Why did 11 - 1 Alabama get picked over 12 - 1 Wisconsin?

[4down20]

Thanks for the clafication of your previous thoughts. However, what would happen if all P5 champions went undefeated, with no common opponents? This is indeed a possibility.

I'm an engineering professor myself, so I am always concerned with the uncertainties. In this case, the system is flawed. You mention there are informed people making the decisions which is true, but they aren't infallible. Much is the case with the multitudes of failures engineers come across and their decisions are based on the facts at the time. Calculations are done with those facts in order to predict the likelihood of failure, even so, there is always a factor of safety granted to those designs. Sometimes that uncertainty is adequate, but others, it is not without disasterous consequences. The point is we learn from those mistakes and try to make a better product in the future.

This is what I'm proposing. While the playoff has for the most part done its job, there is still a lot of uncertainties involved that can be improved upon.

If the selection is going to be based on metrics, then every team needs to know the required levels (e.g. a SOS above 40 with no more than 1 loss). When these measures can change from year to year, no one knows what the actual goal is. You can't even say that you must go undefeated, because the one undefeated team is left out, and there is always the possibility of 5 P5 champions going undefeated.

Subjectivity should NOT be a part of the selection when there could be more deserving teams than spots. Open it up to an AQ for conference champions and everyone knows what the goal is. If you don't win it, ONLY then, should subjectivity come into play to fill out e seeding.

If it happened that all 5 P5 champions went undefeated, then it comes down to their SoS. But you are talking about something that would be almost impossible to happen, and yet at the same time are in favor of a system that you can demonstrate to be flawed year after year.

 

[Cobrabit]

1) So Toledo should be in the CFP? I hope you don't engineer anything important.

2) I'm happy with a four-team playoff. Has nothing to do with being concerned that Toledo might upset Oklahoma.

3)

What OBJECTIVE reason do you have to exclude them?

Is there an actual guideline/goal that is set forth at the beginning of each season so that every team knows what is required to win the national championship? If not, then it comes down to opinion and that is the definition of a broken system.

I understand that you're happy with a 4 team playoff and that's your opinion, much like my opinion is that EVERY team can start the year with the goal of a national championship in my playoff. The difference is that mine has a CLEAR path on how to reach that playoff in which every team has the opportunity, rather than SUBJECTIVE bias in excluding teams even if they win EVERY game.


Again, this is the ONLY division that you can win every game and still not win a national championship. Broken!

 

[7Samurai13]

Holy Irony Oregon in its prime.

But, but, but... did you see the jerseys?

 

[Cobrabit]

If it happened that all 5 P5 champions went undefeated, then it comes down to their SoS. But you are talking about something that would be almost impossible to happen, and yet at the same time are in favor of a system that you can demonstrate to be flawed year after year.

And since SOS itself is flawed, as we don't play he same opponents, how is it different? I'm proposing an OBJECTIVE metric/goal to win your conference and get in. If you don't, only then does subjectivity come into play. This is less flawed than the current system and allows for clearly defined metrics to reach the playoffs versus the subjectivity of the current system.

 

[rmilia1]

Well, if Alabama is as shitty as 2015 Iowa was, I'll enjoy watching them get embarrassed in the CFP!

I'm guessing that's exactly what's going to happen. I don't think it'll be as bad as OSU last year because this Clemson team isn't as good as that one but it's not going to be close

 

[kburjr]

When OOC games stop being scheduled 8-10 years out will a team be able to control its SOS.

 

[SlinkyRedfoot]

What OBJECTIVE reason do you have to exclude them?

They lost to Ohio University.

Let that sink in. Ohio University.

 

[SlinkyRedfoot]

I'm guessing that's exactly what's going to happen. I don't think it'll be as bad as OSU last year because this Clemson team isn't as good as that one but it's not going to be close

Define "not close."

 

[fishinabarrel]

Do the same exercise with tOSU and Wisconsin.

Iowa gave Ohio StateAIDS. Not HIV. Straight to AIDS. Then her crackhead ex boyfriend showed up and shot us in the foot.

