2015 College Football Chatter

[1bigfan13]

The problem is Notre Dame's loss was close and to an elite team. Meaning their one loss is better then anyone elses.

I'm not talking about a ND vs Oklahoma scenario here. ND absolutely holds the edge over OU because their loss is easily forgivable compared to OU's. OU needs Stanford to beat ND to have a shot.

I'm talking about the idea that a Big 12 team will be jumped by a team that has a CCG in the final weekend.

My point is ND should be held to that exact same standard.

If OK State runs the table and is dropped in the final weekend because of the lack of a CCG there's absolutely no reason that ND should be placed ahead of them. ND should drop in the standings themselves.

 

[Cowboysrock55]

I'm not talking about a ND vs Oklahoma scenario here. ND absolutely holds the edge over OU because their loss is easily forgivable compared to OU's. OU needs Stanford to beat ND to have a shot.

I'm talking about the idea that a Big 12 team will be jumped by a team that has a CCG in the final weekend.

My point is ND should be held to that exact same standard.

If OK State runs the table and is dropped in the final weekend because of the lack of a CCG there's absolutely no reason that ND should be placed ahead of them. ND should drop in the standings themselves.

Probably although, I don't see a scenario where it really works out that way. I guess if a one loss Michigan State team wins the Big 10 or something then you could see them jump an Oklahoma but does that really make a difference? You'll get one representative from the Big 10, SEC and ACC almost for sure. So after that it comes down to the Big 12 verse Notre Dame. I seriously doubt a Big 10 loser for example is able to make it with 1 loss (Although, shouldn't a 1 loss Big Ten loser be given the same judgment as a 1 loss Big 12 team or Notre Dame?)

 

[L.T. Fan]

My understanding of the committee criteria is that they are entertaining the components discussed here but in addition they are also trying to evaluate who is the best teams currently which carries a great deal of weight. This is why they put a one loss team (Alabama) in the mix over no loss teams. If a team appears to be performing at higher levels they may get the nod notwithstanding the records, competition, conferences, or coaches polls. That's the way I have heard it explained.

 

[1bigfan13]

My understanding of the committee criteria is that they are entertaining the components discussed here but in addition they are also trying to evaluate who is the best teams currently which carries a great deal of weight. This is why they put a one loss team (Alabama) in the mix over no loss teams. If a team appears to be performing at higher levels they may get the nod notwithstanding the records, competition, conferences, or coaches polls. That's the way I have heard it explained.

That would make sense and I would have no problem with it if that were the case. But I go back to last year with Florida St.

I think most people would agree that they weren’t one of the top 4 teams last year. They had a lot of close calls (lucky win against Clemson) and played sloppy football against average opponents.

Throughout the regular season they didn’t play like one of the 4 best teams in the league. But because they were the defending champs and have name recognition they got the benefit of the doubt over teams who may have had 1-loss but were probably better than them. I’d throw TCU into that category.

 

[Cowboysrock55]

This is why they put a one loss team (Alabama) in the mix over no loss teams. If a team appears to be performing at higher levels they may get the nod notwithstanding the records, competition, conferences, or coaches polls. That's the way I have heard it explained.

Yeah, I think that is basically the "eye test" which in my opinion is a bullshit way of allowing voters to follow their bias as opposed to something that they can concrete justify with data. Everyone talks about making the regular season meaningful but when you basically allow this sort of thing you completely devalue the regular season.

 

[L.T. Fan]

That would make sense and I would have no problem with it if that were the case. But I go back to last year with Florida St.

I think most people would agree that they weren’t one of the top 4 teams last year. They had a lot of close calls (lucky win against Clemson) and played sloppy football against average opponents.

Throughout the regular season they didn’t play like one of the 4 best teams in the league. But because they were the defending champs and have name recognition they got the benefit of the doubt over teams who may have had 1-loss but were probably better than them. I’d throw TCU into that category.

I completely agree and I think I have made my position known about the bias of these groups toward Bama and a few other schools. That is a convenient way of legitimizing your personal preferences over a formula.

 

[Cowboysrock55]

Throughout the regular season they didn’t play like one of the 4 best teams in the league. But because they were the defending champs and have name recognition they got the benefit of the doubt over teams who may have had 1-loss but were probably better than them. I’d throw TCU into that category.

I actually sort of disagree with you on this. Any time you go undefeated in one of the power conferences I have a hard time saying you don't belong in the playoffs but someone who didn't go undefeated deserves to be in there. Just seems like you open way too much for interpretation when you say that a team who won every single game on their schedule isn't good enough because they didn't have style points. But someone who can't win consistently deserves to be in because they blew some teams out.

 

[1bigfan13]

Yeah, I think that is basically the "eye test" which in my opinion is a bullshit way of allowing voters to follow their bias as opposed to something that they can concrete justify with data. Everyone talks about making the regular season meaningful but when you basically allow this sort of thing you completely devalue the regular season.

There's definitely a lot of bias involved. It's to be expected when you have the human element so heavily involved.

A head scratcher for Big 12 fans is Jeff Long will throw darts at us for not being strong on both sides of the ball. OK State beats Tech 70-53 and understandably he questions their defense. But Florida beats Vanderbilt 9-7 and no doubts are thrown their way regarding them being strong on both sides of the ball.

So we've established in the committee's eyes that having a bad offense is acceptable, but having bad defense is unacceptable.

But I will say this.....I do like that the system kind of forces teams to actually schedule tougher competition and that an undefeated record doesn't guarantee you a spot in the playoffs. Otherwise you'd see a lot more teams following Baylor's example of scheduling the likes of World Incarnate University for all of their nonconference games.

