Concerning #3.

The coots are in full meltdown mode about the expanded playoff.

1- conference champs shouldn’t get in (probably bc they will never win a conference title)

2- the lower seeds all lost (umm, the higher seeds got to play at home)

3- humans have too much influence on the rankings, let computers do it. (Well the computers use the dumb preseason rankings that the humans create. How about no rankings until week 4/5)

4- we should expand to 16 games (maybe if you let enough teams in eventually the coots will get their participation trophy)

My favorite part about all this bitching, is that they wouldn’t have gotten in even if they took the top 12 teams, either by committee rankings or by the BCS style computer rankings.

bretfsu®

Top TigerNet [30182]

TigerPulse: 100%

Posts: 9635

Joined: 2003

Dec 23, 2024, 8:18 AM

Our memory is way too short.

Does anybody remember how the two teams, and then the 4 teams, were originally picked? Why were computers used in the first place?

"We can't count on human beings. Polls are biased. People are biased. We need an objective way to pick teams. We need to let computers do it. They aren't biased. They use objective data and metrics. You can't trust humans. You have to let computers do it."

We had discussions over which computer ranking systems should be used and how much weight we should give each one. We came up with a system that took out "the human factor."

Now, we want to go back to the system we first demanded, and then hated after the computers didn't pick the teams we thought they should pick.

I have the only perfect system, but nobody will listen to me. The only perfect system is to play the games, through the conference championships, then let bretfsu pick the 12, or 16 or 8 or 32 or however many you want, teams and seed them the way he deems appropriate.

That way, I would never complain about the teams or the seedings. Sounds like a great idea to me. I wonder why nobody else likes it.

Message was edited by: bretfsu®