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

Apparently, the current runner up gets a trophy, which the Bama players famously smashed to smithereens.

Excuse me while the committee makes me vomit.....the top 14 teams are now listed by number of losses.  Yep, Baylor's win over 6-4 Texas let them jump up to the 1-loss tier.


Chimpanzees could do the job the way they're doing it.  NO 1-loss team is better than any undefeated team.  NO 2-loss team is better than any 1-loss team.  It's right there, written in the stone tablets!

I guess I see the strides they've made in baseball with sabermetrics and, you know, intelligence and don't understand why it hasn't crept into college football.


Although they still have decision-makers with antiquated thinking as well - take for instance the HOF voter who's only checking Derek Jeter's box because.....well, just because.  Because it's his vote to abuse.


Don't get me wrong, I'm not genuinely outraged by any of this, I'm just tired of the lazy stupids continually having a seat at the table.  The "because I said so" crowd.  

I guess I see the strides they've made in baseball with sabermetrics and, you know, intelligence and don't understand why it hasn't crept into college football.


Although they still have decision-makers with antiquated thinking as well - take for instance the HOF voter who's only checking Derek Jeter's box because.....well, just because.  Because it's his vote to abuse.


Don't get me wrong, I'm not genuinely outraged by any of this, I'm just tired of the lazy stupids continually having a seat at the table.  The "because I said so" crowd. 

I get it, but there is no “correct” way to do it.  Any ranking anyone could come up with for whatever reasons they cited could be picked apart.

I guess I see the strides they've made in baseball with sabermetrics and, you know, intelligence and don't understand why it hasn't crept into college football.


Although they still have decision-makers with antiquated thinking as well - take for instance the HOF voter who's only checking Derek Jeter's box because.....well, just because.  Because it's his vote to abuse.


Don't get me wrong, I'm not genuinely outraged by any of this, I'm just tired of the lazy stupids continually having a seat at the table.  The "because I said so" crowd. 

OAM, much respect, but the bolded is nonsense. You know how they decide the postseason in baseball? Wins and losses. Nothing to do with sabermetrics. And you know what they did with their playoffs? They expanded them, despite the fact their postseason is somehow more random than football's despite having series.

We get it, the folks picking the playoff need to be more subjective in their choice. Why should they do this? Is it because there's a real good subjective way to do it? No it is not. It's because the mere appearance of a flattened, objective standing upsets you because it's not special enough. It's not interesting and different enough. We can't even ask who's most deserving, because we need to have more subjective rankings of who is "best," and these are the rankings that don't even count. 

SI's Ross Dellinger had an interesting thought experiment. He suggested you just go six teams, five P5 conference champs, one G5 picked by the committee and committee sets seedings. It's near as hard and fast objective as one can be. It doesn't give a trophy to someone who can't earn a trophy by objective means (perhaps we could amend it to have only division games count in standings). And people lashed out at the idea, because getting highly subjective is one of the great facets of this sport for better or worse. 

Once you get to 8 teams, you produce a "playoff champion", nothing more than that.  The odds are that the "best team" is not going to win such a playoff.

So this is interesting because we have a playoff champion now, but once it gets to eight teams, it feels different somehow. Like, lets look at SRS, which is a mildly blunter tool to decide best, but more nuanced than record.

Since they playoff started, we've seen two of the "best" team's win the playoff. This accounts for all games, so in theory, the playoff winner gets the biggest boost. (Biggest surprise for me there, 2015 Clemson being rated behind Bama because of how good that defense was. That Clemson team was better than the title team, I think).

BCS missed the top team in 2010, 2007, 2006, 2003 (kinda), 2002, 2000 and 1998. 

Anyway, food for thought as we're stuck with NFL games till the Egg Bowl. 

players are to be paid above board soon

Who knew the SWC was simply before its time?