Started By
Message
re: Why is there a playoff committee to begin with?
Posted on 11/30/16 at 9:24 am to Scoreboard
Posted on 11/30/16 at 9:24 am to Scoreboard
Of course it's rigged. Even if not in the nefarious way some are suggesting, it's always going to favor "name schools". This is exactly why there is no effort to ensure "most deserving" as it should be and an emphasis on "best" which is infinitely more subjective and really can't be questioned.
The playoffs fricking suck. They aren't right for CFB and can't be until the entire structure of FBS is changed. There has to be a set criteria for access which is essentially impossible at this time because of conferences and there being so many teams that schedules aren't comparable enough to simply compare records and tie breakers. So you have "well, we think OSU is better than PSU even though they lost to them"
Everything done in CFB recently has been purely about money with complete disregard to what is right for the game. I'm talking realignment to the playoffs. They get away with it because people love their schools and they love football.
The playoffs fricking suck. They aren't right for CFB and can't be until the entire structure of FBS is changed. There has to be a set criteria for access which is essentially impossible at this time because of conferences and there being so many teams that schedules aren't comparable enough to simply compare records and tie breakers. So you have "well, we think OSU is better than PSU even though they lost to them"
Everything done in CFB recently has been purely about money with complete disregard to what is right for the game. I'm talking realignment to the playoffs. They get away with it because people love their schools and they love football.
0
Posted on 11/30/16 at 9:25 am to BHMKyle
quote:
In 2014, Ohio State jumped TCU because of the "importance of Conference Championships" to the committee. Yet now when its Ohio State that lacks a conference championship on its resume, a conference title seems completely unimportant to both the committee and the ESPN talking heads who always seem to be lockstep together with their opinions.
Good point...the committee will be rooting hard for Wiscy this weekend. With the head-to-head win, they can justify leaving Wiscy out in favor of OSU...but it'll be harder to rationalize leaving out a B1G champion Penn State in a field that includes OSU...
I remember back in 2012, the B1G commissioner stating that he didn't think non-conference champs should be playing for the national championship...I wonder if his perspective has changed now...
Posted on 11/30/16 at 9:26 am to VABuckeye
LMAO at the "rigged for BAMA"... If ANY other SEC team was 11-1 right now then they would be getting a serious look at getting in, especially if that loss was to BAMA... Looking at you Auburn and LSU and aTm... Hell even an 11-1 UGA would be getting a serious look...
This was the year that the SEC would have been a lock for two teams in the playoffs and the rest of you frickers had to screw the damn pooch...
This was the year that the SEC would have been a lock for two teams in the playoffs and the rest of you frickers had to screw the damn pooch...
Posted on 11/30/16 at 9:27 am to klrstix
If the BCS formula was being used Ohio State would still be a lock to be in the playoffs this year.
As to two teams from the same conference in the final four. In the BCS era this would have happened in 10 of the 16 years. In fact, in 2008 two conferences (Big XII and the SEC) would have each had two teams in the final four.
As to two teams from the same conference in the final four. In the BCS era this would have happened in 10 of the 16 years. In fact, in 2008 two conferences (Big XII and the SEC) would have each had two teams in the final four.
This post was edited on 11/30/16 at 9:29 am
Posted on 11/30/16 at 9:30 am to TheCaterpillar
If they add Verne Lundquist to committee I'm done with it
Posted on 11/30/16 at 9:31 am to VABuckeye
That's why there should be no BCS, no committee...etc
You win X, you are in. You don't, you are not. Which is virtually impossible with the current setup of conferences, which is why the playoff has no place in CFB
You win X, you are in. You don't, you are not. Which is virtually impossible with the current setup of conferences, which is why the playoff has no place in CFB
Posted on 11/30/16 at 9:31 am to VABuckeye
quote:
Let's not forget the other part of the equation. 59-0. If Ohio State didn't win that game in such dominating fashion they would not have been in the playoff.
Probably. Yet the committee rules state that margin of victory should not be a factor. So if it was a factor that's another error made by the committee.
Posted on 11/30/16 at 9:33 am to StarsFan21
quote:
Couldn't the BCS computers be used and just a four team playoff added?
The BCS actually has the same top 6 as the current CFB Playoff rankings. The only big difference would be Oklahoma being ranked ahead of Penn State and Colorado instead of behind them.
RANK BCS CFP
1. Alabama Alabama
2. Ohio State Ohio State
3. Clemson Clemson
4. Washington Washington
5. Michigan Michigan
6. Wisconsin Wisconsin
7. Oklahoma Penn State
8. Penn State Colorado
9. Colorado Oklahoma
10. USC Oklahoma State
11. Florida State USC
12. Western Michigan Florida State
13. Oklahoma State Louisville
14. West Virginia Auburn
15. Stanford Florida
16. Florida West Virginia
17. Louisville Western Michigan
18. Auburn Stanford
19. Navy Navy
20. LSU Utah
21. Nebraska LSU
22. Virginia Tech Tennessee
23. USF Virginia Tech
24. Iowa Houston
25. Boise State Pittsburgh
Posted on 11/30/16 at 9:34 am to The Maj
quote:
LMAO at the "rigged for BAMA"
Bama got in on their on merits this year.... as they have every year they've been included except for 2011. But let's not pretend that if there is ever a debate on who should get a final spot between Bama and some other random team, the committee will always side with Bama. We all know that would be the case.
