My goodness, where do I start..The CFP committee poll, the AP, the Coaches all had the same top 4..Ya think maybe that's because they were the top 4 in country?...
As for ND, their avowed independence has nothing to do with the current system..The Big 10, 20 yrs ago wooed ND so much, it was said Jim Delany would have walked to South Bend to finish the deal, it was rejected, and that far predates the current system..ND has a national fanbase, national TV contract, nationally recruits to point where 35-45 states are represented often on roster..The alumni , students , fans don't want it, i.e., a conference..Why in the world would they "regionalize" a natl product; it be the equivalent of a national sales mgr of a major company, announcing from now on, its product would only be available in the east or Midwest..It makes no sense..
I suppose as long as Notre Lame is included, the system must be working!
Exactly bob
I don’t blame ND CT if I could pocket more money while following the rules I’d stay independent too but that doesn’t mean it’s right or fair when other teams play a championship game of course these conference championship games really don’t mean anything anymore. The whole thing stinks because like bob said it’s a popularity contest
That's the point southern, under current system a conference title means nothing, unless of course that champ is undefeated The title games really don't mean much, as the system stands now, they could be abolished, but we know they wont be...
We all have agreed on the solution, i.e., 8 teams, 5 power 5 conf champs, 1 non power 5 conf champ, two wildcards..It seemed it may be going in that direction until the Committee endorsed the current system, and appeared to say its staying but who knows..
Wikipedia college football playoffs is what I looked on. It’s in voting procedures
Ummmmm... I just looked at Wikipedia and it states: "A team's strength of schedule is one of the most pertinent considerations for the committee in making its selections.[32] Other factors that the committee weighs are conference championships, team records, and head-to-head results,[8] plus other points such as injuries and weather."
I have absolutely no idea how you get from that quote that conference championships was "the #1 and most important metric". If anything it says that strength of schedule is most important, and then goes on to describe "other factors" like conference championships, team records, and head to head. Sorry Southern, but you are reading it wrong.
Exactly what I put up and we had Ohio st with the conference championship and beating them on the fieldhead to head but out of the things they supposed to go by you can’t find anywhere where it says we will judge teams on how many points they get beat by or they don’t like the way the team lost.
Just my $0.02. I'm not picking sides here, just throwing out my thoughts. If I remember correctly, the decision in 2014 to put Ohio St into the playoff over TCU was based on the fact that the Big 12 didn't have a conference championship game. At least, that's what the committee lead us all to believe. Since that time, the Big 12 implemented a conference championship game for that specific reason. It was discussed in the national media on numerous occasions around that time, if I'm not mistaken. The strength of schedule is sort of BS, because if that is the number one criteria then ND never would have been considered this year because their SOS was putrid. Undefeated or not, their schedule was weak and they lacked a conference championship game, so they shouldn't have even been considered. If the committee wants to avoid these debates every year they can start by not even considering a team that doesn't play in a conference championship. Force ND to put their money where their mouth is. If they went completely into the ACC, then they would have got curb stomped by Clemson 2 weeks prior to the playoff and this wouldn't even be a discussion. I honestly don't think this committee has a set standard for inclusion. I think they look at it year to year as they go. I'm not a fan of having them let conference champs out, but for the most part they have gotten it right. In fact, they probably could have just taken Bama and Clemson this year and we could have all been satisfied. Unfortunately, yes, Southern is right that money talks more than anything. Hopefully, they will expand it to 8 teams soon and these discussions will dwindle. A friend of mine is convinced that will, in fact, happen when the current playoff TV contract expires and a new one is drafted. Because money talks.
And lastly, I respect your point of view Southern, but a team can’t lose by nearly 4 TDs to an unranked team in a nationally televised, prime time game and expect to get the benefit of the doubt. Nobody forgets those horrible losses. Winning a conference doesn’t magically erase that bad game as we all found out in 2016. Ohio St did not deserve a playoff spot in 2018. And NO we can’t go back to the old system. That was as crooked as a dogs hind leg.
It’s all BS 99. I’m more concerned on how we got left out because by what they say they judge on how they get the 4 teams we did against Ohio st. We beat ‘em on the field and won the conference because we beat ‘em plus at the time we had the best win of the season beating Ohio st. Strength of schedule, conference championships, head to head and team records are the 4 tho gs they most look at when deciding who gets in and from what I read there’s no specific order because it says one of when referring to strength of schedule not necessarily saying that’s number one regardless we got screwed if we go by their own words and had the shoe been on the other foot they would’ve taken Ohio st because this scam committee would’ve said well Ohio st did beat penn st and they won the big 10. That’s my point also 99 they left out the big 12 champ because they didn’t have a championship game but let ND, Ohio st and Alabama in the playoffs when they didn’t play in a championship game it’s right there brother it’s who they wa t and they make up rules as they go to get who they want in the playoffs.
Take a deep breath Southern. PSU didn’t make the playoff in ‘16 because they lost to an unranked sPitt team and got blown out by Michigan. Do I think we would have played better than Ohio St against Clemson? Yes. At least we would have scored some points. As I said in my first post, every year is a different scenario.
