[jjbrr]

awm, on 2012-November-18, 17:02, said:

Can anyone explain to me why the SEC teams are all rated so high? They don't seem to really play anyone of significance outside their conference. In fact last week while the PAC-12 teams had a number of big matchups the SEC all seemed to have scheduled "patsies" who weren't even in the top division!

Yet coming into today, SEC teams held positions 4-8 in the polls. With #1 and #2 losing, it appears that if USC beats Notre Dame next week (no guarantee, but certainly possible) we will be headed for our second straight SEC vs. SEC national championship game. And once again, one of the teams in this game will not even have had a good enough record to play for the SEC championship (presumably the national championship will pit the SEC winner against some one-loss SEC team, and the SEC championship loser will have two losses).

Really seems to me that to play in the national championship, you should have to win your conference... Anyway it will be good to see a playoff system next year!

Bbradley62, on 2014-November-19, 08:04, said:

What's the relevance of OOC schedule? Strength of Schedule is the relevant factor; it doesn't matter whether facing a particular opponent is mandated or voluntary. If your list of mandated opponents is unimpressive, you have to go out of your way to schedule impressive voluntary opponents, otherwise you cannot be included in the national playoff conversation (see: Marshall). If your conference schedule includes five Top 10 caliber opponents, you shouldn't be expected to add major opponents for your voluntary schedule.

Please explain in what way you think the rankings are rigged.

Excellent two year anniversary response.

[Bbradley62]

jjbrr, on 2014-November-19, 09:24, said:

Excellent two year anniversary response.

Sorry for not being more clear -- I was replying to your post from 9 hours earlier, the one directly above mine, the one with the terms "OOC" and "rigged".

PS: I do actually have some sympathy for AWM's statement that you should have to win your conference to be eligible for the national championship; I think it would be good to have a rule change saying that the four teams chosen for the national playoffs will be chosen from among the various conference champions, possibly treating "independents" as a conference for this purpose. But that's not what the rules currently are. Given that the rules are that the "four best teams" are to be chosen for the playoffs, I don't see any bias in the current rankings.

[jjbrr]

Bbradley62, on 2014-November-19, 10:08, said:

Sorry for not being more clear -- I was replying to your post from 9 hours earlier, the one directly above mine, the one with the terms "OOC" and "rigged".

PS: I do actually have some sympathy for AWM's statement that you should have to win your conference to be eligible for the national championship; I think it would be good to have a rule change saying that the four teams chosen for the national playoffs will be chosen from among the various conference champions, possibly treating "independents" as a conference for this purpose. But that's not what the rules currently are. Given that the rules are that the "four best teams" are to be chosen for the playoffs, I don't see any bias in the current rankings.

I'm not sure why you're so confused. I was mocking the OP because the things he complained about two years ago are still true today, and as you pointed out in your response, were totally silly to begin with.

It's obviously wrong to base NC or playoff eligibility on conference success when conference success ignores a school's whole body of work.

[Bbradley62]

jjbrr, on 2014-November-19, 11:45, said:

It's obviously wrong to base NC or playoff eligibility on conference success when conference success ignores a school's whole body of work.

That's fair. Losing one (conference championship) game shouldn't necessarily disqualify a team from national championship playoff consideration (see: Florida State).

[billw55]

There are practical considerations as well. The NCAA wants this inaugural playoff to be a smashing success. It probably will be. One way it might not be, is if it lacks national appeal due to being perceived as a rehash of the SEC season/championship.

Three SEC teams in the four team field would almost certainly promote widespread indifference due to redundancy. Basically, the attitude of "didn't we already do this?" With two SEC teams, there might still be some of this, especially if they meet in the title game. These scenarios would interfere with the financial and promotional success of the whole scheme.

Anyone who wants to is free to consider the SEC championship as more important than the 4-team national playoff. I expect many people will. However, an ostensibly national event should be just that. We already have an SEC championship, we don't need another one.

Because of all this, I strongly support a one-team-per-conference rule in the 4-team format. This rule does not exist in writing, but the committee might use it in practice. If the SEC is really so superior, it won't matter anyway, because their team will still win.

An 8-team format would be much simpler, with one automatic bid for each major conference, plus at large bids. In this format, I would support a max 2-team per conference rule.

[jjbrr]

billw55, on 2014-November-20, 07:45, said:

Anyone who wants to is free to consider the SEC championship as more important than the 4-team national playoff. I expect many people will. However, an ostensibly national event should be just that. We already have an SEC championship, we don't need another one.

You are aware that the two best teams in the SEC are both in the western division, right?

I would probably agree with a lot of what you're saying if the conference championships games made any attempt to have the two best teams in a conference play in the game, but that's simply not how the conference championship games work. If the season ended today, Missouri, who lost to Indiana and Georgia, would play against Bama. Missouri's "quality" wins are against South Carolina and TAMU. Georgia has wins against Clemson, USC, Missouri, and Auburn. So not only would the two best teams in the SEC not meet in the championship game, the best team in the east division wouldn't even play in the game, which is not an uncommon thing.

[billw55]

jjbrr, on 2014-November-20, 09:30, said:

You are aware that the two best teams in the SEC are both in the western division, right?

I would probably agree with a lot of what you're saying if the conference championships games made any attempt to have the two best teams in a conference play in the game, but that's simply not how the conference championship games work. If the season ended today, Missouri, who lost to Indiana and Georgia, would play against Bama. Missouri's "quality" wins are against South Carolina and TAMU. Georgia has wins against Clemson, USC, Missouri, and Auburn. So not only would the two best teams in the SEC not meet in the championship game, the best team in the east division wouldn't even play in the game, which is not an uncommon thing.

Sure, it can happen, but it doesn't really bother me. That second best team in the west already finished second. By virtue of a head to head game, for that matter. So that is already settled IMO. (assuming both teams win out)

Yes, I do think that Baylor belongs above TCU for this same reason.

[jjbrr]

Nevermind. I simply don't agree with either adding randomness to the selection process or rewarding shitty conferences for being shitty.

[billw55]

jjbrr, on 2014-November-20, 11:02, said:

Nevermind. I simply don't agree with either adding randomness to the selection process or rewarding shitty conferences for being shitty.

And of course, "shitty conferences" means any that is not the SEC, right?

[jjbrr]

No, I meant the objectively bad conferences like the ACC and Big Ten this year as opposed to the objectively good conferences like the Big 12, PAC 12, and SEC.

[billw55]

Well, it is shaping up to be the Big 10 that misses the field, which seems fair as things have gone this year. Still there are some nontrivial games left. Heck, Alabama and MSU could both take losses. I wonder how the committee would handle a 2-loss SEC champ.

I do believe that soon we will have an 8 team field, and it will become even more difficult to worry that a true contender is left out.

[mike777]

If this is about money and tv ratings in late Dec and Jan then 16 teams should bring in the bucks and eyeballs.

I assume the priority is to maximize profits, tv and gambling/office pools, not about the kids.

[Bbradley62]

I'm rooting for Missouri, GA Tech, Utah and Wisconsin to win their conferences, just to see what the committee does.

[mike777]

Bbradley62, on 2014-November-20, 22:20, said:

I'm rooting for Missouri, GA Tech, Utah and Wisconsin to win their conferences, just to see what the committee does.

who cares what the commitees do...I mean really...who cares


People care about money ...lots and lots of money

who the hell cares about a few old white guys on some silly committeee

[billw55]

mike777, on 2014-November-20, 19:31, said:

If this is about money and tv ratings in late Dec and Jan then 16 teams should bring in the bucks and eyeballs.

I assume the priority is to maximize profits, tv and gambling/office pools, not about the kids.

I think 16 teams would be a good system. We may have that eventually.

[Bbradley62]

mike777, on 2014-November-20, 23:47, said:

Bbradley62, on 2014-November-20, 22:20, said:

I'm rooting for Missouri, GA Tech, Utah and Wisconsin to win their conferences, just to see what the committee does.

who cares what the commitees do...I mean really...who cares


People care about money ...lots and lots of money

who the hell cares about a few old white guys on some silly committeee

"[T]he committee" I was referring to is the College Football Playoff Selection Committee. I suspect that a great many people care what that committee does, at least in part because the four teams selected by them will get "money ...lots and lots of money". Probably not many people in Singapore care.

[cherdano]

billw55, on 2014-November-20, 16:01, said:

I do believe that soon we will have an 8 team field, and it will become even more difficult to worry that a true contender is left out.

I am sure that would pretty much stop the endless debates about who should get selected.

[billw55]

cherdano, on 2014-November-22, 03:18, said:

I am sure that would pretty much stop the endless debates about who should get selected.

Agree, witness the basketball event. 64+n teams, and you see that all discussion of snubs is ended.

Sarcasm aside, this is not the same as what I was saying. I meant that it would be hard to argue that a realistic title contender was left out. It can always be argued that the 9th team deserved to be 8th, and hence get to play. But I doubt you will hear much argument that the 9th team would have won.

[GreenMan]

billw55, on 2014-November-24, 07:38, said:

Sarcasm aside, this is not the same as what I was saying. I meant that it would be hard to argue that a realistic title contender was left out. It can always be argued that the 9th team deserved to be 8th, and hence get to play. But I doubt you will hear much argument that the 9th team would have won.

... unless the 8th team wins or almost wins.

[Bbradley62]

If the 2007 New York Giants could win the Super Bowl after arguably not being among the 8 best teams in the NFL (out of 32), I don't see why the 9th best college football team (out of 200+) couldn't sometimes win the NCAA playoff.