Playoff Committee Member Barry Alvarez talks about his criteria

[Red_Alert]

They make PERFECT sense.

If the 12-0 team can't beat a 9-3 team, THEY DON'T DESERVE TO BE THERE. You ABSOLUTELY penalize them!

That's the point!!! If you are worthy, WIN the game......and there's no controversy.

What if the game is a cross division rematch of the regular season? Why would you punish the 12-0 team that won the first time.

 

[tometom]

here's another bone to throw in the pit.

Anyone look at the Big12 tie breaker rules for a 3 way tie? What happens if Baylor, Ok St, OK all lose 1 game in a round robin? so then it goes down to who is the highest ranked in the playoff poll (except if the top 2 teams are within 1 spot of each other then it goes back to head to head). so if Baylor and OK are say 4 and 5 in the poll and the #5 team has beaten the #4 team, the #5 team would be the Big12 champ.

which one deserves to be in the playoff? #4 isn't a conference champ but the committee has them ranked higher.

 

[starbigd]

see, i agree with you that they should matter, but that's not the way the system is setup. the system is set up to choose the 4 best teams, it shouldn't matter whether they won a conference championship game. you've got to look at their body of work not one stinking game. if they were clearly the best team in the nation, even in the loss they could look like the better team, then how do you not include them?

oh and your NFL example is dumb. they have a playoff with 6 teams entering and only 1 emerging, cfb has a system where 128 teams enter and only 4 emerge and there isn't a bracket to determine those 4 but a bunch of people talking and discussing. it's not the best system to decide on 4 teams.

It should matter. It should be the most important factor......because it's the ONLY normalizing criteria.

Enough of this "eye test" bullshit. WIN or go home. It's that simple.

You are a top 4 in the nation team? Then winning your conference should be the FIRST criteria to support that ranking. If you can't do that, WHY do you deserve to be in the playoff?

Your body of work is meaningless if you can't win THE GAMES THAT MATTER. Your body of work can be gamed. Winning a meaningful game where all the chips are on the table cannot.

 

[Red_Alert]

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?

Money.

 

[td2play]

All the committee members will vote their conference affiliation (see Pat Haden). There is no way this group can be impartial. They have personal gains at stake here. Since the Pac, SEC, and B1G have the most alumni represented on this committee I expect that they all get a team in the dance. ACC and Big XII will be fighting over the last spot remaining. If FSU is undefeated the Big XII champ can start the bitching immediately because they will be left out. Anyone but FSU and the Big XII gets the spot. All this mumbo jumbo about how data driven the process will be is just plain bullshit! It's about the money and that is the way they are gonna vote.

 

[Red_Alert]

Simple. BECAUSE THEY WON THEIR CONFERENCE TITLE.

This is the same thing as a playoff game, call it the wild card play in if you want.

Your line of reasoning makes no sense at all. If you can't win the conference title game, you eliminated yourself. Schedules aren't equal......the conference title game is an equalizer across the boards. That game MEANS MORE than any other you play......if it didn't, there would be no need for the game at all.

I think if the game is a rematch, it should get a separate consideration.

It's tough to beat a decent team twice.

 

[Red_Alert]

What if the SEC east team that beat them also has one loss. Do you send them both? And if your answer is yes, why put two teams in a 4 team playoff where we just saw the outcome of a match up between two of those teams.

Not having conference champ as a criteria just makes it more messy.

Every other playoff situation in sports uses conference champions as a criteria.

You use the head to head

 

[starbigd]

Conference titles should be the first criteria to even be eligible for the playoff.

If you are NC worthy, prove it by winning your conference. If that is stated UPFRONT, nobody can bitch and complain......just go out and win.

This is really a simple concept. HOW you get into the BCS bullshit is by taking that out of the equation and using all this "eye test" crap that proves nothing. Then you have to go program computers to pick because you can't trust the voters, etc etc

START with conference champs ONLY. Then eliminate from there.

Eventually they'll have to expand to 8 or even 12 teams. That's when non-champs should be considered.

 

[tometom]

Okay, last comment and then I should probably do some work.

I'm not saying to make the CCGs meaningless. If you are deciding between 12-1 teams, then yes take the conference champ over the team that lost their CCG. what I'm saying is that a team that lost their CCG can still be the best team in the country. i've already said it, but I'll say it again, a 12-1 SEC west team that lost it's CCG is deserving of spot if every other team has 2 or more losses.

 

[gpm1976]

The primary difference between the CFB playoff and ALL other playoffs is that the CFB is wayyyy more exclusive. You have 4 of 128 teams that make it. CBB has 68 of 330, the NFL has 12 of 32, NBA has 16 of 32, NHL has 16 of 32, MLB has 10 of 32, FCS has 20 of 120+, and on and on. If you are going to have a playoff that is that exclusive and that hard to qualify for then you are telling me that the regular season is FARRR nore important in CFB than it is in those other sports and if that is the case then you cannot in the next breath tell me that at LEAST wiining your division shouldnt be a GIANT criteria for making the playoff. Thats all Im saying.

