2018 College Football Playoff

[Irish YJ]

If true, then award the best team by not forcing them to or play those games again
They beat them, they shouldn't have to prove they're better again

So OK should not have had a shot at TX, and should not have been in the conversation for the final 4?

 

[Junkhead]

And UCF has zero losses. And beat Pitt by a lot more than ND, and about the same as Clemson did....

If we're prioritizing Ws and Ls, and looking at common opponents....

Point is, people use the eye test when they want, and rely on records and common opponents when they want. It's too subjective.

I thought about that also, but looking at the UCF schedule, it doesn't look like theyve even beaten a ranked team. Forgive me if I'm wrong, took a quick glance.

 

[greyhammer90]

So OK should not have had a shot at TX, and should not have been in the conversation for the final 4?

OK and Texas are voluntarily part of a conference that decides how a conference championship is won. If Oklahoma and Texas have entered into an agreement that "this one counts" for the purposes of the BIG XII, I don't really care. I do think that Oklahoma is more deserving from a resume perspective than a 2 loss Georgia and they haven't had the opportunity to play another playoff team. They've earned their shot.

 

[IrishLax]

Kirk waiving this reward the 4 best team flag is insane. The playoff isn’t about naming a top 4. It’s about naming a top 1. We’ve already determined it’s not Georgia. Maybe Georgia is #2. But we now know they aren’t #1 so there is no point in including them any longer. This is just a continuation of the Michigan > ND argument. Why play the games if we are going to act like the playoff = power rankings. No one is going to remember who was #3 in the CFB playoff 10 years later. We just need to determine who is #1!

Nailed it. Absolutely fucking nailed it.

The playoff system was basically designed to avoid the Alabama vs LSU rematch debacle from the 2011 season where Oklahoma State was left at home... and now we have an ESPN personality arguing for the "Bama" in that situation (Georgia) to supplant the "Oklahoma State" (Oklahoma) without a shred of irony.

 

[ickythump1225]

Matt Leinart out there saying that ND should move down #4 because they don't have the "13th data point." For one, can we drop the douchey terminology of calling it a "data point" like we're doing science experiments? Secondly, OK and OSU needed 13 "data points" to equal the number of wins we have. Third, Leinart makes it seem like it was such and advantage for us to not have a CCG.

Yeah, this year it helped, but what if we would have ran the table in 2015 or 2017? That lack of a "data point" would have worked against us. Independence means we basically have to run the table to get in.

 

[irishnd31]

Herby has absolutely lost his marbles. I’ve never seen him this unnerved. He is such a cunt when tOSU is left out of the discusssion. I hope eyes are open at the ESPN mothership to see that he’s a sinking ship.

 

[ickythump1225]

Herbie came into this year as my favorite analyst out there. I've lost basically all respect for him at this point.

 

[irishnd31]

Matt Leinart out there saying that ND should move down #4 because they don't have the "13th data point." For one, can we drop the douchey terminology of calling it a "data point" like we're doing science experiments? Secondly, OK and OSU needed 13 "data points" to equal the number of wins we have. Third, Leinart makes it seem like it was such and advantage for us to not have a CCG.

Yeah, this year it helped, but what if we would have ran the table in 2015 or 2017? That lack of a "data point" would have worked against us. Independence means we basically have to run the table to get in.

Exactly. Especially when a few of the other data points are wins over FCS and a bakery of cupcakes.

 

[irishnd31]

And stop playing the top 15 in offensive and defensive efficiency. You will have that when you play against shit.

 

[STLDomer]

Herby has absolutely lost his marbles. I’ve never seen him this unnerved. He is such a cunt when tOSU is left out of the discusssion. I hope eyes are open at the ESPN mothership to see that he’s a sinking ship.

Herbie came into this year as my favorite analyst out there. I've lost basically all respect for him at this point.

My favorite development of this year is that Chris Fallica “Bear” very obviously thinks Desmond and Kirk are idiots. Between his small appearances on Gameday, his podcast, and his twitter account it becomes quite obvious.

EDIT: Fowler does too. It’s like they’ve gotten so deep in their own heads every bystander is like wtf are you guys spewing.

 

[Irish YJ]

OK and Texas are voluntarily part of a conference that decides how a conference championship is won. If Oklahoma and Texas have entered into an agreement that "this one counts" for the purposes of the BIG XII, I don't really care. I do think that Oklahoma is more deserving from a resume perspective than a 2 loss Georgia and they haven't had the opportunity to play another playoff team. They've earned their shot.

