Moe.
Footballguy
That’s a really creative idea that is somewhat realistic. Subscribe
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
2025 College Football Thread: Lane Kiffin suddenly feels compelled to read morals clause of contract (16 Viewers)
- Thread starter Capella
- Start date
Chadstroma
Footballguy
I am not saying you are a hater. There are a ton of haters of ND and that drives a lot of the discussion and viewpoints. Tell me I am wrong.
That bolded part is exactly the same thing but slanted a different way in what you are complaining about what the AD is saying.
You think CFB has it right? Is that what you do not agree with? Strong position. Like I said, I can't take that seriously.
bigbottom
Footballguy
Calling people haters and whiners is often just a way to undermine opposing but nevertheless valid points that are being made. I’m not a Notre Dame hater, never have been. That said, I am super disappointed with how all this has played out. Notre Dame should have been in, imo. And they also should have reacted better when they learned that they weren’t.
General Malaise
Footballguy
As always, BB brings a measured and wise post to the table.
I also agree that ND should have been in and was shocked that they got left out. I think ND would have been one of the only teams to pose a threat to Indiana or Ohio State. Georgia is the other one. I don't think another team is in their league and that includes my beloved Ducks.
Moe.
Footballguy
I’m saying he’s dumb to complain about it because it’s known. He’s just surprised because he hasn’t been paying attention I guess.
I think your last sentence (all of it, including the part about being a serious sports fan, whatever that means) is really dramatic. I think what we have now is better than what we’ve had in the past. Obviously not perfect.
I don’t know of another sports league that has this many teams other than something like the entire pyramid of English football teams. They have a single elimination bracket and everyone has a chance.
College football isn’t even a sports league in the traditional sense. The desire to crown a champion was added after the fact, and obviously is really important to a lot of fans, so in the modern era we’re taking (frustratingly) small steps to get there. I see the progress and am confident it’ll continue.
Moe.
Footballguy
Same here. I am rankled by the idea that there was a correct decision to be made. I personally would have booted Bama, but whatever. Then I’d be in here arguing with the Bama fans instead. Every year I end up defending the committee, but it’s more because I appreciate how silly the whole concept is.
General Malaise
Footballguy
So, uh.....Army v Navy this Saturday? Who you got?
brettdj
Footballguy
I think Tulane and JMU in the playoffs makes more sense than the 4th or 5th place team in a conference. 3rd, 4th and 5th have already shown they should not be the National champ.
Win your conference and get a chance at being the National Champ.
Moe.
Footballguy
I know you hate this stuff but I find it really fun to discuss. Talking with you guys is a lot more enjoyable and informative than watching some dumb talking head show. I can’t help but get sucked in to this conversation every year. Sorry. I’ll stop soon when we get closer to actual games.
Jayded
Footballguy
I wish they’d just make a play in round. It feels like the easiest compromise at this point. The only wrinkle is how you start it conference weekend.
The G5, sorry you are who you are, games have to start that weekend too. We can’t have Southest Tech playing William & Taft for the Grassland Conference title at the same time as SEC/B1G games.
Make those play in games bowl games that start this weekend even, if you must. Still put high seeds against G5 schools and let them get their shot as technically round 0 games they are unlikely to win. Add in whatever conference guarantees you want. Win and get in. Then the actual playoffs start with winners-only and possibly autos from SECCG/B1G loser games. It also makes all playoff would-be teams play that round 0 week so there are no byes.
The G5, sorry you are who you are, games have to start that weekend too. We can’t have Southest Tech playing William & Taft for the Grassland Conference title at the same time as SEC/B1G games.
Make those play in games bowl games that start this weekend even, if you must. Still put high seeds against G5 schools and let them get their shot as technically round 0 games they are unlikely to win. Add in whatever conference guarantees you want. Win and get in. Then the actual playoffs start with winners-only and possibly autos from SECCG/B1G loser games. It also makes all playoff would-be teams play that round 0 week so there are no byes.
Ramblin Wreck
Footballguy
Next weekend is the play in round to the quarterfinals
Jayded
Footballguy
Army wins the drip. Navy wins the game.
Navy unis : https://navysports.com/news/2025/11...th-anniversary-of-the-united-states-navy.aspx
Army unis : https://1775.football/
dickey moe
Fingerpicker
An Alabama-ND play-in would have been great.
Jayded
Footballguy
You know what I mean. I meant like when March Madness went to 68 teams. Those barely in get a seat, but they have to win the play in game.
