College Football Championship Week & Beyond

[Shirley]

I still don't get why the bumped TCU up to 3 last week. If they had put them at 4, making a change today would have been much easier. Unless they just like TCU that much and decide to stand pat.

I meant, unless they just hate TCU and really wanted to fuck with them.

The committee would never admit to this, but I have to think that the comparative histories and statures of TCU and OSU played a role here. With the selected field, you get 4 marquee programs. TCU and Baylor, although they had great seasons, are comparative upstarts. TCU has to be pissed though that they get dropped 2 spots after a 52-point win. Especially when FSU just barely squeaked by against GT.

Or the committee really considered TCU, Baylor and OSU as nearly equal before the weekend games. There's no doubt that Ohio State not only had the most impressive win (by far), but that also became the best win by any of those teams for the year. Maybe OSU would have been ranked higher last week if their QB hadn't gotten hurt. Once the third string kid with the great twitter account proved that those classes weren't getting in the way of his awesome play, OSU was no longer knocked for having lost their QB.

[degenerasian]

I still don't get why the bumped TCU up to 3 last week. If they had put them at 4, making a change today would have been much easier. Unless they just like TCU that much and decide to stand pat.

I meant, unless they just hate TCU and really wanted to fuck with them.

The committee would never admit to this, but I have to think that the comparative histories and statures of TCU and OSU played a role here. With the selected field, you get 4 marquee programs. TCU and Baylor, although they had great seasons, are comparative upstarts. TCU has to be pissed though that they get dropped 2 spots after a 52-point win. Especially when FSU just barely squeaked by against GT.

Or the committee really considered TCU, Baylor and OSU as nearly equal before the weekend games. There's no doubt that Ohio State not only had the most impressive win (by far), but that also became the best win by any of those teams for the year. Maybe OSU would have been ranked higher last week if their QB hadn't gotten hurt. Once the third string kid with the great twitter account proved that those classes weren't getting in the way of his awesome play, OSU was no longer knocked for having lost their QB.

Maybe. That's a flawed system too, ranking a team based on injuries.

I'm pretty sure if TCU were called Oklahoma or Texas they'd be in. Total cash grab for 3 games now instead of 1.

[Brontoburglar]

I still don't get why the bumped TCU up to 3 last week. If they had put them at 4, making a change today would have been much easier. Unless they just like TCU that much and decide to stand pat.

I meant, unless they just hate TCU and really wanted to fuck with them.

The committee would never admit to this, but I have to think that the comparative histories and statures of TCU and OSU played a role here. With the selected field, you get 4 marquee programs. TCU and Baylor, although they had great seasons, are comparative upstarts. TCU has to be pissed though that they get dropped 2 spots after a 52-point win. Especially when FSU just barely squeaked by against GT.

Or the committee really considered TCU, Baylor and OSU as nearly equal before the weekend games. There's no doubt that Ohio State not only had the most impressive win (by far), but that also became the best win by any of those teams for the year. Maybe OSU would have been ranked higher last week if their QB hadn't gotten hurt. Once the third string kid with the great twitter account proved that those classes weren't getting in the way of his awesome play, OSU was no longer knocked for having lost their QB.

Maybe. That's a flawed system too, ranking a team based on injuries.

I'm pretty sure if TCU were called Oklahoma or Texas they'd be in. Total cash grab for 3 games now instead of 1.

Here's the thing with the cash grab point... it's not something revolutionary/conspiracy theory/gasp-worthy right now. If (royal) you suddenly feel that "oh man this is a cash grab!" where were you last week?

[brian]

Right, the bowls were (and are) the ultimate cash grab -- far be it from me to defend the NCAA, but if you're going to be that cynical, they would have just made it a 24-team tournament like FCS and sold the TV rights for 87 trillion dollars.

[degenerasian]

Right, the bowls were (and are) the ultimate cash grab -- far be it from me to defend the NCAA, but if you're going to be that cynical, they would have just made it a 24-team tournament like FCS and sold the TV rights for 87 trillion dollars.

That would fail the bowl tradition. College football wants the best of both worlds.

I did find it strange last week that TCU was 3rd but even more strange that they fell to 6th this week. What criteria are they using that could make both these events occur?

Show your work.

