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

[Nolaeer]

there are some issues for Big 12 cred. UNLV was 2-0 v big 12. Sure it was houston and kansas, but kansas just beat 3 of the top 4 teams in the big 12, and was a late fumble from beating kstate as well.

Yeah, but kansas is better now? No they're not. baylor just mopped the floor with kansas.

Fact is ISU, arz state, BYU, colo, kstate are top 20ish teams, not top 10.

 

[VeloClone]

The Vanderbilt loss is a bad loss their other two wins are against the dregs of the SEC so it gets dismissed. The OU loss isn’t considered a bad loss as it’s OU and just about every other team behind them also has a really bad loss. I know this board likes to hype Kansas but having 3 ranked teams lose to a squad that isn’t making a bowl game and got obliterated by Baylor isn’t doing the league perception any favors.

I expect Joe Blow off the street to dismiss Kansas and talk about how terrible those losses by the top of the Big 12 were. I expect the people who are supposed to be putting in the work and understanding what is going on in college football to recognize that Kansas was picked at the top of the Big 12 for a reason, and that they were playing competitive football but kept making crucial mistakes causing them to not see success in the final score. They finally figured out how to get out of their own way and were becoming the team everyone expected them to be preseason. If the Committee had done their homework and looked at that Kansas team they would understand why a lot of people in the Big 12 weren't nearly as surprised by the Jayhawk performance in those games as you might think.

 

[Statefan10]

there are some issues for Big 12 cred. UNLV was 2-0 v big 12. Sure it was houston and kansas, but kansas just beat 3 of the top 4 teams in the big 12, and was a late fumble from beating kstate as well.

Yeah, but kansas is better now? No they're not. baylor just mopped the floor with kansas.

Fact is ISU, arz state, BYU, colo, kstate are top 20ish teams, not top 10.

Baylor hasn’t lost a game since October 5 against Iowa State. They’re playing very good football right now. And if you don’t think KU is better now than they were at the beginning of the year you’re delusional.

 

[FriendlySpartan]

I expect Joe Blow off the street to dismiss Kansas and talk about how terrible those losses by the top of the Big 12 were. I expect the people who are supposed to be putting in the work and understanding what is going on in college football to recognize that Kansas was picked at the top of the Big 12 for a reason, and that they were playing competitive football but kept making crucial mistakes causing them to not see success in the final score. They finally figured out how to get out of their own way and were becoming the team everyone expected them to be preseason. If the Committee had done their homework and looked at that Kansas team they would understand why a lot of people in the Big 12 weren't nearly as surprised by the Jayhawk performance in those games as you might think.

I think this argument would have held up better if they didn’t immediately get blasted to oblivion by Baylor after beating those ranked teams. Have a close loss or get a win and the argument they turned it around is much easier to make

 

[Cloned4Life]

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

Ha, well yeah, that's the real answer but isn't it crazy how VASTLY different FPI is vs. long-standing power rating/ranking systems?

 

[Statefan10]

Ha, well yeah, that's the real answer but isn't it crazy how VASTLY different FPI is vs. long-standing power rating/ranking systems?

It definitely is!

 

[VeloClone]

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.

But they shouldn't be hamstrung by it. This type if thinking is exactly what is wrong with the AP poll. So many pollsters think their job is to move teams up or down based on wins and losses. It isn't that at all. The job of a pollster is to take a clean sheet of paper and evaluate the resume of each team from scratch each week. That top 10 win in week 1 might actually just be a win over a 3-6 team by week 11. That surprising loss to G5 Louisiana in week 2 might actually be a loss to a top 25 team by week 12. If we are just moving teams up and down that adjustment never gets made.

If a G5 is ranked highly in the first poll, they should still be subject to reevaluation EVEN IF THEY DON'T LOSE as their schedule played continues to get weaker and the other contenders' schedules played continue to get stronger. This actually applies to all teams, not just G5 but is generally more obvious in the G5.

