(01-04-2015 11:29 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(01-04-2015 11:24 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(01-04-2015 10:40 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(01-04-2015 10:07 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  I don't think that for second and don't think the evidence points to it either. Remember the week before the final week, these were the rankings:

3. TCU
5. Ohio State
6. Baylor

Baylor was not rising above Ohio State after what Ohio State did to Wisconsin in the Big Ten title game. The real question was TCU. I think the problem there was that with Baylor's victory over Kansas State, things came close enough they had to use head to head and that meant Baylor had to be higher than TCU.

It seems like the committee assumed that Kansas St would beat Baylor, thus allowing them to take TCU. When that didn't happen, they just decided that Ohio State was better than Baylor (which bowl results seem to support).

Could've saved themselves a lot of embarrassment if they had this going into championship week:

1. Alabama 2. Oregon 3. Florida St 4. Ohio St 5. TCU 6. Baylor

That way they only have to flip TCU above Ohio St if Baylor lost (no one would've screamed about that, IMO).

I don't think they are embarrassed at all. It isn't their problem that other people cant accept what happened. If Ohio State hadn't been selected after crushing Wisconsin in a Neutral Site Championship game, which is what the playoff games are, then there would have been just as loud of a call for the system to be changed.

It was inevitable that not everyone would be happy. The way it went down though, the Committee has Nothing to be ashamed or embarrassed of. Sorry Big 12, you should have had an extra game. That is the statement made, period.

There would have been an even louder call had 2 representatives been chosen from any of the power conferences.

Yes. Honestly, I don't think that ever would have happened. The weekly rankings were great for getting folks riled up, pumped up, anxious, and emotional but in the end we saw that they didn't guarantee anything.

The kind of anger that is out there now was unavoidable so you just face it and go on. The kind of anger that would have happened if somehow the SEC ended up with two teams or if the Big 12 ended up with two teams....well that is completely avoidable and would have been foolish of them to face in the first year.

(01-03-2015 12:43 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  ..... The Big 12 under Bob BOWELsby is making a lot of faces sour in Big 12 country right now. They need to add 2 teams and they need a CCG after they do it. ........

Adding two schools is a no-brainer. Not only would it allow a championship game (which is now reportedly worth $40 million to the conference), they could bridge the gap toward WVU and add badly needed TV markets and recruiting territory.

This whole notion that a conference needs to stage a CCG in order to have one of its best teams considered for a playoff is certainly a new idea, with no basis in history or tradition to support it. I have followed college football for more than 60 years. For nearly all that time, CCG's were a relative rarity. Far more frequent were instances where two or more teams were tied with the best record in their conference.

In how many of those instances did a conference declare one of those tied teams as its sole champion? I believe the answer to that question is exactly zero. Were they all wrong?

There were 16 BCS championship games played. That's a total of 32 participants. Of those, exactly 16 got there by winning a CCG. The other 16 did not. Some because their conference didn't have a CCG (ACC, Big East, Big Ten, PAC 10). Some got there because they failed to qualify for their CCG (Nebraska, Alabama). One got there despite losing its CCG (Oklahoma).

This whole question about the Big 12 not having a CCG is just a red herring. The problem is just that there were six teams that deserved a shot at the CFP Invitational Tournament title, and only four spots. The Big 12 followed the rules. Some people think that cost them a seat at the table, though nobody knows that for sure. We will probably never know. If their co-champions were Oklahoma and Texas instead of TCU and Baylor, we might have a different result. We'll never know that either. And if we had a different result, all that would mean is that a different team got screwed. It wouldn't be a statement about CCGs.

All we know for sure is that the system is flawed, and purely subjective. Until that changes we will continue to have inequities, just as we have had my entire life.

Look, the math is simple. Let me break it down for you.

After week 15, FSU's SoS ranking was 43rd.
Baylor's was 64th
TCU's was 45th
Ohio State was 54th

After week 16, which for most of us is championship week, FSU's SoS ranking was 26th
Baylor's was 55th
TCU's was 49th.
Ohio State was 41st

The math is simple. FSU had a better resume after their championship game against GT and they had the undefeated season. Ohio State also had a better resume as per the math AND they had the most impressive win in that last week. They did it with their third string quarterback which just goes to show how it wasn't just a quarterback thing there, it was an entire team thing. That is what the committee should be looking for.

