OTF Premium Flawed logic has tainted the College Football Playoff selection process

[Ronnie Barnhardt]

27 minutes ago, Chris Evans said:

Also his fact is purely wrong. FSU was never ranked by the committee. Wish he would get called out. 

Exactly! How is this not being hammered by anyone, anywhere? I get that bama is 10-2 but still

Edited 12 hours ago by Ronnie Barnhardt

[4thandFive]

Texas should have beaten Florida.

[Waxahorn]

Won't it be exciting to watch North Texas take on Oregon?😗

And who will we root for?

[Burnt Orange Horn]

2 hours ago, HornsUpThumbsDown said:

Good points, Texas has 3 losses, 1 worse than others puts them behind teams that don’t have 3 losses. Bama probably thought same thing last year. Good fuel to take care of Biz next year 

Which is exactly why total losses is the wrong criteria by which to classify teams.  Head to Head and Strength of Schedule must come first.  It is non critical thinkers who accept the Committee's losses first criteria.  Kind of like the good Germans in the 30s who justified accepting Hitler.

The committee ranks teams as it wants, then works backward to make it make sense. This is the fatal flaw of the Committee which invalidates all of its actions. It has negated the value of marquee match ups.  The consequence of invalidating such elevated competitive matchups means less CFB fans will be able to view them.  Which also means total revenue for the networks and the involved colleges will decline.

If Texas and other colleges with premier football programs will not speak against this obviously flawed model, then the networks must.  Kudos to Jeff for articulating the obvious flaws of this Committee of program fans and professional pundits expressing personal biases over sober evaluation.  The NCAA must do better or be kicked to the gutter by the power conference members.

 

[Burnt Orange Horn]

17 minutes ago, 4thandFive said:

Texas should have beaten Florida.

Yes, but it should not be the on criterion that invalidates Head to Head records and Strength if Schedule.

You have been brainwashed by the Committee's malfeasant decision process.  Unfortunately we have many others who also lack critical thinking capabilities.  Sad time in America.

[4thandFive]

2 minutes ago, Burnt Orange Horn said:

Yes, but it should not be the on criterion that invalidates Head to Head records and Strength if Schedule.

You have been brainwashed by the Committee's malfeasant decision process.  Unfortunately we have many others who also lack critical thinking capabilities.  Sad time in America.

I haven’t been brainwashed…Texas lost 3 games.
 

Don’t lose 3 games (one of them being to a sub-.500 team) and we’d be in the playoffs without question. Period.

Edited 12 hours ago by 4thandFive

[FootLaw]

The BS gets worse every year. Bama has the worst loss of the top 15 hands down.

Until you put non-interested parties on the CFP committee, it will be flawed. End of story.

[marathon]

3 hours ago, Jeff Howe said:

Don’t say you’re picking the best teams when Miami’s head-to-head win over Notre Dame, as of now, doesn’t matter.

Don’t say you’re picking the best teams when the Longhorns, who played a tougher schedule than any of the other current CFP candidates, appear to be disqualified from consideration solely based on accruing three losses.

 

The committee should be fired for ranking Notre Dame over Miami even though Miami beat ND and they both have 10-2 records. It’s as if Miami never played ND. Why even play the game.

Flawed logic implies there was logic to begin with. Their selection process is simple. They look at won loss records and pick the prettiest records.

Here are their top 13 rankings.

Ohio State: 12-0

Indiana: 12-0

Georgia: 11-1

Texas Tech: 11-1

Oregon: 11-1

Ole Miss: 11-1

Texas A&M: 11-1

Oklahoma: 10-2

Alabama: 10-2

Notre Dame: 10-2

BYU: 11-1

Miami (Fla.): 10-2

Texas: 9-3

[Junior]

I’m honestly baffled why some Texas fans and media are still running air cover for this committee. It's like agreeing with a judge who didn’t read the case but liked the font on the first page.

[Here for the Wins]

I think A&M got hosed to keep us out of it. Maybe Vandy too.

[AusMOJO]

1 hour ago, Jeff Howe said:

Jon Gruden did a bit, but it makes more sense than the current format:

 

I still don't get how BYU would be in if they lose? They need to win to stay in the CFP, if they lose they're out. 

[Bunk Moreland]

4 hours ago, Joe Zura said:

I didn’t even read this damn playoff post just came because it was yet another 🤬🤬🤬😭😭😭

[Oskies1279]

If byu and bama both lose then I just can't get around the fact they'll still take bama in over Texas. I don't care that it is the conf champ game. A loss is a loss as defined by the playoff committee, and they lost to fsu, who lost to Florida. Suddenly they just magically forget about that loss? I'm mind blown by that fact 🤯

[Titleist8412]

3 hours ago, Jeff Howe said:

I know how everyone on this board feels about Mike Elko, but he's 100 percent right on this topic. All we want is clarity and we're not getting it from the committee:

 

I agree with the quote, but their schedule was definitely weak.

Their SEC wins were a combined 12-44. Their opponents this year, including us, to whom they obviously lost, were a combined 67-77. Teams they beat were a combined 58-74. They beat: Missouri (4-4; 8-4); LSU (3-5; 7-5); Florida (2-6; 4-8); Auburn (1-7; 5-7); MSST (1-7; 5-7); SoCa (1-7; 4-8); and Ark (0-8; 2-10). ND (10-2) is the only team they beat with a pulse, but ND's best win was against Pitt, so what does that say about them. Their other NC games were against UTSA (6-6), Utah ST (6-6) and Samford (1-11). Somehow, their strength of record is ranked 3rd with that schedule. I don't know how it is calculated, but that is a joke.

