(01-02-2015 10:38 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(01-02-2015 10:34 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(01-02-2015 10:28 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Before today, most of the rhetoric centered on TCU being more deserving of the 4th spot than OSU. Now it appears OSU has shown they were deserving of a spot, and FSU maybe didn't deserve theirs. But how do you keep an undefeated P5 out of the playoff?

Exactly. TCU is probably a better team, but FSU didn't lose any games and didn't almost lose to Kansas.

As someone who wants to see the playoff expanded, this is a good result. FSU not getting in and then losing in an access bowl wouldn't have been.

With the current conference structure, I'd like to see it expanded to at least 8 with the 6 highest ranked conference champs in. Even if they limit it 5, make top 5 ranked, not certain conferences automatically.

12 or 16 would be my ideal.

Right, and extend the college season to 16 games, the same as the NFL. Despite the clamoring from the media, I very much doubt the NCAA ever expands the playoff beyond 4 teams and one additional championship game.

Actually, the NCAA has very little to do with this mess. They bless the champion of the method (so it becomes the official NCAA FBS football champion), but it's actually in the hands of the conferences to come up with this thing. I guess the NCAA could choose to not bless the method for determining the champion, but what are the odds of that? FBS football is only NCAA-sanctioned sport where they don't set the post-season rules, as I understand it, and going to a championship hasn't changed that fact.

That said, for those who cannot see this going to 8 or 16 teams, keep in mind that the FCS football has gone went from an 8-team playoff to 16 in 1986, to 20 in 2010, and to 24 in 2013. Now, they play 11 games in a season, and no conference championships, but teams can play up to 16 games in an FCS season. Not that different. And those teams seem to play during fall semester exam periods, too.

(01-02-2015 10:24 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  Hopefully this will keep the people who were making the argument that Ohio State shouldn't be in the playoff because they lost their QB from ever making such a stupid, idiotic argument again. People can argue about who should qualify and what parts of teams' accomplishments should be emphasized, but it should be about what teams have done, not what pundits thing *might* happen in the future. Or else, why even play the freakin' games?

Same deal with TCU. With only four spots and ten conferences, there is no reason anyone who didn't win their conference should be in the playoff. None. TCU didn't win their conference as far as I'm concerned. Baylor had head-to-head. If the ACTUAL @#$%ing FOOTBALL GAME doesn't count, why do we even play them?

For the $$$$ ... it's clearly not to determine the best team.

(01-02-2015 12:50 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(01-02-2015 12:36 PM)owl95 Wrote:  It is sort of unclear what the NCAA selection committee uses to pick the 4 teams since at one point in the year there was a thought that possibly TWO SEC teams could make it and yet everyone is saying the Big12 got screwed do to no "true" conference champ.

It was inconsistent. TCU was #3, beat Iowa State into pulp and dropped to #6. Either they should have stayed in the top 4 or never been there to begin with.

Well, TCU was number 3 because Ohio State beat some weaker team earlier in the season and dropped accordingly. Now you want to punish OSU because they played their conference pansy earlier in the season than TCU did? What you're describing is a fluke of scheduling, not an inconsistent rating system.

(01-02-2015 08:28 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  I do think the conference championship games are an important part of college football; especially for the vast majority of conferences that are broken down into two divisions.

I agree with your larger point, but this is a bit of circular logic because most conferences changed their makeup in order to have that extra conference game (and generate more revenue). If the NCAA were to step in and move to a playoff and force conferences to drop the extra game, I wouldn't shed a tear. Now, the fact that the NCAA would be shifting revenue away from the conferences would certainly cause some rifts that would make it difficult to survive, but that's another issue.

(01-04-2015 03:13 PM)gsloth Wrote:  JAAO - you can keep arguing it all you want, but the fact of the matter is that injuries is one of the explicit parameters the committee is supposed to consider when trying to differentiate between close/essentially equal teams. It's in the charter for the group. Throw out other strawmen about coaches if you like, but it's right there in black and white. Clearly, they didn't think it mattered that much, or that the divide between OSU and the other 1 loss teams was wide enough to overcome it.

Didn't realize it was in the parameters. But that just makes the whole situation even more idiotic to me. If a team wins its conference basketball tournament and one of their players is injured in the game, should we take away their autobid? What if he's only their second best player? What if he's 50% likely to be back for the tournament? Granted, with the CFP we're already in the gray area because there are no auto-bids, but it just seems crazy to me to judge not by what actually happened in past games, but what we think might happen in future games.

Or again, why play the games at all?

