College Football Playoff

Status
Not open for further replies.
#76      
If Bama wins out, I think there are only 2 things that could keep them out of the playoff.

1. Baylor undefeated has to go to the CFP
2. Georgia beating LSU with both Georgia and LSU going. I would hope the committee wouldn't send Bama over LSU in that scenario.
 
#77      
Here's where the playoff committee has to demonstrate integrity in the process. Think Penn State and Minnesota. Last week, Penn State was #4 and Minnesota #17. Penn State was lauded for being undefeated and winning against solid opponents (Michigan and Iowa not exactly murderers row). Minnesota was #17 and the narrative was, they hadn't played anybody (Fleck understood that too). But after Saturday win, Minnesota now acquires Penn States land, so to speak. However Penn State was viewed last week, Minnesota should be similarly viewed this week. Minnesota needs to be in the top 4, for this process to have any integrity.
 
#78      

Deleted member 654622

D
Guest
Here's where the playoff committee has to demonstrate integrity in the process. Think Penn State and Minnesota. Last week, Penn State was #4 and Minnesota #17. Penn State was lauded for being undefeated and winning against solid opponents (Michigan and Iowa not exactly murderers row). Minnesota was #17 and the narrative was, they hadn't played anybody (Fleck understood that too). But after Saturday win, Minnesota now acquires Penn States land, so to speak. However Penn State was viewed last week, Minnesota should be similarly viewed this week. Minnesota needs to be in the top 4, for this process to have any integrity.
I do not agree that they should be #4 but I think we all agree that this system does not have integrity. The whole "eye test" is BS. Either you win or lose.

The SEC commish was on Gameday before the LSU Alabama game and was trying to push the idea that four is enough teams because every game counts in college football. If every game counted, then regardless of anyone else's records, Alabama would be out of the playoff discussion unless LSU lost 2 more games. You had your shot, you lost at home to a playoff team. We don't need to see it again. I want to see want to see the best teams from the top 4 conferences go at it. Questions answered
 
Last edited by a moderator:
#79      
I preface this by confessing that I believe there never will be a fair and unbiased system to determine a ‘true national champion on the field’ despite the claim that a playoff system does. As i read this thread the problems are all laid out - bias towards one loss SEC teams especially Alabama, Minnesota’s handicap etc. When you look at the teams being discussed it is the same small group of teams every year with an addition or two. So we are mostly trying to annually decide whether Ohio St is better than Alabama and Clemson? I fail to see the purpose. If you look at each conference there is mostly one or two teams every year that have a chance at a playoff. Has this system only made the rich richer? It’s clear in the Big Ten we’re living in the era of the Big One and everyone else.

In the short run of the CFP, Alabama and Clemson have been the dominant teams. The system hasn't anointed them to that spot, they've actually earned it through play on field. Alabama won national championships in 2009, 2011 and 2012, before the CFP was around. Clemson has been building their program and their peak play and performance as a program has coincided with the introduction of the CFP. These two teams consistently land the best recruits and have outstanding college coaches. Somebody's gotta knock them off. This year Ohio State and LSU are looking good so far, but there's still a lot of football to be played.

The system is designed by the rich, for the benefit of the rich. The big conferences and ND run this thing. There will never be another BYU 1984; and UCF's of the world aren't going to make the Final 4. That's just the way it is. The system is designed to rewards the blue bloods because it's run by the blue blood conferences. No surprise there. It was this way under the old bowl system and even BCS as well.
 
#80      
I do not agree that they should be #4 but I think we all agree that this system does not have integrity. The whole "eye test" is BS. Either you win or lose.

The SEC commish was on Gameday before the LSU Alabama game and was trying to push the idea that four is enough teams because every game counts in college football. If every game counted, then regardless of anyone else's records, Alabama would be out of the playoff discussion unless LSU lost 2 more games. You had your shot, you lost at home to a playoff team. We don't need to see it again. I want to see want to see the best teams from the top 4 conferences go at it. Questions answered

Another argument in favor of keeping it at 4. Regular season games have to matter.

