College Football Week 15 discussion (Conference Championship Week)

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by Arles

I think if you asked FSU and their fans if they would rather play Alabama in the Sugar Bowl (a mere 350 miles away from Tallahassee) or have them travel to LA and play Oregon (2,000 miles away) - I would guess they would choose the Sugar Bowl by a fairly heavy margin.

I don't see an issue in moving the 3/4 to setup a better regional semi and more fan participation. What's the harm?

Then don't have a predetermined bracket where 1 plays 4 and 2 plays 3. Acknowledge that it is all a sham done for TV ratings and be done with it. Then you can pick teams who travel well vs. acting like you're interested in picking the best teams.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

Then don't have a predetermined bracket where 1 plays 4 and 2 plays 3. Acknowledge that it is all a sham done for TV ratings and be done with it. Then you can pick teams who travel well vs. acting like you're interested in picking the best teams.

Bingo. The whole point of 1 plays 4 and 2 plays 3 is that the #1 team should have the easier team to play in the first round of the playoffs. I realize College Football isn't other sports, but that's what every other sport does.

If you are just going to do a two round playoffs involving the Top 4 teams, just have a semifinal selection process to create interesting matchups as opposed to trying to create the assumption that the #1 team gets to play the weakest of the playoff teams.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

It is far better than telling a few people to pick the best teams.

And there is where we have a fundamental disagreement. I'd take my eyeball test -- along with my interpretation of what that eyeball sees -- over pretty much anything else.

Now, bear in mind I suppose, I currently have FSU-Oregon-Alabama-TCU as my top four, so it's not like I'm in agreement with the current playoff rankings here ... but I don't have a problem with the method being used, just disagreement on the interpretations.

[mckerney]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

At what point does a coach begin to lose credibility?

Report: Nebraska in ‘serious talks’ with Bret Bielema | CollegeFootballTalk

Presumably it's so he doesn't have as far to move when he inevitably takes the job at Iowa.

[Breeze]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Umm... the polls come out before the updated CFP rankings each week.
And the polls have not shown any real indication of reacting to the CFP, if anything perhaps it's the other way around.

The first time the CFP dropped them (from #2 to #3) MIssissippi State lost that following weekend and FSU doubled to tripled their votes for #1 in both polls.

This latest drop in the CFP (from #3 to #4) hasn't been reflected in either AP or USA Today poll yet.

The most damaging thing to FSU in the two polls (not the CFP) has been the near miss against Boston College, their other point total drop (just 7 points) came after beating UVA by two touchdowns in the same week that Oregon, Alabama, TCU and Ohio State all had wins over ranked opponents.

If you don't think the CFP dropping FSU from 1 to 2 had any impact on AP voters I think you are being naive. The impact isn't immediate, but seeing the 2 or 3 next to FSU makes voters much more likely to put them in that location the next time.

Years ago, FSU was completely left off of an AP persons ballot, which caused FSU to drop from #4 to #7 in the rankings. The very next week, FSU was ranked 7...because people left them where they were. This was all caused by 1 voter accidentally leaving them off of his ballot. It also illustrates how a ranking can become a self fulfilling prophecy.

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

And there is where we have a fundamental disagreement. I'd take my eyeball test -- along with my interpretation of what that eyeball sees -- over pretty much anything else.

Now, bear in mind I suppose, I currently have FSU-Oregon-Alabama-TCU as my top four, so it's not like I'm in agreement with the current playoff rankings here ... but I don't have a problem with the method being used, just disagreement on the interpretations.

If that's all we're going to do then I'd rather go back to the pre-BCS days where sportswriters picked the national champion at the end of the year.

And there is where we have a fundamental disagreement. I'd take my eyeball test -- along with my interpretation of what that eyeball sees -- over pretty much anything else.

If a team isn't the best team in their conference then how can they be the best team in the nation?

[Breeze]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

Then don't have a predetermined bracket where 1 plays 4 and 2 plays 3. Acknowledge that it is all a sham done for TV ratings and be done with it. Then you can pick teams who travel well vs. acting like you're interested in picking the best teams.

THIS

[Butter]

Originally Posted by mckerney

Presumably it's so he doesn't have as far to move when he inevitably takes the job at Iowa.

I'm 99.9% sure it's this.

Originally Posted by article

Then again, this could always be simply a ploy by Bielema’s agent (I see you working, NC) to get his client a “revamped” deal.

[Marmel]

A 4 team playoff is better than what we had, but this committee is so much worst than the BCS computer rankings.

