Do you agree with the selection committee's make up?

[Deep Creek]

Do you know how much it sucks when you make a mistake on an etch-I-sketch

U r old.

 

[WizardHawk]

Good thing it wasn't done that way this year or Clemson would have been national champions and Saban wouldn't have gotten another one. But, Bama would have gotten one in 2014 so I guess that balances out...except Ohio State would be one short.

I'd have been entirely fine with that. This would have been one of those always existing exception years where there wasn't a clear run away team and the ones you had left to pick from were all flawed.

See, I'm not all that bothered by who gets crowned to begin with. As some of you point out there are 130 teams that all play 12 games a year and almost none of them ever have any shot at that crown. It's a thing everyone gets entirely consumed with, but I'm in it for the intensity of those 12-13 games and the bowls are just the icing at the end. Of course I'd love my team to have that crown, but there's a LOT more to college football for me than whoever it is that gets that.

The proposals to go auto bids would entirely kill what I (and quite a few others) love so much about this game and give us what back? The hope that maybe my less than deserving team can go into an entirely unbalanced tournament and just be healthy enough that late in the year to maybe win it? Not what I want in any way, and yes I know you personally aren't calling for auto bids, but that's what I was responding to with Nole.

 

[WizardHawk]

It depends on how you want to look at that.

It's a Countdown to Number One.

It begins with the start of a season.

By season's end 10 Conf Champs will have eliminated 120 teams.

If I play only shit schools in the OOC...and I win my league, what does that say about the teams
in my League?

I understand a natural response, although not a correct one, is the other school could have more
injuries because of playing better schools. No way. Most injuries occur from folks losing focus
in a game or loafing. A week before UF played us a few years back, they lost both their DT's
against the Citadel. The better the team the harder you play.

For Wizard...A playoff and/or a season long chase to be #1 is not intended to find who is number
2 or 3...just who is #1. One league could have 4 of the top 5 in the Country, but not the best
team in the country. So what. The Rules are the same for everybody and they're fair. You advance
by winning your league.

Auburn beat Georgia this year. Then Georgia beat Auburn. When are they going to break the 1-1
tie. Hell Soccer fans would say Auburn should have advanced because of outscoring Georgia 47-41.
(Whatever term those people use...aggregated, or something like that).

Now you guys are part of a group that blame Bama for playing Mercer. And you can complain about
Bama even getting in the playoffs.

But this is the system you want...so there can be no complaining.

In a playoff...EVERYBODY knows the rules going into the season. The committee that will be used
is comprised of 130 scoreboards.

Ain't nobody gonna be selected. 10 are gonna earn a spot. 1 will earn the title.

We can spend all year debating who is number 2...but we will know who is number 1.

They won their league and then they won the playoff with the other 9 Champs.

I can't ever get any of you auto bid people to actually discuss it, but what is your solution to the OOC problem with taking conf champions purely on winning their conference?

That is, are you entirely ok with making all out of conference games purely exhibition and have absolutely no impact on post season play at all? Because I find it funny some of you preach about wanting to find a champion on the field of play, but are entirely willing to ignore the results of somewhere between 25%-33% of all actual games played. I mean even the NFL only ignores 20% and all of those are up front, not as late as the week before rivalry weekend.

So you want the champ to be because of results on the field of play, but only for some games?

Our current system takes everything into account. Every single thing. Who, when, injuries, how you looked doing it, quality of opponent.

Yours entirely ignores that ALL major conferences have imbalanced league play within their own conference schedules AND you want to just ignore losing to scrubs in OOC if/when it happens.

I'll pass.

 

[Deep Creek]

See, I'm not all that bothered by who gets crowned to begin with.

You'd make a good Beauty Pageant judge if it doesn't bother you who gets crowned.

 

[WizardHawk]

You'd make a good Beauty Pageant judge if it doesn't bother you who gets crowned.

I think a few of us fully understand there isn't a way to make this decision pure. So bashing your head against a wall over any of the entirely expected flaws seems counterproductive.

I prefer to spend a lot more of my energy appreciating the regular season as it stands.

 

[Rolltide94]

I thought we settled this ...... I said "YES!"

works for me...motion to dismiss seconded.

 

[Deep Creek]

I think a few of us fully understand there isn't a way to make this decision pure. So bashing your head against a wall over any of the entirely expected flaws seems counterproductive.

I prefer to spend a lot more of my energy appreciating the regular season as it stands.

My wife refers to this act as stubborn! But, she's narrow minded.

 

[BoiseStateFan27]

No I do not agree the committee, it's complete bullshit

 

[WNY_FOOTBALL_DUDE]

No I do not agree the committee, it's complete bullshit

Fellow Bills fans think alike.

 

[4down20]

Demonstrable flaws in the 8 team playoff vs "but it's people deciding even if we can't identify an actual problem otherwise".

