Nobody is saying they should be punished but the team(s) with a better resume/wins should also be rewarded. In my mind, both TCU and Baylor had better resumes than Oh St. It wasn't close. You can't control your conference but if the conference is awful, you better win em all. Oh St lost to an unranked team and had 1 win against Top 25? Agree 100% with the OP.
ESPN selling the CFP lie
- Thread starter Buguit
- Start date
Bodizephax
I've posted how many times?
I whole heartedly agree with this post. Yea I do hate o$u and am not sure why anyone would stick up for them but the point is they never played anyone to get there. If all you had to do was win 1 game a lot of teams could get there. Once your there it's all about getting hot at the right time, which they did. That is like saying George mason was really one of the best teams a few years ago in college bball. If you never have to play in tough games you can rest players and only have to get up for one game. If they played a decent schedule there is no way they come though with one loss. Not real hard to see that.
Ohio State had two wins against Top 25 teams. How many wins against Top 25 teams did Baylor or TCU have?
So can someone show me the strength of schedule for Ohio State vs TCU and Baylor at the end of the regular season last year?
At the very least it will show Ohio State with 13 games. With wins against a top 10 MSU ( 6 in the AP 7 in the coaches at time of game) and an absolute drubbing of a 13th rank Wisky on a neutral field.
I remember their SOS in the high 20's or so last season before the playoff. But can't remember if that was before the B1G championship game.
So if someone can show me that Stat and that TCU / Baylor had a higher ranked schedule (which the play off committee has said they won't use for deciding the playoff teams) I'll stop defending them.
But so far I haven't seen anyone show any proof of Ohio St having an easier path than either of the B12 schools
At the very least it will show Ohio State with 13 games. With wins against a top 10 MSU ( 6 in the AP 7 in the coaches at time of game) and an absolute drubbing of a 13th rank Wisky on a neutral field.
I remember their SOS in the high 20's or so last season before the playoff. But can't remember if that was before the B1G championship game.
So if someone can show me that Stat and that TCU / Baylor had a higher ranked schedule (which the play off committee has said they won't use for deciding the playoff teams) I'll stop defending them.
But so far I haven't seen anyone show any proof of Ohio St having an easier path than either of the B12 schools
Agreed OSU has no control over the rankings of teams within the conference .... schedules are made so far in advance that you almost never know what you're going to get when you actually play them. But fact is Big 10 is down .... every Big 10 OOC game last year saw a Big 10 team lose and like MSU/Oregon they got handed theirs
If and that's if all schedules are considered equally weak then they still EASILY had the worst loss .... every way you can cut up and slice it OSU comes up short .... this was all before selections were made .... without getting into bowls
I don't see it it that way.
Who did Baylor and TCU play in their OOC?
And again. Show me some numbers of strength of schedule for the end of regular season last year. Saragin usually keeps them on his site. And should answer it pretty quick
Who did Baylor and TCU play in their OOC?
And again. Show me some numbers of strength of schedule for the end of regular season last year. Saragin usually keeps them on his site. And should answer it pretty quick
When they played them and how they were ranked should be how it counts Ewing, you know that. ND was a top 5 team when FSU got the call and they got credit for beating a top 5 team, rightfully so. Did USC best a top 5 team ? No. Here's who TCU beat and where they were rsnked, again, not close folks.
#4 OU
#15 Ok St
#10 WVU
#7 K State
And a 42-3 win over a #9 Ole Miss in the bowl. And dont cry about that, as Oh ST beat Bama/Oregon in post season, I know. The above 4 wins, 3 top 10 wins is enough. Like I said, no brainer. OT thriller against a top 5 team to boot. Are we really discussing the strength of schedule and resumes between TCU/Oh St? Jesus.
Let's clear some things up here:
TCU played two teams in the regular season that finished the year top 25. That was Baylor (ended 7th in the AP), and Kansas St. (ended 18th in AP), they played Ole Miss in the Bowl (whom finished 17th in the AP). Using ranking at time of game, is never a good idea. Because just like ND playing MSU early in the season the other year, they were ranked #5 at the time, and then stumbled down the hill. Or USC their first year off of sanctions was a preseason number 1. They ended 7-5, and lost in the 'I don't care bowl' to GTech.
