It's like the old joke:It’s like everything else folks get it in their mind that the world is coming to an end because of change.
How many Southern Baptists does it take to change a lightbulb?
Change? Who said anything about Change?
It's like the old joke:It’s like everything else folks get it in their mind that the world is coming to an end because of change.
Because the more losses you allow into the playoffs via expansion, the less the regular season matters. Sure, there will be teams fighting for that last spot up until the end, but who wants to see Alabama bench the starters and lose the IB because they're already guaranteed a playoff spot and there's no point in risking it?I guess I'm just not afraid of this scenario. Why is it the end of the world if a 2 or 3 loss team is in the playoffs?
???It's like the old joke:
How many Southern Baptists does it take to change a lightbulb?
Change? Who said anything about Change?
It really depends on how you do it.Because the more losses you allow into the playoffs via expansion, the less the regular season matters. Sure, there will be teams fighting for that last spot up until the end, but who wants to see Alabama bench the starters and lose the IB because they're already guaranteed a playoff spot and there's no point in risking it?
Seems far-fetched, but it happens every year in the NFL, and those teams are far more balanced than CFB.
I don't feel like it would be all that hard to structure it in a way that would prevent this. Make sure seeding is important for one.Because the more losses you allow into the playoffs via expansion, the less the regular season matters. Sure, there will be teams fighting for that last spot up until the end, but who wants to see Alabama bench the starters and lose the IB because they're already guaranteed a playoff spot and there's no point in risking it?
Seems far-fetched, but it happens every year in the NFL, and those teams are far more balanced than CFB.
Come on...a 3 loss team has no business playing for the national championship.I guess I'm just not afraid of this scenario. Why is it the end of the world if a 2 or 3 loss team is in the playoffs?
I agree with this unless something really odd happensCome on...a 3 loss team has no business playing for the national championship.
Except, for that 3 loss team to win a NC they would have to win at least 3 games in a row against highly regarded teams. At that point who cares if they have 3 losses?Come on...a 3 loss team has no business playing for the national championship.
*raises hand*Except, for that 3 loss team to win a NC they would have to win at least 3 games in a row against highly regarded teams. At that point who cares if they have 3 losses?
I completely reject automatic conference champion inclusion. IMO, there can be 2 or 3 teams from the same conference that are better than any team from 2 or 3 other conferences. That was shown last year. The difference in conferences can be great.I still maintain if we went to 4 16 team super conferences and everyone else who didn’t make the 64 team league went FCS, you would solve a lot of problems. You would solve the conference champ and at large bid arguments
So when we eventually head to automatic qualifiers are you going to stop watching college football or would you take a better system. Because I’m telling you that the current form was never meant to be a final product and we are going to either move to a tourney or NFL model at some point down the line to satisfy geographic markets. I would much prefer the NFL model and I believe many others would when reality sets in at how stupid a tourney would be.I completely reject automatic conference champion inclusion. IMO, there can be 2 or 3 teams from the same conference that are better than any team from 2 or 3 other conferences. That was shown last year. The difference in conferences can be great.
Not only that, but you breed complacency in the weaker conferences who get an automatic invitation and you frustrate stronger conferences who may have a dominant program that great 2nd and 3rd place programs can't get past or that had great years but because they are in the same conf as another great team they don't get in. The focus would move away from overall record, eliminating any importance of the OOC schedule, to soley on conf play. Ultimately, you deprive the country from seeing the 4 best/most deserving teams.
Conferences are great in that they provide a regional foundation for scheduling and rivalries. They also provide a significant though secondary bauble to hang around one's neck, but IMO, their proper significance to the CFP discussion has been ascribed by the CFP Committee. I.e., sometimes it means only a little, never much.
We don't know this. It is possible, maybe even probable, but we do not know. I have been fine with every system used, though I see each iteration as an improvement on the last. I am not going to worry about what might happen. I am just going to enjoy the sport that I love for as long as I can.So when we eventually head to automatic qualifiers are you going to stop watching college football or would you take a better system. Because I’m telling you that the current form was never meant to be a final product and we are going to either move to a tourney or NFL model at some point down the line to satisfy geographic markets. I would much prefer the NFL model and I believe many others would when reality sets in at how stupid a tourney would be.
FWIW I’m completely happy as is like I was with how 2011 was, but like I said in 2011 geographic markets are going to force a playoff.
It’s extremely unlikely the Plus 1 system we are currently in is the final product.We don't know this. It is possible, maybe even probable, but we do not know. I have been fine with every system used, though I see each iteration as an improvement on the last. I am not going to worry about what might happen. I am just going to enjoy the sport that I love for as long as I can.
That's a bogus statement. We who disagree with you may be wrong, but you are presumptuous to say that we are being dishonest. I believed at the time that OSU was the right call (I don't care for OSU at all, much much less in 2014 before I became familiar with B1GTide. In fact, I wanted them out.). Yes, Baylor and TCU had a legitimate claim, but so did OSU. A choice had to be made - IMO, it was the right one. I care nothing about market value or tv ratings or OSU or the Big 10. I don't think OSU got in on market value at all but on performance (most deserving) and potential (best team). You don't even allow that the Committee, some of whom are experts, very likely could see things that you cannot. But rather you charge them with motives that you, nor anyone else, can ever know, because it supports your jaded view of their character and agenda. Is it possible that they are corrupt? Certainly, but there is no evidence to indicate that.O$U got in on their Market Value, if we are being honest about it. Sure, we can look back with hindsight and make the ex post facto argument - but no one knew any of that in December - all we knew is O$U was on a VERY HOT STREAK against (Lets be honest) mostly suspect competition.
