CFB51 College Football Fan Community

The Power Five => Big XII => Topic started by: CousinFreddie on December 03, 2017, 03:23:35 AM

Title: Bama or Buckeyes?
Post by: CousinFreddie on December 03, 2017, 03:23:35 AM
A 1-loss Bama vs a 2-loss Ohio State who won the B1G.

Hmmm.  I think what cuts with me is the nature of OSU’s losses.  No problem with losing to OU, that’s on par with Bama’s loss to Auburn.  But the absolute trouncing of the Buckeyes by Iowa.  That one is hard to overlook.

Guess I’d lean Bama.  Opinions?
Title: Re: Bama or Buckeyes?
Post by: Thumper on December 03, 2017, 08:23:30 AM
I'm guessing tOSU.  The committee has made a point that conference championships and good wins matter more than losses.  tOSU's wins over a 12-1 Wiscy, 10-2 Penn State, and 9-3 MSU are better than any of Bama's wins (9-3 LSU, 8-4 MissSt, 9-4 Fresno St).  At the start of the season, Bama's win over then #2 FSU would be huge.  FSU tanking really hurt the tide.
Title: Re: Bama or Buckeyes?
Post by: longhorn320 on December 03, 2017, 09:32:20 AM
Im guessing OSU only because the committee hopefully wont pick 2 from same conf and the fact they love OSU
Title: Re: Bama or Buckeyes?
Post by: longhorn320 on December 03, 2017, 09:34:55 AM
course a true payback would be to pick Wisc and payback what they did last year
Title: Re: Bama or Buckeyes?
Post by: CWSooner on December 03, 2017, 10:29:01 AM
Maybe Wisconsin had someone injured last night, and the Committee can therefore sort of overlook the loss, as the Committee has been doing for Clemson since its loss to Syracuse.
Title: Re: Bama or Buckeyes?
Post by: FearlessF on December 03, 2017, 10:35:45 AM
loss to the Cuse was very bad, and I don't excuse the talkin heads and committee for dismissing this loss, but...

at the end of the season(today) Clemson obviously belongs in the top 4.  #1 or #2 really doesn't matter in my opinion
Title: Re: Bama or Buckeyes?
Post by: FearlessF on December 03, 2017, 10:38:39 AM
course a true payback would be to pick Wisc and payback what they did last year
example of Utee's helmetosity theory
why it wouldn't happen 
Title: Re: Bama or Buckeyes?
Post by: FearlessF on December 03, 2017, 10:41:59 AM
does the committee reward SOS and conference championship?

or

fewer losses and the "bama" factor

I'm guessing, just like the past seasons, they simply take the 4 one-loss teams that did not lose yesterday.
Title: Re: Bama or Buckeyes?
Post by: CWSooner on December 03, 2017, 10:50:14 AM
loss to the Cuse was very bad, and I don't excuse the talkin heads and committee for dismissing this loss, but...

at the end of the season(today) Clemson obviously belongs in the top 4.  #1 or #2 really doesn't matter in my opinion
Yes to all of that.  I won't argue with Clemson's #1 ranking that I expect to see in a couple of hours.
But as I posted on the B1G board, I'm sick of hearing that rationale trotted out each week by Kirby Hocutt.
Vote 'em where you think they belong, but don't give us this weekly tale of woe about their QB getting hurt.
Title: Re: Bama or Buckeyes?
Post by: FearlessF on December 03, 2017, 11:06:37 AM
agreed

talking heads are not very bright

just want to be noticed
Title: Re: Bama or Buckeyes?
Post by: Thumper on December 03, 2017, 11:38:47 AM
I know it isn't supposed to be political or commercial but I have a hard time believing they will be leaving out the B1G and the PAC12 thus alienating the majority of the nation's TV sets.

I agree with Clemson being #1, they look like the best team to me.  I also agree that I'm sick of hearing "their QB was hurt for Syracuse" excuse.  We shouldn't be hearing that now, their resume should be all the justification necessary.
Title: Re: Bama or Buckeyes?
Post by: longhorn320 on December 03, 2017, 11:44:01 AM
The Pac12 just doesnt have a playoff team this year

They wont leave out the Big10
Title: Re: Bama or Buckeyes?
Post by: CousinFreddie on December 03, 2017, 11:59:55 AM
All true about the control of the B1G over CFB and TV sets in the Midwest.

But thinking about those TVs, would any college football fan in say Illinois really be more interested in watching Ohio St over Alabama?

And Bama is just a more resilient team in general year in and year out.  I doubt anyone in the country could beat Alabama by 31 points.  

Ohio State lost by 31 (to nothing) in the playoffs last year and they lost by 31 to a good but not great Iowa this year.  The potential for another snoozer blowout of the Buckeyes is there.

Meanwhile I just looked it up and Bammer has not beaten by more than 14 points going back to at least 2010 (I stopped there it but it probably goes back even further). And I only found three games where they lost by double digits: this year by 12 to Auburn, then by 14 to each of OU and South Carolina back several years ago.

Bama will deliver a good game.  Ohio State could lay a big O at midfield (perhaps for Baker to plant a second flag in lol)
Title: Re: Bama or Buckeyes?
Post by: FearlessF on December 03, 2017, 12:08:59 PM
All true about the control of the B1G over CFB and TV sets in the Midwest.

But thinking about those TVs, would any college football fan in say Illinois really be more interested in watching Ohio St over Alabama?
yes, more TVs in Chicago will be watching the Buckeyes as opposed to Bama
Title: Re: Bama or Buckeyes?
Post by: CousinFreddie on December 03, 2017, 12:29:23 PM
yes, more TVs in Chicago will be watching the Buckeyes as opposed to Bama
Maybe in the first half anyway
Title: Re: Bama or Buckeyes?
Post by: FearlessF on December 03, 2017, 12:40:18 PM
I suppose it's more likely that the buckeyes would get blown out in the semi than the Tide, but it's not real likely
Title: Re: Bama or Buckeyes?
Post by: CWSooner on December 03, 2017, 12:51:58 PM
Well, Bama it is.

I think Bama is the best of the teams competing for the #4 spot, but I don't like and haven't liked the idea of a committee picking "the four best teams."

I think that winning a conference championship ought to be the play-in requirement for the CFP, and the Committee would meet to pick the four best conference champs.

