CFP Chair/Committee
Comments
-
Almost every idea you could possibly imagine has been floated to try and make the playoff selection less subjective, but they are dismissed for legit reasons. Long story short, there's too many obstacles with all the different conferences and scheduling and shit. Probably other conflicts of interest as well.
The BCS was a step in the right direction. The current 4 team model is another step forward. It is slowly getting more objective.
The best idea to improve upon it further is to expand it to 8 teams. But that would create an extra game every year. Plus the committee will have to figure out what teams are 5th-8th best in the country. And that's a bit harder, because the closer you get to the middle of the pack, the more the teams start to look the same.
I think the committee has done a fine job every year. There's always gonna be some rationale for teams that barely get left out. I'm not denying that. But there has been and always will be rationale for the teams they chose to include. There's much to consider, and remember their job is to choose the 4 *best* teams over the course of the season.
Should we put in Alabama or Ohio State? That's about as close as it's ever gonna get. Ohio State played an extra game, won their conference, and has more quality wins. But they also have 2 losses, one of which was getting raped by a shitty Iowa team. Alabama's 1 loss was to a top 10 team. The conference champ stuff is nice, but it doesn't mitigate the extra loss and getting slaughtered by a shit team. That's just how CFB works.
-
Agree, expand it to 8 teams but no more than that. If it goes to 16, too many shit teams will get post season opportunities that they don't deserve.
-
I don't think they'll expand it. At least not anytime soon. It would be yet another game on top of the already extra playoff game and conference championship games, and there's already been enough feedback on how the current system is challenging for the players. I wouldn't be against it (more football for me), but I think that will be the rationale.
Maybe if we switch back to 11 game seasons? I don't know. -
Fenderbender123 said:
I don't think they'll expand it. At least not anytime soon. It would be yet another game on top of the already extra playoff game and conference championship games, and there's already been enough feedback on how the current system is challenging for the players. I wouldn't be against it (more football for me), but I think that will be the rationale.
Maybe if we switch back to 11 game seasons? I don't know.
Not enough football as is. No way we shorten the season.
-
No, I agree. That's why I said I don't know. Wasn't really a serious suggestion. Probably shouldn't have even typed it.
-
Tha fuck? Have you seen Kingbury’s moves (.gif)?!RhythmicSlappingDawg said:Why the fuck is the guy who hired and still continues to employ Kliff Kingsbury ( The younger faggier Mike Leach), the leader of the committee that decides who the best four teams in the cuntry are?
Also, get Ty Willingham and Condy Rice off the fucking committee.
And the fact that you didn’t put try at the front of that shooting gallery makes you’re poont mute, for all intensive purposes.
No go fuck off!! -
RhythmicSlappingDawg said:
Why the fuck is the guy who hired and still continues to employ Kliff Kingsbury ( The younger faggier Mike Leach), the leader of the committee that decides who the best four teams in the cuntry are?
Also, get Ty Willingham and Condy Rice off the fucking committee.
-
Who gives a fucking shit if it's too hard for the players.
One more game is fine.
Why the fuck have power 5 conferences with only 4 spots? It's Larry Scott stupid. -
P-5+1 with the stooped committee choosing the seeding would have been better.
8 teams, best.
5 conference Champions, 2 at large from P5 conferences and 1 team from the Best of the Dreck -
According to a woman scholar? Fitting that statement came from you baabyTierbsHsotBoobs said:They have picked the four best teams every year.
