*** Official 2015 College Football Thread *** (1 Viewer)

[The Commish]

How did the BCS crew putting this playoff together think it was a good idea to put someone like Rice on it and why do I feel like this is going to become the sports equivalent of Dancing with the Stars?? What Pollack said was dumb. I have no issue with women being on the committee, but all the people on that committee should be tied to college football in some way. Whether they are reporters or whatever....I'd hope they'd appoint people that had better credentials than being a "fan" of the game. Does anyone believe that someone like Rice is going to sit down and actually watch these games with everything else she has going on in her life??

Off to a rousing start

 

[Dickie Dunn]

Dickey, pretty rough seeing Georgia that high. Regardless of the reasons, to struggle that badly against a wretched Tennessee team, and to be ranked that highly in your rankings seems...off.

eta: I know this evolves as the season progresses, but still, there has to be a way to factor in really bad wins.

Therein lies the flaw of how the BCS handles things. It tells the computers that it doesn't care whether it's by 1 point or 100, or in five overtimes. A win is a win.

The score-based ranking on the right reflects more of what you're saying, since Georgia's average MOV is not that strong. However, the X factor is that Georgia has played easily the toughest schedule in the country so far with the likes of Clemson, South Carolina and LSU (and Tennessee, for all its warts, doesn't rank that badly).

Contrast that with Oregon, in which Tennessee is the toughest team they have faced, by far. But factor in scores and you get a much more natural-looking ranking when you can compare Oregon's 59-14 rout with Georgia's 34-31 squeaker.

 

[Slapdash]

Dickey, pretty rough seeing Georgia that high. Regardless of the reasons, to struggle that badly against a wretched Tennessee team, and to be ranked that highly in your rankings seems...off.

eta: I know this evolves as the season progresses, but still, there has to be a way to factor in really bad wins.

Therein lies the flaw of how the BCS handles things. It tells the computers that it doesn't care whether it's by 1 point or 100, or in five overtimes. A win is a win.

The score-based ranking on the right reflects more of what you're saying, since Georgia's average MOV is not that strong. However, the X factor is that Georgia has played easily the toughest schedule in the country so far with the likes of Clemson, South Carolina and LSU (and Tennessee, for all its warts, doesn't rank that badly).

Contrast that with Oregon, in which Tennessee is the toughest team they have faced, by far. But factor in scores and you get a much more natural-looking ranking when you can compare Oregon's 59-14 rout with Georgia's 34-31 squeaker.

Not a fan of the MOV thinking, I'm glad they don't consider it.

 

[The Commish]

Dickey, pretty rough seeing Georgia that high. Regardless of the reasons, to struggle that badly against a wretched Tennessee team, and to be ranked that highly in your rankings seems...off.

eta: I know this evolves as the season progresses, but still, there has to be a way to factor in really bad wins.

Therein lies the flaw of how the BCS handles things. It tells the computers that it doesn't care whether it's by 1 point or 100, or in five overtimes. A win is a win.

The score-based ranking on the right reflects more of what you're saying, since Georgia's average MOV is not that strong. However, the X factor is that Georgia has played easily the toughest schedule in the country so far with the likes of Clemson, South Carolina and LSU (and Tennessee, for all its warts, doesn't rank that badly).

Contrast that with Oregon, in which Tennessee is the toughest team they have faced, by far. But factor in scores and you get a much more natural-looking ranking when you can compare Oregon's 59-14 rout with Georgia's 34-31 squeaker.

Not a fan of the MOV thinking, I'm glad they don't consider it.

Do you buy into the SOS component?

 

[SacramentoBob]

Dickey, pretty rough seeing Georgia that high. Regardless of the reasons, to struggle that badly against a wretched Tennessee team, and to be ranked that highly in your rankings seems...off.

eta: I know this evolves as the season progresses, but still, there has to be a way to factor in really bad wins.

Therein lies the flaw of how the BCS handles things. It tells the computers that it doesn't care whether it's by 1 point or 100, or in five overtimes. A win is a win.

The score-based ranking on the right reflects more of what you're saying, since Georgia's average MOV is not that strong. However, the X factor is that Georgia has played easily the toughest schedule in the country so far with the likes of Clemson, South Carolina and LSU (and Tennessee, for all its warts, doesn't rank that badly).

Contrast that with Oregon, in which Tennessee is the toughest team they have faced, by far. But factor in scores and you get a much more natural-looking ranking when you can compare Oregon's 59-14 rout with Georgia's 34-31 squeaker.

Not a fan of the MOV thinking, I'm glad they don't consider it.

Other than some type of sportsmanship reasons, why? Shouldn't we be trying to use the most accurate rankings?

 

[culdeus]

Dickey, pretty rough seeing Georgia that high. Regardless of the reasons, to struggle that badly against a wretched Tennessee team, and to be ranked that highly in your rankings seems...off.

eta: I know this evolves as the season progresses, but still, there has to be a way to factor in really bad wins.

Therein lies the flaw of how the BCS handles things. It tells the computers that it doesn't care whether it's by 1 point or 100, or in five overtimes. A win is a win.

The score-based ranking on the right reflects more of what you're saying, since Georgia's average MOV is not that strong. However, the X factor is that Georgia has played easily the toughest schedule in the country so far with the likes of Clemson, South Carolina and LSU (and Tennessee, for all its warts, doesn't rank that badly).

Contrast that with Oregon, in which Tennessee is the toughest team they have faced, by far. But factor in scores and you get a much more natural-looking ranking when you can compare Oregon's 59-14 rout with Georgia's 34-31 squeaker.

