CCG weekend thread

[Wexahu]

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.

Were they "favored" because they were a blueblood or because they had a better record while playing a more difficult schedule, and won their league title outright?

They've also NOT made the playoffs with a 11-1 and 12-1 record on separate occasions. Was that because they were a blueblood or because some other team had a better record while playing a more difficult schedule, and won their league title outright?

 

[gofor2]

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?

you keep answering questions and responding to things I asked wexahu.

 

[hiphopfroggy]

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 this is all a pipe dream. I can see 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. It's a shame.

Oh, it's not a pipe dream it's the College Football Multiverse, or an exercise in time wasting. It's what could have been if the NCAA hadn't lost control; what should have been.

The great thing about these old conferences was they they were comprised of 10-8 teams, with many having 9. So you play everyone in conference and then schedule ooc to match the # of "Power" games on everyone else's schedule. Probably 10 P games required across the board.

 

[Wexahu]

Oh, it's not a pipe dream it's the College Football Multiverse, or an exercise in time wasting. It's what could have been if the NCAA hadn't lost control; what should have been.

The great thing about these old conferences was they they were comprised of 10-8 teams, with many having 9. So you play everyone in conference and then schedule ooc to match the # of "Power" games on everyone else's schedule. Probably 10 P games required across the board.

I was wondering what you were doing. Obviously Utah and Penn State are no longer independents, lol.

I agree it was a MUCH better setup with smaller, more regional conferences. Even 12 teams in a league is stupid. 14 is idiotic, and 16 is basically two conferences wrapped up as one for the sake of TV.

Totally disagree though that "potential seeding" would make the OOC games compelling. IMO you gotta have a format that places almost equal weight on those games. I'd love to see some kind of system that greatly penalizes teams for playing joke opponents, no matter how bad they beat them. Would have to involve computers though.

 

[gofor2]

Were they "favored" because they were a blueblood or because they had a better record while playing a more difficult schedule, and won their league title outright?

They've also NOT made the playoffs with a 11-1 and 12-1 record on separate occasions. Was that because they were a blueblood or because some other team had a better record while playing a more difficult schedule, and won their league title outright?

I'm not a fan of "resumes" and "schedule difficulty" in college football because those are all terms used within the invitational system, which is biased and I think is a dog [ Finebaum ] system to begin with. In no other major sport are these silly arguments necessary, because playoffs are real.
But for arguments sake, lets talk about ohio state. What makes you think they had a more difficult schedule? 3 teams out of 14 in the big 10, finished ranked. In almost no year is the Big 10 schedule better than the Big 12, SEC or P12's. At best they move from 4th to 3rd, ahead of the Pac 12, in a given year. The ACC, well the ACC is almost always 5th out of the P5.

• They lost to an unranked Virginia Tech team, in Columbus Ohio.
• It took them 2 OT's to beat an unranked Pedophile state team @ pedophile state.
• If I recall, the combined win-loss records of their opponents were crap. perhaps this can be supported or dismissed with easily found data, but I don't have time to look it up.
• 3 teams out of 14 in the big 10 finished ranked.

 

[hiphopfroggy]

I was wondering what you were doing. Obviously Utah and Penn State are no longer independents, lol.

I agree it was a MUCH better setup with smaller, more regional conferences. Even 12 teams in a league is stupid. 14 is idiotic, and 16 is basically two conferences wrapped up as one for the sake of TV.

Totally disagree though that "potential seeding" would make the OOC games compelling. IMO you gotta have a format that places almost equal weight on those games. I'd love to see some kind of system that greatly penalizes teams for playing joke opponents, no matter how bad they beat them. Would have to involve computers though.

But Utah and Penn State historically did spend most of their existence as independents, similar to TCU having spent most of their history as SWC. And the perspective starts with the conferences and as noted in their name, the B1G 10 historically was 10 teams, without Penn State. Same for Pac 10 and Utah.

Playoff seeding drives the regular season in every other major US sport, home field advantage and avoiding the powerhouse are as good as an advantage as one can get without a bye, we ain't doing no bye's.

And there is an added bonus in this scenario as if you get a top 4 seed to get an opportunity to win your conference tie in game. Having the most Cotton bowl championships would be Big time bragging rights in the SWC as would having the most Rose Bowl Championships in the Pac. The most assured way to do so would be to get a top 4 seed that put you in your tie in in the first round which one would be favored to win, as opposed to being favored to lose an away game and not get any Power Bowl wins.

This preserves and gives Power to the major bowls which is a critical part of College Football historically, and still is in my opinion.

 

[gofor2]

Oh, it's not a pipe dream it's the College Football Multiverse, or an exercise in time wasting. It's what could have been if the NCAA hadn't lost control; what should have been.

The great thing about these old conferences was they they were comprised of 10-8 teams, with many having 9. So you play everyone in conference and then schedule ooc to match the # of "Power" games on everyone else's schedule. Probably 10 P games required across the board.

I wonder how the FCS and Division 3 can have playoffs, but the FBS doesn't. I'm just going to assume its tied to money and greed. I do remember reading a handful of years ago that some of the bigger bowls were afraid playoffs because either A. not being part of an invitational system B. losing their value because the teams / conferences they normally invite might not be available. so, if those were major blockades to playoffs, then it was indeed money / greed that in some part has prevented a real playoff setup.

 

[gofor2]

Playoff seeding drives the regular season in every other major US sport, home field advantage

I remember years back and all of the conversations about expanding playoffs and the need for it / and those against it. The counter argument that I often saw (among others) was "it will devalue regular season games". I never understood that argument and what you typed is something a bit different, but another reason why the regular season isn't devalued.

not really related, but if anything I would drop 1-2 OOC games if needed. I've seen the "against expansion" crowd say the seasons would be too long. Well, 4 games against [ Finebaum ] state university aren't a necessity.

 

[Wexahu]

I'm not a fan of "resumes" and "schedule difficulty" in college football because those are all terms used within the invitational system, which is biased and I think is a dog [ #2020 ] system to begin with. In no other major sport are these silly arguments necessary, because playoffs are real.
But for arguments sake, lets talk about ohio state. What makes you think they had a more difficult schedule? 3 teams out of 14 in the big 10, finished ranked. In almost no year is the Big 10 schedule better than the Big 12, SEC or P12's. At best they move from 4th to 3rd, ahead of the Pac 12, in a given year. The ACC, well the ACC is almost always 5th out of the P5.

• They lost to an unranked Virginia Tech team, in Columbus Ohio.
• It took them 2 OT's to beat an unranked Pedophile state team @ pedophile state.
• If I recall, the combined win-loss records of their opponents were crap. perhaps this can be supported or dismissed with easily found data, but I don't have time to look it up.
• 3 teams out of 14 in the big 10 finished ranked.

Ohio State's opponents had a 88-68 overall record compared to 72-70 of TCU's opponents. Take out the Kent State (awful FBS) and Samford (FCS) games from each other's resume and the discrepancy climbed to 86-59 compared to 65-66.

OSU played Navy (7-5), Va Tech (6-6) and Cincy (9-3) in OOC. TCU played SMU (1-11) and Minnesota (8-4). Both teams played 3 teams that ended up in the Top 25 in the final CFP ranking.

I'm not going to say OSU's schedule was some murderer's row of opponents but it was certainly more difficult than TCU's, even if it wasn't much more difficult. I think OSU if I recall had a better SOS in almost every computer model.

 

[gofor2]

Ohio State's opponents had a 88-68 overall record compared to 72-70 of TCU's opponents. Take out the Kent State (awful FBS) and Samford (FCS) games from each other's resume and the discrepancy climbed to 86-59 compared to 65-66.

OSU played Navy (7-5), Va Tech (6-6) and Cincy (9-3) in OOC. TCU played SMU (1-11) and Minnesota (8-4). Both teams played 3 teams that ended up in the Top 25 in the final CFP ranking.

I'm not going to say OSU's schedule was some murderer's row of opponents but it was certainly more difficult than TCU's, even if it wasn't much more difficult. I think OSU if I recall had a better SOS in almost every computer model.

88-68 = 156 games. 72-70 is 142 games. That's a 14 game difference. We only want regular season game totals. I'm guessing ohio state's opponent record includes its invitational opponents, if it does those need to be removed. If not, then how is there a 14 game difference?

 

[Wexahu]

88-68 = 156 games. 72-70 is 142 games. That's a 14 game difference. We only want regular season game totals. I'm guessing ohio state's opponent record includes its invitational opponents, if it does those need to be removed. If not, then how is there a 14 game difference?

