UC and the playoffs

[michaeljordan_fan]

Yeah.....uh.....I guess if you're looking for 100% concrete proof here you're not going to get it. It doesn't exist. But the rankings the committee puts out lead me to believe they're either being influenced by something or letting dumb biases affect their decisions.

Believe whatever the hell you want. I don't care. The committee sucks my asshole regardless.

Yeah...uh...I guess you realized you don't have a leg to stand on with your conspiracy-laden bullshit.

Believe whatever you want. You'll just prove yourself to be a dumbass when you spew out your word vomit on here.

 

[Cave_Johnson]

You feel that way about the basketball selection committee too? Or because there are auto-bids it’s ok?

Auto-bids help as it at least allows teams to play their way in. If it comes down to a committee decision keeping you out, it's your own fault. You should have won your conference tournament.

I don't follow college basketball enough to have that big of an opinion on that committee. I do know that choosing between the 68th and 69th best team is different than choosing between 4 and 5 though.

 

[Cave_Johnson]

Yeah...uh...I guess you realized you don't have a leg to stand on with your conspiracy-laden bullshit.

Believe whatever you want. You'll just prove yourself to be a dumbass when you spew out your word vomit on here.

Me: I think the committee is biased and potentially influenced by ESPN.

You: Prove it.

Me: How would you even prove that? That's just what I think is happening based on the rankings. It seems fucky.

You: You're a conspiracy theorist and a dumbass

For real, you guys need to stop being so butthurt when somebody says the committee sucks.

 

[michaeljordan_fan]

Me: I think the committee is biased and potentially influenced by ESPN.

You: Prove it.

Me: How would you even prove that? That's just what I think is happening based on the rankings. It seems fucky.

You: You're a conspiracy theorist and a dumbass

For real, you guys need to stop being so butthurt when somebody says the committee sucks.

You earlier today: The committee works for ESPN

You now: The committee is potentially influenced by ESPN


Backtrack more, scrub.

 

[Cave_Johnson]

You earlier today: The committee works for ESPN

You now: The committee is potentially influenced by ESPN


Backtrack more, scrub.

The implication of the committee working for ESPN is that they could potentially be influenced by ESPN. That.....should be obvious.

And no, as I said the committee doesn't get "paid" to my knowledge. So they don't literally work for ESPN. You got me there big guy. Good job. Way to laser focus in on one small part of what I was trying to say.

They don't literally work for ESPN but, they do choose teams for what is essentially the ESPN NCAA College Football Invitational Tournament. If you don't believe there's potential for ESPN or the NCAA to influence things there I don't know what to tell you.

That's not even my main point though. I think the biggest issue is that they rank too much based on name recognition and previous year's results. That's what I originally said.

Your rebuttal was "Nuh uh, not in every single case they don't!".

And yeah, I agree with that. I think the rankings show some pretty clear biases in other cases though. And no, you can't prove that because ultimately their rankings are subjective. And I think that sucks ass and is part of the problem.

 

[PIBuckeye]

Determining who is ranked where at the end of the year has gone through many changes.

BCS era - When this was created, people liked it, I think much of the computer criteria was legit. It used facts from played games during the regular season. people soured on it towards the end. It always came down to who were ranked 1 & 2. In this model, maybe the BCS should've had the computer rank down to 8 or 12 in a playoff format. As it was, only 1 and 2 mattered.

Playoff committee era - people are souring on it now because it is based on human perception of a select few people (which I think is a problem). These members take into account how teams look. They supposedly consider W/L record, SOS, SOR, but none of the computer stats of teams are actually used. They are considered. in the end its human perception/opinion ranking the teams.

Is the answer to utilize both? Like, weekly rankings based on 50% the committee, using the eye test, and whatever else, and 50% based on BCS computer criteria. ?? Ranking the teams down to 8 or 12 for the playoff.

 

[Gator]

Auto-bids help as it at least allows teams to play their way in. If it comes down to a committee decision keeping you out, it's your own fault. You should have won your conference tournament.

I don't follow college basketball enough to have that big of an opinion on that committee. I do know that choosing between the 68th and 69th best team is different than choosing between 4 and 5 though.

Autobids SUCK. They would destroy college football. Folks want 12 team playoff with autobids for conference champs and then the leftover spots would be given to those teams that actually EARNED their way in. How about if Alabama moves to Conference USA. OSU moves to the MAC. Oklahoma moves to the Sunbelt. Etc., etc., etc. Now no matter how bad a year they are having they will still win those conferences and get in the playoff. Even P5 autobids are problematic as in 1996. A 10-1 Nebraska lost to an 7-4 Texas team in the CCG. Result Texas got the auto bid to the Fiesta Bowl (where they got drubbed by Penn State) and Nebraska got the at-large bid to the Orange Bowl (where they crushed VT). Texas (ended up #23) but passed over a LOT of more qualified teams due to Auto bids. NO AUTO BIDS!!! Teams should EARN their way in. A strong SOS needs to be included as a requirement.

