Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

Then what are you complaining about!?!?!

The committee is tasked to identify the best team within the 4 in the playoff.  Do you believe, in any year from 2014-2019, that the best team (gasp - subjective term) was ranked 5th or worst by the committee?  That's a genuine question.

Then what are you complaining about!?!?!

The committee is tasked to identify the best team within the 4 in the playoff.  Do you believe, in any year from 2014-2019, that the best team (gasp - subjective term) was ranked 5th or worst by the committee?  That's a genuine question.

I'm saying that teams that don't win their conference should not be included.  I may not be the best communicator, but I'm pretty sure I stated that.

Name a "best" team that was left out of the CFP.

• I'd say Baylor/TCU could make an argument in 2014. Nobody believed FSU was all that good that year, but there was no way the committee would exclude a 13-0 team, so they came in and got curb-stomped by Oregon.
• 2015 I'm not sure which one was excluded, but Michigan State certainly wasn't one of the best 4. 
• 2018 Ohio State could make an argument. After all, Notre Dame is perennially overrated and there's no way that the committee wouldn't select them at 12-0, and then they were exposed (as always happens with ND) badly. They had one bad upset, but I don't think that reflects on the quality of that team.

Now, I'm not saying that any of those teams would have won it all, but I'm sure there are a few that should have been in the conversation.

Then what are you complaining about!?!?!

The committee is tasked to identify the best team within the 4 in the playoff.  Do you believe, in any year from 2014-2019, that the best team (gasp - subjective term) was ranked 5th or worst by the committee?  That's a genuine question.

They're tasked with identifying the best of the 4, and that team gets the 1 seed.


You'd think that if they're seeding properly, there should be a somewhat steep dropoff between 1 and 4. Yet the 4 has won 33% of those 1 vs 4 matchups, and in both cases went on to win it all. 

If there's not a steep enough dropoff between 1 and 4, how can you claim that the dropoff between 4 and 5 is steep enough to justify exclusion? 

But even that "objective" assigning of a champion isn't possible today in college football.  The inequities among conferences and schedules are too vast. 
You'd need the P5 to split off from the rest.
You'd need the P5 to become the P4 (basically an ACC/Big12 merger)
You'd need the remaining 4 conferences to have the same number of teams and scheduling guidelines (yes/no vs FCS, if so how many, yes/no vs G5, if so how many, etc).

Even then, you SHOULD go a step further and include:
every team has 6 home/6 away games
every team plays every other team in its conference/if not that, then division/if not that, then pod
and then you'd still have co-champions, which would be determined by h2h, but statistically that's erroneous...

So in lieu of all that happening, I don't see the point of pretending it exists or will exist.

It is objective.
It might not be fair or accurate, but it is objective.  You win your conference, by rules in place before the season starts, and you are in the playoff.
As I've said, I'd vote for going back to bowls and polls.
In the absence of that, I'd like to see winning your conference either be a pre-requisite (for a 2- or 4-team playoff) or an automatic entry (for a 6-team playoff).

I don't like mandated uniformity in conference size and scheduling philosophy.  The NFL provides that for people who like such things.

I agree. It’s why all pro sports leagues have objective measures and all college sports (at least that I know of) have some degree of subjectivity.  In the NFL this season teams in the same division will play 14 of their 16 games against common opponents or each other. 

Now take Nebraska and Michigan. Only 6 of their 12 games are against common opponents and they  don’t play each other, and these are teams in the same conference.

I don't want CFB to be like the NFL.

I don't care about the NFL (other than wanting former Sooners to do well).  I care about college football, and it moving closer to the NFL model makes me care about it less (if anything) rather than more.
The NFL is there for fans who want an expanded, extended playoff.  Why can't big-time college football be a different animal?

I don't think it's propaganda, it is more what we always notice, the rankings start with fewest losses for P5 teams and then make some minor adjustments down the line.  A 13-0 P5 team will be in the polls at 1 or 2 if there are no others no matter how bad their wins look in comparison.  A 12-1 team MIGHT get ranked over them, maybe, at times.  Of course, with polls, any loss by an undefeated team is going to drop the in the top ten rankings, and you won't be able to recover to pass an undefeated team in most cases.

An exception would have to be remarkable, say UGA beats Texas, Clemson, and Georgia Tech in one season OOC but drops a conference game to USCe and then finished 12-1, presuming those three OOC opponents are 12-1, 11-2, and 9-3.