|
|
Post by EvilVodka on Dec 5, 2016 16:19:42 GMT
My biggest problem with the committee is that no one knows what they have to do to get in the playoff.
It's become LESS transparent with the College Football Playoff, literally made behind closed doors. AT LEAST with rankings you would know where you needed to be.
How they handled this year was absurd on MANY levels....the subjective nature of it just proves one point: There is no true logic to the process. TCU was #3 and got booted out in '14. FSU was undefeated and was as low as #4 that year...an undefeated defending National Champ on the verge of getting booted from the playoff. This year, you had the Penn St-Ohio St argument to most fans, but ESPN and media tried to make it between Michigan-Washington-Penn State for #4.
I'm still wondering how Ohio State is ahead of WASHINGTON. Haven't quite figured that out yet.
I really don't understand what the rules are for the committee....it's bad for the sport. AT LEAST with the BCS rankings you had a notion of who could pass who....
Either that or define some type of rules:
The first 3 spots go to the top 3 conference champs
#4 is to At-Large
Do something that lets fans, teams, and coaches know where they are, and what they have to do to get in the playoff!
OR create a list of criteria....if teams are comparable, you go down the list as a litany of tiebreakers.
1. W/L - team with better W/L gets in
2. Head-to-head - Team winning head 2 head gets in
3. Conference Champ - Team with Conference Championship gets in
4. SOS - Team with better Strength of Schedule gets in
That's all you need....those 4 simple guidelines
Ohio State had the better W/L, so it's obvious they get in above Penn State....then EVERYONE is on the same page on what is expected. Washington has a better record and Conference Champ over Ohio State....they should be #3
The committee as it is right now is a joke....The Playoff is good, how it's decided is dumb....keep trying college football
|
|
|
|
Post by doc on Dec 5, 2016 16:32:01 GMT
Last I saw, Ohio State would have been #2 in the BCS rankings. 2 or 3 doesn't really matter unless you care what color your team wears. And a 2 loss team had no chance in the BCSif there were 4 teams with one loss.
|
|
|
|
Post by FLORIDA HERD FAN on Dec 5, 2016 16:51:57 GMT
An impartial committee would be better than either, IMO.
No rules. Simply allow each voter to use his or her own criteria to rank the best 25 teams, and the 16 teams with the most votes are in and are seeded accordingly.
|
|
|
|
Post by EvilVodka on Dec 5, 2016 16:59:00 GMT
Last I saw, Ohio State would have been #2 in the BCS rankings. 2 or 3 doesn't really matter unless you care what color your team wears. And a 2 loss team had no chance in the BCSif there were 4 teams with one loss. ya, so it would make sense when people saw the rankings, and when people said "Ohio State is a lock" The problem is the committee had previously set a standard of emphasizing conference championships, which they bypassed this year The ambiguity with the whole process is dumb...we are only on year 3 of the committee, and so far I think it's a joke The playoff STRUCTURE is much better than the BCS....the way they are deciding the 4 is worse IMO, because no one literally knows what to expect. |
|
|
|
Post by GatorGrad on Dec 5, 2016 17:07:10 GMT
I think the committee has done fine. In all three seasons, I think they included the four teams that would have been seeded 1-4 in an 8 or 16 team playoff. It's not their fault that the playoff is only limited to 4 teams. The main arguments were TCU/OSU and now the PSU debate and unfortunately there wasn't a clear-cut answer to those situations when using subjective means.
|
|
|
|
Post by tigercpa on Dec 5, 2016 17:44:44 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by FLORIDA HERD FAN on Dec 5, 2016 18:23:14 GMT
I think the committee has done fine. In all three seasons, I think they included the four teams that would have been seeded 1-4 in an 8 or 16 team playoff. It's not their fault that the playoff is only limited to 4 teams. The main arguments were TCU/OSU and now the PSU debate and unfortunately there wasn't a clear-cut answer to those situations when using subjective means. It doesn't take committee of geniuses to rank teams by the number of losses. And, committee chairman Hocutt said that they took MOV into consideration in Penn State's loss to Michigan, and then denied doing so. Alabama unquestionably belongs in the top-4. The other 3 can fairly be argued. www.yahoo.com/news/clear-college-football-playoff-committee-171451073.html |
|
|
|
Post by tigercpa on Dec 5, 2016 18:37:58 GMT
Playoff expansion will do nothing to help crown a "true" champion. It will just create more problems.