The "rematch" model plays on Sundays. I don't want an NFL type structure where more teams make the playoffs and rematches happen or are possible. What makes college football special is what we saw on Saturday....storming the field in Minneapolis and LSU going nuts after their win at Alabama. Those games have to be played and those outcomes have to matter.
 
#81      
Oh, it’s quite simple. That long argument you made? Apply it to every single team not named Minnesota or Georgia that is ranked from 5-10 today. And then tell me with a straight face that Georgia (1 loss to unranked and no bowl South Carolina) and Minnesota (Undefeated and still ranked behind Alabama) will win out.

There’s your answer.
An answer that doesn't pass muster.

If you start with week 11, which presumably represents the committee's opinion of the body of work thus far, there are a number of teams that will have better wins than Alabama can possibly have. That's the biggest flaw with your argument --not accounting for the fact that the teams that are lurking behind Alabama and its sterling reputation, will have big games before the season is out, but bama will not. You *might* have a case for Alabama today, but you won't by the end of the season, barring some much-needed help. The final nail in the coffin is that the committee has (supposedly) emphasized conference championships, which bama won't have a shot at.

You also have to consider how badly bama lost to LSU:
* without the late score when LSU is thinking clock, the box score wouldn't have been close
* bama was flat out dominated in the first half and looked terrible
* Bama was AT HOME. To get slapped down on the road would be more forgivable, but they couldn't keep it close until they had a slight ray of sunshine when they got the first of a needed a TD, an onsides kick, and another TD.

Btw, Georgia is good enough to beat LSU. Statistical models have them as roughly 4 point dawgs (see what I did there?) even after this last game. That's not much. There's also the psychological problem for LSU to stay hungry after such a big success, while Georgia will be playing for it's CFP life.

Statistically, last year you had Clemson with Alabama lurking, which wound up being the Championship game. This year, it's tOSU and no one else. But Clemson's so far ahead of the ACC, that it's very likely they're in, and I don't see how tOSU is behind bama even with a loss. So now there's just not a lot of scenarios where Bama isn't leapfrogged by teams that play harder schedules down the stretch. They still have a shot with some help, but they'll need help.
 
#82      

Deleted member 654622

D
Guest
Another argument in favor of keeping it at 4. Regular season games have to matter.

The "rematch" model plays on Sundays. I don't want an NFL type structure where more teams make the playoffs and rematches happen or are possible. What makes college football special is what we saw on Saturday....storming the field in Minneapolis and LSU going nuts after their win at Alabama. Those games have to be played and those outcomes have to matter.
That is not an argument to keep it at four FYI. If we were not getting rematches in the playoff, I would agree. But that is not the case.
 
#83      

Deleted member 654622

D
Guest
An answer that doesn't pass muster.

If you start with week 11, which presumably represents the committee's opinion of the body of work thus far, there are a number of teams that will have better wins than Alabama can possibly have. That's the biggest flaw with your argument --not accounting for the fact that the teams that are lurking behind Alabama and its sterling reputation, will have big games before the season is out, but bama will not. You *might* have a case for Alabama today, but you won't by the end of the season, barring some much-needed help. The final nail in the coffin is that the committee has (supposedly) emphasized conference championships, which bama won't have a shot at.

You also have to consider how badly bama lost to LSU:
* without the late score when LSU is thinking clock, the box score wouldn't have been close
* bama was flat out dominated in the first half and looked terrible
* Bama was AT HOME. To get slapped down on the road would be more forgivable, but they couldn't keep it close until they had a slight ray of sunshine when they got the first of a needed a TD, an onsides kick, and another TD.

Btw, Georgia is good enough to beat LSU. Statistical models have them as roughly 4 point dawgs (see what I did there?) even after this last game. That's not much. There's also the psychological problem for LSU to stay hungry after such a big success, while Georgia will be playing for it's CFP life.

