Playoff Pandemonium

Say it all here
Forum rules
NOTICE: Please be sure to check the CFP Message Board Rules and Regulations and the Read Me page before posting.
User avatar
Eric
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 10262
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2005 1:51 am

Playoff Pandemonium

Postby Eric » Wed Nov 30, 2016 2:43 am

This process feels like it's turning into a joke.

So apparently, Michigan still has an outside chance at backing into the playoff, despite losing 2 of 3. Michigan probably need Clemson and Washington to lose in order for it to cause enough chaos. If Colorado and Virginia Tech won, would the committee be forced into putting 3 Big 10 teams the field, or would they still put Clemson in? And if they still had Clemson in over Penn State / Wisconsin, now you have a playoff with 3 teams who didn't even win their own conference! Amazing.

Michigan has a slimmer chance than people are saying, in my estimation. If Washington loses, the committee will just have Penn State or Wisconsin leapfrog Michigan to save themselves the headaches, even though Michigan beat both of those teams and have same records. Only difference was that Penn State / Wisconsin got an extra opportunity to notch a quality victory and somebody has to win the game. No telling if Michigan would have won it, but UM did end up with 2 conference losses, so it's their fault that they're in this situation. I just think the committee is being stupid and sending out misleading information. They know in the back of their heads that the Big 10 champ will be ahead of Michigan, so why don't they just rank Michigan behind the teams, since there's no way Michigan can survive in that position? Why are they sending out false signals? It's bound to be interpreted that Michigan will jump Washington if Washington loses, so don't get people's hopes up.

Anyway, I'm cheering for Michigan to get into the playoffs because it'll be better for the program to have that on their resume instead of an Orange Bowl loss. Might as well get destroyed by Alabama, at least you'll have an excuse heading into 2017.


Oh, by the way, the Cotton Bowl won't even be set up and ready to go until December 10th. If you needed any more reason why this system is ridiculous, the extra week between the rest of the regular season and Navy/Army is setting up to be a giant head ache. Unless Temple wins and saves us the trouble, if Western Michigan wins the MAC on Friday and Navy wins the AAC, they'll release the ranking as always. But with Navy having the extra game, they can't make it official, even if Western is ahead of Navy. If Western is #16 and Navy is #17 and they beat a 6-5 Army team 72-0, that might be enough to put them ahead of Western. So we're going to be operating with a giant blank spot from the Cotton Bowl down through all of the MAC bowls and Armed Forces Bowl (where I think Navy is slated to go). So we're going to have a log jam of at-larges and teams not knowing where they're going to end up. This is completely ridiculous. If Western is ahead of Navy by next Sunday, just give Western the bid to the Cotton Bowl. A win against Army should not move the needle at all, so it's a waste of time. Of course if Western loses to Ohio and Navy beats Temple, then Navy has to beat Army to get into the Cotton Bowl. Which means the spot has to be left open, because there might not be a ranked "Group of Five" team left at that point. The bid is not automatic for the top Go5 team, it has to be the highest ranked Go5 conference champion. If Western lost to Ohio and Navy gets by Temple, the entire bowl system will be in limbo (since that Cotton Bowl bid might go to another at-large from a power conference, instead of, say, the Citrus or Alamo Bowls or something).
Running bowl/MSU/OSU record '05-present: 9-27

User avatar
Eric
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 10262
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2005 1:51 am

Re: Playoff Pandemonium

Postby Eric » Wed Nov 30, 2016 3:12 am

So, here's my question: If Western loses, what happens with the teams in consideration for the Cotton Bowl?

If they leave the spot empty at that point, then Navy has to take care of business against Army. Highly likely, but you never know in a rivalry game. So if Navy were to lose, the Cotton Bowl would likely want Oklahoma State or West Virginia or USC. What are those teams supposed to do in the meantime? Say the Alamo wants West Virginia and USC while Oklahoma State is scheduled to go to the Russell Athletic Bowl. So now those bowls are hanging high and dry. The Armed Forces Bowl is hanging high and dry. They can't invite an at-large. Now if West Virginia went to the Cotton Bowl, then the Big 12 teams would get bumped up a slot. So they can't even accept the bids to the bowl games until the 10th. And then, down the line, that affects the at-large situations also.

