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

[IowaSTATCyclone]

I think it’s silly to complain that a 3 loss SEC team is ranked a couple spots above ISU and ASU. Hate to break it to you, but the SEC is a tougher football conference.

By the same token, every year we see Big 12 basketball teams with more losses ranked above other P5 teams, seeded higher, more tournament spots, etc.

The SEC may have slightly tougher teams but that does NOT make them a tougher conference. Every SEC team plays 88% of a normal "big conference" slate. That is a full game, per team, that gets padded with Marist College, in November, after the elites have packed, usually undeservedly, the preseason popularity contest with two tiers of teams, strategically so that no matter who loses in the SEC there is a reserve team that can swap places with them, which is how they got the mediocrity tarball of Bama Ole Miss and South Carolina huddled at 12.

It is also how Big 12 Texas came in and swamped their boats without much effort. Look at their "gauntlet" SEC schedule. The SEC is a collusion of good teams who shave away every opportunity to play each other. This is why they are so miffed that Vandy took their money this year but forgot to roll over. It jacked up the guaranteed 25% conference wins (Vandy and Arkansas) the league provides its elites every season.

The SEC usually has some great teams, but not this year. Watch the games. It is a shadow of itself. But it hasn't been a good conference since before they went to 8 games.

In fact the SEC is as phony as that 'Bama-lovin native son of Tennesee and Optometrists, Paul Finebaum.

 

[ClubCy]

• Chris Ault: Former head coach and athletic director at the University of Nevada a person
• Chet Gladchuk: Athletics director at the U.S. Naval Academy Elitist Snob
• Jim Grobe: Former head coach at the Ohio University, Wake Forest and Baylor Big 12
• Warde Manuel: Chair, Athletics director at the University of Michigan Big 10
• Randall McDaniel: College and Pro Football Hall of Fame member and former All-American offensive lineman, Arizona State University Big 12
• Gary Pinkel: Former head coach at the University of Toledo and University of Missouri SEC
• Mack Rhoades: Athletics director at Baylor University Big 12
• Mike Riley: Former college head coach at Oregon State and Nebraska, as well as head coach in the NFL, CFL, WLAF, AAF and USFL Big 10
• David Sayler: Athletics director at the Miami University, OH a person
• Will Shields: College and Pro Football Hall of Fame member and former All-American offensive lineman, University of Nebraska Big 10
• Kelly Whiteside: Professor in Sports Media and Journalism, Montclair State University; longtime sportswriter, USA Today, Sports Illustrated and Newsday Elitist Snob
• Carla Williams: Athletics director at the University of Virginia Elitist Snob
• Hunter Yurachek: Athletics director at the University of Arkansas SEC

do you deny that the Big 10 and SEC are voting and ranking with each others interests in mind? they are by far the largest voting block in the group.

This isnt helping make the point you are trying to make.

 

[danvillecyclone]

The moving target of which data points serve the CFP Committee is the most frustrating part.

We all know WHY they are doing it. So quit being Fraudulent about it.

Don’t tell me it’s about winning when Head to head BYU beat SMU, had the same 9-1 records, and SMU was ranked higher. BOGUS.

As far as the “Top Big 12 preseason teams playing poorly is bad for the Big 12….”

That statement is EXACTLY what is wrong. The narrative is the Big 12 is Down.

Horse••••.

Preseason rankings mean little to nothing.
The Big 12 by most reputable metrics are the 2nd or 3rd best conference.

The Big 12 is deep. You have to bring your A game Every game 9 times!!!

Florida State was picked 1st in the ACC by most accounts.

They get replaced by SMU. Who was picked 5-7th. The ACC is Strong. The Big 12 is weak.

As I said in another thread, the Big 12 will get one team in and likely the 12 seed.

It’s a set up for failure and a moment to say “told ya” when it’s one and done.

Give the 3 Big 12 teams one bye and two home Playoff games and see what happens.

I know it’s about the money,

So just tell us it’s about the money.

 

[brett108]

But the NCAA doesn't have anything to do with the CFB championship. It's not an NCAA committee ranking teams like it is for March Madness.

This is the TV networks. They want to pay for two leagues. Those leagues are the B1G and SEC, and they will force the other brands not in those leagues to join if they can. Thats it.

 

[Big_Sill]

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."

This, the committee and its makeup are are smoke and mirrors to cover and take heat for the real decision maker (ESPN). The committee is set up to give the appearance of an unbiased, diverse conference affiliation...ect. They don't have any actual power or say, their job is to justify ESPN's choices.

 

[BCClone]

Took me a bit, but the Boise love can be explained a bit more when you look at the forest. Whey would the media show love to Boise? The media loves the big ten and the SEC. There was another one that the media always had some love for but never really performed, the PAC. Anything happening with the PAC in a year or two? Is it coming back to life somewhat and who will be the front runner in it?

I don't think this is the full reason, but it makes you think maybe they are already considering BSU to be in the PAC and trying to prop it up beforehand.

 

[Cloneon]

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.

Exactly! And why? Because it'll get their teams to the next round more easily. Which we all know is where the more $$$$ are. From the P2's perspective why put a B12 in knowing it'll be a more difficult challenge if you can just convince everyone (we are so gullible as a species) that Boise State is better?

 

[troutslayer]

One can say that the CFP has nothing to do with the AP rankings, but preseason rankings, and even conference rankings, set the stage however nonsensical they are. I'm not convinced that the CFP committee isn't swayed by that in some form.

 

[Cyrealist]

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

We wouldn't be talking about Indiana or Alabama being in a playoff. Have 5 teams locked in and then 3 wildcards. That's plenty.

