CFP Committee Final Four

[WarEagle84 0]

As an exercise in trying to predict how the Committee will evaluate this year's final four, I thought it might be useful to look at last year and think about which 4 teams would have made it last year. The rankings below are the final pre-bowl BCS standings. I've listed their losses and their wins over ranked teams.

1. Florida State 13-0, Won ACC, beat (12)Clemson, (24)Duke
2. Auburn 12-1, Won SEC; lost to (16)LSU; wins over (3)Alabama, (5)Mizzou, (21)aTm, (22)UGA
3. Alabama 11-1, lost to (2)Auburn; wins over (16)LSU, (21)aTm
4. Michigan State 12-1, Won B1G; lost to Notre Dame(8-4); beat (7)tOSU
5. Stanford 11-2 Won PAC12; lost to Utah(5-7), USC(9-4); beat (10)Oregon (14)Ariz State (twice), (17)UCLA
6. Baylor 11-1 Won Big 12, lost to (13)Ok State, beat (10)Oklahoma
7. Ohio State 12-1, lost B1GCG to (4)Mich State
8. Missouri 11-2, lost SECCG to (2)Auburn, (9)SCar, beat (21)aTm

I think it's pretty obvious FSU, Auburn, and Michigan State get in as conference champs. Does Bama get in over conference champs Stanford and Baylor?

Bama's only loss came to #2 Auburn, on the last play of the game. They did not win their division, nor their conference. They have wins over 2 ranked conference opponents and OOC schedule included Va Tech, Colorado State, Ga State, and Chattanooga.

Stanford won the PAC12 despite losing to an unranked Utah team and a decent USC. They have 4 wins over ranked opponents. OOC opponents San Jose State, Army, and Notre Dame. Their SOS was rated the most difficult in the nation by a composite of the computer rankings used in the BCS formula.

Baylor won the Big 12 despite losing badly to Oklahoma State. They did not have a Conf Champ Game. OOC opponents were Wofford, Buffalo, and La Monroe.

I would love to see the Committee have a mock meeting based on last year's finish so we could have some idea how they will operate. It's only guesswork at this point, but IMO, the committee would have put Stanford in as the 4th team. I think they want to bend over backward to avoid having 2 teams from the same conference, and Stanford's SOS and Conference Championship give them the nod over Bama. (Bama fans would have gone ballistic and Condoleeza Rice would have received death threats.)

My projected Committee Final Four:

1. FSU

2. Auburn

3. Michigan State

4. Stanford

What are your thoughts?

[cooltigger21 0]

I also go with those 4. You just can't let a team into a 4 team playoff that didn't win their division.

[Tivo48 31]

Idk. In 2011 when Bama got into a "2-team playoff" against LSU, they were put in by a system that's 2/3 human voters.

I'm thinking the committee would've put in Bama and Mich St, citing the "eye-test" argument for Bama and also likely using the fact they beat LSU in the rematch in 2011 to help their cause.

[cooltigger21 0]

Idk. In 2011 when Bama got into a "2-team playoff" against LSU, they were put in by a system that's 2/3 human voters.

I'm thinking the committee would've put in Bama and Mich St, citing the "eye-test" argument for Bama and also likely using the fact they beat LSU in the rematch in 2011 to help their cause.

because of the uproar from 2011, I think they would have left Alabama out. Initially they will probably go out of their way to not look like they are showing favoritism.

[GBAU83 212]

I have to agree with OP. I think the committee has already stated they will look at conference champions and SOS as part of their deciding factors. I know I am biased but I do believe a good conference champion should go to playoffs over a good team that did not win their conference. Yes, I get the eye test and IMO back when Bama-LSU got the rematch I think it was the 2 best teams that year. But I don't think the committee is going to go that way. Remember it is about the money, and they want to spread it to all conferences to try and keep some parity. Two teams from one conference doubles their payout. A strong SOS by Stanford along with them winning their conference should have put them in the playoff.

[gman87 398]

FSU - undefeated albiet a pitiful schedule

AU - Best SOS and early quality loss

$puat - Quality loss and media favoritism

Baylor - Conference champ and quality loss

[auburn4ever 1,266]

Just what are the deciding factors?

[cooltigger21 0]

No set in stone criteria. They look at SOS. They say that they won't look at margin of victory but that is hard to do.They watch the games and meet to discuss and put out their ranking .