Had the Big 12 given those teams one more game to positively affect their SoS rankings, it very well could have been the difference.

One minor interesting fact is that TCU's ranking went down despite the impressive win due to Baylor weakening the Kansas State rating which then weakened TCU's rating. Gotta love that round robin!!

(01-04-2015 06:35 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Look, the math is simple. Let me break it down for you.

After week 15, FSU's SoS ranking was 43rd.
Baylor's was 64th
TCU's was 45th
Ohio State was 54th

After week 16, which for most of us is championship week, FSU's SoS ranking was 26th
Baylor's was 55th
TCU's was 49th.
Ohio State was 41st

The math is simple. FSU had a better resume after their championship game against GT and they had the undefeated season. Ohio State also had a better resume as per the math AND they had the most impressive win in that last week. They did it with their third string quarterback which just goes to show how it wasn't just a quarterback thing there, it was an entire team thing. That is what the committee should be looking for.

Had the Big 12 given those teams one more game to positively affect their SoS rankings, it very well could have been the difference.

One minor interesting fact is that TCU's ranking went down despite the impressive win due to Baylor weakening the Kansas State rating which then weakened TCU's rating. Gotta love that round robin!!

And how would you propose the Big 12 give those teams another game? And, if the objective was to identify the strongest teams, how does the result of a Baylor-KSU game make TCU better or worse than they were otherwise? The answer, of course, is that it doesn't.

You cite SOS rankings after week 14 and after week 15. Who, exactly, decides that those rankings are relevant - or, for that matter, even correct? The fact is, they are arbitrary, based on a proprietary formula based solely on the opinion of a single programmer. I recall how, a few years ago, an error was detected that caused the BCS rankings to be incorrect. It caused one top 15 team to be erroneously ranked ahead of another. What was the error? The programmer had overlooked a game between two FCS teams, one of which had played somebody else who had played the FBS team wrongly ranked. How's that for arbitrary?

The math may be simple. The logic behind the math not so much. The committee was charged with identifying the best teams - not which ones played a tougher schedule based on questionable and arbitrary logic. I'm not faulting the committee's decision. No matter which four of six teams they picked, they would have been neither right nor wrong. It doesn't matter who the committee is, or what criteria they use, or whether they do it in public or shrouded in secrecy. They can't get it right, and they can't get it wrong.

Ken SOS is as objective as it gets. It's wins and losses, adjusted for home, away, and neutral. That's it.

To me this is a no-brainer. All other things being equal (records, OOC records/results/head to head/body of work, etc), the sole conference with 10 members and no CCG, will lose out every time to the 4 conferences with 12-15 members and a CCG.

Every time.

What's so hard about that equation to understand?

(01-05-2015 08:05 AM)Cnelson203 Wrote:  To me this is a no-brainer. All other things being equal (records, OOC records/results/head to head/body of work, etc), the sole conference with 10 members and no CCG, will lose out every time to the 4 conferences with 12-15 members and a CCG.

Every time.

What's so hard about that equation to understand?

This. It's an extra game on a neutral field usually against a ranked opponent. I just don't get the pro TCU crowd. Without a ccg, it builds an extra bye week into their schedule so they're ll getting an extra week off while the conference champion is putting themselves out there again. If the b12 wants to ensure their own success get a ccg AND schedule the ooc's harder.

(01-04-2015 09:13 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  Ken SOS is as objective as it gets. It's wins and losses, adjusted for home, away, and neutral. That's it.

I didn't say it wasn't objective. I said it was flawed, and no more meaningful than a simple eyeball test. It's appearance of objectivity is appealing, but its simplicity makes it unconvincing. Which is why people use it when it is to their advantage to use it to further their argument, and dismiss it when it doesn't. So why bother?