Not a fan of the MOV thinking, I'm glad they don't consider it.

Other than some type of sportsmanship reasons, why? Shouldn't we be trying to use the most accurate rankings?

If it comes down to it in the end should a garbage time TCU TD in Norman matter?

 

[prefontaine]

Dickey, pretty rough seeing Georgia that high. Regardless of the reasons, to struggle that badly against a wretched Tennessee team, and to be ranked that highly in your rankings seems...off.

eta: I know this evolves as the season progresses, but still, there has to be a way to factor in really bad wins.

Therein lies the flaw of how the BCS handles things. It tells the computers that it doesn't care whether it's by 1 point or 100, or in five overtimes. A win is a win.

The score-based ranking on the right reflects more of what you're saying, since Georgia's average MOV is not that strong. However, the X factor is that Georgia has played easily the toughest schedule in the country so far with the likes of Clemson, South Carolina and LSU (and Tennessee, for all its warts, doesn't rank that badly).

Contrast that with Oregon, in which Tennessee is the toughest team they have faced, by far. But factor in scores and you get a much more natural-looking ranking when you can compare Oregon's 59-14 rout with Georgia's 34-31 squeaker.

Not a fan of the MOV thinking, I'm glad they don't consider it.

Other than some type of sportsmanship reasons, why? Shouldn't we be trying to use the most accurate rankings?

from an analytical point of view, MOV absolutely matters. But it only matters to a point. The problem most computer models have is where that point is and honestly it's different by team.

A game like WVU-Baylor shows both issues. WVU back doored like 4 TDs makes the margin much thinner than it should have been. This often happens and has nothing to do with the quality of the two teams and if you are using MOV fully, you might think it was a remotely competitive game like say LSU-MSU which was a 3-point game heading into the 4th quarter. On the other side, you have two high tempo teams in WVU and Baylor. In a competitive game, WVU would have tried to work the clock. But Holgorsen never tried to do that. He ran his normal high-tempo offense which led Baylor to have 17 total possessions (an absolutely ungodly amount for a blowout). For instance FSU had 14 and Maryland had 6 three and outs (WVU had 3). Tempo is hard to process in just looking at scores.

The best computer models look at numbers beyond score (yards per play, turnovers, penalties, etc) but the BCS doesn't allow any of those models to be used. But Vegas pretty much mocks the computer simulations like Sagarin. The betting public uses it but it's not nearly as accurate as the models real gamblers use.

 

[MAC_32]

Dickey, pretty rough seeing Georgia that high. Regardless of the reasons, to struggle that badly against a wretched Tennessee team, and to be ranked that highly in your rankings seems...off.

eta: I know this evolves as the season progresses, but still, there has to be a way to factor in really bad wins.

Georgia lost most of their offense.I was very impressed with Butch Jones coaching.

Never easy winning on the road.

Not writing that off as a bad win.

 

[Slapdash]

Dickey, pretty rough seeing Georgia that high. Regardless of the reasons, to struggle that badly against a wretched Tennessee team, and to be ranked that highly in your rankings seems...off.

eta: I know this evolves as the season progresses, but still, there has to be a way to factor in really bad wins.

Therein lies the flaw of how the BCS handles things. It tells the computers that it doesn't care whether it's by 1 point or 100, or in five overtimes. A win is a win.

The score-based ranking on the right reflects more of what you're saying, since Georgia's average MOV is not that strong. However, the X factor is that Georgia has played easily the toughest schedule in the country so far with the likes of Clemson, South Carolina and LSU (and Tennessee, for all its warts, doesn't rank that badly).

Contrast that with Oregon, in which Tennessee is the toughest team they have faced, by far. But factor in scores and you get a much more natural-looking ranking when you can compare Oregon's 59-14 rout with Georgia's 34-31 squeaker.

Not a fan of the MOV thinking, I'm glad they don't consider it.

Do you buy into the SOS component?

Yes, I do.

 

[Slapdash]

Dickey, pretty rough seeing Georgia that high. Regardless of the reasons, to struggle that badly against a wretched Tennessee team, and to be ranked that highly in your rankings seems...off.

eta: I know this evolves as the season progresses, but still, there has to be a way to factor in really bad wins.

Therein lies the flaw of how the BCS handles things. It tells the computers that it doesn't care whether it's by 1 point or 100, or in five overtimes. A win is a win.

The score-based ranking on the right reflects more of what you're saying, since Georgia's average MOV is not that strong. However, the X factor is that Georgia has played easily the toughest schedule in the country so far with the likes of Clemson, South Carolina and LSU (and Tennessee, for all its warts, doesn't rank that badly).

Contrast that with Oregon, in which Tennessee is the toughest team they have faced, by far. But factor in scores and you get a much more natural-looking ranking when you can compare Oregon's 59-14 rout with Georgia's 34-31 squeaker.

Not a fan of the MOV thinking, I'm glad they don't consider it.

Other than some type of sportsmanship reasons, why? Shouldn't we be trying to use the most accurate rankings?

I think MOV can be a bit misleading and don't think good teams should be penalized for not running up the score.

I remember it used to be included years ago and I seem to recall it making a mess of one of the title game selections.

 

[fasteddie_21]

Dickey, pretty rough seeing Georgia that high. Regardless of the reasons, to struggle that badly against a wretched Tennessee team, and to be ranked that highly in your rankings seems...off.

eta: I know this evolves as the season progresses, but still, there has to be a way to factor in really bad wins.

