4down20
Quit checking me out.
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.