The CardBoard
CFP Discussion - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: CFP Discussion (/thread-18481.html)

Pages: 1 2

CFP Discussion - OutsiderFan - 11-10-2019

On the heels of LSU 46 Alabama 41, it sure seems the CFP got a lot more complicated. There is a clear consensus on the Top 3, but after that, wow is it a real sticky situation. The OutsiderFan CFP rankings after Week 11 results:

1. LSU
2. Ohio State
3. Clemson
4. Alabama
5. Georgia
6. Florida
7. Oregon
8. Utah
9. Baylor
10. Oklahoma 
11. Minnesota*

* Win out, they get in CFP for sure.

It sucks to say 4 SEC teams are better than any Pac-12 team, but it is the truth if you are objective about it, right? Oregon lost to Auburn, who is the 5th best SEC team. No way the Ducks or Utes beat any of the Top 4 SEC teams.

If Georgia beats LSU in SEC CG, it's simple. LSU is the #4 and Georgia the #3 team. The problem is if LSU wins the SEC CG, then what? LSU will have beaten Florida, Alabama, Georgia, and Auburn for good measure. Georgia and Florida would have 2 losses, and if Alabama beats an Auburn team Oregon couldn't, they would have just 1. How could you have Oregon or Utah over Alabama? Could you possibly claim Oregon or Utah as good as 1-loss Alabama or even 2 loss Georgia and Florida? Then you have the possibility of Baylor and Oklahoma in the conversation.


Anyone have any thoughts on this situation?

RE: CFP Discussion - martyup - 11-10-2019

You seem to be stretching to find ways to keep Bama in the top 4.  A one losss conference champion should go over a 1 loss team that didn't win its conference. 

What about Minn?  They just took out a top 4 team. If they win out do you out them in?

RE: CFP Discussion - OutsiderFan - 11-10-2019

(11-10-2019, 09:28 AM)martyup Wrote:  You seem to be stretching to find ways to keep Bama in the top 4.  A one losss conference champion should go over a 1 loss team that didn't win its conference. 

What about Minn?  They just took out a top 4 team.  If they win out do you out them in?

I'm just going off of the eye test. Alabama is way better than Oregon or Utah based on what I have seen. Losing at home by 5 to this year's LSU team is nothing to be embarrassed about. Anyone want to argue any Pac-12 team is as good as LSU, Georgia, Alabama, or Florida?

As far as conference champion, the committee has already set a precedent for a team that didn't win its conference being in the playoff, when Ohio State turned the trick in 2016.

If Minnesota wins out, that would give them wins over Penn State, Iowa, Wisconsin, and Ohio State along with an undefeated record. That puts them in playoff without a doubt.

RE: CFP Discussion - Farm93 - 11-10-2019

(11-10-2019, 09:28 AM)martyup Wrote:  You seem to be stretching to find ways to keep Bama in the top 4.  A one losss conference champion should go over a 1 loss team that didn't win its conference. 

What about Minn?  They just took out a top 4 team.  If they win out do you out them in?

It was a pretty good weekend for the Pac-12 CFP chances.   A Baylor loss would have really helped, but the results still were good for the Pac-12.  And at this point Stanford needs the Pac-12 in the CFP almost more than any other program in the Pac-12.   Sadly, the Pac-12 needs 4 more good or great weekends to get a Pac-12 team into the CFP.

The SEC winner will take a spot
The BigTen winner will take a spot
Clemson..errr...the ACC winner will take a spot.

That leaves one spot (again) for either SEC #2, Notre Dame, Big12 #1 or Pac12 #1.

Notre Dame is out.  
My guess/hope is the Big12 winner will have 2 losses.  
Sadly my fear is the Pac12 winner will have 2 losses too.   :(
Looks probable that the SEC West #2 will finish with 1 loss.

So at the moment my guess is
tOSU - #1
LSU/Georgia winner - #2
Clemson - #3
Alabama - #4
LSU/Georgia Loser - #5
Big12 Champ (with two losses) - #6
Pac-12 Champ (with two losses) - #7

That situation will mean 4 different SEC teams getting CFP/NY6 invites.  Is it contractually possible to get 5?  If yes, they will get 5 before the Pac-12 gets 2.  The BigTen getting 3, and the Pac-12 getting 1 (again).

