(11-29-2015 02:36 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-29-2015 02:20 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(11-29-2015 02:18 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Look guys the final 4 positioning is totally irrelevant. They will rank them to pair them. The final ranking will be a seeding for national interest in the semi-finals. It was last year and will be again. So it simply doesn't matter where Alabama, Oklahoma, Clemson and the Big 10 winner get seeded.

The final top 15 will determine major bowls. Tie ins screw up that system. It's not worth the debate.

where it is important for this week is where Clemson falls. If Clemson isn't #1, that REALLY hurts UNC's prayer of making the top 4.

I don't think so. The committee is still trying to tie in as many regions of the country as possible. Oklahoma gives them some West Coast interest, but certainly nowhere near the PAC representative that they could have hoped for. Jazz up the OU & UT to the PAC talk before the semis and more of their viewers will tune in. Florida State had to play out West last year because they and Alabama represent essentially the same general area. With Clemson or North Carolina they engage the eastern seaboard more effectively. Having Iowa or Michigan State still gives them the Northern Midwest. Ohio State would have been the stronger brand, but not at the exclusion of the Atlantic Seaboard.

The damned rankings don't mean anything other than seeding to designed to enhance market penetration and a loose attempt to do the same for those emerging to the eventual finals. Put the Big 10 champ against Oklahoma and the ACC champ against the SEC champ and then in the finals you have either Oklahoma or the Big 10 both of which hold some West Coast interest against somebody that holds East Coast interest and Southeast interest. That's the best possible market outcome so that is what I expect to see. So they will position the participants after next week's CCGs to accomplish that. Anyway that is my opinion.

I don't think OU draws more west coast viewers than other "name" teams not in the Pac-12. They don't publish local sports TV ratings in the LA Times any more, and I've never seen them for the Bay Area, but when the LAT used to publish them, almost every fall week it would be USC's game first, then other Pac-12 games or NFL games depending on which had better games that week, then other CFB games with name teams, then soccer on Spanish-language channels. Sometimes a big soccer match would be higher up the list.

(11-29-2015 03:14 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(11-29-2015 02:36 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-29-2015 02:20 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(11-29-2015 02:18 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Look guys the final 4 positioning is totally irrelevant. They will rank them to pair them. The final ranking will be a seeding for national interest in the semi-finals. It was last year and will be again. So it simply doesn't matter where Alabama, Oklahoma, Clemson and the Big 10 winner get seeded.

The final top 15 will determine major bowls. Tie ins screw up that system. It's not worth the debate.

where it is important for this week is where Clemson falls. If Clemson isn't #1, that REALLY hurts UNC's prayer of making the top 4.

I don't think so. The committee is still trying to tie in as many regions of the country as possible. Oklahoma gives them some West Coast interest, but certainly nowhere near the PAC representative that they could have hoped for. Jazz up the OU & UT to the PAC talk before the semis and more of their viewers will tune in. Florida State had to play out West last year because they and Alabama represent essentially the same general area. With Clemson or North Carolina they engage the eastern seaboard more effectively. Having Iowa or Michigan State still gives them the Northern Midwest. Ohio State would have been the stronger brand, but not at the exclusion of the Atlantic Seaboard.

The damned rankings don't mean anything other than seeding to designed to enhance market penetration and a loose attempt to do the same for those emerging to the eventual finals. Put the Big 10 champ against Oklahoma and the ACC champ against the SEC champ and then in the finals you have either Oklahoma or the Big 10 both of which hold some West Coast interest against somebody that holds East Coast interest and Southeast interest. That's the best possible market outcome so that is what I expect to see. So they will position the participants after next week's CCGs to accomplish that. Anyway that is my opinion.

I don't think OU draws more west coast viewers than other "name" teams not in the Pac-12. They don't publish local sports TV ratings in the LA Times any more, and I've never seen them for the Bay Area, but when the LAT used to publish them, almost every fall week it would be USC's game first, then other Pac-12 games or NFL games depending on which had better games that week, then other CFB games with name teams, then soccer on Spanish-language channels. Sometimes a big soccer match would be higher up the list.