I care. Not saying that it is a matter of right and wrong. You can choose however you want to design things, but that's my opinion. I want losses to matter - a lot. Some would say, how can you support the the Committee's inclusion of AU prior to the SECC game? There are exceptions. Again, not saying you're wrong, because IMO it's not a matter of such, but we just disagree.Except, for that 3 loss team to win a NC they would have to win at least 3 games in a row against highly regarded teams. At that point who cares if they have 3 losses?
Maybe I'd feel differently if teams all played the same schedule but they don't.
I have my preferences but I would definitely watch. As I mentioned to another poster, it's not a matter of right or wrong, but what we prefer. We try to make our case, sincerely listen to the other guy, make our decision and move on.So when we eventually head to automatic qualifiers are you going to stop watching college football or would you take a better system. Because I’m telling you that the current form was never meant to be a final product and we are going to either move to a tourney or NFL model at some point down the line to satisfy geographic markets.
Not sure what you mean by "when reality sets in at how stupid a tourney would be".I would much prefer the NFL model and I believe many others would when reality sets in at how stupid a tourney would be.
I'm happy too. I liked the BCS, but think the CFP Committee is an upgrade. I was concerned about them considering "geographic markets" and at first I thought that might be one of the primary motives for having a Committee, but again have been impressed that they have resisted that temptation.FWIW I’m completely happy as is like I was with how 2011 was, but like I said in 2011 geographic markets are going to force a playoff.
You have to view it in the context of the earlier post:Respectfully, I'm not sure I see your point?
The week 15 BCS Poll in 2010, the one that set the Title game (and would have set the Playoff had their been one) Was:
1 - barn - 13-0* - SEC Champ*
2 - Oregon 12-0 - PAC Champ
3 - TCU - 12-0 - Big-12 Champ
4 - Stanford - 11-1 -PAC runner up.
My hunch? The committee is designed to keep out the Boise States of the world.
Go back to 2010. The week before the infamous Camback Iron Bowl, here's your rankings:
1) Auburn
2) Oregon
3) Texas Cash Unlimited
4) Boise St
If Colin Kaepernick doesn't lead Nevada over Boise in an upset, TWO non-AQ schools would have made it in a four-team BCS setup. Not one - two.
There was NO WAY the cartel was going to let that happen. Hence, committee.
No, I'm pointing out that a chip shot field goal and Boise finishes fourth. And in a four-team BCS, they make it.#5 was 11-1 Wisconsin, B1G co-champ with #9 Mich. St. (even though Mich.St won head to head).
Boise St. was ranked #10 - 11-1, having lost to WAC champions Nevada (though the WAC declared them "co-champs")
Are you suggesting #10 Boise St. should have been in a field of 4 vs. Stanford OR Wisconsin?
You’re ignoring the fact that they don’t belong in the playoffs in the first place.Except, for that 3 loss team to win a NC they would have to win at least 3 games in a row against highly regarded teams. At that point who cares if they have 3 losses?
Maybe I'd feel differently if teams all played the same schedule but they don't.
I assume you're talking about the BCS here? Asking for clarification.Yea, the one where EVERY Poll Ballot was DISCLOSED, and the public KNEW how every individual poll voter ranked the teams, AND that one where all the formulas were set IN ADVANCE and PUBLICLY DISCLOSED.
That's because there is no formula. More on this in a moment.Compare that to today, when "subjective human beings" are (allegedly) 100% of the "formula" - except THERE IS NO FORMULA! At least not any "Formula" that's publicly disclosed.
You mean it was ESPN that told the committee to pick Michigan State over Ohio State in 2015?AND all ballots are SECRET.
AND the Committee NEVER discloses how any member voted, how many votes were taken, who (if anyone) changed their votes,
OR what role ESPiN had in influencing the Committee, how much data was provided - SECRETLY - to the committee on TV ratings projections,
1) We know every single person on the committee.Look, there's a million "gray areas" that are open to debate, and the debates are fun!
But honestly, the level of TRANSPARENCY of the BCS relative to that of the "Double Secret Committee" scam is an OBJECTIVE FACT.
Note, I never claimed the BCS was Absolutely "objective"! That's IMPOSSIBLE in CFB! That's only possible in a league like the NFL or MLB, etc.. They can use simple MATHEMATICS to make OBJECTIVE Playoff selections - CFB can't.
12 "mid major" wins are NOT Equal to 10 P-5 wins. Heck, even all P-5 wins aren't equal to all other P-5 wins - we all know this.
Just sayin'.....
Nothing remains static. The sport has been changing since the first game was played. Of course this isn't the final product. The next one will be better than this one, just as this is better than the last and so forth. But I am not going to try and guess what those changes will look like. It serves no useful purpose.It’s extremely unlikely the Plus 1 system we are currently in is the final product.