November 1st, 2018 at 1:24 AM ^
No, because the only spot available to them would be to be better than all other independents and G5 teams, including other champions and those that didn't win their conference (like a Boise State or American conference team that gets upset once in conference and didn't make it to their conference final). Every other conference team would have two paths (win your conference or be the best of those who didn't).
But I wouldn't have much of a problem with making indpendents compete with P5 non-champions for the final spot, or saying highest rated G5 champion and two at-large bids, as long as they both could not go to the same conference (which you know the SEC would strongly lobby for).
November 1st, 2018 at 6:46 AM ^
I would revise that to
P5 Champs
Highest rated G5 champ
Two highest rated teams not already selected
November 1st, 2018 at 5:06 AM ^
That does absolutely nothing to get the best teams in the playoffs.
November 1st, 2018 at 12:39 AM ^
Cade Massey (codeveloper of the massey-peabody index) was a professor of mine at Wharton. I saw him a few weeks ago (he’s a HUGE Texas fan) and we talked college football. I introduced him to MGOBLOG and he was quite impressed.
As an aside, his use of analytics even in class was astounding.
November 1st, 2018 at 1:34 AM ^
I dont know where this came from but god bless this guy. If i see one more time on here “it doesnt matter” and “itll work itself out in the end” im going to go crazy. Giving Auburn, Kentucky, Miss st, Texas AM, and even Texas the benefit of the doubt while Big ten teams get the shaft will come back to bite us in the ass. It happened in 2006 and it can happen again. Not giving Purdue, Northwestern, maryland, MSU, Iowa, and Wisconsin the same benefit of doubt they do other conferences puts us in a no quality win situation right now. And guess what- we beat PSU and its another 3 loss non quality win and the beat goes on and the goal posts keep moving. 18-25 matters and if a texas team off a 8-5 season can get beat bt Maryland and be ranked top ten just a few weeks later that tells you something. Sorry rant over. Happy Halloween friends!
November 1st, 2018 at 6:51 AM ^
What happened in 2006? Are you disappointed that only one undeserving B1G team was in the championship game?
If there was the current format in 2006, both Michigan and Ohio State would have been in the playoffs, and neither would have made it to the championship game.
November 1st, 2018 at 9:39 AM ^
Michigan got screwed by the BCS in 2006. The National Championship should have been a rematch of Ohio St and Michigan. Michigan would have beaten OSU on a neutral field and took home another National Championship (Didn't have to be the best team in the world that day, just better than OSU) The only reason it wasn't was because some southern writers/coaches voted Michigan at 8 to keep the SEC team in the National Championship. I don't care if you think Florida would have beaten Michigan in a hypothetical matchup because Florida did not deserve to be in the game. (Damn that Arkansas player for muffing a punt inside his ten with a late lead in the SEC championship game and costing Michigan a National Championship.
November 1st, 2018 at 8:12 AM ^
There also seems to be an argument that is always used in regards to SEC teams and their SOS. This year they talk about how quality of a win Miami was for LSU. Miami is not good. A couple years ago they talked on how Alabama beat "3 Top 10 teams" yet all of those top 10 teams ended the year with at least 4 losses.
NC State being in the rankings is an absolute joke. They have zero even marginally impressive victories and have look like crap in their two losses.
We need the Power 5 to become the Power 4. Win your conference and you get into the playoffs. That turns the Conference Championship games into quarterfinals games. Games played within the region of the school. Make winning your league a non-negotiable for making the playoffs. If you do not win your conference, you should not be eligible to win the national championship
November 1st, 2018 at 9:26 AM ^
So put Clemson and Florida State in the SEC and downgrade the ACC.
November 1st, 2018 at 2:09 AM ^
If I were BTN's corp atty I'd ask Klatt to use a word other than "FRAUD" as that term has very specific legal definitions and could possibly get then in hot water. If not an actual suit, then a very messy fight where he is forced to retract and clarify.
November 1st, 2018 at 2:31 AM ^
As if that word hasn't been getting used in that context for years already.