Is it who you beat or who you lost to? I guess it depends on who you are. Is it your OOC schedule? Again, its arbitrary.

The committee has very few qualified members. The rest are unqualified or completely biased. It is not surprising, CFB is the most corrupt sport in this country.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

If that's all we're going to do then I'd rather go back to the pre-BCS days where sportswriters picked the national champion at the end of the year.

You'd certainly get no argument from me on that, I've preferred that method from the earliest pre-BCS (name escapes me atm) configuration.

If a team isn't the best team in their conference then how can they be the best team in the nation?

"Best team" and "conference champion" are not always the same thing.

[Chief Rum]

My understanding is that the guiding philosophy is to have the best four teams in the playoff. From that perspective I haven't seen too much to complain about from the committee.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Breeze

If you don't think the CFP dropping FSU from 1 to 2 had any impact on AP voters I think you are being naive. The impact isn't immediate, but seeing the 2 or 3 next to FSU makes voters much more likely to put them in that location the next time.

Having been an actual voter in an actual (UPI basketball) poll for a couple of years, I'd say the impact of other polls exists but may not be as clear-cut as you seem to think. Depends upon the personality of the voter tbh, for every person who downgrades a team based on the consensus you can easily have another who upgrades to counter what they see as a mistake, especially on the sportswriters side of things.

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

"Best team" and "conference champion" are not always the same thing.

But then you can use almost any argument to justify a team getting in. "Notre Dame had bad calls that cost them two of their three games!!!", "So they really should be considered with the one loss teams!!!"

Just an example. "Or Alabama didn't have player X when they lost to WhotheHellcares State. Now he's back so they should be in!!!"

I'm just for having an actual tangible goal teams need to reach (conference championship) in order to play for the national title. Does it suck for SEC #2 that the Big 12 has an off year? Sure it does (someone always gets left out in the NFL so a lesser division champion can get in but those things are cyclical). Those things happen. But I think it is fairer to everyone involved that they know what the requirements are to play for a national championship. Versus hoping some people who aren't qualified pick you even though you aren't Alabama.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Marmel

A 4 team playoff is better than what we had, but this committee is so much worst than the BCS computer rankings.

You saw this link earlier, right?
http://www.colleyrankings.com/curBcsLike.html

The top 4 teams are currently the same, albeit with FSU shuffled back two spots, elevating the others.

5,6,7 are the same & in the same order

8,9,10 are the same teams, with Mississippi State jumping the other two

How much "worse" is it when you get the exact same top ten teams AND only two changes in order?

Hell, after seeing the latest faux-BCS rankings I really wondered if the committee wasn't using it as a guideline.

[Chief Rum]

I hear you, Bill. Me personally, though, I don't have a big issue with a human selection committee considering this playoff, and being able to take into consideration other factors which aren't necessarily covered by a specific measurement or might be weighed too much or too little against other measurements.

Yes, bias is always an issue, as well as the interests of the NCAA in making money, but the first is mitigated somewhat with the number and diversity of the committee. The second, well, that's just a reality I have to accept, whether I like it or not.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

But then you can use almost any argument to justify a team getting in. "Notre Dame had bad calls that cost them two of their three games!!!", "So they really should be considered with the one loss teams!!!"

Who was it that got royally jobbed last year by a bad call? Wisconsin vs Az State I think. I heavily discounted that loss throughout the season when compiling my weekly top 25.

"Or Alabama didn't have player X when they lost to WhotheHellcares State. Now he's back so they should be in!!!"

Which is something that that the basketball selection committee has long taken into consideration.

Versus hoping some people who aren't qualified pick you even though you aren't Alabama.

I've been extremely skeptical of the selection committee from day one, especially in terms of qualifications. That said, when the computers & the human pollsters reach essentially the same conclusions, uh, it's tough to rip them too hard for f'ing stuff up.

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

I hear you, Bill. Me personally, though, I don't have a big issue with a human selection committee considering this playoff, and being able to take into consideration other factors which aren't necessarily covered by a specific measurement or might be weighed too much or too little against other measurements.

Yes, bias is always an issue, as well as the interests of the NCAA in making money, but the first is mitigated somewhat with the number and diversity of the committee. The second, well, that's just a reality I have to accept, whether I like it or not.

But you can pretty much get rid of all the non-sense by expanding to six, five conference champions and a wild card. I believe that way you get the most deserving teams into the mix. But then ESPN won't have a weekly show where they dissect FSU moving from #2 to #3 for ten solid minutes.