But nobody asked me when they made up the rules for the CFP.
Title: Re: Bama or Buckeyes?
Post by: Drew4UTk on December 03, 2017, 01:16:32 PM
Well, Bama it is.

I think Bama is the best of the teams competing for the #4 spot, but I don't like and haven't liked the idea of a committee picking "the four best teams."

I think that winning a conference championship ought to be the play-in requirement for the CFP, and the Committee would meet to pick the four best conference champs.

But nobody asked me when they made up the rules for the CFP.
fully agree...
there should be little doubt that Bama is at least one of the best four teams in the nation.   but... they didn't perform when they most needed to- and should have lost their position because of that one game. 
however, they would destroy tOSU, and anyone else from the B10... Clemson is worthy, regardless of their terribly foul loss, and OU is playing as good as any of the other three.  
honestly, once folks get over their redasses, this is going to be the best playoff so far.... there isn't a team there that clearly stands out from the others. 
Title: Re: Bama or Buckeyes?
Post by: CousinFreddie on December 03, 2017, 03:32:43 PM
Yes Bama.  As I’ve already described, I think they merited this pick.

I do hear the sentiment about conference winners being a requirement, but OTOH ... B1G teams have been routed the past two playoff semifinals.  They’ve done themselves no favors.  

Ultimately too this isn’t about the best four conferences playing off but rather the best four teams.  I’m pretty sure they got it right with these four this year.  

Looking forward to the first ever meeting between Oklahoma and Georgia.  It will be historic!
Title: Re: Bama or Buckeyes?
Post by: CWSooner on December 03, 2017, 06:09:08 PM
Here's a question: Why wasn't USC in consideration for the #4 spot?  Seems that USC had a resume about as compelling as either Bama or tOSU.

Furthermore, 2-loss conference champ USC is now ranked behind 3-loss non-conference champ Auburn, and so is 2-loss non-conference champ Penn State.

If we say that Auburn's 3rd loss doesn't really count because it was in the CCG, then what explains TCU drop from #11 to #15?

If Auburn weren't ranked as highly, if it were just Georgia and Alabama at #3 and #4, I might not be seeing pro-SEC bias, despite two of the final four being from the SEC.  Georgia obviously belongs, as a 1-loss conference champ, just like Clemson and OU.  And there's no clear #4, so I can accept that tOSU's 31-point loss to Iowa is a fatal flaw, and that Alabama at least seems to be a very good team, although the Tide lost the only game in which it was tested by a good team.

But with Auburn at #7, I am seeing that bias.

What's the case for Auburn being ahead of USC?

Three reasons are what I see: S., E., and C.

Does any team in the SEC have a signature OOC win this year?  If not, how do we know that any of the teams in the SEC are any good?

Here are the results of the marquee games of SEC teams.

Alabama: beat Florida State 24-7.  Looked very good at the time.  Doesn't look like much now.
Arkansas: lost to TCU 28-7.
Auburn: lost to Clemson 14-6.
Florida: lost to Michigan 33-17.
Georgia: beat Notre Dame 20-19.  That's pretty good.  Notre Dame has faded down the stretch, but they were deemed to be a very good team at the time.
Kentucky: lost to Louisville 44-17.
LSU: beat BYU 27-0.
Ole Miss: lost to Cal 27-16.
Mississippi State: beat BYU 35-0.
Missouri: lost to Purdue, 35-3.
South Carolina: beat NC State 35-28.  Not bad.
Tennessee: beat Georgia Tech 42-41.  Georgia Tech ended up being about as good as Kansas State.
Texas A&M: lost to UCLA 45-44.
Vanderbilt: beat Kansas State 14-7.

To answer my own question . . . Yes, the SEC has a signature win.  Georgia over Notre Dame.  Does that rub off and make 1-loss Alabama clearly better than 2-loss Ohio State?  Or 3-loss Auburn better than 2-loss USC?
Title: Re: Bama or Buckeyes?
Post by: Thumper on December 03, 2017, 06:54:54 PM
It really doesn't matter to me.  I'm ecstatic to have the Sooners playing Georgia.  It ought  to be great.  
I will also be rooting for Bama to beat Clemson.  If the Sooners beat Georgia, I'd love to see them play Bama.
Title: Re: Bama or Buckeyes?
Post by: FearlessF on December 03, 2017, 08:53:42 PM
Here's a question: Why wasn't USC in consideration for the #4 spot?  Seems that USC had a resume about as compelling as either Bama or tOSU.

Furthermore, 2-loss conference champ USC is now ranked behind 3-loss non-conference champ Auburn, and so is 2-loss non-conference champ Penn State.

Yes, the SEC has a signature win.  Georgia over Notre Dame.  
if a one-point win by Georgia is something, then Stanford and Miami have better signature wins
if that's the SECs big win, they don't have much
to take this another step, the B1G is still looking for anything remotely looking like a signature non-con win
there's nothing
maybe a reason tOSU lost the vote to Bama
Title: Re: Bama or Buckeyes?
Post by: CWSooner on December 03, 2017, 10:46:25 PM
Michigan's win over Florida would have been a signature win had Florida turned out to be any good.  Sort of like Bama's win over Florida State.

Indiana's win over Virginia is a pretty good one.  UVA gave Miami a good game.  Maryland's win over Texas would have been good had Texas turned out to be any good.  Purdue's thumping of Mizzou was pretty good, for Purdue.  

Going through the schedules of the B1G and the SEC, I think that B1G teams, with one fewer OOC game available, did better at scheduling at least one non-automatic win, or even scheduling up, than SEC teams did.

At the end of the day, the arguments for Bama are as strong as those for tOSU, and the arguments against either of them are as well.  Like I said, if it weren't for 3-loss non-conference champ Auburn sitting there at #7, ahead of 2-loss conference champ USC, I wouldn't suspect that the SEC fix had been put in.

But it is, so I do.
Title: Re: Bama or Buckeyes?
Post by: longhorn320 on December 04, 2017, 12:09:38 AM
I just hope its not an all sec champ game
Title: Re: Bama or Buckeyes?
Post by: MikeDeTiger on December 04, 2017, 11:26:45 AM
This article (https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/columnist/dan-wolken/2017/12/03/college-football-playoff-committee-got-wrong-alabama-brand-loyalty-only/917333001/) gets it about 90% right.  The part he misses is how every argument for Bama over Ohio State can be made for Wisconsin over Bama, plus winning their division, except of course for the brand.