Therein lies the flaw of how the BCS handles things. It tells the computers that it doesn't care whether it's by 1 point or 100, or in five overtimes. A win is a win.

The score-based ranking on the right reflects more of what you're saying, since Georgia's average MOV is not that strong. However, the X factor is that Georgia has played easily the toughest schedule in the country so far with the likes of Clemson, South Carolina and LSU (and Tennessee, for all its warts, doesn't rank that badly).

Contrast that with Oregon, in which Tennessee is the toughest team they have faced, by far. But factor in scores and you get a much more natural-looking ranking when you can compare Oregon's 59-14 rout with Georgia's 34-31 squeaker.

Not a fan of the MOV thinking, I'm glad they don't consider it.

Other than some type of sportsmanship reasons, why? Shouldn't we be trying to use the most accurate rankings?

from an analytical point of view, MOV absolutely matters. But it only matters to a point. The problem most computer models have is where that point is and honestly it's different by team.

...

The best computer models look at numbers beyond score (yards per play, turnovers, penalties, etc) but the BCS doesn't allow any of those models to be used.

There has to be some sort of happy medium and I think your last sentence does that. I mean, you can't tell me that a squeaker of a win vs a middle-of-the-road team should count the same as a team winning by 4+ scores vs the same team. Sure, I'm talking about Tennessee re:Georgia/Oregon because I follow Oregon the closest and have more knowledge about them than anyone.

Some sort of MOV needs to be considered, in conjunction with other metrics. But the fact that all of those are 'outlawed' by the BCS is embarassing to the sport. How the #### did this system come to be in the first place and last as long as it did?!? Thank God a playoff is around the corner...although I'm nervous about the selection committee.

 

[fasteddie_21]

Speaking of the selection committee...

How on earth can you have sitting AD's on the committee? Unless these people are watching every meaningful game each week (and there is no way they are, since, you know, they have multi-million companies athletic departments to run), how can these people make informed decisions?

Give me guys like Ryen Russillo whose job it is to watch football, for a start.

*sigh*

 

[SacramentoBob]

Speaking of the selection committee...

How on earth can you have sitting AD's on the committee? Unless these people are watching every meaningful game each week (and there is no way they are, since, you know, they have multi-million companies athletic departments to run), how can these people make informed decisions?

Give me guys like Ryen Russillo whose job it is to watch football, for a start.

*sigh*

I don't understand this either and it's turning into a joke. I'd rather they put in a system where fans get to vote on ESPN than what they are doing now.

 

[Slapdash]

Speaking of the selection committee...

How on earth can you have sitting AD's on the committee? Unless these people are watching every meaningful game each week (and there is no way they are, since, you know, they have multi-million companies athletic departments to run), how can these people make informed decisions?

Give me guys like Ryen Russillo whose job it is to watch football, for a start.

*sigh*

I don't understand this either and it's turning into a joke. I'd rather they put in a system where fans get to vote on ESPN than what they are doing now.

I agree.

 

[Christo]

Dickey, pretty rough seeing Georgia that high. Regardless of the reasons, to struggle that badly against a wretched Tennessee team, and to be ranked that highly in your rankings seems...off.

eta: I know this evolves as the season progresses, but still, there has to be a way to factor in really bad wins.

Therein lies the flaw of how the BCS handles things. It tells the computers that it doesn't care whether it's by 1 point or 100, or in five overtimes. A win is a win.

The score-based ranking on the right reflects more of what you're saying, since Georgia's average MOV is not that strong. However, the X factor is that Georgia has played easily the toughest schedule in the country so far with the likes of Clemson, South Carolina and LSU (and Tennessee, for all its warts, doesn't rank that badly).

Contrast that with Oregon, in which Tennessee is the toughest team they have faced, by far. But factor in scores and you get a much more natural-looking ranking when you can compare Oregon's 59-14 rout with Georgia's 34-31 squeaker.

Not a fan of the MOV thinking, I'm glad they don't consider it.

Other than some type of sportsmanship reasons, why? Shouldn't we be trying to use the most accurate rankings?

If it comes down to it in the end should a garbage time TCU TD in Norman matter?

No. But I wouldn't call their last TD on Saturday a garbage time TD. It cut the lead to 3 with 3:13 OTC. If OU doesn't run out the clock TCU gets a shot to tie or win.

 

[Christo]

It's 4 days until OU kicks shorthorn butt and UT still sucks!

 

[The Commish]

Dickey, pretty rough seeing Georgia that high. Regardless of the reasons, to struggle that badly against a wretched Tennessee team, and to be ranked that highly in your rankings seems...off.

eta: I know this evolves as the season progresses, but still, there has to be a way to factor in really bad wins.

Therein lies the flaw of how the BCS handles things. It tells the computers that it doesn't care whether it's by 1 point or 100, or in five overtimes. A win is a win.

The score-based ranking on the right reflects more of what you're saying, since Georgia's average MOV is not that strong. However, the X factor is that Georgia has played easily the toughest schedule in the country so far with the likes of Clemson, South Carolina and LSU (and Tennessee, for all its warts, doesn't rank that badly).

Contrast that with Oregon, in which Tennessee is the toughest team they have faced, by far. But factor in scores and you get a much more natural-looking ranking when you can compare Oregon's 59-14 rout with Georgia's 34-31 squeaker.

Not a fan of the MOV thinking, I'm glad they don't consider it.

Do you buy into the SOS component?

Yes, I do.