Statistically, last year you had Clemson with Alabama lurking, which wound up being the Championship game. This year, it's tOSU and no one else. But Clemson's so far ahead of the ACC, that it's very likely they're in, and I don't see how tOSU is behind bama even with a loss. So now there's just not a lot of scenarios where Bama isn't leapfrogged by teams that play harder schedules down the stretch. They still have a shot with some help, but they'll need help.
This is why I hate the current system. I agree with everything you say here. Yet if LSU OSU Clemson and Baylor win out, there will be this huge debate about getting Alabama in the playoff. If we have to come up with all this analysis why this team should be in over this other team, then corruption has their window. Conference Champs, rotate the seeding by conferences every year. It is what it is at that point. If you don't win your conference, take a seat and shut the hell up
 
#84      
If LSU, OSU, Clemson and Baylor win out, there is 0% chance Alabama makes the playoff. Dead zero. There may be conversations by the talking heads about it, just because it's Alabama, but there's no way Alabama gets in.

Also, as of now, the odds of those 4 teams winning out is about 2%, per 538
 
#85      

Deleted member 654622

D
Guest
If LSU, OSU, Clemson and Baylor win out, there is 0% chance Alabama makes the playoff. Dead zero. There may be conversations by the talking heads about it, just because it's Alabama, but there's no way Alabama gets in.

Also, as of now, the odds of those 4 teams winning out is about 2%, per 538
So here is my point. If Oklahoma wins out, they will have 1 loss. Why should Alabama get in over them? We already know Alabama is not better than LSU. Do we know if a one loss Oklahoma is or is not worthy? No we don't. Everyone has an opinion. The majority opinion was Michigan State was 15 points better than Illinois. Let the game be decided on the field, not in a board room. Would it be OK if they let Wisconsin play in the B1G championship over Minnesota if Minnesota has a better record and earned their spot? No. But that is what we are talking about on the playoff level.
That is my last rant about the system. I am just going to hope it gets changed sooner rather than later.
 
#86      
You cite a perfect example about how quirky FBS college football is, as a whole. We have a committee, appointed by a Board, who, in your example has to pick among the following two teams for a spot:

Oklahoma: 12-1 record, 10 team conference, plays every team at least once, nine conference games, wins a conference championship via a rematch with somebody (presumably a ranked Baylor)

Alabama: 11-1 record, 14 team conference, plays 8 conference games, didn't win conference

Everyone will have an opinion, but the only one that will count is the committee's.
 
#87      

Deleted member 654622

D
Guest
You cite a perfect example about how quirky FBS college football is, as a whole. We have a committee, appointed by a Board, who, in your example has to pick among the following two teams for a spot:

Oklahoma: 12-1 record, 10 team conference, plays every team at least once, nine conference games, wins a conference championship via a rematch with somebody (presumably a ranked Baylor)

Alabama: 11-1 record, 14 team conference, plays 8 conference games, didn't win conference

Everyone will have an opinion, but the only one that will count is the committee's.
you say quirky, i say corrupt ;)
 
#88      
The more and more I look at the rest of the season match ups of the potential conference winners, the more I actually do think Alabama has an uphill climb to get in. This of course is assuming two things: the conference winners win out, and the bowl selection committee puts away their "the SEC is the best conference ever" bias.

In fact, unless Georgia beats LSU, I'm not sure how two SEC teams get in at all.
 
#89      
An answer that doesn't pass muster.

If you start with week 11, which presumably represents the committee's opinion of the body of work thus far, there are a number of teams that will have better wins than Alabama can possibly have. That's the biggest flaw with your argument --not accounting for the fact that the teams that are lurking behind Alabama and its sterling reputation, will have big games before the season is out, but bama will not. You *might* have a case for Alabama today, but you won't by the end of the season, barring some much-needed help. The final nail in the coffin is that the committee has (supposedly) emphasized conference championships, which bama won't have a shot at.

You also have to consider how badly bama lost to LSU:
* without the late score when LSU is thinking clock, the box score wouldn't have been close
* bama was flat out dominated in the first half and looked terrible
* Bama was AT HOME. To get slapped down on the road would be more forgivable, but they couldn't keep it close until they had a slight ray of sunshine when they got the first of a needed a TD, an onsides kick, and another TD.