[A_B]

we know Oregon is in. We know Alabama is in. TCU making a statement.

Does Herbstreit really think there is a chance TCU drops from 3 to 5 (or lower) at this point?

Yeah! herbie's a doofus!

[rass]

[tennbengal]

I kinda have to chuckle, just because the Big XII - II spent all year with the "one true champion" motto and then refused to follow it because they were trying to get both Baylor and TCU in and ended up with neither.

Just add two teams and play a championship game already, Big XII.

[testuser2]

I'd love to hear the rest of this conversation that got picked up while Winston walked off with the umpire. I can distinctly hear... "We're giving you every inch"

[Brontoburglar]

Degen, the committee showed its work pretty clearly with the explanations of the last 48 hours:

Before Saturday, the head-to-head matchup with Baylor and TCU hadn't come into play yet. You can argue that it should have been factored in since the beginning, but they didn't look at it until after they both played Kansas State.

Then, after Baylor beats Kansas State by double figures, it does. If you take the H2H matchup as the barometer of which team is better (which it appears the committee did), Baylor wins. So you've got Baylor over TCU.

But while you're doing that, there's a team between them that's playing a 13th game -- a point mentioned by Jeff Long -- and blowing out a team that the committee really likes. And that team between them is playing with its preseason No. 3 QB. Maybe it's gotten really, really good? You certainly can't drop this team below Baylor after winning 59-0 over the No. 13 team in the country. But given your previous rankings, someone has to drop. That someone is TCU.

You can disagree with how the committee did it all you want and you have a valid argument. But to say that the (flawed?) methodology was in total secret is invalid.

[Ryan]

FCS Interlude of the Week

Quarterfinals

8. Chattanooga @ 1. New Hampshire
5. Illinois St @ 4. Eastern Washington
Sam Houston St @ 6. Villanova
7. Coastal Carolina @ 2. North Dakota St

Last Week's Recap

One of Fordham's WRs is Tebucky Jones, Jr.

[Giff]

There's no doubt that Ohio State not only had the most impressive win (by far), but that also became the best win by any of those teams for the year.

Most impressive on Saturday, sure. Not of the year. I know it became a thing to not call close wins good ones, but beating the #6 team is still a better win than beating a #13 Wisconsin team from a lesser conference.

[A_B]

There's no doubt that Ohio State not only had the most impressive win (by far), but that also became the best win by any of those teams for the year.

Most impressive on Saturday, sure. Not of the year. I know it became a thing to not call close wins good ones, but beating the #6 team is still a better win than beating a #13 Wisconsin team from a lesser conference.

I dunno. beating the #13 team by 59 on a neutral field is pretty impressive.

[degenerasian]

Bronto:

It's really strange that head-to-head isn't used until it is absolutely needed at the end. It's just so weird to have TCU ahead of both Baylor and FSU then because Baylor beats a common opponent then Baylor MUST be ahead of TCU but still can't be above FSU. That's sort of a if A beats B and if B beats C then A must beat C argument.

Also I don't like how the committee is trying to find the best matchups instead of rewarding the performance of the season. That's almost WWE-ish. "We'll put OSU in 5th because we're not sure they're good anymore" That would be like throwing Green Bay out of the playoffs because Rodgers got hurt in Week 17.

So I have two questions.

1) If instead of the previous week, TJ Barrett had gotten hurt in the 3rd quarter of the 59-0 win over Wisconsin, would OSU be in today or would the committee say "OSU has no chance in the playoff without their QB so putting them in would be stupid"?

2) If Baylor had lost to Kansas St, would TCU stay ahead of FSU or do they now get dinged for losing to a 2-loss team?

[Rex]

College football will always have these problems when there are so few meaningful games. Take away the games where the two teams don't really belong on the field together, and everyone plays about 6-7 games a year, sometimes less. There is no point in trying to figure out who is the best out of that, so the #1 priority should be to do the thing that is the most fun/entertaining. And Saturday was really lacking in that regard--one fun game out of the bunch.

[tennbengal]

If they hadn't done the dumb thing and kept it to a 4-team playoff, this would be moot. If it was an 8-team playoff like it should be, conference champs get in from the power 5 conferences, and then committee and everyone else can argue over the next most deserving 3 teams.

