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

[WNY_FOOTBALL_DUDE]

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.

For the record, I am not for automatic playoff bids. I think you need to take the top 6 highest ranked/rated conference champions in the 12-20 ranking range.

BUT, I don't agree with your point about the OCC games at all.

Nobody is throwing out the 3-4 OCC games. Here's what you need to understand/comprehend:

1. Under an 8 team, at least the first round would take place on campus sites. If you're a team that decided to rest your players for the OCC games and magically end up winning your conference, you would be playing on the road. Seeding is important. NFL teams do not rest their players until they have secured the highest playoff spot available. Also, giving players too much rest, builds up rust and loses team chemistry and momentum. Look what happened to the Steelers, when they "rested" their players against the Brownies. In college, you still have to win your conference championship game. If you decide to take off games, then you risk both losing your conference championship game and the ability to get a wildcard spot.

2. Most out of conference games are pretty soft, and includes an FCS program. Teams usually schedule "light" in the beginning in order to get the team warmed up and build chemistry. Alabama likes to schedule an FCS program before the Auburn game in order to rest up their players and give the backups rep. Nothing wrong with this.

3. So what? Lets say that Clemson after going 10-1 on the season, decides to rest Kelly Bryant against South Carolina or Bryce Love for Stanford against Notre Dame. What is the big deal? If Clemson gets that 2nd loss against South Carolina, then they have to win against Miami in order to get in. If they don't, then they are out of the playoffs.

4. SOS is still extremely important. Teams will schedule against tough teams for money purposes (playing Ohio State, brings in more money than Jackson State), to boost up SOS numbers, and to see how well a team can measure up against a college football heavy weight.

5. The problem with being so loss sensitive is that it discourages risk taking. If USC decided to play Baylor or Kansas instead of Notre Dame, they would be 12-1 and would win that 4th playoff spot over Bama. But instead they were 8th in the polls and looking in. You favor CCs, then teams are more willing to challenge themselves in the OCC, knowing that losing to Oklahoma or Alabama will not eliminate them from the playoff and would only help them in the overall SOS numbers.

So if anything, it would actually ENHANCE the regular season.

 

[WizardHawk]

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.

They don't apply even in a loss is the point. Michigan losing to App State wouldn't have kept them out that year. Now they only finished tied for second in conf anyway, but one more conf win and they are in a playoff for auto bids despite that loss.

They shouldn't count at all (and don't) for blow out wins, but narrow wins or the odd loss can (and do) currently hurt teams. You act as though it's just win or loss and somehow they are currently benefiting from smashing pumpkins.

In an auto bid they literally are nothing. They do not count toward the only criteria for making the playoff.

 

[WizardHawk]

For the record, I am not for automatic playoff bids. I think you need to take the top 6 highest ranked/rated conference champions in the 12-20 ranking range.

BUT, I don't agree with your point about the OCC games at all.

Nobody is throwing out the 3-4 OCC games. Here's what you need to understand/comprehend:

1. Under an 8 team, at least the first round would take place on campus sites. If you're a team that decided to rest your players for the OCC games and magically end up winning your conference, you would be playing on the road. Seeding is important. NFL teams do not rest their players until they have secured the highest playoff spot available. Also, giving players too much rest, builds up rust and loses team chemistry and momentum. Look what happened to the Steelers, when they "rested" their players against the Brownies. In college, you still have to win your conference championship game. If you decide to take off games, then you risk both losing your conference championship game and the ability to get a wildcard spot.

2. Most out of conference games are pretty soft, and includes an FCS program. Teams usually schedule "light" in the beginning in order to get the team warmed up and build chemistry. Alabama likes to schedule an FCS program before the Auburn game in order to rest up their players and give the backups rep. Nothing wrong with this.

3. So what? Lets say that Clemson after going 10-1 on the season, decides to rest Kelly Bryant against South Carolina or Bryce Love for Stanford against Notre Dame. What is the big deal? If Clemson gets that 2nd loss against South Carolina, then they have to win against Miami in order to get in. If they don't, then they are out of the playoffs.

4. SOS is still extremely important. Teams will schedule against tough teams for money purposes (playing Ohio State, brings in more money than Jackson State), to boost up SOS numbers, and to see how well a team can measure up against a college football heavy weight.

