Easy fix to the CFP committee

[Jefffrog1993]

I don't understand the fixation on "conference champions". Back in the day when every conference was 10 or less teams and everyone played one another it was different. Once conferences split and these stupid championship games started being played (which usually DON'T match up the two best teams in the conference and whose participants are usually benefactors of the stupid HTH tie-breaker in which the home field got a huge advantage), the value of a championship dropped significantly in my opinion. And if TCU goes 9-0 in conference play and loses the championship game to a team that finished 7-2, you're going to consider the 7-2 team the "champion"? [ What the heck? ], that makes no sense. Conference championships these days are borne from money grabbing and TV right fees and little else.

Let me try to simplify it for you. If you can't win your half of a conference you shouldn't play for a National Title period. If you can't win both halves of a conference i.e. the title game then you shouldn't play for a National Title period. A National Champion is supposed to be better than all teams in all conferences why is that so hard to understand?

Having the fewest loses is a really stupid way to pick a team to play for a title right up there with the following:

Eye test, game control, best recruits, biggest alumni, best ratings on t.v., strength of schedule, Vegas odds makers, conference bias, best wins, best loses, current roster injuries etc, stupid committee made up of biased azz clownz picking teams from the conferences they were affiliated with, media, computer polls, best looking cheerleaders, the t.v. network desires, and finally fans arguing on message boards. Feel free to add to my list of subjective bull [ Finebaum ] any of the ones I left out.

 

[Wexahu]

Let me try to simplify it for you. If you can't win your half of a conference you shouldn't play for a National Title period. If you can't win both halves of a conference i.e. the title game then you shouldn't play for a National Title period. A National Champion is supposed to be better than all teams in all conferences why is that so hard to understand?

Having the fewest loses is a really stupid way to pick a team to play for a title right up there with the following:

Eye test, game control, best recruits, biggest alumni, best ratings on t.v., strength of schedule, Vegas odds makers, conference bias, best wins, best loses, current roster injuries etc, stupid committee made up of biased azz clownz picking teams from the conferences they were affiliated with, media, computer polls, best looking cheerleaders, the t.v. network desires, and finally fans arguing on message boards. Feel free to add to my list of subjective bull [ steaming pile of Orgeron ] any of the ones I left out.

Should we have been able to play for a National Title in 2014? Because by the method in which every single tie is broken, we didn't win the conference, Baylor did. Yeah, you can go on and say we did because we were "co-champions" but the minute they mandate that a team would HAVE to win a conference championship in order to play for the National Title, they'd have handed it to Baylor because of the HTH, which would have basically rendered their loss to WVU as meaningless and taken TCU out of consideration. I think that's [ deposit from a bull that looks like Art Briles ].

 

[RollToad]

Let me try to simplify it for you. If you can't win your half of a conference you shouldn't play for a National Title period. If you can't win both halves of a conference i.e. the title game then you shouldn't play for a National Title period. A National Champion is supposed to be better than all teams in all conferences why is that so hard to understand?

Having the fewest loses is a really stupid way to pick a team to play for a title right up there with the following:

Eye test, game control, best recruits, biggest alumni, best ratings on t.v., strength of schedule, Vegas odds makers, conference bias, best wins, best loses, current roster injuries etc, stupid committee made up of biased azz clownz picking teams from the conferences they were affiliated with, media, computer polls, best looking cheerleaders, the t.v. network desires, and finally fans arguing on message boards. Feel free to add to my list of subjective bull [ steaming pile of Orgeron ] any of the ones I left out.

I think Jefff just made sense...

 

[Jefffrog1993]

Should we have been able to play for a National Title in 2014? Because by the method in which every single tie is broken, we didn't win the conference, Baylor did. Yeah, you can go on and say we did because we were "co-champions" but the minute they mandate that a team would HAVE to win a conference championship in order to play for the National Title, they'd have handed it to Baylor because of the HTH, which would have basically rendered their loss to WVU as meaningless and taken TCU out of consideration. I think that's [ deposit from a bull that looks like Art Briles ].

If we knew the rules going in I would have been fine with it. The rules stated co champs. If we played them on a neutral field we would have crushed them.

