|
|
Post by ajbuckeye on Dec 6, 2016 13:35:03 GMT
There is a selection process that is written down. Here it is if you want to read it. d30ratpzqzalg7.cloudfront.net/CD-drupal-cfp-PROD/s3fs-public/CFP%20Selection%20Committee%20Protocol.pdf?tV3FOZ68If3qops3X7XJQFmkEd00PiAYIt states that they will select the four best teams for the playoffs. Conference Championships, H2H, SOS, and comparing games against similar competition will only be used when comparing teams with similar pedigree. 2 years ago when OSU got selected, their resume was much more in comparison with Baylor and TCU which OSU benefited from the Conference Championship. OSU clearly had the far better resume with their wins and losses playing 5 through 8. They had a much better SOS. Anyone who says there is not much difference between 1 and 2 losses simply doesn't get College Football. In College Football a loss means everything. It always has and always will. The committee 100% made the correct decision when you take a look at the criteria in front of them as to how they select teams. If you don't agree, see the metrics below and tell me where they went wrong. Ohio State 11 - 1 SOS 29 vs #5 Loss on the Road vs #6 Win at Home vs #7 Win on the Road vs #8 Win on the Road Penn St 11 - 2 SOS 40 vs #2 Win at Home vs #6 Loss on the Road vs #8 Win Neutral vs #23 Loss on the Road Washington 12 - 1 SOS 55 vs #9 Loss on the Road vs #10 Win Neutral vs #18 Win at Home vs #19 Win at Home Michigan 10 - 2 SOS 54 vs #2 Loss on the Road vs #5 Win at Home vs #8 Win at Home vs #10 Win at Home |
|
|
|
Post by EvilVodka on Dec 6, 2016 14:00:09 GMT
It states that they will select the four best teams for the playoffs. ...and that's your problem right there....the criteria used to determine that is ambiguous and subjective Would you still be saying "it got the 4 best teams" if Penn State had gotten in? What exactly are the four best teams? No one knows... The Committee clearly set a precedent in '14 by giving emphasis to conference championship games. That's what has fueled Big XII expansion... 3 years later, we see that "nah, they don't matter as much. Each season is it's own unique circumstances, like a snowflake" There are no rules....it may be hard for you to wrap your head around it, but that's the bottom line with the committee |
|
|
|
Post by GatorGrad on Dec 6, 2016 14:57:48 GMT
It states that they will select the four best teams for the playoffs. ...and that's your problem right there....the criteria used to determine that is ambiguous and subjective Would you still be saying "it got the 4 best teams" if Penn State had gotten in? What exactly are the four best teams? No one knows... The Committee clearly set a precedent in '14 by giving emphasis to conference championship games. That's what has fueled Big XII expansion... 3 years later, we see that "nah, they don't matter as much. Each season is it's own unique circumstances, like a snowflake" There are no rules....it may be hard for you to wrap your head around it, but that's the bottom line with the committee I do think they should change the verbiage from "four best teams" to "four most deserving teams." In other words, make it more clear that the committee is looking at overall resume and body of work, similar to the NCAA Basketball Tournament Committee. "Four best teams" means so many things to so many different people. Some think it should be whoever Vegas would favor. But just because Vegas says that Michigan would beat Washington on a neutral field doesn't mean that Michigan would be more deserving of a playoff spot if Washington went unbeaten and Michigan had four upset losses. On-field results matter. |
|
|
|
Post by bluehen on Dec 6, 2016 15:26:29 GMT
The Cartel should change the name of its event to what reflects the reality of it.
