CFP 11/14

[SolarGarlic]

I know I'm a broken record on this, but 14-team conferences inflate records. This is not debatable. Michigan is 8-2 and have yet to beat a team with a winning record. That can only be done with the fraud schedules of the Big 10 and SEC. So now we have an artificial "big" game this week between Michigan and Wisconsin. Look at Oklahoma's schedule compared to Wisconsin. Why would any Big 10 or SEC team schedule tough nonconference opponents?

Holcutt told us a couple of weeks ago that WIsconsin had the worst schedule of anyone in the CFP Top 25. That included Central Florida, who was also undefeated. Why was Wisconsin ranked 8th and UCF 18th? The committee is full of ****.

 

[cyclones500]

https://www.heartlandcollegesports....n-to-third-college-football-playoff-rankings/

All of this

Devil's advocate (with a qualifier): In opening paragraph, there's reference to Hocutt's comments about Clemson and Miami's defenses. I didn't watch his comments on the CFP show so can't comment directly. A quick search tells me he was comparing similarities between those two teams and difficulty of comparing them. I don't find evidence the committee chose both above OU because they value defense over offense when evaluating teams.

The Qualifier: It is NOT the role of the committee to analyze the teams' style of play, "break ties" based on similarity of coaching philosophy, consider which teams have the "highest level of talent" or any of that ****. Its job is to rank teams based on body of work.

 

[cyclones500]

The playoff committee is not the way to do this

Perhaps I'm reading too much into your comment, but I sense you advocate a system that involves invitations to conference champions (however each league decides to determine it) and X-number of best at-large teams?

 

[cyjack5]

There is way too much respect for the Big Ten conference plain and simple. Other than the Penn State and Ohio State the rest of the conference is a joke. And Ohio State is ranked way too high for that matter. Just politics.

 

[Stewo]

There is way too much respect for the Big Ten conference plain and simple. Other than the Penn State and Ohio State the rest of the conference is a joke. And Ohio State is ranked way too high for that matter. Just politics.

This is the biggest problem with the CFP. There's no way PSU should be ahead of TCU. None. tOSU maybe, but a case could be made either way.

 

[SolarGarlic]

Devil's advocate (with a qualifier): In opening paragraph, there's reference to Hocutt's comments about Clemson and Miami's defenses. I didn't watch his comments on the CFP show so can't comment directly. A quick search tells me he was comparing similarities between those two teams and difficulty of comparing them. I don't find evidence the committee chose both above OU because they value defense over offense when evaluating teams.

The Qualifier: It is NOT the role of the committee to analyze the teams' style of play, "break ties" based on similarity of coaching philosophy, consider which teams have the "highest level of talent" or any of that ****. Its job is to rank teams based on body of work.

He also mentioned Ty Willingham wanting to wear the Miami TO chain. I know it was a joke, but if the turnover chain is in the discussion, we're looking at a group that doesn't really care about getting the rankings right. They are buying into the hype that the media puts around each team.

They are guessing.

 

[Cardinal and Gold]

Big 12 only has one representative on the 13 member committee. They are from Texas Tech. I would bet that none of the other members even watch the Big 12 games. They just look at the stats and assume the Big 12 defenses suck instead of that maybe the offenses are just really good with great experienced QB play.

 

[ArgentCy]

TCU has a great defense and top 10 in almost all categories. They are just turning on ESPN and that is the extent of their "research". Bunch of overpaid douche bags.

 

[SolarGarlic]

TCU has a great defense and top 10 in almost all categories. They are just turning on ESPN and that is the extent of their "research". Bunch of overpaid douche bags.

This appears to be true. This is not some special group of football experts. These are out-of-work football coaches and athletic department administrators. Not exactly the best and brightest of our society.

They aren't analyzing data or objectively looking at resumes. They are rationalizing their biases and acting accordingly.

 

[Tre4ISU]

Here's another problem. They have discussions focused around OU's defense. That's complete ********. Watch the bowl season and watch the Big 12 teams tear apart the teams they face with the exception of maybe an elite Bama level defense.

If they want to have a discussion on that, let's talk about the 3 NFL QBs in the league as well. Let's talk about the fact that the best QB in the SEC is on a team that will go 7-5 at best. Also, let's talk about the fact the QB play in that league stinks in general while outside of KU, the Big 12 is littered with throwers.

 

[clonedude]

I know I'm a broken record on this, but 14-team conferences inflate records. This is not debatable. Michigan is 8-2 and have yet to beat a team with a winning record. That can only be done with the fraud schedules of the Big 10 and SEC. So now we have an artificial "big" game this week between Michigan and Wisconsin. Look at Oklahoma's schedule compared to Wisconsin. Why would any Big 10 or SEC team schedule tough nonconference opponents?

Holcutt told us a couple of weeks ago that WIsconsin had the worst schedule of anyone in the CFP Top 25. That included Central Florida, who was also undefeated. Why was Wisconsin ranked 8th and UCF 18th? The committee is full of ****.

This is the kind of stuff that really ticks me off about the committee deciding these things.

A couple weeks ago you had an undefeated Wisky and an undefeated Central Florida. Central Florida had faced a tougher schedule than Wisky, yet Wisky is ranked 10 spots higher. Why? How do they even attempt to explain that?

Or take Clemson and OU. It's so cut and dry it's not even funny. Both have one loss. OU's is to ISU, and Clemson's is to Syracuse. Syracuse is quite a bit worse than ISU this season. Add into that fact that OU also has more better wins than Clemson too. So what in the f**k are they even comparing? Is it just the "eye test" only? What a total crock.

 

[TykeClone]

This is the kind of stuff that really ticks me off about the committee deciding these things.

A couple weeks ago you had an undefeated Wisky and an undefeated Central Florida. Central Florida had faced a tougher schedule than Wisky, yet Wisky is ranked 10 spots higher. Why? How do they even attempt to explain that?

Or take Clemson and OU. It's so cut and dry it's not even funny. Both have one loss. OU's is to ISU, and Clemson's is to Syracuse. Syracuse is quite a bit worse than ISU this season. Add into that fact that OU also has more better wins than Clemson too. So what in the f**k are they even comparing? Is it just the "eye test" only? What a total crock.

OU is #4 so that they can get bumped just prior to the playoffs - much easier to get rid of #4 than #3.

 

[clonedude]

OU is #4 so that they can get bumped just prior to the playoffs - much easier to get rid of #4 than #3.

Unless you are TCU, right? Weren't they #3 the year they dropped after the last game of the year when they beat us by like 50?

But I agree, they have OU at #4 so they can drop them for either Wisky or Ohio State, whoever wins the B1G title game.

 

[bosco]

Suckers, everyone wanted playoffs because the BCS was a crock. Then let's use a committee to "vote" for the best teams. No visibility in the process. It's just a vehicle to get the matchups that they want for $$$. This is a bigger scam then the BCS.