The committee experiment failed

[Cave_Johnson]

Like I said, you're too stupid to recognize how stupid you are...

Condoleeza Rice was the fucking Secretary of State...Oliver Luck was a 3 time Academic All-American, A Rhodes Scholar finalist, the General Manager of two Pro teams, the President of NFL Europe and the current commissioner of the XFL, I'm pretty sure I would take their opinion over yours 1000 times out of 1000...or any of the other people who have served on the committee.

The real point you're making is that you're dumber than a box of rocks. If we collectively are having a hard time figuring out who the 4th team should be every year, that hardly seems to call for adding teams 5 through 8.

Every team can play there way in on the field now....schedule appropriately and win all your games and you're in. Play in a shit conference and play a shit OOC schedule and you put your fate in the hands of the committee. Play in a good conference and lose a game and you put your fate in the hands of the committee. I would much rather have that than a playoff full of scrubs.

Wow, sorry if your dad or something is on the committee but I really seem to have offended you here.

Again, Secretary of State =/= knows something about football. The fact that you can't seem to get this would imply that you're not that bright either. And the fact that the committee even puts people like that in the position to make these decisions is laughable.

The committee is flawed as fuck and as made some decisions that should make anybody question their intelligence.

For instance, in 2017 Wisconsin went undefeated in the regular season and was ranked ahead of Alabama before the conference championship games. Wisconsin lost. Alabama however didn't make their conference championship, sat at home, and Alabama got in by doing nothing.

I could get behind the Alabama if the committee hadn't ranked Wisconsin above Alabama before the B1G championship. That made absolutely no sense.

"Sorry, Wisconsin. Should have stayed at home and lost at the right time like Alabama did. If you had, you'd be in the playoff."

The committee could have ranked Alabama ahead of Wisconsin before the championship games and made the statement that they believed Alabama was better, but that Wisconsin could play their way in. But no, they pretty much just said Fuck you to Wisconsin. Basically the committee showed that under their system it's better to lose at the right time and not make your conference championship game than to make the championship game and risk losing. That's a terrible precedent to set, and it's not exactly something a group of smart people would do.

 

[BamaDude]

That is terrible. If the NCAA is going to allow that, at least give us the ability to play NCAA Football video games so we can all create our own legit playoff.

Are you related to UCFHonors? You're beginning to sound like twins.

 

[Cave_Johnson]

So what format seeds 8 teams into a playoff without any human picking?

Again to be clear, I don't want 8 in any format, but I'm unaware of any method to pick 8 that doesn't have humans doing some part of it.

I personally wouldn't mind using the BSC system or something to pick the final 3 at-larges. That still has a bit of a human element to it in the form of polls, but it eliminates humans as much as possible.

 

[belcherboy]

I know last year would have had Michigan as the #7 team. We didn’t need to see Michigan play again to know they didn’t deserve to be in the playoffs. I thought the same thing about a few other potential playoff teams.

if you extend the playoffs, go to 6 teams (top two get byes). Otherwise keep it at 4. I prefer 4 teams, and I like the playoff committee. I think they’ve chosen the 4 best teams every year.

 

[WNY_FOOTBALL_DUDE]

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.

Pretty much all teams lose. Losing is normal in football, including your Huskies and my Irish. We're talking about adding in more cream of the crop teams. We're talking about more comparable teams. Last year, 6 teams would have included Georgia and Ohio State. In 2017, we would have had Wisky at 12-1 in. Why is that a problem?

No, I don't want to trade the intensity of all 12 regular season games. The drama that happens over the 13 week season.

There's no "trading" here. With more spots, it becomes more intense. Schools/Teams are not only fighting for their CC, but for playoff spots and positioning. You actually INCREASE profits.

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.

Who is asking for a "massive tournament" here? I am saying 6-8. In what world is 5-6% massive?

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.

What you wrote doesn't make much sense to me, for a couple of reasons: (a) I don't support "autobids". Never had, never will. (b) As illustrated time and time again, if losing ONE time knocks you out, what is the point of scheduling tough OOC opponents? You tolerate 1-loss teams, you open the door to better competition.

