The committee experiment failed

[Rolltide94]

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.

Bunch of Retards? 6 Athletic Directors, a University President who is a Rhodes Scholar with a Harvard MBA, a Sports Writer in the Arizona Sports Hall of Fame, 3 Former Head Coaches who between them have won 571 games and 18 conference championships and a one is a CFB Hall of Fame Inductee and 2 are Stagg Award winners, and a former Chief of Staff of the US Army...oh and fuckin' Ronnie Lott, one of 6 former D1 players on the committee.

The only potential retard I see is you...at the very least you might be the poster child for the Dunning-Kruger effect....

 

[Cave_Johnson]

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.

So it's nuts because you personally would be calling for your coach's head if he didn't want to bet his entire season on going undefeated in conference play. Sorry, don't buy it. And yeah I don't think it would happen just like you don't think it will. That's where this ends I guess.

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.

Okay. And if there are two SEC teams trying to get an at-large which SEC team do you think gets the nod? The one who scheduled nobody OOC because they bet they could cruise through their conference or the one who scheduled tough teams in case it came down to an at-large decision? And how are teams that don't play in the SEC going to increase their odds of getting picked as an at-large if they don't win their conference? They schedule better OOC.

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.

The entire season coming together like this where USC could (probably won't) win the Pac-12 is what I'd call weird shit. Not just the last few concluding games.

Most of the stuff in this section is just your opinion though. Like I said this system already rewards teams for sitting at home and not playing. That's what I don't want to see.

 

[Cave_Johnson]

Bunch of Retards? 6 Athletic Directors, a University President who is a Rhodes Scholar with a Harvard MBA, a Sports Writer in the Arizona Sports Hall of Fame, 3 Former Head Coaches who between them have won 571 games and 18 conference championships and a one is a CFB Hall of Fame Inductee and 2 are Stagg Award winners, and a former Chief of Staff of the US Army...oh and fuckin' Ronnie Lott, one of 6 former D1 players on the committee.

The only potential retard I see is you...at the very least you might be the poster child for the Dunning-Kruger effect....

So in other words, 3 head football coaches. I'm failing to see how having a Harvard MBA, being a former Chief of Staff of the US Army, or a sportswriter means they're good at selecting football teams. Maybe they need to bring back Condoleeza Rice or Andrew Luck's dad.

Director of Athletics or just being a former player doesn't really matter to me either. There are some real dumbass former players and ADs. If you're objecting to me calling them retards then fine. I'm just trying to insult them because I don't think they do a good job.

The real point I'm making here is that it's just a bunch of people in a room. Why leave it to human opinion when you can have teams play their way in on the field? They have repeatedly let teams because those teams sat at home and didn't play.

 

[WizardHawk]

So it's nuts because you personally would be calling for your coach's head if he didn't want to bet his entire season on going undefeated in conference play. Sorry, don't buy it. And yeah I don't think it would happen just like you don't think it will. That's where this ends I guess.

Way to entirely bastardize what was said.
We already see what will happen now with the SEC. Why do they pretty much all schedule at least two very VERY bad teams every season? Because they can. And because it gives them easier games to work on younger players and protect key players from injury. It happens right freaking now today.

Under the system you all want it gets worse and it's a pure fact it will. It's just simple logic. Once some teams do it and yours doesn't it only takes one key injury against an OOC for AD's to be asking why they are playing these games that entirely don't count in the main mechanism to reach the playoffs. They already also don't punish teams in the current committee structure nearly enough so of course it won't be something teams worry about when they don't count anymore.

You can claim all you want some other false narrative, but we have the proof right now today. It's fact.

Okay. And if there are two SEC teams trying to get an at-large which SEC team do you think gets the nod? The one who scheduled nobody OOC because they bet they could cruise through their conference or the one who scheduled tough teams in case it came down to an at-large decision? And how are teams that don't play in the SEC going to increase their odds of getting picked as an at-large if they don't win their conference? They schedule better OOC.

You want so desperately for this narrative to fly. It hasn't been, but keep up that effort because your dreams all crumble when you fail right?
Again, they are ALREADY NOT DOING IT TODAY AND REACHING THE PLAYOFFS WITH ONLY 4 TEAMS. Show me an SEC team that had the same number of conf losses as another and was left out because of the tiebreaker of tougher OOC. If it ever happens, it's for SURE not yearly. It's rare enough to not risk killing your season over having when it mostly doesn't matter.

The entire season coming together like this where USC could (probably won't) win the Pac-12 is what I'd call weird shit. Not just the last few concluding games.

Most of the stuff in this section is just your opinion though. Like I said this system already rewards teams for sitting at home and not playing. That's what I don't want to see.

So it's weird that a 4 loss team would win a P5, but not weird that some random tiebreaker entirely boils down to OOC strength between two SEC teams?

Right now today you MUST win every single game you have unless you are one of 4-5 power teams that can almost guarantee still be top 4 with a loss.

