http://www.espn.com/college-football/sto...ff-problem

I can see why the BIG 12 is confused. I know this is an old debate but the committee simply screwed up last year by picking Ohio State over Penn State. I can see why Ohio State was picked over Oklahoma. Ohio state beat Oklahoma.

I know its easy to overthink. If Michigan would have simply beat Iowa, then maybe OSU would have been Big Ten champs and maybe the committe picks both OSU and Mich over Washington. But that didn't happen. Michigan ended up with 2 losses and in 3rd place. Fact is PSU won the Big Ten and beat Ohio State head to head, and that should have been enough to pick PSU over OSU.

At the end of the day, CFP selection will always be a beauty contest, and beauty is always in the eye of the beholder.

What we have (or should have) learned by now is that there are no hard and fast rules for selection. Teams will never know in advance what the criteria will be. All they can do is play hard every game and hope for the best.

Forget about precedent. Forget about what last year's chairman said when he is trotted out to explain the committee's decision. The "reasons" he gave are little more than a plausible explanation for why that year's committee members liked Team A over Team B. They don't have to be the real reasons - just ones he can sell on the made for TV reveal show.

If the Big 12 produces a champion that will deliver TV ratings for the CFP, they will have nothing to worry about. If, instead, they produce a Kansas State, then wait until next year.

(08-23-2017 09:25 AM)ken d Wrote:  What we have (or should have) learned by now is that there are no hard and fast rules for selection. Teams will never know in advance what the criteria will be. All they can do is play hard every game and hope for the best.

Looks like there is one rule so far: If you have 2 losses, and there are at least 4 P5 teams with fewer losses, you're out. Maybe that rule won't apply if Alabama or Ohio State has 2 losses, but so far it has.

This is kind of why I'm hoping we end up with a P4 and a champs-only playoff. It's more objective.

I think the committee as it stands is better than what we had with the BCS, but it's still not ideal.

Only conference champions should be in the mix, IMHO. But that's just a fan's opinion, not a moneychanger's.

And it's important for all the conferences to make their paths to their championships clear, simple, fair, and consistent.

(08-23-2017 02:54 PM)PlayBall! Wrote:  Only conference champions should be in the mix, IMHO. But that's just a fan's opinion, not a moneychanger's.

And it's important for all the conferences to make their paths to their championships clear, simple, fair, and consistent.

I strongly prefer a champs only model. It blows my mind that you could fail to win your division and still win the NCG.

"Hey we're not conference champs. We're not even division champs. But somehow we're national champs!"

It should all roll up.

I don't think a 3 or 4 loss team should be in the CFP, which is entirely possible with a conference champions only model.

(08-25-2017 06:58 AM)Hokie4Skins Wrote:  I don't think a 3 or 4 loss team should be in the CFP, which is entirely possible with a conference champions only model.

Yep I agree, if you had a conference champion rule then there would also need to be some out like that a conference champ needs to have fewer than x number of losses or be ranked at least y in the CFP rankings.

(08-25-2017 07:38 AM)tcufrog86 Wrote:  

(08-25-2017 06:58 AM)Hokie4Skins Wrote:  I don't think a 3 or 4 loss team should be in the CFP, which is entirely possible with a conference champions only model.

Yep I agree, if you had a conference champion rule then there would also need to be some out like that a conference champ needs to have fewer than x number of losses or be ranked at least y in the CFP rankings.

For a 3 or 4 loss team to be in the CFP, there would have to be at least one other P5 conference champion with a similar record, and no G5 champion or independent with a stellar record to claim that spot.

I would assume that, for CFP purposes, in a champs only model, independents would have to be viewed as a "conference of one", and eligible for the playoff if ranked high enough.

Now, it is true that one or more of the four best teams could be knocked out of the playoffs in CCGs, which amount to a quarterfinal round. But that is as true now as it would be in a champs only model. The problem here lies with the conferences (and current NCAA rules) and not the CFP. If CCG's always matched the two best teams instead of arbitrary division champions, there would be no problem.

