Link: Want to get a glimpse of what's wrong with the CFP committee? Read this....

I disagree on 2 points:

CHATTBRIT said:

It was very clear to me weeks ago that the Committee wanted Ohio State in the play offs and I mentioned this on other threads. The Committee really did a face plant naming TCU #3 the previous week instead of #4. The Committee's rationale that #3, 4, 5 & 6 were virtually equal is lame. If that was the fact, then name 1 and 2 and explain the other four were virtually equal.

Click to expand...

I feel like many people still fail to see these week to week rankings as fluid. In the AP/Coaches Poll, once you earned a spot in the poll you pretty much kept that spot barring a loss, meltdown, or major upset by a team behind you over a team just ahead of you. That's not the way the committee does it and they've always been 100% clear about that. Last week, TCU's body of work elevated it well ahead of Baylor. FSU at the time still lacked any real gusto to their schedule but being undefeated kept them in the mix(ie, #4). Once Baylor beat KState that greatly improved their body of wor and put them on par with TCU. Once Baylor and TCU had comparable bodies of work they defaulted to the head to head between them (per the committee's own criteria in the CFP media guide). This established Baylor as moving past TCU. Meanwhile, FSU played a conference championship game against a ranked team and prevailed. Yes, Baylor played KState but it wasn't a conference championship game it was just part of their regular season--a season that included a bad loss, 3 OOC cream puffs and 3 byes. FSU's new body of work was simply better than Baylor's. FSU moved to #3. tOSU, like FSU, played a ranked team in a conference championship and not only won but smashed them. With their 3rd string QB no less. Add in the BigXII fiasco about naming a champion and tOSU gets the clear nod.

CHATTBRIT said:

When Manning dropped out I thought that would hurt the SEC, especially following all the talk about no SEC representative. Of course, the rest of the nation is tired (aka jealous) of the SEC with it winning the last BCS Championships until the Barn failed miserably last year and let the Conference down. Any excuse, however slight, to exclude the SEC would have been taken if it could.RTR

Click to expand...

Alabama jumped from #5 to #1 once it had a marquee win and never relinquished the spot. No one would have cried fowl if they had kept Oregon or FSU ahead of us. Bama fans, maybe, but not on a national level. Alabama, and the SEC, were given the proper amount of respect. The SEC held every #1 ranking given and routinely were ranked as the highest 1 loss, 2 loss, and 3 loss teams. Fans may have SEC fatigue and the media may play to that but people who know college football have consistently given the SEC respect in the polls for the last 2 decades.

mikes12 said:

I can't wait to see the Co-One-True-Champion rings.

Click to expand...

You will probably be able to find one on eBay by April.

Special K said:

This article details some of Art Briles' .

Click to expand...

The same Art Briles that voted Bama #4 and behind his team? I am sure that was based on integrity, not a desire to manipulate the polling in his favor.

TIDE-HSV said:

Um, we didn't beaten 41-27 by a "mediocre" team on our OOC schedule...

Click to expand...

Umm..didn't say we did. Don't even understand what your point is or how it relates to my post.

Does anyone seriously want a team who played the #4 schedule in the country to make it any tougher? To me, the real risk of what the committee did here, is show a willingness to completely devalue being undefeated, even when comparing two teams that played similar schedules (FSU and Oregon). It's not about winning anymore... to me, that's probably the single worse aspect of the committee, they think their opinion matters more than winning or losing.

As an outsider looking in it really strikes me as strange that something as big and as financially powerful as college football can beset itself with this opportunity for disagreement.

The 2/4/8 best teams in college football should be playing off for the title of champions.

I'd be interested to know, if you can put Bama bias / Crimson tinted spectacles aside for a second, what the thoughts of the forum are on which teams could actually win it if Bama weren't there.

If you removed Bama and replaced them with TCU or Baylor could either of those realistically win out against the other 3 teams in the playoffs?

RWBTide said:

I'd be interested to know, if you can put Bama bias / Crimson tinted spectacles aside for a second, what the thoughts of the forum are on which teams could actually win it if Bama weren't there.

