Jack Nicholson Here’s Johnny Sooners poking their head into CFB Ring.
You are wrong. What about the polls with regards to major bowl selections? The bowls that are not at the playoff sites? These bowls have different payouts. The Sugar Bowl is much more lucrative than the Cheese-It Bowl? I think your opinion is just that...an opinion with no basis in fact. In fact, these rankings have a financial impact.It's hilarious to see people get so worked up over meaningless polls. None of these polls are relevant anymore. Back in the BCS era, they were important because the AP and Coaches' polls counted for 2/3 of the formula that determined the two participants.
The only thing that matters anymore is the College Football Playoff Selection Committee's rankings, which are used to determine the four playoff participants and subsequent bowl pecking order. They start from scratch every week and pay no attention to other polls in their evaluation.
I agree but….early polls don’t concern me. Weren’t we ranked #16 early in the 1999 season? But you’re right about the financial impact the late polls have.You are wrong. What about the polls with regards to major bowl selections? The bowls that are not at the playoff sites? These bowls have different payouts. The Sugar Bowl is much more lucrative than the Cheese-It Bowl? I think your opinion is just that...an opinion with no basis in fact. In fact, these rankings have a financial impact.
Early polls matter in certain circumstances so it's always better to climb the ladder. Who do you think has a better chance of making a bigger bowl? A 11-1 team that has been in the top #10 most of the season or a 11-1 team that inched it's way into the top #10 the last couple of weeks? Our 1999 season is not a good example. We were climbing because we were beating #1 teams but more important at seasons end we were the only undefeated team remaining in the polls at bowl selection.I agree but….early polls don’t concern me. Weren’t we ranked #16 early in the 1999 season? But you’re right about the financial impact the late polls have.
You are wrong. What about the polls with regards to major bowl selections? The bowls that are not at the playoff sites? These bowls have different payouts. The Sugar Bowl is much more lucrative than the Cheese-It Bowl? I think your opinion is just that...an opinion with no basis in fact. In fact, these rankings have a financial impact.
I just watched that Orangebowl NCG against Fla. St the other day. Man both of those defenses were stout, truly a chess match. Bowden was as gracious a coach in defeat as I can recall.Early polls matter in certain circumstances so it's always better to climb the ladder. Who do you think has a better chance of making a bigger bowl? A 11-1 team that has been in the top #10 most of the season or a 11-1 team that inched it's way into the top #10 the last couple of weeks? Our 1999 season is not a good example. We were climbing because we were beating #1 teams but more important at seasons end we were the only undefeated team remaining in the polls at bowl selection.
There is a report published by the NCAA sighting how the polls have influenced the selection committee. I think it was recently updated. Whether you want to admit it or not the human polls are the starting point for the selection committee so these polls matter to the universities. Look at Jerry Palm's bowl predictions for this season. He has OU going to the playoffs but he also has Baylor in the Sugar Bowl vs TAMU. Baylor is there because they are expected to finish high. They are expected to finish high because they are currently ranked high.The human polls do not determine the pecking order for any of the bowl games.
In the example you cited, the Sugar Bowl (if not a playoff site) takes the selection committee's highest ranked Big 12 non-playoff team against their highest ranked SEC non-playoff team. The Cheez-It Bowl is a minor bowl, and its teams are selected by the Big 12 and ACC conferences, and they don't use the human polls to determine their participants.
The four playoff teams and New Year's Six bowl games are filled based on the selection committee's rankings. The minor bowl games are filled based on the individual conference tie-ins, and the conferences decide how they want to assign their teams, regardless of what they're ranked in the polls. The polls have nothing to do with the minor (non-New Year's Six) bowl selections, and you'll often see a higher ranked team get a lower bowl assignment by the conference. Their main focus is maximizing revenue and getting attractive matchups.
There is a report published by the NCAA sighting how the polls have influenced the selection committee. I think it was recently updated.
This is not the one I read but it broaches the same subject matter.Really? Could you provide a link to said report?
The NCAA has no interest or purview on FBS polls, playoffs or bowl games. The FBS post-season playoffs and bowl games operate as a separate cartel outside of NCAA control, just like the BCS used to. The NCAA does administer the FCS, Division II and Division III playoffs.