Here are the stats on TCU and their year: TCU Stats and breakdown
Stats to notice:
Opponents record was 82-81 (.501) winning record for the season
Vs end of year top 10 they were 0-1
Ohio State played played two teams in the regular season (including their conference championship game) that finished in the top 25. That was MSU on the road (finished 5th) and Wisky finished 13th at a neutral site. And won both games. This is why I keep arguing for that 13th game. It is worth it's weight in gold. No school shows this more than Ohio State last year.
Here are the stats on Ohio State and their year: Ohio State stats and breakdown
Stats to notice:
Opponents record was 118-77 (.605)
Vs end of year top 10 they were 1-0, before the play off.
TCU played two teams in the regular season that finished the year top 25. That was Baylor (ended 7th in the AP), and Kansas St. (ended 18th in AP), they played Ole Miss in the Bowl (whom finished 17th in the AP). Using ranking at time of game, is never a good idea. Because just like ND playing MSU early in the season the other year, they were ranked #5 at the time, and then stumbled down the hill. Or USC their first year off of sanctions was a preseason number 1. They ended 7-5, and lost in the 'I don't care bowl' to GTech.
Here are the stats on TCU and their year: TCU Stats and breakdown
Stats to notice:
Opponents record was 82-81 (.501) winning record for the season
Vs end of year top 10 they were 0-1
Ohio State played played two teams in the regular season (including their conference championship game) that finished in the top 25. That was MSU on the road (finished 5th) and Wisky finished 13th at a neutral site. And won both games. This is why I keep arguing for that 13th game. It is worth it's weight in gold. No school shows this more than Ohio State last year.
Here are the stats on Ohio State and their year: Ohio State stats and breakdown
Stats to notice:
Opponents record was 118-77 (.605)
Vs end of year top 10 they were 1-0, before the play off.
Ohio State's total dismantling of a solid Wisconsin team was a more impressive win than anything TCU or Baylor accomplished. If the Buckeyes had just barely edged the Badgers, the B12 would probably made the playoff.
It was a judgement call by the committee. Just like the polls are judgement calls. A person may disagree, but it certainly wasn't "crazy" to think the Buckeyes were the more deserving team.
I understand that some ND fans are upset that all things equal (MOV & SOS), 12-1 is a better resume than 11-1; but it is what it is.
It was a judgement call by the committee. Just like the polls are judgement calls. A person may disagree, but it certainly wasn't "crazy" to think the Buckeyes were the more deserving team.
I understand that some ND fans are upset that all things equal (MOV & SOS), 12-1 is a better resume than 11-1; but it is what it is.
Solid Wisconsin team ? ..... apparently a 5-7 Northwestern team dismantled them as well
The whole 13th game issue is a big part of the CFP playoff bs ...... they need to clarify if it truly matters or not .... you need it or you don't ..... none of this "we'll wait and see if we think it matters at the end of the year"
TCU's beating of 3 Top 10 teams at the time had something to do with those teams not being ranked. You don't think FSU should get credit for beating a top 5 ND team last year but rather a 7-5 team that lost to NW and Louisville? I disagree. I guarantee the committee weighted that ND game as a top 10 win and not as the 7-5 team that squandered down the stretch.
Buguit is the smartest poster on this message board. Whatever he says is gold. Just ask him.
When did TCU defeat 3 top 10 teams during the season?
ranked teams (at time of playing)
Oklahoma - 4th Win
Baylor - 5th Loss
Kansas St - 9th Win
Outside of that the only 'game ranked' teams they played were:
West Virginia 20th W
That's it.
As far as what they weight. Just look at their own rules on selection protocol:
LINK
From Webpage
Ranking football teams is an art, not a science. Football is popular in some measure because the outcome of a game between reasonably matched teams is so often decided by emotional commitment, momentum, injuries and the “unexpected bounce of the ball.” In any ranking system, perfection or consensus is not possible and the physical impact of the game on student athletes prevents elaborate playoff systems of multiple games. For purposes of any four team playoff, the process will inevitably need to select the four best teams from among several with legitimate claims to participate.
