My theory on why the Big 12 isn't getting respect from the playoff committee

[t-noah]

Like @AlaCyclone said, the committed is heavier on ACC/G5 reps this year. There are some former Big 12 folks in there though.

2024-25 Selection Committee Roster - College Football Playoff

The official 2024-25 Selection Committee Roster for the College Football Playoff

collegefootballplayoff.com

I see one Big 12 guy on that committee, Mack Rhoades, not sure about the others. My guess is that there are 3-4 B1G and SEC slant guys each, one G5, and 3-4 others of unknown bias.


The Big 12 will likely get the short stick most every time. Starting this year.

 

[besserheimerphat]

Even the criteria completely unaffiliated with ESPN, the CFP, or the committee agrees the Big XII doesn't have a team worthy of a top 12 rating.

As ****** as it sounds, our conference has been successfully watered down to the point they don't have to be biased to write us off. That's what I mean when I say it's rigged before it ever gets to the committee. They don't have to use skewed criteria or analytics because the real-world results support us being ranked about where we are.

BSU being as high as they are is another thing entirely, but I genuinely believe the committee shot themselves in the foot by ranking them 12th in the initial CFP rankings in week 10. I suspect they regret that decision, but they've hamstrung themselves with it.

What do you want to bet they put them at 12 thinking it meant "12th seed," not "4th highest rated champion?" And now they are staring at each other with egg on their faces, muttering "oh ****" while trying to figure out how to justify it.

 

[FriendlySpartan]

I see one Big 12 guy on that committee, Mack Rhoades, not sure about the others. My guess is that there are 3-4 B1G and SEC slant guys each, one G5, and 3-4 others of unknown bias.


The Big 12 will likely get the short stick most every time. Starting this year.

And you would be very wrong about the makeup of the committee, it’s very G5 slanted which is why the Big12 is being screwed by Boise. You have more Big12 reps than the SEC or big ten really.

 

[Gonzo]

Is the SEC really tougher this year? I mean, over the past decade it's for the most part been the toughest. But I've watched a lot of SEC games this season and come away not impressed. Texas comes in and wins the conference in their 1st season. That doesn't exactly show conference strength.

'Bama was exposed last year in the playoff and I guess we'll find out if the SEC is indeed the best conference in this year's 12 team version.

Saban's gone. The era of Bama invincibility is done. A few more seasons of them taking bad losses and the luster will have dulled. That's not to say another SEC program won't rise up and take their place.

 

[besserheimerphat]

I get what you're saying, but there is no actual criteria. Lol that's the point. And they're not going to make anything concrete because you would not be able to make an executive decision of pulling a team for another if you had that because the committee could probably then be sued?

If the criteria was set, then teams would know what they need to do to get in. Because as it stands, if you're a name brand, you're essentially in unless you have a horrific season. If you're not a name brand, you better make your conference title and win.

Make objective criteria and the problem resolves itself. It will not happen though unfortunately.

And for people saying that the regular season matters (or the insane opinion that it matters MORE NOW), how much did Bama-OU matter? Bama/Vandy? OSU/Michigan? Those games made ****-all difference to their playoff bids.

 

[Cyrealist]

It doesn't matter if it does or not, it's our only choice. If we accomplish our ultimate goals, we'll end up there anyway. We have, and never will have, any hope of winning the CFP so winning the conference is the primary goal, and anything on top of it is gravy.

Goals should be set based on things we can control. Making the play-offs is a long-shot for a team like ISU and, as we're talking about, It depends a lot on the opinions of people. We can't control people's opinions. If the playoff is the be-all and end-all, there are a lot of teams playing meaningless, unimportant games. Why should fans care about or attend such games?

As to conference strength, there's just no question the SEC is significantly stronger than the Big XII by any conceivable measure. Look at bowl records, BCS records, recruiting rankings, players in the NFL, fan support, athletic budget, etc., etc., etc. I think a good case can be made that the Big10 is over-rated. Indiana's SOS is really weak, and they got creamed by OSU.

 

[Statefan10]

The “look at that good loss!” argument. The same one people are using to prop up Boise as better than the Big 12 champion. I thing good wins and strength of schedule should be more important than “good losses.”

Miami, like BYU also lost 2 of the last 3 which hurts their case.

