(11-18-2015 11:31 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(11-18-2015 11:20 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(11-18-2015 11:08 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(11-18-2015 10:51 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  BTW, have they ever said that since ND (or the other independents) can't win a conference, the conference champion criterion doesn't apply in direct comparison?

Seems very unlikely that the committee would use a conference-title preference to hurt Notre Dame or any other independent, even though the "Notre Dame must join a conference or be punished for not joining" crowd would love to see that.

Seems just as weird the other way to ignore their champion criteria for a champion.

Here is the exact verbiage:

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)

To me a key word is "unequivocally". If OU continues on its current roll and is a conference champion, it's going to tough "unequivocally" say the non-champion ND is one of the four best teams in the country. It's almost saying that there can't be any doubt for a non-champion or independent (and notice that they are lumped together). ND doesn't get a break because it can't win a championship.

Note that the comparative outcome of common opponents is also on that list, so that clearly favors Notre Dame.

People need to get over it: the Big 12 champion in and of itself isn't going to trump Notre Dame. The committee might ultimately judge the eventual Big 12 champ to be better than ND, but it won't be because of the conference champion factor. The other P5 champs might get the conference champion "bonus" over ND because they play a 13th game, but not the Big 12.

Why does the conference champion designation not apply to the Big 12? Where does it specify that?

(11-18-2015 10:38 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(11-18-2015 10:32 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(11-18-2015 10:03 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(11-18-2015 09:44 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  Conference champion is meant as a "tie-breaker". If OU and ND both win out, I think we can all agree they will undoubtedly be ranked back to back. I don't think we can really say what the committee will do in that situation. Would they say that they are close enough that the tie breaker comes into effect? Would they say that ND's resume is still clearly superior? What if OU blows out an undefeated team on the road to win said championship? Would they respond like they did last year with OSU's blow out win over Wiscy?

I don't think we can say for sure what they are going to do until everything shakes out.

well one thing that helps Notre Dame is that Stanford is right now 11, and very well might be in top 10 when they play. That's HUGE. If Ohio St and Oklahoma St both win, that gets Stanford almost certainly up to #9. So Oklahoma would be playing #5 or #6 while Notre Dame would be playing #9. Not that big of a difference really.

The point is the manner of wins mattered last year, not only the ranks of the opponents.

If both win out, the teams are going to be 4 and 5, and conference champion is supposed to be a "tie-breaker" criterion that is only applied in the last ranking. "Tied" is obviously up to interpretation, but can we really say that interpretation is in advance?

I do think when they originally came up with the champion criterion, it was specifically because Delany et al anticipated a situation where a non-champ was fighting with a champ at 4 and 5, and when all else equal, they wanted the champ to get the benefit of the doubt.

Going to be a tough decision for the committee, especially if OU keeps playing like it has. One thing lost in the debate is that that team is on a major roll. 55-0 @ KSU, 63-27 over TT, 62-7 @ KU, 52-16 over ISU, 44-34 @ Baylor. With our injuries, they will undoubtedly blow us out and then if they look strong at OSU to win the conference, that's a really, really impressive finish to the year on both sides of the ball.

And common opponents are a criteria as well. Texas is going to be a huge problem for Oklahoma. I think the common opponents thing would overweigh conference champs criteria in this case, since ND can't win a conference. The thing as well- ND plays the exact same time as Oklahoma does. If they blow out Stanford, Oklahoma probably has no chance.

I really doubt that is going to happen, for several reasons.

One, ND is very injury ravaged. It lost another starter (LB), its 8th this year, to an MCI injury last Saturday. 3 of 5 starting OL are battling high ankle sprains.

Three other guys, including C.J. Prosise, are battling concussions and shoulder injuries but may play against BC after being out for Wake Forest.

Two, Stanford is pretty damn tough and will be playing at home.

IF ND wins by 3 or less, I will be very happy (the hell with impressing the committee, just win).

(11-18-2015 11:33 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(11-18-2015 11:31 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(11-18-2015 11:20 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(11-18-2015 11:08 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(11-18-2015 10:51 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  BTW, have they ever said that since ND (or the other independents) can't win a conference, the conference champion criterion doesn't apply in direct comparison?

Seems very unlikely that the committee would use a conference-title preference to hurt Notre Dame or any other independent, even though the "Notre Dame must join a conference or be punished for not joining" crowd would love to see that.