Proposed Selection Process:
Establish a committee that will be instructed to place an emphasis on winning conference championships, strength of schedule and head-to-head competition when comparing teams with similar records and pedigree (treat final determination like a tie-breaker; apply specific guidelines).
The criteria to be provided to the selection committee must be aligned with the ideals of the commissioners, presidents, athletic directors and coaches to honor regular season success while at the same time providing enough flexibility and discretion to select a non-champion or independent under circumstances where that particular non-champion or independent is unequivocally one of the four best teams in the country.
When circumstances at the margins indicate that teams are comparable, then the following criteria must be considered:
- Championships won
- Strength of schedule
- Head-to-head competition (if it occurred)
- Comparative outcomes of common opponents (without incenting margin of victory)
Under the current construct, polls (although well-intended) have not expressed these values; particularly at the margins where teams that have won head-to-head competition and championships are sometimes ranked behind non-champions and teams that have lost in head-to-head competition. Nuanced mathematical formulas ignore some teams who “deserve” to be selected.
As we expand from two teams to four teams we want to establish a human selection committee that: (1) will be provided a clear set of guidelines; (2) will be expected to take the facts of each case and specifically apply the guidelines; and (3) will be led by a Chairperson who will be expected to explain publicly the committee’s decisions.
Some of the guidelines and protocols expected to be established to guide the committee would include, but not be limited to, the following:
- While it is understood that committee members will take into consideration all kinds of data including polls, committee members will be required to discredit polls wherein initial rankings are established before competition has occurred;
- Any polls that are taken into consideration by the selection committee must be completely open and transparent to the public;
- Strength of schedule, head-to-head competition and championships won must be specifically applied as tie-breakers between teams that look similar;
- Committee members associated with any team under consideration during the selection process will be required to recuse themselves from any deliberations associated with that team;
And following what you asked about playing game rank vs end of year rank. Look again that USC team that came off sanctions ranked #1 in the nation in week 1 and ended up losing 5 regular season games, and their bowl game.
Their first loss was week 3 against Stanford. Week 1 and 2 they played Hawaii, and Syracuse. Tell me do you really that Stanford defeated the number 1 team in the nation that week? Or just a team that polled high in the preseason?
There is a place for game time rankings. However Preseason rankings, and rankings when you are playing the cupcakes on your schedule don't make you a better team. Just an untested one. Was ND a top 10 team in the nation going into the FSU game? Sure. Were they the number 5? The pollsters thought so. But look at who they played up to that point:
Rice that went 8-5
Michigan that went 5-7
Purdue that went 3-9
Syracuse that went 3-9
Stanford that went 8-5
North Carolina that went 6-7
For a combined win loss rating of: 33-42
From the FSU game on the records were:
FSU 13-1
Navy 8-5
ASU 10-3
Northwestern 5-7
Louisville 9-4
USC 9-4
For a combined win loss rating of: 54-24
Where do you think the tougher part of the ND schedule was?
Their first loss was week 3 against Stanford. Week 1 and 2 they played Hawaii, and Syracuse. Tell me do you really that Stanford defeated the number 1 team in the nation that week? Or just a team that polled high in the preseason?
There is a place for game time rankings. However Preseason rankings, and rankings when you are playing the cupcakes on your schedule don't make you a better team. Just an untested one. Was ND a top 10 team in the nation going into the FSU game? Sure. Were they the number 5? The pollsters thought so. But look at who they played up to that point:
Rice that went 8-5
Michigan that went 5-7
Purdue that went 3-9
Syracuse that went 3-9
Stanford that went 8-5
North Carolina that went 6-7
For a combined win loss rating of: 33-42
From the FSU game on the records were:
FSU 13-1
Navy 8-5
ASU 10-3
Northwestern 5-7
Louisville 9-4
USC 9-4
For a combined win loss rating of: 54-24
Where do you think the tougher part of the ND schedule was?
FSU was the only undefeated major conference team, so I doubt they even cared about their win over ND. End of year (or, section day in December) is more accurate than position when played. As the season progresses, the polls get more and more accurate as to the respective teams strenghs. The first polls are just guesswork based on the previous season's result.
