Just keep the committee. All computer ranking algorithms are flawed too. Many, if not most, worse than a committee. It really makes no difference anyway who the last team in is. They’re not advancing far.
BCS formula predicts that Alabama will get the last spot.......
- Thread starter OG Goat Holder
- Start date
And that's where the real problems start....expecting fans to be willing and able to travel to all of these playoff games.
How many rounds are going to be held at home stadiums? The first round games are on campus, so fans are being asked to travel to up to three neutral site locations in the playoffs. Many of those same teams played in neutral site conference championship games as well. It's asking a lot of a fan base that has already ponied up for the booster club, NIL, season tickets, etc.
And don't compare this to basketball, where the tickets are split 8 ways in the first 2 rounds, and 4 ways after that. Plus, those domes seat fewer people when converted for basketball.
These playoff runs will be expensive to attend, and could wind up finally killing the bowls and moving to on campus games at least until the semis.
if it expands to 16.. everyone will have to play 3 extra games. And youre right.. it'll get expensive.
hence why i think the sec champ game eventually goes away.
- The BCS wasn't a straight metric. It was a combination of both computer rankings (plural) and human polls.
- It was trying to determine two teams to play for the national title. As you expand, the criterion doesn't have to be perfect because, at the margins, you're splitting hairs on the 10th, 11th, and 12th best team. When the CFP is expanded to 16 or 24 teams, the imperfection of the selection criterion will be even more tolerable.
Just splitting hairs, but I don’t think that Indiana / Alabama / Iowa State order is super obvious right now. Iowa State and Arizona State are going to be ranked 15/16 in this week’s rankings. One or the other is going to be 11-2 with a really good win added to their resume. I think you could argue that winner should be ranked ahead of both Bama and Indiana.
Also, I’m not sure that its a given that Boise State stays behind SMU in the 4 spot. Clemson doesn’t have a win over anyone better than 7-5, and has just 3 wins over teams .500 and above (one over 7-5 Pitt, 2 over 6-6 teams). Their best 3 wins were a combined 10-14 in conference play in the awful ACC. They are about to tumble to the 18-20 range, and UNLV is about to move up to, at worst, #20. If Boise State blows out UNLV and SMU barely skates by Clemson, why should Boise State be ranked lower than SMU? There’s only a single digit difference in their SOS’s right now.
I'm about 50-50 with this.
I'd prefer it to be something like basketball... where its known that everyone cares about NET rankings. Thats the most important number.. and they know the formula, how its computed, and how their scheudle and play could effect it.
While at the same time... using a committee for some common sense stuff
Think we do need some type of metric that everyone looks at to say.. team A is ranked 8 and team B is ranked 50 and know there isnt a need for debate...or Team A is ranked 10 and Team B is ranked 15-- now the committee can look at the 10 and 15 ranked teams in that scenario..and determine if there should be an adjustment.
Right now people are throwing out 4-5-6-7 diffferent things to measure things that favor them. Where having something like NET in basketball would fix all that.... but again would heavily favor the SEC which would piss GOAT off
Yes, there will be movement after this weekend's games. For example, it is possible the Big 12 champ passes Boise for the 4th bye because they are adding a better win than Boise beating UNLV.
My point is that I used one metric and got a field that is just as good as anything a committee could come up with. And if you can do it without a committee, that is preferable.
I'll do it again after this weekend's games, and I'll put the straight SOR bracket with no subjective reshuffling up against anything the committee comes up with. My guess is the committee won't give us some earth-shattering genius bracket that we can't live without.
I think it makes even more sense to go straight NET rankings (or whatever metric is agreed upon) without a committee in basketball. There are 68 teams! A straight NET ranking bracket after all the auto-bids would result in the top 40 to 50 of the NET rankings being in the tournament.
That is sufficient. And you can do it without a committee. Less subjectivity.
i disagree on that. I always want a human element to it to be able to be the voice of reason when need be. Sometimes those computers do some odd things.
Just as i dont want to see robots umpiring baseball games or every play in a football game be replayed... computers dont always get it right.
That's just not right. It's ALL subjective. Just because a computer calculated a formula over and over and spit out the result doesn't mean it's not subjective. The output is only as good as the formula, which is suspect. But whatever method they use to pick the tournament, I have zero sympathy for any team that gets left out (goes for both basketball and football). You were always marginal at best to begin with. If you don't like being left out, you should have won more games and/or scheduled better.
add baseball into that mix. The entire fanbase was pissed we didnt host last year. While we had a resume to possibly host.. its not the committee's fault we didnt host. We should have won more games.
agree about the formula used too. Hence why i agree/think its important to keep a human element involved. Although again, to say this is the metric we deem the most important like NET in basketball, would be a nice thing to know and be able to use as a guide line.