Btw, Georgia is good enough to beat LSU. Statistical models have them as roughly 4 point dawgs (see what I did there?) even after this last game. That's not much. There's also the psychological problem for LSU to stay hungry after such a big success, while Georgia will be playing for it's CFP life.

Statistically, last year you had Clemson with Alabama lurking, which wound up being the Championship game. This year, it's tOSU and no one else. But Clemson's so far ahead of the ACC, that it's very likely they're in, and I don't see how tOSU is behind bama even with a loss. So now there's just not a lot of scenarios where Bama isn't leapfrogged by teams that play harder schedules down the stretch. They still have a shot with some help, but they'll need help.

I read through the majority of this post, unfortunately there wasn't much to digest. As it relates to the bold portion, you may need to devote time and effort into understanding how the committee analyzes CFP participant criteria in real time if you wish to accurately gauge this process.

You state quote "there are a number of teams that will have better wins than Alabama can possibly have.". There aren't. This is not my opinion, this is based on how the committee is analyzing teams in real time. Alabama will finish the season against Auburn. Despite having 2 losses, Auburn is currently the CFP committees 11th ranked football team. Baylor is 12th, Wisconsin is 13th. That means the committee, as things stand today, will view an Alabama win over Auburn more favorably than an Oklahoma win over Baylor. That means the committee, as things stand today, will view an Alabama win over Auburn more favorably than a Minnesota win over Wisconsin. This eliminates two teams from your "number of teams" with an interesting scenario for Minnesota (Addressed below) leaving only two other programs that meet your criteria: Georgia and Oregon/Utah (Which are to be viewed as one case for obvious reasons). I would agree with Hoppy's correction of me from a few pages ago, if Georgia wins out they should be in. Oregon and Utah have much more trying cases, neither of which will put forth a resume that will dwarf the way this committee views Alabama. This also is not my opinion, it is based on how the committee has previously analyzed the Crimson Tide as a program. 2 years ago, they watched that team lose in the Iron Bowl by 2 scores. That team did not win or even play for the SEC Championship. They were awarded the 4th seed. Ohio State was a conference champion (Something you mistakenly believe they prioritize) after defeating previously unbeaten Wisconsin to take the Big Ten. The committee did not care. They didn't like a bad loss to an un-ranked Iowa team and quickly dismissed the Buckeyes as lesser than an SEC school with a top 10 loss. They will do it again. They will look at Oregon/Utah and say "Congratulations on winning the PAC-12 but we don't like your conference schedule, we don't like your one loss and we don't like you. Good luck in the Rose Bowl". Now, whether this process is proper or just is another conversation. One could argue it's "rigged" or biased and I wouldn't disagree. I'm not justifying the process, I'm simply regurgitating to you how it functions.

As for Minnesota, things get interesting. Minnesota is likely going to be ranked lower than Alabama this week. If I had to wager, I would guess they put Alabama at 5 (LSU, OSO, Clemson, Georgia 1-4)this week and Minnesota at 6-8 with Penn State hovering somewhere close to 10. (Further damaging the case for Oregon/Utah). We know the committee won't move the needle with a win over Iowa and we know how they will view a win over Wisconsin in relation to an Alabama win over Auburn. Minnesota, should they win out, may well be ranked lower than Alabama entering the Big Ten Championship game. If they do not win, they're clearly out. If they do someone achieve the impossible (Is it?), they will be in but at that point, things get murky for Ohio State. Ohio State, to me, passes the eye test. I think they're as good if not better than Alabama but will the committee agree? Neither of us and to suggest a answer would be little more than blind speculation.
 
#90      
If Bama wins out, I think there are only 2 things that could keep them out of the playoff.

1. Baylor undefeated has to go to the CFP
2. Georgia beating LSU with both Georgia and LSU going. I would hope the committee wouldn't send Bama over LSU in that scenario.