"deserving" is not subjective though?

so basically, you value w/l record over taking the actual best teams. nothing wrong with that. if that's the case, the CFP needs to be honest and clarify that their goal is not to find the 4 "best" teams, it's to find a subjective "most deserving". but then UCF says "we beat Pitt by the same amount as Clemson, a bunch more than ND, and we have zero losses. Why aren't we deserving, and if playing in the AAC disqualifies us, why are we included in the CFP Div 1 at all."

 

[greyhammer90]

"deserving" is not subjective though?

so basically, you value w/l record over taking the actual best teams. nothing wrong with that. if that's the case, the CFP needs to be honest and clarify that their goal is not to find the 4 "best" teams, it's to find a subjective "most deserving". but then UCF says "we beat Pitt by the same amount as Clemson, a bunch more than ND, and we have zero losses. Why aren't we deserving, and if playing in the AAC disqualifies us, why are we included in the CFP Div 1 at all."

Most deserving is a much better criteria than "best". The nature of cfb is a lot of teams, low numbers for games, even lower numbers for meaningful crossover games to accurately compare. Those factors all mean that "best" almost has to be based on: 1) Prior years performance, 2) Eye Test, 3) Reputation. All of these are almost entirely ruled by biases.

Choosing a top 4 is like methods of judicial interpretation. There's a lot of ways to do it, none are perfect, but some are certainly less flawed.

Btw my response to UCF as a playoff emperor would be: While you have a few common opponents, the overall strength of your record doesn't qualify you. If they complained that playing in the AAC automatically disqualified them, I'd say: Playing in the AAC does not disqualify you. Your strength of schedule does.

 

[ARALOU]

Matt Leinart out there saying that ND should move down #4 because they don't have the "13th data point." For one, can we drop the douchey terminology of calling it a "data point" like we're doing science experiments? Secondly, OK and OSU needed 13 "data points" to equal the number of wins we have. Third, Leinart makes it seem like it was such and advantage for us to not have a CCG.

Yeah, this year it helped, but what if we would have ran the table in 2015 or 2017? That lack of a "data point" would have worked against us. Independence means we basically have to run the table to get in.

Clemson and OSU got another "data point" against teams that ND already played. So what if the Irish don't have a conference championship. They scheduled two conference division winners, however you want to look at it. Their usual rivals are down, Michigan, USC, Stanford. Who knew it would be that way? Their schedule this year was a juggernaut on paper. The experts said they could never get through it. They didn't play The Citadel, UMASS, MTSU, or the no defending Big 12. They have recently played Georgia, LSU, and some other blue blood programs close games or won outright.

 

[Irish YJ]

Most deserving is a much better criteria than "best". The nature of cfb is a lot of teams, low numbers for games, even lower numbers for meaningful crossover games to accurately compare. Those factors all mean that "best" almost has to be based on: 1) Prior years performance, 2) Eye Test, 3) Reputation. All of these are almost entirely ruled by biases.

Choosing a top 4 is like methods of judicial interpretation. There's a lot of ways to do it, none are perfect, but some are certainly less flawed.

Btw my response to UCF as a playoff emperor would be: While you have a few common opponents, the overall strength of your record doesn't qualify you. If they complained that playing in the AAC automatically disqualified them, I'd say: Playing in the AAC does not disqualify you. Your strength of schedule does.

Judicial interpretation, lol... You just made my point. The decision is based on who you have as SCOTUS, who are picked subjectively, and interpret subjectively.

UCF/AAC reply - so basically common opponents mean nothing, and every AAC team starts out disadvantaged because they belong to the AAC. In essence, you're telling me I have to be perfect in our conference, and we all have to be Kreskin when scheduling our OoC opponents 4-6 years in advance. So why is the AAC included in the Div1 CFP again?

 

[Circa]

So OK should not have had a shot at TX, and should not have been in the conversation for the final 4?

Oklahoma shouldn't have been in the Championship game. If we want to get crazy let's be honest. WVU got hosed by a terrible officiating crew and now people are more interested for locality reasons.

 

[greyhammer90]

Judicial interpretation, lol... You just made my point. The decision is based on who you have as SCOTUS, who are picked subjectively, and interpret subjectively.