Correction.....it was 87-68 (155 games, .561 winning %) vs 72-71 (143 games....504 winning %). The extra 12 games was due to OSU playing Wisconsin in the CCG.

No games of "invitational" opponents included.

Ironically, going into the final week the opponents winning %'s were basically identical. TCU then played 2-9 Iowa State and OSU played 10-2 Wisconsin. Not very hard to imagine that game flipping the scales. Also, for those people that say the committee caved to public pressure by finally putting Baylor ahead of TCU. Well, going into that last week our best win was Kansas State. That's who Baylor beat in the final week. Looking at it from that perspective, not too hard to imagine why Baylor might have jumped us.

 

[froginmn]

88-68 = 156 games. 72-70 is 142 games. That's a 14 game difference. We only want regular season game totals. I'm guessing ohio state's opponent record includes its invitational opponents, if it does those need to be removed. If not, then how is there a 14 game difference?

Extra game due to CCG

 

[hiphopfroggy]

Ohio State's opponents had a 88-68 overall record compared to 72-70 of TCU's opponents. Take out the Kent State (awful FBS) and Samford (FCS) games from each other's resume and the discrepancy climbed to 86-59 compared to 65-66.

OSU played Navy (7-5), Va Tech (6-6) and Cincy (9-3) in OOC. TCU played SMU (1-11) and Minnesota (8-4). Both teams played 3 teams that ended up in the Top 25 in the final CFP ranking.

I'm not going to say OSU's schedule was some murderer's row of opponents but it was certainly more difficult than TCU's, even if it wasn't much more difficult. I think OSU if I recall had a better SOS in almost every computer model.

I never understood how losing at home to an unranked team could be perceived as the same as losing on the road to a top 6 team.

Then there was the one similar opponent, Minnesota, whom TCU looked much better against than OSU did, and the Minnesota players were making public statements that TCU was better.

 

[Zubaz]

I never understood how losing at home to an unranked team could be perceived as the same as losing on the road to a top 6 team.

Then there was the one similar opponent, Minnesota, whom TCU looked much better against than OSU did, and the Minnesota players were making public statements that TCU was better.

If you want to make the argument that losses at home are worse than losses on the road, then it probably would also hold true that this game at home is different than this game on the road even though they are against a common opponent.

But you're right, Ohio State's loss was way worse than TCU's loss. I don't think anyone argues that isn't a point for TCU. It just didn't overcome the other factors that favored Ohio State like strength of schedule and an outright conference title.

 

[Wexahu]

I never understood how losing at home to an unranked team could be perceived as the same as losing on the road to a top 6 team.

Then there was the one similar opponent, Minnesota, whom TCU looked much better against than OSU did, and the Minnesota players were making public statements that TCU was better.

It's not the same, I don't think anyone said it is. If OSU hadn't of lost that game they'd have been the #1 seed. And why is the worst loss the only parameter one would use? What about the best win? Beating MSU in East Lansing was clearly more impressive than beating Kansas State in Fort Worth. What was our second best win? Minnesota?

And really, I don't know how much better TCU "looked" than Ohio State against Minnesota. TCU played them at home, Ohio State played them on the road (in the snow). TCU outgained Minnesota 427-268, Ohio State outgained them 489-303. TCU definitely won the final score comparison but Ohio State was up 17 points on them with 10:00 to go and was never really in jeopardy of losing that game.

And then you get into the, well, OSU needed overtime to beat Penn State. Yes, that's right, and TCU needed a last second FG and 6 turnovers to beat WVU and all 60 minutes to beat a dreadful Kansas team.

 

[Endless Purple]

Correction.....it was 87-68 (155 games, .561 winning %) vs 72-71 (143 games....504 winning %). The extra 12 games was due to OSU playing Wisconsin in the CCG.

No games of "invitational" opponents included.

Ironically, going into the final week the opponents winning %'s were basically identical. TCU then played 2-9 Iowa State and OSU played 10-2 Wisconsin. Not very hard to imagine that game flipping the scales. Also, for those people that say the committee caved to public pressure by finally putting Baylor ahead of TCU. Well, going into that last week our best win was Kansas State. That's who Baylor beat in the final week. Looking at it from that perspective, not too hard to imagine why Baylor might have jumped us.

