The committee experiment failed

[Cave_Johnson]

The laughable part is that you think someone capable of being Secretary of State isn't capable of choosing 4 teams to play for the National Championship. I'd say give your head a shake, but I wouldn't want anybody to get hurt by the marbles you would be flinging willy nilly.

Yeah, that's a logical fallacy right there bro. Sorry you don't see it and you seem so upset that I called the committee stupid.

Quick question...if Wisconsin had lost before the championship game, do you think they would have been ranked above Alabama? I'm not sure what was so difficult to understand...without the loss the committee ranked them ahead of Alabama....with the loss they ranked them behind...just like they ranked Alabama ahead of Wisconsin when they were both unbeaten. If that's an example of what you think is wrong with the committee, i stand by my first comment...you're a retard.

No, they would not have been ranked above Alabama if they had lost one game out of their first 12. And that's fine. That's saying that all things equal (meaning both teams have played 12 games) they believed Alabama to be better. But that's not what happened so it doesn't matter.

What happened was that the committee decided that, all things equal (12 games each), Wisconsin was better. But because Alabama lost to the right team at the right time they didn't have to play an extra game and risk anything. Wisconsin did. Wisconsin played too well all year and had to play an extra game that Alabama didn't. Wisconsin lost and dropped down. Basically, Wisconsin would have been better off forfeiting the game and not giving the committee an extra data point. That's fucked.

If you enjoy that kind of system, then fine. But it's clearly flawed as fuck.

 

[RobToxin]

I think it was all put together to maximize profits.

And it seems to be doing a fine job of it.

It's a business.

And the courts agree. That's why they are going to start making them share pieces of the pie with the players.

 

[dtgold88]

You assume too much.

I was in favor of the BCS. As I already stated, it worked perfectly for the very specific two goals it was created to serve. Didn't care which team was 2 v 3 at the end. It couldn't have ever been perfect with those two slots. No format can be.

Sure, there are teams like Bama or Clemson that can survive 1 loss with a high probability, but there are at least 120 teams that have to stress on any kind of loss.

With a 4 team playoff you are at the mercy of the committee if you have any loss. That's a fact. You aren't guaranteed a spot without one. Ask any G5 team about that. You have a nearly guaranteed slot if you are from a P5 conference and have a perfect slate. Adding more would simply add a LOT more teams that don't have to sweat even one loss, and create teams that don't have to worry about 2. It's not what I want out of college football.

How did I assume too much? I nailed it. Sounds like you had the same complaints and never even wanted a 4 teamer.

 

[dtgold88]

The BCS did exactly that. You had to play against the consus number 2 ranked team in the country to prove you were ranked 1 correctly.

The old bowl system left BYU to play an unranked Michigan in '84 so they not only played a mid major slate, but didn't beat a single ranked team. BCS fixed that. You can say there were cases where 1 and 2 were still from the same conf, but I really don't have an issue with that.

No doubt BCS was better than what we had before, but it wasn't enough IMO.

 

[dtgold88]

That sounds nice in theory but all it’s done is cause teams to water down their schedules. We need to reward risky, tough schedules. Not mindlessly reward going 12-0 against subpar competition. It’s bad for the sport.

Sometimes schedules are worse, but for the mpost part seems like they are the same or better than they were in the BCS era.

Hell, UF actually left their state OOC.

 

[dtgold88]

I'm all for rules to promote better OOC. I'd be in favor of counting wins against FCS as .5 instead of a full win, or pretty much anything else to end them. I don't believe going to 8 or more teams in a playoff is going to make that particular aspect better.

Guess we'll have to wait to find out. Idea Bama is stepping it up feeling a Larger playoff is coming not a crazy notion.

 

[dtgold88]

Sooner or later it would happen that a 16 or 32 seed would win. That doesn't justify the need for it.

There's a difference between being crowned a tournament champion and the best team in the sport.

What you give up to add a chance some half decent team could get hot and maybe have less injuries or in some other way just luck out isn't at all worth it.

Seems very few want more than 8. Yeah, I realize some mention more but I think most believe 8 will be the max.

 

[dtgold88]

Does that make it right for everyone always? The answer for me is a clear no.

