Here is why this whole completely subjective system is nothing but a "house of cards"

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

ACC has 1 team with 11 or more wins (Conference Champion), 0 teams with 10 wins and 3 teams with 9 wins (i.e., 4 teams with 9 or more wins total). They had 5 teams in "Selection Committee's" Final Ranking. 8-win Pitt was ranked on the strength of 2 wins versus Top 5 teams which is justifiable.

B12 had 0 teams with 11 or more wins, 2 teams with 10 wins (including Conference Champion) and a 1 team with 9 wins (i.e., 3 teams with 9 or more wins total). They had 3 teams in "Selection Committee's" Final Ranking.

Pac12 had 1 team with 11 or more wins (Conference Champion), 1 team with 10 wins, 2 with 9 wins (i.e., 4 teams with 9 or more wins total). They had 5 teams in the "Selection Committee's" Final Ranking. 8-win Utah was inexplicably ranked #19 despite LOSING to 4-8 Oregon and 5-7 Cal???

SEC had 1 team with 11 or more wins (Conference Champion), 0 teams with 10 wins, 0 teams with 9 wins (i.e., 1 team with 9 or more wins total). They had 5 teams in the "Selection Committee's" Final Ranking. 8-win Auburn, Florida, LSU and Tennessee were inexplicably ranked given their resumes (not a one of them has an impressive win) and, not only that, but LSU was ranked Top20 despite only having 7 wins and Auburn was ranked #14 over an undefeated Conference Champion, a 10-2 P5 team, a 10-3 Conference Champion and multiple 9-3 teams including mutliple P5 teams (one of the 9-3 P5 teams wasn't even ranked)?!?!?

The B1G had 2 teams with 11 or more wins (including Conference Champion), the only Conference with 2 11+win teams, 2 teams with 10 wins (B1G had most 10+win teams - 4, next closest were Pac12 and B12 with 2 each) and 1 team with 9 wins (i.e., 5 teams with 9 or more wins total). So of course the B1G only had 4 teams in the "Selection Committee's" Final Ranking?!?!? Huh???

What a joke, without 8-4 Utah being ranked, #10 Colorado's record against ranked teams is 1-3 with their lone win coming against #18 Stanford (9-3). Without absurdly ranked 8-4 Utah, Washington's record against ranked teams would be 2-1 beating 9-3 Stanford (with zero marquee wins) and 10-3 Colorado (with zero marquee wins), while losing to 9-3 USC who themselves had no marquee wins outside of Washington???

These purely subjective Selection Committee Rankings make ZERO sense, especially the B1G only having 4 ranked teams when the B1G had 5 teams with 9+ wins (most of any P5 Conference with the ACC & Pac12 having 4 each, the B12 having 3 and the SEC having precisely 1); 4 teams with 10+ wins (most of any P5 Conference with ACC & Pac12 having 2 each and the ACC & SEC having 1 each); and 2 teams with 11+ wins (only P5 conference with more than 1 team, which was the Conference Champion in each case - B12 had 0 teams with at least 11 wins as their Conference Champ, OU, was 10-2). Wouldn't you know it though, the SEC has 4 different 4-loss teams ranked tough - 8-4 Auburn #14, 8-4 Florida #17, 7-4 LSU #20 and 8-4 UTenn #21.

Again, LSU was ranked Top20 despite only having 7 wins (7-4) and 8-4 Auburn was ranked #14 over an undefeated 13-0 Conference Champion, a 10-2 P5 team, a 10-3 Conference Champion and multiple 9-3 teams including mutliple P5 teams (one of the 9-3 P5 terams wasn't even ranked)?!?!? Huh??? And these are freaking @sshats determining who gets to play with more "equity" and importance then the players themselves (i.e., they negate Conference Championships won via overall Conference Record and Conference Championship Games and render them utterly meaningless to their arbitrary and absurd subjectivity??? That is just wrong and a fiduciary failing to the players themselves by the University Presidents at the Conference and NCAA level -- and it is the University Presidents / Chancellors who are the formal Member Representatives at both the NCAA and Conference level.).

 

[Big Blue12]

To quote Shakespeare: "Something is rotten in the state of Denmark".

 

[Nitt1300]

Who gets ranked #1 in Div I has always been subjective. Whether it's the polls and the bowls, the BCS, or a too small playoff system, opinions count more than they should, and on the field results too little. Take the top eight, and it would be harder to make a convincing argument that a truly deserving team got left out.

