The CFP Selection Process has a BIG Problem Now...

[zipp]

...In the aftermath of the A&M loss on Saturday, this point may have been made. And my apologies if I'm just repeating it...

Anytime you do an analysis that leads to a crazy result, you should fundamentally question that process of analysis. Whatever system that the Committee used to tab A&M one of the four best teams two-thirds of the way into the season obviously has issues. It's not my or your job to figure that out--you can make that case simply looking at the result... The very team that was most controversial being in the gang of four loses to a hapless opponent with a losing record.

Let's see if any talking heads call them out after they update their picks tomorrow... Why should we believe they did a better job selecting the four best teams THIS week?

 

[ULGrad09]

I believe the mistake you are making (as well as many, many others) is that an "analysis" was ever done to place A&M. IMO, it was a team that could be placed that drummed up media and excitement (whether positive or negative) of the rankings release. My assumption is because of this, ratings will be at an all time release high for the upcoming releases. Could be wrong, but that is my .02

 

[PushupMan]

The fact that A&M lost will certainly give ammunition to the people on the committee who do NOT believe that strength of schedule is the second most important factor in ranking these teams (the most important being wins and losses). And that can only help us, since the only ranked teams we have faced are Clemson and FSU.

I think as UofL fans we have spent most of our football-watching lives observing that strength of schedule is not nearly as important as the matchup between the two teams that actually take the field against each other. Our victory in the 2013 Sugar Bowl is probably the best example in UofL football history of this statement, but it's hardly the only one.

The problem with the SoS'ers is that they start believing that a team with (for example) two wins over top 25 teams is significantly better than another team with only one win over a top 25 team. They start to rely on this metric instead of looking at how talented a team actually is on offense, defense, and special teams. When two teams match up, these matchups of offense versus defense, defense versus offense, and special teams versus special teams are what will determine the outcome of the game - NOT which team has more wins over teams with winning records.

 

[nccardfan]

...In the aftermath of the A&M loss on Saturday, this point may have been made. And my apologies if I'm just repeating it...

Anytime you do an analysis that leads to a crazy result, you should fundamentally question that process of analysis. Whatever system that the Committee used to tab A&M one of the four best teams two-thirds of the way into the season obviously has issues. It's not my or your job to figure that out--you can make that case simply looking at the result... The very team that was most controversial being in the gang of four loses to a hapless opponent with a losing record.

Let's see if any talking heads call them out after they update their picks tomorrow... Why should we believe they did a better job selecting the four best teams THIS week?

Look Booger McFarland picked Michigan state as the best Big 10 team after the first game of the season. He's completely wrong but he's not losing his job for making one bad prediction. It's all for entertainment. He's gets crucified with emails, texts, tweets whatever but people can be wrong with their opinions, that's why this message board thrives. It's not to hold people accountable unless it's real life and death.

 

[Kratz]

Regardless of the theories used, UVA and Duke hurt us. Everyone knows what the teams are. It was known that we were and are far superior to both. We underperformed, and it cost us.

Knowledge of teams and perception does matter. If I were in their place, I'd place OSU above us as well. They didn't have 2 games where they didn't show up. They won at Oklahoma. They lost a close one to a pretty good Penn State team.

OSU and Michigan have both shown up for every game this year. We missed two. When it comes down to 1 loss teams, that will matter in the end.

 

[nccardfan]

...In the aftermath of the A&M loss on Saturday, this point may have been made. And my apologies if I'm just repeating it...

Anytime you do an analysis that leads to a crazy result, you should fundamentally question that process of analysis. Whatever system that the Committee used to tab A&M one of the four best teams two-thirds of the way into the season obviously has issues. It's not my or your job to figure that out--you can make that case simply looking at the result... The very team that was most controversial being in the gang of four loses to a hapless opponent with a losing record.

Let's see if any talking heads call them out after they update their picks tomorrow... Why should we believe they did a better job selecting the four best teams THIS week?

Go back to the last two years with the CFP. They didn't get it right each week either. I think we are being a little over sensitive because we have more at stake this year.

 

[zipp]

Appreciate the feedback. Nobody but this year's CFP Committee is responsible for being right. What a prior year's committee did or decided doesn't matter; what a guy named "Booger" said doesn't matter. What any of us said before or theorize today doesn't matter.

