We just dropped from #3 to #5 after beating Kansas 55-7

[dennis580]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-football/news/20140430/college-football-playoff-top-25-polls/index.html

Imagine it's Nov. 18, the date of the committee's fourth scheduled rankings. Oklahoma is 9-1 and ranked No. 3 in both the AP and coaches polls. The committee decrees the Sooners are No. 3, too. OU fans rightfully figure if its team wins out, it will be in the playoffs.
A week later, though, after beating 2-9 Kansas 55-7, the Sooners drop from third to fifth in the playoff rankings. Between playing the hapless Jayhawks and losses that week by its three non-conference opponents (Louisiana Tech, Tennessee and Tulsa), OU's strength of schedule nosedived over the weekend. When the committee sat down to compile their new rankings -- and organizers insist they'll start from scratch each week -- the Sooners' resume was less impressive than it was a week earlier, and now they appear at risk of missing the playoff altogether.


I hate that we end up on the shortend in this example, but I love how serious the selection committee is taking this. There willing to work up to 24 hours straight every week with only food breaks. There taking tons of votes to narrow the teams down, and reach a consensus so individual voters bias are limited, and they will start from scratch each week.

[BoulderSooner79]

Nothing wrong with that scenario and it happened under the BCS as well due to the computer SOS factor. What would be nice to get from a discussion from humans is consideration for all the various factors that are hard to enumerate in a computer ranking. For example, say Tennessee was playing pretty well when OU played them and their QB had a high QPR. Since then, their 1st and 2nd string QBs are out and they just lost with a true FR QB they had planned to redshirt. Weird things happen every year. Could be a 2-0 game in a blizzard where no meaningful football can really be played. Could be an officiating disaster like our famous game against the Ducks. Humans could toss such events out as outliers. Of course, humans bring their own set of biases to the table too. I just hope they are transparent so we know what we're bitchin' about and why.

[tycat947]

No one plays a weaker non-conf schedule than SEC thus the mandate to now schedule Kansas, Purdue, etc on SEC schedules. But they will still play the ULMs, Samfords, Austin Peays, South Alabamas, Rices, Chattanoogas, Western KYs, Sam Houston States, etc for their other 3 non-conference games.

[King Barry's Back]

I guess if that scenario played out, I would be extremely disappointed and would probably bitch about it. But if it happened to someone else, I'd probably say, "You know, you couldn't do anything about UTenn being down, but this wouldn't be a problem if you hadn't scheduled La Tech and Tulsa." OU gets rightful credit for playing one good non-conf game per year, but in a very competitive world, coaches and administrators are going to have weight very carefully the risks of upgrading their schedule. And OU's going to feel that. In a good year for the Big XII, our non-conf strategy's going to look smart. But in a down year, it may not.

[BoulderSooner79]

I guess if that scenario played out, I would be extremely disappointed and would probably bitch about it. But if it happened to someone else, I'd probably say, "You know, you couldn't do anything about UTenn being down, but this wouldn't be a problem if you hadn't scheduled La Tech and Tulsa." OU gets rightful credit for playing one good non-conf game per year, but in a very competitive world, coaches and administrators are going to have weight very carefully the risks of upgrading their schedule. And OU's going to feel that. In a good year for the Big XII, our non-conf strategy's going to look smart. But in a down year, it may not.

Yeah, replace "OU" with "team X" as that was the point of the article. My response to that scenario (even if OU), would be "if you were 10-0 instead of 9-1, you wouldn't have that problem". Not saying I wouldn't debate why #4 is ahead of OU, but if a team drops games, that' the way it goes.

[SoonerorLater]

Which is why the playoff as it is currently designed is just as flawed as ever. Unless you systemically overhaul college football the playoffs are just another sideshow tacked on to the end of the same subjective ranking system.

[8timechamps]

Which is why the playoff as it is currently designed is just as flawed as ever. Unless you systemically overhaul college football the playoffs are just another sideshow tacked on to the end of the same subjective ranking system.