November 1st, 2018 at 5:52 AM ^
Atta boy Joel! I didn't get nearly as worked up as he did when the rankings came out, but it did seem a bit odd to me that the back end was heavy with marginal ACC teams and Wisc, MSU and NW were nowhere to be found.
November 1st, 2018 at 9:04 AM ^
honestly, Wisconsin isnt' very good and its hard to justify MSU or NW as top 25 teams.
November 1st, 2018 at 9:36 AM ^
Have you looked at the ACC standings and records? Use history and common opponents or cross conference games for this year to understand how much the ACC stinks.
November 1st, 2018 at 6:36 AM ^
I’ve never really understood why they didn’t just add the CFP to the BCS formula. I really doubt that a bunch of athletic directors and retired coaches are watching 12 hours of football every Saturday.
They should’ve kept the old BCS trophy as well. The new one is lame.
November 1st, 2018 at 7:09 AM ^
So who exactly does Klatt think the committee included in the top tier that is horribly undeserving? The committee is never going to satisfy everyone, but they are trying to differentiate teams based on very scanty information, the most obvious deficiency being that many of the teams being considered either won't play each other at all. Even if you expand the playoff, there will always, always be gripes about the last teams in and the first teams out.
November 1st, 2018 at 8:56 AM ^
I think his point is that they are over-valuing (inflating) the ACC's Resume'. If Football were to do a tournament like Basketball at the beginning of the year and set the ACC vs the Big Ten 1-14, you'd see the Big Ten win somewhere between 8-12 of the 14 games. The committee is there to put the best 4 in, in order to do that, you'd have to measure the top-10 team's schedules to get the best 4. What if Clemson somehow has a tougher schedule than Michigan at the end of the year because the committee favors the ACC?
November 1st, 2018 at 7:18 AM ^
As long as Frank Beamer is on this committee, like so many of his teams, they'll be hard-pressed to find the end zone themselves, but then again, so will you. The committee selection may indeed come down to a field goal which puts away an ugly 6-3 game in the middle of Week 10.
November 1st, 2018 at 7:19 AM ^
I love college football but it needs to evolve and do a real playoff. Committees and people shouldn't choose who is in or out. It should be about wins/losses and conference championships, like most sports. Too much money involved in college football though or at least the powers in charge don't want to give up that power.
November 1st, 2018 at 9:05 AM ^
Its evolved plenty in 20 years
November 1st, 2018 at 7:56 AM ^
This is an excellent and well-supported take, and I really appreciate Klatt, but that gravy metaphor makes no damn sense.
November 1st, 2018 at 8:07 AM ^
Wow, we REALLY need NW to beat ND now.
November 1st, 2018 at 8:47 AM ^
He's not wrong.
November 1st, 2018 at 9:26 AM ^
All of these people just want to generate views, clicks, links...
The playoff will be:
1) Bama
2) Clemson
3) ND
4) M or OSU or if the West wins the B1G, Oklahoma.
Where anybody else is ranked is not important.
November 1st, 2018 at 9:31 AM ^
Joel Klatt has become the best college football talking head and its not even close.
November 1st, 2018 at 9:36 AM ^
Decent points, especially about the statistical bias, but he sort of leaves out the part that ties his whole argument together.
He says Frank Beamer is biasing the committee towards the ACC, then referencing the stats to back up the bias. He really should have mentioned that the committee is chock full of ACC representatives... and Michigan only has one partial rep (split ties between OSU and ND)
1) Rob Mullens, Chair, (SEC)(ACC)
2) Bobby Johnson (SEC) (ACC)
3) Ken Hattfield (SEC)(ACC)
4) Frank Beamer (ACC)
5) Todd Stansbury (ACC)
6) Scott Stricklin (SEC)
Then we have the lone partial B1G rep:
Gene Smith (B1G-OSU)(Independent-ND)
How does Delany allow that to happen without even saying anything?
November 1st, 2018 at 9:54 AM ^
This argument rings hollow to me. The committee is primarily looking at resume rather than on-field quality (and not a predictive tool). Wisconsin has 3 losses, one to BYU. Northwestern has 3 losses, one to Akron. MSU has three losses, one to ASU. It's not outrageous that none of those teams is ranked. If those teams continue to win, they'll become ranked. If Wisconsin had beaten BYU, Northwestern had beaten Akron, MSU had beaten ASU, they would have very similar FPI or S&P+ rankings, and they would all be top 25 in the committee's rankings.
