This is why Oklahoma should have been in the playoffs

[jonvi]

I disagree with all of this.

Nothing tOSU did last night made me believe they could have played with LSU. Fournette would have played this post season had he had a shot at the NC.

Other than starting a very good freshman at qb, Bama is looking damn good.

 

[Wishbone]

We'll find out. I do feel there's a good chance the Houston game was an outlier, but we haven't faced a quality defense since Ohio state. Best one was probably either Kansas state or okie lite, and neither are anything close to what they'll face Monday. Let's just wait and see how they handle that team, before popping off. If they do what they should, they'll build momentum for a run next year.

I feel pretty good after seeing what Oklahoma St did to Colorado and what Kansas St did to A&M. Obviously the Big 12 has been under valued.

 

[BTHOtu]

We scored more points on Bama. Playoff committee got it right the first time.

 

[BTHOtu]

I feel pretty good after seeing what Oklahoma St did to Colorado and what Kansas St did to A&M. Obviously the Big 12 has been under valued.

No. We just suck

 

[WNY_FOOTBALL_DUDE]

Who is selected in the field or which team is complaining is not the point of allowing more teams into the playoffs. I didn't address the validity of the OP saying the sooners should have been there instead of tOSU. But with 8 teams we would most likely have found out. Get over the part of who is complaining.

The point of expanding the playoff format is taking the teams that performed very well over the season and letting them prove who is capable of the best performances in December after the wear and tear of the season. After the players are comfortable with each other. After everyone's systems are second nature.

4 teams is not enough of a representation of who's out there with the potential to be great.

I agree. My idea is still the most reasonable and logical.

Have 8 teams.

Create a single algorithm or RPI formula to rate each team.

The top 6 highest rated conference champions in the top 20 gets an automatic spot in the playoff.

Any remaining spots goes to the highest rated at-large teams.

Pretty simple, straightforward, transparent, and doesn't enough any polls or committees.

 

[romeo212000]

I feel pretty good after seeing what Oklahoma St did to Colorado and what Kansas St did to A&M. Obviously the Big 12 has been under valued.

Neither of those teams have the talent Auburn has. Especially on the defensive side of the ball. I'm in wait and see mode right now.

 

[blazer prophet]

I felt both USC & Oklahoma were playing better than UW and OSU at the end of the season. All good teams, to be sure, but this is why we need 8 teams in the playoffs. I hate seeing good teams penalized for 2 early tough losses. (ok, ok, I know USC hwas gang raped by Bama, but you get my general point)

 

[blazer prophet]

I agree. My idea is still the most reasonable and logical.

Have 8 teams.

Create a single algorithm or RPI formula to rate each team.

The top 6 highest rated conference champions in the top 20 gets an automatic spot in the playoff.

Any remaining spots goes to the highest rated at-large teams.

Pretty simple, straightforward, transparent, and doesn't enough any polls or committees.

I might tweak this a tad, but a point system is what I have wanted. But I want it to lean heavy on strength of non conference schedule that rewards teams for playing good teams (even if they lose) as opposed to 3 high school teams and running up the score on them at home (like UW did this year). In fact, I think a team should be penalized for that. Oklahoma and USC were heavily dinged for doing the right thing.

 

[Rolltide94]

I agree. My idea is still the most reasonable and logical.

Have 8 teams.

Create a single algorithm or RPI formula to rate each team.

The top 6 highest rated conference champions in the top 20 gets an automatic spot in the playoff.

Any remaining spots goes to the highest rated at-large teams.

Pretty simple, straightforward, transparent, and doesn't enough any polls or committees.

Sounds great...if this was basketball. There are not enough data points to do this in a way that wouldn't be ridiculed.

 

[blazer prophet]

Sounds great...if this was basketball. There are not enough data points to do this in a way that wouldn't be ridiculed.

I think it can be done. Equal points for all conference games, but weighted for non conference. Bama played USC. Who did UW play? Three high school teams at home. That's the basis for them being in the playoffs. Not right.

 

[Codaxx]

Not what I believe. Facts are what they are. 3/4 could be a number of good teams. 1/2 won out fairly.

Nobody said they did not win out fairly. The pt is simple. You can not say the committee was right, because #1 and #2 won. They might have both won regardless, but perhaps a different 3 and 4 would have made for entertaining games. Perhaps a different #3 or #4 pulls an upset. Both Washington and OSU were controversial picks. Perhaps the 2 blowouts was more a function of the committee missing on 3 and/or 4, than #1 or #2 being that dominant

 

[WNY_FOOTBALL_DUDE]

Sounds great...if this was basketball. There are not enough data points to do this in a way that wouldn't be ridiculed.

What do you mean?

All what you need to do is adopt a Colley Matrix, Anderson and Hester, or Massey like formula.

Lets take Alabama.

You calculate Alabama's winning%. That would equal W% part of the formula.

You calculate Alabama's opponents winning% aka take all of the winning% of Alabama's opponents and divide by 12 or 13. That would equal the OW% part of the formula.

