How the CFP Committee got it wrong,

but not because of Washington.

I’ve been thinking about a lot of things this writer includes in his article about why the Ohio States of NCAA football (brand names) always appear to gain traction near the end of the season. And, for varying reasons. In 2014 OSU jumped ahead of TCU because they played and won their conference championship.

This year they get in ahead of Penn St because of strength of schedule, while losing head-to-head, and did not win either their division or conference championship.

Appears the Committee keeps moving the goal posts to accommodate the Brand names. … -it-wrong/

I was having this discussion on another board. Danny Kanell was on the CFP selection show with Pollack, Galloway, Herbstreit, and the College Gameday host (can’t remember his name Rece maybe). Kanell brought up the tOSU and Bama brand. The rest of the panel almost had a heart attack trying to disagree, sayin Penn St has a brand too. Yes, PSU with JoePa had a brand, but now it’s nowhere close to what tOSU and Bama has.

Another interesting statement by Urban at Florida in 06, “If you don’t win your division of your conference, you don’t deserve to play for the National Title.” Wonder if he still feels that way.

I think the four best teams got in. tOSU should be in there.

I think your board name may tell us why you think that. Maybe??

Maybe. :smiley:

But I do think he is correct.

Normally I would say how WRONG you are and wait until the playoffs, but unfortunately I don’t think Clemson or Washington poses a legitimate threat to Bama or the Suckeyes.

I know people don’t want a bigger playoff. I know many don’t want any playoff.

That said, the “easy” answer is you take 8 teams, the conference champs of the power 5 get auto invites. The next 3 best teams get in. Could that be more teams from power 5 conferences? Sure. Does it have to be? No.

Honestly, I don’t think 8 teams would work either. This year the Final 8 would be 4 B1G teams, OU, Washington, Bama, and Clemson.

Honestly, I think W. Michigan will beat Wisky, and I think they could beat Washington, but they still wouldn’t be in.

I have to admit that I haven’t seen W. Michigan play.

The OTHER “easy” solution (which I can’t see happening) is to go to 16 teams, let the winner of all 10 conferences get in and invite the next best 6 teams. Gives teams like ASU something to play for, the down side is teams like ASU will make the playoffs. I don’t mind that, most will. Being a conference champ gets you into the NCAABB tournament.

I don’t think 16 teams will happen either, but that might actually work. The other way I came up with is for all Power 5 conferences to scrap their future OOC, and play their equivalent in the other conferences. For example: Bama finished first, they would play PSU, Clemson, Washington, and OU in their OOC games. tOSU would play AUB, USCw, Louisville, WVU. The teams that survive their OOC and conference schedule undefeated would get in the playoffs. If only two teams, tOSU and Bama go unbeaten then look at putting in the Group of 5 unbeatens (W. Michigan) who would play the best of the rest. Really settle it on the field.

Penn State isn’t a brand name? I’d argue PSU, recent difficulty notwithstanding, has much more cachet and history than U-Dub. And Michigan is absolutely a brand name, any time, any year.

This year was clearly the most difficult selection process the CFP committee has faced (yes, worse than the TCU-Baylor mess). You had three teams that are clearly superior (Bama, Clemson, tOSU) using the eyeball test. Yet one of those three is NOT a conference champ, so there was that factor. Then you had four teams that were pretty close for that fourth spot. Three were conference champs (U-Dub, PSU and OU), one wasn’t (Michigan). Michigan beat PSU, badly, PSU beat tOSU, tOSU beat Michigan. PSU also lost to four-loss Pitt (which also beat Clemson). tOSU hammered OU at home.

Would OU be in if they’d played Sam Houston State instead of Houston in its opener? Maybe. Would Penn State be in if they’d made Michigan work at all? Possible. But they didn’t.

And there’s a big contingent of people who think nobody who doesn’t win their conference should ever make the playoffs. Which is baloney. The NCAA basketball tournament was an afterthought (or just the UCLA Invitational) until they started taking at-large teams. The CFP learned that lesson early. If the second best team in the country finished second in the Big Ten, take them. And they did. I don’t like the Yuckeyes, Urban Blight or the backup WR who shall not be named, but they clearly pass the eye test. They should be in the playoffs.

Expand the playoffs? The easy – and wrong – way out. Particularly if you tie it to the five conference champs (and then you’d probably have to put in a Group of Six champ too). OU isn’t in the playoffs because they’re not deserving. They’re not as good as tOSU (as we saw), or Clemson, or Bama, or U-Dub.

I like the four team setup for now. Eight teams would require starting before Christmas, or home fields, or probably both. I don’t think Penn State at Washington would be a workable first round matchup, not to mention Michigan would play at Ohio State, again, in late December. And 16 would be a complete mess.

