|
Post by 1percenter on Nov 7, 2018 8:39:44 GMT -5
Committee rankings on the left. On the right the average of 100 computer polls and the human polls (sorta like the BCS formula)
Here's a link to all those computer polls
In bold I highlight teams that are 8+ spots different from the computer avg to the Committee rankings
|
| Committee
|
| Avg Rank of computers/human polls
| 1
| 9-0
| Alabama
| 1
| Alabama
| 2
| 9-0
| Clemson
| 2
| Clemson
| 3
| 9-0
| Notre Dame
| 3
| Georgia
| 4
| 8-1
| Michigan
| 4
| Michigan
| 5
| 8-1
| Georgia
| 5
| Notre Dame
| 6
| 8-1
| Oklahoma
| 6
| Oklahoma
| 7
| 7-2
| LSU
| 7
| LSU
| 8
| 8-1
| Washington St
| 8
| West Virginia
| 9
| 7-1
| West Virginia
| 9
| Ohio State
| 10
| 8-1
| Ohio St
| 10
| UCF
| 11
| 7-2
| Kentucky
| 11
| Kentucky
| 12
| 8-0
| UCF
| 12
| Mississippi St
| 13
| 7-2 | Syracuse
| 13
| Penn St
| 14
| 6-2
| NC State
| 14
| Washington St
| 15
| 6-3
| Florida
| 15
| Fresno St - 23rd in Committee
| 16
| 6-3
| Mississippi St
| 16
| Michigan St
| 17
| 7-2
| Boston College
| 17
| Florida
| 18
| 6-3
| Michigan St
| 18
| Iowa
| 19
| 6-3
| Texas
| 19
| Washington
| 20
| 6-3
| Penn St
| 20
| Missouri
| 21
| 6-3
| Iowa
| 21
| Utah
| 22
| 5-3
| Iowa St
| 22
| NC State - 14th in Committee
| 23
| 8-1
| Fresno St
| 23
| Iowa St
| 24
| 6-3
| Auburn
| 24
| Utah St
| 25
| 7-3
| Washington
| 25
| South Carolina
|
|
|
| 26
| Auburn
|
|
|
| 27
| Texas
|
|
|
| 28
| Boston College - 17th in Committee
|
|
|
| 29
| Texas A&M
|
|
|
| 30
| Syracuse - 13th in Committee
|
|
|
| 31
| Army
|
|
|
| 32
| Purdue
|
|
|
| 33
| Cincinnati
|
|
|
| 34
| Stanford
|
|
|
| 35
| Boise State
|
|
|
| 36
| Duke
|
|
|
| 37
| Texas Tech
|
|
|
| 38
| Buffalo
|
|
|
| 39
| UAB
|
|
|
| 40
| Appalachian State
|
|
|
| 41
| Wisconsin
|
|
|
| 42
| Northwestern
|
|
|
| 43
| Arizona State
|
|
|
| 44
| Virginia
|
|
|
| 45
| Pittsburgh
|
|
|
| 46
| San Diego State
|
|
|
| 47
| Miami, FL
|
|
|
| 48
| USC
|
|
|
| 49
| Oregon
|
|
|
| 50
| North Texas
|
Looking at this I don't understand the purpose of the Committee? Is it to make sure Notre Dame gets in when they have a good team? Is it to make sure a UCF of today or Boise State/TCU from a few years back never spoils the Big Boys party and the Committee is there to make sure they never get in? Why has the Committee overrated 3 ACC teams compared to the computers and 0 from any other Conference? Meanwhile all 3 Group of 5 teams that crack the computer Top 25 are under ranked by the Committee.
Do these Committee members get paid? Is this a big theatrical party thrown by ESPN to get ratings? Couldn't this be done quickly with a BCS style system as it's coming up with nearly identical rankings?
|
|
|
Post by 1percenter on Nov 7, 2018 9:03:42 GMT -5
An 8 team playoff is inevitable. I'd love to see it using a BCS Style system: 5 Conference Champs Top Group of 5 Rated Champ Top 2 rated teams that didn't win their Conference Lone stipulation for Conference Champ to make playoff is they must rank in the Top 16. If your Conference Champ ranks 17 or lower they are out and that opens up another at-large for the next highest rated team who didn't win a Conference.
4 highest rated CONFERENCE CHAMPS get 1st round home game. If you rate #2 but didn't win your Conference then you play a road game in the 1st round.