I know your point did not involve the Aggies' schedule, but I couldn't help but push back on the idea that their schedule wasn't weak.

[Tres Comas]

9 minutes ago, Oskies1279 said:

If byu and bama both lose then I just can't get around the fact they'll still take bama in over Texas. I don't care that it is the conf champ game. A loss is a loss as defined by the playoff committee, and they lost to fsu, who lost to Florida. Suddenly they just magically forget about that loss? I'm mind blown by that fact 🤯

They also have a game against Eastern Illinois on their schedule. Why that should count as anything more than a meaningless scrimmage is beyond me

[Burnt Orange Horn]

Jeff, it is not flawed logic as much as it is dereliction of duty.  When the schools and networks must seriously jean on the NCAA and it's corrupt Committee. They have not performed as charged!

[ChanmanV]

I think a simple solution to how to select the playoff teams is to remove the committee all together and create a ladder point system that would rank the teams week to week (separate from the AP poll ofc). The way it could work is you only gain points if you win and the amount of points you gain is based on the quality of opponent you are playing. This system would balance out the risk/reward of scheduling tougher games. You can either gain a lot of points for a big win or get 0 points for a loss. It also would not allow teams with a soft schedule to get fewer points for wins over bad teams. The amount you win by would have no value on the amount of points you win.  No more G5 teams and auto bids but instead just straight up top 12 in points move into the playoffs with the seedings in place. Conference championships could either not count because it's an extra game for only some teams or it could act as bonus points for conference winners which would all but ensure them a high ranking and a good seeding.

This is system is pretty similar to the ELO system game developers use in their ladder matchmaking. It's simple, effective, transparent, and can be tracked all the way to the finish. With the number of games being such a small sample size, figuring out the quality of opponent early season would be the only thing that needs to be debated. You could still use the AP poll for this I guess since the AP poll is trying to accurately rank week to week what they believe will be the eventual rankings at the end of the year. 

Edited 9 hours ago by ChanmanV

[dentonhorn]

12 hours ago, Hornmatic said:

Expansion was a huge mistake. 4 team playoff was perfect and bcs 1v2 is better than more than 4. 

HUGE mistake and has messed up the mystique of college football. It was different than the antiseptic NFL. It was a better time. Much so.

[Burnt Orange Horn]

11 hours ago, 4thandFive said:

I haven’t been brainwashed…Texas lost 3 games.
 

Don’t lose 3 games (one of them being to a sub-.500 team) and we’d be in the playoffs without question. Period.

You have been brainwashed by the Committee.  Total losses ha never been the primary criterion. End of story!  Learn to read and think.

[4thandFive]

What if there were a computer system that analyzed a complex system of metrics and integrated various formulaic data into a process designed to avoid human error and produce the statistically “best” teams…..

[4thandFive]

3 minutes ago, Burnt Orange Horn said:

You have been brainwashed by the Committee.  Total losses ha never been the primary criterion. End of story!  Learn to read and think.

A- I’m not a fan of the committee. B- I’ve been saying this before the results came out. C- An ugly and inexcusable third loss is absolutely weighty.

Edited 1 hour ago by 4thandFive

[Burnt Orange Horn]

10 minutes ago, dentonhorn said:

HUGE mistake and has messed up the mystique of college football. It was different than the antiseptic NFL. It was a better time. Much so.

No, the greater inclusion of teams was a brilliant move.  The NFL is a 32 team private league.  Regression to the mean favors them.  The FBS is a 139+ public league.  It is seeking the best of that public league to include in the playoff.  Playing Portland State is not the same as a SEC or most B1G teams, nor should it be.

[Burnt Orange Horn]

8 hours ago, ChanmanV said:

I think a simple solution to how to select the playoff teams is to remove the committee all together and create a ladder point system that would rank the teams week to week (separate from the AP poll ofc). The way it could work is you only gain points if you win and the amount of points you gain is based on the quality of opponent you are playing. This system would balance out the risk/reward of scheduling tougher games. You can either gain a lot of points for a big win or get 0 points for a loss. It also would not allow teams with a soft schedule to get fewer points for wins over bad teams. The amount you win by would have no value on the amount of points you win.  No more G5 teams and auto bids but instead just straight up top 12 in points move into the playoffs with the seedings in place. Conference championships could either not count because it's an extra game for only some teams or it could act as bonus points for conference winners which would all but ensure them a high ranking and a good seeding.

This is system is pretty similar to the ELO system game developers use in their ladder matchmaking. It's simple, effective, transparent, and can be tracked all the way to the finish. With the number of games being such a small sample size, figuring out the quality of opponent early season would be the only thing that needs to be debated. You could still use the AP poll for this I guess since the AP poll is trying to accurately rank week to week what they believe will be the eventual rankings at the end of the year. 

Anything, even computer rankings or AI, is better than a biased and willfully ignorant prejudiced committee.

🤘🏻🤘🏼🤘🤘🏽🤘🏾🤘🏿

[jkates]

Bruce is right. 

Good write-up, @Jeff Howe. 

[GDI]

I'm amused that people think the committee is screwing up the process. That is just what committees do.  Let the computers pick.

As for expansion it has only made things worse. Imagine the committee having to deal with 16,  24,  or even as someone suggested 32 teams. The playoffs are watered down with 12 teams,  imagine 32.  

The best 8 teams in football should be in the playoffs.  Set the criteria and let the computers pick,  adjust if necessary and it will eventually be right.  Giving a committee more teams to deal with only brings more chaos.  

Edited 41 minutes ago by GDI