[Gunpowder]

FSU defenders are at some point going to have to decide between their NFL careers and winning this game. They look like they want no part of the cut blocking.

None of them belong in the NFL though

[Gunpowder]

reallly shouldn't 29 straight trump everything else? 12 of our 13 games have been against top 5 conference opponents. 3 wins against the current top 25. can you really put a baylor tcu or ohio state ahead of that? to me if you start the season as defending champ, #1 should be yours to lose until you lose a game...the fact that we are having this conversation is really ridiculous to me. We havent lost a game in 2 seasons and there is a legit case for 4 teams with a loss to somehow to be better?

1. 2013 shouldn't matter for 2014

2. the committee does not have preseason rankings

3. the committee is also clearly looking at style points

1. losing pretty shouldn't matter over winning ugly, but it apparently does. if others can pull in stuff that shouldn't matter, why can't i? is it not at least relevant that they are defending national champs?

2. the committee definitely ranks in preseason. they might not publish, but they don't go in with no preconceived ideas. nobody does.

3. style can suck my balls. if the committee can talk themselves into 4 one loss teams they deserve to be fired.

I generally agree with you but what if Marshall would have finished undefeated?

[HaulCitgo]

Im really liking the 4 team playoff in retrospect. It gives us a great playoff at the end and has enough teams so were not wondering whether the best team was left out but more importantly it protects the championship games and regular season games. I remember a bunch of regular season games with big playoff implications and certainly the championship games, though there were no upsets, were still absolutely crucial. If you go to 8, why do Alabama and less so Fla St care about last weeks games. To the point where undefeated teams with stars would have to consider sitting guys during the championship games. Can you really trot out your Heisman QB in the fourth quarter of a meaningless championship game? I could maybe see a playoff with byes to keep it interesting but that's getting too artificial. They've about got it right id say.

[tennbengal]

Im really liking the 4 team playoff in retrospect. It gives us a great playoff at the end and has enough teams so were not wondering whether the best team was left out but more importantly it protects the championship games and regular season games. I remember a bunch of regular season games with big playoff implications and certainly the championship games, though there were no upsets, were still absolutely crucial. If you go to 8, why do Alabama and less so Fla St care about last weeks games. To the point where undefeated teams with stars would have to consider sitting guys during the championship games. Can you really trot out your Heisman QB in the fourth quarter of a meaningless championship game? I could maybe see a playoff with byes to keep it interesting but that's getting too artificial. They've about got it right id say.

Um, because they are the championship games, and if they don't win, they don't make the playoff?

[A_B]

Im really liking the 4 team playoff in retrospect. It gives us a great playoff at the end and has enough teams so were not wondering whether the best team was left out but more importantly it protects the championship games and regular season games. I remember a bunch of regular season games with big playoff implications and certainly the championship games, though there were no upsets, were still absolutely crucial. If you go to 8, why do Alabama and less so Fla St care about last weeks games. To the point where undefeated teams with stars would have to consider sitting guys during the championship games. Can you really trot out your Heisman QB in the fourth quarter of a meaningless championship game? I could maybe see a playoff with byes to keep it interesting but that's getting too artificial. They've about got it right id say.

Um, because they are the championship games, and if they don't win, they don't make the playoff?

I think he's saying if it's 8 teams, there would have been little chance that Bama didn't make it in any scenario, including a loss in the title game. That said, I think Conference Championships would still matter.

I think six teams is the answer.

[tennbengal]

Im really liking the 4 team playoff in retrospect. It gives us a great playoff at the end and has enough teams so were not wondering whether the best team was left out but more importantly it protects the championship games and regular season games. I remember a bunch of regular season games with big playoff implications and certainly the championship games, though there were no upsets, were still absolutely crucial. If you go to 8, why do Alabama and less so Fla St care about last weeks games. To the point where undefeated teams with stars would have to consider sitting guys during the championship games. Can you really trot out your Heisman QB in the fourth quarter of a meaningless championship game? I could maybe see a playoff with byes to keep it interesting but that's getting too artificial. They've about got it right id say.

Um, because they are the championship games, and if they don't win, they don't make the playoff?

I think he's saying if it's 8 teams, there would have been little chance that Bama didn't make it in any scenario, including a loss in the title game. That said, I think Conference Championships would still matter.

