Bill Hancock Comment About 2014 TCU/Baylor

[Ron Swanson]

Except there was more than one team at play there. If you concede that it's ok to jump a team based on a big wins over ranked teams, then FSU beating ranked Ga Tech, Ohio State crushing ranked Wisconsin, Baylor beating ranked Kansas State all factor in when comparing it to our win against one of the worst teams in football that year.

If we had looked mediocre, maybe, but we did everything we possibly could have done and beat them as thoroughly as anyone possibly could.

 

[Zubaz]

Yeah, it just stinks our schedule worked out that way.

 

[OmniscienceFrog]

FWIW: I know Hancock personally. He’s a fan of the Frogs. Even wore a TCU hat at the CWS.

I know he gets a lot of heat on this board but he’s just one man in this monopoly.

You're entitled to your opinion.

 

[The Degenerate Frog]

yea past is the past and Hancock is still presently a #&%$#&%^#%.

I didnt read much of this thread but I agree that Bill Handonmy [ the old ricardo ] is still:

 

[OmniscienceFrog]

Is there any way to ignore or hide a thread? If not, can we get that feature?

Easy to ignore. Don't click on it. Why is that so difficult for some people to grasp?

 

[gohornedfrogs]

I defend them because they've done nothing to justify the criticism they get. Think about it this way....if Bill Hancock called you tomorrow and asked rabid TCU fan Countryfrog to be on the committee, wouldn't you, out of respect for college football, try your hardest to not be swayed by anything but trying to pick the right 4 teams, regardless of your TCU affiliation? I think that'd be pretty easy to do myself. Maybe you'd just go in there and do anything you could do to get the Frogs in the best position possible, but I doubt it. And that's what everyone here is accusing Barry Alvarez, Tom Osborne, and anyone else who is on that committee of doing. It's ludicrous. Every ranking that comes out is immediately followed by a bunch of "this is unbelievable, this is total crap, what a bunch of clowns" BS. Don't you get tired of it? 12 Countryfrogs could serve on the committee and no matter what your rankings you'd come up with, 95% of fans would be calling you an idiot, guaranteed. They can't win, no matter what they do.

It's like blaming refs when you lose. It's pathetic.

Alvarez and Osborne have a vested interest in making sure the B10 gets the revenue. When it came time to sway the committee, there was nobody in the room with the coaching bona fides of those two, so I'm betting the committee bent to their will.

 

[Pharm Frog]

OK, for everyone's sake, I'm giving up this argument. Sorry about that. Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in.

You’ll be back. It may not be in this thread, but you’ll be back to defend the Committee and the Bucks. It’s an integral element of your DNA. But until that time...

WE WIN! Wex has retired from this battlefield! Whoop! Whoop! Blue-blood bias is real! People of dubious integrity and motivations have populated the Committee! Decision making was predisposed to favoritism. The legacy big-box brands have more margin for error than others!

 

[netty2424]

I don't know this, but if I had to guess: They needed a majority. There were 3 teams. If no team got over 50%, they revoted.

If true, this is the dumbest ship ever. No poll AP or Coaches or any other poll for college football rankings that I've seen require greater than 50%. Why not who gets the most votes? Everyone should be entitled to their vote. If they re-vote and re-vote to gain a majority, it's not their vote, they were pressured into getting in line.

We got scheissed.

 

[OmniscienceFrog]

Meanwhile, we already have a lot of posters on here saying that if Notre Dame goes 11-1 this year they "won't deserve" to be in the playoffs. Well, that's us in 2014. Why would they not deserve but we did? Which is it?

1. Well no, they won't deserve it. The precedent has been set. No 13th game, no playoff berth.
2. Yeah, that was TCU in 2014. Should it not be Noater Dame in 2017?
3. Who said they wouldn't DESERVE it? Apparently as William Muny said in Unforgiven, deserve's got nothin' to do with it.
4. Which is it? As far as I'm concerned, if TCU didn't deserve it, Noater Dame doesn't deserve it. It's pretty cut and dried.

 

[Ron Swanson]

1. Well no, they won't deserve it. The precedent has been set. No 13th game, no playoff berth.
2. Yeah, that was TCU in 2014. Should it not be Noater Dame in 2017?
3. Who said they wouldn't DESERVE it? Apparently as William Muny said in Unforgiven, deserve's got nothin' to do with it.
4. Which is it? As far as I'm concerned, if TCU didn't deserve it, Noater Dame doesn't deserve it. It's pretty cut and dried.

To their credit, they never said “no 13th game no playoff bid”. They said that a 13th game is the tiebreaker whenever there are two one loss teams, one with 12 wins and one with 13 wins and an outright conference title. Their rationale actually has been consistent, it just sucks.

 

[Pharm Frog]

To their credit, they never said “no 13th game no playoff bid”. They said that a 13th game is the tiebreaker whenever there are two one loss teams, one with 12 wins and one with 13 wins and an outright conference title. Their rationale actually has been consistent, it just sucks.

