For the record, I am a former supporter of a 8 or 16-team playoff who favors the four-team concept as a means of preventing injustice without diluting the regular season. I would be just fine with keeping the BCS and taking the Top Four.
I'm not saying this in this post to pick on glasscutter, but he has formulated some of the same arguments stated elsewhere on this thread, so I chose this one for response.
As far as I'm concerned, people who wanted a playoff system have no right to complain about how the teams are selected.
This is incorrect. I can want a four-team playoff using the BCS and be emminently justified in rejecting this "blue ribbon panel" Brando-esque garbage.
I have always been pro BCS because it had an objective component (the computers).
These would be the same computers that:
a) gave us an Oklahoma team in the national championship right after it got smoked by 28 points in a conference championship game
b) gave us Nebraska in the national championship game right after they got drilled, 62-36, by Colorado.
c) one of which still had Notre Dame number one AFTER the BCS title game this year
d) two of which rated Okie State at the same level the day after they lost to Iowa State in 2011.
Any statistician will tell you the larger the population size, the more accurate the numbers.
Ok - keep this in mind because it will be very important in about ten seconds.
Consisting of 60 coaches or SIDs - ALL OF WHOM HAVE THEIR OWN AGENDAS (nobody has yet mentioned this as of the time I'm typing)......
and computers is a better predictor than 14 biased people in a room.
Ok. So SIXTY biased people voting on games they didn't even watch is somehow better than 14.
And folks - let's NOT endow those coaches and SIDs as the only unbiased people on the planet. How many of you think Pinkel put us above Okie State because Mizzou was coming to the SEC? Everybody? Good, because you're all smart, intelligent fans.
Personal agendas will be pushed on others.
Michigan vs Va Tech in the Sugar Bowl. Your move.
People had to have an idea how the selection committee would be put together.
We are in agreement here - and I'd guess it's probably unanimous on TF - that a selection committee is a pure disaster in its most evil form.
Each conference will have their own interest involved.
Just like...right now.
The selection committee can work if you have 64 slots to fill.
That Dallas Zoo gorilla from the 1980s who used to pick the football games could do as well as the 64/65/96-team selection committee.
You really can't complain about being the best if your team is questionably in the top 64 teams.
I may frame that quote because it is a classic.
If you are only placing 4 teams, there is a much greater chance of leaving out the best team.
Yes and no. It depends as noted on HOW it is done.
For example, last year Notre Dame was considered the #1 team
They played a respectable schedule and were unbeaten. They should have been considered number one at the time.
and would give Bama fits.
Subjectivity noted.
In honest truth, there were probably 10-15 teams who would have beat Notre Dame that day.
Maybe, maybe not.
But how would the experts have known that.
Well, according to the article linked by krazy3, their win over USC was tainted because Barkley didn't play, so they would "really" have one loss. Yes, I'm being facetious.
Should Notre Dame be in the final four?
Last year? Absolutely. The fact they didn't look like a top four team in January has no bearing on the fact they were deserving in November.
I don't mind having a 4 team playoff, but keep the BCS in place to determine the top 4 teams.
I've just accepted that there will always be complainers in college football. I guess that just carries more news. I guess I can be classified as one of them.
We agree here.