IMO the Committee itself is partly to blame. With TCU in the Top 4, the B12 couldn't use its standard criteria of head to head for a conference champ. Doing so would have rightly crowned Baylor the winner and risked TCU's playoff position.

(01-05-2015 09:49 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  IMO the Committee itself is partly to blame. With TCU in the Top 4, the B12 couldn't use its standard criteria of head to head for a conference champ. Doing so would have rightly crowned Baylor the winner and risked TCU's playoff position.

The Big 12 has no such criterion.

(01-05-2015 10:09 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-05-2015 09:49 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  IMO the Committee itself is partly to blame. With TCU in the Top 4, the B12 couldn't use its standard criteria of head to head for a conference champ. Doing so would have rightly crowned Baylor the winner and risked TCU's playoff position.

The Big 12 has no such criterion.

B12 Tiebreaker Procedures

(01-05-2015 11:25 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(01-05-2015 10:09 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-05-2015 09:49 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  IMO the Committee itself is partly to blame. With TCU in the Top 4, the B12 couldn't use its standard criteria of head to head for a conference champ. Doing so would have rightly crowned Baylor the winner and risked TCU's playoff position.

The Big 12 has no such criterion.

B12 Tiebreaker Procedures

That's to determine the Big 12 representative for the non-playoff new year's 6 bowls (Sugar Bowl when it is not one of the quarterfinals, or a spot in one of the other games when Sugar Bowl is a quarterfinal game, like this year). There is no procedure for the league designating a champ to the college football playoff committee. The league will have to amend its procedures if it wants to do that (or is required to) in the future.

(01-05-2015 11:39 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(01-05-2015 11:25 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(01-05-2015 10:09 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-05-2015 09:49 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  IMO the Committee itself is partly to blame. With TCU in the Top 4, the B12 couldn't use its standard criteria of head to head for a conference champ. Doing so would have rightly crowned Baylor the winner and risked TCU's playoff position.

The Big 12 has no such criterion.

B12 Tiebreaker Procedures

That's to determine the Big 12 representative for the non-playoff new year's 6 bowls (Sugar Bowl when it is not one of the quarterfinals, or a spot in one of the other games when Sugar Bowl is a quarterfinal game, like this year). There is no procedure for the league designating a champ to the college football playoff committee. The league will have to amend its procedures if it wants to do that (or is required to) in the future.

Exactly. Which is no different from any other conference in college football history. Tie breakers have never been used to declare a conference champion.

(01-05-2015 12:45 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-05-2015 11:39 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(01-05-2015 11:25 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(01-05-2015 10:09 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-05-2015 09:49 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  IMO the Committee itself is partly to blame. With TCU in the Top 4, the B12 couldn't use its standard criteria of head to head for a conference champ. Doing so would have rightly crowned Baylor the winner and risked TCU's playoff position.

The Big 12 has no such criterion.

B12 Tiebreaker Procedures

That's to determine the Big 12 representative for the non-playoff new year's 6 bowls (Sugar Bowl when it is not one of the quarterfinals, or a spot in one of the other games when Sugar Bowl is a quarterfinal game, like this year). There is no procedure for the league designating a champ to the college football playoff committee. The league will have to amend its procedures if it wants to do that (or is required to) in the future.

Exactly. Which is no different from any other conference in college football history. Tie breakers have never been used to declare a conference champion.

This changed with the “One True Champion” campaign. All the committee did was use “common sense” and rank Baylor ahead of TCU, which excluded TCU from the playoffs.

(01-05-2015 01:03 PM)Underdog Wrote:  

(01-05-2015 12:45 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-05-2015 11:39 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(01-05-2015 11:25 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(01-05-2015 10:09 AM)ken d Wrote:  The Big 12 has no such criterion.

B12 Tiebreaker Procedures

That's to determine the Big 12 representative for the non-playoff new year's 6 bowls (Sugar Bowl when it is not one of the quarterfinals, or a spot in one of the other games when Sugar Bowl is a quarterfinal game, like this year). There is no procedure for the league designating a champ to the college football playoff committee. The league will have to amend its procedures if it wants to do that (or is required to) in the future.