Some nominees :
The Dr. Pepper Invitational
The P5 Invitational
The P5 Championship Bowl Series
no 'playoff' in the moniker, please
|
|
|
|
Post by EvilVodka on Dec 6, 2016 15:31:17 GMT
...and that's your problem right there....the criteria used to determine that is ambiguous and subjective Would you still be saying "it got the 4 best teams" if Penn State had gotten in? What exactly are the four best teams? No one knows... The Committee clearly set a precedent in '14 by giving emphasis to conference championship games. That's what has fueled Big XII expansion... 3 years later, we see that "nah, they don't matter as much. Each season is it's own unique circumstances, like a snowflake" There are no rules....it may be hard for you to wrap your head around it, but that's the bottom line with the committee I do think they should change the verbiage from "four best teams" to "four most deserving teams." In other words, make it more clear that the committee is looking at overall resume and body of work, similar to the NCAA Basketball Tournament Committee. "Four best teams" means so many things to so many different people. Some think it should be whoever Vegas would favor. But just because Vegas says that Michigan would beat Washington on a neutral field doesn't mean that Michigan would be more deserving of a playoff spot if Washington went unbeaten and Michigan had four upset losses. On-field results matter. They need clear cut rules....Penn State, Michigan, Washington, and Ohio State should have known what they needed to do before Championship weekend. Winning and then waiting on a group of people in a room is for the birds |
|
|
|
Post by cjhawkeyes on Dec 6, 2016 16:14:38 GMT
...and that's your problem right there....the criteria used to determine that is ambiguous and subjective Would you still be saying "it got the 4 best teams" if Penn State had gotten in? What exactly are the four best teams? No one knows... The Committee clearly set a precedent in '14 by giving emphasis to conference championship games. That's what has fueled Big XII expansion... 3 years later, we see that "nah, they don't matter as much. Each season is it's own unique circumstances, like a snowflake" There are no rules....it may be hard for you to wrap your head around it, but that's the bottom line with the committee I do think they should change the verbiage from "four best teams" to "four most deserving teams." In other words, make it more clear that the committee is looking at overall resume and body of work, similar to the NCAA Basketball Tournament Committee. "Four best teams" means so many things to so many different people. Some think it should be whoever Vegas would favor. But just because Vegas says that Michigan would beat Washington on a neutral field doesn't mean that Michigan would be more deserving of a playoff spot if Washington went unbeaten and Michigan had four upset losses. On-field results matter. Or four best/most valuable seasons (for Herdfan)  |
|
|
|
Post by GatorGrad on Dec 7, 2016 1:28:55 GMT
I do think they should change the verbiage from "four best teams" to "four most deserving teams." In other words, make it more clear that the committee is looking at overall resume and body of work, similar to the NCAA Basketball Tournament Committee. "Four best teams" means so many things to so many different people. Some think it should be whoever Vegas would favor. But just because Vegas says that Michigan would beat Washington on a neutral field doesn't mean that Michigan would be more deserving of a playoff spot if Washington went unbeaten and Michigan had four upset losses. On-field results matter. They need clear cut rules....Penn State, Michigan, Washington, and Ohio State should have known what they needed to do before Championship weekend. Winning and then waiting on a group of people in a room is for the birds Have you followed what CJ has been pushing on this board for the last decade? |
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Dec 7, 2016 3:10:31 GMT
The committee 100% made the correct decision when you take a look at the criteria in front of them as to how they select teams. That is 100% OPINION... nothing more.
You DO KNOW what opinions are like, don't you?
|
|
|
|
Post by FLORIDA HERD FAN on Dec 7, 2016 9:45:13 GMT
I do think they should change the verbiage from "four best teams" to "four most deserving teams." In other words, make it more clear that the committee is looking at overall resume and body of work, similar to the NCAA Basketball Tournament Committee. "Four best teams" means so many things to so many different people. Some think it should be whoever Vegas would favor. But just because Vegas says that Michigan would beat Washington on a neutral field doesn't mean that Michigan would be more deserving of a playoff spot if Washington went unbeaten and Michigan had four upset losses. On-field results matter. Or four best/most valuable seasons (for Herdfan) That would defeat the purpose, which is to determine the best team. Not the best of the most deserving teams. What if the best team had a slow start to its season and developed into the best team as the season progressed, a la Jim Valvano's Wolfpack? The beauty of a 16-team playoff is that there is room in the field to include both, i.e., the 10 conference champions plus the best of the rest. There is a very strong likelihood that the best team will be seeded somewhere in a 16-team field. What if the best team is Penn State, Western Michigan, Oklahoma, Michigan or Wisconsin? We can never know for those that win their bowl games. Can you prove that Marshall wasn't the best team in 1999? Or Utah in 2004? Or Boise State in 2006? |
|
|
|
Post by ajbuckeye on Dec 7, 2016 13:17:33 GMT
The committee 100% made the correct decision when you take a look at the criteria in front of them as to how they select teams. That is 100% OPINION... nothing more.
