SEC and the CFP

[The Future]

I kinda/sorta agree with Vol In Buckeye Land. Something needs to change with the way the CFP committee looks at this. Let's face it, the SEC has created a monster conference, that is going to cannibalize itself every year with the way the CFP committee looks at their choices. Seems as though the AP and CP don't mean jack shxxt to them anymore. Has anyone looked at the Mountain West Conference, Big12, Big10, or ACC, their team schedules, that are in the CFP selection? The majority of SEC teams would rule their conference. I get it, but until this monster SEC conference changes/falls off, and other conferences up their game, there should be no less than 5 teams in the CFP from the SEC. That would break up the logjam of 9-2 SEC teams. Let's face it. NIL has turned college football into a minor league NFL. Compared to baseball, you have 3A, 2A, and 1A leagues. Play the games with outer conference teams, at a neutral site. That would cut down travel time for both fans. Seems as though the days of playing cupcake games, if you gonna play big boy football, are over, and a bowl game? What for....?

 

[10seV4L]

Exactly. The conference championship is now undesirable, as it puts your team in jeopardy of the real prize.
Strength of schedule has to trump allotments to conferences.
And cupcakes will need to be replaced with cross-conference matchups, to separate those that are real contenders from the pretenders. Conference championships...???

 

[bpalmer28]

Need to squash the Big 10 this year in the playoffs and remind everyone how good the SEC is. Our conference lost some prestige when Georgia missed out on the playoffs last year and Michigan won it all.

 

[Aerie Vol]

Need to squash the Big 10 this year in the playoffs and remind everyone how good the SEC is. Our conference lost some prestige when Georgia missed out on the playoffs last year and Michigan won it all.

Cheaters. Will be vacated someday.

 

[volbound1700]

SEC is getting 4 teams in, we are just mad because we are not 1 of the 4 (at least not right now).

The big issue was the SEC giving Texas a patty cake schedule. That isn't on CFB Playoff committee but SEC.

I do think SOS should matter more and teams like Texas, Penn State, and Indiana should get docked a little for their SOS.

 

[UT97Vol]

Changes will be forthcoming. The changes I would like to see are that there are published metrics and valid methodology. There is neither of these. The committee should use a methodology that's weighted (equally or otherwise).
1. First, have a bucket of the top 30 or so teams without identification. Blind resume with no logo and let the committee rank the top 25.
2. Then take the best computer metric (whatever that is ESPN, Massey whatever) and have that ranking
3. Then let the committee do an eye test ranking (with teams identified) on what they think is the top 25.

Take all three of those weighted equally or maybe have 1 and 3 weighted 40% each and have the computer weight at 20% or something like that. I don't like the BS that comes with the spit balling way they do it. It reeks of many things too long to list not the least of which is bias.

I would also like to see the format change. It shouldn't be the top four ranked conference champs get byes. It should be the conference champs from the top four ranked conferences getting byes. According to Massey the top four conferences are SEC, Big 10, ACC, and Big 12, so the four byes should come from the conference champs from those four conferences. MWC isn't even rated as high as the Sun Belt. Boise shouldn't be the 4. Also, the 5/12 winner should have to play the #1 in round two.

Also, keep in mind it will expand again at the next iteration. Any expansion to 14 or 16 should grant automatic byes to the two conference championship game participants from the top four rated conferences and then champions only from the other conferences. That would end the speculation over whether conference titles matter. Either that or eliminate conf championship games.

 

[indian rick]

The CFP committee should be made up of former coaches with no athletic directors or presidents involved.

 

[sami]

Need to squash the Big 10 this year in the playoffs and remind everyone how good the SEC is. Our conference lost some prestige when Georgia missed out on the playoffs last year and Michigan won it all.

Seriously. If UT misses out and four Big 10 schools are in my only rooting interest in this stupid playoff will be for the Big 10 schools and Notre Dame to get their living asses kicked.

I don't believe it will make any difference because money rules and the one thing the Big 10 has is a whole lot of money.

 

[volfan102455]

SEC is getting 4 teams in, we are just mad because we are not 1 of the 4 (at least not right now).

The big issue was the SEC giving Texas a patty cake schedule. That isn't on CFB Playoff committee but SEC.

I do think SOS should matter more and teams like Texas, Penn State, and Indiana should get docked a little for their SOS.

That is not the only issue. The other issue is that the polls have aligned at least at this point to where the B1G teams will host the first-round games which is an advantage. Not saying the SEC teams should host every game but would have expected it to be more mixed rather than OSU, PSU and IU will all host - while SEC teams 2, 3 and 4 will travel to those locations.

 

[volfan102455]

Seriously. If UT misses out and four Big 10 schools are in my only rooting interest in this stupid playoff will be for the Big 10 schools and Notre Dame to get their living asses kicked.

