Playoff selection criteria for at large bids. How would y'all rank these?
Put your most important first. I've put down 10 to make it easy for 1-10 ranking.
Number of wins
Number of losses
When you had losses (more recent vs earlier in year)
Quality of losses (good loss vs bad loss)
Quality of wins (good top 25 wins vs easy schedule)
In conference vs OOC losses
Key injuries (such as FSU QB last year)
Conference strength of team
Win streak currently
Qualified for Conference champion game
44 Replies
T
Truthahn
1y
Which means ACC teams should do the SEC thing and start scheduling a cupcake in the final three games of the year. Our Wofford and VMI games should be moved to just before Thanksgiving the next two years.
** Edited by Truthahn at 12/6/2024, 12:18:28 PM
(In response to this post by HokieAl)
1y
Playoffs should be about your performance all season long, not about who's the hottest going into the playoffs. Or who's the healthiest. You should be rewarded for your performance throughout the entire season, not because you got hot at the end of the season, or because you stayed healthy. The idea that you earned your way in, but even though you deserve it, we're not going to let you have it because your quarterback got injured, that is absolutely ridiculous.
(In response to this post by HokieAl)
E
EDGEMAN
1y
First choices: SEC and Big 10
Second choices: none.
(In response to this post by HokieAl)
T
Truthahn
1y
I think the committee is on record stating they would not give much weight to championship game losses. An OT loss to Clemson should get both in according to that.
I hope SMU wins because I don't believe them. I think even an OT loss knocks SMU out.
(In response to this post by EDGEMAN)
1y
like many request. If it made sense to do so then it would be a formula with no committee needed. We go through this every year with basketball. The weight of factors vary from year to year and team to team because the data set is never the same. You have to find differentiating factors.
(In response to this post by HokieAl)
T
Truthahn
1y
The right way to do it is to give an auto bid to the winner of every conference, and also to let in every undefeated team.
Slots after that should be awarded by using a computer model ranking to fill in the gaps.
Seed every team by their computer ranking.
The committee just allows politics to screw it up, which is by design.
(In response to this post by Colonel Jessup)
1y
(In response to this post by Truthahn)
1y
People always going to complain and think someone or something is getting one over on them.
(In response to this post by wwhokie1)
1y
Decisions that impact the outcome. That happens regardless of what formula or computer model is being used. There's always people behind it making decisions.
(In response to this post by Colonel Jessup)
T
Truthahn
1y
No one thinks they are fake, like the committee. They disagree on the criteria, but those are transparent, and applied evenly.
(In response to this post by wwhokie1)
S
Stech
1y
problem not a can we do it problem. It won’t be perfect, but as my Dad taught, don’t let perfection get in the way of progress. Determining the metrics before each season starts will bring integrity to the system, like how you score in games. A TD gets you 6 points etc.
(In response to this post by Colonel Jessup)
1y
Were responsible for coming up with that way. Maybe a few other people would be happy with it. It might even be the best possible option. But it would still create a lot of controversy and a lot of people would be very unhappy with it. It's just the nature of the beast. There's just too much inequality between conferences, between schedules, and many other issues. Teams in the same conference play vastly different conference schedules. And far too much subjectivity. In the NFL schedules vary, but they're close enough so things can be based on wins and losses. With some wild cards thrown in to make up for the inequalities. That doesn't work in college football. Unless college football is rearranged to make something like that work, most people will never be happy with whatever system is used.
(In response to this post by Stech)
S
Stech
1y
Committee agrees it needs to be changed. However, once the season starts, this is how you score or lose points. That would give it much more INTEGRITY than we have now.
(In response to this post by wwhokie1)
1y
I am not convinced one system would be better than the other. Both are seriously flawed. Honestly, I think the better system is the one we just left with only 4 teams getting in. Typically, there are no more than 2-3 or possibly 4 teams that have truly distinguished themselves as the best in college football. There is usually, a much clearer break between number 4 and 5, than between number 12 and 13. When you go to twelve teams there becomes a much larger list of teams than can argue they are just as deserving as number 11 or 12. Without a major change to college sports it will be flawed, whatever we do. And the more teams we add to the playoffs the fuzzier the justification for distinguishing between those last that get in and those that get left out. But it probably doesn't matter at that point, because none of those lower ranked teams will have a chance of winning four consecutive games against top 15 opponents.
(In response to this post by Stech)
S
Stech
1y
I wanted 8, with 4 automatics from the P4, but that ship has sailed. So being in the current situation, we need to strive to make it better.
