(11-29-2017 12:30 PM)BadgerMJ Wrote: (11-29-2017 12:13 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote: (11-29-2017 11:47 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote: [quote='NewTimes' pid='14836462' dateline='1511971848']
If 1-4 wins out, the field is set. It's safe to say 1 or 2 teams may lose. How does the 5-8 stack up?
#5 Alabama - idle and likely out, unfamiliar territory, weaker schedule
#6 GA vs, #2 Auburn - May swap places with GA win, Auburn gone with 3 loses
#7 Miami vs. #1 Clemson - Clemson with 2 loses on bubble, Miami to #4 with win
#8 Ohio St vs. #3 Wisconsin - Ohio St replaces Wisconsin with win
#9 Penn St and #10 SoCal out of picture
5-8 in the mix if 1 or 2 1-4's lose.
If any of the top 4 falter, Bama is in, not necessarily because they're better, but because they're Bama.
Like it or not, if it comes down to it, the NAMES are going to get the benefit of the doubt. Why? Because one, they have proven track records, and two the committee knows who butters their bread.... The networks.
They know there's NO WAY all that money keeps rolling in if ratings are down. Networks don't pay hundreds of millions so Southwest Tech can be in the playoffs. Blue Bloods appeal to the casual fan and even to the non-sports fan who might tune in to see the "big game".
All things being equal, if it comes down to a Bama, tOSU or a TCU (for example), you can let it ride that Bama or tOSU will be the ones with their name called.
It's a popular theory (especially among TCU fans!), but don't buy it for a couple of reasons. First, the computer averages and old BCS formula so far have come up with the same 4 participants the first three years as the committee. Second, there are examples of name schools being behind lesser name schools with similar profiles in the weekly and even final rankings. The reality is that name schools typically have had better profiles/arguments to date. We see what we want to see. We see them get in and say "see! Name school!", when it really is their strength of their overall profile.
Badger MJ said
Which is why I'm NOT a big fan of expanding to 8 teams.
Until there's a system that is completely impartial and takes into account
championship only, there will be people's opinions and biases involved in the decision.
****************************************************************************************************************************
FIFY.
The only thing that would be satisfactory to the presidents who don't really want to expand the season further, and would be immune to polls, pundits, and stilted computer programs is a Champs Only model.
The key is to get to 4 conferences.
It keeps the regular season divisional races extremely relevant and your champions are determined on the field.
Nobody knows at any given time who the four best teams really are! But you do know who won their conference championship. That's your representative for the national title! That's your champ! Let them play it off and guess what you have a champion out of champions and it is decided on the field instead of in some committee room.
Every team from those 4 conferences starts the season with the same chance and the ultimate winner did it themselves.
The old AP which frequently never matched the champions together in the bowls was the ultimate beauty pageant and the champion frequently came from the areas with the most sports writers voting.
The BCS was just the intentional matching of the two prettiest conference champions until Alabama vs L.S.U. part II happened.
Now we've moved to the 4 prettiest but they don't have to be a conference champ which means some deserving schools are still left out.
The next system needs to be even simpler. 4 conferences, 4 champs, and play it off.
Anything else is just an excuse to keep the bias and crookedness baked in. You will never convince me that taking a school other than the conference champ is somehow magically deserved just because they make the networks more or are somehow more popular.