And you have teams already accepting bids.
Running bowl/MSU/OSU record '05-present: 9-27

User avatar
donovan
Athletic Director
Athletic Director
Posts: 8322
Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2006 6:41 am
Location: Pacific Northwest

Re: Playoff Pandemonium

Postby donovan » Wed Nov 30, 2016 5:46 am

This year, if you get a bid, better take it or you will end up with a 5 win opponent.
As I age it is hard to tell if I am inspired by reasoned passion or arthritic knees; most likely it is arthritic reasoning.

User avatar
Spence
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 19375
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 11:52 pm
Location: Chillicothe, Ohio (Ohio's First Capital)
Contact:

Re: Playoff Pandemonium

Postby Spence » Wed Nov 30, 2016 10:07 am

I think the committee is ignoring what happened on the field this year. I'm not a fan on how all this is shaking out. I don't like ignoring the conference champions. I absolutely do not like the committee considering putting two teams from the same conference in. I don't like the "eye test". When I tell fellow Buckeye friends I don't think Ohio State should be in, they have a fit, but I think it is short sighted to want to make it no matter what. Ohio State could be the one left out because of this next time. As a matter of fact, I used the fact that Ohio State played and one their conference championship as criteria to put us in before Baylor in the first one because Baylor didn't win their championship.
"History doesn't always repeat itself but it often rhymes." - Mark Twain

collegefbfan-8898
All-American
All-American
Posts: 213
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 11:27 pm

Re: Playoff Pandemonium

Postby collegefbfan-8898 » Wed Nov 30, 2016 11:06 am

Certainly is building up for some back room shenanigans. Well, maybe that is too harsh a word to use. I can't see Clemson being in the playoff picture if they lose to VT who is ranked like what 18 or 22 or whatever. Maybe a last second 48 yard winning field goal by VT in a defensive slugfest. That might get Clemson in but doubt it. I will wait for the Cotton Bowl deal to play out. Ohio State is going to be in it. Ranked #2 and to move Penn State or Wisky up that far for a win. Not sure about that. Not saying this is the correct way to do it, but maybe a little bit safer for CFP members: Maybe have Clemson and Washington ranked ahead of Ohio State because they are actually playing in their conference champs games. Is that the right way? Maybe not. The safe way? Maybe so. I think the CFP committee will kind of look at it as a lesson learned, and be more careful about ranking teams that high being more cautious of a lingering conference champs game. If this type of scenario becomes commonplace, all the teams with that one loss will sit back and watch the other two teams duke it out in the conference champs game.... Won't they? Until CFP committee proves otherwise.

I am looking at the standings this way right now. There is no way any team ranked 9 and below is going to make it into the top 4. Okay hear me out. Colorado beats Washington. Colorado is going to jump from 8 to 4? And even jump over the winner and loser of the Penn State/Wisky game? Dang, Louisville only dropped 2 spots for losing to Kentucky, Southern Cal moved up one spot for beating Notre Dame, Utah moves up 2 spots for losing to Colorado (how did every team with a loss go down except Utah?), Stanford moved up 6 spots for beating Rice!!! Oh my God. JUST MAYBE ALL OF THESE UP AND DOWN MOVES ARE PREPARING THE CFP MEMBERS... AND US TO ACCEPT THE CRAZY CHANGES THAT COULD OCCUR AT THE TOP after Saturday.

User avatar
donovan
Athletic Director
Athletic Director
Posts: 8322
Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2006 6:41 am
Location: Pacific Northwest

Re: Playoff Pandemonium

Postby donovan » Wed Nov 30, 2016 12:08 pm

Look at the definitions the "committee" uses. This is Fantasy football at its worse.

SOS: Strength of schedule played, from perspective of an average FBS team.
SOR: Strength of record - Reflects chance that an average Top 25 team would have team's record or better, given the schedule.
GC: Game control - Reflects chance that an average Top 25 team would control games from start to end the way this team did, given the schedule.
FPI: Football Power Index that measures team's true strength on net points scale; expected point margin vs average opponent on neutral field. *FPI is updated daily in the current week.
As I age it is hard to tell if I am inspired by reasoned passion or arthritic knees; most likely it is arthritic reasoning.