That is so stupid. When you are guaranteed to have a winner ....how can someone act like yep...they should have been in after the ****ing fact ? ! ?
What is really wrong here is the inclusion of only 4 teams. Do you all realize that this is even worse than the old #1,#2 poll system. Including 4 teams creates so much more controversial garbage. This needs to go to 8 teams, preferably 16 ....if they really want to settle it on the field.
Btw. Yes it can work. Teams don't need 13 , 12, whatever regular season games. Don't you dare cry poor here needing another home game for revenue. Ridiculous.
Until this is 8 or 16 teams it's still a ****ing popularity contest.
They got lucky putting in osu because they got hot at the right time. Nothing more nothing less.
Also I'm so sick of this conference talk. Yeah ok....the conference does nothing but keep you from playing meaningful out of conference games.
It is so biZarre espn virtually celebrates schools going into conferences. Very strange to me. It's like they only want 4 real conferences with 60 teams. Wait a sec...
What is really wrong here is the inclusion of only 4 teams. Do you all realize that this is even worse than the old #1,#2 poll system. Including 4 teams creates so much more controversial garbage. This needs to go to 8 teams, preferably 16 ....if they really want to settle it on the field.
Btw. Yes it can work. Teams don't need 13 , 12, whatever regular season games. Don't you dare cry poor here needing another home game for revenue. Ridiculous.
Until this is 8 or 16 teams it's still a ****ing popularity contest.
They got lucky putting in osu because they got hot at the right time. Nothing more nothing less.
Also I'm so sick of this conference talk. Yeah ok....the conference does nothing but keep you from playing meaningful out of conference games.
It is so biZarre espn virtually celebrates schools going into conferences. Very strange to me. It's like they only want 4 real conferences with 60 teams. Wait a sec...
They have clarified: it matters. It helps teams that win and hurts teams that lose. If you don't play a 13th game you can't be helped or hurt.
Here's the problem. And speaking of this from not being a ND fan or anything else. But college football as a sport.
The more games you add, the longer you make the season. And keep in mind this is going into finals week and holidays. And no other sport has the spotlight on it like football does. Not even basketball. Even at Kentucky.
So say you make it an 8 team play off. Now you add at least 1 more game. So for the average team in a P5 conference you have:
12 regular season games (with either 8 or 9 conference games), and with the B1G they were recently told NO MORE FCS opponents.
1 Conference Championship if you are lucky enough to get there.
2 rounds of play off games
1 National Championship game
16 game season. That is an NFL season. And those guys don't have to maintain a GPA, and they get a paycheck (on the books paycheck, not just booster money)
If you think it is hard to get ND good now. Wait until you tell them they have more stress on them to hold higher grades for longer, and not get injured against higher and higher ranked competition.
I don't believe that have clarified this .... so called "analysts" have used this point as a rationale for picking OSU .... it was not a point of discussion until after the fact and is not a definite in the future as I expect the powers that be will use whatever rationale they deem useful as they see fit
Your statement could not be more incorrect since it has been said over and over ad nauseum how TCU and Baylor not playing a conference championship hurt their chances ... at least that was the explanation we were given for OSU leap frogging both of those in the final selection when TCU and Baylor didn't lose
It's been explained. You are just too determined in making your own point to listen. What you are leaving out regarding the 13th game is the co-championship angle. One of the other posters provided a link to the CFP website, which clearly explained conference championships would be factored in when comparing similar teams. Therefore, outright championships > co-championship. The reason the 13th game is a factor (among other things) is that it ensures there will be an outright champion in the other conferences, while the Big 12 has a possibility of a split championship.
In addition to that, the reason the 13th game makes a difference in this instance is that most of the time, the opponents are ranked. It's not the game itself. It's that the opponent typically enhances your strength of schedule. If the opponent was Ball St or Western Michigan, then the 13th game wouldn't matter.
Exactly the point and you selectively read my post.
They don't need to have 12-13 games. If a multi game playoff was instituted then the regular season needs to drop back to 11 or even ten games. It doesn't HAVE TO BE 12 GAMES or more.
