NCAA Playoff Committee Rankings 2014 (Unranked)

[Ndaccountant]

At this point I don't really have much of an issue with the committee other than it appears they are inconsistent week to week. One week they look at SOS, the next week they look at current wins, the next week they look at losses. I don't have a problem with Miss St being at #4 over TCU or Baylor. And with the remaining schedules left for each team and if all three win out, I can't see TCU or Baylor passing them. If Ohio St wins the B1G then they would probably pass Miss St - even though I don't believe they could beat the Dogs on a neutral field.

Too many huge games left to be worried about the committee and what they do. We all have known for a while that no matter what happens, some teams are probably gonna have a legit argument to be in.

If OSU get's in over TCU / Baylor / 1 loss MSU, then everyone outside of Columbus will march to Long's house, beat the living piss out him, douse him in gasoline and burn down his house with him in it.

 

[ulukinatme]

Yeah, this committee's decisions are head scratchers. I don't see why some teams are higher on their list in relation to the AP. USC is 5 spots higher on the playoff board than their AP ranking. Who have they beaten? Arizona I guess, who got lucky against Oregon. USC was also destroyed by BC, which isn't much better than Northwestern. USC is just a small example though. There's also, of course, the fact that FSU is the only undefeated Power 5 team and sitting at #3, not to mention the fact they're defending champions (Even if they're playing a player that will likely be ruled ineligible later).

 

[T Town Tommy]

If OSU get's in over TCU / Baylor / 1 loss MSU, then everyone outside of Columbus will march to Long's house, beat the living piss out him, douse him in gasoline and burn down his house with him in it.

Who knows with the committee? Will conference championships play a larger role? Would a one loss B1G champ OSU get in before an 11-1 Miss State? Would Miss State get in before the Big 12 conference champ? At this point, I don't think anyone knows that answer.

All we really know is there are roughly 6-7 teams right now fighting for four spots. Somebody isn't going to be happy when it's over.

 

[irishog77]

Who knows with the committee? Will conference championships play a larger role? Would a one loss B1G champ OSU get in before an 11-1 Miss State? Would Miss State get in before the Big 12 conference champ? At this point, I don't think anyone knows that answer.

All we really know is there are roughly 6-7 teams right now fighting for four spots. Somebody isn't going to be happy when it's over.

Right. But the committee is using both objective and subjective methods to determine the 4, largely without rhyme nor reason. And if subjectivity is coming into play, then it's probably not a very good system of determination. At least not for a committee of 12, who are doing this part time, and have self-interests.

 

[T Town Tommy]

Right. But the committee is using both objective and subjective methods to determine the 4, largely without rhyme nor reason. And if subjectivity is coming into play, then it's probably not a very good system of determination. At least not for a committee of 12, who are doing this part time, and have self-interests.

I really hope they release their week to week behind the scenes talking points and decision making process at the end of the season. No need to mention names in it and how each voted week to week, but at least a nice summary of their overall thought process in coming up with the rankings. I doubt that happens... but it would be nice to "read" their thoughts.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

At this point I don't really have much of an issue with the committee other than it appears they are inconsistent week to week. One week they look at SOS, the next week they look at current wins, the next week they look at losses. I don't have a problem with Miss St being at #4 over TCU or Baylor. And with the remaining schedules left for each team and if all three win out, I can't see TCU or Baylor passing them. If Ohio St wins the B1G then they would probably pass Miss St - even though I don't believe they could beat the Dogs on a neutral field.

Too many huge games left to be worried about the committee and what they do. We all have known for a while that no matter what happens, some teams are probably gonna have a legit argument to be in.

The bolded is a huge problem. If voting is based off which side of the bed the committee woke up on that morning, then it should be scrapped.

Who knows with the committee? Will conference championships play a larger role? Would a one loss B1G champ OSU get in before an 11-1 Miss State? Would Miss State get in before the Big 12 conference champ? At this point, I don't think anyone knows that answer.