Seems just as weird the other way to ignore their champion criteria for a champion.

Here is the exact verbiage:

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)

To me a key word is "unequivocally". If OU continues on its current roll and is a conference champion, it's going to tough "unequivocally" say the non-champion ND is one of the four best teams in the country. It's almost saying that there can't be any doubt for a non-champion or independent (and notice that they are lumped together). ND doesn't get a break because it can't win a championship.

Note that the comparative outcome of common opponents is also on that list, so that clearly favors Notre Dame.

People need to get over it: the Big 12 champion in and of itself isn't going to trump Notre Dame. The committee might ultimately judge the eventual Big 12 champ to be better than ND, but it won't be because of the conference champion factor. The other P5 champs might get the conference champion "bonus" over ND because they play a 13th game, but not the Big 12.

Why does the conference champion designation not apply to the Big 12? Where does it specify that?

It doesn't specify that, but it also lists "championships won" in the same list as "comparative outcomes against common opponents". You're reading it to be "these are the factors for non-champs and independents", but they are really just the factors for everyone (both champs and non-champs), or else they wouldn't even list "championships won" in the first place.

Plus, we're arguing about a *purposely* subjective process. Whether we like it or not, this system was set to NOT guarantee conference champs to get into the CFP. The committee can look at this criteria and still completely throw it out the window when they vote.

Finally, the bar for winning the Big 12 championship is mathematically lower than winning the championship in other conferences simply because it doesn't have a conference championship game. The other P5 champs play 8.333% more games (which is a pretty large difference), so by simple mathematical logic, they're going to get a preference. However, a Big 12 championship isn't going to have the same weight - they played the same 12-game schedule as Notre Dame in terms of length, and ND also has an excellent strength of schedule whose only loss so far is to the #1 team in the country.

There doesn't need to be any explicit rule stating that the Big 12 championship is worth less compared to the rest of the P5 because it doesn't play a conference championship game, just as there doesn't need to be any explicit rule stating that the champions of the G5 leagues aren't going to get the same credit as any of the P5 champs or ND. The CFP committee already has it in their heads.

(11-18-2015 11:20 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  To me a key word is "unequivocally". If OU continues on its current roll and is a conference champion, it's going to tough "unequivocally" say the non-champion ND is one of the four best teams in the country. It's almost saying that there can't be any doubt for a non-champion or independent (and notice that they are lumped together). ND doesn't get a break because it can't win a championship.

I think you are giving that word too much weight. The committee always must try and pick 4 teams that are "unequivocally" the best. If you have to equivocate, then that means you probably made the wrong choice.

(11-18-2015 11:41 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(11-18-2015 11:33 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(11-18-2015 11:31 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(11-18-2015 11:20 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(11-18-2015 11:08 AM)Wedge Wrote:  Seems very unlikely that the committee would use a conference-title preference to hurt Notre Dame or any other independent, even though the "Notre Dame must join a conference or be punished for not joining" crowd would love to see that.

Seems just as weird the other way to ignore their champion criteria for a champion.

Here is the exact verbiage:

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)

To me a key word is "unequivocally". If OU continues on its current roll and is a conference champion, it's going to tough "unequivocally" say the non-champion ND is one of the four best teams in the country. It's almost saying that there can't be any doubt for a non-champion or independent (and notice that they are lumped together). ND doesn't get a break because it can't win a championship.

Note that the comparative outcome of common opponents is also on that list, so that clearly favors Notre Dame.

People need to get over it: the Big 12 champion in and of itself isn't going to trump Notre Dame. The committee might ultimately judge the eventual Big 12 champ to be better than ND, but it won't be because of the conference champion factor. The other P5 champs might get the conference champion "bonus" over ND because they play a 13th game, but not the Big 12.

Why does the conference champion designation not apply to the Big 12? Where does it specify that?

It doesn't specify that, but it also lists "championships won" in the same list as "comparative outcomes against common opponents". You're reading it to be "these are the factors for non-champs and independents", but they are really just the factors for everyone (both champs and non-champs), or else they wouldn't even list "championships won" in the first place.

Plus, we're arguing about a *purposely* subjective process. Whether we like it or not, this system was set to NOT guarantee conference champs to get into the CFP. The committee can look at this criteria and still completely throw it out the window when they vote.

