My biggest problem with the committee is that no one knows what they have to do to get in the playoff.

It's become LESS transparent with the College Football Playoff, literally made behind closed doors.

How they handled this year was absurd on MANY levels....the subjective nature of it just proves one point: There is no true logic to the process. TCU was #3 and got booted out in '14. FSU was undefeated and was as low as #4 that year...an undefeated defending National Champ on the verge of getting booted from the playoff. This year, you had the Penn St-Ohio St argument to most fans, but ESPN and media tried to make it between Michigan-Washington-Penn State for #4.

I'm still wondering how Ohio State is ahead of WASHINGTON. Haven't quite figured that out yet.

I really don't understand what the rules are for the committee....it's bad for the sport. AT LEAST with the BCS rankings you had a notion of who could pass who....

Either that or define some type of rules:

The first 3 spots go to the top 3 conference champs
#4 is to At-Large

Do something that lets fans, teams, and coaches know where they are, and what they have to do to get in the playoff!

OR create a list of criteria....if teams are comparable, you go down the list as a litany of tiebreakers.

1. W/L - team with better W/L gets in
2. Head-to-head - Team winning head 2 head gets in
3. Conference Champ - Team with Conference Championship gets in
4. SOS - Team with better Strength of Schedule gets in

That's all you need....those 4 simple guidelines

Ohio State had the better W/L, so it's obvious they get in above Penn State....then EVERYONE is on the same page on what is expected. Washington has a better record and Conference Champ over Ohio State....they should be #3

The committee as it is right now is a joke....The Playoff is good, how it's decided is dumb....keep trying college football

Sorry but there's no way that Washington is better than Ohio St.
Ohio St has 3 top 10 wins.
Washington has 1 top 10 win and 3 top 25 wins.

beating Oklahoma, Wisconsin, and Michigan just means more than beating Colorado(who Michigan beat), Utah, and Stanford.

SOS in Sagarin- Ohio St is #7, Washington #41

The bottom line is simple, Ohio St and Washington WEREN'T comparable. It was crystal clear that Ohio St was better than Washington.

I reject EV's proposal on its face.

I refuse to throw the baby out with the bathwater, which is exactly what his proposal is. I do not accept the rigidity of an algorithm, just for the sake of transparency.


No.

I agree. I'm fine with the 4 picked. I am very confused about what they want though.

I don't mind that Washington is #4 and Ohio State is #3.

To me, the issue comes to the head to head and conference championship deal. I'm a firm believer that if you can't even win your conference you shouldn't be playing for the National Title. Not in a 4 team playoff.

There is no doubt that Ohio State has the cred, but Penn State had won 9 in a row. Beat 2 top 10 teams to include Ohio State in that streak and won the B1G to top it off.

If they hadn't lost to Michigan by 39 they would have been in. The Committee basically said as much.

(12-05-2016 11:56 AM)AubTiger16 Wrote:  I am very confused about what they want though.

The four best teams for the CFP. Simple as that.

There's no good reason we should bind their hands with rigid rules, just so we can "better understand" their decision. That will give sub-optimal results.

(12-05-2016 11:39 AM)stever20 Wrote:  Sorry but there's no way that Washington is better than Ohio St.
Ohio St has 3 top 10 wins.
Washington has 1 top 10 win and 3 top 25 wins.

beating Oklahoma, Wisconsin, and Michigan just means more than beating Colorado(who Michigan beat), Utah, and Stanford.

SOS in Sagarin- Ohio St is #7, Washington #41

The bottom line is simple, Ohio St and Washington WEREN'T comparable. It was crystal clear that Ohio St was better than Washington.

So you are evaluating everything on SOS?

Or are you evaluating W/L first, and THEN SOS??

The decision making process needs to be easily explained by the committee....that's my point

...and when you say "better", we don't know who is better unless the play it out on the field. You speculate they are better because of the different factors involved in their "resume".