I think the idea that the schedules were known prior to the last week's games and TCU was higher is part of the problem many have. Pushing out the extra data point and unclear title in the Big 12. It throws some doubt on the worthiness of the Big 12 team.

2 points standout to me:

It was the inaugural playoff, so to me, that was an important factor of wanting a blue blood like Ohio St in over a TCU (or BU). That is a something that does play a part in why OSU for that year, even if they were left out in later years.

My biggest problem is Alvarez pushing the idea of no clear Big 12 champion and trying to get Ohio St in over TCU. The hypocrisy aspect being so strong. Under Alvarez, Wisconsin has three Big 10 titles recognized where they tied for the win/loss record and lost the head to head with the team they tied. Yet, Wisconsin claims those titles, but Alvarez used it against the Big 12 and TCU. Had the argument been given by a true non-biased person that only cared about the 4 best teams, then maybe...

Either way, it was years ago.

 

[hiphopfroggy]

It's not the same, I don't think anyone said it is. If OSU hadn't of lost that game they'd have been the #1 seed. And why is the worst loss the only parameter one would use? What about the best win? Beating MSU in East Lansing was clearly more impressive than beating Kansas State in Fort Worth. What was our second best win? Minnesota?

And really, I don't know how much better TCU "looked" than Ohio State against Minnesota. TCU played them at home, Ohio State played them on the road (in the snow). TCU outgained Minnesota 427-268, Ohio State outgained them 489-303. TCU definitely won the final score comparison but Ohio State was up 17 points on them with 10:00 to go and was never really in jeopardy of losing that game.

And then you get into the, well, OSU needed overtime to beat Penn State. Yes, that's right, and TCU needed a last second FG and 6 turnovers to beat WVU and all 60 minutes to beat a dreadful Kansas team.

Wasn’t OU ranked highly when TCU beat them?
Yea over time is the other one thanks for the reminder. No way an overtime win should be equal to a win in regulation. I think college football should just get rid of overtime.
But yea, that is three strikes on that OSU team. Then of course the still unprecedented drop from 3 to 6 the day after a 50 point win. Still hasn’t happened again and my guess is that it will never happen again.

 

[Wexahu]

Wasn’t OU ranked highly when TCU beat them?
Yea over time is the other one thanks for the reminder. No way an overtime win should be equal to a win in regulation. I think college football should just get rid of overtime.
But yea, that is three strikes on that OSU team. Then of course the still unprecedented drop from 3 to 6 the day after a 50 point win. Still hasn’t happened again and my guess is that it will never happen again.

Well, I'm not sure a team ranked outside the Top 5 has ever beaten another ranked team by 50+ points before and not moved up. My guess is it will never happen.

Yeah, OU was ranked highly until they lost 4 games (including by 34 points to Baylor in Norman) proving they weren't that good. And we beat them by 4 at home.

 

[hiphopfroggy]

Well, I'm not sure a team ranked outside the Top 5 has ever beaten another ranked team by 50+ points before and not moved up. My guess is it will never happen.

Yeah, OU was ranked highly until they lost 4 games (including by 34 points to Baylor in Norman) proving they weren't that good. And we beat them by 4 at home.

Yea Wisconsin lied down for that one. Took one for team B1G.

 

[Froginbedford]

I'm not a fan of "resumes" and "schedule difficulty" in college football because those are all terms used within the invitational system, which is biased and I think is a dog [ #2020 ] system to begin with. In no other major sport are these silly arguments necessary, because playoffs are real.
But for arguments sake, lets talk about ohio state. What makes you think they had a more difficult schedule? 3 teams out of 14 in the big 10, finished ranked. In almost no year is the Big 10 schedule better than the Big 12, SEC or P12's. At best they move from 4th to 3rd, ahead of the Pac 12, in a given year. The ACC, well the ACC is almost always 5th out of the P5.

• They lost to an unranked Virginia Tech team, in Columbus Ohio.
• It took them 2 OT's to beat an unranked Pedophile state team @ pedophile state.
• If I recall, the combined win-loss records of their opponents were crap. perhaps this can be supported or dismissed with easily found data, but I don't have time to look it up.
• 3 teams out of 14 in the big 10 finished ranked.

Kudos for the use of "biased" and not "bias."