I did say, "but nowhere near any PAC representative".

(11-29-2015 03:16 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-29-2015 03:14 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(11-29-2015 02:36 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-29-2015 02:20 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(11-29-2015 02:18 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Look guys the final 4 positioning is totally irrelevant. They will rank them to pair them. The final ranking will be a seeding for national interest in the semi-finals. It was last year and will be again. So it simply doesn't matter where Alabama, Oklahoma, Clemson and the Big 10 winner get seeded.

The final top 15 will determine major bowls. Tie ins screw up that system. It's not worth the debate.

where it is important for this week is where Clemson falls. If Clemson isn't #1, that REALLY hurts UNC's prayer of making the top 4.

I don't think so. The committee is still trying to tie in as many regions of the country as possible. Oklahoma gives them some West Coast interest, but certainly nowhere near the PAC representative that they could have hoped for. Jazz up the OU & UT to the PAC talk before the semis and more of their viewers will tune in. Florida State had to play out West last year because they and Alabama represent essentially the same general area. With Clemson or North Carolina they engage the eastern seaboard more effectively. Having Iowa or Michigan State still gives them the Northern Midwest. Ohio State would have been the stronger brand, but not at the exclusion of the Atlantic Seaboard.

The damned rankings don't mean anything other than seeding to designed to enhance market penetration and a loose attempt to do the same for those emerging to the eventual finals. Put the Big 10 champ against Oklahoma and the ACC champ against the SEC champ and then in the finals you have either Oklahoma or the Big 10 both of which hold some West Coast interest against somebody that holds East Coast interest and Southeast interest. That's the best possible market outcome so that is what I expect to see. So they will position the participants after next week's CCGs to accomplish that. Anyway that is my opinion.

I don't think OU draws more west coast viewers than other "name" teams not in the Pac-12. They don't publish local sports TV ratings in the LA Times any more, and I've never seen them for the Bay Area, but when the LAT used to publish them, almost every fall week it would be USC's game first, then other Pac-12 games or NFL games depending on which had better games that week, then other CFB games with name teams, then soccer on Spanish-language channels. Sometimes a big soccer match would be higher up the list.

I did say, "but nowhere near any PAC representative".

Agreed, but also, IMO, Alabama or another king program would be at least as good a draw in LA.

(11-29-2015 10:28 AM)stever20 Wrote:  it's a committee criteria, but the teams have to be viewed as being equal for that to matter. It's a tiebreaker, not an out and out decider.

Also, watch Tuesday for clues. Clemson I'm telling you could absolutely be #3. Alabama and Oklahoma 1/2 in some format. Clemson beating South Carolina by 5? That's pathetic.

Not according to the committee selection protocol that was originally established

College Football Selection Committee Wrote:[b]Proposed Selection Process:[/b]

Establish a committee that will be instructed to place an emphasis on winning conference championships, strength of schedule and head-to-head competition when comparing teams with similar records and pedigree (treat final determination like a tie-breaker; apply specific guidelines).

The criteria to be provided to the selection committee must be aligned with the ideals of the commissioners, presidents, athletic directors and coaches to honor regular season success while at the same time providing enough flexibility and discretion to select a non-champion or independent under circumstances where that particular non-champion or independent is unequivocally one of the four best teams in the country.

When circumstances at the margins indicate that teams are comparable, then the following criteria must be considered:

Championships won
Strength of schedule
Head-to-head competition (if it occurred)
Comparative outcomes of common opponents (without incenting margin of victory)

We believe that a committee of experts properly instructed (based on beliefs that the regular season is unique and must be preserved; and that championships won on the field and strength of schedule are important values that must be incorporated into the selection process) has very strong support throughout the college football community.

As we expand from two teams to four teams we want to establish a human selection committee that: (1) will be provided a clear set of guidelines; (2) will be expected to take the facts of each case and specifically apply the guidelines; and (3) will be led by a Chairperson who will be expected to explain publicly the committee’s decisions.