You DO KNOW what opinions are like, don't you?
I went to Websters to get the definition of what opinions are and this is what I found "a formal expression of judgment or advice by an expert" I think we are finally in agreement:) BTY congrats on the hiring on Tom Herman. He is the primary reason why the Buckeyes missed the playoffs last year and what he did and what he did with Houston was impressive. No doubt he will bring them up to speed in the very near term. |
|
|
|
Post by doc on Dec 7, 2016 14:29:30 GMT
It's funny that every ranking (except Mark May, Jonathan Vilma and Desmond Howard) and computer poll, including CJ's who many on this board feel's is the best - has Ohio State in the top 4 and Penn State below them.
May hasn't liked Ohio State since they beat Pitt 72-0 back in 1996...
Vilma was the LBer on the 2002 Miami team that Ohio State beat in the Fiesta Bowl....
Howard played at TTUN and by the way, ranks Michigan at #3....
|
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Dec 7, 2016 17:44:38 GMT
That is 100% OPINION... nothing more.
You DO KNOW what opinions are like, don't you?
I went to Websters to get the definition of what opinions are and this is what I found "a formal expression of judgment or advice by an expert" I think we are finally in agreement:) BTY congrats on the hiring on Tom Herman. He is the primary reason why the Buckeyes missed the playoffs last year and what he did and what he did with Houston was impressive. No doubt he will bring them up to speed in the very near term.
You went to the wrong dictionary! ;-)
Eventually, we all knew the committee was going to over-turn a head-to-head, on the field result. Eventually, we all knew they would select a team that was NOT a Conference Champion. I would have hoped, when they did these things, it would be to choose a team that was VERY CLEARLY, head and shoulders above the team that was getting left out in the cold. I just don't see that here. I guess, that's what bothers me the most. With something this subjective, it SHOULD be a very clear choice.. in my "opinion".
Does OSU have a better resume for the overall season? Yes. But, only slightly. Do they LOOK LIKE a clearly better team right now? No.... not at all.
This result sends a very clear signal: Head to Head doesn't really matter that much. The extra game and Conference Championship doesn't really matter all that much (Big 12? Are you paying attention?) All that matters is: not losing any games. Heck, even OOC scheduling doesn't matter... (See Washington). Just DON'T LOSE... oh, and be a big name school. (See Western Michigan)
If this is really how this system is going to work? Then, I'm not really that interested in it. It's doomed for failure.
Re: Herman. I'm in Houston this week. Texas fans are not all that excited about Herman. No one dislikes him. He has a lot more "Texas roots" than Strong ever did. I happen to think he FITS the position much better than Charlie. I think, everyone is just in shock... and, depressed. We really ALL BELEIVED that the team had turned a corner, and was going to continue to improve. The quick, sudden end.. and change, has left everyone very, very depressed. There is not much enthusiasm for the new coach. It's really a sad situation. MUCH internal squabbling.
Tom needs to WIN.
|
|
|
|
Post by ajbuckeye on Dec 7, 2016 19:04:55 GMT
I went to Websters to get the definition of what opinions are and this is what I found "a formal expression of judgment or advice by an expert" I think we are finally in agreement:) BTY congrats on the hiring on Tom Herman. He is the primary reason why the Buckeyes missed the playoffs last year and what he did and what he did with Houston was impressive. No doubt he will bring them up to speed in the very near term.
You went to the wrong dictionary! ;-)
Eventually, we all knew the committee was going to over-turn a head-to-head, on the field result. Eventually, we all knew they would select a team that was NOT a Conference Champion. I would have hoped, when they did these things, it would be to choose a team that was VERY CLEARLY, head and shoulders above the team that was getting left out in the cold. I just don't see that here. I guess, that's what bothers me the most. With something this subjective, it SHOULD be a very clear choice.. in my "opinion".