Exactly. Which is no different from any other conference in college football history. Tie breakers have never been used to declare a conference champion.

This changed with the “One True Champion” campaign. All the committee did was use “common sense” and rank Baylor ahead of TCU, which excluded TCU from the playoffs.

1. It did not change, marketing campaign or not.
2. Whatever the committee was using, it wasn't common sense.
3. Ranking Baylor ahead of TCU did not exclude TCU from the playoffs. Ranking Ohio State #4 did.

(01-05-2015 01:12 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-05-2015 01:03 PM)Underdog Wrote:  

(01-05-2015 12:45 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-05-2015 11:39 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(01-05-2015 11:25 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  B12 Tiebreaker Procedures

That's to determine the Big 12 representative for the non-playoff new year's 6 bowls (Sugar Bowl when it is not one of the quarterfinals, or a spot in one of the other games when Sugar Bowl is a quarterfinal game, like this year). There is no procedure for the league designating a champ to the college football playoff committee. The league will have to amend its procedures if it wants to do that (or is required to) in the future.

Exactly. Which is no different from any other conference in college football history. Tie breakers have never been used to declare a conference champion.

This changed with the “One True Champion” campaign. All the committee did was use “common sense” and rank Baylor ahead of TCU, which excluded TCU from the playoffs.

1. It did not change, marketing campaign or not.
2. Whatever the committee was using, it wasn't common sense.
3. Ranking Baylor ahead of TCU did not exclude TCU from the playoffs. Ranking Ohio State #4 did.

I heard what the chairperson said..... The committe expected one B12 champ (LIKE THE OTHER POWER CONFERNCE PROVIDED) and not co-champs. Why do you think TCU was dropped behind Baylor? Common sense.... Furthermore, Ohio St was ahead of Baylor. Thus, it was the head-to-head loss to Baylor that dropped TCU out of the playoffs—along with the persuasion of ESPN (I admit that).

(01-05-2015 01:22 PM)Underdog Wrote:  

(01-05-2015 01:12 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-05-2015 01:03 PM)Underdog Wrote:  

(01-05-2015 12:45 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-05-2015 11:39 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  That's to determine the Big 12 representative for the non-playoff new year's 6 bowls (Sugar Bowl when it is not one of the quarterfinals, or a spot in one of the other games when Sugar Bowl is a quarterfinal game, like this year). There is no procedure for the league designating a champ to the college football playoff committee. The league will have to amend its procedures if it wants to do that (or is required to) in the future.

Exactly. Which is no different from any other conference in college football history. Tie breakers have never been used to declare a conference champion.

This changed with the “One True Champion” campaign. All the committee did was use “common sense” and rank Baylor ahead of TCU, which excluded TCU from the playoffs.

1. It did not change, marketing campaign or not.
2. Whatever the committee was using, it wasn't common sense.
3. Ranking Baylor ahead of TCU did not exclude TCU from the playoffs. Ranking Ohio State #4 did.

I heard what the chairperson said..... The committe expected one B12 champ and not co-champs. Why do you think TCU was dropped behind Baylor? Common sense.... Furthermore, Ohio St was ahead of Baylor. Thus, it was the head-to-head loss to Baylor that dropped TCU out of the playoffs—along with the persuasion of ESPN (I admit that).

I heard the things the chairman said, too. They changed on a weekly basis. I also don't believe that the things the chairman said were necessarily the truth. That doesn't mean I think he was lying. It might just mean he was stupid. If, by "expected one B12 champ" he meant he expected either TCU or Baylor to lose their final game, then he was neither stupid nor lying. Just wrong. It happens. If instead he meant that he expected the Big 12 to name one of those teams as sole champion, then I'm betting on stupid.

The biggest problem the committee had was that it couldn't keep its mouth shut.

(01-05-2015 01:39 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-05-2015 01:22 PM)Underdog Wrote:  

(01-05-2015 01:12 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-05-2015 01:03 PM)Underdog Wrote:  

(01-05-2015 12:45 PM)ken d Wrote:  Exactly. Which is no different from any other conference in college football history. Tie breakers have never been used to declare a conference champion.

