Playoff Committee Member Barry Alvarez talks about his criteria

[fredmccallyRTR]

The basic problem that the playoff faces is exactly the same as the one faced by the BCS. The task of finding THE four (or two) unambiguously deserving teams to play for the national championship is by it very nature impossible - because every year is different and there is no reason the season should produce four and only four (or two and only two) unambiguously deserving teams. Further, by expanding the field, the bar is necessarily lowered for inclusion, and the number of teams that get left out that will have a claim that they belong will increase. Expanding the playoff actually makes that worse rather than better.

So I expect an annual shit-storm and bitch-fest. But I'm just an optimist that way . .

I do too, and I expect it to be awesome.

 

[craigk217]

If the emphasis is established at the beginning of the season then every team knows what it needs to do to get in.

There is no guessing or wondering.

Ok I guess I can see your somewhat short-sidedness now that OSU was beaten by maybe a mediocre VT team and OSU's only probable way into the playoffs is winning the B1G. '


I'm gonna be a realist here and go out on a limb and admit there's no way my Irish are getting in unless they run the table ... and that probably aint happenin.

 

[dennis580]

Why make winning the conference meaningless? Why set up a CCG and say, well, it doesn't matter if you win or lose this game?

You just don't seem to get it. Conference championships are A factor, but they are not THE deciding factor, but they are A factor in deciding who gets in the playoffs.

 

[dennis580]

Because that SEC team lost a game they needed to win.

ITs how playoffs work.

Win Division
Win Conference
Win Playoff game
Win Championship game

ITs cut and dry.

Except wildcards make the playoffs in all other sports.

 

[Ironbreaker]

Except wildcards make the playoffs in all other sports.

But not by excluding champs/division winners.

They are there just for the what if factor.

 

[WhiteMamba]

Well one way to narrow it down is to only allow conference champs into the discussion.

[ame]http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RJGHmmRsSIk[/ame]

 

[dennis580]

But not by excluding champs/division winners.

They are there just for the what if factor.

There are 10 conferences, and only 4 spots. So OVER half the conferences are going to get left out anyway.

 

[fredmccallyRTR]

B1G.

 

[craigk217]

You just don't seem to get it. Conference championships are A factor, but they are not THE deciding factor, but they are A factor in deciding who gets in the playoffs.

^ This

 

[Ironbreaker]

There are 10 conferences, and only 4 spots. So OVER half the conferences are going to get left out anyway.

Easy now. Theres only 5 P5 conferences. They are designated POWER for a reason, because they roll the mids, as a rule.

Even in a down year for the B1G they are stomping on the middies, macs (I think its the mac at 3-5 vs B1G) done OK vs them but they still had a record of 23-3 against the middies before last weekend began.


No one is arguing for the inclusion of all conference champs. That would be dumb and we could cite historical evidence to form an overwhelming argument that it would be dumb. But expansion is needed and will eventually come, and I think at some point we'll have all 5 PC champs in the playoffs, as it should be.

For now we don't. I get that. Don't like it, but I also realize it's better than the BCS error and have faith we'll get there at some point.

 

[The Authority]

Ok I guess I can see your somewhat short-sidedness now that OSU was beaten by maybe a mediocre VT team and OSU's only probable way into the playoffs is winning the B1G. '


I'm gonna be a realist here and go out on a limb and admit there's no way my Irish are getting in unless they run the table ... and that probably aint happenin.

come on man. It has nothing to do with tOSU. Look at my points. they are valid.

 

[The Authority]

Except wildcards make the playoffs in all other sports.

but conference winners are in first and there was a time where they didn't have wild cards and it was just conference winners.

 

[craigk217]

come on man. It has nothing to do with tOSU. Look at my points. they are valid.

Fair enough, but I would ask that you, too, look at others' valid points.

 

[The Authority]

Fair enough, but I would ask that you, too, look at others' valid points.

I am looking at them. And then I debunk them.

 

[rmilia1]

Every other sport has "wild cards" because every other sport lets in 20-50% of the teams in the league. CFB is letting in like 3%. Wild cards are for teams that had OK years and are probably pretty good. We dont need that in a sport where only 3% of the teams make the playoff.

 

[The Authority]

Wildcards were not always a thing in other sports. and when they weren't a thing they took the conference champs to the playoffs.

 

[dennis580]

Every other sport has "wild cards" because every other sport lets in 20-50% of the teams in the league. CFB is letting in like 3%. Wild cards are for teams that had OK years and are probably pretty good. We dont need that in a sport where only 3% of the teams make the playoff.

That brings up another problem. We are now up to 128 FBS teams. More, and more FCS teams have been moving up to the FBS. The FBS needs to put the breaks on this.

 

[Smart]

Too ambiguous and too easy for people to manipulate the system. We have to have some kind of guideline otherwise its just a matter of who is the better proponent for their league/their team in the selction committee. Its naive to believe that SEC guys wont be partial to SEC teams, B10 guys to B10 teams etc etc. We are one short step away from alliances and secret pacts and shit. This isnt Survivor or Big Brother. Its a CFB playoff and there needs to be estblished criteria, not ambiguous jargon.

If we wanted criteria, we'd use a computer system. I mean, does this criteria consider margin of victory? If so, we would have won about 104-10 last week because we wouldn't have pulled our starters. But if it doesn't, we have phenomena where clearly superior teams are ranked below clearly inferior ones. That doesn't fly either.

The only way to do it is to have a trusted group of people to use ambiguous standards. Concrete standards can always be exploited. It works fine in CBB. They make some strange decisions, but on the whole, I think they do better than merely using RPI or dividing the country into 8 divisions and taking the champs would Sure, there may be some corruption concerns or whatever, but one could even get that under a computer system (by having quid pro quo among teams or more likely having the conference officials help with some garbage time points).

In the end, people still understand circumstances better than computers. I have faith in the current selection committee. They'll make a mistake here or there, but like in basketball, they'll be better than any computer metric.

 

[nddulac]

Well one way to narrow it down is to only allow conference champs into the discussion.

Awesome - that way you have ten teams clamboring for four spots. What could go wrong?

 

[yeodonie]

It's cute that so many of you think this will be anything but a way for these committee members to get bribed and ultimately vote with their biases