(12-03-2017 02:57 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-03-2017 02:27 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(12-03-2017 01:57 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I think this selection will make the Big 10 consider re-balancing their divisions and if the SEC is smart, they will consider doing the same. But since we got two in this year we'll probably drag our feet. But our imbalance could have cost us a shot this year as well. It just broke well for us in the last three weeks.

I've even wondered why the conferences don't just redivide the divisions every year where odd finishers are in one and even finishers are in the other. A predetermined rivalry game can be preserved as the 8th conference game and all other rotations could simply cease.

No, geographic divisions makes the most sense. If you try and "balance" the divisions you'll be realigning every other year.

Look at a team like Tennessee which was supposed to be good then went winless in SEC play, or Michigan who was supposed to be a playoff contender and finished below MSU who was supposed to be a basement dweller.

You have to line up divisions for the long run, not short term success.

There aren't any easy solutions to be sure, but we both have to admit that the SEC East and Big 10 West are problems to our respective conferences and have been for quite some time now. The resurgence of Georgia just puts the SEC East on par with Wisconsin and the Big 10 West. Meanwhile, the SEC West with a little earlier emergence of L.S.U. could have easily given every West member two losses and then we are in the same position as the Big 10 this year. Next year the Aggies will be re-energized, L.S.U. will be peaking and it will be a dogfight again. Some semblance of balance is needed whatever the means.

I think thats why you just have to leave them as geographic and let the natural rivalries stay in place. It's all circular, in the SEC it used to be the east who dominated with UT and UF. Saban is who tipped the balance to the west. Take out Bama and it's much more balanced then it seems.

Yes in the B1G the east is tougher but thats because Nebraska has yet to find it's footing in the conference and Iowa is stuck with Kirk Frentz from now until the sun enlarges and consumes the earth. But i'll take the current set up over the Legends and Leaders.

Thats my biggest issue with the ACC is I have no idea who is in what division even after all these years. Give me the old ACC and the new ACC.

UNC, Duke, Wake, NCSt, GT, Clemson, UVA

Miami, FSU, VT, Cuse, Pitt, BC, Louisville

OR North vs South

FSU, Miami, GT, Clemson, UNC, Duke, NCSt

Cuse, BC, Pitt, Louisville, VT, Wake, UVA

List of 2 loss teams to make the playoff:

(12-03-2017 10:34 PM)MJG Wrote:  That asswhooping by Iowa did them in. They also lost bad at home to Oklahoma. I would have had
USC
Wisconsin
Alabama
Auburn
OSU

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

And while Alabama's schedule wasn't overwhelmingly difficult, neither was Ohio St.'s. The difficulty was not dramatically higher. The wins were not dramatically better (and I think bowl season will show the Wisconsin, Michigan and Michigan St. wins were no big deal).

(12-04-2017 11:23 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  List of 2 loss teams to make the playoff:

Yeah, this, a G5 rep, and Notre Dame are the remaining milestones for this thing, although, I guess you could throw in the SEC and ACC not getting in a year, but, that's nothing too amazing. B1G just joins the PAC and Big XII having had to sit at home, though, it's kinda cool seeing both the B1G and PAC sitting this one out.

(12-04-2017 11:02 AM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(12-03-2017 02:57 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-03-2017 02:27 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(12-03-2017 01:57 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I think this selection will make the Big 10 consider re-balancing their divisions and if the SEC is smart, they will consider doing the same. But since we got two in this year we'll probably drag our feet. But our imbalance could have cost us a shot this year as well. It just broke well for us in the last three weeks.

I've even wondered why the conferences don't just redivide the divisions every year where odd finishers are in one and even finishers are in the other. A predetermined rivalry game can be preserved as the 8th conference game and all other rotations could simply cease.

No, geographic divisions makes the most sense. If you try and "balance" the divisions you'll be realigning every other year.

Look at a team like Tennessee which was supposed to be good then went winless in SEC play, or Michigan who was supposed to be a playoff contender and finished below MSU who was supposed to be a basement dweller.

You have to line up divisions for the long run, not short term success.

