CSNbbs

(01-03-2018 01:32 PM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-03-2018 11:48 AM)ken d Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-03-2018 11:30 AM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-03-2018 11:22 AM)ken d Wrote: [ -> ]Well, having listened to all the arguments posed here, I'm now prepared to concede that the playoff selection committee is biased - bought and paid for. I think it's time we toss them aside and replace them with a group of unbiased ratings. Let's take the AP Poll, coaches' Poll, Massey, Colley and Sagarin rankings. Throw out each team's highest and lowest rankings, and average the rest. That should take the bias out of the selection process.

To show how well that would have worked, the final four teams would have been, in order from #1 to #4, Clemson, Oklahoma, Georgia and Alabama, instead of that holy mess the selection committee came up with.

And the next four teams, who would have missed the playoff under this new system, were, in order, Ohio State, Wisconsin, Auburn and USC. Now, I admit that's pretty much the order the CFP had them. But at least it was arrived at in an unbiased way.

And UCF still would have been #12.

Now that I read this, I begin to wonder if that isn't exactly the methodology the selection committee used to arrive at its ranking. Hmmm.......

The problem is the polls were trying to mirror the selection committee process. The system is fine. Its simply been corrupted by stacking the committee. If the committee is so fair and equitable and is arriving at the same decision that anyone would--then why not make it a 10 member committee with one representative from each FBS conference. Surely, if the committee is so fair and reasonable--a body composed of one representative from each conference would reach the same fair and reasonable conclusions--but withut the apeparance of bias? Right?

The polls can't even try to mirror anything. They are a disparate group of individuals who each vote their own way - biases and all - with no communication or coordination among themselves. And, they announce their results before the selection committee does, both after the committee's first "reveal" and before it, publishing a weekly poll for about 9 weeks before the committee meets.

It seems to me that if hundreds of people are arriving at the same conclusion (and many of those folks announce their votes publicly) we've pretty much taken the bias out of the process. The very idea that having one representative from each conference would be less biased makes no sense. That structure presumes bias - that is, the suggestion that G5 representatives would advocate for G5 teams is the antithesis of impartiality. The idea that ten biased committee members would reach an unbiased decision, but 60 AP voters would not, just doesn't fly with me.

You dont think the fact that every voter KNOWS the selection committee has never and will never place a G5 in a top 10 position has no affect on voting. LOL. Ok. Whatever you say. Im sure a balanced CFP Selection Committee of 5 G5 reps and 5 P5 reps would never put UCF in the top 10. Just remember, in 2011 a UH team with almost an identical resume to UCF was #6 in the nation with the conference championship game still to play. The only difference between now and then is 4 years of the selection committee.

And, in 2016, when we did have a committee, Houston was ranked as high as #6 by the AP and #5 by the Coaches. Were they influenced by a PRESUMPTION that the selection committee would not follow suit had Houston continued to win? Had Houston won out, there is little doubt in my mind that they would have been in the playoff - precisely because they were a G5 team, not in spite of it. But they didn't continue to win, and that system was never tested.

Let me ask you this. If you were a sportswriter and were selected to become a voter in the AP poll, would you place a G5 team lower than you believe they deserved because you believed the selection committee would rate them lower than they should? If you wouldn't do that, why would you believe others do?

(01-03-2018 12:29 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-02-2018 12:31 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote: [ -> ]I'm quite excited.

I'm sure all your Klan brothers are excited.

And I'm equally sure that your muckraking sorry butt is banned! Adios!

I won't be watching that game. That is all.

Not watching this either. It's too drawn out. You either expand the playoffs and cut some regular season games to make it fit or you eliminate the playoffs and go back to the BCS. This middle of the road stuff just makes it a monstrosity IMHO. Add in that the 2 finalists are from the SEC and it's a definite no thank you.

I may watch part of it or I may not watch any of the made for TV championship exhibition game. I dont care one way or the other about either team so I certainly wont watch the whole thing. I call it a made for TV exhibition because that is what it is, that's what is always has been. A true national champion would have to beat the best of the rest. How can Alabama and Georgia claim a national championship when all they had to do was get past the champions of 2 of the other 9 conferences? One of these two teams could not even be bothered to win their division, much less their conference! How can anyone say with a straight face that they deserve to be national champions? It's absurd.

While I still ptobably wont watch most of it, I'm more likely to watch James Madison take on North Dakota State this weekend in the NCAA D-I football national championship game, the finals of a real football playoff where every conference champ (though 3 abstain) has access to the playoff, even the non-scholarship Pioneer League and the lowly Northeast Conference. Just like every other level of football from the high school to the pros, and every other sport.

