From: james.m.gibson@gmail.com   
      
   On Saturday, December 16, 2023 at 7:16:43 AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:   
   > On Sunday, December 10, 2023 at 10:49:10 AM UTC-5, michael anderson wrote:    
   > > On Monday, December 4, 2023 at 9:58:27 AM UTC-6, JE Corbett wrote:    
   > > > The four best teams is a completely subjective and arbitrary standard.   
   There is    
   > > > no way to measure that. What I think are the four best teams probably   
   won't be    
   > > > what somebody else thinks are the four best teams. Furthermore, if you   
   were    
   > > > to really put the four best teams in the playoff, you might have to put   
   in a great    
   > > > but underachieving team (Ohio State, Georgia?). In some years that could   
   be    
   > > > a team with two or three losses. There is no way to measure the four   
   best.    
   > > >    
   > > > What we can measure are accomplishments. By that criteria, Michigan,    
   > > > Washington, FSU, and Texas would get the nod. The first three because   
   they    
   > > > are undefeated Power 5 conference champions and Texas would get the nod    
   > > > over Alabama because they beat them head-t0-head.    
   > > >    
   > > > The committee neither selected the four best teams nor the four most    
   > > > accomplished teams. Their choices were political. They didn't want to   
   ruffle    
   > > > feathers by leaving the SEC out. They had to take Alabama over Georgia   
   but    
   > > > they couldn't justify putting Alabama in and leaving Texas out so they   
   took    
   > > > put them both in and gave the finger to FSU. I truly believe that if   
   Georgia    
   > > > had won the SEC, they would have selected the four unbeaten conference    
   > > > champions and left Texas out.    
   > > I completely agree with this, and it wasn't talked about enough.    
   > >    
   > > Alabama being thrown in the mix is probably what saved texas too.    
   > >    
   > > I'm someone who believes that HTH doesn't *always* have to trump   
   everything else(assuming similar number of losses). But a lot of people do, so   
   when the committee decided that they had to take alabama due to the   
   significant of the win against georgia(   
   which is a reasonable stance in my opinion.....I mean you have to reward those   
   type of wins, of which there was only 1 this year and only 1 every 3-4 years   
   probably) they also decided they had to take Texas due to the HTH(or people   
   would really lose it).    
   So FSU is the odd team out, and the travis injury was their supposed cover.....   
   > The silly thing about the HTH standard is by the end of the season, somebody   
   has to be ranked above another team that    
   > beat them. There's no getting around it. HTH only means on one particular   
   day, one team was better than another. Does    
   > that mean we should ignore the other 11 games? I remember the uproar back in   
   the BCS days when Colorado rolled    
   > Nebraska in their regular season finale and beat Texas in the Big 12   
   Championship but Nebraska narrowly made it into    
   > the national championship game based on the BCS formula. It was because the   
   BCS formula took into account all the    
   > games both teams played. It had no recency bias other than what existed   
   amongst the pollsters. Colorado had lost TWO    
   > regular season games and that was their undoing. HTH is important, but it   
   shouldn't be used as an eraser. Despite    
   > Alabama beating Georgia, I think Georgia has been the better team over the   
   course of the season and if they four best    
   > teams had been selected, Georgia would have been one of thm.   
      
   The biggest problem I had with the BCS era is that I thought they should have   
   required teams to be conference champions.  Not just 2 best teams but 2 best   
   conference champions or independent.  And then there was another 1-loss   
   conference champion waiting    
   that hadn't just given up 62 points to Colorado - Pac-10 champ Oregon.  It   
   would also have knocked out Oklahoma in '03 right after they lost to K-State   
   35-7 in the Big 12 title game.  Also would have spared us from the ridiculous   
   LSU vs. Alabama rematch.    
    I don't really care if the two best teams are from the same conference.  If   
   you have a 2-team playoff, they better be from two different conferences.   
      
   Using this for CFP, it would have left out the #2 Ohio State team at the end   
   of '16 in favor of either Penn State (who was inferior on the definition of   
   "best") or Oklahoma (who had lost to Ohio State at home by 21 earlier that   
   year).  But I don't care.     
   I feel like the bowls always went for champion of their league even if it   
   meant a higher ranked team elsewhere (that's how Washington ended up in the   
   Orange Bowl at the end of the '84 season).  It would have set less nebulous   
   criteria.  And Ohio State    
   didn't win the Big Ten that year.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)