THAT committee is responsible for A&M being projected in the Top Four AND for that decision to have been so terrible. Let's see if they address that proactively, or whether someone has to point that out to them. And if it's true, let them just say we did it to stir debate...

 

[Rollem Cards]

OSU and Michigan have both shown up for every game this year. We missed two. When it comes down to 1 loss teams, that will matter in the end.

So you think tOSU showed up for Penn St?

But we didn't for a solid Duke team?

Ok.

 

[Cardinal Cash]

Regardless of the theories used, UVA and Duke hurt us. Everyone knows what the teams are. It was known that we were and are far superior to both. We underperformed, and it cost us.

Knowledge of teams and perception does matter. If I were in their place, I'd place OSU above us as well. They didn't have 2 games where they didn't show up. They won at Oklahoma. They lost a close one to a pretty good Penn State team.

OSU and Michigan have both shown up for every game this year. We missed two. When it comes down to 1 loss teams, that will matter in the end.

You're forgetting they almost lost at home to Northwestern who is basically duke or UVA.

 

[KozmasAgain]

Northwestern is not as good as Duke.

 

[Section 12 Jerk]

Northwestern is not as good as Duke.

Careful, there's a September game result you might want to look up.

 

[KozmasAgain]

I would love to look some results up but the Rival site has been down for days. Am I the only one having trouble with this or is everybody else having the same trouble?

 

[CardLaw]

You realize that everyone in the CFP committee has it in for Louisville. They spend their entire meeting talking about how to screw UL. They all hate petrino but they all really love the SEC. In fact, I heard they plan to make the entire playoff this year SEC teams. You heard it here first.

 

[KozmasAgain]

I thought after the embarrassing display of football by the SEC teams last weekend including Alabama and LSU you wouldn't post for awhile.

 

[rockycard]

I thought after the embarrassing display of football by the SEC teams last weekend including Alabama and LSU you wouldn't post for awhile.

I don't put anyone on ignore, guys like him I just skip reading.

 

[Knucklehank1]

You realize that everyone in the CFP committee has it in for Louisville. They spend their entire meeting talking about how to screw UL. They all hate petrino but they all really love the SEC. In fact, I heard they plan to make the entire playoff this year SEC teams. You heard it here first.

I don't think they have it out for UofL, but I'm certain there are administrators that have no use for Petrino. I'm also certain that "blueblood" programs and SEC programs are not viewed as skeptically as the nouveau riche like UofL.

 

[Kratz]

So you think tOSU showed up for Penn St?

But we didn't for a solid Duke team?

Ok.

Yeah, that's exactly what I think. I was at the Duke game, and spent at least half of the game with my face buried in my hands and groaning. It was pathetic. Let me give you a play by play recap of how the game went for Duke on offense

1st down: Run up the middle, gain 3 yards
2nd down: Run up the middle, gain 3 yards.
3rd down. QB roll to the right pass for 4-5 yards. 1st down.

Lather, rinse, repeat.

They did it all night and we couldn't stop them.

Luckily for us, they messed up and ran into the kicker or we could easily have lost that game.

It was a turd from beginning to end.

Outplayed and outcoached. The only thing that saved us was superior talent and a timely roughing the kicker call.

 

[Rollem Cards]

Ok. You think we suck.

How did tOSU manage to lose to PSU? (Who is not very good BTW regardless the skirt blowing from the FPC). And totally stink up the joint at Northwestern (which unlike PSU, they won)?

Never mind.

The more I look at schedules, and records, the Duke game is less and less "terrible". Duke has 6 losses by an average 8 points. Their biggest loss was to the "terrible" UVA by 14. The second was by 11 to Northwestern in September. The same NW that tOSU beat by 3 in Oct. (so, on paper, tOSU would beat Duke by 14) They just lost the last two games by 3 each to Ga Tech and VT.

I'm just saying, everybody lays eggs. The good ones win those bad games.

Plus, tOSU can lay eggs all day long, and not get penalized for it. We mess around, but WIN, and the theme is "OMG THEY SUCK!" And that includes some of OUR fans.

Geezzz sometimes I think it was more fun hoping to beat So Miss or Cincy in our BIG game of the year to make the Liberty Bowl, instead of WINNING, but we hearing how badly we suck.

Beam me up.

 

[beantowncard]

The fact that A&M lost will certainly give ammunition to the people on the committee who do NOT believe that strength of schedule is the second most important factor in ranking these teams (the most important being wins and losses). And that can only help us, since the only ranked teams we have faced are Clemson and FSU.

