In each conference there is a "best" team (roughly the team highest regarded by Vegas) and the "most deserving" (the league champion). They may or may not be one in the same. If they are one in the same, that league has a very, very good shot at the playoff (unless it is a league with a ton of parity and the "best/most deserving" team is a shade of grey). If they are not one in the same (due to an upset in a CCG, or Co-champs in a league without a champ game, or a tie in a division with the weaker team having the tie-breaker), that league is at risk with the playoff.

The current playoff system still rewards "Most deserving" over "best". It does this with specific language rewarding "deserving" things like conference championships, head to head and a bias toward fewer number of losses, especially 0.

This year the best and most deserving was one in the same for the Big 10, PAC-12, SEC and ACC. The Big 12 this year was the only league where the "best" and "most deserving" were not one in the same. It is a simple as that as to why the league is left out. If the best and most deserving were one in the same, or if one of the other leagues had a best/most deserving cross-cut situation, the league is in the playoffs, maybe even with two teams. It isn't some sort of conspiracy, a structural problem with number of teams or not having a champ game, or North-South bias, or TV ratings. Next year if there is an upset in a CCG, or the "Best" team is the #2 team in a division and can't even play in a CCG and some lesser team with a flawed resume carries the champion moniker, that league will be at risk for being left out of the playoff.

In all honesty, the "best" and "most deserving" team was the same in the Big12, Baylor.

BTW, in general, the best and most deserving are always the same thing. Just because you navigated the system the best doesn't mean you were the "most deserving." If you took the two best teams out of the SEC to play in an SEC championship game you would not have selected Missouri as one of those. The idea that "most deserving" is linked to wether or not one is a CC is just not always true.

(12-09-2014 12:49 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  In each conference there is a "best" team (roughly the team highest regarded by Vegas) and the "most deserving" (the league champion). They may or may not be one in the same. If they are one in the same, that league has a very, very good shot at the playoff (unless it is a league with a ton of parity and the "best/most deserving" team is a shade of grey). If they are not one in the same (due to an upset in a CCG, or Co-champs in a league without a champ game, or a tie in a division with the weaker team having the tie-breaker), that league is at risk with the playoff.

The current playoff system still rewards "Most deserving" over "best". It does this with specific language rewarding "deserving" things like conference championships, head to head and a bias toward fewer number of losses, especially 0.

This year the best and most deserving was one in the same for the Big 10, PAC-12, SEC and ACC. The Big 12 this year was the only league where the "best" and "most deserving" were not one in the same. It is a simple as that as to why the league is left out. If the best and most deserving were one in the same, or if one of the other leagues had a best/most deserving cross-cut situation, the league is in the playoffs, maybe even with two teams. It isn't some sort of conspiracy, a structural problem with number of teams or not having a champ game, or North-South bias, or TV ratings. Next year if there is an upset in a CCG, or the "Best" team is the #2 team in a division and can't even play in a CCG and some lesser team with a flawed resume carries the champion moniker, that league will be at risk for being left out of the playoff.

We don't/can't know which is the best team. But we can define which is the most deserving. This year, if the Big 12 had ended the year with a CCG matching one loss TCU and one loss Baylor, and the outcome was 61-58 in favor of one of those two teams, then probably the winner would still have been left out of the Invitational Tournament in January.

The system is only designed to produce four teams for that tournament, not to settle either which are the best or which are the most deserving. The high resource conferences are OK with that, and they will probably remain OK with it until somebody offers them more money to change it. It would be nice to know what criteria would be used to pick the teams, but we'll just have to get used to the idea that the criteria will remain a gray area.

(12-09-2014 01:10 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  In all honesty, the "best" and "most deserving" team was the same in the Big12, Baylor.

BTW, in general, the best and most deserving are always the same thing. Just because you navigated the system the best doesn't mean you were the "most deserving." If you took the two best teams out of the SEC to play in an SEC championship game you would not have selected Missouri as one of those. The idea that "most deserving" is linked to wether or not one is a CC is just not always true.

Vegas and the computers and the Big 12 coaches definitely think TCU is the best, but I'll concede it's debatable with the Big 12. But it is not debatable with the other leagues. There was a clear best/most deserving team in the other leagues.

I don't think they are always the same team. The "most deserving" is always the conference champion if you have CCG, and the head to head winner if you don't. That team is not always the "best" team. In the era of the playoff, the "best" teams that are not the conference champions are going to have a tough time with the committee rankings, since they don't get the champion boost. And the champions that have warts are also going to have a tough time.

IMO, leagues with a clear #1 team will be positioned the best in the era of the playoff selection committee.