After watching Michigan get hosed by tOSU, tOSU shouldn’t be there. The poster is right about what UM said about winning your conference championship.

i do too.

so we now have completed the transition from the mythical national championship
the mythical playoff series

Next we will see the mythical Heisman winner…Oh wait

Penn St has two losses. To me, that’s the difference that weighs in OSU’s favor.

Yep, they lost twice. So did OU. And Michigan.

And U-Dub only has one loss as well. It’s awfully hard to justify jumping a two loss team over two one-loss teams.

OK, there are choices. You can name a national champ with very few if any of the contenders having played each other. In other words, a pure guess. Or, you can pick 2 teams out to play for the title. Pick the wrong 2 teams (or at least one of them) some times? Sure. But at least you get to see two of the most likely top teams play for it. Or, you can pick out 4 of the top teams to play for it. Can you argue over who should be in? Sure. But most years you have included anyone who would have been considered under the old system.

Face it, with Penn State having 2 losses, under the old days system, they were NOT going to named National Champs,

Under the old system I grew up with, Bama would be playing in the Sugar Bowl, OU in the Orange, Washington and Penn State in the Rose (putting Penn State in the Big 10, which I know they weren’t at the time), not sure who would have been in the Cotton, A&M I guess. Of the top contenders, the only ones to play each other would have been Penn State and Washington. Well, I guess there is a chance the OSU would have been invited to the Sugar Bowl. If that happened, it probably would have been billed as the National Championship game. But in any event, PSU would have had NO SHOT.

If you assume PSU was not in the Big 10, but assume they still have two loses, they probably get invited to the Sugar instead of OSU or Michigan, the Sugar figuring PSU is easier for Bama to beat. OSU is in the Rose, Michigan probably in the Orange against OU. Still no shot for PSU.

Current system is better. Perfect? Nope.

I continue to be surprised at how few people question the credentials of Clemson, which coasted into the playoff after a rough season. Their season reminded me of Arkansas’s 2011 season, except that Clemson didn’t play a top 10 opponent (unlike the other three CFP teams, plus Michigan and Penn State).

If you saw Clemson play Auburn, Troy, NC State, Florida State, Pitt or Virginia Tech, you probably question them like I do. Maybe they have a lot of talent, but a lot of their games were closer than they should have been. They were very close to losing to NC State and FSU, needed breaks out of their control to escape.

In 2011, Arkansas didn’t play well against Ole Miss and Vanderbilt, kinda staggered to a close win over Texas A&M (which was a .500 team at the time). We had road games against two mighty teams, Alabama and LSU, that punched holes through our weaknesses. But we had talent at many positions. Clemson’s like that, only it never played anybody even close to the level of 2011 Alabama and LSU.

It’s like the committee looked at the Louisville game when it happened and decided that was the test for Clemson. Only Louisville proved it had no staying power. The Cards lost at home to Kentucky. UK’s second-best win was over - who? South Carolina? Vanderbilt? Come on. That should be a warning sign. It’s not as though there’s any history of Louisville-Kentucky (in football anyway) being a vicious rivalry game in which anything can happen. UK had lost the last five meetings. Louisville was supposed to be a contender this season, with a Heisman QB.

That outcome should have rung alarm bells, but no. The committee failed to punish Clemson enough when it lost at home to Pitt in November. That was when the committee chickened out. It didn’t demote Clemson any lower than fourth. Given its remaining schedule, Clemson had a very high chance of making the playoff, with a very low probability of anything happening that could have changed that. Somehow Clemson was top four AFTER losing at home to Pitt in November, and that was wrong. That’s the time of year that playoff teams are supposed to rise to the challenge. Clemson’s faults finally added up to a loss after repeated near-misses, and they didn’t get punished - not materially, not at all.

I wholeheartedly agree. The Committee (and the polls) late in the season, every year, appear to protect the teams they perceive will provide the best match-ups in the playoffs. Close wins due to poor play and for close wins due to officials mistakes apparently are not considered when doing so may interfere with the Committee’s wishes.

Washington is the outlier. They simply don’t belong in the playoffs. No way in hell Washington, even with it’s Pack-12 championship trophy, is a better team than either Penn State or Michigan, two losses or not.

Think the Committee, especially, manipulates the facts to fit their purposes for elevating the major brand names primarily on W/L records. I would argue that Penn State and Michigan, late in the season, are better teams than Clemson or Washington, and probably tOSU. tOSU got the break of the season on a fourth down call late in the Michigan game.

Nothing to do with the Committee, but it should have been their second loss. So I’m not even sure tOSU is the fourth best team in the nation.