If you removed Bama and replaced them with TCU or Baylor could either of those realistically win out against the other 3 teams in the playoffs?

Click to expand...

The schedules are too different to be sure. Alabama has played 5 games against currently ranked teams, going 4-1. Oregon has played 6 games against currently ranked teams, going 5-1. FSU and OSU have each played 3, each going 3-0. But there is almost no cross-play to allow for comparison. We know how they look because we have watched them play, but because they were playing teams that have not played the other playoff teams, who knows?

The way that college football works, with so many teams and so few games, it is a rare thing that the teams left with few enough losses to make a 4 team playoff would have come from the same part of the country. Why? Because teams from the same conference or geography canabalize one another and only the strongest is left standing. Alabama and FSU were both left standing in the Southeast only because they played in different conferences. Oregon made it out of the West. OSU made it out of the Midwest. The Northeast has no college football worth considering. That leaves the South/Southwest.

IMO, with so little crossover play there is no way to know which region is better. We can guess, but the games have to be played to be sure. So, yes, I believe that it is possible that Baylor could win this playoff if they were in. (TCU has no argument - they lost to Baylor so need to go home and shut up)

Special K said:

This article details some of Art Briles' comments about the playoff committee and his take that the Big 12 (10?) didn't have proper representation (despite having Oliver Luck on the committee, but whatever). I'm not even posting this to debate whether Briles has a point or not. I'm posting it show why the committee is fundamentally flawed. It's all about political maneuvering and regional jockeying to get the results to come out in your favor, and it's going to get worse. You can see it and feel it in this interview. When Briles says that losing Archie Manning off the committee basically sunk them, that speaks volumes to just how completely jacked up this whole process really is. Losing one guy off the committee kept Baylor out of the playoffs? Really? Not sure I buy it, but if there's even a hint of truth to that statement then that should tell you all you need to know. I can't believe college football, as great as it is, has mortgaged the future with this nonsense. I don't care if the committee happened to get it right this year or not (OSU, Va Tech says hi) but it is just set up for rampant lobbying and corruption going forward. What a hot mess....

http://espn.go.com/college-football...-bears-says-playoff-committee-no-big-12-voice

Click to expand...

what i see is two teams from the Big12, that at the end of all games, didnt deserve the one slot left available.
They did it to themselves, and it wouldnt have mattered who was on the committee.

They played one less game than everyone else (which is an advantage), had an extra week of rest (which is an advantage), and on the last day of the season when everyone else was playing for a championship, they were playing thier last regular season game (one of which was against a 2-9 team), which didnt really do much to impress anyone...


Where's the bias again?

Special K said:

You guys are missing the point. I also believe Briles is speaking mostly from sour grapes and he was really done in by his own conference's stupidity. My point though is that the whole setup, that even allows him the opportunity to whine about "representation on the committee" is in and of itself a problem. I think the committee probably got it right this year, but my point is that it's much easier to influence a smaller group of people with his type of whining and complaining and the whole setup is asking for trouble. Someone will listen to Briles and his ilk at some point and eventually screw the whole thing up even worse. That's the point I was trying to make, not trying to debate whether Baylor belonged or not.

Click to expand...

how can you stop people from crying????
There is not a systrem out there than can do that.

with 4 spots, and six teams angling for a slot...two were left out.

All that happened was that they committee evluated the whole picture, and placed them where they should be. I think that they got it right.

Baylor was 5th, and TCU 6th (head to head cam into play when the season was complete, not by guessing at a result that hadnt happened yet.

EVERY other team played 13 games, TCU and Baylors OOC was absolutely ridiculous, and they had advantages that no other conference had at thier disposal (who wouldnt love an extra bye week to rest, heal and prepare for a game?)

They didnt risk a loss with a 13th game, which woiuld have determined "One true champion".

Enough, I cant even muster a tear for TCU OR Baylor, no matter how much they cry.

B1GTide said:

The schedules are too different to be sure. Alabama has played 5 games against currently ranked teams, going 4-1. Oregon has played 6 games against currently ranked teams, going 5-1.

Click to expand...

