Started By
Message
Let me get this straight...
Posted on 12/3/14 at 8:47 am
Posted on 12/3/14 at 8:47 am
Wasn't the intention of having a playoff system for college football to settle things on the field? The subjectivity of it all was too much for folks to handle I thought.
The committee in charge now seems to bring nothing but subjectivity to the equation. Case in point: Baylor beat TCU on the field of play, but TCU seems to be in firm control of getting a playoff spot even though both teams have the same record(in the same conference) and practically the same resume. The entire premise to having a playoff was to settle things on the field, and these two teams have already done that. This committee has thrown the process back several years imo.
The committee in charge now seems to bring nothing but subjectivity to the equation. Case in point: Baylor beat TCU on the field of play, but TCU seems to be in firm control of getting a playoff spot even though both teams have the same record(in the same conference) and practically the same resume. The entire premise to having a playoff was to settle things on the field, and these two teams have already done that. This committee has thrown the process back several years imo.
25
Posted on 12/3/14 at 8:48 am to eatatjoes
I tend to agree.
Having a "Playoff committee" was nothing more than a poorly thought out publicity stunt, IMO.
Having a "Playoff committee" was nothing more than a poorly thought out publicity stunt, IMO.
Posted on 12/3/14 at 8:50 am to Tuscaloosa
This committee was the worst possible idea they could have came up with. So, naturally, it's what we have.
Posted on 12/3/14 at 8:51 am to eatatjoes
TCU was also one play away from getting beat by kansas.
Posted on 12/3/14 at 8:51 am to JesusQuintana
Sounds about right.
I thought leaving the BCS in place and just taking the top 4 teams made the most sense. But then again, I was only using logic and common sense.
I thought leaving the BCS in place and just taking the top 4 teams made the most sense. But then again, I was only using logic and common sense.
Posted on 12/3/14 at 8:52 am to eatatjoes
TCU lost by 3 points one the road to a team ranked 6th. Baylor lost by 14 on teh road to a team that is unranked.
I'm not on the committee, but I would imagine they are thinking that TCU is simply the better team overall this season, all body of work included.
I'm not on the committee, but I would imagine they are thinking that TCU is simply the better team overall this season, all body of work included.
Posted on 12/3/14 at 8:53 am to eatatjoes
Imagine if it was Bama in that situation. Heads would explode
Posted on 12/3/14 at 8:53 am to Tuscaloosa
That would have been too easy. We can't have that.
Posted on 12/3/14 at 8:53 am to Tuscaloosa
I don't like the playoffs at all, but using the BCS system would have been better. I agree.
Posted on 12/3/14 at 8:54 am to eatatjoes
To be fair, though... Baylor got throttled by an average West Virginia team. TCU beat West Virginia, and only lost to Baylor by 3 in an absolute shootout AT Baylor that could have gone either way.
Posted on 12/3/14 at 8:54 am to eatatjoes
Ehhh, the Baylor comeback seemed kind of flukey though. I personally think TCU wins, say, 7/10 games if they played 10 times.
Posted on 12/3/14 at 8:54 am to MrTwoBits
That's the problem. Quit "thinking" who the best team is. The fricking game was already played.
Posted on 12/3/14 at 8:55 am to eatatjoes
I think it is funny that people are surprised that the playoff committee has injected more subjectivity, arbitrariness, and probably bias into the system. It was obviously going to do this.
Anytime you go from hundreds of inputs (i.e., all voters in coaches poll, all voters in Harris polls, all the computer polls which themselves have hundreds of inputs each) and replace that with 12 people, basic statistics tells you that you have introduced more subectivity, arbitrariness, and bias into the result. It's why polling predictors have to have a certain sample size to be considered valid. The more inputs you have should reduce the impact of individual subjectivity and bias.
With that said, we can't judge the results until we have them. Nothing matters until next weeks final rankings. I'll reserve judgment until then.
Anytime you go from hundreds of inputs (i.e., all voters in coaches poll, all voters in Harris polls, all the computer polls which themselves have hundreds of inputs each) and replace that with 12 people, basic statistics tells you that you have introduced more subectivity, arbitrariness, and bias into the result. It's why polling predictors have to have a certain sample size to be considered valid. The more inputs you have should reduce the impact of individual subjectivity and bias.