I don't believe the MOV or SOS are all that useful on their own. Use them both or neither. You can cap MOV at XX points if you want.

 

[prefontaine]

There has to be some sort of happy medium and I think your last sentence does that. I mean, you can't tell me that a squeaker of a win vs a middle-of-the-road team should count the same as a team winning by 4+ scores vs the same team. Sure, I'm talking about Tennessee re:Georgia/Oregon because I follow Oregon the closest and have more knowledge about them than anyone.

Some sort of MOV needs to be considered, in conjunction with other metrics. But the fact that all of those are 'outlawed' by the BCS is embarassing to the sport. How the #### did this system come to be in the first place and last as long as it did?!? Thank God a playoff is around the corner...although I'm nervous about the selection committee.

I certainly understand your frustration over that but the underlying stats of those two games aren't really as different as you would think. This is another real problem with an absolute system. The raw yardage differential shows a blowout vs Oregon. However, the underlying per play component is not particularly different, especially when adjusted for home field advantage (just off the two games, Oregon would appear stronger on my model but not nearly as much as the end scores suggest).

Your public perception comment also leads to another inherent problem in opinions. Offensive teams are almost universally overrated vs defensive ones. An offensive team will put up 70 points and we'll ooh and ahh but a defensive team might score 17 but have zero difficulty with their opponent. It creates closer games because defensive based teams will trust a 10-point lead and will play conservatively.

To that point, I don't generally bet the PAC because I don't follow it close enough to do so, but one of my strongest model suggestions is Wash and the points this week. I'm getting 14.5 so I've added it to my playlist.

 

[PlasmaDogPlasma]

How did the BCS crew putting this playoff together think it was a good idea to put someone like Rice on it and why do I feel like this is going to become the sports equivalent of Dancing with the Stars?? What Pollack said was dumb. I have no issue with women being on the committee, but all the people on that committee should be tied to college football in some way. Whether they are reporters or whatever....I'd hope they'd appoint people that had better credentials than being a "fan" of the game. Does anyone believe that someone like Rice is going to sit down and actually watch these games with everything else she has going on in her life??

Off to a rousing start

I disagree. I think Rice will take this very seriously and be diligent about doing her homework.I certainly think she's a better choice than someone who is currently a school's AD.

 

[Dickie Dunn]

There has to be some sort of happy medium and I think your last sentence does that. I mean, you can't tell me that a squeaker of a win vs a middle-of-the-road team should count the same as a team winning by 4+ scores vs the same team. Sure, I'm talking about Tennessee re:Georgia/Oregon because I follow Oregon the closest and have more knowledge about them than anyone.

Some sort of MOV needs to be considered, in conjunction with other metrics. But the fact that all of those are 'outlawed' by the BCS is embarassing to the sport. How the #### did this system come to be in the first place and last as long as it did?!? Thank God a playoff is around the corner...although I'm nervous about the selection committee.

I certainly understand your frustration over that but the underlying stats of those two games aren't really as different as you would think. This is another real problem with an absolute system. The raw yardage differential shows a blowout vs Oregon. However, the underlying per play component is not particularly different, especially when adjusted for home field advantage (just off the two games, Oregon would appear stronger on my model but not nearly as much as the end scores suggest).

Your public perception comment also leads to another inherent problem in opinions. Offensive teams are almost universally overrated vs defensive ones. An offensive team will put up 70 points and we'll ooh and ahh but a defensive team might score 17 but have zero difficulty with their opponent. It creates closer games because defensive based teams will trust a 10-point lead and will play conservatively.

To that point, I don't generally bet the PAC because I don't follow it close enough to do so, but one of my strongest model suggestions is Wash and the points this week. I'm getting 14.5 so I've added it to my playlist.

Glad you brought this up, because I was just tinkering with something and wanted to see what you guys thought.

I took the KRACH system and modified it so that, rather than a team getting a win or a loss, each team gets a percentage of a win/loss based on the score of the game The kicker is that the game score is converted to a Pythagorean ratio that actually rewards lower scoring, so that a 14-7 win is considered much better than a 49-42 win.

