Post: #1 | Be the CFP committee: 1999
Connelly's original article
http://www.sbnation.com/ncaa-football/20...-committee

BCS standings for your consideration
http://www.footballfoundation.org/Progra...hives.aspx


They picked Miami, Ohio State, Georgia, Iowa.

I disagree on this one. The group they had vying for the 4th team in consisted of:


4. USC (10-2)
5. Iowa (11-1)
6. Washington State (10-2)
7. Oklahoma (11-2)

Now Wazzu and Oklahoma have the conference champion criteria on their side. Oklahoma absolutely crushed the team that Iowa lost to and played the 14th best SOS compared to Iowa's 49th.

USC had the #1 SOS but lost to a KSU team that didn't win the Big 12 North and lost to 2 teams that OU destroyed. The second problem with USC is that Wazzu beat them. Trojans are practically elimnated in my book.

I would either have OU in there instead of Iowa or possibly Wazzu. No way I would give it to Iowa with the lighter SOS, no league title, and how OU destroyed the team that beat them.

Wazzzu's argument is that they have a league title, better SOS, and one of their losses was to top 2 tOSU.

Miami, Ohio St, and Georgia are no brainers...

4th team-
conference champs-
#6 Washington St 21st SOS
#7 Oklahoma 14th SOS

non conference champs-
#4 USC 1st SOS
#5 Iowa 49th SOS

I just don't see Iowa at all. SOS way below the others, and they weren't a conference champ.

I think it'd be between USC, Wash St, and Oklahoma. I think how USC was playing in the end- would have been a factor. They absolutely smashed Notre Dame.

Oklahoma had 2 non top 25 losses. That hurts a lot...
WSU had a non top 25 loss to Washington... late.

I think they probably take USC- end of the year- they were playing better than anyone- to include the title game teams.

(07-28-2014 11:02 AM)stever20 Wrote:  Miami, Ohio St, and Georgia are no brainers...

4th team-
conference champs-
#6 Washington St 21st SOS
#7 Oklahoma 14th SOS

non conference champs-
#4 USC 1st SOS
#5 Iowa 49th SOS

I just don't see Iowa at all. SOS way below the others, and they weren't a conference champ.

I think it'd be between USC, Wash St, and Oklahoma. I think how USC was playing in the end- would have been a factor. They absolutely smashed Notre Dame.

Oklahoma had 2 non top 25 losses. That hurts a lot...
WSU had a non top 25 loss to Washington... late.

I think they probably take USC- end of the year- they were playing better than anyone- to include the title game teams.

The problem with USC is two-fold IMO:

1- Lost to a division runner up from the league OU won
2- Didn't win the PAC10 after losing head to head with Wazzu.

I don't see any reason to have them above those two.

Problem was that Oklahoma had 2 bad losses. I think that totally knocks them out.

I really think part of things will be how teams are playing end of the year. USC was playing great end of the year. I think that's going to hold a lot of weight quite frankly...

My thought is 1 USC 2 WSU and 3 Oklahoma(Iowa had an ugly loss as well).

(07-28-2014 11:13 AM)stever20 Wrote:  Problem was that Oklahoma had 2 bad losses. I think that totally knocks them out.

I really think part of things will be how teams are playing end of the year. USC was playing great end of the year. I think that's going to hold a lot of weight quite frankly...

My thought is 1 USC 2 WSU and 3 Oklahoma(Iowa had an ugly loss as well).

Even if you DQ oklahoma it's still not likely that the head to head loss vs Wazzu would be ignored.

IMO, the way it's going to work out for the 4-team playoff is that if a conference champ is up against a conference non-champ for one of the last spots in the field, a non-champ will have to be clearly more deserving than the conference champ, not just arguably a little more deserving, in order to be selected over the conference champ.

And for a non-champ to be selected over the champ of their own conference, it would have to be a very bizarre situation like the Pac-10 in 1984 (UW lost at USC and finished 10-1; USC followed its win over UW by losing to UCLA and ND and finishing 8-3 overall, yet still winning the Pac on the head-to-head tiebreaker).