That's why I am for an 8 team play-off. There can be a legitimate argument about the #5 team being left out, but when you get down to the #9 team, it's going to be tough for anyone to really argue why they should be included.

I realize there will always be some complaining for the team that "just missed out", but there can be a pretty big difference between #5 and #9.

I think once the powers-the-be see the actual dollars, the playoff's will shoot up to 8 teams pretty quickly.

[BoulderSooner79]

Which is why the playoff as it is currently designed is just as flawed as ever. Unless you systemically overhaul college football the playoffs are just another sideshow tacked on to the end of the same subjective ranking system.

Flawed or not, it's going to be a fun ride this year.

[TheUnnamedSooner]

That was the whole point of the article. The way they pick teams is better. However, releasing weekly polls will be pointless and only **** people off and cause controversy.

[Mac94]

Which is why the playoff as it is currently designed is just as flawed as ever. Unless you systemically overhaul college football the playoffs are just another sideshow tacked on to the end of the same subjective ranking system.

Yup ... seed conference champions and let them play it out. How can a team really be the national champion if they can't even win their own conference? It can be done with 6 teams ... 8 teams ... whatever ... but take the 6 highest ranked conference champs and play it out. It pretty much locks in the conference champs from the top 5 conferences and allows the best of the mid majors a shot.

[tycat947]

Yup ... seed conference champions and let them play it out. How can a team really be the national champion if they can't even win their own conference? It can be done with 6 teams ... 8 teams ... whatever ... but take the 6 highest ranked conference champs and play it out. It pretty much locks in the conference champs from the top 5 conferences and allows the best of the mid majors a shot.

It happens all the time in basketball. That's why they let other teams in other than conference champs. It also happens in NFL. It's absurd for a team that has an injury and loses a star player for a game or two and then loses a big game before the player returns to be punished when they are essentially the same team after said player returns. The playoff is for the BEST 4 teams not the best 4 conference champions. I agree that 4 is not enough and I think it will become 8 team playoff, and maybe 16, within 10 years.

[Aries]

Right now the #3 team complains that they were left out of the title game. When it is a 4 team playoff, the #5 team will complain. When it is 8 teams, the number 9 team.... Etc., etc., rinse and repeat. You get the idea.

[badger]

Teams ranked #1-#4 are not automatically in the playoff. They have a selection committee for a reason. Don't care if we only beat KU by a measly 48 points, don't care if we drop to #5. Win and in

[sooneron]

It happens all the time in basketball. That's why they let other teams in other than conference champs. It also happens in NFL. It's absurd for a team that has an injury and loses a star player for a game or two and then loses a big game before the player returns to be punished when they are essentially the same team after said player returns. The playoff is for the BEST 4 teams not the best 4 conference champions. I agree that 4 is not enough and I think it will become 8 team playoff, and maybe 16, within 10 years.

16 would be idiocy. If your team hinges its wins and losses on one player, they may not deserve a shot.

[picasso]

Injuries happen. You don't get a mulligan for a game where you missed your star player.
That's just silly.

[Mac94]

It happens all the time in basketball. That's why they let other teams in other than conference champs. It also happens in NFL. It's absurd for a team that has an injury and loses a star player for a game or two and then loses a big game before the player returns to be punished when they are essentially the same team after said player returns. The playoff is for the BEST 4 teams not the best 4 conference champions. I agree that 4 is not enough and I think it will become 8 team playoff, and maybe 16, within 10 years.

True ... but college football is unique in that is has 115+ teams that only 12 games with 8 or 9 of those locked in against the same foes almost every year and 2 or 3 of the OOC games against poor competition ... There is so little crossover play unlike the NFL with 16 games and 32 teams that judging a team from the Pac-12 against a team from the ACC is near impossible. there are almost no head to head matchups let alone even common opponents.

So ... given college footballs unique situation ... use the conference schedule like a round robin tournament to see who advances to the playoffs. Refocus college football on the conference races.

