(01-05-2021 12:25 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-05-2021 08:45 AM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  

(01-05-2021 08:31 AM)Eldonabe Wrote:  

(01-04-2021 04:46 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  Give me one reason why a top 6 ranked conference champs + 2 at large model can't work.

I say a top 6 ranked champs model, because if a conference has the #7 or 8 highest ranked champ, do they really deserve to get in over a higher ranked champion.

The main issue I have with the 5-1-2 model is that it allows a 25th ranked Pac 12 champ to get in automatically over a #12 ranked Sun Belt for example.

If you allow 8 teams to play in the tournament - all the deserving P5 champs will be included without an auto bid qualification. Oregon simply has no right to be there this year and they would be pushing out a team (like Cincy) if they had to be included. Likewise, any deserving G5 will get in with 8 teams as well (Like Cincy this year) under a committee scenario.

The cynicism over humans choosing with logic and analysis instead of some unbending rules is crazy to me.


The rules say I have to wear a mask even if I have already had the rona and I can no longer spread it. That is a dumb rule. Just like a rule that forces you to give a very unqualified team a chance to win the Natty in football.


The bottom line is that more "deserving" teams will get screwed in an auto-bid scenario than will if a human committee picks the final 8. This year is example #1. The PAC 12 has sucked for a few years (let alone this year) - they should not be rewarded for sucking.....

I'd argue that the auto-bid for conference champs scenario solves for any real or perceived flaws in the current eye test. Someone above mentioned a scenario where a 25th-ranked USC would get in over a team like Georgia. The "25th ranked" part is where I see the issue. We're anchoring to these rankings that, especially this year, are completely arbitrary.

All these conferences don't play enough OOC games against each other for anyone to really know whether a team like Oregon or USC, for instance, could play a competitive game against a team like Alabama. Even when conferences DO play OOC against each other, there's always a "well that was week 2" when the results don't meet the historical expectation.

We either need to systemically assign OOC games between conferences to get a better idea of their comparative strength, or incorporate conference champs into the playoff bids.

Agreed. Anyone who has paid any attention to rankings over the years knows they are not logical. They are based on human biases. And they are often wrong, no matter how logical. "Everyone" knew Alabama and Oregon were the two best teams in 2014. In reality, Ohio St. and TCU were probably the two best teams. And TCU didn't even get in the top 5. "Everyone" knew USC was the best team of all time in 2005. Vince Young had something to say about that. "Everyone" knew Ohio St. and Michigan were the two best teams in 2006. Florida 41-14 said different. There are endless examples of the "experts" being wrong. And not just in football.

Have so called "experts" make the decision instead of the teams deciding it on the field is totally illogical.

The top level of CFB has never had a true NCAA champion. For decades different polls decided champions and some years multiple teams claimed a National Title. The top 2 teams hardly ever faced-off at the end of the year.

This CFP is an exhibition, an invitational. Its not a true playoff.

If you want 6 or 8 just give it time. We all know money talks.

Still, it wont be about fairness. Keep dreaming if you think money isnt the only thing that matters.