I also like the fact that they didn't overreact to teams like Baylor beating bad teams 65-17. You crushed Lamar, Rice, Texas Tech and Kansas....good for you, but we aren't rewarding you with a higher ranking until you actually play a good opponent.

 

[1bigfan13]

I actually sort of disagree with you on this. Any time you go undefeated in one of the power conferences I have a hard time saying you don't belong in the playoffs but someone who didn't go undefeated deserves to be in there. Just seems like you open way too much for interpretation when you say that a team who won every single game on their schedule isn't good enough because they didn't have style points. But someone who can't win consistently deserves to be in because they blew some teams out.

But that's one of the things the committee was supposed to fix. An undefeated record shouldn't be an automatic qualifier.

If a team went through a BIG 10 season and knocked off 5 legitimate Top 25 teams in the process but suffered a close loss along the way, I'd put them in over an undefeated team that benefited from playing in a weak conference.

 

[Cowboysrock55]

There's definitely a lot of bias involved. It's to be expected when you have the human element so heavily involved.

A head scratcher for Big 12 fans is Jeff Long will throw darts at us for not being strong on both sides of the ball. OK State beats Tech 70-53 and understandably he questions their defense. But Florida beats Vanderbilt 9-7 and no doubts are thrown their way regarding them being strong on both sides of the ball.

Well that's just because SEC defenses are so amazing... Oh wait we are talking about Vandy, the only SEC team that everyone acknowledges is just plain terrible. It's funny though because it's sort of the glass half empty or half full argument. If both teams score a lot you can either give credit to the offenses as being awesome or you can negate it by saying the defenses are both terrible. Same thing in the SEC with defense. Everyone talks about the SEC like the defenses are all world, but are they really that great or is it that the offenses are that bad.

The majority of the Big 12 just has a vastly different style then that of the SEC for the most part.

 

[Cowboysrock55]

But that's one of the things the committee was supposed to fix. An undefeated record shouldn't be an automatic qualifier.

But what is an undefeated team supposed to do? You can't win games that aren't on your schedule. And no the non-conference schedule isn't making or breaking most of these teams. Hell Alabama is playing Charleston Southern this week and that won't hurt them one bit in the rankings. It's not like a team can just schedule a tougher non conference schedule and feel better about it. Basically you're stuck with the conference slate you are given and if you play in a major conference I think those games are reasonably tough. If a team runs the table, and is still left out of the playoffs your basically saying, who cares about the regular season. It's totally meaningless because even if you win every game you won't be in the playoffs. Instead we will just take our favorite big name schools and plug them into the playoffs and say that they all pass the "eye test."

 

[skidadl]

The last time that Baylor beat OSU in Stillwater was on the day of Bill Snyder's birth 10-07-1939

 

[skidadl]

I have absolutely no confidence that Tech will beat UT in Austin.

 

[L.T. Fan]

I have absolutely no confidence that Tech will beat UT in Austin.

I think they have a shot but it will be a matter of out scoring the horns because Tech has problems defending the run game. Fortunately for them the Texas ground game is primarily with the QB so if they key on him they can have some success. They will have to sell out to that system though because Texas will usually out number them on the LOS.

 

[1bigfan13]

[MENTION=9]Cowboysrock55[/MENTION] I ran across this statement in an ESPN article I was reading. It's a perfect example of the committee's bias towards a traditional power program. Obviously my team (Oklahoma) would benefit from that type of bias but its a completely BS way to determine who should make the final 4.

"We think [Ohio State] is a team that hasn't played their best yet," College Football Playoff selection committee chair Jeff Long said last week. "We think that their best games are in front of them."

Link to article: http://espn.go.com/college-football...in-loss-values-change-college-football-season

How does he know this? Does he know if Iowa has played their best football yet? What about OK State?

 

[skidadl]

[MENTION=9]Cowboysrock55[/MENTION] I ran across this statement in an ESPN article I was reading. It's a perfect example of the committee's bias towards a traditional power program. Obviously my team (Oklahoma) would benefit from that type of bias but its a completely BS way to determine who should make the final 4.



Link to article: http://espn.go.com/college-football...in-loss-values-change-college-football-season

How does he know this? Does he know if Iowa has played their best football yet? What about OK State?

He's obviously projecting based on some type of bias.

 

[1bigfan13]

This same Jeff Long tool tried to excuse Stanford's loss to Northwestern because they had to travel from the west coast and play a noon game.

Boo friggin' hoo!

He's ridiculous.

 

[Cowboysrock55]

[MENTION=9]Cowboysrock55[/MENTION] I ran across this statement in an ESPN article I was reading. It's a perfect example of the committee's bias towards a traditional power program. Obviously my team (Oklahoma) would benefit from that type of bias but its a completely BS way to determine who should make the final 4.



Link to article: http://espn.go.com/college-football...in-loss-values-change-college-football-season

How does he know this? Does he know if Iowa has played their best football yet? What about OK State?

Couldn't agree more. It's basically made up bullshit so that they can justify putting a team like Ohio State in the top 4 no matter what happens. There is just this automatic assumption that traditional power schools like Alabama, Ohio State, Oklahoma and others have more talent then everyone else. No matter how they play on the field it doesn't matter because they have a "higher ceiling." I think it's a bunch of garbage. Iowa for example doesn't have great high school recruiting numbers but their success at the NFL level is actually pretty damn good for example. So who really has higher potential? The team pulling in the 5* recruits or the team putting out NFL starters?

 

[skidadl]

Looks like the Arky win was a good one.

4-2 in the sec west. Still in the mix to win that division.

Bama is 4-1
Lsu, ole miss, arky are all 4-2

Great road win.

 

[Rev]

Never thought I would be happy with just making it to Bowl eligible. Its a step in the right direction. Next major one is keeping a DC so we can start recruiting.