CFB Playoff Discussion
- Thread starter CyFan61
- Start date
Bowlsby puts it on the coaches for bad non con schedule... coaches are gunna love that support.
Although he did own up to the fact that they need to re assess their current format. Bring back divisions!!
Although he did own up to the fact that they need to re assess their current format. Bring back divisions!!
Sorry was mistakenly looking at SOR, not SOS. Either way I'd argue that both had schedules no less/more difficult than FSU/tOSU, but took better wins and losses against that schedule than tOSU.
HAHA, yeah, I wish someone would ask that of these talking heads. It's name recognition plain and simple. They saw an opening to put tOSU in there and they took it. No way do they deserve to be in there over either TCU or Baylor. The agument they keep spouting is basically saying, "Yeah, TCU and Baylor were both better, but being co-champions, we couldn't decide between the two of them, so we took a bigger name.
This is completely hypothetical but if a Big 12 team like us or Texas Tech went 12-0 would they have gotten in over tOSU? I personally think that tOSU would still get in over a historic bottom feeder the last few years even though they would have ran the table.
I think the committee would HAD to have taken an undefeated Baylor/TCU over a one loss tOSU. Though it is a crappy feeling that if you're not TX/OU you would have to objectively be better than every other team in the country just to make it into the top 4 of the rankings.
KidSilverhair
Well-Known Member
I mentioned this before. You think the Big XII could re-do their schedule, and leave the last weekend open as a flex week? You get to that point and match up the top two teams as a de facto "championship" game. The teams that were scheduled to play those two get a (possible) rematch, and everybody else plays their last game as scheduled.
Say it was this year. You put TCU and Baylor back together in a "championship" game. Of course, it means Iowa State has to play Kansas State again ...
Divisions don't solve anything, especially if you do it with only ten. You don't necessarily get the best two teams in. Look at the SEC - Mississippi State and Auburn were probably better than Mizzou. Or the B1G, where Michigan State was obviously better than Wisconsin. Divisional play is fools' gold, if you're truly looking for the very best team in your conference.
It is $6m lost for conference AND $2m FOR team traveling expenses. All power 5 conferences automatically get $50M for being a power 5. ISU thus lost $500-600K
KidSilverhair
Well-Known Member
Let me add some final thoughts on the committee's screwjob:
- the committee overvalued conference championships
I knew they said winning a conference would be a factor, but I didn't realize it would be such a huge factor. I mean, is this system designed to get the four best teams in, or the four best undisputed conference champs? Because that's what it seemed to come down to.
Let's face it, if Mississippi State hadn't lost to Ole Miss; and still didn't make the SEC championship game; would they take a hit because they didn't win the conference? Hell no. There's no reason to downgrade either Baylor or TCU because of the Big XII conference championship situation.
Also, the conference title boost didn't even come until this last ranking. I guess I figured there was some expectation already built in to the rankings - the rankings of Florida State and Oregon and Alabama and Ohio State were already figuring their conference-leading status. That's what I thought. Unfortunately, the committee was holding out and didn't grant that "bonus" until the championships were official. That's the only possible explanation for Florida State and Ohio State moving up like they did (and Baylor passing TCU, but moving up to 5th place does you just as much good as moving up from 44th to 43rd).
- people still way overvalue more recent results
I had hopes the committee would overcome the typical pollsters' attitude of weighing the outcome of later games much more heavily than games early in the season. Fat chance, I guess. Ohio State can demolish a hapless Wisconsin team (despite the fact they won the B1G West, they still lost to Northwestern, and they were nothing but hapless on Saturday night), and that makes people forget the Buckeyes lost to Virginia Tech at home, for petes sake. Alabama lost to Ole Miss (who got shut out by Arkansas, you know), but big scoring wins over Auburn and Mizzou seemed to make up for that. Florida State, by comparison, actually seemed to take a hit because of the performance of the teams they beat (that close win over Notre Dame looked a lot worse as the season wore on), but their ACC championship apparently made up for that, too.
A bad loss early in the season is still a bad loss. Running up the score in a conference championship game (against a team that clearly is NOT the second-best team in your conference) shouldn't make up for that. And yet, here we are.
-it shouldn't matter how conferences determine their champions. Yet somehow, it does.
A conference ought to be able to crown their champion in whatever way they see fit. A championship game? Fine. Overall record? Great. Head to head? Okay. Alphabetical order? Whatever. Conference rules, what they say goes. So why should it matter to the committee?
