It would appear that after much controversy and compelling arguments for all sides that putting OSU in ahead of the B12 winners has possibly vindicated the committee, proving they were right to do so. This year has been more of a trial run with set parameters; so I guess my question is, does the championship game become standard for arguments regarding inclusion the same way that court rulings set precedence for future Rulings? If so, how does this impact the future of college football? How does Ohio State winning change the committee's decisions?
How does this vindicate the committee? It shows two things.
1. Ohio State belonged in the tournament.
2. The other three teams might not have belonged there after all.
Beyond that, any other conclusion is just speculation.
I think the controversy was fairly mild (outside of Big 12 partisans) compared to some of the heated debates in the BCS years.
There was some simple logic this year: 12-1 with a conference championship game is better than 11-1 without a conference championship game. When all things are equal, the conference champion that played an extra game gets precedent if only because that IS mathematically more difficult. Most of us could wrap our minds around that concept fairly easily, so I don't think it was that tough of a decision to leave either Baylor or TCU out this year compared to the others.
The bigger test for the CFP Committee in the future is when things are NOT equal. Does an 11-2 power conference champ deserve to be in the playoff over an 11-1 team that didn't win its conference (or even its division)? I don't think we have a clear answer to that.
I think 1 major thing the playoffs did was vindicate the committee in what they did with FSU- not making them an automatic 1 seed just because they were undefeated.
The biggest problem is not the committee's final rankings. It's the discrepancies from the previous rankings and the strange fluctuations in-season that gave us the impression -- a correct impression, as far as I can tell -- that the committee was just spitballing all of the in-season rankings and only got really serious for the final ranking.
(01-13-2015 12:10 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote: [ -> ]I think the controversy was fairly mild (outside of Big 12 partisans) compared to some of the heated debates in the BCS years.
There was some simple logic this year: 12-1 with a conference championship game is better than 11-1 without a conference championship game. When all things are equal, the conference champion that played an extra game gets precedent if only because that IS mathematically more difficult. Most of us could wrap our minds around that concept fairly easily, so I don't think it was that tough of a decision to leave either Baylor or TCU out this year compared to the others.
The bigger test for the CFP Committee in the future is when things are NOT equal. Does an 11-2 power conference champ deserve to be in the playoff over an 11-1 team that didn't win its conference (or even its division)? I don't think we have a clear answer to that.
Yup.
(01-13-2015 12:10 PM)stever20 Wrote: [ -> ]I think 1 major thing the playoffs did was vindicate the committee in what they did with FSU- not making them an automatic 1 seed just because they were undefeated.
On the other hand, you could say that if they had carried that logic a little further, they could have concluded that FSU was not only not the best team, but that they weren't even one of the four best teams this year. The Noles were blown out in the semis by a team that was itself blown out in the finals. It's hard, with 20/20 hindsight, to say that FSU was better than TCU, or even Baylor or Michigan State. Even without that hindsight, many people doubted FSU's credentials.
(01-13-2015 12:10 PM)stever20 Wrote: [ -> ]I think 1 major thing the playoffs did was vindicate the committee in what they did with FSU- not making them an automatic 1 seed just because they were undefeated.
I've been a critic of the Committee quite a bit and I still have a lot of misgivings of its use.
However, the one *good* thing that the Committee did was avoid the simple ranking by inertia (i.e. you kept your spot simply because you won). That's something that the AP Poll has been known for, which means that teams that won a big game early in the season got a disproportionate advantage (as they could get lodged into a high ranking and then keep it even while beating pedestrian teams later in the year). The Committee really did seem to make an effort to take into account the fact that the teams that were playing high stakes games in the last week of the season (particularly Ohio State vs. Wisconsin and Baylor vs. Kansas State) weren't going to get artificially blocked by schools like TCU that played their tougher games in earlier in the year simply because of how the rankings were in the prior week. (Note that I'm not criticizing TCU, who could have beaten anyone this season. However, I'm just saying that it was refreshing to see that the Committee stayed true to its word in reviewing the *entire* resume of teams at the end of the year, including confirming the results of conference championships and tough late-season games, instead of saying, "If you win, you get to keep your place in the rankings no matter what the teams below you did.")
(01-13-2015 12:12 PM)Wedge Wrote: [ -> ]The biggest problem is not the committee's final rankings. It's the discrepancies from the previous rankings and the strange fluctuations in-season that gave us the impression -- a correct impression, as far as I can tell -- that the committee was just spitballing all of the in-season rankings and only got really serious for the final ranking.