(08-25-2017 08:12 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(08-25-2017 07:38 AM)tcufrog86 Wrote:  

(08-25-2017 06:58 AM)Hokie4Skins Wrote:  I don't think a 3 or 4 loss team should be in the CFP, which is entirely possible with a conference champions only model.

Yep I agree, if you had a conference champion rule then there would also need to be some out like that a conference champ needs to have fewer than x number of losses or be ranked at least y in the CFP rankings.

For a 3 or 4 loss team to be in the CFP, there would have to be at least one other P5 conference champion with a similar record, and no G5 champion or independent with a stellar record to claim that spot.

I would assume that, for CFP purposes, in a champs only model, independents would have to be viewed as a "conference of one", and eligible for the playoff if ranked high enough.

Now, it is true that one or more of the four best teams could be knocked out of the playoffs in CCGs, which amount to a quarterfinal round. But that is as true now as it would be in a champs only model. The problem here lies with the conferences (and current NCAA rules) and not the CFP. If CCG's always matched the two best teams instead of arbitrary division champions, there would be no problem.

That's still a little arbitrary if you don't have a full round robin though. Was Ohio State a better team than Penn State last year? Penn State lost to Pitt and only beat Temple by 1 TD. That factored in.

Playoffs allow a team to get hot at the right time and win it all (look at the Giants last 2 super bowl wins). They were champs but the Patriots were the best team. It will happen, especially if there are ever 4 team divisions or pods.

(08-25-2017 08:33 AM)megadrone Wrote:  That's still a little arbitrary if you don't have a full round robin though. Was Ohio State a better team than Penn State last year? Penn State lost to Pitt and only beat Temple by 1 TD. That factored in.

Playoffs allow a team to get hot at the right time and win it all (look at the Giants last 2 super bowl wins). They were champs but the Patriots were the best team. It will happen, especially if there are ever 4 team divisions or pods.

Ohio St. got in because they are a football king with a sexy brand, huge following, and the ability to deliver TV ratings. The Committee could justify their inclusion because of their shiny win-loss record.

I don't understand why college football still uses a beauty pageant to crown its champion. Penn St. WON THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONSHIP...over Ohio St.! They beat Ohio St. on the field and won the Big Ten conference championship game.

I can understand the argument that Ohio St. - as a non-champ - might get in ahead of another conference's champion. But there is absolutely no reason to look at Pitt and Temple games to justify placing Ohio St. ahead of Penn St. - a team it lost to in the regular season and the champion of Ohio St.'s conference. Dumb.

If we're just going to measure sexiness and desirability, why even play the games?

The answer is one of two structural changes:

1) expand conference championships to include semi-finals, that allow a team like Ohio St. the chance to play for the conference championship, even if they don't have enough wins in their division. This is the ideal scenario for the P4 world, where only the larger power conferences participate in the CFP system;

OR

2) expand the CFP to allow spots for non-champs - but only IF their conference champ is also in the CFP. This would mostly likely entail autobids for the P5 conferences.

College football runs the risk of devaluing the regular season and the conference championship games by allowing non-champs like 2016 Ohio St. in over B1G champ Penn St.

OR, perhaps the CFP got it precisely right - because controversy is the best recipe for interest and ratings.

(08-25-2017 08:33 AM)megadrone Wrote:  

(08-25-2017 08:12 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(08-25-2017 07:38 AM)tcufrog86 Wrote:  

(08-25-2017 06:58 AM)Hokie4Skins Wrote:  I don't think a 3 or 4 loss team should be in the CFP, which is entirely possible with a conference champions only model.

Yep I agree, if you had a conference champion rule then there would also need to be some out like that a conference champ needs to have fewer than x number of losses or be ranked at least y in the CFP rankings.

For a 3 or 4 loss team to be in the CFP, there would have to be at least one other P5 conference champion with a similar record, and no G5 champion or independent with a stellar record to claim that spot.

I would assume that, for CFP purposes, in a champs only model, independents would have to be viewed as a "conference of one", and eligible for the playoff if ranked high enough.

