Rob Mullins (Oregon AD), Playoff Committee Chairman Interview w/ Ryen Russillo
Probably not a ton of new information but at least there's some explanation for LSU.
- Committee believes LSU is a better team than Washington State, Ohio State, and West Virginia, thus their ranking (base their rankings on if Team A can beat Team B).
- Committee resets each week with deep dive analysis comparing top teams. Will reset next week. (This is important for Michigan because they could potentially have a conference championship game whereas Notre Dame will not).
- Measures Head to Head, Strength of Schedule, and Conference Championships.
- The committee loves Michigan's defense, having the #1 unit could certainly help them stay in the top 4.
November 7th, 2018 at 6:15 PM ^
In a perfect world, Michigan beats Alabama in the National Championship game.
November 7th, 2018 at 4:40 PM ^
You are assuming that the case is that there is an agenda to get 2 SEC teams in. There isnt. But there is an underlying bias that is pro-SEC. It may not even be conscious thought. But the bias is surely there.
November 7th, 2018 at 1:42 PM ^
You should stop focusing on the number of slots that a team dropped. It has a lot to do with context.
While I don't think you're entirely off-base, remember that nearly half the top 25 has lost each of the last two weeks. If everybody drops, nobody drops.
It's conceivable that Alabama could drop to 5 with a loss, even though Kentucky didn't drop very far -- on the assumption that 2, 3, and 4 all win. (Now since ND is idle, you might well end up with Clemson, Georgia, Michigan, Alabama, but to hell with Notre Dame. :)
November 7th, 2018 at 1:49 PM ^
"You should stop focusing on the number of slots that a team dropped."
I was going to point out the same thing. That's a weird formula to apply as if it's uniform. You can't just say a team should drop, for example, five spots in the rankings if they lose. It would be unsustainable, as flawed, losing teams need to fill every slot 1-25.
Reminds me of those kind of people who think 22 of the 25 teams in the poll are "overrated."
November 7th, 2018 at 1:47 PM ^
and maybe ND falls out and not Michigan, in that scneario
every time ND is in the running for the title, they're the turd in the punch bowl, because they arent in a conference. I think the committee is not only cognizant of that, but it will hurt ND the week the championship games are played.
If Michigan wins out, Michigan goes to the CFP. BK Finest'd
November 7th, 2018 at 2:41 PM ^
This is the truth. We need the following to stay at #4:
- Alabama wins out
- Notre Dame wins out
- OSU beats MSU
- Michigan wins out
Even if all those things happen, except that Alabama loses to Georgia in the SEC title game, we are hosed.
Georgia would jump to #2, so Alabama's loss is higher quality than Michigan's loss to #3 Notre Dame. OSU at 2-losses would drop far out of the top 10. So Alabama's highest quality win comes from a highly-ranked LSU, which is better than Michigan's highest quality win against a much lower ranked OSU.
And the B1G title would add no value because the West Division stinks / title game opponent will be unranked. Sorry, but that is how this committee picks the four playoff teams.
November 7th, 2018 at 2:56 PM ^
Well, thats just like, your opinion, man
And here is my opinion: If we win out, and win the Big Ten championship game, we will be in the CFP
Ill bet you an internet dollar that Im right
November 7th, 2018 at 3:28 PM ^
lol ... your on !
btw - if the 1-loss 'Bama scenario plays out, you know I hope to lose that bet
November 7th, 2018 at 8:14 PM ^
Notre Dame and MSU could each lose a game and the result would would only assure that a Michigan team that wins out stays in the CFP or replaces ND in the CFP.
November 7th, 2018 at 2:56 PM ^
But they specifically said they reset each week... So what they do this week has no bearing on what happens next week. (yeah, right....)
November 7th, 2018 at 4:42 PM ^
I'm with you on Bama and the setup for the SEC on the CFP. I'll go one step further in that I believe the committee will give Clemson a lot of latitude as well. In other words, I think Bama and Clemson are locks for the CFP even if they both end up with one loss.
Michigan will 100% certain secure a spot if: a) they go 12-1 AND b) ND loses a game.
November 7th, 2018 at 1:41 PM ^
OSU can’t run. LSU can’t stop the run. Georgia was gashing LSU up the middle, then thought they would rather throw the rest of the game. Had Georgia stayed with the run game they most likely would have won.
