This whole process reminds me of the television commercial where a woman spends a few minutes using a baking mix. Then, just before emerging from the kitchen with her yummy dessert, she rumples her clothes and throws a handful of flour in her face to make it look like she worked hard preparing it.

The committee will spend a small fortune trying to make it look like their task is difficult. In reality, it could be done just as well in about two hours at the end of the season by any football fan with a cable or satellite package that includes ESPN.

Committee: Are you a P5 champion? Congratulations. You just made our short list.

Do you have one or fewer losses? Congratulations again. Are there four or fewer of you guys and any school with the words "Notre" and "Dame" in its name? If the answer is yes, you are all finalists for the playoffs.

Are there four or more than four of you with one or fewer losses? Well, all you candidates with two or more losses, thanks for playing. See our secretary about validating your parking.

That takes about five minutes. The rest of the committee's time is spent deciding which team gets the short straw, and applying makeup for their media interviews.

(11-04-2015 07:47 PM)ken d Wrote:  This whole process reminds me of the television commercial where a woman spends a few minutes using a baking mix. Then, just before emerging from the kitchen with her yummy dessert, she rumples her clothes and throws a handful of flour in her face to make it look like she worked hard preparing it.

The committee will spend a small fortune trying to make it look like their task is difficult. In reality, it could be done just as well in about two hours at the end of the season by any football fan with a cable or satellite package that includes ESPN.

Committee: Are you a P5 champion? Congratulations. You just made our short list.

Do you have one or fewer losses? Congratulations again. Are there four or fewer of you guys and any school with the words "Notre" and "Dame" in its name? If the answer is yes, you are all finalists for the playoffs.

Are there four or more than four of you with one or fewer losses? Well, all you candidates with two or more losses, thanks for playing. See our secretary about validating your parking.

That takes about five minutes. The rest of the committee's time is spent deciding which team gets the short straw, and applying makeup for their media interviews.

Basically this. It's when all things being equal, you basically have to come up with shoe horn or red herring arguments that gets the brand names in over second stringers. I don't know why its so complicated to some people. It's the reason why Bama is as high as they are, but obviously there are still games to be played.

(11-04-2015 04:21 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  While it actually backfired last year, seeding DOES matter. Consider this: had Oregon been number one last year, and Alabama been number 2, then Oregon would have lost in the first round, and Alabama may have made the championship game or FSU may have). Now usually that works the other way around (where you could lose an early round game because you were underseeded), We saw that Ohio State would have beaten Alabama anyway, but what if FSU had been able to beat them, due to favorable matchup? For example. Just saying, the seeding does matter, if a team that should be number one, is seeded second, and loses in the first round, as opposed to having the "easier" opponent they are supposed to. It may not matter every year such as last year when the lowest seeded team won, but it does matter.

Last year is a bad example to argue for seeding relevancy. Yes, Bama and Oregon had a measurable edge given their conference strengths respectively. But the SEC tailed off towards the end of the year so it wasn't a gaping difference between 1/4. Some years the 13-0 team will get a 10-2 team in a favorable bowl venue for the 13-0 team, and then it will matter, as it should. Bama was not a clear cut number one last year, but more a number one by default. The key factor was scheduling and getting Oregon in the Rose and Bama in the Sugar. It could have been FSU versus Bama or Oregon versus Ohio St round one, but the locations and the television and travel factor for fans trumps all that.

But if TV was considered they would have had Oregon vs Ohio St. So that pokes a pretty big hole in your argument.

Maybe it's possible the committee actually thought that Florida St was worse than Alabama and Oregon. I know it's a concept you don't want to accept- but everything the committee has shown is the records don't mean anywhere near as much as they used to.

(11-04-2015 09:31 PM)stever20 Wrote:  But if TV was considered they would have had Oregon vs Ohio St. So that pokes a pretty big hole in your argument.

Maybe it's possible the committee actually thought that Florida St was worse than Alabama and Oregon. I know it's a concept you don't want to accept- but everything the committee has shown is the records don't mean anywhere near as much as they used to.

Wrong again, the QB match up and the coaching match up was more than enough of a selling point. That made for even better TV match ups than had it been typical Big 10/PAC 10, SEC versus FSU that we get every year.

But I agree with your premise. I never said FSU was better than any of those schools last year. Obviously you still have to win two games to win the title last time I checked. Granting FSU a berth in the top four was their reward.

What I'd be arguing against is FSU hosting Ohio St at the Sugar, as it doesn't make a lot of sense for the Bama contingent to go to Pasadena. No logical sense whatsoever. If Bama is a clear cut number four then send them wherever, but at 1 or 2, you can't do that to those fans.

http://www.si.com/college-football/2015/...imson-tide

All the SI writers but two rake the committee over the coals for having Alabama #4. 9 say they shouldn't be, 1 simply says it doesn't matter and 1 likes it because it is meaningless, indefensible and therefore makes people talk. So basically none of the 11 think its supportable.