Also feels fitting to make the non CG teams have to play that weekend. That’s the aim - allow a few more in, let the G5 have a seat (play in), but start the tournament the weekend or two after that.
Forgot an important point - these are bowl games. Saves the bowl games from dying too by adding a few more to the equation.
General Malaise
Footballguy
I don't hate it and am partly to blame for the noise in here over the decades but I'm legit interested to hear thoughts on this game. Was listening to a vet on the radio today talking about it and I was blown away at the detail going into the uniforms and some of the decorated war heroes he was discussing. Sat in my car until the segment was over, it was that informative.
jm192
Footballguy
Ok, cool. I'm glad we're on the same page.
As much complaining about Alabama's CCG loss as I had read, I thought ND fans wanted that counted against them. You're saying it's not a problem. And since ND doesn't want to hold it against them, it doesn't matter if ND has a CCG or not.
Jayded
Footballguy
Utah adds a wrinkle to college athletics. While others have set up new financial entities in this NIL world, Utah’s got the first PE backing.
sports.yahoo.com
Sources: University of Utah nearing landmark private equity deal expected to generate $500 million
The new venture would generate a massive amount of money for the school in a groundbreaking move that may pave the way for more schools and conferences to do the same.
General Malaise
Footballguy
YES! This was what the guy was talking about. Super cool (for me, but I'm a history nerd). The copper sheathing of the USS Constitution I found riveting.
I'll see myself out.....
GregR
Footballguy
No I'm not saying it's not a problem, or shouldn't have been a problem. I was being sarcastic. I'm saying the committee acted in a way that they did nothing to Alabama when to be consistent with their other actions, they should have. Which is a problem.
I didn't comment in here at all for a day or two after the rankings came out. I really didn't feel I needed to as others were very frequently saying my thoughts. Even people who didn't agree with me on how Miami and ND should pan out, just the two of them, were saying what I would have said. So I didn't post and stayed out of it.
But since you're misstating my views, I'll say it here. My issue is the lack of consistency by the committee. To some extent, swapping ND-Miami when neither of them even played is part of it, but that's minor compared to the handling of BYU compared to Alabama.
The dropping of BYU with a bad loss to the #4 team and not similarly moving Alabama with an equally bad loss to the #3 team (negative rushing yards, really?) was really inexcusable for its lack of internal consistency. They treated BYU and Alabama entirely differently when they had essentially equal results. And of the two, they had more reason to drop Alabama since it was pretty widely panned that they moved Alabama up after a weak performance against Auburn that should have hurt their case, not helped it.
Alabama's poor CCG should have been a problem with the committee if they said BYU's poor performance as a problem. To me this one isn't a difference of opinion like I might agree to someone invoking on direct ND-Miami rankings. This was just plain they benefited Alabama completely at odds with their other decisions.
And yeah, as an ND fan, that got to me even more since it impacted them. But I'd still be complaining about their consistency if you'd swapped the names of ND and Miami and what their outcomes are.
Last edited:
Capella
Footballguy
Yea that’s the ice breaker. They’re all going to be running through the door now.Utah adds a wrinkle to college athletics. While others have set up new financial entities in this NIL world, Utah’s got the first PE backing.
Sources: University of Utah nearing landmark private equity deal expected to generate $500 million
The new venture would generate a massive amount of money for the school in a groundbreaking move that may pave the way for more schools and conferences to do the same.
Jayded
Footballguy
I really wonder if these schools know what they’re in for. Education + PE seems like oil and water. I know they have boards of regents, but there’s a lot lot of PE money going to be coming in that isn’t just any other endowment in management.Yea that’s the ice breaker. They’re all going to be running through the door now.Utah adds a wrinkle to college athletics. While others have set up new financial entities in this NIL world, Utah’s got the first PE backing.
Sources: University of Utah nearing landmark private equity deal expected to generate $500 million
The new venture would generate a massive amount of money for the school in a groundbreaking move that may pave the way for more schools and conferences to do the same.
Fantasy_Freak
Footballguy
Army, a teammate of my son's just committed ot their football team last week. They did also extend an invite to my son to visit with the football team.
