[OutsiderFan]

After Florida State beats Florida and Alabama crushes Auburn next week, the SEC may not have any team ranked in the Top 25 other than #1 Alabama and Tennessee.  And Tennessee, who knows, Vandy just smacked Ole Miss, so maybe they can knock off the Vols and leave only one SEC team in the Top 25.

Are there a bunch of good teams that have beat each other up? Is it parity?  I don't know, but look at the standings and it's not real impressive.  Let's just compare the Top 6 of the SEC in order of how they might rank, to the Pac-12 for yucks.

SEC: 1) Alabama 2) Florida 3) Tennessee 4) Auburn 5) LSU 6) Texas A&M

Pac-12: 1) UW 2) USC 3) Colorado 4) WSU 5) Stanford 6) Utah

I don't know about y'all, but I think the Pac-12 team is better in at least 4/6 of those matchups.  Yes, USC got walloped by Bama and UCLA lost to Texas A&M, but in OT, and UCLA is one of the worst teams in the Pac-12 anyway.

Now let's throw in the other leagues:

ACC: 1) Clemson 2) Louisville 3) Florida State 4) UNC 5) Virginia Tech 6) Miami

Big Ten: 1) Ohio St 2) Michigan 3) Wisconsin 4) Penn St 5) Nebraska 6) Minnesota

Big 12: 1) Oklahoma 2) Oklahoma St 3) West Virginia 4) Kansas St 5) Baylor 6) TCU


It sure seems to me the Pac-12 has the most good teams and is the best conference from top to bottom and the idea that any Big 12 team gets in the playoff is utterly ridiculous when you look at how the Big 12 did OOC, how Oklahoma specifically got blasted by Ohio St and lost to Houston, and how weak the rest of the league is. 

[OutsiderFan]

After Florida State beats Florida and Alabama crushes Auburn next week, the SEC may not have any team ranked in the Top 25 other than #1 Alabama and Tennessee.  And Tennessee, who knows, Vandy just smacked Ole Miss, so maybe they can knock off the Vols and leave only one SEC team in the Top 25.

Are there a bunch of good teams that have beat each other up? Is it parity?  I don't know, but look at the standings and it's not real impressive.  Let's just compare the Top 6 of the SEC in order of how they might rank, to the Pac-12 for yucks.

SEC: 1) Alabama 2) Florida 3) Tennessee 4) Auburn 5) LSU 6) Texas A&M

Pac-12: 1) UW 2) USC 3) Colorado 4) WSU 5) Stanford 6) Utah

I don't know about y'all, but I think the Pac-12 team is better in at least 4/6 of those matchups.  Yes, USC got walloped by Bama and UCLA lost to Texas A&M, but in OT, and UCLA is one of the worst teams in the Pac-12 anyway.

Now let's throw in the other leagues:

ACC: 1) Clemson 2) Louisville 3) Florida State 4) UNC 5) Virginia Tech 6) Miami

Big Ten: 1) Ohio St 2) Michigan 3) Wisconsin 4) Penn St 5) Nebraska 6) Minnesota

Big 12: 1) Oklahoma 2) Oklahoma St 3) West Virginia 4) Kansas St 5) Baylor 6) TCU


It sure seems to me the Pac-12 has the most good teams and is the best conference from top to bottom and the idea that any Big 12 team gets in the playoff is utterly ridiculous when you look at how the Big 12 did OOC, how Oklahoma specifically got blasted by Ohio St and lost to Houston, and how weak the rest of the league is. 

[HisKneeWasDown]

Agree. To argue that Washington played in a weak conference is absurd.

[HisKneeWasDown]

Agree. To argue that Washington played in a weak conference is absurd.

[2006alum]

Among other indignities: in the new AP Poll, LSU (6-4) is no. 25; we just missed the list as no. 26 per number of votes (at 8-3). LSU's best win is a 7-4 Arkansas. They're 0-4 against other AP top 25 teams; we're 1-3 (beating Under Stanford Control (again), at no. 12). What gives?

[2006alum]

Among other indignities: in the new AP Poll, LSU (6-4) is no. 25; we just missed the list as no. 26 per number of votes (at 8-3). LSU's best win is a 7-4 Arkansas. They're 0-4 against other AP top 25 teams; we're 1-3 (beating Under Stanford Control (again), at no. 12). What gives?