POS.	TEAM		KRA-tio1	Florida St	700.892	Alabama		560.613	Oregon		545.884	Clemson		479.235	Washington	471.746	Louisville	466.867	Baylor		452.168	Texas Tech	440.359	Florida		415.8810	Stanford	389.9111	Miami FL	370.5112	LSU		363.7213	Ohio State	355.8414	Missouri	354.7815	Texas A&M	354.7416	Oklahoma	344.6017	UCLA		315.9918	Georgia		303.1519	Arizona		302.5320	Maryland	289.3521	Indiana		284.5122	Wisconsin	271.8223	Virginia Tech	271.6224	Michigan St	268.3525	Oklahoma St	252.4426	Marshall	251.9027	Arizona St	248.1928	Nebraska	245.0129	Northwestern	243.1330	TCU		241.8131	Bowling Green	236.0532	Central Florida	235.1133	Auburn		228.3234	Penn State	227.7835	Georgia Tech	227.5336	Washington St	226.2237	South Carolina	219.1838	Southern Cal	215.9539	Boston College	215.8840	Michigan	215.6441	Utah		215.2442	Iowa		213.3643	Ball St		207.8644	Brigham Young	205.8245	Pittsburgh	202.8746	Ohio U.		201.7647	Tennessee	201.1748	Navy		201.0649	Houston		198.7350	Arkansas	195.4651	Notre Dame	195.1652	Boise St	192.1153	Illinois	191.8754	East Carolina	190.6655	Rutgers		186.8056	Kansas St	184.5057	Oregon St	180.5958	Utah St		180.4559	Syracuse	179.7260	Duke		178.8361	No. Illinois	177.7262	West Virginia	174.9663	West. Kentucky	172.4364	Wyoming		171.3065	Mississippi St	162.7866	Buffalo		162.2667	Fresno St	161.1368	Vanderbilt	159.8569	Mississippi	153.5270	North Texas	153.5071	Toledo		151.3372	Iowa St		149.5973	Tulane		149.1574	NC State	148.0975	Cincinnati	145.9476	Wake Forest	142.0377	Rice		140.5478	Texas St.	140.2279	La.-Lafayette	135.7280	Minnesota	134.1681	Texas		130.4282	Nevada		125.7283	South Alabama	125.3784	California	122.7085	Kentucky	121.6886	SMU		121.4587	Colorado	119.3888	Memphis		119.3489	Virginia	112.5090	North Carolina	109.8891	UNLV		109.8092	Kansas		106.3293	San José St	100.5894	Texas-San Ant.	100.5195	Fla. Atlantic	100.2196	Colorado St	99.9697	Connecticut	99.1598	Kent St		98.8099	Army		96.60100	San Diego St	95.88101	Troy		95.50102	Middle Tenn. St	89.69103	Arkansas St	84.80104	Ala.-Birmingham	82.73105	New Mexico	82.11106	Tulsa		81.46107	Akron		80.98108	Air Force	76.52109	South Florida	72.84110	Purdue		72.61111	La.-Monroe	71.49112	Louisiana Tech	71.48113	Temple		71.10114	Hawai`i		62.67115	Cent. Michigan	61.69116	UTEP		61.57117	East. Michigan	56.21118	Georgia St	56.12119	Florida Int'l	49.20120	West. Michigan	48.44121	Idaho		47.54122	Southern Miss	46.99123	Massachusetts	45.38124	New Mexico St	31.10125	Miami OH	29.13

 

[fasteddie_21]

I like your thinking Dickey but how can Washington be far above a Stanford team that just beat them and Stanford is undefeated.

But I think you are onto something. What about adding some sort of loss penalty too?

 

[Dickie Dunn]

I like your thinking Dickey but how can Washington be far above a Stanford team that just beat them and Stanford is undefeated.

But I think you are onto something. What about adding some sort of loss penalty too?

That's fair. LSU is ahead of Georgia, as well. I think that's more the result of still only 5 games' worth of data for most teams, but I'll tinker with it a bit more.

 

[fasteddie_21]

I like your thinking Dickey but how can Washington be far above a Stanford team that just beat them and Stanford is undefeated.

But I think you are onto something. What about adding some sort of loss penalty too?

That's fair. LSU is ahead of Georgia, as well. I think that's more the result of still only 5 games' worth of data for most teams, but I'll tinker with it a bit more.

I'd like to see your tinkering after the regular season is complete, too.

And I missed the LSU/Georgia situation too. Again, I'm just more in tune w/ the P12

 

[The Commish]

How did the BCS crew putting this playoff together think it was a good idea to put someone like Rice on it and why do I feel like this is going to become the sports equivalent of Dancing with the Stars?? What Pollack said was dumb. I have no issue with women being on the committee, but all the people on that committee should be tied to college football in some way. Whether they are reporters or whatever....I'd hope they'd appoint people that had better credentials than being a "fan" of the game. Does anyone believe that someone like Rice is going to sit down and actually watch these games with everything else she has going on in her life??

Off to a rousing start

I disagree. I think Rice will take this very seriously and be diligent about doing her homework.I certainly think she's a better choice than someone who is currently a school's AD.

So you really believe she's going to drop her life as it is right now and watch football enough to make informed decisions? I don't. She's all over the world all the time. I have NOTHING against her, but there's no way she's going to cancel her life to do this the right way. He's an incredibly busy person as it is. As for the ADs...yeah, that's a joke. My only hope is they are out of the room when their team/conference is discussed ala CBB.

 

[roadkill1292]

The fourth team in is a question with no right answer. Equally informed people can have divergent opinions. So the most important aspect for a Selection Committee is credibility and character, not specialized knowledge.

The Selection Committee concept is only the second best process anyway.

 

[PlasmaDogPlasma]

How did the BCS crew putting this playoff together think it was a good idea to put someone like Rice on it and why do I feel like this is going to become the sports equivalent of Dancing with the Stars?? What Pollack said was dumb. I have no issue with women being on the committee, but all the people on that committee should be tied to college football in some way. Whether they are reporters or whatever....I'd hope they'd appoint people that had better credentials than being a "fan" of the game. Does anyone believe that someone like Rice is going to sit down and actually watch these games with everything else she has going on in her life??

Off to a rousing start

I disagree. I think Rice will take this very seriously and be diligent about doing her homework.I certainly think she's a better choice than someone who is currently a school's AD.

So you really believe she's going to drop her life as it is right now and watch football enough to make informed decisions? I don't. She's all over the world all the time. I have NOTHING against her, but there's no way she's going to cancel her life to do this the right way. He's an incredibly busy person as it is. As for the ADs...yeah, that's a joke. My only hope is they are out of the room when their team/conference is discussed ala CBB.

Apparently you haven't heard, she got up at 3 AM to watch football in Israel.