Baylor has no realistic chance to qualify for the CFP.
 
#91      
The more and more I look at the rest of the season match ups of the potential conference winners, the more I actually do think Alabama has an uphill climb to get in. This of course is assuming two things: the conference winners win out, and the bowl selection committee puts away their "the SEC is the best conference ever" bias.

In fact, unless Georgia beats LSU, I'm not sure how two SEC teams get in at all.

Agree. You need a weak Big 12 champ with Baylor losing to Oklahoma either in season or in the 1/2 championship. Then you'd wind up with Clemson, tOSU, and SEC champion Georgia all in, with a debate about everyone else with one loss. IMO it gets worse for AL if tOSU loses in the championship game, because they are going to be better than AL in that scenario, and now you have a potential BIG champ and undefeated Minney to deal with. Penn State can also make a better case than IMO than AL, and you've got the potential for some chaos in the BIG that works against AL. In any case, the best 2 team scenario for the SEC is the one you mention. LSU will be hard to keep out even if they lose to Georgia in the championship game. Either way, AL is on the outside of the CFP.
 
#92      
I read through the majority of this post, unfortunately there wasn't much to digest. As it relates to the bold portion, you may need to devote time and effort into understanding how the committee analyzes CFP participant criteria in real time if you wish to accurately gauge this process.

Heh, that level of arrogance doesn't merit a response. Let me know when you've won your millions in Vegas.
 
#93      
Heh, that level of arrogance doesn't merit a response. Let me know when you've won your millions in Vegas.

Vegas is for losers.

If you don't want to put in the time, then don't I guess. That's your prerogative.
 
#94      
Here is a list of Alabama schedule---Duke 4-5--N Mex St 0-9--S Car 4-6--S Miss 6-3--Miss 4-6--Tx Am 6-3--Tenn 5-5--Ark 2-8 how could that schedule impress the committee Games to be played Miss ST 4-5--W Car 3-7 so i do not care if they beat Auburn 50-0 1 good win should not get you in.
 
#95      
Here is a list of Alabama schedule---Duke 4-5--N Mex St 0-9--S Car 4-6--S Miss 6-3--Miss 4-6--Tx Am 6-3--Tenn 5-5--Ark 2-8 how could that schedule impress the committee Games to be played Miss ST 4-5--W Car 3-7 so i do not care if they beat Auburn 50-0 1 good win should not get you in.

I don't disagree. Unfortunately, the committee doesn't care what I think. 2 years ago, Alabama was a 1 loss non-conference champion with ZERO Top 10 wins. They got the 4 seed (And won the National Championship).

Whether it's fair or not, teams like Oregon, Utah and Oklahoma have to go above and beyond to make their case and this year, they all failed. There's still hope for Georgia but it's a tough task. They still have Auburn before the SEC title game and despite having 2 losses, that team is very good. Georgia could easily lose that game.
 
#96      

BZuppke

Plainfield
I’m with Dude here and respect Twangers analysis but that analysis exposes the inherent problem: Too much personal opinion and perhaps bias and dare I say corruption as Dude says. We used to complain that the coaches and AP polls anointing of a national champion contained too much personal opinion and bias. Now we have a system that does much of the same thing. Dude’s suggestion is the most unbiased - win your conference and you go to the playoffs. Absolutely no room for corruption. BUT it will inspire endless debates about one loss non conference champs who are not in as opposed to conference champs with more than one loss. The only cure for this is to expand the playoffs to take in the Power 5 champs and 1-3 at large teams. Oh and I didn’t even mention the special accommodations Notre Dame demands 😄.

I’m sorry but give me the good old days when the Big Ten champ went to the Rose Bowl and the press, coaches and fans argued on and on about who should be deemed champion. I’ll say winning the Big Ten and going to the Rose Bowl made us awfully happy without having a playoff.
 