[JJJ]

http://collegefootball.ap.org/poll

#25 LSU 84 pts

Others receiving votes: Stanford 81

:-\

[JJJ]

http://collegefootball.ap.org/poll

#25 LSU 84 pts

Others receiving votes: Stanford 81

:-\

[Row80Critic]

LSU clearly gets the nod over Stanford due to their big wins against the Jacksonville State Gamecocks and the Southern Mississippi Golden Eagles.  If that's not enough, they even beat one FBS team with a winning record, Arkansas, so they've build quite the resume this year.  ::) ::) ::)


Edit:  sometimes the auto-edit stuff on this forum makes it hard to communicate.  What's wrong with the word h.u.g.e?

[Row80Critic]

LSU clearly gets the nod over Stanford due to their big wins against the Jacksonville State Gamecocks and the Southern Mississippi Golden Eagles.  If that's not enough, they even beat one FBS team with a winning record, Arkansas, so they've build quite the resume this year.  ::) ::) ::)


Edit:  sometimes the auto-edit stuff on this forum makes it hard to communicate.  What's wrong with the word h.u.g.e?

[BostonCard]

Edit:  sometimes the auto-edit stuff on this forum makes it hard to communicate.  What's wrong with the word h.u.g.e?

Before my time, but I believe that a prominent poster here declared the Stanford - Texas game in 1999 to be "h-u-g-e".  Given how that game ended up, that word was declared verboten on this board.

BC

[BostonCard]

Edit:  sometimes the auto-edit stuff on this forum makes it hard to communicate.  What's wrong with the word h.u.g.e?

Before my time, but I believe that a prominent poster here declared the Stanford - Texas game in 1999 to be "h-u-g-e".  Given how that game ended up, that word was declared verboten on this board.

BC

[JJJ]

Oops, this was already discussed in the SEC/Landscape thread. Sorry. Admins please delete or merge if that is the right thing to do. Or not. Sorry to create more to do.  :P

[JJJ]

Oops, this was already discussed in the SEC/Landscape thread. Sorry. Admins please delete or merge if that is the right thing to do. Or not. Sorry to create more to do.  :P

[larkinforever]

Currently ranked 8-3 (or worse) teams and their (1) losses and (2) wins vs. currently ranked teams:

Unranked 8-3 Stanford - losses to #6 UW, #9 Colorado, #23 WSU; 1 win against ranked team (#12 USC)

#12 8-3 USC - losses #1 Alabama/#21 Utah/unranked Stanford; wins #6 UW/#9 Colorado
#13 8-3 Florida State - losses #4 Clemson/#11 Louisville/unranked UNC; 0 wins
#16 8-3 Auburn - losses #4 Clemson/#22 Texas A&M/unranked Georgia; win #25 LSU
#21 8-3 Utah - losses #6 Washington/unranked Cal/unranked Oregon; win #12 USC
#22 8-3 Texas A&M - losses #1 Alabama/unranked Miss St/unranked Ole Miss; wins #16 Auburn/#24 Tennessee
#23 8-3 WSU - losses #9 Colorado/#20 Boise St/unranked EWU; 0 wins
#24 8-3 Tennessee - losses #1 Alabama/#22 Texas A&M/unranked South Carolina; win #13 Florida
#25 6-4 LSU - losses #1 Alabama/#5 Wisconsin/#13 Florida/#16 Auburn; 0 wins

Straight-faced arguments can be made for some but certainly less than all of the above teams being ranked above Stanford.

[larkinforever]

Currently ranked 8-3 (or worse) teams and their (1) losses and (2) wins vs. currently ranked teams:

Unranked 8-3 Stanford - losses to #6 UW, #9 Colorado, #23 WSU; 1 win against ranked team (#12 USC)

#12 8-3 USC - losses #1 Alabama/#21 Utah/unranked Stanford; wins #6 UW/#9 Colorado
#13 8-3 Florida State - losses #4 Clemson/#11 Louisville/unranked UNC; 0 wins
#16 8-3 Auburn - losses #4 Clemson/#22 Texas A&M/unranked Georgia; win #25 LSU
#21 8-3 Utah - losses #6 Washington/unranked Cal/unranked Oregon; win #12 USC
#22 8-3 Texas A&M - losses #1 Alabama/unranked Miss St/unranked Ole Miss; wins #16 Auburn/#24 Tennessee
#23 8-3 WSU - losses #9 Colorado/#20 Boise St/unranked EWU; 0 wins
#24 8-3 Tennessee - losses #1 Alabama/#22 Texas A&M/unranked South Carolina; win #13 Florida
#25 6-4 LSU - losses #1 Alabama/#5 Wisconsin/#13 Florida/#16 Auburn; 0 wins

Straight-faced arguments can be made for some but certainly less than all of the above teams being ranked above Stanford.