1 thing is clear... if there is no clear cut "best" team in a conference then that conference is likely not going to have a representative in a 4 team playoff.

(12-09-2014 01:21 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(12-09-2014 01:10 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  In all honesty, the "best" and "most deserving" team was the same in the Big12, Baylor.

BTW, in general, the best and most deserving are always the same thing. Just because you navigated the system the best doesn't mean you were the "most deserving." If you took the two best teams out of the SEC to play in an SEC championship game you would not have selected Missouri as one of those. The idea that "most deserving" is linked to wether or not one is a CC is just not always true.

Vegas and the computers and the Big 12 coaches definitely think TCU is the best, but I'll concede it's debatable with the Big 12. But it is not debatable with the other leagues. There was a clear best/most deserving team in the other leagues.

I don't think they are always the same team. The "most deserving" is always the conference champion if you have CCG, and the head to head winner if you don't. That team is not always the "best" team. In the era of the playoff, the "best" teams that are not the conference champions are going to have a tough time with the committee rankings, since they don't get the champion boost. And the champions that have warts are also going to have a tough time.

IMO, leagues with a clear #1 team will be positioned the best in the era of the playoff selection committee.

We are in complete agreement here.

The idea that a conference champion is always the most deserving team though is something I just can't get behind. It may at times but then at other times it may not.

For instance, would Wisconsin be more deserving of being in the playoff than OSU if they had won? How about Missouri, or Arizona?

The SEC is probably the best example of this. If Mizzou had won would they automatically become the most deserving team? I think that title would have fallen to Miss State, even though they didn't play in the CCG, but merely because of which side of the isle they fall on.

I'm not sold that Alabama falls out of the top 4 if they had lost to Missouri.

(12-09-2014 01:23 PM)mlb Wrote:  1 thing is clear... if there is no clear cut "best" team in a conference then that conference is likely not going to have a representative in a 4 team playoff.

This is my point, although if there are several conferences in that same situation, not all will be left out, obviously. But if four are clear and one is ambiguous, it is going to be an uphill battle for the league with an ambiguous "best" team to make it. Maybe the SEC could overcome that if it is as strong this year as it has been in other years. But the other leagues will have a tough time in that situation.

(12-09-2014 01:31 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(12-09-2014 01:21 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(12-09-2014 01:10 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  In all honesty, the "best" and "most deserving" team was the same in the Big12, Baylor.

BTW, in general, the best and most deserving are always the same thing. Just because you navigated the system the best doesn't mean you were the "most deserving." If you took the two best teams out of the SEC to play in an SEC championship game you would not have selected Missouri as one of those. The idea that "most deserving" is linked to wether or not one is a CC is just not always true.

Vegas and the computers and the Big 12 coaches definitely think TCU is the best, but I'll concede it's debatable with the Big 12. But it is not debatable with the other leagues. There was a clear best/most deserving team in the other leagues.

I don't think they are always the same team. The "most deserving" is always the conference champion if you have CCG, and the head to head winner if you don't. That team is not always the "best" team. In the era of the playoff, the "best" teams that are not the conference champions are going to have a tough time with the committee rankings, since they don't get the champion boost. And the champions that have warts are also going to have a tough time.

IMO, leagues with a clear #1 team will be positioned the best in the era of the playoff selection committee.

We are in complete agreement here.

The idea that a conference champion is always the most deserving team though is something I just can't get behind. It may at times but then at other times it may not.

For instance, would Wisconsin be more deserving of being in the playoff than OSU if they had won? How about Missouri, or Arizona?

The SEC is probably the best example of this. If Mizzou had won would they automatically become the most deserving team? I think that title would have fallen to Miss State, even though they didn't play in the CCG, but merely because of which side of the isle they fall on.

I think we are in agreement. I use most deserving in quotes for exactly the reasons you state. But our football culture is such that the champion is the "most deserving". If that team is not the best or has the best body of work, that league is at risk for being left out of the playoffs.

(12-09-2014 01:33 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(12-09-2014 01:23 PM)mlb Wrote:  1 thing is clear... if there is no clear cut "best" team in a conference then that conference is likely not going to have a representative in a 4 team playoff.

This is my point, although if there are several conferences in that same situation, not all will be left out, obviously. But if four are clear and one is ambiguous, it is going to be an uphill battle for the league with an ambiguous "best" team to make it. Maybe the SEC could overcome that if it is as strong this year as it has been in other years. But the other leagues will have a tough time in that situation.

Obviously I don't know how a divisional alignment would work in the B12, but if TCU and Baylor played again, I think the winner would have been in.

