College Football Playoffs ? The Picture Clarifies

[Football Frontier RSS Feed]

Fans of law and order in the major college football universe were mostly rewarded Saturday, as only Florida, Baylor and Notre Dame lost out of all the teams seeking legitimate claims on potential playoff positions. Most won rather handily. Here’s … Continue reading →

More...

[albionmoonlight]

Jim:

Do you think that committee members should game this out in their heads before the games are played? Should they tell themselves things like "If A beats B, then A should get the spot, but if B wins, then the winner of C v. D should get the spot?"

On the one hand, taking the week before the games to really hash out the possibilities and come to a conclusion would seem to lend itself to making rational decisions that would not then be overly influenced by things like "Team A looked REALLY good 3 hours ago, maybe they should get the 4th spot"

On the other hand, making out a logic tree beforehand would also ossify thinking and prevent a decisionmaker from being flexible enough to accommodate unexpected information from championship week.

I guess this question is more about decisionmaking theory in general, but the CFB playoff gives a good example of how best to make subjective decisions in as objective a way as possible.

[CU Tiger]

I suspect when the rankings come out Tuesday UNC is higher than #9.
Much less with a Victory over consensus #1.

From my vantage point Florida is done. I do not think a scenario exists where Florida makes it in. I think FSU goes in before Florida.

[Solecismic]

I'm sure part of the committee discussion is setting up a "what-if" order of teams. Their rankings tomorrow should be a hint of how that will work out. The key is where Stanford and North Carolina are with respect to each other. Anything else can be worked out on the spot next week.

I agree that Florida is out. And if the Gators beat Alabama, it's more exposing the four-team system as seriously flawed than an injustice.

It would be interesting to know if the committee discusses whether there's a goal of encouraging challenging non-conference matchups (wouldn't a week two Big Ten/SEC challenge be terrific for the sport) or whether pure record is the goal.

If North Carolina beats Clemson and gets in, it will discourage difficult non-conference scheduling.

My guess as to what they'll do tomorrow:

7. Stanford, 8. Florida State, 9. North Carolina.

That gives them the maximum flexibility. I'm still not sure about their feelings regarding strength of schedule. On one hand, they seem to take it into account. But on the other hand, they've shown Baylor a lot of love. That could have been just a desire not to enrage the Big XII beyond any reason in case Oklahoma faltered.

[Atocep]

With Oklahoma appearing to be the only "safe" team in the top 4 right now you have to wonder if this scenario had played out last year would the other conferences be pushing for the Big 12 to have a conference championship?

[tarcone]

So if Alabama isn't in the playoff, after losing to Mississippi and FLorida, the system is flawed.
Then you say if UNC gets in it will discourage difficult non-conference scheduling. Oh , you mean like the SEC? But wait, the SEC is the greatest conference and because their teams are so good, they don't have to schedule OOC tough games.

Your points are a joke.

[albionmoonlight]

I'm a UNC fan, but I think that the committee will see their "easy scheduling" as different in kind than others. Playing two FCS schools is tough to justify if you are talking about picking the top four teams in the country.

I think that had those games happened to be against bad--but not FCS--teams, then there would be a stronger argument for UNC (assuming they beat Clemson).

Edit--meaning that it isn't just the level of competition. It is the appearance of the level of competition.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

I agree that Florida is out. And if the Gators beat Alabama, it's more exposing the four-team system as seriously flawed than an injustice.

I think this scenario is more of an indictment of the large conferences with championship games than the system itself.

A scenario like this is eventually going to happen. There's no avoiding it. What's going to be interesting is which direction the conference this happens to points its finger to avoid questions from its members on why said team missed out on a chance for a national title and why every school is missing out on quite a large chunk of money.

[digamma]

Clemson, North Carolina, Iowa and Stanford (plus Notre Dame, obviously) scheduled more than one P5 (plus independent) game this season.

Alabama, Oklahoma, Michigan State, Ohio State and Florida scheduled one.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by tarcone

So if Alabama isn't in the playoff, after losing to Mississippi and FLorida, the system is flawed.
Then you say if UNC gets in it will discourage difficult non-conference scheduling. Oh , you mean like the SEC? But wait, the SEC is the greatest conference and because their teams are so good, they don't have to schedule OOC tough games.

Your points are a joke.

Not sure what to say. These are long arguments, and if you take two pieces out of context and try to say one follows the other, it's not really a discussion any more. It's just politics. Anyway, this is what ignore lists are for.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by Atocep

I think this scenario is more of an indictment of the large conferences with championship games than the system itself.

A scenario like this is eventually going to happen. There's no avoiding it. What's going to be interesting is which direction the conference this happens to points its finger to avoid questions from its members on why said team missed out on a chance for a national title and why every school is missing out on quite a large chunk of money.

Yes, it will happen. Maybe not this year, but soon enough.

What they've done is set up a limited de-facto playoff system that's interrupted near the end and re-arranged. In that sense, conference championship games are playoff games. Because including the loser and not including the winner would create a perception problem. And I think including two teams from the same conference would also create a perception problem.

As for the scheduling argument, there are many different pieces involved. UNC didn't say, hey, let's put together the 79th strongest schedule in the FBS. In most years, South Carolina would be a much better opponent. But putting that with two FCS teams and missing the top three teams in the other division creates a huge disparity. Same with Iowa missing all the winning teams in the East.

Ranking isn't absolute. Every game has a risk, some more than others. And the system is mostly focused on the number of total losses. So if you play 80s and 90s while your opponents play 30s and 40s, it makes a big difference.

I'm not saying UNC is a bad team. In fact, winning four straight road conference games in a power conference is a heck of an achievement - something both Iowa and UNC did. My arguments are more an indictment of the playoff system itself. I don't think you can do this legitimately without including at least 16 teams.

[Swaggs]

It is a 'what if?' but if South Carolina had a more typical, Spurrier-type season (say 7-5 or 8-4), UNC would be perceived much differently.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

It is a 'what if?' but if South Carolina had a more typical, Spurrier-type season (say 7-5 or 8-4), UNC would be perceived much differently.

They'd averaged 10.2 wins per year over the past four, THAT would have made a big difference in perception I think.

Then again, had the loss come mid-season or later instead of week one, that would have also made a big difference in perception too.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Atocep

With Oklahoma appearing to be the only "safe" team in the top 4 right now you have to wonder if this scenario had played out last year would the other conferences be pushing for the Big 12 to have a conference championship?

This. People want to read into the committee's mind and talk about how teams will schedule in the future too much. There are just too many unknowable variables that makes each year unique to really have an effect.

Oklahoma & B1G Champ are in, Clemson/Bama with wins. If Alabama loses I would go with 11-1 Ohio State over 11-2 Stanford or 11-2 Alabama - really not sure why people think Stanford is alive unless the committee values conference championships as much as Jim does - what is a 2nd win over USC going to do (especially if that win drops USC out of the top 25 - although that probably won't happen.) A Clemson loss would make things very interesting - I think I'd go with 11-1 Clemson over UNC or Ohio State in that scenario, but that'd be a really ballsy call to put Clemson in over the team that just beat them (and if we are reading into the committee based off statements from one year I do think they value that last weekend of games when they're all watching together too much.) In that case though Clemson has 2 top 10 wins and their only loss to a top 10 team - it's the best resume. I think Clemson and Alabama both losing would be the only way UNC gets in (with Clemson as the 4th), although I'm sure people would be apoplectic if 2 ACC teams made it and no SEC one.