(In response to this post by wwhokie1)
1y
Increase it to at least 16. I imagine that's not far away. Increase it to 16 and the P2 can each have six teams in the playoff every year. I'm sure they would like that.
(In response to this post by Stech)
S
Stech
1y
objective criteria like Top 25 wins and out of Top 25 losses, so you can’t cupcake schedule your way in.
** Edited by Stech at 12/6/2024, 9:27:51 AM
(In response to this post by wwhokie1)
1y
It's why I suggest we just bend the knee, and give the BIG and SEC 4 auto's each in a 16 team playoff, 2 for the ACC and B12, and 2 for the independents and G6. Leave only 2 at large invites for that team left out that deserves one, or two blue bloods the networks need to justify their investment.
Everyone wins.
(In response to this post by wwhokie1)
1y
conference and teams only playing 8-9 conference games, two teams in the same conference can have widely different strength of schedules within the same conference.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
own tie breaking rules and schedules - so it's objective, not subjective. Give the networks the choice of the at large teams, and the conferences can work it out themselves.
(In response to this post by wwhokie1)
1y
straight wins and losses. That would remove all subjectivity and make things completely objective. It would greatly favor teams with weaker schedules, wouldn't be fair, but would be completely objective. That is the problem in college sports, removing subjectivity but maintaining fairness. Within conferences we go with just wins and losses, but there is a built in unfairness that we accept in spite of the varing schedule difficulties created by such large conferences. It is what it is, but we should at least admit it is there.
** Edited by wwhokie1 at 12/5/2024, 3:18:00 PM
** Edited by wwhokie1 at 12/5/2024, 3:18:43 PM
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
no reason for that cupcake schedule. A lot more GT/GA, Clemson/SC games would be awesome. maybe bring back the OU Nebraska rivalry for instance, or closer to home, the Kansas Missouri Rivalry. A loss in one of those games do not cost you a chance to win your conference, and the local and media money generated would be phenomenal.
You will never get an even schedule with conferences and what, 130++ FBS teams, but I for one, would like to see more games against worthy opponents, not ones to pad your win column.
I guess we gotta think what is best for the networks, which sometimes align with what the fans want to see.
(In response to this post by wwhokie1)
S
Stech
1y
losses -20%. 10 wins or more +20%, less than 10 wins-20%. Or something like that, but the biggest thing is they SET THE CRITERIA (METRIC) PRIOR TO THE SEASON and everyone knows how you get points, you know, like the score of a football game. 🤣
Integrity, maybe it’s something we need to try again 🤔
(In response to this post by HokieAl)
1y
built around where teams are ranked. It is a bit circular. We will rank you in the top 25 if you beat enough top 25 teams. But how can you know which top 25 teams you have beaten if you can't rank them until after they have beaten ranked teams. At some point the strength of schedule building is being built on a subjective foundation. Which is unavoidable with this type of system. That is ultimately the flaw in the college system. At some point the rankings are built around the eye test or previous history test, not wins and losses. And wins and losses don't work because strength of schedule varies so much between schools. You end up trying to rank schools and comparing apples and oranges.
** Edited by wwhokie1 at 12/5/2024, 3:00:19 PM
(In response to this post by Stech)
1y
When comparing two teams, here are the actual criteria, in order of importance, and thus precedence for receiving an at-large bid to the CFP:
1. Is the team a member of the SEC?
2. Is the team a member of the Big 10?
3. Is the team a member of any other conference?
The following SEC programs will receive precedence over any other SEC program with the same record, in order of priority: Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee, LSU, Florida, Auburn.
The following Big 10 programs will receive precedence over any other Big 10 program with the same record, in order of priority:
Michigan, Ohio State.
That's it. That's the CFP at-large selection process. You can apply it, and it will work every single time, guaranteed.
(In response to this post by HokieAl)
S
Stech
1y
I want Virginia Tech in the P2, but if we aren’t going, let’s split and give us a chance to compete again against someone our financial size.
(In response to this post by Baltimore_Hokie)
1y
Otherwise, Disney and Fox will now decide going forward who can be competitive and who can't. There is no other viable solution.
Frankly, reasonable transfer restrictions need to return as well. They had it right with one free transfer. Completely wide open, unrestricted free agency is entirely untenable.
(In response to this post by Stech)
1y
stop this madness.
