The playoff committee is about to get tested

[ccc2259]

Some general comments for all of us discussing this topic:
1. The Committee has stated multiple times that conference championships matter
2. We've seen that it does matter in the 2 years of Playoff existence
3. CC's are listed first in the Committee's five criteria of how they select the top four teams
4. And finally, none of us ever get to see the impact of CC's until the final Playoff ranking due to timing of the CC Games

Gonna be interesting........

 

[UntouchableCrew]

Actually, we do - LSU would have absolutely mauled them, and Les Miles would probably still have a job.

LOL I agree but we don't know for sure.

You mean like:

Super Bowl XVIII - Raiders beat Redskins after losing in regular season and beat Seattle in AFC Championship after losing to Seahawks TWICE in regular season

1985 NCAA basketball championship - Villanova wins title after losing TWICE to Georgetown in regular season

1988 NCAA basketball championship - Kansas wins title after losing TWICE to Oklahoma in regular season

Super Bowl XXV - NY Giants win NFC title AND Super Bowl against teams that beat them in the regular season

Super Bowl XXVIII - Cowboys beat Bills after losing during regular season (yeah, I know Emmitt didn't play)

Super Bowl XXXVI - Patriots beat Rams for title after losing in the regular season



The irony is that your position here is anti-rematch but any expansion of playoffs will DRASTICALLY increase the number of rematches.

I'm not intrinsically against the idea of rematches, I'm against he idea of rematches when other teams are left out of the fold. In pro leagues this is irrelevant, they are small leagues with wide net playoff systems.

Care to tell me how many times FIVE teams were unbeaten in the final regular season poll?

It's happened ONCE in the modern time frame, 1979. It happened twice if you want to count Florida making it to the 2009 SECCG. I could point out this means you're proposing a potential solution to a nonexistent problem. But....let's concede it's POSSIBLE for that to happen. Very simply, you go by SOS. Not a difficult thing to do.

Not sure it's ever happened, this is all just hypothetical. I just think it would be a joke for an undefeated power five team to not be in, regardless of a soft non conference schedule or whatever it was that kept them out.

What you're saying here is why I favor the four-team playoff with no conference championship requirement. You're reasoning here is excellent and the point I've made against the BCS. I'd rather have one questionable team per year make the tournament (they'll get exposed if they're not the real deal) than have a team run the table but fall victim to "well, we didn't rate you high enough").

I'm a huge fan of the current system and think its vastly superior to the BCS. I don't disagree with anything you said here.

And yet you put Ohio State in here, who didn't win their conference......



Just a little while ago you were complaining that the LSU-Alabama rematch was problematic. Yet you're proposing right here that Ohio State has to beat Oklahoma again. And year after year you'll wind up with this same problem.

Well I'm using the committee rankings here. Ohio State is in because they and Michigan would be the two at large teams to go along with the five conference champs.

I agree rematches could be problematic, particularly intra-conference in the first round. It's definitely one of the flaws in this system. It would be ridiculous to have, say, Ohio State and Michigan playing in the first round.

Can you please provide me with a list of all the teams ranked five through eight in the entire history of college football that anybody thought deserved a national championship shot?

Two teams - 1983 Miami and 1977 Notre Dame - jumped from five to one. That only happened because of bowl tie-ins that were set aside 25 years ago (save the Rose Bowl, who monkeyed with theirs a bit).

In fact, can you even name five teams ranked FOURTH that anyone argues was a number one team? We're talking 80 years here since 1936. That actually was more of a problem when college football was entirely regional. Now that teams schedule big games early that is not a problem.

I agree there probably aren't many -- but I think Baylor and TCU could have made an argument they deserved a shot in 2014, for example, especially TCU after they decimated Ole Miss in that Peach Bowl.

 

[Go Bama]

Well, I'm certainly not for an 8 team playoff, 6 maybe, but I'd dearly love to see Michigan and tOSU play a rematch.

 

[colbysullivan]

IMO 4 teams is all we need. There's very rarely a 5th ranked team that has a legitimate gripe. Expanding beyond 4 teams will be just for the sake of inclusion and money. If you're not in the top 4, you don't deserve a shot at the title.