So as of now #14 Washington St (Pac 12 Champ) at #1 Alabama (SEC Champ) #10 Central Florida (Top Group of 5 Champ) at #2 Clemson (ACC Champ) #5 Notre Dame (at large) at #4 Michigan (Big Ten Champ) #3 Georgia (at large) at #6 Oklahoma (Big XII Champ)
ND/Mich rematch from week 1, but this time at Ann Arbor instead of North Bend. UGA/OU rematch from last year Alabama and Clemson would have earned the easiest first round games by rating the highest.
Who wouldn't want to watch Alabama someday have to travel to Madison, WI in December in the snow to play a 1st round playoff game. That would be awesome.
Now before some of you southerners complain about cold weather, check out the NFL. The NFL plays playoff games up North in January. Fans show up. Imagine Georgia beating Alabama in the SEC Champ game this year then having Michigan host a 1st round playoff game vs Alabama. Who wouldn't want to watch Alabama travel to Ann Arbor in December of 2018? If you don't want to see that then you are probably a SEC homer.
|
|
|
Post by dirkadirka on Nov 9, 2018 17:19:35 GMT -5
An 8-team playoff would essentially be a huge concessions that the NCAA is all $$ and removes the veil of students in the student athlete idea. 16 games seasons for a champ? Lots of money, but who really minds the controversy at the end of the year anyways? NCAA isn't hurting as a result.
I 100% agree with your premise, and would love an 8-team playoff.
|
|
|
Post by Willard Fillmore on Nov 9, 2018 20:38:37 GMT -5
With the 4 team playoff there is always one team that thinks they should have been one of the four. With an 8 team field there will be A LOT more PO'd teams.
|
|
|
Post by sportsjock on Nov 9, 2018 20:41:29 GMT -5
Continue to amuse yourselves with your 8 team fantasy. Currently there is no initiative or plans for even exploring the idea, let alone putting it up for a vote. If it does become reality, it is far into the future. Although, I like your ideas, concocting formulas is a waste of time at this point.
|
|
|
Post by fbfan on Nov 11, 2018 9:39:14 GMT -5
An 8-team playoff would essentially be a huge concessions that the NCAA is all $$ and removes the veil of students in the student athlete idea. 16 games seasons for a champ? Lots of money, but who really minds the controversy at the end of the year anyways? NCAA isn't hurting as a result. I 100% agree with your premise, and would love an 8-team playoff. 9th grade BOYS are allowed to play 15 games in Ohio championships. An 18 year old college MAN can't play 16? sportsjock is right though, it will be about 2025 before all the FBS playoff contracts run out. Plenty of time for the Committee's decisions to P.O. enough schools and fans (except the SEC) so that the clamor for expanded playoffs will be unstoppable. If you want to see controversy at the end of the year, you might get it if Ohio State knocks off #4 Michigan. If that happens, an 8 team playoff might look pretty good to Buckeye fans. Then we can amuse ourselves with an "8 team fantasy ".
|
|
|
Post by fbfan on Nov 11, 2018 9:57:02 GMT -5
With the 4 team playoff there is always one team that thinks they should have been one of the four. With an 8 team field there will be A LOT more PO'd teams. #5 and below would be replaced with #9 and below. Actually less PO'd teams. And, around 60 some teams in the power 5 conferences would have no complaint......simply win your conference if you want to go to the playoffs.
|
|
|
Post by 1percenter on Nov 11, 2018 11:01:42 GMT -5
We are quickly moving towards 8 teams. It was quick after the LSU/Alabama Title game that the playoff idea came about. The 8 team playoff is right around the corner, I just want it to be done right. NO COMMITTEE, that's a set up to be rigged. I love home field advantage for the top teams. Makes every game important as you want home field advantage. I like the idea that only Conference Champs are allowed to get home field advantage, unless there are not enough qualifying Conference Champs then an at-large can get one. Below is using my criteria above where Conference Champs must rank in the Top 15 to qualify for the playoff. I'm using AP Poll rankings for my ratings to determine if a team was Top 15 and the order of who gets the home game. (In real life I want it to be done with a BCS style system)
2014 - Top Group of 5 Conf Champ was #21 Boise State, so no Group of 5 is invited #8 Mississippi State (at-large) @ #1 Alabama (SEC) #7 Michigan State (at-large) @ #2 Florida State (ACC) #6 TCU (at-large) @ #3 Oregon (Pac 12) #5 Ohio State (Big Ten) @ #4 Baylor (Big XII) - TCU could have possibly won this whole thing that year and was left out. They finished #2 behind #1 Ohio State in the Sagarin Ratings
2015 #8 Houston (Group of 5) @ #1 Clemson (ACC) #7 Ohio State (at-large) @ #2 Alabama (SEC) #6 Iowa (at-large) @ #3 Michigan State (Big Ten) #5 Stanford (Pac 12) @ #4 Oklahoma (Big XII) - Houston would have gotten a shot, in real life they had to whoop #9 Florida State 38-24 in the Peach Bowl.
