D1 Playoff version 1 is likely to be pretty uncontroversial, despite the best efforts of the Talking Heads to create some. To wit,
Taking head-to-head to its logical conclusion, if you compare head-to-head-to-head... TCU is better than 114 other teams, Baylor is better than 103 (same as Georgia and Utah, see Division 1A Win Path Summary, and if you spend enough time with the teamlinks from that page you also get a feel for what "body of work" might mean if given a precise definition.)
It's not so much that the loss to #8 was good, it is that #8's loss to #30 was not-so-good.
I especially like that by referencing it the committee acknowledges that points (actual and "style") do matter. They always did, and one of the worst mistakes the BCS made was to try to pretend they didn't.
Just publish a list of teams being considered by any committee member for their individual top 4 along with the number of members considering each team.
My version based upon the computer rankings only includes actual top-4 "votes" by the computers, but the humans would be allowed to list more than four each. Heck, each human might list 25 teams they're "considering for top four", but the publication of a "top 25" is disingenuous. And if they use "top 25" votes to seed the field, they'll only get it right by pure luck.
Almost every way I calculate the consensus of the 117 objective rankings published by Dr. Massey I get the same top four the 12 humans came up with, in the same order. Love the conspiracy-theorists argument that "they're just trying to set up the most profitable matchups." They may well be, but if so they accidentally got the seeding right anyway.
By the way, the methods that don't match the committee's ranking do not have FSU as one of the "best four." 2014 may be a year that the BCS would not have gotten right.
...for the Playoff Committee's success factor our criteria shouldn't be "did they pick the four best teams?" It should be the same as it was for the BCS: "Are the two best teams in the field?"Think about it. The great benefit of the playoff is that with four spots to fill it will be almost impossible to create a field that doesn't include the two best. If you can't decide between second and third -best (the only problem the BCS ever had, and only had once in 16 chances) it doesn't matter because you can choose 'em both. Since the BCS came into existance there never really was a three-team race for the #2 spot, so the fourth playoff spot just provides insurance that we get the top two in the playoff.
OK, you might be able to make an argument that, say, #5 is really better than #4 (or even #3) but if you can't make an argument that they should be #1 or #2, all of the rest of us have no gripe and you're just a homer. No controversy except that manufactured to sell papers (internet ads.)
So enough with "the committee has a hard job" stuff. Their only job is to make sure the "two best" teams are included, and they get to pick four!.
Long live the "best 2" + 2 format!
© Copyright 2014, Paul Kislanko