5. The problem with being so loss sensitive is that it discourages risk taking. If USC decided to play Baylor or Kansas instead of Notre Dame, they would be 12-1 and would win that 4th playoff spot over Bama. But instead they were 8th in the polls and looking in. You favor CCs, then teams are more willing to challenge themselves in the OCC, knowing that losing to Oklahoma or Alabama will not eliminate them from the playoff and would only help them in the overall SOS numbers.

So if anything, it would actually ENHANCE the regular season.

You are so lost here. Like 1000% so.

South
USC 8-1
Arizona State 6-3
Arizona 5-4
UCLA 4-5
Utah 3-6
Colorado 2-7
NORTH
Washington 7-2
Stanford 7-2
Washington State 6-3
Oregon 4-5
California 2-7
Oregon State 0-9

What do you notice about this years Pac12 standings? This is ALL that is considered for placement within the Pac12 championship game. Not even in a distant tie breaker does OOC games come into consideration. They simply don't exist.

So auto bids (like what Nole is suggesting where he wants every single G5 champ even, much more than 8) completely throw out 3-4 game for every single team. That is pure fact.

In Nole's preferred system there is NO SOS of any kind. It doesn't exist. There is ONLY conference champions. It starts and ends there. It destroys the very notion of SoS.

Auto bids are probably the dumbest and worst possible way to work toward finding a 'champion'. His method of taking 10 champions and treating the worst G5 winner better than the runner up in any P5 is simply ludicrous.

Still, he, nor any other auto bid fanatic will answer about entirely ignoring OOC games. You know, but they aren't factored into winning conferences so they are pure exhibition games under his scenario.

 

[Deep Creek]

They don't apply even in a loss is the point. Michigan losing to App State wouldn't have kept them out that year. Now they only finished tied for second in conf anyway, but one more conf win and they are in a playoff for auto bids despite that loss.

They shouldn't count at all (and don't) for blow out wins, but narrow wins or the odd loss can (and do) currently hurt teams. You act as though it's just win or loss and somehow they are currently benefiting from smashing pumpkins.

In an auto bid they literally are nothing. They do not count toward the only criteria for making the playoff.

Yes they do. OU's blowout win over my Miners went in their win column. It counted as one of the 12. They weren't penalized for scheduling us in the least...well, except for the money they paid us.

 

[WizardHawk]

Yes they do. OU's blowout win over my Miners went in their win column. It counted as one of the 12. They weren't penalized for scheduling us in the least...well, except for the money they paid us.

There's a lot more between counted or not in our existing system. Had they lost to your team it would have entirely eliminated them. Under an auto bid it does no such thing. The game never happened. That cannot happen.

 

[Deep Creek]

There's a lot more between counted or not in our existing system. Had they lost to your team it would have entirely eliminated them. Under an auto bid it does no such thing. The game never happened. That cannot happen.

Christ will return before we beat a team like OU.

And, if the game never happened, nothing would have been missed. It wasn't worth a shit anyway.

 

[NolePride]

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.

Sure...I'm ok with it.

It's the only way to keep it out of Human Hands.

BUT...nobody would be stopping CFB from having their teams play all their games vs Conf Opponents.

btw...This stuff happens all the time in HS and the NFL. Plenty of HS teams get playoff berths
with losing records. NFL has had 7-9 teams in the playoffs and 10-6 teams staying home.
Nobody bitches because they all play by the same rules.

In Florida, this past year...they changed thei procedure of inviting the runner-up and champ.

All
the Dist Champs of each Region got a bid...(4 of them) but the other 4 spots went to teams that
played a tougher schedule and all teams were on a point system.

Well in one Class 7-A region St Pete High got one of the 4 at-large spots and they only won
one district game and got in over 5 other teams that had btter records...3 of the schools they
got in over beat them. (Needless to say, they're planning on tweaking their new procedure).

You're just hung up on worrying about who the real #2 team is. A playoff will never determine that.

 

[4down20]

It's the only way to keep it out of Human Hands.

^would rather have a demonstrably fucked up system all in the name of "keeping it out of human hands" when the human hands have yet to fuck up.

How can you reason with someone who thinks like this? When facts and reality no longer matter, there is little point in giving it serious discussion.

Luckily for college football fans, those who matter have already looked at these types of things when they designed the system to start with an specifically put in protections against this type of thinking.

 

[NolePride]

^would rather have a demonstrably fucked up system all in the name of "keeping it out of human hands" when the human hands have yet to fuck up.

