Here for the Wins Posted 39 minutes ago Posted 39 minutes ago 1 hour ago, Burnt Orange Horn said: No, the greater inclusion of teams was a brilliant move. The NFL is a 32 team private league. Regression to the mean favors them. The FBS is a 139+ public league. It is seeking the best of that public league to include in the playoff. Playing Portland State is not the same as a SEC or most B1G teams, nor should it be. Fewer games than the NFL, far more unbalanced schedules leads to inconclusive choices. Quote
Junior Posted 9 minutes ago Posted 9 minutes ago 12 hours ago, Burnt Orange Horn said: Which is exactly why total losses is the wrong criteria by which to classify teams. Head to Head and Strength of Schedule must come first. It is non critical thinkers who accept the Committee's losses first criteria. Kind of like the good Germans in the 30s who justified accepting Hitler. The committee ranks teams as it wants, then works backward to make it make sense. This is the fatal flaw of the Committee which invalidates all of its actions. It has negated the value of marquee match ups. The consequence of invalidating such elevated competitive matchups means less CFB fans will be able to view them. Which also means total revenue for the networks and the involved colleges will decline. If Texas and other colleges with premier football programs will not speak against this obviously flawed model, then the networks must. Kudos to Jeff for articulating the obvious flaws of this Committee of program fans and professional pundits expressing personal biases over sober evaluation. The NCAA must do better or be kicked to the gutter by the power conference members. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.