Finally, the bar for winning the Big 12 championship is mathematically lower than winning the championship in other conferences simply because it doesn't have a conference championship game. The other P5 champs play 8.333% more games (which is a pretty large difference), so by simple mathematical logic, they're going to get a preference. However, a Big 12 championship isn't going to have the same weight - they played the same 12-game schedule as Notre Dame in terms of length, and ND also has an excellent strength of schedule whose only loss so far is to the #1 team in the country.

There doesn't need to be any explicit rule stating that the Big 12 championship is worth less compared to the rest of the P5 because it doesn't play a conference championship game, just as there doesn't need to be any explicit rule stating that the champions of the G5 leagues aren't going to get the same credit as any of the P5 champs or ND. The CFP committee already has it in their heads.

Agree with all that, especially that the benefit of the CCG is that it is another game against a quality opponent. But that (SOS, extra quality win) is the reason for the extra boost for a league with a CCG, not that the "champion" criteria will be applied differently for one league over another. That will be applied the same as a "tie-breaker".

With that in mind, I definitely think it will depend on the subjectivity in the room. If they get to 4 v 5 and they are considering OU and ND and the room is "ND is clearly better- its a no-brainer", then ND will be in 4 and OU 5. But if they are back and forth with some pointing to OU's late season "eye test" and others pointing to the common opponent thing and it is close, I think the conference champion would be a natural place to hang their hat on, particularly given the explicit criteria above. JMO of course on how it could play out.

(11-18-2015 11:41 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-18-2015 11:20 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  To me a key word is "unequivocally". If OU continues on its current roll and is a conference champion, it's going to tough "unequivocally" say the non-champion ND is one of the four best teams in the country. It's almost saying that there can't be any doubt for a non-champion or independent (and notice that they are lumped together). ND doesn't get a break because it can't win a championship.

I think you are giving that word too much weight. The committee always must try and pick 4 teams that are "unequivocally" the best. If you have to equivocate, then that means you probably made the wrong choice.

But that is the word they have. It's a pretty strong word, don't you think. They were thinking of this exact situation when writing it (non-champ versus champ closely compared). Seems to me the architects are giving the committee a hook to hang their hat on when faced with this tough choice.

(11-18-2015 11:58 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(11-18-2015 11:41 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-18-2015 11:20 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  To me a key word is "unequivocally". If OU continues on its current roll and is a conference champion, it's going to tough "unequivocally" say the non-champion ND is one of the four best teams in the country. It's almost saying that there can't be any doubt for a non-champion or independent (and notice that they are lumped together). ND doesn't get a break because it can't win a championship.

I think you are giving that word too much weight. The committee always must try and pick 4 teams that are "unequivocally" the best. If you have to equivocate, then that means you probably made the wrong choice.

But that is the word they have. It's a pretty strong word, don't you think. They were thinking of this exact situation when writing it (non-champ versus champ closely compared). Seems to me the architects are giving the committee a hook to hang their hat on when faced with this tough choice.

It is a subjective word, to be interpreted according to the whims of the Committee.

(11-18-2015 11:41 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-18-2015 11:20 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  To me a key word is "unequivocally". If OU continues on its current roll and is a conference champion, it's going to tough "unequivocally" say the non-champion ND is one of the four best teams in the country. It's almost saying that there can't be any doubt for a non-champion or independent (and notice that they are lumped together). ND doesn't get a break because it can't win a championship.

I think you are giving that word too much weight. The committee always must try and pick 4 teams that are "unequivocally" the best. If you have to equivocate, then that means you probably made the wrong choice.

Here is a couple of paragraphs after what was posted on the bullet points.

"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."

"Under the current construct, polls (although well-intended) have not expressed these values; particularly at the margins where teams that have won head-to-head competition and championships are sometimes ranked behind non-champions and teams that have lost in head-to-head competition. Nuanced mathematical formulas ignore some teams who “deserve” to be selected."

Seems to me as I understand it, that championships (whether Big12's round-robin or CCG for the other conferences) will carry more weight that ND non-championship Indy schedule. What the committee factor last years was the CCG being the difference between the Big12 champ vs other P5's. This year may get to see what a Big 12 champ vs ND means to the committee following the criteria of championships won.

(11-18-2015 12:01 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(11-18-2015 11:41 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-18-2015 11:20 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  To me a key word is "unequivocally". If OU continues on its current roll and is a conference champion, it's going to tough "unequivocally" say the non-champion ND is one of the four best teams in the country. It's almost saying that there can't be any doubt for a non-champion or independent (and notice that they are lumped together). ND doesn't get a break because it can't win a championship.