 

[Cave_Johnson]

Autobids SUCK. They would destroy college football. Folks want 12 team playoff with autobids for conference champs and then the leftover spots would be given to those teams that actually EARNED their way in. How about if Alabama moves to Conference USA. OSU moves to the MAC. Oklahoma moves to the Sunbelt. Etc., etc., etc. Now no matter how bad a year they are having they will still win those conferences and get in the playoff. Even P5 autobids are problematic as in 1996. A 10-1 Nebraska lost to an 7-4 Texas team in the CCG. Result Texas got the auto bid to the Fiesta Bowl (where they got drubbed by Penn State) and Nebraska got the at-large bid to the Orange Bowl (where they crushed VT). Texas (ended up #23) but passed over a LOT of more qualified teams due to Auto bids. NO AUTO BIDS!!! Teams should EARN their way in. A strong SOS needs to be included as a requirement.

Nobody wants auto bids for G5 conferences. No P5 team is ever moving to a G5 conference.

You don't don't ever earn your way in with a committee. They vote you in. The only way to truly earn your way in is to do it on the field and win your conference.

Scenarios like the one you described are extremely rare. But, I'd take that scenario over what has happened with the committee. They have, in the past, rewarded teams for not playing and not making their conference championship game. You could rework the structure of conferences and championship games so that your nightmare situation doesn't happen.

Although even your nightmare scenario doesn't bother me. Texas won, Nebrasksa lost. Boo hoo for Nebraska and other teams that didn't win their conference. Guess they should have played better and earned it on the field.

 

[Tin Man]

The CFP Committee members are mailing it in or huffing volatiles. Their rankings aren't being defended by anyone. They are being challenged by many.

 

[Gator]

Nobody wants auto bids for G5 conferences. No P5 team is ever moving to a G5 conference.

If you have an 8 or 12 team scenario there WILL be spot(s) available for G5 Champs.

Scenarios like the one you described are extremely rare. But, I'd take that scenario over what has happened with the committee. They have, in the past, rewarded teams for not playing and not making their conference championship game. You could rework the structure of conferences and championship games so that your nightmare situation doesn't happen.

People always say crap like that but I challenge you to show me ONE team that has made the playoffs that didn't have a FAR superior resume that Boise State, UCF, or Cincinnati. Putting any of those in would spell the end of the playoffs. There IS a path available to them it's only involves scheduling more than one team that even has a pulse.

 

[Cave_Johnson]

If you have an 8 or 12 team scenario there WILL be spot(s) available for G5 Champs.

People always say crap like that but I challenge you to show me ONE team that has made the playoffs that didn't have a FAR superior resume that Boise State, UCF, or Cincinnati. Putting any of those in would spell the end of the playoffs. There IS a path available to them it's only involves scheduling more than one team that even has a pulse.

Ok.....I didn't say I disagreed with any of that. The only auto-bids I've ever heard anybody talk about are for P5 only.

 

[wazzu31]

Autobids SUCK. They would destroy college football. Folks want 12 team playoff with autobids for conference champs and then the leftover spots would be given to those teams that actually EARNED their way in. How about if Alabama moves to Conference USA. OSU moves to the MAC. Oklahoma moves to the Sunbelt. Etc., etc., etc. Now no matter how bad a year they are having they will still win those conferences and get in the playoff. Even P5 autobids are problematic as in 1996. A 10-1 Nebraska lost to an 7-4 Texas team in the CCG. Result Texas got the auto bid to the Fiesta Bowl (where they got drubbed by Penn State) and Nebraska got the at-large bid to the Orange Bowl (where they crushed VT). Texas (ended up #23) but passed over a LOT of more qualified teams due to Auto bids. NO AUTO BIDS!!! Teams should EARN their way in. A strong SOS needs to be included as a requirement.

Why would that be bad? So pre playoff there are no National Champions because the last game they played is irrelevant? If you want SOS to be the number 1 factor then you have to A. dissolve conferences and B. Take scheduling out of the hands of the schools…which that would destroy college football not auto bids.

 

[WNY_FOOTBALL_DUDE]

I don't like throwing around the word "fluke". It's a bad concept. The best teams should always be the teams with the best resume. Teams should always be judged on what they accomplished on the field. We shouldn't be getting into alternative realities, or whether or not, a victory/loss was a fluke. The game happened, it counts.

If the Bearcats win out, they'll have at least four wins against teams with an above .500 record. Notre Dame, UCF, SMU, and Houston would be their most notable victories. Strength of schedule will be an issue for them down-the-stretch. Don't get wrong, it's not their fault at all. The players and coaches have no ability to control the strength of their opponents. In my humble view, any team that goes undefeated or has 1-loss, could be considered into the final four.

 

[thunderc]

The committee is keeping as many people interested as possible, that is what they do. Odds are it will all sort itself out.

 

[TheLonestarDUCK]

The committee is keeping as many people interested as possible, that is what they do. Odds are it will all sort itself out.