(In response to this post by Baltimore_Hokie)
1y
The cap doesn't have to be draconian, but a salary cap is absolutely necessary. Even the EPL, the pinnacle league of the dirtiest, most corrupt sport in the world, where oil sheiks and Russian gangsters launder their blood money, will have a salary cap starting next year.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
their athletic programs as a criteria to remain, or be added to their conference. I profoundly agree with that, as conferences were originally for peer institutions that had commonalities, not least of which, is geography, education, and money.
Maybe the P2 needs to set a floor on their athletic investments as well. There just might be a few institutions that bow out, and a few that are raised up to that level.
Maybe, you inadvertently hit on the future.
** Edited by Big12 guy at 12/5/2024, 1:03:54 PM
(In response to this post by Stech)
1y
No Matter who they play
(In response to this post by Baltimore_Hokie)
T
TerryD
1y
2018--12-0
2020--10-1 (ACC Championship loss)
2024--11-1
** Edited by TerryD at 12/5/2024, 9:31:34 PM
(In response to this post by Sunsetunderground)
1y
I don't think Penn State gets the deference that others here do. When it comes to the Big 10, there are two programs that trump everybody else in that league for any given purpose - Michigan first, then Ohio State.
(In response to this post by Sunsetunderground)
1y
Annually a Top 10 team every year. EVERY YEAR
(In response to this post by Baltimore_Hokie)
1y
Preseason rankings are released solely to hype early games. Preseason rankings then bleed over to in-season rankings. It's a self fulfilling prophecy.
(In response to this post by Sunsetunderground)
1y
Yeah, every loss is a quality loss when your entire league is ranked in the top 25 every single year without even playing a game. Preseason polls are a virus that become a disease, because they affect in-season polls.
On a related note, the CFP committee should be forced to rank blind resumes, without actually knowing which program they were ranking. There's no good reason why this isn't the practice; I challenge anyone to think of one.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
sure it would make any difference, but they rank SOS because of some subjective narrative built on subjective reasoning.
(In response to this post by Baltimore_Hokie)
1y
would just blindly rank the teams. Give them box scores, stats, whatever data they need, but no program names.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
just expand to 16 teams, all 10 conference champions get in, and have 6 at-large selections. Everyone has a viable route. Every conference game matters, in every conference. Nobody can really complain that hard if they're left out.
This will never happen, because the SEC and Big 10 chose to expand to 16 and 18 teams, respectively. The ACC has 17, and the Big 12 has 16. All the unnecessary consolidation will become the death knell it should have been in the first place. Instead, we will still get expansion to 16, or however many, but there will be no more auto-bids for champions, it will be all at-large.
This sport is completely screwed; it's now the worst it's ever been, and I don't think there's any salvaging it at this point.
(In response to this post by Baltimore_Hokie)
1y
It feels like the ACC schools are at a major crossroads right now. And the longer they take to make a decision, the less choice they will have.
Option 1: just stay with the status quo, collect the moderate check (better than G5, but worse than P2), and accept that you will never be able to afford enough good players to win consistently in football or men's bball.
Option 2: agree to vote and breakup the ACC in the hopes of either landing in the P2 or getting into some new version of the B12 that will have equal or greater money compared to ACC. Same issue with not being able to pay for P2 level rosters, but may get more stability and potential revenue by consolidating with the B12.
Just looking at the state of ACC men's basketball and football together, it has all fallen far and fast. Another year or two of this and it will lead to negative economic impacts on the school communities if the fans stop caring due to bad teams (or teams with no chance of championships).
(In response to this post by Baltimore_Hokie)
1y
The Big 12 has at least morphed into a confederation of like-minded, similar institutions. They know what they are, and at least have a commissioner that understands the zero sum game being played by the P2. On the other hand, the ACC is led by a flop-sweating, cowardly suck-up who is trying to pretend nothing has changed in college athletics since 1994, and, if that weren't bad enough, there is little to no homogeny among the member institutions. The ACC is now the island of misfit toys, and the laughing stock of college athletics. The bottom line is, no matter how you try to bake the cupcake, the current iteration ACC isn't going to survive.
Bottom line: the ACC is broken, and I honestly don't care what happens to it in the end, as long as VT isn't a part of it. This conference can rot for all I care. The ACC brain trust never wanted VT to begin with, and tobacco road fought tooth and toenail to keep them out.
(In response to this post by HokieAl)
1y
those that can afford and go all in on NIL. Please blow it up. I always preferred the Big East.
(In response to this post by HokieAl)