Quote:The loss column is actually more important because of bye weeks. You can have one team that is 10-1 and another that is 10-2. The 10-1 team would be ranked higher based on the smaller number of losses.

 

Rankings were also subjective in the stupid BCS formula. The fact that there is more than one Top 25 list proves it. So what's new here?

 

The fact that FSU will have 13 wins and NO losses compared to 11 wins and 1 loss for TCU tells me all I need to know. TCU's scheduling is just as shoddy as FSU's, but they aren't being penalized for it. They did, however, have more off weeks, played fewer games, and have a loss on their resume. Don't give me this "well they won convincingly" stuff that the committee is feeding us. Their reasoning for ranking the teams changes every week. It's one thing to be subjective; it's another to be arbitrary. The CFP rankings are a beauty contest. At least the computer element of the BCS rankings was objective and didn't penalize teams for winning ugly. What if next year we have a team that has a historically good defense but a middling offense that just barely wins all their games? Will we penalize them for not blowing everyone out?

 

I understand that what they are trying to do is set up some interesting matchups by putting the two southeastern teams in the Sugar Bowl and the two western teams in the Rose Bowl (assuming these rankings hold and the top 4 win), but the fact remains that it is sending the wrong message. 

---