No love for FSU....

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by gopherfan

Thanks for the reply, Scott.

How about South Carolina? Every year I have to hear about how awesome they are, and every year they end up with 3 or 4 losses. Of course this is because it is so tough to win in the vaunted SEC. Arkansas, same thing. Georgia lost to Boise State a couple years ago in basically a home game. Boise State got little credit because it was all gimmicks, trick plays, and Georgia just had a bad day.

Florida, Kentucky, Tennessee, Vanderbilt and Arkansas are free wins this year.

I don't think LSU is a top 25 team, but they are what? 17th? How is that possible? They have 4 losses, and are below .500 in the SEC. They were lucky to get by Wisconsin (how does Gordon only get 5 touches in the second half after rushing for 170 in the first half?), but some great wins against Sam Houston St., Louisiana-Monroe, New Mexico St., Florida (having a horrible year) and Kentucky. They have 2 decent wins. How are they 17th again? And every team that beats them gets a power ranking boost for beating a "top team".

As far as A&M being a really good team, I don't buy it. They have one quality win. Auburn, and they needed to fumble recoveries in the last 3 minutes to hang on to that one. I am not giving them quality win credit for beating South Carolina. Sorry, can't do it.

Why don't we just rank all the SEC teams in the top 25, and if one of them beats another one, we can just exchange their spot in the polls.

I understood your previous points, but now you just sound angry. The SEC is just another college football conference - it isn't worth getting so upset about. Besides, this 4-team playoff system should solve most of the problem with coming up with a legitimate champ.

[I Only Smoke 4 the Cards]

Originally Posted by Runscott

I understood your previous points, but now you just sound angry. The SEC is just another college football conference - it isn't worth getting so upset about. Besides, this 4-team playoff system should solve most of the problem with coming up with a legitimate champ.

I think the playoff will prove to be a better idea than in practice.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by I Only Smoke 4 the Cards

I think the playoff will prove to be a better idea than in practice.

I think that with four teams, you probably have the best one somewhere in the mix, so it should solve the complaint that sometimes the best team is not the National Champion. At least with the new system, the best team will get a legitimate shot at it.

But I was very surprised when this 4-team playoff thing was sold as solving all the problems. The big problem now is the same one the NCAA basketball tourney faced. Bubble-teams would complain that they missed out on a shot, meaning that it was no longer about a National Champion, but rather, about getting more coverage and money for your team by simply getting in. So they expanded the field and the same thing happened. They expanded again, same thing....

The same thing will no-doubt occur with a 4-team football playoff. What about the 5th and 6th teams? If TCU, Mississipi and Baylor win out, two of those teams will be screaming "foul".

[I Only Smoke 4 the Cards]

Originally Posted by Runscott

I think that with four teams, you probably have the best one somewhere in the mix, so it should solve the complaint that sometimes the best team is not the National Champion. At least with the new system, the best team will get a legitimate shot at it.

But I was very surprised when this 4-team playoff thing was sold as solving all the problems. The big problem now is the same one the NCAA basketball tourney faced. Bubble-teams would complain that they missed out on a shot, meaning that it was no longer about a National Champion, but rather, about getting more coverage and money for your team by simply getting in. So they expanded the field and the same thing happened. They expanded again, same thing....

The same thing will no-doubt occur with a 4-team football playoff. What about the 5th and 6th teams? If TCU, Mississipi and Baylor win out, two of those teams will be screaming "foul".

Perhaps. I think the AP and coaches polls would be better than this committee. It seems a little cloak and dagger to me.

[Section103]

Coaches have a serious conflict of interest, though.

[I Only Smoke 4 the Cards]

Originally Posted by Section103

Coaches have a serious conflict of interest, though.

That's true but why should Archie Manning (formerly) and Condoleezza Rice decide seeding?

[Section103]

Anyone knowledgeable and without a direct conflict of interest should be able to be part of the process. The general assumption is that these people know football. I have no knowledge to the contrary, do you?

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by I Only Smoke 4 the Cards

That's true but why should Archie Manning (formerly) and Condoleezza Rice decide seeding?

Agreed - seems like this committee's decisions will get even more blowback for decisions than previous ranking methods. But I think it was a good thing that they are doing weekly rankings and making a big deal about it. Their decisions are being questioned and debated each week, and that should result in people understanding the selection process better so that there won't be as much backlash by those who don't get selected.

[gopherfan]

Originally Posted by Runscott

I understood your previous points, but now you just sound angry. The SEC is just another college football conference - it isn't worth getting so upset about. Besides, this 4-team playoff system should solve most of the problem with coming up with a legitimate champ.

I might be a little bitter. I am a fan of a team not in the SEC, so I feel there is no chance of ever seeing them in final 4.