(11-04-2015 10:16 PM)bullet Wrote:  http://www.si.com/college-football/2015/...imson-tide

All the SI writers but two rake the committee over the coals for having Alabama #4. 9 say they shouldn't be, 1 simply says it doesn't matter and 1 likes it because it is meaningless, indefensible and therefore makes people talk. So basically none of the 11 think its supportable.

This is the point H1 and I made earlier. ESPN is in the entertainment business, and the "reveal" show is just entertainment. I'm almost surprised that they don't hand out roses to each weeks' Top 4 picks.

Everyone should stop crying, this is probably the most accurate poll we have ever seen. The only teams really out of place are Ole Miss, Memphis, and Houston.

Ole Miss would demolish a lot of teams ranked above them.

(11-04-2015 10:16 PM)bullet Wrote:  http://www.si.com/college-football/2015/...imson-tide

All the SI writers but two rake the committee over the coals for having Alabama #4. 9 say they shouldn't be, 1 simply says it doesn't matter and 1 likes it because it is meaningless, indefensible and therefore makes people talk. So basically none of the 11 think its supportable.

Any why does anyone care what SI thinks??

Of course they're going to support the AP Poll over the CFP.

(11-04-2015 11:31 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(11-04-2015 10:16 PM)bullet Wrote:  http://www.si.com/college-football/2015/...imson-tide

All the SI writers but two rake the committee over the coals for having Alabama #4. 9 say they shouldn't be, 1 simply says it doesn't matter and 1 likes it because it is meaningless, indefensible and therefore makes people talk. So basically none of the 11 think its supportable.

This is the point H1 and I made earlier. ESPN is in the entertainment business, and the "reveal" show is just entertainment. I'm almost surprised that they don't hand out roses to each weeks' Top 4 picks.

It does give journalists something to write about, hosts something to talk about and message board posters something to discuss.

Sounds like a reasonable meaning and defense, to me.

(11-04-2015 12:43 PM)bullet Wrote:  SOS per Jeff Sagarin
Clemson 28
LSU 37
Ohio St. 68
Alabama 9
Notre Dame 16
Baylor 104
Mich St. 59
TCU 53
Iowa 47
Florida 15
Stanford 23
Utah 19
Memphis 84
Ok. St. 70
OU 52
FSU 64
Michigan 39
Ole Miss 41
A&M 22
Miss. St. 57
Northwestern 24
Temple 97
UCLA 36
Toledo 116
Houston 124

Computers do not know how strong a team is playing. So Memphis's SOS is highly suspect being that low. We already seen how strong the SEC west schools were in the bowl games last year?

(11-04-2015 09:15 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(11-04-2015 07:47 PM)ken d Wrote:  This whole process reminds me of the television commercial where a woman spends a few minutes using a baking mix. Then, just before emerging from the kitchen with her yummy dessert, she rumples her clothes and throws a handful of flour in her face to make it look like she worked hard preparing it.

The committee will spend a small fortune trying to make it look like their task is difficult. In reality, it could be done just as well in about two hours at the end of the season by any football fan with a cable or satellite package that includes ESPN.

Committee: Are you a P5 champion? Congratulations. You just made our short list.

Do you have one or fewer losses? Congratulations again. Are there four or fewer of you guys and any school with the words "Notre" and "Dame" in its name? If the answer is yes, you are all finalists for the playoffs.

Are there four or more than four of you with one or fewer losses? Well, all you candidates with two or more losses, thanks for playing. See our secretary about validating your parking.

That takes about five minutes. The rest of the committee's time is spent deciding which team gets the short straw, and applying makeup for their media interviews.

Basically this. It's when all things being equal, you basically have to come up with shoe horn or red herring arguments that gets the brand names in over second stringers. I don't know why its so complicated to some people. It's the reason why Bama is as high as they are, but obviously there are still games to be played.

(11-04-2015 04:21 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  While it actually backfired last year, seeding DOES matter. Consider this: had Oregon been number one last year, and Alabama been number 2, then Oregon would have lost in the first round, and Alabama may have made the championship game or FSU may have). Now usually that works the other way around (where you could lose an early round game because you were underseeded), We saw that Ohio State would have beaten Alabama anyway, but what if FSU had been able to beat them, due to favorable matchup? For example. Just saying, the seeding does matter, if a team that should be number one, is seeded second, and loses in the first round, as opposed to having the "easier" opponent they are supposed to. It may not matter every year such as last year when the lowest seeded team won, but it does matter.

Last year is a bad example to argue for seeding relevancy. Yes, Bama and Oregon had a measurable edge given their conference strengths respectively. But the SEC tailed off towards the end of the year so it wasn't a gaping difference between 1/4. Some years the 13-0 team will get a 10-2 team in a favorable bowl venue for the 13-0 team, and then it will matter, as it should. Bama was not a clear cut number one last year, but more a number one by default. The key factor was scheduling and getting Oregon in the Rose and Bama in the Sugar. It could have been FSU versus Bama or Oregon versus Ohio St round one, but the locations and the television and travel factor for fans trumps all that.

Yeah I realized it was a bad result in terms of "results," but I think it proved how it can affect teams in general. Obviously with more years of data, the NCAA tournament is a better way ros how how seeding matters, but football/basketball differences make it hard to make the argument.