Posted by moranis on 12/12/2017 8:33:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/11/2017 8:14:00 PM (view original):
Well, the crux of the disagreement we have here is that I believe colleges want to schedule wins while you think they want to prove they're playoff-worthy by scheduling tough non-cons. The road to the playoffs isn't losing tough non-cons, it's winning games/conferences. .

Except you have no idea if that is true because the committee changes the rules to fit whatever narrative it wants. conference titles matter. then they don't. tough non-con wins matter. then they don't. great wins matter. then they don't. a bad loss doesn't matter. then it does. The committee has shown no consistency at all.

After all, the committee just put a team in that lost its last game of the year by double digits to a team that ended with 3 losses. The team seeded 1 has the worse loss of any of the playoff teams and the team seeded 2nd has the 2nd worst loss.

The committee just has no consistency at all. It appears the eye test is the most important thing, yet their own rules say that is the least important factor.

This is kind of a naive argument.

The committee picks who will bring in the ratings... period.

They don't give a **** about the "best" team, they want the most eyeballs, and by extension, the most money.

Yeah, I don't think that's right. 2 SEC teams, no WC teams. "Most eyeballs" would put USC in. You have the southeast and middle America with 1 SEC/ACC, Oklahoma. In fact, Bama, Clemson, Ohio St and USC would bring the best ratings. Or you could replace Bama or Clemson with Oklahoma and form a perfect viewing triangle.

But, that aside, moranis lives by the "good loss" theory. Just win all your games and you're in IF you're in a P5. That is indisputable.

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/12/2017 12:17:00 PM (view original):
Yeah, I don't think that's right. 2 SEC teams, no WC teams. "Most eyeballs" would put USC in. You have the southeast and middle America with 1 SEC/ACC, Oklahoma. In fact, Bama, Clemson, Ohio St and USC would bring the best ratings. Or you could replace Bama or Clemson with Oklahoma and form a perfect viewing triangle.

But, that aside, moranis lives by the "good loss" theory. Just win all your games and you're in IF you're in a P5. That is indisputable.

Of course a power 5 team winning all of their games and they are in, but that doesn't happen that often.

In 2014, FSU was unbeaten (made the 3rd seed behind two 1 loss teams).
In 2015, Clemson (1 seed).
In 2016, Alabama (1 seed).
In 2017, none.

So in the 4 years of the playoffs there have been only 3 power 5 teams finishing the regular season unbeaten. Coincidentally, none of those unbeaten teams won the title.

You can't just rely on going unbeaten, because it just doesn't happen very often.

You damn sure can't rely on a "good loss".

Penn State last season and Ohio State this season seem to have proven that a "bad loss" (more about score than opponent) is a killer.

Bad losses aren't killers. Losing 2 games appears to be the easiest way to eliminate yourself from the playoff run. UGA got anihilated by Auburn this season and got in.

We have had teams that got blown out in the regular season get in, we've had teams not play for a conference title get in, and we've had teams that lost to crap opponents get in, but we have yet to have a 2-loss team get in. "Good wins" seem to matter very little. It's about winning the games that you do play. Everyone wants to knock the SEC for not playing top-level non-con games, but its smart to not play them.

Of course had Auburn beaten Georgia in the SEC championship they would have been in without question with 2 losses.

That is speculatory, but you are correct. What we know with certainty is that a 2-loss team has yet to make the playoffs. Teams that have been blown out have gotten in, teams that didn't play for a conference title have gotten in and teams that have lost to crap have gotten in.

Losses by CFP teams so far:

2014
Alabama @ 9-4 Ole Miss by 6
Oregon home vs 10-4 Ariz by 7
Ohio St home vs 7-6 Va Tech by 14

2015
Alabama home vs 10-3 Ole Miss by 6
Michigan St. @ 6-7 Nebraska by 1
Oklahoma neutral site vs 5-7 Texas by 7

2016
Clemson home vs 8-5 Pitt by 1
Ohio St. @ 11-3 Penn St. by 3
Washington home vs 10-3 USC by 13

2017
Clemson @ 4-8 Syracuse by 3
Oklahoma home vs 7-5 Iowa St. by 7
Georgia @ 10-3 Auburn by 23
Alabama @ 10-3 Auburn by 12

Biggest point margins:
23 by Georgia on the road this season. They avenged that loss in the SECCG in convincing fashion,
14 by Ohio St. at home 2014. They rattled off 11 in a row after that loss including a 59-0 beat down of Wisconsin in the B1GCG
13 by Washington at home in 2016.
12 by Bama on the road this season.

Worst teams:
4-8 Syracuse
5-7 Texas
6-7 Nebraska
?7-6 Va Tech

some data to the argument

nice

It is nice, but I think it is also helpful to look at the teams that were left out as a whole as well. 15 there really were no real controversies and even in 16 I don't think there was much of one (sorry PSU). In 14, you had OSU, TCU, and Baylor all with a legit claim to that 4th spot and this year you had Bama and OSU with a legit claim to it. When you start looking at those, OSU lost twice and Bama lost once and that seems to be the real difference, but in 14, it appears OSU's wins down the stretch seemingly were what got it in along with the fact that they actually played a tough non-con (even though they lost it). Baylor and TCU were killed for their terrible non-con schedule (the fact that OSU didn't share a championship also may have been a factor). Thus, the losses played much less of a factor.

But that is what I've been saying, there really is very little consistency in what the committee has done.

Good losses do not get you in.

Bad losses can keep you out.

There is no such thing as a bad win.

So ALL wins get you in.

Roy Moore had a bad loss at Alabama last night

Once again, you say that OSU was unequivocally better than PSU last year. That is your opinion. The committee agreed that OSU was better, but to say that there is no consistency is "utter nonsense". Last year, a 2 loss conference champ was left out in favor a 1-loss team that didn't play in a conference championship game. This year, a 2 loss conference champ was left out in favor of 1 loss team that didn't play in a conference championship game. Sounds pretty consistent to me.

Sounds like scheduling potential losses is a really bad idea.