They don't just look at what you've done win-loss-wise, they take into account how you look on the field. Take Ohio State, they put together a resume but now their QB is gone, they'll be punished for that. If Baylor added Josh Gordon and RG3 next week that would be taken into account. If TCU's run game suddenly turned into something unstoppable, that would be taken into account. There's more to it than wins/losses/margin of victory.
What resume did Ohio St. put together other than beating Michigan St.? And this mythical "eye test" you refer to that the committee takes into account is exactly what i'm referring to. This is why them posting new rankings every week is a problem, you see their flaws week to week. If they really just cared about determining the top 4 it would be better if they didn't post anything until after the season was over and they just put out a final 4. But that wouldn't get everyone talking and give the tv shows stuff to talk about so obviously that's why they don't.
I don't think so. tOSU loses its best player, they shouldn't be allowed to continue unfazed. If TCU's offensive line quits tomorrow they shouldn't be ranked #3.
Forgive my poor choice of words. Sorry about that. College football games are college football games. An 8-team vs. 4-team playoff wouldn't cheapen anything. Each week would still be a major event of utmost importance just like it is now. Perhaps "cheapen" isn't the best way to describe your point.
At some point, this becomes untrue. If you have a 64 team playoff, for example, every bowl-eligible team would basically make it. Would anyone care about an Alabama regular season game? You know they are going to make the playoffs, so who really cares if they are 10-2 or 8-4 or 12-0? We know it matters at a 4 team playoff. We know it doesn't matter at a 64 team playoff. The question is what the cutoff is? I think 16 would be fairly ridiculous - does anyone think 3 loss teams should be in a playoff?
The debate is 8 teams, not 64. IMO, each and every game would matter and be of huge importance with an 8-team playoff. Agreed 16 is just too many. 4 is better 2. 8 hits the spot.
As a fan of an FCS team that has won 1 or more playoff games for 4 consecutive years, I can tell you that every game is still very important. You have to win your conference or risk being left out, since almost every conference has an auto-bid for it's champion. If anything, it makes conference games more important. This is radical, but I think a 16 team playoff with ALL conferences having an auto-bid for it's champion would be perfect. The rest of the spots could be filled by deserving teams that didn't win their conference. That wouldn't leave anyone deserving out and then EVERY FBS SCHOOL could say it technically has a shot to win a NC - even those in the non-power conferences. That enhances the product, IMO.
I was just going to post the same thing. Every FBS school should have a path to the playoffs. Let's face it, it's almost impossible for a team outside one of the power conferences to make it to the current 4 team playoffs. Giving all teams a real chance to the playoffs would greatly increase interest in the sport for fans of teams that are not in a power conference. It's true that the power schools would probably have an easy first round game, but who doesn't enjoy seeing the underdog get a chance to knock off a top seed. Every year we see a 12 or 13 seed make a run in the ncaa basketball tournament. 16 would be perfect in my opinion, and it would eliminate much of the complaining from teams not making the tournament.
This has been the winning blueprint for ages. You'd probably have to tweak it a bit. For one thing, 10 conferences with autobids is probably too many. You'd have to tell either the Sunbelt, MAC, or CUSA to try their hand in D2 or risk being left out. 8 autobids, max. After that, you've got 8 committee bids. Cap the regular season at 12 games, start the playoffs in December, have it finish the week of New Years. Problem is, the archaic bowl system needs to die off first... and a lot of people have a vested interest in making sure that never happens. A lack of centralized leadership has really hamstrung the development of NCAA D1 football.
Actually, I think that's the key to the whole thing. NO ONE would be ineligible to win a NC just based on their conference. I think you could address the conference inequities by seeding. Big conference winners get higher seeds, smaller ones get lower seeds. But if you win your conference....you're in. Period. Even if you're the #16 seed. If you had 10 autobids, that still leaves 6 spots for teams that didn't win their brutal conferences. I think that's plenty of spots for all deserving teams. And by the way....FCS is D1, not D2. Sorry....I'm a little sensitive about that.
I actually don't believe that every game is still important. How important was that LSU victory in Alabama a few seasona back, when both still met in the title game because the computers gave Bama a do-over? The TCU/Baylor game doesn't seem very important at the moment.
I think putting TCU at 3 was more of a statement to Florida State that they are only in the top 4 due to being undefeated and not because they are all that impressive. While I am excited about the ranking I feel terribly for Baylor and cannot believe the Big 12 is behaving this way just to try to make sure ONE of the teams gets in. However, Baylor has a chance to blow out a top 10 team and let's see how that changes things vs TCU, who could still lose to Iowa St (crazier things have happened). I see arguments on both sides right now but am reserving judgement of rankings until the final week...but I agree if Baylor blows out K-State that they should probably be ahead of TCU and the Big 12 should nut up and name them conference champion. I would have no issues playing a good team in the Cotton Bowl as a consolation prize. We have one week of football left with huge (and legit loss chances) for Baylor, OSU, Oregon and Florida State. If all teams win, will be interesting to see how this all plays out in the end.
I'm guessing everyone on the committee is hoping Baylor loses and makes the whole controversory moot.
LOL. Two anonymous rep comments. Ain't angry brah. I find all this poll/ranking/committee stuff pretty funny. Actually, yes, they are. There's a pretty big drop off in terms of program quality there. Lower budgets, smaller stadiums, etc. Think anyone would be OK with the Charlotte 49ers hosting a D1 playoff game at their 15K seat stadium? Or the Idaho Vandals and their 16K seats? You have to draw the line somewhere.
That would resolve the whole "tiny team hosting a major playoff game" problem. But it still seems silly to lump programs that are so insanely different together into one playoff. There's bubble programs in conferences like CUSA/MAC/Sunbelt that clearly make good investments in their programs, but the smalltimers in those leagues really drag the whole thing down quite a bit. I can't see the power establishment in CFB being ok with that scenario. I wish, but I doubt the P5 would be happy with that.
The whole - all conferences should get a bid - thing is lulzy to me. How often have the crap conferences had a good team? No need to carry on some charade. If someone tried to do that and I was the Big 12, SEC, Pac 16, Big 10, ACC - I'd just start something new and leave everyone else to fiend for themselves. If those baby schools aren't happy with table scraps then leave em'. See how loyal a hungry dog really is.
My main issue stems from the great most Major made. If we win Saturday, our highlight wins are TCU, K State and OU. TCU's quality wins are K State, OU, and Minnesota (unranked now). At worst, it's even against common opponents. At worst for Baylor, the resume is even. Am I missing something?