How can someone seriously make the argument that the NCAA basketball tournament or college world series are great but that having the same thing for the FBS would be bad? I do not follow the logic at all. It would be down right insane if it weren't such a widely held opinion.

I'll watch it.

My team blew a 17 point lead in the semifinals to miss out on this game. It hurts. I'll still watch it.

College football is the greatest sport on earth, in spite of its flaws (or perhaps partly because of its flaws). This is the championship game. It is my favorite sport. I'll watch it.

(01-03-2018 05:43 PM)AppfanInCAAland Wrote: [ -> ]I may watch part of it or I may not watch any of the made for TV championship exhibition game. I dont care one way or the other about either team so I certainly wont watch the whole thing. I call it a made for TV exhibition because that is what it is, that's what is always has been. A true national champion would have to beat the best of the rest. How can Alabama and Georgia claim a national championship when all they had to do was get past the champions of 2 of the other 9 conferences? One of these two teams could not even be bothered to win their division, much less their conference! How can anyone say with a straight face that they deserve to be national champions? It's absurd.

While I still ptobably wont watch most of it, I'm more likely to watch James Madison take on North Dakota State this weekend in the NCAA D-I football national championship game, the finals of a real football playoff where every conference champ (though 3 abstain) has access to the playoff, even the non-scholarship Pioneer League and the lowly Northeast Conference. Just like every other level of football from the high school to the pros, and every other sport.

How can someone seriously make the argument that the NCAA basketball tournament or college world series are great but that having the same thing for the FBS would be bad? I do not follow the logic at all. It would be down right insane if it weren't such a widely held opinion.

Yea if you told NFL fans they were going to change the playoffs to just 4 teams which would be voted on by a committee (and also had certain teams with more home games than others) they'd think you're insane.

(01-03-2018 04:56 PM)miko33 Wrote: [ -> ]Not watching this either. It's too drawn out. You either expand the playoffs and cut some regular season games to make it fit or you eliminate the playoffs and go back to the BCS. This middle of the road stuff just makes it a monstrosity IMHO. Add in that the 2 finalists are from the SEC and it's a definite no thank you.

No reason for any ACC fan to watch. ACC champ eliminated from the NIT consolidation title game.

Its not like you are seeing the Best of the P5 vs the only undefeated team in the country. You are watching 2 losers play.

Whatever. I know I will enjoy it. Now to find a way to watch D2 basketball for cheap. Hmmm.

(01-03-2018 01:07 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-03-2018 11:59 AM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ]UCF will finish around #6 or #7 in the polls, polls that aren't influenced by the CFP. Still not worthy of a top 4 playoff berth.

Right, because some teams ranked ahead of them, some with less of a claim to the playoff (like PSU, Washington, and Miami) to UCF, either won or lost, giving the Big Ten three more of push to follow right after the 4 teams in the playoff.

It doesn't answer or resolve why UCF is so darn far down in the first place. And nothing really seems to answer how Auburn went as high as #2 but never further than #7 before UCF. With two, then three losses. Or, again, how 12-0 with weak-*** SOS Wisky is #4, lose a game at 12-1, and now both OSU and Wisky are worse off than 11-1 Bama.

UCF was 'far down' at #12 because their SOS was so bad, it really is that simple.

Wisconsin was also dragged back by their SOS, but then that improved at the end of the year and they controlled their destiny, they just lost their CCG.

Obviously, the choice of Alabama at #4 was controversial, that's why there was major discussion and debate about whether it would be them or Ohio State. Alabama did not have a guilded path, after losing to Auburn they needed luck/help to get in. Had Wisconsin beaten Ohio State, Alabama would not have made the playoffs.

But Alabama seems to have quelled that debate with Ohio State by dominating #1 Clemson.

It's hard to argue Alabama got in by brand value because nobody's brand value is any greater than Ohio State's.

(01-05-2018 08:16 AM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-03-2018 01:07 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-03-2018 11:59 AM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ]UCF will finish around #6 or #7 in the polls, polls that aren't influenced by the CFP. Still not worthy of a top 4 playoff berth.

Right, because some teams ranked ahead of them, some with less of a claim to the playoff (like PSU, Washington, and Miami) to UCF, either won or lost, giving the Big Ten three more of push to follow right after the 4 teams in the playoff.

It doesn't answer or resolve why UCF is so darn far down in the first place. And nothing really seems to answer how Auburn went as high as #2 but never further than #7 before UCF. With two, then three losses. Or, again, how 12-0 with weak-*** SOS Wisky is #4, lose a game at 12-1, and now both OSU and Wisky are worse off than 11-1 Bama.

UCF was 'far down' at #12 because their SOS was so bad, it really is that simple.

