Yes. It is. The playoffs are supposed to be the 4 best teams in the country, same as the BCS was the best 2. And it worked pretty much every time. How you figure out those 4 is the problem. If the 4 best teams in the country are all in the SEC so be it. Like I said earlier, this was put together by the big 10 and pac 1 to make sure they had a big say in things. To put Cincinnati in the top 4 would be an absolute joke.
The playoff committee is slowly losing me
- Thread starter missouridawg
- Start date
Yes. It is. The playoffs are supposed to be the 4 best teams in the country, same as the BCS was the best 2. And it worked pretty much every time. How you figure out those 4 is the problem. If the 4 best teams in the country are all in the SEC so be it. Like I said earlier, this was put together by the big 10 and pac 1 to make sure they had a big say in things. To put Cincinnati in the top 4 would be an absolute joke.
As sad as it sounds, Cincy’s last 3 including the Conf Champ game are no cakewalks.
SMU
East Carolina
Houston (likely)
SMU
East Carolina
Houston (likely)
I proposed something along those lines during the BCS 2 teams days. Mine though only had one flex schedule week to match-up bubble teams. This way any questions between two teams could happen to solidify the final 2. It would also gives those weak conference undefeated teams a chance to prove themselves against better competition. So I agree with some sort of flex schedule at the end of the season that could be controlled by the committee.
Well no crap. How do you define it?
The best team doesn't always win. If you got what you wanted, you could figure out the playoff without playing any games.
Why would it be an absolute joke to include them? I am not saying they clearly belong, but it seems like a stretch to say at this point in the season that it would be an absolute joke for them to be included.
59-20
38-0
31-0
24-7
24-6
30-3
63-28
42-20
44-16
52-24
These are some of the scores in the semifinal and final games.
Out of the 21cfp games so far, half have been easy victories or blowouts.
Seems like Cincy is as valis as any to take the field and have a 50% chance of being blown out
That’s why the SEC is going to get both Bama and UGA in. Yes, even if Bama loses the SECCG (unless it’s a complete blowout). Why? Because everybody still knows a 2-loss Bama is at least 2 or 3 touchdowns better than everybody except maybe Georgia and Ohio State on a neutral field. They would absolutely mop the floor with Michigan State, Michigan, Cincinnati, or Oregon.
I disagree, A 2 loss Bama will not get in over an undefeated Cincy or other 1 loss teams.
Women’s march madness feel, at best. With a couple of rounds of chalk to get to compelling games.
There has not even been 4 deserving teams in the vast majority of the seasons of the playoff. More often than not, there isn’t even 3 deserving teams.
Why? Do you legitimately think Cincinnati, Michigan, or Michigan State could even hang within single digits of Alabama? If you don’t, then you can’t make a legitimate argument for selecting them over Bama. If you’re just going to take the 4 teams with the best records, you don’t even need a committee. The reason we have one is for obvious situations like this where everyone knows a two loss SEC West team would still mop the damn floor with anyone in the Big 10 or PAC 12.
Want historical data to back it up? In 2017, 2-loss Auburn was ranked ahead of both 1-loss Oklahoma and undefeated Wisconsin going into conference championship weekend. They ended up getting a 3rd loss to UGA in the championship. But had they won, they were headed to the CFP over both of those teams.
And it’s also more recent.
Michigan state lost to an ok team more recently than Michigan lost to a good team.
Is it right? Not sure. Don’t care.
Doesn’t matter right now.
Michigan state lost to an ok team more recently than Michigan lost to a good team.
Is it right? Not sure. Don’t care.
Doesn’t matter right now.
Your historical data point to prove a 2 loss Bama team would wipe the floor with anyone in the big10 or pac12 is 4 seasons ago when a different team, Auburn, lost in the sec championship game and didn't make the CFP?
That makes no sense at all. It was tough to even type.
