Issues/Questions Related to CFP Rankings

[deltatider]

Alabama fans never uttered those words in 2014-2015-2016-2017-2018.

Now that we may be on the short end, everyone wants to throw the Clark Griswold on Christmas Eve fit about Bing Crosby tap-dancing with Danny Kaye.

When Alabama won the 2011 championship, it was Tide fans saying, "Hey, this is what we all agreed to before the season began." Same thing in 2017.

Now all of a sudden, everyone is channeling their inner politician ("it's RIGGED!").

Coach Bryant taught his players to respect the process even if they didn't like the outcome in 1966, but I'm guessing that's just another old fashioned value we can set aside, too.

I hear what you're saying Selma...My question though is what exactly has the PAC 12 done this season to get the benefit of the doubt over the SEC? I admit that the SEC hasn't looked good in the out of conference matchups this year, but the same could be said for the PAC 12 (a bowl-less MSU team beat the only other ranked team in that conference outside of OU and UW). I know that the rankings are supposed to look at a single year in a vacuum (meaning not taking past teams/past results into account), but the SEC has consistently out recruited and out performed every conference since the CFP was implemented, and that is especially true when compared against the PAC 12. Yes, this is the process that was agreed upon, but in my opinion how the process has been implemented was agreed to.

 

[BamaMoon]

Klatt is high on Bama if we win, but I don't know what he's basing his "thinking" on when he speaks for what he thinks the CFP committee will do.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

I hear what you're saying Selma...My question though is what exactly has the PAC 12 done this season to get the benefit of the doubt over the SEC? I admit that the SEC hasn't looked good in the out of conference matchups this year, but the same could be said for the PAC 12 (a bowl-less MSU team beat the only other ranked team in that conference outside of OU and UW). I know that the rankings are supposed to look at a single year in a vacuum (meaning not taking past teams/past results into account), but the SEC has consistently out recruited and out performed every conference since the CFP was implemented, and that is especially true when compared against the PAC 12. Yes, this is the process that was agreed upon, but in my opinion how the process has been implemented was agreed to.

"The SEC is down" narrative was set in September when:
a) Utah beat Florida
b) Miami beat aTm
c) FSU beat LSU - in a blowout (key point)
d) Texas beat Alabama

The last one is the only one that could have been seen as possible prior to the start of the season.

And we solidified it when we struggled with USF; had we blown them off the field, it plays out differently as "you know, maybe Texas is REALLY good."

Auburn getting blown off the field by NMSU only made that narrative worse.

I'm not saying it is RIGHT, I'm saying what IS.

The obvious objection is going to be, "But Miss State beat Arizona" - but Miss State isn't in the same solar system as Florida or LSU, and aTm has a lot of grads across the world.

If MSU had beaten Oregon, THAT would have been a big deal.

Too many perceived "power" teams in the SEC lost too soon.

Fair? No, but it happens.

 

[CB4]

My primary issue as little to do with “Alabama this or Alabama that”. My issue is with the ham fisted way that Corrigan and his committee have stepped to the podium to explain their rationale and decision making. You will always have critics and second guessing. However, when you contradict yourself week after week, where one week “x is important” then the next week “y is more important” all to fit your narrative, then all you do ramp up that criticism and give your critics more fodder.

 

[Slowpoke Catracho]

Alabama fans never uttered those words in 2014-2015-2016-2017-2018.

Now that we may be on the short end, everyone wants to throw the Clark Griswold on Christmas Eve fit about Bing Crosby tap-dancing with Danny Kaye.

When Alabama won the 2011 championship, it was Tide fans saying, "Hey, this is what we all agreed to before the season began." Same thing in 2017.

Now all of a sudden, everyone is channeling their inner politician ("it's RIGGED!").

Coach Bryant taught his players to respect the process even if they didn't like the outcome in 1966, but I'm guessing that's just another old fashioned value we can set aside, too.

It is what it is, and I know that. I don't agree with it, but that's it. FWIW, I've never liked the idea of a committee deciding the "best" teams.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

It is what it is, and I know that. I don't agree with it, but that's it. FWIW, I've never liked the idea of a committee deciding the "best" teams.

Nor did I - but if you didn't have a committee, it was only a lottery shot until you wound up with Boise State or UCF in the Final Four. They're not there to get teams in, they're there to keep teams out.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

My primary issue as little to do with “Alabama this or Alabama that”. My issue is with the ham fisted way that Corrigan and his committee have stepped to the podium to explain their rationale and decision making. You will always have critics and second guessing. However, when you contradict yourself week after week, where one week “x is important” then the next week “y is more important” all to fit your narrative, then all you do ramp up that criticism and give your critics more fodder.