I think you are giving that word too much weight. The committee always must try and pick 4 teams that are "unequivocally" the best. If you have to equivocate, then that means you probably made the wrong choice.

Here is a couple of paragraphs after what was posted on the bullet points.

"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."

"Under the current construct, polls (although well-intended) have not expressed these values; particularly at the margins where teams that have won head-to-head competition and championships are sometimes ranked behind non-champions and teams that have lost in head-to-head competition. Nuanced mathematical formulas ignore some teams who “deserve” to be selected."

Seems to me as I understand it, that championships (whether Big12's round-robin or CCG for the other conferences) will carry more weight that ND non-championship Indy schedule.

and by their criteria so is Comparative outcomes of common opponents (without incenting margin of victory). To act like they're going to throw that criteria out is a joke.

I think I'd much rather be in ND's position than Oklahoma's position.

(11-17-2015 10:14 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Those who think Notre Dame isn't making the playoffs if they win out are fooling themselves.

Notre Dame wins out, they are in.

Quo I usually agree with you, but not this time. If Oklahoma State beats Baylor and Oklahoma, IMO they will be in. The Committee has said Conference championships matter. Notre Dame will not be a Conference champion.

Plus the Committee will not leave the Big12 out again with an undefeated champion against a one loss Notre Dame.

(11-18-2015 12:06 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(11-18-2015 12:01 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(11-18-2015 11:41 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-18-2015 11:20 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  To me a key word is "unequivocally". If OU continues on its current roll and is a conference champion, it's going to tough "unequivocally" say the non-champion ND is one of the four best teams in the country. It's almost saying that there can't be any doubt for a non-champion or independent (and notice that they are lumped together). ND doesn't get a break because it can't win a championship.

I think you are giving that word too much weight. The committee always must try and pick 4 teams that are "unequivocally" the best. If you have to equivocate, then that means you probably made the wrong choice.

Here is a couple of paragraphs after what was posted on the bullet points.

"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."

"Under the current construct, polls (although well-intended) have not expressed these values; particularly at the margins where teams that have won head-to-head competition and championships are sometimes ranked behind non-champions and teams that have lost in head-to-head competition. Nuanced mathematical formulas ignore some teams who “deserve” to be selected."

Seems to me as I understand it, that championships (whether Big12's round-robin or CCG for the other conferences) will carry more weight that ND non-championship Indy schedule.

and by their criteria so is Comparative outcomes of common opponents (without incenting margin of victory). To act like they're going to throw that criteria out is a joke.

I think I'd much rather be in ND's position than Oklahoma's position.

But which is the first that is valued? Championships is, the other criteria would be used if the first test is not met.
I would say that the other criteria applies only if the 2 teams in question are not conference champions. OU being the Big 12 champs will carry more than ND with no championship.
Hopefully, we'll see that scenario unfold and what the committee values more as it is stated.

(11-18-2015 12:00 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(11-18-2015 11:58 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(11-18-2015 11:41 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-18-2015 11:20 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  To me a key word is "unequivocally". If OU continues on its current roll and is a conference champion, it's going to tough "unequivocally" say the non-champion ND is one of the four best teams in the country. It's almost saying that there can't be any doubt for a non-champion or independent (and notice that they are lumped together). ND doesn't get a break because it can't win a championship.

I think you are giving that word too much weight. The committee always must try and pick 4 teams that are "unequivocally" the best. If you have to equivocate, then that means you probably made the wrong choice.

But that is the word they have. It's a pretty strong word, don't you think. They were thinking of this exact situation when writing it (non-champ versus champ closely compared). Seems to me the architects are giving the committee a hook to hang their hat on when faced with this tough choice.

It is a subjective word, to be interpreted according to the whims of the Committee.

Totally agree, which is why it is silly to be so certain about what they are going to do. I have been in the "we don't know what they are going to do" camp, FWIW.

(11-18-2015 12:06 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(11-18-2015 12:01 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(11-18-2015 11:41 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-18-2015 11:20 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  To me a key word is "unequivocally". If OU continues on its current roll and is a conference champion, it's going to tough "unequivocally" say the non-champion ND is one of the four best teams in the country. It's almost saying that there can't be any doubt for a non-champion or independent (and notice that they are lumped together). ND doesn't get a break because it can't win a championship.