(01-02-2015 12:01 PM)WRCisforgotten79 Wrote:  

(01-02-2015 10:24 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  Hopefully this will keep the people who were making the argument that Ohio State shouldn't be in the playoff because they lost their QB from ever making such a stupid, idiotic argument again. People can argue about who should qualify and what parts of teams' accomplishments should be emphasized, but it should be about what teams have done, not what pundits thing *might* happen in the future. Or else, why even play the freakin' games?

Same deal with TCU. With only four spots and ten conferences, there is no reason anyone who didn't win their conference should be in the playoff. None. TCU didn't win their conference as far as I'm concerned. Baylor had head-to-head. If the ACTUAL @#$%ing FOOTBALL GAME doesn't count, why do we even play them?

Really. Just concentrate REALLY hard, and perhaps "West Virginia 41, Baylor 27" will go away.

You're missing the point. Of course it doesn't go away. That loss is why Baylor didn't win the conference outright. If they had won that game, they would have been undefeated and undisputed Big 12 champs. Probably gotten into the playoff. (Hard to see an undefeated P5 champ left out for a one loss, but who knows.)

But they did lose to WVU. So they had the same conference record as TCU.

I'm arguing that in a case like that, where you have a head-to-head result, that should be the tie-breaker. When did that become a crazy, controversial idea? Pretty sure it was the norm until recently.

Do results on the field sometimes not align with our perception of who *should* have won? Of course. That's why we play the games.

(01-02-2015 12:27 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  TCU had the 'best loss' of any of the Top 5 or 6 teams. It 'counts' more because it was in conference?

Yes, because it counts toward the conference standings.

Ten teams managed to win their conferences. If you can't make it into that list, you shouldn't be in the playoff, IMHO. Even limiting it to the 'power' conferences, you still have 5 conference champs for 4 playoff spots.

I think it should be limited to conference champs until there are more slots than conferences, but even if you argue against that, (i.e. but what if the SEC is so much better than the ACC one year?) I still think that a team that failed to win its conference should not be picked above the team that won that conference.

And, as I've argued above, Baylor should win the tie-breaker, because they beat TCU on the football field, not on message boards, in the computers, or in the minds of pundits.

[Edit: bold for emphasis.]

(01-05-2015 12:49 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(01-04-2015 03:13 PM)gsloth Wrote:  JAAO - you can keep arguing it all you want, but the fact of the matter is that injuries is one of the explicit parameters the committee is supposed to consider when trying to differentiate between close/essentially equal teams. It's in the charter for the group. Throw out other strawmen about coaches if you like, but it's right there in black and white. Clearly, they didn't think it mattered that much, or that the divide between OSU and the other 1 loss teams was wide enough to overcome it.

Didn't realize it was in the parameters. But that just makes the whole situation even more idiotic to me. If a team wins its conference basketball tournament and one of their players is injured in the game, should we take away their autobid? What if he's only their second best player? What if he's 50% likely to be back for the tournament? Granted, with the CFP we're already in the gray area because there are no auto-bids, but it just seems crazy to me to judge not by what actually happened in past games, but what we think might happen in future games.

Or again, why play the games at all?

Not take away the bid, but something like it was happened in basketball. Not sure if you were aware of the 2000 NCAA Tournament, when a near certain #1 seed (Cincinnati) was dropped to a #2 seed after the player of the year (Kenyon Martin) broke his leg in the first game of the conference tournament (they lost that game). They were the #1 team for 6 weeks leading up to a couple weeks before the conference tourney (lost 1 in the regular season, too), but was still AP #2 after the conference tourney loss. It was a shock at the time when they were given a #2 seed, as they had otherwise been dominant all season.

(01-05-2015 01:40 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  ...(i.e. but what if the SEC is so much better than the ACC one year?)...

I think that, if you accept the financial benefits of being in a P5 conference, you should also accept that those financial benefits derive in significant part from the high quality of competition in the conference, and therefore you should also accept that you will occasionally (at best) lose to that competition. In other words, you should not expect to have your cake and eat it, too.

(01-05-2015 01:40 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(01-02-2015 12:27 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  TCU had the 'best loss' of any of the Top 5 or 6 teams. It 'counts' more because it was in conference?

Yes, because it counts toward the conference standings.

Ten teams managed to win their conferences. If you can't make it into that list, you shouldn't be in the playoff, IMHO. Even limiting it to the 'power' conferences, you still have 5 conference champs for 4 playoff spots.

I think it should be limited to conference champs until there are more slots than conferences, but even if you argue against that, (i.e. but what if the SEC is so much better than the ACC one year?) I still think that a team that failed to win its conference should not be picked above the team that won that conference.