Miami’s loss is what is hurting them though, I’m not pumping it up I was just saying a ranked 9-3 Syracuse is a better loss than 6-6 OU and certainly better than 6-6 Vandy.

If we want to sit here and talk about much negative bias there is towards the Big 12 then we should share that same energy with Vanderbilt who hasn’t made a bowl in 6 years and just tied their win total for best season since 2013.

^ That loss isn’t hurting Alabama at all as it pertains to making the playoff.

 

[FriendlySpartan]

Goals should be set based on things we can control. Making the play-offs is a long-shot for a team like ISU and, as we're talking about, It depends a lot on the opinions of people. We can't control people's opinions. If the playoff is the be-all and end-all, there are a lot of teams playing meaningless, unimportant games. Why should fans care about or attend such games?

As to conference strength, there's just no question the SEC is significantly stronger than the Big XII by any conceivable measure. Look at bowl records, BCS records, recruiting rankings, players in the NFL, fan support, athletic budget, etc., etc., etc. I think a good case can be made that the Big10 is over-rated. Indiana's SOS is really weak, and they got creamed by OSU.

The big teams top 3 teams this year aren’t overrated but Indiana is just a very lucky schedule year. Teams should be very happy if they get in as that’s a pretty easy matchup. Same for Boise.

I’d even want PSU as they are a good team but can’t win important games

 

[12191987]

I think Vandy was a pretty good team this year.

Vanderbilt lost to a 3-9 Georgia State team.

Georgia State went 1-7 in the Sun Belt, finishing last in their division.

 

[FriendlySpartan]

Vanderbilt lost to a 3-9 Georgia State team.

Georgia State went 1-7 in the Sun Belt, finishing last in their division.

Transitive property doesn’t work and if you pull that string then you’re not going to be super happy with the results

 

[Statefan10]

Transitive property doesn’t work and if you pull that string then you’re not going to be super happy with the results

Shouldn’t have even used the transitive property there lol. Vanderbilt lost to a really bad football team.

 

[12191987]

Yup. That’s why the 4 team or an 8 team was perfect. Most years teams like OSU and Bama will just waltz into the playoff due to having very few teams on the schedule who can go toe to toe with them.

Let’s say bama loses to Georgia but beats vandy. They are honestly probably ranked higher then they are no with no great wins just due to preseason rankings and how many teams get in

That’s a good point.

I think with an 8 team model the big problems wouldn’t be there this season.

The home games would go away, so seeding wouldn’t be a huge advantage.

The Big 10 and SEC would get double the teams of all the other leagues rather than 4x.

 

[ghyland7]

The committee will semi-arbitrarily pick what guidelines they use in order to justify their picks.

The committee says that Alabama is better than Miami because even though they have one more loss, they have a better record against ranked teams. In a vacuum, this makes sense; and as much as I dislike Bama, I think it’s a reasonable argument. The strength of schedule for Alabama seems to matter to the committee.

But then Boise being ranked above ASU or ISU? Their best resume points are… a close loss to Oregon in an early season game, and a win against an 8-4 Wazzu team (who no longer plays in a real pac 12).

Indiana has played a grand total of 2 teams over .500 this year; Michigan and OSU. A close win and a blowout loss.

Miami beat florida! ….and seven teams at .500 or below. Against teams above .500, they are 3-2.

SMU is 11-1 and LOST TO BYU AT HOME; their wins are similar to Miami’s.

Both SMU and Miami are ranked significantly higher than every 10-2 Big 12 team, including BYU, who beat SMU on the road. Seemingly, having 11 wins means that SMU must be better than BYU. Strength of schedule (and head to head) do not matter here.

It’ll be 4 SEC, 4 B1G, 1 G5, ND, and then 1 ACC/B12 most years at this rate. If ND is bad or there’s a down year, it’ll be 2 ACC teams if some combination of Miami/FSU/Clemson are having good years. I just don’t see the Big 12 getting 2 bids almost ever.

Which will then end up with more SEC/B1G champs, which will feed into another loop of “they’re the best” because they have the benefit of the doubt and the most chances.

 

[12191987]

Transitive property doesn’t work and if you pull that string then you’re not going to be super happy with the results

No, I think I will under your definition.