Does OSU have a better resume for the overall season? Yes. But, only slightly. Do they LOOK LIKE a clearly better team right now? No.... not at all.
This result sends a very clear signal: Head to Head doesn't really matter that much. The extra game and Conference Championship doesn't really matter all that much (Big 12? Are you paying attention?) All that matters is: not losing any games. Heck, even OOC scheduling doesn't matter... (See Washington). Just DON'T LOSE... oh, and be a big name school. (See Western Michigan)
If this is really how this system is going to work? Then, I'm not really that interested in it. It's doomed for failure.
Re: Herman. I'm in Houston this week. Texas fans are not all that excited about Herman. No one dislikes him. He has a lot more "Texas roots" than Strong ever did. I happen to think he FITS the position much better than Charlie. I think, everyone is just in shock... and, depressed. We really ALL BELEIVED that the team had turned a corner, and was going to continue to improve. The quick, sudden end.. and change, has left everyone very, very depressed. There is not much enthusiasm for the new coach. It's really a sad situation. MUCH internal squabbling.
Tom needs to WIN.
With only 4 teams in the mix how do you come up with a better system. You could go with strictly a computer rating but that would likely be far worse when it comes to evaluating how teams are playing down the stretch. The other drawback with strictly relying on computers is that it still leaves uncertainty on what you would need to do down the stretch because your opponents and opponents opponents would likely be added to the equation. H2H and Conference Championships do matter but only when teams are being evaluated with similar resumes. Obviously the kicker is what determines if teams are considered comparable vs one being substantially better than the other. I do think that Ohio States resume is substantially better than 4, 5 and 6. If you interpret this differently then there is the case for Penn St and Washington to jump Ohio St. If you look at virtually every poll and the BCS simulated poll the all came up with the same 4 team scenario. It doesn't mean that it is right but it does at least show they are consistent. I think my attitude is that they need to look at the best resumes that are accumulated over the entire season. I can see an argument that tOSU limped in as they squeaked past MSU and had a nail biter against scUM. But then again they won those games and the number of losses has always been a critical component to getting to the Championship Game or in some cases mythical Championship game. I am personally content with how the top four are decided and I do feel the process has been consistent but then again that is merely my opinion. With just 4 teams I don't see a better solution. Any solution that takes automatic bids on winning a specific conference with just 4 teams is a disaster waiting to happen as this year we could have had some 3 and 4 loss teams in the mix. I think Strong was a great guy but he simply did not produce. I thought Texas was going to turn it around after the ND game this year but it just simply never came together. Winning fixes everything and I see a huge up side with a young coach who understands what it takes to succeed at this level. |
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Dec 7, 2016 20:32:25 GMT
With only 4 teams in the mix how do you come up with a better system I could live with CJ's system. It's complicated, but totally non-subjective... and, seems to produce a good result. H2H and Conference Championships do matter but only when teams are being evaluated with similar resumes. Depends on your definition of "similar". To me, Ohio State and Penn State have VERY similar resumes. The fact that a majority of people/polls all pick Ohio State's as being 'better' doesn't mean they aren't "similar". It just means, many people see the very slight difference in the same direction. No way will I ever be convinced that this minimal difference was enough to overturn an on-the-field-result + Conference Championship. For me, it's not even CLOSE to being enough. But, that's the 'subjective' nature of such a decision. It is IMPOSSIBLE To remove individual bias. I am personally content with how the top four are decided Well now, THERE's a surprise!  |
|
|
|
Post by EvilVodka on Dec 7, 2016 22:58:44 GMT
You went to the wrong dictionary! ;-)
Eventually, we all knew the committee was going to over-turn a head-to-head, on the field result. Eventually, we all knew they would select a team that was NOT a Conference Champion. I would have hoped, when they did these things, it would be to choose a team that was VERY CLEARLY, head and shoulders above the team that was getting left out in the cold. I just don't see that here. I guess, that's what bothers me the most. With something this subjective, it SHOULD be a very clear choice.. in my "opinion".
Does OSU have a better resume for the overall season? Yes. But, only slightly. Do they LOOK LIKE a clearly better team right now? No.... not at all.