November 7th, 2018 at 1:21 PM ^
Agreed. Michigan fans need to be pulling hard for Alabama to finish undefeated and for OSU to get to The Game without losing again. The way the B1G West is panning out, Michigan won't get a lot of positive momentum going into the final CFP ranking if they end the season beating a 'damaged' OSU team and a championship game against lackluster NW
November 7th, 2018 at 1:25 PM ^
If Michigan wins out then they are in. Plain and simple. I will be cheering heartily against OSU when they play Michigan State this weekend (they're family after all).
November 7th, 2018 at 1:24 PM ^
Well DUH winning out helps.
What I'm saying is that if Michigan wins out, having the #1 defense should keep them ahead of a second SEC team. It sounds like it would be more intriguing to the committee than having a rematch of the SEC championship game.
November 7th, 2018 at 3:33 PM ^
I don't think it's that they really want two SEC teams, but that they're leaving themselves room to keep Alabama in the top four if they lose to Georgia.
November 7th, 2018 at 5:20 PM ^
Ohio State is "killing" anyone these days. I think they may lose to MSU this weekend.
November 7th, 2018 at 1:17 PM ^
Just curious: are individual rankings by each Committee member made public, or not? Do they roundtable this discussion, or does each one fill out an individual sheet and then they make some kinda composite from that? I'm just curious as to how this process works, because I honestly don't know. I'd be interested, for one, to see Gene Smith's sheet.
November 7th, 2018 at 1:29 PM ^
Roundtable; no public individual rankings.
November 7th, 2018 at 1:41 PM ^
Good to know. Thanks much!
November 7th, 2018 at 1:17 PM ^
I no shit have an old friend on the committee... I may send him an expensive bottle of something....
November 7th, 2018 at 1:35 PM ^
My suggestion would be a case of wine with that Heisman aroma
November 7th, 2018 at 1:40 PM ^
Bottle? How about a case of something? You're a Michigan man, you can afford it. And throw in some weed since it's legal now.
November 7th, 2018 at 1:20 PM ^
I think this all works out in the end. LSU would be jumped by WVU and OSU both if they are 12-1 conference champs and LSU is 10-2. However, if the "4 best teams" is really the overall criteria, then Michigan should have been in the playoff in 2016. Only Alabama, Clemson, and OSU were better per Las Vegas.
November 7th, 2018 at 1:21 PM ^
The fact that they base the rankings on if they think the one team will beat another is really dumb. It should be based on results, not their feelings.
November 7th, 2018 at 1:23 PM ^
Well, as I heard one person describe it on sports talk radio -- aptly -- I think, this is much less a playoff than it is an "invitational" tournament.
Still, we should be happy with our #4 ranking. The Committee DID get that 100% right. Let's just win out here and see where the chips fall.
November 7th, 2018 at 1:43 PM ^
No, they didn't. We're better than ND. We should be 3. To hell with the head to head.
Also, if anyone is getting left out in favor of 2 SEC teams I think it's ND. If we bulldoze our next 4 opponents like we should, ND doesn't have much of an argument to get in ahead of us with their crap SoS (one good win, in week 1, against us, by a single score).
November 7th, 2018 at 2:02 PM ^
I think head-to-head should only be a deciding factor if it's
(a) a neutral-site game, and/or
(b) a convincing victory
If the home team wins by a single score, those two teams should be considered comparable. A good chance that if the game is in Ann Arbor, that score gets flipped.
November 7th, 2018 at 2:03 PM ^
Sorry, but I just don't see how you do that. Game 1 counts. They beat us head-to-head, and have zero losses. Imagine a scenario where we beat ND and were 9-0, and they were ranked ahead of us at 8-1. Think ya might be a bit upset about that?
If ND goes undefeated, regardless of any narrowness of margin of victories, they are in, and I am 100% confident in that belief.
Now, all that said, I want that damn rematch, for sure. ;-)
November 7th, 2018 at 2:28 PM ^
The committee's stated goal is to get the "best 4 teams" into the playoffs. Presumably they should be ranked in order from best to worst. We're better than they are today.
And I'm not so sure that they make it in if their last few games go poorly (even if they win).
November 7th, 2018 at 3:06 PM ^
I don't care how many losses they have. They have one win. Michigan has two wins, or three if you think Wisconsin with Hornibrook is a quality opponent. Two is more than one.