 

[troutslayer]

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…

And Warde Manuel has said something on more than one occasion that eludes to the eye test. Early on he mentioned Miami's "explosive offense" was a consideration when they had them ranked 4th. Every time he speaks it exposes the flaws in their "system". It's pure laziness and bias.

 

[CoachHines3]

hindsight this doesn't look to bad right now

"The Big Ten and SEC contend that they hold decision-making powers over a future format. During negotiations in the spring among CFP leagues, the Big Ten proposed a 14-team playoff featuring multiple automatic qualifiers for the power conferences: three each for the SEC and Big Ten; two each for the ACC and Big 12; one reserved for the best G5 champion; and three at-large spots. The 3-3-2-2-1 concept was roundly rejected."

Is there a better way to choose a CFP field? As committee faces backlash, leaders in the sport ponder changes

College football leaders are already exploring changes to a future playoff format, and a re-examination of the selection process is expected as well as complaints pile up.

www.yahoo.com

 

[Nolaeer]

It is THIS:
We are going to pick the best brands--unless you,by clear and convincing evidence--force our hand.

No big 12 teams is anything like the undefeated FSU who was left out just last year. leaving out a 2 loss big 12 team just isnt going to raise any eyebrows outside the big 12.

 

[Cyclonsin]

It is THIS:
We are going to pick the best brands--unless you,by clear and convincing evidence--force our hand.

No big 12 teams is anything like the undefeated FSU who was left out just last year. leaving out a 2 loss big 12 team just isnt going to raise any eyebrows outside the big 12.

And, if we're really being honest with ourselves, there isn't a Big XII team worthy of being an at large team this year. I've been pretty vocal about my opinion we're properly ranked, and the only major issue is the Mountain West teams being overvalued.

 

[CycloneSpinning]

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.

That’s the biggest problem. This appears to be more of an ESPN sponsored invitational…that you can somewhat qualify for.

 

[FriendlySpartan]

hindsight this doesn't look to bad right now

"The Big Ten and SEC contend that they hold decision-making powers over a future format. During negotiations in the spring among CFP leagues, the Big Ten proposed a 14-team playoff featuring multiple automatic qualifiers for the power conferences: three each for the SEC and Big Ten; two each for the ACC and Big 12; one reserved for the best G5 champion; and three at-large spots. The 3-3-2-2-1 concept was roundly rejected."

Is there a better way to choose a CFP field? As committee faces backlash, leaders in the sport ponder changes

College football leaders are already exploring changes to a future playoff format, and a re-examination of the selection process is expected as well as complaints pile up.

www.yahoo.com

I never heard of the 3-3-2-2 only the 4-4-2-2. If the other leagues turned down a 3-3-2-2 they are absolute morons and your commish is one of the smarter guys in the room so I’m not sure that proposal happened

 

[CoachHines3]

I never heard of the 3-3-2-2 only the 4-4-2-2. If the other leagues turned down a 3-3-2-2 they are absolute morons and your commish is one of the smarter guys in the room so I’m not sure that proposal happened

Numerous articles about the 3-3-2-2 when it was being discussed. What I can't find is who struck it down.

College Football Playoff’s 14-team model could include 3 auto-bids for Big Ten, SEC

A a 3-3-2-2-1 model would feature three automatic spots each for the Big Ten and SEC, two each for the Big 12 and ACC and one for the G5.

www.nytimes.com

Sources: Optimism building for 14-team CFP

There is optimism and "momentum" for a 14-team College Football Playoff starting in 2026, sources told ESPN, with an effort to reach a deal in the coming weeks.

www.espn.com

Yahoo Sports AM: The CFP's potential "3-3-2-2-1" model

In today's edition: A new model for the 14-team playoff, the Celtics' dominance, England's three-team race, The Florida Man Games, and more.

sports.yahoo.com

 

[12191987]

I think this argument would have held up better if they didn’t immediately get blasted to oblivion by Baylor after beating those ranked teams. Have a close loss or get a win and the argument they turned it around is much easier to make

So I think i see what is going on: You’re trying to pound nails with a screwdriver and drive screws with a hammer.