There aren't any easy solutions to be sure, but we both have to admit that the SEC East and Big 10 West are problems to our respective conferences and have been for quite some time now. The resurgence of Georgia just puts the SEC East on par with Wisconsin and the Big 10 West. Meanwhile, the SEC West with a little earlier emergence of L.S.U. could have easily given every West member two losses and then we are in the same position as the Big 10 this year. Next year the Aggies will be re-energized, L.S.U. will be peaking and it will be a dogfight again. Some semblance of balance is needed whatever the means.

I think thats why you just have to leave them as geographic and let the natural rivalries stay in place. It's all circular, in the SEC it used to be the east who dominated with UT and UF. Saban is who tipped the balance to the west. Take out Bama and it's much more balanced then it seems.

Yes in the B1G the east is tougher but thats because Nebraska has yet to find it's footing in the conference and Iowa is stuck with Kirk Frentz from now until the sun enlarges and consumes the earth. But i'll take the current set up over the Legends and Leaders.

Thats my biggest issue with the ACC is I have no idea who is in what division even after all these years. Give me the old ACC and the new ACC.

UNC, Duke, Wake, NCSt, GT, Clemson, UVA

Miami, FSU, VT, Cuse, Pitt, BC, Louisville

OR North vs South

FSU, Miami, GT, Clemson, UNC, Duke, NCSt

Cuse, BC, Pitt, Louisville, VT, Wake, UVA

What makes the SEC special is the intensity of the rivalries, not the balance of the divisions.

List of 1 loss P5 teams left out:

Baylor 2014^ (#5)
TCU 2014^ (#6)
Iowa 2015* (#5)
Ohio State 2015 (#7)
Wisconsin 2017* (#6)

^ 11-1 co-champs
* 12-1, lost CCG

11-1 non-champs are now 2-1 getting in.

Back to the 2 loss list. We will have a 2 loss champ in eventually. Auburn would have been this year. Safe to say we won't have a 2 loss nonchamp. Lose twice and it is going to be tough unless it is some combination of a year of attrition and a very strong schedule and either way you need to win your CCG.

(12-04-2017 11:30 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-03-2017 10:34 PM)MJG Wrote:  That asswhooping by Iowa did them in. They also lost bad at home to Oklahoma. I would have had
USC
Wisconsin
Alabama
Auburn
OSU

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

And while Alabama's schedule wasn't overwhelmingly difficult, neither was Ohio St.'s. The difficulty was not dramatically higher. The wins were not dramatically better (and I think bowl season will show the Wisconsin, Michigan and Michigan St. wins were no big deal).

The B1G definitely has something to prove during bowl season.

Last year, we were told how great the B1G was, they got 4 teams in the NY6 which nobody else has done, but then they went 1-3 in those games with the only win being over the G5 representative.

At least last year, the B1G did have some very good OOC wins during the season to justify it. This year? I'm scratching my head trying to think of a good OOC win by the B1G.

The Big Ten West has a perception problem because it is believed that the top team will always come out of east, which so far has been proven true by the east going 4-0 in CCG.

But in terms of overall cross-division records, the 2 divisions have been fairly even, partly because it is rare for PSU, MSU, and Mich to all be great in the same year. The first 3 years of east-west, the 2 divisions had virtually equal cross-division records in each year. Just the east won the CCG each year, so the east won the tie-breaker so to speak.

2017 was the first year I believe where perception matched reality where the east had a much better cross-division record. Mainly because it was first year that OSU, PSU, MSU and Mich were all good, and Nebraska sucked. Iowa, NW, and Wisc all snuck in a victory over 1 of the east Big 4 teams, but in the end, it still comes down to who wins the CCG, which the east did again.

This is a long way to say the west will be just fine once it starts winning some CCG games. Nebraska getting back to "normal" will help to.

(12-04-2017 11:31 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 11:23 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  List of 2 loss teams to make the playoff:

Yeah, this, a G5 rep, and Notre Dame are the remaining milestones for this thing, although, I guess you could throw in the SEC and ACC not getting in a year, but, that's nothing too amazing. B1G just joins the PAC and Big XII having had to sit at home, though, it's kinda cool seeing both the B1G and PAC sitting this one out.

