Started By
Message
2
Posted on 11/20/19 at 12:22 am to Capo Losi
quote:
The problem with picking the "best" teams is it's subjective. Accomplishment on the field is what should matter period. Every other sport knows this already...
2011 was BCS, not CFP. In 2011, Bama and LSU were the two best teams, which is why I replied with an upvote gif.
Move forward to 2019......
CFP is tasked with putting the FOUR BEST TEAMS in, not the "most deserving" or those with the "best resume".
The "most deserving/ best resume" bullshite first appeared in 2015 after the first year of the CFP because the dumbass media realized they had no say so in who the FOUR BEST TEAMS were anymore.
Under your arguement, the tallest midget in the weakest conference deserves a shot at tbe playoffs, even though they might be the 10th best team in football. WEAK.
ETA: Texas was a Top 10 poll team (media creation) in September, now they suck. It's precisely why the CFP Committee doesn't rank teams until 8 games into the season, they want a "body of work" to back up the "eye test".
This post was edited on 11/20/19 at 12:45 am
Posted on 11/20/19 at 3:50 am to bamabonners
quote:
NFL doesn’t have these stupid discussions.
The NFL likewise doesn't have 130 teams spread out over 11 difference conferences. Of those 11, only five of them are guaranteed to put out at least one playoff-worthy team on a yearly basis. And those five conferences are playing for four spots.
Posted on 11/20/19 at 5:03 am to bamawriter
Just like the error of the human factor. My value of something more-than-likely will NOT be your value of the same thing.
Posted on 11/20/19 at 5:35 am to Dude88
quote:
They should just have used the BCS top 4.
I read somewhere where the BCS would have got the same top 4 that the committee has every year. So, yeah the committee is waisted effort.
Posted on 11/20/19 at 6:32 am to Dude88
They should have split the difference, committee weighted 50% against BCS computers weighted 50%
Committee, at least in theory, is better than the polls. The committee ought to be like 50 people though, not 13.
Committee, at least in theory, is better than the polls. The committee ought to be like 50 people though, not 13.
Posted on 11/20/19 at 6:34 am to redeye
quote:
I think Gus will have us in the playoffs next year, however.
lol
Posted on 11/20/19 at 6:35 am to Dude88
Slive proposed that in 2008. Only the ACC commish at the time supported it.
Posted on 11/20/19 at 6:55 am to Dude88
Cuz they wanted to ensure the blue bloods got in no matter what
Posted on 11/20/19 at 7:16 am to Dude88
Because people hated the computer models. There were obvious problems with it. Folks said it needed a human factor.
Even today folks talk about models like the SP+ As if it were definitive. Last year the SP had App State and Fresno State ranked above teams like LSU. Computers sometimes don’t pass the “reasonable” test.
Even today folks talk about models like the SP+ As if it were definitive. Last year the SP had App State and Fresno State ranked above teams like LSU. Computers sometimes don’t pass the “reasonable” test.
Posted on 11/20/19 at 2:13 pm to bama1959
quote:
I read somewhere where the BCS would have got the same top 4 that the committee has every year. So, yeah the committee is waisted effort.
That's true but it's also self fulfilling, as the BCS rankings were 2/3rds polls, and the polls in the playoff era have really parroted the committee. you can see this when the committee rankings come out for the first time and the following week the polls adjust to it
Posted on 11/20/19 at 2:30 pm to bamawriter
quote:
Because using computers to try and compare sporting events is moronic
Computers arent biased like humans
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News