Unintended consequences...and an amazing lack of foresight...larger conferences means unbalanced SoS and the less not more chance of inclusion for good not great teams. But as they say...fool me once....i expect changes for next years CFP...or maybe i should say....there SHOULD be changes...
Bama Game Thread: CFP Selection Show details (12p-4p EST ESPN): Times, where to watch; Selection show 'game thread'
- Thread starter BamaNation
- Start date
I like how ESPN talks about the open and transparent process but, it is anything but transparent. ESPN thinks because a poll is released for 6 weeks that makes it transparent. No, that just creates drama, which is exactly what a TV network wants. Transparency would be putting cameras in the room and letting us watch this committee debate the teams. A closed-door meeting is the exact opposite and sending a lone wolf out to field softball questions is from the politician's playbook.
The CFP is an ESPN created reality show, not a true championship playoff format. If that's what they really wanted it would look more like NCAA basketball selection committee with something similar to the quad system. I'm not saying basketball is perfect but the way they try to use analytics to pick the best teams is far better than anything the football committee does. ESPN wanted a format that creates drama to try and drive up viewership.
The CFP is an ESPN created reality show, not a true championship playoff format. If that's what they really wanted it would look more like NCAA basketball selection committee with something similar to the quad system. I'm not saying basketball is perfect but the way they try to use analytics to pick the best teams is far better than anything the football committee does. ESPN wanted a format that creates drama to try and drive up viewership.
The problem with the schedules is we have no idea what we will get year to year. Florida could be good next year. lsu could return to the Hallman/Dinardo days. We just don't know
High SoS tends to sort that all out. For instance Wisconsin is pretty good some years, this year not so much. This negatively influenced Big 10 SoS quite a bit really, as both Penn State and Oregon played them but they weren't very good so it meant very little.
Alabama scheduled them in 2019, when they were a 10 win team and good for that most seasons. The trick is the rest of Alabama's schedule was so good that it didn't drag down their SoS like Penn State's SoS got dragged down. Likewise, Oklahoma and Auburn not being very good meant very little since South Carolina and Missouri picked up the slack.
Of course, the committee was made up of idiots though so ironically Wisconsin not being very good might have cost Alabama that playoff slot, as obviously if Alabama had played Indiana instead they're in. But, if your schedule is legit and the committee isn't made up of idiots, your SoS will still be solid at the end of the season and that should in theory be recognized.
The SEC severely weakened the Big 12 but did not destroy it outright.
The Big Ten severely weakened the PAC 12, and then the Big 12 won the fight to death between itself and the PAC 12.
The SEC and Big Ten need to pick off everything of worth that's left in the Big 12 (is there?) and every valuable brand in the ACC and kill those 2 leagues.
The alternative is guaranteed berths of 5 each for the Big Ten and SEC. The ACC and Big 12 can have 1 guaranteed berth a piece. This is once the expansion to 16 happens. That leaves you 4 berths to play with as far as if any more ACC/Big 12 teams are worth it, which will be rare, or if a MWC or AAC team is worth it, or more than 5 SEC or B1G teams. There should be 6 SEC teams in the playoff this year, for example.
I was thinking about the move towards being inclusive in the playoff and how to actually serve being inclusive without just introducing more bias into the process. One way to do this is blind auditions for orchestra, all you know about them is how they play, you can't favor them one way or the other.
I've seen blind resumes posted a few times comparing Alabama to SMU and it sure seems to favor Alabama heavily. It shouldn't really even be about who is from what conference or any of that, if SMU played the same teams Alabama played and had the same results they'd deserve to be in over Alabama playing the same teams SMU played with the same results..
So, the only real way to "fix" the committee in my mind would be to introduce an initial round of blind resumes. All you have is the data in front of you, you can sort by wins and losses, SoS. strength of record, win loss margin, pertinent data like that but you won't see the conference or even individual game results.
Sure, an actual expert on college football would probably be able to figure out which team is which, but the point would be that in that round of ranking you'd have to argue purely on the merits, on the entire resume. If you think SMU with a SoS of 57 and a SoR of 15 with 2 losses belongs over Alabama with a SoS of 17 and a SoR of 11 and 3 losses, you just have to make that case persuasively.
The interesting thing though is once you do that, you then have to justify the ranking of a team like Army. The committee put them at 22, but their SoS was 91, their SoR was 16, and the only had one loss. I don't think you can, based on just the resumes justify SMU ahead of Alabama, but Army 12 spots below SMU. Make it make sense...
Then in the next round you can then look at those rankings without the blind resumes, and use some of the rather unfortunate criteria the committee has. Did they win their conference, head to head, injuries and so on. The committee's process is entirely broken and logically inconsistent.
I've seen blind resumes posted a few times comparing Alabama to SMU and it sure seems to favor Alabama heavily. It shouldn't really even be about who is from what conference or any of that, if SMU played the same teams Alabama played and had the same results they'd deserve to be in over Alabama playing the same teams SMU played with the same results..
So, the only real way to "fix" the committee in my mind would be to introduce an initial round of blind resumes. All you have is the data in front of you, you can sort by wins and losses, SoS. strength of record, win loss margin, pertinent data like that but you won't see the conference or even individual game results.
Sure, an actual expert on college football would probably be able to figure out which team is which, but the point would be that in that round of ranking you'd have to argue purely on the merits, on the entire resume. If you think SMU with a SoS of 57 and a SoR of 15 with 2 losses belongs over Alabama with a SoS of 17 and a SoR of 11 and 3 losses, you just have to make that case persuasively.
The interesting thing though is once you do that, you then have to justify the ranking of a team like Army. The committee put them at 22, but their SoS was 91, their SoR was 16, and the only had one loss. I don't think you can, based on just the resumes justify SMU ahead of Alabama, but Army 12 spots below SMU. Make it make sense...
Then in the next round you can then look at those rankings without the blind resumes, and use some of the rather unfortunate criteria the committee has. Did they win their conference, head to head, injuries and so on. The committee's process is entirely broken and logically inconsistent.
Last edited:
A fun tongue-in-cheek article from Jason Gay at WSJ. He writes humorously well. Money quote:
"WHAT’S THE FUNNIEST SCHOOL TO BE MAD. Alabama, because they’re not even a high quality Alabama team. With three losses and ample time to control their own destiny, I don’t even think they’re genuinely mad. I think it’s more like You guys are having a sleepover and I’m not invited? type of mad."
"WHAT’S THE FUNNIEST SCHOOL TO BE MAD. Alabama, because they’re not even a high quality Alabama team. With three losses and ample time to control their own destiny, I don’t even think they’re genuinely mad. I think it’s more like You guys are having a sleepover and I’m not invited? type of mad."
I think the Citrus decided to pass on us.
I’m still ticked about it, putting in tidefan friendly terms. I’d be kinda mad if miss or usc made it in, I’m at another level really with how bad this playoff is, so basically tuning it out for the most part now. Looking forward to big game against creighton Saturday RTR
Latest threads
-
News Article: Please Pray for Kerry Goode and his family
- Started by JustNeedMe81
- Replies: 2
-
-
-
Game Thread: CFP Games on 12/21 (SMU/PSU TNT @ 11a) | (CLEM @ UTX TNT @ 3p) | (UTN @ OSU ABC @ 7p)- Started by BamaNation
- Replies: 667
-
-