I've decided I like this CFB playoff thing

[whaler11]

It wasn't close? Really? Ohio State has a loss to VTech and is on their 3rd QB this year. Unless Baylor and TCU each had 4 losses, I don't know how you can say it wasn't even close between them. One nice win does not eliminate everything that happened before.

I don't feel like digging up the chart but based on the schedules it wasn't close if you blinded the names and looked at the numbers.

I don't care who is hurt and have no idea why that would come into decision making - especially since the third quarterback played ridiculously well in his short time anyway.

 

[noeynox]

I wouldn't have shed 1 tear if TCU had been in v. OSU. or Baylor for that matter. 4/5/6 were roughly interchangeable to me. I'm in favor of an 8 team playoff. That's why I think the "such and such belongs or doesn't belong" or "the committee made a bad choice" arguments are just silly. There were 6 teams that were above the rest, and they had to pick 4. There was no real debate on 3 of them. Deciding whether it was a good or bad choice based on the result of the game is silly also.

They were toss ups. But while Baylor played a horrendous non conference schedule, and TCU was beating up on a hapless ISU team to end the season, Ohio State dismantled the twelve ranked team on the country on a neutral field. I predicted it as the game was going on, you can't leave them out. Doesn't mean the other two weren't worthy, just like you said three slots were taken and Ohio State wasn't going to be left out off their season ending performance.

 

[J187Money]

All 3 of those teams are great teams. I am not a big fan of overanalyzing who they played in September. Given the circumstances it has to be done, but that doesn't really tell you who is a better team. So if Baylor misses one play on their comeback against TCU all of the sudden TCU is a lot better? It is all so arbitrary. And I'm totally ok with that kind of stuff when you are talking about team 69 in March madness. But that's why it needs to be 8. #9 and #10 can cry but there is never a #9 or #10 team that can complain legitimately.

 

[junglehusky]

All 3 of those teams are great teams. I am not a big fan of overanalyzing who they played in September. Given the circumstances it has to be done, but that doesn't really tell you who is a better team. So if Baylor misses one play on their comeback against TCU all of the sudden TCU is a lot better? It is all so arbitrary. And I'm totally ok with that kind of stuff when you are talking about team 69 in March madness. But that's why it needs to be 8. #9 and #10 can cry but there is never a #9 or #10 team that can complain legitimately.

Agreed - they're arguing over whether or not they deserve to be in the field. For a four team field, if the fifth team is close in quality to the four in front of it, they would be able to argue they'd have a significant shot of winning two upsets. Perhaps small (5-10%), but significant. For an eight team field the chances of the ninth team claiming they could win three upsets in a row is less. For the bball the "first 4 out" usually don't even try to argue they'd advance to the sweet 16, their arguments tend to be about strength of schedule and comparing resumes with the "last 4 in". With that or with an 8+ team football playoff, it would wind up being a discussion about "Team D would have put up a better fight than Team C versus Team A". That's is something you can have a argument about, or be the basis for a blog / personal brand, but it's not the same thing as claiming your team could legitimately survive more than a round or two of a knockout tournament.