Being the 1 seed and losing at some point doesnt mean the committee got it wrong. The best team doesnt always win. Thats the nature of sports. The committee ranks based on performance or other factors. They arent ranking based on the projected finish. Even if they did rank based on who SHOULD win, we all know things dont always turn out as planned. See the 2007 NE Patriots. They were the best team of all-time and couldnt win the Super Bowl.

(12-31-2023 09:55 PM)PicksUp Wrote:  Being the 1 seed and losing at some point doesnt mean the committee got it wrong. The best team doesnt always win. Thats the nature of sports. The committee ranks based on performance or other factors. They arent ranking based on the projected finish. Even if they did rank based on who SHOULD win, we all know things dont always turn out as planned. See the 2007 NE Patriots. They were the best team of all-time and couldnt win the Super Bowl.

Wrong. They claim they are selecting the “best” teams. Not the best resume. There aren’t enough games and enough intersectional play to “know.”

I'm sick of the best vs. most deserving argument. The regular season has to mean something. What's next, Alabama is going to lose three games next year but people are going to say they're the best 9-3 team in the country and they deserve to make the Playoff? Why play the games? At least if you use most deserving you're judging based on wins and losses and not what damn conference they're in or if they're name is Alabama or Georgia.

(01-01-2024 07:11 AM)schmolik Wrote:  I'm sick of the best vs. most deserving argument. The regular season has to mean something. What's next, Alabama is going to lose three games next year but people are going to say they're the best 9-3 team in the country and they deserve to make the Playoff? Why play the games? At least if you use most deserving you're judging based on wins and losses and not what damn conference they're in or if they're name is Alabama or Georgia.

Then the best, and maybe the only, way to settle things on the field is to do away with the notion of a "national" champion in college football entirely. There are simply too many teams and too few games in the FBS to effectively compare teams who never play each other and have few common opponents.

Settle for larger conferences, which is already the direction we are heading, and conference championship tournaments (playoffs). If news services want to conduct polls like they did when there were fewer regular season games and even fewer bowls, so be it. Let fans debate whether the polls are accurate just like we have always done.

I could easily see two distinct 36 team conferences - one comprised of the SEC and B1G schools and the other comprised of the ACC and Big 12 emerging from what was once the P5. Each could have its own rules designed to increase competitiveness within the conference, and they don't (and shouldn't) have to be the same as the rules for any other conference.

One thing they should both have in common are standard player contracts to rein in the portal and collectives disguised as NIL, to correct what has rapidly become virtually unlimited free agency.

If we think we are going to have (mostly) universally recognized champions, it will have to be outside the current framework of NCAA divisions.

YES, let the polls decide, talking about coming full circle.
the playoff's are nothing but money grab

(12-31-2023 08:57 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-31-2023 08:13 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-31-2023 03:14 PM)JSchmack Wrote:  IMO, the logic most fans apply to assessing the committees are flawed.

Postseason performance just doesn't always justify inclusion/seed, or lack of performance in a secondary post-season slot doesn't mean a team wasn't worthy.

UMBC and Fairleigh Dickinson didn't deserve #1 seeds in the NCAA Tournament the years they BEAT #1 seeds in the Round of 64, and Virginia and Purdue didn't deserve to be LEFT OUT those years, even though they lost to #16 seeds in the first round. They earned their #1 seeds, and then they just picked a horrible time to have a terrible game.

Teams that miss the NCAA who lose in the NIT, or teams who miss the CFP and get pistol-whipped in a secondary bowl game... doesn't mean they didn't deserve to be included. The argument that Florida State deserved a CFP spot remains unchanged: Had they lost by 60 to Georgia in the REGULAR SEASON, then yeah, that would cost them a claim to one of the top four spots. Of course the players are crushed and just don't care as much. Secondary post-season games are almost always about "who cares more."

Teams who got a postseason bid despite not performing well enough to deserve one... those teams are playing with house money. They usually DO beat teams who deserved their spots in the NCAA Tournament. Those wins don't validate your inclusion...

I don't think P5s who go 3-12 vs Q1 deserve NCAA bids. If they make the tourney and win a couple games... that doesn't mean they deserved a spot. We already knew they COULD beat NCAA Teams: They beat THREE in the regular season. But they also lost 80% of the time vs them in the regular season. So IMO, they DIDN'T DO IT ENOUGH to deserve their bid. It proves nothing.



BUT, when a team who's schedule is lacking OPPORTUNITIES wins NCAA games, that DOES prove people wrong: because the whole argument was that they CAN'T beat anyone good.

Like... Florida Atlantic was a nine-seed last year. Their NET was top 15 but they "didn't play anyone, they're not really a top 16 team." So when they win four games and go to the Final Four... I guess they ARE that good.


Which is why I think they should have no problem putting Florida State and Liberty in the CFP.... If they lose (As expected), you've answered the question on the field. And if they win, you've also answered that question on the field.

IMO there is a problem with comparing the NCAA tournament to the CFP. The NCAA tournament has a billion spots, so really, there is room for everyone with any semblance of a claim. If a 18-12 P5 team with not enough "quad 1" wins or whatever gets left out in favor of another team with a similar resume well who cares? It was close and neither was anywhere near a top team. So many spots we can afford to use up a couple of them to experiment with teams that may not have had opportunities during the season.

In contrast, there are only four spots in the CFP. So while it would be nice to put Liberty in, or FSU in, to conduct an experiment about whether they really belong or not, the opportunity cost, keeping another really good team out, is IMO too high for that. Especially in the case of Liberty.

Even next year, I think it's a bad idea to auto-include the top G5 team. IMO this is being done purely for political reasons, to keep Congress and anti-trust at bay. Competitively, we don't need to actually use a 12-spot to know whether Liberty at 13-0 is worthy of a title shot, I think we all know they aren't. We don't need them in any more than we need the 14-0 FCS or D2 champ in the CFP either. That's how big a gap there is between the P5 and G5.

FSU? Just real bad luck. Any year going forward, and most years going backwards, they get in with their 13-0 injured QB team. Just bad luck.

And yes, I agree that the shellacking by Georgia proves nothing about FSU's worthiness. That was in no way shape or form the team that won those 13 games, even the last few limping to the finish line.

Given how often someone other than the 1 seed wins shows that we absolutely do not “know.” 5/7 is a great way to get the beauty contest out of it and make it more like every other sport. Who cares that #12 gets left out for a Liberty?

FWIW, when it comes to the CFP, I've never thought that seeding is indicative at all in terms of how good a job the committee did. There's no real advantage to the seeding, so to me the whole ballgame is "did they get the right four teams in"?

And in that regard, IMO they have done a great job.

Beyond that, despite the fact that there are 130 teams and they play only 12 games so that there is not nearly as much data as we would like to have in comparing them, IMO we still do largely "know" things. I mean, Georgia went 12-1, Liberty went 13-0, and I don't think they had any common opponents. But is there really any doubt that Georgia is way better than Liberty? I don't think so. I think we know that as well as we know that in hoops, say a Kansas team and Liberty team that each played 35 games and maybe had five common opponents, that Kansas is better than Liberty.

The rules of thumb in CFB serve us pretty well, IMO.