UCF/AAC reply - so basically common opponents mean nothing, and every AAC team starts out disadvantaged because they belong to the AAC. In essence, you're telling me I have to be perfect in our conference, and we all have to be Kreskin when scheduling our OoC opponents 4-6 years in advance. So why is the AAC included in the Div1 CFP again?

The issue is that this isn't like judicial interpretation. If it was, and a few committee members wanted to peddle their "best" criteria for their own votes I wouldn't care beyond thinking that those members had flawed logic. But they've basically come out and said that this is the way things will be done. It would be like if SCOTUS came out and said "We are not doing textualist interpretation anymore, we only care about intent." That's not a subjective group with each individual doing their subjective best criteria. That's a group stating that they have a set formulaic criteria, and it's a flawed one.

Re UCF:

So I made the division lines? Did I create the conferences and the divisions, or am I the guy who decides who should play for a national championship? The whole "why are we D1 then?" strikes me as an old lady going to her zoning board to complain about the fact that her son never visits. That's really sad, but it's not what we're here for. We're here to decide who should get to play for the championship on the basis of merit on the field. We're not here to question the nature of UCF's existence.

 

[Circa]

The issue is that this isn't like judicial interpretation. If it was, and a few committee members wanted to peddle their "best" criteria for their own votes I wouldn't care beyond thinking that those members had flawed logic. But they've basically come out and said that this is the way things will be done. It would be like if SCOTUS came out and said "We are not doing textualist interpretation anymore, we only care about intent." That's not a subjective group doing their subjective best criteria. That's a group stating that they have a criteria, and it's a flawed one.

Re UCF:

So I made the division lines? Did I create the conferences and the divisions, or am I the guy who decides who should play for a national championship? The whole "why are we D1 then?" strikes me as an old lady going to her zoning board to complain about the fact that her son never visits. That's really sad, but it's not what we're here for. We're here to decide who should get to play for the championship on the basis of merit on the field. We're not here to question the nature of UCF's existence.

<iframe src="https://giphy.com/embed/2w5gYZI5SZLY7fVMxl" width="480" height="290" frameBorder="0" class="giphy-embed" allowFullScreen></iframe><p><a href="https://giphy.com/gifs/Interstellardesignz-johncrist-johnbcrist-john-b-crist-2w5gYZI5SZLY7fVMxl">via GIPHY</a></p>

 

[EddytoNow]

IMHO, the CFP should be expanded to six teams.

Every Power 5 conference champion should be included. Win your conference and you qualify. If you don't win your conference, you don't qualify for the play-offs.

The sixth team would be the highest ranked independent team (i.e. Notre Dame, Navy, etc.) or non-Power 5 Conference Champion (i.e. UCF, South Florida, Cincinnati, etc.). This team must be ranked in the top ten or top fifteen to qualify.

These six teams could be seeded (AP Poll, Coach's Poll, or a combination of polls) to determine who gets a bye in the first round. Top two teams both get first round byes. The remaining four teams play in the first round. All six teams share in any first round money.

Round two would consist of the two first round winners and the two teams who received first round byes. Highest ranked team plays lowest ranked team. Next highest ranked team plays next lowest ranked team. All four teams share in any second round money.

Winners play in National Championship Game. Both teams share in any finals money.

This would eliminate any preference given to favored conferences as each conference gets a single entrant to the play-offs. The qualifiers would be determined on the field, not in a room full of "experts". Teams would also not be punished for playing a difficult non-conference schedule. They would have a single goal - to win their conference. Or in the case of independents or non-P5 conferences to be ranked higher than similar teams.

If the P5 conferences want to continue with conference championship games to decide who represents each conference, they are free to do so. But each conference is entitled to only a single entrant in the play-offs.

 

[Redbar]

Re UCF:

So I made the division lines? Did I create the conferences and the divisions, or am I the guy who decides who should play for a national championship? The whole "why are we D1 then?" strikes me as an old lady going to her zoning board to complain about the fact that her son never visits. That's really sad, but it's not what we're here for. We're here to decide who should get to play for the championship on the basis of merit on the field. We're not here to question the nature of UCF's existence.

I’m going to borrow this line, if you don’t mind. Rolling!

 

[Irish YJ]

The issue is that this isn't like judicial interpretation. If it was, and a few committee members wanted to peddle their "best" criteria for their own votes I wouldn't care beyond thinking that those members had flawed logic. But they've basically come out and said that this is the way things will be done. It would be like if SCOTUS came out and said "We are not doing textualist interpretation anymore, we only care about intent." That's not a subjective group doing their subjective best criteria. That's a group stating that they have a criteria, and it's a flawed one.

