The biggest problem with the CFP, it's a moving target week to week with the committee. So, like I said, I ain't wrong. It's easier to win when you're given more chances because the criteria is adjusted to ensure your participation.
Were you b!^@hing like this when we played for a national championship after not winning our conference?
So, the team that beat them in the conference had no chance to prove that they could do the same thing? What about the other teams that had one loss?
That's the whole problem though - the admission criteria is vague and extremely subjective. The committee has even gone away from the original intent of only valuing the entire body of work and doing a ranking at the end vs just a weekly move up/down ranking system like the old polls. I don't watch the playoffs anymore because the whole thing is such a farce. If it's going to be arguing over vague interpretations of which teams should even be considered, thenI'd rather just go back to the old bowl system and arguing over the polls - it was more fun.
i mean 2017 auburn took out bama, and their only losses on the year before the bowl game was to clemson (14-6), lsu (27-23) and georgia in the sec title game... yet bama made the playoff and ended up winning the title... pretty egregious a team couldnt even earn the right to win their conference yet wins the natty
What about them? They didn't get it. Right or wrong. When the rules change more teams will have a chance...right now, it's 4. So it's Alabama, Clemson and 2 others.
At that point, in 2001 our benefit of the doubt was over. Still waiting on Alabama's and clemsons. It will happen, not yet.
And that happened because a committee selected the .500 team over the 11-5 team?
The better example is if an 12-4 NFL divisional winner didn't get in the playoffs so that a 12-4 divisional runner up can go instead because they won it last year.
The term"best" is subjective when you're not on equal terms.