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I've been extremely skeptical of the selection committee from day one, especially in terms of qualifications. That said, when the computers & the human pollsters reach essentially the same conclusions, uh, it's tough to rip them too hard for f'ing stuff up.

I just want it settled on the field, not in a back room somewhere, where ESPN is manipulating the voting to get the most desirable matchups possible.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

But you can pretty much get rid of all the non-sense by expanding to six, five conference champions and a wild card. I believe that way you get the most deserving teams into the mix. But then ESPN won't have a weekly show where they dissect FSU moving from #2 to #3 for ten solid minutes.

But conference champions aren't necessarily the best teams. A team can struggle early on, lose a close one to a good team on the road that later proves to stop them from winning the conference championship, but actually be the best overall team in the conference.

I think conference championships should be heavily considered (and I believe the committee holds to this as well), but it shouldn't be an end all, be all.

So since I don't think conference championships should be the primary factor to consider (or at least not solely), I can't really get behind your system, which relies on that.

[Breeze]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

You'd certainly get no argument from me on that, I've preferred that method from the earliest pre-BCS (name escapes me atm) configuration.

I think it was the Bowl Coalition...BCS minus the Big 10 and PAC 10, who wanted to protect the sanctity of the Rose Bow.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

where ESPN is manipulating the voting to get the most desirable matchups possible.

Are the computers also "manipulated" by ESPN?

The computers actually have 3 SEC teams in the top 7 versus humans that have only 1.

Same computers have 6 of the top 14 from the SEC in fact, including a 4-loss Auburn at #12.

Is that all just network manipulation?

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

But conference champions aren't necessarily the best teams. A team can struggle early on, lose a close one to a good team on the road that later proves to stop them from winning the conference championship, but actually be the best overall team in the conference.

Or they can lose their star QB, play well under another QB until that QB gets hurt and still be in the hunt for their conference championship (could win it). Even after doing all that, they are unlikely to get a playoff nod because they aren't in the SEC. But if we were talking about Alabama, then even with two-losses and no conference championship they'd still likely get in after all that adversity.

The system relies too heavily on a teams popularity. I wouldn't be surprised to see Alabama lose this weekend yet still get in. They will just be the four-seed with FSU magically becoming the one seed again.

I think conference championships should be heavily considered (and I believe the committee holds to this as well), but it shouldn't be an end all, be all.

So since I don't think conference championships should be the primary factor to consider (or at least not solely), I can't really get behind your system, which relies on that.

Since I'm likely to never become Emperor of the NCAA or ESPN, I don't think my ideas will ever come to pass. My feelings are still hurt though!

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Are the computers also "manipulated" by ESPN?

The computers actually have 3 SEC teams in the top 7 versus humans that have only 1.

Same computers have 6 of the top 14 from the SEC in fact, including a 4-loss Auburn at #12.

Is that all just network manipulation?

Yet FSU is 4 (hasn't lost in two years) and Alabama is 1. Can't possibly be because the matchup will do well on TV.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

It is far better than telling a few people to pick the best teams. It is comical that the National Champion that hasn't lost a game in two years is ranked fourth and could be on the outside looking in come playoff time if they have a tight game with Georgia Tech.

But you're doing the same thing. You feel that Florida State should be the "best team" when many disagree.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

Yet FSU is 4 (hasn't lost in two years) and Alabama is 1. Can't possibly be because the matchup will do well on TV.

I've waffled in my head about FSU all year. I've left them at #1 of late because I'm really starting to think there may be something to that whole "destiny" thing. On the basis of pure performance & schedule, they might be lucky to BE in the top four at all

[larrymcg421]

If I had a vote on who made the playoffs or not, 0% of my decision would be influenced by what happened last season.

[ISiddiqui]

Though in the computer rankings you linked, they are #2. So perhaps their performance and schedule have been underrated by you?

ACC defenses appear to be ranked incredibly by high by the computers, so imagine those scores against "SEC Defenses" and maybe it'll help .

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

But you're doing the same thing. You feel that Florida State should be the "best team" when many disagree.

I'm old school in that regard. They're number one until someone beats them or they have significant turnover in their roster.

[tarcone]

Shirts With Random Triangles: Look upon Bret Bielema's Iowa tattoo, Arkansas, and despair.

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by tarcone

Shirts With Random Triangles: Look upon Bret Bielema's Iowa tattoo, Arkansas, and despair.

I don't think Nebraska makes much sense for Bielema. The Iowa job could open up as early as next year and with him job hopping, the buyout from Nebraska could be much larger than the one he currently has from Arkansas.