I learned something crazy last week, on early signing day I was going through the rankings to see where teams ended up. I wanted to see where Army ended up and noticed they had 67 commitments. Most college teams have anywhere from 15 to 25 a year. When you suit up 115 for gameday, 67 being added to your team is a significant amount. Well, upon doing some digging I found that the military get so many commitments each year because they lose so many players at the end of year one because the players cannot manage the rigorous schedule of schooling and football. That means on average they lose 50% of their freshman each year. They cannot go into the transfer portal to pick up a junior, these players need to start at West Point as freshman. I was highly impressed with the players form the military that can balance the school/football successfully.
Ramblin Wreck
Footballguy
Honestly I don't. Walk me through your ideal scenario using this years teams, rankings, standings or whatever so I can see what you mean. Who gets a guaranteed bid?
GregR
Footballguy
4 more offensive assistants who left Ole Miss to join Lane Kiffin at LSU, will be returning to coach Ole Miss in the playoffs.
Ok, so I'm struggling to find words for this situation. What is the tangible difference between allowing these 4 plus the OC to coach through the playoffs, vs also allowing Lane Kiffin to do so?
I'm not saying they should have allowed Lane. But I'm struggling to state what is different that justifies it. Most things I can think of sound hollow to me.
Or is it simply because Lane is... a particular kind of person... that makes people want to draw that line in the sand with him after he reaches a certain point? Which if so, is understandable on an emotional level at least.
Ok, so I'm struggling to find words for this situation. What is the tangible difference between allowing these 4 plus the OC to coach through the playoffs, vs also allowing Lane Kiffin to do so?
I'm not saying they should have allowed Lane. But I'm struggling to state what is different that justifies it. Most things I can think of sound hollow to me.
Or is it simply because Lane is... a particular kind of person... that makes people want to draw that line in the sand with him after he reaches a certain point? Which if so, is understandable on an emotional level at least.
Desert_Power
Footballguy
Seems the direction of travel. My real question is how many programs are actually going to have people willing to give all of this money in system where it is nearly impossible to win anything?
Maybe Private Equity will float another decade or so until it all collapses.
Desert_Power
Footballguy
It's not my favorite system, but it's a lot better to argue about which 2 or 3 loss team gets left out.
GregR
Footballguy
Ok a little bit of housework to clear my thoughts and I suppose I came up something. I was originally focusing a lot of thoughts around Kiffin using the extra time around the players to try to poach more of them to transfer to LSU. Which, the assistant coaches could do the same so why let them back?
But something else I thought of. Kiffin tried to use the players when he was throwing shade at the AD. And what I saw from the players they pretty much said he lied in saying the players were asking him to stay and coach. He burned bridges with the players.
I suppose his presence might divide the team more than help. But I don't know that the players would blame the assistants anywhere near to that degree. So from that angle it makes a little more sense.
Chadstroma
Footballguy
I saw a report that ESPN is going to lose $50 million due to ND not playing a bowl game.
I, for one, think things are pretty great with college football and see this as a fairly silly and somewhat lazy post (the X post, not yours - I know you said you don't agree with it all).
Bowl Games - Some bowl games may die, which is probably a good thing because there are too many. The important bowl games, on the other hand, may have changed their role but are still great. There is still nothing that beats the sun setting over the San Gabriel Mountains on New Years Day. I happened to enjoy the most recent Rose Bowl quite a bit.
Conference Championships - Are they really dying? The Big 10 just had an incredibly hard fought game despite it not really meaning anything from a playoff perspective. I know people have speculated they will die, but I haven't seen evidence of that yet. I don't think Indiana fans consider them to be irrelevant right now.
Transfer Portal - Agree with this one, to an extent. There are many ways this could be done better. But honestly I think the transfer portal is a bigger issue in basketball where replacing 3-5 players means you don't know half the team. In football, despite all the grumbling about the transfer portal, the VAST majority of players on the vast majority of teams are still players that are recruited by and developed by that team.
NIL - There are certainly some downsides to NIL and ways it could be better. But there are also positives. Players getting paid is a good thing. It also seems to be spreading the talent more evenly so that more teams are competitive, rather than having the top 2-3 teams hoard all the 4 and 5-star players. That also seems to be a good thing.
Heisman Trophy and ESPN - Can't imagine why anyone would care about these.
To the main, point, though, which is the CFP, I would actually argue it is working very well. Could it be improved? Probably. I personally do think Notre Dame should be in and Alabama should be out. I think the timing of the games could be better. I wish the quarterfinal games were on campus. There are lots of things on the margins that could be better. But it certainly is not a disaster.
