College Football Experts Hypocrisy

m14brian

Active member
So this continues in CFP.

Clemson wins 15 games. But we cannot have a expanded CFP because the “kids” would have to play too may games.
So much Hypocrisy in this College Football arena it is sickening.

Expansion will happen I’m sure. Just the resistance is uncalled for.
 

Raider6309

Active member
I like 4. Makes the regular season the playoffs and mean something. The other sports have a worthless regular season. Just imagine Ohio State resting players vs Michigan because that game is now worthless
 

Stirred not Shaken

Well-known member
I like 4. Makes the regular season the playoffs and mean something. The other sports have a worthless regular season. Just imagine Ohio State resting players vs Michigan because that game is now worthless
4 teams means some of the " elite " teams ( Bammy " ) wont schedule tough true away non league games. More teams the better or at least 8. Unlike some posters I don't want some elitist committee telling us who the 4 best teams in the country are.
 

Arrogate

Active member
I don't of moving it more than 4 really incentivizes scheduling tougher. There still is no real upside in scheduling tough, still a lot of downside where the risk isnt worth the payoff.
 

kingpin2010

Active member
The more teams in the less incentive to schedule tougher, especially if conference champions get auto-bids. Football is not like basketball, the injury risk is not worth it to play those games when you can just play a lower level team, pack your stadium, and have lesser injury risk. 4, maybe 6 is the sweet spot where it’s beneficial to schedule tough OOC games because you need to bolster your resume to get in. Auto-bids or a bloated field eliminates that
 

adselder09

Active member
Until the committee decides that tough OOC games are necessary to determine who the top teams are, it won't change. Or until a computer based metric uses SOS as one of the top criteria it won't matter.
 

ronnie mund

Well-known member
ads I know you're good with the harbins. Ever try experimenting with college football just to see what it looks like?
 

adselder09

Active member
I know another poster started keeping track of Harbins for college a couple years ago (maybe last year). I ran numbers for them last year, I'll have to see if I still have the template.

It works a lot better using a base number as opposed to decimals, but it can be done either way. When I ran them, I used the following breakdowns:
Power 5 - 6.0, 6.0
Group 5 - 5.5, 5.0
FCS - 5.0, 4.0

The Harbins don't always show SOS though considering you could lose to a really good team and not receive any points. Obviously opponent's record is the easy way, though I'm sure there are other ways ESPN and other sites try to manipulate those rankings by weighing this, that and everything else.
 

14Red

New member
I think you're going to continue to see 4 teams. There is too much money locked into the networks for the next 10 years, even though the talking heads keep crying.

I personally like 4. The regular season is very relevant. There is not much more talk about regular season college football than there is right now. Every week is an elimination week for some teams, right up to the conference championship games.
 

Pope Francis 1

Active member
8 is great.......

Auto bid to P5 conference champs & 3 wild cards......
this will allow the SEC to always have a minimum of 2 teams, cause we all know the best 2 teams in the country every year are Alabama (lost 44-16 to Clemson) and Georgia (got hammered by #14 Texas).
 

Pope Francis 1

Active member
I like 4. Makes the regular season the playoffs and mean something. The other sports have a worthless regular season. Just imagine Ohio State resting players vs Michigan because that game is now worthless
That game is not worthless if the top 8 included the P5 champs. So Osu vs ttun would be fighting to play in the B1G title game to lock up a bid as B1G champs.
On a side note, I agree ncaa bball has become "wait until March" for many casual bball fans like myself.
 

eastisbest

Well-known member
Final power rankings have OSU 3rd because


a) they didn't lose to the by far two best teams.
b) there's a flaw in the system and they should have been in the play-off.


Winning a conference is MUCH harder than winning a season. I still think, ND got a pass.
 

Arrogate

Active member
Final power rankings have OSU 3rd because


a) they didn't lose to the by far two best teams.
b) there's a flaw in the system and they should have been in the play-off.