I think you are trying to say that Bama got in instead of other teams due to Auburn's loss and Bama ended winning so they were better than other options? It's just a bad way to make thst point, if that's your point.
It was interesting seeing Joey Galloway (ESPN) go from complaining about Cincy being disrespected to claiming that if Bama is 11-2 and plays Georgia close in the SECCG, that it further solidifies that they are one of the 4 best teams in the country.
Did Saban tell ESPN to get their guys in order and STFU or what?
Did Saban tell ESPN to get their guys in order and STFU or what?
You missed the point entirely. The historical data point isn’t saying what Bama would do to those teams, it’s to prove a 2-loss SEC can easily get into the CFP over an undefeated or 1-loss Power 5 from other conferences, because there is precedent in the rankings based on the eye test. The week 13 rankings in 2017 had 2-loss Auburn ahead of both an undefeated P5 and multiple one loss P5 teams after the entire regular season had been played.
The simple fact is that Bama, even with 2 losses, wouldn’t really have a bad loss…provided that loss #2 is to UGA. Both losses would be to Top 15-18ish CFP teams, including the #1 team. Oregon’s loss to Stanford and Michigan State’s loss to Purdue were both pretty damning to their resumes. Neither Michigan nor Ohio State has a bad loss, but one of them is going to have at least 2 losses as well…maybe even both. And there’s no way you’re going to put a 2-loss B1G over a 2-loss Alabama. Provided that the chalk holds and the SECCG is a close game either way, the eye test is going to clearly show Bama as being better than everyone except UGA and MAYBE the Michigan / Ohio State winner.
The whole point of the committee is to not simply select teams based on outdated and dumbed down criteria like “2-loss team is worse than 1-loss team”, because not all conferences and schedules are created equally. The SEC West is still a stronger, tougher, much more talented group of football teams than either division of the B1G. That hasn’t changed in almost 2 decades now.
Last edited:
I would easily pick Alabama to beat any of those 3 teams if they lose to Arkansas, still win the West, and then lose to Georgia. So should they be ranked ahead of them in that scenario too?
Sorry, you can get 1 17up and still make the playoffs, but if you have 2, you're done (unless there's no other choice, like in 2007). It wouldn't be fair to Georgia to have them beat Alabama to get to 13-0 and knock them down to 11-2, and then put them on a level playing field to play again.
Them losing to Arkansas would change things….you can say you’d personally pick them but I don’t think many others would if they’ve lost at home to a borderline Top 25 team. That would be tantamount to Michigan State’s loss to Purdue.
All that being said, I fully expect them to beat Arkansas and run the table to Atlanta. And if they lose to Arkansas but turn around and beat UGA? Guess what, they are still going to the CFP with 2 losses over multiple 1–loss teams.
And one more thing, fairness has nothing to do with it. Select the best four teams in the order that they are the best, period. The current trajectory is that Bama is going to likely be either #1 if they run the table and beat UGA, or #3 behind UGA and a 1-loss B1G champ if they beat Ark / Aub, or possibly #2 if they beat Ark / Aub, lose to UGA, but the B1G has chaos and everybody has 2+ losses. There is no real path to them being #4 and getting an immediate rematch with UGA, anyway. They’ll have to earn it on the field. And that cuts both ways, too. Are you going to say UGA is out of the CFP entirely if they lose to Bama, because they had their shot in Atlanta? Of course not.
Last edited:
A two loss bama team isn’t getting in either. And will probably be totally disinterested and lose their Sugar Bowl against Cincinnati so some can point their fingers and claim their point was made in said game**
It will work itself out in the next 3 weeks. It always does. For my money I’ve got Cincinnati getting in in the 4 slot along with Ohio St and Georgia. Tempted to go Oregon, but not totally sure they win out.
It will work itself out in the next 3 weeks. It always does. For my money I’ve got Cincinnati getting in in the 4 slot along with Ohio St and Georgia. Tempted to go Oregon, but not totally sure they win out.