Penn State was better than Ohio State after 60 minutes of play....so obviously W/L trumps head2head and conference championship. However, conference championships and the 13th data point is what got Ohio State in back in '14.

The lack of explainable logic by the committee is laughable

(12-05-2016 12:02 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-05-2016 11:56 AM)AubTiger16 Wrote:  I am very confused about what they want though.

The four best teams for the CFP. Simple as that.

There's no good reason we should bind their hands with rigid rules, just so we can "better understand" their decision. That will give sub-optimal results.

That's the confusing part .

I added more to the post to better explain.

Michigan/Penn State had better credentials in my opinion than Washington did. Like I said, I'm fine with it but Penn State had the best win in College Football this season. Won 9 in a row. Beat 2 top 10 teams and an additional top 25 team. Won the B1G which was the strongest conference at the top this season. Penn State's SOS was 40. Where Washington with 50+. That loss to Michigan by 39 doomed them.

Michigan had 2 losses by a combined 4 points. They also beat 3 top 10 teams.

Does the Conference Championship matter? Does the head to head matter? Does SOS matter? Does overall resume'?

My conclusion is that it all does and it doesn't. It comes down to the name on the front of the jersey.

(12-05-2016 12:02 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-05-2016 11:56 AM)AubTiger16 Wrote:  I am very confused about what they want though.

The four best teams for the CFP. Simple as that.

There's no good reason we should bind their hands with rigid rules, just so we can "better understand" their decision. That will give sub-optimal results.

All other major sports have postseason races that are easily explainable

College football has 'Wizard of Oz' syndrome, where anything the committee says magically works

Every P5 KNOWS what they need to do to get a spot in the top 4...go undefeated. That may not get you the #1 seed, but you will get a spot.

Failing that, everyone (AGAIN) knows what anyone (let alone the committee) would consider a strong resume for inclusion: Best W-L record, conference championship, strong OOC wins/few bad losses and head 2 head.

So they are not putting out their criteria? I say, good for them! Forces you do everything well, vice trying to game the system.

If the most "shocking" thing the committee has done is rank undefeated FSU as #3 (non-issue), then the committee has gotten the 4 best teams correct 3 years straight.

Wake me up when the a team that has a better W-L, strong OOC wins and conf championship gets left out over an included team.

(12-05-2016 12:09 PM)AubTiger16 Wrote:  My conclusion is that it all does and it doesn't. It comes down to the name on the front of the jersey.

The committee did a perfect job of setting up attractive matchups for the CFP bowls. Teams from B1G, PAC, SEC, and ACC country. Only thing better would have been to have Ohio St.-Washington in the Rose Bowl and Alabama-Clemson in the Peach bowl.

(12-05-2016 12:09 PM)AubTiger16 Wrote:  

(12-05-2016 12:02 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-05-2016 11:56 AM)AubTiger16 Wrote:  I am very confused about what they want though.

The four best teams for the CFP. Simple as that.

There's no good reason we should bind their hands with rigid rules, just so we can "better understand" their decision. That will give sub-optimal results.

That's the confusing part .

I added more to the post to better explain.

Michigan/Penn State had better credentials in my opinion than Washington did. Like I said, I'm fine with it but Penn State had the best win in College Football this season. Won 9 in a row. Beat 2 top 10 teams and an additional top 25 team. Won the B1G which was the strongest conference at the top this season. Penn State's SOS was 40. Where Washington with 50+. That loss to Michigan by 39 doomed them.

Michigan had 2 losses by a combined 4 points. They also beat 3 top 10 teams.

Does the Conference Championship matter? Does the head to head matter? Does SOS matter? Does overall resume'?

My conclusion is that it all does and it doesn't. It comes down to the name on the front of the jersey.

EXACTLY

ALL I'm asking for is a reasonable set of criteria....don't tell me who the "BEST" teams are....that's subjective and relative.

Are we going by W/L first? what is THE first factor. What then? do we compare conference championships? head 2 head? what is the process?