And, as I've argued above, Baylor should win the tie-breaker, because they beat TCU on the football field, not on message boards, in the computers, or in the minds of pundits.

[Edit: bold for emphasis.]

Conference championship is determined by best conference record. The intent of having a championship tournament is to crown a national champion which is based on all games.

Chew on this scenario

Team A has an 8-4 record but 7-1 in conference. For arguments sake , we'll say their conference loss was by 14 but it was on the road to another 8-4 team (who had 2 conference losses)

Team B is 11-1, with a win over a top 10 team and a win over a Top 15 team OOC.

Team B lost to Team A on the road by 3, when their QB took a hard hit in the second quarter and was held out of the game for concussion precautions the rest of the way, but returned to play the rest of the season.

No conference championship game.

Team A is the conference champion, but is going to a less prestigious bowl.

Team B is rated highly enough to be in the Top 4.

Given only 1 undefeated team, do you rule Team B out of consideration for the 4-team playoff?

If yes, what makes their loss worse than the losses of other 1-loss teams?

If no, the difference between that scenario and the TCU-Baylor scenario is a matter of degree.

106/119 of the computer ratings listed on Massey (including mine) had TCU rated as better than Baylor. You Baylor apologists need to quit stomping your feet and accept the fact that the Frogs had a better team (even before the bowl games which further proved the point).

(01-05-2015 08:41 PM)WRCisforgotten79 Wrote:  106/119 of the computer ratings listed on Massey (including mine) had TCU rated as better than Baylor. You Baylor apologists need to quit stomping your feet and accept the fact that the Frogs had a better team (even before the bowl games which further proved the point).

Whether or not one believed that TCU had the superior all-around team, many of us traditionalists still think Baylor was the Big 12 champ based on head-to-head. I don't care if it was a close game, or Baylor winning it at home on a questionable call, the fact is that both had identical records and Baylor won the head-to-head. That's the tie-breaker....and TCU would be crying foul if they were in Baylor's shoes.

(01-05-2015 08:41 PM)WRCisforgotten79 Wrote:  106/119 of the computer ratings listed on Massey (including mine) had TCU rated as better than Baylor. You Baylor apologists need to quit stomping your feet and accept the fact that the Frogs had a better team (even before the bowl games which further proved the point).

So, do you feel it's appropriate that the Big 12 changed their rules in the 11th hour?

i have no question that TCU was the superior team. But, by all rights, they were - or should have been - ineligible to compete for the D1 title.

I have to question what the BXII was thinking when they agreed to the championship series... they may have still envisioned a 12 team conference with a championship game, as most of the other conferences expected.

What do you feel is the appropriate remedy for a situation like the BXII is in?

(01-06-2015 12:56 AM)I45owl Wrote:  

(01-05-2015 08:41 PM)WRCisforgotten79 Wrote:  106/119 of the computer ratings listed on Massey (including mine) had TCU rated as better than Baylor. You Baylor apologists need to quit stomping your feet and accept the fact that the Frogs had a better team (even before the bowl games which further proved the point).

So, do you feel it's appropriate that the Big 12 changed their rules in the 11th hour?

i have no question that TCU was the superior team. But, by all rights, they were - or should have been - ineligible to compete for the D1 title.

I have to question what the BXII was thinking when they agreed to the championship series... they may have still envisioned a 12 team conference with a championship game, as most of the other conferences expected.

What do you feel is the appropriate remedy for a situation like the BXII is in?

They didn't change the rule at the 11th hour, they were just loud about not changing it. For as long as there have been ten teams in the Big XII, there has been the opportunity for co-championships- I rememeber two or three years ago when KSU and Oklahoma were both officially champions of the conference. The only tiebreaker was for who got the autobid to the Fiesta Bowl, which KSU got for beating OU h2h. Now, there are no autobids to the CFP, but there are autobids to the NY6 Bowls. BU and TCU were co-champs like OU/KSU, but since BU held the tiebreaker, they were obligated into an NY6 Bowl, whereas TCU needed an at-large bid.

My solution has long been to eliminate CCG's altogether, and make the regular season 13 games for everyone. I've always believed that larger conferences get too inequitable in scheduling- a big step when eliminating the full round robin, and another big step once leagues get past about 12.

(01-06-2015 09:27 AM)That Guy 2012 Wrote:  

(01-06-2015 12:56 AM)I45owl Wrote:  

(01-05-2015 08:41 PM)WRCisforgotten79 Wrote:  106/119 of the computer ratings listed on Massey (including mine) had TCU rated as better than Baylor. You Baylor apologists need to quit stomping your feet and accept the fact that the Frogs had a better team (even before the bowl games which further proved the point).