Re UCF:

So I made the division lines? Did I create the conferences and the divisions, or am I the guy who decides who should play for a national championship? The whole "why are we D1 then?" strikes me as an old lady going to her zoning board to complain about the fact that her son never visits. That's really sad, but it's not what we're here for. We're here to decide who should get to play for the championship on the basis of merit on the field. We're not here to question the nature of UCF's existence.

you compare it to judicial interpretation, then say it isn't? bottom line, the CFP has sent mixed messages in the past. they have talked about the making sure they have the "best teams", and they have talked about making sure they get the teams with "the best resume". They don't define either. They've talked about how critical records and common opponents are, and then have said "but team XX is playing much better late in the season". There is not set criteria. If they came out and said we weight W/L 40 %, common opponents 20%, SoR 20%, and current (last 4 games) performance 20%, I'd be fine. But they don't, and they duck and weave with their answers to fit their output.

On the UCF answer - based on that logic (who should really play for the CFP), you can not dismiss UCF without slotting UGA in the final 4. Unless you have your own subjective weighting, which you do. Personally, I don't think UCF is one of the 4 best teams, but again, the subjective ideology that eliminates both UCF at one end of the spectrum, and UGA at the other end, is incredibly flawed.

And, the CFPC is responsible to the entire D1 community. Not just the P5

 

[ulukinatme]

The one good thing about tonight: Buckeye fans are salty. It's increasingly looking like they're going to get left out of the playoff, and they're pissed at ND because of that. Honestly, next to Georgia, I think the Buckeyes probably had the best chance of knocking off Alabama round 1...but none of that matters now, what's done is done. Unless OU somehow leapfrogs us (I hope not), we've gotta hope that Murray finds a way to stymie 'Bama's defense and put up lots of points...cause heaven knows their defense isn't going to be able to get more than one or two stops...if any.

 

[ulukinatme]

IMHO, the CFP should be expanded to six teams.

Every Power 5 conference champion should be included. Win your conference and you qualify. If you don't win your conference, you don't qualify for the play-offs.

The sixth team would be the highest ranked independent team (i.e. Notre Dame, Navy, etc.) or non-Power 5 Conference Champion (i.e. UCF, South Florida, Cincinnati, etc.). This team must be ranked in the top ten or top fifteen to qualify.

These six teams could be seeded (AP Poll, Coach's Poll, or a combination of polls) to determine who gets a bye in the first round. Top two teams both get first round byes. The remaining four teams play in the first round. All six teams share in any first round money.

Round two would consist of the two first round winners and the two teams who received first round byes. Highest ranked team plays lowest ranked team. Next highest ranked team plays next lowest ranked team. All four teams share in any second round money.

Winners play in National Championship Game. Both teams share in any finals money.

This would eliminate any preference given to favored conferences as each conference gets a single entrant to the play-offs. The qualifiers would be determined on the field, not in a room full of "experts". Teams would also not be punished for playing a difficult non-conference schedule. They would have a single goal - to win their conference. Or in the case of independents or non-P5 conferences to be ranked higher than similar teams.

If the P5 conferences want to continue with conference championship games to decide who represents each conference, they are free to do so. But each conference is entitled to only a single entrant in the play-offs.

I don't like the 6 team argument, it's too complicated. There's nothing wrong with 8 teams, and the games can be done in the same number of rounds as a 6 team playoff. Take the P5 Conference Champions, another SEC team if you must for 6, and then in a year like this year you take ND and UCF. That would be a pretty damn good playoff. The only Top 10, 2 loss team left out of that scenario is Michigan. How great is that?

 

[greyhammer90]

you compare it to judicial interpretation, then say it isn't? bottom line, the CFP has sent mixed messages in the past. they have talked about the making sure they have the "best teams", and they have talked about making sure they get the teams with "the best resume". They don't define either. They've talked about how critical records and common opponents are, and then have said "but team XX is playing much better late in the season". There is not set criteria. If they came out and said we weight W/L 40 %, common opponents 20%, SoR 20%, and current (last 4 games) performance 20%, I'd be fine. But they don't, and they duck and weave with their answers to fit their output.