Under autobids a 3-4 loss P5 champ gets in over a 2 loss team that is obviously better just because we want to feel good about conf champs and give them more reward than their achievement warrants.

It's insane to push that. It really is. I'd rather look at all 12 games. All of them. 100% of the games. All should count toward your post season. Not some. I honestly don't understand how reasonably intelligent people can't work through the logic here past their desires and frustrations over the perceived flaws now and see this for what it is. There's a reason only dipshits in the media ever agree with the need for this and none of the people actually with the ability to make it happen. It won't happen thankfully because the people running it understand how it kills the sport 100% dead year one.

 

[WizardHawk]

The real point I'm making here is that it's just a bunch of people in a room. Why leave it to human opinion when you can have teams play their way in on the field*? They have repeatedly let teams because those teams sat at home and didn't play.

*Only some games of course. We don't want to hold teams accountable for ALL of them. And ALL of them are equivalent across every conference. Well no, not quite. Only the 5 we value. Wins and conf championships aren't the same for the 5 we don't count.

So we want it based entirely off the play on the field of a partial years schedule for groups of teams we hand select as being more special and leave that scrap possibility to the others they might be able to get an at large bid. Again, that at large is handed out by human opinion. That same human opinion that isn't good enough now to select the top 4, but it's more than good enough to select the also rans we will hand out slots to after the chosen ones.

 

[Cave_Johnson]

Way to entirely bastardize what was said.
We already see what will happen now with the SEC. Why do they pretty much all schedule at least two very VERY bad teams every season? Because they can. And because it gives them easier games to work on younger players and protect key players from injury. It happens right freaking now today.

Under the system you all want it gets worse and it's a pure fact it will. It's just simple logic. Once some teams do it and yours doesn't it only takes one key injury against an OOC for AD's to be asking why they are playing these games that entirely don't count in the main mechanism to reach the playoffs. They already also don't punish teams in the current committee structure nearly enough so of course it won't be something teams worry about when they don't count anymore.

You can claim all you want some other false narrative, but we have the proof right now today. It's fact.

Okay, see this is why I said "That's where this ends I guess." Because now you're just telling me "I'm right and you're wrong". This is all just opinion at this point.

You want so desperately for this narrative to fly. It hasn't been, but keep up that effort because your dreams all crumble when you fail right?
Again, they are ALREADY NOT DOING IT TODAY AND REACHING THE PLAYOFFS WITH ONLY 4 TEAMS. Show me an SEC team that had the same number of conf losses as another and was left out because of the tiebreaker of tougher OOC. If it ever happens, it's for SURE not yearly. It's rare enough to not risk killing your season over having when it mostly doesn't matter.

The entire season coming together like this where USC could (probably won't) win the Pac-12 is what I'd call weird shit. Not just the last few concluding games.

Holy shit dude, we're not even on the same page anymore. I don't even know why you're still arguing this.

 

[WizardHawk]

Okay, see this is why I said "That's where this ends I guess." Because now you're just telling me "I'm right and you're wrong". This is all just opinion at this point.


Holy shit dude, we're not even on the same page anymore. I don't even know why you're still arguing this.

Simple. Why are we supposed to accept autobids and an 8 team playoff improves anything? How is it better and what does it risk? When we each ask ourselves those basic questions we have very different answers. I'm working mine out on this thread just the same as yours.

I'm entirely against 8 teams in any format. So start there. We don't need to go down to the 5th or 6th best team in college football. The talent disparity at the top is striking and doesn't really go that deep in any season. Teams fall off all year long and often leave that 4th place team looking like roadkill for the 1 seed. It just isn't needed to figure out who the best team in the country is. They aren't hiding at 7.

Once you add autobids you so totally kill the sport that I rise up against it with my pitchfork in hand. I won't allow anyone to take the one damned thing I truly enjoy and look forward to each year away.

 

[gob]

Simple. Why are we supposed to accept autobids and an 8 team playoff improves anything? How is it better and what does it risk? When we each ask ourselves those basic questions we have very different answers. I'm working mine out on this thread just the same as yours.

I'm entirely against 8 teams in any format. So start there. We don't need to go down to the 5th or 6th best team in college football. The talent disparity at the top is striking and doesn't really go that deep in any season. Teams fall off all year long and often leave that 4th place team looking like roadkill for the 1 seed. It just isn't needed to figure out who the best team in the country is. They aren't hiding at 7.

Once you add autobids you so totally kill the sport that I rise up against it with my pitchfork in hand. I won't allow anyone to take the one damned thing I truly enjoy and look forward to each year away.

Wait... You do realize that the "roadkill" 4th seed has won more championships than the 1 seed in the playoff era, right?

 

[Cave_Johnson]

*Only some games of course. We don't want to hold teams accountable for ALL of them. And ALL of them are equivalent across every conference. Well no, not quite. Only the 5 we value. Wins and conf championships aren't the same for the 5 we don't count.