If we think about the point of the CFP, it is to give us a real championship won on the field by a team that is likely the best team in the country, while also maintaining some importance to the regular season. This is, in my opinion, the goal of any playoff system. To be sensitive enough make the best team the champion in most years, while being specific enough that it doesn't let an absurd number of teams who have no chance of winning into the field. There will always be arguments for more or for less teams because no system can have a perfect sensitivity or specificity, but in my opinion, the college football playoff system is among the best of any major playoff system right now.
Specifically with Notre Dame, again I think they should be in the field over Alabama. Notre Dame is certainly one of the 12 best teams in the country, and probably one of the 5-7 best. But they are almost certainly not one of the 2-3 best, so I honestly don't think it's a big deal that they aren't in. There is very little chance that we are missing the best team in the country.
Anyway, I happen to think college football is awesome right now. Tons of teams are relevant, both traditional powers and some exciting new teams. Tons of games are easily accessible to watch. We finally have a system that we can be confident gives us a true champion. Plus, as long as we have things like this, college football will always be the best.
Sparky Polastri
Footballguy
I'd love to see the math on this one. I doubt you find that sort of detail on the various chat board, facebook and instagram "reports" though.
Ramblin Wreck
Footballguy
Professional minor league football where maybe 10% of the teams have a realistic shot to win a championship, everything else has been completely de-valued, wide open free agency, a fake salary cap, zero leadership, and people making up rules on the fly seems to be spiraling downhill quickly. Team with the biggest advantage in the country financially throwing a tantrum because they can't bully their way into the playoffs. Who didn't see this coming? Wait another 5 years when private equity has ruined the sport even more and we are down to two super leagues where all of them think they have a fair shot at winning and start turning on each other. The NFL has never looked better. Thanks Sankey!
ChiefD
Footballguy
My proposal to fix the college football playoffs:
Kill the conference championship games. Meaningless in this day and age. So are conference champions. Obsolete.
Top 8 teams in the polls are in. Regardless of conference. They get a bye last week (the normal championship weekend).
Next 16 teams in the polls are in. They play last week on the weekend of the normal championship weekend. So 8 playoff games the networks can drool over and bid for. Games are played at the higher rated teams home site. This should also catch the James Madisons of the world who can get ranked up to the 20-24 range.
The next weekend you are down to 16 teams. Games played at the high rated teams sites.
The next weekend you are down to 8 teams. Play these at bowl sites.
The next weekend you are down to 4 teams. Played at two of the major bowl sites.
Championship game. Up to the highest bidder where that game is held.
Kill the conference championship games. Meaningless in this day and age. So are conference champions. Obsolete.
Top 8 teams in the polls are in. Regardless of conference. They get a bye last week (the normal championship weekend).
Next 16 teams in the polls are in. They play last week on the weekend of the normal championship weekend. So 8 playoff games the networks can drool over and bid for. Games are played at the higher rated teams home site. This should also catch the James Madisons of the world who can get ranked up to the 20-24 range.
The next weekend you are down to 16 teams. Games played at the high rated teams sites.
The next weekend you are down to 8 teams. Play these at bowl sites.
The next weekend you are down to 4 teams. Played at two of the major bowl sites.
Championship game. Up to the highest bidder where that game is held.
Ramblin Wreck
Footballguy
The problem with all this is the polls are rigged. The whole Miami vs ND fiasco existed in the first place because the first poll came out after Miami happened to lose. If ND's two losses came back to back right before the polls came out they would have started 8 spots behind Miami and that would have been that.
No one is looking for fair. People are looking for money which is why Sankey is going to rig it for the SEC. The only way you are getting fair is smaller conferences where schedules are apples to apples and guaranteed bids to conference champions (regular season or a championship game doesn't matter it's still decided on the field) and there is some fair computer formula to select at large teams so ESPN and their BS isn't involved. How do you factor in non conference SOS when the best teams decide who they will or will not play? You could have Memphis schedule 2028 games right now with Indiana and Vanderbilt. If Indiana and Vanderbilt both go 4-8 in 2028, people criticize Memphis for not playing anyone good. The whole system is beyond stupid at this point.
Jayded
Footballguy
Admittedly it's imperfect in my head, so afford me a little grace there. The trickiest part is how to handle the smaller schools and their conference championships, but I'd argue if they want a seat at the dance, inconveniencing their schedule is the price they pay or we just go big boys only in this thing.
