BCS was bad? Wait for the "Committee"

[Berkeley_Blues]

I sure hope you cook the burgers, instead of charge for them.

Haha. nice.

(No, I actually delegate the all burger duties to the cerebral giants that hail from the intellectual meccas of places like Gainsville, FL)

 

[Red_Alert]

So to play devil's advocate you go with Stanford (2 loss team) over Oregon (1 loss)? Stanford did beat Oregon in OT by 3. But Stanford also lost to a very avg UW team. Ya see this is what I mean. Let the arguments begin... I think we will be asking for the BCS back in 2 years....

So if you had FSU or KSU, Bama, ND, Stanford... Do you think those were the 4 best CFB teams last year?

Stanford in for winning head-to-head @ Oregon and the PAC CCG.

On your 2nd question no, but keep in mind perception changes from early December (selection time) to after the bowls have been played in January.

Knowing what I knew in December and wnat I learned in January, I still would have omitted Oregon if that's what you're getting at.

 

[ckhokie]

A 4 team playoff is the worst way they could have done this.

If you look back through the BCS era, there are WAY more questions over 4, 5, 6 than there are between 1 and 2. Rarely do the top 2 teams not get matched up. Watching two SEC teams play two of the 4 remaining conference champions is going to get very old, very quickly.

 

[WhiteMamba]

Stanford in for winning head-to-head @ Oregon and the PAC CCG.

On your 2nd question no, but keep in mind perception changes from early December (selection time) to after the bowls have been played in January.

Knowing what I knew in December and wnat I learned in January, I still would have omitted Oregon if that's what you're getting at.

I can buy putting in Stanford over Oregon in 2012. They were an equal to Oregon even with 2 losses. Same rule woulda applied in 2011. Oregon 2 losses Conf champs and Stanford only one loss to Oregon. I just have it the other way Stanford in 2011 and Oregon in 2012.

And yes, perceptions certainly to change after post season...

 

[WhiteMamba]

You guys are stuck on this conf champ thing... Say there is a year where a TCU wins Big12 with 3 losses, and Clemson wins ACC with 3... Just examples

So you have a B1G, an SEC, and a PAC champ in...

You are going to put one of these ACC or Big12 conf champs in over a 1 loss SEC team... How is that remotely fair?

 

[rolltide14_0]

So to play devil's advocate you go with Stanford (2 loss team) over Oregon (1 loss)? Stanford did beat Oregon in OT by 3. But Stanford also lost to a very avg UW team. Ya see this is what I mean. Let the arguments begin... I think we will be asking for the BCS back in 2 years....

So if you had FSU or KSU, Bama, ND, Stanford... Do you think those were the 4 best CFB teams last year?

My playoff would've been Bama,UGA, ND, Stanford, and yes I think those would've been the 4 best options.

I give UGA the nod over UF because first of all, they beat UF h2h, and second, they won the division. UF shouldn't be rewarded for losing to UGA and not having to play in the SECCG.

And I give Stanford the nod over Oregon because, they won the division and conference title, and yes they dropped a game to Washington early, but nearly beat #1 Notre Dame, probably should have beat them if not for the refs, and then beat Oregon.

I agree with you that conference champion shouldn't be a requirement, but I wouldn't have a problem with division title being a requirement. Because if you don't have winning your division as a requirement, then it seems like teams like Florida and Alabama(in 2011) will get rewarded for not having to play an extra game. I think even thought UGA loses in the SECCG, that still shouldn't drop them below UF. I had a big beef with UF being in the Sugar bowl over UGA this past year.

 

[TonyTheGator]

oops, forgot about ND. LOL @ me.

Last year they likely would have had...

Alabama
Notre Dame
Stanford

Not sure about the fourth, but between K. State or Fla St.

I don't think Louisville would have gotten consideration due to Big East perception.

I'm just saying I don't expect this committee to use a lot of common sense in selection. I think the priority will be in spreading the grease to as many pockets as possible. "Last year we omitted this conference, this year we'll inc ude them and omit another" type shit.

Please explain why you would have KSU or FSU over the Gators as the fourth.

 

[WhiteMamba]

My playoff would've been Bama,UGA, ND, Stanford, and yes I think those would've been the 4 best options.

I give UGA the nod over UF because first of all, they beat UF h2h, and second, they won the division. UF shouldn't be rewarded for losing to UGA and not having to play in the SECCG.

And I give Stanford the nod over Oregon because, they won the division and conference title, and yes they dropped a game to Washington early, but nearly beat #1 Notre Dame, probably should have beat them if not for the refs, and then beat Oregon.

I agree with you that conference champion shouldn't be a requirement, but I wouldn't have a problem with division title being a requirement. Because if you don't have winning your division as a requirement, then it seems like teams like Florida and Alabama(in 2011) will get rewarded for not having to play an extra game. I think even thought UGA loses in the SECCG, that still shouldn't drop them below UF. I had a big beef with UF being in the Sugar bowl over UGA this past year.

So in your model Bama in 2011 the eventual NATTY champs wouldnt have made the playoffs that year? Wow

 

[dk14beso]

The White Mamba is right. Who will be these committee members to decide the 4 participants in this "playoff"? You know they will have their own bias' from the get go, but I think at least 2 things should be mandatory. You must have played in your conference title game and also won the league if you don't have a playoff.

 

[WhiteMamba]

Please explain why you would have KSU or FSU over the Gators as the fourth.

Cant for the life of me figure that one out either... If not FLA then UGA...

 

[WhiteMamba]

What they should do is require 9 conf games for the big 5...

 

[WhiteMamba]

I for sure have Oregon in. One loss to Stanford in OT. Just like I have Stanford in 2011. Beating a dead horse here but hey...

 

[rolltide14_0]

So in your model Bama in 2011 the eventual NATTY champs wouldnt have made the playoffs that year? Wow

I guess you're right, I just think the committee should take that into consideration in some situations, so probably not a requirement.

Like in a 2011 playoff, you would've wanted LSU, Okie st., Bama, and someone else in there. BUT, if say UGA had not lost to Boise st. and SCAR earlier in the season, and had the same record as Bama, I think they should get the nod over Bama in 2011 for having won their division and played in the SECCG. See what I'm saying?

 

[ckhokie]

You guys are stuck on this conf champ thing... Say there is a year where a TCU wins Big12 with 3 losses, and Clemson wins ACC with 3... Just examples

So you have a B1G, an SEC, and a PAC champ in...

You are going to put one of these ACC or Big12 conf champs in over a 1 loss SEC team... How is that remotely fair?

I am more worried about a 1 loss ACC or PAC champ that doesn't get in because a 2 loss SEC team that didn't win (or play in) their conf champ game does.

 

[rolltide14_0]

I am more worried about a 1 loss ACC or PAC champ that doesn't get in because a 2 loss SEC team that didn't win (or play in) their conf champ game does.

The committee should just say that if you have 2 or more losses and did not win you're conference, you can't be in the playoff. That would keep a 2 loss SEC team out that didn't win the conference. But if their only loss was the SECCG, then they should still be able to get in.

 

[WhiteMamba]

I guess you're right, I just think the committee should take that into consideration in some situations, so probably not a requirement.

Like in a 2011 playoff, you would've wanted LSU, Okie st., Bama, and someone else in there. BUT, if say UGA had not lost to Boise st. and SCAR earlier in the season, and had the same record as Bama, I think they should get the nod over Bama in 2011 for having won their division and played in the SECCG. See what I'm saying?

Well with most people on this threads prerequisites it woulda been Oregon as 4th team in 2011. Which I totally disagree with. Oregon was PAC champs and had 2 losses. While Stanford only had one loss. I go Staford in 2011 as 4th team.

Just like I go Oregon as 4th in 2012

If the two best teams in CFB happen to be in same conference and division I dont see how both arent in CFP. Perfect example 2011... LSU and Bama...

 

[WhiteMamba]

I am more worried about a 1 loss ACC or PAC champ that doesn't get in because a 2 loss SEC team that didn't win (or play in) their conf champ game does.

That wont happen IMO. A one loss non SEC champ over a PAC B1G Big 12 or ACC school will and should happen. Until somebody proves they can beat the SEC

 

[WhiteMamba]

The committee should just say that if you have 2 or more losses and did not win you're conference, you can't be in the playoff. That would keep a 2 loss SEC team out that didn't win the conference. But if their only loss was the SECCG, then they should still be able to get in.

I could buy that. See what I mean. This thing is going to be a clusterfuck...

And you will probably have a bunch of old men on the committee that dont know what the hell they are doing..

 

[FatDaddy6003]

What about the set up for D2 playoffs?? I dont know how it is set up but why not adapt it to d1??? It seems to work (I think?? :confused2

 

[WhiteMamba]

What about the set up for D2 playoffs?? I dont know how it is set up but why not adapt it to d1??? It seems to work (I think?? :confused2

Makes to much God Damn sense! Thats why