All Hokie, All the Time. Period.

Conference Realignment Board

Pylons

Joined: 8/25/05 Posts: 11862
Likes: 1381


He makes good points, as do you, but


making an argument against the committee's choice this year, or choices over multiple years, is easy.

But his argument (at least in what I watched from Cowherd) comes right after "there wasn't a good choice." He even goes so far as to characterize the bubble teams' resumes as "average" or "mediocre" or something like that. Really? Well then your credibility is seriously questionable, because it seems you don't know what words mean.

But the fundamental issue I have with all of the arguments about the committee's decisions, the inconsistency, the bias, etc., is:

So how would you do it?

To me, the only decent answers to that are:
1. Make conference championship a prereq. You still have to leave someone qualified out, but you've really simplified things this way. I'm not convinced it's "better," but it's easier for sure. You won't get rid of "but on a neutral field, X would beat Y" or "A beat B by 21 and C did blahblahblah, but B got in because..." The "better team" argument will persist, but the CFP can fall back on "rules are rules. You wanted objective, you got it."

2. Adopt a computer ranking. Totally objective, except for the fact that some dork decided what the important criteria are and how to weight them...and how to value time value of those criteria, etc. Same arguments about "wrong selection" will persist. People argue "well, if it's computers, at least teams will know what they have to do." Bullshit. When the bar to clear is dependent on how the competition performs and the calculation for the bar is complicated, you really don't know "what you have to do." How many "recognized" computer rankings are there? Hell, the BCS had a bunch and then chose to throw out high and low for no apparent reason other than "well, if one looks different, it must be wrong and we shall not count it." I'm as quantitative a person as you know and I don't think computer rankings are the way to go.

I'm really fine with existing or 1 or 2 (although I think 2 is the worst)...just pointing out that there's a "devil you know vs. don't know" element to switching.

(In response to this post by Stech)

Posted: 12/06/2017 at 10:59AM



+0
Current Thread:
  Bama gets a bye week. -- Maroon Baboon 12/04/2017 11:31PM
  2 questions -- Pylons 12/05/2017 08:35AM
  It's just not as simple as you want it to be -- Pylons 12/06/2017 08:37AM
  He makes good points, as do you, but -- Pylons 12/06/2017 10:59AM
  Your statement -- VTHokie2000 12/07/2017 12:39PM
  Champion (definition) -- crabcake77 12/07/2017 3:32PM
  Yep, different from best -- Pylons 12/07/2017 3:47PM
  Closest is "best" and those aren't serious questions. -- crabcake77 12/07/2017 4:46PM
  They're absolutely serious questions -- Pylons 12/08/2017 07:05AM
  I love the collective overreaction after playoff is set -- Colonel Jessup 12/04/2017 4:06PM
  The CCG the last two cycles have taken a hit -- goldendomer 12/04/2017 3:09PM
  Independence, for its own sake -- TerryD 12/04/2017 4:03PM
  We still need conference champs, right? -- Colonel Jessup 12/04/2017 3:44PM
  Why does a conference need to crown a champion? -- VTHokie2000 12/04/2017 5:16PM
  So teams have something achievable to play for? -- VictoryTurkey 12/04/2017 8:05PM

Support TSL by Shopping at Amazon


Our Sponsors







vm307