Now, it is true that one or more of the four best teams could be knocked out of the playoffs in CCGs, which amount to a quarterfinal round. But that is as true now as it would be in a champs only model. The problem here lies with the conferences (and current NCAA rules) and not the CFP. If CCG's always matched the two best teams instead of arbitrary division champions, there would be no problem.

That's still a little arbitrary if you don't have a full round robin though. Was Ohio State a better team than Penn State last year? Penn State lost to Pitt and only beat Temple by 1 TD. That factored in.

Playoffs allow a team to get hot at the right time and win it all (look at the Giants last 2 super bowl wins). They were champs but the Patriots were the best team. It will happen, especially if there are ever 4 team divisions or pods.

If we ever get to have pods with a 4-team conference championship tourney, especially if they are three pods plus an at-large team rather than four pods, it will be hard to say that the conference champion didn't earn its spot in a CFP. One upset is a fluke. A second win is no longer a fluke.

I don't have a problem rewarding a team who is stronger at the end of the season than the beginning. I don't look at them as merely "getting hot" - I look at them as being improved. If that leads to more teams playing tougher early season OOC schedules to help get playoff ready at the end, I'm all for it.

(08-25-2017 09:43 AM)YNot Wrote:  

(08-25-2017 08:33 AM)megadrone Wrote:  That's still a little arbitrary if you don't have a full round robin though. Was Ohio State a better team than Penn State last year? Penn State lost to Pitt and only beat Temple by 1 TD. That factored in.

Playoffs allow a team to get hot at the right time and win it all (look at the Giants last 2 super bowl wins). They were champs but the Patriots were the best team. It will happen, especially if there are ever 4 team divisions or pods.

Ohio St. got in because they are a football king with a sexy brand, huge following, and the ability to deliver TV ratings. The Committee could justify their inclusion because of their shiny win-loss record.

I don't understand why college football still uses a beauty pageant to crown its champion. Penn St. WON THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONSHIP...over Ohio St.! They beat Ohio St. on the field and won the Big Ten conference championship game.

I can understand the argument that Ohio St. - as a non-champ - might get in ahead of another conference's champion. But there is absolutely no reason to look at Pitt and Temple games to justify placing Ohio St. ahead of Penn St. - a team it lost to in the regular season and the champion of Ohio St.'s conference. Dumb.

If we're just going to measure sexiness and desirability, why even play the games?

The answer is one of two structural changes:

1) expand conference championships to include semi-finals, that allow a team like Ohio St. the chance to play for the conference championship, even if they don't have enough wins in their division. This is the ideal scenario for the P4 world, where only the larger power conferences participate in the CFP system;

OR

2) expand the CFP to allow spots for non-champs - but only IF their conference champ is also in the CFP. This would mostly likely entail autobids for the P5 conferences.

College football runs the risk of devaluing the regular season and the conference championship games by allowing non-champs like 2016 Ohio St. in over B1G champ Penn St.

OR, perhaps the CFP got it precisely right - because controversy is the best recipe for interest and ratings.

Penn State had one more loss than Ohio State. They were tied in conference play but PSU had the head to head tiebreaker -- which Penn State won on a blocked field goal recovery for a TD. There's enough for a reasonable argument that OSU was a better team than PSU, even though PSU won that day on the field. If PSU had a convincing win over OSU then you can say that PSU was the better team. But you can't based on the bodies of work.

If the field goal isn't blocked, OSU wins 24-14.

(08-24-2017 06:09 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  I strongly prefer a champs only model. It blows my mind that you could fail to win your division and still win the NCG.

"Hey we're not conference champs. We're not even division champs. But somehow we're national champs!"

This happens in college basketball all the time and there is nothing wrong with it. In fact, the NCAA tournament is far more entertaining now than it was back in the day when you had to be a conference champ or an invited indy to play in the tournament. There were seasons when mediocre (or worse) conference champions were in the NCAA tournament while the #2 or #3 team in the polls was not.

