- 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
"Why the College Football Playoff system isn’t working"
Posted on 11/23/22 at 12:49 pm
Posted on 11/23/22 at 12:49 pm
Joel Klatt
Klatt not a fan of the Committee's lack of due diligence.
Cliff Notes:
"This is a failed experiment." There are a lot of people who distrust the process...what you see is nothings really changed the last few weeks. Teams play well, teams play bad week to week. Quality opponents, not so quality opponents...so your resume needs to change on a weekly basis."
"Regardless of what's happened the last two weeks, the Committee just slides the teams up based on where they were two weeks ago...disregarding quality of opponents."
"LSU had a great win over Alabama, they also have two loses...and one of them was getting housed at home...regardless of what they do, the Alabama win is holding them there at #5."
"The last two weeks LSU played an Arkansas team that lost to Liberty and Arkansas played their 3rd string Quarterback against LSU and LSU won by 3? At some point you have to evaluate that game or what are we doing? But don't worry they backed that up by playing UAB this week."
"LSU can play a 3-point game against Arkansas and then play UAB and USC doesn't pass them even though they crushed Colorado and then beat UCLA who has wins over Washington and Utah...both Top 14 wins in the Committee's own rankings."
"This is so clearly wrong."
"And Alabama played Austin Peay and beat them 34-0. If you play them in September and beat them 34-0, the sky is falling...but apparently in late November it's a great win and they still stay at their ranking ahead of a 1-loss Clemson team?"
"So you see why people distrust the system, why it's so jaded, when the Committee is clearly not evaluating the teams on a week in week out basis."
"Alabama's ranking is still preconceived bias...and therefore teams that beat Alabama are viewed as they beat the greatest team ever...which pumps up their ranking."
"Alabama's played 8 Power 5 opponents this year, in those 8 games, 5 of those have been 1-score games...in those 1-score games they are 3-2."
Klatt not a fan of the Committee's lack of due diligence.
Cliff Notes:
"This is a failed experiment." There are a lot of people who distrust the process...what you see is nothings really changed the last few weeks. Teams play well, teams play bad week to week. Quality opponents, not so quality opponents...so your resume needs to change on a weekly basis."
"Regardless of what's happened the last two weeks, the Committee just slides the teams up based on where they were two weeks ago...disregarding quality of opponents."
"LSU had a great win over Alabama, they also have two loses...and one of them was getting housed at home...regardless of what they do, the Alabama win is holding them there at #5."
"The last two weeks LSU played an Arkansas team that lost to Liberty and Arkansas played their 3rd string Quarterback against LSU and LSU won by 3? At some point you have to evaluate that game or what are we doing? But don't worry they backed that up by playing UAB this week."
"LSU can play a 3-point game against Arkansas and then play UAB and USC doesn't pass them even though they crushed Colorado and then beat UCLA who has wins over Washington and Utah...both Top 14 wins in the Committee's own rankings."
"This is so clearly wrong."
"And Alabama played Austin Peay and beat them 34-0. If you play them in September and beat them 34-0, the sky is falling...but apparently in late November it's a great win and they still stay at their ranking ahead of a 1-loss Clemson team?"
"So you see why people distrust the system, why it's so jaded, when the Committee is clearly not evaluating the teams on a week in week out basis."
"Alabama's ranking is still preconceived bias...and therefore teams that beat Alabama are viewed as they beat the greatest team ever...which pumps up their ranking."
"Alabama's played 8 Power 5 opponents this year, in those 8 games, 5 of those have been 1-score games...in those 1-score games they are 3-2."
This post was edited on 11/23/22 at 1:34 pm
27
Posted on 11/23/22 at 12:50 pm to mizzoubuckeyeiowa
quote:
Joel Klatt
No thanks.
Posted on 11/23/22 at 12:53 pm to mizzoubuckeyeiowa
This is all fine and dandy if you have no history to reflect on. The best team (best two teams) has come out of the SEC 90% of the time.
Posted on 11/23/22 at 12:53 pm to mizzoubuckeyeiowa
All because their precious USC got "snubbed."
Posted on 11/23/22 at 12:55 pm to mizzoubuckeyeiowa
He’s making a rational statement regardless of the SEC bias here.
USC and maybe Clemson should be ahead of LSU.
LSU beats TAM and UGA and they should jump both of them.
USC and maybe Clemson should be ahead of LSU.
LSU beats TAM and UGA and they should jump both of them.
Posted on 11/23/22 at 12:55 pm to mizzoubuckeyeiowa
The committee is mostly made up with Athletic Directors and Conference Commissioners. They aren’t like us and watching games from Noon to 2 in the morning when the PAC-12 late games are done. They have way too much going on to truly pay attention to the whole landscape
Posted on 11/23/22 at 12:56 pm to mizzoubuckeyeiowa
I just don’t understand the UAB talking point.
We don’t get to play Colorado and Rutgers throughout the season.
We don’t get to play Colorado and Rutgers throughout the season.
Posted on 11/23/22 at 12:57 pm to mizzoubuckeyeiowa
he is making a good point but because people will 1) interpret it as a personal attack on their team and 2) dislike Joel Klatt to begin with, no one here will take it seriously.
