|
Post by Rambo McClain on Nov 14, 2016 10:01:04 GMT -5
Do they know what they are doing? Is this really the best way to do a playoff? On November 1st the first committee rankings were released and they had Texas A&M in the Top 4. For real, Texas A&M. What! This past week they told us who the best 4 teams in the entire United States of America were, 3 of the 4 lost. Now this week they are going to tell us who the best 4 teams in the entire United States of America are, can we trust them?
|
|
|
Post by Rambo McClain on Nov 14, 2016 10:09:05 GMT -5
One more thing, are these committee members part of the MSM, the same ones that told us Trump had no shot. Experts
|
|
|
Post by Buckeye2b on Nov 14, 2016 14:58:56 GMT -5
The committee exists purely to keep mid-majors and wanna-be's out of the playoff mix. I think the internal belief is that the 4 playoff teams must be bigger schools who will have some natural rivalries and create "big draw" games. Do you really think that they wouldn't like to see the payday if OSU and Bama were to meet again in the college playoff Bowl game? This year is presenting it's own little quirks that will eventually, hopefully take this to an even 8 teams (or even 4) chosen by the BCS or a BCS like system to arrive at the top teams. I think this is so simple at the end of the day, but the big time bowl pundits keep the human hand in there one way or another.
|
|
|
Post by sportsjock on Nov 15, 2016 10:33:27 GMT -5
More often than not, the 'wanna-be's' are just that, and you can throw in most of the mid-majors into that category as well. The Committee is fully aware of the fact there are a couple teams every year that become the 'darlings' of the college football world. They are also aware that these temporary infatuations, usually meet cold reality when mated with a talent laden 'major' program.
I can't foresee an 8 team field for DI football. The compromises are too great and the logistics filled with pitfalls. They have a great system in place. Things have proven a way of shaking themselves out and revealing four viable final four representatives when the final decision is made by the committee.
|
|
|
Post by Willard Fillmore on Nov 15, 2016 14:18:09 GMT -5
Do they know what they are doing? Is this really the best way to do a playoff? On November 1st the first committee rankings were released and they had Texas A&M in the Top 4. For real, Texas A&M. What! This past week they told us who the best 4 teams in the entire United States of America were, 3 of the 4 lost. Now this week they are going to tell us who the best 4 teams in the entire United States of America are, can we trust them? They knew what they were doing in 2014 when in the last week they jumped Ohio State over a couple of teams into the Final Four. You know what happened after that. They got it right. OR is your theory that Alabama, Oregon and Florida State shouldn't have been in the Final Four with Ohio State?
|
|
|
Post by sportsjock on Nov 15, 2016 16:25:36 GMT -5
Do they know what they are doing? Is this really the best way to do a playoff? On November 1st the first committee rankings were released and they had Texas A&M in the Top 4. For real, Texas A&M. What! This past week they told us who the best 4 teams in the entire United States of America were, 3 of the 4 lost. Now this week they are going to tell us who the best 4 teams in the entire United States of America are, can we trust them? They knew what they were doing in 2014 when in the last week they jumped Ohio State over a couple of teams into the Final Four. You know what happened after that. They got it right. OR is your theory that Alabama, Oregon and Florida State shouldn't have been in the Final Four with Ohio State? Good one Willard!......lol
|
|
|
Post by Buckeye2b on Nov 15, 2016 18:21:15 GMT -5
More often than not, the 'wanna-be's' are just that, and you can throw in most of the mid-majors into that category as well. The Committee is fully aware of the fact there are a couple teams every year that become the 'darlings' of the college football world. They are also aware that these temporary infatuations, usually meet cold reality when mated with a talent laden 'major' program. I can't foresee an 8 team field for DI football. The compromises are too great and the logistics filled with pitfalls. They have a great system in place. Things have proven a way of shaking themselves out and revealing four viable final four representatives when the final decision is made by the committee. I disagree.. This bad boy is nothing but about match ups and bowl money. It's not about a true NCAA D1 football championship, and never really will be, otherwise 8 (or more) absolutely could be done. The D1 college season is already longer than other divisions and the only reason I can find for that is putting cash in the pocket of the universities. Regional match ups could work in a playoff system and no one will ever get me to believe that they can't, otherwise, you wouldn't see a 32 team bracket in D3 that plays out over 5 weeks ( www.ncaa.com/interactive-bracket/football/d3/ .) I know all the song and dance about how much higher the level is in D1, but really try to convince me how much higher than in the FCS that starts with a 24 team bracket ( www.ncaa.com/interactive-bracket/football/fcs/ .) Bottom line is this...as long as the committee picks the teams exclusively, some team who may actually be the best team or the hottest team at the moment, may get screwed because ticket sales and putting butts in seats is more important, period. Remember that Iowa, who just upended the Wolverweenies, also got upset earlier in the year by North Dakota State, a good FCS team... Central Michigan (a mid-major) upset OK State... and never to be forgotten....Appy State (FCS at the time) over the Wolverweenies not so many years ago.... On any given day........
