Fjoinkay
Starter
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2011
- Messages
- 1,421
- Like
- 752
mantra that has been preached from on high now for over 5 years makes no sense. It is basically impossible to select the so-called 4 best teams. We don't even have a real, working definition for what a "best team" is. And there is no reason to limit the College Football Playoffs to just 4 teams. An 8-team playoff would please just about everyone for a lot of reasons.
The CFP committee system or mechanism is inherently flawed. There are just too many variables in our vastly complex world for a committee to select 4 best teams. Sure, usually in most seasons anyone could select the top team and maybe even the top 2 teams, but beyond that the waters get murky and the selection goes haywire as it is based on assumptions and beliefs and as such is subjective and confirmation bias is involved.
There are many reasons that the selection process is a dud, but some of the obvious reasons include the fact that there is no level playing field for evaluating teams. Some teams play 8 conference games while others play 9 conference games. Playing a 9th conference game takes a toll as conference games are usually more physically intense especially when compared to teams playing just 8 conference games who also schedule that additional or 4th out of conference game against a clearly inferior team. In fact, some of those teams with just 8 conference games schedule FCS schools. Some of those same teams never play an out of conference game on the road. One other problem out of many is that some really good teams playing just 8 conference games are never tested because the conference they are playing in is going through a down year.
Beyond the lack of a level playing field there are always problems in simply evaluating the importance of games. We often see games early in the season that are given a lot of value but later in the season that game turns out to have been a red herring because one of the teams was overrated and ended up having a mediocre season. Nevertheless, for a few weeks or even months people still talk about that game as having high value for the winner. That affects perception, rankings and strength of schedule at least for a while, and in a 12-game season those early misperceptions have a ripple effect that disrupts the system for the remainder of the year. The bottom line is that the system is always imperfect. The system is backward facing and it is riddled with flaws most of which are simply human nature and cannot be cleaned up completely.
Minnesota is a great example because this year's committee just ranked them #17 with an 8-0 record. The committee ranked 10 teams with at least one loss higher than Minnesota, and 6 teams of those teams ranked above the Gophers had 2 losses. Sure, it was the committee's initial poll, and now that Minnesota has just beaten #4 Penn State the committee will have no choice but to move Minnesota up, but how far? Will there still be teams with 2 losses ranked ahead of 9-0 Minnesota? Oklahoma just had a close call at home with Iowa State (5-4), so will the committee put Minnesota above Oklahoma with its 1 loss? How about Florida and Auburn each with 2 losses?
In defense of the committee, and by implication the 4-team playoff, some people are saying that the committee could not have known how good Minnesota is because even though they are now 9-0 they started the season slowly winning some close games against lesser talent and it took them a while to hit their stride and improve as a team. To that I say exactly! The committee does not know and cannot know and clearly did not know. The #17 ranking is all you need to know about the committee system and it's flaws. Teams do improve. Some teams get hot at the end of the season. And some teams who go undefeated turn out to be not as good as their records imply. All of that is true and all of it is evidence clearly showing why the committee system fails and is insufficient to select 4 "best" teams. We need an 8-team playoff.
One more tidbit using the Minny narrative. The AP didn't rank Minnesota in the Top-25 until the Gophers were 6-0. I am sure that played into the committee's perception. But even the AP had Minnesota at #13 heading into this week's game against Penn State. That means somehow that the AP which is made up of journalists, many of whom do not follow college football closely at all, had a better sense of this Minnesota football team than the committee? And by the way, yesterday on Gameday you may have seen the Bear pick Minnesota to cover against Penn State. Bear said that the Gophers would at least cover given the 6.5 points, and he said it would definitely be a close game. He was right, and he is not the only person who saw it that way although you wouldn't have known that from watching ESPN's coverage, sans Bear (or looking at the committee's rankings).
So, some may recall that college basketball used to always begin its season during the Thanksgiving holiday. This season we saw college hoops open its season on November 4th or 5th. Ergo, college football can have an 8-team playoff. That would require the 2 teams playing in the championship game to play one extra game.
Would we ever accept a 4-team college basketball tournament? Does the "best" team always win the college basketball tournament? I say no. In fact, the basketball tournament with all of its teams compensates for problems in the ranking system, and even with so many teams in the tournament there is still some controversy every year about teams on the bubble getting in or not getting in.
We love upsets in the college basketball tournament and just as much or maybe even more we love the possibility for upsets. Adding 4 more teams to the college football playoffs will not diminish the chaos, in fact it will add the potential for more chaos. More importantly, an 8-team playoff will reduce the impact of the inherent flaws in the selection process and rankings, and that step in my humble opinion absolutely needs to be taken.