Some of the guidelines and protocols expected to be established to guide the committee would include, but not be limited to, the following:

While it is understood that committee members will take into consideration all kinds of data including polls, committee members will be required to discredit polls wherein initial rankings are established before competition has occurred;
Any polls that are taken into consideration by the selection committee must be completely open and transparent to the public;
Strength of schedule, head-to-head competition and championships won must be specifically applied as tie-breakers between teams that look similar;
Committee members associated with any team under consideration during the selection process will be required to recuse themselves from any deliberations associated with that team;

We would expect this same set of principles to be applied, particularly at the margins (teams 10-11-12).

College Football Playoff Selection Committee Protocol

Mission. The committee’s task will be to select the best teams, rank the teams for inclusion in the playoff and selected other bowl games and then assign the teams to sites.
Principles. The committee will select the teams using a process that distinguishes among otherwise comparable teams by considering:
Conference championships won,
Strength of schedule,
Head-to-head competition,
Comparative outcomes of common opponents (without incenting margin of victory), and,
Other relevant factors such as key injuries that may have affected a team’s performance during the season or likely will affect its postseason performance.

Now we know the Committee has shown they will do what they want, when they want, but championships are supposed to be the first criteria, not a tie breaker. That is why they repeatedly spoke about the Big XII's lack of an identified champion last year as a factor in being left out of the playoff. It doesn't mean champions are the only ones they will look at obviously, but by the letter of their rules, they will be the first ones looked at.

(11-29-2015 02:05 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-29-2015 01:57 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(11-29-2015 01:54 PM)stever20 Wrote:  And SOS- Alabama is #5, Clemson is #47.

Inflated and we all know it. That's SEC bias if we've ever seen it.

How is this a discussion about Alabama? They will be overwhelmingly favored to beat Florida. It's a shame but that's the way it is. Right now Florida couldn't score in a whorehouse with a thousand dollars taped to their foreheads.

It won't matter who wins the PAC they have two losses minimum.

The Big 12 has no CCG so Oklahoma is in.

The winner of Michigan State / Iowa can only have 1 loss at worst, so they are in.

Clemson is the only school playing formidable competition in their CCG.

It is my opinion that the winner of that game (Clemson vs U.N.C.) will be in.

Should the unthinkable happen and Alabama lose to Florida the SEC is out.

Only then would discussion arise about a second school out of the Big 10. If Michigan State barely beats Iowa then I think the Haweyes who at least won their division get in. If Iowa wins the CCG then and only then would Ohio State enter the discussion. But again all of this is predicated upon an Alabama loss, not a Clemson loss.

Note: Why am I so confident about U.N.C. getting in with a CCG win? Because their loss (on the opening week of the season) could well have been a win against a much healthier and deeper South Carolina team than the one that played the rest of the year. That loss is really not much worse than Oklahoma's loss to Texas or Michigan State's loss to Nebraska. Alabama's loss to Mississippi is having to be overlooked as well. IMO, the folks on the committee can't afford so obvious a snub based on that 1 loss with regards to a national brand program (even if that brand is based upon hoops). To overlook Oklahoma, Alabama, and possibly Michigan State's ugly losses and to reject North Carolina on that basis seems to me to be controversial to touch. The only thing they could dock U.N.C. for is OOC strength Oklahoma did play Tennesee and win and Alabama did play Wisconsin and win. But I don't think it will come down to that.

I agree with JR.

If Clemson loses, the best 1 loss resume might be Clemson.

(11-30-2015 10:16 AM)uccheese Wrote:  If Clemson loses, the best 1 loss resume might be Clemson.

if Clemson loses, they're out

This isn't the BCS...you're not going to lose your conference championship game and back into the playoff

(11-29-2015 03:43 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(11-29-2015 10:28 AM)stever20 Wrote:  it's a committee criteria, but the teams have to be viewed as being equal for that to matter. It's a tiebreaker, not an out and out decider.

Also, watch Tuesday for clues. Clemson I'm telling you could absolutely be #3. Alabama and Oklahoma 1/2 in some format. Clemson beating South Carolina by 5? That's pathetic.

