Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
P5 payouts for non-CFP bowls
Author Message
adcorbett Offline
This F'n Guy
*

Posts: 14,325
Joined: Mar 2010
Reputation: 368
I Root For: Louisville
Location: Cybertron
Post: #21
RE: P5 payouts for non-CFP bowls
(12-15-2014 12:46 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(12-15-2014 11:53 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  That was exactly the reason. It was sort of an open secret that the B1G asked for this. The Big Ten was going to be one bowl short anyway. But once Ohio State made the playoffs, they had an opportunity to get two teams in access bowls, and not use the Orange Bowl slot as had Baylor or TCU made the playoffs, Ohio State was heading to the Orange Bowl anyway, and Mich St likely went to the same spot they are going now. But once Ohio St made the playoffs, an opportunity arose, and the "powers that be" made it happen.

I am not so sure. There was a "football reason" for having Mississippi State move up past Michigan State: Mississippi State had the better body of work, and the CFP committee made it clear that they did not feel bound to follow the logic of the traditional polls, such that if team A was ahead of B one week, then if nothing happened in the following week, A would remain ahead of B. They reserved the right to re-evaluate bodies of work each week. Plus, even though Michigan State and Mississippi State didn't play the final weekend, factors like final SOS and who the final top 25 would be (so "good wins" and "bad losses" could be looked at) were still in flux.

No, there was no "football reason" that two teams who did not play would move relative to each other, other than post season. Even the last line of SOS moving and whatnot, would have only helped Michigan St, since the of the two teams that beat each, only one actually got better over that weekend (Ohio St, as Oregon, Alabama, stayed the same, and Ole Miss was idle). If anything, it would have had the inverse, and moved Michigan St up. In fact if you look at the composite rankings, after the CCG's, Michigan State moved up from 9 to 8 in the composite computer rankings, and Miss St dropped from 6 to 8. So if anything, Michigan State's ranking should have gone up with respect to Miss St.

Had they ranked Miss St above Mich St prior to, a valid argument could be made. Although with Mich St's only losses being to playoff teams, I think they have the more sound resume, but that is debatable. However what is not debatable is that there is nothing that happened between the last two weeks to move Miss St up other than ahead of the teams who lost. If anything, Mich State earned the right to be the top two loss team after the CCG weekend.

(12-15-2014 01:05 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  As i explained to Ad, there was a football reason for the switch: Mississippi State had a better overall season than Michigan State, and so the CFP was really just correcting their prior mistake in having Sparty ahead the previous week.

As stated, despite your best efforts, nothing happened during that time to improve Miss St's resume. There is a reason why ALL of their computer numbers dropped that week, and Mich State's all went up. However there were VERY GOOD non-football reasons to make the move. And we saw them.
(This post was last modified: 12-15-2014 02:39 PM by adcorbett.)
12-15-2014 02:36 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Online
Legend
*

Posts: 50,020
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2377
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #22
RE: P5 payouts for non-CFP bowls
(12-15-2014 02:36 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  
(12-15-2014 12:46 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(12-15-2014 11:53 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  That was exactly the reason. It was sort of an open secret that the B1G asked for this. The Big Ten was going to be one bowl short anyway. But once Ohio State made the playoffs, they had an opportunity to get two teams in access bowls, and not use the Orange Bowl slot as had Baylor or TCU made the playoffs, Ohio State was heading to the Orange Bowl anyway, and Mich St likely went to the same spot they are going now. But once Ohio St made the playoffs, an opportunity arose, and the "powers that be" made it happen.

I am not so sure. There was a "football reason" for having Mississippi State move up past Michigan State: Mississippi State had the better body of work, and the CFP committee made it clear that they did not feel bound to follow the logic of the traditional polls, such that if team A was ahead of B one week, then if nothing happened in the following week, A would remain ahead of B. They reserved the right to re-evaluate bodies of work each week. Plus, even though Michigan State and Mississippi State didn't play the final weekend, factors like final SOS and who the final top 25 would be (so "good wins" and "bad losses" could be looked at) were still in flux.

No, there was no "football reason" that two teams who did not play would move relative to each other, other than post season. Even the last line of SOS moving and whatnot, would have only helped Michigan St, since the of the two teams that beat each, only one actually got better over that weekend (Ohio St, as Oregon, Alabama, stayed the same, and Ole Miss was idle). If anything, it would have had the inverse, and moved Michigan St up. In fact if you look at the composite rankings, after the CCG's, Michigan State moved up from 9 to 8 in the composite computer rankings, and Miss St dropped from 6 to 8. So if anything, Michigan State's ranking should have gone up with respect to Miss St.

