Second Playoff Committee Rankings

[mse326]

25 minutes ago, Lions017 said:

There's absolutely no reason to schedule a strong OOC schedule

Washington St says otherwise.

[Raves]

13 hours ago, mse326 said:

I get the knee jerk reaction to LSU after what they did against Bama but it's like people are forgetting what had happened before that. They beat Georgia pretty convincingly which I think is the best win in the country so far (I do have Michigan over Georgia but Michigan wasn't as good when ND beat them in week 1 as they are now). They've beat 3 team ranked in this 25 and both losses are to teams in the top 15. Alabama has also shown to be a tier above everyone else and while their offense was abysmal they gave Bama's offense far more problems than any other team so far.

Personally I'd have them at 8 and West Virginia at 7. Washington State and Ohio St haven't been impressive to me whether by schedule or plain poor play and LSU clearly has the best resume of the 2 loss teams. So their ranking is hardly absurd.

Problem is though, some of those top 25 teams are probably not really top 25 teams but ranked that high due to the committee mostly falling in-line with the polls that are based off the pre-season rankings of teams/conferences.  These are just falling in line with the old BCS, including purposely overranking certain teams to prop up others.

[mse326]

1 hour ago, Raves said:

Problem is though, some of those top 25 teams are probably not really top 25 teams but ranked that high due to the committee mostly falling in-line with the polls that are based off the pre-season rankings of teams/conferences.  These are just falling in line with the old BCS, including purposely overranking certain teams to prop up others.

Which of the 3 teams they beat (Georgia, Miss. St., Auburn) don't deserve to be ranked in the top 25 and who do you think should be there instead?

[Mastercheddaar]

15 hours ago, naptownskinsfan said:

I'm a Georgia/SEC fan, so I get the bias and sometimes I believe in it depending on the year.  

My perfect playoff picture would be 8 teams.  The championship winners from each Power Five conference, a Group of Five representative selected by the committee and two at-large teams selected by the committee, all ranked by the committee.  The problem is, how do we do that many playoff games?  These are kids, after all.  

If we have two SEC teams in the playoffs and Notre Dame, we may get serious enough push from the Power Five conferences that are left out for expanding the playoffs.  

Simple: 6 teams with an option to expand to 8. All power five conference champs get automatic bids if they are within the top ten in the rankings. (This isn't a stretch by any means. Most Conference champs are going to be ranked high to begin with.) Then there is an at-large bid. In case of a champ not being top ten then there would be two at large bids. (EG Utah is #25 and they beat #9 Wash. There would be no reason why Utah would catapult to #10 so give the spot to someone else.) *** Not picking on Utah here but you get the point. 

3-6 would play each other in the first week of bowl season. 3 vs 6 and 4 vs 5. Pick 4 garbage bowl games and rotate them. 

Then 1 vs 4 and 2 vs 3 exactly how it is played now. 

It would give more credit to conference champs and STILL allow for worthy at large teams to get in. 

That is all

Mastercheddaar

[mse326]

9 minutes ago, Mastercheddaar said:

Simple: 6 teams with an option to expand to 8. All power five conference champs get automatic bids if they are within the top ten in the rankings. (This isn't a stretch by any means. Most Conference champs are going to be ranked high to begin with.) Then there is an at-large bid. In case of a champ not being top ten then there would be two at large bids. (EG Utah is #25 and they beat #9 Wash. There would be no reason why Utah would catapult to #10 so give the spot to someone else.) *** Not picking on Utah here but you get the point. 

3-6 would play each other in the first week of bowl season. 3 vs 6 and 4 vs 5. Pick 4 garbage bowl games and rotate them. 

Then 1 vs 4 and 2 vs 3 exactly how it is played now. 

It would give more credit to conference champs and STILL allow for worthy at large teams to get in. 

That is all

Mastercheddaar

Any system that relies that heavily on winning the conference is never going to pass. Too many powerhouses that are in the same conference. It doesn't benefit an OSU or Michigan or Bama or LSU or UGA or etc. to agree to this.

Further the biggest hurdle of all to this is Notre Dame. As long as they aren't in a conference they aren't going to make conference championships that integral to being able to compete for the National Championship.

[Lions017]

36 minutes ago, Mastercheddaar said:

Simple: 6 teams with an option to expand to 8. All power five conference champs get automatic bids if they are within the top ten in the rankings. (This isn't a stretch by any means. Most Conference champs are going to be ranked high to begin with.) Then there is an at-large bid. In case of a champ not being top ten then there would be two at large bids. (EG Utah is #25 and they beat #9 Wash. There would be no reason why Utah would catapult to #10 so give the spot to someone else.) *** Not picking on Utah here but you get the point. 

3-6 would play each other in the first week of bowl season. 3 vs 6 and 4 vs 5. Pick 4 garbage bowl games and rotate them. 

Then 1 vs 4 and 2 vs 3 exactly how it is played now. 

It would give more credit to conference champs and STILL allow for worthy at large teams to get in. 