[gocard14]

Currently ranked 8-3 (or worse) teams and their (1) losses and (2) wins vs. currently ranked teams:

Unranked 8-3 Stanford - losses to #6 UW, #9 Colorado, #23 WSU; 1 win against ranked team (#12 Under Stanford Control (again))

#12 8-3 Under Stanford Control (again) - losses #1 Alabama/#21 Utah/unranked Stanford; wins #6 UW/#9 Colorado
#13 8-3 Florida State - losses #4 Clemson/#11 Louisville/unranked UNC; 0 wins
#16 8-3 Auburn - losses #4 Clemson/#22 Texas A&M/unranked Georgia; win #25 LSU
#21 8-3 Utah - losses #6 Washington/unranked ןɐɔ/unranked Oregon; win #12 Under Stanford Control (again)
#22 8-3 Texas A&M - losses #1 Alabama/unranked Miss St/unranked Ole Miss; wins #16 Auburn/#24 Tennessee
#23 8-3 WSU - losses #9 Colorado/#20 Boise St/unranked EWU; 0 wins
#24 8-3 Tennessee - losses #1 Alabama/#22 Texas A&M/unranked South Carolina; win #13 Florida
#25 6-4 LSU - losses #1 Alabama/#5 Wisconsin/#13 Florida/#16 Auburn; 0 wins

Straight-faced arguments can be made for some but certainly less than all of the above teams being ranked above Stanford.

Looking at the list like that, the only team with a clearly more compelling resume then Stanford is the condoms with 2 wins over top 10 teams. LSU, Utah, Auburn, FSU are clearly less compelling. On the whole, the SEC seems to be getting way too much benefit of the doubt, as per usual. We are likely dinged (possibly reasonably) for how inept our offense looked for part of the year, combined with how thoroughly we got whooped on our prime time game against UW. Of course, that thrashing pales in comparison to how FSU got taken apart by a two loss Louisville team.

We'll see if the playoff committee sees things a little more reasonably, as they did last week.

[gocard14]

Currently ranked 8-3 (or worse) teams and their (1) losses and (2) wins vs. currently ranked teams:

Unranked 8-3 Stanford - losses to #6 UW, #9 Colorado, #23 WSU; 1 win against ranked team (#12 Under Stanford Control (again))

#12 8-3 Under Stanford Control (again) - losses #1 Alabama/#21 Utah/unranked Stanford; wins #6 UW/#9 Colorado
#13 8-3 Florida State - losses #4 Clemson/#11 Louisville/unranked UNC; 0 wins
#16 8-3 Auburn - losses #4 Clemson/#22 Texas A&M/unranked Georgia; win #25 LSU
#21 8-3 Utah - losses #6 Washington/unranked ןɐɔ/unranked Oregon; win #12 Under Stanford Control (again)
#22 8-3 Texas A&M - losses #1 Alabama/unranked Miss St/unranked Ole Miss; wins #16 Auburn/#24 Tennessee
#23 8-3 WSU - losses #9 Colorado/#20 Boise St/unranked EWU; 0 wins
#24 8-3 Tennessee - losses #1 Alabama/#22 Texas A&M/unranked South Carolina; win #13 Florida
#25 6-4 LSU - losses #1 Alabama/#5 Wisconsin/#13 Florida/#16 Auburn; 0 wins

Straight-faced arguments can be made for some but certainly less than all of the above teams being ranked above Stanford.

Looking at the list like that, the only team with a clearly more compelling resume then Stanford is the condoms with 2 wins over top 10 teams. LSU, Utah, Auburn, FSU are clearly less compelling. On the whole, the SEC seems to be getting way too much benefit of the doubt, as per usual. We are likely dinged (possibly reasonably) for how inept our offense looked for part of the year, combined with how thoroughly we got whooped on our prime time game against UW. Of course, that thrashing pales in comparison to how FSU got taken apart by a two loss Louisville team.

We'll see if the playoff committee sees things a little more reasonably, as they did last week.

[OutsiderFan]

Stanford would beat LSU, IMO. Utah would beat Texas A&M.  U$C would beat Florida.  Colorado would beat Tennessee. And WSU would beat Auburn.

[OutsiderFan]

Stanford would beat LSU, IMO. Utah would beat Texas A&M.  U$C would beat Florida.  Colorado would beat Tennessee. And WSU would beat Auburn.

[CTcard]

Straight-faced arguments can be made for some but certainly less than all of the above teams being ranked above Stanford.