As I said in an earlier post, college football lacks the objectivity of the NFL.
However, some options are less subjective than others.
Nothing is perfect, but which is better:
- Debating and arguing the criteria in the summer and then sticking to what is agreed upon in the fall OR
- A committee deliberating week-to-week during the season and ultimately deciding at the end of the season what the criteria are.
In the latter case, we are days away from the final selection, and we still don't know for sure what the determining factors will be: head-to-head? Common opponents? SOS? Quality wins? Bad losses?
The committee will decide whatever they want and then pick and choose the criteria to justify their decision.
Computer rankings are about as objective as it gets. You can quibble over whether it’s flawed, or skewed toward this group of teams or that group of teams- but once that formula is set, the computer isn’t changing its mind based on whether Team A is Alabama or Indiana or Western Kentucky.
I’ve said all along I wish the week to week thing with the committee would stop. Maybe have it every other week. I think the committee has gotten it right every year. But I think people get to carried away with the week to week thing.
in other words why even have a rankings show tmw. Just wait until next week and make your announcement. That way they won’t have to double back or try to justify anything
I like the week-to-week because it adds transparency. Keeps both the teams informed and the committee members accountable. They can’t drag their feet on things like Miami-Alabama, then reverse course.
Teams on the bubble also know what they need to do. For example, Clemson probably needs to win big over SMU in order to get the bye. Otherwise, they get leapfrogged by Boise and the Big 12 champ for the #3 / #4 seeds. So instead of playing it safe with a 14 point lead in the 4th, maybe they’d pour it on a bit more.
The SEC has 8 of the top 10 SOS teams in the country. B1G has 2.
The SEC has 11 of the top 20 SOS teams in the country. B1G has 6. ACC has 3. Big 12 has zero.
The SEC has ALL 16 teams in the Top 32 of the SOS rankings. B1G has 11 of 18 teams. ACC has 5 of 17 teams. Big 12 again has zero.
The SEC is unquestionably the best league….by a country mile. This year and every year. Its silly how big the gap is. With very, very few exceptions, a 9-3 SEC team is going to trump a 10-2 or 11-2 team from any other league. The schedules are night and day more difficult.
while i agree.. there is a bias starting towards the sec... the unwritten rule isnt going to be a thing. again this is an odd year for the SEC and they'll very likely still get 4 teams in.... there will be years in the future the SEC will get 5 teams in. Its hard to ignore how much better the SEC is than any other conference.
I bet you loved Terminator. The machines' decision about the human race had no subjectivity either.
We all know that has been the case in the past. Lot more parity this year, but I agree, I do think the SEC is likely the best. But I'd rather an 11-1 SMU team, who played a P4 schedule, get a shot before a 9-3 Bama team who lost to 2 average teams. Yeah, records are all equal, but that's a 2-game swing, even if SMU loses the ACC title game.
This is like saying FSU should not have been in the playoff last year. It was stupid then and stupid now. They were undefeated and in the P4 (P5 last year). It's silliness.
Something about FSU and the ACC I guess. I remember the morons acting like FSU played a weak schedule in 2014, when they were also 13-0, ACC champs, and had played a P5 schedule plus Florida and Oklahoma State. I mean what the 17 do you want them to do? Schedules are made years in advance, you play who you play. If you're undefeated and P4, you get in. It's that simple.
it wont come down to an 11-1 SMU team and Alabama-- if SMU wins.
if SMU loses then SMU becomes a 11-2 team-- and that pales in comparsion to any of the 3 loss SEC teams. Ole Miss included.
Cant reward a team that plays nobody in the regular season.. unless they are either clearly the better team or their resume is clearly better. SMU isn't that....However, thanks to the new system, they have a chance to get in.. all they have to do is beat clemson. Something 2 sec teams have done resoundingly this year, both on a neutral field and in death valley
I think SEC gets 4 when there is no way to exclude the 4th one, but I doubt we will ever see 5.
1 out of 3 teams in the playoff field to one conference isn't going to go over well. 1 out 4 is much easier to digest.
when the field expands to at least 14, 2 years from now.. and then 16 soon after. We'll see 5.
getting 4 in a 12 team field... 5 in a 14-16 field will happen easily.
What they will try to prevent is a SEC final or seminfinal, too many SEC teams in the top 4 with byes. The fact is the majority of the talent is in the SEC but that is terrible for the 12 team playoff hype and growth nationwide. SEC is already heavy in numbers, they need to grow the fan base in other areas of the country, so I am guessing each year we will see a really nice geographically influenced selection...
They'll keep the top 4 seeds as is. To keep one conference from getting all the byes.
And then... like baseball has done in recent years. They wont fudge any seeding.. so you may see SEC vs SEC matchups in round 1.
