(01-02-2015 04:16 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(01-02-2015 04:09 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(01-02-2015 04:06 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(01-02-2015 03:49 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(01-02-2015 03:35 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  Show me where there are any absolute rules in ranking college footbal teams. There are opinions about who is best and why. I think we have a reasonable argument, backed up by objective measures like Sagarin and other computer ratings and ststistical measures. others will have other opinions and objective reasons they think differently.

The problem with the current system is that a team with a legit argument that it is the best team is left out. Luckily this is a fixable flaw.

So you think Sagarin isn't flawed? Are you kidding me? Sagarin has Georgia with 3 losses at #5. Ole Miss, Miss St, and Auburn are #8, #9, #10...and they all lost??? Arkansas with 6 losses is #11?? Sagarin has always been flawed.

Did I say that? No. I think there are no objective measures that aren't flawed and no subjective opinions that aren't biased. I do think that both are valuable though and give some indication of strength.

I think when you put it all together we have a reasonable argument that we are the best team in the country. Vegas loves is, the computer's love us and we have impressive wins (gave 9 teams their worst loss of the season, most of anyone). But the point isn't to argue we are the best. It's that we have a legit argument. It is my opinion that the playoff should have all teams with a legit argument. I think 8 would do the trick.

The old BCS system which was a mix of computers and humans still had the 4 teams as Bama, FSU, Oregon, Ohio State. Your argument loses it's validity especially after you didn't "really" win your conference and the others teams did.

I, of course, disagree, but that isn't the point. The point is that we have a good argument that various power ratings and prognosticators agree with, and the current system excluded us. It seems reasonable to expand it to 8 to capture all the teams who are legit contenders.

The main reason why 8 doesn't work is because most years, teams 5-8 aren't "legit" contenders. They are just really good teams that can knock off a top team on a given day. Doesn't mean they deserve to be in the playoff. Heck I believe Georgia Tech can beat a lot of the top teams, but they don't deserve to be in the playoffs.

(01-02-2015 03:09 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(01-02-2015 03:06 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-02-2015 02:58 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(01-02-2015 02:54 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  I really think TCU is one of the two best teams and there is objective data to support that. I think a playoff where there is a team left out with a legitimate argument for #1 is flawed. I think it is likely there will be other #5 teams in the future with a good argument. That is why we need 8 teams. I really doubt the #9 team will ever have a legit argument for #1. It's a better cutoff.

That is why there is a TCU love fest. It's an important topic of discussion for the future.

Show me where a top team gives up 61 points and loses. ... Plays one less game than it's peers...and didn't beat anyone of note outside of it's conference in the regular season and deserves to be in the conversation for #1.

TCU beat Minnesota. That's better than anyone Ohio St. beat ooc. Perhaps better than anyone FSU beat ooc (Oklahoma St. and Notre Dame) and comparable to who Alabama beat (WVU). And TCU was the only one to win decisively.

I thought it was 1 Oregon, 2 Alabama, 3 TCU. The only thing that's changed my mind is now I think its 1 Oregon, 2 TCU, 3 Ohio St.

But Ohio State beating Michigan State AT Michigan State is a far, far better win than any regular season win that TCU had.


Evidence PROVES that Michigan State is better than TCU, so no way that any logical person could rank TCU ahead of Ohio State :)

Michigan St. beat one team in Sagarin's top 30 prior to Baylor.
TCU crushed KSU who is sitting at #11 right now in the polls. Almost noone outside the Big 10 believes MSU is better than TCU.

There's a very good argument that TCU is one of the top 4 teams in the country. But that's no certainty either. The problem with many football fans is they speak in absolutes on things that clearly are not. Given the minimal nature of meaningful out of conference games, people try to read too much into them. That, and the fact that one game doesn't always tell you that much (Virginia Tech beat Ohio State for god's sake).

So maybe TCU was one of the top 4 teams. Or maybe they were not. The one thing TCU did to themselves was lose a game. In a sense, they created their own problems. So I can't feel too sorry for them.

Only one team did everything that was asked of them. And that was Florida State. They were not impressive. But they did win every time before the bowls. So they're the only team the had to be in the Final 4. The rest were just arguments. And maybe TCU got politicked out because they're not a "name" program and in the wrong conference. But if they hold on against Baylor, there is no argument.