As long as a human committee is picking these teams at-large (i.e. no auto-bids for champs) don't be surprised to see B1G and SEC teams sneak in at #4 on a regular basis...
[/black helicopters]

(07-28-2014 10:52 AM)1845 Bear Wrote:  Post: #1 | Be the CFP committee: 1999
Connelly's original article
http://www.sbnation.com/ncaa-football/20...-committee

BCS standings for your consideration
http://www.footballfoundation.org/Progra...hives.aspx


They picked Miami, Ohio State, Georgia, Iowa.

I disagree on this one. The group they had vying for the 4th team in consisted of:


4. USC (10-2)
5. Iowa (11-1)
6. Washington State (10-2)
7. Oklahoma (11-2)

Now Wazzu and Oklahoma have the conference champion criteria on their side. Oklahoma absolutely crushed the team that Iowa lost to and played the 14th best SOS compared to Iowa's 49th.

USC had the #1 SOS but lost to a KSU team that didn't win the Big 12 North and lost to 2 teams that OU destroyed. The second problem with USC is that Wazzu beat them. Trojans are practically elimnated in my book.

I would either have OU in there instead of Iowa or possibly Wazzu. No way I would give it to Iowa with the lighter SOS, no league title, and how OU destroyed the team that beat them.

Wazzzu's argument is that they have a league title, better SOS, and one of their losses was to top 2 tOSU.

Under the current conference affiliations, 2002 would have largely been settled on the field with the championship games for B1G (Iowa vs. Ohio State) and Pac 12 (USC vs. Washington State).

Miami and Georgia would be in, as would the winner of Iowa vs. Ohio State (both teams had a perfect 8-0 conference record, ala 2013 OSU and MSU).

The fourth team would be down to the loser of Iowa/OSU, Oklahoma and the winner of USC/WSU. If OSU wins the B1G, I believe the final slot would go to the winner of USC/WSU by virtue of being a conference champion and a tough schedule. If Iowa wins the B1G, it is closer, but I believe OSU edges out the Pac 12 champion and Oklahoma due to them having only one loss and the head-to-head victory over Washington State. In either scenario, I see Oklahoma missing as they would not have had the benefit of the Big XII championship game (which they did vs. Colorado).

(07-28-2014 04:25 PM)MadisonHawk Wrote:  

(07-28-2014 10:52 AM)1845 Bear Wrote:  Post: #1 | Be the CFP committee: 1999
Connelly's original article
http://www.sbnation.com/ncaa-football/20...-committee

BCS standings for your consideration
http://www.footballfoundation.org/Progra...hives.aspx


They picked Miami, Ohio State, Georgia, Iowa.

I disagree on this one. The group they had vying for the 4th team in consisted of:


4. USC (10-2)
5. Iowa (11-1)
6. Washington State (10-2)
7. Oklahoma (11-2)

Now Wazzu and Oklahoma have the conference champion criteria on their side. Oklahoma absolutely crushed the team that Iowa lost to and played the 14th best SOS compared to Iowa's 49th.

USC had the #1 SOS but lost to a KSU team that didn't win the Big 12 North and lost to 2 teams that OU destroyed. The second problem with USC is that Wazzu beat them. Trojans are practically elimnated in my book.

I would either have OU in there instead of Iowa or possibly Wazzu. No way I would give it to Iowa with the lighter SOS, no league title, and how OU destroyed the team that beat them.

Wazzzu's argument is that they have a league title, better SOS, and one of their losses was to top 2 tOSU.

Under the current conference affiliations, 2002 would have largely been settled on the field with the championship games for B1G (Iowa vs. Ohio State) and Pac 12 (USC vs. Washington State).

Miami and Georgia would be in, as would the winner of Iowa vs. Ohio State (both teams had a perfect 8-0 conference record, ala 2013 OSU and MSU).

The fourth team would be down to the loser of Iowa/OSU, Oklahoma and the winner of USC/WSU. If OSU wins the B1G, I believe the final slot would go to the winner of USC/WSU by virtue of being a conference champion and a tough schedule. If Iowa wins the B1G, it is closer, but I believe OSU edges out the Pac 12 champion and Oklahoma due to them having only one loss and the head-to-head victory over Washington State. In either scenario, I see Oklahoma missing as they would not have had the benefit of the Big XII championship game (which they did vs. Colorado).

The same thought crossed my mind regarding the Big Ten and Pac. The problem would not exist today because the BigTen and Pac would have CCG to settle these arguments.