How can you reason with someone who thinks like this? When facts and reality no longer matter, there is little point in giving it serious discussion.

Luckily for college football fans, those who matter have already looked at these types of things when they designed the system to start with an specifically put in protections against this type of thinking.

Yes...they made it with no rules...just suggestions so they could put in whom they like.

 

[WizardHawk]

Sure...I'm ok with it.

It's the only way to keep it out of Human Hands.

Blow everything up entirely, start throwing away up to 1/3 of actual games played, to fix a problem that so far hasn't been one.

Seems legit.

BUT...nobody would be stopping CFB from having their teams play all their games vs Conf Opponents.

So entirely throw out historic rivalries and any diversity AT ALL, EVER in college football. Stay just in your own conf and no chance of playing out of it or fans seeing historic venues, to fix a problem that so far hasn't been one.

News flash: That's seriously not going to happen.

btw...This stuff happens all the time in HS and the NFL. Plenty of HS teams get playoff berths
with losing records. NFL has had 7-9 teams in the playoffs and 10-6 teams staying home.
Nobody bitches because they all play by the same rules.

The ever popular "but but but, other types of leagues do it so it must be right!" garbage.

There's no money at all in high school football and in general they all play everyone in their own league which gives some balance. At that level participation trophies are the rule, not the exception. Money changes everything and the complications of non con rivalries and big time TV dollars makes it quite different.

NFL? Every team plays 16 regular season games a year and ALL BUT TWO are against the exact same opponents as every other member of your division. That's called total parity. Something entirely impossible in FBS. They also have drafts and salary caps to ensure league parity. It's as far away from the college game as it is possible to be.

In Florida, this past year...they changed thei procedure of inviting the runner-up and champ.

All
the Dist Champs of each Region got a bid...(4 of them) but the other 4 spots went to teams that
played a tougher schedule and all teams were on a point system.

Well in one Class 7-A region St Pete High got one of the 4 at-large spots and they only won
one district game and got in over 5 other teams that had btter records...3 of the schools they
got in over beat them. (Needless to say, they're planning on tweaking their new procedure).

You're just hung up on worrying about who the real #2 team is. A playoff will never determine that.

So you want to argue high school does it better and show examples of how they entirely fucked it up, but want that at the college level now?

And no, I'm not hung up on anything. YOU are the one with some weird preoccupation with committees that so far you can't cite as having royally fucking anything up. I'll say this loud and clear again because you don't seem to grasp it: I care more about the regular season of college football. There isn't anything else like it at any level of any other sport AND I FUCKING LOVE IT THAT WAY. The current playoff/bowl/title system isn't perfect and I wasn't pitching for the "and 1" as it was. But it's FAR FAR FAAAAAAR better than what you propose and thankfully the powers that be and the majority of college fans agree and we won't end up blowing up the sport to fix a problem we don't have.

 

[WizardHawk]

Yes...they made it with no rules...just suggestions so they could put in whom they like.

And who exactly has been put in wrong. You won't answer that.

The reason there aren't any firm 'rules' on selection is they can ONLY make things worse. For every rule you could conceive there would be an exception at some point that would leave out a more worthy team. That's a fact.

 

[4down20]

Yes...they made it with no rules...just suggestions so they could put in whom they like.

This is just not true. They put in the 4 best teams, not just whatever teams they want. Just because it's "human" doesn't mean it's bad or wrong. That's a terrible assumption to make and as I pointed out, there really isn't anything reasonable that can be said to you because you refuse to accept reality.

If someone can actually come up with something that is better, I'm all ears. But when the things people propose can be proven to lead to bad results, then it's just not a good idea and it will never happen.

 

[WNY_FOOTBALL_DUDE]

And who exactly has been put in wrong. You won't answer that.

The reason there aren't any firm 'rules' on selection is they can ONLY make things worse. For every rule you could conceive there would be an exception at some point that would leave out a more worthy team. That's a fact.

Don't agree with this either. My suggestion has been to go toward an RPI system instead of the committee or polling sports writers or college coaches.

The overtly subjective nature of college football is the PRIMARILY reason why it's so controversial. When you install rules and objective benchmarks, everybody understand how they can get from point A to point B, and can plan accordingly. And if they fail to meet those benchmarks, then they understand why they were left out. There's no blaming others.

You use the phase "worthy team", but I have no idea what in the world that even means. It's a subjective term at best. In a world, where there are no rules or objective measures, "worthy team" could mean anything.