[AUsince72 11,084]

The deciding factors? A whole bunch of opinions. MUCH better than the polls....oh, wait...

Best way for a P5 conference team to take care of business is to win your conference and send Condeleeza Rice some flowers.

Just want Auburn to beat thUGA and/or uat and then win the SECCG. Couldn't care less about the rest as it'll all take care of itself.

[AUloggerhead 2,225]

http://www.collegefootballplayoff.com/selection-committee-protocol

Predicting the teams for the playoff now is an exercise in futility. Lots of football still to be played, and there will be more than enough surprises in every conference. Enjoy the entire season. WDE

[aucanucktiger 1,789]

This is a fun exercise so long as we (and I think most here do) understand there's a lot of football to be played. I'll bet the wacky human "hunch" element plays a bigger part this year in final 4 selection than we'll see for a while, because there's not much emphasis on having a "numbers person" on this committee. I predict that will be changed (for better or worse) next year. The human computer data statistics element has almost always been a significant PART of football polling in the modern game. In a committee that has "guidelines" but de facto carte blanche (mixing my romance languages), there's no clear economist/numbers geek type this year. If an every-person Condoleeza Rice has a seat so should a computer-with-human-element numbers person too IMO.

[WarEagle84 0]

Just what are the deciding factors?

That's the uncertainty here. They have stated conference championships, strength of schedule, and common opponents would be considered, but which has more weight when comparing closely rated teams is the big unknown. "Most deserving teams" vs "best teams"?

[JwgreDeux 1,279]

I think Stanford's two losses (loss to a sub-500 team) keeps them out. So the argument would be between Alabama and the Big12 champ. In year 1 I bet they will do everything they can to have 4 different conferences represented, but Alabama would have been the more deserving team.

1. Florida State v. 4 Alabama

2. Auburn v. 3 Mich State

[cooltigger21 0]

I think Stanford's two losses (loss to a sub-500 team) keeps them out. So the argument would be between Alabama and the Big12 champ. In year 1 I bet they will do everything they can to have 4 different conferences represented, but Alabama would have been the more deserving team.

1. Florida State v. 4 Alabama

2. Auburn v. 3 Mich State

It would depend on if Alabama had a better record from the Big 12 champion. A 1 loss Alabama would make it over a 2 loss big 12 champion. If they both have 1 loss, then the Big 12 champion would get the nod. I look for Alabama to have at least one loss by the time the IB rolls around.

[AU64 10,122]

JMO but Okla has just as good a chance as Bama...especially if AU beats them.....some folks might remember the last Sugar Bowl as a "tie breaker" ?

[WarEagle84 0]

I think Stanford's two losses (loss to a sub-500 team) keeps them out. So the argument would be between Alabama and the Big12 champ. In year 1 I bet they will do everything they can to have 4 different conferences represented, but Alabama would have been the more deserving team.

1. Florida State v. 4 Alabama

2. Auburn v. 3 Mich State

It would depend on if Alabama had a better record from the Big 12 champion. A 1 loss Alabama would make it over a 2 loss big 12 champion. If they both have 1 loss, then the Big 12 champion would get the nod. I look for Alabama to have at least one loss by the time the IB rolls around.

The premise here is using last year's results. Bama and Baylor both finished 11-1. My opinion is that the media would have hyped Bama as the better team given the "flukiness" of how they lost the iron bowl, but the committee would have favored the conf champ.

[AU-24 3,063]

I think Stanford's two losses (loss to a sub-500 team) keeps them out. So the argument would be between Alabama and the Big12 champ. In year 1 I bet they will do everything they can to have 4 different conferences represented, but Alabama would have been the more deserving team.

1. Florida State v. 4 Alabama

2. Auburn v. 3 Mich State

It would depend on if Alabama had a better record from the Big 12 champion. A 1 loss Alabama would make it over a 2 loss big 12 champion. If they both have 1 loss, then the Big 12 champion would get the nod. I look for Alabama to have at least one loss by the time the IB rolls around.

The premise here is using last year's results. Bama and Baylor both finished 11-1. My opinion is that the media would have hyped Bama as the better team given the "flukiness" of how they lost the iron bowl, but the committee would have favored the conf champ.

"flukiness" of how they lost the iron bowl???

You certainly come up with unique ways to get your digs in.

