With title-game ticket prices plummeting 90%, should college football be worried?

ronnie mund said:
The argument revolves around this statement:



I believe this is wrong because a.) if the committee's job is to identify the 4 best teams, it's to identify the 4 best teams and let them decide on the field, not to identify who the single best team is. Whether #1 or #4 wins is irrelevant. And b.) if their job is to identify the 4 most deserving teams, then it's irrelevant whether or not they can identify the best team(s).

That's why I think it's wrong to say they've consistently proven they aren't able to identify the best teams when you even said yourself no one knows what they are trying to accomplish.
Click to expand...

They rank the teams. 1 vs 4 and 2 vs 3 play each other. Those rankings mean something. The committee changes their narrative every year to justify their picks.
When they rank teams that jump 3 spots during the playoff, why would you blindly trust that 5 couldn’t jump to 2, or 6 to 3, or 7 to 4?
Just because one of the selected teams wins doesn’t mean that one of the non-selected couldn’t win it all.
As I’ve said before (perhaps in another thread), they have not improved the process. What they’ve done is take the big group of biased voters voting after all the bowl games and transferred the vote to a smaller, more biased (university affiliated), voting group before the playoffs.
The issue isn’t the outcome, it’s the inconsistent, biased process.

Interesting read.

https://collegefootballplayoff.com/sports/2016/10/24/selection-committee-protocol.aspx
 
I agree with you. I want subjectivity gone. The main reason I want expansion, among other things, is so that we can get rid of the subjectivity of a group where there are clear conflicts of interest. With expansion we can get clear-cut criteria and a path to the playoffs that everyone is aware of, ie win your conference and you're in. Would there be more blowouts? Possibly, but to me it's worth it if we can rid ourselves of the current process.
 
You will always have subjectivity as long as it is decided by people.

Whether you keep the format, raise it to 8 teams, or go back to the bowl series and have a plus one someone will always complain that team X got screwed.

Regardless, as I have suggested for years and some blowhard on this site picked up on, allow Vegas to make the odds on the top 8, top 4, or plus 1. With Vegas making odds it takes that degree of subjectivity away.
 
There's a better case that 5 and 6 got screwed than 7 or 9. In 2015, for example, the Big XII got screwed pretty badly. The system is obviously broken when a conference that plays a round-robin season has to play an additional game to crown their champion just to avoid getting screwed.
 
nutsnbolts said:
They rank the teams. 1 vs 4 and 2 vs 3 play each other. Those rankings mean something. The committee changes their narrative every year to justify their picks.
When they rank teams that jump 3 spots during the playoff, why would you blindly trust that 5 couldn’t jump to 2, or 6 to 3, or 7 to 4?
Just because one of the selected teams wins doesn’t mean that one of the non-selected couldn’t win it all.
As I’ve said before (perhaps in another thread), they have not improved the process. What they’ve done is take the big group of biased voters voting after all the bowl games and transferred the vote to a smaller, more biased (university affiliated), voting group before the playoffs.
The issue isn’t the outcome, it’s the inconsistent, biased process.

Interesting read.

https://collegefootballplayoff.com/sports/2016/10/24/selection-committee-protocol.aspx
Click to expand...

Sure does - which team gets to wear the home colors and which team gets to wear their away whites.
 
Crusaders said:
There's a better case that 5 and 6 got screwed than 7 or 9. In 2015, for example, the Big XII got screwed pretty badly. The system is obviously broken when a conference that plays a round-robin season has to play an additional game to crown their champion just to avoid getting screwed.
Click to expand...

Looked even worse when Ohio State ran the table from that #4 spot. The Big XII screwed up that year by trying to back both Baylor and TCU though. They thought if there were two viable options there's no way both get overlooked. They should have put all their eggs in one basket - probably Baylor since they beat TCU, albeit earlier in the year. Ohio State blowing out and blanking Wisconsin obviously hurt too. If Wisky scores 21 and OSU tacked on a couple scores to make it 59-21 at the end maybe they don't get in. That's the point most are trying to make though - too subject and we're splitting hairs on the final team(s) in.
 
kingpin2010 said:
The #1 team also gets to choose what location of the 2 semi-final bowls they want to be in
Click to expand...

Not so sure they get to choose - think they automatically get the better geographic edge. Since Bama was playing Oklahoma, the Orange Bowl was close for them than it was for OU as opposed to the Cotton Bowl.
 
adselder09 said:
Looked even worse when Ohio State ran the table from that #4 spot. The Big XII screwed up that year by trying to back both Baylor and TCU though. They thought if there were two viable options there's no way both get overlooked. They should have put all their eggs in one basket - probably Baylor since they beat TCU, albeit earlier in the year. Ohio State blowing out and blanking Wisconsin obviously hurt too. If Wisky scores 21 and OSU tacked on a couple scores to make it 59-21 at the end maybe they don't get in. That's the point most are trying to make though - too subject and we're splitting hairs on the final team(s) in.
Click to expand...


If TCU and Baylor were Oklahoma and Texas, with the exact same resumes, Ohio State would have been left out.

The committee wants national brands with large fanbases, and they will do whatever double talk is necessary to meet that agenda.

The same thing happened with Ohio State over Penn State a few years back, and Alabama ahead of Ohio State last year.

Not saying Ohio State isn't a national brand, just that Alabama has more brand currently than anyone else.
 
gobluetom said:
If TCU and Baylor were Oklahoma and Texas, with the exact same resumes, Ohio State would have been left out.

The committee wants national brands with large fanbases, and they will do whatever double talk is necessary to meet that agenda.

The same thing happened with Ohio State over Penn State a few years back, and Alabama ahead of Ohio State last year.

Not saying Ohio State isn't a national brand, just that Alabama has more brand currently than anyone else.
Click to expand...

If Meat-chicken ever was a top-tier achiever, with that fan base, they'd be a shoe-in, huh ?
 
ronnie mund said:
Levi's Stadium is an awful location. The traffic is horrendous and playing this game at 5 pm on a Monday will make it that much worse. Nothing to worry about. College football just needs to stick with their moneymaker locations. Atlanta, Miami, New Orleans, etc.
Click to expand...

put it in Indy
 
Less than a full day after this "upset" in the supposedly biggest game in college football and ESPN's headline is about a fired coach whose year was mediocre getting a job at an NFL team whose year was... less than mediocre.


What a dis.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top