The committee experiment failed

[WizardHawk]

And clearly we are debating so there literally is one.

So then you are trying to debate whether or not Autobids make sense, not just that the current format needs to expand to 8 (or more). Because I said there is no debate that conf champions are entirely based off only 2/3 - 3/4 of a teams actual games played. There is no fairness in using only part of a teams schedule to seed them into a tournament. This to me is completely non debatable. Now, you can still want autobids knowing they aren't fair simply because you hate humans or whatever, but there is no debate conf champs are crowned off only part of their games played. This is pure fact.

 

[ellupo]

So in your mind currently SEC teams play all of their stars the same amount of time, with the same amount of danger as they do against a top flight team? Mercer hits just as hard as Georgia do they?

They play base offenses mostly and rarely take big hits. If you honestly think they get as banged up playing Mercer as a big time program, you really know nothing about college football.

But do keep pounding your chest as if you are superior for having a different opinion that many of us simply find based on false narratives and bonus assumptions.

I dont see much problem with the committee we will all have different opinions. However there should be some kind of scheduling rules across the board. As if right now I think the SEC does it the best. Help your teams with only 8 conference games and weak teams before rivalry games. Until a rule is in place they are doing the best for their teams.

 

[CJH9972]

I would rate most of it with rainbows but retards got it taken away.

You are not making a case or argument, i ask you to provide some answers/feedback to help analyze your claims but you cannot even do something so simple.

You cant argue who should have been in using your "black and white, cut and dry" criteria with no human element so that one might compare and contrast what might have been....

Lets have it so we can see who should have been in the playoffs instead, ill be waiting for a real response instead of you trying to deflect and dodge

There is no "should" be in the playoffs. The argument against a committee is not that the teams they select shouldn't be in but rather that they were favored for reasons that aren't worth more than the reasons that justify picking another team.

 

[NU_FTW]

There is no "should" be in the playoffs. The argument against a committee is not that the teams they select shouldn't be in but rather that they were favored for reasons that aren't worth more than the reasons that justify picking another team.

Listen, you keep pimping the ability to have a system that removes the human element. Lets see this system, use it on past years and lets compare your system to the current system and how it did.

Put up or shut up

 

[WizardHawk]

I dont see much problem with the committee we will all have different opinions. However there should be some kind of scheduling rules across the board. As if right now I think the SEC does it the best. Help your teams with only 8 conference games and weak teams before rivalry games. Until a rule is in place they are doing the best for their teams.

College football had it best when there were 10 team leagues and everyone played everyone else every single season. That's the worst change that happened to the sport. Playing 8 when you have 14 in your league is absurd. Missing 5 teams from your own conference every single year is just dumb. Some end up with massive advantages over others in their own division. And yet we count all of those wins exactly the same, crown them for it, and now people up here want to use those to seed automatically into a larger playoff.
No thank you.

 

[CJH9972]

Listen, you keep pimping the ability to have a system that removes the human element. Lets see this system, use it on past years and lets compare your system to the current system and how it did.

Put up or shut up

Here are the AP ranks of the top four teams under my point system idea based FBS games only. These are the results without the benefit of equal or equal maximum game regular season schedules. That said, this is just one possible idea.

1978 1 2 3 10
1979 1 4 6 9
1980 2 3 7 14
1981 1 7 9 10
1982 1 2 3 5
1983 1 2 3 9
1984 1 2 3 4
1985 1 3 5 6
1986 1 2 4 5
1987 2 3 4 5
1988 1 2 5 6
1989 1 3 4 8
1990 1 2 3 4
1991 1 2 3 4
1992 1 2 3 4
1993 1 2 3 8
1994 1 2 5 6
1995 1 2 3 4
1996 1 2 3 5
1997 1 2 3 4
1998 1 2 6 8
1999 1 2 3 5
2000 1 2 3 4
2001 1 3 4 8
2002 1 2 4 5
2003 1 2 3 7
2004 1 2 3 6
2005 1 2 3 4
2006 1 2 3 9
2007 2 3 5 7
2008 1 2 3 7
2009 1 2 5 6
2010 1 3 9 10
2011 1 3 4 8
2012 1 3 4 8
2013 1 2 5 7
2014 1 2 3 5
2015 1 2 3 4
2016 1 2 3 5
2017 1 3 5 6
2018 1 2 3 4

 

[NU_FTW]

Here are the AP ranks of the top four teams under my point system idea based FBS games only. These are the results without the benefit of equal or equal maximum game regular season schedules. That said, this is just one possible idea.