I don't disagree, but I'm just trying to figure out why folks are just now noticing what has been their modus operandi from day one.

Kirby Hocutt BEFORE the big games in 2017:
The current Buckeyes also are in murky waters in terms of the playoff. They were eighth in Tuesday’s rankings, but playoff committee chairman Kirby Hocutt said that there was little separation between No. 5 Alabama and Ohio State. Hocutt also reiterated the committee’s mandate to weigh a conference championship heavily in the case of comparable teams.

Kirby Hocutt AFTER the big games in 2017:
The selection committee looked at a one-loss Alabama team with that one loss coming against the final ranking No. 7 team, Auburn, in a very compettitive game. We compared that to a two-loss Ohio State team. Obviously, one loss at home to No. 2-ranked Oklahoma. More damaging was the 31-point loss to unranked Iowa. The selection committee favored Alabama's full body of work over that of Ohio State.

The committee's conclusion that Alabama is the fourth best team in the nation was widespread and strong. It was unequivocal.

And Bill Hancock in 2017 - " This wasn’t that close."


So they were incredibly narrow on Saturday morning, Ohio State beats Wisky and wins the Big 10 - and apparently was viewed as less after a big win.


They've been lying since day one, even though they've always gotten it right up to now.

 

[Windsortide]

Why would they?

TCU beat Michigan, a fact that keeps getting overlooked by everyone saying, "They picked the wrong team."

Michigan stinks too

 

[denver]

What also gets forgotten is the beat down UGA gave Michigan in 2021-22...34- 11...with 8 of those Michigan points late in the 4th when it had been decided...then they lose to TCU who gets curb stomped 65-7 by UGA....but for some reason they are better this year? Give me a break...CFP committee is dying to have anyone but the SEC win...

 

[selmaborntidefan]

Michigan stinks too

Then Michigan is the team that didn't belong, not TCU.

What's funny is this: Michigan got blown out by Georgia in 2021, and NOBODY uses that to say "they shouldn't have been there," but TCU, who won a game and THEN got blown out?

And Michigan was never a threat to win that one - any more so than TCU was.

And for those who want to say, "34-11 isn't 65-7,":
a) Georgia led Michigan at halftime, 27-3, and TCU, 38-7
b) so they led Michigan by 24 and TCU by 31
c) Michigan didn't score the artificial TD until the final 5 minutes
d) Georgia went into "let's not show too much since we have to play Alabama," not something they had to worry about with TCU.

Which again supports my point that the REAL issue isn't the selection so much as it was the TEAM NAME selected.

 

[RammerJammer14]

Then Michigan is the team that didn't belong, not TCU.

What's funny is this: Michigan got blown out by Georgia in 2021, and NOBODY uses that to say "they shouldn't have been there," but TCU, who won a game and THEN got blown out?

And Michigan was never a threat to win that one - any more so than TCU was.

And for those who want to say, "34-11 isn't 65-7,":
a) Georgia led Michigan at halftime, 27-3, and TCU, 38-7
b) so they led Michigan by 24 and TCU by 31
c) Michigan didn't score the artificial TD until the final 5 minutes
d) Georgia went into "let's not show too much since we have to play Alabama," not something they had to worry about with TCU.

Which again supports my point that the REAL issue isn't the selection so much as it was the TEAM NAME selected.

The way it happened is why it’s seen differently. TCU lost in their last regular season game to a 3 loss team. In basically every other similar situation across modern CF history and certainly the short history of the committee, TCU was the first team to lose their final game and not even drop a spot. And it was blatantly obvious to anyone with a heartbeat that the reason for this was to avoid a rematch between OSU and Michigan. So because the committee so blatantly manipulated their rankings for TCU to achieve a desired matchup outcome that then led to a disastrous and not even mildly competitive championship game, people point to TCU as a pretender. It’s not just that they got blown out. It’s that the committee obviously manipulated their supposedly objective measurements, lied about it, and were so obviously proved wrong.