If Alabama is 11-2, and others from other conferences, who haven't played each other, have less losses and are undefeated, then you aren't one of the 4 "best" teams. I don't care if you're Alabama. The only reason you are 2 right now is because of the uniform. You know that.
You can say "Alabama would beat Oregon" all you want. Unfortunately, we have no data to say either way, because no one on either schedule played each other. All you have is your bias i.e. the uniform. I say again, it's a national championship, not an SEC championship Part 2.
I have no doubt those idiots on the committee will probably still put you in, and leave Cincinnati out. Just like they 17ed Oklahoma State (and LSU) in 2011. And we'll eventually end up expanding the playoff, because people get sick of seeing teams like Alabama constantly get favor.
Last edited:
Nobody was 17ed over in 2011. There were two teams that were head and shoulders above everybody else, and they played in a national championship game, like they should. This year, Alabama doesn't have the ironclad case like then. If they win out, then obviously they and UGA are in. If they lose to UGA, they will still probably be one of the four most deserving teams, but if there are three other P5 teams with 1 loss, it's going to be hard for them to get in.
If Bama loses to Georgia by a field goal or less where Georgia scores as time expires, and Georgia ends up winning their semi final and NC games by double digits, does that make Bama the #2 team in the country?
We will simply have to agree to disagree. I just do not understand how people can have that opinion. To me, LSU and Alabama were in the same damn conference, played each other, and LSU won the game and the conference. Alabama shouldn't get a second chance. The REST OF THE DAMN COUNTRY......should.....get a chance. There was only room for 2 teams. In a 4 team playoff....sure, Alabama should get in.
Rematch of the regular season in a one game championship? Get out of here with that. Again, it was all about the uniform. 17 who was your theoretical "best". Who won the damn games?
Lets say Bama wins all their games by 40, except for 2 games they lose on walk off field goals. In that season they beat Mercer, UF, Southern Miss, OM, A&M, MSU, LSU, NM State, Arkansas, Auburn, and UGA in the SEC Championship. They beat all those teams by 40 or more. But they lose to UT and Miami by way of walk off field goals.
That overall season, to me, is a top 4 team this season even with 2 losses to unranked teams. Its dominant against multiple ranked teams week in and week out.
You are correct that the CFP isnt the SEC Championship part 2...but thats only if the best two teams arent from the SEC. If they are, then why shouldnt it be the SEC Championship part 2?
+++I dont like the idea of 2 SEC teams meeting for the playoff title, but thats purely from an interest perspective.+++
In certain years, it can be, if there aren't better options. Like 2017. This year has better options to choose from than a 2 loss Alabama team.
I wish Arkansas or Auburn would just beat those boring mfers and eliminate them. Tired of them ruining every GD thing about college football.
The system that existed at the time was to match the two best teams in the championship game. They could have had a different system that was a playoff or that limited the national championship game to conference champions. That's not what was in place though. We can agree to disagree on what system should have been in place, but there is no reasonably disagreement that Bama and LSU appeared to be the two best teams in the nation that year.
ETA: The Big12 Champion (Ok St.) lost to a 6-7 Iowa St team. The fourth team in the BCS didn't win their conference (Stanford). The fifth team in the BCS standings (PAC 12 champion Oregon) lost to LSU in the regular season. There just wasn't another team with a better argument than Bama under the system in place.
Last edited:
There is still a lot of football to be played, but if Bama loses the championship game in a tightly contested game, you can bet the committee will bend way the hell over to give the Great Saban another chance to win a title.
And don't say how boring that would be - it would be. But Bama UGA title game will get a lot better rating than
Ohio State - UGA or Cincinnati - UGA.
We like being fed consistent entertainment.
Ohio State - UGA or Cincinnati - UGA.
We like being fed consistent entertainment.
The only way you know this is because of the names on the uniform. Is it rational and a pretty good bet? Sure. But you don't know for certain. What you did know is that LSU beat Alabama in Tuscaloosa.