This changed with the “One True Champion” campaign. All the committee did was use “common sense” and rank Baylor ahead of TCU, which excluded TCU from the playoffs.

1. It did not change, marketing campaign or not.
2. Whatever the committee was using, it wasn't common sense.
3. Ranking Baylor ahead of TCU did not exclude TCU from the playoffs. Ranking Ohio State #4 did.

I heard what the chairperson said..... The committe expected one B12 champ and not co-champs. Why do you think TCU was dropped behind Baylor? Common sense.... Furthermore, Ohio St was ahead of Baylor. Thus, it was the head-to-head loss to Baylor that dropped TCU out of the playoffs—along with the persuasion of ESPN (I admit that).

I heard the things the chairman said, too. They changed on a weekly basis. I also don't believe that the things the chairman said were necessarily the truth. That doesn't mean I think he was lying. It might just mean he was stupid. If, by "expected one B12 champ" he meant he expected either TCU or Baylor to lose their final game, then he was neither stupid nor lying. Just wrong. It happens. If instead he meant that he expected the Big 12 to name one of those teams as sole champion, then I'm betting on stupid.

The biggest problem the committee had was that it couldn't keep its mouth shut.

Why shouldn't the committee expect one B12 Champ when the conference promoted this for the entire season? Moreover, the committee was provided with “One True Champ” by each power conference—except the one that stated nationally it would provide one. I admit that the ESPN had a lot of influence on the committee. Nevertheless, it doesn’t excuse the playoff ca$h crashing move the B12 ill-fatedly attempted to do by ignoring its “One True Champ” campaign and presenting the committee with co-champs. The committee and ESPN understood what the B12 attempted to do and rightfully (in my opinion) dropped TCU below Baylor and indirectly indicated to the nation that Baylor is the B12’s champ.

(01-05-2015 01:53 PM)Underdog Wrote:  

(01-05-2015 01:39 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-05-2015 01:22 PM)Underdog Wrote:  

(01-05-2015 01:12 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-05-2015 01:03 PM)Underdog Wrote:  This changed with the “One True Champion” campaign. All the committee did was use “common sense” and rank Baylor ahead of TCU, which excluded TCU from the playoffs.

1. It did not change, marketing campaign or not.
2. Whatever the committee was using, it wasn't common sense.
3. Ranking Baylor ahead of TCU did not exclude TCU from the playoffs. Ranking Ohio State #4 did.

I heard what the chairperson said..... The committe expected one B12 champ and not co-champs. Why do you think TCU was dropped behind Baylor? Common sense.... Furthermore, Ohio St was ahead of Baylor. Thus, it was the head-to-head loss to Baylor that dropped TCU out of the playoffs—along with the persuasion of ESPN (I admit that).

I heard the things the chairman said, too. They changed on a weekly basis. I also don't believe that the things the chairman said were necessarily the truth. That doesn't mean I think he was lying. It might just mean he was stupid. If, by "expected one B12 champ" he meant he expected either TCU or Baylor to lose their final game, then he was neither stupid nor lying. Just wrong. It happens. If instead he meant that he expected the Big 12 to name one of those teams as sole champion, then I'm betting on stupid.

The biggest problem the committee had was that it couldn't keep its mouth shut.

Why shouldn't the committee expect one B12 Champ when the conference promoted this for the entire season? Moreover, the committee was provided with “One True Champ” by each power conference—except the one that stated nationally it would provide one. I admit that the ESPN had a lot of influence on the committee. Nevertheless, it doesn’t excuse the playoff ca$h crashing move the B12 ill-fatedly attempted to do by ignoring its “One True Champ” campaign and presenting the committee with co-champs. The committee and ESPN understood what the B12 attempted to do and rightfully (in my opinion) dropped TCU below Baylor and indirectly indicated to the nation that Baylor is the B12’s champ.

Hogwash. The committee had to pick four teams, and that's what they did. Nothing more, nothing less. Any attempt to read anything more into it is just self serving nonsense.