 

[crimsonaudio]

"This is why the CFP selection committee has a Washington problem..."

 

[Loam]

I think multiple Conference Champs will be left out and as many as two Non-Con Champs might get in, Ohio State and Michigan. Con-Champs not making it might be the Sooners, Nitty Lions/Badgers for two and maybe even Colorado if they beat Washington.

This entire selection for the final 4 will be turned upside down Sunday I'm thinking.

If they were to expand, I'd say go to 6 teams but don't go beyond 6 because I think 8 is too many personally.

 

[LA4Bama]

"This is why the CFP selection committee has a Washington problem..."

This is a good point, but the key difference is that Washington only needs to beat out 2-loss teams whereas Baylor had to beat out a 1-loss Big10 champ.

 

[UntouchableCrew]

"This is why the CFP selection committee has a Washington problem..."

This is fair but it also doesn't count Washington's win (assuming they win) over Colorado tonight. That would boost them in several major categories.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

"This is why the CFP selection committee has a Washington problem..."

The CFP has a Washington problem because it has the chance to get MICHIGAN.....a big name, big name coach......into the tournament.
If this were USC, this wouldn't be happening. And if Michigan were named Purdue, it wouldn't be happening, either.

 

[tusks_n_raider]

I'm too lazy to look this up, but I'm watching the championship drive show on ESPN right now, and they are talking about us as number one. They are saying we don't have any wins against top ten teams. I'm pretty sure we played teams in the top ten this year. Am I wrong? Or are they going based on teams in the top ten this week?

FYI these guys are tools. I'd argue that Alabama should drop out of the playoffs if they lose to FL.

When we played Tennessee they were ranked #9 and we clobbered them by 39 points and derailed their season.
When we played Texas A&M they were ranked #6 and we clobbered them by 19 points and derailed their season.

Oh but they aren't good anymore? Fine let's play the opposite game:

When we played USC to open the season they were #20 and we ANNILATED them by 46 points. They are now #10/11 and 'The Best 3 loss team in the country that nobody wants to play'.

In our whole 12 game schedule at one point or another 8 of our opponents were in the Top 20 and 4 of which we had to play in a row and 3 were on the road.

The media even trying to dispute us being #1 or picking apart our schedule is laughable.

 

[BamaSully]

"This is why the CFP selection committee has a Washington problem..."

Crimson,
Comparing teams from different seasons is not apples-to-apples. The stated mission is to select the 4 best teams. In 2014 there were 4 other teams with a better resume than Baylor. Right now there are only 3 teams with a better resume than Washington.

If Clemson and Washington were to lose tomorrow, you would end up with two 2-loss teams in the playoffs. In that case, you could compare those 2-loss playoff teams' resumes to the resumes of the 4 playoff teams from last season and it would look really out of balance. But that does not matter. We just need the 4 best teams selected, each season.

 

[teamplayer]

I think multiple Conference Champs will be left out and as many as two Non-Con Champs might get in, Ohio State and Michigan. Con-Champs not making it might be the Sooners, Nitty Lions/Badgers for two and maybe even Colorado if they beat Washington.

This entire selection for the final 4 will be turned upside down Sunday I'm thinking.

If they were to expand, I'd say go to 6 teams but don't go beyond 6 because I think 8 is too many personally.

I think four is plenty, but if they expand I really hope they don't do the six team idea where two teams get byes. I do not think byes are fair in any way in college football because the rankings are all subjective and schedules are so different. I also think conference championships should matter because those are won on the field. Some people want to keep arguing for a two loss Michigan team because of the eye test. Well, my eyes showed me that they choked against Iowa and OSU. The OSU situation is a bit different because they have only one loss; whereas, the conference champion will have two losses. I do wonder, though, if Arkansas would not have had their miracle against Ole Miss last year and Ole Miss had played for the SEC title, would people have argued that we should be in the playoff over the Rebels because of their ridiculous loss to Memphis, or would they have just left out the SEC, or would they have taken a two loss SEC champion Ole Miss? I can guarantee they would not have taken two SEC teams. However, there are some who think they should take three Big 10 teams this year, which is absolutely insane.