 

[Cyclonsin]

We wouldn't be talking about Indiana or Alabama being in a playoff. Have 5 teams locked in and then 3 wildcards. That's plenty.

Since there are no byes, and these would likely all be former NY6 bowl games with no true home teams, let's assume teams are just straight seeded on ranking...

1. Oregon vs 8. Big XII champ
2. Texas vs 7. Boise State
3. Penn State vs 6. SMU
4. Notre Dame vs 5. Georgia

Basically, you have to win your conference if you're outside the P2, make your CCG if you're inside the P2, or be Notre Dame.

Years ND isn't top 8 would open it up to a bit more debate, but I greatly prefer this. More proof that "CFP field size" and "good for the game" are inversely related.

 

[Gonzo]

We wouldn't be talking about Indiana or Alabama being in a playoff. Have 5 teams locked in and then 3 wildcards. That's plenty.

I was hoping for 8 as well, I thought that would've been ideal for a playoff. But anytime you have at-large/wildcard selections at play, you're going to have the same problems.

 

[VeloClone]

The criteria used by the committee will change every year based on what criteria are needed to get the B10 and SEC in.

Let's be clear, the criteria change from team to team in the same update of their ranking:

Multiple loss SEC teams: SOS trumps.
Weak resume G5 teams: It's all about W/L record.
Big 12 (and ACC to a lesser extent) teams don't get the benefit of SOS over G5 and don't get benefit of W/L over SEC.

Pick a set of criteria, stick to it and apply it evenly to every team rather than picking and choosing what gives your desired result.

 

[Cloned4Life]

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)

Apologies, silly question (that likely has already been answered) - why is the FPI catastrophically different vs. other rating sites like Sagarin, Massey, etc.? Literally EVERY Big-12 hater is soley focusing on FPI. FPI makes Iowa State and the Big 12 look bad. Every other rating/ranking system is far more favorable. Why?

 

[cstrunk]

99% of the answer is easy: $$$$$$$$$$$$$

1% of the answer: KU

 

[Statefan10]

Apologies, silly question (that likely has already been answered) - why is the FPI catastrophically different vs. other rating sites like Sagarin, Massey, etc.? Literally EVERY Big-12 hater is soley focusing on FPI. FPI makes Iowa State and the Big 12 look bad. Every other rating/ranking system is far more favorable. Why?

Not saying this is the reason but there is a company with four letters that created that metric..

 

[Die4Cy]

We wouldn't be talking about Indiana or Alabama being in a playoff. Have 5 teams locked in and then 3 wildcards. That's plenty.

8 for a championship playoff is the perfect number. But it's important to remember that the CFP invitational is only about the APPEARANCE of a championship. Totally secondary to the tv ratings.

 

[Gonzo]

I think this is a pretty timely article that hits on a lot of what we're going to see with the CFP moving ahead, and why we're going to see it...

Brands Drive Fandom And Emotional Connections Through Sports

Sports, culture and brand building are central to the growth of more than a few famous brands from Gatorade to Nike.

www.forbes.com

Brands drive ratings, ratings drive $$$.

 

[enisthemenace]

One can say that the CFP has nothing to do with the AP rankings, but preseason rankings, and even conference rankings, set the stage however nonsensical they are. I'm not convinced that the CFP committee isn't swayed by that in some form.

Preseason and all other AP rankings are 100% influencing metrics, whether they are supposed to be or not. Which means prior season(s) results are influencers as well. IMO, these things should not be part of the “equation” for playoff selection, but they are whether “the committee” says so or not.

I was asked earlier what I thought of Vanderbilt’s play this year by a poster who said they thought Vandy looked good all year. I have a small issue with this. Unless you’re a Vanderbilt fan, how on earth does someone have enough time to watch enough games to say “they looked good all year”? And that goes for every school, not just Vanderbilt. It’s simply not very feasible, is it?

If it’s not feasible to watch and analyze everything, “eye test” is inherently biased, isn’t it? If so, you have to look at statistical metrics which are unbiased, or at least less so. And with a sport like football, where the sample size of games per team is so small, you have to look at who a team beat and lost to, and who those teams beat and lost to, etc (“transitive property”, while not perfect, is better than “eye test” if watching every game isn’t possible).

All I know, because I honestly did not watch every game, Vanderbilt appears to be a horrific loss for Alabama, yet it does not seem to have mattered. They beat nobody besides Alabama, and lost to Georgia State. Georgia State lost to Arkansas State (along with a host of other ****** teams). The same Arkansas State that Iowa State beat 52-7.

In just rambling now…

 

[VeloClone]

Yeah i think this is being overlooked by a lot of big 12 fans. If Ok St was 10-2 they would probably be higher than SMU since they can point to their win over an SEC team.

Another thing i think gets ignored is that the big 12 had a few games in the OOC against each other. we essentially had 4 teams play 10 conference games which added to the further cannibalize our teams' records. Though this probably is only a gripe for Baylor.

It matters much more than that. Everyone says a top SEC team playing one more cupcake makes little difference. The real difference is that so does every one of their conference opponents so their SOS is artificially inflated because nearly every one of their conference opponents has an inflated record therefore it appears they played a much tougher schedule when...did they really?

So back to it just being Baylor - every team that lost a "non-con game" to a Big 12 opponent is perceived a weaker opponent for every Big 12 team in the hunt. Opponents W/L is a criterion that gets evaluated. How many times have you read about a contender's number of opponents who are bowl eligible? Don't you think it matters if eight of your opponents have one more cupcake win toward bowl eligibility or even just in their W/L record?

 

[VeloClone]

I do happen to agree on Chet. Anyone named Chet has to be an elitist snob.