November 7th, 2018 at 1:23 PM ^
Committees are dumb.
November 7th, 2018 at 1:24 PM ^
So they admit to using the transitive property, which is truly impossible to depend on?! Yes we fans use it all the time but in a "league" with 115+ teams and only 12 games per team, trying to draw conclusions on schedules and "who would/COULD beat who because of who each team has played" is...insanity*.
*see any college football message board
November 7th, 2018 at 1:26 PM ^
Using the transitive property in college football this season could TRULY provide some interesting results, particularly in regard to Ohio State!
November 7th, 2018 at 1:38 PM ^
Doesn't take much. Eastern Michigan > Purdue, Purdue > OSU, therefore Eastern Michigan > OSU.
It's not complicated.
November 7th, 2018 at 1:44 PM ^
I saw one of these that showed Slippery Rock was better than OSU.
November 7th, 2018 at 1:49 PM ^
You're right!
Slippery Rock > Indiana (PA) > Ashland > Saginaw Valley State > Michigan Tech > Truman State > Valparaiso > Butler > Youngstown State > South Dakota > Missouri State > Illinois State > Western Illinois > Northern Iowa > South Dakota State > Indiana State > Southern Illinois > Murray State > Eastern Kentucky > Southeast Missouri > Jacksonville State > Eastern Illinois > UT Martin > Austin Peay > Tennessee State > Bethune-Cookman > Savannah State > Norfolk State > South Carolina State > Delaware State > NCCU > Howard > Morgan State > North Carolina A&T > ECU > North Carolina > Pittsburgh > Syracuse > NC State > Boston College > Miami > FIU > Middle Tennessee > Marshall > FAU > Air Force > Navy > Memphis > Georgia State > ULM > Coastal Carolina > UAB > Louisiana Tech > North Texas > SMU > Tulane > Tulsa > Central Arkansas > Southeastern Louisiana > Northwestern State > Lamar > Incarnate Word > McNeese > Stephen F. Austin > Abilene Christian > Nicholls > Kansas > TCU > Iowa State > West Virginia > Tennessee > Auburn > Ole Miss > Texas Tech > Houston > USF > Georgia Tech > Louisville > WKU > Ball State > Central Michigan > Maine > Rhode Island > Delaware > Elon > James Madison > Stony Brook > New Hampshire > Villanova > Temple > Cincinnati > Ohio > UMass > Charlotte > Old Dominion > Virginia Tech > Florida State > Northern Illinois > Eastern Michigan > Purdue > Ohio State
November 7th, 2018 at 4:12 PM ^
Wait, are you suggesting Slippery Rock isn't better than OSU?
Fie! Fie! The shame!
November 7th, 2018 at 1:48 PM ^
THIS is a good resource for figuring out embarrassing transitive losses. Any team in that chain technically has a transitive win over OSU; and some are much more embarrassing than EMU (though admittedly EMU's few degrees of separation make it more compelling).
November 7th, 2018 at 1:25 PM ^
Why can’t we just do 5 power conference champs + 1 at large bid? Top 2 seeds get byes. Or do 5 conf champs + 3 at large teams. Let the higher seeds play the first round at home or in the nearest domed NFL stadium. Way less controversy. More money for the people that only care about that.
November 7th, 2018 at 1:45 PM ^
It's obvious. Everybody knows the CFP needs to expand, and it will. But it'll take 5 years for no reason whatsoever.
That said, definitely 8, not 6. Nobody should be given a playoff bye. You'd be giving byes to one conference champ over another based on nothing but feelings because conferences don't play each other.
November 7th, 2018 at 2:08 PM ^
I'm not necessarily against expanding, but people act like there are no downsides to expansion. As it stands, we have several de facto playoff games in the next month.
November 7th, 2018 at 2:12 PM ^
Maybe maybe not. If M and Oklahoma win out are they guaranteed playoff spots if Georgia beats Bama in the SEC champ game? I don’t think they are and it would be stupid if a team that doesn’t win its own conference gets a playoff bid over two teams that won their P5 conference with similar records and similar enough resumes.
November 7th, 2018 at 2:18 PM ^
And if every P5 conference received an automatic bid, you'd still have de facto playoff games - even moreso. Right now, Wisconsin, NW, Purdue, Michigan, OSU all would have a legitimate playoff possibility and every game they play would be life or death as it relates to their conference bid. If you like that sort of thing, automatic conference bids would ensure an absolute riot. More de facto playoff games - not less. The last month of the season would be like March Madness on crack.