 

[The Commish]

How did the BCS crew putting this playoff together think it was a good idea to put someone like Rice on it and why do I feel like this is going to become the sports equivalent of Dancing with the Stars?? What Pollack said was dumb. I have no issue with women being on the committee, but all the people on that committee should be tied to college football in some way. Whether they are reporters or whatever....I'd hope they'd appoint people that had better credentials than being a "fan" of the game. Does anyone believe that someone like Rice is going to sit down and actually watch these games with everything else she has going on in her life??

Off to a rousing start

I disagree. I think Rice will take this very seriously and be diligent about doing her homework.I certainly think she's a better choice than someone who is currently a school's AD.

So you really believe she's going to drop her life as it is right now and watch football enough to make informed decisions? I don't. She's all over the world all the time. I have NOTHING against her, but there's no way she's going to cancel her life to do this the right way. He's an incredibly busy person as it is. As for the ADs...yeah, that's a joke. My only hope is they are out of the room when their team/conference is discussed ala CBB.

Apparently you haven't heard, she got up at 3 AM to watch football in Israel.

touche

 

[Dickie Dunn]

The fourth team in is a question with no right answer. Equally informed people can have divergent opinions. So the most important aspect for a Selection Committee is credibility and character, not specialized knowledge.

The Selection Committee concept is only the second best process anyway.

A lot of knowledgeable posters here, and some with inherent biased opinions (that's only natural).

So given what we know now, what would the FFA selection committee pick as its four teams for a hypothetical playoff in 2013?

Alabama

Baylor

Clemson/Florida State

Ohio State

Oregon/Stanford

(other)

I can easily see a four-team, hand-picked playoff being even more controversial than what we have now.

 

[fasteddie_21]

The fourth team in is a question with no right answer. Equally informed people can have divergent opinions. So the most important aspect for a Selection Committee is credibility and character, not specialized knowledge.

The Selection Committee concept is only the second best process anyway.

A lot of knowledgeable posters here, and some with inherent biased opinions (that's only natural).

So given what we know now, what would the FFA selection committee pick as its four teams for a hypothetical playoff in 2013?

Alabama

Baylor

Clemson/Florida State

Ohio State

Oregon/Stanford

(other)

I can easily see a four-team, hand-picked playoff being even more controversial than what we have now.

And that is why, imo, the 8-team playoff is inevitable. Hard to argue when you're #9 vs #5 now.

 

[Dickie Dunn]

The fourth team in is a question with no right answer. Equally informed people can have divergent opinions. So the most important aspect for a Selection Committee is credibility and character, not specialized knowledge.

The Selection Committee concept is only the second best process anyway.

A lot of knowledgeable posters here, and some with inherent biased opinions (that's only natural).

So given what we know now, what would the FFA selection committee pick as its four teams for a hypothetical playoff in 2013?

Alabama

Baylor

Clemson/Florida State

Ohio State

Oregon/Stanford

(other)

I can easily see a four-team, hand-picked playoff being even more controversial than what we have now.

And that is why, imo, the 8-team playoff is inevitable. Hard to argue when you're #9 vs #5 now.

Taking that one step further, do you think an eight-team playoff should have auto-bids? Not just the "big five" conferences, but maybe even an auto-bid for the "best of the rest"?

My 16-team mock brackets the past couple of years have drawn a lot of scorn, but what is the best solution that is equitable for everyone?

 

[culdeus]

8 team playoff is absurd. With a conf-champ game you are looking at what amounts to an NFL season for the final 2 teams.

 

[The Commish]

The fourth team in is a question with no right answer. Equally informed people can have divergent opinions. So the most important aspect for a Selection Committee is credibility and character, not specialized knowledge.

The Selection Committee concept is only the second best process anyway.

A lot of knowledgeable posters here, and some with inherent biased opinions (that's only natural).

So given what we know now, what would the FFA selection committee pick as its four teams for a hypothetical playoff in 2013?

Alabama

Baylor

Clemson/Florida State

Ohio State

Oregon/Stanford

(other)

I can easily see a four-team, hand-picked playoff being even more controversial than what we have now.

What is the criteria we are to follow? As of right now, without any other info, Alabama, FSU, Stanford are the most complete/balanced teams that I've seen. Not watched a lot of Oregon....don't know if their D's gotten any better. I've watched zero Baylor unfortunately and I have questions with respect to Clemson's defense.

 

[Slider6]

The fourth team in is a question with no right answer. Equally informed people can have divergent opinions. So the most important aspect for a Selection Committee is credibility and character, not specialized knowledge.

The Selection Committee concept is only the second best process anyway.

A lot of knowledgeable posters here, and some with inherent biased opinions (that's only natural).

So given what we know now, what would the FFA selection committee pick as its four teams for a hypothetical playoff in 2013?

Alabama

Baylor

Clemson/Florida State

Ohio State

Oregon/Stanford

(other)

I can easily see a four-team, hand-picked playoff being even more controversial than what we have now.

And that is why, imo, the 8-team playoff is inevitable. Hard to argue when you're #9 vs #5 now.

Taking that one step further, do you think an eight-team playoff should have auto-bids? Not just the "big five" conferences, but maybe even an auto-bid for the "best of the rest"?

My 16-team mock brackets the past couple of years have drawn a lot of scorn, but what is the best solution that is equitable for everyone?

I've always loved the 16 team playoff Dan Wetzel talks about every season around the time the bowls get announced.

11 conference winners plus 5 at large. Higher seeded teams get home games through at least 2 rounds (don't remember if he had final four on campus or not). First round losers are eligible for the bowls. First 2 rounds before Christmas. Final Four on New Years Day. National Championship the following week.