 

[day-day]

Early season rankings are bogus. A team shouldn't get credit or discredit based on opponents' rankings early in the season.

 

[crimsonaudio]

Crimson,
Comparing teams from different seasons is not apples-to-apples.

Of course not, just thought it was an interesting point.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

If you go to six teams, there'll be complaining that Team A beat Team B head to head but Team B got the bye week.

If you go to eight teams, it will be even worse.

Want to know what would incorporate the BEST of ALL the history of college football?

1) Go back to the old bowl setup and have a smorgasbord of important games on January 1.

2) Have the old bowl tie-ins. OK, you'll have to fix the Orange Bowl since there's no Big 8, but you get my point.

3) Play 1 vs 2 in the polls AFTER the bowl games on the Monday after the following weekend.

This means that what got us into this fix in the first place would be fixed.

1982 - Penn St plays SMU
1983 - Auburn plays Miami
1984 - BYU plays Washington
1985 - OU plays whoever it was, maybe even Air Force
1986 - well, this one would be a problem....
1987 - Miami plays Syracuse
1988 - Miami plays N Dame
1989 - Miami plays N Dame
1990 - Colorado plays Ga Tech
1991 - Washington plays Miami
1992 - Alabama plays FSU
1993 - Notre Dame plays FSU
1994 - Nebraska plays Penn St
1996 - Florida plays Ohio State
1997 - Nebraska plays Michigan

There was not a big stink in 1983 in favor of Nebraska after Miami, Nebraska, Texas, and Auburn all finished with one loss. The stink was over 'why Miami and not Auburn.'

 

[RollTideMang]

A lot of the voters during the SEC championship thought OSU should be left out assuming Clemson wins tonight. Tomorrow is going to be verrrrry interesting. I'm good with whichever teams they choose

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

 

[Tide Rev]

If you go to six teams, there'll be complaining that Team A beat Team B head to head but Team B got the bye week.

If you go to eight teams, it will be even worse.

Want to know what would incorporate the BEST of ALL the history of college football?

1) Go back to the old bowl setup and have a smorgasbord of important games on January 1.

2) Have the old bowl tie-ins. OK, you'll have to fix the Orange Bowl since there's no Big 8, but you get my point.

3) Play 1 vs 2 in the polls AFTER the bowl games on the Monday after the following weekend.

This means that what got us into this fix in the first place would be fixed.

1982 - Penn St plays SMU
1983 - Auburn plays Miami
1984 - BYU plays Washington
1985 - OU plays whoever it was, maybe even Air Force
1986 - well, this one would be a problem....
1987 - Miami plays Syracuse
1988 - Miami plays N Dame
1989 - Miami plays N Dame
1990 - Colorado plays Ga Tech
1991 - Washington plays Miami
1992 - Alabama plays FSU
1993 - Notre Dame plays FSU
1994 - Nebraska plays Penn St
1996 - Florida plays Ohio State
1997 - Nebraska plays Michigan

There was not a big stink in 1983 in favor of Nebraska after Miami, Nebraska, Texas, and Auburn all finished with one loss. The stink was over 'why Miami and not Auburn.'

That is good and I agree but it is way too easy for the powers that be to figure it out. ��

 

[Bama Torch in Pcola]

A lot of the voters during the SEC championship thought OSU should be left out assuming Clemson wins tonight. Tomorrow is going to be verrrrry interesting. I'm good with whichever teams they choose

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

That's only because we know Bama will be okay regardless. ��

 

[B1GTide]

A lot of the voters during the SEC championship thought OSU should be left out assuming Clemson wins tonight. Tomorrow is going to be verrrrry interesting. I'm good with whichever teams they choose

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

The voters were fans. Think they might have had agendas?

 

[RollTideMang]

The voters were fans. Think they might have had agendas?

Indeed I do. I still stand by my post about tomorrow.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk