- Jun 13, 2014
- 25,242
- 10,084
Founding Member
I like it right where its at. Give conference winners (power 5) preference as long as losses are equal.
...You, like most sports fans, are under the delusion that the point here is to figure out who is the "best" team. Its not.
http://www.collegefootballplayoff.com/selection-committee-faqs said:What is the mission of the selection committee?
The committee’s task is to select the best teams, rank the teams for inclusion in the playoff and selected other bowl games and then assign the teams to bowl sites.
The more teams you add to the playoffs, the more watered down the season gets. Hell, Wisconsin would have made the playoffs with 3 losses this year if it had been 8 teams. You really want a 3-loss team with a chance to win it all? Why do you think the regular season is almost an afterthought in CBB?
That scenario has never happened and won't ever happen.I'd rather have a team that lost 3 games to top 10 ranked teams than an undefeated team that didn't play anyone in the top 50.
My argument isn't that they are going against their charter. I just disagree with the system because I think the basic philosophy of it (trying to subjectively determine the "best" team) is flawed. This deal with PSU and OSU is a perfect example. PSU beat OSU and won the conference. This happened on the field. Yet because some humans subjectively think that OSU is a "better" team, they get to go get destroyed on prime time national TV instead of the champs that beat them. BTW, I wonder if PSU had started the season ranked in the top 5 while OSU had started the season unranked (instead of the other way around) if the final rankings would still have OSU 3 and PSU 5. Hmmmm.Ummm..it is exactly what they are chartered to do. This is the first question on the playoff committee website Q&A:
I saw an interview with the chairman of the committee, and he specifically said that when forming the selection methods, they debated a system similar to what you described, but ultimately chose to NOT make conference championship the definitive criteria...just one of the factors to consider when choosing the "best" teams.
I'm not arguing for or against, but the committee's job - as defined by their charter - was to try to pick the 4 "best" teams.
I bet if PSU finished with one loss instead of two, they would have been ranked #3.My argument isn't that they are going against their charter. I just disagree with the system because I think the basic philosophy of it (trying to subjectively determine the "best" team) is flawed. This deal with PSU and OSU is a perfect example. PSU beat OSU and won the conference. This happened on the field. Yet because some humans subjectively think that OSU is a "better" team, they get to go get destroyed on prime time national TV instead of the champs that beat them. BTW, I wonder if PSU had started the season ranked in the top 5 while OSU had started the season unranked (instead of the other way around) if the final rankings would still have OSU 3 and PSU 5. Hmmmm.
That scenario has never happened and won't ever happen.
1. So what
2. So what
3. No one there had anything to do with JoPa or Sandusky. Maybe they should just shut down the whole school and bulldoze all the buildings to the ground and give it back to the indians.
Penn State won the conference. That is all that matters. Any and all blather about who is the "better team" is just that...blather. There is no such thing a proving who is the better team. Any team can beat any other team on any given day. You can't even prove that the Patriots are better than your local high school team even though we know that they most certainly are better. The only thing that matters is the results of the games played within a system. The only system that matters is that when the math is done at the end of the season, one team in the conference champion and everyone else is not. Its no different than NFL playoffs or any other playoff format. There are teams with blemishes that make it to the dance and there are "better" teams who don't make it to the dance. It isn't wrong that it happens, it is exactly the way it should be. This beauty contest crap where dudes sit around and say "well they lost on the road to them but these guys lost at home to them blah blah blah" is nothing short of gymnastic judge style point bull****. Win the conference championship and advance to the playoffs. Simple system, easy to understand, makes the whole season meaningful and exciting.
Unfortunately, lower conference teams can't always pick and choose their schedule. They play who is in their conference with similar to equal talent. Why not let them in instead of an ACC team, like FSU for example, that loses to 3 ranked top 10 teams? It's easy to imagine FSU losing to Florida, Clemson and Miami in the same year, all of which could be top 10 teams, and win out to the rest of their sorry conference. You pick them over Western Michigan?I'd rather have a team that lost 3 games to top 10 ranked teams than an undefeated team that didn't play anyone in the top 50.
Danny Kanell is somewhere in the fetal position crying.
That was a heck of a game. Refs made several terrible calls that went against USC and the Trojans still pulled it out.
Actually, in 1984 ( i think) East Carolina was 9-3 losing only to UF, fsu and um by like a total of 12 or less points. They didnt go to a bowl but they were a bad azzz team that only lost to three top ten teams.......That scenario has never happened and won't ever happen.
I like it right where its at. Give conference winners (power 5) preference as long as losses are equal.
I'm talking about an undefeated team who played nothing but cupcakes all year making the NC game. The Western Michigans and Boises of the world will never get a shot.Actually, in 1984 ( i think) East Carolina was 9-3 losing only to UF, fsu and um by like a total of 12 or less points. They didnt go to a bowl but they were a bad azzz team that only lost to three top ten teams.......