Playoff Committee

Anyone think it is silly that the playoff committee has announcing weekly rankings since late October? They have painted themselves into a corner. Anyone could see at that first week that Ole Miss wasn't a top 3 team. That was a joke and they were simply up there because they had won all their games. But now they are dropping FSU despite winning all their games.

Now everyone openly talks about them ranking two teams between TCU and Baylor so they can keep TCU higher despite head-to-head. Personally I think TCU is better than Baylor because they play some defense. Baylor seems to forget that half of the game.

By posting the week-by-week changes the committee looks like it has an agenda. The committee should work like the basketball. Just come out tomorrow with the announcement saying we decided that these are the four best teams.

Any sport that relies on human evaluation is flawed. To see how absurd the cfb system is just apply it to any other sport and you'll see how dumb it is. For example if MLB used the cfb system last year to get a champion the four team playoff would have been angels, Washington, orioles and the dodgers. No KC and no SF.

The only way to fix cfb is to create a way where the outcome of the GAMES decides a champion.

steveschneider wrote:
The only way to fix cfb is to create a way where the outcome of the GAMES decides a champion.

Was college football broken before the BCS? Personally I think things were better before all this nonsense. Who cares if two teams claim champions for the same season? Hell it would help the the economy with more people buying National Championship shirts In fact I would argue that it spurs more discussion of the sport because there are these debates.

As for you comments about the Royals and Giants, playoffs are nothing more than a tournament. The champion of the tournament might not be the best team. See Uconn last year in March.

gomersbro wrote:

Was college football broken before the BCS? Personally I think things were better before all this nonsense. Who cares if two teams claim champions for the same season? .

Either go to a 16 team playoff or just go back to the old bowl system where we occasionally have co-champions and UM claiming championships 75 years after the fact.

gomersbro wrote:

Was college football broken before the BCS? Personally I think things were better before all this nonsense. Who cares if two teams claim champions for the same season? Hell it would help the the economy with more people buying National Championship shirts In fact I would argue that it spurs more discussion of the sport because there are these debates.

As for you comments about the Royals and Giants, playoffs are nothing more than a tournament. The champion of the tournament might not be the best team. See Uconn last year in March.

Disagree about your last comment...Giants looked like the best team in baseball, and Bumgarner's performance was one for the ages.

Also, I thought Uconn looked like the best team in basketball at the end of the season. Can someone explain to me what wasn't good about that team? Beat Michigan State, Florida and Kentucky. Name another team in the country that could have pulled that off last year.

steveschneider wrote:

Disagree about your last comment...Giants looked like the best team in baseball, and Bumgarner's performance was one for the ages.

Also, I thought Uconn looked like the best team in basketball at the end of the season. Can someone explain to me what wasn't good about that team? Beat Michigan State, Florida and Kentucky. Name another team in the country that could have pulled that off last year.

Yes for October they were great. But over the proceeding six months 7 teams had better records and 2 others had the same 88-74 record. And this is someone who has been a Giants fan since he attend his first game at the 'stick as a kid.

As for UConn they got hot at the right time. They were a team that was third in their conference losing six games. That is what makes the NCAA tournament so exciting that anyone can win. Does anyone consider the '85 Ed Pinckney Villanova team to be the best that year? But they happened to get hot at the right time and won the damn thing.

Playoffs do not always find the best team. If they NFL playoffs started today and Atlanta went on to win the Super Bowl, would you say they were the best team in the NFL this year?

gomersbro wrote:

Yes for October they were great. But over the proceeding six months 7 teams had better records and 2 others had the same 88-74 record. And this is someone who has been a Giants fan since he attend his first game at the 'stick as a kid.

As for UConn they got hot at the right time. They were a team that was third in their conference losing six games. That is what makes the NCAA tournament so exciting that anyone can win. Does anyone consider the '85 Ed Pinckney Villanova team to be the best that year? But they happened to get hot at the right time and won the damn thing.

Playoffs do not always find the best team. If they NFL playoffs started today and Atlanta went on to win the Super Bowl, would you say they were the best team in the NFL this year?

What's the goal of a sports season? Have the best record? no. It's to win the title.

To answer your last question, my answer would be yes.

Needs to be 8 teams at least but this is a step in the right direction. I like the weekly rankings too.

The selection show countdown is just a way to sell more advertisements on a shitty station that we all follow