November 1st, 2018 at 10:02 AM ^
To be fair MSU had ASU on the ropes until 2am est, at which time it was only 11pm pacific, and the spartan kids lost their wheels. Sort of arrogant of Dantonio to think he could schedule to play at that time and that his guys would be just as competitive 4th q at 2am then the opponents would be at 11pm.
November 1st, 2018 at 10:08 AM ^
That's kind of my point about how if they win these games, their performance based metrics do not change much, especially MSU and Wisconsin (who missed the game tying field goal with 30 seconds left); however, the losses very much impact their resume and that's why the argument that the B1G is underrepresented because their CFP rankings are worse than FPI rings hollow to me.
November 1st, 2018 at 10:48 AM ^
I really think the BCS had it pretty close to correct. It put a ton of emphasis on a team slipping up once during the regular season (Clemson losing to like Syracuse would be a bigger deal than it is now), and it put a higher emphasis on the bowl games. Remember when the Rose Bowl was a big deal?
I wish it would not have changed but I think it would be too weird to go back now. Keep it how it is and we'll get used to it. Just find a way to either put Notre Dame in the ACC or the B1G West.
November 1st, 2018 at 1:24 PM ^
Can we trade Rutgers to the Catholics for ND? If Only....
November 1st, 2018 at 11:41 AM ^
That's a great point.
S&P and FEI Rankings
1. Clemson
2. Alabama
3. Georgia
4. Oklahoma
5. Michigan
6. LSU
7. Notre Dame
8. Washington
9. Ohio State
10. Penn State
Playoff Rankings
1. Alabama
2. Clemson
3. LSU
4. ND
5. Michigan
6. Georgia
7. Oklahoma
8. Washington St
9. Kentucky
10. Ohio State
The playoff rankings put Kentucky who is ranked #29 in the combined advanced rankings over PSU who is #10 and has LSU over Georgia, Oklahoma, and Michigan. Basically they are saying if you have an identical record to an ACC or SEC team and you're not in that conference you will be ranked below them.
November 1st, 2018 at 12:05 PM ^
I don't think it's a great point. Committee is looking at resume/accomplishments/deservedness, not performance-based stats which are designed to be predictive.
Further, are you really complaining that the committee put LSU over Georgia? I can think of one very compelling reason to not have a problem with that.
LSU has beaten top 25 7-1 Georgia and 6-2 Florida. Who has Oklahoma or Michigan beaten that compares to that? Oklahoma's best win is 4-3 Iowa State. Michigan's best win is 5-3 Wisconsin or 5-3 MSU.
November 1st, 2018 at 9:26 PM ^
Who did Kentucky beat?
November 2nd, 2018 at 9:13 AM ^
They beat 6-2 Florida. And they're ranked the second lowest of the 8 one-loss P5 teams, so that doesn't seem outrageous to me.
November 2nd, 2018 at 7:32 AM ^
are you really complaining that the committee put LSU over Georgia?
I am complaining that LSU is ranked ahead of Georgia, Oklahoma, and UM, and Kentucky is ranked ahead of PSU & OSU and the fact that all teams from the SEC/ACC with identical records get ranked ahead of all teams from the other 3 Power 5 conferences.
I expect Kentucky and LSU to get exposed this weekend when they face Georgia & Bama respectively.
I don't think it's a great point. Committee is looking at resume/accomplishments/deservedness, not performance-based stats which are designed to be predictive.
What things would a ranking system include that are missing from the current "predictive" advanced statistics that would make it more appropriate? Certainly the natural human bias of the committee can't be better at analyzing this.
November 2nd, 2018 at 9:09 AM ^
LSU beat Georgia, why do you have a problem with LSU ahead of Georgia?
The thing missing from the advanced stats is wins and losses. The committee is looking at resume, not how good a team is. What are the ACC teams with identical records getting ranked ahead of the B1G teams? The B1G has only two 2-loss teams in PSU and Iowa and they are ranked ahead of the numerous 2 loss ACC teams. The Big 12 has one 2-loss team in Texas who is ranked ahead of the numerous 2 loss ACC teams. The Pac 12 has one 2-loss team in Utah who is ranked ahead of the numerous 2 loss ACC teams.
And you're right, Kentucky and LSU probably lose this weekend and they'll drop in the rankings based on the new information. But right now the committee is looking at a 7-1 Kentucky with a win over 6-2 Florida and a 7-1 LSU with a win over 7-1 Georgia.
November 2nd, 2018 at 10:36 AM ^
LSU beat Georgia, why do you have a problem with LSU ahead of Georgia?
Advanced statistics say Georgia is better, but, I understand they beat them head-to-head so that's understandable. I don't see how they are ranked ahead of Oklahoma & UM however.
The thing missing from the advanced stats is wins and losses.
That's a good point. W/L record should go in there which is why LSU should be ahead of UGA, but not Okla or UM.
What are the ACC teams with identical records getting ranked ahead of the B1G teams?
The only 2-loss SEC team is Florida and they are ranked ahead of all 2-loss teams nationwide including PSU and Iowa, 1-loss WVU, and undefeated UCF. The B1G has three 3-loss teams (Wiscy, NW & MSU) and Miss St and TA&M both sit ahead of them with 3-losses.
November 2nd, 2018 at 1:25 PM ^
For the first part: the reason is that the committee doesn't care who is better. It's about who has a better resume for them.
For the third part, you didn't list a single ACC team. Joel Klatt's main point was the ACC is over-ranked at the expense of the B1G. Moving the SEC teams down doesn't change that at all.
November 1st, 2018 at 11:56 AM ^
We need a voice in that room that is strong and respected and we don’t. There in lies the problem.
November 1st, 2018 at 3:58 PM ^
Yeah, Mr. Klatt is right about the bias. But the reailty is what it is. And the committee as I suspected has protected itself to guarantee a promising championship game to ensure at least one SEC team gets in to face Clemson at worst. And the rest is window dressing. We can argue and fight about statistical record-keeping. But what this comes down to, ulitmately, is what is the best single championship game on championship night. And the committee wants to ensure that by giving Alabama and Clemson every chance to make that game, regardless of what anyone else does.
So, that was my thinking heading into the first committee poll. What would it signal about its intentions? And it's this, the committee wants the best matchup it can get. And it figures the best matchup is between Alabama and Clemson, so it is pushing the envelope in that direction. It can massage the hopefuls and lesser lights but they vote the way they want things to turn out, whatever that rationale for an outcome is. And that is the way you must perceive the votes based on outcome going forward. It's not about fairness. It never has been. It's about the best matchup on championship Monday.
November 1st, 2018 at 4:26 PM ^
The best matchups for strength of teams or ratings? Who have Bama and Clemson played? No one really. A ratings giant would be an ND/Michigan rematch. That would be so huge. I know so many people who won’t watch college anymore because of the SEC and ACC. It’s time for a change. The game needs it.
November 1st, 2018 at 4:23 PM ^
The whole time Joe was talking I felt like it was me saying it. My exact feelings about it. What it comes down to is I think the ACC and SleezyC are a little scared that another B1G team will come in and clean house like the bucs did back in 14. Michigan could do it if they got up on Bama and Clemson.
November 1st, 2018 at 7:41 PM ^
Hot take time.
Perhaps the B1G would look a lot better if its last two CFP representatives had scored a single point. Thank our rivals for embarrassing the conference.
Neither 2015 MSU or 2016 OSU would have been in the CFP had they not been awarded loads of points from refereeing malpractice against Michigan. The B1G and its atrocious and biased officiating are to blame for putting teams in the CFP that flat out didn't belong. Put OSU in for 2015 and Michigan/PSU in for 2016 and the conference would have had a far better showing, but nope, screwing Michigan took priority over actual success.
Granted, it's been a lot better this year. Perhaps the "call from Mars" was so embarrassing that they had to let up?