That is all

Mastercheddaar

I'm not sure if 6 really works. It's controversial now - I can't imagine how controversial it would be if these guys were deciding which two teams got a bye while the other four had to play one another. This year it looks easy, but many years it's not. 

[MWil23]

What will happen and what should happen are totally different, but what should happen is:

Since there are 5 Power Conferences:

*8 team playoff (Only 1 Extra game)

*5 Conference champions make it automatically

*3 at large selections

*Committee seeds it 1-8

*Higher seeds get a geographical advantage, which is not home field advantage, but rather it would mean, for example, if a B1G team was ranked high, they could play at Indianapolis/Lucas Oil.  

[CrazyJoeDavola]

If you look at the FCS they already have it laid out. They have a 24 team bracket and they finish the same weekend as the FBS. They can make it a 16 team bracket and start it the weekend after Thanksgiving and be done on the same day as they currently do. The blueprint is out there but it won’t happen due to the financial impact from losing or changing the bowl format. 

[Nozizaki]

I'm just gonna start using the Colley and Sagarin ratings. The rankings are just so bad, that there isn't any point in paying attention any more.

[Mastercheddaar]

2 hours ago, Lions017 said:

I'm not sure if 6 really works. It's controversial now - I can't imagine how controversial it would be if these guys were deciding which two teams got a bye while the other four had to play one another. This year it looks easy, but many years it's not. 

I'd go by last ranking. If it went by our current ranks Bama and Clem would get the bye, while ND, scUM, (For sake of argument) OU, and Georgia all played eachother.  It wouldn't be perfect but last year, two power 5 champs were left out of the playoffs because Bama AND Georgia just HAD to be included. 

That is all

Mastercheddaar

[mse326]

2 hours ago, Mastercheddaar said:

I'd go by last ranking. If it went by our current ranks Bama and Clem would get the bye, while ND, scUM, (For sake of argument) OU, and Georgia all played eachother.  It wouldn't be perfect but last year, two power 5 champs were left out of the playoffs because Bama AND Georgia just HAD to be included. 

That is all

Mastercheddaar

Yeah how dare they include the best 2 teams in the country, that was a travesty.

So people really want the possibility of a Pac 12 south team in the playoffs? ACC Coastal? B1G West? Conference championships are being significantly overrated in terms their correlation to getting the best teams in the playoffs.

[buno67]

8 hours ago, MWil23 said:

What will happen and what should happen are totally different, but what should happen is:

Since there are 5 Power Conferences:

*8 team playoff (Only 1 Extra game)

*5 Conference champions make it automatically

*3 at large selections

*Committee seeds it 1-8

*Higher seeds get a geographical advantage, which is not home field advantage, but rather it would mean, for example, if a B1G team was ranked high, they could play at Indianapolis/Lucas Oil.  

It should mean home field tho. Make it more meaningful to try and get the higher seed. Also, I would love to see a southern team play in Columbus in December. 

[Lions017]

15 hours ago, mse326 said:

Yeah how dare they include the best 2 teams in the country, that was a travesty.

So people really want the possibility of a Pac 12 south team in the playoffs? ACC Coastal? B1G West? Conference championships are being significantly overrated in terms their correlation to getting the best teams in the playoffs.

That's how it works in pretty much every other sport, though. The teams that earn it by winning their division or conference are the ones that make the playoff, whether they're the "best" team on paper or not. I don't understand why suddenly college football is all about picking the "best" teams. Why even play all of the games if that's the case? At least with conference championships there's some set criteria for qualifying and it's not just whoever people think is the best team. I like how college football, with it's short season, places a value on every single game. That goes away if it doesn't necessarily matter who wins the conference championship. You can lose a game and it doesn't matter anymore as long as it happens at the right time. 

[MWil23]

Here's where the committee has shown its inconsistencies/problems, and it has yet to address:

In 2014, the Big 12 messed themselves over with the Baylor/TCU fiasco. "One true champion" as their slogan, with co-champions (despite Baylor's H2H win over TCU) is always meme-worthy.

2015 OSU is clearly one of the 4 best teams in college football, left out of the playoff. I have no real issue with this, since they lost at home to MSU, who won the conference. However, since the committee has gone on record saying that their job is to "choose the 4 BEST Teams", they obviously got this wrong. They even doubled down on this, vaulting Stanford over OSU, (Stanford had two losses), bringing me to my next point about the inconsistencies regarding 2 loss teams:

In 2017, Bama loses to Auburn, who has 2 losses, and RISES in the rankings (#2) above other 1 loss teams and undefeated teams (Wisconsin, Clemson, Georgia, Miami and Alabama)...yet the 2nd loss doomed PSU and OSU in 2016 and 2017 (which I wholeheartedly agree with, for the record, and actually said that OSU had no business being in consideration since they didn't win their own conference in 2015 and 2016.)

Either there needs to be some common sense and over-arching criteria for this 4 team playoff (in 2014 and 2015 it's impossible for at least 1, if not 2, teams to get their feelings hurt).

[Tetsujin]

The Top 4 look fine. Everything else is a moot point right now.