 

[4down20]

And since SOS itself is flawed, as we don't play he same opponents, how is it different? I'm proposing an OBJECTIVE metric/goal to win your conference and get in. If you don't, only then does subjectivity come into play. This is less flawed than the current system and allows for clearly defined metrics to reach the playoffs versus the subjectivity of the current system.

Any system that says USC deserved to be in the playoffs over Alabama this year is flawed. You keep claiming the current system is flawed, but you have 0 evidence to actually support it.

Meanwhile, we can use example after example of actual bad selections using the "conference champion" method.

Conference champion is only a big deal to that conference. Why should it mean anything on a national level?

 

[rmilia1]

Define "not close."

17-24 point margin

 

[SlinkyRedfoot]

Any system that says USC deserved to be in the playoffs over Alabama this year is flawed. You keep claiming the current system is flawed, but you have 0 evidence to actually support it.

Meanwhile, we can use example after example of actual bad selections using the "conference champion" method.

Conference champion is only a big deal to that conference. Why should it mean anything on a national level?

Oh, yeah. Listen to the tough guy with the bunny ears. So you're so sure Alabama would beat Toledo? Then don't be afraid to let Toledo into the CFP.

Oh, shit. This stuff is too funny.

 

[Kaplony]

Perhaps the committee got tired of seeing the Big Slow being run out of the stadium in semifinal games.

 

[SlinkyRedfoot]

If not Alabama, then Ohio State, who had just beat us.

We had our shot, and we lost. No use trying to justify it now.

Yep. I feel the same way about tOSU and Iowa.

 

[7Samurai13]

Iowa gave Ohio StateAIDS. Not HIV. Straight to AIDS. Then her crackhead ex boyfriend showed up and shot us in the foot.

That explains why Michigan State didn’t want to tackle you guys. We didn’t want to get the AIDS.

 

[NolePride]

B.I.T.T.E.R.

It isn’t a big deal — I’d be bitter too if my coach wanted to go to a better program. And if you are worried about Fisher’s record against the top 25 — I’m sure you are ecstatic that you were able to bring in a coach with a career HC record of 47-50.

Oh yeah...they're a better program alright. As long as you don't count championships and wins and
losses.

His overall doesn't mean that much in the broad scope of things. He went to two programs that were
rock bottom and made them into winners in a very short period of time. His third program was a
losing proposition but he got them back to a bowl in year one.

Now he's coming to a program with the 3rd most elite talent in the country. He's gonna be just
fine for us.

 

[SlinkyRedfoot]

That explains why Michigan State didn’t want to tackle you guys. We didn’t want to get the AIDS.

So instead you just greased up your poopers and bent over?

 

[NolePride]

Both the B1G and SEC qualify BYU as a P5 team. Not only that but it's a fvk lot easier to get bowl qualified when you play a beat ass 8 game conference schedule.

The Big10 and the SEC are not the final say on who is or isn't a P5 team.

I agree, to a point on it being easier to get bowl qualified when a team plays an 8-game conf schedule.
BUT, Whisky went a step farther and it became a gimme for them to get bowl qualified playing a
9-game conf schedule....Especially considering 5 of their conf opponents are not bowl eligible.

 

[AlaskaGuy]

The Big10 and the SEC are not the final say on who is or isn't a P5 team.

I agree, to a point on it being easier to get bowl qualified when a team plays an 8-game conf schedule.
BUT, Whisky went a step farther and it became a gimme for them to get bowl qualified playing a
9-game conf schedule....Especially considering 5 of their conf opponents are not bowl eligible.

The B1G should switch to an 8 game conference schedule so they can get more of their teams 'bowl eligible'. That way they can brag about how many 'bowl eligible' teams they played.

 

[NolePride]

The B1G should switch to an 8 game conference schedule so they can get more of their teams 'bowl eligible'. That way they can brag about how many 'bowl eligible' teams they played.

Well, at least they could fill all their bowl slots. They gave up a bunch of them this year.

But as stated a few weeks ago...they went to the 9-game conf schedule to keep from having
to schedule another OOC game vs a P5 team from another league. They didn't want to
expose themselves to the committee, but needed to lift their s.o.s.