Go Cuse!!
The CFP committee system or mechanism is inherently flawed. There are just too many variables in our vastly complex world for a committee to select 4 best teams. Sure, usually in most seasons anyone could select the top team and maybe even the top 2 teams, but beyond that the waters get murky and the selection goes haywire as it is based on assumptions and beliefs and as such is subjective and confirmation bias is involved.
There are many reasons that the selection process is a dud, but some of the obvious reasons include the fact that there is no level playing field for evaluating teams. Some teams play 8 conference games while others play 9 conference games. Playing a 9th conference game takes a toll as conference games are usually more physically intense especially when compared to teams playing just 8 conference games who also schedule that additional or 4th out of conference game against a clearly inferior team. In fact, some of those teams with just 8 conference games schedule FCS schools. Some of those same teams never play an out of conference game on the road. One other problem out of many is that some really good teams playing just 8 conference games are never tested because the conference they are playing in is going through a down year.
Beyond the lack of a level playing field there are always problems in simply evaluating the importance of games. We often see games early in the season that are given a lot of value but later in the season that game turns out to have been a red herring because one of the teams was overrated and ended up having a mediocre season. Nevertheless, for a few weeks or even months people still talk about that game as having high value for the winner. That affects perception, rankings and strength of schedule at least for a while, and in a 12-game season those early misperceptions have a ripple effect that disrupts the system for the remainder of the year. The bottom line is that the system is always imperfect. The system is backward facing and it is riddled with flaws most of which are simply human nature and cannot be cleaned up completely.
Minnesota is a great example because this year's committee just ranked them #17 with an 8-0 record. The committee ranked 10 teams with at least one loss higher than Minnesota, and 6 teams of those teams ranked above the Gophers had 2 losses. Sure, it was the committee's initial poll, and now that Minnesota has just beaten #4 Penn State the committee will have no choice but to move Minnesota up, but how far? Will there still be teams with 2 losses ranked ahead of 9-0 Minnesota? Oklahoma just had a close call at home with Iowa State (5-4), so will the committee put Minnesota above Oklahoma with its 1 loss? How about Florida and Auburn each with 2 losses?
In defense of the committee, and by implication the 4-team playoff, some people are saying that the committee could not have known how good Minnesota is because even though they are now 9-0 they started the season slowly winning some close games against lesser talent and it took them a while to hit their stride and improve as a team. To that I say exactly! The committee does not know and cannot know and clearly did not know. The #17 ranking is all you need to know about the committee system and it's flaws. Teams do improve. Some teams get hot at the end of the season. And some teams who go undefeated turn out to be not as good as their records imply. All of that is true and all of it is evidence clearly showing why the committee system fails and is insufficient to select 4 "best" teams. We need an 8-team playoff.
One more tidbit using the Minny narrative. The AP didn't rank Minnesota in the Top-25 until the Gophers were 6-0. I am sure that played into the committee's perception. But even the AP had Minnesota at #13 heading into this week's game against Penn State. That means somehow that the AP which is made up of journalists, many of whom do not follow college football closely at all, had a better sense of this Minnesota football team than the committee? And by the way, yesterday on Gameday you may have seen the Bear pick Minnesota to cover against Penn State. Bear said that the Gophers would at least cover given the 6.5 points, and he said it would definitely be a close game. He was right, and he is not the only person who saw it that way although you wouldn't have known that from watching ESPN's coverage, sans Bear (or looking at the committee's rankings).
So, some may recall that college basketball used to always begin its season during the Thanksgiving holiday. This season we saw college hoops open its season on November 4th or 5th. Ergo, college football can have an 8-team playoff. That would require the 2 teams playing in the championship game to play one extra game.
Would we ever accept a 4-team college basketball tournament? Does the "best" team always win the college basketball tournament? I say no. In fact, the basketball tournament with all of its teams compensates for problems in the ranking system, and even with so many teams in the tournament there is still some controversy every year about teams on the bubble getting in or not getting in.
We love upsets in the college basketball tournament and just as much or maybe even more we love the possibility for upsets. Adding 4 more teams to the college football playoffs will not diminish the chaos, in fact it will add the potential for more chaos. More importantly, an 8-team playoff will reduce the impact of the inherent flaws in the selection process and rankings, and that step in my humble opinion absolutely needs to be taken.
Go Cuse!!
Last edited:
