Link: New Playoff Committee bias

I'm not sure bias is the right word, but I do expect there to be a lot of background campaigning by some committee members. It will happen. We better win 'em all, because I don't expect any of them to be shilling for us.

"We are to reward conference championships no matter how they come about, whether it's a conference championship game, or in the Big 12 -- that counts for something to win your conference."

Duke was in the ACC championship game last year. Duke! I'm sorry, but winning the ACC doesn't really mean that much.The Big 12 has 10 teams and lost Nebraska to the Big 10 and Texas A&M to the SEC. They also don't have a conference championship game. Objectively speaking, one would start to think that winning the SEC or even the Big 10 should mean more, heck, coming second in the SEC probably should mean more. Of course, of course Luck is going to say that though, since he does represent the Big 12 after all.

I love how they just forced that conference championship requirement in there, and forced out the all too logical BCS process. The computers just didn't pay enough attention to third downs! And the no matter part of what he said? It says that this is important, oh so important, even if we know it's complete nonsense.

The conference championship idiocy destroys the entire premise of needing the four team playoff. The whole gripe was that there were deserving number 3 teams left out, and now they're saying that being #3, or #4 isn't really the top priority when it comes to deciding who to pick...

I don't think there is much doubt that this "playoff" is going to become a complete joke (if it hasn't already...). This thing is / was such a bad idea.....

The complete mess of the playoff system that will ensue this year is the product of "giving the people what they want." The problem is that most people, especially in something as emotionally charged as college sports, tend to want to make knee jerk reactions. It's like "Oh, we had an all SEC BCSCG, well we can't have that. Let's open it up to more teams so it will be fair." Or, "What are we going to do if we have 3 undefeated teams from FBS conferences?" Let me ask this: What will they do when there is two undefeated teams and 4 teams that only have one loss? Are we just going to keep expanding? My biggest issue with the playoff is I always thought they were just talking about having #2 and #3 in the final BCS standings play and the winner of that would face the #1 team. It would give more importance to finishing #1. I'm not in favor of changing the BCS but that is how I would have done it. Now my issue with creating a playoff system is that CFB is the only sport where every single regular season game matters. There is nothing like the emotions of having your season on the line early in the season. Now its not gonna be like that. I think that we can easily lose one game and still make the playoffs this year. Heck we made the BCSNC game with one loss. IDK I just think when you give in to the wants of the fans and the media it probably won't end up working out like you thought it would.

I also understand that some college AD's and Presidents were probably in favor of expanding to a playoff system from the BCS. They knew this was a way to get a team from their conference into the national championship mix. Again I don't think it will be terrible but you are going to have the same issue with the decision between 3 or 4 one loss teams for the last spot as you had between #2 and #3 with the BCS. I also think that the majority of the time the BCS got the best two teams playing in the NCG.

KrAzY3 said:

"We are to reward conference championships no matter how they come about, whether it's a conference championship game, or in the Big 12 -- that counts for something to win your conference."

Duke was in the ACC championship game last year. Duke! I'm sorry, but winning the ACC doesn't really mean that much.The Big 12 has 10 teams and lost Nebraska to the Big 10 and Texas A&M to the SEC. They also don't have a conference championship game. Objectively speaking, one would start to think that winning the SEC or even the Big 10 should mean more, heck, coming second in the SEC probably should mean more. Of course, of course Luck is going to say that though, since he does represent the Big 12 after all.

I love how they just forced that conference championship requirement in there, and forced out the all too logical BCS process. The computers just didn't pay enough attention to third downs! And the no matter part of what he said? It says that this is important, oh so important, even if we know it's complete nonsense.

The conference championship idiocy destroys the entire premise of needing the four team playoff. The whole gripe was that there were deserving number 3 teams left out, and now they're saying that being #3, or #4 isn't really the top priority when it comes to deciding who to pick...

Click to expand...

You nailed it right there. Why in the world did they decide that a selection committee was needed? Gee, I wonder why? They talked about the BCS getting it right almost all of the time. Well, why didn't they keep the BCS formula and just add teams 3 and 4? They should have. I fully expect there to be a lot of controversy, which is what they want because people will be talking about it. They think that keeps the interest level high for the fringe fans, but they don't understand that the real fans will begin to leave if they screw things up. I will, at least. It's a joke. I've always said, take care of the game and the money will be there, but they are taking care of the money and continuing to ruin the game with all rules in favor of the offense. Now, they will make sure four different conference champions are selected so more people watch.

I know everyone is up in arms about the playoff, and I agree that it is not perfect, but until I see it I will hold my tongue on bashing it.

