Playoff rankings

[JaguarCrazy2832]

19 hours ago, naptownskinsfan said:

Obviously I’m biased but if Georgia loses a close game, do you throw out their chance at a three-peat, especially if one of the other top 4 teams lose as well?  That’s going to garner a little bit more attention with a loss than FSU without Travis, even with a win from FSU here.  I could definitely see ratings justifying that one. 

The concept of a 3-peat should be irrelevant but I agree I think the committee(for the sake of making easier decisions) really wants Georgia to beat Bama because if FSU and Texas win too, things get VERY gross for them

[OkeyDoke21]

17 hours ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

Alright guys, I'll take FSU's CFB playoff opponent in a sig bet for whatever length of time you want at even odds.

Also I find the word resume use here kind of ironic, given that the point of a resume is to be a short starting point to determine if someone is worthy of an in-person evaluation, and is never used as the end-all-be-all.

I think using resume would still be applicable.  It's the starting point to dwindle down which 4 applicants qualify for an in person interview (the playoff) where one eventually fills the position being offered, after the interview process (National Champion.)  The resumes are used to quickly trim the fat, to try and most effectively get to your in person interviews.  Boss says they only have time for 4 interviews, so out of the 120+ applicants, you get them the best 4 by way of their resumes.  100 of these resumes can be tossed in the trash immediately just from the misspellings on the cover sheet.   

[BigC421/]

1 hour ago, JaguarCrazy2832 said:

The concept of a 3-peat should be irrelevant but I agree I think the committee(for the sake of making easier decisions) really wants Georgia to beat Bama because if FSU and Texas win too, things get VERY gross for them

A lot of people root for chaos and I get that. As a fan of just watching great football I just want to see the 4 best play it out and get to watch presumably 3 great games (obviously rarely happens). 
 

I’ll be rooting for Oregon Friday simply because I put a lot of money on them to win the conference pre season and they have been playing elite football and are a true threat to win it all.  That said I really love the idea of a playoff that features 4 undefeated 13-0 power 5 conference champions playing it out. I mean all things aside isn’t that really the dream scenario ? 

[ramssuperbowl99]

13 minutes ago, OkeyDoke21 said:

I think using resume would still be applicable.  It's the starting point to dwindle down which 4 applicants qualify for an in person interview (the playoff) where one eventually fills the position being offered, after the interview process (National Champion.)  The resumes are used to quickly trim the fat, to try and most effectively get to your in person interviews.  Boss says they only have time for 4 interviews, so out of the 120+ applicants, you get them the best 4 by way of their resumes.  100 of these resumes can be tossed in the trash immediately just from the misspellings on the cover sheet. 

In this analogy, the resume is the resume, the interview is the selection committee decision, and the job performance is the playoff. The committee has time for as many interviews as they want, that's what watching the games are.

 

I get that there's a sense of unfairness to it. Some team might never make a mistake and not get picked. Yep. That's life. There's no way to have a conclusive, statistical proof that the best 4 teams are A, B, C, and D over a 12 game sample when so many kids get hurt/develop/etc over that timeframe. It's an impossible task. So they should take their best true guess at those best 4 teams and be okay with pissing fans off.

Having this automatic, no-original-thought criteria is just the BCS and instead of making fans who care too much mad, we're making the product worse. I don't get why we want to revert back. We wanted people in the committee because the resume-only approach didn't work. We make better overall picks with more information, and the eye test is incredibly value information to leave on the cutting room floor.

[ramssuperbowl99]

17 minutes ago, BigC421/ said:

As a fan of just watching great football I just want to see the 4 best play it out and get to watch presumably 3 great games (obviously rarely happens).

Correct take.

18 minutes ago, BigC421/ said:

I’ll be rooting for Oregon Friday simply because I put a lot of money on them to win the conference pre season and they have been playing elite football and are a true threat to win it all.

I'll be rooting for Oregon because the hypothetical of having a Bo Nix vs. Bama playoff game is CFB forum gold.

[NateDawg]

Results matter in the playoffs. Why not the regular season results? 

i.e. you don’t take a 42-41 OSU loser to UGA over TCU to play the next week for the title in a UGA rematch. 

Thankfully next year this will largely be a non factor anymore.

[JaguarCrazy2832]

1 hour ago, NateDawg said:

Results matter in the playoffs. Why not the regular season results? 

i.e. you don’t take a 42-41 OSU loser to UGA over TCU to play the next week for the title in a UGA rematch. 

Thankfully next year this will largely be a non factor anymore.