#97      
This also is not my opinion, it is based on how the committee has previously analyzed the Crimson Tide as a program. 2 years ago, they watched that team lose in the Iron Bowl by 2 scores. That team did not win or even play for the SEC Championship. They were awarded the 4th seed. Ohio State was a conference champion (Something you mistakenly believe they prioritize) after defeating previously unbeaten Wisconsin to take the Big Ten. The committee did not care. They didn't like a bad loss to an un-ranked Iowa team and quickly dismissed the Buckeyes as lesser than an SEC school with a top 10 loss.

Some facts to contribute that I think are important re 2017. Auburn won 26-14, at Auburn. Alabama was ranked #1 at the time, Auburn #6. It was week 13 of the college football season and game #12 for each team. To that point, Alabama was ranked #1 all year, and ranked #1 by the Committee in each of the first four weeks it issued rankings.

Ohio state had *two* losses that year; an early season home loss to a highly viewed Oklahoma team, 31-16, and a 55-24 blowout loss at 5-3 Iowa. Yes, Ohio State went on to claim the B1G 10 championship over Wisconsin, 27-21 (Wisconsin was ranked 4th at the time by the CFP). Slightly disingenuous to say the CFP "quickly dismissed" Ohio State over Alabama without citing those additional facts. The debate was quite heated in the media, but in the end the committee said they selected Alabama over Ohio State. Here's the quote from Chairman Holcutt:

"We compared [Alabama's resume] to a 2-loss Ohio State team, obviously that one loss at home to No. 2-ranked Oklahoma," Hocutt said on ESPN. "But more damaging was the 31-point loss to unranked Iowa."

The Committee clearly *did* care and took everything into consideration. Hell, I'd even given them high marks for being transparent!
 
Last edited:
#98      
Whether it's fair or not, teams like Oregon, Utah and Oklahoma have to go above and beyond to make their case and this year, they all failed. There's still hope for Georgia but it's a tough task. They still have Auburn before the SEC title game and despite having 2 losses, that team is very good. Georgia could easily lose that game.

*checks watch....it's November 11th. Dude, there is still so much more football to go.
 
#99      
Some facts to contribute that I think are important re 2017. Auburn won 26-14, at Auburn. Alabama was ranked #1 at the time, Auburn #6. It was week 13 of the college football season and game #12 for each team. To that point, Alabama was ranked #1 all year, and ranked #1 by the Committee in each of the first four weeks it issued rankings.

Ohio state had *two* losses that year; an early season home loss to a highly viewed Oklahoma team, 31-16, and a 55-24 blowout loss at 5-3 Iowa. Yes, Ohio State went on to claim the B1G 10 championship over Wisconsin, 27-21 (Wisconsin was ranked 4th at the time by the CFP). Slightly disingenuous to say the CFP "quickly dismissed" Ohio State over Alabama without citing those additional facts. The debate was quite heated in the media, but in the end the committee said they selected Alabama over Ohio State. Here's the quote from Chairman Holcutt:

"We compared [Alabama's resume] to a 2-loss Ohio State team, obviously that one loss at home to No. 2-ranked Oklahoma," Hocutt said on ESPN. "But more damaging was the 31-point loss to unranked Iowa."

The Committee clearly *did* care and took everything into consideration. Hell, I'd even given them high marks for being transparent!

Well of course it’s disingenuous, it’s hyperbole for affect. I’m not a jerk all the time, I do have some capability for humor. That said, you inadvertently furthered my case with one ugly word: Wisconsin.

It was stated earlier and I will find the comment and re-quote it if I must that Georgia had a stronger case to make the CFP with 2 losses than Alabama would with 1 because the committee would never knock a team for losing that extra game. If that is true, then why was Wisconsin left out in the bitter cold? Their only loss was in that extra game. It wasn’t a bad loss, 6 points to Ohio State, that close. Why were they dismissed? Simply put, the committee didn’t buy them as a top 4 team in the country. All they needed was one small slip up to withdraw them from consideration in favor of the team that’s more appealing to them. This will not be an isolated incident.

And to say once more, I don’t agree with this process. I’m merely communicating how it operates.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.