|
|
|
Post by Willard Fillmore on Nov 15, 2016 18:55:39 GMT -5
What did the rest of North Dakota State and Central Michigan's schedule look like? EVERY year there is an upset or 2 by a mid-major that a Power 5 Conference team is over looking.
|
|
|
Post by sportsjock on Nov 15, 2016 19:24:55 GMT -5
Buckeye2B,
I fully understand and respect your arguments and at first glance, easy not to agree. But...., major college DI BCS football is a totally different animal than high school, NAIA, DIII, or DII. Big time money is indeed involved, but there is big time expenditures, historical factors, the bowl traditions and untold considerations that the NCAA, school administrators, athletic directors and coaches are highly unlikely to ever come to a consensus. I'm just looking at this from a reality standpoint. I haven't seen the committee, to date, make a glaring misjudgement....may happen, but haven't seen it yet.
Good argument with the examples of upsets by mid-major programs and wanna-be's as you put it. These schools will never be able to compete, with budget limitations, name-brand dis-advantages, recruiting disparities etc. The answer more likely lies in forming a sub-division that would more fairly accommodate mid-majors. They could then have their play-off. Separate the chaff from the grain and you get a better defined product.
Couple that with the fact that the current BCS system has athletic directors at perennial power schools scrambling to strengthen their pre-conference scheduling. Guess who's going to get left out of the equation? Opportunities for a big pay check in a large venue, on nationwide television are increasingly going to be a rarity for the smaller DI programs.
(Don't expect a reply from my any time soon, I'm traveling most of this week)
|
|
|
Post by DrTorch on Nov 15, 2016 20:07:48 GMT -5
on any given day is great in the regular season but in a playoff i wanna see jauggernauts...to me it's not who your 1-loss was to it is who have you beaten...every team will have a bad loss for the most part, random geographical gerrymandering shouldn't come in to play when taking conference champions into consideration...show me the teams you have beaten when it's time to pick the final 4
|
|
|
Post by Buckeye2b on Nov 16, 2016 7:08:39 GMT -5
What did the rest of North Dakota State and Central Michigan's schedule look like? EVERY year there is an upset or 2 by a mid-major that a Power 5 Conference team is over looking. Did Oklahoma overlook Boise State in the 2007 Fiesta Bowl? A bowl committee said a mid-major was good enough and Boise State proved it...over the same school (OK) that Ohio State now rests some of this seasons laurels on. I follow what your saying Willy, I just want to see fair. This committee is not fair, the plus one is not fair, the bowl system is not fair....however, this horse pucky system does keep the money flowing into the bowl games and major universities and the conversations going prior to bowl season with pundits like ourselves who mostly think we have the best ideas (myself included.) Bottom line is now, and always will be, the money that makes the system go. I would just like to see a Boise State type school have the opportunity to play for it all if they could make it to that game, and as the system is right now, they can't even get all of the Power 5 conference champions in. ( I think Chris Peterson is an outstanding coach and he is proving that again after leaving Boise and taking the job at Washington.) Was that Oklahoma game a fluke in 2007? Boise State (14-0) upended TCU in the 2010 Fiesta as well although their final BCS ranking was 6 and 4 in both the AP and coaches poll after the Fiesta win... the same TCU that has looked in the recent years to be a final four competitor. I'm just pointing out some of the disparity in this system. (Which means I don't really want to go back and do the research necessary to back up my belief... just showing some of the glaring stuff...) I'll get off my soapbox now, since it won't change anyway. I'm actually still just thrilled to have the Plus One, because the BCS as a standalone system sucked donkey balls. My contention has always been that the BCS is a good system to determine who the top teams really were, but to put them into a bowl system playoff and let the chips fall where they may. Then the NC playoff could then include the Boise States who otherwise get raped because they don't have the fan base that the big boys do. By the way, Boise State ended that season ranked ahead of our Buckeyes in the AP, Coaches, Harris and BCS..just a sidenote.
|
|
|
Post by Willard Fillmore on Nov 16, 2016 16:23:05 GMT -5
Oklahoma/Boise State was not for the National Championship. I don't count Boise State as a mid-major. Boise State that year was a Top 10 team, were they a Top Four team? The National Championship Four Team Playoff MUST have the 4 best teams in the country in it. If Boise is one of the 4 best, they're in. No longer is just the final record looked at. Strength of schedule is a HUGE component of the judging process. Who beat you if you have a loss? How much did you lose by? What is the record of the team that beat you? Where was that game played? ALL are considerations in the selection process.
