Here's an interesting fact.

Over the last two years, three of the six BCS computer polls (Anderson-Hester, Billingsley & Colley Matrix) have:

1. Gotten all four playoff teams right both years
2. Ranked Boise in 2014 and Houston in 2015 as the best G5 teams

The same is true for the USA Today Coaches Poll.

Only a handful of other 117 ranking systems in the Massey Composite can say the same:

DeSimone
Hatch
Knight
Laz Index
Loudsound
Morgan
MJS Standings
MvG Sports
Phelan Power
Random Walker FL
Real Time RPI
Welch

On the Colley Matrix site, he updates a simulated BCS poll each week, with the AP replacing Harris. It not only got all 4 playoff teams right both years plus the best G5 team, it got all the matchups right (and almost all the seeds exactly right, except it switched the seeding in the Oregon/Florida St 2-3 semifinal in 2014).

The playoff was never needed. It was just a money grab. The only problem with the BCS was access for G5 members.

I never really liked the idea of a committee because I figured it would just allow for more "wink, wink, nudge nudge" type behavior, but so far their choices have seemed logical, and seeing that their results are close to what the BCS would have given us is comforting.

Not that hard to get the same schools when you are comparing 12-0 vs 10-2 or 11-1 vs 10-2.

(07-31-2016 08:39 AM)hawghiggs Wrote:  The playoff was never needed. It was just a money grab. The only problem with the BCS was access for G5 members.

Wrong. The playoff was needed and it showed in the very first playoff. The BCS would have been FSU vs Alabama in the title game. Both of those schools lost in the semifinal game.

Yeah, I think the folks that were in charge had MUCH more of an issue with Oklahoma St not getting a chance in 2011 than Alabama getting in. Having 4 is probably the best case scenario. a lot tougher for #5 to complain than it was #3 to complain.

(07-31-2016 08:40 AM)Chappy Wrote:  I never really liked the idea of a committee because I figured it would just allow for more "wink, wink, nudge nudge" type behavior, but so far their choices have seemed logical, and seeing that their results are close to what the BCS would have given us is comforting.

Also, a small committee gives you a less transparent process, which ends up having less public legitimacy over time. When a mathematical formula (like SAgarin for example) or the aggreggate of a large number of opinions (AP poll, Coaches poll) makes a controversial call, you can rage at the computers or the media or coaches in the abstract. When it's 10-12 individuals, you start raging at them personally.

There's an outside chance that a controversial call leads to a Harvey Updike type situation over the life of the CFP contract.

4 teams is perfect. It means a P5 will always be left out. This gives incentive to schedule tough games against G5 OOC, which improves the G5 exposure. If you had six automatic bids and went to 8, you would have a meaningless OOC schedule. G5 would schedule simply to go undefeated, meaning more FCS games.

At some point, you need to realize diminishing returns for expanded access. 4 teams provides the exposure while keeping inclusivity. Some years someone gets ****ed over, other years there will be undeserving 2 loss teams that squeak into the 3 or 4 hole and get hot for a couple games.

But 4 is the magic number until we consistently have 6 or 7 teams that are basically on even legs. That rarely happens consecutive years.

(07-31-2016 08:19 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  Here's an interesting fact.

Over the last two years, three of the six BCS computer polls (Anderson-Hester, Billingsley & Colley Matrix) have:

1. Gotten all four playoff teams right both years
2. Ranked Boise in 2014 and Houston in 2015 as the best G5 teams

The same is true for the USA Today Coaches Poll.

Only a handful of other 117 ranking systems in the Massey Composite can say the same:

DeSimone
Hatch
Knight
Laz Index
Loudsound
Morgan
MJS Standings
MvG Sports
Phelan Power
Random Walker FL
Real Time RPI
Welch

On the Colley Matrix site, he updates a simulated BCS poll each week, with the AP replacing Harris. It not only got all 4 playoff teams right both years plus the best G5 team, it got all the matchups right (and almost all the seeds exactly right, except it switched the seeding in the Oregon/Florida St 2-3 semifinal in 2014).

Or maybe the playoff committee and these computer polls got it wrong and most of the others got it right. TCU was rated ahead of Ohio St. in most computer polls. Ohio St. was rated behind Alabama and Oregon in almost all the polls.

There are different biases. The recency effect is much stronger in the committee. And its more dependent on the group since it is smaller. There have been a couple of conservative running style coaches on the committee and those type of teams have been favored more than in the traditional polls. There is less emphasis on record and more bias in favor of traditional names. There seems to be more emphasis on quality wins as opposed to overall SOS.

The problem with 2 years ago with TCU was end of the day, they were not the team that was being compared with Ohio St. Baylor was. And Baylor had no chance given their garbage OOC schedule that year. If TCU had beaten Baylor(but lost to someone else), they would have had a far greater shot to make the playoffs.

(07-31-2016 08:53 AM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  

(07-31-2016 08:39 AM)hawghiggs Wrote:  The playoff was never needed. It was just a money grab. The only problem with the BCS was access for G5 members.

Wrong. The playoff was needed and it showed in the very first playoff. The BCS would have been FSU vs Alabama in the title game. Both of those schools lost in the semifinal game.

No its not wrong. The problem with a playoff is a greater risk of injury for the players. Ohio state should not have been in the game. They lost to an unranked Virginia team that year and played a weak a$$ big ten schedule that season. They would have just had to settle for Rose bowl champion. Which is awesome in its own right.

(07-31-2016 09:08 AM)bullet Wrote:  Or maybe the playoff committee and these computer polls got it wrong and most of the others got it right. TCU was rated ahead of Ohio St. in most computer polls. Ohio St. was rated behind Alabama and Oregon in almost all the polls.