Had they ranked Miss St above Mich St prior to, a valid argument could be made. Although with Mich St's only losses being to playoff teams, I think they have the more sound resume, but that is debatable. However what is not debatable is that there is nothing that happened between the last two weeks to move Miss St up other than ahead of the teams who lost. If anything, Mich State earned the right to be the top two loss team after the CCG weekend.

As I explained, MissST clearly has the better overall resume. This is true even factoring in the incremental improvement in SOS and Ohio State moving up, which was to MichSt's benefit. Add it all up, and Mississippi State has a better SOS, better wins, no worse losses. And the computer rankings concur with that. It was a mistake for MichSt to have been ranked ahead earlier.

So rather than the committee engaging in politics, its also plausible that they just corrected that mistake in the final rankings. They took a fresh look, rather than mindlessly basing things on the prior week's rankings.

Plus, as I also noted in reply to Krup, the best situation for the B1G was to play in the Orange Bowl, not to relinquish it.
(This post was last modified: 12-15-2014 02:51 PM by quo vadis.)
12-15-2014 02:45 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
adcorbett Offline
This F'n Guy
*

Posts: 14,325
Joined: Mar 2010
Reputation: 368
I Root For: Louisville
Location: Cybertron
Post: #23
RE: P5 payouts for non-CFP bowls
(12-15-2014 02:45 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  As I explained, MissST clearly has the better overall resume. Better SOS, better wins, no worse losses. It was a mistake for MichSt to have been ranked ahead earlier.

Just because you "explained it" doesn't make it true. You also said " Plus, even though Michigan State and Mississippi State didn't play the final weekend, factors like final SOS and who the final top 25 would be (so "good wins" and "bad losses" could be looked at) were still in flux" pointed to SOS, wins, and resume." Well the facts show, that Michigan state's was th b eneficiary of all of that, SOS, computer numbers, etc. all went up, and Miss St's all went down. That was your argument. Surely you would not change it? And you are making assumptions here abottu who has the better resume. Each have the same number of good wins, only now Mich St has a trump card on "better losses." Finally surely your argument is not that "the committee is not engaging in politics" right after they blind changed a ranking, that has direct political implications after lobbying from the Big Ten people on the committee, because there was no on the field reason for making the change they made, when all evidence show them actually playing politics.

You made assumptions. Reality shows those assumptions flawed, with the changes from the weekend results actually favoring Mich St. They should have gone up, if anything, based on those moves. However the final change, does not harm Mich St (they go to the Cotton Bowl instead of the Orange, and have a better opponent), but it DOES benefit the conference they play in. That is th every definition of playing politics.

Also, despite you saying it, which for some reason you seem to think makes it factual, the best scenario for the Big Ten was not Michigan playing in the Orange Bowl, since it meant losing the Citrus. You may think that, but they obviously don't, since they lobbied to make this happen. There were going to be a bowl short. Instead they kept a bowl that pays out good money, instead of having to find one of their teams a replacement bowl. The committee made an effort tot justify the change, but we have all seen that many of their answers are non-sensical when compared to other answers. Case in point, Long's quote: We went back and looked at Mississippi State and Michigan State and really, when we started that clean sheet of paper, the fact that Mississippi State had two top-25 wins really caused us to look at those rankings and rank them differently. "When Mississippi State has four top-25 victories, along with four other victories against winning programs or bowl-eligible teams and Michigan State had zero, and they have four against .500 or better teams. So that's really what swayed us to make that change" Funny how it changed from 2 victoires ot 4 (they had two at the time they played), and then when discussing SEC teams he says victory rank is based on at the time the game is played. Well Mich St beat a then ranked Nebraska. Strangely doesn't count now.

Anyway which is easier to believe: a team whose computers numbers went up was dropped because of an oversight the week before, or that a team who did not play was moved up, because both parties benefit?
(This post was last modified: 12-15-2014 03:13 PM by adcorbett.)
12-15-2014 02:52 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Online
Legend
*

Posts: 50,020
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2377
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #24
RE: P5 payouts for non-CFP bowls
(12-15-2014 02:52 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  
(12-15-2014 02:45 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  As I explained, MissST clearly has the better overall resume. Better SOS, better wins, no worse losses. It was a mistake for MichSt to have been ranked ahead earlier.