What happened to TCU this year isn't radically different than what happened to Alabama last year. Alabama lost a tight game, on the road, to a conference opponent. Without that, they'd go to the national title game. It's a game Alabama easily could have won. But didn't. Instead Auburn went. And TCU's biggest problem this year is Baylor stood in their way. Even if OSU/Alabama/Oregon aren't taken, Baylor likely gets the selection over TCU. Because of head-2-head.

If we are going to expand the playoff and we should. Then it needs to go to 16 team. That way all the little guys can be included. We need to turn the Cotton, Fiesta, Orange, and Peach bowls into four, four team tournaments. Then have the Rose and Sugar bowls as semi-finals and then a National championship game. This way no one gets left out.

(01-02-2015 04:51 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  If we are going to expand the playoff and we should. Then it needs to go to 16 team. That way all the little guys can be included. We need to turn the Cotton, Fiesta, Orange, and Peach bowls into four, four team tournaments. Then have the Rose and Sugar bowls as semi-finals and then a National championship game. This way no one gets left out.

8 is plenty, hawg. Although IMO that still makes the season a bit too long. Each game added puts the kids more at risk of injury, which nobody seems to want to consider.

(01-02-2015 04:49 PM)Jericho Wrote:  There's a very good argument that TCU is one of the top 4 teams in the country. But that's no certainty either. The problem with many football fans is they speak in absolutes on things that clearly are not. Given the minimal nature of meaningful out of conference games, people try to read too much into them. That, and the fact that one game doesn't always tell you that much (Virginia Tech beat Ohio State for god's sake).

So maybe TCU was one of the top 4 teams. Or maybe they were not. The one thing TCU did to themselves was lose a game. In a sense, they created their own problems. So I can't feel too sorry for them.

Only one team did everything that was asked of them. And that was Florida State. They were not impressive. But they did win every time before the bowls. So they're the only team the had to be in the Final 4. The rest were just arguments. And maybe TCU got politicked out because they're not a "name" program and in the wrong conference. But if they hold on against Baylor, there is no argument.

What happened to TCU this year isn't radically different than what happened to Alabama last year. Alabama lost a tight game, on the road, to a conference opponent. Without that, they'd go to the national title game. It's a game Alabama easily could have won. But didn't. Instead Auburn went. And TCU's biggest problem this year is Baylor stood in their way. Even if OSU/Alabama/Oregon aren't taken, Baylor likely gets the selection over TCU. Because of head-2-head.

Oregon did beat Arizona in the Pac 12 CCG, so they did end up beating everyone on their schedule as well.

(01-02-2015 04:42 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-02-2015 03:09 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(01-02-2015 03:06 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-02-2015 02:58 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(01-02-2015 02:54 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  I really think TCU is one of the two best teams and there is objective data to support that. I think a playoff where there is a team left out with a legitimate argument for #1 is flawed. I think it is likely there will be other #5 teams in the future with a good argument. That is why we need 8 teams. I really doubt the #9 team will ever have a legit argument for #1. It's a better cutoff.

That is why there is a TCU love fest. It's an important topic of discussion for the future.

Show me where a top team gives up 61 points and loses. ... Plays one less game than it's peers...and didn't beat anyone of note outside of it's conference in the regular season and deserves to be in the conversation for #1.

TCU beat Minnesota. That's better than anyone Ohio St. beat ooc. Perhaps better than anyone FSU beat ooc (Oklahoma St. and Notre Dame) and comparable to who Alabama beat (WVU). And TCU was the only one to win decisively.

I thought it was 1 Oregon, 2 Alabama, 3 TCU. The only thing that's changed my mind is now I think its 1 Oregon, 2 TCU, 3 Ohio St.

But Ohio State beating Michigan State AT Michigan State is a far, far better win than any regular season win that TCU had.


Evidence PROVES that Michigan State is better than TCU, so no way that any logical person could rank TCU ahead of Ohio State :)

Michigan St. beat one team in Sagarin's top 30 prior to Baylor.
TCU crushed KSU who is sitting at #11 right now in the polls. Almost noone outside the Big 10 believes MSU is better than TCU.

All the experts picked Alabama to beat Ohio State, and Baylor to beat Michigan State.

And it has been shown how bad Sagarin's ratings are. Georgia at #5? LMAO.