Again, we are not looking for the four best conference champs here. We want to get the four best teams, regardless. The conference share between TCU and Baylor should count as much as Ohio State's conference title - or maybe a bit less, since it was shared, but still. Really, unless the criteria for making the playoff is winning your conference, the title shouldn't be one of the factors AT ALL.
It appears obvious the Big XII was punished for not having a conference championship game. In the overall scheme of things, it shouldn't matter. The committee never said a conference championship game was supposed to be a factor, then they gave Ohio State a big boost for playing in one. Big XII teams play at least 9 games against Power 5 conference teams - their own conference. TCU played 10, because they played (and beat) Minnesota - one of the vaunted B1G bowl teams that Ohio State also beat.
--the committee is clearly influenced by the media, ESPN, and the TV networks in attempting to set up favorable matchups
TThere is no football-related reason to put Ohio State over TCU. TCU beat Minnesota, by more than Ohio State beat Minnesota. TCU lost to Baylor, ranked 5th in the final ranking, by 3 points, in Waco. Ohio State lost to Virginia Tech, a 6-6 team that went 3-5 in the ACC, by 14 points, at home. TCU struggled against Kansas. Ohio State trailed Indiana in the second half. Ohio State won their conference, winning their last game by 59 points. TCU won a share of their conference, winning their last game by 52 points. Tell me .. what in the above description possibly puts Ohio State over TCU?
The committee claimed to not take media pressure into account, but there's no other reason to lift Ohio State to the playoff and drop TCU by three freaking spots. None.
-the weekly rankings are pointless
If the committee is going to change their rationale so drastically between December 2 and December 7, there's no point in putting their previous thoughts out for public review. As I mentioned, they obviously weren't including conference championship status as a factor until, all of a sudden, this week. And even then they didn't apply it consistently. So, don't put this information out, since you're just going to confuse and enrage the public when you rearrange things for the final ranking.
- the committee overvalued conference championships
I knew they said winning a conference would be a factor, but I didn't realize it would be such a huge factor. I mean, is this system designed to get the four best teams in, or the four best undisputed conference champs? Because that's what it seemed to come down to.
Let's face it, if Mississippi State hadn't lost to Ole Miss; and still didn't make the SEC championship game; would they take a hit because they didn't win the conference? Hell no. There's no reason to downgrade either Baylor or TCU because of the Big XII conference championship situation.
Also, the conference title boost didn't even come until this last ranking. I guess I figured there was some expectation already built in to the rankings - the rankings of Florida State and Oregon and Alabama and Ohio State were already figuring their conference-leading status. That's what I thought. Unfortunately, the committee was holding out and didn't grant that "bonus" until the championships were official. That's the only possible explanation for Florida State and Ohio State moving up like they did (and Baylor passing TCU, but moving up to 5th place does you just as much good as moving up from 44th to 43rd).
- people still way overvalue more recent results
I had hopes the committee would overcome the typical pollsters' attitude of weighing the outcome of later games much more heavily than games early in the season. Fat chance, I guess. Ohio State can demolish a hapless Wisconsin team (despite the fact they won the B1G West, they still lost to Northwestern, and they were nothing but hapless on Saturday night), and that makes people forget the Buckeyes lost to Virginia Tech at home, for petes sake. Alabama lost to Ole Miss (who got shut out by Arkansas, you know), but big scoring wins over Auburn and Mizzou seemed to make up for that. Florida State, by comparison, actually seemed to take a hit because of the performance of the teams they beat (that close win over Notre Dame looked a lot worse as the season wore on), but their ACC championship apparently made up for that, too.
A bad loss early in the season is still a bad loss. Running up the score in a conference championship game (against a team that clearly is NOT the second-best team in your conference) shouldn't make up for that. And yet, here we are.
-it shouldn't matter how conferences determine their champions. Yet somehow, it does.
A conference ought to be able to crown their champion in whatever way they see fit. A championship game? Fine. Overall record? Great. Head to head? Okay. Alphabetical order? Whatever. Conference rules, what they say goes. So why should it matter to the committee?
Again, we are not looking for the four best conference champs here. We want to get the four best teams, regardless. The conference share between TCU and Baylor should count as much as Ohio State's conference title - or maybe a bit less, since it was shared, but still. Really, unless the criteria for making the playoff is winning your conference, the title shouldn't be one of the factors AT ALL.