Actually, if you look at all the computers, Ohio State was consensus Top 4 in 2014.

So was TCU.

Who was 5th? 13-0 defending National Champion Florida St.

(07-31-2016 10:08 AM)hawghiggs Wrote:  

(07-31-2016 08:53 AM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  

(07-31-2016 08:39 AM)hawghiggs Wrote:  The playoff was never needed. It was just a money grab. The only problem with the BCS was access for G5 members.

Wrong. The playoff was needed and it showed in the very first playoff. The BCS would have been FSU vs Alabama in the title game. Both of those schools lost in the semifinal game.

No its not wrong. The problem with a playoff is a greater risk of injury for the players. Ohio state should not have been in the game. They lost to an unranked Virginia team that year and played a weak a$$ big ten schedule that season. They would have just had to settle for Rose bowl champion. Which is awesome in its own right.

Absulet the playoff was needed....smh...the 2014 champ would not have been OSU if the BCS was used.. lol

(07-31-2016 10:57 AM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  

(07-31-2016 10:08 AM)hawghiggs Wrote:  

(07-31-2016 08:53 AM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  

(07-31-2016 08:39 AM)hawghiggs Wrote:  The playoff was never needed. It was just a money grab. The only problem with the BCS was access for G5 members.

Wrong. The playoff was needed and it showed in the very first playoff. The BCS would have been FSU vs Alabama in the title game. Both of those schools lost in the semifinal game.

No its not wrong. The problem with a playoff is a greater risk of injury for the players. Ohio state should not have been in the game. They lost to an unranked Virginia team that year and played a weak a$$ big ten schedule that season. They would have just had to settle for Rose bowl champion. Which is awesome in its own right.

Absulet the playoff was needed....smh...the 2014 champ would not have been OSU if the BCS was used.. lol

But the BCS rankings had OSU in the top four, that's the point. Or a point, anyway.

There are two different arguments.

top 2 vs top 4
BCS rankings vs playoff committee rankings.

If you combine the AP poll and Coaches poll, like the BCS rankings did before the AP opted out, then the combined human poll has picked the exact same 8 teams for the playoffs as has the CFP committee.

And they've even had the seedings the same, with one meaningless exception: In 2014, the combined human poll had FSU #2 and Oregon #3, whereas the CFP had those two switched around.

(07-31-2016 12:25 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  If you combine the AP poll and Coaches poll, like the BCS rankings did before the AP opted out, then the combined human poll has picked the exact same 8 teams for the playoffs as has the CFP committee.

And they've even had the seedings the same, with one meaningless exception: In 2014, the combined human poll had FSU #2 and Oregon #3, whereas the CFP had those two switched around.

Nitpick--are you sure you're looking at an aggregate of just the two human polls, or the MAssey composite that duplicates the entire BCS formula, including SOS & computer polls?

Not sure it makes a real difference, as everybody seemed pretty content with the BCS rankings by the end, and discontent was focused on 2 teams not being enough and on the BCS bowls picking lower-ranked teams (Michigan vs VT Sugar Bowl while Kansas State and Boise pounded sand)

Football is an entertainment business. At the end of the day, what matters is whether the teams selected are the ones the most viewers want to watch, not which teams "deserve" to be there, or which are the "strongest" (however one defines those words).

Most deserving will always trump strongest in almost all instances. That's how LSU vaulted from 7 to 2 to crush OSU in the title game back in 07 or 08. TCU might have had a case, but the head to head loss was basically used as a tie breaker in 2014 which is stupid IMO considering the close result on the road.

I felt OSU was the most deserving considering the injuries and dominance in the back half of the year, shaky rivalry game versus UM aside. But because head to head is such a definitive measure that removes all subjectivity, it was OSU versus Baylor and clearly OSU was more qualified.

TCU might have won the title though. We will never know.

(07-31-2016 09:08 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-31-2016 08:19 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  Here's an interesting fact.

Over the last two years, three of the six BCS computer polls (Anderson-Hester, Billingsley & Colley Matrix) have:

1. Gotten all four playoff teams right both years
2. Ranked Boise in 2014 and Houston in 2015 as the best G5 teams

The same is true for the USA Today Coaches Poll.

Only a handful of other 117 ranking systems in the Massey Composite can say the same:

DeSimone
Hatch
Knight
Laz Index
Loudsound
Morgan
MJS Standings
MvG Sports
Phelan Power
Random Walker FL
Real Time RPI
Welch

On the Colley Matrix site, he updates a simulated BCS poll each week, with the AP replacing Harris. It not only got all 4 playoff teams right both years plus the best G5 team, it got all the matchups right (and almost all the seeds exactly right, except it switched the seeding in the Oregon/Florida St 2-3 semifinal in 2014).

Or maybe the playoff committee and these computer polls got it wrong and most of the others got it right. TCU was rated ahead of Ohio St. in most computer polls. Ohio St. was rated behind Alabama and Oregon in almost all the polls.

There are different biases. The recency effect is much stronger in the committee. And its more dependent on the group since it is smaller. There have been a couple of conservative running style coaches on the committee and those type of teams have been favored more than in the traditional polls. There is less emphasis on record and more bias in favor of traditional names. There seems to be more emphasis on quality wins as opposed to overall SOS.

Interesting... Food for thought.

it doesn't have much to do with the traditional names- but moreso on traditional offenses. Sorry but there are a lot of coaches who see the spread offense about the same as folks saw the run and shoot years ago.

And look at this year. Tom Osbourne is gone- but who replaces him? Lloyd Carr.