Any live coverage of B12 media days?

[Republic of Texas]

GP must not listen very well. Nobody on the CFP committee has ever said you have to have a 13th game, or win a conference championship for that matter. They said that were both factors in breaking what was essentially a tie between a group of teams. Anyone who can't figure out the difference between the two are just hearing what they want to hear.

Last year that last spot came down to 3 Big 10 schools. When everything was factored in, who you play, where you play, margin of victory, etc....the one they picked was the one that clearly had the best resume of the three. Every computer ranking that existed agreed with that, and since all three were huge blue blood Big 10 programs, that tired argument can't be used either. There wasn't a virtual tie that required things like an extra game to be an overwhelming factor.

It's maddening that so many people can't seem to understand this.

I knew this was your reply and I didn't even see your name.

 

[MTfrog5]

GP must not listen very well. Nobody on the CFP committee has ever said you have to have a 13th game, or win a conference championship for that matter. They said that were both factors in breaking what was essentially a tie between a group of teams. Anyone who can't figure out the difference between the two are just hearing what they want to hear.

Last year that last spot came down to 3 Big 10 schools. When everything was factored in, who you play, where you play, margin of victory, etc....the one they picked was the one that clearly had the best resume of the three. Every computer ranking that existed agreed with that, and since all three were huge blue blood Big 10 programs, that tired argument can't be used either. There wasn't a virtual tie that required things like an extra game to be an overwhelming factor.

It's maddening that so many people can't seem to understand this.

You heard what they said in TV. Do you know for a fact that big 12 AD's weren't told something different by the committee?

 

[f_399]

There was no way FSU could have been left out.

OSU did not look good either, they played their best football starting from conference championship game.

If they did not win the championship game, it would really have been a controversy. Them winning it all crushed that and made the committee look like they made the right choice.

 

[Tom Brown]

Is that guy media or just a disgruntled raider? That lack of D preceded KK, btw.

 

[Tom Brown]

You heard what they said in TV. Do you know for a fact that big 12 AD's weren't told something different by the committee?

No he just loves the big 10.

 

[Wexahu]

The whole "they were champs and undefeated last year" argument that was used to put FSU in was pathetic. It was supposed to be about the year that was being played. And as you point out, TCU was a better team.

There is the argument then Ohio State lost to a struggling Va Tech team. Either way, TCU should have been in. We heard that quality losses mattered. But just not for TCU.

I can just imagine how TCU fans would feel if we are the only undefeated team some year, played two major P5 teams in OOC play, but do it by really winning ugly in most of our games, and are left out of a playoff based on that reasoning, that even though we were the only undefeated team we weren't one of the 4 best teams based on how we played. It would be absolute mutiny and you know it.

FSU had to be one of the four.

 

[Zubaz]

Didn't even make it out of page 1 before a 2014 debate started. Tremendous.

For the record, I do absolutely believe that our conference commissioner isn't paying attention and made a mistake. He heard "the 13th data point cost you", which it did, and concluded "the 13th data point is the most important thing", which is clearly not true.

That said, the committee changed their reasoning several times. They do that throughout the season, which is odd. But can't pan GP or our Commissioner on this.

It seems pretty obvious what the committee's standards have been, and they've been pretty consistent:
-P5 only. G5 has no real path to the playoffs unless the stars align.
-Wins and Losses matter more than anything else. 1 loss > 2 loss.
-SOS matters, and good wins outrank bad losses. More than anything, this is what killed us and Baylor in 2014, our SOS stunk compared to Ohio State's despite having a "better" loss.
-In the event of a tie, 12-1 > 11-1
-In the event of a tie, an outright conference title > split conference title.
-The preceding two points do not come in to play unless there is a tie, so 11-1 without a conference title > 11-2 with a conference title, by virtue of point #2.

Face it, this whole invitational is about protecting the big brands. OU had a loss, and got into the playoffs. That loss was to a 5-7 Texas team. Our loss in 2014 was to a highly ranked 1 loss team. The reason folks said TCU should be in, is because they were playing better ball than BU in the back half of the 2014 season. And BU lost to WVU. But in the end, it was, and is always about, protecting the big boys. This was predicted by many when they announced how the committee process would work several years ago. The fact that barry fat alvarez kept pushing for revotes that first year until TCU was out and the other team got in, says it all.

This is silly.

1) Comparing OU's 1-loss in 2015 to TCU and Baylor in 2014 is faulty, because they weren't the same decision. OU wasn't vying for a spot with the other teams from 2014, and had they been in the same boat as us the odds are they'd have been left out as well. In 2015, Pac-12 champion Stanford had 2 losses, making the decision between 1-loss OU and 2-loss Stanford pretty easy and not necessitating the introduction of the tiebreakers used in 2014. Apples and Oranges.

2) B1G champion Penn State got left out in favor of Washington, yet we're supposed to believe that blue-blood bias trumps all.

 

[Wexahu]

Which is it? I think the way the committee goes is to bend the criteria to make sure the blue bloods get in.

Penn State and Michigan were the #5 and #6 teams last year. They picked Washington ahead of them. By any definition, Penn State and Michigan are much bigger blue bloods than Washington. If it was all about making sure the blue bloods get in, why did Washington make it over two Big 10 blue bloods? A case could've easily been made for Michigan or Penn State if that's what the committee wanted to do. Washington played NOBODY in OOC and lost a game at home.

In fact, I know Michigan would've been favored in a game against Washington and Penn State might've too, so they could've easily used the "best team" argument too if they wanted.

 

[Mean Purple]

Didn't even make it out of page 1 before a 2014 debate started. Tremendous.

For the record, I do absolutely believe that our conference commissioner isn't paying attention and made a mistake. He heard "the 13th data point cost you", which it did, and concluded "the 13th data point is the most important thing", which is clearly not true.


It seems pretty obvious what the committee's standards have been, and they've been pretty consistent:
-P5 only. G5 has no real path to the playoffs unless the stars align.
-Wins and Losses matter more than anything else. 1 loss > 2 loss.
-SOS matters, and good wins outrank bad losses. More than anything, this is what killed us and Baylor in 2014, our SOS stunk compared to Ohio State's despite having a "better" loss.
-In the event of a tie, 12-1 > 11-1
-In the event of a tie, an outright conference title > split conference title.
-The preceding two points do not come in to play unless there is a tie, so 11-1 without a conference title > 11-2 with a conference title, by virtue of point #2.


This is silly.

1) Comparing OU's 1-loss in 2015 to TCU and Baylor in 2014 is faulty, because they weren't the same decision. OU wasn't vying for a spot with the other teams from 2014, and had they been in the same boat as us the odds are they'd have been left out as well. In 2015, Pac-12 champion Stanford had 2 losses, making the decision between 1-loss OU and 2-loss Stanford pretty easy and not necessitating the introduction of the tiebreakers used in 2014. Apples and Oranges.

2) B1G champion Penn State got left out in favor of Washington, yet we're supposed to believe that blue-blood bias trumps all.

This is silly, I was not comparing OU's 2015 loss. I was comparing their 2014 loss. To Va Tech.

And if their standards were consistent...why do they change from week to week? Which has been the complaint of...pretty much everybody. Including most ESPN folks, most Fox Sports folks and my neighbor's talking African Parakeet.

The one part you are correct on is about Penn State. But Washington should have been in. Ohio State should have been left out.

 

[Mean Purple]

I can just imagine how TCU fans would feel if we are the only undefeated team some year, played two major P5 teams in OOC play, but do it by really winning ugly in most of our games, and are left out of a playoff based on that reasoning, that even though we were the only undefeated team we weren't one of the 4 best teams based on how we played. It would be absolute mutiny and you know it.

FSU had to be one of the four.

Oregon called. They said...."wrong"

 

[Wexahu]

Didn't even make it out of page 1 before a 2014 debate started. Tremendous

I get it, but 2014 keeps coming up because the Big 12 Conference had a hissy fit and is STILL making major decisions based on what happened that year. Heck, GP even keeps bringing it up.