To use one kind of argument one year, then flip the argument that didn't work the next year, was sort of the OSU strategy. That big Iowa loss played heavy.
I don't think the Selection Committee wanted to open that "two loss" can of worms, whereby vulnerabilities to the rationale would be considerable; particularly with Alabama's one-loss credentials., Consistency is an element.
The two-loss team that had the best chance for the playoff was Auburn, until they made it three in the SEC Championship game.
At some point, the SEC and the ACC will miss out.
It is suppose to be the four best, and I believe the selection committee derived to that decision the best they could.

(12-04-2017 12:01 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 11:30 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-03-2017 10:34 PM)MJG Wrote:  That asswhooping by Iowa did them in. They also lost bad at home to Oklahoma. I would have had
USC
Wisconsin
Alabama
Auburn
OSU

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

And while Alabama's schedule wasn't overwhelmingly difficult, neither was Ohio St.'s. The difficulty was not dramatically higher. The wins were not dramatically better (and I think bowl season will show the Wisconsin, Michigan and Michigan St. wins were no big deal).

The B1G definitely has something to prove during bowl season.

Last year, we were told how great the B1G was, they got 4 teams in the NY6 which nobody else has done, but then they went 1-3 in those games with the only win being over the G5 representative.

At least last year, the B1G did have some very good OOC wins during the season to justify it. This year? I'm scratching my head trying to think of a good OOC win by the B1G.

Iowa over Iowa State?
Michigan over Florida?
Purdue over Missouri?
PSU over Pitt?
MD over Texas?

Wait, I think I am helping you prove your point.

(12-04-2017 12:01 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 11:30 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-03-2017 10:34 PM)MJG Wrote:  That asswhooping by Iowa did them in. They also lost bad at home to Oklahoma. I would have had
USC
Wisconsin
Alabama
Auburn
OSU

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

And while Alabama's schedule wasn't overwhelmingly difficult, neither was Ohio St.'s. The difficulty was not dramatically higher. The wins were not dramatically better (and I think bowl season will show the Wisconsin, Michigan and Michigan St. wins were no big deal).

The B1G definitely has something to prove during bowl season.

Last year, we were told how great the B1G was, they got 4 teams in the NY6 which nobody else has done, but then they went 1-3 in those games with the only win being over the G5 representative.

At least last year, the B1G did have some very good OOC wins during the season to justify it. This year? I'm scratching my head trying to think of a good OOC win by the B1G.

They'll probably go undefeated in bowls this year.

List of P5 champions left out (^ co-champs)

2014 Baylor^ (11-1)
2014 TCU^ (11-1)
2015 Stanford (11-2)
2016 Penn State (11-2)
2016 OU (10-2)
2017 OSU (11-2)
2017 USC (11-2)

Twenty-one 0 or 1 loss P5 teams, 16 have made it. 21 P5 champs or co-champs, 14 have made it (17 CCG game winners, 13 have made it.) Those are the main benchmarks. If you an outright champion and 0 or 1 loss, you are in. If you hit 1 of 2, you'll need help. There will be a year with more chaos and rules will be broken. Some year there will be a bunch of 2 loss champs. But pretty much it is lose no more than once and win your conference outright.

(12-04-2017 12:20 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  It is suppose to be the four best, and I believe the selection committee derived to that decision the best they could.

I agree. I feel, however, there is a value discrepancy with the CCG and winning a conference. Last year's Ohio State is this year's Alabama, and both years, you hand over a spot to a team who's played one less game and has proven they are beatable, and haven't won anything related to their conference. Let alone, giving something to someone who doesn't have a win in a neutral-site location because of that missing CCG appearance.

I guess I should add one extra milestone...picking the loser of a CCG when that team is virtually unblemished. Wisconsin just felt that sting.

(12-04-2017 01:24 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 12:20 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  It is suppose to be the four best, and I believe the selection committee derived to that decision the best they could.

I agree. I feel, however, there is a value discrepancy with the CCG and winning a conference. Last year's Ohio State is this year's Alabama, and both years, you hand over a spot to a team who's played one less game and has proven they are beatable, and haven't won anything related to their conference. Let alone, giving something to someone who doesn't have a win in a neutral-site location because of that missing CCG appearance.