NFL has parity in scheduling. The formula makes it balanced for everyone in your division. It isn't common to have cheap wins/bogus scheduling allow a fraud to win their division. Not just because they all play each other home/away, but also all but 2 games are against common opponents?

When one team from the Pac12 north can entirely miss both of the top teams from the south while their chief threats don't it skews it to the point of absurdity.

There is no solution to schedule parity. So there is no solution to creating a tournament format that compares to the other sports or other levels of football.

And it's less common a CCG winner would win and make an 8 team playoff with 4 losses but there is constant gnashing of teeth over that.

Pretty simple. In the NFL we have a much better idea who the best teams are as there is a better chance they have faced each other or some common opponents. Yet they still feel like 12 of 32 in playoffs works.....and you even said it works.

But you think 8 of 128 teams is just too many? Knowing it's far more difficult to know who the better teams are as so few play each other or have common opponents outside their own conference.

 

[Rolltide94]

Yeah, that's a logical fallacy right there bro. Sorry you don't see it and you seem so upset that I called the committee stupid.



No, they would not have been ranked above Alabama if they had lost one game out of their first 12. And that's fine. That's saying that all things equal (meaning both teams have played 12 games) they believed Alabama to be better. But that's not what happened so it doesn't matter.

What happened was that the committee decided that, all things equal (12 games each), Wisconsin was better. But because Alabama lost to the right team at the right time they didn't have to play an extra game and risk anything. Wisconsin did. Wisconsin played too well all year and had to play an extra game that Alabama didn't. Wisconsin lost and dropped down. Basically, Wisconsin would have been better off forfeiting the game and not giving the committee an extra data point. That's fucked.

If you enjoy that kind of system, then fine. But it's clearly flawed as fuck.

The logical fallacy is you think someone who was a lifelong college football fan AND with the ability to be Secretary of State is less qualified than some random douchebag on a sports message board.

You have your interpretation, I have mine. The committee reviewed all the data points they had and found Wisconsin deficient. The BCS computers you seem to be so fond of had the same top 4.

 

[dtgold88]

Why is this always the argument people go to? It makes zero sense. If the system allows 5 auto bids and 3 at larges absolutely nothing changes. No team in their right mind will scheduled bad teams out of conference and bet their entire season on rolling through the conference with 0-1 loss. That would be absolutely retarded. They'll want quality out of conference wins in case they can't win the conference so they can possibly snag an at large.

Man I read this board sometimes and seriously wonder if the people who vehemently defend 4 teams would rather just have the comittee vote for the champion over going to 8 and having teams actually have to play their way in by winning their confernece.

You and me both, my friend. Or it's the complaints a 4 loss team MIGHT get to the CFP by winning their conference. Never mind in the last decade or so I can only think of one such team that would have made it and it took OSU and PSU to be on probation.

And, if you make top 4 seeds the home teams for round 1 they'd have more incentive to have a tough OOC win to help their resume and play round 1 at home

 

[006]

With the CFP playoff committee we are literally right back to where we were pre-BCS era. With humans picking the rankings and deciding who goes to what bowl, and essentially picking their national champion by having complete control over the top 4.

They tried to get the outcome of college football national champion out of human's hand by installing the BCS, and that failed, so they went back to people picking the outcome, which doesn't make sense. They have teams climbing and dropping in the polls by 8 spots a week.

I think they need to do something different.

1.) The Committee was basically put into place to avoid a couple of things, give teams like Boise St a chance if they were to have an undefeated season and to keep non conf champions out of the playoff. Well, they've failed on both fronts, UCF and their obsession with keeping Alabama in the talks. So to avoid this, let's have the BCS rankings still and the committee reviews the rankings and either approves or doesn't approve. Basically they have the authority to override a LSU/Alabama type matchup again, or if a deserving Boise State should get that 4th spot over a 2 loss Georgia team, they give it to Boise. So they just review the BCS rankings and step in to prevent previous mistakes the BCS made.

2.) Keep it mostly out of humans hands and just do Power 5 champs, maybe move one other conference up to give it a Power 6 and just have Power 6 champions go to the playoffs. 1 and 2 seeds get a BYE. The committee is there only to rank the seeds, which basically can be hinted to them by the combination of the Coaches and AP poll.