Winning a conference is MUCH harder than winning a season. I still think, ND got a pass.
No flaw when you lose by 29 to a very average team. Literally have no one to blame but yourself.

It isnt like they lost by one score to a top 25 team. They lost by 29 to a team who lost to Eastern Michigan and ended up with a LOSING record.
 

eastisbest

Well-known member
No flaw when you lose by 29 to a very average team. Literally have no one to blame but yourself.

It isnt like they lost by one score to a top 25 team. They lost by 29 to a team who lost to Eastern Michigan and ended up with a LOSING record.

Losing by 29 to a very average (at best) team doesn't seem to have prevented OSU from ending up third in the power ranking but losing to one of the two best teams in college football apparently is enough to move you below that team whose only accomplishment after the selection committee made their decision was to beat a team from a barely above mid-major conference.


So I ask again, flaw in the system? Does losing to that very average (also I might remind, under extremely emotional circumstances) really matter all that much? In hindsight of course. Does this final result evidence need of an expanded play-off? Or should the power rankings reflect OSU still 5th or 6th perhaps and the flaw is there?
 

adselder09

Active member
Final power rankings have OSU 3rd because


a) they didn't lose to the by far two best teams.
b) there's a flaw in the system and they should have been in the play-off.


Winning a conference is MUCH harder than winning a season. I still think, ND got a pass.
:laugh: There's definitely a flaw, but that's not why.
 

adselder09

Active member
Losing by 29 to a very average (at best) team doesn't seem to have prevented OSU from ending up third in the power ranking but losing to one of the two best teams in college football apparently is enough to move you below that team whose only accomplishment after the selection committee made their decision was to beat a team from a barely above mid-major conference.


So I ask again, flaw in the system? Does losing to that very average (also I might remind, under extremely emotional circumstances) really matter all that much? In hindsight of course. Does this final result evidence need of an expanded play-off? Or should the power rankings reflect OSU still 5th or 6th perhaps and the flaw is there?
It's really quite simple:
Ohio State won their final game
Notre Dame and Oklahoma did not
Alabama also lost their final game, but after beating a top 5 opponent in the Semifinal. If you can't follow that there's no helping you.
 

eastisbest

Well-known member
It's really quite simple:
Ohio State won their final game
Notre Dame and Oklahoma did not
Alabama also lost their final game, but after beating a top 5 opponent in the Semifinal. If you can't follow that there's no helping you.
You don't really have to respond if you can't act grown-up. Yes we all know how the system did work. That question wasn't asked.

Nothing is simple with eastisbest. Ever
Well sure, simple is never questioning. To each their own, YOU responded. It's just discussion, the point of the thread.

My opinion there was enough here to discuss.

If OSU is considered better than two play-off teams AFTER the bowl games, then in hindsight, weren't they actually the more qualified before? ND and OSU have the same record. As you pointed out, OSU lost to a mediocre team, VERY badly. ND lost to a very good team. Oklahoma's two reasonably close losses were to highly ranked teams. How is OSU better after that if not before?

That sounds to me like a system contradicting itself. I understand if you don't want to discuss or devil's advocate. Fine. I thought it interesting.
 

Arrogate

Active member
Who made the rankings that had OSU 3rd? who decides who gets into the playoffs? Are those the same entity or two different ones?

The AP poll and CFP committee arent the same. They weren't considered better by the CFP committee before the playoffs and they dont do rankings after the season is over to my knowledge. So OSU wasn't 3rd in the CFP committee's final rankings, they were 6th. The CFP committee didn't come out and say we think OSU is better than ND and OU. They didn't contradict themselves on this issue

If the CFP committee made a rankings after the season I could see your point, maybe? But that's how rankings work teams move up and down bc of wins and losses.


Explain to me how the AP rankings present a contradiction the CFP committee made?
 
Last edited:

Arrogate

Active member
Two groups disagreeing on something doesnt mean one group is contradicting themselves.

