The committee experiment failed

[Wild Turkey]

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.

Blah, blah, blah...my team can't get in because they suck and I demand a back door.

You want in then win your games pussy.

 

[dtgold88]

No, a rational person says the current system has been working for the given goal so there is no need to tinker with it to the point where there is a risk of making it worse to begin with.

Losses matter. More so in college football than any other sport at any level. You have even one loss and your post season goals could be over. And many of us like it that way. It's intense. You are on the edge of your seat for every close game. EVERY one.

Autobids kill that. 2 and even 3 losses do not necessarily prevent you from going to a post season. A now watered down invitational more than a top 4 playoff. I don't stress over losses with my NFL team like I do college. And I enjoy both filling their individual roles.

Now you not only want to do that, but insist it is 'possible' (not probable mind you) it won't have any type of negative impact on OOC scheduling among top level teams.

Many SEC teams already don't schedule top level teams as it is. They don't feel they need to because of the bump their own conf slate adds. Somehow you actually don't only not seeing this trend growing under an autobid, but somehow reversing.

I get why some want to have more playoffs and more hope for more teams. We all like the NFL playoffs. It works there. It cannot possibly work at the college level. The parity of scheduling isn't there to support it like the NFL. It's entirely a deal breaker.

Autobids are a very bad idea. It waters down the regular season (which is part of the playoffs in college football if you think about it) and it threatens to completely eliminate any remaining hope of having decent OOC games to watch each year.

No freaking thank you.

First, I commend you on thinking your opinions are fact. But they aren't. That said, Been saying the entire time while an 8 teamer is my preference I get if it's not your thing. Truth be told, I went from thinking an 8 teamer was a must to thinking if they want to leave it how it is, then so be it.

But my guess is most of those against an 8-teamer were up in arms during the BCS era when many fans thought we needed a playoff of any kind....and used many of the same reasons you use against 8 teams.

Many have even speculated Bama has upped their game in OOC scheduling because they believe an 8 teamer is coming and know they can still get in by winning their conference. And, yes, I realize we cannot prove this but here's a flash....you don't know teams would not schedule tougher. But I love the SEC gauntlet argument not to schedule tough OOC.

While I'll be on the edge of my seat for the OSU/UM game it will be because it's OSU/UM. Not because of the playoff. I believe OSU is getting in win or lose as long as they win the BIG CCG. so does this game matter in the sense you say every game matters? If Bama gets in did their game against LSU matter?

 

[WizardHawk]

How about going back to the old pre BCS bowl system?

Now THAT'S the point where I draw the line. lol.

 

[Deep Creek]

Now THAT'S the point where I draw the line. lol.

I never liked the BCS. I'd rather go back to the old bowl system than the BCS. At lest with the CFP a team has to win a game outside conference/regular season to play in the NCG. Didn't have to do that in the BCS.

 

[WizardHawk]

First, I commend you on thinking your opinions are fact. But they aren't. That said, Been saying the entire time while an 8 teamer is my preference I get if it's not your thing. Truth be told, I went from thinking an 8 teamer was a must to thinking if they want to leave it how it is, then so be it.

But my guess is most of those against an 8-teamer were up in arms during the BCS era when many fans thought we needed a playoff of any kind....and used many of the same reasons you use against 8 teams.

Many have even speculated Bama has upped their game in OOC scheduling because they believe an 8 teamer is coming and know they can still get in by winning their conference. And, yes, I realize we cannot prove this but here's a flash....you don't know teams would not schedule tougher. But I love the SEC gauntlet argument not to schedule tough OOC.

While I'll be on the edge of my seat for the OSU/UM game it will be because it's OSU/UM. Not because of the playoff. I believe OSU is getting in win or lose as long as they win the BIG CCG. so does this game matter in the sense you say every game matters? If Bama gets in did their game against LSU matter?

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.

 

[WizardHawk]

I never liked the BCS. I'd rather go back to the old bowl system than the BCS. At lest with the CFP a team has to win a game outside conference/regular season to play in the NCG. Didn't have to do that in the BCS.

As I said above. UW was involved in two seasons where goals for the BCS were created. BYU had no business being crowned in '84 and no one feels good about split titles.

You could go back and change the formula, go full committee, or whatever, but as long as there is some kind of unified champion when it's over I'm good with it.

I really don't want more than that. I wasn't in favor of 4, but not nearly as adamant against it as I am 8 and 16 or more is the death sentence for the sport.

 

[Deep Creek]

As I said above. UW was involved in two seasons where goals for the BCS were created. BYU had no business being crowned in '84 and no one feels good about split titles.