So, do you feel it's appropriate that the Big 12 changed their rules in the 11th hour?

i have no question that TCU was the superior team. But, by all rights, they were - or should have been - ineligible to compete for the D1 title.

I have to question what the BXII was thinking when they agreed to the championship series... they may have still envisioned a 12 team conference with a championship game, as most of the other conferences expected.

What do you feel is the appropriate remedy for a situation like the BXII is in?

They didn't change the rule at the 11th hour, they were just loud about not changing it. For as long as there have been ten teams in the Big XII, there has been the opportunity for co-championships- I rememeber two or three years ago when KSU and Oklahoma were both officially champions of the conference. The only tiebreaker was for who got the autobid to the Fiesta Bowl, which KSU got for beating OU h2h. Now, there are no autobids to the CFP, but there are autobids to the NY6 Bowls. BU and TCU were co-champs like OU/KSU, but since BU held the tiebreaker, they were obligated into an NY6 Bowl, whereas TCU needed an at-large bid.

My solution has long been to eliminate CCG's altogether, and make the regular season 13 games for everyone. I've always believed that larger conferences get too inequitable in scheduling- a big step when eliminating the full round robin, and another big step once leagues get past about 12.

When their slogan is "one true champion" the Big XII's stance came off as kind of ridiculous. Then again, the Big XII has 10 teams, so what the hell...

(01-05-2015 05:15 PM)gsloth Wrote:  

(01-05-2015 12:49 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(01-04-2015 03:13 PM)gsloth Wrote:  JAAO - you can keep arguing it all you want, but the fact of the matter is that injuries is one of the explicit parameters the committee is supposed to consider when trying to differentiate between close/essentially equal teams. It's in the charter for the group. Throw out other strawmen about coaches if you like, but it's right there in black and white. Clearly, they didn't think it mattered that much, or that the divide between OSU and the other 1 loss teams was wide enough to overcome it.

Didn't realize it was in the parameters. But that just makes the whole situation even more idiotic to me. If a team wins its conference basketball tournament and one of their players is injured in the game, should we take away their autobid? What if he's only their second best player? What if he's 50% likely to be back for the tournament? Granted, with the CFP we're already in the gray area because there are no auto-bids, but it just seems crazy to me to judge not by what actually happened in past games, but what we think might happen in future games.

Or again, why play the games at all?

Not take away the bid, but something like it was happened in basketball. Not sure if you were aware of the 2000 NCAA Tournament, when a near certain #1 seed (Cincinnati) was dropped to a #2 seed after the player of the year (Kenyon Martin) broke his leg in the first game of the conference tournament (they lost that game). They were the #1 team for 6 weeks leading up to a couple weeks before the conference tourney (lost 1 in the regular season, too), but was still AP #2 after the conference tourney loss. It was a shock at the time when they were given a #2 seed, as they had otherwise been dominant all season.

Difference here is that they lost the first game of the conference tournament. If they won the tournament without Martin, and got dropped to #2, that would be more analogous. It's a limited analogy anyway, because seeding in a 64 team tournament is different that picking only 4 who even get to participate.

(01-05-2015 09:04 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(01-05-2015 08:41 PM)WRCisforgotten79 Wrote:  106/119 of the computer ratings listed on Massey (including mine) had TCU rated as better than Baylor. You Baylor apologists need to quit stomping your feet and accept the fact that the Frogs had a better team (even before the bowl games which further proved the point).

Whether or not one believed that TCU had the superior all-around team, many of us traditionalists still think Baylor was the Big 12 champ based on head-to-head. I don't care if it was a close game, or Baylor winning it at home on a questionable call, the fact is that both had identical records and Baylor won the head-to-head. That's the tie-breaker....and TCU would be crying foul if they were in Baylor's shoes.

This. I'm not arguing TCU wasn't the better overall team, and I'm certainly not a Baylor apologist. I just think on the field results are the best tie-breaker when tie-breakers are necessary.

And no one has answered the questions I've posed here

(01-05-2015 08:20 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  Conference championship is determined by best conference record. The intent of having a championship tournament is to crown a national champion which is based on all games.

Chew on this scenario

Team A has an 8-4 record but 7-1 in conference. For arguments sake , we'll say their conference loss was by 14 but it was on the road to another 8-4 team (who had 2 conference losses)

Team B is 11-1, with a win over a top 10 team and a win over a Top 15 team OOC.

Team B lost to Team A on the road by 3, when their QB took a hard hit in the second quarter and was held out of the game for concussion precautions the rest of the way, but returned to play the rest of the season.

