Commissioner Jim Phillips on CFP

[Northeast Stinger]

I’d like to see the refs really just bend uga over in favor of TX

The refs should do that just because uga made them look bad.

 

[bke1984]

I want uga to lose. But this is not the way I would choose.

I was thinking more like the team buses get in a massive accident (with a drunk driver…that would be poetic). And they all get hurt and have to close down the program for a year. Only drawback is we wouldn’t get another shot next year.

 

[stinger78]

I was thinking more like the team buses get in a massive accident (with a drunk driver…that would be poetic). And they all get hurt and have to close down the program for a year. Only drawback is we wouldn’t get another shot next year.

They would have to forfeit, or play real students. What an ironic twist that would be!

 

[SunBum]

It'll be very interesting to see what'll happen if CU beats SMU and the 'committee' has to decide between SMU and AL. I don't think most of us will be surprised at the choice there. There should be a clause that says teams that are 'in' the CFP in the penultimate rankings (prior to the conference championship games) will still be 'in' even with a conference championship game loss. Thus, CU could win their way in but SMU couldn't lose their way out. Just makes sense but I guess what does that matter?

 

[AUFC]

It'll be very interesting to see what'll happen if CU beats SMU and the 'committee' has to decide between SMU and AL. I don't think most of us will be surprised at the choice there. There should be a clause that says teams that are 'in' the CFP in the penultimate rankings (prior to the conference championship games) will still be 'in' even with a conference championship game loss. Thus, CU could win their way in but SMU couldn't lose their way out. Just makes sense but I guess what does that matter?

That would be nice from a competition standpoint but the rules, as they stand, permit the committee to make politically-driven selections that earn the TV networks the most money (i.e. taking Alabama over SMU as you pointed out).

I'm going to continue to watch college football like everyone else complaining about this, but it is undeniably frustrating that political decisions are determining the results of the team I root for and not their in-game performances.

 

[CEB]

It'll be very interesting to see what'll happen if CU beats SMU and the 'committee' has to decide between SMU and AL. I don't think most of us will be surprised at the choice there. There should be a clause that says teams that are 'in' the CFP in the penultimate rankings (prior to the conference championship games) will still be 'in' even with a conference championship game loss. Thus, CU could win their way in but SMU couldn't lose their way out. Just makes sense but I guess what does that matter?

While I agree completely in theory, do you feel the same about Boise State?
The real answer is to somehow remove bias from the rankings.
The reality is that a 2-loss Miami tumbled for losing close against a ranked team on the road.
SMU is not as highly regarded (perhaps wrongly so) and will be playing a lesser opponent at a neutral site. I have no reason to believe the committee will NOT eliminate them with a loss (again, wrongly so)

 

[stinger78]

It'll be very interesting to see what'll happen if CU beats SMU and the 'committee' has to decide between SMU and AL. I don't think most of us will be surprised at the choice there. There should be a clause that says teams that are 'in' the CFP in the penultimate rankings (prior to the conference championship games) will still be 'in' even with a conference championship game loss. Thus, CU could win their way in but SMU couldn't lose their way out. Just makes sense but I guess what does that matter?

If Clem could win their way in, someone has to exit. If a CCG participant can’t, then it’s an idle team… a ND, or an OSU. That would be cataclysmic.

 

[stinger78]

While I agree completely in theory, do you feel the same about Boise State?
The real answer is to somehow remove bias from the rankings.
The reality is that a 2-loss Miami tumbled for losing close against a ranked team on the road.
SMU is not as highly regarded (perhaps wrongly so) and will be playing a lesser opponent at a neutral site. I have no reason to believe the committee will NOT eliminate them with a loss (again, wrongly so)

I would propose two cuts: A team should be judged first by what they control. A team can’t control who they play. First cut would be bad losses. Then to separate out and seed those that remain, the second cut should be best wins.

IOW, bad losses will get you exited. Good wins will get you better positioning.

 

[CEB]

If Clem could win their way in, someone has to exit. If a CCG participant can’t, then it’s an idle team… a ND, or an OSU. That would be cataclysmic.

If SMU was sitting at 11 today, then it would 100% be a justifiable elimination. I think the writing is on the wall though.

My guess is that all champ game losers are going to go -3, so:
Oregon drop to 4-ish (a five seed)
Texas woulddrop to 5
PSU would drop to 6
UGA would drop to 8
SMU would drop to 11 (eliminated)
Boise drop to 13 (eliminated)

That would give them “cover” to say they treated all equally. Conveniently, all Big and SEC champ game participants would still either host or get a bye.