2016 #8 Western Michigan (Group of 5) @ #1 Alabama (SEC) #7 Oklahoma (Big XII) @ #2 Clemson (ACC) #6 Michigan (at-large) @ #3 Washington (Pac 12) #5 Ohio State (at-large) @#4 Penn State (Big Ten)
- Penn State was left out in real life in favor of Ohio State who didn't win the Big Ten - Western Michigan would have gotten a shot, instead they went to the Cotton Bowl and lost 24-16 to #8 Wisconsin
2017 #8 Central Florida (Group of 5) @ #1 Clemson (ACC)
#7 USC (Pac 12) @ #2 Oklahoma (Big XII) #6 Wisconsin (at-large) @ #3 Georgia (SEC)
#5 Alabama (at-large) @ #4 Ohio State (Big Ten) - I'd love to have seen Alabama have to travel up to Columbus in December - Central Florida would have gotten their shot
We'll hear, but Alabama would kill Western Michigan. Yeah, like when Alabama killed Michigan State in 2015. There's always going to be blow outs, (5-5) Purdue already whooped (9-1) Ohio State 49-20 this year, then Purdue turned around and got whooped (41-10) by Minnesota. Blow outs happen. Kids just want the shot they earned with their play on the field.
|
|
|
Post by Willard Fillmore on Nov 11, 2018 15:10:20 GMT -5
With the 4 team playoff there is always one team that thinks they should have been one of the four. With an 8 team field there will be A LOT more PO'd teams. #5 and below would be replaced with #9 and below. Actually less PO'd teams. And, around 60 some teams in the power 5 conferences would have no complaint......simply win your conference if you want to go to the playoffs. Respectfully disagree. Since the inception of the 4 team field, really only #5 has felt they should have made it. If you took 8, there is not much difference between 9 though 12. Not saying it won't happen, just that there is going to be A LOT more and vociferous whining. THEN there will be MANY more schools DEMANDING a 12 or 16 team field.... ad infinitum. It's all about money and recruiting making THE NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP FIELD...even if it means watering down. BTW, this year who would you take for $1000, Alabama or the field, regardless of it's size?
|
|
|
Post by 1percenter on Nov 11, 2018 17:57:23 GMT -5
^^^ ZERO chance a #12 team would have a valid argument to be a Top 8 team. By taking Conference Champs there will be a lot of years that top 5 teams would be filling out the rest of the at-large berths. For example Alabama & Wisconsin would have been at-larges last year. They were ranked #4 and #6 in the AP at the conclusion of the regular season. What #12 team would be claiming they should have been in over them?