BCS or 6-8 teams is better, but money.

 

[dtgold88]

Why do you guys like you want to make 1/3-1/4 of the season meaningless?

As often as you spew your pearls of wisdom they will never be anything other than baseless.

Now you are saying 3-4 games wouldn't matter?

 

[dtgold88]

I mean they do that NOW. Have you looked at many of the SEC teams? Hell UW made it to the playoffs with 1 loss and nothing but scrubs in OOC.

So even when every spot is predicated on ranking, teams still opt for less than difficult OOC slates.

Why on earth doesn't it stand to reason it would get worse in a system that freely gives most of their playoff spots to teams entirely based off only some of the games they played?

If Utah loses tomorrow USC wins the Pac12 south. USC is 8-4 ffs. There is a possibility of a 9-4 team being Pac12 champions. Because OOC games have no impact of any kind of conference standings.

Since 1/3 - 1/4 of their games do not apply to the title of conference champ, it absolutely can't apply to anything beyond the conference. It wasn't intended to do anything more.

You wouldn't punish a team for losing OOC when trying to figure out who the best team in conference is. And you wouldn't reward a national standing for only 2/3 of a schedule played.

It's just common sense really.

Yet we've seen UF challenge themselves and actually leave the state. Bama has gone nuts and actually scheduled home and homes with tough teams. Who has consistently been scheduling weaker OOC since the CFP was started?

 

[dtgold88]

It wouldn't be. You're making a bad argument. If at-large bids exist then out of conference games matter.

He's gonna go full straw man on you if he hasn't already.

 

[dtgold88]

It wouldn’t be? You can lose all three or four nonconference games and still get a free ride into the playoffs, right? For most of the teams in the playoffs it wouldn’t matter who you played or what happened in those games. So if for most teams it doesn’t help or hurt you, then why does it matter?

Could you? Sure. You could lose 3-4 and still get in under the current system but neither occurrence is likely.

 

[dtgold88]

Automatic bids into a playoff would be retarded.

The only reason 4 teams is acceptable is to ensure the top 2 get into the NCG. There was rarely a case for #3 to have a shot so to make logical sense they expanded to 4 to make sure those deserving #3 got a shot at the title.

#5 #6 #7 #8 dont deserve a shot to be #1 or #2

#5 of 128 doesn't even deserve a shot? You must hate all sports playoff formats.

 

[dtgold88]

Free ride? Come on. If you win your conference that's not a free ride. That means you won your conference. That's not easy to do. I'm not sure why you're acting like it's easy for some team to win 8-9 in a row to end the year.

For most teams it wouldn't help or hurt you? No. For most teams it WOULD matter because MOST teams would be looking to try to grab an at-large. Only 5 teams get the auto-bid. It only doesn't matter if you win your conference. If there's a coach out there who wants to tank their first 3-4 games and then bet that they can win 8-9 straight in conference to end the season every year then let them do that. That's a stupid gamble to make.

What it is is a foolish argument. The guy says coaches will just sit their regulars to keep them healthy for conference play which is beyond absurd.

If this were true, why do the SEC top teams play their starters during FCS week when they play their big rival the next week?

 

[NU_FTW]

#5 of 128 doesn't even deserve a shot? You must hate all sports playoff formats.

#5 is not deserving to be considered #2 or #1. Volleyball and Baseball get it close by playing a series instead of 1 off games. Playing best of 5 is a much better way to determine the better team than best of 1, so in the FBS it would never work to play a playoff (beyond 4) without watering it down into garbage.

Tournaments do not crown the best team when they are 1 and done games (not to say the best cant win just that it isnt likely)

 

[dtgold88]

They do play in by winning on the field, lmfao. Automatic Bids is retarded though if you make it so you win your conference you get in then ooc games are pointless.

No, there should be no automatic qualifying criteria


Win all your game including OOC win your CCG and play a quality OOC SOS and you will find yourself in. When was a deserving team that played a team with a pulse left out?

How did Bama play their way in a couple years ago while they sat home and watched teams lose in their CCGs?

 

[NU_FTW]

How did Bama play their way in a couple years ago while they sat home and watched teams lose in their CCGs?

What was their record vs anybody who got left out? who was more "deserving"?? lol cya