 

[TexasBama]

The way it happened is why it’s seen differently. TCU lost in their last regular season game to a 3 loss team. In basically every other similar situation across modern CF history and certainly the short history of the committee, TCU was the first team to lose their final game and not even drop a spot. And it was blatantly obvious to anyone with a heartbeat that the reason for this was to avoid a rematch between OSU and Michigan. So because the committee so blatantly manipulated their rankings for TCU to achieve a desired matchup outcome that then proved led to a disastrous and not even mildly competitive championship game, people point to TCU as a pretender. It’s not just that they got blown out. It’s that the committee obviously manipulated their supposedly objective measurements, lied about it, and were so obviously proved wrong.

but the committee, in their infinite wisdom KNEW that they would (barely) beat Michigan, therefore they were the correct choice. Blue font

the fact is, all this handwringing is a waste of time if we don’t beat Georgia.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

The way it happened is why it’s seen differently. TCU lost in their last regular season game to a 3 loss team.

That they had already beaten....but okay...

In basically every other similar situation across modern CF history and certainly the short history of the committee, TCU was the first team to lose their final game and not even drop a spot.

This is incorrect.

Oklahoma was #1 in 2003 in that "great" BCS.
Oklahoma got boat raced, 35-7, by (wait for it) a THREE-LOSS team.
Oklahoma stayed #1.

In a delicious irony - it was Kansas St

So there was not some precedent set no matter how many times fans say it was.

And it was blatantly obvious to anyone with a heartbeat that the reason for this was to avoid a rematch between OSU and Michigan.

Correct, but that has nothing to do with them being in the Top Four.

Those are two separate issues.

So because the committee so blatantly manipulated their rankings for TCU to achieve a desired matchup outcome that then proved led to a disastrous and not even mildly competitive championship game, people point to TCU as a pretender.

You mean they use the post ergo propter hoc fallacy - but selectively since (oh yes) TCU BEAT MICHIGAN!!!

You can't say, "TCU didn't belong because Georgia" and ignore Michigan.

It’s not just that they got blown out. It’s that the committee obviously manipulated their supposedly objective measurements, lied about it, and were so obviously proved wrong.

No, the incorrect thing was the #3 rating.

And the only reason this is even an issue a year later on this board is because Alabama crapped the bed twice.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

but the committee, in their infinite wisdom KNEW that they would (barely) beat Michigan, therefore they were the correct choice. Blue font

the fact is, all this handwringing is a waste of time if we don’t best Georgia.

While I get the irony, that is EXACTLY what the "the committee messed up" folks (most of them) are arguing. "TCU proved they didn't belong because Georgia."

But they keep pretending Michigan didn't happen, and if that's the argument they want to invoke, one can't be selective about it.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

The way it happened is why it’s seen differently. TCU lost in their last regular season game to a 3 loss team.

Why do the fans who bring up this frivolous objection never once say, "Alabama lost to a 4-loss team" (namely, LSU)?

 

[RammerJammer14]

That they had already beaten....but okay...




This is incorrect.

Oklahoma was #1 in 2003 in that "great" BCS.
Oklahoma got boat raced, 35-7, by (wait for it) a THREE-LOSS team.
Oklahoma stayed #1.

In a delicious irony - it was Kansas St

So there was not some precedent set no matter how many times fans say it was.




Correct, but that has nothing to do with them being in the Top Four.

Those are two separate issues.



You mean they use the post ergo propter hoc fallacy - but selectively since (oh yes) TCU BEAT MICHIGAN!!!

You can't say, "TCU didn't belong because Georgia" and ignore Michigan.





No, the incorrect thing was the #3 rating.

And the only reason this is even an issue a year later on this board is because Alabama crapped the bed twice.

Well you asked why people think that TCU didn’t belong but think of Michigan differently. I gave you the answer. I really don’t get the constant and continuous devils advocacy to prove that everything that happened obviously should have happened, and trying to prove Bama fans wrong. I know this isn’t true, but reading your posts it comes off as if you would be happy for Alabama to miss the playoff this year if only to prove your arguments right. To your points:

1) That TCU had previously beaten KSU is immaterial to the fact that TCU was obviously kept at 3 to prevent a OSU-UM rematch. This makes the rankings suspect and makes people see them as manipulative and not a true reflection of which teams were actually the top 4.

2) I had a feeling you were going to go to this. I said “in basically every other similar situation”. I didn’t say it never happened, I said it pretty much never happened. The exception proves the rule. You have one example from one year in the last 20 in which a team lost its final regular season game and did not drop. And in that instance, the voters used the same rationale that they used for TCU last year- the better team lost so let’s just forget it ever happened. So yeah, I say with confidence that the way TCU was treated last season was a violation of norms and that is why people are annoyed.