AP Poll heading into the Bowl Season last year 1 12-1 Clemson (ACC Champ) 2 12-1 Oklahoma (Big XII Champ) 3 12-1 Georgia (SEC Champ) 4 11-1 Alabama 5 11-2 Ohio State (Big Ten Champ) 6 12-1 Wisconsin 7 10-3 Auburn 8 11-2 USC (Pac 12 Champ) 9 10-2 Penn State 10 12-0 Central Florida (Group of 5 Champ) 11 10-2 Miami, FL 12 10-2 Washington 13 10-3 TCU 14 9-3 Notre Dame
^^^ Only 2 at-large get in, pretty cut and dry. 12-1 Wisconsin's only loss was by 6 to the #5 team 11-1 Alabama was considered the best team And you think 9-12 had an argument. Get out of here
|
|
|
Post by fbfan on Nov 12, 2018 7:34:25 GMT -5
#5 and below would be replaced with #9 and below. Actually less PO'd teams. And, around 60 some teams in the power 5 conferences would have no complaint......simply win your conference if you want to go to the playoffs. Respectfully disagree. Since the inception of the 4 team field, really only #5 has felt they should have made it. If you took 8, there is not much difference between 9 though 12. Not saying it won't happen, just that there is going to be A LOT more and vociferous whining. THEN there will be MANY more schools DEMANDING a 12 or 16 team field.... ad infinitum. It's all about money and recruiting making THE NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP FIELD...even if it means watering down. BTW, this year who would you take for $1000, Alabama or the field, regardless of it's size? I will grant you that if there were 8, some would want 12 or 16 or more. And if those people could present a plan to make it work, I would be for it. What I'm for is taking as much of the decision of who gets to be in the NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP FIELD away from the committee and leave it to results on the field and to give as many teams as possible a shot at #1 that are reasonably capable of proving that on the field. That's a lot easier to do, and less prone to omission by error of opinion, with an 8 team field vs. a 4 team field. If some get mad about that, it's OK, the ones on the bubble left out always will be no matter the size of the field. I would not bet $1000 on the NC playoff. I would use it to buy a better TV to watch it on!
|
|
|
Post by Willard Fillmore on Nov 12, 2018 13:43:18 GMT -5
^^^ ZERO chance a #12 team would have a valid argument to be a Top 8 team. By taking Conference Champs there will be a lot of years that top 5 teams would be filling out the rest of the at-large berths. For example Alabama & Wisconsin would have been at-larges last year. They were ranked #4 and #6 in the AP at the conclusion of the regular season. What #12 team would be claiming they should have been in over them? AP Poll heading into the Bowl Season last year 1 12-1 Clemson (ACC Champ) 2 12-1 Oklahoma (Big XII Champ) 3 12-1 Georgia (SEC Champ) 4 11-1 Alabama 5 11-2 Ohio State (Big Ten Champ) 6 12-1 Wisconsin 7 10-3 Auburn 8 11-2 USC (Pac 12 Champ) 9 10-2 Penn State 10 12-0 Central Florida (Group of 5 Champ) 11 10-2 Miami, FL 12 10-2 Washington 13 10-3 TCU 14 9-3 Notre Dame ^^^ Only 2 at-large get in, pretty cut and dry. 12-1 Wisconsin's only loss was by 6 to the #5 team 11-1 Alabama was considered the best team And you think 9-12 had an argument. Get out of here FAKE STATS! That's an AP Poll, not The Committee's Final Poll. Which negates all claims made. Secondly, you nor I or anyone has any factual understanding on what the criteria might, could, should, would be for selecting teams for an 8 team field. Right or wrong, using the FAKE STATS provided, I can see where ALL teams 9 through 14 could make a case for being #8. Not saying their case is better than that of #8, just that there is going to be MUCH more angst by MANY more schools, when selecting 8 vs selecting 4.
|
|
|
Post by Willard Fillmore on Nov 12, 2018 14:00:26 GMT -5
Respectfully disagree. Since the inception of the 4 team field, really only #5 has felt they should have made it. If you took 8, there is not much difference between 9 though 12. Not saying it won't happen, just that there is going to be A LOT more and vociferous whining. THEN there will be MANY more schools DEMANDING a 12 or 16 team field.... ad infinitum. It's all about money and recruiting making THE NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP FIELD...even if it means watering down. BTW, this year who would you take for $1000, Alabama or the field, regardless of it's size? I will grant you that if there were 8, some would want 12 or 16 or more. And if those people could present a plan to make it work, I would be for it. What I'm for is taking as much of the decision of who gets to be in the NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP FIELD away from the committee and leave it to results on the field and to give as many teams as possible a shot at #1 that are reasonably capable of proving that on the field. That's a lot easier to do, and less prone to omission by error of opinion, with an 8 team field vs. a 4 team field. If some get mad about that, it's OK, the ones on the bubble left out always will be no matter the size of the field. I would not bet $1000 on the NC playoff. I would use it to buy a better TV to watch it on! If you'd be for 12 or 16, then why not 32 or 64 like the basketball National Championship was and is? BTW, the lowest seed, in 68 years, to win the basketball tournament, was the 8th seed, ONCE. There are 347 DI basketball schools and 129 DI football schools. If they don't need more than 8 to find the best team in basketball out of 347, why would you need more than 4 to find the best team out of 129? Obviously, the ONLY reason for 64 in basketball is money. As you know, there is also a "committee" in basketball.
