Zubaz
Member
...weren't we ranked ahead of Baylor for most of 2014? Did you think that was wrong too?
CCG weekend thread
- Thread starter froginmn
- Start date
Ha, was gonna mention the same thing (of course).
In the case of Michigan being ranked ahead of MSU, it was obviously just because of blue blood bias. In the case of TCU-Baylor, it was because the committee correctly assessed the two teams. Well, ok.
Sometimes the blue blood teams get the nod because they should, it's not always "because they are blue bloods".
I'm assuming this is sarcasm. Either way, it doesn't disprove my point.
The two teams had similar records (Mich St and Michigan), Michigan lost to MSU and should not have been ranked ahead of MSU.
The system in place is an invitational, with people making decisions on who to invite. Inherently, people are biased. These types of discussions on rankings and who does and doesn't belong in the invitationals don't exist in the other major sports. Do you know why?
Neither us nor baylor are bluebloods. Btw, you are choosing an interesting year, considering that a blueblood was chosen over both us and baylor that year.
its been a while since I've had homework
Zubaz
Member
But you're saying the reason Michigan was only ranked ahead of Michigan State comes down to their blue blood status, when in reality there's already precedent for non-blue-bloods to be ranked ahead of the team that beat them.
And since Michigan State lost the next week anyway and there's no debate between them by the end of the season, not even sure why you think any of this matters.
Because other major sports don't have 130 teams in their league?
Not only did alabama lose to a 4 loss team, that team was unranked at the time. Other than blowing out miss st, alabama struggled in true road games this year and could have easily picked up 2 more losses.
@ florida - Win 31-29 (florida finished unranked)
@ unranked aTm - Loss 41-38
@ unranked miss st - win 49-9 (miss unranked)
@ unranked Auburn - win 24-22 in OT (Auburn unranked)
Who were Alabama's OOC games this year?
-Miami (in atlanta)
-Mercer
-Southern Miss
-New Mexico St.
We are talking about bluebloods and the bias in their favor, so the precedent you are referring to doesn't apply.
Zubaz
Member
And my point is what you are attributing to alleged "blue blood bias" is clearly better explained by something else.
What would be a better example of bias? I would add - I never said a head to head matchup was the only marker for bias.
How about this - let's say there are only 9 games in a season. MSU and Michigan both just finished 8-1, with Michigan's only loss coming vs. MSU. They play a round robin of 9 games in the same conference. Who is better?
Last edited:
You’d have to give me more information than that before I could make an informed decision. Who’d they play and where? Point differentials? Where was the HTH game played? Those just off the top of my head.
Who do you think is better?
Zubaz
Member
If that were to happen there's pretty much zero doubt in my mind that MSU would be ranked ahead of Michigan in the final rankings. Particularly since in that scenario, MSU would be the East's representative in the Big Ten title game and either win and have a better record, or lose and the point would be moot.
I don't see any scenario where you have two teams with the same record with a head to head matchup included (with a winner not a tie) and there be a question of who should be 'first' in that conference, or which team is better.
btw, I do like your questions. What your questions tell me is there is a lot of ambiguity in the FBS. There is no singular league or conference. Just a bunch of independent conferences looking out for themselves.
I'll just continue to enjoy MLB, NBA and the NFL. Leagues where playoffs are not decided by invites by committees of people, who are biased towards the names on the jerseys. Even if the committee was completely non-biased, its still not a playoff. They need to stop calling it that.
Last edited:
hiphopfroggy
Active Member
Yea, CCG's and the current invitational is a terrible set up that is really bad for the sport of college football. Just look at the Michigan St rb and Pitt qb opting out of what is supposed to be a huge NY6 bowl game.
Invitational needs to go, on field play must determine playoff teams.
Nobody wants rematches, CCG's go away.
Regular season games need to matter, every single one of them.
Can't have star players opting out of what are supposed to be big time games.
Imagine College Football with an 8 team playoff of conference champions and highest ranked independent.
1) SEC champ
2) B1G Champ
3) Pac Champ
4) ACC Champ
5) Big East Champ
6) Big 8 Champ
7) SWC Champ
8) Independant
Bowl Tie -Ins:
Rose- Pac
Sugar- SEC
Cotton- SWC
Fiesta- Big 8
Orange- Big East
Peach- ACC
Cherry- B1G 10 *Some might remember the Cherry Bowl in Detroit in '84 and '85. Was the 5th highest paying bowl in '84 and had 70,000+ in attendance.
Independants- ND, Penn St, Utah, BYU, UCF, Tulane, Hawaii, UCONN, Temple, Army, Navy, Air Force.
Invitational needs to go, on field play must determine playoff teams.
Nobody wants rematches, CCG's go away.
Regular season games need to matter, every single one of them.
Can't have star players opting out of what are supposed to be big time games.
Imagine College Football with an 8 team playoff of conference champions and highest ranked independent.
1) SEC champ
2) B1G Champ
3) Pac Champ
4) ACC Champ
5) Big East Champ
6) Big 8 Champ
7) SWC Champ
8) Independant
Bowl Tie -Ins:
Rose- Pac
Sugar- SEC
Cotton- SWC
Fiesta- Big 8
Orange- Big East
Peach- ACC
Cherry- B1G 10 *Some might remember the Cherry Bowl in Detroit in '84 and '85. Was the 5th highest paying bowl in '84 and had 70,000+ in attendance.
Independants- ND, Penn St, Utah, BYU, UCF, Tulane, Hawaii, UCONN, Temple, Army, Navy, Air Force.
A few things wrong here.....
- Every single game won't matter if it's an 8-team playoff with only conference champions, like you describe above. OOC games will be basically meaningless exhibitions.
- If there are at-large teams included that aren't conference champions, it's still going to be an invitational to a certain degree. We'll just be bitching about teams 6-10 instead of teams 4-6.
- Make the playoff too big with too many games and I think you will see players opting out. Might even start seeing it with 4 playoff teams in the not-to-distant future. Results of games seem to matter less and less in this $ocial media driven world.
OK, but just so we're clear, it's Baylor that actually "got screwed" out of a playoff berth in 2014, not TCU? We'll I'll be......
I don't agree with your opinion because I think the game the HTH winner lost should absolutely be factored into their total resume when it's compared to the HTH winner. Along with several other things that make up a complete resume.
What people really want is a bias against blue blood programs. And how they determine who SHOULD be in the playoffs after a given season starts with the question of who they WANT in the playoffs. That's how it works.
hiphopfroggy
Active Member
OOC games will still have meaning, they would help to determine the seeding of the playoffs, which would be a huge deal as well as play a role in placing the rest of the bowl games. For instance, the top 4 seeds get a home field advantage of sorts with their bowl tie in as well as avoiding a top seeded Bama to play a Cincinnati or Wake Forest.
So if TCU won the SWC and won their out of conference games, they would play 8th seeded Pitt(ACC champs) in the SWC champion tie in Cotton Bowl. If TCU lost their OOC games and won the SWC and got in as an 8 seed they would have to face Bama in the SEC tie in Sugar Bowl.
I've left the 8th seed open for independents and listed those schools. I think there are enough quality historical independents that there would not be any need to make the 8th seed an independent/at large bid, just straight independents only. Between ND, Penn St, Utah, BYU and UCF one of those schools is going to be playoff caliber each year. AP poll ranking determines who gets it.
Agree that the playoffs should not be too big, 12 is too big, 8 is great.
This isn't about us or baylor. This is about bias in favor of bluebloods and I was using michigan vs. michigan state as an example. Not sure why you keep going to 2014. If anything the Big 12 omission from the invitational that year only proves my point - that ohio state, a blueblood, was favored and got in over us and baylor.
I didn't realize you knew what people wanted. Glad you can speak for everyone. I would like to see a real playoff system. resumes are not requirements of a real playoff system. This is unlikely, given the fractured nature of FBS football. Just a bunch of conferences looking out for themselves.
I agree there needs to be expansion, but there also needs to be schedule leveling. All of the conferences need to play the same # of conference games - this is critical. Plus, if alabama is going to schedule akron in november, then everyone gets to have a creampuff in november.
I like the idea of no CCG - get rid of those.
OOC should be like the preseason of the NFL. OOC games should have zero bearing on qualifying for playoffs. That gives the little teams their paydays and the big teams their practice. If you want, your program can schedule old rivals, or really good teams and not worry that losing may knock them out of the invitationals.
unfortunately a lot of that is a pipe dream. I can see invite expansion, I don't see schedule leveling happening, nor dropping CCGs. I think the invitational committee just expands and keeps the same "we invite who we like" mentality. I would even suggest 8 conferences of 10 teams. Everyone plays a round robin. conference champs get into playoffs. No CCG. That's it. No resume, none of this other mumbo jumbo needed. Problem is that will never happen because there no 'league office' for the FBS, just a bunch of independent conferences. I also think the playoffs need to be 16 teams. again, never happening. well at least not anytime soon.
Last edited:
Zubaz
Member
And at the end of the season, there isn't. As far as I know that has not happened in the Playoff era. The only reason there was even debate in 2014 was because the Big 12 didn't have a title game (and even then, Baylor did end up ranked higher than us at the end of the season anyway), and they fixed that when they added the CCG in 2017. So what really is your issue here? Mid-season rankings that don't factor in the entire season?
Latest posts
-
-
GoFrogs: Kansas State at TCU Baseball Series Preview- Latest: Paint It Purple
-