Why not make it that you must win your conference to be THE criteria for getting in? But that won't happen. It's all about greed and that's why in 2011 we were forced to watch a repeat of Bama / LSU.

 

[Red_Alert]

It should matter. It should be the most important factor......because it's the ONLY normalizing criteria.

Enough of this "eye test" bullshit. WIN or go home. It's that simple.

You are a top 4 in the nation team? Then winning your conference should be the FIRST criteria to support that ranking. If you can't do that, WHY do you deserve to be in the playoff?

Your body of work is meaningless if you can't win THE GAMES THAT MATTER. Your body of work can be gamed. Winning a meaningful game where all the chips are on the table cannot.

I can see why the Big 12 feels this way. They don't have to play a CCG so they don't have to worry about their best team getting upset in one. The Big 12 would be happy if all the CCG's were upsets so they're only playing 9-3 teams in the play-offs.

Nutswinging at it's finest.

 

[rmilia1]

Its not fair to include ONLY conference champions IMO because there will be a year at some point where 2 or 3 Power 5 leagues are won by teams with 2+ losses. I want the BEST teams in the playof BUT I also want to have a system in place that takes the guess work out because if you take out the guess work then you take out the ability for scamming the system. Such as a system where conference champs are automatically in the playoff IF they have 1 loss or less. In years where more than 4 teams win their league and have 1 loss or less then you can eliminate from there ( you could even include a provision for 1 loss or better independents like BYU/ND etc ). If we do that then we dont have to worry about 12-1 ACC champ North Carlina State getting passed over in faavor of 11-1 Auburn. Of course there will be years where teams that dont win their league could get in but at least it wont be a habitual thing. Also there will be years where a team that is probably the better team gets left out in favor of a lesser team that won their league but if you know that going in then it is OK.

 

[rmilia1]

Why not make it that you must win your conference to be THE criteria for getting in? But that won't happen. It's all about greed and that's why in 2011 we were forced to watch a repeat of Bama / LSU.

You cant really do that IMO because there will be years when 9-3 or 8-4 type teams win conferences. I want the playoff to be the best it can be so that would dirty it up too much IMO. It wouldnt happen often but in the years where 2+ 2 loss+ teams win leagues it wouldnt really feel like a true playoff.

 

[Red_Alert]

Conference titles should be the first criteria to even be eligible for the playoff.

If you are NC worthy, prove it by winning your conference. If that is stated UPFRONT, nobody can bitch and complain......just go out and win.

This is really a simple concept. HOW you get into the BCS bullshit is by taking that out of the equation and using all this "eye test" crap that proves nothing. Then you have to go program computers to pick because you can't trust the voters, etc etc

START with conference champs ONLY. Then eliminate from there.

Eventually they'll have to expand to 8 or even 12 teams. That's when non-champs should be considered.

That only benefits the Big 12 and Notre Dame.

Typical Texas trash.

 

[starbigd]

That only benefits the Big 12 and Notre Dame.

Typical Texas trash.

How so? ND doesn't have a conference......this would force them to have to join one.

Texas would STILL have to win the conference......how is that any more of a benefit than anyone else?

 

[Ironbreaker]

You cant really do that IMO because there will be years when 9-3 or 8-4 type teams win conferences..

In all of the BCS era, how many times did that happen? Excluding those seasons where ineligible teams were actually the best...

 

[starbigd]

You cant really do that IMO because there will be years when 9-3 or 8-4 type teams win conferences. I want the playoff to be the best it can be so that would dirty it up too much IMO. It wouldnt happen often but in the years where 2+ 2 loss+ teams win leagues it wouldnt really feel like a true playoff.

Not sure how this is a bad thing. If multiple conferences have champs with those records, then there's remarkable parity in the NCAA......and they should be in the playoff.

If only ONE conference has that, they may be the conference left out.

 

[Red_Alert]

How so? ND doesn't have a conference......this would force them to have to join one.

Texas would STILL have to win the conference......how is that any more of a benefit than anyone else?

Because Texas could be Big 12 champs at (9-3)(8-1) with losses to BYU and UCLA and have a higher priority in the play-offs than a 12-1 Oregon that lost a rematch in their CCG.

You Texas trash always need an extra benefit in some way or another.

 

[starbigd]

Because Texas could be Big 12 champs at (9-3)(8-1) with losses to BYU and UCLA and have a higher priority in the play-offs than a 12-1 Oregon that lost a rematch in their CCG.

You Texas trash always need an extra benefit in some way or another.

We've

There are 5 power conference champs bud.....if Texas was 9-3, they'd most likely get left out. Seriously man, you need help

 

[gpm1976]

You cant really do that IMO because there will be years when 9-3 or 8-4 type teams win conferences. I want the playoff to be the best it can be so that would dirty it up too much IMO. It wouldnt happen often but in the years where 2+ 2 loss+ teams win leagues it wouldnt really feel like a true playoff.

Conf. play could just be tough that year. It's not a stretch to see a 3 loss team winning the SEC. Do we leave the SEC out? Since we're leaving a power 5 conf out, do we over represent some other conf? I don't think the record should be all that important. After all, it's not easy to win any conference.