 

[NolePride]

I can't ever get any of you auto bid people to actually discuss it, but what is your solution to the OOC problem with taking conf champions purely on winning their conference?

That is, are you entirely ok with making all out of conference games purely exhibition and have absolutely no impact on post season play at all? Because I find it funny some of you preach about wanting to find a champion on the field of play, but are entirely willing to ignore the results of somewhere between 25%-33% of all actual games played. I mean even the NFL only ignores 20% and all of those are up front, not as late as the week before rivalry weekend.

So you want the champ to be because of results on the field of play, but only for some games?

Our current system takes everything into account. Every single thing. Who, when, injuries, how you looked doing it, quality of opponent.

Yours entirely ignores that ALL major conferences have imbalanced league play within their own conference schedules AND you want to just ignore losing to scrubs in OOC if/when it happens.

I'll pass.

I'm not ignoring anything. I just want it away from Human Hands.

I'm going to comment immediately on one thing you wrote...the part about imbalanced
Conf Schedules. Isn't that kind of a two-headed statement?

Every League now has a Conf Title game...except the Sun Belt and they could be
forced into one. BUT, let me remind you that until this season, during the Playoff Era,
there was only one league that had a Balanced Schedule...the Big12.

And what did everybody complain about..."They don't have a Conf Title Game?"

Huh? They played everybody in their league. There is no doubt they were producing
the only True League Champ in the Country. The argument of imbalanced scheduling
wasn't found in the Big12. Thus we changed the argument to "No Conf Title Game."

When that was done, it wasn't me that ignored the imbalanced conf schedules, it was
everybody else. They were fine with accepting the winner of the CCG as the true champ of the
league.

What always made CFB so great was there were no second chances. In baseball we play teams
3 times during the reg season and then we face them in the Tournaments. In basketball
we play them home and home and then in the tournament. In CFB you got one chance.
We're slowly removing that from CFB.

What did we do this year and last year in the Big10. LY...One loss OSU didn't make
their title game because they lost to the eventual Big10 Champ. The Big10 Champ
didn't make it because they lost 2 games...and one was to Pitt. (Who also beat the eventual
NC...Clemson) But the committee allowed Ohio St to go because they only had one loss...even
though it was to the eventual Conf Champ. (We ignored the results on the field)

This year...Bama loses to Auburn. But we took them, even though they didn't play in their
conf title game, because they were...Bama? They only lost once? Playing Mercer
won't affect that w/l mark that much...now will it.

The current problem is one that has always plagued CFB

You WANT somebody to tell you who the best teams are. You thrive on it. It's
in your blood. (And when I type "You" I'm not referring to you alone). It's habit.
CFB has always decided its NC using the formula..."Another man's opinion."

I just prefer the scoreboard. I know that the Conf Champs will eliminate 120
teams thru regular season play. Then, one team will eliminate the other 9.

And that one team would have accomplished everything on the field of play.

 

[4down20]

I'm not ignoring anything. I just want it away from Human Hands.

I'm going to comment immediately on one thing you wrote...the part about imbalanced
Conf Schedules. Isn't that kind of a two-headed statement?

Every League now has a Conf Title game...except the Sun Belt and they could be
forced into one. BUT, let me remind you that until this season, during the Playoff Era,
there was only one league that had a Balanced Schedule...the Big12.

And what did everybody complain about..."They don't have a Conf Title Game?"

Huh? They played everybody in their league. There is no doubt they were producing
the only True League Champ in the Country. The argument of imbalanced scheduling
wasn't found in the Big12. Thus we changed the argument to "No Conf Title Game."

When that was done, it wasn't me that ignored the imbalanced conf schedules, it was
everybody else. They were fine with accepting the winner of the CCG as the true champ of the
league.

What always made CFB so great was there were no second chances. In baseball we play teams
3 times during the reg season and then we face them in the Tournaments. In basketball
we play them home and home and then in the tournament. In CFB you got one chance.
We're slowly removing that from CFB.

What did we do this year and last year in the Big10. LY...One loss OSU didn't make
their title game because they lost to the eventual Big10 Champ. The Big10 Champ
didn't make it because they lost 2 games...and one was to Pitt. (Who also beat the eventual
NC...Clemson) But the committee allowed Ohio St to go because they only had one loss...even
though it was to the eventual Conf Champ. (We ignored the results on the field)

This year...Bama loses to Auburn. But we took them, even though they didn't play in their
conf title game, because they were...Bama? They only lost once? Playing Mercer
won't affect that w/l mark that much...now will it.

The current problem is one that has always plagued CFB

You WANT somebody to tell you who the best teams are. You thrive on it. It's
in your blood. (And when I type "You" I'm not referring to you alone). It's habit.
CFB has always decided its NC using the formula..."Another man's opinion."