[jkjsooner]

That's why I am for an 8 team play-off. There can be a legitimate argument about the #5 team being left out, but when you get down to the #9 team, it's going to be tough for anyone to really argue why they should be included.

I realize there will always be some complaining for the team that "just missed out", but there can be a pretty big difference between #5 and #9.

I think once the powers-the-be see the actual dollars, the playoff's will shoot up to 8 teams pretty quickly.

Agreed. The more teams you add the less relevant the argument gets and the more valid the champion becomes. Nobody questions the validity of the basketball champion just because some bubble team was left out of the tournament. The bubble teams may complain but they and everyone else knows that they had no legitimate shot at the championship.

There's a trade-off between watering down the regular season and for that reason I'd prefer it not extend beyond 8 teams.

Some people argue that we could have the equivalent of the NY Giants in college football - a team who had a mediocre regular season but won the championship anyway. With 4 or even 8 teams that's just not a possibility. At most a team could have 2 losses. Let's say a team got in at #8 with 2 losses. Let's say that team beat #1, #4, and #2 to win the tournament. It would be hard to argue that that team didn't have the best season even if you don't consider the playoff games to be more significant than the regular season games.

[jkjsooner]

Yup ... seed conference champions and let them play it out. How can a team really be the national champion if they can't even win their own conference?

Even if the conference champion lost all 3 out of conference games? Are we to say that OOC games are just glorified scrimmages? I know when my brother went to Wisconsin he commented that the Big 10 fans and media referred to OOC games as preseason games but they're a bunch of idiots.

Or what if a conference champion lost all 3 OOC games, lost 2 within conference, won their weak division and won the championship game? Does that 5 loss team belong in the playoffs?

What about independents? What about the mid major conferences? Do they get an automatic bid?

If you're going to go that direction then there either needs to be a lot of at large bids (which I don't favor) or the NCAA needs to create the conferences. It makes no sense to use a voluntary alliance between teams which is designed mostly for administrative reasons as a basis to determining who gets into the playoffs. Conferences were simply not designed for that purpose.


Edit: I just read that you said to take the top 6 conference champions. That addresses some of my concerns. I still don't like it though. I'll also add that you can argue that OU didn't deserve to be in the title game (or a hypothetical playoff) in '03 but I'd have a hard time buying that KSU with 3 losses deserved to be there in front of OU. And, frankly, I think it would have been a travesty to exclude OU in any tournament that included more that 4 teams.

[TheUnnamedSooner]

Teams ranked #1-#4 are not automatically in the playoff. They have a selection committee for a reason. Don't care if we only beat KU by a measly 48 points, don't care if we drop to #5. Win and in

This is the committee doing the ranking, so yes the top 4 are automatically in. The point of the article is we could be 3rd and think all we have to do is win out and that's not the case.

[jkjsooner]

This is the committee doing the ranking, so yes the top 4 are automatically in. The point of the article is we could be 3rd and think all we have to do is win out and that's not the case.

I actually think that's fine. The team who has tougher early season games shouldn't benefit from a "you can't drop if you win" mentality at the expense of a team whose schedule is loaded at the end.

It will be clear early on what the situation is. If we're #4 but we know that #5 has a tougher schedule coming up we'll know that our #4 ranking is only reflective of games that have already been played and not a stamp of approval from the selection committee that they favor us over #5.

[BoulderSooner79]

That was the whole point of the article. The way they pick teams is better. However, releasing weekly polls will be pointless and only **** people off and cause controversy.

And that's the part I enjoy the most.

[Mac94]

Even if the conference champion lost all 3 out of conference games? Are we to say that OOC games are just glorified scrimmages? I know when my brother went to Wisconsin he commented that the Big 10 fans and media referred to OOC games as preseason games but they're a bunch of idiots.

Or what if a conference champion lost all 3 OOC games, lost 2 within conference, won their weak division and won the championship game? Does that 5 loss team belong in the playoffs?

What about independents? What about the mid major conferences? Do they get an automatic bid?