I think six teams is the answer.

Ah, makes sense. Yeah, six teams would solve that.

[rass]

Im really liking the 4 team playoff in retrospect. It gives us a great playoff at the end and has enough teams so were not wondering whether the best team was left out but more importantly it protects the championship games and regular season games. I remember a bunch of regular season games with big playoff implications and certainly the championship games, though there were no upsets, were still absolutely crucial. If you go to 8, why do Alabama and less so Fla St care about last weeks games. To the point where undefeated teams with stars would have to consider sitting guys during the championship games. Can you really trot out your Heisman QB in the fourth quarter of a meaningless championship game? I could maybe see a playoff with byes to keep it interesting but that's getting too artificial. They've about got it right id say.

Um, because they are the championship games, and if they don't win, they don't make the playoff?

I think he's saying if it's 8 teams, there would have been little chance that Bama didn't make it in any scenario, including a loss in the title game. That said, I think Conference Championships would still matter.

I think six teams is the answer.

Ah, makes sense. Yeah, six teams would solve that.

If they do end up going to three rounds, it has to eight teams, right? Otherwise they're stuck defending not only their pick of the last one in, but also their pick for the two teams who get a bye. The BCS taught them how arguments over the top two teams go.

[brian]

6 teams is perfect IMO because you still have the powerful incentive to finish in the two top to get the bye. Rarely are there more than 6 deserving teams. It protects the importance of the regular season and reduces the chance that a worthy national-title possibility would miss the playoff.

[Brontoburglar]

If there's going to be a conference championship requirement, I would love for there to be a standardization of conference schedules. Given that we've got 8+1, 9 and 9+1 formats among the P5 conferences, it's not equitable. (Insert line about how college football isn't equitable to begin with.)

And given the talk about the importance of the 13th game for tOSU, we could be heading closer to that sooner rather than later, though I'm not sure what it'll take for the SEC to add another game.

[Brontoburglar]

Bronto:

It's really strange that head-to-head isn't used until it is absolutely needed at the end. It's just so weird to have TCU ahead of both Baylor and FSU then because Baylor beats a common opponent then Baylor MUST be ahead of TCU but still can't be above FSU. That's sort of a if A beats B and if B beats C then A must beat C argument.

Oh, I don't disagree at all with the idea that H2H should have been applied before the end of the season. By waiting, it was set up for ridiculousness.

Also I don't like how the committee is trying to find the best matchups instead of rewarding the performance of the season. That's almost WWE-ish. "We'll put OSU in 5th because we're not sure they're good anymore" That would be like throwing Green Bay out of the playoffs because Rodgers got hurt in Week 17.

What is this referencing? Ohio State was never in the top four before Barrett's injury.

So I have two questions.

1) If instead of the previous week, TJ Barrett had gotten hurt in the 3rd quarter of the 59-0 win over Wisconsin, would OSU be in today or would the committee say "OSU has no chance in the playoff without their QB so putting them in would be stupid"?

It's a fascinating question. My guess is that they'd be viewed differently given the hedging that was made before the Big Ten title game.

2) If Baylor had lost to Kansas St, would TCU stay ahead of FSU or do they now get dinged for losing to a 2-loss team?

TCU was always set up to be behind FSU (assuming undefeated FSU) when the final rankings were released because of the schedules. Florida State was going to get a bump for beating a good GT team while TCU was in a no-win situation against Iowa State.

And what percent of the griping would be nonexistent if there were no weekly selection shows? A top four of Ala-Ore-FSU-OSU still has the OSU/TCU/Baylor debate, but not nearly to the degrees it's at right now.

And another note -- the coaches poll came out before the CFP poll did on Sunday morning. The coaches poll dropped TCU two spots as well from fourth to six, below OSU and Baylor. It seems they also waited to apply the H2H as well. However, I'm not sure if that thinking was influenced or not from the sentiments shared by the committee on waiting for the H2H.

[Shirley]

And you guys are ignoring another key change between last weekend and this one. After this weekend's games, Ohio State, Alabama, Oregon, and Florida State were all individual conference champions. Neither TCU nor Baylor were. At best, TCU would get half credit for sharing the title with Baylor. If the Big 12 had stones, they'd have declared Baylor the champion and TCU still would have been left out (but possibly Baylor would have beaten out tOSU).