3) They are not seperate issues to this topic. You asked why people were and are up in arms about 2022 TCU but not Michigan, and insisting it is because Bama fans are biased hypocrites. Well I don’t think anyone can claim to be unbiased but the fact that the committee treated TCU differently than they would any other team at any other time in the season simply to avoid an outcome it didn’t want- and OSU-UM rematch and potentially a 2-loss team (Alabama) in the final 4- is exactly why people are up in arms about TCU and not Michigan.

4) I am not arguing that TCU should have been out of the playoff. You can go back and look at my posts at the time. I didn’t think we had a great argument to get in. Who else were they going to put in? Everyone else outside the top 4 had lost 2 or more games, with Alabama sitting as the top 2 loss team. Our only argument was the 2007 LSU argument- that both of our losses were last second bad luck plays and if any number of a few single plays had gone differently we would have been undefeated. But unlike 2007 LSU, there were 4 teams ahead of us with better records. If we’d have got in I’d have been tickled pink. But I had no problem with being left out. People were and are not upset at Michigan in the 2022 playoff because UM was undefeated and had just pasted undefeated OSU. I mean what was the argument to keep them out? People were upset about TCU because their manipulated ranking gave Georgia a waltz for the title. Say what you will- a true #2 team in the country doesn’t lose 65-7 in the championship game. Football is about matchups and TCU had Michigan’s number in the semi. Play UM-TCU 5 times and UM likely wins at least 3/5.* If UGA-TCU played 5 times, UGA likely wins 5/5. And I say “likely” only because “anything can
That is why people have an issue with TCU but not Michigan. I sorry, a team simply can’t lose a game by 58 points, the worst loss in a post season bowl game EVER, let alone a title game, and expect people to think “yeah, that was a legit championship caliber team that totally deserved to have their ranking manipulated for matchup reasons”.

Football is ultimately a game of matchups. TCU was able to exploit this against UM in a venue where there were no longer any mulligans available to hand out, and props to them for it. But you are simply ****ing in the wind if you want people to respect 2022 TCU and to not look at them as a joke of a contender, after they lost to UGA worse than an FCS team on Senior Day. 58 points.

*(As an aside. This is also ignoring what we now know- that Michigan is a bunch of dirty cheaters, had been cheating that entire season, and possibly lost to TCU because they were relying on old stolen signals- a tainted season for Michigan regardless, and we will never know how they would have faired that season on an even playing field).

5) Again, you asked why people bring up TCU. It’s because it is a clear instance of the committee- the same committee members as this year if I am not mistaken- making up BS to justify/create outcomes they want and not objective rankings. Something that it looks like is happening again this season based on their different standards for different teams.

I can sum up the entire thing by saying that, when people- Bama fans or otherwise- are told that a process is objective with an objective standard, discover that this is not the case and yet are still lied to to their face about it, it tends to cause them to become disgruntled. And it also over time undermines the legitimacy and authority of those engaging in this behavior. This is true for anything, not just college football. And that is ultimately what is going on here.

 

[denver]

It seems apparent that when a B10 team plays a team that has any competence throwing the ball they struggle...the B10 is built on grind it out games...TCU showed that and all the B10 /SEC match ups show that...they cannot defend a team that can throw the ball consistently...but that does not matter in the CFP's evaluation.

 

[JDCrimson]

I think this is where it will line up with the committee, their only saving grace to this mess.

In no particular order...

SEC Champion
B10 Champion
B12 Champion
PAC12 Champion

The ACC won't make it this year, imo. Their SOS is crap and the starting QB is out. Now, if one of the conference champions is not the likely candidate then a 1-loss conference runner will be substituted. This opens the door for UM, OSU, UGA, UW to take a spot if there is a conference Champion upset.

They are weighting unbeaten status too much imo. But, if they didn't, FSU would not even have to lose for us to get in, all would have to do is win...

 

[westide]

What gets me is that Alabama could beat the 2 time champs who are currently undefeated in a hostile environment and still get left out depending who wins and loses. A one loss SEC champ who defeats the king should not be left out, ever!

If Bama gets left out when they beat Ga then this just proves bias against Bama and that the CFB playoff committee is a joke. If they will ignore Bama's win will they also ignore the winners of the other games being played this weekend?

 

[22Musso22]

If Bama gets left out when they beat Ga then this just proves bias against Bama and that the CFB playoff committee is a joke. If they will ignore Bama's win will they also ignore the winners of the other games being played this weekend?

Don't expect any mercy from the 3 Stooges...I mean "committee."