With that said, we can't judge the results until we have them. Nothing matters until next weeks final rankings. I'll reserve judgment until then.
This post was edited on 12/3/14 at 8:57 am
Posted on 12/3/14 at 8:55 am to eatatjoes
Each week the reasoning has changed for the committee. Each team is evaluated using different sets of standards. Some teams are propped up in the poll to substantiate a higher team's ranking. It is fraught with politics while that was what they were trying to eliminate. I would much prefer a group of former coaches making up the committee or a poll to determine the four.
Posted on 12/3/14 at 8:57 am to iglass
OK Bits, but I go back to the reason why we have a playoff in the first place: To settle things on the field It's been settled. Why have a playoff if we are going to go back to analyzing other wins and losses? This committee was created because there is a playoff now, yet they are losing sight of why we have a playoff to begin with. I think Larry Culpepper could honestly do better.
Posted on 12/3/14 at 8:57 am to eatatjoes
The committee is punishing Baylor for not playing anyone OOC and their coach being a douche about it saying they want 3 scrimmages OOC and never want to play anyone.
I think it's just to do this to them and use them as an example. If you want in the 4 team playoff, don't come out and say you don't want to play anybody.
I think it's just to do this to them and use them as an example. If you want in the 4 team playoff, don't come out and say you don't want to play anybody.
Posted on 12/3/14 at 8:57 am to eatatjoes
quote:
Wasn't the intention of having a playoff system for college football to settle things on the field?
...Baylor beat TCU on the field of play, but TCU seems to be in firm control of getting a playoff spot even though both teams have the same record(in the same conference) and practically the same resume.
Another ironic twist is the Big 12's lack of a conference championship game. They've publicized all year how their model is better than having a championship game (you play each team in the conference) and promoting it as "One True Champion". Only they won't have one true champion...no way TCU loses to Iowa State so they'll finish with one conference loss...and the winner of the Baylor/Kansas State game will also finish with one conference loss...so the the Big 12 leadership stated they won't declare a champion and instead will have co-champions, letting the CFP committee decide who's worthy. Think they need to modify their motto: "One True Champion...or maybe two!"
Posted on 12/3/14 at 8:58 am to JesusQuintana
To cut down on subjectivity over who gets left out, the playoff will be reduced to two teams next year and include a "computer poll" component. It will be named the Bias-reducing Championship System, or BCS for short. After two or three years of implementing this new idea, the committee will continue to grow to make sure all perspectives are included. It will get big enough that they decide to select just one team for the championship game, who will be crowned champions without having to play anyone. The committee will then split into two groups, based on whether the member is more related to the sports media or the coaching staff. They will call these two groups the Athletes Playoff, or AP, and the Unbiased Playoff Institute, or UPI. These two committees will select our champions for years to come, proving that with ingenuity and dedication, a fair and impartial system for selecting a champion has been possible all along.
This post was edited on 12/3/14 at 8:59 am
Posted on 12/3/14 at 8:58 am to eatatjoes
TCU 10-1 (7-1)
Good wins: Minny, OU, KSU
Bad Losses: none
SOS: 37
Baylor 10-1 (7-1)
Good wins: TCU, @OU
Bad Losses: @WVU
SOS: 83
Baylor has the best win, but a worse loss. TCU has more quality wins. I am perfectly fine with TCU being ahead at this point.
Good wins: Minny, OU, KSU
Bad Losses: none
SOS: 37
Baylor 10-1 (7-1)
Good wins: TCU, @OU
Bad Losses: @WVU
SOS: 83
Baylor has the best win, but a worse loss. TCU has more quality wins. I am perfectly fine with TCU being ahead at this point.
Posted on 12/3/14 at 8:59 am to JesusQuintana
quote:
I don't like the playoffs at all, but using the BCS system would have been better. I agree.
I remember seeing on bleacher report or somewhere that the top 4 committee rankings were exactly the same teams as the BCS would have had except with different seedings. Not sure if it has changed since then (like 2 weeks ago) but I think the complaining about the committee is just much ado about nothing. Anyone know where a site is that mocks the BCS rankings?
Page 1 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News