To limit any future “_______ didn’t deserve a playoff spot” threads, keep all relative matters here
Here’s my take on the CFP
12 Teams:
- SEC Champion (Bye)
- Big Ten Champion (Bye)
- Big 12 Champion (Bye)
- ACC Champion (Bye)
- Highest Ranked G5 Champion
- 7 Highest Ranked At-Larges
At-large determination in order of significance:
- Strength of schedule
- Quality wins
- Unranked losses
- Quality losses
**an unranked loss does more damage than a quality win, but not by a huge margin. For example, if Alabama only lost to Vanderbilt (6-6) and won against Oklahoma (6-6), then a is in. 2 losses to unranked 6-6 teams is unacceptable.
1 Like
Do we go back to the computer rankings like we had in the BCS era? We have net rankings in basketball. Do we have that in football too?
1 Like
We should have never gone away from the computers. Just tweaked the data that it was being provided.
2 Likes
The problem with any CFP Format lies with the committee trying to get the “Best Teams” as opposed to the most “Deserving Teams”. It’s too subjective and a very difficult tasks.
I’d rather go back to the BCS Formula picking the At large teams.
1 Like
have a true seeding 1-12. Boise a 3 seed and Arizona State a 4 seed is a joke