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

But my point was supposed to be that every system is flawed...and when you try to re-invent the flawed system you usually end up with unintended consequences.  Remember the original BCS formula?  They tweaked it every year, because they didn't like the outcome.  Some argue that the playoff committee should use some variation of the BCS formula.  But the whole reason they do it by committee is because the formula was flawed...sometimes.  

Original Formula...Humans pick the winner, remember we didn't want a "playoff" champion. 
Version 1.1....A computer (spreadsheet) picks the two best teams, because we didn't have the two best playing a the end of the year.  1990 GT/CU and 1997 Michigan/Nebraska says hello. 

Version 1.2 2003 LSU/USC split title.  Oops.  

Version 2 BCS + 1 MNC (am I hallucinating this?  I can't seem to remember much about it.  )

 V3 CFB playoff-4 team edition. 

V4 CFB Playoff-12 team.  

a - no one gives a shit about Oregon St
b - you're comparing a situation where a 1-game worse Purdue gets in over a 9-2 ND with the example I gave of a sub-.500 team hosting a 12-5 team?  Mkay.
c - Also, ND would be in the same division as Purdue, so.....idk what to tell you

If you have a division-winner with a subpar record, they'd be the 8 seed and have to play @ the #1 team. 
Also, if you're one of those teams on the outside looking in, and you didn't win your division AND weren't one of the top 2 at-large teams, no, you don't get to bitch about anything.

Winning a 10-team division is A LOT different than going 8-9 like Carolina in a 4-team division, and you know this.
I'm afraid you're not doing a good job of really putting yourself in my proposed format. 

It's tough to put myself in your scenario because it doesn't exist, and thus I'd have to create a hypothetical which would then be easily shot down. 

But I do think "unworthy division winner getting in on a down year for that division while worthy runners-up from stronger divisions are left out" would generate uproar in a 6+2 format. As we saw this year with Texas and Notre Dame. 

And I tried to qualify the fact that I was comparing a 3-loss CFB team (or a 4-loss team if you used 2025 Duke) to a ~0.500 team in the NFL because of the lack of parity in CFB. Especially since the reason you want to keep it at 60 teams and keep the weak P4 teams is so the helmets still have enough patsies on their schedule that they can beat up on. 

I know, but he went there, so...

It's tough to put myself in your scenario because it doesn't exist, and thus I'd have to create a hypothetical which would then be easily shot down.

But I do think "unworthy division winner getting in on a down year for that division while worthy runners-up from stronger divisions are left out" would generate uproar in a 6+2 format. As we saw this year with Texas and Notre Dame.

And I tried to qualify the fact that I was comparing a 3-loss CFB team (or a 4-loss team if you used 2025 Duke) to a ~0.500 team in the NFL because of the lack of parity in CFB. Especially since the reason you want to keep it at 60 teams and keep the weak P4 teams is so the helmets still have enough patsies on their schedule that they can beat up on.

I'm not sure why you're shedding a tear for a team that in my format didn't win their division AND wasn't valued as one of the 2 best non-winners of a division.  The response to those teams is the same as the message to ND this year:  tough shit.  Except that in my scenario, every team can earn their way in on a level playing field.

And yes, I do what to keep a large number of teams for that nice, spread-out bell curve.  I believe elite teams should have elite records.  But yes, some years there'd be an 9-3 division winner, but they'd be playing a road game in the playoff.  And none of the other teams in its division has any room to complain.  

What does the frequency have to do with the validity?

Because it’s unusual. An anomaly. 

Because it’s unusual. An anomaly.

But with 4-team divisions playing a 17-game schedule, it's also inevitable.

I think I'm officially out.  

I've talked about my waning interest several times, but it wasn't until talking about fandom on the NFL thread that I realized.....I just don't think I'm an LSU fan anymore, by my own lifelong definition.  And it also made me realize, I actually look forward to NFL games.  And I think there's a reason for that.  I'm trying to fill a void left by my disillusion with college football.  

I read this morning that 30 of our players have entered the portal so far, and 15 so far are portaling in.  By most accounts, we're just getting started.  I don't remember how many portal arrivals/exits we've had each year, but it's been so many that I haven't bothered learning the names of the players for a couple years now.  And it's hard to be invested in a team that you don't know the players.  That's in addition to a drain of interest created by them blatantly having no concern for being LSU students or representing the university or the state.  

I'm not saying I won't watch the games, I probably will, for various reasons.  But I don't think I care anymore.  This has ramped up for a few seasons now, but I think I hit critical mass this past season.....wins did not excite me, losses did not distress me, at all.  Pretty much just apathy.  I'm not really an LSU "fan" any longer.  

If my wife ever stopped watching Texas and didn't care about games in general, I'd probably find something else to do with my fall Saturdays.  Not sure. 

And I'm probably not going to stop posting here or commenting on games.  It's just more of a clinical interest now.  

Meh, whatever.  Return to your regularly scheduled programs and don't mind me.  I'm just noting this here in case one day in the future I'm ever curious about the date I realized I was done.  Maybe something or several somethings will fix the sport and I'll care again.  But I doubt it.