[Rex]

While they're at it, they should probably do away with divisions too. I get why the conferences want to have them, but the benefits can be achieved through schedule design rather than divisions. Too many blah conference finals that happen only because of artificial divisions.

[sancarlos]

And you guys are ignoring another key change between last weekend and this one. After this weekend's games, Ohio State, Alabama, Oregon, and Florida State were all individual conference champions. Neither TCU nor Baylor were. At best, TCU would get half credit for sharing the title with Baylor. If the Big 12 had stones, they'd have declared Baylor the champion and TCU still would have been left out (but possibly Baylor would have beaten out tOSU).

Art Briles notes your point.

WACO, Texas -- Baylor coach Art Briles criticized Big 12 commissioner Bob Bowlsby and the conference's stance on co-champions after his No. 6 Bears' 38-27 win over No. 9 Kansas State on Saturday night gave them a share of the conference title.

Briles confronted Bowlsby on stage after the Big 12's trophy presentation and addressed his frustration about being presented as co-champions with TCU during his postgame news conference.

"You know, if you're going to slogan around and say there's 'One True Champion,' all the sudden you're gonna go out the back door instead of going out the front?" Briles said. "Don't say one thing and do another."...

Bowlsby, who was booed by the McLane Stadium crowd during the postgame ceremony, did not speak to reporters afterward.

[Brontoburglar]

And you guys are ignoring another key change between last weekend and this one. After this weekend's games, Ohio State, Alabama, Oregon, and Florida State were all individual conference champions. Neither TCU nor Baylor were. At best, TCU would get half credit for sharing the title with Baylor. If the Big 12 had stones, they'd have declared Baylor the champion and TCU still would have been left out (but possibly Baylor would have beaten out tOSU).

I'm not sure that has as much impact as you think it does.

The Big 12's co-champions thing is dumb -- but the conference voted on it and it applies in all sports. Plus it's been in effect for a while. I think Missouri even claims a North division title that it lost on tiebreaker to Nebraska because the Huskers beat the Tigers (and went to the Big 12 title game.)

And besides, why would 12 of the supposed smartest people in college football really need Bob Bowlsby to tell them that "hey, here's our UNDISPUTED champion" when they know the Big 12's tiebreaker procedure for representation into a non-Playoff bowl and can apply it themselves?

Even if Baylor was presented as a champion, it does nothing to counter the repeated emphasis on the 13th game performance by Ohio State.

[degenerasian]

What is this referencing? Ohio State was never in the top four before Barrett's injury.

I had read somewhere that OSU might have been 3rd or 4th two weeks ago but were dropped to 5th as a safety precaution because they didn't want a QB-less team in the top 4 positions. As you said.. it was a hedge.

[Brontoburglar]

What is this referencing? Ohio State was never in the top four before Barrett's injury.

I had read somewhere that OSU might have been 3rd or 4th two weeks ago but were dropped to 5th as a safety precaution because they didn't want a QB-less team in the top 4 positions. As you said.. it was a hedge.

Well, Barrett was hurt before Tuesday's rankings and Ohio State stayed the same. They wouldn't have jumped FSU (as it was pretty clear from what was said that No. 4 was FSU's floor) and TCU had demolished Texas. The hedge would have been to drop them below Baylor.

[EdRomero]

How much stock should we put into Wisconsin being ranked 13? Ranking teams, especially after the first few teams, seems pretty arbitrary and biased towards major conferences. In other words, sure Ohio State had an impressive win, but maybe their opponent wasn't that impressive. Hell, they lost to Northwestern.

[Shirley]

And you guys are ignoring another key change between last weekend and this one. After this weekend's games, Ohio State, Alabama, Oregon, and Florida State were all individual conference champions. Neither TCU nor Baylor were. At best, TCU would get half credit for sharing the title with Baylor. If the Big 12 had stones, they'd have declared Baylor the champion and TCU still would have been left out (but possibly Baylor would have beaten out tOSU).

I'm not sure that has as much impact as you think it does.

The Big 12's co-champions thing is dumb -- but the conference voted on it and it applies in all sports. Plus it's been in effect for a while. I think Missouri even claims a North division title that it lost on tiebreaker to Nebraska because the Huskers beat the Tigers (and went to the Big 12 title game.)