Just to clarify, Oregon and Alabama both played 5 teams that ended up being ranked in the final playoff poll. Oregon played Arizona twice, losing once and winning once. Saying that Oregon is 5-1 against ranked opponents is somewhat misleading.

Tide1986 said:

Just to clarify, Oregon and Alabama both played 5 teams that ended up being ranked in the final playoff poll. Oregon played Arizona twice, losing once and winning once. Saying that Oregon is 5-1 against ranked opponents is somewhat misleading.

Click to expand...

I said games, not teams, for a reason. Had Oregon lost twice to Arizona, we would have counted both games, just as we count both games that Alabama played against LSU in 2011. They both matter, and they both add weight to their schedule.

B1GTide said:

I said games, not teams, for a reason. Had Oregon lost twice to Arizona, we would have counted both games, just as we count both games that Alabama played against LSU in 2011. They both matter, and they both add weight to their schedule.

Click to expand...

Upon looking closer at the final playoff poll, it looks like Oregon is only 4-1 against ranked opponents, which includes playing Arizona twice. Their ranked opponents according to the final playoff poll include: Michigan State, Arizona, UCLA, Utah, and Arizona (again).

Our ranked opponents according to the final playoff poll include: Mississippi State, Ole Miss, Missouri, Auburn, and LSU.

Tide1986 said:

Upon looking closer at the final playoff poll, it looks like Oregon is only 4-1 against ranked opponents, which includes playing Arizona twice. Their ranked opponents according to the final playoff poll include: Michigan State, Arizona, UCLA, Utah, and Arizona (again).

Click to expand...

You missed USC at #24.

B1GTide said:

You missed USC at #24.

Click to expand...

I don't believe they played USC or Arizona State.

RWBTide said:

As an outsider looking in it really strikes me as strange that something as big and as financially powerful as college football can beset itself with this opportunity for disagreement.

The 2/4/8 best teams in college football should be playing off for the title of champions.

I'd be interested to know, if you can put Bama bias / Crimson tinted spectacles aside for a second, what the thoughts of the forum are on which teams could actually win it if Bama weren't there.

If you removed Bama and replaced them with TCU or Baylor could either of those realistically win out against the other 3 teams in the playoffs?

Click to expand...

First, there always has been disagreement in college football and that's part of what makes it special. If you go full on playoff, like pretty much every sport, you remove all disagreement by making a ridiculous process that produces questionable results, but no matter what there can only be one winner. Does it matter if the "winner" had 7 losses and the "loser" had 1, and that the "winner" went 1-1 against the "loser"? No, because playoff.

What college football did, and it's just now starting to fracture, is say that it all matters, every single game matters and winning doesn't just matter when you reach the end, it matters all the way through. But, when you say all games matter, then you end up with all these teams that want everyone to see that their games mattered to. It's a controversial thing to say every game actually matters, it's so much easier to just create an arbitrary process which says for instance, divisions games are all that actually matter, and then create a system of tie breakers, so you've removed all thought and created what I refer to as playoff zombies. It takes a lot of thought to say ok, I don't have a process that automatically creates the results for me, I actually have to think about this.

A playoff also creates a RNG type situation, especially in football when injuries are rampant and the matchups are all single games. Could Baylor or TCU win out? Sure, so could Miss. State and a lot of other teams. Take Ohio State for example, I don't know who their fourth string QB is, but if their starter gets hurt at QB, I'd imagine a lot of teams could beat them. That's one reason I dislike the playoff in college football, it adds more random variables to teams that already navigated an incredibly tough season. I wouldn't bet on any single team winning out, because the odds don't favor any of them in this type of scenario.

Tide1986 said:

I don't believe they played USC or Arizona State.

Click to expand...

Sorry - you are correct. I had in my mind their epic beatdown of USC a few years ago. So they are 4-1 against ranked teams.

three things kept Baylor out of the playoff. SMU, Northwestern St. and Buffalo. if you sit back and look at it as a whole the Big whatever is not that strong of a conf. everybody was making a big deal out of TCU beating Iowa State the way they did. let that sink in for a minute. they beat a 2-10 team that has never been anything but a place holder in the conf. if the conf. as a whole has always been weak, you better beef up the OOC schedule.