Of course one should be careful in using the top 25 to complain about the top 25, though one would think the self-referencing would make it look better.

Going down the top 25, here are some teams I find ranked too high.

#5 Wisconsin 9-2
Bucky has a pretty good resume, I am just not sure that it is top 5 - best two loss team - ahead of a Power 5 one loss team good. It appears a major factor in this high ranking is an early season win over LSU.  In fact, many over-rated teams seem to be there because of beating LSU - I guess an important service LSU has provided to the rest of the football community. 
Otherwise, Wisconsin's non-conference schedule was Akron and Georgia State.
I think they also have received style points for relatively close (7 point) losses to Michigan and tOSU - which were decent results. 

#10 Colorado 9-2
It's not really rational, it's just that it's hard for me to think that a team that could only beat Stanford 10-5 back when we were playing that poorly could be in the top 10. We are the second best team they've beaten - they have us and WSU as signature wins.

#13 Florida 8-2
Rose 8 spots in the rankings by beating LSU. A theme.
That was their second win over a team with a winning record (UGa).

#16 Auburn 8-3
The SECers have seem quite taken with Auburn for some time now. Not sure why.
Their non-conference was a loss to Clemson, and games against Arkansas State, Louisiana Monroe, and some place abbreviated AAMU.
Their signature win seems to be ... LSU.

#21 Utah 8-3
The most notable thing about Utah is that they have the most hot and cold QB I have seen this year and the Jedi mind tricks they managed to pull on $C getting them to hand over the football three times to kill promising drives and punt for the first time in the game from Utah's 37 just in time for Dr. Jekyll to reemerge at QB to lead them on a desperation winning drive. That's their only notable victory.
They also won the Pac 12 scheduling lottery, playing only three of the well separated top six. Of those they won one, lost one, one left to go.
Not sure they should be ranked.

#23 WSU 8-3
The other winner of the in-conference scheduling lottery. Only play three of the top half, and one of those was Stanford at the nadir. They've gone 2-3 versus teams with winning records, and one of those wins was against 6-4 Idaho (and one of the losses was against and FCS school).
Still, they are probably ranked okay. Some of their wins were impressive and somebody has to fill the bottom range of the top 25.

25. LSU 6-4
Really.
I guess it was their signature win over ... Arkansas?

[CTcard]

Straight-faced arguments can be made for some but certainly less than all of the above teams being ranked above Stanford.

Of course one should be careful in using the top 25 to complain about the top 25, though one would think the self-referencing would make it look better.

Going down the top 25, here are some teams I find ranked too high.

#5 Wisconsin 9-2
Bucky has a pretty good resume, I am just not sure that it is top 5 - best two loss team - ahead of a Power 5 one loss team good. It appears a major factor in this high ranking is an early season win over LSU.  In fact, many over-rated teams seem to be there because of beating LSU - I guess an important service LSU has provided to the rest of the football community. 
Otherwise, Wisconsin's non-conference schedule was Akron and Georgia State.
I think they also have received style points for relatively close (7 point) losses to Michigan and tOSU - which were decent results. 

#10 Colorado 9-2
It's not really rational, it's just that it's hard for me to think that a team that could only beat Stanford 10-5 back when we were playing that poorly could be in the top 10. We are the second best team they've beaten - they have us and WSU as signature wins.

#13 Florida 8-2
Rose 8 spots in the rankings by beating LSU. A theme.
That was their second win over a team with a winning record (UGa).

#16 Auburn 8-3
The SECers have seem quite taken with Auburn for some time now. Not sure why.
Their non-conference was a loss to Clemson, and games against Arkansas State, Louisiana Monroe, and some place abbreviated AAMU.
Their signature win seems to be ... LSU.

#21 Utah 8-3
The most notable thing about Utah is that they have the most hot and cold QB I have seen this year and the Jedi mind tricks they managed to pull on $C getting them to hand over the football three times to kill promising drives and punt for the first time in the game from Utah's 37 just in time for Dr. Jekyll to reemerge at QB to lead them on a desperation winning drive. That's their only notable victory.
They also won the Pac 12 scheduling lottery, playing only three of the well separated top six. Of those they won one, lost one, one left to go.
Not sure they should be ranked.

#23 WSU 8-3
The other winner of the in-conference scheduling lottery. Only play three of the top half, and one of those was Stanford at the nadir. They've gone 2-3 versus teams with winning records, and one of those wins was against 6-4 Idaho (and one of the losses was against and FCS school).
Still, they are probably ranked okay. Some of their wins were impressive and somebody has to fill the bottom range of the top 25.

25. LSU 6-4
Really.
I guess it was their signature win over ... Arkansas?

[needle]

Stanford got blown out twice this year. The best win came over a team that has since gotten much better play from the QB position (as has Stanford, but the leap has been greater for USC). The next best win is over K-State (No. 33 in Sagarin ratings).

For AP voters, all this is a consideration. I think Stanford should be ranked more highly than LSU, for sure; much less sure about the other three-loss teams.

[needle]

Stanford got blown out twice this year. The best win came over a team that has since gotten much better play from the QB position (as has Stanford, but the leap has been greater for USC). The next best win is over K-State (No. 33 in Sagarin ratings).

For AP voters, all this is a consideration. I think Stanford should be ranked more highly than LSU, for sure; much less sure about the other three-loss teams.

[fullmetal]

Tennesee and Auburn need to GTFO--they are bad teams riding the coattails of their conference.  Right now Stanford should be in the #11-#15 range if just looking at the season right now.  I'm not sure we have the DL to handle LSU, but I would love to see a Stanford-LSU game...I think Shaw is capable of outcoaching Orgeron given a second chance.  And LSU just lost to UF, which means LSU seems to be mailing it in.

Oh well.  The season is the season.

[fullmetal]

Tennesee and Auburn need to GTFO--they are bad teams riding the coattails of their conference.  Right now Stanford should be in the #11-#15 range if just looking at the season right now.  I'm not sure we have the DL to handle LSU, but I would love to see a Stanford-LSU game...I think Shaw is capable of outcoaching Orgeron given a second chance.  And LSU just lost to UF, which means LSU seems to be mailing it in.

Oh well.  The season is the season.

[OutsiderFan]

I will assume the CFP committee isn't foolish enough to jump Florida 8 spots for barely beating a mediocre LSU.
At least we are well past the idea of two SEC teams in the playoff.  The real issue is the possibility of two Big Ten teams. 

It is funny that Wisconsin got all kinds of credit for beating a mediocre LSU team that I don't think the committee will have in its the Top 25 this week, but Stanford now doesn't seemingly get much credit for beating Under Stanford Control (again).  And Under Stanford Control (again) is better than LSU ever was. 

The real issue this season is that the Big 12 absolutely sucks, yet Ohio State lives off that Oklahoma beat down, and the fact there are some terrible Big Ten teams like Maryland and Rutgers.  But the reality is also that Ohio State struggled against Wisconsin, Penn State, and Michigan State.  Michigan can certainly help the committee quite a lot by beating Ohio State, but with its QB issues, that seems to be a tall order.

The playoff committee faces a very bad situation.  Because it's only four teams in, they have to leave a conference winner champion out.  That means they open themselves up to picking the best four teams.  And, they say winning the conference championship is the most important criteria.  Well, look at this mess:

- They have Ohio State in the Top 4, even though if Penn State wins this weekend, PSU can win the conference and Ohio State can't, and Penn State lost to Pitt OOC and Ohio State beat Oklahoma

- Under Stanford Control (again) has three losses and very well might have claim to beating both Pac-12 division champions, and are different team now than when they started another QB in losses against Stanford and Alabama

- Oklahoma plays in a terrible conference, and how could they pick Oklahoma over Ohio State after Ohio State clobbered Oklahoma head-to-head?

- Washington may play the whole season having beat one team currently ranked in the Top 25, and lost to the only one it played in the regular season

- Colorado will have beaten three teams ranked in the Top 25 if it wins out, which is more than Clemson

- Even Houston... has two losses when they had injuries, but also knocked off two Top 10 teams when they played them in Oklahoma and Louisville

Again, for the love of all creatures great and small, expand the playoff to 8 teams, take all five Power 5 conference champions, and then three at large teams; on Group of 5 if ranked in Top 12.  Let's assume Alabama, Clemson, Ohio State, Penn State, Colorado and Oklahoma win out.  That would equate to something like:

1. Alabama (SEC)
2. Ohio State (at large)
3. Clemson (ACC)
4. U$C (at-large)
5. Penn State (Big Ten)
6. Colorado (Pac-12)
7. Oklahoma (Big 12)
8. Western Michigan (Group of 5)

This seems imminently reasonable because it allows who is playing the best to be rewarded more than simply the W-L record.  Of course, Stanford would have made an 8-team playoff in 2015.  The Pac-12 is unfairly punished by:

1. East Coast bias

2. The fact it plays 9 conference games [ACC and SEC play 8] against more historically tougher teams than any other conference

[OutsiderFan]

I will assume the CFP committee isn't foolish enough to jump Florida 8 spots for barely beating a mediocre LSU.
At least we are well past the idea of two SEC teams in the playoff.  The real issue is the possibility of two Big Ten teams. 