But the fact is Iowa finished 8-0 in conference because OSU and Iowa did not play each other. How can you tell a team that went 8-0 in its conference that they are not a conference champion? They should be considered the eqivilant of a conference champion, the same as ohio state, Georgia, Miami, WSU, etc.

(07-28-2014 06:50 PM)goofus Wrote:  The same thought crossed my mind regarding the Big Ten and Pac. The problem would not exist today because the BigTen and Pac would have CCG to settle these arguments.

But the fact is Iowa finished 8-0 in conference because OSU and Iowa did not play each other. How can you tell a team that went 8-0 in its conference that they are not a conference champion? They should be considered the eqivilant of a conference champion, the same as ohio state, Georgia, Miami, WSU, etc.

I agree. I also wish Iowa would have had the opportunity to play Ohio State that year. I am obviously biased but by early November Iowa was playing as well as anyone in the country (other than perhaps USC). Unfortunately, Iowa's season ended on November 16 and they had seven weeks before the Orange Bowl. They run into Superman in the form of Carson Palmer during the second half of the Orange Bowl.

Iowa should be the pick
ranked #3, conf champ, I think 2 loss schools are gonna hard time making playoff.
however USC has huge TV market
committee will flop on everything, they never flop on TV market

(07-28-2014 10:52 AM)1845 Bear Wrote:  Post: #1 | Be the CFP committee: 1999
Connelly's original article
http://www.sbnation.com/ncaa-football/20...-committee

BCS standings for your consideration
http://www.footballfoundation.org/Progra...hives.aspx


They picked Miami, Ohio State, Georgia, Iowa.

I disagree on this one. The group they had vying for the 4th team in consisted of:


4. USC (10-2)
5. Iowa (11-1)
6. Washington State (10-2)
7. Oklahoma (11-2)

Now Wazzu and Oklahoma have the conference champion criteria on their side. Oklahoma absolutely crushed the team that Iowa lost to and played the 14th best SOS compared to Iowa's 49th.

USC had the #1 SOS but lost to a KSU team that didn't win the Big 12 North and lost to 2 teams that OU destroyed. The second problem with USC is that Wazzu beat them. Trojans are practically elimnated in my book.

I would either have OU in there instead of Iowa or possibly Wazzu. No way I would give it to Iowa with the lighter SOS, no league title, and how OU destroyed the team that beat them.

Wazzzu's argument is that they have a league title, better SOS, and one of their losses was to top 2 tOSU.

It seems almost unfathomable that Wazzu used to be that good. Heck, they were almost good enough when Ryan Leaf was at helm to defeat Michigan in their national title season a few years earlier.

Again, this year would have seen so much cleared up with across-the-board conference championship games. USC vs. Washington State for a spot from the Pac-12, and Iowa vs. Ohio State for the Big Ten. Miami, Georgia, and those two title game winners. The perfect four.

I disagree with Connelly on Wazzou though. I think the conference looks at the nature of USC’s losses early and their win streak late (the Pete Carroll machine was warming up and demolishing people) and puts the Trojans in over Iowa.

Mess grade (how much controversy would exist)—B

Iowa also finished strong down the stretch. Iowa's last 6 reg season games in 2002.

MSU W 44-16
@Indy 24-8
@#8 Mich 34-9
Wisc 20-3
NW 62-10
@Minny 45-21

its when Iowa destroyed a Mich team at Ann Arbor, a team that ended up finishing #9 in the final poll, that a lot of people finally conceded Iowa was really good. IOWA had a lot of talent on offense, defense and special teams. Including future NFL defensive MVP Bob Sanders, future outland trophy winner Robert Gallery, future pro bowler Dallas Clark, and much more future NFL talent. Plus QB Brad Banks who finished 2nd in the Heisman vote that year to Carson Palmer.

Ironically it was Ohio State that was having the close games down the stretch. Now I don't know how much Ohio State's run and Iowa finishing early on Nov. 16 helped keep the spotlight and media pressure off Iowa down the stretch, but it is hard to communicate just how well iowa was playing in its last games.

again in retrospect its all a moot point knowing how USC dominated Iowa in the Orange Bowl, and how USC was on the verge of a historic run of national championships starting the next year. But at the time, Iowa had a strong argument. Its not a given that Ohio State or Miami could have beat Iowa that year.

