Final Rankings for CFP

[Sibelius Hindemith]

You would think the NCAA could work out a deal with the Bowl Game commitees to expand the playoffs to six teams. Just have Texas play Alabama and the winner of that plays UW in the Sugar Bowl and the winner of the Orange Bowl plays Michigan in the Rose Bowl. Is it really that hard to do? Who would be opposed to it?

[D-train]

You would think the NCAA could work out a deal with the Bowl Game commitees to expand the playoffs to six teams. Just have Texas play Alabama and the winner of that plays UW in the Sugar Bowl and the winner of the Orange Bowl plays Michigan in the Rose Bowl. Is it really that hard to do? Who would be opposed to it?

Now? LOL Takes these clowns 5 years after they make a decision to implement it. You think they are going to do it in a few weeks?

[Sibelius Hindemith]

Well, i entered the Twilight Zone where the NCAA is actually able to get things done so here are some more thoughts on what they should do:

Have the two initial playoff games not be Bowls, but the two losers from that would compete in the Orange Bowl. That way you don't have to add or remove a Bowl game.

[Michael K.]

Well, i entered the Twilight Zone where the NCAA is actually able to get things done so here are some more thoughts on what they should do:

Have the two initial playoff games not be Bowls, but the two losers from that would compete in the Orange Bowl. That way you don't have to add or remove a Bowl game.

It makes perfect sense....which is exactly why the NCAA hasn't done it yet.

Again, for years they used to have some Bowl games at the end of the season. The Bowl games were tied to Conferences, virtually ensuring that the best teams didn't play each other. They then had a bunch of fucking reporters vote for who was the best in the Conference after those games. So, since that was the dumbest shit every? They decided, maybe we should have some people vote on who the two best are, then have them play each other. Since, obviously, two is better than zero, and while it's stupid, it's better than the completely idiotic way we did it before. Bang. Then? Since that was fucking stupid? Four teams seemed like a win. The NCAA is corrupt and stupid, and I can't wait for such a time that the Big and SEC just create their own sports league.

[Walla Walla Dawg II]

Well, i entered the Twilight Zone where the NCAA is actually able to get things done so here are some more thoughts on what they should do:

Have the two initial playoff games not be Bowls, but the two losers from that would compete in the Orange Bowl. That way you don't have to add or remove a Bowl game.

It makes perfect sense....which is exactly why the NCAA hasn't done it yet.

Again, for years they used to have some Bowl games at the end of the season. The Bowl games were tied to Conferences, virtually ensuring that the best teams didn't play each other. They then had a bunch of fucking reporters vote for who was the best in the Conference after those games. So, since that was the dumbest shit every? They decided, maybe we should have some people vote on who the two best are, then have them play each other. Since, obviously, two is better than zero, and while it's stupid, it's better than the completely idiotic way we did it before. Bang. Then? Since that was fucking stupid? Four teams seemed like a win. The NCAA is corrupt and stupid, and I can't wait for such a time that the Big and SEC just create their own sports league.

In all reality, I don't mind the AP Poll. This is because it's an average of what the 60-some people believe the best teams are. Not a computer system ran by people in the SEC so they can adjust the program to fit the SEC style of play. And certainly not a committee of people that can dump anyone they want to satisfy Fucking Saben and Alabama/SEC fans.

I hate Florida State through and through, but will be rooting for them to beat Georgia.
I have really had no emotion tied to Alabama, but now they are a hated team, mostly because of the shit that Saben always pulls. No doubt he was the coach that voted for himself in the Coaches Poll that allowed them to tie Texas.

[Michael K.]

In all reality, I don't mind the AP Poll. This is because it's an average of what the 60-some people believe the best teams are.

Maybe I am biased, but there is ZERO chance Miami could have beaten the 91 Huskies on the field. BUT? They won a popularity contest because a bunch of writers that love the South East thought they could. BYU won a title because a bunch of dipshit writers saw a zero in the loss column and paid no attention to the fact that they beat no one, and nearly lost in the Blue Bonnet Bowl to a six and six Michigan team that couldn't have beaten ANYONE playing football the last two weeks of December into January. Letting writers decide only created controversy, which the NCAA loved because it kept them in the news. It was only the controversy over several split national titles that caused them to change. Highly flawed system

[Walla Walla Dawg II]

I'm not saying the AP Poll doesn't have it's issues....major is some instances. But I trust it more than any committee the NCAA can provide because IT IS an average of 60+ sports writers.

In my world there wouldn't be a pre-season poll or even a poll until after week 4. Because let's fact it, the only reason Michigan is rated above us is that they had a higher rating in the early season. The same can be said about Miami in 1991.

It is extreme bullshit, but I trust it more than any committee.

[Walla Walla Dawg II]

And I wouldn't go with ZERO chance that Miami could have beat the Dawgs in 1991...but then again, I never deal with absolutes.

[Michael K.]

I'm not saying the AP Poll doesn't have it's issues....major is some instances. But I trust it more than any committee the NCAA can provide because IT IS an average of 60+ sports writers.

In my world there wouldn't be a pre-season poll or even a poll until after week 4. Because let's fact it, the only reason Michigan is rated above us is that they had a higher rating in the early season. The same can be said about Miami in 1991.

It is extreme bullshit, but I trust it more than any committee.

Completely agree. I have said one of the dumbest exercises they do is voting in July, August and September. I think that is the one thing the committee does right. They meet much later in the season to begin this. Once a vote is cast in July or August? They are already deciding shit that matters, before anyone has played a game. It is the BIGGEST reason that Florida State jumped up in the rankings. That win over LSU. Florida State later beat Clemson, a game that mattered much more at the time since Clemson ended up being pretty mediocre as well. Not that Washington didn't benefit from this, I guess. Utah and USC seemed like pretty big wins, at the time. The difference is these wins occurred much later in the season and my guess is USC and Utah would have been rated pretty close to that spot anyway.

And yes, as I said, I am VERY biased. But DAMN, if you watch Miami and Washington in 1991? Miami would have needed several breaks to beat us, IMO. Hell, even the old way would have worked that year. Have the best two teams play, and there was no question who that was. Instead? We played an over matched Michigan team, and they played an over matched Alabama team.

[D-train]

How ironic that BYU was handed a Natty because they were undefeated and FSU didn't even make the final 4 despite being undefeated...