If you're going to go that direction then there either needs to be a lot of at large bids (which I don't favor) or the NCAA needs to create the conferences. It makes no sense to use a voluntary alliance between teams which is designed mostly for administrative reasons as a basis to determining who gets into the playoffs. Conferences were simply not designed for that purpose.


Edit: I just read that you said to take the top 6 conference champions. That addresses some of my concerns. I still don't like it though. I'll also add that you can argue that OU didn't deserve to be in the title game (or a hypothetical playoff) in '03 but I'd have a hard time buying that KSU with 3 losses deserved to be there in front of OU. And, frankly, I think it would have been a travesty to exclude OU in any tournament that included more that 4 teams.

Let's use 2003 as an example ... we can seed on ranking or committee but conference champs only. Yes, the OOC games are not as important in this system ... but still not meaningless as rankings will matter and OOC games with affect those. And lets face it ... the current system is giving us crap OOC schedules that mean little anyway. Maybe if an OOC loss isn't fatal ... teams might play a bit better OOC games. Anyway ... lets look at the 2003 pool:

ACC: 10-2 Florida St.
Big East: 10-2 Miami
Big-10: 10-2 Michigan
Big-12: 10-3 Kansas St.
MAC: 12-1 Miami(OH)
MWC: 9-2 Utah
Pac-10: 11-1 USC
SEC: 12-1 LSU
USA: 9-2 S. Miss
WAC: 12-1 Boise St.

Under a 6 teams system the top two teams get byes in round one (again ... keep the rankings relevant) ... we can assume LSU, USC, Miami, Michigan, and Florida St make it in ... but the last spot would be more interesting ... a 3 loss Kansas St team wouldn't be a lock ... 12-1 Boise St would have a real shot at the last spot and 12-1 Miami(OH) could also. It would depend on the selection criteria.

As for OU ... I so stand by the idea that teams that didn't win their conference shouldn't play for the national title ... said that in 2001 with Nebraska, in 03, and a few years back with Bama. It could be argued that the conference championship game cost OU and that might seem unfair ... but I'd stay above that and just say I'd leave it up to the respective conferences on how they crown a champion. If they want a championship game, great ... live with the consequences ... if they want to crown the highest seeded team ... ok ... if they want jello wrestling between cheerleader squads ... fine ... but only one champion per conference.

[BoulderSooner79]

OU would not have been in the title game after the '03 season even by last year's BCS rules. But it was perfectly fair in '03 because that was by the rules of that season established before the season started. I seriously doubt the outcome against KSU would have changed if the BCS title game was on the line, but there is no way to prove that. OU knew they were already a lock before playing KSU and that *may* have changed the motivation. Point being that you can go back in time and apply a new system to a historical situation and it is just a hypothetical because the old system (rules) was a factor at arriving at that situation. Still useful in tweaking the system going forward, but doesn't diminish the way it was handled before.

[8timechamps]

Right now the #3 team complains that they were left out of the title game. When it is a 4 team playoff, the #5 team will complain. When it is 8 teams, the number 9 team.... Etc., etc., rinse and repeat. You get the idea.

There will always be complaining from the team that just missed getting in, but as I mentioned above, there is typically a pretty big difference in the #5 team and the #9 team. A team ranked #5 in the final regular season poll has sometimes been in a position to make an argument that they should be included (legitimately). I can't remember a time when the 9th ranked team would have had a legitimate argument.

Chances are, the 9th ranked team will be a two loss (or more) team. One loss can be understandable (lots of teams have won titles with one loss), not so much with two or more.

[King Barry's Back]

Maybe if an OOC loss isn't fatal ... teams might play a bit better OOC games.


Another way to look at it is to say "If 2 or 3 cream-puff OOC wins ARE fatal, then teams might play a bit better OOC games."

As a fan, one thing I really like is that Bob Stoops usually gets one pretty good marquee game a year. But he doesn't do it cuz I want him to. He does it because he thinks a marquee win will help him get championships at the end. If the system said he really needed two, then believe me, he would play two good OOC games a year.