We all know that the committee is FOS, but what should be done about it? Here are some ideas:
1. No seeding preference for conference winners--at least not automatic ones. I have no problem if they give weight to conference championships.
2. The emphasis on number of losses has to be abandoned. That is the current problem with the committee: it's a ranking system based on number if losses, with the one exception of Miami.
3. The criteria have to include boosting teams for quality wins, and dropping them for bad losses. I think there is some unfairness in emphasizing SOS too much, because it's out of each team's control (to some degree). The criteria should even say that a loss to a team not in the top 25 should be viewed as the equivalent of multiple losses, but at the same time, multiple quality wins should overcome a single loss, especially a quality loss.
4. The criteria should expressly say that the committee will not look at pure number of losses and instead focus solely on a team's résumé, which must include strength of record, strength of schedule, quality wins, and quality losses. "Counting wins" will not matter except when comparing the quality of those wins.
If we don't push for changes to the criteria, we will continue to have situations where our conference is penalized because of how rugged the competition is. Or we will have to course correct by scheduling nothing but patsies, which would de-value the sport. You simply cannot have great competition and then only emphasize the number of losses each team has without it impacting the quality of the product.
1. No seeding preference for conference winners--at least not automatic ones. I have no problem if they give weight to conference championships.
2. The emphasis on number of losses has to be abandoned. That is the current problem with the committee: it's a ranking system based on number if losses, with the one exception of Miami.
3. The criteria have to include boosting teams for quality wins, and dropping them for bad losses. I think there is some unfairness in emphasizing SOS too much, because it's out of each team's control (to some degree). The criteria should even say that a loss to a team not in the top 25 should be viewed as the equivalent of multiple losses, but at the same time, multiple quality wins should overcome a single loss, especially a quality loss.
4. The criteria should expressly say that the committee will not look at pure number of losses and instead focus solely on a team's résumé, which must include strength of record, strength of schedule, quality wins, and quality losses. "Counting wins" will not matter except when comparing the quality of those wins.
If we don't push for changes to the criteria, we will continue to have situations where our conference is penalized because of how rugged the competition is. Or we will have to course correct by scheduling nothing but patsies, which would de-value the sport. You simply cannot have great competition and then only emphasize the number of losses each team has without it impacting the quality of the product.