 

[stinger78]

If SMU was sitting at 11 today, then it would 100% be a justifiable elimination. I think the writing is on the wall though.

My guess is that all champ game losers are going to go -3, so:
Oregon drop to 4-ish (a five seed)
Texas woulddrop to 5
PSU would drop to 6
UGA would drop to 8
SMU would drop to 11 (eliminated)
Boise drop to 13 (eliminated)

That would give them “cover” to say they treated all equally.

And that’s the way the game is played.

As many 2-3-loss teams as there are this season, with little discernible difference between them, they ought to just distribute the at-large equitably.

 

[Jacket05]

If Clem could win their way in, someone has to exit. If a CCG participant can’t, then it’s an idle team… a ND, or an OSU. That would be cataclysmic.

Basically it should be that a conference championship participant that is firmly in SHOULD be in. If a team outside of the top 12 wins the championship against a team inside the top 12, then they are in and the loser can go no lower then the lowest ranking that would still be in. Now they shouldn't be able to go up either so if that team was 12, or potentially 11 if 2 champions jump in, then they would remain at their ranking and still be left out as if they didn't play in it.

 

[JoJaTeck]

Basically it should be that a conference championship participant that is firmly in SHOULD be in. If a team outside of the top 12 wins the championship against a team inside the top 12, then they are in and the loser can go no lower then the lowest ranking that would still be in. Now they shouldn't be able to go up either so if that team was 12, or potentially 11 if 2 champions jump in, then they would remain at their ranking and still be left out as if they didn't play in it.

Exactly - I thought the committee was adamant about not punishing a conference championship game participant (if SMU loses) by taking them out of the playoffs and promoting teams that sat out of their conference championship game. I guess in reality all bets are off when Alabama and $EC are involved even if they have more losses (some to unranked opponents without winning records)..

 

[stinger78]

Exactly - I thought the committee was adamant about not punishing a conference championship game participant (if SMU loses) by taking them out of the playoffs and promoting teams that sat out of their conference championship game. I guess in reality all bets are off when Alabama and $EC are involved even if they have more losses (some to unranked opponents without winning records)..

If this happens, then the ACC should consider canceling the CG if the best you can get is a swap.

Anyone else love the mayhem this year? I do. All the parity is really showing to all who will see the duplicity in the selection that favors the SECheat. I think it's time to blow it all up and start over only with P4 CCG participants (G5 staging their own playoff so more teams have access) giving us a nice 8-team playoff.

 

[WreckinGT]

It'll be very interesting to see what'll happen if CU beats SMU and the 'committee' has to decide between SMU and AL. I don't think most of us will be surprised at the choice there. There should be a clause that says teams that are 'in' the CFP in the penultimate rankings (prior to the conference championship games) will still be 'in' even with a conference championship game loss. Thus, CU could win their way in but SMU couldn't lose their way out. Just makes sense but I guess what does that matter?

There is no chance that the committee leaves out undefeated FSU for Bama in 2023 and then puts SMU in over Bama in 2024. It's simply not going to happen. We can cry about it all we want but ESPN isn't going to give up a Bama vs ND type game to have an SMU vs ND game.

 

[bke1984]

If uGA loses to Texas the committee should leave them out to show that conferences can't force their way in by having officials ignore rules in a football game. Absolutely cannot establish that it was OK.

 

[SOWEGA Jacket]

I'm going to continue to watch college football like everyone else complaining about this, but it is undeniably frustrating that political decisions are determining the results of the team I root for and not their in-game performances.

Not attacking you but the general thought being carried around here. None of this is new and the expanded playoffs make it a whole lot less egregious. The old days were 100 times worse when the most important part of the football season was wining and dining media executives in order to get entire regions of the country to vote for a certain team. ND and Michigan owned the Midwest. Bama and GT owned the south. Penn State the northeast, etc.

What we see today is awesome when we are talking about the 8th - 12th teams instead of the top 1 or 2.

Sure, there will always be politics involved because of money but this system is so much better. In the old ways SMU could be undefeated and they wouldn’t get any shot at all. See GT in 1990 who lost the media vote because Colorado had the entire Midwest and west voting for them. This will all settle down once we get to a 24 plus playoff model. As a guy who remembers the old days of the Bear and Paterno buying votes this system is awesome. If SMU gets left out and Bama in that’s simply because the SEC is more powerful in their messaging than the ACC. That’s an ACC issue but yet the same guy is allowed to be in charge.

