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

[Rolltide94]

Isn’t that fucking it up? The 4th place teams aren’t supposed to win.

I don't know, twice now they've used the 4th place spot for a mulligan, and both times that team won...seems like it is working to me. Assuming we want the 4 best teams...and not the 4 most deserving teams.

 

[ralphiewvu]

I don't know, twice now they've used the 4th place spot for a mulligan, and both times that team won...seems like it is working to me. Assuming we want the 4 best teams...and not the 4 most deserving teams.

And the criteria used for the 4 best teams? The eye test doesn’t always work.

 

[WNY_FOOTBALL_DUDE]

And the criteria used for the 4 best teams? The eye test doesn’t always work.

Agreed.

The word "best team" is extremely subjective, especially since there's no set criteria to back it up.

What exactly are we looking at when determining the "best team"?

In the college football universe, it's simply an opinion. Nothing is objective. No rules helps us sort out what makes someone the best.

The fact that Alabama beat Clemson and then Georgia, doesn't necessarily mean that Ohio State, Wisconsin, USC, or UCF couldn't have done the same. In fact, Notre Dame or Penn State could have accomplished that as well, if given the opportunity.

It's simply illogical argumentation.

Just think: All football games are objective. It's the team that scores the most points, wins. How a team can score points is "pre-determined". We don't sit around wondering how much a goal-line touchdown vs. a 50 yard TD pass would be worth. It's all worth 6 points.

 

[4down20]

BAMA BAMA BAMA!!!

I've made half a dozen post probably here, the first of which were not regarding Bama at all in the manner you are claiming, yet here you are. Trying to make a Bama oriented thread out of this.

Take it to the team board.

Either make an argument or take a stance about the playoff committee, the playoffs in general, or STFU and stop quoting me.

This shit isn't about Bama.

Well just think, if Colt hadn't got hurt this whole Dynasty may have never started.

 

[4down20]

Isn’t that fucking it up? The 4th place teams aren’t supposed to win.

I don't think so really. I mean there is no way to only have 3 teams when needed, so if the 4th place team makes the most of the situation they've been handed - more power to them.

Ohio St didn't really deserve to be there in 2015, and Alabama didn't this year. But it's a side effect and there is no better option. You go to 2 teams and you leave out a team that deserves every now and then. You go to more than 4, and you are just adding even more teams that don't deserve to be there.

 

[7Samurai13]

I don't think so really. I mean there is no way to only have 3 teams when needed, so if the 4th place team makes the most of the situation they've been handed - more power to them.

Ohio St didn't really deserve to be there in 2015, and Alabama didn't this year. But it's a side effect and there is no better option. You go to 2 teams and you leave out a team that deserves every now and then. You go to more than 4, and you are just adding even more teams that don't deserve to be there.

Do you mean Ohio State in 2014 or 2016? OSU wasn’t there in 2015.

 

[4down20]

Do you mean Ohio State in 2014 or 2016? OSU wasn’t there in 2015.

both, but 2014.

 

[Deep Creek]

No one wants to watch Oklahoma Playing UTEP, not even @Deep Creek.

 

[Edisto_Tiger]

To answer the OP ... YES.

 

[Edisto_Tiger]

Dan Rad is out and Ken Hatfield is in?

 

[Deep Creek]

Are these changes better?

CFP selection committee appoints Lott, 5 more

 

[Hook'Em0608]

Well just think, if Colt hadn't got hurt this whole Dynasty may have never started.

I doubt that. I know Texas wouldn't have continued their run of success either way. We were already horribly flawed offensively by 2009 and completely reliant on Colt. You can't win on defense alone. Especially not with a pass heavy offense.

That's one of the things that is overlooked about Saban's teams, they are very efficient offensively no matter what kind of offense they run. Lots of rest time for that great D. At least most years this is true.

 

[RegentDenali]

Nobody deserves it less than the fraud who I shall not name whose in the PAC portion. His last gig was F'n assistant golf coach at Stanford. That's how much the world of football respects his football knowledge and talents. The only gig he could find was an assistant golf coach.