|
|
|
Post by galion on Nov 12, 2018 16:01:37 GMT -5
I will grant you that if there were 8, some would want 12 or 16 or more. And if those people could present a plan to make it work, I would be for it. What I'm for is taking as much of the decision of who gets to be in the NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP FIELD away from the committee and leave it to results on the field and to give as many teams as possible a shot at #1 that are reasonably capable of proving that on the field. That's a lot easier to do, and less prone to omission by error of opinion, with an 8 team field vs. a 4 team field. If some get mad about that, it's OK, the ones on the bubble left out always will be no matter the size of the field. I would not bet $1000 on the NC playoff. I would use it to buy a better TV to watch it on! If you'd be for 12 or 16, then why not 32 or 64 like the basketball National Championship was and is? BTW, the lowest seed, in 68 years, to win the basketball tournament, was the 8th seed, ONCE. There are 347 DI basketball schools and 129 DI football schools. If they don't need more than 8 to find the best team in basketball out of 347, why would you need more than 4 to find the best team out of 129? Obviously, the ONLY reason for 64 in basketball is money. As you know, there is also a "committee" in basketball. Do you know how to do math? That wasn't the 8 seed for the ENTIRE tournament it was just the 8 seed in a region. The 8 seed for the ENTIRE tournament would be a 2 seed in one of the regions. The 8 seed in a region would be the 29th, 30th, 31st, or 32nd seed for the tournament.
|
|
|
Post by fbfan on Nov 13, 2018 8:00:07 GMT -5
^^^ ZERO chance a #12 team would have a valid argument to be a Top 8 team. By taking Conference Champs there will be a lot of years that top 5 teams would be filling out the rest of the at-large berths. For example Alabama & Wisconsin would have been at-larges last year. They were ranked #4 and #6 in the AP at the conclusion of the regular season. What #12 team would be claiming they should have been in over them? AP Poll heading into the Bowl Season last year 1 12-1 Clemson (ACC Champ) 2 12-1 Oklahoma (Big XII Champ) 3 12-1 Georgia (SEC Champ) 4 11-1 Alabama 5 11-2 Ohio State (Big Ten Champ) 6 12-1 Wisconsin 7 10-3 Auburn 8 11-2 USC (Pac 12 Champ) 9 10-2 Penn State 10 12-0 Central Florida (Group of 5 Champ) 11 10-2 Miami, FL 12 10-2 Washington 13 10-3 TCU 14 9-3 Notre Dame ^^^ Only 2 at-large get in, pretty cut and dry. 12-1 Wisconsin's only loss was by 6 to the #5 team 11-1 Alabama was considered the best team And you think 9-12 had an argument. Get out of here FAKE STATS! That's an AP Poll, not The Committee's Final Poll. Which negates all claims made. Secondly, you nor I or anyone has any factual understanding on what the criteria might, could, should, would be for selecting teams for an 8 team field. Right or wrong, using the FAKE STATS provided, I can see where ALL teams 9 through 14 could make a case for being #8. Not saying their case is better than that of #8, just that there is going to be MUCH more angst by MANY more schools, when selecting 8 vs selecting 4. The fact that the AP poll, Committee rankings, Computer polls, and any other poll are/can be different makes a good argument for expanding the playoff. Results on the field are not FAKE and should be used as much as possible, rather than someone's opinion. Expanding from 4 to 8 with selection criteria based on results (not opinion) on the field as much as possible during the season will lesson the chance of omitting a deserving team. If I go into a room with 20 people, lock the door, and start to hand out $1000 bills to each one, how many there in total could possibly show angst for not getting one in each case, if I hand out 4 of them or 8 of them? The math is simple.
|
|
|
Post by 1percenter on Nov 13, 2018 9:15:03 GMT -5
Willard Fillmore, I'm starting to see why so many people on here have you blocked. You want the Committee Rankings, well here you go.
December 3, 2017 Committee Rankings 1 12-1 Clemson (ACC Champ) 2 12-1 Oklahoma (Big XII Champ) 3 12-1 Georgia (SEC Champ) 4 11-1 Alabama 5 11-2 Ohio State (Big Ten Champ) 6 12-1 Wisconsin 7 10-3 Auburn 8 11-2 USC (Pac 12 Champ) 9 10-2 Penn State 10 10-2 Miami, FL 11 10-2 Washington 12 12-0 Central Florida (Group of 5 Champ) 13 9-4 Stanford 14 9-3 Notre Dame
Teams down around #12 will never have a good argument to get into the playoff as an at-large.