Boise State or their ilk, needs to get into a Power 5 Conference, if they REALLY want to be one of the 4 teams in The Four Team Playoff. OR, there should be a complete reorganization of ALL conferences creating SIX "Power" conferences. Have some fun some day when you have a couple of free hours and see if you can completely reorganize geographically ALL current conferences and come up with 6 Conferences, so that the strength of all 6 would qualify as "Power" conferences.
|
|
|
Post by Rambo McClain on Nov 18, 2016 7:34:50 GMT -5
Interesting, the Committee said Tuesday night that 2-6 were very tight. That means they thought Ohio State and Louisville were very tight. Two days later Louisville gets trounced by an unranked team on National TV. The unranked team is Houston, now 9-2.
unranked Houston 9-2, trounced #5 Louisville 9-2 unranked Houston 9-2, trounced #9 Oklahoma 8-2
The Committee thinks little of Houston, so little that they are unranked. Yet, Houston has trounced 2 teams the Committee thinks are Top 10 teams and has the same record. Houston is being disrespected by the Committee because Houston plays in the American and not the Big XII.
What has Oklahoma done this year that's impressed the Committee?
Oklahoma's wins 6-3 Baylor 5-4 TCU 5-4 K-State 5-5 Texas 4-6 La Monroe 4-6 Texas Tech 2-8 Iowa State 1-9 Kansas
^^^^ Those 8 wins have the Committee thinking they are #9 in the Nation. Yet, Houston now has 2 Top 10 wins with the same record as Oklahoma and smashed Oklahoma and Houston is unranked.
I don't think the Committee is full of experts, I think they are full of it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2016 9:37:20 GMT -5
Interesting, the Committee said Tuesday night that 2-6 were very tight. That means they thought Ohio State and Louisville were very tight. Two days later Louisville gets trounced by an unranked team on National TV. The unranked team is Houston, now 9-2. unranked Houston 9-2, trounced #5 Louisville 9-2 unranked Houston 9-2, trounced #9 Oklahoma 8-2 The Committee thinks little of Houston, so little that they are unranked. Yet, Houston has trounced 2 teams the Committee thinks are Top 10 teams and has the same record. Houston is being disrespected by the Committee because Houston plays in the American and not the Big XII. What has Oklahoma done this year that's impressed the Committee? Oklahoma's wins 6-3 Baylor 5-4 TCU 5-4 K-State 5-5 Texas 4-6 La Monroe 4-6 Texas Tech 2-8 Iowa State 1-9 Kansas ^^^^ Those 8 wins have the Committee thinking they are #9 in the Nation. Yet, Houston now has 2 Top 10 wins with the same record as Oklahoma and smashed Oklahoma and Houston is unranked. I don't think the Committee is full of experts, I think they are full of it. A) You do realize that Houston beat Louisville last night correct? The rankings come out on Tuesday. B) Houston ranking is meaningless since they only take the team with the best ranking that is a conference champion in the Group of 5. They can't win their division (Navy) let alone their conference
|
|
|
Post by Rambo McClain on Nov 18, 2016 12:23:12 GMT -5
^^^ You do realize Houston is 9-2, the exact same record as #5 Lousiville, a team Houston just slaughtered You do realize Houston is 9-2, a better record than #9 Oklahoma, a team Houston trounced
Yet the Committee had Houston UNRANKED and those two in the top 10. Does the Committee know anything about football or do they just guess? Who has Oklahoma beat to deserve their ranking? I know who Houston has beat, yet the Committee will still have Louisville and Oklahoma ranked ahead of Houston next week. I'm really thinking the Committee is a sham, and that it's a puppet of the Power 5 Conferences to keep Group of 5 teams ranked much lower than they should.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2016 14:01:24 GMT -5
^^^ You do realize Houston is 9-2, the exact same record as #5 Lousiville, a team Houston just slaughtered You do realize Houston is 9-2, a better record than #9 Oklahoma, a team Houston trounced Yet the Committee had Houston UNRANKED and those two in the top 10. Does the Committee know anything about football or do they just guess? Who has Oklahoma beat to deserve their ranking? I know who Houston has beat, yet the Committee will still have Louisville and Oklahoma ranked ahead of Houston next week. I'm really thinking the Committee is a sham, and that it's a puppet of the Power 5 Conferences to keep Group of 5 teams ranked much lower than they should. You clearly don't get it. The rankings only matter if you are in the top 4. It's irrelevant if you are ranked 5-128. If Houston didn't lose to Navy and SMU your argument would hold water, but they did. Now if they were in the Big 12 things may be different, but if my aunt had balls she would be my uncle
|
|
|
Post by Willard Fillmore on Nov 18, 2016 21:29:47 GMT -5
TRUTH!
|
|