I think as UofL fans we have spent most of our football-watching lives observing that strength of schedule is not nearly as important as the matchup between the two teams that actually take the field against each other. Our victory in the 2013 Sugar Bowl is probably the best example in UofL football history of this statement, but it's hardly the only one.

The problem with the SoS'ers is that they start believing that a team with (for example) two wins over top 25 teams is significantly better than another team with only one win over a top 25 team. They start to rely on this metric instead of looking at how talented a team actually is on offense, defense, and special teams. When two teams match up, these matchups of offense versus defense, defense versus offense, and special teams versus special teams are what will determine the outcome of the game - NOT which team has more wins over teams with winning records.

SOS is really impossible to determine when so many teams don't play each other. The funny one is the "eye test". In other words, who looks good, as if they are playing against the same level of competition. Without a real playoff, where teams play their way in, nothing has really changed from the hated BCS era.

 

[PushupMan]

SOS is really impossible to determine when so many teams don't play each other. The funny one is the "eye test". In other words, who looks good, as if they are playing against the same level of competition. Without a real playoff, where teams play their way in, nothing has really changed from the hated BCS era.

Two things have changed, and in my opinion both are for the better. The first change is fairly obvious- there are now 4 teams in the playoff instead of 2. The second change is that they now have a committee that determines the best four teams instead of a computer formula. The committee better recognizes the power of conference championships, primarily in terms of reducing controversy over which four teams get picked. That's why 100% of the picks so far have been undisputed P5 conference champions.

 

[arizan]

Two things have changed, and in my opinion both are for the better. The first change is fairly obvious- there are now 4 teams in the playoff instead of 2. The second change is that they now have a committee that determines the best four teams instead of a computer formula. The committee better recognizes the power of conference championships, primarily in terms of reducing controversy over which four teams get picked. That's why 100% of the picks so far have been undisputed P5 conference champions.

The selection committee shouldn't release a ranking every week, just pick the playoff teams & NY6 bowls. I know it's ESPN made-for-TV time to argue driven, but these rankings really hold no importance towards the final decision. The basketball committee just releases a bracket and they're done, the football tournament should work the same way. Let the AP and coaches polls do their thing during the season.

 

[PushupMan]

Northwestern is not as good as Duke.

Actually Northwestern IS better than Duke. Northwestern beat Duke 24-13 in the 3rd week of the year.

 

[65bird]

I think "they" still believe we are a little like Boise State.
A very good team but with the best player in CFB.
But not a top 4 team.

Clemson needs to win the Big Trophy this year.
We need to be in the Top 10 consistently.
VTech, the U, UNC, Pitt need to be in the Top 25 consistently.
The ACC needs to improve from the bottom up.

Or, we need to be unbeaten.

 

[PushupMan]

Appreciate the feedback. Nobody but this year's CFP Committee is responsible for being right. What a prior year's committee did or decided doesn't matter; what a guy named "Booger" said doesn't matter. What any of us said before or theorize today doesn't matter.

THAT committee is responsible for A&M being projected in the Top Four AND for that decision to have been so terrible. Let's see if they address that proactively, or whether someone has to point that out to them. And if it's true, let them just say we did it to stir debate...

Welcome to the process, rookie! Someone in the top 4 gets beat nearly every week, so I would not hold my breath waiting for an apology.

As an example, consider the first four rankings of 2014:

During 2014, the committee's first rankings had #1 Mississippi State (7-0), #2 Florida State (7-0), #3 Auburn (6-1), and #4 Ole Miss (7-1). Three SEC teams in the top four, and a fourth one (Alabama) ranked 6th.

Ole Miss lost that very first week to fall to 11th and ended up finishing 9-4. Oregon (8-1) replaced them in the top 4, and Auburn, FSU, and MSU all won their games that first week to remain 3-2-1.

After the second set of ratings were released, Auburn lost to fall to 9th on their way to an 8-5 finish. Oregon, FSU, and MSU all won that week, but when the third set of rankings came out, the committee "demoted" undefeated FSU to 3rd behind Oregon. TCU (8-1) entered the top 4 at that point.

