re: Even after the Tennessee beating, Kirk is still saying Indiana was the problem

quote:

---

Even the NCAA basketball tournament doesn’t operate this way. We don’t spend 4 days discussing whether a Cinderella deserves to be in the elite 8 because they played in the American conference

---

Don't seem to see people bitching about HS playoff brackets either. Occasionally we'll see some smoke towards towards the NFL when a team with a losing record gets a home playoff game but two of the three times it happened (in non-strike shortened seasons) that team won the game.

The better teams won their games and advanced. That's how playoffs work most of the time especially in early rounds. People comparing the 4 team playoff to the opening round, how about we wait until the semis to do an actual apples to apples comparison. If the semis (4 teams) turn out to be more competitive than the opening round of the 4 team playoff was on average, would that not be a success?

There’s not much an SMU or a Boise State can do regarding the schedules they play. It’s not like SMU has the choice to try and fill their schedule with Ole Miss, LSU, Michigan and USC every year.

I just don’t think it’s good for the future of college football across the nation if schools who otherwise try and field good programs are pretty much told “frick you, you don’t belong to the SEC or B1G so whatever you do doesn’t really matter because it’s not as tough”.

Re-seed before the playoffs begin, add a couple of additional teams, do whatever but I’d like to see efforts to keep the interest in college football as high as it can be across the country and not end up being a thing where you’re only really interested someday if your school is fortunate enough to be an SEC or Big Ten member.

quote:

---

Do you let an 8-4 team with 3 top 10 wins over a 10-2 team with one top 25 win in a weaker conference?

---

then you have 11-1 teams with 0 top 25 wins and 0 wins against the stop 6 teams in their own conference.


I dont think the issue was that Tennessee shouldn’t have been in, Ohio State shouldn’t have been an 8 seed.

and they only were because we gave 2 top 4 seeds to teams who play in weak conferences.

The Big 12 is closer to the American Conferende than they are the the Big 10 or SEC.

So teams that have one hiccup against a good team (SMU) should be punished for their schedules, and all non-SEC teams that aren't conference champs should just shut it and accept it.

Top 12 teams don't lose twice to 6-6 teams including a 21 point loss. Why is he suggesting Bama for example deserves in because they beat UGA? That was their only good win. Don't give me USCe where they deserved to lose and got bailed out.

Should a win early in the season count as much as late in the season?

This is why the "best" moniker is stupid. You aren't choosing the best based on anything other than the eye test (and by that I meant who gives ESPN the most money).

Just stop this charade and go back to either a 4-team playoff or at most an 8 team playoff.

Outside of winning your conference, no team going under 0.800 should go to the playoffs. End of story.

In the craziest year (2007), the BCS rankings only had 1 teams with 3 losses in the top 12 and that was #12 UF. They didn't deserve to be in that year either.

If you are going to have conference championship games, you cannot have 3-loss teams not playing in their conference championships in those in the championship. If the team loses the Conference Championship game, maybe, because they are 10-3, but no 9-3 team should be in the playoffs.

You can go to 8 teams, have 5 conference champs and 3 At Large. No byes for anyone.

Conference champs only guaranteed a playoff spot, not home field. First round is awt home stadium of 1-4. Then regular playoff schedule like before.

You stop the stupidity of the Championship game going into Spring semester for most schools and keep some integrity,

ESPN is killing CFB in so many ways, and people are just accepting it.

This!

quote:

---

Do you let an 8-4 team with 3 top 10 wins over a 10-2 team with one top 25 win in a weaker conference? It goes against reason that you would pick a team who lost 1/3 of their games but also you know that team has a high ceiling

---

This is why the playoffs should be 6 teams at a max. Who the hell cares for the 12th team in, they are almost always going to get stomped anyway and have no shot at winning a title. Sure, Bama, Ole Miss, and USCe would have made for better TV than Indiana and SMU, but none of them deserved to be in the playoffs. Yuor product is watered down when you're debating "which team is less shiity" as opposed to who deserves to be in/who could win it.

You went from the sport where wins mattered more than any other sport to people crying over wins not mattering in the span of a year.

quote:

---

Use the original BCS rankings formula (computer heavy, not voter heavy) and seed it accordingly.

---

The original BCS formula was a cluster frick they caused all the controversy

Also the computer rankings are formulas created by people good at math that may or may know know jack about FB, it’s not some algebraic truth it has zero transparency or accountability

quote:

---

How can he freaking ignore the game result he just called and simp for more sec teams?

---

The fact is that Tennessee didn't really beat anyone that should have made any of our fans think we would go in there and win on Saturday.

For one, we looked atrocious on the road against anyone with a pulse.

Our one good win, Bama, was wildly inconsistent and lost to bad 2 mediocre teams.

It feels like the play should have been to put Ole Miss in over us I guess. Then you could argue us or Bama next... we beat them head to head but they had more good wins than we did.

quote:

---

Do you let an 8-4 team with 3 top 10 wins

---

Name all those.

If there are any name all those not in an intraconference circle jerk with each other.