On the UCF answer - based on that logic (who should really play for the CFP), you can not dismiss UCF without slotting UGA in the final 4. Unless you have your own subjective weighting, which you do. Personally, I don't think UCF is one of the 4 best teams, but again, the subjective ideology that eliminates both UCF at one end of the spectrum, and UGA at the other end, is incredibly flawed.

And, the CFPC is responsible to the entire D1 community. Not just the P5

I used judicial interpretation as an illustration of the differences between "best" and "most deserving" in that, like judicial interpretation doctrines, any doctrine is going to be flawed but there are some doctrines that are more flawed. I never said or intended to say the cfb playoff committee "was like" judicial interpretation.

Subjective weighting on some level is inevitable. Where it becomes monstrous is when you can say " it doesn't matter if Team A loses, because they're obviously better than Team B despite having a worse SOS and W-L record. What makes them better? I can tell by watching them. They look fast and long. Therefore despite their loss, they are better. " UCF has the record that's comparable, but they bottom out on SOS in every objective measure. And yes, the playoff committee has an obligation to all of D1... to decide who plays in the playoffs on the basis of merit. Their job is not to say "is this fair for UCF given their conference and scheduling opportunities? And what does this imply for the future AAC teams?"

 

[Irish YJ]

I used judicial interpretation as an illustration of the differences between "best" and "most deserving" in that, like judicial interpretation doctrines, any doctrine is going to be flawed but there are some doctrines that are more flawed. I never said or intended to say the cfb playoff committee "was like" judicial interpretation.

Subjective weighting on some level is inevitable. Where it becomes monstrous is when you can say " it doesn't matter if Team A loses, because they're obviously better than Team B despite having a worse SOS and W-L record. What makes them better? I can tell by watching them. They look fast and long. Therefore despite their loss, they are better. " UCF has the record that's comparable, but they bottom out on SOS in every objective measure. And yes, the playoff committee has an obligation to all of D1... to decide who plays in the playoffs on the basis of merit. Their job is not to say "is this fair for UCF given their conference and scheduling opportunities? And what does this imply for the future AAC teams?"

You're talking like a lawyer lol.... "it's this, but not this when it comes to that. it could be this, but it really depends on magnitude of that. And that is only determined by how we interpret this and that.

This is FB. Set a standard, or rules of measurement, and stick to it.

It's fair that the AAC question the CFP's selection criteria. Since the criteria is really unknown and subjective. If ND got left out in the current situation, or jumped and fall to 4, would you feel like an old lady asking about why her son doesn't come to visit when questioning the CFP's decision?

 

[ulukinatme]

Ohio State is so, so incredibly salty right now. I still wish they'd be in that #4 spot, but since they're not I can at least enjoy their tears. It's delicious.

 

[IrishLax]

http://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/25427784/college-football-playoff-picks-espn-experts

They asked all the ESPN people who they think should be in. All but one -- Brian Kinchen, I dunno who that is -- said ND should be in.

So if the committee is remotely objective and reflective of public sentiment, ND should be the 3 seed.

 

[ulukinatme]

http://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/25427784/college-football-playoff-picks-espn-experts

They asked all the ESPN people who they think should be in. All but one -- Brian Kinchen, I dunno who that is -- said ND should be in.

So if the committee is remotely objective and reflective of public sentiment, ND should be the 3 seed.

I'm sure we're in, but I could see the committee screwing us over and putting OU ahead of us. They job us to Alabama first round, and we get another Clemson vs. Bama for the championship 'cause meh.

Interesting that Tom Ramsey put us at #2 there.

 

[Irish YJ]

http://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/25427784/college-football-playoff-picks-espn-experts

They asked all the ESPN people who they think should be in. All but one -- Brian Kinchen, I dunno who that is -- said ND should be in.

So if the committee is remotely objective and reflective of public sentiment, ND should be the 3 seed.

but all the folks post game tonight said UGA was one of the top 4 teams in, they didn't say ND should be left out, but also implied OK punched their ticket.

 

[ulukinatme]

Read from this page on. It's entertaining: https://www.buckeyeplanet.com/forum/threads/the-polls-ap-coaches-cfp-etc.660976/page-64

There's some other threads there too.

 

[Redbar]

http://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/25427784/college-football-playoff-picks-espn-experts

They asked all the ESPN people who they think should be in. All but one -- Brian Kinchen, I dunno who that is -- said ND should be in.

So if the committee is remotely objective and reflective of public sentiment, ND should be the 3 seed.

Brian Kinchen was a tight end at LSU. Big time SEC guy from Baton Rouge.