OK, that's an article written by Andy Wittry, and published on the NCAA's website. He correctly points out that from the 2014 season through 2021, the No. 1 team in the AP preseason poll made the playoff seven out of eight times. Why would that be shocking or unexpected? It just says the initial poll is frequently a good predictor.This is not the one I read but it broaches the same subject matter.
Ok. You said these polls are meaningless and I wanted to point out that these polls are of vital importance to many during the ongoing season. These polls are relevant to many.OK, that's an article written by Andy Wittry, and published on the NCAA's website. He correctly points out that from the 2014 season through 2021, the No. 1 team in the AP preseason poll made the playoff seven out of eight times. Why would that be shocking or unexpected? It just says the initial poll is frequently a good predictor.
Also, here is the documentation for the bowl selection criteria that I posted about earlier:
I concede that I misspoke when I called them irrelevant. They are of significant relevance on message boards and around the water coolers at work from August to December. When it comes time to select the playoff teams and fill the bowl slots, they're irrelevant.Ok. You said these polls are meaningless and I wanted to point out that these polls are of vital importance to many during the ongoing season. These polls are relevant to many.
Haha, Ok, I had an idea this would be the tone of your response.I concede that I misspoke when I called them irrelevant. They are of significant relevance on message boards and around the water coolers at work from August to December. When it comes time to select the playoff teams and fill the bowl slots, they're irrelevant.
And why do you suppose the system is changing to 12 slots vs 4 for the playoffs starting NLT 2026, OU & horns will be in the SEC before the new playoff system is in place. SEC expansion necessitated the change and more money to the SEC.And once again OU is involved in reshaping the system (inadvertently). Now there’s a chance 3 or 4 sec sec teams will comprise the playoffs.
B1g suck it ! Acc & Puke 10 too
I happened to be at an OU function last year when a guy asked Bob Stoops about expanding to 8 team playoff. You may recall that Stoops served on the play-off committee in the recent past. Stoops' stated that expansion was necessary for several reason. One, to capture a bigger sample of qualified contenders that could win it all and Two, to eliminate the "beauty contest" that transpires within the selection committee narrowing it to four. "Beauty contest" was his exact words. We can't forget that the 13 committee members are made up of mostly ADs and Coaches. It is inherently impossible to dismiss the human polls when 13 committee members cast their votes on play-off pecking order. I agree with your assessments.And why do you suppose the system is changing to 12 slots vs 4 for the playoffs starting NLT 2026, OU & horns will be in the SEC before the new playoff system is in place. SEC expansion necessitated the change and more money to the SEC.
Who does a better job has not been the question. The discuss has been on whether the polls are meaningless and irrelevant. As you say, opinions may differ. I don't think anyone here believes OU was even close to being a play-off contender last year. The committee put Cincinnati in the playoffs. The polls had them highly ranked. Were they more deserving than a one loss Baylor or a two loss Ohio State? yes probably so. Were they a better play-off contender? absolutely not. In this case the committee followed, what appears to be, the human polls.Opinions may differ, but I actually think the committee does a much better job of ranking the teams than the AP and Coaches' polls. They certainly realized OU was overrated long before the polls did last year. From the first set of CFP rankings last year:
"Meanwhile, 9-0 Oklahoma also fell four spots compared to its No. 4 AP ranking to No. 8. Oklahoma will most likely get into the playoff if it wins out, but most assumed that an undefeated Power Five team would at least be in the top six.
Spencer Rattler, the Sooners’ quarterback at the start of the season, was benched during the Texas game after a string of uninspiring performances, and Caleb Williams has come in and been great, leading the Sooners to a comeback win over Texas and throwing for 402 yards in a 52-21 win over Texas Tech last week.
The Sooners hadn’t been overly impressive until that Texas Tech win, just squeaking by Kansas, so the CFP committee may be leaning heavily on the eye test."
How the first College Football Playoff rankings of the season differ from the AP poll
With the CFP poll holding all of the power now, it’s worth seeing how the committee-selected rankings differ from the latest AP poll, which came out on Sunday.www.deseret.com
Committee might not like Bob. He's everything they aint. Just saying. 👍Bob Stoops is currect when he said it was beauty contest. That was pretty clear in year 1 when TCU was displaced for Ohio State. TCU just didnt have the name brand.
