Seeding has to be fixed immediately

#51
#51
imavolfan said:
Take Tennessee out of it… for Oregon to win their conference and be the #1 team and be rewarded with the toughest road to the championship while the team they beat gets put into a much easier path is atrocious. Joel Klatt was right when he said this.
View attachment 704448
Click to expand...

Klatt is an a-hole, but that was the first thing I noticed when looking at the bracket. Penn State and Texas got rewarded for losing CCG's by getting the easiest trips to the final four, while the unbeaten #1 seed will have the toughest path.
 
#54
#54
volfan102455 said:
Totally agree with fixing it.

It should be more like Basketball - you have the 5 automatic bids which are decided by seeding the champions of all the conferences. Then you select the 7 at large teams. You then take those 12 teams and seed them 1 to 12. And you don't do this until "selection day".

This maintains the importance of the championship games as the winner gets a bid, while ensuring the next 7 best teams are selected and placed accordingly.

By not publishing a poll every week and waiting until selection day, you avoid all the conversation about the loser of the games. Everyone knows they are not guaranteed to be "IN" if they don't win that game.
Click to expand...

volfan102455 said:
It will be like it was when there was just 4 - if you want to ensure you are in, you must win - otherwise you wait.

I think the publication of the rankings each week is a big issue. It doesn't let them select the 7 at large teams based on the entire season of work.
Click to expand...

Your idea is an excellent one, but misses the point that the whole point of this charade is to create controversy and chaos, and keep CFB in the news 24-7 and keep building it until the big show on "Selection Sunday".
 
#56
#56
volfeeva said:
Besides being a meaningless game in todays play off environment, that extra game is another opportunity for key players to get injured and out for the remaining games. It's all risk and low reward. Also I've heard all day from sports pundits that the conference championship games CANNOT punish a team for losing, but at the same time it can reward a team for winning--makes no sense.
Everybody knows that Bama would beat SMU head to head, and SMU schedule shows they played nobody , but yet we have to pretend they deserve to be there because they beat up a bunch of other nobody's and have a winning record
Click to expand...

The SMU thing is bad enough, as is giving byes to two teams that are essentially sacrificial lambs for Penn State and Texas to get to the final four. But the way they "rewarded" Oregon for being an unbeaten conference champ takes the cake.

It's hard to imagine these bureaucrats could sit there and make believe that this is a legitimate draw, with a G5 team and a weak conference "champion" getting byes that essentially roll out red carpets for a couple of the 'preferred' elite schools who, not so coincidentally lost their CCG's. Forget 'hard' to imagine. Impossible is more like it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: volfeeva
#57
#57
utvolz98 said:
Go back to the BCS and let the computers rank the teams.
Click to expand...

Well, you can suffer from bias from whoever is feeding the computers, but better than a small group making it up .

Too many examples of interns filling out coaches brackets, and big pro city writers getting votes.
 
#59
#59
UTFranklinVol said:
They have to stop pretending that the B12 ACC and MWC are power conferences anymore they are group of 7 conferences. Conference champs should not get an auto bid. Just rank the damn teams. Tennessee was ranked the 6th best team in the country by the AP and Coaches and the 7th best team by the CFP committee and yet here we are playing on the road when we are widely recognied as better.

By their own damn ranking Tennessee should be hosting SMU and I think that's correct. That's where we belong.

They need to fix it.
Click to expand...

the current criteria was the only way to get enough votes to setup a 12 team playoff. Without that, we would still be doing the 4 team.

Now, I expect discussions to be had on changes but it will be interesting to see if they happen. You have a 130 administrations which will vote on the changes.
 
#60
#60
sami said:
Yep, no doubt. But the worst thing about this bracket is that Penn State and Texas get rewarded for losing CCG's by getting free rides into the final four of this stupid "playoff". Oregon is unbeaten and the #1 seed and has by far the toughest draw of the seeded teams. This thing is an absolute farce.
Click to expand...
I said before the game that Oregon would have an easier path by losing. They would’ve had not only a home game but a home game on the other side of the country against a crap team.
 
#63
#63
Just as blatant is the gift that Penn State gets after losing their conference championship game. Hosting SMU? And then Boise in the next round? That’s about as easy a road to the semi finals as you can get.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 99grad
#64
#64
Honestly, with parity ruling college football now, the committee's job was pretty impossible. No matter how they stacked it, folks were going to be pissed. That being said, it probably makes the most sense to go with a BCS style ranking, and go with 1-12.
 
#66
#66
Mark my words! Next year this will grow to 16 teams so every ones favorite team, Alabama will get in no matter what.
The playoffs will one day render all of the bowls obsolete.
 
#67
#67
sami said:
Your idea is an excellent one, but misses the point that the whole point of this charade is to create controversy and chaos, and keep CFB in the news 24-7 and keep building it until the big show on "Selection Sunday".
Click to expand...

I know that - but they could keep speculating based on the other polls and what they think from week to week. They don't need a special poll to do that.

The current method backs them into a corner with the "well the other teams did not add any new data points" comment and can't move around each other. Actually, the outcome of the championship games do provide data points on strengths / weaknesses around the teams that did not play.

It also gives the conferences and the media a chance to whine and carry on and play politics that influence the outcomes. A one and done and it is over with all that happening only once.
 
#68
#68
mscc1998 said:
Mark my words! Next year this will grow to 16 teams so every ones favorite team, Alabama will get in no matter what.
The playoffs will one day render all of the bowls obsolete.
Click to expand...

16 actually works better - get rid of the byes - everyone plays a play in game to the quarterfinals. You can also seed them 1-16 since the byes are no longer in play.
 
#70
#70
volfan102455 said:
I know that - but they could keep speculating based on the other polls and what they think from week to week. They don't need a special poll to do that.

The current method backs them into a corner with the "well the other teams did not add any new data points" comment and can't move around each other. Actually, the outcome of the championship games do provide data points on strengths / weaknesses around the teams that did not play.

It also gives the conferences and the media a chance to whine and carry on and play politics that influence the outcomes. A one and done and it is over with all that happening only once.
Click to expand...

Totally agree, but they want the whining and carrying on by the conferences, teams, and media, and the unending attention it brings. For the last month, all anyone has talked about are the rankings and what the "committee" could possibly be thinking. Today and for the foreseeable future until this show starts, it is all people will talk about. Mission accomplished.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: GordonC
#71
#71
People complaining about the expanded playoffs already? I am shocked I tell you. And when it expands to 16, there will be complaints. 20? Complaints. 24? Complaints. And so on and so on.
 
#73
#73
StickMan said:
Honestly, with parity ruling college football now, the committee's job was pretty impossible. No matter how they stacked it, folks were going to be pissed. That being said, it probably makes the most sense to go with a BCS style ranking, and go with 1-12.
Click to expand...

They'll never give up the control that a "committee" gives them, and if anything they'll go to 'automatic bids' per conference for even more control for the conferences.

The fair and logical solution is a BCS type computer system and straight ranking from 1-12 or 1-16 when they inevitably expand the playoff, but I almost guarantee the only changes will make it worse, not better.

This is all about $$$$$, and with that kind of money at stake they aren't going to give up control of the process.
 
#75
#75
HighRockvol said:
Huge big 10 bias, Indiana, Penn state beat absolutely no one and got rewarded for it
Click to expand...
Neither did Texas. If you eliminate the champ seedlings from ACC & B12, Texas & Penn St would have them. Neither have proven anything except they can beat bad/average teams.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top