Quote:It isn't a playoff with 4 teams.

I agree. It's just an extra bowl to have the winners of the already two existing top bowls play each other to get a crown.

It's more like a play off game, not a playoff. Much like the winners of two divisions play each other in a play off game to get the conference crown. If one's going to call the winners of the Top 4 teams, then you have to call conference champ games a playoff, and the Top BCS-ranked 1/2 teams in the one bowl for the crown a playoff as well.

If anyone thinks the present system is improvement over the old system, is sadly mistaken, the system is some type of Soviet Politburo system, with their own agenda and marching orders. There is no rhyme or reason to the process, making it up as they go along. Which delegitimizes the whole process IMO.

(12-07-2015 10:58 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  It isn't a playoff with 4 teams.

Were the pre-wildcard four-team MLB playoffs not really playoffs?

(12-07-2015 03:31 PM)BIgCatonProwl Wrote:  If anyone thinks the present system is improvement over the old system, is sadly mistaken, the system is some type of Soviet Politburo system, with their own agenda and marching orders. There is no rhyme or reason to the process, making it up as they go along. Which delegitimizes the whole process IMO.

I disagree that I am mistaken.

HAving 2 more teams is a big step forward, that outweighs the step backward from the BCS formula (which had been tinkered with for 2 decades and was working pretty well) to the committee.

(12-07-2015 03:32 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  

(12-07-2015 10:58 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  It isn't a playoff with 4 teams.

Were the pre-wildcard four-team MLB playoffs not really playoffs?

That's different. Not as many teams, and they all played 162 games against each other. That gives you a pretty good indication of who is good - plus the division winners all got in, not just certain ones. No votes were taken.

(12-07-2015 03:43 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(12-07-2015 03:31 PM)BIgCatonProwl Wrote:  If anyone thinks the present system is improvement over the old system, is sadly mistaken, the system is some type of Soviet Politburo system, with their own agenda and marching orders. There is no rhyme or reason to the process, making it up as they go along. Which delegitimizes the whole process IMO.

I disagree that I am mistaken.

HAving 2 more teams is a big step forward, that outweighs the step backward from the BCS formula (which had been tinkered with for 2 decades and was working pretty well) to the committee.

I guess some people like decisions made in smoked filled back rooms with no transparency whatsoever. No one knows how the sausage is made. Could not say that about the BCS system IMO. Plus one system with the cards heavily favored to the blue blood programs, that's not sport too me, it's a oligarchy plain and simple. Surprised many are so satisfied with such a system where the sport is not settled on the field by the dominant participants, only in CFB D1 you have this monstrosity. It's ludicrous,almost laughable if it wasn't so sad to see what they've done to a great a sport, almost like Pro Boxing with the fix in. The committee operates likes they are some Supreme Court of CFB and have the one spokesman speak for all the committee and instead of each committee member being subject to answering on how they voted and why to the media.

(12-07-2015 04:07 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(12-07-2015 03:32 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  

(12-07-2015 10:58 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  It isn't a playoff with 4 teams.

Were the pre-wildcard four-team MLB playoffs not really playoffs?

That's different. Not as many teams, and they all played 162 games against each other. That gives you a pretty good indication of who is good - plus the division winners all got in, not just certain ones. No votes were taken.

True, just pointing out that four teams isn't indicative of a playoff's quality or lack thereof.

But I think the only way you get all the conferences in is if the number of conferences drops to at least 8. A P4 and a G4. You could then do a 12-team tournament with byes for the top four conference winners (probably all from the P4, though a strong G4 team wouldn't be necessarily excluded), and the at-large teams playing the bottom four conference winners.

(12-07-2015 04:14 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  

(12-07-2015 04:07 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(12-07-2015 03:32 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  

(12-07-2015 10:58 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  It isn't a playoff with 4 teams.

Were the pre-wildcard four-team MLB playoffs not really playoffs?

That's different. Not as many teams, and they all played 162 games against each other. That gives you a pretty good indication of who is good - plus the division winners all got in, not just certain ones. No votes were taken.

True, just pointing out that four teams isn't indicative of a playoff's quality or lack thereof.

But I think the only way you get all the conferences in is if the number of conferences drops to at least 8. A P4 and a G4. You could then do a 12-team tournament with byes for the top four conference winners (probably all from the P4, though a strong G4 team wouldn't be necessarily excluded), and the at-large teams playing the bottom four conference winners.

