donovan wrote:Mountainman wrote:Spence wrote:I agree with that, but my problem with picking the four best teams is that we don’t know who is the best four, or the best ten for that matter. If any of us did we would make a lot of money betting the lines and the spreads. Neither does the committee, though, I believe they try. We can compare teams easily after they play, but before—we are all wrong a lot. I think the system is rigged against the non blue blood programs.
Well, we have proven beyond doubt that our picking is suspect, putting it gently since donovan will probably read this and he’s awful!!!! But the difference between us and the Committee is they rank teams after the games are played, and I agree they try....... and for sure it’s a steeper climb for the non-blue bloods, but inherently the lack of quality depth and opponent strength on those teams takes its toll.
I really suck at picking. Wife is the exception. I married well and can not be responsible for Mrs. donovan's bad decision making.
My exception to the Committee is, I think they have a multi-purpose goal. It is not solely about the 'best' four teams. It is spurred by the financial success of the event, even at the expense of many bowl games.
By design, they now can have volatile swings in their rankings. A team that is number 10 one week, eg Ohio State, could become number 5 the next week. Though this sounds good it allows the group to put in the four that ensures ESPN's goals are met.
Other sports that rank have some kind of point system, tennis, NASCAR, etc. A sport that loosey-goosey ranks are always suspect, eg boxing; because of the gambling, ticket sales, etc. That is where football is right now, a gambler's (the one making book) paradise.
The only thing that sucks more than I do, is the Central Committee. Muller needs to quit the investigation of President Trump's Russian connection and take on College Football Playoffs.
I agree with your point on the committee Donovan. Also my wife makes really bad decisions too.