Started By
Message
Year by Year Decisions by the CFP Playoff Committee (updated)
Posted on 10/25/19 at 11:38 am
Posted on 10/25/19 at 11:38 am
It's quite apparent that most people still have no clue whatsoever how the committee operates so figured I'd post here as well. Below are the final 4 teams into the playoffs, the team that finished 5th, plus Notre Dame.
2014
1) Alabama 12-1. Conf champion. Loss to ole miss.
2) Oregon 12-1. Conf champion. Loss to Arizona.
3) FSU 13-0. Conf champion.
4) Ohio State 12-1. Conf champion. Loss to VT
____________________________________
5) Baylor 11-1. Co-champ. Loss to WVU
ND: Nonfactor at 8-5
2015
1) Clemson 13-0. Conf champion.
2) Alabama 12-1. Conf champion. Loss to ole miss
3) Michigan State 12-1. Conf champion. Loss to Nebraska.
4) Oklahoma 11-1. Conf champion. Los to Texas.
_____________________________________
5) Iowa 12-1. Non-champ. Loss to MSU in title game
ND: 10-2, losses to Clemson and Stanford. 8th in playoff rankings
2016
1) Alabama 13-0. Conf champion.
2)Clemson 12-1. Conf champion. Loss to Pitt
3) Ohio State 11-1. Non-champ. Loss to Penn State.
4) Washington 12-1. Conf champion. Loss to USC.
________________________________________
5) Penn State 11-2. Conf champion. Loss to Pitt and Michigan
ND: Non factor
2017
1) Clemson 12-1. Conf champion. Loss to Syracuse.
2) Oklahoma 12-1. Conf champion. Loss to Iowa State.
3) UGA 12-1. Conf champion. Loss to Auburn.
4) Alabama 11-1. Non-champ. Loss to Auburn.
________________________________________
5) Ohio State 11-2. Conf champion. Loss to Oklahoma and Iowa
ND: 10-3, losses to UGA, Miami, Stanford. 14th in playoff rankings
2018
1) Alabama 13-0. Conf champion.
2) Clemson 13-0. Conf champion.
3) Notre Dame 12-0.
4) Oklahoma 12-1. Conf champion. Loss to Texas.
________________________________________________
5) UGA 11-2. Non-champ. Loss to LSU and Alabama in title game
2019
1) LSU 13-0. Conf champion.
2) Ohio State 13-0. Conf champion.
3) Clemson 13-0. Conf champion.
4) Oklahoma 12-1. Conf champion. Loss to Kansas State.
________________________________________________
5) UGA 11-2. Non-champ. Loss to SC and LSU in title game
ND: 10-2, losses to UGA and Michigan. 15th in playoff rankings
With 5 Power Conferences and 4 playoff spots, obviously a conference is going to get left out each year. Here are those cases:
2014: Big 12 where Baylor and TCU were co-champions with 11-1 records. No title game.
2015: Pac 12 champ Stanford. 11-2 with losses to Northwestern and Oregon
2016: Big 12 champ Oklahoma. 10-2 with losses to Houston and Ohio State. No title game.
2017: Big 12 champ Ohio State. 11-2 with losses to Oklahoma and Iowa. Also the Pac12 champ USC. 11-2 with losses to Washington State and Notre Dame
2018: Big 10 champ Ohio State. 12-1 with loss to Purdue. Also Pac12 champ Washington. 10-3 with losses to Auburn, Oregon, and Cal.
2019: Pac12 champ Oregon. 11-2 with losses to Auburn and Arizona State.
This is a lot of data to go on but presents us with a pretty clear picture of how the committee operates:
-First, you almost surely need to win your conference. Of 24 playoff teams, only 2 of them made it without winning their conference (2016 Ohio State and 2017 alabama). 92% of teams to make the playoffs have won their conference.
-As a follow up to the point above, let’s look at why those 2 non-champs made it. ’16 OSU made it over #5 Penn State because they only had 1 loss compared to 2 for psu. Ditto for ’17 bama who made it over #5 OSU, also because OSU had 2 losses compared to just 1 for bama.
-If you don’t win your conference, you need a lot of help. Mainly in the way of the cases above where other conference winners have 2 losses.
-No team thus far has made the playoffs with more than 1 loss.
-Notre Dame, despite being a media darling or having special privileges, has only made the playoffs once and they went undefeated to do so. Even in a year with 2 losses (“good losses” at that) they did not finish in the top 7.
-The only P5 team to win their league's championship game and finish wiht less than 2 losses and NOT make the playoffs is Ohio state in 2018. They lost to a bad purdue team and were replaced in the playoffs by an also 12-1 P5 winner OU, whose only loss was to texas.
