*SIGH* Since it doesn't appear you looked into the CFP link I'll just copy and paste.
PRINCIPLES
The committee will select the teams using a process that distinguishes among otherwise comparable teams by considering:
- Strength of schedule,
- Head-to-head competition,
- Comparative outcomes of common opponents (without incenting margin of victory), and,
- Other relevant factors such as unavailability of key players and coaches that may have affected a team’s performance during the season or likely will affect its postseason performance.
VOTING PROCESS
The voting process generally will include seven rounds of ballots through which the committee members first will select a small pool of teams to be evaluated, then will rank those teams, with the teams being placed in the rankings in groups of three for three rounds, then four for the other four rounds. Individual committee members’ rankings will be compiled into a composite ranking for each round. Each committee member will independently evaluate an immense amount of information during the process. This evaluation will lead to individual qualitative and quantitative opinions that will inform each member’s votes.
NUMBER OF TEAMS TO BE RANKED
The committee will rank 25 teams. The five highest-ranked conference champions and the next seven highest-ranked teams will be in the playoff.
Please point out where the top 4 teams are seeded using a separate criteria. Them being seeded in the top 4 is based on being a conference champ. I don't consider that a different set of criteria to be seeded 1-4, I think of it more as a qualifier (to be top 4 you must be one of the top 4 ranked conference champs). They don't determine the top 12 best based on computer rankings and then bring in the committee to determine and seed the top 4.
Does the fifth highest-ranked conference champion automatically receive the #5 seed? No. Then apparently that team is being judged based on a different set of criteria (for seeding purposes) than that used to seed the first four highest-ranked conference champions (and the criteria used to select those five teams in the first place). That team, like the first four, was selected automatically for the playoff by virtue of being a conference champion. It was seeded on the basis of the committee's rankings like the at-large teams.
The NCAA basketball tournament is a better example of this type of process. There are roughly 32 automatic qualifiers that participate in the tournament by virtue of being conference champions. They are selected (receive their bids) before any at-large teams. However, all 68 teams in the tournament are seeded on the basis of the committee's collective judgment. The committee, however, has no jurisdiction over whether or not the automatic qualifiers will participate. At least in part, teams are selected for the tournament, and are seeded for the tournament, based on different criteria.
Originally, as I recall (without rereading all six pages of this thread), you suggested teams should be selected for the IHSA football playoffs and seeded within those playoffs based on the same criteria. That is what is currently done for the most part. There is some merit to that thinking. It is consistent. If the criteria are good enough for selecting teams, then logic would suggest the same criteria are also good enough for seeding those teams. So far so good.
Again, as I recall, jha618 suggested at some point that although he was okay with teams being selected under the current system, he thought it more fair that teams be seeded using criteria that included a more accurate measure of strength-of-schedule (SoS). After all, the IHSA seemed to think SoS should be a factor by using the rudimentary system of adding up opponents wins. If SoS should be a factor, couldn't the seeding process be made better by using a better measure of SoS? There is some merit to that thinking. [He also would not use strength-of-schedule merely as a tie-breaker for identical win-loss records.]
It was at this point that you [although I must admit your arguments seemed to go in different directions at different times] seemed to indicate no rational person would use a different set of criteria for seeding purposes than those used for selecting teams for playoff participation. When jha618 provided examples of when different criteria were used for the two different tasks, you seemed to reject the examples and disputed that they adequately represented his point. His point being, I think, that there were presumably rational people in this world that thought two different sets of criteria made sense.
I am merely expressing my belief that jha618 proved that particular point.
While I will extend the courtesy of reading any response you may choose to make, I have to admit I'm getting tired of the topic and therefore will not be contributing anything further to this thread.