1978 1 2 3 10
1979 1 4 6 9
1980 2 3 7 14
1981 1 7 9 10
1982 1 2 3 5
1983 1 2 3 9
1984 1 2 3 4
1985 1 3 5 6
1986 1 2 4 5
1987 2 3 4 5
1988 1 2 5 6
1989 1 3 4 8
1990 1 2 3 4
1991 1 2 3 4
1992 1 2 3 4
1993 1 2 3 8
1994 1 2 5 6
1995 1 2 3 4
1996 1 2 3 5
1997 1 2 3 4
1998 1 2 6 8
1999 1 2 3 5
2000 1 2 3 4
2001 1 3 4 8
2002 1 2 4 5
2003 1 2 3 7
2004 1 2 3 6
2005 1 2 3 4
2006 1 2 3 9
2007 2 3 5 7
2008 1 2 3 7
2009 1 2 5 6
2010 1 3 9 10
2011 1 3 4 8
2012 1 3 4 8
2013 1 2 5 7
2014 1 2 3 5
2015 1 2 3 4
2016 1 2 3 5
2017 1 3 5 6
2018 1 2 3 4

WHAT??? LOL give me teams and only include playoff era seriously dont try to deflect by using numbers that have no referencew

 

[CJH9972]

WHAT??? LOL give me teams and only include playoff era seriously dont try to deflect by using numbers that have no referencew

Based on FBS games only
2014-Florida State, Ohio State, Alabama, Oregon
2015-Alabama, Michigan State, Clemson, Oklahoma
2016-Alabama, Ohio State, Clemson, Penn State
2017-Wisconsin, Georgia, Clemson, Ohio State
2018-Clemson, Notre Dame, Alabama, Oklahoma

 

[ellupo]

College football had it best when there were 10 team leagues and everyone played everyone else every single season. That's the worst change that happened to the sport. Playing 8 when you have 14 in your league is absurd. Missing 5 teams from your own conference every single year is just dumb. Some end up with massive advantages over others in their own division. And yet we count all of those wins exactly the same, crown them for it, and now people up here want to use those to seed automatically into a larger playoff.
No thank you.

Can't argue with that. I like the 10 team leagues who all play each other. Winners go to the playoffs. However there will always be differences in the quality of teams on each league.

 

[Rolltide94]

Based on FBS games only
2014-Florida State, Ohio State, Alabama, Oregon
2015-Alabama, Michigan State, Clemson, Oklahoma
2016-Alabama, Ohio State, Clemson, Penn State
2017-Wisconsin, Georgia, Clemson, Ohio State
2018-Clemson, Notre Dame, Alabama, Oklahoma

Why does a two loss Ohio State get in over a 1-loss Oklahoma team that clubbed them like a baby seal in 2017. I thought your system was all about teams "winning on the field"

 

[CJH9972]

Why does a two loss Ohio State get in over a 1-loss Oklahoma team that clubbed them like a baby seal in 2017. I thought your system was all about teams "winning on the field"

Oklahoma finished higher than Ohio State based on all games. Ideally, FBS teams would play equal or equal maximum game regular season schedules versus FBS competition only and knowingly compete according to the rules in play. If that is the case, odds are Oklahoma does not waste a game on scheduling UTEP who went winless. That said, it is possible to beat a team and finish lower even with a better record if you don't schedule well enough.

 

[Rolltide94]

Oklahoma finished higher than Ohio State based on all games. Ideally, FBS teams would play equal or equal maximum game regular season schedules versus FBS competition only and knowingly compete according to the rules in play. If that is the case, odds are Oklahoma does not waste a game on scheduling UTEP who went winless. That said, it is possible to beat a team and finish lower even with a better record if you don't schedule well enough.