The thing with that though is they were showing what the ratings were if the season had ended right then. Take TCU for instance, compared to just Baylor. next to last week of the season- TCU did have a better resume vs Baylor. But last weekend- While TCU played last place Iowa St, Baylor played Kansas St. That's a huge difference. Just because they made a change later doesn't mean as of the moment they did it before that it was wrong.
(01-13-2015 12:12 PM)Wedge Wrote: [ -> ]The biggest problem is not the committee's final rankings. It's the discrepancies from the previous rankings and the strange fluctuations in-season that gave us the impression -- a correct impression, as far as I can tell -- that the committee was just spitballing all of the in-season rankings and only got really serious for the final ranking.
Yea, I don't like how they did that. They shouldn't have had TCU 3rd to begin with, if they didn't think TCU would still be in it after destroying the opponent in their final game. They already knew who TCU was playing. It just looked stupid.
I agree with the other poster, that it showed that OSU belonged but we don't really know about the other 3.
(01-13-2015 12:22 PM)stever20 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-13-2015 12:12 PM)Wedge Wrote: [ -> ]The biggest problem is not the committee's final rankings. It's the discrepancies from the previous rankings and the strange fluctuations in-season that gave us the impression -- a correct impression, as far as I can tell -- that the committee was just spitballing all of the in-season rankings and only got really serious for the final ranking.
The thing with that though is they were showing what the ratings were if the season had ended right then. Take TCU for instance, compared to just Baylor. next to last week of the season- TCU did have a better resume vs Baylor. But last weekend- While TCU played last place Iowa St, Baylor played Kansas St. That's a huge difference. Just because they made a change later doesn't mean as of the moment they did it before that it was wrong.
Exactly. Like I've said, that's the one thing that I really ADMIRED the Committee for. I feared that they would simply use the AP Poll approach of the law of inertia and just keep teams in the same spot as long as they kept winning without taking into the larger context (whether it's fluctuating strength of schedule, the fact that it's confirmed someone has won a conference championship or not, etc.).
The Big 12 tried to play shenanigans by naming phony co-champions, when Baylor should have been the singular champion. This was all to try and squeeze TCU into the playoffs.
It came off as bush league, and they got what they deserved. And the best team won the championship, so it didn't matter in the end.
(01-13-2015 12:12 PM)Wedge Wrote: [ -> ]The biggest problem is not the committee's final rankings. It's the discrepancies from the previous rankings and the strange fluctuations in-season that gave us the impression -- a correct impression, as far as I can tell -- that the committee was just spitballing all of the in-season rankings and only got really serious for the final ranking.
I think they opened the door for reasonable people to assume that their final decision was not so much a case of finally getting serious as it was holding their finger to the wind to see which way public opinion (and the wishes of the people paying the piper) was moving.
(01-13-2015 12:28 PM)ken d Wrote: [ -> ] (01-13-2015 12:12 PM)Wedge Wrote: [ -> ]The biggest problem is not the committee's final rankings. It's the discrepancies from the previous rankings and the strange fluctuations in-season that gave us the impression -- a correct impression, as far as I can tell -- that the committee was just spitballing all of the in-season rankings and only got really serious for the final ranking.
I think they opened the door for reasonable people to assume that their final decision was not so much a case of finally getting serious as it was holding their finger to the wind to see which way public opinion (and the wishes of the people paying the piper) was moving.
And to make money on those juicy Tuesday evening ranking release telecasts.
(01-13-2015 12:23 PM)NIU007 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-13-2015 12:12 PM)Wedge Wrote: [ -> ]The biggest problem is not the committee's final rankings. It's the discrepancies from the previous rankings and the strange fluctuations in-season that gave us the impression -- a correct impression, as far as I can tell -- that the committee was just spitballing all of the in-season rankings and only got really serious for the final ranking.
Yea, I don't like how they did that. They shouldn't have had TCU 3rd to begin with, if they didn't think TCU would still be in it after destroying the opponent in their final game. They already knew who TCU was playing. It just looked stupid.
I agree with the other poster, that it showed that OSU belonged but we don't really know about the other 3.
I don't think that it looked stupid at all. If the Committee is supposed to only take into account the confirmed results up to that point in time, then it's perfectly logical. Baylor hadn't played Kansas State and the QB situation at Ohio State was completely in flux. The fact that TCU had played its tougher games earlier in the season should NOT be an advantage over teams that played their toughest games in the last week of the season if the Committee is doing what it's supposed to do. TCU's confirmed resume in week 13 was better than Ohio State's and Baylor's resumes in week 13. However, that changed with the confirmed resumes in week 14 and that was reflected in the rankings.