Posted on 11/30/16 at 9:37 am to Bench McElroy
quote:
The BCS actually has the same top 6 as the current CFB Playoff rankings.
That's not the controversy. I would think 99% of CFB fans think Ohio State is probably a better team than Penn State despite losing to them a few weeks back.
The controversy is that Conference Championships were the be-all, end-all criteria for getting into the playoff according to the Committee just two years ago. Now the committee has decided that that's not really all that important after all. Of course the team that benefited each time was Ohio State. Funny how that happens.
Posted on 11/30/16 at 9:37 am to StopRobot
quote:
Yes. The BCS formula was the best part of the BCS. But because LSU whined and cried about playing Bama again they had to have a committee
And the whole part about LSU getting punished for going 12-0 and having less time to prepare and rest than their opponent.
Would have been better off losing the SECCG. Then Bama couldn't have done 21-0 and LSU is probably the champs.
Posted on 11/30/16 at 9:39 am to Bench McElroy
quote:
The BCS actually has the same top 6 as the current CFB Playoff rankings.
Posted on 11/30/16 at 9:43 am to BHMKyle
quote:
Bama got in on their on merits this year.... as they have every year they've been included except for 2011. But let's not pretend that if there is ever a debate on who should get a final spot between Bama and some other random team, the committee will always side with Bama. We all know that would be the case.
The argument could be made that their merits is what got them in every other single year... Remember where BAMA was ranked before the famous "blackout" game? Remember where they were ranked after?
Try earning something rather than sitting around bitching and complaining that a system is rigged... Try winning games... I know it is a foreign concept to a UGA fan but it does help when you win...
Posted on 11/30/16 at 9:44 am to VABuckeye
quote:
As to two teams from the same conference in the final four. In the BCS era this would have happened in 10 of the 16 years. In fact, in 2008 two conferences (Big XII and the SEC) would have each had two teams in the final four.
There's nothing wrong with that and there never should have been. But we all know it's the reason everybody scrambled to overthrow the entire system. 2012 pissed people off.
There had to be an ability to meddle and use one of a million different criteria to justify ranking a team in a certain spot. It's subjective as hell. The BCS made more sense.
Posted on 11/30/16 at 9:49 am to Mohican
I agree with you. It's entirely possible for two teams form one division or one conference to both be in the top 4 and obviously if they're in the same division one will have beaten the other.
Posted on 11/30/16 at 9:50 am to BHMKyle
quote:Are you sure? Maybe it's simply that some teams' resumes changed significantly after the conference champ games weekend and the committee reranked the teams based on their final resumes.
The controversy is that Conference Championships were the be-all, end-all criteria for getting into the playoff according to the Committee just two years ago.
The committee's protocol says that conference championship is merely one of several tie-breakers used when teams' resumes are about equal. So many talking heads and fans don't seem to understand that.
This post was edited on 11/30/16 at 9:55 am
Posted on 11/30/16 at 9:52 am to The Maj
quote:
Try earning something rather than sitting around bitching and complaining that a system is rigged... Try winning games... I know it is a foreign concept to a UGA fan but it does help when you win...
UGA has nothing to do with this. If the issue is "winning games" then try beating LSU in your home stadium in 2011 if you don't want criticism.
The fact that the game had already been played... In Tuscaloosa for that matter... should have precluded everyone from having to see it again. Even if Bama was the better team, the BCS essentially rendered the regular season irrelevant by putting Bama into that game.
Posted on 11/30/16 at 9:55 am to VABuckeye
quote:
The BCS actually has the same top 6 as the current CFB Playoff rankings.
The only big difference would be Oklahoma being ranked ahead of Penn State and Colorado instead of behind them.
RANK BCS CFP
1. Alabama Alabama 2. Ohio State Ohio State 3. Clemson Clemson 4. Washington Washington 5. Michigan Michigan 6. Wisconsin Wisconsin 7. Oklahoma Penn State 8. Penn State Colorado 9. Colorado Oklahoma 10. USC Oklahoma State
What will the BCS look like after all the teams win their conference and get those added percentage points?
This post was edited on 11/30/16 at 9:56 am
Posted on 11/30/16 at 9:57 am to BHMKyle
quote:Wrong. BCS got it right. LSU and Bama were the two best teams.
The fact that the game had already been played... In Tuscaloosa for that matter... should have precluded everyone from having to see it again. Even if Bama was the better team, the BCS essentially rendered the regular season irrelevant by putting Bama into that game.
This post was edited on 11/30/16 at 9:59 am
Posted on 11/30/16 at 10:02 am to Syd
quote:
What will the BCS look like after all the teams win their conference and get those added percentage points?
Not much different IMO. The BCS really punished losses. I don't see a two loss team being ranked over Ohio State in the BCS era. We'll get an idea after Saturday though as I'm sure the math people will do the calculations.
Page 2 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News