All we really know is there are roughly 6-7 teams right now fighting for four spots. Somebody isn't going to be happy when it's over.

Two things: 1) The fact that no one knows the answers to those questions is absurd. They established criteria before the season started and throughout this whole process they've been very wishy washy in regards to it. I think they need to remove most of the subjectivity by adding more black and white criteria. Example; "Win the conference and you're in." Here's the problem with that...2) There are 5 power conferences and only four spots. There will also be an argument for not only the top four, but also the first four out. Meaning in reality, the only logical thing to happen is to expand to eight teams. People, myself included, having been saying this all along: 5 conference champs and 3 at-large bids. That would help a great deal and would do away with this week-to-week bullshit that everyone is being force fed.

Right. But the committee is using both objective and subjective methods to determine the 4, largely without rhyme nor reason. And if subjectivity is coming into play, then it's probably not a very good system of determination. At least not for a committee of 12, who are doing this part time, and have self-interests.

Agreed.

 

[gkIrish]

I think the worst thing that can happen is if they give Conference Champions a huge bump in the final poll.

What they SHOULD do is give FSU, Ohio St. TCU, Oregon, and Bama the assumption that they win the conference championship (based on current conference standings) and take that into account in the current rankings.

It's going to be yet another sham if OSU jumps Miss. St. after winning the Big 10 championship if Miss. St. wins out.

 

[wizards8507]

Would Miss State get in before the Big 12 conference champ?

I sure hope so. The Big 12 championship shouldn't count for a damn thing, except maybe for picking *this* Big 12 team over *that* Big 12 team. The whole reason the conference championship has value is because a 12-1 team has an objectively better record than an 11-1 team, and that extra win came against a damn good opponent. 11-1 Mississippi State compared to 11-1 TCU or Baylor should be determined based on SOS, not awarding the Big 12 team arbitrary points for the way their conference sets the schedule. All conferences are not created equal. Notre Dame and Navy could form a "conference," but that doesn't mean Notre Dame should get special treatment for winning it.

For the record, I love the Big 12 round robin schedule. I think their "one true champion" line is exactly correct, even though I highly doubt they even believe it themselves.

It's going to be yet another sham if OSU jumps Miss. St. after winning the Big 10 championship if Miss. St. wins out.

Why? Isn't 12-1 better than 11-1, especially if that last win came against Wisconsin in December? They shouldn't get a bump because they have the title "Big 10 champion," but I think the bump is appropriate because they won more games.

 

[irishog77]

I sure hope so. The Big 12 championship shouldn't count for a damn thing, except maybe for picking *this* Big 12 team over *that* Big 12 team. The whole reason the conference championship has value is because a 12-1 team has an objectively better record than an 11-1 team, and that extra win came against a damn good opponent. 11-1 Mississippi State compared to 11-1 TCU or Baylor should be determined based on SOS, not awarding the Big 12 team arbitrary points for the way their conference sets the schedule. All conferences are not created equal. Notre Dame and Navy could form a "conference," but that doesn't mean Notre Dame should get special treatment for winning it.

For the record, I love the Big 12 round robin schedule. I think their "one true champion" line is exactly correct, even though I highly doubt they even believe it themselves.


Why? Isn't 12-1 better than 11-1, especially if that last win came against Wisconsin in December? They shouldn't get a bump because they have the title "Big 10 champion," but I think the bump is appropriate because they won more games.

I think something worth noting and pounding home to the general public is that MSU, out of 12 games, will have only played 8 Power 5 teams. Baylor, who is getting killed (publicly and by the 12 voters) for their schedule, will have played 9. TCU will have played 10. If "scheduling' matters, as the committee is claiming, then they need to nut-up and show that it matters.

 

[gkIrish]

Why? Isn't 12-1 better than 11-1, especially if that last win came against Wisconsin in December? They shouldn't get a bump because they have the title "Big 10 champion," but I think the bump is appropriate because they won more games.

12-1 is better than 11-1 all else being equal. But MSU is 2 spots ahead of Ohio St. in the current ranking.