If there is a mix of factors, like the BCS rankings, let's go off that....

Or pick the top 3 conf. champs and top at-large

Right now, the process is unexplainable. The structure is better than the BCS, the decision of the teams is worse

(12-05-2016 12:12 PM)wleakr Wrote:  Every P5 KNOWS what they need to do to get a spot in the top 4...go undefeated. That may not get you the #1 seed, but you will get a spot.

Failing that, everyone (AGAIN) knows what anyone (let alone the committee) would consider a strong resume for inclusion: Best W-L record, conference championship, strong OOC wins/few bad losses and head 2 head.

So they are not putting out their criteria? I say, good for them! Forces you do everything well, vice trying to game the system.

If the most "shocking" thing the committee has done is rank undefeated FSU as #3 (non-issue), then the committee has gotten the 4 best teams correct 3 years straight.

Wake me up when the a team that has a better W-L, strong OOC wins and conf championship gets left out over an included team.

W/L record is flawed.

Some programs with 2-3 losses played a top 10 schedule. Yet, some programs with 1 loss played a 50-60 SOS.

So basically the equation is this.

4 OOC opponents that are horrible + 4 games in conference against below avg competition + 3 conference games against above avg but not great competition + 1 top 10 opponent win or lose and a conference championship.

Looks doable if everyone chips in. We can take turns going to the playoffs.

I agree with the OP, this process needs to be scrutinized by the public. I would really love to see the logic of how Clemson is rated high than Washington but we are too stupid to see that.

And in terms of do we have the best four teams in the country playing. It's hard to say that we do. I'm not sure what team everyone else has been watching but I absolutely GUARANTEE you that no one would bet their car on Clemson vs Wisconsin, Penn State, USC, Washington, or Michigan. Yet, they are ranked higher than all of those teams.

(12-05-2016 12:12 PM)wleakr Wrote:  Failing that, everyone (AGAIN) knows what anyone (let alone the committee) would consider a strong resume for inclusion: Best W-L record, conference championship, strong OOC wins/few bad losses and head 2 head.

Apparently not...Conference Championships were more valued in '14, not so much this year

Head 2 Head not as important as W/L I guess

(12-05-2016 12:21 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  I agree with the OP, this process needs to be scrutinized by the public. I would really love to see the logic of how Clemson is rated high than Washington but we are too stupid to see that.

And in terms of do we have the best four teams in the country playing. It's hard to say that we do. I'm not sure what team everyone else has been watching but I absolutely GUARANTEE you that no one would bet their car on Clemson vs Wisconsin, Penn State, USC, Washington, or Michigan. Yet, they are ranked higher than all of those teams.

I will agree that we have 4 of the true top 10 teams playing on the playoffs this season. That much I can 100% say. I don't know if we have 1-4. Like I said though, I am fine with it. I would have been fine with Bama, Michigan, Penn State and Ohio State. I am just like most though. I wanna see something defined.

(12-05-2016 12:21 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  I agree with the OP, this process needs to be scrutinized by the public. I would really love to see the logic of how Clemson is rated high than Washington but we are too stupid to see that.

And in terms of do we have the best four teams in the country playing. It's hard to say that we do. I'm not sure what team everyone else has been watching but I absolutely GUARANTEE you that no one would bet their car on Clemson vs Wisconsin, Penn State, USC, Washington, or Michigan. Yet, they are ranked higher than all of those teams.

It is so hard to evaluate how different areas of the country would play against each other....that's why the idea of "Best Teams" in college football is often wrong. Oklahoma and Penn State are playing a lot better than how they were at the beginning of the season....Houston and Louisville? not so much

I don't have a problem putting Washington at #2...I really don't know what the knock on them is. Wow, they played a weak Rutgers team, that every B1G East team played....

College Football continues to have the most frustrating postseason process ever

The reason they look like idiots is because they have to go out there midweek a half-dozen times on ESPN and contradict themselves from the previous time. They probably wish they were on the basketball committee who only gets interviewed once by CBS

(12-05-2016 12:16 PM)EvilVodka Wrote:  EXACTLY

ALL I'm asking for is a reasonable set of criteria....don't tell me who the "BEST" teams are....that's subjective and relative.

