Comments on: Conference Greed Runs the Playoff Show

By: GOND89

GOND89 — Wed, 12 Nov 2014 10:32:42 +0000

“It’s all about the bass. (no static)”

By: jdthom

jdthom — Mon, 10 Nov 2014 18:02:56 +0000

Now we’ll see how not having a conference championship game hurts. SOS is a valid criteria and Michigan State, UCLA, Duke, Auburn and Georgia are not completely eliminated with 2 losses because they still stand a chance at getting a big quality win to add to their SOS. All those teams are guaranteed to face a top 25 and probably a top 10 team the last week of the year.
With the way Jack Swarbrick schedules, we need USC and/or Stanford to be a top 10 team by the end of the year every year and we cannot guarantee that.

By: Dirty

Dirty — Mon, 10 Nov 2014 17:59:14 +0000

In reply to SEE. Yes, they are using objective criteria. There is a set list of criteria for the members of the committee to consider. Regardless, they got stomped by ASU and haven't beaten any good teams, so they don't deserve to be in the playoff.

By: SEE

SEE — Sat, 08 Nov 2014 19:02:22 +0000

In reply to Dirty.

They aren’t using objective criteria. They’re selectively choosing the criteria they use based on the circumstance. Michigan State has a worse SOS and a worse performance against like teams(these are two of the stated criteria). Long completely ignores those and cites “best win” which isn’t a stated criteria.

The next week he cites performsnce against like teams after ignoring it the week before.

They way they’ve structured it they can justify any ranking as long as they find the criteria that fits the story.

No consistency, no objectivity and zero transparency is a bad formula.

By: Dirty

Dirty — Sat, 08 Nov 2014 16:10:53 +0000

The playoff rankings are supposed to be subjective. The members use objective criteria to come up with their subjective opinion.

Because folks used to whine about computers.

If ND is 11-1 it is likely they will be in; the real problem is that the playoff is only four teams, but you have to draw the line somewhere (personally, I would make it eight teams; but, what do I know, I’d also like to go back to the pre-BCS bowl system).

By: GOND88

GOND88 — Sat, 08 Nov 2014 13:10:56 +0000

I was never a fan of a playoff committee. I don’t think ND will get a fair shake with Condi Rice and Ty Willingham. Ty has a clear conflict of interest being that he coached at and was fired by Notre Dame and is probably still nursing a grudge. I don’t understand how an MSU team who lost by 18 to Oregon can be ranked higher than ND who “lost” to FSU by 4 points and who was ranked higher than Oregon.

By: Dave W

Dave W — Fri, 07 Nov 2014 23:54:21 +0000

Four teams just isnt enough. Make it eight and I think the problems go away.

By: Fitz

Fitz — Fri, 07 Nov 2014 20:17:17 +0000

So sick of pundits looking for any excuse to keep Notre Dame down. Gee, ND is only the most storied, all time winningest program in college football history. Look at all the cupcake opponents most SEC teams have this week. In week 9! Maybe I can understand opening the season with an FCS or “easy” opponent but working them into week 9 is just schedule padding at it’s worst. C’mon SEC schools, man u and stop playing glorified high school teams 2, 3 times a year. If you have to trick your way into the playoffs you don’t belong there.

By: Dave

Dave — Fri, 07 Nov 2014 20:02:05 +0000

In reply to jdthom. Finally I do think common opponents matters. Arizona St. beat Stanford by 16 and ND only did by 3. TCU beat W.Va by 1 whereas Alabama won by 10. This is your argument. However, did you know that Notre Dame beat two not one but two opponents more than Michigan St. Purdue and Michigan! Look the scores up. Therefore, you did not do your homework before you went out and made silly comments. Also, the reason Alabama is ahead of TCU is to keep the SEC up at the top. If one SEC team looses then it is easy for them to justify to replace that team with the other. Am I crazy, maybe! However, the do this every year. They rank at least 5 SEC teams in the top 10 pre season poll Don't forget that they over ranked South Carolina and TAM. Both of those schools are awful but the polls had them at the top of the country at the beginning of the season. My point is this, there is a little bias going on. Ok, oh well! Nothing you can really do but don't you dare try to convince people that we are stupid and we don't know what we are talking about. Jeff long said that they ranked Alabama higher than TCU because they pulled out the tape one them. TCU has 2 top 25 wins. BAMA has 1. All other teams were ranked based on top 25 wins. Again, his excuse was that looked at tape. Are they not supposed to watch tape on all teams? They are! However, I cannot imagine that any of the members have time to watch all of the teams. There is no way. Ok! Understandable but there are teams that are not getting treated fairly which are better than some teams above. That is a fact. Jeff Long is trying to get 2 SEC teams in there. There is a chance that all SEC teams will have at least 2 losses. That is if Alabama looses to LSU. very possible. I do not seing BAMA losing more than 2 games but I do think LSU will have a better shot than Miss St. Bama will not loose to Auburn. They lost on that crazy play this year. KARMA is around the corner for the tigers. Bama will not loose to them. If LSU beats them tomorrow and BAMA beats Miss st and Ole Miss beats Miss St than they will all have 2 losses. I do not think that it will work out that way. Miss St will probably only have 1 lost but if something crazy like that did happen than mark my words. The committee will still put the SEC champ in the playoff stating the SOS for the SEC. There is no way that Jeff Long will allow a no SEC playoff. He is a fraud and he knows it.

By: SEE

SEE — Fri, 07 Nov 2014 19:12:44 +0000

In reply to jdthom. Good points. I think a playoff will have higher ratings with Notre Dame, but they'll already be sky high so the ND impact will be marginal. I can't see Long and Alvarez saying "Let's give ND the nod over Wisconson, it'll boost ratings."