No conference championship game.

Team A is the conference champion, but is going to a less prestigious bowl.

Team B is rated highly enough to be in the Top 4.

Given only 1 undefeated team, do you rule Team B out of consideration for the 4-team playoff?

If yes, what makes their loss worse than the losses of other 1-loss teams?

If no, the difference between that scenario and the TCU-Baylor scenario is a matter of degree.

(01-05-2015 08:20 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(01-05-2015 01:40 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(01-02-2015 12:27 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  TCU had the 'best loss' of any of the Top 5 or 6 teams. It 'counts' more because it was in conference?

Yes, because it counts toward the conference standings.

Ten teams managed to win their conferences. If you can't make it into that list, you shouldn't be in the playoff, IMHO. Even limiting it to the 'power' conferences, you still have 5 conference champs for 4 playoff spots.

I think it should be limited to conference champs until there are more slots than conferences, but even if you argue against that, (i.e. but what if the SEC is so much better than the ACC one year?) I still think that a team that failed to win its conference should not be picked above the team that won that conference.

And, as I've argued above, Baylor should win the tie-breaker, because they beat TCU on the football field, not on message boards, in the computers, or in the minds of pundits.

[Edit: bold for emphasis.]

Conference championship is determined by best conference record. The intent of having a championship tournament is to crown a national champion which is based on all games.

Chew on this scenario

Team A has an 8-4 record but 7-1 in conference. For arguments sake , we'll say their conference loss was by 14 but it was on the road to another 8-4 team (who had 2 conference losses)

Team B is 11-1, with a win over a top 10 team and a win over a Top 15 team OOC.

Team B lost to Team A on the road by 3, when their QB took a hard hit in the second quarter and was held out of the game for concussion precautions the rest of the way, but returned to play the rest of the season.

No conference championship game.

Team A is the conference champion, but is going to a less prestigious bowl.

Team B is rated highly enough to be in the Top 4.

Given only 1 undefeated team, do you rule Team B out of consideration for the 4-team playoff?

If yes, what makes their loss worse than the losses of other 1-loss teams?

If no, the difference between that scenario and the TCU-Baylor scenario is a matter of degree.

Yes. There are 9 other conference champs available for the 4 slots. If we want non-conference champs to get in, create more playoff spots.

If conference championships don't matter, why have conferences? Serious question. Why not just use some sort of stratified randomization to generate schedules so that everyone has a roughly equal schedule? (Actually, that's not a bad idea, if highly improbable.)

As an aside, I'd also favor rules which encourage some conference consolidation, i.e. all conference representing 18 schools get an autobid and all representing 14(16?) ranked in the top 12 (16?) get a bid. Then the smaller conferences have an incentive to consolidate into essentially 9 or 10 team regional conferences with a CCG as a defacto play-in to the playoff. Larger conferences can stick at 14 and take the chance that they may not get the autobid if their champ is mediocre. In your example above, Team B could still get in as an at large.

If we get down to 6 or 7 conferences, we could have all conference champs get in and still have 5 or 6 at large bids with a 12 team tournament.

(01-06-2015 10:57 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  And no one has answered the questions I've posed here

(01-05-2015 08:20 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  Conference championship is determined by best conference record. The intent of having a championship tournament is to crown a national champion which is based on all games.

Chew on this scenario

Team A has an 8-4 record but 7-1 in conference. For arguments sake , we'll say their conference loss was by 14 but it was on the road to another 8-4 team (who had 2 conference losses)

Team B is 11-1, with a win over a top 10 team and a win over a Top 15 team OOC.

Team B lost to Team A on the road by 3, when their QB took a hard hit in the second quarter and was held out of the game for concussion precautions the rest of the way, but returned to play the rest of the season.

No conference championship game.

Team A is the conference champion, but is going to a less prestigious bowl.

Team B is rated highly enough to be in the Top 4.

Given only 1 undefeated team, do you rule Team B out of consideration for the 4-team playoff?

If yes, what makes their loss worse than the losses of other 1-loss teams?

If no, the difference between that scenario and the TCU-Baylor scenario is a matter of degree.

I'll take a stab at it. This assumes that A & B are conference co-champions, not that B was A's lone OOC win. If Team B is rated in the top 4, send them to the playoffs- they are, after all, champions. Team A is also champions; however, they also have the tiebreaker that all leagues have without a CCG- in a two way tie, the guarantee of the #1 tie-in to the h2h winner. If it's a P5 team, put them in the NY6- they earned it by the book; if not, put them in whatever bowl is tie in #1 for their league that year.