Predictive tools like Sagarin rate KU relatively high. They’re a talented team (preseason #22) that has been sloppy, inconsistent, and unlucky. Their record is terrible. However, you could expect such a team to be dangerous on a game-by-game basis.

Their record is what it is, and they should be judged on that. They’re not a particularly good team, or deserving of special consideration for bowl eligibility because of their talent.

It stands to reason that a loss to such a team should be weighted differently though. They have the ability, as corroborated by power rating models, to beat decent teams.

You seem to want to use a team’s overall record to weight a loss to them and a team’s power rating to judge their overall record.

So ‘Bama, which is like a high-end KU this year with immense talent but head-scratchingly bad losses, has a far better resume than a team like Miami (or ISU, BYU, SMU, etc) with better records and losses to teams with better power rankings.

 

[Cloneon]

I never heard of the 3-3-2-2 only the 4-4-2-2. If the other leagues turned down a 3-3-2-2 they are absolute morons and your commish is one of the smarter guys in the room so I’m not sure that proposal happened

With one caveat: CFP adjusts the conference position by the previous years performance.

 

[Nolaeer]

the pac 2 struck down the 14 team playoff. they still had a vote, and it had to be unanimous to change it.

 

[FriendlySpartan]

So I think i see what is going on: You’re trying to pound nails with a screwdriver and drive screws with a hammer.

Predictive tools like Sagarin rate KU relatively high. They’re a talented team (preseason #22) that has been sloppy, inconsistent, and unlucky. Their record is terrible. However, you could expect such a team to be dangerous on a game-by-game basis.

Their record is what it is, and they should be judged on that. They’re not a particularly good team, or deserving of special consideration for bowl eligibility because of their talent.

It stands to reason that a loss to such a team should be weighted differently though. They have the ability, as corroborated by power rating models, to beat decent teams.

You seem to want to use a team’s overall record to weight a loss to them and a team’s power rating to judge their overall record.

So ‘Bama, which is like a high-end KU this year with immense talent but head-scratchingly bad losses, has a far better resume than a team like Miami (or ISU, BYU, SMU, etc) with better records and losses to teams with better power rankings.

Your logic here applies even more so to OU, a loss to such a team with the talent they have should be weighted differently though right?

Bama being called a high end KU might be the single most disrespectful thing I have heard in a min and I love it

Edit* btw the only people that ever talk sagrin ratings are people trying to explain why they got screwed. I get it, but no one cares what someone’s bias computer model says

 

[CycloneSpinning]

the pac 2 struck down the 14 team playoff. they still had a vote, and it had to be unanimous to change it.

Yes, this is correct.

I would like to see them slightly revise the setup so that any P4 conference gets at least 2 teams but no more than 4…and then I think I can get on board. Agreeing to something that locks in a disparity and potentially invites a 5th or even 6th place team to battle for a national championship seems silly.

 

[KidSilverhair]

Numerous articles about the 3-3-2-2 when it was being discussed. What I can't find is who struck it down.

College Football Playoff’s 14-team model could include 3 auto-bids for Big Ten, SEC

A a 3-3-2-2-1 model would feature three automatic spots each for the Big Ten and SEC, two each for the Big 12 and ACC and one for the G5.

www.nytimes.com

Sources: Optimism building for 14-team CFP

There is optimism and "momentum" for a 14-team College Football Playoff starting in 2026, sources told ESPN, with an effort to reach a deal in the coming weeks.

www.espn.com

Yahoo Sports AM: The CFP's potential "3-3-2-2-1" model

In today's edition: A new model for the 14-team playoff, the Celtics' dominance, England's three-team race, The Florida Man Games, and more.

sports.yahoo.com

I think we all know a 3-3-2-2-1 model would rapidly become a 5-4-2-2-1 given the three at-large bids …