And besides, why would 12 of the supposed smartest people in college football really need Bob Bowlsby to tell them that "hey, here's our UNDISPUTED champion" when they know the Big 12's tiebreaker procedure for representation into a non-Playoff bowl and can apply it themselves?

Even if Baylor was presented as a champion, it does nothing to counter the repeated emphasis on the 13th game performance by Ohio State.

I don't understand your counter-argument. The stated criteria for how the committee ranks teams explicitly includes "conference championships won." OSU won one of those last weekend. Baylor and TCU didn't, at least not outright. The committee doesn't publicize their points system, but I have to believe that a conference championship weighs pretty heavily. And it should, IMHO.

[Giff]

How much stock should we put into Wisconsin being ranked 13? Ranking teams, especially after the first few teams, seems pretty arbitrary and biased towards major conferences. In other words, sure Ohio State had an impressive win, but maybe their opponent wasn't that impressive. Hell, they lost to Northwestern.

Exactly. OU was #15 when Baylor gave them the worst loss in Norman in the Stoops era.

Bowlsby fucked the Big XII. There was no reason for him to even make comments like that.

[Gunpowder]

Outside of like the top 6, most college teams suck and could do that with any of them. Wisconsin went into LSU and probably would have beaten them if Gordon didn't get hurt, no? Yet SEC West teams squeaking by them is just the power of the SEC!

[Gunpowder]

Does OK State beating down Oklahoma really hurt one of Baylor's good wins?

[Rex]

Every team was legit bad this year.

[Brontoburglar]

And you guys are ignoring another key change between last weekend and this one. After this weekend's games, Ohio State, Alabama, Oregon, and Florida State were all individual conference champions. Neither TCU nor Baylor were. At best, TCU would get half credit for sharing the title with Baylor. If the Big 12 had stones, they'd have declared Baylor the champion and TCU still would have been left out (but possibly Baylor would have beaten out tOSU).

I'm not sure that has as much impact as you think it does.

The Big 12's co-champions thing is dumb -- but the conference voted on it and it applies in all sports. Plus it's been in effect for a while. I think Missouri even claims a North division title that it lost on tiebreaker to Nebraska because the Huskers beat the Tigers (and went to the Big 12 title game.)

And besides, why would 12 of the supposed smartest people in college football really need Bob Bowlsby to tell them that "hey, here's our UNDISPUTED champion" when they know the Big 12's tiebreaker procedure for representation into a non-Playoff bowl and can apply it themselves?

Even if Baylor was presented as a champion, it does nothing to counter the repeated emphasis on the 13th game performance by Ohio State.

I don't understand your counter-argument. The stated criteria for how the committee ranks teams explicitly includes "conference championships won." OSU won one of those last weekend. Baylor and TCU didn't, at least not outright. The committee doesn't publicize their points system, but I have to believe that a conference championship weighs pretty heavily. And it should, IMHO.

Because semantics shouldn't get in the way of realizing who a champion is?

Look, I dislike the co-champion thing in the midst of "One True Champion" as much as anyone. But giving both TCU and Baylor trophies shouldn't distract people -- especially those choosing the four playoff teams -- from the fact that via tiebreaker rules accepted by most rational sports fans that Baylor is the champion and should be treated as such. It's not the teams' fault that there isn't a championship game.

Let's say TCU loses to Iowa State. Everything else happens as it did. Do you really think that Baylor, with the outright conference championship, is going to jump Ohio State after the Buckeyes' performance against Wisconsin? It's not.

[Giff]

It's funny that had there been a Big XII championship game, most likely it would've been between BU and KSU. Of course, that would also mean there were 12 teams and who knows if one of those teams beats KSU or BU or how it all plays out with that change, but just an observation.

I'm honestly still in shock that Baylor's even in this position to begin with. To go from where they were from the mid-90s to late-00s, the fact they were even mentioned as a candidate for this playoff after winning their second straight conference championship, the latest one coming in their beautiful new stadium, is still mind-blowing to me. I have no doubt they will compete for a national championship at some point while Briles is there. Saturday night was one of the coolest sporting events I've ever attended.