Are we going by W/L first? what is THE first factor. What then? do we compare conference championships? head 2 head? what is the process?

If there is a mix of factors, like the BCS rankings, let's go off that....

Or pick the top 3 conf. champs and top at-large

Right now, the process is unexplainable. The structure is better than the BCS, the decision of the teams is worse

The Selection Committee compares resumes, it doesn't use mathematical formulas or a strict order of review.

What the committee showed this year is that head-to-head and conference championship, while important factors, are not determinative.

ALABAMA
overall: 13-0
v. top-10: 1-0
v. top-25: 5-0
v. others: 8-0
Quality Wins: #9 USC, #14 Auburn, #17 Florida, #20 LSU, #21 Tennessee
Quality Losses: none
Bad Losses: none
Conference Champ

CLEMSON
overall: 12-1
v. top-10: 0-0
v. top-25: 4-1
v. others: 8-0
Quality Wins: #11 FSU, #13 Louisville, #14 Auburn, #22 Virginia Tech
Quality Losses: #23 Pitt
Bad Losses: none
Conference Champ

OHIO STATE
overall: 11-1
v. top-10: 3-1
v. top-25: 3-1
v. others: 8-0
Quality Wins: #6 Michigan, #6 Oklahoma, #8 Wisconsin
Quality Losses: #5 Penn St.
Bad Losses: none

WASHINGTON
overall: 12-1
v. top-10: 1-1
v. top-25: 3-1
v. others: 9-0
Quality Wins: #10 Colorado, #18 Stanford, #19 Utah
Quality Losses: #9 USC
Bad Losses: none
Conference Champion

PENN STATE
overall: 11-2
v. top-10: 2-1
v. top-25: 3-2
v. others: 8-0
Quality Wins: #3 Ohio St., #8 Wisconsin, #24 Temple
Quality Losses: #6 Michigan, #23 Pitt
Bad Losses: None
Conference Champion

MICHIGAN
overall: 10-2
v. top-10: 3-1
v. top-25: 3-1
v. others: 7-1
Quality Wins: #5 Penn St., #8 Wisconsin, #10 Colorado
Quality Losses: #3 Ohio St.
Bad Losses: NR Iowa

OKLAHOMA
Overall: 10-2
v. top-10: 0-1
v. top-25: 2-1
v. others: 8-1
Quality Wins: #12 Oklahoma St., #16 WVU
Quality Losses: #3 Ohio St.
Bad Losses: NR Houston

WESTERN MICHIGAN
Overall: 13-0
v. top-10: 0-0
v. top-25: 0-0
v. others: 13-0
Quality Wins: None
Quality Losses: None
Bad Losses: None
Conference champion

WEST VIRGINIA
Overall: 10-2
v. top-10: 0-1
v. top-25: 0-2
v. others: 10-0
Quality Wins: None
Quality Losses: #7 Oklahoma, #12 Oklahoma St.
Bad Losses: None

(12-05-2016 12:34 PM)bronconick Wrote:  The reason they look like idiots is because they have to go out there midweek a half-dozen times on ESPN and contradict themselves from the previous time. They probably wish they were on the basketball committee who only gets interviewed once by CBS

That's my single biggest criticism of the system. They talk too much. I would prefer that the committee announce their decision, listing the four teams they want to invite to the tournament in alphabetical order. Then, have someone draw names out of a hat to decide who plays whom.

The less talk about why they invited those four team the better.

It really comes down to this IMO:

If you really want to play a real playoff tournament to determine a true national champion, one half of Division I already does: FCS.

If you really want to play one glorified exhibition game at the end of the season so your players get a participation Beats by Dre, etc., the other half of Division I does: FBS.

All this moaning and crying about the CFP is:

YMMV.