 

[roadkill1292]

The fourth team in is a question with no right answer. Equally informed people can have divergent opinions. So the most important aspect for a Selection Committee is credibility and character, not specialized knowledge.

The Selection Committee concept is only the second best process anyway.

A lot of knowledgeable posters here, and some with inherent biased opinions (that's only natural).

So given what we know now, what would the FFA selection committee pick as its four teams for a hypothetical playoff in 2013?

Alabama

Baylor

Clemson/Florida State

Ohio State

Oregon/Stanford

(other)

I can easily see a four-team, hand-picked playoff being even more controversial than what we have now.

What is the criteria we are to follow? As of right now, without any other info, Alabama, FSU, Stanford are the most complete/balanced teams that I've seen. Not watched a lot of Oregon....don't know if their D's gotten any better. I've watched zero Baylor unfortunately and I have questions with respect to Clemson's defense.

What criteria is the actual Selection Committee supposed to use?

I pose that question mostly to make the point that I don't think any system can get this right because there is no right. We might not even know what the criteria for selection is. I think the best a committee, or just about any other selection system can do, is pick four pretty reasonable teams and I'm ok with that.

 

[gump]

@schadjoe: Tennessee and Virginia Tech have agreed to play a football game in 2016 at Bristol Motor Speedway, where a record 160,000 fans are expected.

 

[Moe.]

The fourth team in is a question with no right answer. Equally informed people can have divergent opinions. So the most important aspect for a Selection Committee is credibility and character, not specialized knowledge.

The Selection Committee concept is only the second best process anyway.

A lot of knowledgeable posters here, and some with inherent biased opinions (that's only natural).

So given what we know now, what would the FFA selection committee pick as its four teams for a hypothetical playoff in 2013?

Alabama

Baylor

Clemson/Florida State

Ohio State

Oregon/Stanford

(other)

I can easily see a four-team, hand-picked playoff being even more controversial than what we have now.

And that is why, imo, the 8-team playoff is inevitable. Hard to argue when you're #9 vs #5 now.

Taking that one step further, do you think an eight-team playoff should have auto-bids? Not just the "big five" conferences, but maybe even an auto-bid for the "best of the rest"?

My 16-team mock brackets the past couple of years have drawn a lot of scorn, but what is the best solution that is equitable for everyone?

I've always loved the 16 team playoff Dan Wetzel talks about every season around the time the bowls get announced.

11 conference winners plus 5 at large. Higher seeded teams get home games through at least 2 rounds (don't remember if he had final four on campus or not). First round losers are eligible for the bowls. First 2 rounds before Christmas. Final Four on New Years Day. National Championship the following week.

This would be it for me in a perfect world. First two rounds on campus. It gives the top four or so a relatively easy first-round matchup and gives the smaller conferences a chance and some exposure.

 

[ProBowler88]

@schadjoe: Tennessee and Virginia Tech have agreed to play a football game in 2016 at Bristol Motor Speedway, where a record 160,000 fans are expected.

very cool

 

[Christo]

It's three days until the Sooners take over the Cotton Bowl and Texas still sucks!

 

[fasteddie_21]

The fourth team in is a question with no right answer. Equally informed people can have divergent opinions. So the most important aspect for a Selection Committee is credibility and character, not specialized knowledge.

The Selection Committee concept is only the second best process anyway.

A lot of knowledgeable posters here, and some with inherent biased opinions (that's only natural).

So given what we know now, what would the FFA selection committee pick as its four teams for a hypothetical playoff in 2013?

Alabama

Baylor

Clemson/Florida State

Ohio State

Oregon/Stanford

(other)

I can easily see a four-team, hand-picked playoff being even more controversial than what we have now.

What is the criteria we are to follow? As of right now, without any other info, Alabama, FSU, Stanford are the most complete/balanced teams that I've seen. Not watched a lot of Oregon....don't know if their D's gotten any better. I've watched zero Baylor unfortunately and I have questions with respect to Clemson's defense.

And Alabama's is anything better than "decent" this year?

 

[The Commish]

The fourth team in is a question with no right answer. Equally informed people can have divergent opinions. So the most important aspect for a Selection Committee is credibility and character, not specialized knowledge.

The Selection Committee concept is only the second best process anyway.

A lot of knowledgeable posters here, and some with inherent biased opinions (that's only natural).

So given what we know now, what would the FFA selection committee pick as its four teams for a hypothetical playoff in 2013?

Alabama

Baylor

Clemson/Florida State

Ohio State

Oregon/Stanford

(other)

I can easily see a four-team, hand-picked playoff being even more controversial than what we have now.

What is the criteria we are to follow? As of right now, without any other info, Alabama, FSU, Stanford are the most complete/balanced teams that I've seen. Not watched a lot of Oregon....don't know if their D's gotten any better. I've watched zero Baylor unfortunately and I have questions with respect to Clemson's defense.

What criteria is the actual Selection Committee supposed to use?

I pose that question mostly to make the point that I don't think any system can get this right because there is no right. We might not even know what the criteria for selection is. I think the best a committee, or just about any other selection system can do, is pick four pretty reasonable teams and I'm ok with that.

Not sure they've set the criteria yet. I don't think the committee is complete is it? That's why I asked what criteria we were using here. All I threw out to begin with was the most balanced teams of the list. I tend to favor those with good defenses, or at least good defensive talent (this early in the year). It's my bias.

 

[The Commish]

The fourth team in is a question with no right answer. Equally informed people can have divergent opinions. So the most important aspect for a Selection Committee is credibility and character, not specialized knowledge.