That is if Iowa is his dream job?

[flounder]

The computer polls include Sagarin's ratings which are LOLbad.

[CU Tiger]

I still go bakc to FSU beat the #1 defense in the country with their back up QB and no time to prepare him.

And despite what was said earlier in the thread, Watson actually played that entire game except 3 series.

Plus they havent lost all year. If playing the games doesnt matter then just pick a preseason top 4 and start the season with the NCAA NC game, like NASCAR, and then arbitrarily name a winner based on whomever wins the last week.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

You saw this link earlier, right?
http://www.colleyrankings.com/curBcsLike.html

The top 4 teams are currently the same, albeit with FSU shuffled back two spots, elevating the others.

5,6,7 are the same & in the same order

8,9,10 are the same teams, with Mississippi State jumping the other two

How much "worse" is it when you get the exact same top ten teams AND only two changes in order?

Hell, after seeing the latest faux-BCS rankings I really wondered if the committee wasn't using it as a guideline.

I said this earlier and was ignored like you are. It's hard to argue OMG committee is wrong when the old BCS formula picks the exact same 4 teams. But people will do it anyways it's much easier to just be ignorant and ignore the facts.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by panerd

I said this earlier and was ignored like you are. It's hard to argue OMG committee is wrong when the old BCS formula picks the exact same 4 teams. But people will do it anyways it's much easier to just be ignorant and ignore the facts.

I dont even have a problem with the current Top 4, tbh.
You can argue TCU/Baylor either way. Though I agree with the committee and TCU.

For FSU to be 4th, undefeated from a Power 5 conference, with OOC games against 2 Power 5 schools.

For them to be ranked behind 3 teams, each with a loss, none of which played more than 1 P5 OOC.

To me that semi invalidates the whole system. If FSU wins the NC game "ugly" this committee would award the NC to #3 if it could based on their logic to date.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

For them to be ranked behind 3 teams, each with a loss, none of which played more than 1 P5 OOC.

But they've all played better competition IN conference than FSU has seen to date, I truly believe that in my very heart & soul. Given that, I really don't give an enormous hoot who played what OOC.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

But they've all played better competition IN conference than FSU has seen to date, I truly believe that in my very heart & soul. Given that, I really don't give an enormous hoot who played what OOC.

Well you can believe in the easter bunny and the tooth fairy...but the imperical data doesnt match.

And shit if the heart & soul feelings are the standard of measurement why even bother with the silly football games?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Well you can believe in the easter bunny and the tooth fairy...but the imperical data doesnt match.

CU is an odd case. With Watson you're one team, without him you're entirely another. GT nearly lost to Southern before beating a Georgia team that is of questionable cardiac quality. Louisville, well damn if I know for sure, there's not a truly quality win on their schedule. Aside from that, honestly, I see a conference that's at an almost frightening low tide overall.

Winning there or even putting up stats against, I'm sorry, it doesn't impress me much at all.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

To me that semi invalidates the whole system. If FSU wins the NC game "ugly" this committee would award the NC to #3 if it could based on their logic to date.

Entirely different argument though because the committee's job is to seed the teams, not crown a champion. You seed teams based on their body of work and, at times, FSU just hasn't been very impressive.

I don't know how anyone could argue FSU has been the best team in college football this year up to this date. Yet, unless they somehow lose on Saturday they'll still be playing for a chance at a national championship. They should be thankful for that.

[tarcone]

Any other year an undefeated team is ranked #1. Regardless of their body of work. So we get a playoff and a year of parity and FSU is 4th?
Thats baloney. There is no reason that FSU should be going down the rankings after a win.
Unless there is a conspiracy to get them to play Alabama in the Sugar Bowl. If thats the case, then Im ok with it. Otherwise its hogwash.

And if we go by that conspiracy theory, then tOSU should be playing Oregon in the Rose Bowl. tOSU will travel better then any of the other schools. And bring big bucks to CF.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by tarcone

Any other year an undefeated team is ranked #1. Regardless of their body of work. So we get a playoff and a year of parity and FSU is 4th?

You mean the same system everyone was bitching about?

This situation reminds me of the original BCS rankings and the hype around including computer polls in determining who would play in the title game. As soon as the computers started spitting out rankings that didn't match everyone's expectations they went and neutered the computers to make them more like the human polls.

Basically, if it doesn't match up with our expectations it must be wrong and needs to be tweaked until it does.

[ISiddiqui]

The aggregate computer rankings have FSU at #2, FWIW.