It is funny that Wisconsin got all kinds of credit for beating a mediocre LSU team that I don't think the committee will have in its the Top 25 this week, but Stanford now doesn't seemingly get much credit for beating Under Stanford Control (again).  And Under Stanford Control (again) is better than LSU ever was. 

The real issue this season is that the Big 12 absolutely sucks, yet Ohio State lives off that Oklahoma beat down, and the fact there are some terrible Big Ten teams like Maryland and Rutgers.  But the reality is also that Ohio State struggled against Wisconsin, Penn State, and Michigan State.  Michigan can certainly help the committee quite a lot by beating Ohio State, but with its QB issues, that seems to be a tall order.

The playoff committee faces a very bad situation.  Because it's only four teams in, they have to leave a conference winner champion out.  That means they open themselves up to picking the best four teams.  And, they say winning the conference championship is the most important criteria.  Well, look at this mess:

- They have Ohio State in the Top 4, even though if Penn State wins this weekend, PSU can win the conference and Ohio State can't, and Penn State lost to Pitt OOC and Ohio State beat Oklahoma

- Under Stanford Control (again) has three losses and very well might have claim to beating both Pac-12 division champions, and are different team now than when they started another QB in losses against Stanford and Alabama

- Oklahoma plays in a terrible conference, and how could they pick Oklahoma over Ohio State after Ohio State clobbered Oklahoma head-to-head?

- Washington may play the whole season having beat one team currently ranked in the Top 25, and lost to the only one it played in the regular season

- Colorado will have beaten three teams ranked in the Top 25 if it wins out, which is more than Clemson

- Even Houston... has two losses when they had injuries, but also knocked off two Top 10 teams when they played them in Oklahoma and Louisville

Again, for the love of all creatures great and small, expand the playoff to 8 teams, take all five Power 5 conference champions, and then three at large teams; on Group of 5 if ranked in Top 12.  Let's assume Alabama, Clemson, Ohio State, Penn State, Colorado and Oklahoma win out.  That would equate to something like:

1. Alabama (SEC)
2. Ohio State (at large)
3. Clemson (ACC)
4. U$C (at-large)
5. Penn State (Big Ten)
6. Colorado (Pac-12)
7. Oklahoma (Big 12)
8. Western Michigan (Group of 5)

This seems imminently reasonable because it allows who is playing the best to be rewarded more than simply the W-L record.  Of course, Stanford would have made an 8-team playoff in 2015.  The Pac-12 is unfairly punished by:

1. East Coast bias

2. The fact it plays 9 conference games [ACC and SEC play 8] against more historically tougher teams than any other conference

[oldalum]

they say winning the conference championship is the most important criteria.

I've seen or heard that the committee say a conference championship is a factor, but never that it is the most important factor. Any citation for that? Thanks.

[oldalum]

they say winning the conference championship is the most important criteria.

I've seen or heard that the committee say a conference championship is a factor, but never that it is the most important factor. Any citation for that? Thanks.

[Spiny_Norman]

Here is Selection Committee protocol in detail - http://d30ratpzqzalg7.cloudfront.net/CD-...mkEd00PiAY

Note especially this statement (emphasis is mine):

The  criteria  to  be  provided  to  the  selection  committee  must  be  aligned  with  the  ideals  of  the commissioners, Presidents, athletic directors and coaches to honor regular season success while  at the same  time  providing  enough  flexibility  and  discretion  to  select  a  non-champion  or  independent  under circumstances where that particular non-champion or independent is unequivocally one of the four best teams in the country.

When circumstances at the margins indicate that teams are comparable, then the following criteria must be considered:
o Championships won
o Strength of schedule
o Head-to-head competition (if it occurred)
o Comparative outcomes of common opponents (without incenting margin of victory)

[Spiny_Norman]

Here is Selection Committee protocol in detail - http://d30ratpzqzalg7.cloudfront.net/CD-...mkEd00PiAY

Note especially this statement (emphasis is mine):

The  criteria  to  be  provided  to  the  selection  committee  must  be  aligned  with  the  ideals  of  the commissioners, Presidents, athletic directors and coaches to honor regular season success while  at the same  time  providing  enough  flexibility  and  discretion  to  select  a  non-champion  or  independent  under circumstances where that particular non-champion or independent is unequivocally one of the four best teams in the country.