It appears obvious the Big XII was punished for not having a conference championship game. In the overall scheme of things, it shouldn't matter. The committee never said a conference championship game was supposed to be a factor, then they gave Ohio State a big boost for playing in one. Big XII teams play at least 9 games against Power 5 conference teams - their own conference. TCU played 10, because they played (and beat) Minnesota - one of the vaunted B1G bowl teams that Ohio State also beat.
--the committee is clearly influenced by the media, ESPN, and the TV networks in attempting to set up favorable matchups
TThere is no football-related reason to put Ohio State over TCU. TCU beat Minnesota, by more than Ohio State beat Minnesota. TCU lost to Baylor, ranked 5th in the final ranking, by 3 points, in Waco. Ohio State lost to Virginia Tech, a 6-6 team that went 3-5 in the ACC, by 14 points, at home. TCU struggled against Kansas. Ohio State trailed Indiana in the second half. Ohio State won their conference, winning their last game by 59 points. TCU won a share of their conference, winning their last game by 52 points. Tell me .. what in the above description possibly puts Ohio State over TCU?
The committee claimed to not take media pressure into account, but there's no other reason to lift Ohio State to the playoff and drop TCU by three freaking spots. None.
-the weekly rankings are pointless
If the committee is going to change their rationale so drastically between December 2 and December 7, there's no point in putting their previous thoughts out for public review. As I mentioned, they obviously weren't including conference championship status as a factor until, all of a sudden, this week. And even then they didn't apply it consistently. So, don't put this information out, since you're just going to confuse and enrage the public when you rearrange things for the final ranking.
I don't think this would work. Consider the following scenario. TCU @ Iowa State and Kansas State @ Baylor is scheduled for the last week of the season. TCU, Baylor, and K-State are all 7-1; Iowa State is 0-8 or whatever.
The first question is, who do you "flex"? K-State still has an opportunity to win the Big 12 outright with a win and TCU loss. If you flex TCU and Baylor, you're taking away K-State's chance before they've even played a full schedule. Flexing Baylor also gives them an advantage because they wouldn't even have to play K-State (the #3 team) at all, while TCU would just miss out on the #10 team.
The second question is, where do you play? If you're pulling TCU and Baylor, do you neutral site it? That would mean Baylor only gets 5 home games for the whole season. Do you flip sites from the earlier game and play at TCU, or go with the higher-ranked team or whatever and still end up at TCU? Same deal, BU season tickets just plunged in value with only five games. Or do you play it at Baylor, for whatever reason (because they had a home game scheduled already, or because they won head-to-head earlier)? How is that fair to TCU, who had to play at Baylor already?
And that's not even touching the scheduling of the other teams involved in this. Presumably, your flex would just pair up Iowa State and Kansas State again. Where do they play?
What if your flex involved Oklahoma or Oklahoma State and a different team? Are you just canceling Bedlam? More than likely, this system would mean that no rivalries would be allowed to be played on the final weekend to prevent that from happening.
What if two 5-6 teams were scheduled to play two 10-1 teams that got flexed? Presumably, they both would have lost with a standard schedule, and maybe a different 6-6 team would have gotten a good bowl. Now, one of them is guaranteed to get a W. If they jump the first 6-6 team and never even had to play the conference champion, you'd have another fan base p****d off.
Lots and lots of issues with this but I'm a fan of thinking outside the box
So don't schedule any games the last week of the season just like every other conference with a championship game. Just a thought though.
If you're not a college football blue blood, you don't get to be in the playoff. It's as simple as that. That's how it will always be.
In college basketball, anyone can win the title. See Bulter, Indiana State, UNLV. In football if you are not in the SEC, Ohio state, michigan, Texas, Penn state, oklahoma, usc, Oregon, note dame or Florida state, you will NEVER get a shot
In college basketball, anyone can win the title. See Bulter, Indiana State, UNLV. In football if you are not in the SEC, Ohio state, michigan, Texas, Penn state, oklahoma, usc, Oregon, note dame or Florida state, you will NEVER get a shot
KidSilverhair
Well-Known Member
Say what you will, the computers weren't that bad.
I think it's funny that in the pre-BCS era, people were complaining about pollsters - voters - determining the best team in the nation. So they came up with the BCS, combining polls and computers. Well, people complained about that. Computers don't know football!
So here we are, back to having people - voters - determining the best teams in the country. Not too much different from the AP and UPI polls, except now the top teams play each other at the end.
Are you saying if TCU had kept their lead against Baylor, and been undefeated, they wouldn't have gotten in? Or if Baylor hadn't lost to WV, they still wouldn't be in? That's ridiculous.