During that next week of games, #1 Mississippi State lost to Alabama (who was 5th at 8-1 in the 3rd week's rankings) and fell to 4th in the fourth week of rankings. Alabama jumped all the way to #1. Oregon and undefeated FSU (the only undefeated team in the nation) stayed #3. TCU was #5, Ohio State was #6 and Baylor #7. Mississippi State would lose once more in the regular season to fall out of the top four.

As we all know, Ohio State at 12-1 and undisputed Big Ten champion was awarded the 4th spot in the final rankings, ahead of Big XII co-champions Baylor (11-1) and TCU (11-1). The 4th seeded Buckeyes went on to win the national championship in the first college football playoff.

 

[zipp]

I understand that teams at the top get beat. That wasn't what happened to A&M. They got smoked by one of the SEC dumpster fire programs.

You're highlighting losses by Top Four teams the last two years. How many of those losses were to teams like Mississippi State?...

 

[nccardfan]

After listening to Trevor Matick(?) this morning, I have a little better understanding of their thought process. Trevor explained that the CFP has Alabama no.1 because they are "believed" to be the best team in the country even though they feel Clemson has the better body of work. In the past the computer would probably have Clemson as 1 although I think an eye factor also played into the computer rankings. But yes the CFP is more subjective than in the past but I think that more pundits wanted an eye factor than just numbers. I guess that is hard to take for some of us.

 

[topdecktiger]

THAT committee is responsible for A&M being projected in the Top Four AND for that decision to have been so terrible.

This is the entire problem. The committee does NOT project. They only rank teams according to games that have been played. They don't project what will happen in the future. They literally don't even consider future games on the schedule, conference standings, etc. until those things actually happen.

So in other words, the fact that A&M was ranked #4 last week does NOT mean the committee was projecting A&M to be in the playoffs. The committee was literally only saying A&M was #4 that week.

 

[beantowncard]

Two things have changed, and in my opinion both are for the better. The first change is fairly obvious- there are now 4 teams in the playoff instead of 2. The second change is that they now have a committee that determines the best four teams instead of a computer formula. The committee better recognizes the power of conference championships, primarily in terms of reducing controversy over which four teams get picked. That's why 100% of the picks so far have been undisputed P5 conference champions.

Push, the only reason they are "undisputed" champs is because everybody agreed to this ridiculous idea. There is a perfectly good model for a proper college playoff at the FCS level, but instead of adopt that they decide on only 4 teams (absurd when there are 120 teams in FBS) and incorporate these dumb bowl games (mostly money losers for the schools, but ESPN makes good coin since they own most of the bowls) so that the playoff isn't legit. Too much emphasis is placed on being undefeated and on opinions. Can you imagine what would happen the FBS had a proper playoff? It would be March Madness X 10! But no. Sometimes I think Roger Goodell secretly runs college football. That's how screwed up they are.

 

[PushupMan]

I understand that teams at the top get beat. That wasn't what happened to A&M. They got smoked by one of the SEC dumpster fire programs.

You're highlighting losses by Top Four teams the last two years. How many of those losses were to teams like Mississippi State?...

First off, A&M got "smoked" by 7 points.

Second, the very first team I mentioned that lost in the 2014 CFP (Ole Miss) lost to Arkansas 30-0, which was a very LPT-like 5-4 at the time.

 

[Capt Tony]

After listening to Trevor Matick(?) this morning, I have a little better understanding of their thought process. Trevor explained that the CFP has Alabama no.1 because they are "believed" to be the best team in the country even though they feel Clemson has the better body of work. In the past the computer would probably have Clemson as 1 although I think an eye factor also played into the computer rankings. But yes the CFP is more subjective than in the past but I think that more pundits wanted an eye factor than just numbers. I guess that is hard to take for some of us.

I'm sorry, but the eye factor test leads to subjectivity, and allows A&M to still be in the Top 10, when it's clear they are not a Top 10 team. It also allows for bias for the OSU's of the world, which will once again leaves us on the outside looking in. I trust computers WAAAY more than I trust these nimrods. And my post isn't aimed at you nccardfan.

 

[gocds]

First off, A&M got "smoked" by 7 points.

Second, the very first team I mentioned that lost in the 2014 CFP (Ole Miss) lost to Arkansas 30-0, which was a very LPT-like 5-4 at the time.

First TAM was smoked because they were heavily favored to win the game vs Miss State. The CFP is seen to be favoring the $ec and the BIG. And I don't really care about what happened two years ago. The ACC is being disrespected, period.

