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

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.  You're right, the decision-makers haven't evolved, but at least the (knowledgeable) fans know how and by how much those people are woefully wrong.  College football fans wanting to expand the playoff are just burying their head int he sand.

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.   I honestly don't see the difficulty in ranking teams by a combination of resume and eye test, but most of you here act like it's some sort of impossibility.  Ohhh, it's hard, it takes more than 5 seconds, let me throw my hands up in angst.

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.   If this happened, if they were smart, every helmet program would/should beg the ACC to admit them and ditch the SEC or Big Ten immediately.