That one invite trend is a problem for Stanford.   Stanford's nationally based recruiting is hurt when households in the USA essentially see the Pac-12 as the best conference in the Group of 6.   They see a Pac-12 conference that gets only one team into the big time bowl games and six or seven other teams into bowl games that even 6th and 7th round level draft picks elect to skip to prepare for the NFL combine.

I think the Ducks have a better chance to do good things in the CFP, so for now I hope the Ducks finish 14-1.

RE: CFP Discussion - Goose - 11-10-2019

If Clemson and LSU win out, they are in for sure. If the B1G champion wins out, they are in for sure. If Baylor wins out, they are in for sure. After that, things get interesting. I believe that, by the committee guidelines, a 1 loss conference champion always trumps a 1 loss team that is not the conference champion. In 2016 Ohio State was considered the best team in the B1G by the committee. Wisconsin had two losses. Ohio state got the nod as the "real" B1G champion. If Georgia beats LSU for the championship, then Alabama, Georgia, and LSU would all have one loss, and Georgia would be the champion. Georgia must then be selected. It would then come down to a choice of the PAC-12 and Big-12 one loss champions.
ESPN won't like it, but a 1 loss SEC team that is not the conference champion can't be selected over 1 loss conference champions from the B1G, PAC-12 or Big-12. If that should happen, it will blow up the agreement between the power 5 conferences. That would appear to be contrary to the committee's guidelines. Selections among 1 loss conference champions, e.g. between PAC-12 and Big-12 would generate controversy, but is clearly within the rules. Stepping outside the rules simply isn't going to happen, IMHO.

RE: CFP Discussion - OutsiderFan - 11-10-2019

(11-10-2019, 10:40 AM)Goose Wrote:  ESPN won't like it, but a 1 loss SEC team that is not the conference champion can't be selected over 1 loss conference champions from the B1G, PAC-12 or Big-12. If that should happen, it will blow up the agreement between the power 5 conferences.

Is this codified in some sort of contract language?

The thing is, either way you want to argue this situation, the only resolution is expanding the field so all conference champions get in or also adding 2 at-large teams. I'd be fine with AAC, ACC, B1G, B12, Pac-12, and SEC champs, and first round byes for top 2 seeds OR 8 teams with two at-large, with at-large not being able to have home playoff game.

Let's say LSU, Clemson, Utah, Oklahoma, Minny and Cincy win out in a 6 team field.

#1 LSU (SEC)
#2 Clemson (ACC)
#3 Minny (B1G)
#4 Utah (P12)
#5 Oklahoma (B12)
#6 Cincy (AAC)

If it were expanded to 8, have quarters, semis, championship:
Alabama and Ohio State would be in as at-large (no higher than 5 seeds, so probably 5 and 6 seeds).

First round games (or Quarterfinals) on home campuses:
#6 Cincy at #3 Minnesota
#5 Oklahoma at #4 Utah

Semifinal round:
#3 Minny at #1 LSU (Bowl)
#5 Oklahoma at #2 Clemson (Bowl)

Championship:
#2 Clemson at #1 LSU (Bowl)

RE: CFP Discussion - Goose - 11-10-2019

(11-10-2019, 11:28 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote:  
(11-10-2019, 10:40 AM)Goose Wrote:  ESPN won't like it, but a 1 loss SEC team that is not the conference champion can't be selected over 1 loss conference champions from the B1G, PAC-12 or Big-12. If that should happen, it will blow up the agreement between the power 5 conferences.