I agree that 16 GAMES at this level is too much......but trim the excess meaningless games off and you are right back at 10-11 games.
Moreover to make up for lost one extra or two extra home games......that is when contract television rights come into it. You do realize that no matter what college football was asking for someone would pay it for the broadcast rights.
I am willing to absolutely bet you anything you want, that college football as a whole will not reduce their games per year.
Why would you give up ticket sales and revenue, for the chance to go to the playoff? Especially if you are a team in the middle of the road or lower that really has no chance at a playoff spot. The Indiana's, Wake Forest's, and Colorado's of the world. Doesn't matter if it makes sense. In college football cash is king.
Again ...QUIT BEING SELECTIVE IN WGWT YOU READ OF MINE.
Please note how I said drop the extra games ....make up for it with the new tv contracts. That will replace said revenue....and btw.....some of the lower tiered teams you don't think would be for having a better chance of sneaking into a playoff? That can't ever happen if they stay at four. Or even eight. But sixteen teams and now there is a chance. Maybe a provision that two of the sixteen MUST come from the non power conferences and Notre Dame. That still leaves 14 teams from the magical conferences and Notre Dame. Cinderella has a shot in theory, more teams involved. Nothing but positives here!!!!
Why would networks pay more money for fewer games?
Yes you expand the playoff. But at best you get what 16 teams? For a total of 8 games.
In the average week there is over 40 games on. It just doesn't make sense to me.
And I don't see the schools giving that money up. Not all of them have sweet network deals like the B1G network or the NBC contract.
For instance the ACC has junk for broadcasting deal right now. Which is a part of the reason they wanted ND was up to their profile for the next round of negotiations.
Yes you expand the playoff. But at best you get what 16 teams? For a total of 8 games.
In the average week there is over 40 games on. It just doesn't make sense to me.
And I don't see the schools giving that money up. Not all of them have sweet network deals like the B1G network or the NBC contract.
For instance the ACC has junk for broadcasting deal right now. Which is a part of the reason they wanted ND was up to their profile for the next round of negotiations.
but
tOSU would have crushed TCU in a head to head; and that would be the case in '15 also.
Again....No matter what college football is asking for, networks will pay. Moreover the the extra playoff games I assure you would fetch such a high premium. This is where it all lies you see and the power 5 can distribute accordingly. Example....all schools in power 5 get a premium relinquished to them, but the second tier and even third tier teams get some of the cake.
As far as lower division schools ....remember teams can't play them in my system because we have reduced the regular season so there will be no ridiculously lopsided matchups.
The idea that programs will willingly reduce their regular season schedules by one or two games is a pipe dream.
Ummm considering the reason they have a bloated schedule is the all mighty dollar isn't my idea making up for that revenue.
Some of you need to read the full at length thread. Good Lord
You think adding one round of playoffs is going to pay each P5 team $6 million? That seems optimistic.
No.
The base tv contract will be larger. So more cake and given we are taking some games from the mcneese states playing a tuneup game against Alabama or something similar every team gets to eat some of the cake.
Once the playoffs begin the money is a different level and again gets distributed accordingly. Example...Alabama being from power 5 gets some of the large playoff money being from the power 5 in lieu of making it to the playoffs or not. Notre dame gets none of the cake unless it makes the playoffs. They have their own national tv deal that they keep to themselves. But if they get in the 16, they get some of that just like how they keep their bowl game money now.
Remember...
Regular season of 10-11 games. 16 teams make the playoffs. 2 non power 5 teams/ Notre Dame must make it.
Some years those 2 schools very well can already be ranked in the top 16 or even higher. But they would never have sniffed a playoff in a four team format.
So we are settling this on the field. Having those two non P5/nd schools make it gives a Cinderella element every year to the playoffs.
More money as a whole to all teams.
What is not to like here?
What I think is that from week 1 through the final championship game of a 16 team playoff format the contract will be so muchh bigger and distribution will be accordingly.
The base tv contract will be larger. So more cake and given we are taking some games from the mcneese states playing a tuneup game against Alabama or something similar every team gets to eat some of the cake.