I just prefer the scoreboard. I know that the Conf Champs will eliminate 120
teams thru regular season play. Then, one team will eliminate the other 9.

And that one team would have accomplished everything on the field of play.

Demonstrable flaws in the 8 team playoff vs "but it's people deciding even if we can't identify an actual problem otherwise".

 

[NolePride]

Ok do you have those numbers for say the last 4 seasons?

As promised...I do now. (2014-2017)

I broke it down by league vs league (head-to-head) and then I returned an included A Gof5 League's
results vs P5 teams. It is still the AAC and it really ain't that close.

First the results of the Gof5 leagues vs each other (reg season and bowls)

AAC 40-24 .625
CUSA 49-35 .581
MWC 39-31 .557
MAC 30-47 .390
SBC 31-52 .373

Now the MWC is 7-3 vs CUSA head-to-head. CUSA's numbers are a bit flawed
because of how they dominated the Sun Belt and MAC and the overwhelming games
they played vs those two leagues. 18-9 vs the MAC and 16-7 vs the Sun Belt.
The MWC also loaded up on Sun Belt and MAC teams but their record wasn't that great
vs those leagues. 9-8 vs the MAC and 15-11 vs the Sun Belt.

The AAC was a combined 19-4 vs the MAC and Sun Belt.

Then I went and looked at the results of these leagues vs Power 5 leagues. The standings
are a bit different, except that the AAC is the best league of the Groupof5.

AAC 30-66 .313
MAC 16-66 .195
MWC 15-71 .174
CUSA 7-83 .078
SBC 3-67 .043

Only 2 of the 62 teams in the Group of 5 leagues had a winning record vs P5 teams.
Houston was 7-1 and Boise St was 6-4.

So I would feel confident that the AAC would be the team from the Group of 5 to earn
a first round bye, along with the 5 Power 5 Champs.

I was surprised by the results of the study on the MWC. Boise is a tough out, whomever
they play. Colorado State and Fresno State have always proven to be a challenge. (Fresno
rebounded this year, they had a horrible run, but they used to be the original giant killer
before Boise came along). The other good team in that league is San Diego State. Talent
and Physical. But the rest...damn!

The results point to the 2 play-in games as MAC @ MWC and SBC @ CUSA

 

[WizardHawk]

I'm not ignoring anything. I just want it away from Human Hands.

I'm going to comment immediately on one thing you wrote...the part about imbalanced
Conf Schedules. Isn't that kind of a two-headed statement?

Every League now has a Conf Title game...except the Sun Belt and they could be
forced into one. BUT, let me remind you that until this season, during the Playoff Era,
there was only one league that had a Balanced Schedule...the Big12.

And what did everybody complain about..."They don't have a Conf Title Game?"

Huh? They played everybody in their league. There is no doubt they were producing
the only True League Champ in the Country. The argument of imbalanced scheduling
wasn't found in the Big12. Thus we changed the argument to "No Conf Title Game."

When that was done, it wasn't me that ignored the imbalanced conf schedules, it was
everybody else. They were fine with accepting the winner of the CCG as the true champ of the
league.

What always made CFB so great was there were no second chances. In baseball we play teams
3 times during the reg season and then we face them in the Tournaments. In basketball
we play them home and home and then in the tournament. In CFB you got one chance.
We're slowly removing that from CFB.

What did we do this year and last year in the Big10. LY...One loss OSU didn't make
their title game because they lost to the eventual Big10 Champ. The Big10 Champ
didn't make it because they lost 2 games...and one was to Pitt. (Who also beat the eventual
NC...Clemson) But the committee allowed Ohio St to go because they only had one loss...even
though it was to the eventual Conf Champ. (We ignored the results on the field)

This year...Bama loses to Auburn. But we took them, even though they didn't play in their
conf title game, because they were...Bama? They only lost once? Playing Mercer
won't affect that w/l mark that much...now will it.

The current problem is one that has always plagued CFB

You WANT somebody to tell you who the best teams are. You thrive on it. It's
in your blood. (And when I type "You" I'm not referring to you alone). It's habit.
CFB has always decided its NC using the formula..."Another man's opinion."

I just prefer the scoreboard. I know that the Conf Champs will eliminate 120
teams thru regular season play. Then, one team will eliminate the other 9.

And that one team would have accomplished everything on the field of play.

It's not a two headed statement and whether or not we needed a title game to solve who wins a conference is a different topic than the balance of the schedules.

The conferences are too big now outside of the incorrectly named Big12. 10 was the correct number and should still be, but the pooled money of larger conferences means we aren't heading back to that any time soon.

So you have these 12-14 team leagues that cannot play every team within in it. You do play your own division, but everyone in your division doesn't play the exact same teams from the other one, yet are all compared win/loss the same. That's a huge problem IMO. I devalue CCG's accordingly.

Again though, in your ideal world we would not only take these imbalanced and imperfect championships at face value and make them a seed, but we also entirely ignore every single out of conference game. I keep bringing it up and no one will address that. It's not a minor point IMO. SEC teams play 8 regular season games that count toward their CCG. You want to entirely ignore 4 of their games. Why won't any of you speak on that part of this given that we are entirely throwing out 1/3 of their entire seasons in terms of deciding who is the best team in football?

You keep saying you want things decided on the field of play, but by your own arguments a huge chunk of games no longer count at all and your conference championships are mostly decided (Big12 excluded) on imbalanced schedules that leave anything but a level playing field within their own conferences to begin with. And on top of that you create incentives to make super weak leagues because there is no attempt to delineate strength and the worst league with the worst champion is nearly the same as the top contenders in your ideal playoff.

Those are complete deal breakers to me.

 

[Olyduck]

I agree with Wiz.
by only using champs you in theory have teams that are 10-3 or 9-4 having lost all non conference games but sweeping through the conference to win it and play in the playoff.

 

[NolePride]

I agree with Wiz.
by only using champs you in theory have teams that are 10-3 or 9-4 having lost all non conference games but sweeping through the conference to win it and play in the playoff.

What would that say about their league?

Do we punish Ohio St for losing to Oklahoma but reward Wisconsin for beating Utah St?
We do but the committee doesn't.

If my OOC schedule was Alabama, Notre Dame and Florida and I lost all of them, but beat Clemson
for their only loss of the year...Is Clemson a better team than I am because their OOC schedule
included Furman, Texas State and UCONN?

Who would be the more competitive champion...Me or Clemson?

 

[WizardHawk]

What would that say about their league?

Do we punish Ohio St for losing to Oklahoma but reward Wisconsin for beating Utah St?
We do but the committee doesn't.

If my OOC schedule was Alabama, Notre Dame and Florida and I lost all of them, but beat Clemson
for their only loss of the year...Is Clemson a better team than I am because their OOC schedule
included Furman, Texas State and UCONN?

Who would be the more competitive champion...Me or Clemson?

So you simply keep ducking the question (pun intended based on who you chose to respond to)

Are you then entirely ok with 1/3 of an entire schedule being reduced to nothing but exhibition football or not. Why is it better to completely throw out and never factor in up to that much of a season when asking who the best team in the sport is that year?

I've asked that several times and you simply refuse to address it, or ask some other convoluted question not related instead.

 

[4down20]

What would that say about their league?

Do we punish Ohio St for losing to Oklahoma but reward Wisconsin for beating Utah St?
We do but the committee doesn't.

This is untrue. Ohio St receives very little "punishment" for beating Ohio St and Wisconsin receives very little reward for beating Utah St.

It was the Iowa blowout loss that Ohio St was punished for, and Wisconsin never received a big reward because they didn't play anyone all year.

If my OOC schedule was Alabama, Notre Dame and Florida and I lost all of them, but beat Clemson
for their only loss of the year...Is Clemson a better team than I am because their OOC schedule
included Furman, Texas State and UCONN?

Who would be the more competitive champion...Me or Clemson?

I'm not sure what your point is supposed to be here. Neither of these sounds like they are deserving to be in the playoffs, but if you given AQ status to conference champions, then both are good enough because all those games are irrelevant.

 

[WizardHawk]

This is untrue. Ohio St receives very little "punishment" for beating Ohio St and Wisconsin receives very little reward for beating Utah St.

It was the Iowa blowout loss that Ohio St was punished for, and Wisconsin never received a big reward because they didn't play anyone all year.



I'm not sure what your point is supposed to be here. Neither of these sounds like they are deserving to be in the playoffs, but if you given AQ status to conference champions, then both are good enough because all those games are irrelevant.

His 'point' was to avoid the question in the first place and ignore throwing out 1/4 - 1/3 of every schedule and still claiming we are deciding a champion based on play when in fact we are deciding it on MUCH less play.

 

[Deep Creek]

Again though, in your ideal world we would not only take these imbalanced and imperfect championships at face value and make them a seed, but we also entirely ignore every single out of conference game. I keep bringing it up and no one will address that.

I'll give it a stab Wiz.

On average, 2 out of 3 or 3 out of 4 OOC games for P5 schools deserve "ignoring" because of "who" they are playing. They are the equivalent of "filler" to a meal IMHO. Fill you up but not a lot of nutritional value.

But, I'm definitely in the minority on this because there are a whole lot of people willing to pay a lot of money to watch those shit shows I referenced above. As long as there are enough willing to pay to watch 'em, the schools will keep scheduling them.