I guess I should add one extra milestone...picking the loser of a CCG when that team is virtually unblemished. Wisconsin just felt that sting.

what you are saying is most deserving. The CFP charter isn't 4 most deserving, it's 4 best.

(12-04-2017 01:27 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 01:24 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 12:20 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  It is suppose to be the four best, and I believe the selection committee derived to that decision the best they could.

I agree. I feel, however, there is a value discrepancy with the CCG and winning a conference. Last year's Ohio State is this year's Alabama, and both years, you hand over a spot to a team who's played one less game and has proven they are beatable, and haven't won anything related to their conference. Let alone, giving something to someone who doesn't have a win in a neutral-site location because of that missing CCG appearance.

I guess I should add one extra milestone...picking the loser of a CCG when that team is virtually unblemished. Wisconsin just felt that sting.

what you are saying is most deserving. The CFP charter isn't 4 most deserving, it's 4 best.

In his defense, the committee does give mixed messages in defending their rankings, especially emphasizing things like top 25 wins and other resume building data points, which are "deserving" type measures. "Best" is a slippery slope as it invites flat out "eye-test" bias. Luckily, they often go hand in hand so it never gets too out of whack.

(12-04-2017 12:28 PM)Minutemen429 Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 12:01 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 11:30 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-03-2017 10:34 PM)MJG Wrote:  That asswhooping by Iowa did them in. They also lost bad at home to Oklahoma. I would have had
USC
Wisconsin
Alabama
Auburn
OSU

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

And while Alabama's schedule wasn't overwhelmingly difficult, neither was Ohio St.'s. The difficulty was not dramatically higher. The wins were not dramatically better (and I think bowl season will show the Wisconsin, Michigan and Michigan St. wins were no big deal).

The B1G definitely has something to prove during bowl season.

Last year, we were told how great the B1G was, they got 4 teams in the NY6 which nobody else has done, but then they went 1-3 in those games with the only win being over the G5 representative.

At least last year, the B1G did have some very good OOC wins during the season to justify it. This year? I'm scratching my head trying to think of a good OOC win by the B1G.

They'll probably go undefeated in bowls this year.

The oddsmakers haven't weighed in on most of the bowl games yet, so as a surrogate I used the Sagarin rankings. In all 8 of their bowl games, the B1G is the higher ranked team.

Other conferences project:

ACC...4-6
PAC...3-6
XII....4-4
SEC...4-5
AAC...4-3
MWC..5-1
MAC..2-3
USA...2-7
SBC...2-3
IND...1-1

(12-04-2017 01:27 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 01:24 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 12:20 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  It is suppose to be the four best, and I believe the selection committee derived to that decision the best they could.

I agree. I feel, however, there is a value discrepancy with the CCG and winning a conference. Last year's Ohio State is this year's Alabama, and both years, you hand over a spot to a team who's played one less game and has proven they are beatable, and haven't won anything related to their conference. Let alone, giving something to someone who doesn't have a win in a neutral-site location because of that missing CCG appearance.

I guess I should add one extra milestone...picking the loser of a CCG when that team is virtually unblemished. Wisconsin just felt that sting.

what you are saying is most deserving. The CFP charter isn't 4 most deserving, it's 4 best.

Well why even play the games? Just take a poll and pick those teams.

The committee is dumb dumb dumb. The reasoning behind picking the "best" teams is nebulous...one year, someone needs a 13th data point, but apparently not the last 2 years. Head-to-head and SOS have been thrown out the window

well, all 4 years of the playoff, it's matched 100% what the BCS ratings would have been.

(12-04-2017 01:59 PM)stever20 Wrote:  well, all 4 years of the playoff, it's matched 100% what the BCS ratings would have been.

That's right. Here's the simulated BCS ranking for this season:



Among other things, I think this indicates that the committee members are looking at computer rankings of various kinds when making their decisions.

(12-04-2017 02:06 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 01:59 PM)stever20 Wrote:  well, all 4 years of the playoff, it's matched 100% what the BCS ratings would have been.

That's right. Here's the simulated BCS ranking for this season:



Among other things, I think this indicates that the committee members are looking at computer rankings of various kinds when making their decisions.

It certainly looks like it. Have to wonder if those rankings still have the Harris Poll.