Started By
Message
re: Bring back the computers for the CFP
Posted on 11/21/25 at 10:18 am to GeauxBurrow312
Posted on 11/21/25 at 10:18 am to GeauxBurrow312
Whats interesting to me is that the tiebreaker for the american conference (they have a 4 way tie currently) is CFP rankings.
One thing I will say for the SEC - they do NOT use rankings for any level of tiebreaker - and that is a good thing.
One thing I will say for the SEC - they do NOT use rankings for any level of tiebreaker - and that is a good thing.
1
Posted on 11/21/25 at 10:32 am to Red_and_black
quote:
App specs gotta come from flawed highly biased humans.
yes - but once the algorithms and rules are set at the beginning of the season, there is no additional bias inserted during the season. Just play the games and let the rules decide. No lobbying, no media influence, no under the table payments, no you scratch my back I'll scratch yours deals, and no ability for someone to just make a dumb decision.
Then, prior to the next season can tweak the algorithm (just like rules changes each year). Have a committee work to tweak the algorithm if there is agreement that something is not optimal.
Posted on 11/21/25 at 10:36 am to volinktown
quote:
8 teams playoff would be perfect based on bcs ranking
I was hoping for p5 conference winners, the g4 winner, and computers pick 2 wild cards.
Posted on 11/21/25 at 10:53 am to UTprideofTX
I think each P4 conference should have a 4 team playoff for the conference champs and then the conference champs play each other in a 4 team national Playoff. Sorry independents and group of 5. They can have their own championship.
Posted on 11/21/25 at 10:55 am to tiger81
quote:
Bring back the BCS....it worked.
Biggest mistake ever made in CFB was getting rid of it.
Posted on 11/21/25 at 11:21 am to RunningJacket
quote:
The chance for a Natty is now gonna be open to more and more teams
So you're literally in favor of just a participation trophy?
Look at the Division II playoff — 32 teams.
Since its inception in 1973, the top Seed 1 or Seed 2 has won 37 out of 50 times. Only three times has the winning team started lower than Seed 4.
Therefore, had they used a 2-team BCS system, it's 75% likely they'd have had one of the same two teams in the championship game, and with a 4-team playoff they would've been near 95%. The other 28 teams are statistically insignificant.
There are no Cinderellas in college football.
Posted on 11/21/25 at 11:30 am to paperwasp
quote:
Look at the Division II playoff — 32 teams. Since its inception in 1973, the top Seed 1 or Seed 2 has won 37 out of 50 times. Only three times has the winning team started lower than Seed 4.
None of those teams who lose in FCS get a participation trophy. This is a made up myth
Posted on 11/21/25 at 12:52 pm to LOTOTiger
quote:
Whats interesting to me is that the tiebreaker for the american conference (they have a 4 way tie currently) is CFP rankings.
Yeah I saw that. Im going to be pissed if they end up screwing UNT out of a spot by having Tulane as the placeholder G5. They are easily the most entertaining G5 team to watch and are the only one I think have a shot at making things interesting in the playoffs.
They got smoked by USF but that was a game where nothing went right for them (allowed explosives early on, lot of turnovers)
Posted on 11/21/25 at 5:32 pm to Nasty_Canasta
quote:
Nasty_Canasta
Posted on 11/21/25 at 5:39 pm to southernboisb
Committee suX
Posted on 11/21/25 at 5:39 pm to Swamp Angel
quote:
A four team playoff worked just fine, because the best team was pretty much certainly going to be among those teams included.
4 spots for 5 conferences (& even allowing conferences to take multiple seats).
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News