GO CARDS - BEAT EVERYBODY!!! God Bless America!!!

 

[PushupMan]

First TAM was smoked because they were heavily favored to win the game vs Miss State. The CFP is seen to be favoring the $ec and the BIG. And I don't really care about what happened two years ago. The ACC is being disrespected, period.

GO CARDS - BEAT EVERYBODY!!! God Bless America!!!

Louisville is being disrespected because this year we have the misfortune of drawing Virginia and Duke out of the ACC Coastal Division. Duke is 3-6 and Virginia is 2-7, and they are the two lowest rated teams in the ACC Coastal.

 

[KozmasAgain]

I was watching ESPN this morning when I was at the gym and they Louisville as one of the top 6 teams that has a chance for the playoffs. Unfortunately there was no sound and they had Paul Finebum on there for commentary, I wish I knew what that idiot was saying.

 

[clearthebases]

I was watching ESPN this morning when I was at the gym and they Louisville as one of the top 6 teams that has a chance for the playoffs. Unfortunately there was no sound and they had Paul Finebum on there for commentary, I wish I knew what that idiot was saying.

He said.... I have a tattoo of the SEC logo on one cheek and roll tide tattoo on the other.

 

[PushupMan]

Push, the only reason they are "undisputed" champs is because everybody agreed to this ridiculous idea.

They are undisputed champions because they all won their conference championship. Seven of them (FSU, Alabama, Ohio State and Oregon in 2014 and Clemson, Alabama and Michigan State in 2015) won their conference championship game, and Oklahoma in 2015 won their conference title based on winning percentage in conference games.

While I like the idea of a larger eight or even sixteen team playoff, I recognize that football is a collision sport that results in many injuries. At least for now, I am okay with limiting the maximum number of football games in a year played by college athletes at FBS schools to 15.

 

[CardLaw]

I thought after the embarrassing display of football by the SEC teams last weekend including Alabama and LSU you wouldn't post for awhile.

Really? A game that has generally been described as one of the great exhibitions in recent times? One guy on Fox Sports radio said Sunday "you couldn't take your eyes off it".

Oh, that's right . . . basketball school.

 

[rockycard]

Really? A game that has generally been described as one of the great exhibitions in recent times? One guy on Fox Sports radio said Sunday "you couldn't take your eyes off it".

Oh, that's right . . . basketball school.

Why do SEC fans criticize B1G schools for non offensive games like that?

 

[nccardfan]

I'm sorry, but the eye factor test leads to subjectivity, and allows A&M to still be in the Top 10, when it's clear they are not a Top 10 team. It also allows for bias for the OSU's of the world, which will once again leaves us on the outside looking in. I trust computers WAAAY more than I trust these nimrods. And my post isn't aimed at you nccardfan.

No offense taken. I was just saying that the difference between the CFP and the BCS system in years prior was primarily based on computer ratings with some subjectivity. The CFP system is based on knowledge of the committee and their "opinions" and interpretation of SOS and other factors. Much more subjective. There needs to be a better balance.

 

[CardLaw]

Why do SEC fans criticize B1G schools for non offensive games like that?

Depends on the game in my case. I can't speak for anyone else.

It is not that hard to discern whether a game is low scoring because of bad offense or good defense. I recall a UK/IU game about 20 years ago that ended 3-0 (forget who won). It was awful to watch. In Saturday's UA/LSU game, the offenses had no chance. It helps having seen both teams multiple time previously this year so there was a knowledge base of the capability of the lines and RB's. But neither defensive front was allowing anything to go by. As a defensive guy myself, I thought it was a thing of beauty.

 

[zipp]

If the conference championship process is allowed to restructure to select the two best teams in each conference--and not necessarily the division champs--you would have de facto quarterfinal games, in some cases, built into those championship games and no need to add another weekend and round of games.

This year, for example, you'd probably have Clemson v. U of L, tOSU v. Michigan (unless the loser gets drilled in their rival game), Bama v. A&M/LSU/Auburn, and Washington v. USC(?) Still no auto-bids, but those games would determine the CFP entries in at least the ACC and Big Ten games. Bama may be in anyway (unless they got drilled), and the fourth team would be Washington or, if they lose, the best of the rest incl. the Big XII.

Playing champ games like Clemson v. Va Tech are just date-fillers and money-makers...