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

CloneIce

Well-Known Member
Apr 11, 2006
37,775
21,154
113
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.
Yes, as I said this is yet another reason why when trying to rank trams with similar resumes, I prefer to focus on good wins over who had better and worse losses.
 

CloneIce

Well-Known Member
Apr 11, 2006
37,775
21,154
113
I mostly agree with you, especially on Boise. My gripe is that they are still trying to squeeze Alabama in there. Even if Alabama is a lot better than they seem, those losses to Vandy and OU should kill any argument they have. There needs to be punishment for screwing the pooch twice. I really don't have a problem with anyone's ranking other than Bama and Boise.
I just struggle to see much difference in those resumes, so I understand taking the team with the better wins. But mostly, I just don’t understand the angst over it.
 

Statefan10

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
May 20, 2019
21,209
27,232
113
Yes, as I said this is yet another reason why when trying to rank trams with similar resumes, I prefer to focus on good wins over who had better and worse losses.
I think that’s fair, but how many better wins? And what about 1 great win and three bad losses? I know I’m playing devil’s advocate and it’s annoying but that’s literally what the committee is doing. And it highlights my point of because there is no set criteria on what makes or breaks a playoff team, this turns into a popularity contest.
 

12191987

Well-Known Member
Aug 20, 2012
2,446
2,684
113
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
Ummm….

Washington State started the season 8-1 reaching a ranking of #19. Their only loss up to that point was on the road at Boise State.

The finished with a a three game losing streak:

On the road by 3 after a go ahead TD with :21 left.

On the road by 3 in a rivalry on a go ahead FG with :20 left after they fumbled on their own side of the field.

At home by 1 on a go ahead TD with :25 left.

So, they finished 8-4. Shorten their season by a total of 61 seconds and they’re 11-1.

Washington State is not Georgia State.

They beat Tech at home in the second game of the season. Their QB was making his 2nd career start. He ran for nearly 200 yards on 21 carries after carrying it only twice in the opener against a bad FCS team.

That QB threw for over 3100 yards and ran for over 800 on the season (with 29 TDs to 7 INTs).

I’d say maybe Tech gets a little grace being the first team to face this guy and having no film (and flying to play on the west coast).

Tech finished the year 8-4

Tech isn’t Vanderbilt.
 
Last edited:
  • Optimistic
Reactions: FriendlySpartan

CloneIce

Well-Known Member
Apr 11, 2006
37,775
21,154
113
I think that’s fair, but how many better wins? And what about 1 great win and three bad losses? I know I’m playing devil’s advocate and it’s annoying but that’s literally what the committee is doing. And it highlights my point of because there is no set criteria on what makes or breaks a playoff team, this turns into a popularity contest.
It always is a popularity contest where big names have an advantage. I actually think year they did a better job than in some past years.
 

12191987

Well-Known Member
Aug 20, 2012
2,446
2,684
113
It’s interesting how you judge some teams by one game.
I’m not sure the point you’re trying to make here?

Vanderbilt is a 6-6 team ranked #54 by Sagarin.

Throw out that loss to an objectively terrible, last place Sun Belt team and they’re 6-5 with a really good win over Alabama.

Now throw out that Alabama win and they’re a 5-5 team whose best win is in OT against a 6-6 Virginia Tech in their opener.

Vanderbilt isn’t a good team.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VeloClone

jdoggivjc

Well-Known Member
Sep 27, 2006
61,634
23,892
113
Macomb, MI
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.

Here's the thing, though - the committee had plenty of opportunity to move Boise St down closer to where it belonged when they struggled against Nevada and ESPECIALLY with Wyoming. After all, while it wasn't the CFP poll, the AP and Coaches' had no issue with bumping ISU down when they survived UCF and after their bye - we went from 9 to 10 to 11 in sequential weeks. However, not only did they not bump them down, they moved them up when they had the opportunity. Either they were that impressed with that loss to Oregon when they didn't totally have their **** together at the beginning of the season and then despite playing NOBODY (except UNLV) after that... or this is all bull****. I lean towards the latter. Why? Because Tulane - a school that had no business even threatening to jump and keep the Big 12 out of the playoff altogether - would have if the committee had their way and had they not lost.
 

12191987

Well-Known Member
Aug 20, 2012
2,446
2,684
113
It always is a popularity contest where big names have an advantage. I actually think year they did a better job than in some past years.
What would you suspect a 4-team bracket would look like this year?

Does a 12-1 ACC Champ SMU get in over a second SEC or Big 10 team?

Obviously things haven’t played out fully here, but I think it is only the rules that prescribe conference champions getting preferential treatment that makes it look somewhat legitimate in my opinion.
 

cyclones500

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2010
38,888
26,938
113
Michigan
basslakebeacon.com
It could always depend, but it's unlikely. However your argument has holes in it considering the NCAA Tournament has a MUCH BETTER process in determining who makes the tournament. Also, no one is playing at anyone's home arena. It's all played on neutral floors.
Plus, every league gets an auto-bid for NCAAT, so there's no chance of the CFP of Big 12 missing the field entirely.
 