Oklahoma scheduled UTEP in 2015, the same year Ohio State scheduled Army. In 2015 UTEP was 5-7 and Army was 2-10, who scheduled better again? It seems to me your system rewards teams for doing the opposite of what you are trying to achieve. In fact it seems to me that your system is as flawed if not more flawed than the one you are trying to replace.

 

[CJH9972]

Oklahoma scheduled UTEP in 2015, the same year Ohio State scheduled Army. In 2015 UTEP was 5-7 and Army was 2-10, who scheduled better again? It seems to me your system rewards teams for doing the opposite of what you are trying to achieve. In fact it seems to me that your system is as flawed if not more flawed than the one you are trying to replace.

Of course, no one actually scheduled with my idea with mine. I don't imagine if they had that either team would try to schedule either UTEP or Army as they are among the worst programs over the past 40+ years. Furthermore, I don't think anyone would schedule UTEP over Army because they have so much more confidence that UTEP would end up being the better win the year the game is played. But again, based on all game results Oklahoma finished ahead of Ohio State.

That said, I have no doubt that critics of my idea could find results that they find disagreeable. But again, teams did not play equal or equal maximum schedules versus FBS competition only and knowingly schedule/compete according to the relevant rules. Beyond that, I have 41 seasons worth of results and where my idea and the various methods used by college football disagree, the teams favored by my method average more wins and games played versus ranked competition.

 

[dtgold88]

The more teams you add, the more we normalize accepting multi loss teams as acceptable playoff teams. I wasn't in favor of going to 4 even because a 2 loss team would eventually get in. 8 would attempt to normalize 2-3 losses.

Damn it, losses matter at this level. It is the ONLY level of football they really do. It is the single best remaining element they haven't already taken from the sport that feeds that adrenaline junkie side of fans.

I really don't want to normalize accepting losses as ok in college football. It really does boil down to that.

Then you better arrange for them to just vote the winner at the end.

 

[dtgold88]

I know we go through this every year, but so what if a 2-loss team gets into a playoff.

FBS has 130 teams and 10 conferences. 8/130 = 6% of the population. 6/130 = 5%

Are you really that scared of taking 5-6% of college football teams? You still have between 94-95% of teams not making the playoffs.

Winning 10-13 games in a season is no walk-in the park.

The obvious logical flaw is not all schedules are built the same. Stronger the schedule, the more likely losses happen. Your logical base only discourages tough scheduling. Sounds to me like you would rather take a 1-loss team which played a light schedule vs. a 2-loss team playing a heavy schedule.

The flaw to those against this is they just don't want change. some even admit they never did and would go back to the BCS or maybe even pre-BCS if they had their druthers.

Never mind there is no other sport I bet they watch that has this model.

 

[dtgold88]

Every time one of you tries this it requires putting words in mouths or otherwise leaving logic behind.

No, I would not rather take a 1 loss team from a tougher schedule. Never said it nor implied it. There is nothing in anything I've said that leans that way or hints at it. It's pure made up bullshit.

I want the 4 teams that were the best in football that year. Oh, wait, we get that now.

When you add teams you get more teams with more losses. It normalizes accepting losses in the regular season. That takes away the most intense part of college football. Why? So taking a couple of extra teams might create an extra good game or two at seasons end? It's pure nonsense.

No, I don't want to trade the intensity of all 12 regular season games. The drama that happens over the 13 week season. I don't want to throw that away because a handful of fans have to have a massive tournament at seasons end to feel better about a sport. This isn't a sport where a season ending tournament fits. If you need that, try the NFL. Leave ours alone.

Why say there is any fear in that? I like college football. I like it the way it is. I don't believe it needs to be 'fixed'. I like EVERY week of it, not just the last couple and I don't want to lose that.

