crg

December 5th, 2016 at 11:37 AM ^

Except it does matter. If you recall during the BCS years, ESPN was running polls near the end showing that nearly 80% of the fans wanted some kind of playoff system. I believe that this kind of data, together with having the Bama-LSU championship in 2011, helped accelerate the CFP adoption. Thus, if people are unhappy with the current system (or how it is run) this data can help change it.

Squash34

December 5th, 2016 at 12:33 PM ^

If your premise that the committee's biggest care is money is right -- which this is a business, so bottomline is key -- then what the fans want better be their biggest consideration. Afterall, if the fans grow tired of the 4 teams and the politics/ no clear guidelines to pick them, people will lose interest. This will ultimately lead to less tickets being sold, at least at the higher prices we are used to seeing for these games, and people will stop tuning in at home. They will lose a big chunk of their lifeblood, the advertising money, once the latter happens.
People seem to forget how much power the collective has, whether it is in sport or in real world stuff. We have been conditioned to believe the decisions of tge so-called authorities in any area are final and we just simple have to live with it without recourse. But the true power is with the people... As long as we choose to use that power, of course. In this case, that means voicing your opinions about the committee and the 4 team system as a whole.

crg

December 5th, 2016 at 2:05 PM ^

This is where the scope of ESPN's visitors works in favor. When I checked this morning, there were already 70k+ votes, which can not be dominated by just a few fan bases. Don't underestimate the total number of CFB fans that are not aligned with one of the major powers.

mGrowOld

December 5th, 2016 at 10:56 AM ^

What possible reason is there to vote other than to pump money into the espn.com coffers by hitting their site repeatidly.  Once both Washington & Clemson won our fate was sealed so who cares if they put PSU above or behind us.  The committee sent a strong message, IMO, to the country that they care about: the items below in that order:

1. Overall record

2. Conference championships

3. OOC schedule

Stringer Bell

December 5th, 2016 at 11:09 AM ^

If they really cared about OOC schedule they wouldn't have let Washington in and would've put Oklahoma in instead.  It's clear that scheduling tough teams in the noncon is detrimental to a team's playoff chances

Stringer Bell

December 5th, 2016 at 11:17 AM ^

If OSU had lost to Michigan they would've finished behind PSU just like we did.  Fact is, Washington's toughest noncon opponent was a team we beat by 78 points.  If Oklahoma had played that schedule they would've gone undefeated and would likely be the #2 seed in the playoff.  There's no reason to schedule tough teams in the noncon, as Washington has shown.

Stringer Bell

December 5th, 2016 at 11:25 AM ^

Honestly, while it sucks that OSU is in, I think they deserve it (biased officiating caveat aside) and I hope it sets a certain precedent going forward.  Conference championships are arbitrary, especially since the divisions are so uneven.  The conference championship game was played between the 3rd and 4th best teams in the conference, for one of them to get in solely because they won the conference championship game would've led to another Bama-MSU debacle.

ijohnb

December 5th, 2016 at 12:03 PM ^

agree to an extent, but honestly, you can make a valid argument that the final score of the Michigan - Ohio State game should not even be determinative.  Say Speight is going to be healthy for the CFP, you look at it and say that Michigan lost in 2 OT with half a QB on the road in a game where the referees made many bad calls that directly influenced the outcome. 

That is why I favor expanding to 8 teams.  I don't think 4 teams is working that well, personally, and not just because we did not get in this year.  Ohio State should have been in it last year, but I can't really say Michigan State didn't deserve to be.  That is the problem with 4.  Ohio State had one slip up last year and they are out and they were the only team in the country that I think could have beat Bama.

Both Michigan and Ohio State deserve the chance to play for the National Championship in a playoff format this year.  Ohio State did not "deserve" to be in it any more than Michigan "deserved" not to be in it. 

They make a blanket statement regarding "the best 4 teams," but then they don't make any real effort to consider any factors that really go into making that determination.  On paper, by quite a few measurables, Michigan deserves to be there more than any of the teams that were chosen. 

I am not complaining that we are not in, honestly, I am just not sure this is any better than the BCS.  At least with the BCS, people did not make ridiculous statements like "the Orange Bowl is garbage."  I liked the idea of a playoff but I am not sure I am really like the practical effect that it is having on college football. 

In reply to by ijohnb

big john lives on 67

December 5th, 2016 at 12:16 PM ^

Again, agree with 100 percent,

The criteria change every. One year it is conf champ must be honored. Next it is best team. Next it is best team in Ohio.

Give my 8 in a playoff. Power 5 conf champs are in - whatever means your idiot conf commish dreams up. 3 at large "best remaining." Even gives you a chance to reward non-power 5 if it is ever warranted in an unusual year.




Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

Cali Wolverine

December 5th, 2016 at 12:43 PM ^

But if the the CFP is about the best 4 teams...Michigan is one of the best 4 teams. Vegas has us as the team with the best odds against Bama...at home or on a neutral field (with neutral refs)...Michigan would be favored over Ohio State...and for that matter any team not named Alabama. So if Ohio State earned it...so did we.