The reason I'm right is because that system was blown up due to that, and we got the playoff. Sure Alabama was good, but others deserve a chance, especially when we don't get enough cross pollination in scheduling.
I disagree. LSU/Bama had horrible ratings. Nobody wants to see an All-SEC title except Greg Sankey.
Georgia/Cincinnati in Round 1 would be intriguing. Then Georgia vs. Oregon or Ohio State or whoever else would definitely be better than Alabama.
So turn it around then. If Bama wins out, you are going to have a one loss Georgia, with no conference title and no signature wins for the entire season. Realistically, they could be #4. Are the kicked out of the playoff entirely because “they had their chance”? Or does that only apply to Bama because you hate them?
And why does the number of teams matter? The CFP could always be a matchup of a regular season SEC game or the SECCG. There’s going to be two SEC teams in the Top 5 or 6 at bare minimum every single year. Sometimes 3 SEC teams will be that good. You’re going to get rematches more and more over time.
Last edited:
What better options are there? There may be a 1-loss B1G. Maybe. Who else? Cincinnati? Please.
It applies to Bama if they have 2 losses.
If Bama beats Georgia, then you have 2 SEC teams in the playoff and no one could really argue with that.
Why does it not apply to a 1-loss Georgia with no quality wins and no conference championship? How is that resume better than a one loss B1G with 2 Top 10 wins, 1-loss Oregon with potentially a win over a CFP team, or even undefeated Cincy with the ND win? Georgia’s resume would quite frankly suck compared to those others, but they’d get the 4-seed based on the eye test, and they should. But by your logic, they shouldn’t because they had their chance against Bama.
So many people hung up on record and, more specifically, number of losses. They aren’t all created equal. Michigan State’s one loss to Purdue is worse than any 2 losses Bama could have against SEC West teams plus Georgia. Same goes for Oregon’s loss to Stanford. Again, if it was “just pick the 4 Power conference teams with the fewest losses”, there would be no need for a committee. It’s no different than a 26-5 team from the ACC getting a 1-seed in the MBB tourney, and a 28-3 team from the Horizon League or whatever getting a 2 seed. Nobody ever questions that.
Last edited:
If Cincinnati is undefeated, and Alabama has 2 losses, one of which is a team in the playoff already, Cincinnati gets that nod all day long. Especially if Notre Dame finishes 11-1.
So you’re talking about how “boring” Bama is and you’re proposing we trot Cincinnati out there against Georgia? Okay. That’s going to be nothing short of a bloodbath.
And this is exactly why, for Mississippi State, it is incredibly important for the committee to use data points instead of the eye test.
In 2014, Mississippi State was going to get jumped by Ohio State in the college football playoff poll had we gone 11-1 and beat OM. Our only loss would've been to #1 Alabama on the road. Ohio State loss to 6-6 VaTech at home. But the "eye test" is what was going to allow the committee to put Ohio State in over us.
The eye test should just change it's name to brand bias metric.
No, they aren’t, because some teams have awful losses and some have respectable ones. And some teams play nobody while others go through murderers row.
That's fine. The entire country wants to see how the G5 darling would hold up to the might P5 power (much less SEC). Let's see it. And here's the kicker - we need to see the matchup in a game that MATTERS. Not the obscure Big 6 bowl where half the P5's team opts out.
You have no idea what would have happened in 2014. Nobody does. But since we went out and **** the bed in Oxford against a QB playing on one 17ing leg and later proved on the field that we weren’t even a Top 10 caliber team at season’s end, it didn’t really matter did it? This is literally the biggest straw man argument I’ve ever seen. You are propping up a hypothetical boogeyman from a situation that didn’t even happen.
Last edited:
Latest posts
-
-
What did Vandy do to get where they are?
- Latest: KentuckyDawg13
-
-
Ole Miss DB taking a redshirt to transfer.
- Latest: KentuckyDawg13
Get unlimited access today.