“it seems everyone wants South Carolina in the CFP except…

[Bubba Fett]

Holy Crap! So, I just took the time to REALLY look at the potential playoff teams: records, SOS, and quality wins. If it were a perfect world this would be the 12, in order:

Oregon
Georgia
Ohio State
Alabama
South Carolina
Mississippi
Miami
Texas
Penn State
Tennessee
Notre Dame
BYU

Neither SMU nor Clemson should be in but at least one will take a spot.

BYU will not be in, but they would be better than at least 2 of the teams that do get in.

Bama, SC, and Ol'Miss are all 3 on the bubble and it's possible that NONE of them will get in. That's NUTZ. All three are top ten teams.

Indiana will be in. That is also NUTZ. Based entirely on their 10-1 record built on a weak schedule and NO wins against a top opponent.

Boise St. or UNLV will be in. That is also NUTZ.

We could very well end up with a 12 team field and still not have the best team in it! That's not acceptable. Maybe the committee will surprise us and have the courage not to pick teams just because they have pretty records against weak schedules, doubtful.

 

[18IsTheMan]

Because they are Bama. And no matter how hard they try to deny it, they will go for the Bama brand, if you will, before others. They know having Bama in there guarantees ratings.

You are right, of course. But I'm not sure a damaged and tarnished 3-loss Bama team who has 2 very ugly losses this year to Vandy and OU guarantees much in the way of ratings. Even I was somewhat entranced by past Bama teams because of their dominance and skill and discipline with which they played under Saban. This Tide team is very different, though. They're just a 3-loss SEC team. I really don't think anyone is on the edge of their seats to see what this Bama team can do like we were when Saban was coaching.

Even listening to a Bama podcast yesterday, the hosts conceded "Clearly, this team doesn't deserve to be in the playoffs." But they went on to note that the one thing a 12 team playoff requires is 12 teams. Their position was more or less, if there HAS to be a 12 team, it should be Bama, but they really don't deserve to be in the playoffs.

 

[Swifty]

No one is saying all the committee does is look at W/L and H2H. What we are saying is H2H should be the most important factor. The games, how they are played and the results are the reality, everything else is guesswork. I don't believe for a second that if the situation were reversed between The Gamecocks and the Tide any of us would be arguing anything above "we beat them." We might say some other things, but that would be argument #1, and it should be.

I don't know what the committee's job is. They don't either. Since the inception of this thing, they have said they have to put in the most deserving teams. They have also said they need to put in the best teams. I have no idea if they equate deserving and best. But last season, at least, showed they aren't concerned with best and most deserving. Most fans should be able to rank the 12 best teams. It's not difficult, the committee isn't full of football savants.

I'll keep beating this drum: the playoff isn't about the 12 best teams. If it were there would be no automatic qualifiers at all. This season the guarantee of the Big 12 and ACC champs getting in takes up two spots that should go elsewhere. The ACC may very well wind up with two teams in and they should not even have one. If the playoff were about the 12 best and/or deserving teams there is no conversation about whether the Gamecocks are in or not, they would be.

The committee has to be hoping for climpson and Boise State wins Saturday so they can put climpson and SMU in and the Big XII winner and not have to deal with the drama of Miami and the three 3-loss SEC teams.

 

[Bubba Fett]

"I'll keep beating this drum: the playoff isn't about the 12 best teams. If it were there would be no automatic qualifiers at all. This season the guarantee of the Big 12 and ACC champs getting in takes up two spots that should go elsewhere. The ACC may very well wind up with two teams in and they should not even have one. If the playoff were about the 12 best and/or deserving teams there is no conversation about whether the Gamecocks are in or not, they would be."

Sadly, this is 100% true.

 

[18IsTheMan]

One thing we have that nobody else in the conversation does is: no bad losses on our resume. Our worst loss was to an 8-4 (5-3) SEC team (in a game that almost all major national pundits are now agreeing we were robbed in).

Bama has 2 VERY ugly losses to 6-6 (3-5) Vandy and 6-6 (2-6) OU.

Ole Miss has a terrible loss at home to 4-8 (1-7) UK. That was a dreadfully bad loss, especially considering it was a home game. UK's only other wins on the season came against Southern Miss, Ohio and Murray State. That puts in perspective how bad this loss was. Resume-killing in my opinion.

Miami's losses aren't quite as bad, but their 2 losses were in games thy were favored to win by double digits.

We did not lose a single time this season when favored and pulled several upsets along the way. And, unlike any of the teams above, we were absolutely clutch down the stretch while all of the others choked.

 

[SouthernBelly]

And if the situations were reversed and we had beaten Bama, then went on to finish 4-2 while they went 6-0, you can bet your bottom dollar the H2H win for us would not matter. Not one tiny little bit.

Simple fact is, the committee has clearly demonstrated in the past rankings that other factors are as important or more important than W/L record or H2H.

Probably, but again, this isn't about the 12 best teams, it never has been.

The committee does include other factors, that's no secret. What is is how much weight they give to each one. And I don't know what situations you would be referring to when saying other factors are more important than H2H. So I will go out on a limb and say they were most likely wrong if picking the loser over the winner.