There is only one reason they put his worthless ass on the committee and it sure has nothing to do with his fraudulent act of being of being a football coach.

 

[Olyduck]

Lots of coaches haven't coached in the P5. I didn't say they more qualified, simply qualified without any appearance of bias. I am not sure why that is offensive to Bama fans, but for some reason you guys seem to have an issue with it

he said at FBS level not just P5

 

[WizardHawk]

Saying the Pac has 3 is not entirely fair. Willingham hasn't coached anyone in nearly a decade and while he had a couple of stints in the Pac, he also had one at ND. He's an odd free agent sort of thing on that committee.

As for the duck influences I sure don't feel like they give UW any sort of advantage

If you want to go to a larger committee go for it. Creates a lot more logistical problems and would leave less pure dialog. That is, in a smaller setting you can get more into direct back and forth over given teams and in a larger setting you get more speeches and less thoughtful discussions.

At the end of the day though, I really can't strongly argue against anything the committee has done based on the data they had available at the time they have made their rankings. I do believe all of them takes their role seriously and attempts to be as non biased as they can be. I don't see any agenda to keep out mid majors.

 

[4down20]

Lots of coaches haven't coached in the P5. I didn't say they more qualified, simply qualified without any appearance of bias. I am not sure why that is offensive to Bama fans, but for some reason you guys seem to have an issue with it

Why is it assumed NFL type people wouldn't have college football bias?

As for issues with it - you have to first show me a valid reason for the change. The "appearance of bias" is a you problem unless you can show actual bias towards anything.

Instead, what I saw this year was a committee who does the right thing no matter who's going to like it. It would have been so easy for them to put Ohio St in over Alabama for every reason other than what their stated goal was. I saw a lack of bias, I saw a lack of political agendas, I saw people who did their jobs and did their jobs right. And it's not just an Alabama thing, they did it last year with Ohio St and even in 2014 with Ohio St again as well.

Because exactly what different result are you asking for? Most people I see asking for "no bias" actually want "bias". Bias towards P5 champions for example, regardless of resume. Bias towards teams that go undefeated, regardless of their schedule strength. Bias against getting 2 teams of the same conference in, regardless if 2 teams from the same conference are among the 4 best teams.

And they want their bias so badly, they want to put them directly into the rules so that it can't be undone. Just like they did back in the BCS with AQ status, which was bias by rule.

 

[Rolltide94]

Saying the Pac has 3 is not entirely fair. Willingham hasn't coached anyone in nearly a decade and while he had a couple of stints in the Pac, he also had one at ND. He's an odd free agent sort of thing on that committee.

As for the duck influences I sure don't feel like they give UW any sort of advantage

If you want to go to a larger committee go for it. Creates a lot more logistical problems and would leave less pure dialog. That is, in a smaller setting you can get more into direct back and forth over given teams and in a larger setting you get more speeches and less thoughtful discussions.

At the end of the day though, I really can't strongly argue against anything the committee has done based on the data they had available at the time they have made their rankings. I do believe all of them takes their role seriously and attempts to be as non biased as they can be. I don't see any agenda to keep out mid majors.

All I care about is the integrity of the people they choose, so far I have no issues. although I have to say I almost universally prefer the new members coming on this year to the ones going off.

So far, my favorites have been

Archie Manning
Tom Osbourne
Barry Alvarez
Jeff Bower
and
Frank Beamer

 

[4down20]

Saying the Pac has 3 is not entirely fair. Willingham hasn't coached anyone in nearly a decade and while he had a couple of stints in the Pac, he also had one at ND. He's an odd free agent sort of thing on that committee.

As for the duck influences I sure don't feel like they give UW any sort of advantage

If you want to go to a larger committee go for it. Creates a lot more logistical problems and would leave less pure dialog. That is, in a smaller setting you can get more into direct back and forth over given teams and in a larger setting you get more speeches and less thoughtful discussions.