Wisconsin was also dragged back by their SOS, but then that improved at the end of the year and they controlled their destiny, they just lost their CCG.

Prior to their CCG they played teams with losing records. Their SOS was in the pits too, but they were #4. You can play semantics that their SOS was perceived a little better than UCF, but does that account for #4 in that case, 8 spots higher?

Last game so the season... so I will watch. That and I hop[e against hope that Bama loses...


Bama is bad for college football...

(01-05-2018 09:40 AM)otown Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-05-2018 08:16 AM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-03-2018 01:07 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-03-2018 11:59 AM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ]UCF will finish around #6 or #7 in the polls, polls that aren't influenced by the CFP. Still not worthy of a top 4 playoff berth.

Right, because some teams ranked ahead of them, some with less of a claim to the playoff (like PSU, Washington, and Miami) to UCF, either won or lost, giving the Big Ten three more of push to follow right after the 4 teams in the playoff.

It doesn't answer or resolve why UCF is so darn far down in the first place. And nothing really seems to answer how Auburn went as high as #2 but never further than #7 before UCF. With two, then three losses. Or, again, how 12-0 with weak-*** SOS Wisky is #4, lose a game at 12-1, and now both OSU and Wisky are worse off than 11-1 Bama.

UCF was 'far down' at #12 because their SOS was so bad, it really is that simple.

Wisconsin was also dragged back by their SOS, but then that improved at the end of the year and they controlled their destiny, they just lost their CCG.

Prior to their CCG they played teams with losing records. Their SOS was in the pits too, but they were #4. You can play semantics that their SOS was perceived a little better than UCF, but does that account for #4 in that case, 8 spots higher?

Wisconsin's schedule strength may not have been great or even significantly better than UCF's, but generally, a schedule that includes Iowa, Nebraska, Minnesota and Michigan is a better schedule than one featuring SMU, Temple, UConn and ECU.

(01-05-2018 11:04 AM)No Bull Wrote: [ -> ]Bama is bad for college football...

Support your statement. How is Alabama playing well over the course of a particular time period "bad for football?"

(01-05-2018 09:40 AM)otown Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-05-2018 08:16 AM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-03-2018 01:07 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-03-2018 11:59 AM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ]UCF will finish around #6 or #7 in the polls, polls that aren't influenced by the CFP. Still not worthy of a top 4 playoff berth.

Right, because some teams ranked ahead of them, some with less of a claim to the playoff (like PSU, Washington, and Miami) to UCF, either won or lost, giving the Big Ten three more of push to follow right after the 4 teams in the playoff.

It doesn't answer or resolve why UCF is so darn far down in the first place. And nothing really seems to answer how Auburn went as high as #2 but never further than #7 before UCF. With two, then three losses. Or, again, how 12-0 with weak-*** SOS Wisky is #4, lose a game at 12-1, and now both OSU and Wisky are worse off than 11-1 Bama.

UCF was 'far down' at #12 because their SOS was so bad, it really is that simple.

Wisconsin was also dragged back by their SOS, but then that improved at the end of the year and they controlled their destiny, they just lost their CCG.

Prior to their CCG they played teams with losing records. Their SOS was in the pits too, but they were #4. You can play semantics that their SOS was perceived a little better than UCF, but does that account for #4 in that case, 8 spots higher?

Before the CCG, Wisconsin's Sagarin SOS was around 50, UCF's was around 80. That's a pretty big gap.

Now is it an 8 spot gap? I don't think so, UCF probably deserved to be around #10. The CFP under-rated them by 2-3 spots. Wisconsin maybe overrated by a spot. So the gap should have been 5 spots or so, not 8.

But trivial, really. Because even adjusting for that, the outcomes remained the same.

I'll turn it off in the 2nd quarter when it becomes obvious that Ga. won't score much and is destined to lose.

(01-05-2018 12:34 PM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ]But trivial, really. Because even adjusting for that, the outcomes remained the same.

It's not really trivial when it comes down to it. It's deliberate, because, at no point could UCF get to #4, and no way a Big Ten or SEC team could not be within the top 5. It was bad enough the PAC had multiple teams ranked higher than UCF. When it came down to it, for darned sure, there was a pecking order, and every major had a better claim and shot than UCF, with SOS being a movable goalpost.

The issue(s) isn't just Wisconsin and its SOS/#4 ranking. It's how Auburn maneuvered into #2 with two losses; there was simply no way a SEC team wasn't just not going to be kept out if someone like Auburn won (because they would get in), but also this other scenario where TWO SEC teams could get in (and I think, had it come to it, an undefeated SEC CCG between UGA and Bama would have created the same result).