He also passes over the fact this happened before in 2011, for the same team.  Once again, Alabama is rewarded for losing their toughest game and one of their only tough ones, letting another team go to ATL to risk it all again against a division winner while they stay home and get voted in.  

I hope they lose twice in the playoffs.  They'll lose to Clemson, but surely everyone will concede they deserve a mulligan and be given another chance against UGA/OU.  That's kinda how it works.  
Title: Re: Bama or Buckeyes?
Post by: longhorn320 on December 04, 2017, 11:35:51 AM
so which team is better Bama or OSU

thats the only question that has merit
Title: Re: Bama or Buckeyes?
Post by: CharleyHorse46 on December 04, 2017, 12:12:15 PM
For roughly 15 years I've been harping on how stupid it is to build a fixed playoff system.

A playoff should be nothing more than a tool.

Circumstances should dictate the tool because the tool won't always fit the circumstances.

If you need to rake your leaves and you only have a shovel how is a hole going to help you.

Study all possible scenarios and design a dozen or more playoff plans to fit the circumstances.

Some years one game between two clearly worthy teams may suffice.  Other years you may need to weed through a seven team six game one bye playoff.

This year I'd eliminate all two loss teams and build a series to accommodate 5 one loss P5 teams and 1 no loss G5 team.

The NBA uses a lottery to choose draft picks.

Put 6 balls in a hopper and rank the 6 play off teams as their balls are drawn.  1 and 2 get byes.  3 plays 6 and 4 plays 5.  1 plays the winner of 3 and 6.  2 plays the winner of 4 and 5.  Winners of those games meet for the championship.

6 teams, 2 byes, 5 games, 1 clear winner.

Next year it could be completely different.  Why not?  Are we apes who can't grasp anything beyond 2, 4 or 8 team symmetrical playoffs?
Title: Re: Bama or Buckeyes?
Post by: CWSooner on December 04, 2017, 12:45:49 PM
For roughly 15 years I've been harping on how stupid it is to build a fixed playoff system.

A playoff should be nothing more than a tool.

Circumstances should dictate the tool because the tool won't always fit the circumstances.

If you need to rake your leaves and you only have a shovel how is a hole going to help you.

Study all possible scenarios and design a dozen or more playoff plans to fit the circumstances.

Some years one game between two clearly worthy teams may suffice.  Other years you may need to weed through a seven team six game one bye playoff.

This year I'd eliminate all two loss teams and build a series to accommodate 5 one loss P5 teams and 1 no loss G5 team.

The NBA uses a lottery to choose draft picks.

Put 6 balls in a hopper and rank the 6 play off teams as their balls are drawn.  1 and 2 get byes.  3 plays 6 and 4 plays 5.  1 plays the winner of 3 and 6.  2 plays the winner of 4 and 5.  Winners of those games meet for the championship.

6 teams, 2 byes, 5 games, 1 clear winner.

Next year it could be completely different.  Why not?  Are we apes who can't grasp anything beyond 2, 4 or 8 team symmetrical playoffs?

I think that the major legitimate obstacle is the need to schedule venues well in advance.
I don't think that anyone should or even could use this year as a reason to push for 8 teams.  Does anyone think that 3-loss Auburn, #7 in the CFP rankings, should be playing for a national championship?
Title: Re: Bama or Buckeyes?
Post by: CousinFreddie on December 04, 2017, 12:51:59 PM
Well, I think many of us apes could grasp what you're suggesting, kind of.

It's the same kind of method a college instructor uses to rank students.  You let the top group emerge from the cloud of grades over a semester.  From a class of say 20 students, it can range from 2-3 up to 6-7 in that top grade cluster.  They all get As.  Everyone else gets lower grades, also clustered out.

Here, instead of As, the top group get into the playoff bracket.  The trick of course would be to decide on what the metrics are (for example number of losses, conference championship winners, number of impressive non-conference wins, lack of blowouts, lack of losses to losing teams, etc).  Of course to some extent that's what the BCS system tried to do (at least the metrics part, but not the flexible, or any type of, playoff part).
Title: Re: Bama or Buckeyes?
Post by: MikeDeTiger on December 04, 2017, 12:57:04 PM
so which team is better Bama or OSU

thats the only question that has merit
Depends on how you view their resumes.
Alabama has a better loss.  Ohio State has better wins.  Alabama has only 1 loss.  Ohio State played more games.  Discounting for now that I think losses are wuss things to be judging potential championship teams on (it really said something about Alabama in 2011 that their biggest resume bullet was a good LOSS), we'll just say that so far they cancel out.  
Ohio State won their division and won their conference.  That would tip it for me.  
Alabama is in due to the eyeball test, which is the biggest pile of crap, considering nobody knows who the "best" teams are just by watching them.  Every week teams win that people thought would lose, and frankly people would make their living gambling if they were so good at predicting the better team.  This has historically been, and should remain, a resume sport.  But lately the rules get bent more and more to accommodate things like ratings, helmet bias, or sheer stupidity of voters.  
Title: Re: Bama or Buckeyes?
Post by: CousinFreddie on December 04, 2017, 01:08:24 PM
I guess for me it's more of a game by game kind of thing, and as I look at the Bama schedule, basically no one can get going against them.  They have such a crushing defense.  It's an achievement even to get to double digits against those guys.  Auburn scored 26 and that tops it for the year.  True their offense may not be the end all, but they're good enough to hold on to the ball and grind out points and keep the defense on the bench long enough to keep the other team's offense pinned down and stymied.

