Hmm. That's a good question. How many times would Auburn/Alabama and Michigan/Ohio State end up playing two weeks in a row?

Maybe move those last week rivalry games back to lessen the chances of that, though it will still happen.

On the other hand, even if you eliminate divisions and championship games you'd end up with something like Wisconsin drawing the schedule they had this year winning the conference without even playing what was ultimately the better team in Ohio State.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by lungs

The thing that devalues conference championship games IMO is Conference divisions. Get rid of them.

This is correct. The first place team from a very weak division that went 6-6 and gets lucky and win the alleged conference championship because of injuries or fluke calls is NOT the best team in the conference. One game should not cause you to ignore all of the other games. OSU loss to Iowa has to be considered against beating Wisconsin, their loss to Oklahoma has to be weighed against beating, what, Michigan? It’s close but the Iowa was so devastating that it brings down all of the wins, esp compared to Alabama’s one loss to Auburn.

When everyone was arguing here years ago for playoffs, which I adamantly opposed and still do, people said that it would solve a lot of controversies and debates. All it did was to make the rich richer and make it more important than it really should.

Nothing wrong with traditional bowl matchups to give fans an exhibition game in a nice warm location and poll a large group of voters to crown an apples-oranges champion if you think that it really matters.

[hollmt]

Yeah, lungs has a good point on Wisconsin. Buccaneer has a good point on a division champ that gets lucky. But we already do that in the Basketball tourny, right? Invite teams based on a possible lucky run in their tourny. Cream usually rises to the top though, just in Basketball, there are more games for that cream to rise. I understand.

It'll never happen, but if it went to 1st place in the Power 5 is in, remove the Conference Champ game altogether as many don't even like it, bump it to an 8 team playoff, invite the Power 5 1st place teams and then let the judging commence for the remaining 3 spots. At least we would have a real 'deserving' 1st place team (I use deserving loosely i.e. a schedule benefiting certain teams any given year) and then 3 other teams deemed worthy.

Wishful thinking.

[larrymcg421]

I've always felt that the regular season should be seen as it's own first round of the playoff. To me, Alabama was eliminated when they didn't win their own conference. If we really want to reward the Alabamas of the world, then we should expand to 8 teams. But if we're limited to 4 teams, it doesn't make sense that we should exclude a conference champion in favor of a team that was already determined to be not as good as another team in their own conference. I don't care if we think Alabama is better than Ohio State or whoever else. They didn't get the job done in their own conference and so should be eliminated.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

But if we're limited to 4 teams, it doesn't make sense that we should exclude a conference champion in favor of a team that was already determined to be not as good as another team in their own conference. I don't care if we think Alabama is better than Ohio State or whoever else. They didn't get the job done in their own conference and so should be eliminated.

That sounds great, but what about when there are multiple upsets in Power-5 championship games with three (or more) loss teams winning?

Let's say you had the following conference champs:
ACC: Clemson (12-1)
B1G: Wisconsin (10-3)
B12: TCU (11-2)
P12: USC (12-1)
SEC: Florida (9-4)

...and you had the following "at-large" teams:

Alabama (12-1)
Ohio State (12-1)

You'd have a pretty serious outcry if the four teams were Clemson, USC, TCU and Wisconsin, especially for that fourth spot.

[larrymcg421]

In fact, I would take my statement even a step further and expand to 16 teams so we can invite every conference winner. So in addition to the Power 5 champions, we'd also have:

UCF
Florida Atlantic
North Texas
Toledo
Boise State
Troy/App State (via whatever tiebreaker the conference chooses)

Still leaving 5 spots for Alabama and 4 other teams.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I don't care if we think Alabama is better than Ohio State or whoever else.

That makes zero sense.

You want the four best teams. More importantly perhaps, that's what the committee is charged with delivering. That's what the process is designed to deliver.

Even if I think they got it wrong this year, the concept is still correct.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

That sounds great, but what about when there are multiple upsets in Power-5 championship games with three (or more) loss teams winning?