So we want it based entirely off the play on the field of a partial years schedule for groups of teams we hand select as being more special and leave that scrap possibility to the others they might be able to get an at large bid. Again, that at large is handed out by human opinion. That same human opinion that isn't good enough now to select the top 4, but it's more than good enough to select the also rans we will hand out slots to after the chosen ones.

Spin it all you want man. It's win and you're in with the system I'm talking about. In the current system you can sit at home and do nothing and get moved into the playoff. That's garbage.

Also, human opinion has to be there at the college level. We both know this. But you might as well remove as much of it as possible. It's a necessary evil, but not one that has to, or should, decide all the teams that get in.

 

[wazzu31]

I think Mike Leach has it right. Just do a 132 team tournament to shut fans up. When they are forced to pay $1 million dollars for a ticket because their team plays one game for the year then so be it.

 

[WizardHawk]

Spin it all you want man. It's win and you're in with the system I'm talking about. In the current system you can sit at home and do nothing and get moved into the playoff. That's garbage.

Also, human opinion has to be there at the college level. We both know this. But you might as well remove as much of it as possible. It's a necessary evil, but not one that has to, or should, decide all the teams that get in.

No, it's win and you are in now. You are in 100% if you don't lose a game.

 

[Cave_Johnson]

Simple. Why are we supposed to accept autobids and an 8 team playoff improves anything? How is it better and what does it risk? When we each ask ourselves those basic questions we have very different answers. I'm working mine out on this thread just the same as yours.

I'm entirely against 8 teams in any format. So start there. We don't need to go down to the 5th or 6th best team in college football. The talent disparity at the top is striking and doesn't really go that deep in any season. Teams fall off all year long and often leave that 4th place team looking like roadkill for the 1 seed. It just isn't needed to figure out who the best team in the country is. They aren't hiding at 7.

Once you add autobids you so totally kill the sport that I rise up against it with my pitchfork in hand. I won't allow anyone to take the one damned thing I truly enjoy and look forward to each year away.

I just don't think we're really arguing the same things here man. Just a fundamental disagreement. If that even makes sense. I've had a few tonight.

I do think they go to 8 eventually though but it's probably going to be purely a money move.

 

[Cave_Johnson]

You are in 100% if you don't lose a game.

True, but it's that way in every system. I'm mostly concerned with that last #4 spot. Just don't agree with some of the reasoning as of late.

 

[WizardHawk]

Wait... You do realize that the "roadkill" 4th seed has won more championships than the 1 seed in the playoff era, right?

The 4th seed has gone on from the first round exactly twice. And won it all both times. Those are the sorts of anomalies you'd expect from a small sample size to work back to normal fairly quickly.

The best team in college football in any given year is not sitting at 7 going into bowl season. It's just not necessary to add a fuckton more teams.

 

[gob]

No, it's win and you are in now. You are in 100% if you don't lose a game.

UCFalse

 

[WizardHawk]

I just don't think we're really arguing the same things here man. Just a fundamental disagreement. If that even makes sense. I've had a few tonight.

I do think they go to 8 eventually though but it's probably going to be purely a money move.

You know I just fight hard. We still bros on sundays lol. It's not personal and never will be.

Have a couple more and relax.

 

[WizardHawk]

UCFalse

red herring and you know it.

He (And others of his ilk) want an auto bid for the P5 champs. It is a pure fact that you are guaranteed a spot if you are in one of those right now and don't lose a game.

 

[gob]

The 4th seed has gone on from the first round exactly twice. And won it all both times. Those are the sorts of anomalies you'd expect from a small sample size to work back to normal fairly quickly.

The best team in college football in any given year is not sitting at 7 going into bowl season. It's just not necessary to add a fuckton more teams.

Probably not. I don't see how 4 more teams is a "fuckton" though

 

[gob]

red herring and you know it.

He (And others of his ilk) want an auto bid for the P5 champs. It is a pure fact that you are guaranteed a spot if you are in one of those right now and don't lose a game.

That is true. A UCF/Boise St will never have an opportunity to potentially show us they're legit in a 4 team playoff, though.

 

[WizardHawk]

That is true. A UCF/Boise St will never have an opportunity to potentially show us they're legit in a 4 team playoff, though.

They should have their own playoff since they can't be an equal player in ours.

The system mostly proposed would have 5 auto bids and 3 at large... We are told using humans to pick 4 now is nuts! Let them earn it on the field! they say... Yet in what they propose we get 5 who get in regardless of anything other than they were the least shitty team of their conference that year and those same high functioning G5's you like would, yes, once again be at the mercy of the same humans we use now.

We get the added bonus of lack of OOC games having any real impact anymore, potential for 2 loss good teams sitting home will crappier 3 or more loss teams are in with the autobid, and crying over which G5 wasn't rewarded for their lackluster schedule or who else got left out.

It's a fact that teams ranked higher than 8 would be left out with autobids. I'm not ok with that.