Ohio State on the other hand, better offense, but like as happened against OU, they just don't have the defense to stay up with a really good offense.  Oklahoma had them figured out by the 2nd quarter and was going through them both on the ground and in the air in the 2nd half.  And then other teams were also able to parse their D, such as Iowa, Penn St and to some extent Wisconsin (that was a really good game though - pretty even match).  No one did anything like those games against the Bama defense.
Title: Re: Bama or Buckeyes?
Post by: utee94 on December 04, 2017, 01:13:56 PM
Depends on how you view their resumes.
Alabama has a better loss.  Ohio State has better wins.  Alabama has only 1 loss.  Ohio State played more games.  Discounting for now that I think losses are wuss things to be judging potential championship teams on (it really said something about Alabama in 2011 that their biggest resume bullet was a good LOSS), we'll just say that so far they cancel out.  
Ohio State won their division and won their conference.  That would tip it for me.  
Alabama is in due to the eyeball test, which is the biggest pile of crap, considering nobody knows who the "best" teams are just by watching them.  Every week teams win that people thought would lose, and frankly people would make their living gambling if they were so good at predicting the better team.  This has historically been, and should remain, a resume sport.  But lately the rules get bent more and more to accommodate things like ratings, helmet bias, or sheer stupidity of voters.  
Yeah, the real key to me, is that tOSU just has a better list of wins.   Somewhere upthread CousinFred made a statement along the lines of, "at least we can all agree that Alabama is one of the four best teams in the country."  And my answer is, no, I don't think we can all agree on that.  There's simply not enough data supporting the idea that Alabama can beat the "other three" of the best teams in the country, because to date they haven't beaten a single team of that caliber.  Clemson, OU, and Georgia all have signature wins both in and out of conference.  Ohio State has signature wins IN conference.  Alabama has none of the above.
I'm not saying it's impossible to think of Alabama as one of the top 4 teams in the country, but I'm saying it's certainly arguable that they are not.  Ohio State and USC each have a reasonable argument to be considered ahead of Alabama.
Title: Re: Bama or Buckeyes?
Post by: CharleyHorse46 on December 04, 2017, 01:18:34 PM
I think that the major legitimate obstacle is the need to schedule venues well in advance.
I don't think that anyone should or even could use this year as a reason to push for 8 teams.  Does anyone think that 3-loss Auburn, #7 in the CFP rankings, should be playing for a national championship?
Sure.  I can see that as a legitimate obstacle.  However, I also see it as another modern day malady of the tail wagging the dog.
A hundred years ago if two teams wanted to play, they got out on the field and played.  Selling tickets to spectators was beside the point.
Nowadays, we're so worried about everybody getting their dollar that we're actually questioning whether or not a  game should be played if it creates a hardship for a venue?!!!
Craziness!
Most schools don't know which bowl they're going to play in until the season is over any way.
Schools that love baseball clamor to host regionals and super-regionals.  They submit bids to the NCAA who pick and choose.  Not all get picked.  There are no guarantees.
March Madness works the same way.
Here's what you do.  You let everybody know that there may or may not be a half dozen or more games that need to be played in late December or early January and you encourage them to bid.
Clemson and Alabama have been to the last three CFPs.  You think they wouldn't bid?  Other teams with nice facilities and high ambitions might bid.  Think Jerry Jones would let the opportunity pass?
Before the season starts the NCAA could name the 10 finalists or whatever and as the playoff scenario shakes out the necessary sites will be chosen.
What's the worst that could happen?  Some stadium sets empty one Saturday because they took a chance on hosting a playoff game and it didn't pay off?
Are we going to let some butthurt millionaire, franchise or university prevent us from embracing a sensible playoff system?
Title: Re: Bama or Buckeyes?
Post by: CousinFreddie on December 04, 2017, 01:19:18 PM
Somewhere upthread CousinFred made a statement along the lines of, "at least we can all agree that Alabama is one of the four best teams in the country."  And my answer is, no, I don't think we can all agree on that. 
I just looked back up thread, and I don't think I said this anywhere.  Maybe Drew did?  I'm not naive enough to think that we can "all agree" on really anything here on the porch :021: :039:
Title: Re: Bama or Buckeyes?
Post by: Drew4UTk on December 04, 2017, 01:26:52 PM
.....Does anyone think that 3-loss Auburn, #7 in the CFP rankings, should be playing for a national championship?
well... funny you asked. 
no, not in the big game, and not in the tourney... but depending on how this thing shakes out- the final poll could have them as high as #3, and legitimately.  well... sorta legit... a solid argument.  
IF bama and ooga make it to final game, and it's close.... auburn beat both those teams, giving both teams their only loss(es)... if bama and ooga handle their prior opponents easily, this could be a real thing.  
the B10 would lose their collective minds.  well, those that haven't already misplaced it.  

Title: Re: Bama or Buckeyes?
Post by: utee94 on December 04, 2017, 01:27:29 PM
fully agree...
there should be little doubt that Bama is at least one of the best four teams in the nation.   but... they didn't perform when they most needed to- and should have lost their position because of that one game.
however, they would destroy tOSU, and anyone else from the B10... Clemson is worthy, regardless of their terribly foul loss, and OU is playing as good as any of the other three.  
  • Georgia is going to be hard to stop.  their backfield is the best in the nation.  their starting 11 on D is the best starting 11 in the nation.  they're likely the team to beat by my reckoning.  
  • Clemson plays to whatever level they are required to play to... they lost to 'cuse, yeah- but it wasn't the rupture tOSU endured to both OU AND Iowa.  Their D is STOUT, and they have likely the best starting lines in the nation.
  • OU is playing as well as anyone on O, and have proven it's not a 'conference' thing by lighting up both TCU (x2) and tOSU's nationally ranked D's.  Their D is serviceable and enough to keep them in the game with the other three.
  • Bama may not have the best starting lines, nor the best starting O or D in the nation, but they are better than anyone below the top 6.   but to state the obvious, you could rotate three players on either side of the ball and they'd still have a better starting O or D than anyone but the top six... attrition wins.  they'll be fresh when the games begin, and.... they'll be favored throughout the playoffs.
honestly, once folks get over their redasses, this is going to be the best playoff so far.... there isn't a team there that clearly stands out from the others.
Sorry Fred, you're right, it was drew.  And even with his qualifiers in place, I still disagree-- I think there's plenty of room for doubt that they're one of the four best teams in the country.  I think there are plenty of reasonable arguments for Ohio State and perhaps even USC being picked ahead of them.
But, what's done is done.  No sense in arguing about it now.  College football fans have collectively clamored for a playoff for decades, and here it is.  Be careful what you wish, and all...
Title: Re: Bama or Buckeyes?
Post by: CWSooner on December 04, 2017, 01:29:29 PM
I wish that Wisconsin would have won in Indianapolis Saturday night.  That would have given the Committee an easier choice.