^^^^^^^^^^True Statement^^^^^^^^

 

[Gator]

Strength of schedule will be an issue for them down-the-stretch. Don't get wrong, it's not their fault at all. The players and coaches have no ability to control the strength of their opponents. In my humble view, any team that goes undefeated or has 1-loss, could be considered into the final four.

That is somewhat true. 2/3 of their schedule is conference games which they have very limited control over. However, they KNOW their conference schedule is a liability. They do have control over 1/3 of their schedule and thus should make every effort to maximize this asset. While they have no control over how those teams perform during a given season they CAN and SHOULD do everything in their power to schedule really good teams to offset their poor conference schedule. This is my problem with these teams. They want to schedule Murray State and Miami (OH) which they can't to do and then complain that it isn't their fault that Indiana sucks this year. News flash Indiana sucks 9 out of 10 seasons. If you want to build your resume you DON'T schedule Murray State, Miami (OH) or Indiana. I'm not sure if you know about the Massey Composite ranking but Massey collects about 90 rankings from around the country and combines them to create a "consensus" ranking. In that composite UC has 3 opponents ranked in the top 65 teams and 9 in the lower 65 teams. UGa, Bama, OU, OSU, and Mich all have at least 6 teams in the top 65. I have no problem with the committee "considering" UC. I do have a problem with them selecting UC over one of the above teams.

 

[foster4prez]

That is somewhat true. 2/3 of their schedule is conference games which they have very limited control over. However, they KNOW their conference schedule is a liability. They do have control over 1/3 of their schedule and thus should make every effort to maximize this asset. While they have no control over how those teams perform during a given season they CAN and SHOULD do everything in their power to schedule really good teams to offset their poor conference schedule. This is my problem with these teams. They want to schedule Murray State and Miami (OH) which they can't to do and then complain that it isn't their fault that Indiana sucks this year. News flash Indiana sucks 9 out of 10 seasons. If you want to build your resume you DON'T schedule Murray State, Miami (OH) or Indiana. I'm not sure if you know about the Massey Composite ranking but Massey collects about 90 rankings from around the country and combines them to create a "consensus" ranking. In that composite UC has 3 opponents ranked in the top 65 teams and 9 in the lower 65 teams. UGa, Bama, OU, OSU, and Mich all have at least 6 teams in the top 65. I have no problem with the committee "considering" UC. I do have a problem with them selecting UC over one of the above teams.

That's all well and good but good luck trying to find top-25 teams willing to schedule a home and home with a team like Cinci.

Spoiler alert: it aint happening.

 

[PIBuckeye]

AAC Commissioner needs to cry harder........... what a tool. "unfair pressure".......... lmfao...... GFO...........

Aresco: CFP 'double standards' hurting Cincinnati

AAC commissioner Mike Aresco told ESPN in an email that Cincinnati is facing "double standards and shifting goal posts" in its effort to crack the top four of the College Football Playoff rankings.

www.espn.com

 

[Gator]

That's all well and good but good luck trying to find top-25 teams willing to schedule a home and home with a team like Cinci.

Spoiler alert: it aint happening.

Spoiler alert: It SHOULDN'T happen!!!! That's the point. Cincy NEEDS the big games. OU, OSU, Bama, UGa, Mich DON"T need the game.

Both Cincy and UCF have been playing FBS since 1996 (25 seasons). Over that span UC has played 10 Top 10 teams AWAY and none at neutral sites (0.40/yr). UCF has played 6 Top 10 teams AWAY and none at neutral sites (0.24/yr) over the past 25 years. For comparison, over the same 25 year span my team (UF) has played 24 Top 10 teams AWAY plus 18 more at neutral sites (Atlanta and Jacksonville). That's 42 Top 10 opponents in 25 years (1.68/yr).

All of the big teams in the P5 conferences play GOOD teams AWAY. It's the G5 that don't play them anywhere. So IF Cincy, UCF, BSU REALLY want these games then instead of crying they are going to have to bite the bullet and play these games ONE-WAY that is AWAY!

 

[foster4prez]

Spoiler alert: It SHOULDN'T happen!!!! That's the point. Cincy NEEDS the big games. OU, OSU, Bama, UGa, Mich DON"T need the game.

Both Cincy and UCF have been playing FBS since 1996 (25 seasons). Over that span UC has played 10 Top 10 teams AWAY and none at neutral sites (0.40/yr). UCF has played 6 Top 10 teams AWAY and none at neutral sites (0.24/yr) over the past 25 years. For comparison, over the same 25 year span my team (UF) has played 24 Top 10 teams AWAY plus 18 more at neutral sites (Atlanta and Jacksonville). That's 42 Top 10 opponents in 25 years (1.68/yr).

All of the big teams in the P5 conferences play GOOD teams AWAY. It's the G5 that don't play them anywhere. So IF Cincy, UCF, BSU REALLY want these games then instead of crying they are going to have to bite the bullet and play these games ONE-WAY that is AWAY!

So to summarize, Cinci shouldn't be taken seriously until they play good P5 teams and P5 teams should never play Cinci?

That makes sense...