Let's see if anyone can read the CFP committee's mind

Donate To GopherHole

1. Clemson
2. LSU
3. Ohio State
4. Bama

Go Ole Miss and win out!
 

SelectionSunday said:
1. Clemson/LSU will be #1 and #2. It's just a matter of which order they come.

2. Baylor will not be in the top 4. There's no way the committee will reward Baylor for the schedule it's played to this point, even with their pinball numbers. That should not concern BU fans. The Bears will shoot up the rankings quickly if they continue to win because their schedule is back-loaded.

3. Iowa at worst will be ranked #5, and I won't be surprised at all if they crack the top 4. The Hawkeyes will be rewarded for the schedule they've played to this point. The Hawkeyes' biggest problem, however, is their schedule moving forward.
Click to expand...


Iowa at 9. Interesting. Definitely must be some problems with the eye test there as the polls agree with the Hawkeyes placement
 

Was surprised Iowa was that low, but Understand it better seeing that committee doesn't have Wisconsin or Pitt in top 25. Those wins definitely were devalued by the committee.
 

SelectionSunday said:
Was surprised Iowa was that low, but Understand it better seeing that committee doesn't have Wisconsin or Pitt in top 25. Those wins definitely were devalued by the committee.
Click to expand...
Wisconsin win seems to be the difference between Bama and Florida though.
 


God, this beauty pageant stuff is frustrating and deeply, deeply unsatisfying. If there's anything we learned last year, it is that the committee is flawed. Winners and losers shouldn't be picked by an unqualified group of biased observers.

Let's work towards a way to have the conference champions settle it on the field.
 

Shocked!!!!!

<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 

The winners

Gophers in Iowa, Otis, and Rob Goldberg had the correct order for the top 3: Clemson, LSU, and Ohio State. All 3 had Baylor at #4 instead of Alabama.

ESPN analyst David Pollack (not listed above) didn't have the correct seedings, but he's the only one I know of who had the correct 4 teams.
 

It's all set up so a 2-loss SEC runner up will jump a 1-loss Power 5 champion or a 1-loss SEC champion will jump an undefeated Power 5 champion. Agree with the guy who said that conference champions should settle it on the field. Automatic qualifiers should be granted to the Power 5 champions with 1 bid granted to a non-Power 5 champion and 2 at-large teams.
 



DarrenTheGreek said:
It's all set up so a 2-loss SEC runner up will jump a 1-loss Power 5 champion or a 1-loss SEC champion will jump an undefeated Power 5 champion. Agree with the guy who said that conference champions should settle it on the field. Automatic qualifiers should be granted to the Power 5 champions with 1 bid granted to a non-Power 5 champion and 2 at-large teams.
Click to expand...

I would argue no at-large teams. Or, have a system that doesn't have style points, ie a computer algorithm to determine the at-large bids. Get the non-experts on the committee out of the equation.

With the emphasis on safety and concussion reduction, it's quite shocking the college playoff system in its current iteration gives huge incentive for teams to drive up and down fields in the fourth quarter rather than play ball control and attempt to protect leads. This lengthens games, and increases the number of plays. For what?
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom