Looking at the New Playoff Committee Members(Guess Which Region They Are From)

Show All Comments

earthpig's picture

You expect anything different? 

Pigskins & Porkrinds

HS
The Rill Dill's picture

It is absurd that a committe member has to recuse himself when his team is discussed. You are either honest, or you’re not.

HS
ApollosGYRO's picture

I just want everything to be laid out clearly and not changing their requisites every year

2014: Conference Championships matter. TCU excluded

2015: Conference Championships matter. OSU excluded

2016: Non conference games matter and strength of schedule matter: PSU excluded

2017: Conference titles don't matter, pass the eye test. OSU excluded

2018: Conference titles only matter if you pass the eye test. OSU excluded

2019: ???

I HATE the drama and the jerk off shows! I want it to be 8 so if you win your conference you are in. 0 excuses! Sadly, esecpn loves the drama end of it and seeing how many teams from the south they can hype up then go silent when they get blown out in the post season

HS
Spartan13's picture

It's crazy to think 2015 OSU wasnt even considered but would have probably made it in 2017 and 2018

HS
ApollosGYRO's picture

We dropped so far from a last second field goal loss. If it were (playoffs) at 8 that year I think we win back to back natty's. That loss woke us up tho as it seemed like all year in 2015 we were stuck in neutral. I would say without question we were the most talented team that year. Funny because in 2017 bama lost by 2 scores to Auburn and didn't play in the conference title and they barely dropped to allow them to get back in...

HS
Mastro16's picture

Ehhh, 2015 OSU wouldn’t have made it the last three years. The ‘15 Buckeyes up until the loss to MSU looked so much like the ‘14 Seminoles, which lost so embarrassingly to Oregon in a national semifinal. Can’t argue with how talented either team was, but for whatever reason(s) they both seemed to play with fire all season long.

HS
bd2999's picture

To a point, the first three made since to me. Not winning your conference title but beating good teams and so on mattered a fair bit more than a lucky win by PSU over OSU. After that...it is a crap shoot.

HS
FeedZeke420's picture

Lets be honest the committee makes the criteria up as they go and hope that at least 3 of the 4 teams are no brainers so they can minimalize the controversy.  We just cant give the committee a reason to leave us out, sadly the last 2 years we have. I think if we lost that purdue game by 3 points and not 29 we would have been in.  We will make the playoffs more years than not, we just had to many teams in the running this year and someone had to be left out.  We gave the committee the easy excuse to explain.  I also agree the stupid shows on espn are horrible but they will keep doing them as long as people keep watching.  Don't let whos on the committee get you worked up though we will be ok.

Go Bucks!

HS
Fatpants's picture

Slocum coached for Texas A&M and will likely be biased for the SEC,

A&M was not in the SEC when he coached there. 

so he should have Rutgers bias

What in blue hell does a "rutgers bias" have to do with the playoff?

So we are adding two people with southern bias

How can you arrive at that? 

We likely will still need to go undefeated to get in unless we can squeeze in a few quality losses

There it is. Quality losses. Not completely shitting the bed vs Iowa and Purdue. 

PG <3 PG

HS
PittBuckeye's picture

The only thing I'd say to this is that the rutgers bias part was used to point out that he has no relevant biases. So to answer your question, nothing at all.

HS
Spartan13's picture

Rutgers bias was a joke. If you are a Texas A&M fan and watch mostly SEC games it will cause bias. Being involved in southern sports for your career will cause you to be biased for southern sports especially when we are considering college football. Osu went 12-1 and were behind a 11-2 team with a 30 point loss because that team was from the SEC so I think if Georgia or Bama end with 1 loss they will be ahead of an OSU team that is not undefeated, Georgia also gets Notre Dame at home which will be a good win so when they lose to Bama again they will also have a really good OOC compared to our poor OOC. 

HS
bigbadbuck's picture

BOOM! Win your games! Period!