So looking at the remaining schedule:

MSU:
Vanderbilt
@#8 Ole Miss

Ohio St.:
Indiana
Michigan
vs. #16 Wisc. (neutral site)

So there's no way Ohio St. can improve it's resume enough in the last 3 weeks unless they give OSU a big bump simply for officially winning the Big 10.

I have no problem with "Conference Champion" being a resume-booster. But my point is that it makes more sense to give these teams that credit now (and adjust accordingly if they lose) so that we don't see OSU randomly jump a Miss. St. with a much better resume in the very last poll.

 

[T Town Tommy]

ACC commissioner John Swofford would like 8 teams in College Football Playoff - ESPN

Guess Swofford realizes that there will be some years his conference will not make it. Let FSU lose one and this will be that year. I do agree that eight team playoff format is in the near future however.

 

[koonja]

Go to 8 teams, auto-bids for conference champs, and let the BCS points grant the next 3. Drop the committee.

 

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

Go to 8 teams, auto-bids for conference champs, and let the BCS points grant the next 3. Drop the committee.

Yeah this is the best way of doing it. I was pro-four teams until this year. 5 teams and autobids gets everyone in and leaves open the chance for a Group of 5 team to make it, potentially. The committee is awful as well.

 

[IrishinSyria]

Go to 8 teams, auto-bids for conference champs, and let the BCS points grant the next 3. Drop the committee.

No thanks on the auto bids. A 9-3 team shouldn't have a chance to play for the belt just because they won their conference.

 

[irishog77]

Is it me, or has nobody else heard much (if any) criticism on the committee? Seems like every talking head I've heard on the radio or on TV has talked about how much they like the committee. What am I missing?

 

[T Town Tommy]

Is it me, or has nobody else heard much (if any) criticism on the committee? Seems like every talking head I've heard on the radio or on TV has talked about how much they like the committee. What am I missing?

I have heard quite a bit, primarily on national radio.

 

[irishog77]

I have heard quite a bit, primarily on national radio.

Really? Good. From who? What are they saying?

 

[T Town Tommy]

No thanks on the auto bids. A 9-3 team shouldn't have a chance to play for the belt just because they won their conference.

But it does eliminate the conference from whining... looking at you Jim Delaney.

1. Eliminate one regular season game.
2. Play nine conference games.
3. Schedule only Power 5 teams.
4. Play your conference champ game.
5. Three at large based on BCS formula.
6. Quarters played at home site of highest four seeds in second week of Dec.
7. Semis tied to the major bowl games and played on New Year's day.
8. NCG played one week later.

I just did in two minutes what it would take the NCAA to do in two years. Get it done.

 

[irishfan]

My biggest issue if this Top-4 stands is that MSU has already proven they couldn't beat Bama. Why should they get another opportunity to do so as opposed to a 1-loss team from a different conference?

This committee kind of screwed themselves by coming out with rankings so early and having them be every single week. TCU and the entire SEC West were so hyped up at the time of the first rankings, they've been propped up in the rankings still even as their resumes look less and less impressive. They completely did this when it comes to TCU/Baylor. The gap between those two teams initially was massive, and it will be a shame if 11-1 Baylor isn't ahead of 11-1 TCU at the end of the season.

Also, the fact that Miss State gets a complete pass for their OOC when Baylor is getting crucified for it is completely ridiculous.

 

[T Town Tommy]

Really? Good. From who? What are they saying?

ESPN - can't remember the guy's name but he comes on around 11:00 pm most nights. He was railing on it last night.

 

[koonja]

Which brings me back to a question I asked before the committee's first poll: Why would you want to be on the committee? No pay, no more openly rooting for your team, the teams you let in don't care, and the ones you leave out will give you hell. I wonder what the member turnover will be. I personally hope we go back to BCS points before we find out.

 

[irishog77]

ESPN - can't remember the guy's name but he comes on around 11:00 pm most nights. He was railing on it last night.