-------------------------------------- December 4, 2016 Committee Rankings 1 13-0 Alabama (SEC Champ) 2 12-1 Clemson (ACC Champ) 3 11-1 Ohio State 4 12-1 Washington (Pac 12 Champ) 5 11-2 Penn State (Big Ten Champ) 6 10-2 Michigan 7 10-2 Oklahoma (Big XII Champ) 8 10-3 Wisconsin 9 9-3 USC 10 10-3 Colorado 11 9-3 Florida State 12 9-3 Oklahoma State 13 9-3 Louisville 14 8-4 Auburn 15 13-0 Western Michigan (Group of 5 Champ)
Once again, the 2 at-large teams would have came from the Top 6
-------------------------------- December 6, 2015 1 13-0 Clemson (ACC Champ) 2 12-1 Alabama (SEC Champ) 3 12-1 Michigan State (Big Ten Champ) 4 11-1 Oklahoma (Big XII Champ) 5 12-1 Iowa 6 11-2 Stanford (Pac 12 Champ 7 11-1 Ohio State 8 10-2 Notre Dame 9 10-2 Florida State 10 11-2 North Carolina 11 10-2 TCU 12 9-3 Ole Miss 13 10-2 Northwestern 14 9-3 Michigan . 18 12-1 Houston (Group of 5 Champ)
Fillmore so which team around #12 has a viable argument to get one of those 2 at-large berths?
What we do see is that the Committee hates Group of 5 teams. 2015 #18 12-1 Houston smacked #9 Florida State 2016 #15 13-0 Western Michigan lost by a TD to #8 Wisconsin 2017 #12 13-0 UCF whooped the snot out of #7 Auburn
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2018 9:19:19 GMT -5
Willard Fillmore, I'm starting to see why so many people on here have you blocked. You want the Committee Rankings, well here you go. December 3, 2017 Committee Rankings 1 12-1 Clemson (ACC Champ) 2 12-1 Oklahoma (Big XII Champ) 3 12-1 Georgia (SEC Champ) 4 11-1 Alabama 5 11-2 Ohio State (Big Ten Champ) 6 12-1 Wisconsin 7 10-3 Auburn 8 11-2 USC (Pac 12 Champ) 9 10-2 Penn State 10 10-2 Miami, FL 11 10-2 Washington 12 12-0 Central Florida (Group of 5 Champ) 13 9-4 Stanford 14 9-3 Notre Dame Teams down around #12 will never have a good argument to get into the playoff as an at-large. -------------------------------------- December 4, 2016 Committee Rankings 1 13-0 Alabama (SEC Champ) 2 12-1 Clemson (ACC Champ) 3 11-1 Ohio State 4 12-1 Washington (Pac 12 Champ) 5 11-2 Penn State (Big Ten Champ) 6 10-2 Michigan 7 10-2 Oklahoma (Big XII Champ) 8 10-3 Wisconsin 9 9-3 USC 10 10-3 Colorado 11 9-3 Florida State 12 9-3 Oklahoma State 13 9-3 Louisville 14 8-4 Auburn 15 13-0 Western Michigan (Group of 5 Champ) Once again, the 2 at-large teams would have came from the Top 6 -------------------------------- December 6, 2015 1 13-0 Clemson (ACC Champ) 2 12-1 Alabama (SEC Champ) 3 12-1 Michigan State (Big Ten Champ) 4 11-1 Oklahoma (Big XII Champ) 5 12-1 Iowa 6 11-2 Stanford (Pac 12 Champ 7 11-1 Ohio State 8 10-2 Notre Dame 9 10-2 Florida State 10 11-2 North Carolina 11 10-2 TCU 12 9-3 Ole Miss 13 10-2 Northwestern 14 9-3 Michigan . 18 12-1 Houston (Group of 5 Champ) Fillmore so which team around #12 has a viable argument to get one of those 2 at-large berths? What we do see is that the Committee hates Group of 5 teams. 2015 #18 12-1 Houston smacked #9 Florida State 2016 #15 13-0 Western Michigan lost by a TD to #8 Wisconsin 2017 #12 13-0 UCF whooped the snot out of #7 Auburn Good post, but Fillmore will say UCF didn’t beat the snot out of Auburn, which they didn’t
|
|
|
Post by fbfan on Nov 13, 2018 12:44:13 GMT -5