Under the old BCS, there would be no worries putting UCF in the top 5...you simply just keep them out of the top 2 in most of the relevant polls. Heck, there was no problem seeing TCU's, Boise's, and Utah's within the top 10 back when. This playoff structure is proving to be much different to navigate. And it's not like the same criticisms of those older teams couldn't be said of UCF or Houston.

There is no way a non-major is going to crack this. And sure, maybe you could squeeze UCF up a little and push Wisky down a bit further...it doesn't answer all of the other filler between 5 and UCF (like PSU, Washington, and a three-loss Auburn).

(01-05-2018 12:34 PM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-05-2018 09:40 AM)otown Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-05-2018 08:16 AM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-03-2018 01:07 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-03-2018 11:59 AM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ]UCF will finish around #6 or #7 in the polls, polls that aren't influenced by the CFP. Still not worthy of a top 4 playoff berth.

Right, because some teams ranked ahead of them, some with less of a claim to the playoff (like PSU, Washington, and Miami) to UCF, either won or lost, giving the Big Ten three more of push to follow right after the 4 teams in the playoff.

It doesn't answer or resolve why UCF is so darn far down in the first place. And nothing really seems to answer how Auburn went as high as #2 but never further than #7 before UCF. With two, then three losses. Or, again, how 12-0 with weak-*** SOS Wisky is #4, lose a game at 12-1, and now both OSU and Wisky are worse off than 11-1 Bama.

UCF was 'far down' at #12 because their SOS was so bad, it really is that simple.

Wisconsin was also dragged back by their SOS, but then that improved at the end of the year and they controlled their destiny, they just lost their CCG.

Prior to their CCG they played teams with losing records. Their SOS was in the pits too, but they were #4. You can play semantics that their SOS was perceived a little better than UCF, but does that account for #4 in that case, 8 spots higher?

Before the CCG, Wisconsin's Sagarin SOS was around 50, UCF's was around 80. That's a pretty big gap.

Now is it an 8 spot gap? I don't think so, UCF probably deserved to be around #10. The CFP under-rated them by 2-3 spots. Wisconsin maybe overrated by a spot. So the gap should have been 5 spots or so, not 8.

But trivial, really. Because even adjusting for that, the outcomes remained the same.

Nope, not trivial if USF didn't blow it against Houston, and ECU and UCONN were not dumpster fires, and the GT game wasn't cancelled. Then imagine a UCF SOS maybe closer to 50. That trivial bias really puts them out of contention....... so not so trivial.

I will watch. It loses something to me not being conference A vs. conference B, but still some good story lines. Georgia going for the national title for the first time in decades, playing in Atlanta, while up against the most successful team of the last decade to do it (with all respect to my Buckeyes, whom I would argue are #2).

With that said, I have realized I an anomaly in that I care less about the national championship than the major bowls. I wanted badly to see who was Rose Bowl and Sugar Bowl champs, but the national title winner means a bit less to me. That's been true to me in every year of the CFP except when Ohio State has played (and might still be if OSU was in the Rose). The national title game is still fun, but is almost more of an NFL type of experience.

(01-05-2018 02:49 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-05-2018 12:34 PM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ]But trivial, really. Because even adjusting for that, the outcomes remained the same.

It's not really trivial when it comes down to it. It's deliberate, because, at no point could UCF get to #4, and no way a Big Ten or SEC team could not be within the top 5. It was bad enough the PAC had multiple teams ranked higher than UCF. When it came down to it, for darned sure, there was a pecking order, and every major had a better claim and shot than UCF, with SOS being a movable goalpost.

The issue(s) isn't just Wisconsin and its SOS/#4 ranking. It's how Auburn maneuvered into #2 with two losses; there was simply no way a SEC team wasn't just not going to be kept out if someone like Auburn won (because they would get in), but also this other scenario where TWO SEC teams could get in (and I think, had it come to it, an undefeated SEC CCG between UGA and Bama would have created the same result).

Under the old BCS, there would be no worries putting UCF in the top 5...you simply just keep them out of the top 2 in most of the relevant polls. Heck, there was no problem seeing TCU's, Boise's, and Utah's within the top 10 back when. This playoff structure is proving to be much different to navigate. And it's not like the same criticisms of those older teams couldn't be said of UCF or Houston.

There is no way a non-major is going to crack this. And sure, maybe you could squeeze UCF up a little and push Wisky down a bit further...it doesn't answer all of the other filler between 5 and UCF (like PSU, Washington, and a three-loss Auburn).

I thought Auburn was overrated at the time, but they did win twice in a row against #1 schools and one of their two losses was on the road to the new #1 school. Their other loss was a close loss on the road to a ranked school.