I think you are giving that word too much weight. The committee always must try and pick 4 teams that are "unequivocally" the best. If you have to equivocate, then that means you probably made the wrong choice.

Here is a couple of paragraphs after what was posted on the bullet points.

"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."

"Under the current construct, polls (although well-intended) have not expressed these values; particularly at the margins where teams that have won head-to-head competition and championships are sometimes ranked behind non-champions and teams that have lost in head-to-head competition. Nuanced mathematical formulas ignore some teams who “deserve” to be selected."

Seems to me as I understand it, that championships (whether Big12's round-robin or CCG for the other conferences) will carry more weight that ND non-championship Indy schedule.

and by their criteria so is Comparative outcomes of common opponents (without incenting margin of victory). To act like they're going to throw that criteria out is a joke.

I think I'd much rather be in ND's position than Oklahoma's position.

I don't think they are going to through that out at all. That will definitely be a major factor.

(11-18-2015 12:11 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(11-18-2015 12:06 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(11-18-2015 12:01 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(11-18-2015 11:41 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-18-2015 11:20 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  To me a key word is "unequivocally". If OU continues on its current roll and is a conference champion, it's going to tough "unequivocally" say the non-champion ND is one of the four best teams in the country. It's almost saying that there can't be any doubt for a non-champion or independent (and notice that they are lumped together). ND doesn't get a break because it can't win a championship.

I think you are giving that word too much weight. The committee always must try and pick 4 teams that are "unequivocally" the best. If you have to equivocate, then that means you probably made the wrong choice.

Here is a couple of paragraphs after what was posted on the bullet points.

"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."

"Under the current construct, polls (although well-intended) have not expressed these values; particularly at the margins where teams that have won head-to-head competition and championships are sometimes ranked behind non-champions and teams that have lost in head-to-head competition. Nuanced mathematical formulas ignore some teams who “deserve” to be selected."

Seems to me as I understand it, that championships (whether Big12's round-robin or CCG for the other conferences) will carry more weight that ND non-championship Indy schedule.

and by their criteria so is Comparative outcomes of common opponents (without incenting margin of victory). To act like they're going to throw that criteria out is a joke.

I think I'd much rather be in ND's position than Oklahoma's position.

But which is the first that is valued? Championships is, the other criteria would be used if the first test is not met.
I would say that the other criteria applies only if the 2 teams in question are not conference champions. OU being the Big 12 champs will carry more tha ND with no championship.
Hopefully, we'll see that scenario unfold and what the committee values more as it is stated.

Yeah, while I suspect this will end up being a moot discussion with more attrition at the top, it would be interesting to see how they apply the guidelines and criteria for future reference.

from the site:
The committee selects 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 that may have affected a team’s performance during the season or likely will affect its postseason performance.

Just because conference championships are listed first doesn't mean that it's the most important thing.

(11-18-2015 10:38 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(11-18-2015 10:32 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(11-18-2015 10:03 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(11-18-2015 09:44 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  Conference champion is meant as a "tie-breaker". If OU and ND both win out, I think we can all agree they will undoubtedly be ranked back to back. I don't think we can really say what the committee will do in that situation. Would they say that they are close enough that the tie breaker comes into effect? Would they say that ND's resume is still clearly superior? What if OU blows out an undefeated team on the road to win said championship? Would they respond like they did last year with OSU's blow out win over Wiscy?

I don't think we can say for sure what they are going to do until everything shakes out.

well one thing that helps Notre Dame is that Stanford is right now 11, and very well might be in top 10 when they play. That's HUGE. If Ohio St and Oklahoma St both win, that gets Stanford almost certainly up to #9. So Oklahoma would be playing #5 or #6 while Notre Dame would be playing #9. Not that big of a difference really.

The point is the manner of wins mattered last year, not only the ranks of the opponents.

If both win out, the teams are going to be 4 and 5, and conference champion is supposed to be a "tie-breaker" criterion that is only applied in the last ranking. "Tied" is obviously up to interpretation, but can we really say that interpretation is in advance?

I do think when they originally came up with the champion criterion, it was specifically because Delany et al anticipated a situation where a non-champ was fighting with a champ at 4 and 5, and when all else equal, they wanted the champ to get the benefit of the doubt.