13-0 conference champ would have trumped 11-1 not-even-division champ easily, whereas 11-2 conference champ with signature wins did not.
Title: Re: Bama or Buckeyes?
Post by: CharleyHorse46 on December 04, 2017, 01:31:30 PM
Well, I think many of us apes could grasp what you're suggesting, kind of.

It's the same kind of method a college instructor uses to rank students.  You let the top group emerge from the cloud of grades over a semester.  From a class of say 20 students, it can range from 2-3 up to 6-7 in that top grade cluster.  They all get As.  Everyone else gets lower grades, also clustered out.

Here, instead of As, the top group get into the playoff bracket.  The trick of course would be to decide on what the metrics are (for example number of losses, conference championship winners, number of impressive non-conference wins, lack of blowouts, lack of losses to losing teams, etc).  Of course to some extent that's what the BCS system tried to do (at least the metrics part, but not the flexible, or any type of, playoff part).
Exactly.
That's the way groups almost always shake out and many of us deal with things like this all of the time.
I audit contracts based on risk assessment scores.  When you rank them from highest risk to lowest, there are always natural breaks that identify a distinct group of highest but comparably ranked contractors.
Same with reviewing applications to determine which applicants to interview.  You rank them and there's always a top group of applicants worthy of interviewing.
The thing is you always have to let the number shake out naturally.  You can't predetermine it will be 5 or 10 or whatever.
Remember the helmetosity talk.  The same nine schools shake out just about every way you rank programs.  Not four, not six, not ten.  But nine.  
There's always a natural group.  It just doesn't always fit into a pre-determined box.
And here's how you can do it.  You take the two P5 team with the best record.  If more than two P5 teams have the same record, you take all of them too.  If a G6 team has record better than the best P5 team's record, you include it too.  Some years you have two teams.  Some years you have six or seven.  So what?  It's all good.
Title: Re: Bama or Buckeyes?
Post by: CWSooner on December 04, 2017, 01:34:38 PM
While I think that Bama would probably beat tOSU, the Committee in selecting Bama unfortunately has sent the message that you don't need to win your conference--heck! you don't even need to play for the championship--and you don't need a tough OOC schedule.

The Committee says that it stresses SoS, but when that stress interferes with selecting the team that it wants to see in there, SoS is quickly forgotten.

Sort of like having a key injury or two diminishing the impact of a loss.
Title: Re: Bama or Buckeyes?
Post by: utee94 on December 04, 2017, 01:39:05 PM
Exactly.
That's the way groups almost always shake out and many of us deal with things like this all of the time.
I audit contracts based on risk assessment scores.  When you rank them from highest risk to lowest, there are always natural breaks that identify a distinct group of highest but comparably ranked contractors.
Same with reviewing applications to determine which applicants to interview.  You rank them and there's always a top group of applicants worthy of interviewing.
The thing is you always have to let the number shake out naturally.  You can't predetermine it will be 5 or 10 or whatever.
Remember the helmetosity talk.  The same nine schools shake out just about every way you rank programs.  Not four, not six, not ten.  But nine.  
There's always a natural group.  It just doesn't always fit into a pre-determined box.
And here's how you can do it.  You take at least the two P5 team with the best record.  If more than two P5 teams have the same record, you take all of them too.  If a G6 team has record better than the best P5 team's record, you include it too.  Some years you have two teams.  Some years you have six or seven.  So what?  It's all good.
It's not the ambiguity in venue selection, that would prevent a flexible postseason schedule.  It's the ambiguity in future revenue streams.
School athletic budgets, and therefore conference athletic budgets, cannot tolerate a wide variance in year-over-year income.  It must be steady and predictable, and in all honestly it must be contractually locked in to be guaranteed to be steady and predictable.  A 4-team playoff is going generate a lot more revenue than a 2-team playoff.  An 8-team playoff will generate more revenue still.  The money generated by these games goes to the conferences, and is then distributed to the schools.  And it can not be erratic, it must be be somewhat steady and predictable.
This is also why the idea of relegation would never work for college athletics, which doesn't come up often but has come up every once in a while over the past couple of decades.
Title: Re: Bama or Buckeyes?
Post by: CharleyHorse46 on December 04, 2017, 01:44:57 PM
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe once said, "Things which mater most must never be at the mercy of things which matter least."

But that's exactly what these pre-set 4, 8 or 16 team playoffs are all about.  That's exactly what worrying about venues is all about.

The best, most worthy teams should go to the playoff every year based on their record so that people don't have to sit around and debate whether or not the fifth best team was really better than the fourth.

It's insanity that we worry about things like networks and venues.

Let the season naturally shake out the teams and then pair them up.   If ESPN or Jerry World are so afraid of being left in the lurch that they object, so what?  Some other, possibly less mercenary entity, will volunteer.  

The point is all about putting first things first and getting it right.  Anybody stands in the way of that they just have their personal or financial interests at heart instead of COLLEGE FOOTBALL.
Title: Re: Bama or Buckeyes?
Post by: utee94 on December 04, 2017, 01:51:58 PM
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe once said, "Things which mater most must never be at the mercy of things which matter least."

But that's exactly what these pre-set 4, 8 or 16 team playoffs are all about.  That's exactly what worrying about venues is all about.

The best, most worthy teams should go to the playoff every year based on their record so that people don't have to sit around and debate whether or not the fifth best team was really better than the fourth.

It's insanity that we worry about things like networks and venues.

Let the season naturally shake out the teams and then pair them up.   If ESPN or Jerry World are so afraid of being left in the lurch that they object, so what?  Some other, possibly less mercenary entity, will volunteer.  

The point is all about putting first things first and getting it right.  Anybody stands in the way of that they just have their personal or financial interests at heart instead of COLLEGE FOOTBALL.

