Set down rules so that each year they have the same picking criteria? Determine a point system of sorts. so many points for record,so many points for head to head matchup. so many points for conference strength, and so many points for the pollls. It seems like every year they change what is important. Ohio State may well be the BEST team in the Country,but I just can't see how you can put them in the playoffs and leave PENN STATE out when PENN STATE won the conference and beat OHIO STATE head to head. To much interpretation where as if you would state what is most important in order everyone would know. No Penn State then should have been no Ohio State to me.
Why can't the Championship Committee
- Thread starter etowncatfan
- Start date
Because the committee loves Urban Meyer and they desperately want a Saban-Meyer rematch, whether it be in the semi-final or in the NCG.
Makes way too much sense to pick the top 4 P5 conference winners. By letting the teams win their way in would take away all the politics. This way it can become a self-fulfilling prophecy. The B10 is the best conference so those wins are more valuable. Blah-Blah-Blah. Yada-Yada-Yada.
The committee has said they want the four best teams in the playoffs. Overall, OSU is better than PSU.
The best thing is to go to more teams in the playoffs.
The best thing is to go to more teams in the playoffs.
Yeah, because if you have a 68 team tournament, number 69 won't complain.
Simple solution: 5 Power 5 champs + 1 wildcard. Seed 1-6 in whatever order, top two bye into the semi-finals, 3 v. 6/4 v. 5 two weeks after selection day at the home stadium of the higher seed, winners advance to semis. IMO.
USM beat UK. Do you think they are better than UK or were they just better in the season opener?
How can you say that when Michigan beat Penn State during the year??
By a score of 49-10???
Or maybe they are just the two best coaches with two of the best teams.
You give the answer right there. In theory, this should be simple. It's not about achievements, it's about picking the 4 best teams. I think both Ohio State and Michigan are among the 4 best, so if it were me, they'd be in.
Ask yourself, who'd be favored if Penn State played either? It wouldn't be Penn State. It really is that simple.
Or it should be. The problem is, if you try to distinguish between "best team" and "best resume", you can't do the first without referencing the second. I can say I think Michigan is one of the 4 best, based just on what I see. But if I take the next step, if I make any other argument in support of Michigan, I am then into their resume.
Just heard Kanell say something like "Ohio State may be the best team, but....." - no! There is no "but", if Ohio State is the best team, they have to go. No more talk. Everyone is forgetting something we learned in grade school: the best team doesn't always win the game. That's life. So PSU beat Ohio State. But they're not a better team.
It's real easy to leave Penn State out. They have more losses than anyone else. OSU has wins over Oklahoma, Wisconsin and Michigan. I'd agree with you if Penn State also only had one loss but they don't.
The BCS ranking system would have been fine. Should have kept it and then just take the top four teams and minimize the human bias, which is what led to voters determining the 2006 and 2011 champion.
How many of you took this stance when Alabama got into the title game in 2011 despite not even winning their freaking division? Because if you advocated for it to be okay then, you sure as heck can't do it now.
Last edited:
I don't agree with byes in college football because it's just human bias.
Major college football is the only sport that can't seem to have a proper postseason. The lower levels of college football can do it so there's no excuse for them not to be able to do it up top.
It's about crappy bowls to make money. They're meaningless but since they mean so much to the schools, you can keep them. But have a proper playoff and treat the bowl games as the NIT, which it is.
Get rid of the conference championship games and on top of that, you have to find a way to not have it so slanted to the big schools. Teams like Boise State and Utah in the past deserved their shot and got shut out. That's BS.
No way in hell are conferences getting rid of conference championship games..it's not going to happen.
I have posted before that the best solution is an 8 team playoff. 5 Power 5 conference winners, highest ranked non-Power 5 champion and 2 at large teams. First round games are hosted at the higher seeded schools and the semis and finals are neutral sites. This years field would have been:
Bama - SEC
Washington - PAC12
Penn Stare - BIG
Oklahoma - Big 12
Clemson - ACC
Western Michigan - non-Power 5
Ohio State - at large
Michigan - at large
I agree with you. I know it would never happen. It was based on my ideology. I disagree with conference tournaments in basketball and football. I think they're pointless and the regular season should be the one to determine everything.
8 team playoff should just use the four BCS bowls as regionals then make it a "Final Four" like we have now. I'm just saying since we're adding one more game for everyone, cut out the conference championship game.
I understand what you're saying, I just think we both realistically know it will not happen. I also don't think it would not be smart to have first round games at a neutral site. You've already had a major neutral site game for the conference championship. To ask a fan base to potentially travel to another 3 neutral site games would be tough. Do it like FCS and play those early games at the higher seeded stadium.