 

[Brog]

Would have been interesting to read Wexahu's comments back in 1935 and 1939 when, gasp, look who the National Champs were.

 

[gohornedfrogs]

Would have been interesting to read Wexahu's comments back in 1935 and 1939 when, gasp, look who the National Champs were.

Yeah, never mind that his mighty Buckeyes have been Big 10 co-champs something like 18 times.

 

[AroundWorldFrog]

And Wexahu Bussing UNDER the tables.

 

[ifrog]

Would have been interesting to read Wexahu's comments back in 1935 and 1939 when, gasp, look who the National Champs were.

Here is Wex in 1935:


“Should we have been able to play for a National Title in 1935? Because by the method in which every single tie is broken, we didn't win the conference, SMU did. Yeah, you can go on and say we did because we were "co-champions" but the minute they mandate that a team would HAVE to win a conference championship in order to play for the National Title, they'd have handed it to SMU because of the HTH.

It doesn’t matter that we beat LSU in the Sugar Bowl because we only scored 3 points. You have an offense that looks like it’d struggle scoring against air sometimes, can’t really run the ball with any consistency and basically have zero downfield passing game, and get totally outclassed two times by a team that had a lot harder time beating every other halfway decent team in the conference. Sammy Baugh throws off his back foot and honestly his backup may be a better QB. LSU deserves it more than SMU or TCU.”

 

[gohornedfrogs]

The very last sentence, yes. Pretty sure that was tongue in cheek, at least that's how I took it. The main point of the post was again, a general thought on the cfb playoff stuff, which again, most fans would express as well.

Just because someone mentions something about the committee doesn't mean they're looking at it from TCU centered glasses.

I just heard Mark Packer and Joel Klatt go off on the committee a few minutes ago on SiriusXM. Packer said he thinks that they should televise the committee voting. Klatt railed on the fact that a week BEFORE the championship game, the margin between Alabama and Ohio State was razor thin. Then, after Bama stayed at home and Ohio State beat the team they voted #6 in the country after the game, Bama was "unequivocally" better. They also talked about how their talking points constantly change and contradict each other.

So to think that the ideas expressed here are the products of a purple-colored-glasses' vacuum is simply ridiculous. Fans (and even radio personalities) all over the country are not happy with this committee.

 

[HeidelFrog]

I just heard Mark Packer and Joel Klatt go off on the committee a few minutes ago on SiriusXM. Packer said he thinks that they should televise the committee voting. Klatt railed on the fact that a week BEFORE the championship game, the margin between Alabama and Ohio State was razor thin. Then, after Bama stayed at home and Ohio State beat the team they voted #6 in the country after the game, Bama was "unequivocally" better. They also talked about how their talking points constantly change and contradict each other.

So to think that the ideas expressed here are the products of a purple-colored-glasses' vacuum is simply ridiculous. Fans (and even radio personalities) all over the country are not happy with this committee.

#NotMyPlayoffs

 

[Peacefrog]

C'mon man, that's just lame. It really is.

Why would making the deliberations public be lame? If kept secret then there is always room for conspiracy. Make it public. It's going to make some fans really, really mad if you do though.

 

[Wexahu]

Why would making the deliberations public be lame? If kept secret then there is always room for conspiracy. Make it public. It's going to make some fans really, really mad if you do though.

I was referring to the “to screw TCU” part. Maybe it was said jokingly, I don’t know. It’s hard to decipher, sometimes I read stuff that almost has to be a joke but it isn’t.

 

[ftwfrog]

BCS formula.

2 “voter” rankings +
Analytics

4 teams. Solved

I’d much rather have 300+ something people voting than a committee made up of people that are understandably biased.

 

[Spike]

I can remedy the CFP Committee with one of these.

More bullying

 

[AroundWorldFrog]

I still think that the potential for corruption with the current system is huge. And I got pooped on for saying that. Olympics, soccer, the bowl system, etc., all have been corrupt to some degree. When hundreds of millions of dollars are on the line, who's to stop some Bama guy from dropping a pastry box with $100,000 on Hocutt's front porch? Seriously.

