The committee experiment failed

[TheLonestarDUCK]

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.

Fair enough - I was going to write the imbalanced schedule position as well. Bottom line as you and others said, don’t lose and you are in. For millions of people that are so passionate about this sport it sucks we have such such a championship situation. Maybe that lends a hand to the passion.

 

[Deep Creek]

There is no solution to schedule parity.

You are correct as it stands now. There IS a solution, but not in the current structure/environment. I just may not live long enough to see it change. At the rate I'm deteriorating and the rate they are currently scheduling, I ain't gonna make it!

 

[Hang_On_Sloopy08]

We done fucked up again. Just standardize the schedules, kick out G5, move to 8 teams and be done with it.

 

[gohusk]

Expand it to 8 teams. Simple solution. Then people would be sympathetic if a 2 loss team doesn't make the playoffs and hand you a tissue.

 

[Neilcar]

I think it was all put together to maximize profits.

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

all playoff games last year was over at half time … bad games all.

another year like that and no one will be watching ...

 

[Cave_Johnson]

Yes, and in your world, playing 3 FCS teams has no punishment and playing Alabama, Clemson, and Oklahoma has no reward. So you want to make it so nonconference are pointless

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.

 

[7Samurai13]

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.

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

 

[olympicoscar]

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.

I fail to see where anyone else would have won the natty, since we've had the committee.

 

[WizardHawk]

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.

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.

 

[Cave_Johnson]

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

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

 

[7Samurai13]

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

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?

 

[NU_FTW]

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

 

[Cave_Johnson]

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.

Teams schedule poorly now because they get knocked out of playoff contention if they lose one game. If anything adding auto-bids probably would increase the number of teams scheduling tougher competition. If you lose, you can still win your conference and get in. If you win, you have a better at-large resume if you don't win your conference. Right now there is no incentive to schedule well if you play in a P5 conference. You just gave UW as an example. Under another system there could be.

It's totally possible that teams would tank their OOC schedule (as they already do right?), but then what's the harm? It's a dumb strategy in a system with 5 auto-bids and 3 at-larges.

And man if one year out of every 25 or something that a rogue 9 win team makes the playoff then who cares? If they suck they'll lose. If they win some games then they obviously deserved to be there. And if they team they beat out for the auto bid is good they'll still get an at-large. But this scenario you've cooked up here requires some weird shit to happen.

 

[Cave_Johnson]

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?

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.

 

[Cave_Johnson]

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

This is where the problem is. "Deserving" is determined by a bunch of retards in a room who don't know anything more about college football than the people posting on this board.

Let teams play themselves in by winning on the field. Right now we have a system that punishes teams for making their conference championship game and rewards teams that don't and sit at home during conference championship week. That makes zero sense.

 

[NU_FTW]

This is where the problem is. "Deserving" is determined by a bunch of retards in a room who don't know anything more about college football than the people posting on this board.

Let teams play themselves in by winning on the field. Right now we have a system that punishes teams for making their conference championship game and rewards teams that don't and sit at home during conference championship week. That makes zero sense.

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?

 

[WizardHawk]

Teams schedule poorly now because they get knocked out of playoff contention if they lose one game. If anything adding auto-bids probably would increase the number of teams scheduling tougher competition. If you lose, you can still win your conference and get in. If you win, you have a better at-large resume if you don't win your conference. Right now there is no incentive to schedule well if you play in a P5 conference. You just gave UW as an example. Under another system there could be.

Fantasy land fodder. You aren't alone, but this is just pure lunacy. UW ended up with a shit schedule because of Wisky backing out of a H/H with the B1G realignment.

The reason your hypothesis is nuts though is I'd be demanding the head coach be fired for scheduling teams that hit harder and leave more room for injuries. You spend all that offseason building your program only to end your run with an injury against a tough team when you can coast and use it to 'develop' your underclassmen and help limit the impact from injuries. The ONLY answer anyone ever gives to that is no, it won't happen because we don't think it will.

It will.

And as top teams do that, others will follow. If the top teams aren't punished for it neither will the next tier.

It's totally possible that teams would tank their OOC schedule (as they already do right?), but then what's the harm? It's a dumb strategy in a system with 5 auto-bids and 3 at-larges.

If teams aren't fully punished for it now, why on earth would they be after auto bids? Again, a fallacious argument at best. They still have their conference games to build a resume off of. The second best team in the SEC will still be highly looked at whether they play mercer or Oklahoma in OOC. It is only really VERY close ties the existing system has punished teams with weak OOC.

And man if one year out of every 25 or something that a rogue 9 win team makes the playoff then who cares? If they suck they'll lose. If they win some games then they obviously deserved to be there. And if they team they beat out for the auto bid is good they'll still get an at-large. But this scenario you've cooked up here requires some weird shit to happen.

So Utah losing a game and a resurgent USC beating Oregon after they just lost to a team off the back of 4 straight losses is weird shit? New to college football are you? UW won the conference last year with 3 losses. They had no business in a playoff.

Why not kill OOC, reward mediocrity on down years in bad conferences, and still use humans to fill out these at large bids and just accept some years the teams getting in would be REALLY bad and MUCH better teams are left home. Sure, that sounds logical.

How many fans of teams that had less losses and looked better doing it that got left home wouldn't be bitching up a HUGE storm over the unfairness of autobids?

So many of you want this proposed system SO badly to fix some perceived issues with the current system and yet it is 100% it would create more and be less popular with more fan bases of more teams left out. So ruin the whole thing for nothing.

Again, no thank you. I'll pass.

 

[WizardHawk]

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

Followed the Pac or ACC much? Neither are difficult slates right now with perennial powers WAY down. Who is Clemson going against for their CCG?

Which conference is down will change, but the fact they are not at ALL created equal is exactly why the title of conf champ should NOT ever been viewed as the same thing among the P5's. They aren't on equal footing in any way.

Conference champions were the team that played the conference schedule the best. That's all. It only looks at 2/3-3/4 of the games each team played. It cannot be a basis for determining anything other than conference standing.

Period. Stop. There literally is no debate on this.

 

[Cave_Johnson]

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?

Teams do not get in purely on the field. They get in the playoff when a room full of randos votes them in. The human element of judging these teams should be left out as much as possible.

There have been multiple instances already of teams getting into the playoff by doing nothing. They don't make their conference championship game because they lost at some point. Then they don't play during conference championship week and get in because another team lost their conference championship game. You are actually better off losing in the right manner in this system than you are winning too much and risking a loss in an extra championship game. That's idiotic.

 

[CJH9972]

FWIW, 2018 Washington in the only P5 champ to finish outside the top 8 nationally in the first five years of the CFP.