Smoke your cigars and enjoy the band while you can....

[Rage Against the McKee]

i think there were fair arguments to be made for TCU and Ohio State and Baylor.  That the committee chose Ohio State in that instance doesn't necessarily mean the committee based its decision on the brand name.

Sure, but the simplest answer is usually the correct one.

[DQ12]

i think there were fair arguments to be made for TCU and Ohio State and Baylor.  That the committee chose Ohio State in that instance doesn't necessarily mean the committee based its decision on the brand name.

Sure, but the simplest answer is usually the correct one.

i think the simplest answer is Ohio State won 12 games including an ass whipping of Wisconsin in the CCG, while TCU/Baylor only won 11 without playing a CCG.

[MakeItRain]

And had embarrassing defenses

[Rage Against the McKee]

i think there were fair arguments to be made for TCU and Ohio State and Baylor.  That the committee chose Ohio State in that instance doesn't necessarily mean the committee based its decision on the brand name.

Sure, but the simplest answer is usually the correct one.

i think the simplest answer is Ohio State won 12 games including an ass whipping of Wisconsin in the CCG, while TCU/Baylor only won 11 without playing a CCG.

TCU and Baylor both had better wins and neither lost to a team as bad as Virginia Tech, though. Baylor should have been in and would have if they were Oklahoma or Texas. You just have to look at how humans always do this. Texas and Nebraska will both be preseason top 25 teams next year.

[DQ12]

i think there were fair arguments to be made for TCU and Ohio State and Baylor.  That the committee chose Ohio State in that instance doesn't necessarily mean the committee based its decision on the brand name.

Sure, but the simplest answer is usually the correct one.

i think the simplest answer is Ohio State won 12 games including an ass whipping of Wisconsin in the CCG, while TCU/Baylor only won 11 without playing a CCG.

TCU and Baylor both had better wins and neither lost to a team as bad as Virginia Tech, though. Baylor should have been in and would have if they were Oklahoma or Texas. You just have to look at how humans always do this. Texas and Nebraska will both be preseason top 25 teams next year.

I don't get your soapbox at all.  Baylor lost to 7-6 WVU.  Ohio State lost to 7-6 VT.  TCU lost the head to head against Baylor.  Everyone's SOS was relatively on par.

Anyone who says "TCU/Baylor/Ohio State were definitely the most deserving in 2014" is kidding themselves.  The committee made their choice, and there were reasonable ways for them to get there (most notably, playing and winning a CCG).  Citing 2014 as "brand bias" is fine if that's what you want to do, but I don't really view the 2014 episode, alone, as compelling evidence of it.

[Rage Against the McKee]

i think there were fair arguments to be made for TCU and Ohio State and Baylor.  That the committee chose Ohio State in that instance doesn't necessarily mean the committee based its decision on the brand name.

Sure, but the simplest answer is usually the correct one.

i think the simplest answer is Ohio State won 12 games including an ass whipping of Wisconsin in the CCG, while TCU/Baylor only won 11 without playing a CCG.

TCU and Baylor both had better wins and neither lost to a team as bad as Virginia Tech, though. Baylor should have been in and would have if they were Oklahoma or Texas. You just have to look at how humans always do this. Texas and Nebraska will both be preseason top 25 teams next year.

I don't get your soapbox at all.  Baylor lost to 7-6 WVU.  Ohio State lost to 7-6 VT.  TCU lost the head to head against Baylor.  Everyone's SOS was relatively on par.

Anyone who says "TCU/Baylor/Ohio State were definitely the most deserving in 2014" is kidding themselves.  The committee made their choice, and there were reasonable ways for them to get there (most notably, playing and winning a CCG).  Citing 2014 as "brand bias" is fine if that's what you want to do, but I don't really view the 2014 episode, alone, as compelling evidence of it.

Sure, if you ignore every other college football season, 2014 alone isn't evidence of anything. It's laughable to actually believe that major programs are not going to get every benefit of the doubt over schools like Baylor, though. It's just human nature, and there are examples of it happening in ranking polls every week.

[DQ12]

i think there were fair arguments to be made for TCU and Ohio State and Baylor.  That the committee chose Ohio State in that instance doesn't necessarily mean the committee based its decision on the brand name.

Sure, but the simplest answer is usually the correct one.

i think the simplest answer is Ohio State won 12 games including an ass whipping of Wisconsin in the CCG, while TCU/Baylor only won 11 without playing a CCG.

TCU and Baylor both had better wins and neither lost to a team as bad as Virginia Tech, though. Baylor should have been in and would have if they were Oklahoma or Texas. You just have to look at how humans always do this. Texas and Nebraska will both be preseason top 25 teams next year.

I don't get your soapbox at all.  Baylor lost to 7-6 WVU.  Ohio State lost to 7-6 VT.  TCU lost the head to head against Baylor.  Everyone's SOS was relatively on par.