 

[PrestonyteParrot]

I don't see how the committee can overlook Bama getting absolutely mauled by 2-6 in conference play OU a mere 2 weeks ago. OU's only other conference win was a nailbiter over fellow 2-6 member Auburn.

Recent history has to be a factor. How has a team progressed as the season went along is a major factor. Look at TaM!!! Gang busters to start the season and the bottom falls out.
Late season stinkers should carry some significant negative weight.
The FSU decision last year means the committee was obviously looking for teams with momentum/potential to win the CFP regardless of record or H2H.

 

[18IsTheMan]

Recent history has to be a factor. How has a team progressed as the season went along is a major factor. Look at TaM!!! Gang busters to start the season and the bottom falls out.
Late season stinkers should carry some significant negative weight.
The FSU decision last year means the committee was obviously looking for teams with momentum/potential to win the CFP regardless of record or H2H.

Everyone's always citing the NCAAT as one reason college football needed a tournament then needed an expanded tournament.

Recent performance is always a heavy factor with the NCAAT committee.

 

[Tngamecock]

their own fans.”

Sportswriter on Twitter noting how we are the overwhelming public favorite to make the CFP over Bama, except our fans seem to the most down on the idea.

Even many sportswriters now downplaying the importance of the head-to-head when looking at all factors. Most seem to feel we’re the common sense choice.

I think you, and maybe this sports rider on Twitter are confusing our fans saying if it came down to us in Alabama, they would choose Alabama just because of previous bias

 

[DenverGamecock]

I think the head to head is canceled by the bad loses for Ole Miss and Bama. Late season stinker should cost Bama and Kentucky went into Ole Miss and got their only SEC win of the season. The only mitigating factor for Ole Miss is they beat us easily. If the taters beat SMU then SMU is eliminated.

 

[DeBoer31]

g d LSU game. I hope they make a posterboard on a highway reminding everyone of how we got jobbed in that game.....and send a link directly to that officiating crew.

 

[18IsTheMan]

I think the head to head is canceled by the bad loses for Ole Miss and Bama. Late season stinker should cost Bama and Kentucky went into Ole Miss and got their only SEC win of the season. The only mitigating factor for Ole Miss is they beat us easily. If the taters beat SMU then SMU is eliminated.

Bama has two extremely bad losses.

Ole Miss has the worst lost, by far, of us, them or Bama.

I think those losses more than negate the H2H. Both teams also choked down the stretch in games they were favored to win.

 

[Rhode Island Dork]

 

[Lurker123]

And if the situations were reversed and we had beaten Bama, then went on to finish 4-2 while they went 6-0, you can bet your bottom dollar the H2H win for us would not matter. Not one tiny little bit.

Wouldn't we be screaming at the top of our lungs that it should be, if that happened?

 

[will110]

Surprisingly, most sportswriters who have opined on the issue don't see the head-to-head being all that crucial. Our fans seem to be the most hung up on that. Yes, they agree it would be the deciding factor if all other things were equal, but most believe they are not.

They note we have been clearly been the stronger team the 2nd half of the season. Even the ones I've see who feel Bama should make it, concede we are the better team right now. We have as many ranked wins as Bama does. While Bama does have the loss over UGA, that is more than canceled out by the ugly losses to Vandy and OU, in games they were favored by 22.5 and 14 points, respectively. We won every game in which were favored and won some upsets to boot. They also note the committee, based on the previous precedent, has to consider our LSU loss was aided by Sellers being out in the 2nd half and that we are very clearly a different team when he is healthy.

If the committee's job is to put in the best team, then head-to-head can't be the most important standalone factor. If all they are going to do is look at head-to-head wins, what do we even need a committee for? Any average Joe fan could do that. Their job, supposedly, is to carefully consider all the factors and select the best teams.

And, frankly, if they are concerned about ratings, I think we bring more to the table. Sellers is dynamic and more exciting than anyone Bama has right now. Three-loss Bama just isn't an exciting team and I don't think many fans will be all that enthused to see a wounded Bama team limping into the playoffs.

All the articles I've read (ESPN and The Athletic) don't give Carolina a chance to make the cut.

 

[will110]

One thing we have that nobody else in the conversation does is: no bad losses on our resume. Our worst loss was to an 8-4 (5-3) SEC team (in a game that almost all major national pundits are now agreeing we were robbed in).

Bama has 2 VERY ugly losses to 6-6 (3-5) Vandy and 6-6 (2-6) OU.

Ole Miss has a terrible loss at home to 4-8 (1-7) UK. That was a dreadfully bad loss, especially considering it was a home game. UK's only other wins on the season came against Southern Miss, Ohio and Murray State. That puts in perspective how bad this loss was. Resume-killing in my opinion.

Miami's losses aren't quite as bad, but their 2 losses were in games thy were favored to win by double digits.

We did not lose a single time this season when favored and pulled several upsets along the way. And, unlike any of the teams above, we were absolutely clutch down the stretch while all of the others choked.

To counter Miami's no bad losses, they also have no good wins. Who is the best team they beat? Florida? Duke?

 

[Gamecock Jacque]

They know having Bama in there guarantees ratings.

We're reaching the point where having Sellers would guarantee ratings.

 

[HI Cock1]

We haven't covered the spread in what, TWO games? ODU and Ole Miss?