According to Bowlsby, they only said this after the season began. He has been steadfast that they inquired about the importance of a CCG and were told that the lack of one would not be a factor. I suppose that turns out to be true if Hancock is now to be believed.

To me it boils down to this (and then I, like Wex will abandon thread):

If you changed the names from TCU to UT, do you believe that a #3 ranked UT victory over ISU (55-3) in the regular season finale would be dropped three spots from #3 to #6 (placing UT behind a Baylor team that had defeated them in Waco earlier in the season 61-58)? If you believe that the committee would have done this, you are on solid ground believing in the integrity and impartiality of the process. But if you believe that this would not have happened this way, you believe there's a baked-in partiality. For me, if you exchange the names UT and OU for TCU and Baylor, it would have been quite possible that the other OU (Duck-version) and tOSU may have been left out. For certain nobody would have been talking about how weak the Big 12 is and was. Every time someone mentions how we NEED OU and UT to be good is making this very case.

 

[OmniscienceFrog]

No, they beat a Top 20 team by 59 in their CCG to move up a couple spots. Not all that unprecedented.

No team that is a legitimate top-20 team loses to ANYBODY by 59. But the committee got to pretend they were a top-20 team to serve their purposes.

 

[CountryFrog]

I'm issuing a challenge to all defenders of the playoff committee. Find one other week, ANY other week in the entire history of college football, where a ranked team from a major conference defeated another team from a major conference by 50 points and then dropped 3 spots in any major rankings or poll. I don't care if it was the last week, week 2, week 7, or any other week.

I'd be willing to bet nothing like that has ever happened before because it's absolutely ridiculous. You can rationalize it all you want, but unless you find some other time where this kind of thing happened to anyone else then I don't see how you can NOT question the legitimacy of that committee and their processes.

 

[Ron Swanson]

According to Bowlsby, they only said this after the season began. He has been steadfast that they inquired about the importance of a CCG and were told that the lack of one would not be a factor. I suppose that turns out to be true if Hancock is now to be believed.

To me it boils down to this (and then I, like Wex will abandon thread):

If you changed the names from TCU to UT, do you believe that a #3 ranked UT victory over ISU (55-3) in the regular season finale would be dropped three spots from #3 to #6 (placing UT behind a Baylor team that had defeated them in Waco earlier in the season 61-58)? If you believe that the committee would have done this, you are on solid ground believing in the integrity and impartiality of the process. But if you believe that this would not have happened this way, you believe there's a baked-in partiality. For me, if you exchange the names UT and OU for TCU and Baylor, it would have been quite possible that the other OU (Duck-version) and tOSU may have been left out. For certain nobody would have been talking about how weak the Big 12 is and was. Every time someone mentions how we NEED OU and UT to be good is making this very case.

Absolutely not. UT or OU definitely would not have dropped if they were in our shoes in 2014.

I think we were absolutely jobbed by the committee, I just don’t think their logic has changed from season to season. They can at least justify their decisions without contradicting themselves.

 

[abell2do]

Solution is simple. Whoever wins their championship game advances to the playoff. Have the coaches vote on the outlier team from a non P5. 6 team playoff. Abolish the BS

 

[Hoosierfrog]

Except there was more than one team at play there. . If you concede that it's ok to jump a team based on a big wins over ranked teams, then FSU beating ranked Ga Tech, Ohio State crushing ranked Wisconsin, Baylor beating ranked Kansas State all factor in when comparing it to our win against one of the worst teams in football that year.

You like to throw all kinds of crap into the fan to confuse the issue causing the Base argument. Was there a strong argument for dropping TCU three spots and moving up Ohio State for playing an extra game against a team that had turmoil losing a coach and one that had already lost to a crappy Northwestern.

No one this board, other Wexosu, cares about your nit picking. The bottom line question is - are all teams treated equitably using the same yardstick? I think most would argue no when the chains move backwards and forwards depending on who is being judged. One year it’s 13 games and a championship game, head to head matchups, another year no 13th game, no championship and a loss in a head to head match up means zip.

 

[gohornedfrogs]

Wexahu and Todd D. have chosen one heck of a hill to die on...

 

[Zubaz]

You like to throw all kinds of crap into the fan to confuse the issue causing the Base argument. Was there a strong argument for dropping TCU three spots and moving up Ohio State

Yes, obviously. Anyone that doesn't see that is just failing to look at it objectively.

Was there an argument to keep TCU in? Of course, but it was more subjective like "eye test" or a ridiculous statement like a Top 15 win doesn't count because "they lost their coach and also that team lost to another team". In terms of resume, Ohio State's was (very slightly) better. They had an outright conference title, we split a conference title. Fact. They beat more ranked teams. Fact. They had a better SOS. Fact. You don't have to like these, but by objective measures, they are true. The only trump card we had was a better loss. It stinks, I really dislike Ohio State, but it happens. There were 6 teams and 4 spots, 2 teams had to be left out by math.

The bottom line question is - are all teams treated equitably using the same yardstick?

Yes. Based on the evidence we've seen in the first three years at least, everyone has been treated equitably using the same yardstick. Different years have different situations that need to be responded to (2014 had 6 1-loss teams, 2016 had a 1-loss team without a conference title vs. a 2-loss team with a conference title), but they've been consistent in their criteria thus far.

I think most would argue no when the chains move backwards and forwards depending on who is being judged. One year it’s 13 games and a championship game, head to head matchups, another year no 13th game, no championship and a loss in a head to head match up means zip.

This is simply not true, just based on the 3 years of evidence that we've had. There's not a single example of the 2014 criteria being contradicted. In 2015, 1-loss Ohio State was skipped over for smaller-brand Michigan State because of both H2H and a conference title. This is inconsistent? In 2016, small market Washington was picked over Conference Champion big Brand Penn State because 1-loss is better than 2-losses. Where's the inconsistency? The only example you might want to cite is Ohio State getting in without a conference title last year.....but of course you'd ignore that they were the only other 1-loss P5 team and were being compared to 2-loss teams (thus entirely different than in 2014). All evidence we have thus far is that 2016's Ohio State would not have gotten in over 2014's TCU or Baylor if it was 2014, and 2014's TCU or Baylor would have been "in" over 2016 Ohio State in 2016.

You can't show an example of this criteria being inconsistent, at least not yet. That might change this year depending on how Notre Dame, Georgia, the ACC, or Big Ten shake out, but it hasn't happened yet.

 

[Zubaz]

I'm issuing a challenge to all defenders of the playoff committee. Find one other week, ANY other week in the entire history of college football, where a ranked team from a major conference defeated another team from a major conference by 50 points and then dropped 3 spots in any major rankings or poll. I don't care if it was the last week, week 2, week 7, or any other week.

I'd be willing to bet nothing like that has ever happened before because it's absolutely ridiculous. You can rationalize it all you want, but unless you find some other time where this kind of thing happened to anyone else then I don't see how you can NOT question the legitimacy of that committee and their processes.

Few things:
1) The ranking system that dropped us 3 spots has only existed for 3 years. There's not a lot of history to go on there, especially given such a unique situation as 6 teams with 1 loss or fewer. In the AP and Coach's Polls we dropped two slots, from #4 to #6, which is hardly unprecedented even with a victory.
2) I know a lot of folks disagree here, and that's fine, but I few the conversation as "in vs out". #3 or #4 mean the exact same thing to me, personally, as does #5 vs #6. #4 vs #5 is where the real distinction is drawn, in my eyes. Once they decided to drop us out of the Top 4, they could have ranked us 9th for all I care, it still meant exactly the same thing.

 

[Hoosierfrog]

Yes, obviously. Anyone that doesn't see that is just failing to look at it objectively.

Was there an argument to keep TCU in? Of course, but it was more subjective like "eye test" or a ridiculous statement like a Top 15 win doesn't count because "they lost their coach and also that team lost to another team". In terms of resume, Ohio State's was (very slightly) better. They had an outright conference title, we split a conference title. Fact. They beat more ranked teams. Fact. They had a better SOS. Fact. You don't have to like these, but by objective measures, they are true. The only trump card we had was a better loss. It stinks, I really dislike Ohio State, but it happens. There were 6 teams and 4 spots, 2 teams had to be left out by math.


Yes. Based on the evidence we've seen in the first three years at least, everyone has been treated equitably using the same yardstick. Different years have different situations that need to be responded to (2014 had 6 1-loss teams, 2016 had a 1-loss team without a conference title vs. a 2-loss team with a conference title), but they've been consistent in their criteria thus far.


This is simply not true, just based on the 3 years of evidence that we've had. There's not a single example of the 2014 criteria being contradicted. In 2015, 1-loss Ohio State was skipped over for smaller-brand Michigan State because of both H2H and a conference title. This is inconsistent? In 2016, small market Washington was picked over Conference Champion big Brand Penn State because 1-loss is better than 2-losses. Where's the inconsistency? The only example you might want to cite is Ohio State getting in without a conference title last year.....but of course you'd ignore that they were the only other 1-loss P5 team and were being compared to 2-loss teams (thus entirely different than in 2014). All evidence we have thus far is that 2016's Ohio State would not have gotten in over 2014's TCU or Baylor if it was 2014, and 2014's TCU or Baylor would have been "in" over 2016 Ohio State in 2016.

You can't show an example of this criteria being inconsistent, at least not yet. That might change this year depending on how Notre Dame, Georgia, the ACC, or Big Ten shake out, but it hasn't happened yet.

I can just see you at Thanksgiving taking every discussion that everyone agrees on and coming up with a lot of crap to tell them how wrong they are.

You can come up with all the bullet points you want, but to the main argument there was no definitive reason to drop TCU in 14. If you believe that is true then you would have to agree that since this is such an equitable process, the same thing would have happened to Ohio State if the facts were reversed, or a Notre Dame, OU, Texas, er al. If that is what you believe then I think most here would agree you are delusional and just like to hear yourself pontificate.