 

[HeidelFrog]

I still think that the potential for corruption with the current system is huge. And I got pooped on for saying that. Olympics, soccer, the bowl system, etc., all have been corrupt to some degree. When hundreds of millions of dollars are on the line, who's to stop some Bama guy from dropping a pastry box with $100,000 on Hocutt's front porch? Seriously.

Your exactly right. I personally don’t believe it is corrupt but the potential is there. It happens in politics all the time in this country and the CFP process is just like politics.

Everyone has inherent bias. That’s a fact. It’s based on your personal background. You may think you are being fair but you are not. You may have one really strong personality in the room that influences everyone to think like him/her. You don’t think these non football types in the room listen in awe to the ex football coaches saying who is the best. It’s just a bad situation.

 

[Wexahu]

I just heard Mark Packer and Joel Klatt go off on the committee a few minutes ago on SiriusXM. Packer said he thinks that they should televise the committee voting. Klatt railed on the fact that a week BEFORE the championship game, the margin between Alabama and Ohio State was razor thin. Then, after Bama stayed at home and Ohio State beat the team they voted #6 in the country after the game, Bama was "unequivocally" better. They also talked about how their talking points constantly change and contradict each other.

So to think that the ideas expressed here are the products of a purple-colored-glasses' vacuum is simply ridiculous. Fans (and even radio personalities) all over the country are not happy with this committee.

I think Joel Klatt is wrong, but fair enough. So I guess you thought Ohio State should have been the #4 team? I can tell you with absolute certainty, had OSU made the playoffs again there is virtually nobody on here who would have been ok with it. Nobody. It would have been a total [ Finebaum ]show on here.

From I can tell, most everyone thinks the committee got the right teams so I don't understand why people are so beside themselves over the committee. I mean, if they get the right teams, isn't that what their job is all about? It is just like an automatic knee-jerk reaction to complain no matter what? They don't make the rules.

 

[Jefffrog1993]

I think Joel Klatt is wrong, but fair enough. So I guess you thought Ohio State should have been the #4 team? I can tell you with absolute certainty, had OSU made the playoffs again there is virtually nobody on here who would have been ok with it. Nobody. It would have been a total [ steaming pile of Orgeron ]show on here.

From I can tell, most everyone thinks the committee got the right teams so I don't understand why people are so beside themselves over the committee. I mean, if they get the right teams, isn't that what their job is all about? It is just like an automatic knee-jerk reaction to complain no matter what? They don't make the rules.

They make up new rules every year! The only rule is there are no rules! Get the money to the SEC and Big 10 screw the rest.

 

[HeidelFrog]

I think Joel Klatt is wrong, but fair enough. So I guess you thought Ohio State should have been the #4 team? I can tell you with absolute certainty, had OSU made the playoffs again there is virtually nobody on here who would have been ok with it. Nobody. It would have been a total [ steaming pile of Orgeron ]show on here.

From I can tell, most everyone thinks the committee got the right teams so I don't understand why people are so beside themselves over the committee. I mean, if they get the right teams, isn't that what their job is all about? It is just like an automatic knee-jerk reaction to complain no matter what? They don't make the rules.

Again your assumptions are wrong. Millions of millions of people think Ohio State should be in over Alabama including me and most everyone I’ve talked to...

If Ohio State scheduled Mercer week 2 instead of Oklahoma. Their only loss is to Iowa. Who is your top 4?

 

[Wexahu]

Again your assumptions are wrong. Millions of millions of people think Ohio State should be in over Alabama including me and most everyone I’ve talked to...

If Ohio State scheduled Mercer week 2 instead of Oklahoma. Their only loss is to Iowa. Who is your top 4?

It's really, really, really funny that you, or anyone else, are on here complaining that Ohio State didn't get picked for the playoffs, and using that as a way to complain about the committee. That's almost unbelievable.

Clemson
Georgia
Oklahoma
Ohio State

It would've been interesting because OU would have had to climb a pretty good ways because after the Iowa State loss, and without the Ohio State win, they'd have been ranked pretty low. I think the two blowout wins over us would've been enough to get them in though in the end.