Posted on 11/23/22 at 12:57 pm to mizzoubuckeyeiowa
quote:
Why the College Football Playoff system isn’t working"
It's worked to perfection every year of its existence
Posted on 11/23/22 at 12:58 pm to mizzoubuckeyeiowa
He’s paid to be the anti-SEC take (which is needed as all fans of other conferences hate the SEC so deserve a “voice”)
But the CFP is a failure for a lot of reasons…letting SEC teams who year after year win and win big in the playoffs isn’t really one of them
But the CFP is a failure for a lot of reasons…letting SEC teams who year after year win and win big in the playoffs isn’t really one of them
This post was edited on 11/23/22 at 12:59 pm
Posted on 11/23/22 at 12:58 pm to Eighteen
quote:
But the CFP is a failure for a lot of reasons
such as?
Posted on 11/23/22 at 1:01 pm to DeshaHog
quote:
dislike Joel Klatt to begin with, no one here will take it seriously
…because he is the biggest B1G homer in history, he would blow the entire Buckeye linemen group if possible. Why does the SEC seemingly get a pass for the CFP? Maybe it’s because they happen to win it more times than not whereas other conferences have done Jack shite outside of Clemson and Ohio State.
Posted on 11/23/22 at 1:01 pm to tigerbank24
UAB probably beats Colorado and Rutgers which I’m sure he probably knows. Also just disregard that Arkansas beat ole miss who is also ranked in the cfp own rankings, so stands to reason that Arkansas might actually be a better team than their record shows.
Posted on 11/23/22 at 1:01 pm to WG_Dawg
The BCS was fine and didn’t completely ruin the sport, didn’t devalue bowl games, and didn’t concentrate top players into select schools and conferences.
As you see, the “committee” causes just as much if not more controversy than the few times we had a 2/3 debate under the BCS. But back then fans and players were more invested in the sport and bowl games were still fun.
During BCS era it wasn’t “BCS championship game or bust” to define a good season, but now it’s “make the playoffs or bust” to define a season for nearly all top schools
This is why I’m a fan of expansion now, you might as well since the sport is essentially already ruined. At least expansion gives a chance to save it
As you see, the “committee” causes just as much if not more controversy than the few times we had a 2/3 debate under the BCS. But back then fans and players were more invested in the sport and bowl games were still fun.
During BCS era it wasn’t “BCS championship game or bust” to define a good season, but now it’s “make the playoffs or bust” to define a season for nearly all top schools
This is why I’m a fan of expansion now, you might as well since the sport is essentially already ruined. At least expansion gives a chance to save it
This post was edited on 11/23/22 at 1:04 pm
Posted on 11/23/22 at 1:05 pm to tigerbank24
quote:
We don’t get to play Colorado and Rutgers throughout the season.
No, but you get to play A&M and Southern.
Posted on 11/23/22 at 1:06 pm to mizzoubuckeyeiowa
quote:
Joel Klatt
DB melting
Posted on 11/23/22 at 1:06 pm to Eighteen
quote:
The BCS was fine and don’t completely ruin the sport, devalue bowl games,
I don't really have a problem with the BCS on the face of it. We could split hairs of the formula used but I don't necessarily dislike the BCS. I do think, speaking stricktly from a rational and logical perspective, it isn't totally fair to have a system where only 2 teams are in title contention. 2004 was a prime example. Undefeated champions from 3 major conferences; why is it fair that a 13-0 SEC champion not have a shot at the title? 4 is fine with me, once you get to 13 games and are only ranked 5th youv'e lost your shot somewhere.
quote:
concentrate top players into select schools and conferences.
the palyoffs don't do this. People don't go to alabama because of the playoffs, they go to alabama because it's been the best program for a decade and is the best dynasty run in cfb history. The same would be said regardlesss of posteason structure.
quote:
As you see, the “committee” causes just as much if not more controversy
No, I don't see that at all. In the annual thread I post yearly it's actually quite clear that they've made the rational choice pick every year the palyofs have existed. The only "controversy" is from people that only think with their emotions and think that someone has been slighted when in reality they ahve not.
quote:
During BCS era it wasn’t “BCS championship game or bust” to define a good season, but now it’s “make the playoffs or bust” to define a season for nearly all top schools
That is a result of modern society in general.
Posted on 11/23/22 at 1:06 pm to mizzoubuckeyeiowa
He’s correct that reputation and brand name mean a lot, and he’s correct that SEC teams get the benefit of the doubt.
But are those things wrong? There are so many teams to rank and they don’t all play each other.
But are those things wrong? There are so many teams to rank and they don’t all play each other.
Posted on 11/23/22 at 1:09 pm to biglego
I remember when the Bucs got housed at home 38-3 vs the Saints and then went on to win the Super Bowl. 
Only in college football can a team not improve over the course of a season apparently.
Only in college football can a team not improve over the course of a season apparently. This post was edited on 11/23/22 at 1:10 pm
Posted on 11/23/22 at 1:11 pm to biglego
quote:
He’s correct that reputation and brand name mean a lot, and he’s correct that SEC teams get the benefit of the doubt.
But he's not correct on either point though.
1) Reputation is irrelevant. Waht is relevant is 1)Are you a conference winner 2) Do you have less than 2 losses. If Illinois, virginia, boston college, oregon state, kansas, Kentucky, etc were to go undefeated and win their league they would 100000% be in the palyoffs. Without question.
2) When has an SEC team gotten any type of benefit of the doubt? Every SEC team that has made the playoffs has either 1)Won the SEC with 0 or 1 loss, or 2) not had a 1 loss P5 champion availbale to put in their place instead.
Page 1 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News