Once the playoffs begin the money is a different level and again gets distributed accordingly. Example...Alabama being from power 5 gets some of the large playoff money being from the power 5 in lieu of making it to the playoffs or not. Notre dame gets none of the cake unless it makes the playoffs. They have their own national tv deal that they keep to themselves. But if they get in the 16, they get some of that just like how they keep their bowl game money now.
Remember...
Regular season of 10-11 games. 16 teams make the playoffs. 2 non power 5 teams/ Notre Dame must make it.
Some years those 2 schools very well can already be ranked in the top 16 or even higher. But they would never have sniffed a playoff in a four team format.
So we are settling this on the field. Having those two non P5/nd schools make it gives a Cinderella element every year to the playoffs.
More money as a whole to all teams.
What is not to like here?
I'll make a deal with you. The day FBS football reduces the number of games they play I'll stop posting here. And buy you dinner.
It's never going to happen.
It's never going to happen.
I don't think anyone needs to re-read anything. I think it's unrealistic to think that programs are going to trim their schedule, or that TV networks are going to pay more for less product.
When was the last time a major sports league in the US reduced its schedule for something other than a labor dispute?
seriously E18 and IB...
did I suggest this was going to become reality? No. Did I suggest anything other than just a suggestion on what they could do? No.
Having said that neither one of you have yet to tell me why that could not work. Ewing your last post you state when would someone reduce a schedule....I'll tell you when....when they are compensated on level with having said games via shared television revenue.
Moreover to the one who said tv wont pay more money for less product...i beg to differ. Do you realize just how many networks out there are now in some way shape or form showing college football?
NCAA football and its television is a powder keg. No matter what college football was looking for someone would pay it.
And to the less product you speak of....there wouldn't be a lower product. More blue sky can be sold with the increased playoffs. Sure the regular season would decrease but the post season is increasing and that is where the networks hit not only advertising home runs but grand slams. 16 teams in a playoff would bring unprecedented advertising dollars to the networks. The promoting would be off the charts especially with every year having two non P5/ND schools involved included in the field of 16.
For every single won't happen reason you come up with I've addressed them all. Every single one. Total games balances out with the 10-11 game schedule so the kids aren't playing too many. Revenue is on par with having the extra two games with the new tv contracts.
A true national champ will now be decided with nobody being left out. Settled on the field and if any of these coaches are worth anything from a competing point of view they would be all for it.
Seriously. What coach would not have wanted last year to include TCU and Baylor.
All the above could happen. I've covered every yeah but. Everyone wins here. Schools, fans, the players, networks...everyone!!!
Now next week when I become the next NCAA president I can begin negotiations on my new record breaking TV deal. If only......
did I suggest this was going to become reality? No. Did I suggest anything other than just a suggestion on what they could do? No.
Having said that neither one of you have yet to tell me why that could not work. Ewing your last post you state when would someone reduce a schedule....I'll tell you when....when they are compensated on level with having said games via shared television revenue.
Moreover to the one who said tv wont pay more money for less product...i beg to differ. Do you realize just how many networks out there are now in some way shape or form showing college football?
NCAA football and its television is a powder keg. No matter what college football was looking for someone would pay it.
And to the less product you speak of....there wouldn't be a lower product. More blue sky can be sold with the increased playoffs. Sure the regular season would decrease but the post season is increasing and that is where the networks hit not only advertising home runs but grand slams. 16 teams in a playoff would bring unprecedented advertising dollars to the networks. The promoting would be off the charts especially with every year having two non P5/ND schools involved included in the field of 16.
For every single won't happen reason you come up with I've addressed them all. Every single one. Total games balances out with the 10-11 game schedule so the kids aren't playing too many. Revenue is on par with having the extra two games with the new tv contracts.
A true national champ will now be decided with nobody being left out. Settled on the field and if any of these coaches are worth anything from a competing point of view they would be all for it.
Seriously. What coach would not have wanted last year to include TCU and Baylor.
All the above could happen. I've covered every yeah but. Everyone wins here. Schools, fans, the players, networks...everyone!!!
Now next week when I become the next NCAA president I can begin negotiations on my new record breaking TV deal. If only......