I don't believe it will make any difference because money rules and the one thing the Big 10 has is a whole lot of money.

The SEC has a whole lot of money too.

 

[sami]

Changes will be forthcoming. The changes I would like to see are that there are published metrics and valid methodology. There is neither of these. The committee should use a methodology that's weighted (equally or otherwise).
1. First, have a bucket of the top 30 or so teams without identification. Blind resume with no logo and let the committee rank the top 25.
2. Then take the best computer metric (whatever that is ESPN, Massey whatever) and have that ranking
3. Then let the committee do an eye test ranking (with teams identified) on what they think is the top 25.

Take all three of those weighted equally or maybe have 1 and 3 weighted 40% each and have the computer weight at 20% or something like that. I don't like the BS that comes with the spit balling way they do it. It reeks of many things too long to list not the least of which is bias.

I would also like to see the format change. It shouldn't be the top four ranked conference champs get byes. It should be the conference champs from the top four ranked conferences getting byes. According to Massey the top four conferences are SEC, Big 10, ACC, and Big 12, so the four byes should come from the conference champs from those four conferences. MWC isn't even rated as high as the Sun Belt. Boise shouldn't be the 4. Also, the 5/12 winner should have to play the #1 in round two.

Also, keep in mind it will expand again at the next iteration. Any expansion to 14 or 16 should grant automatic byes to the two conference championship game participants from the top four rated conferences and then champions only from the other conferences. That would end the speculation over whether conference titles matter. Either that or eliminate conf championship games.

I don't disagree with anything you proposed except for the idea of there even being a "committee" made up of bureaucrats from schools deciding the fate of other schools. Transparency of the system will never happen because they love the controversy, but until they do away with the whole idea of a committee and figure out an objective method of choosing playoff teams, the system will be flawed.

I don't believe there should be any automatic bids. Conference titles should weigh heavily, but it should simply be a ranking of 12 teams based on the parameters fed into a computer system. But that makes too much sense and wouldn't allow them any control over the process.

 

[sami]

The SEC has a whole lot of money too.

I understand that, but the SEC also has a far superior brand of football throughout the conference. My point was about why the Big 10 would continue to be treated as an equal to the SEC with regard to playoff bids, and it comes down to them simply having the biggest TV revenue markets.

 

[tn4elvis]

Changes will be forthcoming. The changes I would like to see are that there are published metrics and valid methodology. There is neither of these. The committee should use a methodology that's weighted (equally or otherwise).
1. First, have a bucket of the top 30 or so teams without identification. Blind resume with no logo and let the committee rank the top 25.
2. Then take the best computer metric (whatever that is ESPN, Massey whatever) and have that ranking
3. Then let the committee do an eye test ranking (with teams identified) on what they think is the top 25.

Take all three of those weighted equally or maybe have 1 and 3 weighted 40% each and have the computer weight at 20% or something like that. I don't like the BS that comes with the spit balling way they do it. It reeks of many things too long to list not the least of which is bias.

I would also like to see the format change. It shouldn't be the top four ranked conference champs get byes. It should be the conference champs from the top four ranked conferences getting byes. According to Massey the top four conferences are SEC, Big 10, ACC, and Big 12, so the four byes should come from the conference champs from those four conferences. MWC isn't even rated as high as the Sun Belt. Boise shouldn't be the 4. Also, the 5/12 winner should have to play the #1 in round two.

Also, keep in mind it will expand again at the next iteration. Any expansion to 14 or 16 should grant automatic byes to the two conference championship game participants from the top four rated conferences and then champions only from the other conferences. That would end the speculation over whether conference titles matter. Either that or eliminate conf championship games.

Get rid of the conference championship game. Waste of time and could have injury issues with players participating. The conference tournaments and championship games are complete money grabs.

 

[volbound1700]

That is not the only issue. The other issue is that the polls have aligned at least at this point to where the B1G teams will host the first-round games which is an advantage. Not saying the SEC teams should host every game but would have expected it to be more mixed rather than OSU, PSU and IU will all host - while SEC teams 2, 3 and 4 will travel to those locations.

B1G is top heavy. To be fair, all those teams listed played Michigan and most played the USC Trojans. On paper, those games should have been tougher.

 

[djwes]

Wonder if the Vols will end up in the Transgender Music City Bowl?

 

[Ned Ray McWorkher]

Who in their right mind does not want to win their conference? The SEC doesn't have a dominant team. A dominant team would be undefeated right now. There is nothing super about this conference except the large number of decent teams in it.

 

[EZE]

That is not the only issue. The other issue is that the polls have aligned at least at this point to where the B1G teams will host the first-round games which is an advantage. Not saying the SEC teams should host every game but would have expected it to be more mixed rather than OSU, PSU and IU will all host - while SEC teams 2, 3 and 4 will travel to those locations.

I hope that those Big Ten teams (along with ND) all play SEC opponents.