BiochemAg97 said:

---

He Who Shall Be Unnamed said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

He Who Shall Be Unnamed said:

---

ATL Aggie said:

---

TAMUallen said:

---

The committee needs to be overhauled and truly be impartial.

---

That's impossible. There is no way to keep bias out of it.

---

Exactly. This is 2025. A computer should be doing it. Reward schools that play tough schedules (the kinds of games that foster fan interest but might hurt your overall record unlike so many of these out of conference "scheduled wins").

---

Define "tough" schedules. The problem with handing it to a computer can be summed up by the circle of suck. If baylol beats tard who beats cougar high who beats baylol, the computer is not going to be able to tell you who is better based on W/L. You could go point differential, but what if the "winner" edged out second place by a point in 2 home games while second place played both on the road? You started getting into subjective valuations of metrics and how the model is built real fast.

---

I get it. And there is obviously no perfect system. For it to work well, there needs to be more inter-conference play. Perhaps the Committee could set up an initial ranking, or rely on an average of AP and Coaches Polls for week one and then let the computer take over from there.
As an aside, I have a nerdy friend who does the same thing on his own and he does a pretty good job of coming up with rankings. His week one formula relies heavily on returning starters, with more points awarded to "key" roles such as WR.
Let's see how much *****ing whoever is number 13 does when the final poll is released and the pairings are made.

---

That is the benefit of 12 over 4 or 2. First team out is way further down the list and while their fans might be upset, it is unlikely to matter concerning who wins the NC.

---

True, and with the current format (seeded by ranking yet still letting in all P4 champs plus best G5) pretty much means that every year the 5-seed will get an easier than if it were just straight up top 12 first round game. The 6-seed may well also get that benefit.

But it won't be the benefit last year where top 4 conference champs got the bye and the real 3 and 4 seeds were seeded 5 and 6 where they got relatively easy first round games and then an easy-ish next round against undeserving 3 & 4 seeds.

With the current format, it will be rare for someone outside the Top 6 and probably Top 4 to ever win it all unless they just happen to have the right matchups all the way through.

Computers don't have a great way to determine the reps, and not because there is some kind of bias.
They just don't have enough meaningful data because not enough "good" teams actually play each other and it shows even at the conference level.

There is not going to be a great way to determine playoff teams given the fact that these conferences are so unbalanced, and even within the conference, it isn't necessarily the two best teams in the championship game because the imbalance of schedules within the conference.

The SEC plays 8 conference games in a 16-team conference. The Big Ten plays 9 games in an 18-team conference, and we are picking CCG reps from that? Yes, being good helps, but so does the conference schedule a team plays.

So 4 power conferences have their teams playing about only half of the conference. The Power 4 conferences rarely have any crossover games that matter, and so the data really isn't there to compare the teams. Does Alabama blowing out an 0-5 (in conference) Wisconsin team really help compare the conferences?

This computer talk is cracking me up. They have a committee for a reason.

I would take three vegas sports books over any computer or committee, that's where money is on the line and bias has zero value.