There will still be loads of complaining from teams left out except this time they will have 2 losses instead of 1...or 0

[JaguarCrazy2832]

2 hours ago, BigC421/ said:

A lot of people root for chaos and I get that. As a fan of just watching great football I just want to see the 4 best play it out and get to watch presumably 3 great games (obviously rarely happens). 
 

I’ll be rooting for Oregon Friday simply because I put a lot of money on them to win the conference pre season and they have been playing elite football and are a true threat to win it all.  That said I really love the idea of a playoff that features 4 undefeated 13-0 power 5 conference champions playing it out. I mean all things aside isn’t that really the dream scenario ? 

Not when 1 of the undefeated teams will be a 2 TD underdog and probably lose worse than that

[ramssuperbowl99]

1 hour ago, NateDawg said:

Results matter in the playoffs. Why not the regular season results? 

I didn't say they don't matter. I've objected to a resume-only process, not resume-including.

We should use the most predictive set of results possible. A resume-only view would be less predictive than one that includes the eye-test.

1 hour ago, NateDawg said:

i.e. you don’t take a 42-41 OSU loser to UGA over TCU to play the next week for the title in a UGA rematch. 

By choosing this example, you're demonstrating you agree with me at least in part. It's far more predictive in every way than the FSU situation. This game would have a one week gap and there are no injury caveats.

Had you used a real example, say, Alabama getting in over Texas, that would be a different conversation because that result is much less predictive. It was Week 3, Bama is playing much better and has found their QB, Texas has struggled with health off and on.

Using FSU's resume is still less predictive because they are missing their best player. It's not the same team.

 

To be clear, I feel sorry for the FSU players if they do get left out. It sucks and isn't fair. But the CFB playoff committee is not the arbiter of fairness, it's about getting the best teams in.

 

[MWil23]

4 minutes ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

Had you used a real example, say, Alabama getting in over Texas, that would be a different conversation because that result is much less predictive. It was Week 3, Bama is playing much better and has found their QB, Texas has struggled with health off and on.

Are we also pretending with this eye test that Alabama didn’t beat a .500 Auburn team on a 4th and 31 miracle?

[ramssuperbowl99]

1 minute ago, MWil23 said:

Are we also pretending with this eye test that Alabama didn’t beat a .500 Auburn team on a 4th and 31 miracle?

No they wouldn't be in my top 4. And the Auburn game has more to do with it than the Texas game to me personally. I listed those examples in descending order of CFB playoff relevance since there's a canyon of difference between "these teams played last week and want to play again would the result last week matter", versus "these teams played with one QB, and want to play again with a different QB" in relative important for accurate predictions.

[MWil23]

3 minutes ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

No they wouldn't be in my top 4. And the Auburn game has more to do with it than the Texas game to me personally. I listed those examples in descending order of CFB playoff relevance since there's a canyon of difference between "these teams played last week and want to play again would the result last week matter", versus "these teams played with one QB, and want to play again with a different QB" in relative important for accurate predictions.

I’d listen to an argument for about any team except for Alabama over Texas tbh. I don’t think it matters because I think Georgia probably rolls, but who knows.

The PAC winner, Georgia, and Michigan seem to be layups.

Then if Texas wins along with FSU, the committee probably takes FSU but that’ll be a disaster come R1.

I think playoff expansion is good for about everyone.

[CWood21]

On 11/29/2023 at 11:59 AM, JaguarCrazy2832 said:

I dont have a problem with Texas being behind Ohio St, because they will get a chance to jump them but the Bama/Texas ranking will be the one to follow for sure. 

I don't think a win over a 9-3 Oklahoma State team holds that much weight if we're being honest.  If the committee truly believed that Texas was better than Ohio State, they'd be ahead of them this week.  It'd be a LOT different if they were able to face Oklahoma again, and a chance to avenge their loss.

[ramssuperbowl99]

5 minutes ago, MWil23 said:

I’d listen to an argument for about any team except for Alabama over Texas tbh. I don’t think it matters because I think Georgia probably rolls, but who knows.

The PAC winner, Georgia, and Michigan seem to be layups.

Then if Texas wins along with FSU, the committee probably takes FSU but that’ll be a disaster come R1.

I think playoff expansion is good for about everyone.

FSU is really the only team I'd put my foot down on and say no way. Bama isn't far behind.

 

The elephant in the room is injuries to the PAC-12 winner, Michigan, or Georgia. This did not work out well for the committee, they're in a no-win situation.

[CWood21]

22 hours ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

Florida State's inclusion or exclusion should be based heavily on how their offense and specifically QB plays. I didn't see the Florida game, but so far the verdict is bad.

If they win but play poorly on offense, no way they deserve it.

I don't think the committee is going to "penalize" the rest of the Florida State team because of the injury, but I do think if they win but not impressively their the #4 team.