I think this system was deliberately designed to stir up controversy- and ratings for all the sports talk shows.

 

[Vic Vaselino]

All football teams are created equal, except some teams are more equal than others.

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

Who gets ranked #1 in Div I has always been subjective. Whether it's the polls and the bowls, the BCS, or a too small playoff system, opinions count more than they should, and on the field results too little. Take the top eight, and it would be harder to make a convincing argument that a truly deserving team got left out.

I think this system was deliberately designed to stir up controversy- and ratings for all the sports talk shows.

No doubt, there are only 6 teams in all of FBS Football (128 teams) with 11 or more wins - 5 of them are Conference Champions, it's utterly ridiculous that some of these deserving teams are being excluded from proving themselves on the field of play, especially when one of the teams being given a shot is the one team with no Conference Championship - not even a Conference Division Title! Utterly absurd that a league consisting of 128 teams excludes deserving teams and does so by robbing the "equity" of the student-athletes and place it in the hands of a bunch of corrupt boxing-promoter types.... Disgraceful and will continue to harm the popularity of the support long-term.

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

Wouldn't you know it, the "Selection Committee" already got their first game wrong and the bowl-season hasn't even started yet! Navy lost to Temple in the AAC Championship Game, but the Selection Committee left Navy in their Final Rankings published after the CCGs @ #25. 5-loss unranked Army just beat the Selection Committee's #25 team. Be interesting to see how their rankings do in the bowl games.

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

So can anybody explain how the ever-infallible "Selection Committee" saw fit to only have 4 B1G teams in their Final Rankings, while having 5 ranked teams from the SEC, ACC and Pac12 despite the B1G having two 11+ winners, four 10+ winners and five 9+ winners and none of the SEC, ACC and Pac12 having multiple 11+ winners, nor more than two 10+ winners and nor more than four 9+ win teams? The SEC had 5 teams in the "Selection Committee's" utterly arbitrary and subjective "Final Rankings" despite only having 1 team with 9 or more wins? The SEC had three 8-win teams AND A 7-WIN TEAM included in the "Selection Committee's Final Ranking" and the B1G's 9-win team wasn't even included resulting in the average B1G team in the Selection Committee's Final Rankings averaging 10.5 wins per team, the Pac12 averaged 9.4, the ACC average was 9.2 wins and the SEC average was 8.8 wins (B12 averaged 9.7 per team but only had 3 teams in "Final Rankings").

Utterly absurd to not include a 9-win team from the absolute best Conference in regards to quality of ranked teams while including 8-win teams from the ACC, Pac12 and SEC (3 of them) - and a 7-win team from the SEC as well?!?! One of the SEC's 8-win teams, Auburn, was ranked #14 over a 10-2 P5 team, a 13-0 Conference Champion, a 10-3 Conference Champion and multiple 9-3 teams, including multiple 9-3 P5 teams (1 of which was a B1G team)! How is this in any way evidence of anything but pure arbitrary subjectivity (with strong indications of bias & rigging) and strong evidence of a complete lack of any OBJECTIVE STANDARDS whatsoever?!?! Yet the Conference Commissioner of the Conference that got shafted the hardest in multiple ways, including what is clearly and objectively laid out above, is out abjectly shilling for "how right the Selection Committee got the Final Rankings" - i.e., claiming a high-level of objectivity in the Selection Committee's work??? Something is rotten in Denmark indeed and the B1G President's should be demanding answers from their corrupt Commissioner and the Selection Committee representative, Alvarez, that the POS corrupt Commissioner named to a system he was a "primary architect" of!

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

In other words, the loudmouths who are constantly on here saying that the "Selection Committee" has a policy of ranking P5 schools by overall record as the objective primary determinant and rarely, if ever, rank a P5 team with more losses over one with less losses (even when the former team owns a h-to-h win, a Division Championship and a Conference Championship over the latter team) have NO EXPLANATION for all of these massive CONTRADICTIONS to their claims in the "Selection Committee's Final Rankings"!!! And this doesn't even consider the "Selection Committee's" inaugural Rankings this season which listed a 1-loss aTm #4 over MULTIPLE UNDEFEATED TEAMS which included undefeated P5 teams OR the listing of 6-2 Auburn at #8 in this same inaugural 2016 Selection Committee Ranking over tons of 1-loss teams, including multiple 1-loss P5 teams!