You could do that now, with 10 conference champs and 2 at-larges.

(12-07-2015 04:24 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(12-07-2015 04:14 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  

(12-07-2015 04:07 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(12-07-2015 03:32 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  

(12-07-2015 10:58 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  It isn't a playoff with 4 teams.

Were the pre-wildcard four-team MLB playoffs not really playoffs?

That's different. Not as many teams, and they all played 162 games against each other. That gives you a pretty good indication of who is good - plus the division winners all got in, not just certain ones. No votes were taken.

True, just pointing out that four teams isn't indicative of a playoff's quality or lack thereof.

But I think the only way you get all the conferences in is if the number of conferences drops to at least 8. A P4 and a G4. You could then do a 12-team tournament with byes for the top four conference winners (probably all from the P4, though a strong G4 team wouldn't be necessarily excluded), and the at-large teams playing the bottom four conference winners.

You could do that now, with 10 conference champs and 2 at-larges.

You could, but then you'd have a pretty good team sitting while the weakest of the G5 winners gets in. There'll always be arguments, but eight conference/four at-large gets you a better mix of teams than 10 conference/two at-large.

The biggest rule when creating a playoff with automatic bids, is to ensure the (perceived) second best team doesn't get left out.

(12-07-2015 03:43 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(12-07-2015 03:31 PM)BIgCatonProwl Wrote:  If anyone thinks the present system is improvement over the old system, is sadly mistaken, the system is some type of Soviet Politburo system, with their own agenda and marching orders. There is no rhyme or reason to the process, making it up as they go along. Which delegitimizes the whole process IMO.

I disagree that I am mistaken.

HAving 2 more teams is a big step forward, that outweighs the step backward from the BCS formula (which had been tinkered with for 2 decades and was working pretty well) to the committee.

Any process that 100% puts the decision in human hands is automatically superior to an process that gives computers a component of the decision.

(12-07-2015 04:12 PM)BIgCatonProwl Wrote:  

(12-07-2015 03:43 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(12-07-2015 03:31 PM)BIgCatonProwl Wrote:  If anyone thinks the present system is improvement over the old system, is sadly mistaken, the system is some type of Soviet Politburo system, with their own agenda and marching orders. There is no rhyme or reason to the process, making it up as they go along. Which delegitimizes the whole process IMO.

I disagree that I am mistaken.

HAving 2 more teams is a big step forward, that outweighs the step backward from the BCS formula (which had been tinkered with for 2 decades and was working pretty well) to the committee.

I guess some people like decisions made in smoked filled back rooms with no transparency whatsoever. No one knows how the sausage is made. Could not say that about the BCS system IMO. Plus one system with the cards heavily favored to the blue blood programs, that's not sport too me, it's a oligarchy plain and simple. Surprised many are so satisfied with such a system where the sport is not settled on the field by the dominant participants, only in CFB D1 you have this monstrosity. It's ludicrous,almost laughable if it wasn't so sad to see what they've done to a great a sport, almost like Pro Boxing with the fix in. The committee operates likes they are some Supreme Court of CFB and have the one spokesman speak for all the committee and instead of each committee member being subject to answering on how they voted and why to the media.

So if each of the committee members votes in the process was public, then you'd fine with it?

(12-07-2015 07:59 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(12-06-2015 03:50 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  a system where 0 out of 128 teams have a chance of playing for a championship without the approval of a corrupt group of people who care about TV ratings more than QB ratings and you're celebrating this?

CFP is a sham.

You'd still complain about access and fairness in a 16 team playoff format.

I would still complain about access and fairness in a 64 team playoff format if not every team in the league had a direct path to a championship.

Why is that too much to ask for? Can you name another sports league where over half of its members wouldn't get a chance to play for a championship even if they won every game on their schedule?

Can you explain why a league contract that spans from 2014-2026 pays Wake Forrest 4X Boise St?

(12-07-2015 04:41 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  The biggest rule when creating a playoff with automatic bids, is to ensure the (perceived) second best team doesn't get left out.

Depends how you look at it.

Example: say each of a P4 had a reserved slot for their highest ranked team (not necessarily the winner of a CCG).

Say that, somehow, the second highest ranked team from one of the conferences was ranked #2 in the country, after CCG weekend. Very far fetched, but not impossible.