It's a beautiful dream my friend.  But finances have been the driving force in college football for a very long time now.  That ship sailed long ago.
As I've said many times, I'd really prefer to go back to conference affiliations and bowl alignments from around 1980 or so.  Conferences were regional and made sense.  Beating your rival and winning the conference were the primary goals, and hoping for a "good bowl" where you might or might not get a chance to prove yourself on the national stage was significantly less important.  But that time is long gone, and there's no going back.
Title: Re: Bama or Buckeyes?
Post by: CharleyHorse46 on December 04, 2017, 01:53:30 PM
It's not the ambiguity in venue selection, that would prevent a flexible postseason schedule.  It's the ambiguity in future revenue streams.
School athletic budgets, and therefore conference athletic budgets, cannot tolerate a wide variance in year-over-year income.  It must be steady and predictable, and in all honestly it must be contractually locked in to be guaranteed to be steady and predictable.  A 4-team playoff is going generate a lot more revenue than a 2-team playoff.  An 8-team playoff will generate more revenue still.  The money generated by these games goes to the conferences, and is then distributed to the schools.  And it can not be erratic, it must be be somewhat steady and predictable.
This is also why the idea of relegation would never work for college athletics, which doesn't come up often but has come up every once in a while over the past couple of decades.
You want the security of steady predictable income?
Fine.  Simply roll the flexible playoff into the existing bowl schedule.   There are 40 bowls.  39 are on ESPN.
So seven or eight 6-6 or even 5-7 teams get left out some year so that we can possibly see OU, Clemson, Alabama and Ohio State play in two or three bowls instead?
Who's going to complain?
  
ESPN who gets higher rankings?

The Liberty Bowl or Belk Bowl or whoever gets a better match up?

The teams in the national championship play off picture?
Title: Re: Bama or Buckeyes?
Post by: utee94 on December 04, 2017, 01:56:43 PM
You want the security of steady predictable income?
Fine.  Simply roll the flexible playoff into the existing bowl schedule.   There are 40 bowls.  39 are on ESPN.
So seven or eight 6-6 or even 5-7 teams get left out some year so that we can possibly see OU, Clemson, Alabama and Ohio State play in two or three bowls instead?
Who's going to complain?
  
ESPN who gets higher rankings?

The Liberty Bowl or Belk Bowl or whoever gets a better match up?

The teams in the national championship play off picture?
The ratings will be significantly lower in the 2-team playoff years, compared to a 4-team playoff or 8-team playoff.  That will materially and significantly affect the revenue generated.
 People aren't watching the lower tier bowls just to watch them, but they would if they were playoff games.  So your proposal above doesn't address the inconsistency in revenue streams from year to year.
Like I said, it's a beautiful dream, but an impossible one.
Title: Re: Bama or Buckeyes?
Post by: CharleyHorse46 on December 04, 2017, 01:58:24 PM
It's a beautiful dream my friend.  But finances have been the driving force in college football for a very long time now.  That ship sailed long ago.
As I've said many times, I'd really prefer to go back to conference affiliations and bowl alignments from around 1980 or so.  Conferences were regional and made sense.  Beating your rival and winning the conference were the primary goals, and hoping for a "good bowl" where you might or might not get a chance to prove yourself on the national stage was significantly less important.  But that time is long gone, and there's no going back.
On the contrary.  It will happen someday because there's money in it.  And when it does you and everybody else will proclaim it to be the most brilliant thing since sliced bread.
And of course none of you will remember I've been proposing it since about 1998.
Title: Re: Bama or Buckeyes?
Post by: Drew4UTk on December 04, 2017, 02:01:41 PM
of the one loss teams

Ooga has the advantage imHo- losing to a team they returned to beat. 
OU is in a very very close second with a inexplicable loss to surging Iowa State
Bama lost to the 'same' team that beat UGA but lost to sara-excuse, but bruised them enough that UGA could beat them. 
Wiscy lost to a surging tOSU and not by a lot- a lot less than most expected, actually.  
Clemson lost to sara-excused, BUT beat Auburn, which is a 'good' win. 

of those teams, the most common proxy is Auburn.  Auburn played 3 of the 4 in the playoff.. proxy is about dumb, because things change from day to day- consistency is what rates rewards... just thought i'd toss that in there..

Auburn was hot at the end of the year, and nowhere near the team that was beaten by Clemson nor LSU... I'd argue that tOSU was hot at the end of the year and at times during the year- but they were hot and cold NOT consistent.  Wiscy was consistent throughout the season to include the CCG where they gave tOSU enough grief to make the game interesting.  They weren't 'hot', they were consistent.  OU played consistent all season but caught a flashing Iowa State team at the same time they played arguably the worst game of the season.  Clemson lost to sillycuse- and has no excuse- 'cuse wasn't flashing, nor were they consistent (in a good way)- Clemson did lose their starting QB in that game, but does a QB a 'team' make (while playing a scrub)? 

i decided to offer this comment it's own paragraph:  Georgia has played consistent except for one game, and that is the game they lost.  they simply weren't playing with the cohesion they'd played with all season in that game (you should have witnessed it if you've watched at least four of their game- choose any three, and then that loss). it could be said that lack of cohesion was auburn breaking them up, but could be said UGA simply showed a lack of consistency.... i'm not willing to burn them for this, because they got what others usually don't get, which is to play the team that whooped them again.... and win... 

bama lost to a surging 'hot' auburn.  they also got all they could get from MSU and still slink away with a win.  that's two games they weren't consistent- could be argued 'because of LB's being injured' and maybe there is truth in that- but... it's bama... they have no excuse based on personnel when they lose.  so... nope.... lump them in 'inconsistent' group. 

grading with consistency as the principle determination and weighing the quality of loss, it's pretty clear to me that the committee got it right, but possibly not the seeds.  it should be a split between OU and Georgia sharing #1, and then Bama.... over clemson- because: Syracuse... those last four letters in their name is as close to an excuse clemson should get.  

i'm joining UGA and OU as they both lost to legitimate surging teams.  