MountainManHawk

Active Member
Sep 10, 2015
237
194
43
45
Without being a big 12 homer, my problem with the system is that the conferences had their chance to determine their champ. Seems silly to fill the tournament with the teams from the same conference. To pick a national champ, there should be National representation. To pick a conference champ, make a tournament with teams form the conference. Seems really common sense to me. I understand that this would not necessarily be the "best teams" being let into the tournament but the regular season and conference championships should mean something. Not just have the results skewed whichever direction pleases the $. Filling the tournament with with mostly SEC teams or Big 10 teams just seems redundant and to me doesn't determine a National Champ.

Sorry for the long post, but I do not believe "Blue Bloods" would bring more money than a fairly selected tournament. I think you lose a lot of eyes on tv's when there isn't equal representation. Just my opinion.
I get why you say that but since the conferences have all ballooned, the conference champs are now determined so much by luck with the schedule.

The most egregious example is the SEC where they had 7 different teams that won 9+ games and Texas played exactly one of them (and lost!) so all of their wins all season were teams that finished 8th or worse in the conference.

Really I could do that in every conference. Like if Penn State had played Ohio States schedule and had to go play in Eugene, would they be in the conference championship game?

If SMU had played Miami and Clemson, would they be in the championship?

And obviously the Big12 had a 4-way tie and for the most part the top teams never played each other.

So TLDR, I think you can make a good case that the conference champs weren’t really determined on the field like it was in the past. You could make a case that the best teams in each conference were Ohio State (I think they beat Oregon if the game was neutral site), Alabama, Miami, and BYU, but those teams all drew the short stick with the schedule. And at least 2 (possibly even 3) of those 4 teams are going to get left out of the CFP entirely.
 
Last edited:

MR82

Active Member
Sep 12, 2021
149
155
43
67
Many interesting points raised so far. I think the selections so far are purely $ based-on projected TV viewers. It’s entertainment and what looks to be entertainment is what will be broadcasted. It’s a business.
 

t-noah

Well-Known Member
Feb 2, 2007
19,780
13,417
113
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.
I haven't looked into the latest CFP rankings, but I'm not Boise isn't screwing anybody. It's not their fault that they are having a good season. Maybe if it keeps a 2nd Big 12 team out? They've had a good year. Put them in, normally, especially if they are the only G5 team.

What I have a problem with is the SEC and B1G getting 4 in each, to the Big 12's and ACC's 1 team in. Or, I would also be against the ACC getting 2 when our Big 12 would only get 1. None of those seems fair, but that's where we largely are. If the Big 12 could get 2 teams in most years, I could feel differently.

If they go to 14 teams next year, I still feel the Big 12 would be hard pressed to get 2 in. The system is not fair and continues to allow the richer teams to get richer. That won't change unless someone or some entity breaks the current system. We are always climbing uphill. It starts with the biased pre-season rankings.
 

t-noah

Well-Known Member
Feb 2, 2007
19,780
13,417
113
BTW, I am a fan of calling it the "College Football Invitational" rather than the "Playoff" even if we get in.

Or maybe the "ESPN Invitational."
That's a perfect description.
It would be a better description. Unfortunately the greater money would still be there for them and the teams involved in the "Invitational". And they would still use it for the college 'Championship'.
 

FriendlySpartan

Well-Known Member
Jul 26, 2021
9,754
10,200
113
38
I haven't looked into the latest CFP rankings, but I'm not Boise isn't screwing anybody. It's not their fault that they are having a good season. Maybe if it keeps a 2nd Big 12 team out? They've had a good year. Put them in, normally, especially if they are the only G5 team.

What I have a problem with is the SEC and B1G getting 4 in each, to the Big 12's and ACC's 1 team in. Or, I would also be against the ACC getting 2 when our Big 12 would only get 1. None of those seems fair, but that's where we largely are. If the Big 12 could get 2 teams in most years, I could feel differently.

If they go to 14 teams next year, I still feel the Big 12 would be hard pressed to get 2 in. The system is not fair and continues to allow the richer teams to get richer. That won't change unless someone or some entity breaks the current system. We are always climbing uphill. It starts with the biased pre-season rankings.
Agreed, I’m not a huge fan of expanding anymore. The big ten is hard to argue with this year just due to Indy and PSU having 1 loss and Oregon going undefeated. But the SEC I get the gripe.

I agree with the system breaking part but legit have no idea that would work without the power schools still skewing things in their favor. I’m interested to see how NIL continues to change things
 

t-noah

Well-Known Member
Feb 2, 2007
19,780
13,417
113
Agreed, I’m not a huge fan of expanding anymore. The big ten is hard to argue with this year just due to Indy and PSU having 1 loss and Oregon going undefeated. But the SEC I get the gripe.

I agree with the system breaking part but legit have no idea that would work without the power schools still skewing things in their favor. I’m interested to see how NIL continues to change things
I haven't read pros or cons to this, but if Congress got involved in some way, to make thing more equitable, some sort of antitrust whatever, that might be the only way, short term. Doubt that would happen though. Don't mean to start that converstion.

The Big 12, the ACC and others are just on a gradually lower level to the P2, and the gap is widening.
 
  • Optimistic
Reactions: FriendlySpartan