Participants
Tournament Auto Bids (8) : SECCG participants & Big Ten CG participants, ACCCG participants, Big XII CG participants
Play-in participants (8) : Highest ranked G5, at-large Committee ranked non-CG teams
Games
Play-in games (12/6) = Oregon vs. Tulane , Ole Miss vs. Notre Dame , Texas A&M vs. Miami , Oklahoma vs. Alabama
Tournament Process
Committee re-ranks after all 12/6 games for final seeding. I am JUST using higher rankings from 12/7 to the above to demonstrate round 1 would have been come 12/7, but play-in game results obviously would be important.....
1. Indiana (bye)
2. Ohio State (bye)
3. Georgia (bye)
4. Texas Tech (bye)
5. Oregon vs. 12. Duke
6. Ole Miss vs. 11. Virginia
7. Texas A&M vs. 10. BYU
8. Oklahoma vs. 9. Alabama
Result
I also toyed with saying maybe only the SEC and Big Ten participants got auto-bids to the 12/7 final rankings, but not sure the ACC or Big XII would like that much. Fundamentally the committee stops participating one week earlier than we have them now for tournament selection. They help affirm the play-in teams, the G5 can participate but eliminate earlier to allow for more teams in, but the regular season still matters and every entrant wins a spot in the formal tournament on the field where the committee's final job is to align seeding after 12/6 games.
What it does is add 4 total games and I'd honestly probably start the formal tournament itself as off-campus and at bowl games. So 5/12, 6/11, 7/10, and 8/9 games start the bowls instead of one week later. The final on-campus games are for play-in games only unless we'd want to move them to neutral locations and use bowls there too to move it to 8 neutral games beyond the current format.
If you only include winners of ACC and Big XII CG games for auto-bids, you'd have 6 auto bids, and then you'd want to have 6 play-in games instead of 4, so you'd be adding teams like Texas, Vanderbilt, Utah, and USC into the mix to exclude teams who lost like Virginia and BYU.
If you did my alternative scenario of only guaranteeing SEC/B1G CG participants a seat and treating ACCCF and Big XII CGs as elimination games....
Play-in games (12/6) = Oregon vs. Tulane, Ole Miss vs. Arizona, Texas A&M vs. USC, Oklahoma vs. Utah, Miami vs. Vanderbilt, Notre Dame vs. Texas
Tournament (based on final 12/7 rankings to assume play-in winners....)
1. Indiana (bye)
2. Ohio State (bye)
3. Georgia (bye)
4. Texas Tech (bye)
5. Oregon vs. Duke
6. Ole Miss vs. Notre Dame
7. Texas A&M vs. Miami
8. Oklahoma vs. Alabama
Last edited:
bigbottom
Footballguy
Link?
Sammy3469
Footballguy
I think this is wrong in 2025. It was certainly the case even 2 years ago, but Sankey and Petitti (with the TV partners help) have neutralized that as they've been NFLing college football. As you point out those two conferences (and their two stepchildren the Big12 and ACC) are what is being sold these days; not a "college brand". As long as that's the case, ND needs to realize while independence has its advantages in some regards, it's not the panacea it was in the 2010s (or even up through 2023).
To put a finer point on this; having 2-3 important games a weekend from (any) league is more important to TV partners in 2023 than 1-2 good home games a year.
Max Power
Footballguy
I saw the report as well. I think it's linked to an Irish reporting publication. I've also seen it reported as $35 million.
Per AI.
ESPN is projected to lose roughly $50 million in potential revenue because the Notre Dame football team declined to play in a non-playoff bowl game this season. This decision was reportedly an act of protest after the Irish (10-2) were left out of the 12-team College Football Playoff (CFP) field.
Context of the Loss
- Bowl Game Participation: Most bowl games, including the likely destination for Notre Dame (the Pop-Tarts Bowl), are broadcast on ESPN's networks. Notre Dame's absence means the network misses out on the significant viewership and associated advertising revenue that the popular team generates.
- Protest against the System: The decision by Notre Dame's players and administration is widely seen as a protest against the CFP selection committee and the larger college football system, which many believe is heavily influenced by big-money network interests like ESPN.
- Notre Dame's TV Deal: Notre Dame maintains its independence and has a separate, exclusive media rights deal with NBC Sports, worth an estimated $50 million annually, for all their home games. They do not have the same bowl tie-in obligations as conference teams, which allowed them the flexibility to opt out of the non-playoff bowl game.
