- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
The Committee changed its parameters: T/F
Posted on 12/4/16 at 4:01 pm
Posted on 12/4/16 at 4:01 pm
At the committee's inception, one of the main points that was pushed is to win your conference i.e. prevent 2011 from happening again unless absolutely necessary.
This year the importance of winning the conference has apparently vanished with regard to OSU.
Now, this thread is NOT about bashing OSU or arguing over résumés. This is about the fact that the committee changed its parameters suddenly this year, and as a result a different team got in.
No matter what side of the debate you are on, the committee changing things up suddenly should be concerning to you.
I posted the thread title as is to get a general idea of who agrees with this point.
This year the importance of winning the conference has apparently vanished with regard to OSU.
Now, this thread is NOT about bashing OSU or arguing over résumés. This is about the fact that the committee changed its parameters suddenly this year, and as a result a different team got in.
No matter what side of the debate you are on, the committee changing things up suddenly should be concerning to you.
I posted the thread title as is to get a general idea of who agrees with this point.
11
Posted on 12/4/16 at 4:02 pm to Kodar
100% true
Posted on 12/4/16 at 4:03 pm to Kodar
True
Posted on 12/4/16 at 4:04 pm to Kodar
Like I said in the other thread
the system is set up how they want it. With no transparent formula, a few people behind closed doors. The committee can choose whatever standard they want and apply it to whomever they want whenever they want. For this team it will be head to head, for that team it will be strength of schedule, yet for another team it's a conference championship. They do not want transparency. If there was a tangible, transparent, applicable formula the committee would have no power to manipulate rankings that benefit the business
the system is set up how they want it. With no transparent formula, a few people behind closed doors. The committee can choose whatever standard they want and apply it to whomever they want whenever they want. For this team it will be head to head, for that team it will be strength of schedule, yet for another team it's a conference championship. They do not want transparency. If there was a tangible, transparent, applicable formula the committee would have no power to manipulate rankings that benefit the business
Posted on 12/4/16 at 4:04 pm to Kodar
That is why it will always be a problem unless it is reserved to Conference champs only. People will change the narrative to support their opinion all the time.
Posted on 12/4/16 at 4:08 pm to 33inNC
Not necessarily so
You can make up a transparent and applicable formula with several factors holding different weight
OOC schedule, strength of schedule, margin of victory, conference champ...anything you want really. Letting teams and coaches know what must be done and what is most important and allow them to strategize for failure or success based on that, leaving themselves to blame for failure.
However that would take power away from the committee to manipulate rankings for profit and thus we will never see it. College football is still a business
You can make up a transparent and applicable formula with several factors holding different weight
OOC schedule, strength of schedule, margin of victory, conference champ...anything you want really. Letting teams and coaches know what must be done and what is most important and allow them to strategize for failure or success based on that, leaving themselves to blame for failure.
However that would take power away from the committee to manipulate rankings for profit and thus we will never see it. College football is still a business
This post was edited on 12/4/16 at 4:11 pm
Posted on 12/4/16 at 4:10 pm to Kodar
Posted on 12/4/16 at 4:10 pm to ThePoo
False
The committee has always said body of work was #1. It just so happens that conference title games usually add a huge win to a teams body of work. Wasn't enough this year for PSU or OU with 2 losses
The committee has always said body of work was #1. It just so happens that conference title games usually add a huge win to a teams body of work. Wasn't enough this year for PSU or OU with 2 losses
Posted on 12/4/16 at 4:12 pm to Buckeye06
quote:
Buckeye06
Color me shocked
This post was edited on 12/4/16 at 4:14 pm
Posted on 12/4/16 at 4:13 pm to Kodar
As expected, the rules are never hard and fast. They only exist to benefit the blue bloods of college football and will be changed whenever necessary to protect that small group of "elite" programs: Ohio State, Michigan, Notre Dame, Alabama, and USC.
Posted on 12/4/16 at 4:13 pm to Buckeye06
Yeah nice and vague just how they like it. Body of work can mean whatever they frick they want it to
Posted on 12/4/16 at 4:14 pm to Buckeye06
quote:
False
The committee has always said body of work was #1.
So why was TCU left out in 2014?
They were decidedly the #3 team in the Massey Composite and fell 3 spots in the CFP ranking the final week after winning by 50.
Posted on 12/4/16 at 4:16 pm to Kodar
quote:
The Committee changed its parameters: T/F
No doubt, but I think the angst is misplaced. This season is just a reminder of how much they fricked up in 2014. Under 2016 parameters, OSU or FSU are left out of the final four. Under 2014 parameters, you simply cannot put OSU into the top four.
Posted on 12/4/16 at 4:16 pm to Kodar
If it were gonna automatically be 4 of the power 5 conference winners, what would we need a committee for in the first place?
Posted on 12/4/16 at 4:16 pm to slackster
quote:
So why was TCU left out in 2014?
They weren't one of the four best teams.
Next question.
Posted on 12/4/16 at 4:16 pm to slackster
TCU lost to Baylor so they had to be behind them as they both had 1 loss...and FSU was undefeated so they were in
Posted on 12/4/16 at 4:18 pm to sowega dawg
Either require conference championships, use computers only, or both. The committee is an abomination.
Posted on 12/4/16 at 4:18 pm to ThePoo
quote:
Not necessarily so
You can make up a transparent and applicable formula with several factors holding different weight
Yeah it was called the BCS
Posted on 12/4/16 at 4:19 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
They weren't one of the four best teams.
Next question.
They had the 3rd best resume in the country, ahead of both OSU and Florida State.
Ohio State eventually winning it all doesn't change the fact that OSU or FSU should have been left out.
Posted on 12/4/16 at 4:20 pm to Buckeye06
quote:
TCU lost to Baylor so they had to be behind them as they both had 1 loss...and FSU was undefeated so they were in
Then why did the committee put FSU 3 spots ahead of FSU in the rankings released today, despite both teams having 3 losses and Louisville dismantling FSU during the regular season?
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News