Let's say you had the following conference champs:
ACC: Clemson (12-1)
B1G: Wisconsin (10-3)
B12: TCU (11-2)
P12: USC (12-1)
SEC: Florida (9-4)

...and you had the following "at-large" teams:

Alabama (12-1)
Ohio State (12-1)

You'd have a pretty serious outcry if the four teams were Clemson, USC, TCU and Wisconsin, especially for that fourth spot.

I'm sure there would be an outcry. I just disagree with that outcry. Why does Alabama deserve to get in if they didn't win when it counted against Florida? Why does Ohio State deserve to get in if they didn't win when it counted against Wisconsin?

Like I said, I'd be fine with expanding the playoffs to take care of the problem you outlined or the conferences can get rid of their championship game to make sure those upsets don't happen.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

That makes zero sense.

You want the four best teams.

Couldn't disagree more. It's a sport, not a pageant. Or at least, it should be. I don't want college football to be like figure skating. Part of the problem here is the understanding of the term 'best' and it's relation to stuff like eye test. Eye test has nothing to do with best in this context. Quality of season and quality of team should not be separated and distinguished between. I want an eight-team playoff, but however many we have, those chosen should be those who have earned their way in. It should be as objective as possible, not subjective.

If a team is capable of doing something, but doesn't prove it on the field, then they aren't really 'better'. Consistency matters just as much as peak performance.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I'm sure there would be an outcry. I just disagree with that outcry. Why does Alabama deserve to get in if they didn't win when it counted against Florida? Why does Ohio State deserve to get in if they didn't win when it counted against Wisconsin?

It's an endless debate about what constitutes the "best team" and how to best crown a champion. I'm certainly very open to the concept - as done in pro sports - that regardless of how well you do in the regular season, if you lose in the playoffs you're out. The "best" team might not win it all, but at least the process follows a concrete path.

What's interesting about this is if you really boil down "best team", what does that mean? What if a key player on a contender is lost for a few games and that team loses a game they might not have otherwise? Should we judge the team based off how good they are at full strength, or do we say "tough luck, have better depth"?

Most of the time I think what Jon (and others) really mean is the team that had the best season, though they often then conflate talent and whatnot into the mix. I think there's a good argument to be had about whether Alabama or Ohio State has had the 'better' season so far, and I can see a view that says Ohio State earned their way into the CFP with the better season but that Alabama is probably the 'better' team.

Like I said, I'd be fine with expanding the playoffs to take care of the problem you outlined or the conferences can get rid of their championship game to make sure those upsets don't happen.

At what point do we cross a line though in terms of making the concept of a student-athlete in FBS football a complete farce? Even as it is with 12 regular season games, a conference championship game and then 2 playoff games we're asking a tremendous amount out of kids on teams that make the championship game. I think many would argue we've already crossed that line, but adding another 1-2 games to the process really feels like a tipping point that would force the NCAA to figure out a way to cut in the players on more benefits.

[larrymcg421]

Why even play the 2007 Super Bowl? The Patriots were clearly the "best" team that year and it's hard to dispute that no matter the result of the game. And if we are going to have that game, why do the 10-6 Giants get to play in it over the clearly better 13-3 Cowboys or 13-3 Packers?

[dfisher]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

At what point do we cross a line though in terms of making the concept of a student-athlete in FBS football a complete farce? Even as it is with 12 regular season games, a conference championship game and then 2 playoff games we're asking a tremendous amount out of kids on teams that make the championship game. I think many would argue we've already crossed that line, but adding another 1-2 games to the process really feels like a tipping point that would force the NCAA to figure out a way to cut in the players on more benefits.

I understand it's on a much smaller scale revenue-wise, but the FCS plays an 11 game schedule and now has 5 rounds of playoffs. If a lower seed makes a run, they would play 16 games, or 1 less than an FBS champion would play.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Why even play the 2007 Super Bowl? The Patriots were clearly the "best" team that year and it's hard to dispute that no matter the result of the game. And if we are going to have that game, why do the 10-6 Giants get to play in it over the clearly better 13-3 Cowboys or 13-3 Packers?

Why indeed? A regular season of 16 games gives us more data than a playoff of four rounds. A regular season of 162 games of baseball gives us a lot more data than the playoffs.

Obviously in football it's a tougher sell than baseball (at least in that many games you could arrange the schedule so every team played every other team) given the size of the league and the number of regular season games. But there's an argument there, and it's what CFB did for a century.

[dawgfan]

Dola - looks like Taggart to Florida State is finally about to be official.

[Buccaneer]

You cannot hold up NCAA basketball tournament as an example of auto invites to conference tournament winners because that is one of the most ludicrous things in sports.

NBA and NHL (I believe) have gone to seeding the best 8 teams, and NFL and MLB will likely follow some time. Brian Swartz, being the best team in the SEC East should not mean anything, no more than winning the NFC South at 7-9

BCS objectivily got it right most of the time so I wonder what the top 4 would this year with the same formula? But it does not matter if and how you choose 2, 4 or 8 or none (my proposal), it will be the same argument.

.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

But it does not matter if and how you choose 2, 4 or 8 or none (my proposal), it will be the same argument.

Quoted for truth

[larrymcg421]

Yes, you will always have an argument. I think it's best to change the argument from the 3rd place team to the 9th or 17th place teams. Miami getting left out in 2000 was way worse than Ohio State getting left out this year and that is way worse than whoever would've been left out in 9th or 17th this year. I've never understood why that argument is used to justify limiting playoffs because it actually leads to the exact opposite conclusion for me.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

BCS objectivily got it right most of the time so I wonder what the top 4 would this year with the same formula? .

Fansided actually has that (I'm afraid to link it directly cause I think that's one of the sites that wonks up threads here (?) )

Clemson 0.9859
Georgia 0.9375
Oklahoma 0.9317
Alabama 0.8491
-----
Ohio State 0.8479

The rest of the Top 12 were Wisconsin, USC, Auburn, UCF, Penn State, Miami, Washington

edit to add: that's the exact same top 4, and the exact same top 12, as the committee, just with changes in the seeding order for a few teams, biggest diff being UCF but not by a huge amount

[Buccaneer]

Meant to say one, not none. Nothing wrong with polling a lot of relatively objective people and pick one, if that’s important enough for you.

Why is turning college into the NFL so important to (royal) you? You have already any shred of amateurism and priority in American university with your insane need to compete for greed and corruption , why make it worse?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

It should be as objective as possible, not subjective.

But it's subjective by design. That's what the massive TV contract paying the freight for all this mess agreed to.

Nobody seemed to like the BCS, so they changed it.
Now folks don't like the committee, so they bitch about that instead.

Will anyone really be satisfied until there's a participation trophy for every damned team in the country? Let's just go to 130 "conferences" and declare everybody a conference champion I guess. Do away with the regular season & just have one giant ass tournament with all these "conference champions", maybe then people will be happier.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Fansided actually has that (I'm afraid to link it directly cause I think that's one of the sites that wonks up threads here (?) )

Clemson 0.9859
Georgia 0.9375
Oklahoma 0.9317
Alabama 0.8491
-----
Ohio State 0.8479

The rest of the Top 12 were Wisconsin, USC, Auburn, UCF, Penn State, Miami, Washington

edit to add: that's the exact same top 4, and the exact same top 12, as the committee, just with changes in the seeding order for a few teams, biggest diff being UCF but not by a huge amount

So it was all about the Iowa loss and people are still complaining? Wonder what would’ve happened if TCU won? They get in, right? They would’ve “won” the Big12.

LarryMcG, yes, the Patriots were clearly the best team that season. The Giants won the final game between them and the Patriots.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

So it was all about the Iowa loss and people are still complaining? Wonder what would’ve happened if TCU won? They get in, right? They would’ve “won” the Big12.

Why not? Does anyone think that if Auburn beat Georgia in the SEC Championship they wouldn't have gotten in?