The Selection Committee concept is only the second best process anyway.

A lot of knowledgeable posters here, and some with inherent biased opinions (that's only natural).

So given what we know now, what would the FFA selection committee pick as its four teams for a hypothetical playoff in 2013?

Alabama

Baylor

Clemson/Florida State

Ohio State

Oregon/Stanford

(other)

I can easily see a four-team, hand-picked playoff being even more controversial than what we have now.

What is the criteria we are to follow? As of right now, without any other info, Alabama, FSU, Stanford are the most complete/balanced teams that I've seen. Not watched a lot of Oregon....don't know if their D's gotten any better. I've watched zero Baylor unfortunately and I have questions with respect to Clemson's defense.

And Alabama's is anything better than "decent" this year?

Right now? I'd consider them decent. They have the horses to be pretty freakin' good by the end of the year. What does that have to do with what you bolded?

 

[prefontaine]

What is the criteria we are to follow? As of right now, without any other info, Alabama, FSU, Stanford are the most complete/balanced teams that I've seen. Not watched a lot of Oregon....don't know if their D's gotten any better. I've watched zero Baylor unfortunately and I have questions with respect to Clemson's defense.

And Alabama's is anything better than "decent" this year?

It seems you are falling vicitim to a bias here honestly (and most people do) based on the likely 1 game you've seen of them.

Despite playing @A&M already, Alabama is still #12 in total defense right now and ahead of an awful lot of schools that haven't played anyone remotely that good offensively yet.

 

[Dickie Dunn]

No criteria ... pick the best four teams as you see fit.

 

[fasteddie_21]

No criteria ... pick the best four teams as you see fit.

At this point, it'd be hard to put Oregon in, tbh. They haven't hit the meat of their schedule.

I'd say Alabama, Clemson, Stanford, and.........I guess Oregon? Let's assume you're not taking anyone with a loss, no one else has any real wins, save for, I guess, Ohio State vs Northwestern?

That will change in the next couple of weeks, but as of now, I can't see many other teams in the discussion.

 

[fasteddie_21]

The fourth team in is a question with no right answer. Equally informed people can have divergent opinions. So the most important aspect for a Selection Committee is credibility and character, not specialized knowledge.

The Selection Committee concept is only the second best process anyway.

A lot of knowledgeable posters here, and some with inherent biased opinions (that's only natural).

So given what we know now, what would the FFA selection committee pick as its four teams for a hypothetical playoff in 2013?

Alabama

Baylor

Clemson/Florida State

Ohio State

Oregon/Stanford

(other)

I can easily see a four-team, hand-picked playoff being even more controversial than what we have now.

What is the criteria we are to follow? As of right now, without any other info, Alabama, FSU, Stanford are the most complete/balanced teams that I've seen. Not watched a lot of Oregon....don't know if their D's gotten any better. I've watched zero Baylor unfortunately and I have questions with respect to Clemson's defense.

And Alabama's is anything better than "decent" this year?

Right now? I'd consider them decent. They have the horses to be pretty freakin' good by the end of the year. What does that have to do with what you bolded?

What is the criteria we are to follow? As of right now, without any other info, Alabama, FSU, Stanford are the most complete/balanced teams that I've seen. Not watched a lot of Oregon....don't know if their D's gotten any better. I've watched zero Baylor unfortunately and I have questions with respect to Clemson's defense.

And Alabama's is anything better than "decent" this year?

It seems you are falling vicitim to a bias here honestly (and most people do) based on the likely 1 game you've seen of them.

Despite playing @A&M already, Alabama is still #12 in total defense right now and ahead of an awful lot of schools that haven't played anyone remotely that good offensively yet.

And that's totally possible. What metric(s) are you ranking Alabama 12th?

 

[The Commish]

What is the criteria we are to follow? As of right now, without any other info, Alabama, FSU, Stanford are the most complete/balanced teams that I've seen. Not watched a lot of Oregon....don't know if their D's gotten any better. I've watched zero Baylor unfortunately and I have questions with respect to Clemson's defense.

And Alabama's is anything better than "decent" this year?

It seems you are falling vicitim to a bias here honestly (and most people do) based on the likely 1 game you've seen of them.

Despite playing @A&M already, Alabama is still #12 in total defense right now and ahead of an awful lot of schools that haven't played anyone remotely that good offensively yet.

I find "rankings" at this point to be pretty arbitrary. I mean Michigan is right behind them and while they are coming along, it's hard for me to believe they should be where they're at.

 

[gump]

And that's totally possible. What metric(s) are you ranking Alabama 12th?

12th in Total Defense....4th in Scoring Defense (Oregon is 2nd)...6th in Rush Defense...44th in Passing Defense (where TAMU lit them up).

They've only allowed 1 TD outside of TAMU...to VT opening weekend, on a busted long run play.

 

[Premier]

How does anybody leave Georgia out of their top-4? Their 3 point loss at Clemson is better than most teams wins and they have victories over LSU and USC.

 

[MAC_32]

How does anybody leave Georgia out of their top-4? Their 3 point loss at Clemson is better than most teams wins and they have victories over LSU and USC.

I have Oregon, Alabama, Clemson, Florida St, Stanford, and UCLA higher. As they lose to each other they will fall behind Georgia as long as they keep winning.

 

[MAC_32]

Unrelated, hope Rutgers hangs with Louisville tonight. Want to see Coleman in a big game. NFL may be third fiddle tonight, that rarely happens in my queue.