(01-02-2015 04:57 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(01-02-2015 04:51 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  If we are going to expand the playoff and we should. Then it needs to go to 16 team. That way all the little guys can be included. We need to turn the Cotton, Fiesta, Orange, and Peach bowls into four, four team tournaments. Then have the Rose and Sugar bowls as semi-finals and then a National championship game. This way no one gets left out.

8 is plenty, hawg. Although IMO that still makes the season a bit too long. Each game added puts the kids more at risk of injury, which nobody seems to want to consider.

I completely agree with you about the season and the fact that no one is considering the players. But that ship has sailed and no one is going to want to go back to a BCS type of system. 8 will only eventually give way to a bigger tournament anyways. As bowl games become irrelevant to fans and it will. 8 will only wet the need for more. So we might as well fix the problem once and for all and just include everyone.

(01-02-2015 05:21 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  

(01-02-2015 04:57 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(01-02-2015 04:51 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  If we are going to expand the playoff and we should. Then it needs to go to 16 team. That way all the little guys can be included. We need to turn the Cotton, Fiesta, Orange, and Peach bowls into four, four team tournaments. Then have the Rose and Sugar bowls as semi-finals and then a National championship game. This way no one gets left out.

8 is plenty, hawg. Although IMO that still makes the season a bit too long. Each game added puts the kids more at risk of injury, which nobody seems to want to consider.

I completely agree with you about the season and the fact that no one is considering the players. But that ship has sailed and no one is going to want to go back to a BCS type of system. 8 will only eventually give way to a bigger tournament anyways. As bowl games become irrelevant to fans and it will. 8 will only wet the need for more. So we might as well fix the problem once and for all and just include everyone.

Then they should reduce the regular season back to 10 or 11 games, to at least give the appearance of trying to protect the players' health.

(01-02-2015 05:17 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(01-02-2015 04:42 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-02-2015 03:09 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(01-02-2015 03:06 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-02-2015 02:58 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  Show me where a top team gives up 61 points and loses. ... Plays one less game than it's peers...and didn't beat anyone of note outside of it's conference in the regular season and deserves to be in the conversation for #1.

TCU beat Minnesota. That's better than anyone Ohio St. beat ooc. Perhaps better than anyone FSU beat ooc (Oklahoma St. and Notre Dame) and comparable to who Alabama beat (WVU). And TCU was the only one to win decisively.

I thought it was 1 Oregon, 2 Alabama, 3 TCU. The only thing that's changed my mind is now I think its 1 Oregon, 2 TCU, 3 Ohio St.

But Ohio State beating Michigan State AT Michigan State is a far, far better win than any regular season win that TCU had.


Evidence PROVES that Michigan State is better than TCU, so no way that any logical person could rank TCU ahead of Ohio State :)

Michigan St. beat one team in Sagarin's top 30 prior to Baylor.
TCU crushed KSU who is sitting at #11 right now in the polls. Almost noone outside the Big 10 believes MSU is better than TCU.

All the experts picked Alabama to beat Ohio State, and Baylor to beat Michigan State.

And it has been shown how bad Sagarin's ratings are. Georgia at #5? LMAO.

Sagarin's convenient even though it has some odd results. The others show pretty much the same thing.

(01-02-2015 05:32 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(01-02-2015 05:21 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  

(01-02-2015 04:57 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(01-02-2015 04:51 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  If we are going to expand the playoff and we should. Then it needs to go to 16 team. That way all the little guys can be included. We need to turn the Cotton, Fiesta, Orange, and Peach bowls into four, four team tournaments. Then have the Rose and Sugar bowls as semi-finals and then a National championship game. This way no one gets left out.

8 is plenty, hawg. Although IMO that still makes the season a bit too long. Each game added puts the kids more at risk of injury, which nobody seems to want to consider.

I completely agree with you about the season and the fact that no one is considering the players. But that ship has sailed and no one is going to want to go back to a BCS type of system. 8 will only eventually give way to a bigger tournament anyways. As bowl games become irrelevant to fans and it will. 8 will only wet the need for more. So we might as well fix the problem once and for all and just include everyone.

Then they should reduce the regular season back to 10 or 11 games, to at least give the appearance of trying to protect the players' health.

I agree. A 11 game schedule would be great. Also we need to do away with being able to play FCS.

I'd like to see how the schools would agree on a 10 or 11 game schedule. Nobody is going to want to cut out home games and lesser schools need the money.

The money involved in an expanded playoff would compensate for the lost home game.

(01-02-2015 07:31 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  The money involved in an expanded playoff would compensate for the lost home game.

And the lesser teams?

(01-02-2015 07:45 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(01-02-2015 07:31 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  The money involved in an expanded playoff would compensate for the lost home game.

And the lesser teams?

Part of that money is distributed among the various conferences involved. The teams in the playoff don't get 100% of the money.

However, if you'd like to play a butt load of games, feel free to suit up. But player safety is a fairly big issue that you'd rather ignore in the race for cash.

Another thing you might want to consider is if a player gets hurt in the extra game(s), they have good grounds for a lawsuit, since the added game(s) put their athletic future at risk. If they are unable to play after the injury, they could lose millions. Are you willing to foot that bill too?

(01-02-2015 08:41 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(01-02-2015 07:45 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(01-02-2015 07:31 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  The money involved in an expanded playoff would compensate for the lost home game.

And the lesser teams?

Part of that money is distributed among the various conferences involved. The teams in the playoff don't get 100% of the money.

However, if you'd like to play a butt load of games, feel free to suit up. But player safety is a fairly big issue that you'd rather ignore in the race for cash.

Another thing you might want to consider is if a player gets hurt in the extra game(s), they have good grounds for a lawsuit, since the added game(s) put their athletic future at risk. If they are unable to play after the injury, they could lose millions. Are you willing to foot that bill too?

i'm not a fan of extending the season and playing more games. I just don't see any resolution to expanding the playoffs while trying to reduce regular season games at the same time. It's one of the reasons why 4 is the best number for college football playoff.

The only reason the playoff expands is greed. The four teams that needed to be in were in. These players are still kids, some with nfl aspirations. It's not fair to have them play that many games and put their body in even more risk.

We don't even know if FSU was better than TCU or Baylor. Sure, they were undefeated, but they were barely beating teams who weren't that good. It shouldn't matter what they did last year. We weren't having a playoff with teams who were best last year. By the end of the year, it doesn't matter what FSU did last year - or else we're just admitting that we don't have enough information from an entire year of football to determine who deserves to be in the playoff.

As a college football fan, I would have liked to see TCU/Baylor in the playoff. Like Oregon, O$U and Alabama, they had only one loss. I wanted 8 teams from the very beginning. Like another poster said, it's way harder to argue that the #9 team is the best in the land. I want to make sure we have the best teams in it, and we have very little to go by, with only 4 OOC games and probably only 3 of those against FBS schools and at least one of those against a low-level FBS school.

(01-04-2015 12:29 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  We don't even know if FSU was better than TCU or Baylor. Sure, they were undefeated, but they were barely beating teams who weren't that good. It shouldn't matter what they did last year. We weren't having a playoff with teams who were best last year. By the end of the year, it doesn't matter what FSU did last year - or else we're just admitting that we don't have enough information from an entire year of football to determine who deserves to be in the playoff.

As a college football fan, I would have liked to see TCU/Baylor in the playoff. Like Oregon, O$U and Alabama, they had only one loss. I wanted 8 teams from the very beginning. Like another poster said, it's way harder to argue that the #9 team is the best in the land. I want to make sure we have the best teams in it, and we have very little to go by, with only 4 OOC games and probably only 3 of those against FBS schools and at least one of those against a low-level FBS school.

You are right, what you did last year shouldn't matter unless....you are undefeated and you were the undefeated champion last year. The fact was that Florida State hadn't been beaten yet since winning the Championship. Someone had to beat them. They deserved their spot no matter how bad their performance was or could have been. Their conference certainly outperformed the Big 12 in the Bowl games so I just don't see much reason for saying they didn't deserve to be there.

(01-02-2015 11:28 PM)jaredf29 Wrote:  The only reason the playoff expands is greed. The four teams that needed to be in were in. These players are still kids, some with nfl aspirations. It's not fair to have them play that many games and put their body in even more risk.

Yeah, I am sure none of those kids that played in those games wanted to play in those games. I think I even saw a few whip crackings over there on the sidelines.