Is this codified in some sort of contract language?
The answer is "sort of". The committee operates under agreed-upon guidelines. The committee set the guidelines and the conferences agreed to them. I am sure there is no real "article 50 exit" clause in that agreement. However, if the guidelines are violated in an obvious way, I believe there would be enough hated and discontent generated that the idea of a selection committee wouldn't survive it. The guidelines clearly say that conference championships count as tie-breakers when teams have equivalent records. The consequences of not honoring that understanding would render the selection process a travesty, and everybody in the country would know it. It may already be that, but it isn't clearly demonstrable. They have never made a selection yet that was directly contradictory to a guideline.
The members of the committee are diverse enough that it is improbable a majority would go directly against a guideline. Sticking to the "rules" is the course of least resistance. However, if a PAC-12 champion has two losses and an SEC runner-up has only one loss, it is NOT a direct violation of the guidelines to leave out the PAC-12 champion ad choose the 1 loss SEC runner-up instead. Controversial, it would be, but not clearly a breach of the "rules". If both teams have one loss, it is possible to argue their records are not "equivalent" because a loss in the SEC championship game is less bad than a loss in the regular season to say USC, and that trumps a conference championship. However, I think that would be such a hard sell that the committee isn't ever going to do such a thing. It might even be worth the problems it would generate if it expanded the field to eight teams sooner rather than later. What wouldn't work would be for example, the  ACC, and SEC to say "Too bad, agreements are meaningless. We control the agenda". The committee provides at least a vernier of objectivity. If that is removed, it isn't a "national championship".

RE: CFP Discussion - Farm93 - 11-10-2019

(11-10-2019, 01:03 PM)Goose Wrote:  The answer is "sort of". The committee operates under agreed-upon guidelines. The committee set the guidelines and the conferences agreed to them. I am sure there is no real "article 50 exit" clause in that agreement. However, if the guidelines are violated in an obvious way, I believe there would be enough hated and discontent generated that the idea of a selection committee wouldn't survive it. 
They SHOULD give consideration to conference champions, but that's not been super strong to date.  The SEC has a good chance at two teams because of that very real "SEC gets everything" clause in the agreement.

Bama probably beats out Utah, if 12-1 Utah only beats a two loss Oregon team in the Pac-12 CG.
Bama probably beats out Clemson if Clemson wins the ACC, but loses big to South Carolina.

I have no doubt that should 12-0 tOSU lose to an undefeated Minnesota in the BigTen CG, then tOSU would have a great case to also bump out the Pac-12 given the quality of teams in their BigTen division.   

If Utah is the 12-1 Pac-12 CG I honestly do not expect they will go, and I live in Pac-12 territory.   I am sure folks in the SEC have no doubt that any/every 1-loss SEC team beats out every Pac-12, Big-12 and ACC champs with one loss.

RE: CFP Discussion - OutsiderFan - 11-10-2019

(11-10-2019, 01:03 PM)Goose Wrote:  The answer is "sort of". The committee operates under agreed-upon guidelines. The committee set the guidelines and the conferences agreed to them. I am sure there is no real "article 50 exit" clause in that agreement. However, if the guidelines are violated in an obvious way, I believe there would be enough hated and discontent generated that the idea of a selection committee wouldn't survive it. The guidelines clearly say that conference championships count as tie-breakers when teams have equivalent records. The consequences of not honoring that understanding would render the selection process a travesty, and everybody in the country would know it. It may already be that, but it isn't clearly demonstrable. They have never made a selection yet that was directly contradictory to a guideline.
The members of the committee are diverse enough that it is improbable a majority would go directly against a guideline. Sticking to the "rules" is the course of least resistance. However, if a PAC-12 champion has two losses and an SEC runner-up has only one loss, it is NOT a direct violation of the guidelines to leave out the PAC-12 champion ad choose the 1 loss SEC runner-up instead. Controversial, it would be, but not clearly a breach of the "rules". If both teams have one loss, it is possible to argue their records are not "equivalent" because a loss in the SEC championship game is less bad than a loss in the regular season to say USC, and that trumps a conference championship. However, I think that would be such a hard sell that the committee isn't ever going to do such a thing. It might even be worth the problems it would generate if it expanded the field to eight teams sooner rather than later. What wouldn't work would be for example, the  ACC, and SEC to say "Too bad, agreements are meaningless. We control the agenda". The committee provides at least a vernier of objectivity. If that is removed, it isn't a "national championship".

As mentioned earlier, there simply is no way to remedy this situation for the committee, SEC, Pac-12, B12, AAC, ACC, and B1G, or frankly the fans, other than to make a binding rule that only conference champions may be in the playoff. That would mean expanding to 8 teams with 2 at-large berths because there is no way the SEC should be limited to one team given how good its football teams are annually.

RE: CFP Discussion - BostonCard - 11-10-2019

This is a fun tool to play with...

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2019-college-football-predictions/

Right now, if either Utah or Oregon win out, without assumptions about other teams, they have about a 2/3 chance of making the playoffs.  So, looks like some other stuff has to happen, which probably will.

