I agree the deliberations won't be televised, but a weekly release of rankings by a selection committee is very much in play if not probable.
CFB Heading Towards Selection Committee?
- Thread starter JonDMiller
- Start date
I agree the deliberations won't be televised, but a weekly release of rankings by a selection committee is very much in play if not probable.
BlondeTuco
Well-Known Member
So many thoughts to share...
1. Isn't college football so intriguing because we simply reward the top teams, not creating an eventful playing field? Don't tell me that a system isn't fair to the 5th/9th/17th team, because they simply can't make a strong case to be #1. Michigan, Oklahoma, and Clemson deserve the same opportunity as LSU, Alabama and Oklahoma State? Um... no.
2. All conferences are not created equal. In a 16 team playoff, 13-0 LSU plays 8-4 Louisiana Tech. Either a) you acknowledge LSU will show how pointless this game is, or b) pretend that the two teams are evenly matched, and now you're not rewarding a team for going 13-0 in the SEC. Not to mention that it is clearly easier to win the WAC/Sun Belt outright, than it is to earn one of those coveted wild-card spots shared among the BCS conferences.
3. Why predetermine that a conference champion is more deserving than a conference runner-up (cough SEC cough)? People may continue to debate whether Oklahoma State was a better team than Alabama, but which two other teams should knock Alabama out of the title picture? Not only was their only lose in overtime against universally-recognized #1 LSU, but they got redemption in a huge way during their rematch.
Personally, I don't love a model that doesn't reward an undefeated team with a title shot, but the logistics of everything make that sort of system unfavorable. My biggest concern is how polls reflect the "freshness" of a loss - #4 Stanford above PAC-12 Champion Oregon. While Stanford is a very good team, you can barely place a piece of paper between them and the team that not only beat them, but also won the conference.
The Big Ten blog proposed a system (possibly from Delany himself?) suggests a Top 4 model, but with only one non-champion involved. It would ensure that at least three conferences are represented each year, while still offering the best talent. Coincidentally, it also solved the Oregon-Stanford "problem" in 2011. This is the model I would support over any others that have been proposed.
1. Isn't college football so intriguing because we simply reward the top teams, not creating an eventful playing field? Don't tell me that a system isn't fair to the 5th/9th/17th team, because they simply can't make a strong case to be #1. Michigan, Oklahoma, and Clemson deserve the same opportunity as LSU, Alabama and Oklahoma State? Um... no.
2. All conferences are not created equal. In a 16 team playoff, 13-0 LSU plays 8-4 Louisiana Tech. Either a) you acknowledge LSU will show how pointless this game is, or b) pretend that the two teams are evenly matched, and now you're not rewarding a team for going 13-0 in the SEC. Not to mention that it is clearly easier to win the WAC/Sun Belt outright, than it is to earn one of those coveted wild-card spots shared among the BCS conferences.
3. Why predetermine that a conference champion is more deserving than a conference runner-up (cough SEC cough)? People may continue to debate whether Oklahoma State was a better team than Alabama, but which two other teams should knock Alabama out of the title picture? Not only was their only lose in overtime against universally-recognized #1 LSU, but they got redemption in a huge way during their rematch.
Personally, I don't love a model that doesn't reward an undefeated team with a title shot, but the logistics of everything make that sort of system unfavorable. My biggest concern is how polls reflect the "freshness" of a loss - #4 Stanford above PAC-12 Champion Oregon. While Stanford is a very good team, you can barely place a piece of paper between them and the team that not only beat them, but also won the conference.
The Big Ten blog proposed a system (possibly from Delany himself?) suggests a Top 4 model, but with only one non-champion involved. It would ensure that at least three conferences are represented each year, while still offering the best talent. Coincidentally, it also solved the Oregon-Stanford "problem" in 2011. This is the model I would support over any others that have been proposed.
hogeye
Well-Known Member
Goes back to what I said early on in this discussion that people constantly dismiss. You can't fix what we have now. It's not possible. You have 119 teams, 11 conferences and still a handful of independents. Anything more than an 8 team playoff is a ridiculous suggestion. It's not possible for too many reasons, mainly the money isn't there, coupled with too much post-season activity for college players.
What absolutely should be done is a segregation of BCS schools and conferences for a smaller pool of teams and conferences. Once you establish that you can start to talk a manageable situation. Until then, there are too many problems to be addressed because the field is too large and there is too much disparity in competitive ability between all teams.
Billso
Well-Known Member
There's been quite enough gleaning on this thread already, thank you.
HawkeyeWalker
Well-Known Member
ND and Neb haven't been "powerhouses" for a very long time. but i still get your point.