 

[WNY_FOOTBALL_DUDE]

You are so lost here. Like 1000% so.

In Nole's preferred system there is NO SOS of any kind. It doesn't exist. There is ONLY conference champions. It starts and ends there. It destroys the very notion of SoS.

I will agree with you here then. I am a big fan of conference championship status, but not a slave to it.

If we only did CCs, then my Notre Dame Irish would never get an opportunity to play for a National Championship.

We would be arguing that 8-5 Wisky would be more worthy than 11-1 Oregon in 2012. Yeah, I know it's a subjective view, but why would a team rated by the computers in the 5-7 range be more playoff worthy than a team rated in the 24-30 range.

Auto bids are probably the dumbest and worst possible way to work toward finding a 'champion'.

Yes. No team should get a special tag. Everybody has to meet benchmarks.

In the NFL, NBA, NHL, College Hoops, College Baseball, College Volleyball, and so forth, allows in wildcards or at-large teams. It's not REALISTIC to take only conference champions.

Noles argument would be STRONGER if we went the Jim Harbaugh route. He suggests 16 teams and no conference championship game. In that case, all conference champions would be in, and we would put in 6 wildcards.

My apologies if I misunderstood your debate with Noles.

 

[Deep Creek]

This is just not true. They put in the 4 best teams, not just whatever teams they want. Just because it's "human" doesn't mean it's bad or wrong. That's a terrible assumption to make and as I pointed out, there really isn't anything reasonable that can be said to you because you refuse to accept reality.

If someone can actually come up with something that is better, I'm all ears. But when the things people propose can be proven to lead to bad results, then it's just not a good idea and it will never happen.

Don't you mean "come up with something that is better" THAT THEY WILL ACTUALLY DO?

There have been many, many suggestions that would make it better, but the conferences/schools/CFP, etal would rather keep status quo.

Hell, one of 'em is even your suggestion and I'm all for it. Do away with divisions! That'd be a good start.

Mine is do away with cupcake games.

I see absolutely no movement toward either or any other ones that just might work..

 

[Rolltide94]

Mine is do away with cupcake games.

I see absolutely no movement toward either or any other ones that just might work..

If there were no cupcake games there would be no G5 leagues either. There simply isn't enough teams to play One man's cupcake is another's conference opponent. At best, you might get 20 G5 teams that would get absorbed into P5 leagues, the rest would be back in FCS.

 

[Deep Creek]

If there were no cupcake games there would be no G5 leagues either. There simply isn't enough teams to play One man's cupcake is another's conference opponent. At best, you might get 20 G5 teams that would get absorbed into P5 leagues, the rest would be back in FCS.

And what is the problem with this?

Do you really enjoy those cupcake games RT?

 

[4down20]

Don't you mean "come up with something that is better" THAT THEY WILL ACTUALLY DO?

There have been many, many suggestions that would make it better, but the conferences/schools/CFP, etal would rather keep status quo.

Hell, one of 'em is even your suggestion and I'm all for it. Do away with divisions! That'd be a good start.

Mine is do away with cupcake games.

I see absolutely no movement toward either or any other ones that just might work..

I've never seen better ideas for the playoffs themelves.

Doing away with divisions and such is a conference problem that would just make it easier for the playoff committee.

 

[4down20]

And what is the problem with this?

Do you really enjoy those cupcake games RT?

I enjoy them.

In fact, if I were to ever go to an Alabama game it would most likely be Alabama vs FCS as odd as that might sound.

 

[WizardHawk]

Don't agree with this either. My suggestion has been to go toward an RPI system instead of the committee or polling sports writers or college coaches.

The overtly subjective nature of college football is the PRIMARILY reason why it's so controversial. When you install rules and objective benchmarks, everybody understand how they can get from point A to point B, and can plan accordingly. And if they fail to meet those benchmarks, then they understand why they were left out. There's no blaming others.

You use the phase "worthy team", but I have no idea what in the world that even means. It's a subjective term at best. In a world, where there are no rules or objective measures, "worthy team" could mean anything.

Two different things really.

Rules for the committee to have to follow isn't the same as change how we pick our 4.

I'm not married in any way to the committee and have said as much. I simply find some of the extreme 'solutions' troubling. I don't want to see an expansion of playoffs, but I'm entirely open to looking at improving how we get those 4.