Not according to the committee selection protocol that was originally established

College Football Selection Committee Wrote:[b]Proposed Selection Process:[/b]

Establish a committee that will be instructed to place an emphasis on winning conference championships, strength of schedule and head-to-head competition when comparing teams with similar records and pedigree (treat final determination like a tie-breaker; apply specific guidelines).

The criteria to be provided to the selection committee must be aligned with the ideals of the commissioners, presidents, athletic directors and coaches to honor regular season success while at the same time providing enough flexibility and discretion to select a non-champion or independent under circumstances where that particular non-champion or independent is unequivocally one of the four best teams in the country.

When circumstances at the margins indicate that teams are comparable, then the following criteria must be considered:

Championships won
Strength of schedule
Head-to-head competition (if it occurred)
Comparative outcomes of common opponents (without incenting margin of victory)

We believe that a committee of experts properly instructed (based on beliefs that the regular season is unique and must be preserved; and that championships won on the field and strength of schedule are important values that must be incorporated into the selection process) has very strong support throughout the college football community.

As we expand from two teams to four teams we want to establish a human selection committee that: (1) will be provided a clear set of guidelines; (2) will be expected to take the facts of each case and specifically apply the guidelines; and (3) will be led by a Chairperson who will be expected to explain publicly the committee’s decisions.

Some of the guidelines and protocols expected to be established to guide the committee would include, but not be limited to, the following:

While it is understood that committee members will take into consideration all kinds of data including polls, committee members will be required to discredit polls wherein initial rankings are established before competition has occurred;
Any polls that are taken into consideration by the selection committee must be completely open and transparent to the public;
Strength of schedule, head-to-head competition and championships won must be specifically applied as tie-breakers between teams that look similar;
Committee members associated with any team under consideration during the selection process will be required to recuse themselves from any deliberations associated with that team;

We would expect this same set of principles to be applied, particularly at the margins (teams 10-11-12).

College Football Playoff Selection Committee Protocol

Mission. The committee’s task will be to select the best teams, rank the teams for inclusion in the playoff and selected other bowl games and then assign the teams to sites.
Principles. The committee will select the teams using a process that distinguishes among otherwise comparable teams by considering:
Conference championships won,
Strength of schedule,
Head-to-head competition,
Comparative outcomes of common opponents (without incenting margin of victory), and,
Other relevant factors such as key injuries that may have affected a team’s performance during the season or likely will affect its postseason performance.

Now we know the Committee has shown they will do what they want, when they want, but championships are supposed to be the first criteria, not a tie breaker. That is why they repeatedly spoke about the Big XII's lack of an identified champion last year as a factor in being left out of the playoff. It doesn't mean champions are the only ones they will look at obviously, but by the letter of their rules, they will be the first ones looked at.

You missed a HUGE sentence:
When circumstances at the margins indicate that teams are comparable, then the following criteria must be considered

Teams have to be comparable for the conference championships to matter.

(11-29-2015 02:47 PM)DogPoundNorth Wrote:  No way in hell that the Big 10 will have two teams in the playoff while leaving out two other P5 conference champions. Not going to happen. Ohio State is out.

I don't think it is likely this year, but there will be 2 reps from the same conference at some point.

(11-30-2015 10:41 AM)stever20 Wrote:  You missed a HUGE sentence:
When circumstances at the margins indicate that teams are comparable, then the following criteria must be considered

Teams have to be comparable for the conference championships to matter.

I didn't miss it, you are just reading it differently. There is another place where it is stated more directly, but the part about the teams being comparable is about the conference champions, and only if they are not deemed comparable, do they then look at non-champions. Thus the idea that championship are only a tie breaker, is simply not true. They addressed this on ESPN on of the shows on Sunday, before football, and they actually pulled out the quote, where it stated that non-champions are only meant to be looked at, if the pool of champions is not satisfactory. Again, that shows that being a champion is not a tie breaker, it is the first criteria looked at.

IMO, Florida has to win the SEC for Ohio St. to be in consideration. Florida would be too far out to be seriously considered.