Going to be a tough decision for the committee, especially if OU keeps playing like it has. One thing lost in the debate is that that team is on a major roll. 55-0 @ KSU, 63-27 over TT, 62-7 @ KU, 52-16 over ISU, 44-34 @ Baylor. With our injuries, they will undoubtedly blow us out and then if they look strong at OSU to win the conference, that's a really, really impressive finish to the year on both sides of the ball.

And common opponents are a criteria as well. Texas is going to be a huge problem for Oklahoma. I think the common opponents thing would overweigh conference champs criteria in this case, since ND can't win a conference. The thing as well- ND plays the exact same time as Oklahoma does. If they blow out Stanford, Oklahoma probably has no chance.

On the other hand what if Notre Dame beats Stanford in a very close ugly game and OU blows out TCU and OSU beats Baylor, then OU plays like gang busters and beats OSU by a large margin how are you going to keep a conference champion out for the second year in a row.

(11-18-2015 12:06 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(11-18-2015 12:01 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(11-18-2015 11:41 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-18-2015 11:20 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  To me a key word is "unequivocally". If OU continues on its current roll and is a conference champion, it's going to tough "unequivocally" say the non-champion ND is one of the four best teams in the country. It's almost saying that there can't be any doubt for a non-champion or independent (and notice that they are lumped together). ND doesn't get a break because it can't win a championship.

I think you are giving that word too much weight. The committee always must try and pick 4 teams that are "unequivocally" the best. If you have to equivocate, then that means you probably made the wrong choice.

Here is a couple of paragraphs after what was posted on the bullet points.

"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."

"Under the current construct, polls (although well-intended) have not expressed these values; particularly at the margins where teams that have won head-to-head competition and championships are sometimes ranked behind non-champions and teams that have lost in head-to-head competition. Nuanced mathematical formulas ignore some teams who “deserve” to be selected."

Seems to me as I understand it, that championships (whether Big12's round-robin or CCG for the other conferences) will carry more weight that ND non-championship Indy schedule.

and by their criteria so is Comparative outcomes of common opponents (without incenting margin of victory). To act like they're going to throw that criteria out is a joke.

I think I'd much rather be in ND's position than Oklahoma's position.

I agree.

I do think that the CFP *does* want to reward conference championships as a *general* matter. However, I also believe that they know that Notre Dame plays a schedule that is as tough as anyone (with strong top tier opponents along with avoiding playing FCS teams completely), so they're not just automatically going to give the benefit of the doubt to a Big 12 champ simply on the basis of them being a conference champion.

The whole point of setting up the CFP committee to basically give them complete reign over how to vote in teams was that they could take into account the context of the season. Otherwise, we would have had a BCS-type formula and/or conference champions requirement/quota for the playoff. In the context of this particular season, Notre Dame's resume as an independent could certainly trump the resume of a Big 12 champion. Let's face it: we're not talking about BYU or Army here. Big 12 fans can delude themselves into thinking that going 11-1 as the Big 12 champ should trump 11-1 Notre Dame simply on the basis of earning a conference championship, but that's not automatic at all in the context of this particular season.

And look - I'm a large proponent of an 8-team playoff with 5 auto-bids for the P5 conference champs. Winning your conference championship is literally the only thing that you have 100% control of in terms of your schedule (as you can't know whether or not your non-conference schedule is going to be good or not in a given season). However, when there is a 4-team playoff with no auto-bids, then you can't have that conference champ requirement (even if winning your conference championship is highly preferred) and Notre Dame is going to be treated a LOT differently than the typical non-champ.

(11-18-2015 12:18 PM)stever20 Wrote:  from the site:
The committee selects 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 that may have affected a team’s performance during the season or likely will affect its postseason performance.

Just because conference championships are listed first doesn't mean that it's the most important thing.

Agree with that- it definitely isn't an absolute, otherwise we'd be talking about the PAC-12 champ more strongly in direct comparison with ND. But with a likely 2 loss champ, a 1 loss ND is unequivocally better.

And if we are talking about a 1 loss Baylor and their weak schedule, I think ND is unequivocally better. OU and the way they are playing is what makes this a tougher call. They are playing lights out right now. And OU did go on the road an beat Tenn, who is probably underrated right now with three close losses (two on the road) to top 7 teams. OU v ND is a tough call whereas ND v 2 loss PAC-12 champ or 1 loss Baylor as a Big 12 champ isn't a tough call.