You could go back and change the formula, go full committee, or whatever, but as long as there is some kind of unified champion when it's over I'm good with it.

I really don't want more than that. I wasn't in favor of 4, but not nearly as adamant against it as I am 8 and 16 or more is the death sentence for the sport.

The CFP actually solved the biggest gripe I had with both the old bowl system and the BCS. I think you should at least have to win ONE game outside of your conference/regular season in order to play for all the marbles. Just the conference slate and regular season doesn't "earn" it to me. I like things decided on the field head to head more than voted on or perceived. I know some feel the regular season entirely "earns" it or not for a team. I ain't one of 'em.

Probably comes from my high school coaching background. You had to win your disrict AND 5-6 playoff games to be declared a champion. Not just your regular season or your regular season and one additional game.

Side note: We've gone too far the other way here in Texas with the playoffs. Used to be only the district winner was allowed in the playoffs. Then it was the district winner and runner up. Now it is us to as many as four teams from a district. There are some really lopsided scores the first week or two because of that idiocy!

 

[WizardHawk]

The CFP actually solved the biggest gripe I had with both the old bowl system and the BCS. I think you should at least have to win ONE game outside of your conference/regular season in order to play for all the marbles. Just the conference slate and regular season doesn't "earn" it to me. I like things decided on the field head to head more than voted on or perceived. I know some feel the regular season entirely "earns" it or not for a team. I ain't one of 'em.

Probably comes from my high school coaching background. You had to win your disrict AND 5-6 playoff games to be declared a champion. Not just your regular season or your regular season and one additional game.

Side note: We've gone too far the other way here in Texas with the playoffs. Used to be only the district winner was allowed in the playoffs. Then it was the district winner and runner up. Now it is us to as many as four teams from a district. There are some really lopsided scores the first week or two because of that idiocy!

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.

 

[NDHoosier101]

If you have ANY losses AT ALL for ANY REASON. You should not have a claim on being the best team in college football. As soon as you have that first loss you are now at risk of not being labeled as one of the top 4 teams in the country. Sorry. Losses matter in the regular season. They should.

Not happy about which 1 loss team the committee picks/rejects? Get better. Take it out of their hands. It's that simple.

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.

 

[WizardHawk]

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.

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.

 

[TheLonestarDUCK]

So far 40% of the time the CFP Champion is not the #1 or #2 seed. Kinda makes you wonder how many years the BCS was off. I’m in favor of an 8 team playoff.

 

[CJH9972]

Committee has always been a bad idea because they make it up as they go.

 

[WizardHawk]

So far 40% of the time the CFP Champion is not the #1 or #2 seed. Kinda makes you wonder how many years the BCS was off. I’m in favor of an 8 team playoff.

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.

 

[Deep Creek]

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.

Not for me it didn't. But it did address the two things you stated earlier.

It still didn't require the #1 or #2 to play/win an additional game outside their conference/regular season schedule to "prove they were ranked correctly" to use your term. With the CFP, it does validate thos rankings because they played that extra game on the field and won it.

Again, BCS didn't do that for me.

 

[WizardHawk]

Not for me it didn't. But it address the two things you stated earlier.

It still didn't require the #1 or #2 to play/win an additional game outside their conference/regular season schedule to "prove they were ranked correctly" to use your term. With the CFP, it does validate thos rankings because they played that extra game on the field and won it.

Again, BCS didn't do that for me.

How so? The BCS had the top two ranked teams play in the BCS bowl. Isn't that playing one game outside of the conf/reg season to ensure you played someone with a pulse to earn it?

 

[TheLonestarDUCK]

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.

Isn’t that how all other NCAA sports do it. Plus professional sports

 

[THUNDER]

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.

Here is our yearly whiner thread from those who can't make the playoffs.

 

[Deep Creek]

How so? The BCS had the top two ranked teams play in the BCS bowl. Isn't that playing one game outside of the conf/reg season to ensure you played someone with a pulse to earn it?

No, it didn't. I'm talking about them playing an additional game outside the conf/reg season to even get the opportunity to play in the NCG. Playing that additional game got them in the NCG by winning another game on the field, not in the court of public opinion based on their conf/reg season performance only.

 

[WizardHawk]

Isn’t that how all other NCAA sports do it. Plus professional sports

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.

 

[TheLonestarDUCK]

Here is our yearly whiner thread from those who can't make the playoffs.

When Utah beats Oregon in the PAC CHAMPIONSHIP. It will calm down ...... a little.