Again, the always WRONG LOUDMOUTHS have no explanation despite this INCONTROVERTIBLE FACTUAL EVIDENCE that absolutely CONTRADICTS THEIR CLAIMS and these examples are but a handful of examples from many, many, many more that could be given since the inception of the "Selection Committee" three years ago!

 

[kingfarouk13]

You know something is wrong when idiots place something like Boise in a major bowl. They're the last turds to get into a major bowl, ever.

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

Still crickets.....

 

[BL1975]

The picks were set four weeks ago. When in the past did three of the top five reams lose and none of them fell below six in the pools. They were hoping to get Michigan in either as one of the four or at least of one of the four if someone lost in the conference playoffs. Penn State as five was a spacing face for a corrupt system.

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

The picks were set four weeks ago. When in the past did three of the top five reams lose and none of them fell below six in the pools. They were hoping to get Michigan in either as one of the four or at least of one of the four if someone lost in the conference playoffs. Penn State as five was a spacing face for a corrupt system.

Could be that "the fix was in" for several weeks....one thing's for sure, you can't get any less "objective" and more subjectively arbitrary! Every other P5 Conference had 100% of their 9-3 teams ranked by the Selection Committee in their "Final Ranking" except for the absolute best Conference with the most 9+ win teams??? The Pac12 has three-quarters of their four 9-win and 8-win teams (two each) ranked by the Selection Committee, while the B1G doesn't even have their 9-win team ranked, let alone either of their two 8-win teams? The SEC gets four of their five 4-loss teams ranked, including a 7-4 LSU team who has precisely 0 wins against any other ranked team, but the B1G doesn't get a 9-3 team ranked nor either of their 8-4 teams? Huh? I thought the loudmouths told us that the "Selection Committee" primarily uses overall record as an "objective standard" for ranking purposes of one team versus another if you're a P5 team - not the more comparable outcomes of Conference play which are HIGHLY DIRECTLY COMPARABLE especially when the teams are in the same Conference Division and played one another as well as 6 other common opponents (oh yea, the "Selection Committee's" own written "Protocol" also contradicts the loudmouths saying that Conference results in the form of Division and Conference Championships will be stressed along with head-to-head results, etc... - go figure).

 

[BL1975]

The picks were set four weeks ago. When in the past did three of the top five reams lose and none of them fell below six in the pools. They were hoping to get Michigan in either as one of the four or at least of one of the four if someone lost in the conference playoffs. Penn State as five was a spacing face for a corrupt system.

 

[Big Blue12]

The picks were set four weeks ago. When in the past did three of the top five reams lose and none of them fell below six in the pools. They were hoping to get Michigan in either as one of the four or at least of one of the four if someone lost in the conference playoffs. Penn State as five was a spacing face for a corrupt system.

Exactamundo

 

[BL1975]

OSU was given a free pass since they were "soooo good". They looked terrible the last three weeks and Michigan lost two of their last three games. Under the old system who could have ever lost two of their last three games and remained number five in a ranking. The other pools just supported the only pool that mattered. Only when Penn State appeared in the championship pool did the other pools fall into line with what the committee wanted. This is a complete joke to support what the committee wanted to happen. If Penn State with a conference championship was not considered the best representative of the Big Ten. Why wasen't USC treated the same as OSU and selected to represent the PAC 12?

 

[KnightWhoSaysNit]

Anyone consider that, if a conference has a large number of teams with a large number of wins, then maybe, just maybe, that conference is out of balance and has a lot of poor or mediocre teams? Not saying that's the case with the B1G, but I wouldn't necessarily use that as the basis for argument. Those "winners" could also be teams that played 2 or 3 weak teams out of conference. Maybe they played one really strong team and lost, but they might still have 11 wins. Can't really say a lot unless all teams can play all other teams, and we know that isn't feasible.

No system is perfect, and I certainly don't like one that is subjective whose rules can change during the process of deliberation by a group of bureaucrats. I would much prefer computer rankings to pick a #1, but even that will have flaws. Otherwise, a playoff of conference winners could determine a "champion," but not necessarily a true #1 (or best team). Some times the best team plays one bad game to get eliminated, gets some bad calls, or has some bad luck. Most post-season stuff in any sport should be considered a "tournament." In college football the "National Champion" is the winner of a 4-team invitational tournament. And that's it. It is what it is. Not worth getting bent out of shape over. Enjoy the games for what they are. It's sport. It's entertainment.

