I remember when I also used the transitive property to multiple degrees to argue which football teams were better. The next thing I knew 5th grade ended.
ESPN Article Questioning ISU's CFP
- Thread starter RonBurgundy
- Start date
Because it isn't just about this year. Iowa State jumping Cinci was an absolute statement to the G5 that the committee will only let them get close enough to smell it. I absolutely think we deserved to jump them but by moving us up it allows some wiggle room if weird $hit would happen in the other conference title games.
I care because it has worked in their favor since the playoff was formed. They openly crapped on TCU and Baylor while singing the praises of an tOSU team that didn't even win it's own division. ESPN absolutley leveraged tOSU making the playoffs and they are doing it again this year.
Comment of the day. Although they need to be unbiased, that is true what the media yells. However it has to be unbiased toward the G5 remember? At least according to them.
this predictor model has 5 years worth of data. Each year only 1 real decision is made by a committee of human beings using criteria that changes depending on the teams involved. This season there are unprecedented circumstances which have no historical data to compare. This model is a joke. I get it ESPN needs inventory for their Allstate sponsorship, but don't go touting this thing as an actual analytic model.
2020 is unique because there are teams like Iowa State that have played 10 games and teams like Georgia/Cincinnati with 8 games, OSU with 5 games, Northwestern with 6 games, USC with 4 games.
Normally, losses are the initial filter in deciding the 4 Playoff teams and then Conference Championship Game Victory and Quality Wins over the season.
In 2020 that filtering process is compromised because there is such a difference in games played. The reality is, every game is an opportunity to slip up and fall out of the Playoff hunt. Every year it seems like there is a team or more that stumbles in games 10 to 12 and goes from Playoff darling to also ran.
So all this hand-wringing over whether ISU, Cincinnati, Ohio State, USC, etc. belong in the Playoff top 10 is just an effort to promote readership.
On December 20 the committee has a tough job. Is the "eye" test the filter to decide on the 4 Playoff teams. In that case Ohio State has a reasonable expectation to make the Playoff if they beat Northwestern.
On December 20 if the committee decides that traditional filters are still applicable then losses and quality wins should be the basis for deciding the teams. Aka take a possible ACC or SEC title game one loss team over OSU.
But, before the Big 12 added a Championship Game, the Committee penalized the Big 12 for having 1 fewer data point. In fancy terms, that just means one less game played and thus one possible opportunity to lose a game. If they are going to be consistent, they should include the data point filter in 2020. So Cincinnati, Ohio State and USC should all have their limited schedules held against them. After all, over the last 10 years there are a lot of great teams that passed the eye test that stumbled in games 10-12.
Normally, losses are the initial filter in deciding the 4 Playoff teams and then Conference Championship Game Victory and Quality Wins over the season.
In 2020 that filtering process is compromised because there is such a difference in games played. The reality is, every game is an opportunity to slip up and fall out of the Playoff hunt. Every year it seems like there is a team or more that stumbles in games 10 to 12 and goes from Playoff darling to also ran.
So all this hand-wringing over whether ISU, Cincinnati, Ohio State, USC, etc. belong in the Playoff top 10 is just an effort to promote readership.
On December 20 the committee has a tough job. Is the "eye" test the filter to decide on the 4 Playoff teams. In that case Ohio State has a reasonable expectation to make the Playoff if they beat Northwestern.
On December 20 if the committee decides that traditional filters are still applicable then losses and quality wins should be the basis for deciding the teams. Aka take a possible ACC or SEC title game one loss team over OSU.
But, before the Big 12 added a Championship Game, the Committee penalized the Big 12 for having 1 fewer data point. In fancy terms, that just means one less game played and thus one possible opportunity to lose a game. If they are going to be consistent, they should include the data point filter in 2020. So Cincinnati, Ohio State and USC should all have their limited schedules held against them. After all, over the last 10 years there are a lot of great teams that passed the eye test that stumbled in games 10-12.
Last edited:
Excuses. ULL didn't show that rust, played in the same conditions, and straight up beat us.... We got our asses kicked and we shouldn't have.
What’s even more hilarious is I watched Heather Dinich, the ESPN CFP reporter and “expert” (btw she is awful to listen to) talk about how it’s not a sure thing the committee would take Notre Dame with even a close loss to Clemson over Ohio State because “Ohio State would add that conference championship to their resume while Notre Dame wouldn’t have one. And that is a huge tiebreaker to the committee.”
So Ohio States little 5-game regular season and conference championship schedule is significantly better than Iowa States 10-game regular season and conference championship? Interesting.
Even better was a few years ago when Ohio State got in over Penn State who beat them head up, won the division Ohio State plays in AND the conference they play in. But I guess the conference title for the Nittany Lions wasn’t as important that year. Just every year Ohio State wins it is it important enough.
No the last time was when they got in over Penn State. That was BS and they got trucked in the CFP.
That should be a surprise to no one. UCF was a way more dominant team than Cincy is and they didn't get in. Only way G5 ever makes it is if they expand the playoff.
Then ignore. 
If Iowa state had won either of those games and won the big 12 championship, they would have been in the playoffs and would have deserved it. I do agree with the espn article.
Also I dont think this team is ready to face the likes of Clemson and Alabama.
But I think next years team will be a more capable of facing a CFP opponent if we run the gambit.
Lets win the BIG 12 championship and a new year six bowl. We have only 4 trophies, need more.
Also I dont think this team is ready to face the likes of Clemson and Alabama.
But I think next years team will be a more capable of facing a CFP opponent if we run the gambit.
Lets win the BIG 12 championship and a new year six bowl. We have only 4 trophies, need more.
Right, and instead of pissing and moaning about ISU jumping them, all these G5 commissioners need to be unified and screaming at the top of their lungs for the need to expand.
That this on tweeter. This would be awesome and would love to see the CFP go to this.
Here's a better place to judge the rankings by.
https://cfpresumerankings.wordpress.com/home/
https://cfpresumerankings.wordpress.com/home/
Miami in Ames in Dec....yes please!
Very well said...and that's what i've been trying to say (not only about ISU but overall with the Ohio State controversy this week)....basically, the loss penalty we are receiving is the "standard" filtering and it's assumed those with less games just wouldn't have any.
And, of course, it'll be interesting in future years to see the impact of this year on how the committee justifies the blue bloods, lol.