2014
1) Alabama 12-1. Conf champion. Loss to ole miss.
2) Oregon 12-1. Conf champion. Loss to Arizona.
3) FSU 13-0. Conf champion.
4) Ohio State 12-1. Conf champion. Loss to VT
____________________________________
5) Baylor 11-1. Co-champ. Loss to WVU
ND: Nonfactor at 8-5
2015
1) Clemson 13-0. Conf champion.
2) Alabama 12-1. Conf champion. Loss to ole miss
3) Michigan State 12-1. Conf champion. Loss to Nebraska.
4) Oklahoma 11-1. Conf champion. Los to Texas.
_____________________________________
5) Iowa 12-1. Non-champ. Loss to MSU in title game
ND: 10-2, losses to Clemson and Stanford. 8th in playoff rankings
2016
1) Alabama 13-0. Conf champion.
2)Clemson 12-1. Conf champion. Loss to Pitt
3) Ohio State 11-1. Non-champ. Loss to Penn State.
4) Washington 12-1. Conf champion. Loss to USC.
________________________________________
5) Penn State 11-2. Conf champion. Loss to Pitt and Michigan
ND: Non factor
2017
1) Clemson 12-1. Conf champion. Loss to Syracuse.
2) Oklahoma 12-1. Conf champion. Loss to Iowa State.
3) UGA 12-1. Conf champion. Loss to Auburn.
4) Alabama 11-1. Non-champ. Loss to Auburn.
________________________________________
5) Ohio State 11-2. Conf champion. Loss to Oklahoma and Iowa
ND: 10-3, losses to UGA, Miami, Stanford. 14th in playoff rankings
2018
1) Alabama 13-0. Conf champion.
2) Clemson 13-0. Conf champion.
3) Notre Dame 12-0.
4) Oklahoma 12-1. Conf champion. Loss to Texas.
________________________________________________
5) UGA 11-2. Non-champ. Loss to LSU and Alabama in title game
2019
1) LSU 13-0. Conf champion.
2) Ohio State 13-0. Conf champion.
3) Clemson 13-0. Conf champion.
4) Oklahoma 12-1. Conf champion. Loss to Kansas State.
________________________________________________
5) UGA 11-2. Non-champ. Loss to SC and LSU in title game
ND: 10-2, losses to UGA and Michigan. 15th in playoff rankings
With 5 Power Conferences and 4 playoff spots, obviously a conference is going to get left out each year. Here are those cases:
2014: Big 12 where Baylor and TCU were co-champions with 11-1 records. No title game.
2015: Pac 12 champ Stanford. 11-2 with losses to Northwestern and Oregon
2016: Big 12 champ Oklahoma. 10-2 with losses to Houston and Ohio State. No title game.
2017: Big 12 champ Ohio State. 11-2 with losses to Oklahoma and Iowa. Also the Pac12 champ USC. 11-2 with losses to Washington State and Notre Dame
2018: Big 10 champ Ohio State. 12-1 with loss to Purdue. Also Pac12 champ Washington. 10-3 with losses to Auburn, Oregon, and Cal.
2019: Pac12 champ Oregon. 11-2 with losses to Auburn and Arizona State.
This is a lot of data to go on but presents us with a pretty clear picture of how the committee operates:
-First, you almost surely need to win your conference. Of 24 playoff teams, only 2 of them made it without winning their conference (2016 Ohio State and 2017 alabama). 92% of teams to make the playoffs have won their conference.
-As a follow up to the point above, let’s look at why those 2 non-champs made it. ’16 OSU made it over #5 Penn State because they only had 1 loss compared to 2 for psu. Ditto for ’17 bama who made it over #5 OSU, also because OSU had 2 losses compared to just 1 for bama.
-If you don’t win your conference, you need a lot of help. Mainly in the way of the cases above where other conference winners have 2 losses.
-No team thus far has made the playoffs with more than 1 loss.
-Notre Dame, despite being a media darling or having special privileges, has only made the playoffs once and they went undefeated to do so. Even in a year with 2 losses (“good losses” at that) they did not finish in the top 7.
-The only P5 team to win their league's championship game and finish wiht less than 2 losses and NOT make the playoffs is Ohio state in 2018. They lost to a bad purdue team and were replaced in the playoffs by an also 12-1 P5 winner OU, whose only loss was to texas.
