Joel Klatt calls out the CFP Committee,

[bEER_Nation13]

"I think the CFP Committee is basically cooking the books like Enron" - Joel Klatt

It is suspicious. TCU wins and falls back 3 spots. Stanford loses and only drops to #11. Stanford has good shot of being of a pretty high ranked team in few weeks when ND plays them which will boost ND's resume. TCU falling to #18 gives Oklahoma a lesser quality win if Oklahoma does win this Saturday night.

How about Memphis losing and staying at #21? Sure TCU struggled vs Kansas but they were without Boykin and Doctson. They still won. Florida struggled vs Vandy and barely won on a last minute field goal. They moved up in rankings. Not to mention, Florida barely beat a bad South Carolina team by 2 touchdowns. Florida barely loss to LSU seemed like a solid loss but LSU is in a tail-spin, threatening to lose 3 straight games this weekend. And their opponent? Ole Miss who wasn't even ranked, had a bye week, and suddenly jumps to #22. How does that happen?

Another quote by Joel Klatt - "The only criteria that has remained constant for this committee is you better not play in the Big 12"

 

[GoWVU]

Give Klatt credit for apparently being the only mainstream media person who is calling out this charade for the phony song and dance that it really is. He's been exposing a lot of inconsistent (read: manipulated) results and double standards. What a total shock he doesn't work for the scum at ESPN.

Somebody else besides Klatt had another interesting point: There have been 10 weekly rankings since this thing started, so 40 total spots for teams available. Just 2 of those 40 spots have been filled by Big 12 teams, both by TCU in non-consecutive weeks last season.

 

[BCSE1951]

i think first off, we have to revamp the whole deal. from the start of season to championship. who says who is ranked and who is not. bama will play a give me game sat. and they have already had two of those. when they lost, did not drop that far. so when it was time to start they were not that far down. all of sec is ranked higher, because someone says they are the best. ok. beat one of the best. and when ok. beat bama it was not in the news that much. we have to revamp it all. if a team is not beat, then they need to be ranked, then comes the once beaten, and so forth. that is what it is all about. two teams that have been beaten once and they are ahead of unbeaten. shame and disgrace. get rid of all and start all over.

 

[WVUTOM]

i think first off, we have to revamp the whole deal. from the start of season to championship. who says who is ranked and who is not. bama will play a give me game sat. and they have already had two of those. when they lost, did not drop that far. so when it was time to start they were not that far down. all of sec is ranked higher, because someone says they are the best. ok. beat one of the best. and when ok. beat bama it was not in the news that much. we have to revamp it all. if a team is not beat, then they need to be ranked, then comes the once beaten, and so forth. that is what it is all about. two teams that have been beaten once and they are ahead of unbeaten. shame and disgrace. get rid of all and start all over.

 

[WVUTOM]

Just have to face the facts. The whole process is a joke. It is not a selection committee to find the 4 best qualified teams, but a popularity contest. In my opinion, Clemson is the only team currently in the field that I completely agree with being there, but I don’t think they will win it.

 

[pressvirginia]

it should go by standings & not rankings. w-l column is what matters. nfl playoffs, nba playoffs, mlb playoffs, fcs playoffs right on down the line. it's not rocket science.

rankings are a beauty contest. losing games must matter. no justification to reward certain losses & penalize others.

undefeateds should be ahead of 1-loss teams. it's completely assumptive to say who win otherwise. if you're undefeated no one has proven you can be beat.

when there's multiple 1-loss conference champs, make them play each other to see who gets a shot at the unbeaten. can't be emphasized enough teams must face consequences for losing. there's no way two 1-loss teams should be in there now with unbeatens on the outside.

none of this will ever match March Madness. 68 teams get a shot. your record & quality wins determine your seed. win or go home.

 

[pressvirginia]

as to TCU it is an absolute travesty - they lost ONE game at an undefeated opponent that's now 6th.

how on Earth is it justufied that one road loss to an unbeaten team slides you out of the top 10 to 18th?

recall Alabama lost at home to a team with 3 losses. never did they drop as far as TCU.

 

[Cuyahoga Falls Eers]

It doesn't sound like the national playoff committee, which claimed to be designed to quell the faults of the BCS system, is doing much better.

I think there should be one undeniable criteria:
ANY unbeaten Power 5 conference champ gets into the playoffs period.

Then you fill in with the rest.

So, as of today, that would be Oklahoma State, Clemson and Ohio State/Iowa (one has to lose, maybe both). If there are 3 unbeatens, which has happened only twice in the past 15 to 20 years, so it's unlikely, then all 3 should be in the national playoffs.

