The playoff committee is about to get tested

[B1GTide]

I guess I should have explained further. Let's say they do put the B1G champion in, under the guise of "They deserve it since they're conference champs" but it's really to stir the expansion pot.

I won't whine if they put PSU in ahead of my Buckeyes. They beat us.

 

[B1GTide]

I agree completely, my point is he would not be saying "you want it you got it" if the BIG were in Washington's shoes. Just call a spade a spade. I also don't think it was what "we" wanted as much as it was him not wanting it. Just so happens the SEC got weaker and the BIG got stronger. If roles were reversed back in 2011 and it was OSU and Michigan in a rematch then it wouldn't be about what "we" wanted. I don't blame the guy, I just don't like how he is playing both sides of the fence as it benefits his conference. I guess I am asking too much for someone to be honest and say "hey I didn't like it when it looked like the SEC could get a couple teams in every year but now that my conference is up seems like a great idea to me"

Actually, he also said that he thought that Alabama should be in if you lost to Florida today, so this was not all about OSU.

Gag - can't believe that I am taking up for this d'bag.

 

[colbysullivan]

I won't whine if they put PSU in ahead of my Buckeyes. They beat us.

I'm really more interested what will happen if Wisky wins. They'll have to go against everything they've said so far regarding conference championships. To be fair I think OSU was/should be in before the games were even played today.

 

[RollinTider1335]

Sorry B1GTide! But i just don't see how osu deserves to be in above Penn St or Wiscy. OSU is lucky they didn't lose against UM and they lost head to head against Penn St.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[B1GTide]

I'm really more interested what will happen if Wisky wins. They'll have to go against everything they've said so far regarding conference championships. To be fair I think OSU was/should be in before the games were even played today.

No, it does not. They have consistently said that conference championships would only be used as a tie breaker if two teams are inseparably close. Same for head to head. Not sure why so many people keep insisting that "they" have said that conference championships are the most important things. No one on the committee, ever, has said that since the playoff was sanctioned by the conferences.

 

[B1GTide]

Sorry B1GTide! But i just don't see how osu deserves to be in above Penn St or Wiscy. OSU is lucky they didn't lose against UM and they lost head to head against Penn St.

You don't have to apologize for having a differing opinion. I respect that.

 

[CrimsonRuss]

Nope - look it up. Not required at all. Delany wanted it to be a requirement, but the other conferences (led by the SEC) outvoted him.

Don't know about you but I see the term conference champions an head to head results in this a lot....

What criteria does the selection committee use to rank the teams?

The committee selects the teams using a process that distinguishes among otherwise comparable teams by considering conference championships won, strength of schedule, head-to-head competition, comparative outcomes of common opponents (without incenting margin of victory) and other relevant factors that may have affected a team’s performance during the season or likely will affect its postseason performance.

Selection committee members have flexibility to examine whatever data they believe is relevant to inform their decisions. They also review a significant amount of game video. Among the many factors the committee members consider are strength of schedule, head-to-head results, comparison of results against common opponents and conference championships won. The playoff group has retained SportSource Analytics to provide the data platform for the committee’s use. This platform allows the committee members to compare and contrast teams on every level possible. Each member evaluates the data at hand, and then the individuals will vote to produce a group decision.

http://www.collegefootballplayoff.com/selection-committee-faqs

 

[BamaBoySince89]

The only logical thing that I can see where tOSU couldn't complain is if Penn St. wins the BIG10CG. Penn St won head to head and they have a CG win, and that should cover a early season loss to Pitt. If Wisconsin wins, then its a no-brainer for OSU to go since they lost to both OSU and Michigan, who are ranked ahead of them.

"Roll Tide"

 

[colbysullivan]

No, it does not. They have consistently said that conference championships would only be used as a tie breaker if two teams are inseparably close. Same for head to head. Not sure why so many people keep insisting that "they" have said that conference championships are the most important things. No one on the committee, ever, has said that since the playoff was sanctioned by the conferences.

I'm just going by what's listed as their criteria. Again I personally think OSU is one of the 4 best teams and that's all the criteria I need.

 

[WishIwasInBama]

I really enjoy the debate this has created (mainly because Bama is in) but what I don't like is the OSU vs. BIG champion argument is not being applied across all 4 spots (by the media). In my opinion, if you allow a non-champion in based on resume, then Michigan should be at least 4 if not 3. I could argue putting Michigan ahead of Clemson and Washington. If the BIG champion does not get extra credit then why does the ACC or the PAC 12?

