Best format Ive seen to date. This reduces human influence. Has actual criteria ,a fail safe in case a conference champion has more than 2 losses. And removes all the question marks we've had in previous years. Much closer to a true champion than anything we;ve seen to date. It was a great post
But you also know by locking into one ideal or system that leaves no room for growth. I don't so much buy into the money aspect. I think the extra play off game generates more or equal revenue to the current system. I was actually surprised when I ran his sceneio with the previous play off years.
Too many options to make money expanding the play offs. Whether it be using the big 6 and adding another bowl which means another sponsor.....Or working another route. In the end money stays the same at worst. But if we are looking at revenue that would be generated by play off games. And adding that extra game odds lean much further toward higher revenue in the end. There always going to be solutions to tie ins. They added solutions when they went with the current format
So assuming your Billion dollar number is correct, it works out to be rather minor overall. Take $1 billion, divide it by the 12 years, divide it by 15 because the money from bowl games is pooled together and then distributed equally with the ACC taking an equal cut and we are talking about $5.6 million a year per school. A lot to you or I but to a major university, it’s a drop in the bucket considering they can make back much of it with the extra non-conference home game that each ACC team gets 8 game conference schedule as compared to the Big10.
Calling it a mistake 6 format is correct.
Calling it a mistake 6 format is correct.
As has already been proven, if we took the committee final rankings out to 6 games then 21 of the 24 teams you list above ARE THE EXACT SAME. Including having both Bama and Ohio State from last year. It's a fact that this mistake formula has almost no difference in outcome (3 of 24 is nearly nothing), doesn't end ND's independence, doesn't kill OOC's, doesn't overly rely on entirely imbalanced and unfair schedules within each conference, and gives us better games. Those are facts. Going to 6 in any format adds more drama with a committee (no computer or other format can work) pick the SEEDING and will be blamed for putting team X in 3rd instead of team Y in second which gives them a bye. It adds more drama than what you and your ilk purport to want to fix.
Really, you were so totally destroyed in that other thread that I'm kind of surprised (not really) you can still continue it.
We have made progress with several posters in bringing some of this to their attention so you are doing a public service bringing it up again. The more we can bring along and show the light, the better the board will be in the long run. So do keep up the good work.
Not to mention that the SEC has MORE TEAMS so no shit they bring in more money. They have to divide it up to more schools. They do tend to get more teams into the NY6 bowls so much of their extra money is not a handout, it is earned for performance on the field. Want to make more for the ACC? Stop having most of the conference suck as much.
I gave you 100% break down from the direct CFP final poll from each year. It is a FACT that 21 of 24 teams YOU claim would come from an auto bid plus one WC are exactly identical. Not my fault you have to ignore that FACT to continue your rant. I backed it up with actual real life results, not your made up bullshit.Incorrect I already provided you with all the data. Which display a clear differential that clearly show through fact. His system removes all the question marks. You've given opinion and debate. Which falls into the human factor that needs to be reduced. As I said progress is not made when one is complacent.Unless you've found facts that actually refute the facts provided. You've already confirmed his system is much more efficient,. Deciding the games on the field rather than by opinion........
When using words like Polls most people thought....Thats not fact. @Mistaken4193 provided a formula that is supported by data. Again I'll wait for facts otherwise its just confirmation. And i'll give @Mistaken4193 the credit for finding a sound system that is supported by facts and data rather than opinion and heavy human influence. Its basically a system thats irrefutable when using fact and data. Rebuttals based on Opinion and semantics jor skewed computer systems (BCS) ust don't cut it for me..... Im for progression of the
