I don't know how many of you will be interested in this exercise, but I spent my first day off in a while last week studying some retrospective looks at CFP decision-making. Bill Connelly is one of the best students of the game right now, so I'll use his analysis as my main launching point as we go through year to year. I'll include relevant links for each year and then make a few comments. If you disagree or agree, chime in and maybe we can all get a slightly better idea of how the "typical" fan would react to certain decisions. Remember...you CANNOT include bowl performances in how you thought about certain teams. The CFP selection committee won't have that luxury. (I.E. You cannot say, "Michigan shouldn't be included in 2006 because they got beaten by USC in the Rose Bowl..." but you CAN say, "Michigan shouldn't be included in 2006 because there shouldn't be two teams from one conference."

http://www.sbnation.com/ncaa-football/20...-committee


I agree with Connelly on Tennessee, Florida State, and Ohio State. I disagree on Kansas State though. I don’t think the CFP wants anyone backing into the title game. UCLA and Kansas State—both undefeated heading into the final weekend—each lost in crushing fashion. But if you take Kansas State over Big 12 champ Texas A&M, you’re disregarding the importance of conference titles. 10-2 TAMU wasn’t some unranked chump—they were a top 10 team to begin with—and that’s why I think they would get the nod above UCLA and Kansas State, despite having one more loss.

Mess grade (how much controversy would exist...with A being no argument and F being a TON of argument)—D.

(07-26-2014 11:42 PM)allthatyoucantleavebehind Wrote:  I don't know how many of you will be interested in this exercise, but I spent my first day off in a while last week studying some retrospective looks at CFP decision-making. Bill Connelly is one of the best students of the game right now, so I'll use his analysis as my main launching point as we go through year to year. I'll include relevant links for each year and then make a few comments. If you disagree or agree, chime in and maybe we can all get a slightly better idea of how the "typical" fan would react to certain decisions. Remember...you CANNOT include bowl performances in how you thought about certain teams. The CFP selection committee won't have that luxury. (I.E. You cannot say, "Michigan shouldn't be included in 2006 because they got beaten by USC in the Rose Bowl..." but you CAN say, "Michigan shouldn't be included in 2006 because there shouldn't be two teams from one conference."

http://www.sbnation.com/ncaa-football/20...-committee


I agree with Connelly on Tennessee, Florida State, and Ohio State. I disagree on Kansas State though. I don’t think the CFP wants anyone backing into the title game. UCLA and Kansas State—both undefeated heading into the final weekend—each lost in crushing fashion. But if you take Kansas State over Big 12 champ Texas A&M, you’re disregarding the importance of conference titles. 10-2 TAMU wasn’t some unranked chump—they were a top 10 team to begin with—and that’s why I think they would get the nod above UCLA and Kansas State, despite having one more loss.

Mess grade (how much controversy would exist...with A being no argument and F being a TON of argument)—D.

If you are interested in seeing the BCS poll (which gives a solid amount of insight into what people were thinking between the last and second to last poll of the season) in each year, here' the link for that. http://www.footballfoundation.org/Progra...hives.aspx

(07-26-2014 11:42 PM)allthatyoucantleavebehind Wrote:  I don't know how many of you will be interested in this exercise, but I spent my first day off in a while last week studying some retrospective looks at CFP decision-making. Bill Connelly is one of the best students of the game right now, so I'll use his analysis as my main launching point as we go through year to year. I'll include relevant links for each year and then make a few comments. If you disagree or agree, chime in and maybe we can all get a slightly better idea of how the "typical" fan would react to certain decisions. Remember...you CANNOT include bowl performances in how you thought about certain teams. The CFP selection committee won't have that luxury. (I.E. You cannot say, "Michigan shouldn't be included in 2006 because they got beaten by USC in the Rose Bowl..." but you CAN say, "Michigan shouldn't be included in 2006 because there shouldn't be two teams from one conference."

http://www.sbnation.com/ncaa-football/20...-committee


I agree with Connelly on Tennessee, Florida State, and Ohio State. I disagree on Kansas State though. I don’t think the CFP wants anyone backing into the title game. UCLA and Kansas State—both undefeated heading into the final weekend—each lost in crushing fashion. But if you take Kansas State over Big 12 champ Texas A&M, you’re disregarding the importance of conference titles. 10-2 TAMU wasn’t some unranked chump—they were a top 10 team to begin with—and that’s why I think they would get the nod above UCLA and Kansas State, despite having one more loss.

Mess grade (how much controversy would exist...with A being no argument and F being a TON of argument)—D.