This post was edited on 12/8/19 at 2:31 pm
15
Posted on 10/25/19 at 11:43 am to WG_Dawg
Yep
- Better go 11-1 or 12-0 and win your conference
- If you don't win your conference, you better hope your opposition for the #3/4 spot is a team with 2 losses
It's pretty simple
- Better go 11-1 or 12-0 and win your conference
- If you don't win your conference, you better hope your opposition for the #3/4 spot is a team with 2 losses
It's pretty simple
This post was edited on 10/25/19 at 11:45 am
Posted on 10/25/19 at 11:46 am to WG_Dawg
Damn there is a lot of Bama in those years.... a team seems to missing though, “we comin”
Posted on 10/25/19 at 11:47 am to WG_Dawg
5 years as a sample group.
We understand how the committee works, what you do not understand is how human nature works. You make a broad statement, about how things will happen, but even the exception to the BCS did not happen for 14 years.
Ultimately you have no idea if a conference champion could be jumped in the rankings by a 1-loss non-conference champion. Just because it has not happened, does not mean it will not happen.
"Past performance is no guarantee of future results"
We understand how the committee works, what you do not understand is how human nature works. You make a broad statement, about how things will happen, but even the exception to the BCS did not happen for 14 years.
Ultimately you have no idea if a conference champion could be jumped in the rankings by a 1-loss non-conference champion. Just because it has not happened, does not mean it will not happen.
"Past performance is no guarantee of future results"
Posted on 10/25/19 at 11:48 am to SummerOfGeorge
quote:
- Better go 11-1 or 12-0 and win your conference
- If you don't win your conference, you better hope your opposition for the #3/4 spot is a team with 2 losses
It's pretty simple
I mean that really and truly is all that needs to be said. Yet some people still don't get it and think certain teams will get in because of the "eye test"
Posted on 10/25/19 at 11:49 am to WG_Dawg
This is in response to a thread that posed a hypothetical that hasn't exactly happened, which is reasonable considering the small history of the CFP.
2015 is the closest; however, in that case, OU had the #2 SOS and Iowa had the #51 SOS. In the scenario presented in the other thread (12-1 conf champ Clemson and 11-1 non-champ Bama), those SOS rankings would be essentially flipped (assuming Clemson's loss is in the regular season). It would be interesting to see how that played into the final ranking.
2015 is the closest; however, in that case, OU had the #2 SOS and Iowa had the #51 SOS. In the scenario presented in the other thread (12-1 conf champ Clemson and 11-1 non-champ Bama), those SOS rankings would be essentially flipped (assuming Clemson's loss is in the regular season). It would be interesting to see how that played into the final ranking.
Posted on 10/25/19 at 11:50 am to WG_Dawg
I will say, if Clemson loses a game and wins their conference then they will enter into that 2 loss team category because of their schedule. But yea, for the most part the parameters have been made pretty clear.
I mean in 2016 they took Ohio State over the team that literally won Ohio State's conference and beat them head to head......and that team had 2 losses while Ohio State had 1.
I mean in 2016 they took Ohio State over the team that literally won Ohio State's conference and beat them head to head......and that team had 2 losses while Ohio State had 1.
Posted on 10/25/19 at 11:57 am to SummerOfGeorge
quote:
I will say, if Clemson loses a game and wins their conference then they will enter into that 2 loss team category because of their schedule
This is the unique nature of that scenario. I think their margin for error is next to zero because of the schedule. The committee may look at the schedule, and determine that there are 4 teams out there that would have been undefeated with that schedule, especially if it's Bama with one loss to the presumed #1 team they are looking at (or even LSU if they lose a close one to #1 Bama in Tuscaloosa).
eta:
FTR, in that other thread's scenario, I imagine Oregon gets in over Clemson before a one loss non-champ SEC team. Keep forgetting that part of the hypothetical.
This post was edited on 10/25/19 at 11:59 am
Posted on 10/25/19 at 11:58 am to GRTiger
quote:
This is in response to a thread
It's not in response to any one post or thread. It's in response to people seemingly not understanding what choices the committee has made up to this point and pointing that out to people.
Posted on 10/25/19 at 11:59 am to GRTiger
quote:
This is the unique nature of that scenario. I think their margin for error is next to zero because of the schedule. The committee may look at the schedule, and determine that there are 4 teams out there that would have been undefeated with that schedule, especially if it's Bama with one loss to the presumed #1 team they are looking at (or even LSU if they lose a close one to #1 Bama in Tuscaloosa).
Yea I don't think 1-loss Clemson has any shot at the playoff unless things go crazy and they are competing with a 2-loss team.
Their overall schedule and the top end of their schedule is just too bad, plus a loss means they'd ALSO had a bad loss.