- Impact on ESPN: While the $50 million loss is a significant hit for a specific event, the Irish's athletic director, Pete Bevacqua (a former NBC Sports chairman),'s move highlights the ongoing tension between Notre Dame's independence, its contract with NBC, and the ESPN-dominated CFP/bowl landscape.
bigbottom
Footballguy
Yeah, I searched and all I saw were Facebook posts on the $50m hit. Not an actual report by a publication.
culdeus
Footballguy
Work this backwards. What reasons should a team be left OUT if in the top 12.
People have said you gotta keep G5 in because anti trust. If so just say you gotta be in the top 10 if not in a G5 to get there and then the committee picks one more team at large.
Poke holes.
General Malaise
Footballguy
WELL THANK GOD!
Max Power
Footballguy
Did some digging and it looks like the theory is that ESPN was all set to market ND vs BYU as the first two teams out matchup and that event would have generated $50 million in revenue. Some financial analysts think ND's inclusion in that game could have been 30-35mil of that. Since the game is being played with GT, the 15-20 million BYU's inclusion brings to the table still stands.
Sammy3469
Footballguy
massraider
Footballguy
it's going to be, and all this other nonsense won't matter.
Wait until a mid level team takes down a top seed, then we'll be seeing fawning clips about these scrappy underdogs.
Capella
Footballguy
Guys I can’t believe I have to say this but there is no non-CFP game that is making ESPN 50 million dollars. The total payouts to the two teams is around 12M dollars, so once you factor in attendance you can probably count ESPN’s nut somewhere around there. Not to mention the decline in ratings from ND to Georgia Tech isn’t nothing but it’s not 50M worth of revenue.
Jayded
Footballguy
I'm a data nerd, so I ran some analyses this morning since the final rankings are in ahead of playoffs to see what the stories would show. I'll use spoiler tags to try to hide some of the height here, but some interesting nuggets are there to drive down the conjecture that's out there without data.
This says the committee favors the ACC and Big XII more than any of the other conferences and maybe surprisingly is pretty spot on to the computers for the SEC. It also says they are under-crediting the Big Ten compared to what the BCS would have done.
Summary
The narrative is SEC bias for the committee, but the data, relative to the computers, actually says it's the ACC and Big XII are earning more credit this year in comparison. The computers really push on the committee for overrating Houston and Arizona, two teams not in the playoff conversation, along with underrating bubble teams like Notre Dame, Vanderbilt, and Texas.
The final rankings polls I listed are a 50/50 balance of Committee + Computers. Models were screaming at me for doing that, saying since AP and Coaches' polls are both part of the BCS computation that human bias already existed there and I should put the committee closer to 20-30%. But that is their job.
What I was curious to do in the above is see if the pendulum might have swung too far. Many disliked the BCS for being too cold and solely numbers vs. more of the eye test and conjecture from tenured football minds. Enter the committee. Now the pendulum has swung to conjectured bias or asks for explicit criteria (hello Pete B). Maybe the solution is a more blended model like I tested. Computers bring the cold stats and advanced metrics to the table as a % baseline and the committee plays a role to essentially affirm or overrule them, but not completely so we don't get just human bias in the final results.
| Conference | Committee | BCS | Bias |
| ACC | 17.00 | 19.00 | -2.00 |
| Big XII | 13.80 | 15.80 | -2.00 |
| SEC | 8.57 | 8.86 | -0.29 |
| American | 22.50 | 21.00 | 1.50 |
| Big Ten | 10.83 | 9.33 | 1.50 |
| Sun Belt | 24.00 | 21.00 | 3.00 |
This says the committee favors the ACC and Big XII more than any of the other conferences and maybe surprisingly is pretty spot on to the computers for the SEC. It also says they are under-crediting the Big Ten compared to what the BCS would have done.
