College Playoff Top 4...who gets left out?

[jmar]

4 conferences.  16 teams each.  No FCS teams on schedule.  12 games.  7 games against your division teams, 2 games against other division teams inside conference.  1 game against non conference power 4 team.  2 games against non conference non power 4 team. 

Don't worry with the math.  It works.

Makes perfectly good sense.
Don't know if this is original thought or know how strongly you feel about this idea but you might want to avoid clock towers, book deposit buildings, dark alleyways and the entire state of Texas in general. Happy trails!

[Snaggletiger]

I hated the idea of a committee from the very start and this is exactly why. When you leave it strictly up to opinion, to the "eye test", someone is going to get screwed. While I honestly can't tell you these are or are not the 4 best teams at the end of the day, the mere fact that a bunch of people sat around and made the final call will leave them subject to claims of bias in some form or fashion 100% of the time.  I would have felt much better about it had they just left the BCS formula in place and taken the top 4 from that.

Having said that, there is absolutely no denying that the expansion to 4 and this committee deciding, has raised the interest in college football to untold levels. It's been the hot topic every day of the week on every show.  Every analyst and expert has their top 4 every week.  New shows were created simply to analyze the top 4. Here we are talking about it.  I guess, mission accomplished.   

[RottenBottom]

I'm glad we figured out that "brand" is more important to the committee than the actual resumes of teams.

[GH2001]

Makes perfectly good sense.
Don't know if this is original thought or know how strongly you feel about this idea but you might want to avoid clock towers, book deposit buildings, dark alleyways and the entire state of Texas in general. Happy trails!

The NFC South agrees with you.

[Townhallsavoy]

4 conferences.  16 teams each.  No FCS teams on schedule.  12 games.  7 games against your division teams, 2 games against other division teams inside conference.  1 game against non conference power 4 team.  2 games against non conference non power 4 team. 

Don't worry with the math.  It works.

I like it.

Then the playoff is the four conference champions.  Sorry if your conference produced two of the better teams.  Creating a tangible list of expectations and requirements for making the playoff is much better than trying to by the "eye test," which no matter how people argue it, human rankings will always be done by the eye test.

The bowls should be a rotating schedule of conference vs. conference.  SEC vs. ACC.  Pac 12 vs. Big 10.  So SEC #2 plays ACC#2.  Pac 12 #4 plays Big 10 #4. 

The next season would be SEC vs. Pac 12.  ACC vs. BIg 10.  And so on and so on.

That way teams like Auburn can play a multitude of teams instead of playing Wisconsin and Clemson almost every year. 

[jmar]

I like it.

Then the playoff is the four conference champions.  Sorry if your conference produced two of the better teams.  Creating a tangible list of expectations and requirements for making the playoff is much better than trying to by the "eye test," which no matter how people argue it, human rankings will always be done by the eye test.

The bowls should be a rotating schedule of conference vs. conference.  SEC vs. ACC.  Pac 12 vs. Big 10.  So SEC #2 plays ACC#2.  Pac 12 #4 plays Big 10 #4. 

The next season would be SEC vs. Pac 12.  ACC vs. BIg 10.  And so on and so on.

That way teams like Auburn can play a multitude of teams instead of playing Wisconsin and Clemson almost every year.

"Teams like Auburn " can avoid ho him matchups by solidifying its defense and playing at a consistent level.

[AUTiger1]

I don't disagree with the top 4.  Then again I don't agree with it.  You can make an argument for TCU and Baylor, but at the end of the day we all knew someone's feelings were going to get hurt.  What I do have an issue with is moving TCU from 5th to 3rd after destroying K-State and then dropping them from 3rd to 6th after destroying their opponent.  I have seen teams drop one spot in something like that, but never have I seen a team drop 3 spots in the BCS when they keep on winning.  I also think Baylor should have been ranked ahead of them the whole time, but that's a different argument for a different day.  This whole thing boils down to money.  OSU has 10 times as many fans as a TCU or Baylor and they will travel better and generate more revenue.  Follow the money.......and that is what makes me sad. 

Bring back the BCS computer models and take the top 4.  No shock, no drama, no human bias.  If they can't or won't do that, then expand the playoffs to 8 teams and take the top ranked team from the power five and 3 at large.

[GH2001]

expand the playoffs to 8 teams and take the top ranked team from the power five and 3 at large.

Best idea to me. Esp the at large part.

[War Eagle!!!]

I don't disagree with the top 4.  Then again I don't agree with it.  You can make an argument for TCU and Baylor, but at the end of the day we all knew someone's feelings were going to get hurt.  What I do have an issue with is moving TCU from 5th to 3rd after destroying K-State and then dropping them from 3rd to 6th after destroying their opponent.  I have seen teams drop one spot in something like that, but never have I seen a team drop 3 spots in the BCS when they keep on winning.  I also think Baylor should have been ranked ahead of them the whole time, but that's a different argument for a different day.  This whole thing boils down to money.  OSU has 10 times as many fans as a TCU or Baylor and they will travel better and generate more revenue.  Follow the money.......and that is what makes me sad. 

Bring back the BCS computer models and take the top 4.  No shock, no drama, no human bias.  If they can't or won't do that, then expand the playoffs to 8 teams and take the top ranked team from the power five and 3 at large.

I am trying to look objectively at this. When TCU was ranked higher, it was because their schedule was front loaded with Oklahoma, K-State and whoever is ranked in the Big 12. The last 3 to 4 weeks, they played the even more shitty teams from the shitty conference. SO even though Bayolr beat TCU, they still had 1 loss each and TCU had played the more tough schedule. TCU even played Minnesota which started out pretty good before fading. It wasn't until the end when they had played roughly the same schedule that all things were equal. When that happened, they ranked them based on head to head.

Honestly, I don't see any fault in it. And, I think had the Big 12 actually awarded a winner, there would have been different results. Seriously...the 4th team in the SEC West beat the Big 10 division Champ. I don't think the win would have said as much had there been a clear cut Big 12 winner.

[Snaggletiger]

Listened to little bit of Finebaum a few minutes ago.  Had on Bill Hancock and it wasn't the most pleasant interview I've ever heard.  PF was asking why Baylor and TCU fans should accept his explanation of why the committee did what they did. He was way more direct about the whole Tuesday night meetings and rankings, calling them a charade and saying at the end of the day, it was all about branding and they stomped all over the little guy. 

Again, I'm not upset at the final 4.  Could have lived with it either way.  But the 3 place drop of TCU after a 55-3 win will always suggest that PF is right about that. 

[Godfather]

I hated the idea of a committee from the very start and this is exactly why. When you leave it strictly up to opinion, to the "eye test", someone is going to get screwed. While I honestly can't tell you these are or are not the 4 best teams at the end of the day, the mere fact that a bunch of people sat around and made the final call will leave them subject to claims of bias in some form or fashion 100% of the time.  I would have felt much better about it had they just left the BCS formula in place and taken the top 4 from that.

Having said that, there is absolutely no denying that the expansion to 4 and this committee deciding, has raised the interest in college football to untold levels. It's been the hot topic every day of the week on every show.  Every analyst and expert has their top 4 every week.  New shows were created simply to analyze the top 4. Here we are talking about it.  I guess, mission accomplished.   

You and I have discussed this, this was to easy not to do.  Stupid. 

BTW I hate what they did the same as everyone else.  One thing that hasn't been pointed out is that controversy and passion is what makes the college game what it is.  The fact that this debate has become again the focus, have the college money people drooling.

Outside of that fuck'em all.  Bring me Wisconsin....woo hoo.

[GH2001]

You and I have discussed this, this was to easy not to do.  Stupid. 

BTW I hate what they did the same as everyone else.  One thing that hasn't been pointed out is that controversy and passion is what makes the college game what it is.  The fact that this debate has become again the focus, have the college money people drooling.

Outside of that fuck'em all.  Bring me Wisconsin....woo hoo.

Yeah, at min 4..maybe 8. BCS was fine...it just needed more teams involved in the end. Bowls would have been incorporated the same way they are now, into semis and even quarters later down the road.

[Snaggletiger]

You and I have discussed this, this was to easy not to do.  Stupid. 

BTW I hate what they did the same as everyone else.  One thing that hasn't been pointed out is that controversy and passion is what makes the college game what it is.  The fact that this debate has become again the focus, have the college money people drooling.

Outside of that fuck'em all.  Bring me Wisconsin....woo hoo.

Egg-Zackitickly.  No denying the enormous raise in the interest level with that debate. 

[Godfather]

Again, I'm not upset at the final 4.  Could have lived with it either way.  But the 3 place drop of TCU after a 55-3 win will always suggest that PF is right about that. 

Apparently, it goes from TCU, to the cleaners, to the Chick-Fil-A Bowl.

[jmar]

I'm sticking with the committee gambling that one or both tOSU or FSU would lose... which backfired.

Baylor won the head to head over TCU. That should have been sufficient enough but oh nooo. We need to over-reward TCU for a decisive victory.

The created interest was already building and the fallout is mostly negative which doesn't help their future credibility. IMO not enough measured parameters and not transparent in that only Long was available to respond after a weekly re- ranking.

I think a team like FSU on a winning streak (no matter how ugly) should stay in it until beaten.
Also don't care whether a road dog winning by two is considered a better win than a prohibitive home favorite barely scraping by. It doesn't even matter in the NFL.     

 

[Saniflush]

Apparently, it goes from TCU, to the cleaners, to the Chick-Fil-A Bowl.

Have you been touching yourself Kent?

[dallaswareagle]

 then expand the playoffs to 8 teams and take the top ranked team from the power five and 3 at large.

So will Notre dame get 3 cracks at it?

[AUJarhead]

expand the playoffs to 8 teams and take the top ranked team from the power five and 3 at large.

I agree, but take the conference champs from the power 5, and then pick 3 at large teams.

[jmar]

Permanently install Alabama as #1 and let everyone else play for second. Rohl Tahd!

[Kaos]

The "committee" is a bunch of stodgy old fucks.  They don't care about the best teams, they care about "giving the fans what they want to see"

Because in their mind an Alabama - Ohio State matchup between Woody Hayes and Bear Bryant is some thrilling theater.  What? Woody's not there?  You sure about that?

They also think Oregon is what those crazy kids are listening to today, with all their mop-top hair and rock music.