They dont care about an SEC vs SEC final. Already has happened twice and drew rave reviews and ratings each time.
You dont have to worry about nationwide anything with football. Football is king and people watch it. What they dont want is a Georgia vs TCU situation again. Where's their biggest game is 63-0 at half time. They'll keep putting the best possible product on the field...and that'll be a lot of SEC teams
You’re oversimplifying it with terms like “P4 schedule”. That implies an assumption that an ACC schedule and a Big 12 schedule and an SEC schedule are all similar. That is clearly not the case. There really isn’t a Power 4. There’s 4 unique tiers within the P4:
Tier 1 - SEC
(Big gap)
Tier 2 - B1G
(Big gap)
Tier 3 - ACC
(Small gap)
Tier 4 - Big 12
(Small gap)
MWC / AAC
The gap between an SEC schedule and an ACC or Big 12 schedule is far, far bigger than the gap between the ACC/Big 12 and the G5. So, people need to quit saying things like “P4 schedule” and “G5 schedule” like those are the only tiers. This was proven pretty soundly last year when we saw what happened in that FSU - UGA game.
An SEC schedule is going to contain up to 5 or 6 Top 20 teams in a single season. This year we had Mizzou, Texas, UGA, A&M, and Ole Miss all as Top 20 opponents in the final CFP rankings. Ole Miss had what was considered a “soft” schedule by all the haters both within the SEC and outside the league, but still had games against UGA, LSU, and South Carolina. Three top 20-25 teams there. Then you also had Florida (#23 in SOR, #22 in FPI, might be ranked in final CFP poll), and Oklahoma (#31 SOR, #26 FPI).
Compare the “soft” Ole Miss schedule to Indiana, who played only one Top 25 team all year, and lost by 23 points. Compare it to Penn State, who played only 2 Top 25 games all year, and lost one of them. Compare to Miami and SMU, who played a combined one game against the CFP Top 25 all year between the 2 of them, and lost. What you’re gonna find is that Ole Miss’ “soft schedule” still contains about as many games against the CFP Top 25, and more wins against those teams) as Indiana, Penn State, Miami, and SMU put together. And that’s literally one of the weakest schedules in the league!
That’s why I think the SEC has all the power in these new “super league” discussions. They can pluck just 2 or 3 teams each from the ACC and B1G, and be the super league all by themselves. The B1G would need to try and grab 9 or 10 teams from the SEC to do the same. Ain’t happening.
Last edited:
Point spread is not a factor considered by the committee. In theory. This is one of the reasons: they don't want to see a team like Clemson win this conference championship game but be disappointed they didn't win by enough.
The committee considers on the field performance metrics, but running up the score in the 4th Quarter doesn't change those metrics. Allegedly.
Every team knows what they need to do: just win, baby. As stated previously, if you're on the bubble, then you should have won more games.
College football only plays 12 games, so there has to be some subjectivity thrown in, and you have to decide whether you want what is subjectively the better team (4th place in the SEC), or whether you want to give a team from a weaker conference an opportunity to prove they belong.
I thought the point of the expansion was to remove some of the subjectivity and give previously omitted teams an opportunity, not just stack the playoffs with teams from the SEC and BIG.
That's why I don't want to see any 3 loss teams unless there is a compelling reason.
You could have stopped right there. You're correct, I am. And until the playoff gets bigger/closer to what it should be, I think you have to do that to an extent. And until all the teams start playing each other more and less of the easy games, we don't have the cross pollination to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt. Rankings are subjective based on who we think is best. Who we think is best is subjective because we've seen SEC teams win in the past, all in the BCS or smaller playoffs. So in this vaccuum of knowledge/proof, I say be inclusive. Who gives a shlt if a 3-loss Bama, Carolina or Ole Miss team gets left out.
None of this matters for basketball and baseball, because the tourneys are big enough to capture anyone deserving of a title, and still incentivizes teams to be really good (high seeds, easier early rounds, home field in baseball, etc.).
Alabama may be selected because of their name and fanbase, but they lost to Vanderbilt and really screwed the pooch in the Florida game - got totally dominated. And they were all that decisive against Auburn.
well i just figured if you're going to try to make a point.. lets make it correctly. Lot of people dont actually watch the games have a strong opinion.. kinda like yourself... hard to watch the Alabama oklahoma game and confuse it with florida
That all checks out, it was just a token example.
Perhaps a more applicable example….team has a key player with nagging but not overly serious injury. They are playing in conference championship. Now, if they’re ranked 10th in CFP, they may want all hands on deck. If they are 4th, maybe they rest the injured player or limit his reps to prevent aggravation.
I just think the teams like to know where they stand, and its a fair expectation for them to know.
Get unlimited access today.