It was clear the years Ohio St and Bama ( twice ) got in without even playing in their respective conf CG. Until a true system is laid out it will always be a beauty contest. The 12 team model at least will partially correct that.
I agree. The past selection process has accommodated a few injustices. 12 team play-off allows the fringe beauties a chance. I have a neighbor that was on the Fiesta Bowl Selection Committee several years ago. He is/was not a football fan but was "comp'ed" the position due to his position in the banking industry. He told me that the important selection questions were which university would draw the most advertisement time and which university's fan base travels the best. The Fiesta Bowl gets #2 and #3 of the play-off teams this year. The city has a vested interest in who those teams are. I will be praying to the football gods that OU makes it to #2 or #3.Bob Stoops is currect when he said it was beauty contest. That was pretty clear in year 1 when TCU was displaced for Ohio State. TCU just didnt have the name brand.
It was clear the years Ohio St and Bama ( twice ) got in without even playing in their respective conf CG. Until a true system is laid out it will always be a beauty contest. The 12 team model at least will partially correct that.
You are absolutely correct. There is no comparison between college and pro football. College football has been my mistress/side chick for many years.Whatever the polls are, or whatever they aren't, they fuel discussions and keep fans interested......as they are doing on this message board on September 8th.
For me, this is one more reason why CFB is more fun to follow and watch than pro football.
I believe what you’re saying but it makes me puke to know that “he is/was not a football fan but was comp’ed the position in the banking industry”. I hate all this phony crap that steals from real legit programs.I agree. The past selection process has accommodated a few injustices. 12 team play-off allows the fringe beauties a chance. I have a neighbor that was on the Fiesta Bowl Selection Committee several years ago. He is/was not a football fan but was "comp'ed" the position due to his position in the banking industry. He told me that the important selection questions were which university would draw the most advertisement time and which university's fan base travels the best. The Fiesta Bowl gets #2 and #3 of the play-off teams this year. The city has a vested interest in who those teams are. I will be praying to the football gods that OU makes it to #2 or #3.
Bob Bowlsby bears as much, if not more blame than the committee for what happened in 2014. The committee said that they put a lot of value in conference champions, and after all of the conference championship games were played, they looked to Bowlsby for direction on who the Big 12 champion was. The Big 12 had a round-robin schedule with no championship game, with Baylor and TCU tied for first place. In spite of the "One True Champion" TV commercials and "Everybody plays everybody" campaign in the Big 12, when push came to shove Bowlsby waffled and insisted that Baylor and TCU were co-champions. What should have been done was declare Baylor the conference champion since they beat TCU head-to-head. That was the tie-breaker that was always used in the past.Bob Stoops is currect when he said it was beauty contest. That was pretty clear in year 1 when TCU was displaced for Ohio State. TCU just didnt have the name brand.
Just as a add on , why do you think the committee never wants there selection process to be televised to the public? It would actually force them to debate the process and open themselves up to critics.
If you believe that would have made a difference then your fooling yourself. Ohio State was going to be pushed ahead no matter what Bowlsby did. It was a pure “ Brand name “ move and nothing more.Bob Bowlsby bears as much, if not more blame than the committee for what happened in 2014. The committee said that they put a lot of value in conference champions, and after all of the conference championship games were played, they looked to Bowlsby for direction on who the Big 12 champion was. The Big 12 had a round-robin schedule with no championship game, with Baylor and TCU tied for first place. In spite of the "One True Champion" TV commercials and "Everybody plays everybody" campaign in the Big 12, when push came to shove Bowlsby waffled and insisted that Baylor and TCU were co-champions. What should have been done was declare Baylor the conference champion since they beat TCU head-to-head. That was the tie-breaker that was always used in the past.
So when the committee reshuffled the deck after the conference championship games, they never got an answer from Bowlsby on who the official Big 12 champion was, and they put Ohio State in as the #4 seed. The fact that Ohio State demolished Wisconsin 59-0 in the Big Ten championship game, coupled with the fact that the Big 12 did not have a conference championship game also figured heavily in that decision.