Baylor beat TCU and had the same record. If style points are that important, Ohio st should jump them both bc it doesn't get more stylish than what they did with their third string qKremlin Watcher said:Meh, Baylor didn't do itself any favors tonight with its performance against KSU if you want to use it as a differentiating factor for the top four. Baylor was good tonight, but to make a good claim for top four they would have had to obliterate KState, and they didn't. Beat them fair and square, but the visual inspection of that game tells me Baylor is not top-four material.
Not that they had any real shot at it.
Their only loss was to a highly ranked team.twibnotes said:What is the justification, in the minds of some, for slotting TCU over Baylor?
twibnotes said:What is the justification, in the minds of some, for slotting TCU over Baylor?
Call me old school, but I can't get past the head to head factor. You beat a team on the field and have the same record, you shouldn't finish behind them. Just not rightBigMike said:
Better body of work. Blew out one of the better B1G teams Minnesota . Baylor's top OOC win was against Buffalo
+1DLew On Roids said:There is no way an undefeated team from a Power 5 conference is missing the playoff. None.
FSU is walking away with the conference that the team that beat Ohio State was never close to winning. There is no fucking way Ohio State gets in above FSU, nor should they.
The game was razor-close, and Baylor lost to a worse team. If Baylor's loss was to a top 10 team, I'd probably put them ahead. They also played a terrible non-conference schedule.twibnotes said:What is the justification, in the minds of some, for slotting TCU over Baylor?
The 1993 Seminoles say "hello"twibnotes said:Call me old school, but I can't get past the head to head factor. You beat a team on the field and have the same record, you shouldn't finish behind them. Just not right
twibnotes said:Call me old school, but I can't get past the head to head factor. You beat a team on the field and have the same record, you shouldn't finish behind them. Just not right
Of course not, but if you share the same record, it should.BigMike said:
So you play a team one time on the season. You get to play them at home. You win the game on a FG on the last play of the game. And that should be the be all and end all for decision making?
 JCizzle said:Already a case for an eight team playoff. Just make it happen.
I trust that the committee will fuck the selection this year up so thoroughly that eight teams is inevitable pretty soon. Then sixteen.JCizzle said:Already a case for an eight team playoff. Just make it happen.
Well, that's the point - there's no reasonable way to choose a number four. Or a number eight. A sixteen-team playoff is coming.shawnrbu said:Not sure why the committee is getting blamed. Whoever they slot at #4, they are going to get complaints from the two other teams and a bunch of other people. No win situation.
Regardless of who # 4 is, would you be shocked if the final is not Alabama vs. Oregon? I would be.
Not really, but I'd love to see it "earned".shawnrbu said:Not sure why the committee is getting blamed. Whoever they slot at #4, they are going to get complaints from the two other teams and a bunch of other people. No win situation.
Regardless of who # 4 is, would you be shocked if the final is not Alabama vs. Oregon? I would be.
Don't you also have to manage the number of games these kids play?maufman said:An 8-team playoff would mean more money for everyone except the bowl games. Are the bowls really that influential, or is there a reason I'm missing to keep the smaller tourney?
twibnotes said:Don't you also have to manage the number of games these kids play?
FCS and D3 manage 16 team playoffs, no problem. And they're at least as serious academically as FBS.twibnotes said:Don't you also have to manage the number of games these kids play?
FCS is now a 24 team playoff.SumnerH said:FCS and D3 manage 16 team playoffs, no problem. And they're at least as serious academically as FBS.
shawnrbu said:Not sure why the committee is getting blamed. Whoever they slot at #4, they are going to get complaints from the two other teams and a bunch of other people. No win situation.
Regardless of who # 4 is, would you be shocked if the final is not Alabama vs. Oregon? I would be.
Chemistry Schmemistry said:
That doesn't seem to sway the other college football divisions, so no. Why pretend football players do anything but play football during the fall semester? It's not like they can catch up in December. Give them a week off and start the tournament.
SumnerH said:FCS and D3 manage 16 team playoffs, no problem. And they're at least as serious academically as FBS.
RedOctober3829 said:FCS is now a 24 team playoff.
maufman said:An 8-team playoff would mean more money for everyone except the bowl games. Are the bowls really that influential, or is there a reason I'm missing to keep the smaller tourney?
I never found her beautiful, but cute and seems like a lot of fun. Sort of the Anna Kendrick of sideline reporting.BigMike said:Jamie Erdhal looks cold. Basically like it is too cold for makeup. Still beautiful
luckiestman said:I don't really see what is better about an expanded playoff but I don't really like what mlb is doing either with the playoffs so I'm probably an outlier. People seem to love brackets.
Bob Montgomery's Helmet Hat said:I never found her beautiful, but cute and seems like a lot of fun. Sort of the Anna Kendrick of sideline reporting.
As do I. Give me the girl next door, and if those two lived next door, so much the better.BigMike said:
Fair enough I guess. Then again I prefer cute to beautiful
mabrowndog said:
As is NCAA Div II.
Div III is a 32-team format.
The argument that we have to limit the games played by Div I (FBS) athletes is complete horseshit.
I suppose. But I rarely feel convinced the best NCAA basketball team is the champ because they win some wacky tournament. I'd rather the top 4 seeds play best of five series or something. The conference system is already a quasi playoff system in college football. I don't really feel the need to watch bama blowout the number 32 team then blowout the number 16 team to get down to 8 just because PLAYOFFS.mabrowndog said:
What's better is that the more teams involved, the less subjectivity there is in anointing a "champion" based on two or four teams deemed worthy of consideration. It levels the playing field and allows the winner of every conference to have a shot at the title. Sure, there would be debates over seeding and matchups, and which team plays at which venue. But giving those teams a chance, rather than locking them out because they don't "look" like championship material, is what matters the most.
luckiestman said:I suppose. But I rarely feel convinced the best NCAA basketball team is the champ because they win some wacky tournament. I'd rather the top 4 seeds play best of five series or something.
SumnerH said:
But college sports are about excitement and smack talk and school loyalty and emotions. We know the worst pro teams would crush the "champs", so bring on the one-and-done brackets, and George Mason to the Final Four--what can you do when given one shot, loser goes home? Make sure everyone with a potential claim at the title has a shot at getting there on the field of play.
At the pro level I'm with you for the longer series, that's where you're actually trying to find out who the best in the world is (at least for MLB/NBA/NFL; I don't know how to compare the NHL with the KHL or others).
Morgan's Magic Snowplow said:The committee is specifically instructed to consider SoS, conference championships, and H2H play when deciding between otherwise similar teams. OSU didn't play TCU, both won or shared their conference, and OSU has a weaker schedule by any metric out there. It's hard to find a reason to elevate OSU over TCU under those criteria.
I have no clue what will happen but my guess is TCU because (a) the above criteria and (b) the committee boxed themselves in a bit by jumping TCU to 3rd last week. It would be easier to switch 4 and 5 than it will be 3 and 5, especially when 3 won by 50 points.