What I would then argue, is that it impossible that the #2 team would not have had an opportunity to either play the #1 team directly or to get into the CCG to play the #1 team.

In other words, they had their chance.

It wouldn't be as if you had an undefeated, #2 in the country, that didn't make it into a CCG and was somehow getting screwed out of a chance to get into the playoff.

As I said, if you have automatic bids, you need to make sure there is room for the second best team. I.e. you would not have every playoff spot determined by an autobid. I did not say it could never happen: it used to happen in baseball all the time. This year the three best teams were all in the same division, and two of them would have been left out 20 years ago or so. It used to happen in college football AND college basketball. I was referring to how you design the playoff if you plan to add auto bids.

It is better, and as it expands it will become even better.

(12-07-2015 05:01 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-07-2015 03:43 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(12-07-2015 03:31 PM)BIgCatonProwl Wrote:  If anyone thinks the present system is improvement over the old system, is sadly mistaken, the system is some type of Soviet Politburo system, with their own agenda and marching orders. There is no rhyme or reason to the process, making it up as they go along. Which delegitimizes the whole process IMO.

I disagree that I am mistaken.

HAving 2 more teams is a big step forward, that outweighs the step backward from the BCS formula (which had been tinkered with for 2 decades and was working pretty well) to the committee.

Any process that 100% puts the decision in human hands is automatically superior to an process that gives computers a component of the decision.

Truly believe that? I guess that's why NASA has computers do the flight control of spacecraft and humans have very little to do with its control. Maybe NASA knows something we layperson's do not know, as long as the programming is debugged computers are far more reliable than human beings and are objective in their analysis unlike humans, who come to the table with all their emotional bias' and prejudicial judgements.

Lets go back to the old days. No more P5 or G5 status.
All teams are treated as equals. This would give schools like Houston, Toledo, Boise State and so forth a chance at a shot at the national title.
Stop favortism of one conference over the other.
No more SEC love by ESPN and others. People on ESPN are saying that Alabama is the number 1 team.

(12-07-2015 05:01 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-07-2015 04:12 PM)BIgCatonProwl Wrote:  

(12-07-2015 03:43 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(12-07-2015 03:31 PM)BIgCatonProwl Wrote:  If anyone thinks the present system is improvement over the old system, is sadly mistaken, the system is some type of Soviet Politburo system, with their own agenda and marching orders. There is no rhyme or reason to the process, making it up as they go along. Which delegitimizes the whole process IMO.

I disagree that I am mistaken.

HAving 2 more teams is a big step forward, that outweighs the step backward from the BCS formula (which had been tinkered with for 2 decades and was working pretty well) to the committee.

I guess some people like decisions made in smoked filled back rooms with no transparency whatsoever. No one knows how the sausage is made. Could not say that about the BCS system IMO. Plus one system with the cards heavily favored to the blue blood programs, that's not sport too me, it's a oligarchy plain and simple. Surprised many are so satisfied with such a system where the sport is not settled on the field by the dominant participants, only in CFB D1 you have this monstrosity. It's ludicrous,almost laughable if it wasn't so sad to see what they've done to a great a sport, almost like Pro Boxing with the fix in. The committee operates likes they are some Supreme Court of CFB and have the one spokesman speak for all the committee and instead of each committee member being subject to answering on how they voted and why to the media.

So if each of the committee members votes in the process was public, then you'd fine with it?

No I would not. I'm not for any human committee in selecting PO particpant everything should be settled like the NFL on the field of play where the dominant participants earn there way into CFB PO 5 Power CCG Champs and the highest ranked G5. The next highest ranked 6 at large P5 or G5 highest ranked. The top 4 CCG champs teams get a bye the first round and the other 8 pair off in the 1st round.

(12-07-2015 07:15 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Lets go back to the old days. No more P5 or G5 status.
All teams are treated as equals. This would give schools like Houston, Toledo, Boise State and so forth a chance at a shot at the national title.
Stop favortism of one conference over the other.
No more SEC love by ESPN and others. People on ESPN are saying that Alabama is the number 1 team.

The old days. When an undefeated Fresno State had to play in the California Raisin Bowl because that was the conference's only bowl tie-in and they couldn't even get ranked until they won that? When an undefeated Tulane had to play in the Liberty Bowl against BYU because the BCS wouldn't look its way because of its schedule?

All teams have NEVER been treated equally, and never WILL be treated equally. It's a fool's folly to think otherwise.