 

[WizardHawk]

@WNY_FOOTBALL_DUDE
Since your quotes are a mess I'm skipping it.

When you have 2 or 4 spots having to have enough meat on the bone to qualify is harder than 6 to 8. That is, more teams will make it and that shaky team left out of the 4 because of weak OOC is in with 8. No, it does not push more teams to have better OOC. The trend over the last 20 years has been to go worse on that slate and going to more playoff teams absolutely will not help that.

If you aren't for autobids then you jumped into a conversation to have a different one than what was going on. This thread started with the fallacious statement that the committee system has failed. Mostly because OP's team won't be in the playoffs and he's entirely butthurt over it. He, and many like him, are for any system that puts their team into more than a consolation bowl game. I am not in that classification. I do not think UW belonged in a playoff last year as the Pac's conf champion.

Debating purely 4, 6 or 8 on this committee format is an entirely different conversation.

 

[WNY_FOOTBALL_DUDE]

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.

Actually 8 teams is what most people wanted. Just look at Then-Senator Obama back in 2008.

 

[WizardHawk]

Actually 8 teams is what most people wanted. Just look at Then-Senator Obama back in 2008.

'And 1' was the talk of football for some time during the BCS. I'm sure some specific people mentioned 8, but the conversation very much every week was about how 4 is enough, is better than 2, and would satisfy everyone. I had many many conversations about it on CBS and other forums. And many of those now that said 4 was perfect are on about 8. No doubt in my mind at all that they would then complain about 16 within 4-5 years of going to 8. Most people really want an NFL style playoff. I want no part of that.

 

[WNY_FOOTBALL_DUDE]

When you have 2 or 4 spots having to have enough meat on the bone to qualify is harder than 6 to 8. That is, more teams will make it and that shaky team left out of the 4 because of weak OOC is in with 8. No, it does not push more teams to have better OOC. The trend over the last 20 years has been to go worse on that slate and going to more playoff teams absolutely will not help that.

If you aren't for autobids then you jumped into a conversation to have a different one than what was going on. This thread started with the fallacious statement that the committee system has failed. Mostly because OP's team won't be in the playoffs and he's entirely butthurt over it. He, and many like him, are for any system that puts their team into more than a consolation bowl game. I am not in that classification. I do not think UW belonged in a playoff last year as the Pac's conf champion.

Debating purely 4, 6 or 8 on this committee format is an entirely different conversation.

You do realize that I picked apart the original post and pointed out his holes? Yes, autobids have always been a bad idea.

My is expanding between 4-8 would be actually be good for college football and encourage better scheduling.

 

[WizardHawk]

You do realize that I picked apart the original post and pointed out his holes? Yes, autobids have always been a bad idea.

My is expanding between 4-8 would be actually be good for college football and encourage better scheduling.

We will have to agree to entirely disagree and save it for the off season. I really couldn't disagree more, but it's not worth going at in season.

 

[WNY_FOOTBALL_DUDE]

'And 1' was the talk of football for some time during the BCS. I'm sure some specific people mentioned 8, but the conversation very much every week was about how 4 is enough, is better than 2, and would satisfy everyone. I had many many conversations about it on CBS and other forums. And many of those now that said 4 was perfect are on about 8. No doubt in my mind at all that they would then complain about 16 within 4-5 years of going to 8. Most people really want an NFL style playoff. I want no part of that.

Sources are desperately needed here. Otherwise, we're into hearsay territory. I have heard people talking about 8 teams, you have about 4 teams, before the 2011 season.

 

[WizardHawk]

Sources are desperately needed here. Otherwise, we're into hearsay territory. I have heard people talking about 8 teams, you have about 4 teams, before the 2011 season.

sources? I said pretty clearly the discussion all over the web and particularly on the sites I was on (CBS mainly) is where the endless talk happened. Many of those same folks who pitched 4 on CBS migrated along with me here and now champion 8. I really don't need to give you sources. I'm sure there were people who didn't think 4 was enough, but MANy did and quite a few said and 1 was the prefect compromise. Now everyone wants 8. I'm not buying they stay there. The next argument will be that we have 10 conferences so why not 12? I have no doubt in my mind at all about that.

 

[tnapucco]

I, for one, think the committee is doing a swell job!

Keep it up folks! And remember...if you want more of that crack-like bacon (they feed crack to the hogs), just email my uncle at the farm!

 

[Rolltide94]

Wow, sorry if your dad or something is on the committee but I really seem to have offended you here.

Again, Secretary of State =/= knows something about football. The fact that you can't seem to get this would imply that you're not that bright either. And the fact that the committee even puts people like that in the position to make these decisions is laughable.

The committee is flawed as fuck and as made some decisions that should make anybody question their intelligence.

For instance, in 2017 Wisconsin went undefeated in the regular season and was ranked ahead of Alabama before the conference championship games. Wisconsin lost. Alabama however didn't make their conference championship, sat at home, and Alabama got in by doing nothing.

I could get behind the Alabama if the committee hadn't ranked Wisconsin above Alabama before the B1G championship. That made absolutely no sense.

"Sorry, Wisconsin. Should have stayed at home and lost at the right time like Alabama did. If you had, you'd be in the playoff."

The committee could have ranked Alabama ahead of Wisconsin before the championship games and made the statement that they believed Alabama was better, but that Wisconsin could play their way in. But no, they pretty much just said Fuck you to Wisconsin. Basically the committee showed that under their system it's better to lose at the right time and not make your conference championship game than to make the championship game and risk losing. That's a terrible precedent to set, and it's not exactly something a group of smart people would do.

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.

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.

 

[Deep Creek]

Again, we don't need it. What we have works. Go win out the schedule in front of you. Win every game. If you don't, you have no committee or anyone else to blame for not making the playoff.

Wiz, 14 of the 20 teams that have played in the CFP to date DID NOT win out the schedule in front of them and still got into the playoffs. So 70% of the time a team doesn't have to win all the games in front of them to make the playoffs.

 

[WizardHawk]

Wiz, 14 of the 20 teams that have played in the CFP to date DID NOT win out the schedule in front of them and still got into the playoffs. So 70% of the time a team doesn't have to win all the games in front of them to make the playoffs.

You missed the point. You, as a team. Can control your own season in the field. If you are in a P5, even if you have been a small player in that P5, and you win all games, you are in. If not it is no longer in your hands. It isn't complicated and it isn't unfair. It's straight forward. Win and you are in.

 

[WizardHawk]

See, you missed that part after the bold in your quote. Once you do lose you can only look in the mirror for who to blame if you don't get in. The committee didn't make you lose.

 

[Deep Creek]

You missed the point. You, as a team. Can control your own season in the field. If you are in a P5, even if you have been a small player in that P5, and you win all games, you are in. If not it is no longer in your hands. It isn't complicated and it isn't unfair. It's straight forward. Win and you are in.

I got the point and didn't say it was unfair. Just said a team doesn't have to win 'em all to get in. While 100% of the P5 teams that have won them all have gotten in, over twice that many have not won them all and still gotten in. Again, teams don't have to go undefeated to get into the CFP. History proves that is so.

 

[Deep Creek]

See, you missed that part after the bold in your quote. Once you do lose you can only look in the mirror for who to blame if you don't get in. The committee didn't make you lose.

No, I saw it. A team can look in that mirror and blame themselves...and many of them that did so still got into the playoffs. The committee said they were still good enough in spite of what they did to themselves.

 

[WizardHawk]

I got the point and didn't say it was unfair. Just said a team doesn't have to win 'em all to get in. While 100% of the P5 teams that have won them all have gotten in, over twice that many have not won them all and still gotten in. Again, teams don't have to go undefeated to get into the CFP. History proves that is so.

No one said you had to go undefeated to get in, I said once you lose a game you also lose the right to bitch about whether or not you got in. It's really not hard. You control your destiny until you lose