That being said, the Big 12 HAS to upgrade its schedule. Especially Baylor. That was a joke for an OOC schedule and they were at risk to anybody from any power conference due to how pathetic it was.

(12-09-2014 01:36 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(12-09-2014 01:31 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(12-09-2014 01:21 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(12-09-2014 01:10 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  In all honesty, the "best" and "most deserving" team was the same in the Big12, Baylor.

BTW, in general, the best and most deserving are always the same thing. Just because you navigated the system the best doesn't mean you were the "most deserving." If you took the two best teams out of the SEC to play in an SEC championship game you would not have selected Missouri as one of those. The idea that "most deserving" is linked to wether or not one is a CC is just not always true.

Vegas and the computers and the Big 12 coaches definitely think TCU is the best, but I'll concede it's debatable with the Big 12. But it is not debatable with the other leagues. There was a clear best/most deserving team in the other leagues.

I don't think they are always the same team. The "most deserving" is always the conference champion if you have CCG, and the head to head winner if you don't. That team is not always the "best" team. In the era of the playoff, the "best" teams that are not the conference champions are going to have a tough time with the committee rankings, since they don't get the champion boost. And the champions that have warts are also going to have a tough time.

IMO, leagues with a clear #1 team will be positioned the best in the era of the playoff selection committee.

We are in complete agreement here.

The idea that a conference champion is always the most deserving team though is something I just can't get behind. It may at times but then at other times it may not.

For instance, would Wisconsin be more deserving of being in the playoff than OSU if they had won? How about Missouri, or Arizona?

The SEC is probably the best example of this. If Mizzou had won would they automatically become the most deserving team? I think that title would have fallen to Miss State, even though they didn't play in the CCG, but merely because of which side of the isle they fall on.

I think we are in agreement. I use most deserving in quotes for exactly the reasons you state. But our football culture is such that the champion is the "most deserving". If that team is not the best or has the best body of work, that league is at risk for being left out of the playoffs.

(12-09-2014 01:10 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  In all honesty, the "best" and "most deserving" team was the same in the Big12, Baylor.

How do you figure?

Baylor lost by 14 to an unranked opponent that ended up 7-5. TCU lost on a last second field goal to a top-6 team on the road.

Baylor outscored its opponents by 296 points. TCU outscored its opponents by 316 points.

Their schedules were identical except for 2 games: they played different FCS schools. And Baylor played 5-6 Buffalo from the MAC, while TCU played 8-4 Minnesota from the Big 10.

Clearly, TCU was the more "deserving" team. As for "better," those people touting "head-to-head" are ignoring the fact that TCU won every single game except the head-to-head with Baylor, while Baylor got beat soundly by an unranked opponent.

Head to head. Very simple. Both are 1 loss teams, but 1 lost to the other. You go with the head to head winner.

(12-09-2014 02:58 PM)mlb Wrote:  Head to head. Very simple. Both are 1 loss teams, but 1 lost to the other. You go with the head to head winner.

Yeah, that's how I think most fans would define "most deserving". CCG winner, or head to head winner are "most deserving" type criteria, along with fewest number of losses.

"Best" I would argue are closest to the LV power rankings or composite computer rankings that try to look at the big picture and look at SOS, MOV, efficiency ratings, etc.

TCU was ahead of Baylor in the vast majority of computer rankings and in the LV type power rankings, hence the "best". We also had a overall better resume with a top 25 win over Minnesota and no bad losses. That's why in most computers we were ahead. Baylor had the head to head, which is why so many fans were up in arms. Fans and pundits typically have stronger, more absolute views about head to head and the winner earning or deserving to be champion. Computers look at that event in more relative terms when trying to predict overall power/ who is "best".

(12-09-2014 02:58 PM)mlb Wrote:  Head to head. Very simple. Both are 1 loss teams, but 1 lost to the other. You go with the head to head winner.

So you ignore the fact that outside that 1 game, TCU was undefeated and Baylor lost to an unranked team?

It's a 12 game schedule. Since they played an almost identical schedule, your argument only makes sense if they both went 10-1 against the REST OF the schedule.

(12-09-2014 03:17 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(12-09-2014 02:58 PM)mlb Wrote:  Head to head. Very simple. Both are 1 loss teams, but 1 lost to the other. You go with the head to head winner.

So you ignore the fact that outside that 1 game, TCU was undefeated and Baylor lost to an unranked team?

It's a 12 game schedule. Since they played an almost identical schedule, your argument only makes sense if they both went 10-1 against the REST OF the schedule.

Yes. They played each other. Had the same record.