Well if TN won, no one would be arguing much later. I think he's right-TN, FSU, KSU, Ohio St.

Noone thought A&M was better than KSU and they had 1 more loss. They won a crazy double OT game. There is no chance A&M gets in. It was really a 5 team race and UCLA got dominated by Miami, not looking nearly as good as they had during the season.

That is a good point. It's not like KSU got dominated like Nebraska in 2001 or Oklahoma in 2003...the committee might overlook that nail biter. And...as we've volleyed around...this was their 13th game...which UCLA did not have (nor did FSU or OSU for that matter).

Ahhh 1998. I remember the chaos of that last weekend.

For whats its worth Kansas State ended up 3rd in the BCS rankings and did not even make a BCS bowl. Next year they added what became known as the Kansas State rule. If a team finishes in the top3 in BCS standings, it is guarunteed a spot in a BCS Bowl.

Still Kansas State is one of those great what IFs. They blew a 15-pt lead and eventually lost in OT in the Big 12 CCG. What if the would have won? Would Snyder have used that momentum to dominate the next decade?

their notorious cupcake sch might hurt them
NoIll, IndianaSt & LousM

(07-27-2014 08:26 AM)bullet Wrote:  Noone thought A&M was better than KSU and they had 1 more loss. They won a crazy double OT game. There is no chance A&M gets in. It was really a 5 team race and UCLA got dominated by Miami, not looking nearly as good as they had during the season.

Dominated? They lost by 4 on the road with a controversial fumble late to boot.

The final BCS Rankings:
1. Tennessee 12-0, SEC champs
2. Florida St. 11-1, ACC champs
3. Kansas St. 11-1, Lost in 2OT in Big 12 CCG
4. Ohio St. 10-1, Big Ten co-champs
5. UCLA 10-1, Pac 10 champs, lost final regular season game to Miami
6. Texas A&M 11-2, Big 12 champs
7. Arizona 11-1, Pac 10 runners up

AP rankings were 1. Tennessee, 2. FSU, 3. Ohio St. 4. K-State, 5. Arizona

Given the common top 4 between the AP and BCS standings, K-State'sonly loss being in 2OT, and BCS #5 UCLA's loss in its final regular season game, the invites are Tennessee, FSU, Ohio St. and K-State.

UCLA's loss in final game wouldn't have any more bearing than KSt's loss in their final game.

Think UCLA could easily have jumped KSt with a committee. UCLA had the #8 SOS- played Texas and Miami OOC. KSU had a brutal schedule- FCS team, NIU, and La-Monroe.

Also have to remember- UCLA is a conference champ. KSU isn't. They are close enough to where that would matter...

Going off of who lost the worst and to the worst team...

1- Tennessee
2- KSU (Lost to Sagarin #7 in 2OT)
3- UCLA (Lost to Sagarin #23 in a close game)
4- Ohio State (Lost to Sagarin #31 in a close game)

Missed:
Florida State- Lost to Sagarin #38 by 17 on the road
Tulane- Unbeaten but SOS and so many 1 loss teams with better SOS and close losses force them out. With a better SOS they jump the one loss teams.

(07-28-2014 08:35 AM)stever20 Wrote:  UCLA's loss in final game wouldn't have any more bearing than KSt's loss in their final game.

Think UCLA could easily have jumped KSt with a committee. UCLA had the #8 SOS- played Texas and Miami OOC. KSU had a brutal schedule- FCS team, NIU, and La-Monroe.

Also have to remember- UCLA is a conference champ. KSU isn't. They are close enough to where that would matter...

Absolutely agree. I think UCLA gets in over K-State, and it may not have been particularly close. If anything, the argument is Ohio State vs. K-State.

UCLA's win over Texas is pretty high quality in terms of a OOC win. Also a great win over an 11-1 Arizona team, thumped them pretty good IN Tucson.

K-State meanwhile ... the OOC is a huge negative. Really no excuse for being so poor. Their best win is over Texas. E.g., something UCLA did too. Next big win is over Nebraska --- a game where the refs frankly missed a big face mask in the final minutes; leaves a slight cloud over that game.

Now, the Buckeyes: Best wins are 9-3 Michigan and 9-3 Penn State, both in Columbus. Also won at 8-4 West Virginia. Totally bizarre loss, at home against a middling 6-6 MSU team where MSU rallied from 3 scores down (!!!) in the 2nd half. That's one ugly-ass black mark. Also avoided both Purdue & Wisconsin in-conference, pretty lucky draw as both finished in the top 4 of the B1G in 1998.