(08-25-2017 11:04 AM)megadrone Wrote:  

(08-25-2017 09:43 AM)YNot Wrote:  

(08-25-2017 08:33 AM)megadrone Wrote:  That's still a little arbitrary if you don't have a full round robin though. Was Ohio State a better team than Penn State last year? Penn State lost to Pitt and only beat Temple by 1 TD. That factored in.

Playoffs allow a team to get hot at the right time and win it all (look at the Giants last 2 super bowl wins). They were champs but the Patriots were the best team. It will happen, especially if there are ever 4 team divisions or pods.

Ohio St. got in because they are a football king with a sexy brand, huge following, and the ability to deliver TV ratings. The Committee could justify their inclusion because of their shiny win-loss record.

I don't understand why college football still uses a beauty pageant to crown its champion. Penn St. WON THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONSHIP...over Ohio St.! They beat Ohio St. on the field and won the Big Ten conference championship game.

I can understand the argument that Ohio St. - as a non-champ - might get in ahead of another conference's champion. But there is absolutely no reason to look at Pitt and Temple games to justify placing Ohio St. ahead of Penn St. - a team it lost to in the regular season and the champion of Ohio St.'s conference. Dumb.

If we're just going to measure sexiness and desirability, why even play the games?

The answer is one of two structural changes:

1) expand conference championships to include semi-finals, that allow a team like Ohio St. the chance to play for the conference championship, even if they don't have enough wins in their division. This is the ideal scenario for the P4 world, where only the larger power conferences participate in the CFP system;

OR

2) expand the CFP to allow spots for non-champs - but only IF their conference champ is also in the CFP. This would mostly likely entail autobids for the P5 conferences.

College football runs the risk of devaluing the regular season and the conference championship games by allowing non-champs like 2016 Ohio St. in over B1G champ Penn St.

OR, perhaps the CFP got it precisely right - because controversy is the best recipe for interest and ratings.

Penn State had one more loss than Ohio State. They were tied in conference play but PSU had the head to head tiebreaker -- which Penn State won on a blocked field goal recovery for a TD. There's enough for a reasonable argument that OSU was a better team than PSU, even though PSU won that day on the field. If PSU had a convincing win over OSU then you can say that PSU was the better team. But you can't based on the bodies of work.

If the field goal isn't blocked, OSU wins 24-14.

Sounds like the Big Ten should have a selection committee to decide who plays in the conference championship game.

(08-25-2017 06:58 AM)Hokie4Skins Wrote:  I don't think a 3 or 4 loss team should be in the CFP, which is entirely possible with a conference champions only model.

Works fine for the NFL. Why can't it work for FBS football?

(08-25-2017 12:20 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(08-25-2017 06:58 AM)Hokie4Skins Wrote:  I don't think a 3 or 4 loss team should be in the CFP, which is entirely possible with a conference champions only model.

Works fine for the NFL. Why can't it work for FBS football?

Why on Earth would a college football fan want the college game to become more like the NFL?

(08-25-2017 12:29 PM)Hokie4Skins Wrote:  

(08-25-2017 12:20 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(08-25-2017 06:58 AM)Hokie4Skins Wrote:  I don't think a 3 or 4 loss team should be in the CFP, which is entirely possible with a conference champions only model.

Works fine for the NFL. Why can't it work for FBS football?

Why on Earth would a college football fan want the college game to become more like the NFL?

There are plenty of fans of both.

(08-25-2017 12:29 PM)Hokie4Skins Wrote:  

(08-25-2017 12:20 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(08-25-2017 06:58 AM)Hokie4Skins Wrote:  I don't think a 3 or 4 loss team should be in the CFP, which is entirely possible with a conference champions only model.

Works fine for the NFL. Why can't it work for FBS football?

Why on Earth would a college football fan want the college game to become more like the NFL?

Nobody has been any more opposed to the professional-izing of college football than I have been, but that's not the point here. College basketball conference champs get auto-bids to the national championship playoffs in that sport. I for one love the idea of a 3-loss team getting hot at playoff time and winning it all! As for the team that was allegedly"better", I have 5 words: don't lose the conference championship!