Anyone who says "TCU/Baylor/Ohio State were definitely the most deserving in 2014" is kidding themselves.  The committee made their choice, and there were reasonable ways for them to get there (most notably, playing and winning a CCG).  Citing 2014 as "brand bias" is fine if that's what you want to do, but I don't really view the 2014 episode, alone, as compelling evidence of it.

Sure, if you ignore every other college football season, 2014 alone isn't evidence of anything. It's laughable to actually believe that major programs are not going to get every benefit of the doubt over schools like Baylor, though. It's just human nature, and there are examples of it happening in ranking polls every week.

Wait are we talking about mid majors?  I thought we were talking about Elite Brands vs. K-State level brands w/r/t CFP invites.

The only example that comes close to supporting that, as far as I'm aware, is 2014, which i think is lousy evidence.

When the committee was announced, i was certainly ready to criticize it for being biased garbage, but after 8 years, I don't really have much of a problem with anything they've done. 

[Katpappy]

I can bet that a 12 team CFP that included the 10 conference champs would be a hell of a lot more exciting and fun than what we got now.  SEC and the big 10 10 don't want this because they want their rough ridin' blue bloods in, due to money to be made from the CFP and boosters.  They got high-budget ADs sucking all the funds they can get for an advantage over smaller programs.  Anyone that doesn't realize this has got marbles rattling in their close-minded heads.

[MakeItRain]

i think there were fair arguments to be made for TCU and Ohio State and Baylor.  That the committee chose Ohio State in that instance doesn't necessarily mean the committee based its decision on the brand name.

Sure, but the simplest answer is usually the correct one.

i think the simplest answer is Ohio State won 12 games including an ass whipping of Wisconsin in the CCG, while TCU/Baylor only won 11 without playing a CCG.

TCU and Baylor both had better wins and neither lost to a team as bad as Virginia Tech, though. Baylor should have been in and would have if they were Oklahoma or Texas. You just have to look at how humans always do this. Texas and Nebraska will both be preseason top 25 teams next year.

I don't get your soapbox at all.  Baylor lost to 7-6 WVU.  Ohio State lost to 7-6 VT.  TCU lost the head to head against Baylor.  Everyone's SOS was relatively on par.

Anyone who says "TCU/Baylor/Ohio State were definitely the most deserving in 2014" is kidding themselves.  The committee made their choice, and there were reasonable ways for them to get there (most notably, playing and winning a CCG).  Citing 2014 as "brand bias" is fine if that's what you want to do, but I don't really view the 2014 episode, alone, as compelling evidence of it.

Sure, if you ignore every other college football season, 2014 alone isn't evidence of anything. It's laughable to actually believe that major programs are not going to get every benefit of the doubt over schools like Baylor, though. It's just human nature, and there are examples of it happening in ranking polls every week.

Any other time you can think of where a brand got the nod over a more deserving lesser P5 brand?

[Katpappy]

UCF went two years undefeated and won bowl games against blue bloods.  They got mumped and because of that, the CFP committee had that on them when they choose CU this year.

[Rage Against the McKee]

i think there were fair arguments to be made for TCU and Ohio State and Baylor.  That the committee chose Ohio State in that instance doesn't necessarily mean the committee based its decision on the brand name.

Sure, but the simplest answer is usually the correct one.

i think the simplest answer is Ohio State won 12 games including an ass whipping of Wisconsin in the CCG, while TCU/Baylor only won 11 without playing a CCG.

TCU and Baylor both had better wins and neither lost to a team as bad as Virginia Tech, though. Baylor should have been in and would have if they were Oklahoma or Texas. You just have to look at how humans always do this. Texas and Nebraska will both be preseason top 25 teams next year.

I don't get your soapbox at all.  Baylor lost to 7-6 WVU.  Ohio State lost to 7-6 VT.  TCU lost the head to head against Baylor.  Everyone's SOS was relatively on par.

Anyone who says "TCU/Baylor/Ohio State were definitely the most deserving in 2014" is kidding themselves.  The committee made their choice, and there were reasonable ways for them to get there (most notably, playing and winning a CCG).  Citing 2014 as "brand bias" is fine if that's what you want to do, but I don't really view the 2014 episode, alone, as compelling evidence of it.

Sure, if you ignore every other college football season, 2014 alone isn't evidence of anything. It's laughable to actually believe that major programs are not going to get every benefit of the doubt over schools like Baylor, though. It's just human nature, and there are examples of it happening in ranking polls every week.

Any other time you can think of where a brand got the nod over a more deserving lesser P5 brand?

LSU over KU, 2007.

[Katpappy]

The CFP was short-changing the Big XII after we lost our CCG qualification.  Thank God we got it back, or we would not have had any team in the CFP.

[MakeItRain]

UCF went two years undefeated and won bowl games against blue bloods.  They got mumped and because of that, the CFP committee had that on them when they choose CU this year.

All four teams selected both years would have gone unbeaten playing those UCF schedules.

[MakeItRain]

i think there were fair arguments to be made for TCU and Ohio State and Baylor.  That the committee chose Ohio State in that instance doesn't necessarily mean the committee based its decision on the brand name.

