http://www.yosefscabin.com/forum/
but instead of playing a Baylor in the Big 12 championship game they played the worst team in the conference ---TheMoody1 wrote:TCU was ranked #3.
As pointed out, TCU was #3 last week, however they did not beat #9 yesterday. TCU beat a very bad Iowa State team by more than 50. Baylor beat #9 Kansas State yesterday.AppSt94 wrote:Is the problem a lack of a CCG or the way teams are picked? TCU started the weekend #4 and beat #9 yesterday. OSU started the week ranked lower, beat #13 and moved past TCU. I don't see where TCU should have been moved out. The system is still a sham.
While the question is a good one, and we may see movement on both fronts, I think the real question is how long will it be before we see the playoff expanded to allow every P5 conference champion a shot in the playoffs? Just because of numbers that should probably allow the top G5 to get in the playoff as well.WVAPPeer wrote:Will the Big 12 immediately go after 2 more teams or will the NCAA (not wanting more jumping around within conferences) adjust their rules to require only 10 teams for a conference championship game? ---
2016, 2017 at the latest.newtoasu wrote:While the question is a good one, and we may see movement on both fronts, I think the real question is how long will it be before we see the playoff expanded to allow every P5 conference champion a shot in the playoffs? Just because of numbers that should probably allow the top G5 to get in the playoff as well.WVAPPeer wrote:Will the Big 12 immediately go after 2 more teams or will the NCAA (not wanting more jumping around within conferences) adjust their rules to require only 10 teams for a conference championship game? --- :?
No, Ohio State was #5 and Baylor #6.AppSt94 wrote:You are correct. I got my arguments mixed up. Wasn't Baylor ranked 5 the and OSU 6th going into this week?
Thanks. The answer to your question is the reason #3 fell three spots is because this is a different fraud of the system than the BCS. I have watched less football this year than ever. I watched all but one App game. I may skip the three playoff games altogether as a protest of the process.newtoasu wrote:No, Ohio State was #5 and Baylor #6.AppSt94 wrote:You are correct. I got my arguments mixed up. Wasn't Baylor ranked 5 the and OSU 6th going into this week?
http://www.collegefootballplayoff.com/view-rankings
But as I said before, how does #3 fall 3 spots when they win by 50+?
It's a purely symbolic gesture, I understand, but I will not watch the playoffs.AppSt94 wrote:Thanks. The answer to your question is the reason #3 fell three spots is because this is a different fraud of the system than the BCS. I have watched less football this year than ever. I watched all but one App game. I may skip the three playoff games altogether as a protest of the process.newtoasu wrote:No, Ohio State was #5 and Baylor #6.AppSt94 wrote:You are correct. I got my arguments mixed up. Wasn't Baylor ranked 5 the and OSU 6th going into this week?
http://www.collegefootballplayoff.com/view-rankings
But as I said before, how does #3 fall 3 spots when they win by 50+?
I will not watch either but really it is because I just don't care. ASU is done so it is BB season.appst89 wrote:It's a purely symbolic gesture, I understand, but I will not watch the playoffs.AppSt94 wrote:Thanks. The answer to your question is the reason #3 fell three spots is because this is a different fraud of the system than the BCS. I have watched less football this year than ever. I watched all but one App game. I may skip the three playoff games altogether as a protest of the process.newtoasu wrote:No, Ohio State was #5 and Baylor #6.AppSt94 wrote:You are correct. I got my arguments mixed up. Wasn't Baylor ranked 5 the and OSU 6th going into this week?
http://www.collegefootballplayoff.com/view-rankings
But as I said before, how does #3 fall 3 spots when they win by 50+?
I thought the committee would be better. Turns out, I was wrong.WVAPPeer wrote:You guys really think having a computer pick 2 teams is better than a committee picking 4? --- anyway, I see this going to 8 teams with the 5 conference champions and 3 at large teams ---
Not at all. I also don't think that expanding them to 6 or 8 solves the problem either as there will always be controversy. I think it should be a true tournament style with the 9 conference champs and 14 at large teams like the FCS.WVAPPeer wrote:You guys really think having a computer pick 2 teams is better than a committee picking 4? --- anyway, I see this going to 8 teams with the 5 conference champions and 3 at large teams ---
Shirley, you can't be serious??? ---appst89 wrote:I thought the committee would be better. Turns out, I was wrong.WVAPPeer wrote:You guys really think having a computer pick 2 teams is better than a committee picking 4? --- anyway, I see this going to 8 teams with the 5 conference champions and 3 at large teams ---
The computer couldn't have screwed up this badly.WVAPPeer wrote:Shirley, you can't be serious??? ---appst89 wrote:I thought the committee would be better. Turns out, I was wrong.WVAPPeer wrote:You guys really think having a computer pick 2 teams is better than a committee picking 4? --- anyway, I see this going to 8 teams with the 5 conference champions and 3 at large teams ---
So which 2 teams should be playing in your mind? ---appst89 wrote:I thought the committee would be better. Turns out, I was wrong.WVAPPeer wrote:You guys really think having a computer pick 2 teams is better than a committee picking 4? --- anyway, I see this going to 8 teams with the 5 conference champions and 3 at large teams ---
Well, I like four better than two, so I'm not saying it should be two. But I think the committee screwed up worse than the computer ever did.WVAPPeer wrote:So which 2 teams should be playing in your mind? ---appst89 wrote:I thought the committee would be better. Turns out, I was wrong.WVAPPeer wrote:You guys really think having a computer pick 2 teams is better than a committee picking 4? --- anyway, I see this going to 8 teams with the 5 conference champions and 3 at large teams ---