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

OSU was given a free pass since they were "soooo good". They looked terrible the last three weeks and Michigan lost two of their last three games. Under the old system who could have ever lost two of their last three games and remained number five in a ranking. The other pools just supported the only pool that mattered. Only when Penn State appeared in the championship pool did the other pools fall into line with what the committee wanted. This is a complete joke to support what the committee wanted to happen. If Penn State with a conference championship was not considered the best representative of the Big Ten. Why wasen't USC treated the same as OSU and selected to represent the PAC 12?

Well the thing that is absurd about that is that PSU is the only Conference Champion with 11 or more wins excluded in the 3 year history of this system and daO$U is the only team in the 3-year history of this system created by the "BcS Presidential Oversight Committee" to ever be selected without a Conference Championship of any kind - go figure!?!?

 

[crm114psu]

Well the thing that is absurd about that is that PSU is the only Conference Champion with 11 or more wins excluded in the 3 year history of this system and daO$U is the only team in the 3-year history of this system created by the "BcS Presidential Oversight Committee" to ever be selected without a Conference Championship of any kind - go figure!?!?

Just spitballing here, but it sounds like you disagree with the selection committee's choices for the 4-team playoff. Is that what you are saying?

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

Anyone consider that, if a conference has a large number of teams with a large number of wins, then maybe, just maybe, that conference is out of balance and has a lot of poor or mediocre teams? Not saying that's the case with the B1G, but I wouldn't necessarily use that as the basis for argument. Those "winners" could also be teams that played 2 or 3 weak teams out of conference. Maybe they played one really strong team and lost, but they might still have 11 wins. Can't really say a lot unless all teams can play all other teams, and we know that isn't feasible.

No system is perfect, and I certainly don't like one that is subjective whose rules can change during the process of deliberation by a group of bureaucrats. I would much prefer computer rankings to pick a #1, but even that will have flaws. Otherwise, a playoff of conference winners could determine a "champion," but not necessarily a true #1 (or best team). Some times the best team plays one bad game to get eliminated, gets some bad calls, or has some bad luck. Most post-season stuff in any sport should be considered a "tournament." In college football the "National Champion" is the winner of a 4-team invitational tournament. And that's it. It is what it is. Not worth getting bent out of shape over. Enjoy the games for what they are. It's sport. It's entertainment.

Laughable bull$hit - especially your last couple sentences being a weak excuse for robbing student-athletes of their EQUITY in the system and giving it to a bunch of corrupt boxing-promoter types! Laughable bull$hit that the corrupt are doing anything for anyone, other than the self-interested parties they are shilling for including themselves -- yea, it's all about "sports" and "fair play".....what laughable bull$hit identical to the crap that the b1g shizhole is constantly shoveling!

In regards to your laughable first paragraph - yea, that really explains how the SEC had three different 8-4 teams as well as a 7-4 team, all of whom together had ZERO really impressive wins between them, included in the Selection Committee's Final Rankings.....OR how the SEC had 4 of 5 4-loss teams ranked by the Selection committee, including a 7-4 LSU team, AND the Pac12 has 3 of 4 teams with 8 or 9 wins ranked, but the B1G doesn't have their 9-3 team ranked, let alone their either of their two 8-4 win teams ranked, such that the B1G only ends up with 4 teams ranked by the Selection Committee - second least to the B12 despite the B12 only having 3 teams with 9 or more wins and 4 with 8 or more wins, while the B1G had 5 and 7 respectively???

 

[Agoodnap]

Still crickets.....

Not crickets! No one knows how to respond as it appears you are right. What can be done at this time?

 

[CJsE]

Well the thing that is absurd about that is that PSU is the only Conference Champion with 11 or more wins excluded in the 3 year history of this system and daO$U is the only team in the 3-year history of this system created by the "BcS Presidential Oversight Committee" to ever be selected without a Conference Championship of any kind - go figure!?!?

Not a 3-year history!!! Did you have to learn Latin in order to comb through the system's early documents?

You use terms like subjective and objective without any real understand of their definitions beyond a 5 word Websters' sentence. And I still don't think you know what absolute means.