To do otherwise impugns the integrity of the selections.

College football being what it is, the remaining games will make it tougher for the selection committee to gerrymander the selections. 2-loss Alabama isn't going to get in over an unbeaten Oklahoma State.

After all, it is the five Power 5 conferences that set up the selection committee.

None of the five conferences will tolerate persistent slanting of the choices against its conference.

The TCU and Baylor thing last year put the committee on notice. If an unbeaten Oklahoma State is NOT in the playoffs, holy hell will break out, and Texas and Oklahoma carry a lot of weight in college football.

But let's play the games through Dec. 5 and see who's still standing. It does make for a lot of conversation throughout the back half of the season, doesn't it?

 

[Low Mountains Drifter]

Well, the current system is better primarily because 4 is twice as many as 2. For the actual selection there is no close to perfect way to do it. The BCS system arguably was better simply because the broad array of human and computer rankings used served to some degree to "cancel out" the deep flaws in each individual ranking.

The very large number of individual actors with a say in the process also meant that each individual involved exerted a smaller fractional share of influence toward the outcome which both reduced actual bias, and maybe more importantly, reduced perceived bias. It's much easier for conspiracy minded people to be skeptical of a very small group acting in concert behind closed doors and suspect they are "rigging" the outcome than it was to believe the BCs system could be gamed.

The main point is that 8 is twice four and would move the cut-off to or beyond every team with a valid claim to being one of the very best. Even with a good ol' boy committee still doing the selecting on an ad hoc basis, 8 would eliminate most of the real controversy.

Eight and a selection method more like the BCS method would arguably be even better.

 

[wbgvwbgv]

The biggest problem is that the votes are by secret ballot. There is no reason that these votes shouldn't be made public. Similar to the AP Poll where every voter publishes his/her rankings every week.

Bob Bowlsby should demand this change for next year and IMO it would really benefit our conference. That being said, it is likely that OU and OSU win this weekend (home games with opposing QBs hurt) setting up one of the biggest matchups of the year the following week - way better than any championship game. And there is a great chance that a 12-0 OSU or 11-1 OU make it into the playoff.

For the Big 12, you couldn't ask for a better finish with entire country closely following these three games (OU-TCU, OSU-BU, OU-OSU).

http://collegefootball.ap.org/poll

 

[43rd Parallel]

Ohio State is 10-0 and ranked 57th in strength of schedule by the NCAA.
Oklahoma State is 10-0 and ranked 34th in SOS.
Which is ranked higher by the playoff committee?

Notre Dame is 9-1 and 8th in SOS.
Oklahoma is 9-1 and 3rd in SOS.
Which is ranked higher by the playoff committee?

The committee dishes out subjectivity with a side order of hypocrisy. What it doesn't serve is credibility.

 

[WESTBGVA]

"I think the CFP Committee is basically cooking the books like Enron" - Joel Klatt

It is suspicious. TCU wins and falls back 3 spots. Stanford loses and only drops to #11. Stanford has good shot of being of a pretty high ranked team in few weeks when ND plays them which will boost ND's resume. TCU falling to #18 gives Oklahoma a lesser quality win if Oklahoma does win this Saturday night.

How about Memphis losing and staying at #21? Sure TCU struggled vs Kansas but they were without Boykin and Doctson. They still won. Florida struggled vs Vandy and barely won on a last minute field goal. They moved up in rankings. Not to mention, Florida barely beat a bad South Carolina team by 2 touchdowns. Florida barely loss to LSU seemed like a solid loss but LSU is in a tail-spin, threatening to lose 3 straight games this weekend. And their opponent? Ole Miss who wasn't even ranked, had a bye week, and suddenly jumps to #22. How does that happen?

Another quote by Joel Klatt - "The only criteria that has remained constant for this committee is you better not play in the Big 12"

It's because the gas bags on radio and TV keep saying that the Big 12 doesn't play defense over, and over, and over..this message brought to you by the Department of Redundancy Department Department.

 

[JIMEER86]

Well, the current system is better primarily because 4 is twice as many as 2. For the actual selection there is no close to perfect way to do it. The BCS system arguably was better simply because the broad array of human and computer rankings used served to some degree to "cancel out" the deep flaws in each individual ranking.

The very large number of individual actors with a say in the process also meant that each individual involved exerted a smaller fractional share of influence toward the outcome which both reduced actual bias, and maybe more importantly, reduced perceived bias. It's much easier for conspiracy minded people to be skeptical of a very small group acting in concert behind closed doors and suspect they are "rigging" the outcome than it was to believe the BCs system could be gamed.