Gentlemen, you can't fight in here, its a war room

HS
OsuSuperman's picture

I believe we are at a major disadvantage by having Gene Smith on the committee. He is essentially the Big Ten rep that can support all the other conference members except the one that matters most. When we received the hotly contested playoff spot in 2014, Barry Alvarez was representing the Big Ten. After the 59-0 beatdown of his Badgers, I would imagine he was fawning all over the Buckeyes and went to bat for us against the likes of TCU and Baylor. We have done a total 180 now that Gene has to recuse himself any time Ohio State is being discussed.  His time on the CFP board can't end soon enough.

Go Bucks!

HS
analyticalguy's picture

This may be the biggest factor. Get Gene off the damned committee!

HS
I&#039;m Ron Burgundy's picture

Been saying this since 2017.  This really does matter.  If it was 25 or 30 person committee then no it wouldn't matter.  But they use this pod system and all vote on the group of teams.  Gene can't vote for us, it is like losing a vote that we would otherwise have if it was a B1G member.

A lot of people have this misconception on how the committee ranks teams.  They think they come to a verbal discussion consensus and all agree and slot teams in as a group up on some big board.  They don't.  They talk about teams and argue for and against the options, but then they all go to their computers or tablets and submit a secret vote for that grouping.

So not only can Gene not even be in the discussion for OSU, which does matter to a degree, from a mathematics standpoint he can't even vote for them, which matters more.  He has to sit that whole group out.  Literally could have been the difference between the controversial UGA/OSU ranking.  Insert random B1G rep who can vote on OSU and he puts them #4 and UGA #6, and that could be what swings it.

Gene can't get off that committee fast enough.

HS
TeddyKGB's picture

so he should have Rutgers bias

HS
PittBuckeye's picture

If Ohio State had lost by 3 or something there would have been much more of a conversation. There were 3 undefeated teams (ND was always going to get in sadly) and Oklahoma vs Ohio State on paper left them to look at the 2 losses. I believe OSU was a better team than oklahoma or Notre dame, but they didn't look like it as often as they should have.

HS
Atl_Buckeye72's picture

My god I am so sick of the whiners! ESPN doesn't like us and likes Alabama more. THAT must be how they rigged the system for Iowa to mop the floor with us or why Purdue destroyed us and had some influence on why far lesser teams continued to trash our defense all year. 

We didn't belong in last year with 2 losses (same reason UGA didn't belong in this year), Oklahoma and us were very even this year and they played a much better team for their conference championship game. The committee has gotten it right every year so far. 

Down vote me all you want but the facts are the facts. ESPN didn't keep us out of anything nor did any horse crap bias by the committee. If we stop losing by 30 pts to garbage opponents and start taking care of business against who we are supposed to and everything will work out the way we want. 

HS
PhillyNut's picture

As much as I believe that there is a bias to the SEC and that ESPN has influence the reality is your comment is 100% correct as to what cost us in the eyes of the committee and we simply cannot have a loss like the past two years on our resume.  The issue I have as pointed out by ApollosGYRO is that clearly the criteria and what is most important for making their decisions changes each year.  Be transparent, have a defined set of criteria that you measure each team with (even if one of them is called "eye test") and then show how each member voted.

I don't buy one goddam drop of gas in the state of Michigan!

HS
Spartan13's picture

The committe put in a 11-1 Bama team over 11-2 OSU team in 2017 and OSU could have won the title that year. Bama was bad all year. I am upset that we did not get a chance to win it that year. I think a 12-1 Big 12 champion shouldn't have been considered a slam dunk over a 12-1 B1G champion that was obviously a better team to anybody who understands what makes football players good. They also placed an 11-2 SEC team infront of us this year. 

HS
ApollosGYRO's picture

Not that it mattered but the fact OSU 12-1 B1G champs was 6th and at 5 an 11-2 Georgia team with no conference title was ahead of us shows the bias

HS
Atl_Buckeye72's picture

We lost 2 times last year (once by 31 to a bad team). Bama did not play poorly all year last year (you can certainly argue that they didn't play anyone) but 2 losses has been the division line since this whole thing started (just ask PSU). Only reason Bama got in was bc they were the last man standing. WE DIDN'T DESERVE IN.  

You making an argument "....that was obviously a better team to anybody who understands...." is exactly what the problem is. I would agree that them putting UGA ahead of us this year was absolutely a farce because I believe that your record IS who you are and 2 losses means something if there are similar teams with less losses. However, your argument is exactly what Herbstreit was preaching on about UGA getting in this year yet I'm guessing you feel like that was ESPN SEC bias?! But would be ok to use an argument for us? Not to mention that eeking by Minnesota, Maryland and Nebraska isn't exactly proving your "obviously a better team" argument.

HS
CincyBuck's picture

So let's say OU would've lost to Texas.  You'd be cool with a 2-loss UGA getting in over 1-loss OSU?  Because that's what would've happened, based on the rankings.

The OSU v. OU debate is 6 v. half a dozen.  The UGA-over-OSU thing is completely indefensible in any way that relies on "facts."

HS
wojodta's picture

Agreed completely. There's absolutely no argument for Georgia over OSU unless if you're simply biased and/or an idiot. These rankings should attempt to eliminate subjectivity as much as possible, because subjectivity is more open to being totally wrong.

HS
Atl_Buckeye72's picture

Georgia ahead of us this year is a was a disgrace..agreed. I don't think that was ESPN or the committee trying to prop up another southern team though. They seemed to be attempting to shoehorn the eyeball test into the equation where it didn't belong IMO

HS
Hovenaut's picture

Yeah, I'm beyond the whole bias thing...it's boring.

Ohio State's success, or failures, are not dependent on ESPN.

I'm not around that much, running exhausted and lost...

HS
Zonabuck's picture

It doesn’t matter who they are or where they’re from. This is as rigged as it gets, and nobody seems to care. They don’t watch all the games, they don’t have a psssion for football, they just go to ESPN headquarters, watch ESPN highlights, listen to the commentary of Herbie and Finebaum, and then rank accordingly. It’s a farce.

They even “don’t start rankings until mid-October, when there’s enough body of work to accurately compare”.  Yet ESPN from just about week 1 starts with their “Who’s In?”, their power rankings, and whatever other tools they can use to influence the tools...er...”The Committee”. They even use preseason rankings (undeserved) to prop up certain teams with “quality wins” that are no better than beating a MAC team. It’s a farce, it’s their farce, and they can farce it up like no one else. 

HS
OhioStGoon's picture

My problem isn't necessarily with the playoff committee it's with B10 commissioner Delany. That imbecil Delany didn't stick up for OSU before during nor after we were not only snubbed but the playoff committee took and put Georgia ahead of OSU.

GO BUCKS

HS
wojodta's picture

The frustrating thing is SEC teams always get the benefit of the doubt. They typically have the highest one loss team, the highest two loss team, etc. Bama has to lose twice to even remotely have a chance of not making the playoffs. Same for Clemson now. So each and every year we're basically guaranteed Bama and Clemson in the playoff. Those teams aren't losing twice, especially Clemson who continues to play an absolute joke of a schedule and is never penalized for it.

Regarding last year, I like how we kept hearing about body of work, body of work, but in the end OSU solely got left out cause of Purdue. If you really care about body of work, you wouldn't put all your stock in that one game.

HS
bd2999's picture

They do, but the Big Ten in particular does a good job of screwing the pooch too. The one year they only lost one bowl game led into a start of the season where the Big Ten choked in ooc games .

Not saying it is right but it is the way it is. The SEC gets way too much credit most of the time. For quite a while, Alabama has dragged most of it along. With the exception of LSU and more recently Georgia. But even then, it is not like either one has done that much recently. They win, but not like they are unstoppable either.

HS
JT4Heisman's picture

Is Gene Smith still on it? I heard he isn't allowed to put us in his top 4 due to conflict of interest. Maybe it's just a rumor but if it's true then he should step down. It actually puts us at a big disadvantage to have him there.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

HS
bd2999's picture

I know he is not allowed to discuss OSU, but not sure if it has an impact on him ranking teams in the end or not. I think he is on it still.

HS
I&#039;m Ron Burgundy's picture

They use a pod ranking system. 1st step is everybody, including Gene, throws a list of like what they think the top 30 teams are.  They then compile and put them together as similar "groups" and then vote on that small grouping (pod) of teams.

