The College Football Playoffs matches the top four teams in the land. Just four. Expect good games, no? Tight. Expect the lines to reflect that closeness in excellence with only four teams out of 120 or something, right? Well the lines are not. The lines are more in line with a good Power Five conference team playing at home against a good team from the Gang of Six or whatever it's called.
#1 Alabama plays #4 Oklahoma in the Orange Bowl in Miami Gardens, a neutral field. Bama is a 14 point fave :o. Really didn't expect that. Woulda guessed like 7.
#2 Clemson plays #3 Notre Dame in the Cotton Bowl at Jerry's World. #2 and #3. Can't slide a playing card between #2 and #3, right? Clemson is a 12.5 point pick.
Bettors are usually right. The lines established by the houses divide bettors 50-50 so there's an even split right now between bettors who think Alabama is going to clobber Oklahoma like 28-14, 35-21 and bettors who think OU is going to lose 28-21 or 17-14. But lose, OU will.
Similarly, bettors are split 50-50 on Clemson beating ND 31-18 and those who put their money on the "Irish" keeping it closer, 24-17, etc. But lose, see above.
The bettors do not give either Oklahoma or Notre Dame much of a chance. Which begs the question: Did the committee choose the right four schools? I think they did. I cannot imagine their being much debate in the committee about these four. But would the line have been as prohibitive if Bama were matched with #5 Georgia (11-2)? No, I don't think so. Or against #6 Ohio State (12-1)? I really don't think so. Alabama-Ohio State, geez I think Bama by 3? Similar with Clemson-Ohio State.
So...Yeah, yeah, I know, it does follow then that, according to the bettors (or what I think the houses would have done), the committee did not choose the four best teams. That does follow. That follows inescapably. So then is the committee made up of idiot bloggers, Trump voters? No, the committee's subjective choice of the four best teams is based upon objective performance, wins and losses (if any) against highest quality opponents. If the committee had chosen #6 Ohio State they would have had to have ignored this here: Purdue 49 Ohio State 20. Purdue, who lost six games. Purdue, who lost to Eastern Michigan.
Having unfettered choice, the committee had no choice, if they were to base their subjective selections on objective performance.
This then speaks to two possible solutions. Expand the playoffs to, say, eight schools, or limit them to two teams and just match Alabama and Clemson every year.
#1 Alabama plays #4 Oklahoma in the Orange Bowl in Miami Gardens, a neutral field. Bama is a 14 point fave :o. Really didn't expect that. Woulda guessed like 7.
#2 Clemson plays #3 Notre Dame in the Cotton Bowl at Jerry's World. #2 and #3. Can't slide a playing card between #2 and #3, right? Clemson is a 12.5 point pick.
Bettors are usually right. The lines established by the houses divide bettors 50-50 so there's an even split right now between bettors who think Alabama is going to clobber Oklahoma like 28-14, 35-21 and bettors who think OU is going to lose 28-21 or 17-14. But lose, OU will.
Similarly, bettors are split 50-50 on Clemson beating ND 31-18 and those who put their money on the "Irish" keeping it closer, 24-17, etc. But lose, see above.
The bettors do not give either Oklahoma or Notre Dame much of a chance. Which begs the question: Did the committee choose the right four schools? I think they did. I cannot imagine their being much debate in the committee about these four. But would the line have been as prohibitive if Bama were matched with #5 Georgia (11-2)? No, I don't think so. Or against #6 Ohio State (12-1)? I really don't think so. Alabama-Ohio State, geez I think Bama by 3? Similar with Clemson-Ohio State.
So...Yeah, yeah, I know, it does follow then that, according to the bettors (or what I think the houses would have done), the committee did not choose the four best teams. That does follow. That follows inescapably. So then is the committee made up of idiot bloggers, Trump voters? No, the committee's subjective choice of the four best teams is based upon objective performance, wins and losses (if any) against highest quality opponents. If the committee had chosen #6 Ohio State they would have had to have ignored this here: Purdue 49 Ohio State 20. Purdue, who lost six games. Purdue, who lost to Eastern Michigan.
Having unfettered choice, the committee had no choice, if they were to base their subjective selections on objective performance.
This then speaks to two possible solutions. Expand the playoffs to, say, eight schools, or limit them to two teams and just match Alabama and Clemson every year.