Just because you "explained it" doesn't make it true. You also said " Plus, even though Michigan State and Mississippi State didn't play the final weekend, factors like final SOS and who the final top 25 would be (so "good wins" and "bad losses" could be looked at) were still in flux" pointed to SOS, wins, and resume." Well the facts show, that Michigan state's was th b eneficiary of all of that, SOS, computer numbers, etc. all went up, and Miss St's all went down. That was your argument. Surely you would not change it? And you are making assumptions here abottu who has the better resume. Each have the same number of good wins, only now Mich St has a trump card on "better losses." Finally surely your argument is not that "the committee is not engaging in politics" right after they blind changed a ranking, that has direct political implications after lobbying from the Big Ten people on the committee, because there was no on the field reason for making the change they made, when all evidence show them actually playing politics.

You made assumptions. Reality shows those assumptions flawed, with the changes from the weekend results actually favoring Mich St. They should have gone up, if anything, based on those moves. However the final change, does not harm Mich St (they go to the Cotton Bowl instead of the Orange, and have a bigger name opponent), but it DOES benefit the conference they play in. That is th every definition of playing politics.

Sigh ... here's the full statement of what I said:

"There was a "football reason" for having Mississippi State move up past Michigan State: Mississippi State had the better body of work, and the CFP committee made it clear that they did not feel bound to follow the logic of the traditional polls, such that if team A was ahead of B one week, then if nothing happened in the following week, A would remain ahead of B. They reserved the right to re-evaluate bodies of work each week. Plus, even though Michigan State and Mississippi State didn't play the final weekend, factors like final SOS and who the final top 25 would be (so "good wins" and "bad losses" could be looked at) were still in flux."

See? That "plus" statement you cite is just one argument I made, it is not the only one. The other was:

"There was a "football reason" for having Mississippi State move up past Michigan State: Mississippi State had the better body of work, and the CFP committee made it clear that they did not feel bound to follow the logic of the traditional polls, such that if team A was ahead of B one week, then if nothing happened in the following week, A would remain ahead of B. They reserved the right to re-evaluate bodies of work each week."

So while you have indeed disproven the one argument I made about the committee possibly moving Mississippi State ahead of Michigan State because of final-week movement in SOS and top 25, the other argument still stands - the one about Mississippi State having the better body of work. And it is very solid:

1) Mississippi State has a better overall SOS

2) Mississippi State has the better wins (two wins vs top 25, compared to zero for Michigan State).

3) Mississippi State has the better "best loss", by 5 to #1 Alabama, and its "worst loss" is arguably no worse than Michigan State's worst loss.

4) In the final analysis, even with the last week's movement in the computers towards Michigan State, these computers have Mississippi State AHEAD of Michigan State.

Thus, Mississippi State has the better overall resume, a sound basis for ranking them ahead of Michigan State in a final poll, a poll in which the committee could have just taken a fresh look at the overall body of work.

The committee could very well have just been correcting a mistake.

Capiche?
(This post was last modified: 12-15-2014 03:19 PM by quo vadis.)
12-15-2014 03:10 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
adcorbett Offline
This F'n Guy
*

Posts: 14,325
Joined: Mar 2010
Reputation: 368
I Root For: Louisville
Location: Cybertron
Post: #25
RE: P5 payouts for non-CFP bowls
(12-15-2014 03:10 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  You actually did check, and found out that this movement actually favored Michigan State, not Mississippi State. Kudos, but this doesn't change the main thrust of my argument at all. Namely, what comes before the "plus" statement you latched on to:


No it does change it. Like I said, which is easier to believe: a team whose computers numbers went up was dropped because of an "oversight" the week before, or that a team who did not play was moved up, because both parties benefit? You can go round about all you want (which by the way, your rationale doesn't make the committee look any better when they say they goofed) but the simple fact is, the "football reasons" for the move THAT week, which you stated were there, were not. Because none of those changed from one week to the next. What DID change, was that Ohio State being in the playoff unexpectedly meant an opportunity that did not exist the week before to get the Big Ten two Access/Playoff slots AND keep the Citrus Bowl, DID appear. That was the change: the change that resulted in Miss St being moved up. You can continue to be naïve, and latch onto the things that did change during that week (which kill your argument) or you can see what everyone else does: that the move was made to benefit the Big Ten for non-football reasons. it also gives credence to those who have pointed out how the committee is worse than the BCS, because they can collude to dictate matchups with no rhyme or reason.