Actually a fairly close call between K-State and Ohio State: but OSU gets rewarded for a more challenging OOC (playing at WVU). K-State sits at home.

In the end:

#1 Tennessee, #2 Florida State (clear #2, enough scalps on the wall to overcome an early season bad loss at NC State), #3 UCLA, #4 Ohio State.

Realignment would have changed this one dramatically. KSU would have been unbeaten, tOSU, UCLA, and FSU could all have ended up losing in CCG. Ohio State would have had a good matchup vs Wisky.

(07-28-2014 07:04 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(07-27-2014 08:26 AM)bullet Wrote:  Noone thought A&M was better than KSU and they had 1 more loss. They won a crazy double OT game. There is no chance A&M gets in. It was really a 5 team race and UCLA got dominated by Miami, not looking nearly as good as they had during the season.

Dominated? They lost by 4 on the road with a controversial fumble late to boot.

Their defense got dominated. Miami scored 49. Nobody who watched that 4th quarter could feel like UCLA was a top 10 team, let alone a top 4. When everything was on the line, Miami beat them like a drum.

So? It was still a close game and no pollster would have dropped them if they had won. Bad games happen, just like Nebraska and Missouri in 1997 and Miami and Rutgers in 2002 not taking the shine off the former teams.

(08-02-2014 06:06 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  So? It was still a close game and no pollster would have dropped them if they had won. Bad games happen, just like Nebraska and Missouri in 1997 and Miami and Rutgers in 2002 not taking the shine off the former teams.

Same argument applies to KSU and Ohio St that year. KSU also stomped common foe Texas worse than UCLA.

Ohio State didn't even play the common foe of K-State (A&M) until bowl season, so that's a moot point.

(07-29-2014 07:17 PM)NittanyLion Wrote:  

(07-28-2014 08:35 AM)stever20 Wrote:  UCLA's loss in final game wouldn't have any more bearing than KSt's loss in their final game.

Think UCLA could easily have jumped KSt with a committee. UCLA had the #8 SOS- played Texas and Miami OOC. KSU had a brutal schedule- FCS team, NIU, and La-Monroe.

Also have to remember- UCLA is a conference champ. KSU isn't. They are close enough to where that would matter...

Absolutely agree. I think UCLA gets in over K-State, and it may not have been particularly close. If anything, the argument is Ohio State vs. K-State.

UCLA's win over Texas is pretty high quality in terms of a OOC win. Also a great win over an 11-1 Arizona team, thumped them pretty good IN Tucson.

K-State meanwhile ... the OOC is a huge negative. Really no excuse for being so poor. Their best win is over Texas. E.g., something UCLA did too. Next big win is over Nebraska --- a game where the refs frankly missed a big face mask in the final minutes; leaves a slight cloud over that game.

Now, the Buckeyes: Best wins are 9-3 Michigan and 9-3 Penn State, both in Columbus. Also won at 8-4 West Virginia. Totally bizarre loss, at home against a middling 6-6 MSU team where MSU rallied from 3 scores down (!!!) in the 2nd half. That's one ugly-ass black mark. Also avoided both Purdue & Wisconsin in-conference, pretty lucky draw as both finished in the top 4 of the B1G in 1998.

Actually a fairly close call between K-State and Ohio State: but OSU gets rewarded for a more challenging OOC (playing at WVU). K-State sits at home.

In the end:

#1 Tennessee, #2 Florida State (clear #2, enough scalps on the wall to overcome an early season bad loss at NC State), #3 UCLA, #4 Ohio State.

KSU only had 3 teams prior to the ccg come within 30 points. They won at #14 CU 16-9, then #11 NU 40-30 followed at then #19 MU by 31-25. Next closest was Ok. St. 52-20, then Texas 48-7. Other wins were bigger. UCLA had a bunch of close games against .500 or less teams. Texas, USC, Arizona and Oregon were the only teams better than .500 they played prior to Miami. The thinking at the time was just that UCLA was exposed as the champ of a very weak Pac 10 that year.

What you may not be remembering is that Miami lost 66-13 to Syracuse the week before they played UCLA. So their loss looked really, really bad.

(08-02-2014 09:31 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  Ohio State didn't even play the common foe of K-State (A&M) until bowl season, so that's a moot point.

My point was that your argument that UCLA was so close to being an automatic YES except for one small margin loss could also be said of KSU and tOSU.

Looking back at it the pairing of sentences I used could be misunderstood.