Pitt beat Clemson the same year 99 at Clemson.
Yes 99, as you said "every year is a different scenario", you are spot on. This only goes along with what Southern has been saying, " they make up rules as they go to get who they want in the playoffs". You are both pretty much saying the same thing; only you seem to be implying you think the process is legit while Southern thinks it's fixed! I'm voting with Southern. I think it's rigged as all get out.
Yes 99, as you said "every year is a different scenario", you are spot on. This only goes along with what Southern has been saying, " they make up rules as they go to get who they want in the playoffs". You are both pretty much saying the same thing; only you seem to be implying you think the process is legit while Southern thinks it's fixed! I'm voting with Southern. I think it's rigged as all get out.
Oh boy, I said this is just my $0.02. I'm not picking any sides here as I think most everybody on here is making valid points. I'm making every attempt to view the playoff objectively. I can do that a little easier now that the Ohio St AD is off the committee. Was I upset that PSU didn't make it in 2016? Absolutely. It was a great season and a playoff birth would have capped it off perfectly. As it was, the Rose Bowl game was about as entertaining of a college football game as I have seen. Do I think there is some bias towards certain teams and conferences? Yes. The same inference could have been made by TCU fans in 2014 when our B1G Champion got the spot over the Frogs, right? Yes, it's a flawed system that may not be improved until they take all conference champs in an 8 team playoff. I wouldn't necessarily say it is rigged as much as it is biased and flawed. Money rules the world and it is no different in college football. I also wouldn't make the concession that the playoff is "legit" because of the bias some years, however, it has given us #1 vs #2 several times which is far more than we can say for the old systems. I'm jumping off this merry go round now. Some of you guys take this argument way too personal. Have a great day! Southern, enjoy the 500! Go Chase Elliott!! 😜
I’m pulling for the #2 car lol. It’s fun going on with y’all lol. BTW I’m glad Ohio st got the shaft 😁
I’m pulling for the #2 car lol. It’s fun going on with y’all lol. BTW I’m glad Ohio st got the shaft 😁
That is something we can all agree on. OSU can get the shaft every year as far as I’m concerned. The wrestling beat down they took from us was glorious. I have no ill will towards #2. After all, I was a big fan of his when he drove for JR Motorsports, but I tend to stick with my Chevy guys in the big show. Hence, I’ll take the #9. Enjoy the race and the day.
Exactly what I put up and we had Ohio st with the conference championship and beating them on the fieldhead to head but out of the things they supposed to go by you can’t find anywhere where it says we will judge teams on how many points they get beat by or they don’t like the way the team lost.
1. Ohio State in 2016 had a better strength of schedule than us (what Wikipedia states as most important).
2. Ohio State in 2016 had a better record than us.
3. That's 2 of the 4 things Wikipedia listed, including the one it listed first and stated was "most pertinent"
So even if those are the only things the committee uses (they aren't), Ohio State had the most pertinent one, and 2 of 4. We had 2 of 4, but not the most pertinent. Sorry, but even by this Wikipedia entry we would not get picked, because OSU has 2 of the 4 AND the most pertinent one. Sucks... but true
In reality though (because Wikipedia is crowd sourcing), the committee doesn't have any set metrics that it uses. Each committee member is allowed to use whatever metric they deem appropriate to make their conclusions, it says so on the main website for the CFP. Those things listed on the Wikipedia page are also on CFP's website: but only as tiebreakers to be used when teams are so close they need a procedure to break the tie. As you recall back in 2016, the committee said due to OSU's Oklahoma win and our terrible Michigan loss we were not close, that OSU was "in their eyes" better. To pretty much everyone in the room. Even so, as you saw above even using the Wikipedia metrics for a tie-breaker we lose. You can't just look at head to head and conference champs if you give Wikipedia as a source, because that source ALSO LISTS Strength of Schedule as most pertinent and overall record. 2 things OSU had better than us.
Not a decision I agree with, but I see their logic in it. It's not out of thin air without justification
Let me be clear, I hate the system. I just don't think there is some vast conspiracy to get certain teams in all the time. If there is, they are doing a piss poor job at it because the same teams getting in every year generates LESS MONEY!!!!!
The highest TV rantings ever for the CFP were 2014 when Oregon played Ohio State. During the BCS, every time two teams from different regions of the country played the ratings were high. One of the lowest ratings for a BCS game? LSU vs. Alabama. What was the lowest rated CFP game? This past one: Alabama vs. Clemson because no one outside that region cared.
You guys keep talking about rigging the system to get teams in, which makes ZERO SENSE if they want to make as much money as possible. Having Alabama play Georgia isn't going to increase viewership on the SEC Network, that's a fanbase channel that people in the Northeast and West coast couldn't care less about.
If they really were rigging the system, they'd be taking different teams every year because that's what increases revenue. That is what drives dollars. You are always going to get a team's fanbase to watch, what you aren't going to get are casual fans that tune in for the spectacle. Thos people don't watch if it's the same teams all the time, to them it's boring. That shows in TV ratings, and it's exactly what happening.
TV ratings for the Cavs / Warriors the past 4 years have gone down every year, because less and less people are interested.