What you seem to be asking for the Committee to do is *project* future results (i.e. TCU should only be ranked #3 if they're guaranteed to stay at #3 if they win the rest of their games). I don't agree with that opinion.
The fact that the committee's #4 seed that barely got in, ended up winning the whole thing, is a strong argument the playoffs should be expanded to 5 teams with a play-in game.
(01-13-2015 12:34 PM)goofus Wrote: [ -> ]The fact that the committee's #4 seed that barely got in, ended up winning the whole thing, is a strong argument the playoffs should be expanded to 5 teams with a play-in game.
Play-in games seem to be a "little bit pregnant" approach, particularly when it comes to football. I understand the sentiment (namely to keep some air of playoff exclusivity), but that's not the name of the game. If there's going to be a playoff expansion, then there will be a playoff EXPANSION (meaning 8 teams). Just look at the ratings: the CFP this year now constitutes the 3 most watched cable TV programs EVER. An 8-team playoff would provide an inventory of 7 of those types of games every year (4 quarterfinals, 2 semifinals and 1 championship game). The TV money plus automatic bids for the 5 power conferences are what will drive future playoff expansion.
I think they got it mostly right but that their one big mistake was choosing FSU over TCU.
(01-13-2015 12:22 PM)stever20 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-13-2015 12:12 PM)Wedge Wrote: [ -> ]The biggest problem is not the committee's final rankings. It's the discrepancies from the previous rankings and the strange fluctuations in-season that gave us the impression -- a correct impression, as far as I can tell -- that the committee was just spitballing all of the in-season rankings and only got really serious for the final ranking.
The thing with that though is they were showing what the ratings were if the season had ended right then. Take TCU for instance, compared to just Baylor. next to last week of the season- TCU did have a better resume vs Baylor. But last weekend- While TCU played last place Iowa St, Baylor played Kansas St. That's a huge difference. Just because they made a change later doesn't mean as of the moment they did it before that it was wrong.
The problem I have with that is that is not what the committee was charged with doing. It was not even what they themselves said they would do. What they had said from the beginning was that their charge was to pick the four best teams. Not the teams with the best resume, or best "body of work". Not the champions of the four best conferences, or even the four best conference champions. Just the four best teams. And in the end, that is not what they did.
You can argue, and your argument would be as valid as anyone else's, that the four teams they picked were in fact the four best. If that is true, then it is only by happy accident. The committee had the luxury of knowing that nobody could ever prove them wrong. You could just as validly argue that in the end they fell back on exactly the kind of logic other ranking methods have applied for decades, not because it is sounder logic, but because it is easier to justify.
(01-13-2015 12:46 PM)ken d Wrote: [ -> ] (01-13-2015 12:22 PM)stever20 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-13-2015 12:12 PM)Wedge Wrote: [ -> ]The biggest problem is not the committee's final rankings. It's the discrepancies from the previous rankings and the strange fluctuations in-season that gave us the impression -- a correct impression, as far as I can tell -- that the committee was just spitballing all of the in-season rankings and only got really serious for the final ranking.
The thing with that though is they were showing what the ratings were if the season had ended right then. Take TCU for instance, compared to just Baylor. next to last week of the season- TCU did have a better resume vs Baylor. But last weekend- While TCU played last place Iowa St, Baylor played Kansas St. That's a huge difference. Just because they made a change later doesn't mean as of the moment they did it before that it was wrong.
The problem I have with that is that is not what the committee was charged with doing. It was not even what they themselves said they would do. What they had said from the beginning was that their charge was to pick the four best teams. Not the teams with the best resume, or best "body of work". Not the champions of the four best conferences, or even the four best conference champions. Just the four best teams. And in the end, that is not what they did.
You can argue, and your argument would be as valid as anyone else's, that the four teams they picked were in fact the four best. If that is true, then it is only by happy accident. The committee had the luxury of knowing that nobody could ever prove them wrong. You could just as validly argue that in the end they fell back on exactly the kind of logic other ranking methods have applied for decades, not because it is sounder logic, but because it is easier to justify.
The thing though is- Baylor did beat Kansas St leading 38-20. Pretty damn impressive. FSU did beat Ga Tech best team they played all year long and looked the best they had looked all year long. Pretty impressive. Ohio St waxed Wisconsin 59-0. Very impressive. Meanwhile that weekend TCU played iowa st. TCU could have beaten them 100-0 and it's not as impressive as what the other teams did. and it was so close between 3-6 that would matter signifigantly.