In this year's example, they mentioned how they had a clear top 3 with Bama, Clem, and ND all undefeated.  So they put those 3 up and everyone secretly, including Gene, voted on what order that top 3 would be.  They had it pretty easy for those.  The results of the vote come out and they move on.

Then the next group was 4-6 with OU, UGA, and OSU.  Again they follow the same process.  Only since Gene has to be recused for OSU bias, he completely sits out the voting process for 4-6.  So instead of 13 people voting, only 12.  Now before we get too worked up, OU's AD was also on the committee, so actually only 11 people voted on 4-6.   Which could be part of the reason the southern biased extremists on the committee were able to get UGA up to #5.  Surely if any two other random B1G and Big 12 members could have voted they would have had UGA at #6 and it might have balanced it out correctly.

HS
Knarcisi's picture

So, is this pod thing anything similar to the portal?

HS
ShowThemOhiosHere's picture

Well that kind of fucks us JUST A LITTLE BIT.

Didn't Gene chair the selection committee for the NCAA basketball tournament a few years ago when OSU was the #1 overall seed?  Why does he have to recuse himself for football?

Class of 2010.

HS
JohnnyKozmo's picture

The B1G needs to have an AD from a school that has no chance at sniffing the playoffs to be on the committee so the teams that do have a chance can have a vote...I’m think it boils down to Rutgers AD and TTUN AD.  

You're too stupid to have a good time. -Dalton

HS
Arsenal7's picture

Y'all are just looking for things to be mad about at this point.

HS
Lifetime45's picture

Yep.... children stamp their feet and cry “No fair!”

adults assess the situation, dust themselves off and do what they need to do to get where they want to be.

the amount of belly-aching on this site is unbelievable to me.

HS
bdbrown66's picture

Who are you referring to as the one who has never played or coached football?  I assume you're referring to Odierno, but he played at West Point for 2 years, before suffering a knee injury.

HS
ShowThemOhiosHere's picture

I'm not sure how much bias comes into play, but...you explain Georgia being ranked ahead of OSU in the final rankings.  Explain that bullshit.  Even not knowing that Georgia was going to get embarrassed by Texas while OSU would take care of UW in the Rose.  

I don't believe there's necessarily a big SEC bias.  I think there is a large benefit of the doubt given to Alabama and Clemson, based on past playoff success.  Alabama has been in all 5 playoffs, and has been in every national title game since losing to OSU in the semifinal in the 1st playoff, winning 2 titles.  Clemson has been in the last 4 playoffs, played in 3 of the last 4 title games, and has won 2 titles.  Naturally, there is going to be large benefit of doubt given to them.  I don't think any other program would have gotten in the 2017 playoff over OSU with Alabama's 2017 resume, other than maybe Clemson.  Poor schedules never seem to be held against them.  

As far as the Georgia over OSU thing, maybe that's the benefit of doubt thing for Alabama rubbing off on them.  "They were the first team to play Alabama tough all year!"  Personally, I don't believe in "quality losses".  A loss is a loss.  I want to know who you beat.  Everyone has an off day.  I want to see what you can do at your best.  That's where I believe that OSU got snubbed.  That win over TTUN was the most impressive win anyone had prior to the final playoff rankings coming out.  The only win more impressive all season - Clemson blasting Bama.  What win did Georgia have that was so impressive?  Florida?  The best teams on their schedule beat them.  OSU beat all the best teams they played (TTUN, PSU, Northwestern in the regular season, plus Washington in the bowl).

At the end of the day, I may prefer to compare wins before comparing losses, but the committee may not think that way.  OSU still has to help themselves out by not taking blowout losses like they have the last two seasons to Iowa and Purdue.  When the argument against your playoff worthiness can be summed up in one word ("Iowa", or "Purdue"), that's not a good situation to be in.  Don't give the committee the easy excuse!

Class of 2010.

HS
colo_buckeye's picture

Poor schedules never seem to be held against them. 