In that scenario:

#1 Clemson
#2 Michigan St./Iowa
#3 Oklahoma
#4 Ohio St./Iowa-MSU/Stanford

If Clemson were to lose:
#1 Michigan St./Iowa
#2 Oklahoma
#3/4 North Carolina/Ohio St./Clemson/Iowa-MSU/Stanford

(11-29-2015 02:27 PM)BamaScorpio69 Wrote:  Ohio St. has about a .00001% chance to get into the playoffs.

So you're sayin they have a chance :) <channeling Jim Carrey>

(11-29-2015 02:47 PM)DogPoundNorth Wrote:  No way in hell that the Big 10 will have two teams in the playoff while leaving out two other P5 conference champions. Not going to happen. Ohio State is out.

If Florida beats Alabama, Ohio State gets in with only 1 loss. Both Florida and Alabama would have 2

(11-30-2015 01:51 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(11-30-2015 10:41 AM)stever20 Wrote:  You missed a HUGE sentence:
When circumstances at the margins indicate that teams are comparable, then the following criteria must be considered

Teams have to be comparable for the conference championships to matter.

I didn't miss it, you are just reading it differently. There is another place where it is stated more directly, but the part about the teams being comparable is about the conference champions, and only if they are not deemed comparable, do they then look at non-champions. Thus the idea that championship are only a tie breaker, is simply not true. They addressed this on ESPN on of the shows on Sunday, before football, and they actually pulled out the quote, where it stated that non-champions are only meant to be looked at, if the pool of champions is not satisfactory. Again, that shows that being a champion is not a tie breaker, it is the first criteria looked at.

Correct. Non champs have to be "unequivocally" better than the champs to get in.

(11-30-2015 03:10 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(11-30-2015 01:51 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(11-30-2015 10:41 AM)stever20 Wrote:  You missed a HUGE sentence:
When circumstances at the margins indicate that teams are comparable, then the following criteria must be considered

Teams have to be comparable for the conference championships to matter.

I didn't miss it, you are just reading it differently. There is another place where it is stated more directly, but the part about the teams being comparable is about the conference champions, and only if they are not deemed comparable, do they then look at non-champions. Thus the idea that championship are only a tie breaker, is simply not true. They addressed this on ESPN on of the shows on Sunday, before football, and they actually pulled out the quote, where it stated that non-champions are only meant to be looked at, if the pool of champions is not satisfactory. Again, that shows that being a champion is not a tie breaker, it is the first criteria looked at.

Correct. Non champs have to be "unequivocally" better than the champs to get in.

Exactly. The point is, Ohio St to a lot of folks would be unequivocally better than UNC.

No, you said it was a tie breaker. That is wrong. That is why I pointed it out. You can debate the merits of say UNC if they win, but there is not team left who'd be "unequivocally" better who is not also a champion. That is a BIG difference from rating teams without championship consideration, then using it as a tie breaker.

However they have not actually shown to be consistent in the rankings not actually care about the rules they set. So we shall see.

UNC needs a 7 point victory at least. It can't be a fluke, last second field goal type game. They need to make a statement.

(11-30-2015 03:18 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  No, you said it was a tie breaker. That is wrong. That is why I pointed it out. You can debate the merits of say UNC if they win, but there is not team left who'd be "unequivocally" better who is not also a champion. That is a BIG difference from rating teams without championship consideration, then using it as a tie breaker.

To a lot of folks, Ohio St IS unequivocally better than UNC(even if UNC beats Clemson).

Not really. To a lot of folks they are better. I doubt many have paid attention to the requirement of being "unequivocally" better.

Plus that was not the pint. The point was, and is, that conference champion ships are not some tie breaker: they are supposed to be the primary consideration.

(11-30-2015 03:33 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  Not really. To a lot of folks they are better. I doubt many have paid attention to the requirement of being "unequivocally" better.

Plus that was not the pint. The point was, and is, that conference champion ships are not some tie breaker: they are supposed to be the primary consideration.

Not really. If Team a is clearly better than team b, team b wins championship and team a doesn't- team b doesn't automatically get it. And to a lot of folks, Ohio St IS clearly better than UNC. It's where if someone sees Ohio St and UNC as being pretty close, then the conference championship would take over.