[cooltigger21 0]

I think Stanford's two losses (loss to a sub-500 team) keeps them out. So the argument would be between Alabama and the Big12 champ. In year 1 I bet they will do everything they can to have 4 different conferences represented, but Alabama would have been the more deserving team.

1. Florida State v. 4 Alabama

2. Auburn v. 3 Mich State

It would depend on if Alabama had a better record from the Big 12 champion. A 1 loss Alabama would make it over a 2 loss big 12 champion. If they both have 1 loss, then the Big 12 champion would get the nod. I look for Alabama to have at least one loss by the time the IB rolls around.

The premise here is using last year's results. Bama and Baylor both finished 11-1. My opinion is that the media would have hyped Bama as the better team given the "flukiness" of how they lost the iron bowl, but the committee would have favored the conf champ.

OK gotcha. Media is, as always, going to hype the turd. It is just a fact of life. Actually makes it doubly fun to beat them. Media people, sports and news, irritate me unto no end.

[WarEagle84 0]

"flukiness" of how they lost the iron bowl???

You certainly come up with unique ways to get your digs in.

Wow, you're hypersensitive. I was referencing the media perception, not my opinion.

[Maverick.AU 13,279]

I personally wish we had just kept the prior system and let that decide the Top 4 for the playoffs. Maybe thats just me though.

[AU-24 3,063]

"flukiness" of how they lost the iron bowl???

You certainly come up with unique ways to get your digs in.

Wow, you're hypersensitive. I was referencing the media perception, not my opinion.

As if you didn't know, we know, exactly what you are meaning, as you do it on a daily basis.

[WarEagle84 0]

"flukiness" of how they lost the iron bowl???

You certainly come up with unique ways to get your digs in.

Wow, you're hypersensitive. I was referencing the media perception, not my opinion.

As if you didn't know, we know, exactly what you are meaning, as you do it on a daily basis.

Are you really stupid or just trying to be obtuse?

[AUsince72 11,084]

I personally wish we had just kept the prior system and let that decide the Top 4 for the playoffs. Maybe thats just me though.

Completely agree. For the last 10 years all we heard at the end of the year was "well, the BCS WORKED. It got the top two teams to play for the natty..."

So, if it worked so well....why not use the same system to determine the top FOUR teams right??

Plus, this Haden debacle 2 Saturdays ago... The talking heads have gone out of their way to say "oh, but these AD's recuse themselves from talking about their teams". Okay, but do they recuse themselves from talking about their RIVALS too? So, Pat Haden can't talk up his USC Trojans but he can certainly try his best to throw in a monkey wrench for the UCLA Bruins (should that be necessary). And don't give me this "integrity" stuff. He's human and he's a competitor...anyway, I guess that's another rant for another day...

[homersapien 11,352]

"flukiness" of how they lost the iron bowl???

You certainly come up with unique ways to get your digs in.

Wow, you're hypersensitive. I was referencing the media perception, not my opinion.

As if you didn't know, we know, exactly what you are meaning, as you do it on a daily basis.

Are you really stupid or just trying to be obtuse?

Well that long TD pass by Bama was a "fluke". So if you offset that against the "fluke" kick 6 we still win.

[triangletiger 1,599]

I personally wish we had just kept the prior system and let that decide the Top 4 for the playoffs. Maybe thats just me though.

Completely agree. For the last 10 years all we heard at the end of the year was "well, the BCS WORKED. It got the top two teams to play for the natty..."

So, if it worked so well....why not use the same system to determine the top FOUR teams right??

Plus, this Haden debacle 2 Saturdays ago... The talking heads have gone out of their way to say "oh, but these AD's recuse themselves from talking about their teams". Okay, but do they recuse themselves from talking about their RIVALS too? So, Pat Haden can't talk up his USC Trojans but he can certainly try his best to throw in a monkey wrench for the UCLA Bruins (should that be necessary). And don't give me this "integrity" stuff. He's human and he's a competitor...anyway, I guess that's another rant for another day...

To add to your point - the ADs might recuse themselves from talking about their teams, but I don't think they're required to recuse themselves from talking about or voting on other teams in their conference. The way most conferences divvy up the revenues from bowls/playoff games, they would have a financial interest in ensuring that a team from their conference has a chance to play for the championship.

I'm not saying that any voter would consciously let that be a deciding factor; but still, that impetus is there.