The system is flawed but not bc the CFP contradicted themselves on this specific issue.
 

eastisbest

Well-known member
Who made the rankings that had OSU 3rd? who decides who gets into the playoffs? Are those the same entity or two different ones?

The AP poll and CFP committee arent the same. They weren't considered better by the CFP committee before the playoffs and they dont do rankings after the season is over to my knowledge. So OSU wasn't 3rd in the CFP committee's final rankings, they were 6th. The CFP committee didn't come out and say we think OSU is better than ND and OU. They didn't contradict themselves on this issue

If the CFP committee made a rankings after the season I could see your point, maybe? But that's how rankings work teams move up and down bc of wins and losses.


Explain to me how the AP rankings present a contradiction the CFP committee made?

The rankings that brought the question to MY mind I saw on ESPN. "Power rankings." Your right, lots of rankings and maybe I'm confused. I thought it was the power rankings the committee used to choose the play-off teams.
 

brianwr112

Active member
The rankings that brought the question to MY mind I saw on ESPN. "Power rankings." Your right, lots of rankings and maybe I'm confused. I thought it was the power rankings the committee used to choose the play-off teams.
They definitely don't use ESPNs Power Rankings to make any decisions at all in order to choose playoff teams. The Power Rankings are one guy's opinion (he probably consults with colleagues). To use them for your argument that OSU should've made the playoffs is humorous though.
 

14Red

New member
I don't mean to burst anyone's bubble, but if you believe ESPN doesn't have any influence on the playoff teams, I've got some swamp property to sell you. And here is the problem with college sports. Athletic departments at most d1 schools are operating to break even or they are losing money. It's a fact. Only a few schools "make" money. So the schools (conferences make money). Even though Indiana will never make the college football playoff, they get the big ten cut of the playoff tv dollars. So the power 5 conferences LOVE the playoff. They HAVE to have it to remain solvent in their athletic departments.
ESPN/ ABC, Fox, etc. pay millions and millions of dollars to televise the games...why??? BECAUSE WE WATCH THEM!!!

Ohio State, Notre Dame, Michigan, Texas, Oklahoma, have gigantic fan bases and alumni bases. Many of the SEC schools are more regional and not as big, but as a conference the SEC swings a big stick and view and talk about college football more than anyone else.
So if you think that there is no leaning to some of these bigger fan bases, then you just don't understand. A 4 team playoff of Iowa, Kansas State, Washington State and Wake Forest would spell doom to ESPN. Nothing against those schools, but college football from a viewer ship standpoint, it about as good as ever. I don't think the networks are going to screw that up.
 

Max Grumbleman

New member
It is quite sick how many millions are made off the backs of kids who are barred from acquiring any piece of it for themselves! The NCAA is an immoral institution and I hope one day they are subjected to a death sentence lawsuit.
 

eastisbest

Well-known member
They definitely don't use ESPNs Power Rankings to make any decisions at all in order to choose playoff teams. The Power Rankings are one guy's opinion (he probably consults with colleagues). To use them for your argument that OSU should've made the playoffs is humorous though.

My impression was that ESPN was publishing some standard NCAA "power rankings." I didn't realize it was an in-house thing. Thanks for the clarification.


As for my "argument" that OSU shouldn't have made the play-offs, I didn't make such a thing. I was questioning what the rankings argued. The only argument I made pre or post play-offs was the ND shouldn't be in.
 

falguin

Active member
Looking at how Clemson destroyed Bama, ND's 30 -3 loss wasn't that bad. The right four teams made it into the playoff, and the bowl games showed it. Georgia was blown out by a decent Texas team; tOSU showed the issues they had this year when they jumped out to a big lead on Washington, and then got bored and let them back in, and UCF looked sloppy in their loss to LSU. ND actually kept Clemson's offense in check. ND just couldn't move the ball because ND's plays took too long to develop. ND played a tough schedule and won them all. They belonged in the playoffs. But let's face it, the way these playoffs are panning out shows that there needs to be at least eight teams in the playoffs.
 
.
Top