At the end of the day though, I really can't strongly argue against anything the committee has done based on the data they had available at the time they have made their rankings. I do believe all of them takes their role seriously and attempts to be as non biased as they can be. I don't see any agenda to keep out mid majors.

It's the same things with the so called "SEC" reps. Most of these guys have been around many programs, played for 1 school(or is an alum for one), coached/AD at another/multiple places, etc.

The OP is mostly bullshit. Jeff Long is "SEC" because he was fired from Arkansas, but spent more years at Michigan as a coach and part of the AD.

 

[Olyduck]

I understand what you are saying. I've heard that numerous times when I've debated
a Conf Champs Playoff.

There really is never a "Champion" in any sport. There are just those that luck into favorable
match-ups and a Survivor.

But if it's all done on the field...the public will accept it. The biggest issue would be awarding
a runner-up trophy. A playoff isn't designed to reveal who the true 2nd best team in the country
is...just who is number 1.

If I'm the conf champ, I've proven over the season I'm better than everybody else in my league.
I've eliminated them. Now I move onto the playoff where the other 9 conf champs await.

10 of us have eliminated 120 other teams. Now it is time for 9 of us to be eliminated.

You can do the handicapping of the leagues before the season begins.

The Power 5 leagues get a bye along with the champ of the AAC. Sun Belt vs C-USA
and MAC vs MWC can play in. Then it's an 8-team affair.

It's simple stuff and it forever more would eliminate this "another man's opinion" nonsense
that has always had a grip on CFB

Why does the AAC get a bye? so far over the playoff years we have had Boise (MWC), Houston (AAC), Western Michigan (MAC), and UCF (AAC) make the access bowl. I mean its a small sample volume but I dont see how that means they should get an automatic bye. those years they didnt get the access bowl their champ was 9-3 after the regular season compared to CUSA 12-1 marshall, MAC 11-2 NIU, MWC 11-2 Boise in 14 and 10-3 compared to MAC 13-0 WMU, CUSA 10-3 WKU, MWC 10-3 SDSU

 

[WizardHawk]

I understand what you are saying. I've heard that numerous times when I've debated
a Conf Champs Playoff.

There really is never a "Champion" in any sport. There are just those that luck into favorable
match-ups and a Survivor.

But if it's all done on the field...the public will accept it. The biggest issue would be awarding
a runner-up trophy. A playoff isn't designed to reveal who the true 2nd best team in the country
is...just who is number 1.

If I'm the conf champ, I've proven over the season I'm better than everybody else in my league.
I've eliminated them. Now I move onto the playoff where the other 9 conf champs await.

10 of us have eliminated 120 other teams. Now it is time for 9 of us to be eliminated.

You can do the handicapping of the leagues before the season begins.

The Power 5 leagues get a bye along with the champ of the AAC. Sun Belt vs C-USA
and MAC vs MWC can play in. Then it's an 8-team affair.

It's simple stuff and it forever more would eliminate this "another man's opinion" nonsense
that has always had a grip on CFB

We as Americans are entirely obsessed with the idea of using a playoff to determine a 'champion'. What we are really getting is a winner of a select invite tournament. That's what you are 'crowning'. You aren't determining an undisputed 'best team' that season, just who won an invite only tournament. That's different.

We even try to bring that into the 'worlds sport' of soccer as I don't believe most other national leagues have any sort of playoff and just crown the team with the most points for that regular season. And there are others with similar championships. It isn't required to have a tournament to give a crown.

But no, if you aren't having a post season battle here you aren't doing it right. That's our mentality.

College football used to vote for a champion and there were some problems with it, but what they were voting for was who was the best team that whole year. If you want a true 'champion' that is closer to it than bringing in even dangerous teams with 3 losses (which any 8 team playoff would do) and having a tournament of who is more healthy and playing better at that moment and giving them a crown kind of thing.

So no, having a larger tournament of league champions would not in any way put to bed controversy of who the best team of that season was and thus who should be rightfully given the title 'champion'. Far from it IMO.