BC

RE: CFP Discussion - Phogge - 11-10-2019

IDGAF about the playoff. I am now hoping that Kelly and Ian Book come down with season ending food poisoning. Not life ending.

I do GAF about pitchers and catchers reporting. Can’t wait.

RE: CFP Discussion - Austroturf - 11-10-2019

After the 2017 season, a one loss Bama (11-1, 2nd in the SEC west) edged out Big Ten conference champion Ohio State to take the 4th CFP spot behind #3 Georgia, #2 Oklahoma and #1 Clemson.  Alabama beat Clemson (24-6) and then prevailed in the NCG 26-23 against Georgia in an all SEC final.  So there is nothing in the contract that excludes a one-loss SEC team that did not even win their division to be excluded from the CFP.  

Ohio State was a 2-loss champion (vs. Oklahoma and Iowa), as well as USC (Notre Dame and Wazzu).  And so far, no 2-loss team has made the CFP.  Auburn was the SEC west champion, but had 2 losses after the SEC Championship game against Georgia.

RE: CFP Discussion - Goose - 11-10-2019

(11-10-2019, 02:58 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote:  As mentioned earlier, there simply is no way to remedy this situation for the committee, SEC, Pac-12, B12, AAC, ACC, and B1G, or frankly the fans, other than to make a binding rule that only conference champions may be in the playoff. That would mean expanding to 8 teams with 2 at-large berths
Totally agree. FWIW, David Shaw agrees. Amazing we have found common ground. It should have been this way from the start. Some bowls don't like it, but too bad, it needs to happen.
Quote:because there is no way the SEC should be limited to one team given how good its football teams are annually.
Don't like your reason, although it may play out that way often. Two at-large berths are needed to allow the highest quality teams that didn't win their conference (or are not in a conference) to have a shot.

RE: CFP Discussion - qwerty49 - 11-10-2019

(11-10-2019, 03:32 PM)BostonCard Wrote:  This is a fun tool to play with...

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2019-college-football-predictions/

Right now, if either Utah or Oregon win out, without assumptions about other teams, they have about a 2/3 chance of making the playoffs.  So, looks like some other stuff has to happen, which probably will.

BC

And if the Pac CCG turns out to be a 17-14 or 14-10 yawner, the Pac Champ won't make much of a dent in anyone's consciousness.

RE: CFP Discussion - Goose - 11-10-2019

(11-10-2019, 03:54 PM)Austroturf Wrote:  After the 2017 season, a one loss Bama (11-1, 2nd in the SEC west) edged out Big Ten conference champion Ohio State to take the 4th CFP spot behind #3 Georgia, #2 Oklahoma and #1 Clemson.  Alabama beat Clemson (24-6) and then prevailed in the NCG 26-23 against Georgia in an all SEC final.  So there is nothing in the contract that excludes a one-loss SEC team that did not even win their division to be excluded from the CFP.
Absolutely true. A one-loss team from any conference could, at least in theory, get in if circumstances were right.

Quote:Ohio State was a 2-loss champion (vs. Oklahoma and Iowa), as well as USC (Notre Dame and Wazzu).  And so far, no 2-loss team has made the CFP.  Auburn was the SEC west champion, but had 2 losses after the SEC Championship game against Georgia.
Exactly my point. If the champion of any P5 conference has two or more losses, a team from another conference with only one loss can credibly be justified as having a better record. It would take some doing, but it can be justified. However, AFAIK, it has yet to happen that a one loss conference champion has lost out to a one loss non-champion. I don't think this will ever will happen either, because the uproar would be just too great. Justifying that choice would require totally devaluing the conference championship, and I don't think the committee would ever want to take the heat for doing that.

lex24 - lex24 - 11-10-2019

The Giants hopefully will have a manager by then....


quote="Phogge" pid='260475' dateline='1573425315']
IDGAF about the playoff. I am now hoping that Kelly and Ian Book come down with season ending food poisoning. Not life ending.