Devil's advocate....if we had shown up at Iowa and handled our business...despite O'Korn, a night game on the road and the cold... The Spot and crappy refs notwithstanding...we would have beaten Wisconsin for the BIG Championship and would be playing Ohio State in a semifinal game next month erasing any doubt who the best BIG team is.

That being said, aside from a Rose Bowl trip, beating a good Team from Florida for the second year in a row...in Florida is not a bad consolation prize...and great for recruiting.

mGrowOld

December 5th, 2016 at 11:31 AM ^

Which is why I put it third on the list of considerations.  They may talk strength of schedule but the when it as crunch time they all said "only one loss" when pointing at Washington.

And their SOS was second worst in the country.  SOS does NOT matter.  Wins and losses matter which is why getting boned by the refs in the OSU was so painful.  Everybody knows we got jobbed.  But it doesnt matter - we got the L and they got the W

Cali's Goin' Blue

December 5th, 2016 at 3:26 PM ^

you just need to take it in context. If a team has the hardest SOS in the country and goes 6-6, they will be favored over another team that is 6-6. It's very simple and people on this blog are being ridiculous. If you win every game but have a weak SOS, then your team did everything it could, and probably deserves to be in the playoff. I think the committee looks at each game individually, considers who won the game, by how much, and whether it was a quality victory/loss. If we were Washington, we would have expected to get in considering we beat a top 10 team(Colorado) the last week of the season by a comfortable margin and our only loss was to USC which may be the hottest team in the country. Some people on this blog just bitch to bitch without being rational. 

doggdetroit

December 5th, 2016 at 11:36 AM ^

The primary reason OSU is in the top 4 is because of their win at Oklahoma. If instead they played Boston College, PSU gets in over OSU. And if Oklahoma beat OSU, Oklahoma is probably in the top 4. If Washington had played Kansas State (a bowl team) instead of Rutgers (one of the worst teams in the P5), there is no debate between them and PSU.



I guess I look at it like a risk/reward type of thing. It paid off for OSU this season.When they couldn't win the B1G, they could turn to the Oklahoma win as insurance. It also almost paid off for Michigan. If you replace Colorado with Cincinnati, a 10-2 Michigan does not enter the dicussion.



It worked out for Washington only because PSU had a 40 point loss to Michigan. If that game was more competitive, then I think PSU gets in over UW. If PSU beats Pitt, they are in over UW despite a 40 point loss to Michigan. Basically UW was at the mercy of other teams. 

Stringer Bell

December 5th, 2016 at 11:33 AM ^

Why should it matter how good or bad a team was 4 years ago?  Washington's noncon schedule included a FCS team, the 4th place Sun Belt team, and one of the worst power 5 teams in recent memory.  They did everything asked of them, except compete against the one good team they played in the regular season.  I don't believe Washington did enough quite frankly.  They're a very good team, but they're definitely getting rewarded for playing a terrible schedule.

Cali's Goin' Blue

December 5th, 2016 at 3:32 PM ^

Then that would be worse. They played consistently tough teams. They didn't have any powerhouses on their schedule, but they beat all of the teams they should have(USC being a toss-up). Michigan lost to IOWA, that is not beating the teams we should have. Consistently beating P5 teams should have an impact on getting in the playoff. It's not a guarantee you win those games, look at us vs Iowa, or OSU vs Penn State, or Clemson vs. Pitt. Winning the games on your schedule matters more than the specific teams you play. It's pretty damn simple

gmoney41

December 5th, 2016 at 5:10 PM ^

I don't think you have to be on the fringes.  You just have to honestly watch a ton of college football and come to the sane conclusion that we are simply a better team.  Vegas thinks so, FPi thinks so, PFF thinks so, Stats say we are, and the eye test says we are.  Plain and simple.  Now if we want to talk about fairness and participation trophies, then Washington deserves in or PSU deserves in.   At the end of the day PSu and Washington will prove us right by getting mollywhopped in the Rose bowl and playoffs, and we will all be saying, I told ya so in a month.

Durham Blue

December 5th, 2016 at 11:39 AM ^

Let's say we won that lousy game at Iowa 13-11, then lost to OSU in the same fashion and ended up 11-1 with no B1G championship.  All other things being equal, do you think we'd be in the top 4?  It's doubtful PSU would've jumped us.  But even in this case I would still have serious doubts we would've gotten in over Washington.  I think mainly because Washington in the CFP gives the committee teams from four different conferences and nice geographical balance.  We probably needed to be perfect 13-0 to get in.

Blue and Joe

December 5th, 2016 at 11:48 AM ^

It would have made things a lot closer, for sure. Everyone talks about how UW played no one and got in, but they barely got in. If they had 2 losses they wouldn't have even been in the conversation. They were lucky that other contendors had 2 losses. If Michigan had 1 loss I could see them getting the nod.