Ironic you accuse the current system of promoting bad OOC games, but this is a discussion about auto bids for every P5 conf champ and not one of those will get in with any care or measure on even one OOC game. They become irrelevant. Entirely meaningless. The insistence that it frees them up then to play even tougher ones is pure lunacy. Risk more injury and spend more time game planning and all the energy that goes into top flight college matchups, for a game that won't count. This seems more likely to you guys than the OOC's get even weaker and are treated as byes and training games for underclassmen so they can rest up for the conf games that matter. I mean the SEC already does it now so of course it's going to get worse under such a system. It's basic logic.

so much irrational it's hard to know where to start. Guess I'll go in order.....

*You have no clue who the 4 best teams are. It's opinion.
*Yes, many would like to see more than 4 of 128 teams make the playoff. Crazy, right?
*I am near certain you thought going from BCS to CFP would take away the intensity. amiright?
*why would adding teams take away the intensity? Especially if top 4 seeds get home games round 1.Teams wont fight for home field?
*Well more than a handful of fans would want 8.
*wow, you finally said something rational. You like it the way it is. OK. I wont disagree with that as it's a fair opinion. If they stay at 4 so be it. But my guess is you never wanted to move off 2 right?

 

[dtgold88]

Not that you have to be for any such format but the importance of OOC games depends on the overall format even with auto bids. Teams need to win those games to keep themselves in contention for at-large bids plus some eight team formats include homefield advantage. And you can use rules to compel stronger OOC scheduling where the risk/reward of playing Alabama vs New Mexico State is significant. While I see the arguments against auto bids, the idea that teams would have no regard for their OOC schedule seems illogical.

Sad part is those opposing this, even with nothing factual to disprove it, will not let go the idea their opinions are just that....opinions.

 

[dtgold88]

Again, I'm not for any 8 team expansion at all, but this was just about autobids. I fail to see how going from 4 spots now that do take OOC into account and yet we see one of the five conferences already watering down and treating OOC like bye weeks, going to 8 and giving a free ride to 5 teams and only having 3 left, how the logic lines up that it somehow treats OOC better. It doesn't make sense based on what we know and see today.

People hate the committee and yet we still have to have one with an 8 team autobid system to pick those last slots. It's not logical.

People want winning a conference to mean more and really don't care if that means a team ranked lower than 15 gets in and leaves more deserving teams home. Conference champs that are picked on 8 or 9 games only, yet we expect the others to be viewed on their entire body of work. All 12 count ONLY for the 3 the committee are picking.

That entire proposal is a hot mess. I want no part of it. And thankfully it has basically no chance of happening.

which conference has changed their scheduling formats?

 

[dtgold88]

Again, I realize what you are for and I'm not trying to convince you otherwise. But OOC games even with auto bids can have a great deal of value under such a format. And I wouldn't use a committee to pick any teams under any format.

easy to assume as it so often does that a facepalm is the equivalent of someone saying "I cannot refute anything you just said."

 

[dtgold88]

NFL has schedule parity. The losses very much are equatable. 14 of their 16 game schedule is the same as everyone else in their division. Their seeding for the playoffs is not. Every division plays a very different path. You are rewarded for being in a division with less competition for sure. The path to HFA is easier. So yes, the problems exist in every large playoff format. Another reason we do not need a large playoff format.

You have your ideas, however if they were actually viable they would have already been created and used in the initial BCS formula when they were deeply looking into this issue. No one has found a viable way to remove the human element.

At the time people were pushing for 4 we were told - We need this because the line between 2nd and 3rd is too thin. There won't be a need to go past 4. 5th isn't as important. Those of us against expansion accurately predicted those in favor of 4 would largely go to complaining we need 8 and it wouldn't take that long. Those saying 8 is enough now will also be clamoring over the unfairness of how we rank who is 8th or 9th so we need 12 and bye weeks, or 16.

We don't need any of it. We are fine as we are now. If anything, going back to 2 would be the only change I would vote for.

You realize what you are saying to any rational person would mean it makes more sense for the NFL to have less playoff teams and CFB to have more.

Yes, in the NFL, the schedules are similar for divisional teams. Even the top teams in each conference stand a decent chance to face each other and/or have multiple common opponents.

In CFB, there are few games among the top teams from different conferences and also few common opponents....yet for some reason you think you "know" who the best teams are?