The main point is that 8 is twice four and would move the cut-off to or beyond every team with a valid claim to being one of the very best. Even with a good ol' boy committee still doing the selecting on an ad hoc basis, 8 would eliminate most of the real controversy.

Eight and a selection method more like the BCS method would arguably be even better.

I have said the EXACT same thing for a while now and will happen IF the conferences ever wake up and realize that having the playoffs at home field sites (except the NC game) is the way to go. It's called best practices, and it works pretty damn well for the NFL.

 

[TexasforevEER]

It's because the gas bags on radio and TV keep saying that the Big 12 doesn't play defense over, and over, and over..this message brought to you by the Department of Redundancy Department Department.

If the Big 12 doesn't play defense ..................it ain't because they don't know about this half of the game. Yes, the Big 12 knows about defense and teach their players as well as any other conference.

 

[43rd Parallel]

If the Big 12 doesn't play defense ..................it ain't because they don't know about this half of the game. Yes, the Big 12 knows about defense and teach their players as well as any other conference.

Every time I hear someone say the Big 12 doesn't play defense, I think, "Yeah, and the SEC doesn't develop quarterbacks."

Putting that aside, if you're going to compare conferences, the defensive statistic that matters is yards allowed per possession.

A defense that gives up 500 yards in 100 possessions is considerably better than one that gives up 350 yards in 60 possessions.

You and I can do the math, but the pundits on ESPN cannot be bothered. They'll just assume that the defense that gives up 350 yards per game is demonstrably and automatically better than the one that allows 500.

 

[hbeacheer]

College football is a joke on how they select teams and playoff positioning. When you have an nd and Iowa with their schedules ranked ahead of ok, ok st and fla tells you all you need to know. I know it's not a final poll but if nd wins out they r in the playoff because espn wants that.

 

[Low Mountains Drifter]

The best way to measure defenses is by the points allowed. Until we stop keeping score by points and start deciding games by yards that will always be far more important. You would need to filter out points scored by opposing defenses and special teams but the ultimate goal of a defense is to prevent the other team from scoring.

For instance many people do say Baylor has not been very good on defense. That in its last 4 bowl games it has surrendered 176 points tends to support that thesis.

That those bowl games encompass all THREE of the OOC Power 5 game Baylor has played during 2011-15 also tends to support the argument it schedules so weakly it should be viewed with skepticism (not to mention that one of those Bowl games was against UCF and it LOST by giving up 52 points). When one of the best teams in your league has given up an average of 44 ppg in its last 4 games against good OOC competition, the reason why the conference's defensive prowess is doubted seems obvious.

Is Baylor an anomalous bad defense in the Big 12? Texas has lost its last 7 games to OOC competition in the P5 =ND and BYU, giving up over 36 points a game. OSU has gone 2-3 in its last 5 giving up over 32ppg.

By contrast, OU plays tougher OOC schedules, has a winning record against OOC teams recently (6-3 from 2011-15-- playing 3x the number Baylor plays) and allowed only 24.8 ppg. While its name is part of the reason OU gets more respect, it also has earned it objectively. TCU might have a legit beef about defense, although it has only played three OOC Power 5 games in the last three seasons, it has won them all and given up only 9 ppg. (2 of them against Minn. which averages 21.8 ppg )

 

[43rd Parallel]

The best way to measure defenses is by the points allowed.

I stand corrected. No arguments, although I still contend that yards allowed per possession is a stat that merits more consideration than it typically gets. It evens out the playing field, so to speak.

 

[GoWVU]

It's because the gas bags on radio and TV keep saying that the Big 12 doesn't play defense over, and over, and over..this message brought to you by the Department of Redundancy Department Department.

My favorite recent piece of hypocrisy on this subject is that not a single one of those same blowhards said a word of criticism when the 2013 SEC championship game ended with #3 Auburn defeating #5 Missouri 59-42.

 

[mountaineers8893]

Ya know, i could go on a lengthy argument for 8 teams in the playoff... but it wouldnt matter if it's done by the selection committee with blind ballots.. because then it would be 2-loss SEC teams getting the nod over undefeated B12 teams instead of 1-loss. I do however, prefer an 8 team playoff, because the more teams involved the harder it is to keep the B12 out. Even if i were an SEC homer, I don't see why 8 teams would be a bad thing, SEC would get 2 or 3 every year and preferencial seeding of course. I think 8 is the number we need to get to for a playoff that would at least be somewhat legit and include all teams deserving of a shot.