Posted on 10/25/19 at 11:59 am to SummerOfGeorge
quote:
I will say, if Clemson loses a game and wins their conference then they will enter into that 2 loss team category because of their schedule. But yea, for the most part the parameters have been made pretty clear.
If it's a choice between a one-loss Oregon PAC12 champ and a one-loss Clemson ACC champ (assume other P5 champs are undefeated), I'm thinking the Committee will take the PAC12 champ.
Posted on 10/25/19 at 12:00 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
If it's a choice between a one-loss Oregon PAC12 champ and a one-loss Clemson ACC champ (assume other P5 champs are undefeated), I'm thinking the Committee will take the PAC12 champ.
Agreed - Oregon would have better wins, a better SOS and a better loss in that scenario.
Posted on 10/25/19 at 12:01 pm to SummerOfGeorge
quote:
I will say, if Clemson loses a game and wins their conference then they will enter into that 2 loss team category because of their schedule. But yea, for the most part the parameters have been made pretty clear.
I do think that would be an interesting scenario to watch. I think anyone with eyeballs can see clemson is just missing something this year and if bama and clemson played each other (wiht tua, I should say) bama would likely win. Probably easily. Bama would also have a 100x better loss, regardless of who Clemson's loss is to.
wiht that said..you are correct in that they seem to have a set of parameters and thus far have stuck by them every year. Throwing away the "eye test" or "best team" or subjective things like that...I jsut don't think the committee would leave out a 12-1 ACC champion in favor of an 11-1 non-conf champion.
Posted on 10/25/19 at 12:04 pm to WG_Dawg
We'll know a lot in the first CFP ranking that comes out. If Clemson is sitting at 4, for example, I think that would be a foreshadowing of what they'd do if Clemson drops one along the way and how much they are focusing on SOS.
Posted on 10/25/19 at 12:06 pm to WG_Dawg
This is a great post.
However, I do disagree about there being scenarios that just haven't happened so far where 2 one loss teams from the same conference make it over a 1 loss conference champion.
I think the committee ranking a 2 loss Georgia over 1 loss conference champion Ohio St just last season was setting a precedent for that.
Agree with other posters that a schedule like Clemson has this year --with the potential to only have maybe 1 Top25 opponent all season -- could easily mean them taking a backseat to a team that finishes second in conference but has beaten a couple of Top10 teams during the season.
However, I do disagree about there being scenarios that just haven't happened so far where 2 one loss teams from the same conference make it over a 1 loss conference champion.
I think the committee ranking a 2 loss Georgia over 1 loss conference champion Ohio St just last season was setting a precedent for that.
Agree with other posters that a schedule like Clemson has this year --with the potential to only have maybe 1 Top25 opponent all season -- could easily mean them taking a backseat to a team that finishes second in conference but has beaten a couple of Top10 teams during the season.
Posted on 10/25/19 at 12:08 pm to WG_Dawg
Good post. Looks at decisions made with context. I like it.
Posted on 10/25/19 at 12:10 pm to wm72
I'm not completely stuck in my ways...I'm simply pointing out what they've done so far and going by the assumption they will continue to do so. Now, whenever the time comes where they deviate from that and do something different I'll adjust my thinking as that new data is available. I'm certainly not naive enough to think there isn't a single possible scenario out there that won't eventually happen that hasn't yet. For now though I'm going to think the committee will do as they have so far.
Posted on 10/25/19 at 12:10 pm to WG_Dawg
quote:
2017 1) Clemson 12-1. Conf champion. Loss to Syracuse. 2) Oklahoma 12-1. Conf champion. Loss to Iowa State. 3) UGA 12-1. Conf champion. Loss to Auburn. 4) Alabama 11-1. Non-champ. Loss to Auburn. ________________________________________ 5) Ohio State 11-2. Conf champion. Loss to Oklahoma and Iowa ND: 10-3, losses to UGA, Miami, Stanford. 14th in playoff rankings
Poor auburn
Posted on 10/25/19 at 12:18 pm to Oilfieldbiology
You joke but that brings up an interesting point. In 2017 it's almost a lock that AU would have gone with 2 losses had they won the SECCG. They would have ended the season with wins over top 2 UGA, top 2 bama, then top 5 UGA in the SECCG. So it's certainly not out of the equation to make the playoffs with 2 losses, but you'd need to hope 1)Your losses were relatively early, 2)you have some elite wins 3)Everyone else has losses to and not a bunch of undefeateds out there
Posted on 10/25/19 at 12:25 pm to WG_Dawg
They lost to LSU and who else that season?
Page 1 of 3
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News