[tarcone]

Yep. I guess thats right. It does need to be tweaked.
Im in the same boat as CU about the SEC bias. It makes this system ridiculous.
There is no outstanding program this year. Not one. So in a year like this, there is no reason the only Power 5 undefeated team keeps slipping. Except for voter bias. Which is too bad. But it is something that will always happen.
In years past, I think the voters would have given FSU more credit then they are getting.

[Matthean]

I look at it this way. If you toss "x" amount of teams into a playoff, what team has the best odds of surviving? I just think Winston is going to cost his team at some point. I think Oregon has the best chance so I guess I would put them at #1. 'Bama's first half against Auburn shows why I don't trust Sims. He seems more the best of a runt pack versus a genuine starter.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by tarcone

Any other year an undefeated team is ranked #1. Regardless of their body of work. So we get a playoff and a year of parity and FSU is 4th?

Where was Marshall?

And right now FSU's unbeaten record is carrying more weight than the Thundering Herd's did but the two situations are closer together than the notion of the Power 5 would suggest.

The ACC is probably closer to being CUSA or MWC than it is to being the SEC/Pac12.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Where was Marshall?

And right now FSU's unbeaten record is carrying more weight than the Thundering Herd's did but the two situations are closer together than the notion of the Power 5 would suggest.

The ACC is probably closer to being CUSA or MWC than it is to being the SEC/Pac12.

Where was the outcry over Wichita State not being the #1 overall seed in the NCAA tournament last March?

[Butter]

All I know is that it's going to be SO satisfying when Florida State loses, whomever they lose to.

Even if it's Alabama.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by Matthean

I just think Winston is going to cost his team at some point.

Here is where I scratch my head. Not trying to single you out, by any means, but Ive read this over and over again here and elsewhere.

Let this sink in for a moment. At this point in time it is more likely that Nick Saban costs his team the game because he is a bad coach than Winston costing his team a game. Winston is a dumbass and its a tragedy his off the field stupidity is masking what he has done. He is 3 more games away from going down as the unquestioned greatest QB in CFB history. He has never lost a game. Never. You say he is going to cost them at some point, maybe. But it will be just as unprecedented as Nick Saban not showing up for a game. It's NEVER happened.

To rank teams based on a hypothetical that has never happened. Well heck, I think GT is #1 because their QB is learning to fly this week. And I just think at some point he is going to take the snap and fly over the field like superman and score a TD. When he does this GT will be unstoppable. Therefor GT SHOULD be #1.

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Where was Marshall?

And right now FSU's unbeaten record is carrying more weight than the Thundering Herd's did but the two situations are closer together than the notion of the Power 5 would suggest.

The ACC is probably closer to being CUSA or MWC than it is to being the SEC/Pac12.

Again, great story. Glad you havent watched football this year. (Sarcasm, I know you have) In the past the ACC has been down...but the ACC has more wins against the other P5 conferences than anyone. The ACC #8 beat the B1G champ, in their house.

The 7th best team from the ACC beat the 3rd best team from the PAC12.

The ACC DOMINATED the SEC this year. And even if Bama smokes FSU 100-0 in the first round I will still maintain that the ACC had a better year than the SEC this year. Why? Because thats what the game results showed.

[Breeze]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

The ACC DOMINATED the SEC this year. And even if Bama smokes FSU 100-0 in the first round I will still maintain that the ACC had a better year than the SEC this year. Why? Because thats what the game results showed.

The ACC also has 11 bowl teams again this year
The ACC has 4 ranked teams - B1G has 3, Big 12 has 4 - I'd say that puts the ACC right in line with these conferences...and there is only 1 non-power 5 ranked at all

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by tarcone

Any other year an undefeated team is ranked #1. Regardless of their body of work. So we get a playoff and a year of parity and FSU is 4th?
Thats baloney. There is no reason that FSU should be going down the rankings after a win.
Unless there is a conspiracy to get them to play Alabama in the Sugar Bowl. If thats the case, then Im ok with it. Otherwise its hogwash.

And if we go by that conspiracy theory, then tOSU should be playing Oregon in the Rose Bowl. tOSU will travel better then any of the other schools. And bring big bucks to CF.

Agreed. I think if the committee was in charge of picking 2 teams for the BCS title game, FSU would be one of the two in it, but I also think if there was a conspiracy to get more viewers then Ohio State would be in over TCU. So I have no idea why FSU is #4, but I don't buy the simple conspiracy angle.

[cartman]

Jim McElwain hired at Florida