|
|
|
|
Post by cjhawkeyes on Dec 5, 2016 19:27:33 GMT
BCS ranking system is as bad as committee.
|
|
|
|
Post by bluehen on Dec 5, 2016 21:18:39 GMT
Playoff expansion will do nothing to help crown a "true" champion. It will just create more problems. Wrong..a championship available to all 128 FBS members and its 10 leagues would absolutely yield a true champion. Are you suggesting that the all inclusive, fair, football championship playoffs in FCS, DII and DIII are somehow determining 'bogus' champions ? |
|
|
|
Post by FLORIDA HERD FAN on Dec 5, 2016 21:27:48 GMT
Playoff expansion will do nothing to help crown a "true" champion. It will just create more problems. That might go down as the dumbest thing you have ever said on this forum. |
|
|
|
Post by tigercpa on Dec 5, 2016 22:26:28 GMT
Playoff expansion will do nothing to help crown a "true" champion. It will just create more problems. Wrong..a championship available to all 128 FBS members and its 10 leagues would absolutely yield a true champion. Are you suggesting that the all inclusive, fair, football championship playoffs in FCS, DII and DIII are somehow determining 'bogus' champions ? It depends on how you define true champion. |
|
|
|
Post by tigercpa on Dec 5, 2016 22:35:58 GMT
Playoff expansion will do nothing to help crown a "true" champion. It will just create more problems. That might go down as the dumbest thing you have ever said on this forum. It's true, expand the field, expand the problems. Clemson would be in the playoff this year in an 8 game field, even if we lost to VT. The larger of a field you have, the less importance it places on individual games. Frankly it’s bullshit that the Giants or whomever can go 7-9 in the regular season and then win the superbowl, and I don’t want CFB to try and emulate that setup. The equivalent would be the 16th team at 8-4 winning and being the best? Nope, no thanks. 8 teams will be too many in most years, 4 or 6 will do most of the time. Now that it is all said and done, really only 5 teams have a legitimate argument to be in the playoffs (PSU being #5), 6 if you allow Michigan the "eye test" argument. If you expand to an 8 team playoff, you’ve got at least, what 4, 5, 6 teams arguing that they deserve those final two slots this year? Last year, I don’t remember much, if any, controversy over the four teams that got in. With an 8-team field though, you would’ve had 5 easy selections and probably 6 teams with legitimate arguments for the final three slots. Looking back at the last five years (which isn’t a lot, I know, but I don’t want to do this all night), 2014 is the only year when you could’ve chosen a final eight with relative ease. The rest of the time, the difference between teams ranked #5-12ish is pretty thin. More people bitching about 6,7,8 slots. I think the big issue is there are not enough common opponents to get a handle on who is best. |
|
|
|
Post by bluehen on Dec 5, 2016 22:44:05 GMT
Wrong..a championship available to all 128 FBS members and its 10 leagues would absolutely yield a true champion. Are you suggesting that the all inclusive, fair, football championship playoffs in FCS, DII and DIII are somehow determining 'bogus' champions ? It depends on how you define true champion. True champion - the last team standing after an all inclusive, fair, on field elimination playoff competition. Now , CPA, what's your definition of a 'true' champion. |
|
|
|
Post by FLORIDA HERD FAN on Dec 5, 2016 22:46:03 GMT
Wrong..a championship available to all 128 FBS members and its 10 leagues would absolutely yield a true champion. Are you suggesting that the all inclusive, fair, football championship playoffs in FCS, DII and DIII are somehow determining 'bogus' champions ? It depends on how you define true champion. "It depends upon how you define true president." That sounds rather stupid doesn't it? "It depends upon how you define true champion" is equally stupid. No one questions that the winner of the NCAA football championship playoffs for each division is the true national champion. But, even many supporters of the power conferences' current version of a championship refer to it as the MNC, i.e., the "mythical national championship ". That is simply because it isn't and never can be accepted as a true national championship. |
|