Sure, but the simplest answer is usually the correct one.

i think the simplest answer is Ohio State won 12 games including an ass whipping of Wisconsin in the CCG, while TCU/Baylor only won 11 without playing a CCG.

TCU and Baylor both had better wins and neither lost to a team as bad as Virginia Tech, though. Baylor should have been in and would have if they were Oklahoma or Texas. You just have to look at how humans always do this. Texas and Nebraska will both be preseason top 25 teams next year.

I don't get your soapbox at all.  Baylor lost to 7-6 WVU.  Ohio State lost to 7-6 VT.  TCU lost the head to head against Baylor.  Everyone's SOS was relatively on par.

Anyone who says "TCU/Baylor/Ohio State were definitely the most deserving in 2014" is kidding themselves.  The committee made their choice, and there were reasonable ways for them to get there (most notably, playing and winning a CCG).  Citing 2014 as "brand bias" is fine if that's what you want to do, but I don't really view the 2014 episode, alone, as compelling evidence of it.

Sure, if you ignore every other college football season, 2014 alone isn't evidence of anything. It's laughable to actually believe that major programs are not going to get every benefit of the doubt over schools like Baylor, though. It's just human nature, and there are examples of it happening in ranking polls every week.

Any other time you can think of where a brand got the nod over a more deserving lesser P5 brand?

LSU over KU, 2007.

 

[Rage Against the McKee]

Seriously. No way a non-blue blood plays for a national championship with 2 losses, 1 against Kentucky, if KU is even remotely a relevant college football program.

[MakeItRain]

Seriously. No way a non-blue blood plays for a national championship with 2 losses, 1 against Kentucky, if KU is even remotely a relevant college football program.

What criteria are you using? If you're just looking at fewest losses, there are legitimately 10 teams that are better examples. Kansas was the third best team in the conference and clearly the second best team in their division which was likely the worst division in P5 football that year. I also have no idea why you'd bring up Kentucky, they were #18 in the country, you know higher ranked than every team on KU's schedule other than the team that beat them. LSU was 6-1 against ranked teams and you think a team that was 0-1 against ranked teams got screwed? That's laughable.

Just like with OSU in '14, at the time it was the right decision and in retrospect it held up. Not only did LSU win the national championship, but the comparative score for their one like opponent, VA Tech was 48-7 vs 24-21

[Rage Against the McKee]

Seriously. No way a non-blue blood plays for a national championship with 2 losses, 1 against Kentucky, if KU is even remotely a relevant college football program.

What criteria are you using? If you're just looking at fewest losses, there are legitimately 10 teams that are better examples. Kansas was the third best team in the conference and clearly the second best team in their division which was likely the worst division in P5 football that year. I also have no idea why you'd bring up Kentucky, they were #18 in the country, you know higher ranked than every team on KU's schedule other than the team that beat them. LSU was 6-1 against ranked teams and you think a team that was 0-1 against ranked teams got screwed? That's laughable.

Just like with OSU in '14, at the time it was the right decision and in retrospect it held up. Not only did LSU win the national championship, but the comparative score for their one like opponent, VA Tech was 48-7 vs 24-21

Cool. Now explain Nebraska over Oregon (or Colorado) in 2001.

[BIG APPLE CAT]

That was pre-CFP brah

[MakeItRain]

Seriously. No way a non-blue blood plays for a national championship with 2 losses, 1 against Kentucky, if KU is even remotely a relevant college football program.

What criteria are you using? If you're just looking at fewest losses, there are legitimately 10 teams that are better examples. Kansas was the third best team in the conference and clearly the second best team in their division which was likely the worst division in P5 football that year. I also have no idea why you'd bring up Kentucky, they were #18 in the country, you know higher ranked than every team on KU's schedule other than the team that beat them. LSU was 6-1 against ranked teams and you think a team that was 0-1 against ranked teams got screwed? That's laughable.

Just like with OSU in '14, at the time it was the right decision and in retrospect it held up. Not only did LSU win the national championship, but the comparative score for their one like opponent, VA Tech was 48-7 vs 24-21

Cool. Now explain Nebraska over Oregon (or Colorado) in 2001.

You'll have to ask the computer nerds, everyone thought that was absurd.

[DQ12]

We're talking about the CFP committee, RATM.

[Rage Against the McKee]

I just think it's logical that the collection of humans in the CFP committee would have the same biases that humans have had since polling has existed.

[michigancat]

I think the BCS was far superior to the CFP committee

[BIG APPLE CAT]

I think the BCS was far superior to the CFP committee

once they got the formulas right. the first couple seasons though...ouch. The other thing that sucked about it was how if a coach wanted to angle they could fill out their ballot in bad faith, to wit 2011 okie st.

[DQ12]

I just think it's logical that the collection of humans in the CFP committee would have the same biases that humans computer algos and CFB coaches have had since polling has existed.

FYP and I disagree with the fixed version

[MakeItRain]

https://www.cincinnati.com/story/sports/college/university-of-cincinnati/2022/03/12/aac-uc-working-settlement-allows-uc-join-big-12-early/7017177001/