Oh, so the dude that is on air when 90% of his audience is in bed, let alone listening to the radio.

Way to offer a contrarian viewpoint, media.

I seriously don't get the hard-as-a-rock-boner all these dudes have for the committee/playoffs.

 

[T Town Tommy]

Which brings me back to a question I asked before the committee's first poll: Why would you want to be on the committee? No pay, no more openly rooting for your team, the teams you let in don't care, and the ones you leave out will give you hell. I wonder what the member turnover will be. I personally hope we go back to BCS points before we find out.

Most people were very unhappy with the BCS system as well. I would hope that the committee could evaluate games, teams, etc much better than computers, pollsters, and coaches who don't have time to watch games outside their conference.

For the most part, the committee is in a no win situation. Four spots, five conferences. No clear cut top four teams to choose from. Somebody will be disappointed. And the committee will have to take the criticism. I would expect some pretty good turnover once we have seen it operate a few years.

 

[T Town Tommy]

Oh, so the dude that is on air when 90% of his audience is in bed, let alone listening to the radio.

Way to offer a contrarian viewpoint, media.

I seriously don't get the hard-as-a-rock-boner all these dudes have for the committee/playoffs.

He comes on from the west coast. Wish I could remember his name but can't at the moment. As far as tv media, I don't really think we will see as much criticism from the likes of ESPN right now. They do have a vested interest in making this whole thing work. But when the final four is chosen, I would expect some of the so called "experts" to start chiming in more aggressively when their team don't make it - Robert Smith is first in line. Let FSU get beat before then and Danny Kanell will have an anuerism when they are left out.

 

[Circa]

Go to 8 teams, auto-bids for conference champs, and let the BCS points grant the next 3. Drop the committee.

I agree completely.

 

[NCND]

I'd rather have actual humans than some computer formula that no one understood.

 

[irishog77]

Can some stat/science/psychology nerd dig up some stats or studies regarding human bias in polls? Specifically, the tendency to rate something higher that you have always rated high? I realize I'm not doing a solid job of explaining this (I'm in a hurry).

An example of what I'm talking about is how recruiting services often don't have huge movements in their rankings of players because the service loses perceived credibility if 1) a player who was rated low rockets up the rankings. The service then has to deal with the question of why didn't you notice him sooner. Or 2) a player who was rated high free falls down the rankings. The service then has to deal with a question of why they ever had him rated so high to begin with.

In the example above, services are better off keeping their rankings more toward the mean or average, and not moving players up or down very much. I think in polls like the committee's rankings, humans are always more likely to tend toward an initial poll, if only to justify a previous ranking, or to exclude themselves from perceived interest of special interests or outside pressures to move a team late.

 

[GoldenDome]

Go to 8 teams, auto-bids for conference champs, and let the BCS points grant the next 3. Drop the committee.

Wouldn't that force ND to fully join a conference then?

 

[irishog77]

He comes on from the west coast. Wish I could remember his name but can't at the moment. As far as tv media, I don't really think we will see as much criticism from the likes of ESPN right now. They do have a vested interest in making this whole thing work. But when the final four is chosen, I would expect some of the so called "experts" to start chiming in more aggressively when their team don't make it - Robert Smith is first in line. Let FSU get beat before then and Danny Kanell will have an anuerism when they are left out.

This is my thought too. It would be nice to offer some contrarian points of view now, but I think (well, am hoping anyway) that we will see them once the final decision is made. And if 6-8 teams all finish with similar resumes, then I'm hoping as well that it becomes passionate and heated.

 

[Cackalacky]

I'd rather have actual humans than some computer formula that no one understood.

I like the ideas of a model being used better than humans who have their own biases but the problem is most models for sports are heavily biased or have very limited capabilities based on initial assumptions and conditions. We can create models to track and predict many things, we just can't predict whether Golson will play a turnover free game or shit the bed or whether/when Clemson is going to Clemson itself out of a game. I think the best sports models are around 65-70% accurate when they are used in betting.