I think a lot of it will depend on what they think of OU. If they say "man, that is a great team right now- look how they are playing" the champion designation gives them a hook to place their hat on with a tough decision. If they say "that's nice, Sooners, but we really don't think you are as good as you have looked", then they can hang their hat on the "ND is unequivocally better" hook.

(11-18-2015 12:23 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(11-18-2015 10:38 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(11-18-2015 10:32 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(11-18-2015 10:03 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(11-18-2015 09:44 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  Conference champion is meant as a "tie-breaker". If OU and ND both win out, I think we can all agree they will undoubtedly be ranked back to back. I don't think we can really say what the committee will do in that situation. Would they say that they are close enough that the tie breaker comes into effect? Would they say that ND's resume is still clearly superior? What if OU blows out an undefeated team on the road to win said championship? Would they respond like they did last year with OSU's blow out win over Wiscy?

I don't think we can say for sure what they are going to do until everything shakes out.

well one thing that helps Notre Dame is that Stanford is right now 11, and very well might be in top 10 when they play. That's HUGE. If Ohio St and Oklahoma St both win, that gets Stanford almost certainly up to #9. So Oklahoma would be playing #5 or #6 while Notre Dame would be playing #9. Not that big of a difference really.

The point is the manner of wins mattered last year, not only the ranks of the opponents.

If both win out, the teams are going to be 4 and 5, and conference champion is supposed to be a "tie-breaker" criterion that is only applied in the last ranking. "Tied" is obviously up to interpretation, but can we really say that interpretation is in advance?

I do think when they originally came up with the champion criterion, it was specifically because Delany et al anticipated a situation where a non-champ was fighting with a champ at 4 and 5, and when all else equal, they wanted the champ to get the benefit of the doubt.

Going to be a tough decision for the committee, especially if OU keeps playing like it has. One thing lost in the debate is that that team is on a major roll. 55-0 @ KSU, 63-27 over TT, 62-7 @ KU, 52-16 over ISU, 44-34 @ Baylor. With our injuries, they will undoubtedly blow us out and then if they look strong at OSU to win the conference, that's a really, really impressive finish to the year on both sides of the ball.

And common opponents are a criteria as well. Texas is going to be a huge problem for Oklahoma. I think the common opponents thing would overweigh conference champs criteria in this case, since ND can't win a conference. The thing as well- ND plays the exact same time as Oklahoma does. If they blow out Stanford, Oklahoma probably has no chance.

On the other hand what if Notre Dame beats Stanford in a very close ugly game and OU blows out TCU and OSU beats Baylor, then OU plays like gang busters and beats OSU by a large margin how are you going to keep a conference champion out for the second year in a row.

Pretty easily. Obviously the committee doesn't think much of TCU(they're #18 and if they lose out, they will be out of the ratings). And this should be the most chilling for Oklahoma/Big 12 fans: "It doesn't go away,'' committee chairman Jeff Long said of OU's loss to Texas.

(11-18-2015 12:11 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(11-18-2015 12:00 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(11-18-2015 11:58 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(11-18-2015 11:41 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-18-2015 11:20 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  To me a key word is "unequivocally". If OU continues on its current roll and is a conference champion, it's going to tough "unequivocally" say the non-champion ND is one of the four best teams in the country. It's almost saying that there can't be any doubt for a non-champion or independent (and notice that they are lumped together). ND doesn't get a break because it can't win a championship.

I think you are giving that word too much weight. The committee always must try and pick 4 teams that are "unequivocally" the best. If you have to equivocate, then that means you probably made the wrong choice.

But that is the word they have. It's a pretty strong word, don't you think. They were thinking of this exact situation when writing it (non-champ versus champ closely compared). Seems to me the architects are giving the committee a hook to hang their hat on when faced with this tough choice.

It is a subjective word, to be interpreted according to the whims of the Committee.

Totally agree, which is why it is silly to be so certain about what they are going to do. I have been in the "we don't know what they are going to do" camp, FWIW.

I think that OU could get in over ND because we're dealing with human beings on the committee that can apply whatever they believe is important. Maybe the "eye test" of how OU has played since the Texas game wins out. However, I just don't think that it's going to be on the basis of "OU won a conference championship and ND didn't". That is my only argument here. ND isn't going to be treated as the equivalent of a 2nd place team from a conference in the way that I think Big 12 fans are hoping.