Had a couple teams lost their games that last week of the season and both TCU and Baylor had made it (and I'm 100% confident they would have because there were no other real contenders for those last spots) it would 100% be a completely different discussion. Conferences would be doing all they can to get rid of CC games, or at least trying to figure out a way for them not to get hurt by them. The BIg 12 would've looked like geniuses. But instead we got complete panic.

 

[Zubaz]

This is silly, I was not comparing OU's 2015 loss. I was comparing their 2014 loss. To Va Tech.

That's the point though. If OU was 11-1 in 2014, with a loss to 5-7 Texas, they almost assuredly would have been left out as well in favor of 12-1 Ohio State, for the same reason that we were left out. They were in for 2015 because the situation was entirely different in 2015, with them being outright conference champions AND vying for their spot with a 2-loss team rather than a 1-loss team. Again, apples and oranges.

And if their standards were consistent...why do they change from week to week?

They really don't. See above. If you can point me to a final ranking the last three years where the above doesn't hold true, I'd love to see it.

The one part you are correct on is about Penn State. But Washington should have been in. Ohio State should have been left out.

11-1 > 11-2. Sorry. Wins and losses are the most important thing, as has always been the case for the three years of the CFP.

 

[Mean Purple]

Was that an actual reporter? I know the media days is not open to the public. (Which I agree with.)

 

[Mean Purple]

That's the point though. If OU was 11-1 in 2014, with a loss to 5-7 Texas, they almost assuredly would have been left out as well in favor of 12-1 Ohio State, for the same reason that we were left out. They were in for 2015 because the situation was entirely different in 2015, with them being outright conference champions AND vying for their spot with a 2-loss team rather than a 1-loss team. Again, apples and oranges.

They really don't. See above. If you can point me to a final ranking the last three years where the above doesn't hold true, I'd love to see it.


11-1 > 11-2. Sorry. Wins and losses are the most important thing, as has always been the case for the three years of the CFP.

Our loss in 2014 was NOT to a 5-7 team. Try and keep up.

 

[jake102]

Wins and losses are the most important thing, as has always been the case for the three years of the CFP.

Except for in any week prior to the final ranking... then wins and losses are completely subjective.

 

[Wexahu]

A

Our loss in 2014 was NOT to a 5-7 team. Try and keep up.

And our best win was at home against a very beatable K-State team.

Ohio State beat Michigan State by 2 TDs in East Lansing, a Michigan State team whose only other loss was at Oregon and who ended up beating Baylor in the bowl game. Again, that game was at MSU. They also beat a Conference division champ by 59 points at a neutral site the last week of the season.

 

[Zubaz]

Our loss in 2014 was NOT to a 5-7 team. Try and keep up.

Sigh. I never said it was. "Try and keep up".

You're trying to say that OU got preferential treatment by virtue of their brand because, and I'll quote you directly here: "OU had a loss, and got into the playoffs. That loss was to a 5-7 Texas team. Our loss in 2014 was to a highly ranked 1 loss team."

The problem is you're comparing two entirely different situations. OU's 1 loss team didn't have 5 other 1-loss teams to compete with, as they had an outright conference title and Pac-12's champion had 2 losses. Entirely different, therefore incomparable.

Again, if you can point me to a CFP final ranking where the above listed criteria were not consistent, I'd love to see it.

 

[Zubaz]

Except for in any week prior to the final ranking... then wins and losses are completely subjective.

True, but realistically speaking any ranking prior to the final ranking is just a television show anyway.

 

[Mean Purple]

A


And our best win was at home against a very beatable K-State team.

Ohio State beat Michigan State by 2 TDs in East Lansing, a Michigan State team whose only other loss was at Oregon and who ended up beating Baylor in the bowl game. Again, that game was at MSU. They also beat a Conference division champ by 59 points at a neutral site the last week of the season.

I thought you said the 13th data point did not matter?

 

[jake102]

A


And our best win was at home against a very beatable K-State team.

Ohio State beat Michigan State by 2 TDs in East Lansing, a Michigan State team whose only other loss was at Oregon and who ended up beating Baylor in the bowl game. Again, that game was at MSU. They also beat a Conference division champ by 59 points at a neutral site the last week of the season.

They also lost at home by 14 points to a team that Kansas would have been competitive with.