This.  Think about when the schedules we played this year were actually scheduled.  I BELIEVE it was four or five years ago when everyone saw going undefeated takes the subjection out.  We just need to NOT play a 9th conf game and schedule the citadel.  It works, the last two years it would have removed the HORRIBLE losses we had. 

God > Family > Buckeyes football

HS
AtlBuc's picture

you explain Georgia being ranked ahead of OSU in the final rankings

We were 3rd in the Final rankings.  We were 6th in the penultimate rankings, which don't mean anything if you aren't in the top 4.

Everyone keeps crying about a hypothetical issue, UGA didn't get in the playoffs.  OU and OSU were a toss up, and we lost, that's life.

 I still contend the committee has picked the best team to be in the playoffs every year, so I don't understand all the complaining.

HS
BeatMeechigun's picture

2014 and 2017 were the ONLY two years that the field of 4 wasn’t blatantly obvious. Ironically the scrutinized team won it all both times.

We can lament 2015 forever but we only managed 14 points (thanks to a short field btw) at home in a sprinkle (that was no monsoon) to a team that got drilled in the playoff. We looked amazing at Michigan and vs ND but despite such talent our offense looked terrible for 90% of the year. Whether it was Urban or Tim Beck, we went from amazing tempo in 14 to burning TOs in 15 bc the coaches couldn’t get a play call in. Beck had 3 heisman candidate QBs and turned that into zero.

The playoff formula is simple. Go undefeated. Bama and the SEC get it. Play a minimal number of conference games, have 2 byes instead of 1, and schedule an FCS opponent every 3 weeks. The Big Ten is committed to TV revenue (9 conference games, fewer bye weeks, no FCS opponents, grueling scheduling, hostile away night games every occasion outside of November), not to competing for NCs.

HS
TomD's picture

According to this, the fact that so far the CFP committee has made the same 4 team playoff selection decisions that the old BCS would have made, although in a slightly different order of ranking, makes me less bothered by the CFP committee.  It's not like they've done something completely unexplainable.  They've done, essentially, what the old computer metrics would have done.  Hard to get too excited about that.

"Life is ten percent what happens to you and ninety percent how you respond to it." - Woody Hayes

HS
NoVAsmitty's picture

I heard this before but never “although in a slightly different order.”  This take would be highly relevant if the old BCS formula picked the correct champ game contenders 2014-2018 as the BCS 1 and 2. Has it?  Just curious. 

“I intend to make Georgia howl.” General William Tecumseh Sherman

HS
TomD's picture

Not sure I understand your question.  The same four teams have been selected by both the CFP and the BCS, although, as the link provided suggests, in a different order, therefore resulting in different first round games between the CFP format and the old BCS format. 

But, from that point on, from the first round matchups determined by the format, to the championship game, what difference does it make what a computer says, the teams play their way into the championship game, where the champion is decided on the field.  Not sure, other than for talking purposes, what the point of the computer rankings are after those who advance are decided on the field.  That is (was) the purpose of both CFP and BCS, to determine which four teams, and their order, make the playoffs for the first round matchups, not to accurately predict who makes the championship game or wins. Perhaps I'm missing your point.

"Life is ten percent what happens to you and ninety percent how you respond to it." - Woody Hayes

HS
NoVAsmitty's picture

You said a “slightly different order” and I was curious if, for example after the CCGs, the old BCS formula had Oregon 1 and Ohio State 2 in 2014 or UGA 1 and Bama 2 in 2017. 

*Edited:  sorry I didn’t see your embedded link until just now. On mobile. 

“I intend to make Georgia howl.” General William Tecumseh Sherman

HS
TomD's picture

As far as I can tell, the link comparing the CFP with the old BCS only provides the four team rankings before the first playoff round, not the two team re-ranking after the first round games.

"Life is ten percent what happens to you and ninety percent how you respond to it." - Woody Hayes

HS
Zonabuck's picture

The issue they have, which has been discussed, is that they are extremely inconsistent with the criteria they use to do the rankings. The criteria doesn’t only change from year to year (the inconsistent weighting of conference championships and strength of schedule), but it also changes from team to team. For example, if two teams “stand out” qualitatively as the two best, then they formulate the 1 vs. 2 rankings using a set of criteria that works to differentiate those two particular teams. When they move to the next group, say teams that “stand out” qualitatively as 3-7, they’ll use a different set of criteria that lets them differentiate those five teams. When they move on to 7-12, there may be yet another set of criteria used to set those rankings.