Worst SOS
Not league champion
Lost to a team OU nuked

I don't see any good reason they should be included over OU or Wazzu based on the committee's stated criteria.

I am also shocked at how many people blissfully ignore that Wazzu BEAT USC head to head. I don't care how dominant USC was down the stretch they faced off and the winner should go.

Normally I am not a big fan of the co-champion b.s. that the big ten did and still does for division champions. It just reeks of the "everybody gets a trophy" little league mentality of today's age. I prefer the NFL way where even if two teams tie for the division, there are tiebreakers in place to determine the division champion. But in the NFL, you play every team twice in your division. So if it comes down to a tiebreaker, you only have yourself to blame for putting yourself in that position. If you would have just beat the teams in your division, odds are you will win your division almost every time.

Same with the new divisional set-up they have now for the big 10. You play everybody in your division, so you have no reason to cry if you lose a tiebreaker. Same with the Big 12 today because everybody plays everybody. The only exception I can think of is the Oklahoma-Texas-Texas Tech 11-1 three-way tie in 2008?. Only then can you argue all 3 teams should be call division co-champions. Otherwise today in 2014 there should be no conference or division co-champions.

The problem is that structure did not exist for the Big Ten in 2002. I will admit it was a dumb setup. But Iowa went 8-0 and did not get its chance to play Ohio State. So from an evaluation point of view, the selection committee should have considered Iowa a co-champion in 2002.

Now to show I am not biased, if it was 2004, when Iowa tied for first with Michigan at 7-1, I would argue Iowa should not be considered a champion by the selection committee because Iowa lost to Michigan in the head-to-head matchup and so Iowa lost the tiebreaker. Iowa was not going to be considered for the playoff anyway in 2004, but I am just using 2004 as an another example.

(07-30-2014 07:18 AM)goofus Wrote:  The only exception I can think of is the Oklahoma-Texas-Texas Tech 11-1 three-way tie in 2008?. Only then can you argue all 3 teams should be call division co-champions.

I'd use some sort of margin of victory element in this case. Texas Tech got absolutely destroyed by Oklahoma 65-21. That's practically a disqualification.

(07-30-2014 07:50 AM)Hokie4Skins Wrote:  

(07-30-2014 07:18 AM)goofus Wrote:  The only exception I can think of is the Oklahoma-Texas-Texas Tech 11-1 three-way tie in 2008?. Only then can you argue all 3 teams should be call division co-champions.

I'd use some sort of margin of victory element in this case. Texas Tech got absolutely destroyed by Oklahoma 65-21. That's practically a disqualification.

This brings up an interesting question. In the past, BCS rankings were used to break ties if the head-to-head tiebreaker does not.

so what is now used for the tiebreakers? The Big ten still lists the BCS poll as a tiebreaker.

http://www.bigten.org/sports/m-footbl/ar...11aaa.html

The following procedure will determine the representative from each division in the event of a tie:
a.If two teams are tied, the winner of the game between the two tied teams shall be the representative
b.If three or more teams are tied, steps 1 through 7 will be followed until a determination is made. If only two teams remain tied after any step, the winner of the game between the two tied teams shall be the representative.
1.The records of the three tied teams will be compared against each other
2.The records of the three tied teams will be compared within their division
3.The records of the three teams will be compared against the next highest placed teams in their division in order of finish (4, 5, and 6)
4.The records of the three teams will be compared against all common conference opponents;
5.The highest ranked team in the first Bowl Championship Series Poll following the completion of Big Ten regular season conference play shall be the representative in the Big Ten Championship Game, unless the two highest ranked tied teams are ranked within one spot of each other in the BCS poll. In this case, the head-to-head results of the top two ranked tied teams shall determine the representative in the Big Ten Championship
6.The team with the best overall winning percentage [excluding exempted games] shall be the representative
7.The representative will be chosen by random draw.

I think I heard it'll be the CFP committee's ratings. What is interesting about that- I thought those were going to be released on Tuesday.

Exactly. Tuesday night!

However, the chance of it going ALL the way down to #5 on this list is very unlikely. But still, the week it happens...WOW! Each school will probably have to have all of their tickets bought on standby waiting for the announcement...