Then you award a spot to the highest ranking G5, and give 2 at large bids.
THEN, if a Michigan or Oklahoma gets the cold shoulder because of "SEC bias" or whatever paranoia you're working through, they have no leg to stand on. Want in? Then win your conference. If not, you're leaving your fate to a committee.
To summarize:
1) Everybody controls their own destiny. No relying on a committee's opinion for your playoff spot.
2) More de facto playoff games, not less
3) UCF quits whining
Win-Win-Win
November 7th, 2018 at 2:30 PM ^
I don't see how Northwestern and Wisconsin having a chance to make the playoff is a positive. They don't deserve it for an upset in the CCG.
November 7th, 2018 at 3:05 PM ^
What's the expression? Can't see the forest for the trees? However that goes, that applies to you here. Big picture, dude.
November 7th, 2018 at 3:08 PM ^
Some games would have higher stakes, yes. Games like Pitt-VT, and Northwestern-Iowa.
Others would have lower stakes. This year, ND, Clemson, and Alabama could all lose and still be assured a spot in the playoff. Maybe Michigan could lose to OSU. Michigan would have gotten into the 2016 playoff, rendering that OSU game somewhat meaningless in the national picture. You could even get situations like in the NFL, where teams rest their starters after clinching a playoff bid.
If you want to put automatic bids in there, you are putting a lot of weight on the structures of divisions. Michigan would be unlucky enough to be in a division with 2-3 other powers. A team in a really tough division might be the 6th or 7th best team in the country, but third in the division. Whereas teams in the ACC Coastal or Pac-12 South would be an inch away from the playoff just by virtue of their divisional draw.
Comparing to March Madness gives a clue as to what would happen: lots of interest in the postseason, but waning interest in the regular season. Because who cares if eventual 15-loss Syracuse loses an upset or two in January -- they're still getting in.
There's a reason that college football is the only regular season in any sport that I follow closely. An 8-team playoff wouldn't wreck that completely, but it would be heading in that direction. That's why I think such a thing is proposed by fans of other (usually pro) sports who don't understand why college football is special.
November 7th, 2018 at 3:33 PM ^
Nope. Nope. Nope. Disagreements everywhere. Disagree with your hypotheticals in the opening paragraph. You left about 100 games out of your opening statement under the category of games that would become meaningful that are currently meaningless, including any game that teams like UCF, Fresno or Utah State play from here on out. It is a drastic understatement, and I want the record to show that the impact would be extraordinary.
In the 2nd paragraph, you contradict your hypothetical in the first paragraph. If 2016 Michigan making the playoff is wrong (And it's not. Everybody here knows we were one of the best teams in the country that year. An at-large playoff berth for that 2016 team on the heels of the Barrett spot is the furthest thing from an outrage), but if that team making it is wrong, then what are you worried about in the 2nd paragraph about all of these really good teams getting screwed by being in a tough division? That's the point of the at-large spots. Either a runner-up from the toughest division in football making the playoff is a bad thing (your first paragraph), or it's a good thing (your second paragraph). Pick one stance so I can obliterate it.
And if you can't beat the riff-raff coming out of the subpar B1G West or PAC-whatever, how the hell were you going to win an 8-team playoff in the first place? Who cares who goes? They're all 'Bama fodder at that point.
The comparison to March Madness is that the month of November would resemble the first round of the NCAA hoops tourney where teams are eliminated daily. You missed the point there entirely.
I despise the NFL, so put that one back in the toolbox. And we've already gone to a playoff and ruined the tradition of college football - as evidenced by somebody in one of these threads referring to the Rose Bowl as a consolation game. All that's left is to get it right. You can't half-ass it. And a 4-team playoff is half-assed.
November 7th, 2018 at 4:32 PM ^
“March Madness on crack” sounds acceptable. I’ll take 5-10 games every weekend being an elimination game as opposed to fussing about which team’s one loss is better and deserving of a fourth playoff spot for 8 weeks.
November 7th, 2018 at 3:53 PM ^
We do if the committee does the right thing with regards to Bama and Georgia’s game.
It would suck to have yet again another SEC rematch due to that conference’s pathetic OOC schedule.