| Team | CFP Rank | BCS Rank | Bias |
| Houston | 21 | 26 | -5 |
| Arizona | 17 | 20 | -3 |
| Georgia Tech | 22 | 25 | -3 |
| Virginia | 19 | 21 | -2 |
| Alabama | 9 | 10 | -1 |
| Iowa | 23 | 24 | -1 |
| Miami | 10 | 11 | -1 |
| Texas | 13 | 14 | -1 |
| Team | CFP Rank | Blended Computer Rank | Bias |
| Arizona | 17 | 23.33 | -6.33 |
| Virginia | 19 | 24.33 | -5.33 |
| Houston | 21 | 26.00 | -5.00 |
| BYU | 12 | 16.33 | -4.33 |
| Georgia Tech | 22 | 25.67 | -3.67 |
| Tulane | 20 | 23.33 | -3.33 |
| Oklahoma | 8 | 10.00 | -2.00 |
| Ole Miss | 6 | 7.67 | -1.67 |
| Team | CFP Rank | BCS Rank | Bias |
| James Madison | 24 | 19 | 5 |
| Tulane | 20 | 18 | 2 |
| Notre Dame | 11 | 9 | 2 |
| North Texas | 25 | 23 | 2 |
| Vanderbilt | 14 | 13 | 1 |
| Michigan | 18 | 17 | 1 |
| Team | CFP Rank | Blended Computer Rank | Bias |
| Notre Dame | 11 | 6.00 | 5.00 |
| Iowa | 23 | 19.33 | 3.67 |
| Utah | 15 | 14.00 | 1.00 |
| Oregon | 5 | 4.00 | 1.00 |
| Texas | 13 | 12.33 | 0.67 |
| Vanderbilt | 14 | 13.67 | 0.33 |
| Ohio State | 2 | 1.67 | 0.33 |
| James Madison | 24 | 23.67 | 0.33 |
Blended BCS & Committee Rankings
1. Indiana
2. Ohio State
3. Georgia
4. Texas Tech
5. Oregon
6. Ole Miss
7. Texas A&M
8. Oklahoma
9. Alabama
10. Notre Dame
11. Miami
12. BYU
13. Texas
13. Vanderbilt
15. Utah
16. USC
17. Michigan
18. Arizona
19. Tulane
20. Virginia
21. James Madison
22. Georgia Tech
22. Houston
22. Iowa
25. North Texas
Blended Multiple Computer & Committee Rankings
1. Indiana
2. Ohio State
3. Georgia
4. Texas Tech
5. Oregon
6. Ole Miss
7. Texas A&M
8. Notre Dame
9. Oklahoma
10. Alabama
11. Miami
12. Texas
13. Vanderbilt
14. BYU
15. Utah
16. USC
17. Michigan
18. Arizona
19. Iowa
20. Tulane
20. Virginia
22. Houston
23. Georgia Tech
23. James Madison
25. North Texas
1. Indiana
2. Ohio State
3. Georgia
4. Texas Tech
5. Oregon
6. Ole Miss
7. Texas A&M
8. Oklahoma
9. Alabama
10. Notre Dame
11. Miami
12. BYU
13. Texas
13. Vanderbilt
15. Utah
16. USC
17. Michigan
18. Arizona
19. Tulane
20. Virginia
21. James Madison
22. Georgia Tech
22. Houston
22. Iowa
25. North Texas
Blended Multiple Computer & Committee Rankings
1. Indiana
2. Ohio State
3. Georgia
4. Texas Tech
5. Oregon
6. Ole Miss
7. Texas A&M
8. Notre Dame
9. Oklahoma
10. Alabama
11. Miami
12. Texas
13. Vanderbilt
14. BYU
15. Utah
16. USC
17. Michigan
18. Arizona
19. Iowa
20. Tulane
20. Virginia
22. Houston
23. Georgia Tech
23. James Madison
25. North Texas
Summary
The narrative is SEC bias for the committee, but the data, relative to the computers, actually says it's the ACC and Big XII are earning more credit this year in comparison. The computers really push on the committee for overrating Houston and Arizona, two teams not in the playoff conversation, along with underrating bubble teams like Notre Dame, Vanderbilt, and Texas.
The final rankings polls I listed are a 50/50 balance of Committee + Computers. Models were screaming at me for doing that, saying since AP and Coaches' polls are both part of the BCS computation that human bias already existed there and I should put the committee closer to 20-30%. But that is their job.
What I was curious to do in the above is see if the pendulum might have swung too far. Many disliked the BCS for being too cold and solely numbers vs. more of the eye test and conjecture from tenured football minds. Enter the committee. Now the pendulum has swung to conjectured bias or asks for explicit criteria (hello Pete B). Maybe the solution is a more blended model like I tested. Computers bring the cold stats and advanced metrics to the table as a % baseline and the committee plays a role to essentially affirm or overrule them, but not completely so we don't get just human bias in the final results.
Last edited:
Ramblin Wreck
Footballguy
ND trying to cancel Ivan Maisel now
Similar threads
