David’s got a point here. Parts of the BCS formula were severely flawed *** cough *** Coaches Poll *** cough ***, but at least you knew where teams stood. What you’ve got now with the CFP is a subjective process with almost no accountability. That’s a recipe for further expansion, which I suspect is a feature, not a bug, for the people who put it together.
I mean, say what you want about the tenets of the BCS, Dude, at least it’s an ethos.
Filed under BCS/Playoffs
Get The Picture 
That header is one of many reasons why this blog is the best.
LikeLike
Calmer than you are.
LikeLike
You want a toe? I can get you a toe, believe me. There are ways, Dude. You don’t wanna know about it, believe me.
LikeLike
Also, Chinaman is not the preferred nomenclature Dude–Asian American, Please.
LikeLike
And a “Turn it up to 11” reference in the linked video. A double dose of movie gold!
LikeLike
Yeah well…that’s just…like, your opinion man.
One that I whole heartedly agree with.
LikeLike
sorry–that was meant as a reply to playmakers in space up top.
LikeLike
The Committee is a better process than the three headed monster the BCS was though. They just need to get rid of the ADs and not be asked to do the impossible task of putting 5+ pounds of champions into a four pound bag. The media members who were allowed a peek under the kimona recently seemed pretty impressed with the depth and fairness of the process. Of course, it isn’t hard to design a better mule than a combo of computer nerds, tired school SIDs, and even more tired old guys who don’t have to explain anything, to anyone. But it is subjective, it will always be 2nd guessed and leave many unhappy. The argument loses much of it’s steam when you guarantee the 5 Power conferences a seat and only argument about the best “other champ”, and the 2 best stand-ins. Naturally, eight teams will not please everyone in any year but it takes away the strongly legit complaints. And….it is more great CFB, don’t know how any fan coulod be unhappy about that.
LikeLike
“members who were allowed a peek under the kimona recently seemed pretty impressed with the depth and fairness of the process”
but some think it still needs some trimming
LikeLike
I think a light-headed Pat Haden whose “hands are full” and also ” juggles extensive obligations outside USC as a member of more than a dozen corporate and nonprofit boards” …..is the right man for the job.
LikeLike
Speaking of mission creep, there’s also George O’Leary who, except for 12 hours a year, has a lot of time on his hands
LikeLike
What happened last year (particularly because it was the FIRST year) with TCU was absolutely a vile abomination. A team ranked #3 won its final game 59-0 and was dropped to #5 and out of the playoff in favor of a team that everyone had been saying all season long had no chance to make it because of an early season loss to a shitty opponent. That certainly doesn’t install confidence that the process is fair and unbiased. Everybody in that room knew the names of the schools involved and I guarantee that trade-offs were made (I’ll vote for your conference’s team if you’ll vote for my conference’s team). Maybe all the committee wasn’t in on it, but certain members of the committee had private meetings with side agreements and the B1G came out on top of the Big 12. The selection process had little to do with who the best teams were and everything to do with politics of the rankest sort. Face it. The selection process is crooked. The “who” is more important than “who’s best.” The BCS process was at least blind as the computers didn’t care about the team’s names and the selection criteria were set in stone before the season started. Was the BCS flawed? Yes. Was the BCS crooked. No. What we have now is crooked. If they wanted an honest system all they had to do was have the computers select the top 4 instead of top 2. They used the expansion to 4 teams as an excuse to scrap the old system because 2 SEC teams had made the BCSNCG and the commissioners of the other conferences were going to see to it that never happened again. So they created a system they could manipulate. I also guarantee you that factors like TV ratings, markets and fan travel quotients for the teams in the running were taken into account. This committee is disgusting and should be disbanded immediately. Go back to the computers. If there were problems with the computer method tweak the computers to make it fairer but don’t have something that is so patently political decide who is in the playoff to decide the national champion. The idea was to get the 4 best teams. This committee doesn’t do that and it never was intended to do that.
LikeLike
It will be 8 teams soon enough. UGA might make the playoffs if they keep expanding.
LikeLike
Yup, when they make it 64 teams
LikeLike
Yeah, the Georgia program may need a play-in game to be one of the 64 … do you look at anything related to the Georgia football program objectively?
This wasn’t even a good attempt at gallows humor.
LikeLike
Yup, I like how CMR moved the program beyond scooter “gate”
LikeLike
Take the committee completely out of it, and move to objective rules for playoff spots.
Expand to 8 teams, conference champions from P5 conferences get automatic bids, save the other 3 for wild card spots that go to teams with the best W/L records against FBS opponents (with common tiebreaker formulae).
Wouldn’t make everyone happy, but it would be a helluva lot saner than whatever Jeff Long and Barry Alvarez fart out of their brains.
LikeLike
I am all for a totally objective method for the 3 wild card spots but it would be crazy to allow the W/L record to determine the spots. The AAC has three undefeated teams going into the weekend, three also in the Big 12, and two in the Big 3…Do you really think their schedules re comparable to many who have 1-2 losses? We have been down the road before, for decades, and honestly that makes the Coaches Poll and the worst of the computer rankings look more reliable. Talk about scheduling cupcakes getting a boost! Some of those Power5 conferences are 80% cupcakes, much less the remaining five conferences.
Each Power 5 Champ, highest rated non-Power5/Independent, and the two highest rated teams not included in those six teams listed first. Cannot go wrong, and every Power 5 team has a slot not dependent on opinions of others. Unless we go to 4 sixteen conferences,we cannot get it any fairer,, imo.
LikeLike
Weight the computer calculations based on the whole grid of competition. If some team is playing the 103rd strongest schedule winning 12 games ain’t as good as the team with the 2nd strongest schedule winning 11 games, etc. Do it at the end of the season when all the results of all the games are in. Any computer programmer worth his salt can create a program that does that for all of the teams in the FBS from top to bottom. We can give an “anchor” award to the worst team in the nation, too.
LikeLike
I think it should expand to 6 and stay there. P5 champions and the next best team ranked 1-6. 6 plays 3, 5 plays 4…1 and 2 get a bye week. Then 6-3 winner plays 2 and 5-4 winner plays 1. Winners of those play for the NC.
Simple.
LikeLike
Eight is simpler, more objectivity enters the picture. Glad to see that the “Choose Four” Committee is now being called to task.
Agree with many concerning the polls. Consider the AP poll to have less subjectivity (because none approach objectivity in it’s primary definition) than others and it should be weighted more. Take the final eight top teams ranked.
LikeLike
This could be a lot more…ah..ah..ah..ah…complex…I mean it’s not just, ..ah..it might not be just such a simple..ah……you know?
LikeLike