The 2011 Cyclone squad that went 6-7 but beat #2 Oklahoma State was apparently good!

Vanderbilt lost to a truly terrible team. They were 6-6.

They beat exactly two bowl eligible P4 schools. Alabama and a 6-6 Virginia Tech (in OT).

 

[FriendlySpartan]

No, I think I will under your definition.

The 2011 Cyclone squad that went 6-7 but beat #2 Oklahoma State was apparently good!

Vanderbilt lost to a truly terrible team. They were 6-6.

They beat exactly two bowl eligible P4 schools. Alabama and a 6-6 Virginia Texh (in OT).

Washington state is a truly terrible team that lost to 3win Wyoming and 5 win New Mexico and doesn’t even really have a conference. They also slaughtered Texas tech by 21 points who beat both Big12 reps.

It gets real slippery in general when you start going down this route which is why the 12 team playoff is such a bad idea. There are still only about 4 teams that have a realistic shot of winning this whole thing. Going to 12 is just a stupid move

 

[CyNews]

If ISU, ASU, or BYU were 11-1 or 12-0 we would be having this discussion.

It’s more of an issue that this year, there aren’t THAT many really dominant teams.

I’ve got another big question. What is up with the disrespect on the all-big 12 teams? Un-believable.

 

[12191987]

The committee will semi-arbitrarily pick what guidelines they use in order to justify their picks.

The committee says that Alabama is better than Miami because even though they have one more loss, they have a better record against ranked teams. In a vacuum, this makes sense; and as much as I dislike Bama, I think it’s a reasonable argument. The strength of schedule for Alabama seems to matter to the committee.

But then Boise being ranked above ASU or ISU? Their best resume points are… a close loss to Oregon in an early season game, and a win against an 8-4 Wazzu team (who no longer plays in a real pac 12).

Indiana has played a grand total of 2 teams over .500 this year; Michigan and OSU. A close win and a blowout loss.

Miami beat florida! ….and seven teams at .500 or below. Against teams above .500, they are 3-2.

SMU is 11-1 and LOST TO BYU AT HOME; their wins are similar to Miami’s.

Both SMU and Miami are ranked significantly higher than every 10-2 Big 12 team, including BYU, who beat SMU on the road. Seemingly, having 11 wins means that SMU must be better than BYU. Strength of schedule (and head to head) do not matter here.

It’ll be 4 SEC, 4 B1G, 1 G5, ND, and then 1 ACC/B12 most years at this rate. If ND is bad or there’s a down year, it’ll be 2 ACC teams if some combination of Miami/FSU/Clemson are having good years. I just don’t see the Big 12 getting 2 bids almost ever.

Which will then end up with more SEC/B1G champs, which will feed into another loop of “they’re the best” because they have the benefit of the doubt and the most chances.

You nailed it.

The shifting justifications in the various scenarios are the dead giveaway.

I personally believe it less likely a conscious attempt to shoehorn in as many Big 10 and SEC teams for the money than it is an earnest belief that the SEC and Big 10 are far superior leagues.

They’re essentially treating the Big 12 and ACC like the G5 leagues. Their wins are devalued and their losses are amplified…even if those wins are against the Big 10 and SEC.

 

[alarson]

But then Boise being ranked above ASU or ISU? Their best resume points are… a close loss to Oregon in an early season game, and a win against an 8-4 Wazzu team (who no longer plays in a real pac 12).

Which, even just boise shows the stupidity of the 'close loss'.

Boise was losing to wyoming in the 4th quarter.

If we're giving them credit for a close loss, they must then conversely be taken down for a close win against a sub-100 wyoming team. To weight the two equally would probably mean knocking boise all the way out of the top 25 (which is why Sagarin\Massey both have them outside the top 25)

 

[FriendlySpartan]

Which, even just boise shows the stupidity of the 'close loss'.

Boise was losing to wyoming in the 4th quarter.

If we're giving them credit for a close loss, they must then conversely be taken down for a close win against a sub-100 wyoming team.

Hey Wyoming beat WSU who slaughtered Texas tech by 21 points. How awful must that TT team be…

 

[CloneIce]

Vanderbilt lost to a 3-9 Georgia State team.

Georgia State went 1-7 in the Sun Belt, finishing last in their division.

It’s interesting how you judge some teams by one game.