Capiche?
(This post was last modified: 12-15-2014 03:22 PM by adcorbett.)
12-15-2014 03:17 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
adcorbett Offline
This F'n Guy
*

Posts: 14,325
Joined: Mar 2010
Reputation: 368
I Root For: Louisville
Location: Cybertron
Post: #26
RE: P5 payouts for non-CFP bowls
For that matter, if I were a Big 12 fan, I would be concerned about this because it may shed light into how TCU dropped so far the final week. Even the best case scenario, your idea that they just messed up, and needed to correct it, makes them look incompetent. What if they also got the last ranking wrong as well? FTR I agree with Ohio State being in, I thought so a few weeks before. But either way, they were lobbied into making the change, or did so because of incompetence. I am honestly not sure which is worse?
12-15-2014 03:24 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Online
Legend
*

Posts: 50,020
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2377
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #27
RE: P5 payouts for non-CFP bowls
(12-15-2014 03:17 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  
(12-15-2014 03:10 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  You actually did check, and found out that this movement actually favored Michigan State, not Mississippi State. Kudos, but this doesn't change the main thrust of my argument at all. Namely, what comes before the "plus" statement you latched on to:


No it does change it. Like I said, which is easier to believe: a team whose computers numbers went up was dropped because of an "oversight" the week before, or that a team who did not play was moved up, because both parties benefit? You can go round about all you want (which by the way, your rationale doesn't make the committee look any better when they say they goofed) but the simple fact is, the "football reasons" for the move THAT week, which you stated were there, were not. Because none of those changed from one week to the next. What DID change, was that Ohio State being in the playoff unexpectedly meant an opportunity that did not exist the week before to get the Big Ten two Access/Playoff slots AND keep the Citrus Bowl, DID appear. That was the change: the change that resulted in Miss St being moved up. You can continue to be naïve, and latch onto the things that did change during that week (which kill your argument) or you can see what everyone else does: that the move was made to benefit the Big Ten for non-football reasons. it also gives credence to those who have pointed out how the committee is worse than the BCS, because they can collude to dictate matchups with no rhyme or reason.

Having already acknowledged that the final week movement actually favored Michigan State, not Mississippi State, here is the football reason that justifies the committee moving Mississippi State over Michigan State:

Mississippi State has a better overall body of work than Michigan State. The committee, taking extra care to 'get it right', since this was the final week to do so, the week when their poll would result in actual decisions about who goes where, took a second look, realized their mistake in having Michigan State previously ahead, and corrected it.


As for the politics: It is not clear how the B1G benefits from what happened. Yes, the B1G got to stay in the Citrus Bowl, but how important is this? Not important, here's why:

The OB arrangement is that any time the B1G plays in the Orange Bowl, it loses its spot in the Citrus Bowl to the ACC. If keeping the Citrus Bowl was really that vital, the implication would be that the B1G would want to minimize its appearances in the Orange Bowl, keep it down to three, the minimum called for by the contract.

But obviously that isn't what's best for the B1G. What's best is to play in the Orange Bowl as many times as it can - up to five. Because when it plays in the Orange Bowl, it cashes a fat $27.5 million check. In contrast, the Citrus Bowl pays just $4 million, peanuts by comparison. So it's in the B1G's interest to miss the Citrus Bowl as much as possible, because that means it is playing in the Orange Bowl.

And playing in another Access Bowl while keeping the Citrus doesn't help much, because the Access Bowls, including the Cotton that Michigan State is playing in, pays out no more than the Citrus - $4 million.

So instead of getting $27.5 million from the Orange, the B1G is getting a combined $8 million from the Cotton and Citrus. Not a very good trade.

So it's not clear why the B1G would want the SEC to get that fat Orange Bowl check. That just gives the SEC a leg up on getting the Orange Bowl more times than the B1G gets it, not good for the B1G.

BUT, just so you don't go crazily latching on to something tangential, like you did with the "what happened last week" thing, bear this in mind:

EVEN IF the politics of the situation was such that the B1G very much wanted Michigan State to slip behind Mississippi State so they could avoid the Orange Bowl, the fact that Mississippi State DESERVED A HIGHER RANKING ANYWAY means the committee very well could have moved MissSt up on that basis alone. After all, it was the right thing to do, irrespective of politics.
(This post was last modified: 12-15-2014 03:53 PM by quo vadis.)
12-15-2014 03:50 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.