You talk about how terrible "subjective" ranking systems are, but then argue about the best teams and conferences using your own subjective reasoning. You saying total wins is the most important, but that's your subjective opinion. If every team played every other team, then total wins would be objective. I guess you think Western Michigan is tied for the best team in the country. Western Kentucky won 10 games, guess they're just as good as Michigan and Oklahoma. Why not go by total losses? Why are more wins the most important measure? Could it be subjectivity?

If you want to say you had the absolute best conference because you had the most 9 win teams, then you also had the absolute worst conference because you had the most 9 loss teams. No other conference in the nation had 4 9-loss teams.

Also, if you want to talk about most total wins as a measure of objective strength, then the SEC is the best conference because they won the most ooc games with a 43-7 record, the Big Ten only went 32-9. The ACC could also argue that it is the best conference because it won the most ooc games against Power 5 teams with 9 wins, including going 3-1 against the Big Ten.

But I guess you are ready to admit that Pitt is better than PSU. I mean Pitt did win "objectively" on the field.

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

Not a 3-year history!!! Did you have to learn Latin in order to comb through the system's early documents?

You use terms like subjective and objective without any real understand of their definitions beyond a 5 word Websters' sentence. And I still don't think you know what absolute means.

You talk about how terrible "subjective" ranking systems are, but then argue about the best teams and conferences using your own subjective reasoning. You saying total wins is the most important, but that's your subjective opinion. If every team played every other team, then total wins would be objective. I guess you think Western Michigan is tied for the best team in the country. Western Kentucky won 10 games, guess they're just as good as Michigan and Oklahoma. Why not go by total losses? Why are more wins the most important measure? Could it be subjectivity?

If you want to say you had the absolute best conference because you had the most 9 win teams, then you also had the absolute worst conference because you had the most 9 loss teams. No other conference in the nation had 4 9-loss teams.

Also, if you want to talk about most total wins as a measure of objective strength, then the SEC is the best conference because they won the most ooc games with a 43-7 record, the Big Ten only went 32-9. The ACC could also argue that it is the best conference because it won the most ooc games against Power 5 teams with 9 wins, including going 3-1 against the Big Ten.

But I guess you are ready to admit that Pitt is better than PSU. I mean Pitt did win "objectively" on the field.

Too funny, ummmmmmm, idiot-boy sPitt fan clearly hasn't been following the threads closely enough as I am the party who has argued that the Selection Committee has NOT used overall record as the primary objective determinant - nor does their formal written "Protocol" say anything about this criteria.....while it does talk about performance within one's own conference including Divisional Championships, Conference Championships, head-to-head outcomes, if applicable, between the teams being compared, etc... Again, too funny, idiot-boy sPitter is making my precise argument that I've made all along relative to the daO$U flamers and the ASWP-troll thinks he is refuting "my argument"......too good, too good!!!!

 

[KnightWhoSaysNit]

Laughable bull$hit - especially your last couple sentences being a weak excuse for robbing student-athletes of their EQUITY in the system and giving it to a bunch of corrupt boxing-promoter types! Laughable bull$hit that the corrupt are doing anything for anyone, other than the self-interested parties they are shilling for including themselves -- yea, it's all about "sports" and "fair play".....what laughable bull$hit identical to the crap that the b1g shizhole is constantly shoveling!

In regards to your laughable first paragraph - yea, that really explains how the SEC had three different 8-4 teams as well as a 7-4 team, all of whom together had ZERO really impressive wins between them, included in the Selection Committee's Final Rankings.....OR how the SEC had 4 of 5 4-loss teams ranked by the Selection committee, including a 7-4 LSU team, AND the Pac12 has 3 of 4 teams with 8 or 9 wins ranked, but the B1G doesn't have their 9-3 team ranked, let alone their either of their two 8-4 win teams ranked, such that the B1G only ends up with 4 teams ranked by the Selection Committee - second least to the B12 despite the B12 only having 3 teams with 9 or more wins and 4 with 8 or more wins, while the B1G had 5 and 7 respectively???

I stopped reading at "Laughable bull$hit," figuring that this is what you would be passing without your meds.

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

I stopped reading at "Laughable bull$hit," figuring that this is what you would be passing without your meds.

Is anybody supposed to care where a twit such as yourself started or stopped reading? LMFAO, u r such a jabroni...