"Just Give Us The Rules..." GP
- Thread starter Hoosierfrog
- Start date
Zubaz
Member
Here are the rules, as has been consistent for the first three years at least:
-P5 only. G5 has no real path to the playoffs unless the stars align.
-Go undefeated.
-If you don't go undefeated , wins and Losses matter more than anything else. 1 loss > 2 loss.
-SOS matters, and good wins outrank bad losses.
-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 #3.
We really need to stop with the "We were told this..." when that's not true. The Big 12 didn't listen and over-reacted, we all said that at the time. Our CCG could really solidify a playoff spot for us, should that higher ranked team win (or we have a situation like 2014 where whoever the winner is would clearly get in). It really has the potential to bite us though.
-P5 only. G5 has no real path to the playoffs unless the stars align.
-Go undefeated.
-If you don't go undefeated , wins and Losses matter more than anything else. 1 loss > 2 loss.
-SOS matters, and good wins outrank bad losses.
-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 #3.
We really need to stop with the "We were told this..." when that's not true. The Big 12 didn't listen and over-reacted, we all said that at the time. Our CCG could really solidify a playoff spot for us, should that higher ranked team win (or we have a situation like 2014 where whoever the winner is would clearly get in). It really has the potential to bite us though.
Yep. The CFP committee has never said you have to win your conference or play a 13th game to make the playoffs. Why people continue to say they did is stupid. Based on the current structure, there will always be some degree of subjectivity involved, but so far they have stuck to the "rules" above.
If GP is so confused about this issue, I'd tell him if you go undefeated you have a 100% chance of making the playoffs, if you lose one game and there are 6 teams with one or less loss, then it will come down to a variety of factors and your chances go down from 100% to some degree. If you lose two games, you're going to have to count on winning the CCG and a whole bunch of parity in the other conferences.
Why otherwise really smart people feign ignorance on this issue is bizzare. It's not really all that complicated.
So you are implying that Coach Patterson is stupid? Of course they said it. Maybe you are the stupid one?
Last edited:
Zubaz
Member
Nobody should call GP stupid, but if he thinks anyone said that the CCG was the most important factor in getting to the playoff, then he clearly misunderstood what was said.
The CFP said that in 2014, the CCG was a big reason that Ohio State got in because it was one of the factors used to break the tie among the 1-loss teams. They never said "CCG's are the most important thing" or that a 13th game is required to get in. In that specific situation in that specific year, the CCG was important among a few other factors. 2 years later, in an entirely different situation, when there wasn't 5 1-loss teams vying for 3 spots, it wasn't as important as other factors, most notably overall record which has consistently been the number 1 determination of ranking (outside of "Being in a P5 conference, of course).
The CFP said that in 2014, the CCG was a big reason that Ohio State got in because it was one of the factors used to break the tie among the 1-loss teams. They never said "CCG's are the most important thing" or that a 13th game is required to get in. In that specific situation in that specific year, the CCG was important among a few other factors. 2 years later, in an entirely different situation, when there wasn't 5 1-loss teams vying for 3 spots, it wasn't as important as other factors, most notably overall record which has consistently been the number 1 determination of ranking (outside of "Being in a P5 conference, of course).
On this issue he's being ignorant, maybe intentionally so. If anyone was really paying attention to what they were saying it was never said that a team HAD to win their conference or HAD to play a 13th game to make the playoffs. In fact, they were very clear to make that distinction since I'm sure they realized every year wouldn't have the same set of circumstances.
Lots and lots of people let their emotions get in the way of actually paying attention to what was said.
Adam RittenbergVerified account @ESPNRittenberg
Jeff Long essentially says Big 12 hurt itself without a championship game. Bob Bowlsby has some work to do.
9:53 AM - 7 Dec 2014
Geoff Calkins ✔@geoff_calkins
Bowlsby: "It's clear we were penalized for not having a championship game..That will cause us to go back to the drawing board a little bit."
1:33 PM - Dec 7, 2014
https://sportsday.dallasnews.com/co...wed-decision-process-college-football-playoff
jake102
Active Member
Remember that time undefeated Florida State was ranked below two 1-loss teams? Or that time they were ranked below three 1-loss teams?
Zubaz
Member
This is not contrary to anything that was said. In 2014, the Big 12 was hurt by not having a CCG. No doubt. Nobody argues that. The mistake is thinking that because the Big 12 was hurt in that specific situation, that anyone anywhere said that you HAD to have a CCG, or that you needed a 13th game to get in. That is incorrect.Adam RittenbergVerified account @ESPNRittenberg
Jeff Long essentially says Big 12 hurt itself without a championship game. Bob Bowlsby has some work to do.
9:53 AM - 7 Dec 2014
✔@geoff_calkins
Bowlsby: "It's clear we were penalized for not having a championship game..That will cause us to go back to the drawing board a little bit."
1:33 PM - Dec 7, 2014
In a different situation, like where you are choosing between a 1-loss team vs. a 2-loss team, the CCG becomes lower on the determining factors.
Zubaz
Member
I do consider "in" vs. "non-in" to be more important than the seeding of the 4 teams.
How you want to slot the Top 4 is important, of course, but not as important as to who the Top 4 is. The above qualifications are to determine who the Top 4 are.
jake102
Active Member
Completely inconsistent. You can't have a system with inconsistencies like that. That is all anybody wants, complete consistency from start to finish. It is the EXACT thing the committee has not given us. They have played games from start to finish, and while you can very reasonably argue the final product of "final four teams in" has been correct so far, there can be no faith in the process.
Big Frog II
Active Member
When you have people choosing which teams get in, then it is no better than a beauty contest. The computers or Las Vegas can do a better job.
Zubaz
Member
I think that's fair, I'd say that there's two things to remember (not necessarily agree with, just keep it in mind):
-Any ranking before the final week is entertainment purposes only. Basically, it's a TV show. Rankings are not as "sticky" as the BCS rankings were.
-Again, ranking the Top 4 vs the order of the Top 4 is a different conversation. There's a bigger difference between #4 and #5 (in vs. out) than there is #3 vs #4 (which is basically who you play in the playoffs). #4 might have a slightly harder path to the title than #3, but #5 has literally no path to the title.
They've been completely consistent in applying the "rules" that ToddD spelled out above.
The consistency I guess that you want is impossible to achieve when you are comparing teams that play wildly unbalanced schedules, but they have been very consistent so far in how they pick the teams. You just don't want to acknowledge it because the results aren't always to your liking.
finafrog
Full Member
You forgot an important rule, probably #3 in your order: If Ohio State can get in, it WILL get in.
Mean Purple
Active Member
I just want it taken for the record. I did not start this thread.
Hoosierfrog
Tier 1
Well, one thing is certain, they have consistently leaned in Ohio State's direction...
And when the computers were doing it everyone bitched about that. "how can you have the thing ranking the teams something that is incapable of even watching a football game!" If I heard that once, I heard it a thousand times.
And if they had Las Vegas doing it......boy, that I'm sure that would appease the conspiracy theorists out there.
You could say that, but arguably OSU's best team was left out with an 11-1 record too. Ohio State has gone 34-3 in the last three seasons, that they've made two playoffs shouldn't be all that shocking.