You then calculate the opponents winning% of every Alabama opponent, and divide by 12 or 13. That would equal the OOW%

You would then take W% + OW% + OOW%, and divide by 3. You could have also weigh it 25% for W%, 50% for OW%, and OOW% for 25%.

 

[tnapucco]

The only things I could offer as a counter-point to Oklahoma not being included (as a conference champion) would be this:

1. OU won their conference. When this shit all started, the PC stated that being a conference champion was one of the major measuring points. A team making it through their conference with the best record was supposed to mean something.

2. The eye test. This also was supposed to be a large factor in determining a difference between similarly ranked teams and has been a buzzword since BCS days. OU had two very bad games of their OOC schedule against top ranked teams, and one major defensive bump in a close win after those losses (don't forget, a challenging OOC was supposed to count for something...remember?). A few factors contributed to those losses (mainly one of our best 3 players not being 100% game ready) but excuses aren't allowed...next man up. OU ran through their final 3 opponents allowing each an average of 20% less overall offensive output (yards & points) in the offensive circus that is the Big XII.

So as far as I can tell OU met at least 2 of the major criteria that the committee has espoused as the basis for the decision making.

For the Chair of the CFP to come out and specifically state that one of the reasons OU wasn't chosen to be in the playoffs was because of their defense was disingenuous at best (based on facts presented in point number 2 above) and you can bet OU will hang as many points as the scoreboard can handle the next time they play Texas Tech.

This was an exercise in futility. Fuck the world and we are taking the belt next year.

 

[WNY_FOOTBALL_DUDE]

I might tweak this a tad, but a point system is what I have wanted. But I want it to lean heavy on strength of non conference schedule that rewards teams for playing good teams (even if they lose) as opposed to 3 high school teams and running up the score on them at home (like UW did this year). In fact, I think a team should be penalized for that. Oklahoma and USC were heavily dinged for doing the right thing.

I personally like doing the average of W% + OW% + OOW%. This way you get rewarded for playing a strong schedule and challenging power conference opponents in the OCC. But I am all for a point system, if it takes into consideration opponents of opponents winning%.

 

[Rolltide94]

What do you mean?

All what you need to do is adopt a Colley Matrix, Anderson and Hester, or Massey like formula.

Lets take Alabama.

You calculate Alabama's winning%. That would equal W% part of the formula.

You calculate Alabama's opponents winning% aka take all of the winning% of Alabama's opponents and divide by 12 or 13. That would equal the OW% part of the formula.

You then calculate the opponents winning% of every Alabama opponent, and divide by 12 or 13. That would equal the OOW%

You would then take W% + OW% + OOW%, and divide by 3. You could have also weigh it 25% for W%, 50% for OW%, and OOW% for 25%.

I didn't say the math was hard...

So...in your formula, playing a Troy team that went 10-2 and played nobody but Alabama is better than playing a 6-6 Virginia Tech team who played an ACC schedule plus say Penn St and Alabama. Even throwing in the opponents winning % gets skewed because other Sun Belt teams play mostly other shitty Sun Belt teams and other ACC teams play mostly other ACC teams.

The only way this would work would be if the P5 split and only played other P5 teams...and if that happened, I can assure you, we would not need 8 teams in the playoff to figure out who was the best team.

 

[broncosmitty]

I felt both USC & Oklahoma were playing better than UW and OSU at the end of the season. All good teams, to be sure, but this is why we need 8 teams in the playoffs. I hate seeing good teams penalized for 2 early tough losses. (ok, ok, I know USC hwas gang raped by Bama, but you get my general point)

Id rather they just hand Bama a Natty after the Iron Bowl than let a team with three losses get involved.

It's garbage they had a non conference champ in there in the first place. Why even bother having conference title games? Other than relieving folks of their money anyway.

 

[starbigd]

As long as humans are making the decision in some room, it's NEVER going to be right.

Without hard criteria and expanded fields, there will always be complaints.

Start with something simple......winning your conference is an AUTO bid, no debates......no complaints. OSU didn't win the big 10, TOO FUCKING BAD, YOU'RE OUT.

The way you address that is to expand the field to 6 or 8. Power 5 conference winners are auto in so that's 5 spots.....then you can add in the tOSUs and Michigans and USCs and Wisconsins and LSUs or whoever based on your committee.

But as long as there are no steadfast rules, there's never going to be any satisfaction with this.

 

[SJ76]

OSU whipped ur ass in Norman.

 

[Deep Creek]

Sounds great...if this was basketball. There are not enough data points to do this in a way that wouldn't be ridiculed.

There really aren't enough data points unless we get a lot more meaningful interconference games among the P5 teams. Like all three or four open OOC slots taken up by scheduling other P5 teams.

 

[Codaxx]

OSU whipped ur ass in Norman.

Probably true, but a lot of teams took some really bad loses or looked terrible early, that includes FSU. After the Louisville game, I never thought they would roll Michigan. Sometimes teams improve. I am saying OU was deserving, but I think it is fair to say a larger pool would help to ensure the best 4 TODAY are playing in the playoffs