A. Ohio State is clearly better than PSU/Wisconsin and should go regardless of championship
B. Using same logic, Michigan is clearly better than Washington and should go regardless of championship.

I guess I'm counting chickens and all but tomorrow if the top 4 is Bama/OSU/Clemson/Washington then they applied one rule to OSU and another to Washington

 

[B1GTide]

http://d30ratpzqzalg7.cloudfront.net/CD-drupal-cfp-PROD/s3fs-public/CFP%20Selection%20Committee%20Protocol.pdf?tV3FOZ68If3qops3X7XJQFmkEd00PiAY

 

[colbysullivan]

I really enjoy the debate this has created (mainly because Bama is in) but what I don't like is the OSU vs. BIG champion argument is not being applied across all 4 spots (by the media). In my opinion, if you allow a non-champion in based on resume, then Michigan should be at least 4 if not 3. I could argue putting Michigan ahead of Clemson and Washington. If the BIG champion does not get extra credit then why does the ACC or the PAC 12?

A. Ohio State is clearly better than PSU/Wisconsin and should go regardless of championship
B. Using same logic, Michigan is clearly better than Washington and should go regardless of championship.

I guess I'm counting chickens and all but tomorrow if the top 4 is Bama/OSU/Clemson/Washington then they applied one rule to OSU and another to Washington

I don't think anyone can "unequivocally" say Michigan is one of the four best teams. OSU, yes. Michigan, no. That's the difference.

 

[B1GTide]

I don't think anyone can "unequivocally" say Michigan is one of the four best teams. OSU, yes. Michigan, no. That's the difference.

I agree - with their two losses and the fact that Washington beat Colorado just as decisively, hard to justify putting UM in ahead of the Huskies.

 

[WishIwasInBama]

I don't think anyone can "unequivocally" say Michigan is one of the four best teams. OSU, yes. Michigan, no. That's the difference.

Agree to disagree. I am no-one of any importance but I think Michigan is "unequivocally" better than Washington (along with both PSU and Wisconsin/BIG champion) I think they get in (washington) only because of the backlash it would create if they were left out

 

[colbysullivan]

Agree to disagree. I am no-one of any importance but I think Michigan is "unequivocally" better than Washington (along with both PSU and Wisconsin/BIG champion) I think they get in (washington) only because of the backlash it would create if they were left out

I'm just clarifying, but I said "unequivocally" because that's the exact word the committee uses in their criteria. The fact that we're even having this debate proves it's not unequivocal. There's no way a 2-loss non-champion is getting in over a 1-loss conference champion.

 

[B1GTide]

I'm just clarifying, but I said "unequivocally" because that's the exact word the committee uses in their criteria. The fact that we're even having this debate proves it's not unequivocal. There's no way a 2-loss non-champion is getting in over a 1-loss conference champion.

That's the key piece - the second loss. The committee clearly holds losses against teams more than fans do.

 

[crimsonaudio]

Right now, assuming things continue as they are, I'd say the four should be Alabama, State Penn (barf), Clemson, and Washington.

Sorry (not sorry) OSU.

 

[colbysullivan]

Right now, assuming things continue as they are, I'd say the four should be Alabama, State Penn (barf), Clemson, and Washington.

Sorry (not sorry) OSU.

I actually think they might do this. I had a discussion with some co-workers who were adamant OSU was guaranteed in since they're ranked #2. I'm not saying they're right or wrong. I was playing Devil's advocate and kept trying to explain to them that the committee can pretty much do whatever they want and gone are the days of "win and keep your ranking".

They rank teams based on what we've seen so far, and that's the key. They don't rank teams based on games that haven't been played yet. My point is PSU winning the B1G might be enough to bump OSU out. Is OSU one of the four best teams? I think so, but we can't forget PSU beat them. Then again they have 2 losses. It's all so confusing...

 

[CoachJeff]

I think the rankings will stay exactly the same as they were before. Bama, OSU, Clemson, UW. Maybe they switch OSU/Clemson.

 

[WishIwasInBama]

I'm just clarifying, but I said "unequivocally" because that's the exact word the committee uses in their criteria. The fact that we're even having this debate proves it's not unequivocal. There's no way a 2-loss non-champion is getting in over a 1-loss conference champion.

Sorry if it seemed like it but I was trying to be rude. I threw the quotes on the word because of how much it has been thrown around on ESPN this week. I guess how I don't see how OSU is unequivocally better than the team that has 1 more win/1 more loss and a head to head conference champ based on resume and not hold Washington's very weak resume against them