I will grant you that if there were 8, some would want 12 or 16 or more. And if those people could present a plan to make it work, I would be for it. What I'm for is taking as much of the decision of who gets to be in the NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP FIELD away from the committee and leave it to results on the field and to give as many teams as possible a shot at #1 that are reasonably capable of proving that on the field. That's a lot easier to do, and less prone to omission by error of opinion, with an 8 team field vs. a 4 team field. If some get mad about that, it's OK, the ones on the bubble left out always will be no matter the size of the field. I would not bet $1000 on the NC playoff. I would use it to buy a better TV to watch it on! If you'd be for 12 or 16, then why not 32 or 64 like the basketball National Championship was and is? BTW, the lowest seed, in 68 years, to win the basketball tournament, was the 8th seed, ONCE. There are 347 DI basketball schools and 129 DI football schools. If they don't need more than 8 to find the best team in basketball out of 347, why would you need more than 4 to find the best team out of 129? Obviously, the ONLY reason for 64 in basketball is money. As you know, there is also a "committee" in basketball. Show me a plan and I'll let you know. Do you think the OHSAA should go to 4 teams in each division to decide the Ohio FB championships?
|
|
|
Post by maplecityjake on Nov 15, 2018 11:55:28 GMT -5
Hmm... This probably will be the year UM has only 1 loss, and will get snubbed. I just about maplecityjake guarantee it
|
|
tori2
All Conference
2017 Playoff Pick'em Champion
Posts: 312
|
Post by tori2 on Nov 16, 2018 8:28:58 GMT -5
If Michigan wins out they are in, but that is a big if. Go Blue.
|
|
|
Post by fbfan on Nov 16, 2018 8:31:32 GMT -5
If Michigan wins out they are in, but that is a big if. Go Blue. The top 4 are ALL in if they win out.
|
|
|
Post by 1percenter on Dec 1, 2018 17:17:00 GMT -5
If we had a playoff with 6 Conference Champs, plus 2 at large this year. 1 at-large would be going to Notre Dame 1 at-large would be going to Alabama or Georgia
So once again the lowest at-large would be a top 6 team. People thinking an 8 team playoff means teams down around 11 or 12 would claim they should be in is ridiculous. This year we'd have Michigan trying to claim they'd be in over Alabama, Georgia, or Notre Dame. Even Michigan fans wouldn't be arguing.
A co-worker of mine has convinced me the 7th and 8th seeds should get home field advantage since they will be big underdogs vs the #1 and #2 seed. Imagine this #1 Alabama traveling to Boise State to play the 8 seed Broncos #2 Clemson traveling to Washington to play the 7 seed Huskers
The 3 and 4 seeds get home field over the 5 and 6 since those will be more of a toss up game.
Imagine in the future Alabama taking on 8 seed Toledo in Toledo in the 1st round of the playoffs. Ahh, that would be awesome.
|
|
|
Post by 1percenter on Dec 1, 2018 17:20:48 GMT -5
Imagine #1 seed Ohio State traveling to #8 seed Appalachian State for a 1st round playoff game. Now all Group of 5 teams get a shot, plus they get to host teams that would never travel to play them in the regular season. Exciting for fans watching too. If you watched Miami, FL at Toledo this year then you'd know what I'm talking about. Those Miami players were also fired up because that stadium was rocking early in the game.
|
|
|
Post by 1percenter on Dec 2, 2018 7:38:58 GMT -5
I'm ready for the 8 team playoff
6 Conf Champs + 2 at-large
#1 seed 13-0 Alabama (SEC Champ) #2 seed 13-0 Clemson (ACC Champ) #3 seed 12-0 Notre Dame (at-large) #4 seed 12-1 Oklahoma (Big XII Champ) #5 seed 12-1 Ohio St (Big Ten Champ) #6 seed 11-2 Georgia (at-large) #7 seed 10-3 Washington (Pac 12 Champ) #8 seed 12-0 Central Florida (Top Group of 5 Conf Champ)
No one is talking about #9 Florida or #10 LSU or #11 Penn St getting one of the 2 at-large bids. Like every other year the at-large comes from a much higher ranked team than those down there.
|
|