I do GAF about pitchers and catchers reporting. Can’t wait.
[/quote]

RE: CFP Discussion - cardcoug - 11-10-2019

I think you may be right, Goose, that the uproar that would result from taking a 1 loss non-champion over a 1-loss champ would be too much for the committee. But i dont think its obviously true, and it would not be some sort of violation of their guidelines, as you've been saying. "Championships won" is one of three independent tie-breakers that are all listed as having equal weight, alongside head-to-head competition and strength of schedule. And the tie that is to be broken is not between teams with equivalent records, but instead between teams that "look similar" according to the committee's general procedures for ranking teams. There is more than enough wiggle room in all of that for them to put 11-1 Bama in over 12-1 Utah without violating any guidelines, even in spirit.

RE: CFP Discussion - CowboyIndian - 11-10-2019

Y'know...until the $EC and ACC, with 14 teams each, play a 9-game conference schedule, these "rules" for the committee are absurd. A 1-loss $EC team has played one less conference game and, in all likelihood, one less Power 5 team . They have to be made to pay for that, but I don't see it happening. In fact, the talking heads all smugly remind us how "smart" those conferences are for not changing when it keeps working for them. I call BS.

RE: CFP Discussion - Goose - 11-10-2019

(11-10-2019, 06:32 PM)cardcoug Wrote:  I think you may be right, Goose, that the uproar that would result from taking a 1 loss non-champion over a 1-loss champ would be too much for the committee. But i dont think its obviously true, and it would not be some sort of violation of their guidelines, as you've been saying. "Championships won" is one of three independent tie-breakers that are all listed as having equal weight, alongside head-to-head competition and strength of schedule. And the tie that is to be broken is not between teams with equivalent records, but instead between teams that "look similar" according to the committee's general procedures for ranking teams. There is more than enough wiggle room in all of that for them to put 11-1 Bama in over 12-1 Utah without violating any guidelines, even in spirit.

What I hang my hat on is this statement:
"The criteria to be provided to the selection committee must be aligned with the ideals of the commissioners, Presidents, athletic directors and coaches to honor regular season success while at the same time providing enough flexibility and discretion to select a non-champion or independent under circumstances where that particular non-champion or independent is unequivocally one of the four best teams in the country."

To me that says you must choose the conference champion unless there is absolutely no doubt (unequivocally) that the non-champion is better. Generally, the conference champion will have one more win than the non-champion, and by assumption they have the same number of losses. I see no way, under that set of conditions, one could unequivocally say the non-champion is better. At least we agree that it probably would never happen.

RE: CFP Discussion - Austroturf - 11-11-2019

(11-10-2019, 07:18 PM)Goose Wrote:  
(11-10-2019, 06:32 PM)cardcoug Wrote:  I think you may be right, Goose, that the uproar that would result from taking a 1 loss non-champion over a 1-loss champ would be too much for the committee. But i dont think its obviously true, and it would not be some sort of violation of their guidelines, as you've been saying. "Championships won" is one of three independent tie-breakers that are all listed as having equal weight, alongside head-to-head competition and strength of schedule. And the tie that is to be broken is not between teams with equivalent records, but instead between teams that "look similar" according to the committee's general procedures for ranking teams. There is more than enough wiggle room in all of that for them to put 11-1 Bama in over 12-1 Utah without violating any guidelines, even in spirit.

   

What I hang my hat on is this statement:
"The criteria to be provided to the selection committee must be aligned with the ideals of the commissioners, Presidents, athletic directors and coaches to honor regular season success while at the same time providing enough flexibility and discretion to select a non-champion or independent under circumstances where that particular non-champion or independent is unequivocally one of the four best teams in the country."

To me that says you must choose the conference champion unless there is absolutely no doubt (unequivocally) that the non-champion is better. Generally, the conference champion will have one more win than the non-champion, and by assumption they have the same number of losses. I see no way, under that set of conditions, one could unequivocally say the non-champion is better. At least we agree that it probably would never happen.

In the 2017 case, Ohio State's resume was tarnished by that one blow-out loss to Iowa in an away game.  Otherwise, they had only the one blemish against Big 12 conference champ, Oklahoma.  The Tide, by contrast, had just one spot on their record, which was a 24-16 loss at #6 Auburn.  Though many in the Big Ten were up in arms about the decision to exclude their champion, Alabama vindicated the committee by brushing away #1 Clemson and then coming back to defeat SEC champion Georgia in the title game.  The message from this experience to the committee: exclude a one-loss Alabama at your own peril.