User avatar
Eric
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 10262
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2005 1:51 am

Re: Playoff Pandemonium

Postby Eric » Wed Nov 30, 2016 12:42 pm

I don't exactly have a problem with the committee looking at stuff like that, but with them weighing those kinds of analytics, how is it really different than looking a computer program....You know, like the BCS that everyone else hated? :roll:

At least with the BCS, an application of the metrics would be consistent. These guys are still kind of just winging it. It's just as arbitrary.

That's why I support the tournament of champions idea. We have 10 college football conferences. An NCAA committee can seed them appropriately. You have a glorified play-in round, most likely between the MAC, C-USA, MWC/AAC, and Sun Belt champs, although one team from these conferences could leapfrog a power conference in a given year if there's a conference championship upset or something along those lines.

10 vs. 7
9 vs. 8

Re-seed (let's assume higher seeds win)

1 vs. 8
2 vs. 7
3 vs. 6
4 vs. 5

Voila! It's magic! :roll: . While the winners of the play-in games are still relatively quality teams, the #1 and #2 teams get a much easier road, which is fine since they earned that privilege over the course of the year. No anti-trust issues. Equal access. Everybody wins!
Running bowl/MSU/OSU record '05-present: 9-27

collegefbfan-8898
All-American
All-American
Posts: 213
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 11:27 pm

Re: Playoff Pandemonium

Postby collegefbfan-8898 » Wed Nov 30, 2016 1:21 pm

I will take that approach, Eric. As far as the definitions go, I read those the other day. I am left to wonder: Are they saying, "Hey, these are the factors we have laid out and we are sticking to it"? Or are they saying, "These are the factors we have laid out, and it sounds good and all, but we are going to just wing it and decide"?

To be honest, I thought that when this thing started, the CFP members were going to give us the top 4 teams after a certain week and that's it. Not show us where the other teams are ranked. The way this is going to work out this year and maybe in the past, they probably wish they could do that.

User avatar
Spence
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 19375
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 11:52 pm
Location: Chillicothe, Ohio (Ohio's First Capital)
Contact:

Re: Playoff Pandemonium

Postby Spence » Wed Nov 30, 2016 3:23 pm

donovan wrote:Look at the definitions the "committee" uses. This is Fantasy football at its worse.

SOS: Strength of schedule played, from perspective of an average FBS team.
SOR: Strength of record - Reflects chance that an average Top 25 team would have team's record or better, given the schedule.
GC: Game control - Reflects chance that an average Top 25 team would control games from start to end the way this team did, given the schedule.
FPI: Football Power Index that measures team's true strength on net points scale; expected point margin vs average opponent on neutral field. *FPI is updated daily in the current week.


and all this is justification to put in whoever they want. I agree with Eric on the tournament of champions. Does it get you the best team? No. I don't see how this system does either. What the TOC does do is give you teams that win their conference on the field and nothing else really matters.
"History doesn't always repeat itself but it often rhymes." - Mark Twain

User avatar
Cane from the Bend
Athletic Director
Athletic Director
Posts: 3290
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2005 1:25 am
Location: South Bend, IN (domerville usa)
Contact:

Re: Playoff Pandemonium

Postby Cane from the Bend » Wed Nov 30, 2016 4:29 pm

I disagree completely with a 10 conference model ... It doesn't work at all.

No team should have to play an additional qualifier to make a tournament. When you have an autobid for teams who win their conference, then tell other conference champions, "Well, just not you. You will be ranked 10, so you'll have to play again".

Sorry, no dice.

You want a uniform bracket featuring all of the current conferences, then it's simple ... tell the Big Ten that is what you want, then they'll help crash 2 more conferences into extinction. It's what they do.

Then you'll have your 8 Conference Champions; and a balanced Playoff.

.
.
.
Cane... [__]

"It is only impossible until it has been accomplished." ... then it becomes standardized ... and then it becomes regulation ...

Success is measured by results; whereas Character is measured through the means by which one achieves those results . . .

It seems the Rapture did come for one worthy soul:
In Memory of Grandpa Howdy


Return to “General Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests