re: I don't like the new playoff system

quote:

---

well sure but if you schedule tOSU, OU, Oregon, Clemson, FSU those are highly likely to be outstanding teams. Duke is probably a nice team that is overachieving. They shouldn't be sold short as irrelevant (and A&M might tell you from the start of that bowl game) but no good betting man would predict them to be better than FSU or Clemson in the same conference.

---

Yeah, I see what you're saying. I just think, overall, the games would give us a better idea of who are the 4 best teams. You can take it into account that Duke is overachieving and/or a win over Oregon is better than one over Clemson.

well with respect to ranking i'd try to rank teams on the basis of who've they've beaten and lost to more than prior season. RE: scheduling? If there's a Duke or Boise who isn't a name power but has a few seasons of success then maybe you try to schedule them - but without consistency I'd prefer a name power team with recent success try to schedule the same ooc.

some of this the committee could also address IMO - and in so doing actually improve the quality of the cfb regular season. If they made their criteria more transparent and included the requirement that for an at large (non conference winner) team to make the playoff they had to have played at least two quality (preferably major conference) teams out of conference? that might be a bit of a game changer. In so doing the regular season would be improved (more quality ooc games) and they would enable more thoughtful comparisons of the major conferences as a whole.