That essentially means you start with whatever biases you bring to the table, then use a sliding scale to cherry pick criteria to use as justification. That also explains why they can pick a single data point to “rule out” a team, as opposed to doing the performance and number crunching they should be doing to get the right teams in the right order. It also makes them extremely vulnerable to outside influence (like passionate pleas from people who should have nothing to do with the selection process *cough* Herbie *cough), and just scrub the “data” so they don’t get any backlash from talking heads with microphones.  There’s no core values, no stable criteria, just shifting sands - sometimes from position to position, let alone year to year. It’s a farce 

HS
causeicouldntgo43's picture

Completely agree. The bias is real.

HS
TomD's picture

Everyone has biases, some to a higher degree than others.  One way to test the degree of bias in a given situation is to compare a more subjective selection system (the current CFP) with a more objective selection system (the old BCS).  It's been done and every year the CFP committee has selected the same four teams for the playoff field that the old BCS system would have selected, albeit not in the same order.  No subjective bias in picking the four playoff teams there. In 2018, the two selection systems independently picked the same first six teams in the exact same order:  Alabama, Clemson, Notre Dame, Oklahoma, Georgia and Ohio State.

In any given year, there may be some bias in the order of ranking; it would appear, based on this comparison, that there is no special bias in the selection of the four playoff teams.

"Life is ten percent what happens to you and ninety percent how you respond to it." - Woody Hayes

HS
buckeye_in_WI's picture

What if the CFP committee has just been using the BCS system this whole time?!?

HS
Eph97's picture

Fox needs to bid on the playoff rights the next time they are for sale and win it. Then they can pump pro B1G propaganda on their shows and put down the SEC; the opposite of what ESPN does.

HS
ApollosGYRO's picture

I think it would be cool if they just did a weekly announcement (committee announcement) revealing where teams stand and you have all the sports networks there to cover it. Fox Sports, BTN, sec network, esecpn, Longhorn Network, Pac-12 Network, etc. It would look similar to the NBA Lottery Draft Order Announcement but I think it would be more fun than esecpn doing it and just beating off the sec for an hour and them pounding their chests about how smart/knowledgeable they think they are about football.

It won't happen but I would love to watch it on BTN or Fox. Pretty much every network but esecpn to hear what other conferences are saying/thinking in comparison to what has been forced down our throats by esecpn

HS
Eph97's picture

BTW, nothing will ever change. Alabama will get in no matter what. Oklahoma will get in over OSU no matter what if they both have the same record. Oklahoma will lose in the first round again, but will be held to a favorable double standard relative to OSU.

HS
buckeyedownunder's picture

the current ESPN college championship is so biased to the SEC that I am tired of it.   Fox should start their own "fox college football championship playoff".  It can include the Big Ten, the Pac 12, and the Big 12.  Thus these conferences would no longer be left out regularly.  They could even have a spot for the UCFs of the world.  The ESPN championship could then be renamed the "SEC invitational college football playoff".  They can draw from the SEC and the ACC/Notre Dame group as they all get seats at the table before the rest of us are given the scraps. The SEC always feel that they deserve two teams in the playoff each year so that problem is solved.  The SEC big boys refuse to play home and home series  with the big boys of the Big 10 or PAC 12.  All of their big non-conference games are at "neutral" sites that are within the SEC footprint. Thus we never get a true feel for the way the conferences stack up, just the ESPN spin.  So why play them at all?  I would be happy having my team and my conference playing in the "Fox college football championship playoff" each year.  "Fox college football champion" works for me.  After all, if we beat an SEC team in the playoff, ESPN and the SEC base consider it an upset and still insist that they have the best team in college football. So why bother with them at all?   

HS
OhioStateBuckeye43's picture

Don't lose by 30 next year and I like our chances....

HS