When circumstances at the margins indicate that teams are comparable, then the following criteria must be considered:
o Championships won
o Strength of schedule
o Head-to-head competition (if it occurred)
o Comparative outcomes of common opponents (without incenting margin of victory)

[Stymie]

I've spent the last 5 weeks in SEC Country, and I can confirm:

1.  No chance of watching Stanford on TV (Pac-12 network is a no-brainer/no Pac-12 in sport bars).
2.  McCaffrey, who?
3.  How about them Gators!

We are doomed......

Stymie

[Stymie]

I've spent the last 5 weeks in SEC Country, and I can confirm:

1.  No chance of watching Stanford on TV (Pac-12 network is a no-brainer/no Pac-12 in sport bars).
2.  McCaffrey, who?
3.  How about them Gators!

We are doomed......

Stymie

[CTcard]

I've seen or heard that the committee say a conference championship is a factor, but never that it is the most important factor. Any citation for that? Thanks.

Well, this might be a start.
http://d30ratpzqzalg7.cloudfront.net/CD-...mkEd00PiAY

That's the original charge to the committee.
It states that the committee "will be instructed to place an emphasis on winning conference championships, strength  of  schedule  and  head-to-head  competition  when  comparing  teams  with  similar  records  and pedigree".

Further it states that the committee should have "enough  flexibility  and  discretion  to  select  a  non-champion  or  independent  under circumstances where that particular non-champion or independent is unequivocally one of the four best teams in the country."

So, conference championships is first in the list.
More importantly, there is specific mention that choosing a non-champion is a somewhat extraordinary event. That isn't said about choosing a team with a weaker strength of schedule, for example.

------------
I understand that at the start of the season Kirby Hocutt, the chair of the committee, gave an interview where he said conference championships were the #1 criterion. However, committee members have said all sorts of things at times, so I wouldn't put too much stock in that particular statement (and I cannot find it quoted on the web right now).


EDIT - I see that most of the above was posted already by Spiny. Maybe there is enough new to be worth leaving up.

[CTcard]

I've seen or heard that the committee say a conference championship is a factor, but never that it is the most important factor. Any citation for that? Thanks.

Well, this might be a start.
http://d30ratpzqzalg7.cloudfront.net/CD-...mkEd00PiAY

That's the original charge to the committee.
It states that the committee "will be instructed to place an emphasis on winning conference championships, strength  of  schedule  and  head-to-head  competition  when  comparing  teams  with  similar  records  and pedigree".

Further it states that the committee should have "enough  flexibility  and  discretion  to  select  a  non-champion  or  independent  under circumstances where that particular non-champion or independent is unequivocally one of the four best teams in the country."

So, conference championships is first in the list.
More importantly, there is specific mention that choosing a non-champion is a somewhat extraordinary event. That isn't said about choosing a team with a weaker strength of schedule, for example.

------------
I understand that at the start of the season Kirby Hocutt, the chair of the committee, gave an interview where he said conference championships were the #1 criterion. However, committee members have said all sorts of things at times, so I wouldn't put too much stock in that particular statement (and I cannot find it quoted on the web right now).


EDIT - I see that most of the above was posted already by Spiny. Maybe there is enough new to be worth leaving up.

[BostonCard]

Among other indignities: in the new AP Poll, LSU (6-4) is no. 25; we just missed the list as no. 26 per number of votes (at 8-3). LSU's best win is a 7-4 Arkansas. They're 0-4 against other AP top 25 teams; we're 1-3 (beating Under Stanford Control (again), at no. 12). What gives?

Doesn't help that Wilner put LSU at 20, Stanford at 23.

http://www.mercurynews.com/2016/11/20/my...-and-more/

BC

[BostonCard]

Among other indignities: in the new AP Poll, LSU (6-4) is no. 25; we just missed the list as no. 26 per number of votes (at 8-3). LSU's best win is a 7-4 Arkansas. They're 0-4 against other AP top 25 teams; we're 1-3 (beating Under Stanford Control (again), at no. 12). What gives?

Doesn't help that Wilner put LSU at 20, Stanford at 23.

http://www.mercurynews.com/2016/11/20/my...-and-more/

BC

[oldalum]

Thanks for the links to the BCS group's June 20, 2012 proposed guidelines/charge to the proposed new selection committee. The statement therein, that a non-championship team can be ranked ahead of a championship team only if it is unequivocally  one of the best four essentially means that championship is the single most important criterion.