 

[LT 1967]

Commissioner Phillips was just on the ACC network with Mark Packer and Andrea Adelson discussing the Playoff situation. I will say that he was very forceful concerning the situation that we have been discussing. I paraphrase some of the comments below.

He compared the qualifications of Miami versus Alabama and made a strong case for Miami. He mentioned how the CFP Chairman said that non-playing teams were stuck In Place which would leave Miami at 12. He said that defied the basic rules of the Committee which said each week's rankings were to be considered as a new ranking.

He discussed the comments by the CFP Chairman about SMU falling out if they loss to Clemson. He said that would be a travesty to leave out a 10-2 P4 team.

They discussed not playing Championship games. He obviously would not agree to that but said it would be a great game and even if Clemson won it should not drop SMU out.

Packer brought up a way to take the Human Element out of the process. The Commissioner did not have a suggestion but discussed how difficult it was for the Committee to achieve an accurate racking.

I hope he will repeat this position on other platforms like ESPN-1. His position needs to be heard by the general public and the committee.

I am sure I did not remember every subject they discussed, but I was pleased with his strong presentation.

 

[roadkill]

You seem sure Miami is markedly better than Alabama or very obviously deserves to be in the playoff ahead of Alabama. I just don't see how you can really objectively differentiate them. You've mentioned Alabama's loss to Oklahoma. Clearly the biggest 'problem' with Alabama's resume. But Alabama beat UGA... the SEC runner-up (at worst). Miami has lost 2 of their last 3 games. They got VERY lucky in 2 wins (Va Tech and Cal). I have no idea if the committee cares about almost losses... but I do when comparing close teams. I'd like it if both Miami and Alabama had 4 or more losses and totally out of the picture... but to me... both are ranked right next to each other appropriately because their resumes make them pretty equal (on paper).

Objectively, Miami has a better record. Objectively, Bama has multiple losses to teams with worse records than Miami's losses were to, and those losses were by more combined points than Miami's losses were.

Miami has lost 2 of their last 3 games against a top 25 Syracuse team and Tech who should have beat UGA. Bamas last 3 games are against Oklahoma, Mercer and Auburn. (All teams .500 or below) All while the committee has rewarded them by moving them up each week with wins over Mercer and Auburn. Meanwhile that same committee just dropped Miami 7 spots for getting beat by 4 points to a ranked Syracuse team. If we are just going off of who we think is better then don’t even play regular season games. The committee can just save us 5 months of football and pick the top 12 in August…

The Colley Matrix, which ranks teams strictly by W/L record with each win and loss weighted by each opponent's rank (which is ranked by the same method), has Bama sitting at 11 and Miami at 13. You can disagree with Colley's approach, but I believe his math is sound. Note that there is no preseason "seeding" in this poll.
Colley Ranking

The CPI ranking system is similar but doesn't appear to dive as deep into opponent rankings. It has Bama at 9 and Miami at 12.

In both of these polls, the key factor elevating Bama over Miami is strength of schedule based on opponent W/L records.

 

[roadkill]

What we see today is awesome when we are talking about the 8th - 12th teams instead of the top 1 or 2.

This.
There's always going to be arguing around the teams near the bottom cutoff rank, no matter how many teams are in the playoff. But we finally have enough teams participating where it's less likely that the final champion is from that group, and they get to decide it on the field.

 

[Eli]

The Colley Matrix, which ranks teams strictly by W/L record with each win and loss weighted by each opponent's rank (which is ranked by the same method), has Bama sitting at 11 and Miami at 13. You can disagree with Colley's approach, but I believe his math is sound. Note that there is no preseason "seeding" in this poll.
Colley Ranking

The CPI ranking system is similar but doesn't appear to dive as deep into opponent rankings. It has Bama at 9 and Miami at 12.

In both of these polls, the key factor elevating Bama over Miami is strength of schedule based on opponent W/L records.

Funny. So in both polls there are more ACC teams ranked and SEC teams on average are ranked lower when using math. Which is my entire point. The committee has different metrics every week and every year. It’s a committee that said last year “we used the eye test on FSU and they aren’t as good as Bama.” No other level of football has a committee to decide who should be in the playoffs but we’ve decided that all of these members with ties to other schools has the best interests at heart…