This result sends a very clear signal: Head to Head doesn't really matter that much. The extra game and Conference Championship doesn't really matter all that much (Big 12? Are you paying attention?) All that matters is: not losing any games. Heck, even OOC scheduling doesn't matter... (See Washington). Just DON'T LOSE... oh, and be a big name school. (See Western Michigan)
If this is really how this system is going to work? Then, I'm not really that interested in it. It's doomed for failure.
Re: Herman. I'm in Houston this week. Texas fans are not all that excited about Herman. No one dislikes him. He has a lot more "Texas roots" than Strong ever did. I happen to think he FITS the position much better than Charlie. I think, everyone is just in shock... and, depressed. We really ALL BELEIVED that the team had turned a corner, and was going to continue to improve. The quick, sudden end.. and change, has left everyone very, very depressed. There is not much enthusiasm for the new coach. It's really a sad situation. MUCH internal squabbling.
Tom needs to WIN.
With only 4 teams in the mix how do you come up with a better system. You could go with strictly a computer rating but that would likely be far worse when it comes to evaluating how teams are playing down the stretch. The other drawback with strictly relying on computers is that it still leaves uncertainty on what you would need to do down the stretch because your opponents and opponents opponents would likely be added to the equation. H2H and Conference Championships do matter but only when teams are being evaluated with similar resumes. Obviously the kicker is what determines if teams are considered comparable vs one being substantially better than the other. I do think that Ohio States resume is substantially better than 4, 5 and 6. If you interpret this differently then there is the case for Penn St and Washington to jump Ohio St. If you look at virtually every poll and the BCS simulated poll the all came up with the same 4 team scenario. It doesn't mean that it is right but it does at least show they are consistent. I think my attitude is that they need to look at the best resumes that are accumulated over the entire season. I can see an argument that tOSU limped in as they squeaked past MSU and had a nail biter against scUM. But then again they won those games and the number of losses has always been a critical component to getting to the Championship Game or in some cases mythical Championship game. I am personally content with how the top four are decided and I do feel the process has been consistent but then again that is merely my opinion. With just 4 teams I don't see a better solution. Any solution that takes automatic bids on winning a specific conference with just 4 teams is a disaster waiting to happen as this year we could have had some 3 and 4 loss teams in the mix. I think Strong was a great guy but he simply did not produce. I thought Texas was going to turn it around after the ND game this year but it just simply never came together. Winning fixes everything and I see a huge up side with a young coach who understands what it takes to succeed at this level. The problem really isn't the teams picked even...the problem is how they go about picking the teams. In the NFL, teams know what they have to do to make the playoffs...you win or lose on the field. In college football, it USED to be the BCS rankings...and while those were flawed, at least you had an idea of what would happen. Now with the committee, literally NO ONE knows where they stand till the committee huddles in their little room and ESPN turns it into a ratings bonanza Think about it...it's really gotten stupid My problem REALLY isn't with Ohio State per se....it's with the fact that Washington and Penn State won amazing conference championship games, yet had no idea where they stood....They need to fix it, because it sucks now. It's set up for disappointment and failure If you want a better system, simply say: TOP 2 CONFERENCE CHAMPS (*special clause for ND and Independents)TOP 2 AT-LARGE
AND MAKE THE CRITERIA 1. W/L 2. SOS Everyone knows what type of teams will make it, and everyone knows what the tiebreakers are. Conference Champs get the home jerseys. Alabama would obviously be the top seed as is, because of Conference Championship + W/L The second seed would come down to Washington or Clemson. They have the same W/L record, but I think Clemson has the better SOS. They get in Top At-Large seeds? Ohio State and Washington have the same record. Ohio State wins SOS. The Buckeyes are #3. Washington gets in as #4 with W/L record So..........you have the EXACT SAME PLAYOFF we have now, with a completely transparent system. Penn State and Michigan fans would KNOW they were out simply due to W/L record!!!! It's seriously not hard to accomplish, and we can all lose the backroom shenanigans. Penn State would have known they had no chance in the B1G Championship. It was an issue, because the committee lets it be an issue....they have no rules for anyone to go by. It's whimsical "resume" bullshit that no one understands or gets |
|