It is not clear that this has been formally adopted by the CFP, though. The CFP website has a chronology about the creation of the CFP that says on the one hand that the Presidents and chancellors on June 26, 2012, approved the policies that include the "unequivocal" statement above; on the other hand, it also says:

"The presidents and chancellors also endorsed (1) rotating the semifinal games among six bowl sites and rotation of the championship game among neutral sites; (2) managing the championship game by the conferences; and (3) creating a selection committee that would rank the teams to play in the playoff, giving all the teams an equal opportunity to participate. Among the factors the committee would be instructed to value were win-loss record, strength of schedule, head-to-head results, and whether a team is a conference champion."

The latter list of factors does not suggest that conference championship is the most important criterion.

The current criteria stated by the CFP perpetuate this lack of clarity  (http://www.collegefootballplayoff.com/se...ittee-faqs):

"What criteria does the selection committee use to rank the teams?
The committee selects the teams using a process that distinguishes among otherwise comparable teams by considering conference championships won, strength of schedule, head-to-head competition, comparative outcomes of common opponents (without incenting margin of victory) and other relevant factors that may have affected a team’s performance during the season or likely will affect its postseason performance.

. . . Among the many factors the committee members consider are strength of schedule, head-to-head results, comparison of results against common opponents and conference championships won."

So again not 100% clear. The failure to continue the phrase "unequivocal evidence" from the June 20, 2012 proposal seems notable.

My take is that, language aside, for a non-championship team to displace a championship team from the playoff, the committee will have to believe the non-championship team is better, but by how much, and the standard for that determination (e.g., more likely than not, convincing evidence, clearly convincing evidence, unequivocal evidence), are unstated and therefore up to the committee. Thus the weight given the conference championship per se is unclear and up to the committee. So while conference championship is probably the single most important criterion, it may not be by much, and the committee has the freedom to override it so long as they can cite a cogent reason or reasons for doing so. Another way of putting it is that conference champions enjoy a presumption that they belong in the playoff, but the ease with which that presumption can be overcome is unclear and up to the committee. Given the variety of data that can be brought to the comparisons, and the subjectiveness of the all-important "eye test," the committee probably has the freedom to overcome that presumption as it sees fit.

[oldalum]

Thanks for the links to the BCS group's June 20, 2012 proposed guidelines/charge to the proposed new selection committee. The statement therein, that a non-championship team can be ranked ahead of a championship team only if it is unequivocally  one of the best four essentially means that championship is the single most important criterion.

It is not clear that this has been formally adopted by the CFP, though. The CFP website has a chronology about the creation of the CFP that says on the one hand that the Presidents and chancellors on June 26, 2012, approved the policies that include the "unequivocal" statement above; on the other hand, it also says:

"The presidents and chancellors also endorsed (1) rotating the semifinal games among six bowl sites and rotation of the championship game among neutral sites; (2) managing the championship game by the conferences; and (3) creating a selection committee that would rank the teams to play in the playoff, giving all the teams an equal opportunity to participate. Among the factors the committee would be instructed to value were win-loss record, strength of schedule, head-to-head results, and whether a team is a conference champion."

The latter list of factors does not suggest that conference championship is the most important criterion.

The current criteria stated by the CFP perpetuate this lack of clarity  (http://www.collegefootballplayoff.com/se...ittee-faqs):

"What criteria does the selection committee use to rank the teams?
The committee selects the teams using a process that distinguishes among otherwise comparable teams by considering conference championships won, strength of schedule, head-to-head competition, comparative outcomes of common opponents (without incenting margin of victory) and other relevant factors that may have affected a team’s performance during the season or likely will affect its postseason performance.

. . . Among the many factors the committee members consider are strength of schedule, head-to-head results, comparison of results against common opponents and conference championships won."

So again not 100% clear. The failure to continue the phrase "unequivocal evidence" from the June 20, 2012 proposal seems notable.

My take is that, language aside, for a non-championship team to displace a championship team from the playoff, the committee will have to believe the non-championship team is better, but by how much, and the standard for that determination (e.g., more likely than not, convincing evidence, clearly convincing evidence, unequivocal evidence), are unstated and therefore up to the committee. Thus the weight given the conference championship per se is unclear and up to the committee. So while conference championship is probably the single most important criterion, it may not be by much, and the committee has the freedom to override it so long as they can cite a cogent reason or reasons for doing so. Another way of putting it is that conference champions enjoy a presumption that they belong in the playoff, but the ease with which that presumption can be overcome is unclear and up to the committee. Given the variety of data that can be brought to the comparisons, and the subjectiveness of the all-important "eye test," the committee probably has the freedom to overcome that presumption as it sees fit.