Title: Re: Bama or Buckeyes?
Post by: CharleyHorse46 on December 04, 2017, 02:02:38 PM
The ratings will be significantly lower in the 2-team playoff years, compared to a 4-team playoff or 8-team playoff.  That will materially and significantly affect the revenue generated.
 People aren't watching the lower tier bowls just to watch them, but they would if they were playoff games.  So your proposal above doesn't address the inconsistency in revenue streams from year to year.
Like I said, it's a beautiful dream, but an impossible one.
You bank on the two-team scenario every year and count the variations as windfall.  Given enough time for historical analysis (or scenarios built off of historical seasons) a formula will emerge.
It's not incalculable or unmanageable.
It just requires a bit of imagination.
Title: Re: Bama or Buckeyes?
Post by: utee94 on December 04, 2017, 02:10:02 PM
You bank on the two-team scenario every year and count the variations as windfall.  Given enough time for historical analysis (or scenarios built off of historical seasons) a formula will emerge.
It's not incalculable or unmanageable.
It just requires a bit of imagination.
There's no school or conference that's going to be willing to accept this solution.  Since we ALREADY have a 4-team playoff, nobody's about to sign up to accept LESS money in the case of a 2-team year.  


But fight the fight my friend. :)
Title: Re: Bama or Buckeyes?
Post by: MikeDeTiger on December 04, 2017, 02:11:55 PM
While I think that Bama would probably beat tOSU, the Committee in selecting Bama unfortunately has sent the message that you don't need to win your conference--heck! you don't even need to play for the championship--and you don't need a tough OOC schedule.

The Committee says that it stresses SoS, but when that stress interferes with selecting the team that it wants to see in there, SoS is quickly forgotten.

Sort of like having a key injury or two diminishing the impact of a loss.
They've sent that message since at least 2011, when Alabama was voted in the BCS game in the same manner.  Effectively they were rewarded for losing a regular season game to LSU.  LSU won the division, and for their trouble got to go face another top 5 team in UGA while Alabama stayed at home and beauty-pageanted their way in.  And this was on top of sos and actual quality wins between LSU and Alabama....or more importantly, Alabama and Oklahoma State.  
Sure, Ohio State got in last year because they beat OU, but the lesson is why even take the chance?  A big ooc win can help you, but losing it will hurt you, so why bother when you can avoid it altogether and get by on your shiny helmet?  
Title: Re: Bama or Buckeyes?
Post by: utee94 on December 04, 2017, 02:14:12 PM
They've sent that message since at least 2011, when Alabama was voted in the BCS game in the same manner.  Effectively they were rewarded for losing a regular season game to LSU.  LSU won the division, and for their trouble got to go face another top 5 team in UGA while Alabama stayed at home and beauty-pageanted their way in.  And this was on top of sos and actual quality wins between LSU and Alabama....or more importantly, Alabama and Oklahoma State.  
Sure, Ohio State got in last year because they beat OU, but the lesson is why even take the chance?  A big ooc win can help you, but losing it will hurt you, so why bother when you can avoid it altogether and get by on your shiny helmet?  
Agreed, but that strategy really only works for the helmet teams.  
Title: Re: Bama or Buckeyes?
Post by: FearlessF on December 04, 2017, 02:31:03 PM
it would have worked for the Badgers if they could have bypassed the Champ game vs the shiny helmet
Title: Re: Bama or Buckeyes?
Post by: CousinFreddie on December 04, 2017, 04:19:35 PM
of those teams, the most common proxy is Auburn.  Auburn played 3 of the 4 in the playoff.. proxy is about dumb, because things change from day to day- consistency is what rates rewards... just thought i'd toss that in there..
If you go back to all of 2017, including January, Auburn has played all four, since OU defeated Auburn fairly convincingly in the Sugar Bowl on Jan 2.  Since that time 8 of those Sooners and 6 Auburn players went to the NFL, by my count, so there have been some personnel losses, and of course things change from year to year, but I still think OU would match up pretty well with Auburn if they were to play right now.
Title: Re: Bama or Buckeyes?
Post by: CousinFreddie on December 04, 2017, 04:36:37 PM
On the contrary.  It will happen someday because there's money in it.  And when it does you and everybody else will proclaim it to be the most brilliant thing since sliced bread.
And of course none of you will remember I've been proposing it since about 1998.
That's probably true.  No one here remembers that I observed back in the CNN days that our gathering of armchair philosophers and flagrant but congenial smack artists was like being on the back porch, shooting the breeze, etc, about essentially nothing of importance.  A nice getaway from our otherwise responsibility filled lives.  And the name stuck, but no one remembers who first made the observation, and that's okay.  It's just cool that it stuck, because it fits pretty well.

It's kind of like the Nike swoosh, which was created by a Portland State University art student (https://www.salon.com/2011/08/10/nike_swoosh_imprint/) back whenever as she was being paid minimal wages by the shoe empire in their castle in nearby Beaverton, and so for $35 or whatever it was they parlayed her creative brilliance.  Even though her name remains relatively unknown to this day, she has the satisfaction of knowing that her idea made it all over the world, and is an enduring symbol in athletics.

So, Hooky my man, when your idea eventually takes hold, even when no explicit credit comes your way, you'll be able to sit back in your rocking chair, maybe on a back porch somewhere, and bask in the glow of your idea becoming reality.
Title: Re: Bama or Buckeyes?
Post by: utee94 on December 04, 2017, 07:10:52 PM
it would have worked for the Badgers if they could have bypassed the Champ game vs the shiny helmet
Badgers tried to schedule one decent OOC game although it might be time to stop thinking BYU is going to produce a decent team.
Title: Re: Bama or Buckeyes?
Post by: MikeDeTiger on December 04, 2017, 07:35:59 PM
^^^  

And I'll give that much credit to the Gumps for sure.  I don't blame them for their schedule, only their performance against it.  It's not their fault their division decided to suck out loud this year, and as far as ooc, FSU is about as good as you can do, forecasting-wise.  How were they to know FSU would limp to their worst season in decades?

I don't think Alabama was the wrong choice.  I think there were no right answers once Wisconsin lost, and I question the way the committee makes their decisions, but if I were a Gump, I wouldn't be apologizing for getting in.  
Title: Re: Bama or Buckeyes?
Post by: utee94 on December 04, 2017, 07:56:38 PM
It came down to 1-loss helmet Alabama versus 2-loss helmets OSU and USC.  As long as it's all helmets, the committee looks no further than the number in the L column.  
Title: Re: Bama or Buckeyes?
Post by: FearlessF on December 04, 2017, 08:06:50 PM
and unless you cornsider Washington a helmet last season, the committee looks no further than the loss column

hell no, Gump's don't need to apologize

the Buckeyes could have gone into Kinnick and scrapped out a "W", Purdue did it.
Title: Re: Bama or Buckeyes?
Post by: utee94 on December 04, 2017, 08:12:02 PM
Well, this year Wisconsin was another 1-loss non-champion.  I'm not sure their schedule was really any worse than Alabama's.  Both teams lost the final game they played in, but Wisconsin played one more game.  But the Badgers don't have Alabama's helmetosity, so their only chance was to remain undefeated.