As for the conference champions thing, nowhere does it list that as a requirement. It is a weighted standard, and though I don't agree FULLY, I do agree to a POINT. If two teams are COMPLETELY equal on paper, or to the eye test, or computers, or in every conceivable way...and one of them won their conference, and the other didn't...then the conference champion's resume should hold a little more weight.

This is where the argument about winning certain conferences come to play, and that is a GREAT argument. What I said though, and will repeat, are two EVEN teams. If there is a team, that is not a conference champion, that is so far better than other conference champions...I don't think they will be left out. If you use 2011 as the measuring stick, no selection committee would have left us out of the playoff because we didn't win our conference. We were that far ahead of other teams. There will only be a problem if it is a CLOSE call. I am one of those firm believers that if you don't want to be mired in controversy, you win all your games...if not, then be prepared for some sort of problem to pop up.

Conference champions of the 5 power conferences and 4 playoff spots. Something does not add up.

GrayTide said:

Conference champions of the 5 power conferences and 4 playoff spots. Something does not add up.

Click to expand...

Seems we have been here before? Wait, Wait....its gonna get "Krazy"!!!! Krazy3 I just wanna say I love your passion and post! We may not always agree but you really do your best to make us understand your point and Graytide is so down to Earth he demands respect and admiration! Of course I am just "MOAN", and thats what most do when I post!

This is by far the best Bama fan site ever! Can I get a Roll Tide Roll???

The mere fact that Jim Delany and the BIG suddenly got on board with this idea after the 2011 BCS game is reason enough for all SEC types to be skeptical

KrAzY3 said:

"We are to reward conference championships no matter how they come about, whether it's a conference championship game, or in the Big 12 -- that counts for something to win your conference."

Duke was in the ACC championship game last year. Duke! I'm sorry, but winning the ACC doesn't really mean that much.The Big 12 has 10 teams and lost Nebraska to the Big 10 and Texas A&M to the SEC. They also don't have a conference championship game. Objectively speaking, one would start to think that winning the SEC or even the Big 10 should mean more, heck, coming second in the SEC probably should mean more. Of course, of course Luck is going to say that though, since he does represent the Big 12 after all.

I love how they just forced that conference championship requirement in there, and forced out the all too logical BCS process. The computers just didn't pay enough attention to third downs! And the no matter part of what he said? It says that this is important, oh so important, even if we know it's complete nonsense.

The conference championship idiocy destroys the entire premise of needing the four team playoff. The whole gripe was that there were deserving number 3 teams left out, and now they're saying that being #3, or #4 isn't really the top priority when it comes to deciding who to pick...

Click to expand...

Yep teams like Bama are going to be left out I'm afraid, while 4 loss teams (even worse at times) will be in the playoff. Sad.

But the only good thing is this will push it to 8 teams, that would give you at least conference champs and quite a few at large spots because otherwise we are going to have chaos.

What about all conferences don't have conference championship games. Imagine we are #3 and play in the SEC championship and lose and Ohio State is #5 and they don't have a conference championship game and basically we get penalized for playing a conference championship game. All conferences should have a championship game or none of them should.

The previous BCS ranking system would be fine for the four team playoff. I see no value this committee brings.

TexasBama said:

The previous BCS ranking system would be fine for the four team playoff. I see no value this committee brings.

Click to expand...

+1.

CrimsonForce said:

What about all conferences don't have conference championship games. Imagine we are #3 and play in the SEC championship and lose and Ohio State is #5 and they don't have a conference championship game and basically we get penalized for playing a conference championship game. All conferences should have a championship game or none of them should.

Click to expand...

While I certainly agree with your comments; if you are hoping to find fairness and non biases then don't expect this committee to deliver. It is a flawed approach and is not in the best interest of college football.

GrayTide said:

While I certainly agree with your comments; if you are hoping to find fairness and non biases then don't expect this committee to deliver. It is a flawed approach and is not in the best interest of college football.

Click to expand...

I agree completely. As much as I hate to say it I would bet that in the next 10 years or so I will be much less interested in CFB. Players will be paid and there will probably be a 12 team playoff. It just won't be college football anymore

I honestly think there will be more complaints about this system than the BCS system.

And yes, the Big 12-2 should be required to have a Conference championship game in order to be qualified to have a team in the playoff. Big 12-2, expand to your current misnomer or sit in the stands watching others in the playoffs.

Someone got it right in an earlier post! Five conference champs and only 4 slots to fill! Something is already ROTTEN with this NEW system.

It's going to be very interesting to see how this plays out. There is sure to be a great deal of debate on who gets those four spots, not to mention it's a multi-million dollar decision.

Had they kept the human equation out of it, I'd be all for the play-off, had they kept the BCS Formula & simply based the play-off off the BCS standings at the end of the year..I don't understand why they didn't do that & had no need for a play-off committee..And possibly bring in a human bias of some sort when they make the selections..That's just me though..