Title: Re: Bama or Buckeyes?
Post by: CWSooner on December 04, 2017, 09:27:10 PM
^^^  

And I'll give that much credit to the Gumps for sure.  I don't blame them for their schedule, only their performance against it.  It's not their fault their division decided to suck out loud this year, and as far as ooc, FSU is about as good as you can do, forecasting-wise.  How were they to know FSU would limp to their worst season in decades?

I don't think Alabama was the wrong choice.  I think there were no right answers once Wisconsin lost, and I question the way the committee makes their decisions, but if I were a Gump, I wouldn't be apologizing for getting in.
When did the Bammers become the Gumps?  I didn't see that nickname/epithet back on the CFN board in the good ole pre-realignment days.
Title: Re: Bama or Buckeyes?
Post by: CousinFreddie on December 04, 2017, 09:29:31 PM
If one looks purely at strength of schedule, it wasn't Wisky or SCal, but rather Ohio State that should have a beef with Bama:

SoS rankings (https://www.teamrankings.com/college-football/ranking/schedule-strength-by-other)

For me the main factor was that one of the Buckeyes' two losses was a total butt kicking.  The four teams that made the playoffs each had only one loss, and each loss was relatively close.  Any of those teams could have come back to win in those games, even as late as the 4th quarter.  But when Ohio State visited Iowa, they must have gotten lost and ended up passing through Lawrence and gotten a dose of Kansas water or something.  It was a rout.  

Had that loss been close, I think the committee might have given the nod to Ohio State due to the conference championship, even if they had two (close) losses vs Bama's one.
Title: Re: Bama or Buckeyes?
Post by: CWSooner on December 04, 2017, 09:30:32 PM
It came down to 1-loss helmet Alabama versus 2-loss helmets OSU and USC.  As long as it's all helmets, the committee looks no further than the number in the L column.
It's not as important as choosing and seeding the top four, but why is 3-loss non-champ, semi-at-best-helmet Auburn ranked ahead of 2-loss, champ, helmet USC?
In all the rankings, that's the one I understand the least.  Unless it's just to boost Bama.
Title: Re: Bama or Buckeyes?
Post by: CharleyHorse46 on December 04, 2017, 09:56:44 PM
That's probably true.  No one here remembers that I observed back in the CNN days that our gathering of armchair philosophers and flagrant but congenial smack artists was like being on the back porch, shooting the breeze, etc, about essentially nothing of importance.  A nice getaway from our otherwise responsibility filled lives.  And the name stuck, but no one remembers who first made the observation, and that's okay.  It's just cool that it stuck, because it fits pretty well.

It's kind of like the Nike swoosh, which was created by a Portland State University art student (https://www.salon.com/2011/08/10/nike_swoosh_imprint/) back whenever as she was being paid minimal wages by the shoe empire in their castle in nearby Beaverton, and so for $35 or whatever it was they parlayed her creative brilliance.  Even though her name remains relatively unknown to this day, she has the satisfaction of knowing that her idea made it all over the world, and is an enduring symbol in athletics.

So, Hooky my man, when your idea eventually takes hold, even when no explicit credit comes your way, you'll be able to sit back in your rocking chair, maybe on a back porch somewhere, and bask in the glow of your idea becoming reality.

I remember a guy who got hit in the nose with pool ball.  Was that you or Big Matt?
Big Matt.   Hmm.
I wonder if Jesus is getting tired of hearing about the damned Cowboys... and Red Sox... and why an Okie is a Boston fan.
I’d give $300 and my right nut to hear all that again.
Not my left one.  It’s always been my favorite.
Title: Re: Bama or Buckeyes?
Post by: CousinFreddie on December 04, 2017, 10:14:15 PM
Yep, Bedlam has never been the same hereabouts.  

Sometimes I've thought about inventing an poke pseud to pretend to be LBM for that week, but there's no way to live up to the real mccoy.  

Remember those endless threads he started that went on for 60, 70, 80, etc pages, like ... what was it ... oh yeah ... just pick one?

And there was another one he engineered too, but I can't remember it at the moment.  But both were endless.  Right up there with the beer thread.
Title: Re: Bama or Buckeyes?
Post by: CWSooner on December 04, 2017, 11:19:20 PM
Here's an interesting analysis of Kirby Hocutt's explanations (http://newsok.com/kirby-hocutt-answers-ohio-state-alabama-questions/article/5574578) after yesterday's "reveal" by The Oklahoman's Berry Tramel.
Title: Re: Bama or Buckeyes?
Post by: BrownCounty on January 09, 2018, 10:10:00 AM
Wasn't it cute that Bama or Ohio St was a debate?

Saban has got to be the greatest ever.  I should spend more time soaking that in and revering the guy, but basically his success only disgusts me.

I turned off the tele and went to bed at 20-13.  Georgia had it 20-7, yet I still wasn't a believer.  Georgia offense suddenly went lifeless and Bama found its a pulse with a southpaw fish QB who has never played a game.  Unbelievable.

I couldn't bear to stay up and watch Bama win another one.  So I didn't.  Every time Bama closes in on another NC, I have nightmarish visions of Colt McCoy and 2008.

We all knew it would be Bama as soon as they snuck in at the #4 spot.

Oh, and their team is young...
Title: Re: Bama or Buckeyes?
Post by: CousinFreddie on January 09, 2018, 10:20:02 AM
Have to give them their due.  They’re the best program of the current era, by far.  No one else is even close.

Hats off to the Tide.
Title: Re: Bama or Buckeyes?
Post by: UT-Erin03 on January 09, 2018, 10:48:54 AM
Gah, it sucks to say "congrats, bama", but it's due. 


What a fun game to watch (well, the 2nd half anyway), and truly they should have won it in regulation if that kicker had made his points.  Damn good showing for a pair of freshman QB's, too.  Much to be proud of for both teams.